Shiva and Krsna

[vrajavasi]

Radhe Krishna,

 

Thank u jndasji. The basic prerequisite in worship of God, be it Karma marga, bhakthi marga or Gnana marga is development of Atmagunas. This includes Sincerety, honesty, patience, vinayatha, Soulabhyam, Sousheelyam and other Atmagunas. In the life and time of all bhakthas u would find the these shining qualities. Be it, the six goswamy sishyas of Mahaprabhu, Shri Thyagaraja, Kabir, Rahim, Raskan, Eknath, Thukaram - u name anybody - u would find their lives filled with shining qualities. Lord Krishna expects his bhakthas - Mahaprabhu trained his sishyas - in nurturing of good qualities. It is not important whether one is doing shiva bhakthi or krishna bhakthi - it is very much important as to how one is engaged in bhakthi. only nurturing of good qualities would give Chitha shudhi and only on Chitha shudhi one can attain the lotus feet of Lord Hari.

 

Radhe Krishna

[kushal]

hare Krsna,

i do not want to hurt anyone's feeling but i have this quote from padma puranam

 

A person who considers demigods like Brahma and Shiva to be on an equal

level with Narayana is to be considered an offender and an atheist.

Padma Purana

[Guest guest]

 

Hare Krishna and dandavats

 

Regarding the nature of Lord Shiva the following is stated in Brahma-Samhita "I adore the Primaeval Lord Govinda, Who transforms Himself as Sambhu for performing the work of destruction, just as milk is transformed into curd which is neither the same as, nor different from, milk". Lord Shiva is compared to yogurt which is milk transformed, but yogurt cannot transform to milk. Lord Brahma and Lord Shiva are demi-gods meaning they are subserviant to the Supreme Lord but the concept of some that all dieties (e.g. Durga, Ganesh ...) are on the same level i.e. that of Supreme Lord, is only an imagination and finds no support in Vedic texts.

 

 

Hari Om Namah Shivaya (Hari Om + Om Namah Shivaya)

 

Demi-gods (Shiva, Durga, Ganesh, Hanuman ....) are the highest Vaishnavas. And as per pure Vaishnava philosophy the worship of Vaishnavas pleases Lord Hari more than His own worship....

 

What is important is the mood / bhava of worship. From Shikshastaka the following bhava is excellent -

 

Ayee Nanda-tanuja kinkaram,

patitaam maam bhavaam-budohu.

Kripaaya tava pada-pankaja,

sthita dhuli sadrashim abhichintayaa.

 

 

Anaadi Karam phale, padi bhava-naba jale,

Tari-bare naa dekhi upaaya.

Ae vishaya hola hale, diba-nishi hiyaa jale,

Man kabhu sukh naahi paaye.

.......

.......

Ae-hena samaya bhandhu, tumi Krishna kripa-sindhu,

Kripa kari tolo more bale.

Patita kinkara kari, paada-padma dhuli dhari,

Deho bhakti vinod aashraya.

Ami taba nitya-dasa, bhuliyaa maayar pash,

Badh hoyi aachi dayaamaya.

 

I am your eternal servant (in love & service), having forgotten you Shri Hari, is the only reason of my suffering...

[~servant]

 

hare Krsna,

i do not want to hurt anyone's feeling but i have this quote from padma puranam

 

A person who considers demigods like Brahma and Shiva to be on an equal

level with Narayana is to be considered an offender and an atheist.

Padma Purana

Actually, the translation, direct word to word translation of this verse form Padma Purana goes:

 

"Anyone who sees difference between the attributes, names etc of Śiva and Śri

Visnu is certainly doing harm to the holy name of Hari."

or

"To see difference between the attributes and names of Śiva and Visnu is not doing

good to the holy name of Lord Hari."

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Please post the sanskrit so everyone can see the actual verse.

[~servant]

 

Please post the sanskrit so everyone can see the actual verse.

Sure:

shivasya sri vishnor ya iha guna namadi sakalam dhiya bhinnam pashyed sa khalu harinamahitakarah

[sumedh]

Pranams

 

 

Om Namah Bhagawate Vasudevaya!

 

Infact, this satvic and tamasic purana categories have been heard in gaudiya sampradaya only. I never heard of this anywhere else. For example, what exactly makes the Shiva Mahapurana a tamasic purana?? Because Shiva is considered as tamasic by some ill-informed people? Because he is the destroyer of the Universe? But then he is the sustainer and creator too. He himself says this to Rama and Rama confirms it. And Krishna and Rama are both Vishnu avatars. Yes Vishnu had ten avataras and Krishna was the one in Dwapar Yuga. Of course he is the Bhagwan period. Wouldn't want to argue on that.

...

 

 

First off there is no need to get angry. No one here said that Lord Shiva is tamasic, rather he is foremost vaishnava (Bhagavatam's "vaishnavam yatha shambhu").

 

Well, ignorance of our scriptures cannot be held as an excuse for criticizing gaudiyas. This division of Puranas is well known -- it is established in Madhavacharya's dvaita school well before gaudiyas. Sri Vijayindra Tirtha referred to it in his historic debate with Lingaraja.

 

It could have been an objection if this classification was given in Sattvic puranas, but this classification is given in Matsya and other puranas also. So the puranas (all of whom have been written by Srila Vyasadeva) classify themselves as sattvic/rajasic/tamasic. The meaning of this classification is simply that persons who are in predominantly sattvic mode should follow sattvic puranas etc.

 

Padma Purana (Uttara Khanda 236.18-21):

 

 

vaisnavanam naradiyam ca tatha bhagavatam subham

garudam ca tatha padmam varaham subha-darsane

sattvikani puranani vijneyani subhani vai

brahmandam brahma-vaivarta markandeyam tathaiva ca

bhavisyam vamanam brahmam rajasani nibodha me

matsyam kaurmam tatha laingam saivam skandam tathaiva ca

agneyam ca sad etani tamasani nibodha me

 

" O beautiful lady, one should know that the Visnu, Naradiya, Bhagavata, Garuda, Padma and Varaha are all in the mode of goodness. The Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta, Markandeya, Bhavisya, Vamana and Brahma are in the mode of passion. The Matsya, Kurma, Linga, Siva, Skanda and Agni are in the mode of ignorance."

 

 

Matsya Purana (53.65, 68-69)

 

 

pancangam ca puranam syad akhyanam itarat smrtam

sattvikesu ca kalpesu mahatmyam adhikam hareh

rajasesu ca mahatmyam adhikam brahmano viduh

tadvad agnes ca mahatmyam tamasesu sivasya ca

sankirnesu sarasvatyah pitrnam ca nigadyate

 

" A Purana consists of five elements, as opposed to an Akhyana. The sattvika Puranas glorify Hari; the rajasika Puranas glorify Brahma, and the tamasika Puranas glorify Siva and Agni. Puranas dealing with mixed modes of nature glorify Sarasvati and the fore-fathers."

 

 

Even the sattvic puranas sometimes have rajasic and tamasic portions (and conversely tamasic puranas have sattvic portions). In essence when the puranas follow the conclusions of sruti they are known to be sattvic and not otherwise.

 

Hare Krishna

[sumedh]

Pranams

 

 

Om Namah Bhagawate Vasudevaya!

 

Because he is the destroyer of the Universe? But then he is the sustainer and creator too. He himself says this to Rama and Rama confirms it.

 

Please provide evidence for this statement.

 

 

So, If the aim of human life is to attain only the satvic guna, then why did Ved Vyas waste his time writing the tamasic puranas? Of course one can argue that no this was for people of lower understanding. But that is not so. These puranas and Upanishads contain the knowledge of the highest order and are the Vedas and by no means a chandal or lower tamasic person can understand it. So this categorization is mostly biased and frequently used as a lame excuse for a particular sampradaya to boost the scriptures in line with their own pholosophy.

 

This categarization is given in the Puranas themselves. Also note that any puranic statement that is opposed to Vedas is not accepted. The upanishads (those that are authentic) are, of course, sruti and there is no categorization among them.

 

Srila Vedavyasa composed the Mahabharata (including Gita) for all the persons with lesser understanding who would be unable to understand the Vedas, which would including almost all the people in the current age.

 

 

In fact the worship of Lord Shiva has been considered the vedic norm. And Lord Krishna and Rama have fulfiled that norm too.

 

It is certainly not a norm for the Lord. These instances are cases of the Lord granting the wishes of his devotee The varaha purana (rudra-gita portion) and others (like kurma) describe that Shiva obtained the boon from Vishnu of being worshipped by Him in His incarnations.

 

The vedas praise other devatas (Indra, Vayu, Agni ...) in as highly exalted terms as Shiva but their worship is meant for satisfaction of Vishnu (Yajna refers to Vishnu); in other words the devataas are to be worshipped in proper understanding and not considering them to be independent supremes.

 

 

But where is the realization is the question. A guru may quote any number of books, but if he has no realization, then he is not a guru but just a 'panda', pathi / kathakar or an academician. Today thousands of these pandas in Mathura and Kashi can speak elaborately quoting sanskrit verses from books. But have they attained the Lord's darshan or have a siddhi is another issue. It is all theory. This is not the vedic mantra or yog practice. This practice is the result of bhakti kaal of last 700 or so years.

 

Realization of anyone is not accepted as an evidence in any of the vedanta schools, otherwise there would be no end to unverifiable claims.

And exactly how do you venture to determine whether someone has realized the Supreme Truth given that there are numerous instances in our scriptures where even the greatest rishis have been deluded (and Krishna says that only a very, very rare soul knows the Supreme Truth).

 

 

As to who should be worshiped, I would say worshipping Shiva or Krishna can never be wrong.

 

Well, it is not wrong but that it gives different results. See Bhagavad-Gita 9.23

 

ye 'py anya-devata-bhakta

yajante sraddhayanvitah

te 'pi mam eva kaunteya

yajanty avidhi-purvakam

 

ye--those; api--also; anya--other; devata--demigods; bhaktah--devotees; yajante--worship; sraddhaya anvitah--with faith; te--they; api--also; mam--Me; eva--even; kaunteya--O son of Kunti; yajanti--sacrifice; avidhi-purvakam--in a wrong way.

 

 

Also refer to BG 7.23, 8.16, 10.2, 14.14-14.18 etc.

 

Hare Krishna

[sumedh]

Pranams

 

 

So says Krishna to Lord Shiva after Shiva is pleased with his devotion to him!

So also says Ramachandra to Lord Shiva after seeing his universal form - the Virrat Roop. Rama accepts the supreme personality of Godhead as lord SadaShiva. So whom shall I believe more? Rama or Prabhupada. I made my choice to to follow Rama! You have made yours!

 

This was stated elsewhere also without any evidence. Please provide evidence of this story. Note that the vishwaroop darshan of Krishna in Gita is accepted by all the vedantic schools and Gita is considered on par with the sruti as being flawless (the prasthana trayi accepted by all vedanta schools includes Vedas, Gita and Brahma Sutra), so this acceptance is universal and not unique to Srila Prabhupada.

 

Hare Krishna

[vrajavasi]

Radhe Krishna,

 

Sumedhji, I really like the way of your quoting from the puranaas.

 

I would like to make a small correction.

 

Prasthanathrya consist of Bhashya to three literature viz., Dashopanishad, Brahma Sutra and Bhagawath Geetha. All the three Achaaryas belonging to the three basic schools of philosophy viz., Advaita, Vishishtadwaita and Dvaita - Shri Shankaraacharya, Ramanujacharya and Madwacharya wrote commentaries on these three. And none of them wrote any commentary on Vedas.

 

Radhe Krishna

[vrajavasi]

Radhe Krishna,

 

Yogkriya, Radhe Krishna. If you are really interested in Shiva Bhakthi, it would be better - instead of simply reading the Hindi translation of Shiva Purana - Read the Moola Grantha of Shiva Purana in entirety. Repeat it as many times as you can. That would open so many windows. But this would be helpful if you are in Bhakthi marga in Shiva Bhakthi.

 

Radhe krishna

[sumedh]

Pranams

 

 

Prasthanathrya consist of Bhashya to three literature viz., Dashopanishad, Brahma Sutra and Bhagawath Geetha. All the three Achaaryas belonging to the three basic schools of philosophy viz., Advaita, Vishishtadwaita and Dvaita - Shri Shankaraacharya, Ramanujacharya and Madwacharya wrote commentaries on these three. And none of them wrote any commentary on Vedas.

 

 

Thanks, you are correct to some extent. Actually Upanishads are (part of) Vedas, and prasthana-traya refers to the scriptures themselves and not to their bhasyas. Some schools give importance to only the Upanishads in Vedas so only commentries to those were written (in fact they did not write commentries to all of them e.g. Sripad Ramanuja). However, the whole of sruti is flawless and are cited as evidence in their works. Madhva school considers the whole of Veda as part of prasthana-traya and Sripad Madhva also wrote commentry on portions of Vedic samhitas.

 

Hare Krishna

[Yogkriya]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yogkriya

Om Namah Bhagawate Vasudevaya!

 

Because he is the destroyer of the Universe? But then he is the sustainer and creator too. He himself says this to Rama and Rama confirms it.

 

Sumedh: Please provide evidence for this statement.

 

Yogkriya: Sumedh I have provided more than enough evidence on this issue earlier. But the problem is that no other scripture holds any authority for u except SB and BG. You can find it in the scriptures. Everything is there. If you would opt to read outside of what SPP said, you will find it.

[Guest guest]

i believe that we need to balance all the three guna or in other words transcend all the 3 guna (as written i gita) ..so once can start with any dety or form he/she likes and then should go beyond any for and rupa .

[sumedh]

Yogkriyaji wrote:

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yogkriya

Om Namah Bhagawate Vasudevaya!

 

Because he is the destroyer of the Universe? But then he is the sustainer and creator too. He himself says this to Rama and Rama confirms it.

 

Sumedh: Please provide evidence for this statement.

 

Yogkriya: Sumedh I have provided more than enough evidence on this issue earlier. But the problem is that no other scripture holds any authority for u except SB and BG. You can find it in the scriptures. Everything is there. If you would opt to read outside of what SPP said, you will find it.

I am sorry, but i could not find that in this or other threads. If you could reproduce that it shall be convenient. However, because such a statement is contradicted by many sruti statements it would not be accepted unless it some other consistent interpretation of the sruti and other vedic scriptures is provided. Actually we have to be very careful here because of hidden meanings of vedic scriptures, and also because there have been many interpolations in the puranas. Additionally in many places the puranas contradict themselves (such as the well known episode of Lord Nrsimha and Hiranyakashyapu) and only the version given in the sattvic puranas is accepted and ultimately the version of sruti is accepted. For instance different versions are offered in puranas of the episode of drinking of poison by Lord Shiva during samudra-manthan, but only the versions consistent with the version of Rig Veda are accepted.

 

One clarification: Srila Prabhupada has stated that Lord Sadashiva refers to one of the incarnations of Vishnu and Lord Shiva is different from Him.

 

Caitanya-Charitamrta Adi Lila 6.79:

 

Rudra, who is an expansion of Sadasiva and who appears in unlimited universes, is also a gunavatara [qualitative incarnation] and is the ornament of all the demigods in the endless universes.

 

PURPORT

 

There are eleven expansions of Rudra, or Lord Siva. They are as follows: Ajaikapat, Ahibradhna, Virupaksa, Raivata, Hara, Bahurupa, Devasre

stha Tryambaka, Savitra, Jayanta, Pinaki and Aparajita. Besides these expansions there are eight forms of Rudra called earth, water, fire,

air, sky, the sun, the moon and soma-yaji. Generally all these Rudras have five faces, three eyes and ten arms. Sometimes it is found that

Rudra is compared to Brahma and considered a living entity. But when Rudra is explained to be a partial expansion of the Supreme Personalit

y of Godhead, he is compared to Sesa. Lord Siva is therefore simultaneously an expansion of Lord Visnu and, in his capacity for annihilatin

g the creation, one of the living entities. As an expansion of Lord Visnu he is called Hara, and he is transcendental to the material quali

ties, but when he is in touch with tamo-guna he appears contaminated by the material modes of nature. This is explained in Srimad-Bhagavata

m and the Brahma-samhita. In Srimad-Bhagavatam, Tenth Canto, it is stated that Lord Rudra is always associated with the material nature whe

n she is in the neutral, unmanifested stage, but when the modes of material nature are agitated he associates with material nature from a d

istance. In the Brahma-samhita the relationship between Visnu and Lord Siva is compared to that between milk and yogurt. Milk is converted

into yogurt by certain additives, but although milk and yogurt have the same ingredients, they have different functions. Similarly, Lord Si

va is an expansion of Lord Visnu, yet because of his taking part in the annihilation of the cosmic manifestation, he is considered to be ch

anged, like milk converted into yogurt. In the Puranas it is found that Siva appears sometimes from the heads of Brahma and sometimes from

the head of Visnu. The annihilator, Rudra, is born from Sankarsana and the ultimate fire to burn the whole creation. In the Vayu Purana the

re is a description of Sadasiva in one of the Vaikuntha planets. That Sadasiva is a direct expansion of Lord Krsna's form for pastimes. It

is said that Sadasiva (Lord Sambhu) is an expansion from the Sadasiva in the Vaikuntha planets (Lord Visnu) and that his consort, Mahamaya,

is an expansion of Rama-devi, or Laksmi. Mahamaya is the origin or birthplace of material nature.

 

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

You are correct, when you say that there is only one GOD. But to call him as Shiva or Vishnu or whoever else we feel is to do gross injustice to the devotional path. It is mentioned in the sastras that one who considers even great demigods like Lord Brahma or Lord Shiva as supreme is to be considered as a PASHANDI or an atheist. So we must take shelter of knowledge rather than come to such dangerous conclusions, which would adversely affect our devotional life.

 

Just to give you a crude example. Suppose you want to meet the President of the country and you feel that anyone can be the president, then you can imagine of what help that kind of thinking would lead us to.

 

Since we are Anu (Minute) and the Supreme Lord is Vibhu (almighty), we must go by what the scriptures tell us and thereby we can save a lot of time and effort in getting to the correct conclusions and also progressing in the right directions.

[Guest guest]

 

Yogkriyaji wrote:

 

For instance different versions are offered in puranas of the episode of drinking of poison by Lord Shiva during samudra-manthan, but only the versions consistent with the version of Rig Veda are accepted.

Do the Hare Krsnas really read the Vedas? Do you read the Rig Veda?? No!!

So?

 

One clarification: Srila Prabhupada has stated that Lord Sadashiva refers to one of the incarnations of Vishnu and Lord Shiva is different from Him.

If we had to take Srila Prahupada's statement or Lord Shiva's statement, whome would we take as more authentic and higher?? Of course Lord Shiva's!! And Lord Shiva says to Ramachandra that Vishnu and I are alike and those who fight differentiating us go to hell!!! ummm..

 

Caitanya-Charitamrta Adi Lila 6.79:

[anandadeha]

HariOm

Would like to ask somebody who is experienced in meditation about third eye,Does every person have a third eye?How many eyes have got liberated soul then?Is third eye the vision when you still looking with clocsed eyes?Please writte your coments thanks;-)if posible u can send me private message ,thank you

anandadeha

[Guest guest]

Yes Krishna became Supreme from Shiva's mercy.

This is clearly stated by Krishna Himself and Bhishma Pitamah in Mahabharata! Krishna is the greatest devotee of Lord Shiva!!

 

 

If you can read Chaintanya Charitamrta by Srila prabhupada, you will get clear point. There is explained very well that Krsna is supreme. All of them are Krsna devote, Krsna is devote of love. when you chant and serve krsna, you will be free from material desires, he will not ask to bag Vardan, he knows what to give, to go back to Krsna.

[Yogkriya]

All glories to Shri Vasudeva Krishna!!!

All glories to Lord of the Lords Shri Mahadeva!!!

 

 

Yes Krishna became Supreme from Shiva's mercy.

This is clearly stated by Krishna Himself and Bhishma Pitamah in Mahabharata! Krishna is the greatest devotee of Lord Shiva!!

[sumedh]

See http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/showthread.php?p=994731&posted=1#post994731

 

Haribol

[Yogkriya]

Yes please see again.

Om Namah Shivaya!

 

 

 

See http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/showthread.php?p=994731&posted=1#post994731

 

Haribol

[gokulkr]

Shiva, Vishnu & Brahma correspond to three gunas of one Supreme Brahman. This doesnt mean that Brahman is attributed with gunas. Indeed, Brahman is Nirguna. Brahman exists as atma-jyothi in every living thing. Once we realise the brahman, then everything solved.

 

But in shiva puranas, brahma & vishnu are greatly insulted just to show shiva as supreme. if shaivas want to glorify shiva they can just glorify him with his greatness. whats need for shaiva puranas to insult vishnu to show shiva as greater ? this kind of portayal can be compared to an physically strong human being harassing others to prove that he is greater, without even realising that he is getting degraded by doing this. So shaivas always insult vishnu thru their puranas so they can get satisfied.

 

So i personally avoid reading shiva puranas, as i cant digest Lord vishnu getting insulted in the puranas. I find happy while reading Vaishnava puranas.

 

Note : I am not telling anything wrong about Lord Shiva. I am just pointing out the way adopted by shaivas to prove shiva as greater. My all salutations goes to Lord Shiva.

 

But in vaishnavas puranas, shiva is greatly respected. no insults heaped on shiva. this clearly shows the approach of vaishnavas while comparing the approach of shaivas.

 

I dont believe that all of eighteen puranas are given by same person. Each of em are given by corresponding people of diff sects. If all of em given by Veda vyasa, whats need for Vyasa to tell "sri Narashima" as supreme in vaishnava puranas and sametime insulting "sri narashima" in shaiva puranas by telling "saraba/virabadra" kills narashima. It doesnt make any sense. So its clear that all of 18 puranas are not given by a same person.

 

Anyway lets mediatate on Supreme Brahman and try to realise him rather than debating shiva or vishnu. But i personally i find great piece in worshipping Brahman as "Vishnu".

 

Note : Sri Adi Shankaracharya himself worshipped "Lord Narashima" only, theres no reference of Adi Shankara worshipping Saraba.

 

Jaya Jaya Shankara Hara Hara shankara

Om Namo surya narayanaya

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna

 

Yogkriyaji:

The translation, to which you have an objection, is such because of context.

 

 

ahnaH kShaye lalAtAchcha suto devasya vai tathA

krodhAviShTasya sa~njaGYe rudraH saMhAra kArakaH

etau dvau vibudhashreShThau prasAdakrodhajau smR^itau

 

At the end of the day, the Lord [present as antaryAmi of Brahma] created

Rudra out of Krodha-guNa, to enable him to be the 'samhAra-kartA'. Thus,

these two 'fine-among-wise', Brahma and Rudra, are known to have been born

out of grace and anger respectively.

 

 

tadAdeshita panthAnau sR^iShTi saMhAra kArakau

nimittamAtraM tAvatra sarvaprAni varapradau

 

Thus, they carry out the instructed tasks of creation and destruction.

However, they, the givers of boons to all the creatures, are just the

agents.

 

Here Brahma and Shiva are mentioned as agents of Lord Narayana who carry out these tasks. Thus the interpretation given later where it refers to Brahma and other gods is consistent (since Shiva is one of the gods). Such interpretations are common and accepted because scriptures do not contain repititions like in usual literature.

 

It is to be noted that unlike yourself we do not consider one part of Mahabharata as overriding the others (and resort to silly interpretations like guru, shishya, bhavas which only you seem to know about and what not). When Lord Krishna prays to Mahadeva, He has already explained it to be:

 

 

tasminhi pUjyamAne vai devadeve maheshvare

sampUjito bhavetpArtha devo nArAyaNaH prabhuH

 

It is the Lord, the prabhu, the Narayana IN Maheshvara (the worshippable,

the lord of the devas), who is actually worshipped.

 

The varaha purana says that Shiva obtained the boon from Narayana of being worshipped in His incarnations. This and the already given quote that:

 

 

 

na hi viShNuH pranamati kasmai chidvibudhAya tu

R^ita AtmAnameveti tato rudraM bhajAmyaham

 

Indeed Vishnu does not bow to any one and [even when He bows to Himself],

for what sake, but for the sake of showing the path to the wise. Therefore,

it is the truth that I worship myself even when I worship Rudra.

 

... provides a consistent interpretation. If you have chosen to ignore the given quotes (because it is in guru bhava or something) then there is no more discussion that we can have on this.

 

 

Haribol

[atanu]

 

 

na hi viShNuH pranamati kasmai chidvibudhAya tu

R^ita AtmAnameveti tato rudraM bhajAmyaham

 

-------

it is the truth that I worship myself even when I worship Rudra.

 

Haribol

 

 

Oh yes. You do not understand Self. Instead of interpreting based on puranic concepts embedded in thoughts have an open mind. Shiva is the Self of all, including Vishu.

 

From Yajur Veda

 

Namo hridayyaya cha niveshpya ya cha

Salutations to Him who is in hridayyaya and in the grace.

 

Namo vah kirikebhyo devanam hrudayou bhyo

Salutations to you who showers grace and who dwell in the hearts of the Gods.

 

 

 

That Self is worshipped by all. When one worships an external god, one does it for the sake of Self only. Though Lord Krishna says "I am the Self Arjuna", the mind does not give up the externalities.

 

 

 

Om Namah Shivayya