Gaudiya Vaishnava Conception of Shiva

[Sonic Yogi]

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 8.12.43

 

ayi vyapaśyas tvam ajasya māyāḿ

 

parasya puḿsaḥ para-devatāyāḥ

 

ahaḿ kalānām ṛṣabho 'pi muhye

 

yayāvaśo 'nye kim utāsvatantrāḥ

 

SYNONYMS

 

ayi — oh; vyapaśyaḥ — have seen; tvam — you; ajasya — of the unborn; māyām — the illusory energy; parasya puḿsaḥ — of the Supreme Person; para-devatāyāḥ — the Absolute Truth; aham — myself; kalānām — of plenary portions; ṛṣabhaḥ — the chief; api — although; muhye — became bewildered; yayā — by her; avaśaḥ — imperceptibly; anye — others; kim uta — what to speak of; asvatantrāḥ — fully dependent on māyā.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Lord Śiva said: O Goddess, you have now seen the illusory energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the unborn master of everyone. Although I am one of the principal expansions of His Lordship, even I was illusioned by His energy. What then is to be said of others, who are fully dependent on māyā?

[Sonic Yogi]

 

If Shiva is in a category of his own, neither being Brahman nor jiva, then why not just say that? Why do gaudiyas say he is a "transformation" of Vishnu? This just brings up so many problems as I had mentioned previously.

 

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 20.309

 

dugdha yena amla-yoge dadhi-rūpa dhare

 

dugdhāntara vastu nahe, dugdha haite nāre

 

SYNONYMS

 

dugdha — milk; yena — as; amla-yoge — in association with a sour substance; dadhi-rūpa — the form of yogurt; dhare — takes; dugdha-antara — something other than milk; vastu — substance; nahe — is not; dugdha — milk; haite — to be; nāre — is not able.

 

TRANSLATION

 

"Milk is transformed into yogurt when it associates with a yogurt culture. Thus yogurt is nothing but milk, but still it is not milk.

 

PURPORT

 

Of the three deities supervising the creation, maintenance and dissolution of the universe, Lord Viṣṇu is never separate from the original Viṣṇu. However, Lord Śiva and Brahmā, due to their association with māyā, are different from Viṣṇu. Viṣṇu cannot be transformed into any form of material energy. Whenever there is association with māyā, the personality involved must be different from Lord Viṣṇu. Therefore Lord Śiva and Lord Brahmā are called guṇa-avatāras, for they associate with the material qualities. The conclusion is that Rudra is not exactly Lord Viṣṇu but rather a transformation of Viṣṇu. Therefore, he does not come within the category of the viṣṇu-tattvas. Thus he is inconceivably one with Viṣṇu and different from Him. The example given in this verse is very clear. Milk is compared to

[shiva]

 

Originally Posted by shiva

In the Bhagavatam and other sastra we can see the story of the Mohini avatar of Vishnu clarify the position of Parvati's husband as not being God:

http://vedabase.net/sb/8/12/en1

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with the conclusion of this - Lord Shiva cannot be God because he fell under the maya of Lord Vishnu.

 

But what about the quotes from Bhagavata 8.7 which Sonic pointed out in which this Lord Shiva is addressed as "Sadashiva?" If Sadashiva and shiva are two different beings, one being Vishnu-tattva and other a jiva, then why does the Bhagavata fail to distinguish between them here?

 

For the same reason that sometimes just Shiva is referred to as God in various sastra: the name isn't important, Sadasiva and Shiva are used interchangeably in various sastra.. Jiva Goswami makes all of this very clear, I can't see why anyone would claim that what Jiva Goswami taught is not Gaudiya theology since he is a foundational acarya of the sampradaya. I'm not making any of this up, anyone can read what he wrote, the sanskrit is there and can be checked if people have doubts about the translation.

[raghu]

 

For the same reason that sometimes just Shiva is referred to as God in various sastra:

 

Those "various sastras" may not necessarily be authentic, assuming you mean things like Skanda Purana, Shiva Purana, etc. Smritis can be interpolated. Shaivite "upanishads" are not among the principal Upanishads used by classical Vedantins, and in all likelihood are probably authored texts masquerading as shrutis.

 

Why is it necessary to reconcile the Shaivite viewpoint with the Vaishnavite one? Isn't it more clear and consistent to follow the classical Vaishnava view and interpret seemingly Shaivite references (such as in Shvetashvatara Upanishad) as being different names of Vishnu?

 

 

the name isn't important, Sadasiva and Shiva are used interchangeably in various sastra..

 

You can see how that would pose a difficulty for a Gaudiya, since it is the Gaudiya view that Sadashiva (allegedly the Vishnu-tattva) is different from Shiva (the jiva who has Parvati has his wife). What of the Bhagavata 8.7 in which the latter Shiva is being addressed, and yet with references indicating that he is the Supreme Lord? Does this not make it even more confusing?

 

Isn't it more likely that these are just sectarian interpolations? Why go through all the trouble of reconciling them with the Vaishnavite conclusions of shruti? If Sadashiva and shiva are different, then why does shastra use the names interchangeably? Of course, Shiva, Rudra, Maheshvara, etc are also names of Vishnu and in the right context can be interpreted as such, but there is plenty of shastric evidence to the effect para Brahman Vishnu is different from Shiva (the husband of Parvati). Yet we never see Sadashiva and Shiva in the same context and depicted as distinct deities. For example, in the story of Banasura in the Bhagavata 10th skandha, we see Sri Krishna fighting with and defeating Lord Shiva. This is a clear case of the two entities being in the same place and one being shown to be superior to the other. Yet we see no similar case of "Sadashiva" and "Shiva" within the same story.

 

 

Jiva Goswami makes all of this very clear, I can't see why anyone would claim that what Jiva Goswami taught is not Gaudiya theology since he is a foundational acarya of the sampradaya. I'm not making any of this up, anyone can read what he wrote, the sanskrit is there and can be checked if people have doubts about the translation.

 

Certainly I do not doubt Jiva Gosvami's authority when it comes to setting forth the precepts of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

[hindustani]

Sorry as I was away dear Bhaktajan.

I am delighted by your open mind approach and now I shall never advise you to use your own words here,I am really dumbo as you said and perhaps that is why I missed a point that fools never have their own thinking and do copy paste.

 

1] You are not a fool, hindustani. Is that clear?

 

2] I can learn lessons from fools. Apparently, hindustani, you cannot garner any lessons from a fool, such as I.

 

3] Intelligence means descerning between what is 'authentic' and what is not 'authentic'. That will be clear asap.

[ranjeetmore]

 

Those "various sastras" may not necessarily be authentic, assuming you mean things like Skanda Purana, Shiva Purana, etc. Smritis can be interpolated. Shaivite "upanishads" are not among the principal Upanishads used by classical Vedantins, and in all likelihood are probably authored texts masquerading as shrutis.

 

Why is it necessary to reconcile the Shaivite viewpoint with the Vaishnavite one? Isn't it more clear and consistent to follow the classical Vaishnava view and interpret seemingly Shaivite references (such as in Shvetashvatara Upanishad) as being different names of Vishnu?

 

No one wants to reconcile shaiva viewpoint.But,the acharyas simply want to provide the right information about the expansions of Godhead,otherwise,there is aparadha.That's all.

 

 

 

 

 

You can see how that would pose a difficulty for a Gaudiya, since it is the Gaudiya view that Sadashiva (allegedly the Vishnu-tattva) is different from Shiva (the jiva who has Parvati has his wife). What of the Bhagavata 8.7 in which the latter Shiva is being addressed, and yet with references indicating that he is the Supreme Lord? Does this not make it even more confusing?

 

Isn't it more likely that these are just sectarian interpolations? Why go through all the trouble of reconciling them with the Vaishnavite conclusions of shruti? If Sadashiva and shiva are different, then why does shastra use the names interchangeably? Of course, Shiva, Rudra, Maheshvara, etc are also names of Vishnu and in the right context can be interpreted as such, but there is plenty of shastric evidence to the effect para Brahman Vishnu is different from Shiva (the husband of Parvati). Yet we never see Sadashiva and Shiva in the same context and depicted as distinct deities. For example, in the story of Banasura in the Bhagavata 10th skandha, we see Sri Krishna fighting with and defeating Lord Shiva. This is a clear case of the two entities being in the same place and one being shown to be superior to the other. Yet we see no similar case of "Sadashiva" and "Shiva" within the same story.

 

The Lord Sadashiva expands as the various Shivas(who are RARELY JEEVAS),Who themselves(well,one of them,in bhagavatam) said,"I am His(Sri Visnu's)principle expansion." in the material universe.

 

NOw distinction between sadashiva and Shiva is made even in Shaiva tradition.The Sadashiva linga is present in the sanctum sanctorium of any Shiva temple.

 

The shiva purana talks explicitly of SADAshiva,as the One Who manifests the Universal form and then further turns Himself into Lord Visnu to establish Himself as indifferent from the Supreme Lord.

 

Further Sadashiva is mentioned in brahm sanghita as having a planet in vaikuntha as SADASHIVALOKA.

 

However,The Lord Shiva is understood to be the form of Sadashiva(a Personality of Godhead) Who accepts the influence of Maya.

 

As Srila Visvanatha Chakravarti pointed out,Sadashiva,Like Sri Visnu,resides simultaneously on the planes of Nirguna(transcendence) and saguna(material).

So beyond maya,In vaikuntha,He is known as Sadashiva and in mahat tattva,he is known as Mahadeva/Shiva/Rudra etc.

 

There is no difference just as The Form of Visnu Who resides on the Ksirasagara in the material world is non-different from the Narayana,Who is present as the Supreme Monarch of the Vaikuntha sky.

 

The real problem arises when a particular post of Shiva is taken up by jiva.This happens extremely rarely and not as often as in the case of brahma.

[ranjeetmore]

forgive me,i can't quote(net is excruciatingly slow.)

 

Sonic yogis recent posts are excellent.

[raghu]

 

No one wants to reconcile shaiva viewpoint.But,the acharyas simply want to provide the right information about the expansions of Godhead,otherwise,there is aparadha.That's all.

 

That may be, but when the shastric evidence you present is inconsistent, the logic you use is inconsistent, and the supposedly "right information" which you want to impart to us is also inconsistent (you, shiva, Sonic, and Kulapavana have all now articulated different views regarding Shiva in Gaudiya Vaishnavism), it leaves one with the unsettling impression that this has less to do with "right information" and more to do with fitting a round peg into a square hole.

 

 

The Lord Sadashiva expands as the various Shivas(who are RARELY JEEVAS),Who themselves(well,one of them,in bhagavatam) said,"I am His(Sri Visnu's)principle expansion." in the material universe.

 

OK, so let us take your opinion at face value.

 

Sadashiva according to this view is Vishnu-tattva, non-different from Vishnu.

 

Most of the "Shivaexpansions" in the material universes are different forms or "expansions" of this Sadashiva. So they are all non-different from Sadashiva who in turn is non-different from Vishnu. By simple logic, if A=B and B=C then A=C. QED most of these Shiva "expansions" are totally non-different from Vishnu-tattva, i.e. they are Vishnu-tattva. Again according to your logic, only *some* of these Shiva-forms are jivas.

 

Now, here comes the doubt - why object to a Shaivite who worships Shiva in a mood of devotion, always considering him the Supreme Deity and the self to be the eternal devotee? He can always argue he is worshipping "Sadashiva" or one of the (non-jiva) "expansions." So why object to it? On the contrary, Gaudiyas should be quite accepting and even encouraging of non-Advaitic Shiva worship.

 

 

NOw distinction between sadashiva and Shiva is made even in Shaiva tradition.The Sadashiva linga is present in the sanctum sanctorium of any Shiva temple.

 

If you are not interested in reconciling the Shaivite viewpoint, then why suddenly allude to Shaivite views as support for your thesis? See, once again, based on what you just wrote, it seems to this outsider that you Gaudiyas are just trying to build a philosophy that will appeal to certain non-Vaishnavas rather than sticking to conventional Vaishnava thinking.

 

 

The shiva purana talks explicitly of SADAshiva,as the One Who manifests the Universal form and then further turns Himself into Lord Visnu to establish Himself as indifferent from the Supreme Lord.

 

But the Bhagavad-gita, which you Gaudiyas claim to accept as scripture, indicates that Shiva is *NOT* on the same level as Vishnu, for according to your own Bhaktivedanta Swami's translation:

 

 

BG 11.15: Arjuna said: My dear Lord Kṛṣṇa, I see assembled in Your body all the demigods and various other living entities. I see Brahmā sitting on the lotus flower, as well as Lord Śiva and all the sages and divine serpents.

 

When the Gita makes a case for Brahma, Siva, and other "demigods" being contained within and obviously less than Krishna, why allude to a Shiva Purana which makes Shiva and Vishnu equal? Now you see, this is what I mean by your inconsistency.

 

 

Further Sadashiva is mentioned in brahm sanghita as having a planet in vaikuntha as SADASHIVALOKA.

 

Of course you know that Brahma Samhita is an obscure smriti accepted only by Gaudiyas. In any case, the Brahma Samhita's opinion is itself the subject of doubt as I indicated earlier.

 

 

However,The Lord Shiva is understood to be the form of Sadashiva(a Personality of Godhead) Who accepts the influence of Maya.

 

But Lord Vishnu NEVER comes under the influence of Maya. Period. If Sadashiva is another form of Vishnu, then it follows (from your view) that Sadashiva cannot come under the influence of Maya. So how is Shiva a form of Sadashiva and yet coming under the influence of Maya? In essence, you are now saying that A=B and B=C but A does not = C. This is illogical.

 

As I am sure you are aware, the idea that Para Brahman gets under the influence of maya is one of the cardinal tenets of mayavada. Hence the logical doubt that you are borrowing mayavadi logic to equate Shiva and Vishnu...

 

 

As Srila Visvanatha Chakravarti pointed out,Sadashiva,Like Sri Visnu,resides simultaneously on the planes of Nirguna(transcendence) and saguna(material).

 

So beyond maya,In vaikuntha,He is known as Sadashiva and in mahat tattva,he is known as Mahadeva/Shiva/Rudra etc.

 

Assuming that he said this, that still does not help you one way or another. Sri Krishna is also able to reside on the material plane, but still remain completely unaffected by the gunas. Merely residing on the material plane does not explain how one can be different and yet same as Vishnu. If one is affected by maya, then he is not Vishnu.

 

 

There is no difference just as The Form of Visnu Who resides on the Ksirasagara in the material world is non-different from the Narayana,Who is present as the Supreme Monarch of the Vaikuntha sky.

 

Not a good analogy, because Kshirasagara Vishnu and Vishnu in Vaikuntha are both unaffected by maya. Whereas you are trying to say that Sadashiva in the spiritual realm is unaffected while his form as Shiva in the material realm is affected. This leads to the logical conclusion that Sadashiva and Shiva are either (a) different from each other, or (b) same as each other but different from Vishnu.

 

 

The real problem arises when a particular post of Shiva is taken up by jiva.This happens extremely rarely and not as often as in the case of brahma.

 

I don't see why this is a problem since your philosophy clearly distinguishes between Vishnu and the jivas. Or does it?

[sant]

 

Of course you know that Brahma Samhita is an obscure smriti accepted only by Gaudiyas. In any case, the Brahma Samhita's opinion is itself the subject of doubt as I indicated earlier.

 

The brahm samhita was taken out by chaitanya mahaprabhu so we can assure its validity

[sant]

 

Now, here comes the doubt - why object to a Shaivite who worships Shiva in a mood of devotion, always considering him the Supreme Deity and the self to be the eternal devotee? He can always argue he is worshipping "Sadashiva" or one of the (non-jiva) "expansions." So why object to it? On the contrary, Gaudiyas should be quite accepting and even encouraging of non-Advaitic Shiva worship.

 

They do who says they dont.Shiva's bhakti is done to achieve rams grace.

Lord shiva is the greatest vaishnav.

But his bhakti is done to attain lords grace.

[sant]

If you concentrate on shri sonic yogis posts and mr ranjeetmore's post you shouldnt have any confusion.Even i was asking questions from them.

 

And it doesnt mean that two opinions will be exactly same.

[bhaktajan]

 

Quote:

Of course you know that Brahma Samhita is an obscure smriti accepted only by Gaudiyas. In any case, the Brahma Samhita's opinion is itself the subject of doubt as I indicated earlier.

 

sant [Post 84]:

The brahm samhita was taken out by chaitanya mahaprabhu so we can assure its validity

 

 

"The Brahma-Samhita was taken out (of obscurity and revealed) by Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu --so we can assure its validity!"

 

Wow-o-Wow-o-Wee!!! Great statement!

 

sarvam shivam as to te!

 

Do ya'll hear this???????????

 

Come on hurry-up and get with the 'program' and stop being a geek-squad-in-denial.

 

an Iskcon Devotee scout at your service,

bhaktajan

[raghu]

 

They do who says they dont.Shiva's bhakti is done to achieve rams grace.

Lord shiva is the greatest vaishnav.

But his bhakti is done to attain lords grace.

 

But if Shiva is truly non-different from Vishnu as per your view, then you should have no problem with someone worshipping Shiva for liberation, thinking Shiva to be the "Supreme Personality of Godhead."

 

Do you accept that such worship, placing Shiva as the Supreme Lord and as the goal to be attained, is valid?

[Sonic Yogi]

That Siva is a devotee of Krishna is not a mystery.

Even Lord Vishnu is a devotee of Krishna.

Even Lord Balarama, the first expansion of Krishna is a devotee of Krishna.

Krishna is God, all others, even Balarama, Vishnu and Siva are devotees of the Supreme Krsna.

There is ONE God - Krsna.

Everyone, even Balarama, Vishnu and Siva are his servants.

 

That is the Gaudiya siddhanta.

 

trust me...............

[raghu]

 

That Siva is a devotee of Krishna is not a mystery.

Even Lord Vishnu is a devotee of Krishna.

Even Lord Balarama, the first expansion of Krishna is a devotee of Krishna.

Krishna is God, all others, even Balarama, Vishnu and Siva are devotees of the Supreme Krsna.

There is ONE God - Krsna.

Everyone, even Balarama, Vishnu and Siva are his servants.

 

That is the Gaudiya siddhanta.

 

trust me...............

 

Perhaps that is the Gaudiya Siddhanta. But there is no shaastric pramaana for such ideas as "Vishnu is a devotee of Krishna" and "Balarama, the first expansion of Krishna." So this point is moot.

[Amlesh]

 

But if Shiva is truly non-different from Vishnu as per your view, then you should have no problem with someone worshipping Shiva for liberation, thinking Shiva to be the "Supreme Personality of Godhead."

 

True, for me it is never a problem.

The aspect which is full in itself and that represent God is the One who graces the world from time to time for the benefit of mankind and / or salvation.

The worship of Shiva brings to Vishnu.. the complete science to perfection was expounded in the Gita.

Who is the speaker of the Gita?

You would like it or not... worship of other Gods... is tainted with a certain degree of Swart [greed].

In this world there are many worshippers of Vishnu/ Krishna who still hold the same mentality that God is their servant.

When the Gita becomes clear to one... He becomes Selfless.

 

Even me I'm a worshiper of Shiva.. but if the worship to Shiva does not have Vishnu as the reason behind then it is definately a selfish motive.

 

And no real Vaishnava can claim that he does not possess love Shiva.

It is like to love them both or none of them.

A laisser ou a prendre.

Cheers.

[sant]

 

But if Shiva is truly non-different from Vishnu as per your view, then you should have no problem with someone worshipping Shiva for liberation, thinking Shiva to be the "Supreme Personality of Godhead."

 

I dont have a problem With people worshipping shiva for liberation.

But shaivites as usual dont want to look at other texts and when they wont accept vishnu also in the same category and come up with their tamo guni puraanic stories.But then their philosophy makes them advaitin when the say shivohum.This is not even vedik.If they dont want to look at other texts and do as they like then they do as they like.

 

Do you accept that such worship, placing Shiva as the Supreme Lord and as the goal to be attained, is valid?

 

ho am i to judge ,they do as they like.

Shiva grants them liberation so it is valid.

shiva is same as vishnu so it is valid.

[hindustani]

Santji this is for you

 

त्रयीसाङ्ख्यंयोगःपशुपतिमतंवैष्णवमिति

प्रभिन्नेप्रस्थानेपरमिदमदःपथ्यमितिच।

रुचीनांवैचित्र्यादृजुकुटिलनानापथजुषां

नृणामेकोगम्यस्त्वमसिपयसामर्णवइव॥

 

To add further santji

Shiva is beyond the gunas, as His trident represents all three, sattva, rajas and tamas.

More you call him he will bless you either my way or the way you have chosen!

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Perhaps that is the Gaudiya Siddhanta. But there is no shaastric pramaana for such ideas as "Vishnu is a devotee of Krishna" and "Balarama, the first expansion of Krishna." So this point is moot.

 

So, you are saying you know everything in all the shastra and you can affirm without doubt that there is nothing anywhere in any shastra that says that Vishnu is a devotee Krishna or that Balarama is the first expansion of Krishna?

[sant]

 

Santji this is for you

 

त्रयीसाङ्ख्यंयोगःपशुपतिमतंवैष्णवमिति

प्रभिन्नेप्रस्थानेपरमिदमदःपथ्यमितिच।

रुचीनांवैचित्र्यादृजुकुटिलनानापथजुषां

नृणामेकोगम्यस्त्वमसिपयसामर्णवइव॥

 

To add further santji

Shiva is beyond the gunas, as His trident represents all three, sattva, rajas and tamas.

More you call him he will bless you either my way or the way you have chosen!

 

I know it is mentioned in the bhagwatam also shiva is beyond 3 gunas.But which one.

where is this from may i ask hindustani ji..

Is this from shiva mahima stotram.

[hindustani]

ji Santji it is from Shri ShivaMahimna Stotra the most wonderful prayer of God as per me.

Check here rendered by Pujya Shri Bhaishri Rameshbhai Oza.

 

 

[sant]

YA thanks ill listen to it some time

But this stotram was sung by pushpadanta.

Where is this shiva mahima stotram writtrn is it a part of shiva puraan.

[hindustani]

Not sung but created or written by Pushpadanta.Bhaishri sung it in a most beautiful way as he is a scholar of sanskrit.Why sometime?Listen it right now na!

It is not a part of Shri Shivamaha puran,it is a prayer for Shri Shivji,most beautiful one.

 

YA thanks ill listen to it some time

But this stotram was sung by pushpadanta.

Where is this shiva mahima stotram writtrn is it a part of shiva puraan.

[sant]

 

Not sung but created or written by Pushpadanta

i meant that only.

The Shiva Mahimna Stotra is very popular among the devotees of Lord Shiva

and is considered one of the best among all Stotras (or Stutis) offered to

Lord Shiva. The legend about the composition of this Stotra is as follows.

A king named Chitraratha had constructed a nice garden. There were

beautiful flowers in this garden. These flowers were used every day by the

king in worshipping Lord Shiva.

One day a Gandharva (Singer in the court of Indra, the Lord of the Heaven)

named Pushhpadanta being fascinated by the beautiful flowers, began to steal

them, as a consequence of which king Chitraratha could not offer flowers to

Lord Shiva. He tried very hard to capture the thief, but in vain, because

the Gandharvas have divine power to remain invisible.

Finally the king spread the Shiva Nirmaalya in his garden. Shiva

Nirmaalya consists of the Bilva leaves, flowers, et cetera which

have been used in worshipping Lord Shiva. The Shiva Nirmaalya is

considered holy.

 

 

 

The thief Pushhpadanta, not knowing this, walked on the Shiva Nirmaalya,

and by that he incurred the wrath of Lord Shiva and lost the divine power

of invisibility. He then designed a prayer to Lord Shiva for forgiveness.

In this prayer he sung the greatness of the Lord.

This very prayer became well known as the `Shiva Mahimna Stotra'.

Lord Shiva became pleased by this StotraM, and returned Pushhpadanta's

divine powers.

 

[Sonic Yogi]

Madhya 20.273 purport:

 

 

The word svāńga-viśeṣābhāsa-rūpe, indicating the form by which the Lord begets living entities in the material world, is explained herein. He is Lord Śiva. In the Brahma-saḿhitā it is stated that Lord Śiva, who is another form of Mahā-Viṣṇu, is like yogurt. Yogurt is nothing but milk, yet it is not milk. Similarly, Lord Śiva is considered the father of this universe, and material nature is considered the mother. The father and mother are known as Lord Śiva and goddess Durgā. Together, Lord Śiva's genitals and the vagina of goddess Durgā are worshiped as the śiva-lińga. This is the origin of the material creation. Thus Lord Śiva's position is between that of the living entity and that of the Supreme Lord. In other words, Lord Śiva is neither the Supreme Personality of Godhead nor a living entity. He is the form through which the Supreme Lord works to beget living entities within this material world. As yogurt is prepared when milk is mixed with a culture, the form of Lord Śiva expands when the Supreme Personality of Godhead is in touch with material nature. The impregnation of material nature by the father, Lord Śiva, is wonderful because at one time innumerable living entities are conceived.