Haribol,

I am going to cause a lot of offence by suggesting the following, but in Srimad Bhagavatam, Lord Brahma says he knows Lord Shiva as the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation (SB 4.6.42).

In the purport, Srila Prabhupada says that Lord Brahma is saying so because in their original positions, Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva are identical. I thought it is important to take the scripture as it is. If Lord Brahma is worshipping Lord Shiva as the Supreme Brahman, then why is it wrong for others to do so?

Lord Brahma addresses Lord Shiva: "My dear Lord, devotees who have fully dedicated their lives unto your lotus feet certainly observe your presence as Paramatma in each and every being" SB 4.6.46

Does this mean both Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna are Paramatma? I thought the Paramatma is one? Therefore how can both be Paramatma?


I would appreciate some enlightenment on this matter.

Hare Krishna,
Your Servant

Haribol,

I am going to cause a lot of offence by suggesting the following, but in Srimad Bhagavatam, Lord Brahma says he knows Lord Shiva as the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation (SB 4.6.42).

In the purport, Srila Prabhupada says that Lord Brahma is saying so because in their original positions, Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva are identical. I thought it is important to take the scripture as it is. If Lord Brahma is worshipping Lord Shiva as the Supreme Brahman, then why is it wrong for others to do so?

Lord Brahma addresses Lord Shiva: "My dear Lord, devotees who have fully dedicated their lives unto your lotus feet certainly observe your presence as Paramatma in each and every being" SB 4.6.46

Does this mean both Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna are Paramatma? I thought the Paramatma is one? Therefore how can both be Paramatma?


I would appreciate some enlightenment on this matter.

Hare Krishna,
Your Servant

Haribol,

I am going to cause a lot of offence by suggesting the following, but in Srimad Bhagavatam, Lord Brahma says he knows Lord Shiva as the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation (SB 4.6.42).

In the purport, Srila Prabhupada says that Lord Brahma is saying so because in their original positions, Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva are identical. I thought it is important to take the scripture as it is. If Lord Brahma is worshipping Lord Shiva as the Supreme Brahman, then why is it wrong for others to do so?

Lord Brahma addresses Lord Shiva: "My dear Lord, devotees who have fully dedicated their lives unto your lotus feet certainly observe your presence as Paramatma in each and every being" SB 4.6.46

Does this mean both Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna are Paramatma? I thought the Paramatma is one? Therefore how can both be Paramatma?


I would appreciate some enlightenment on this matter.

Hare Krishna,
Your Servant

Haribol,

I am going to cause a lot of offence by suggesting the following, but in Srimad Bhagavatam, Lord Brahma says he knows Lord Shiva as the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation (SB 4.6.42).

In the purport, Srila Prabhupada says that Lord Brahma is saying so because in their original positions, Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva are identical. I thought it is important to take the scripture as it is. If Lord Brahma is worshipping Lord Shiva as the Supreme Brahman, then why is it wrong for others to do so?

Lord Brahma addresses Lord Shiva: "My dear Lord, devotees who have fully dedicated their lives unto your lotus feet certainly observe your presence as Paramatma in each and every being" SB 4.6.46

Does this mean both Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna are Paramatma? I thought the Paramatma is one? Therefore how can both be Paramatma?


I would appreciate some enlightenment on this matter.

Hare Krishna,
Your Servant

Prayer on shiva by Bramha is correct, and Shiva is the Mahadev & all pervading bramhan, the universal self, the perferctly rennounced, the formless.

Krihsna is the character of such a spiritually realised being in the living world. how would the world be if everyone where to be spiritually realized in the world and everyone behaved by their true spiritual nature. Each and every character will be so unique and different, and yet in sat chit ananda. Dasa avatar is just an example of uniqueness. And it is devine and it's our true spiritual nature.

To aspire to be surrendered to our true spiritual nature and also allow for others to achieve the same, is the true devotion to Krishna.

Prayer on shiva by Bramha is correct, and Shiva is the Mahadev & all pervading bramhan, the universal self, the perferctly rennounced, the formless.

Krihsna is the character of such a spiritually realised being in the living world. how would the world be if everyone where to be spiritually realized in the world and everyone behaved by their true spiritual nature. Each and every character will be so unique and different, and yet in sat chit ananda. Dasa avatar is just an example of uniqueness. And it is devine and it's our true spiritual nature.

To aspire to be surrendered to our true spiritual nature and also allow for others to achieve the same, is the true devotion to Krishna.

Prayer on shiva by Bramha is correct, and Shiva is the Mahadev & all pervading bramhan, the universal self, the perferctly rennounced, the formless.

Krihsna is the character of such a spiritually realised being in the living world. how would the world be if everyone where to be spiritually realized in the world and everyone behaved by their true spiritual nature. Each and every character will be so unique and different, and yet in sat chit ananda. Dasa avatar is just an example of uniqueness. And it is devine and it's our true spiritual nature.

To aspire to be surrendered to our true spiritual nature and also allow for others to achieve the same, is the true devotion to Krishna.

Prayer on shiva by Bramha is correct, and Shiva is the Mahadev & all pervading bramhan, the universal self, the perferctly rennounced, the formless.

Krihsna is the character of such a spiritually realised being in the living world. how would the world be if everyone where to be spiritually realized in the world and everyone behaved by their true spiritual nature. Each and every character will be so unique and different, and yet in sat chit ananda. Dasa avatar is just an example of uniqueness. And it is devine and it's our true spiritual nature.

To aspire to be surrendered to our true spiritual nature and also allow for others to achieve the same, is the true devotion to Krishna.

"Shiva is the Mahadev & all pervading bramhan, the universal self, the perferctly rennounced, the formless."

But Shiva exists eternally in a form - i.e. the form that sits on Mount Kailash with Parvatidevi - and the same Lord Shiva that inhabits Mahesh-Dhama, the expansion of Sadashiva who devotes himself to Lord Krishna in Goloka Vrindavana.

"Krihsna is the character of such a spiritually realised being in the living world"

But Krishna is also living eternally in the spiritual world in His own abode, Goloka Vrindavana. Therefore how can He be relegated to just being in the living world?

"it's our true spiritual nature"

Our true spiritual nature is to be sac-cid-ananda - however never is it written that we can actually be avataras of the Lord.

So the question is still not answered. How can Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna simultaneously be Paramatma when Paramatma is one?

I would appreciate some enlightenment on the matter.

Hare Krishna,
Your Servant.

"Shiva is the Mahadev & all pervading bramhan, the universal self, the perferctly rennounced, the formless."

But Shiva exists eternally in a form - i.e. the form that sits on Mount Kailash with Parvatidevi - and the same Lord Shiva that inhabits Mahesh-Dhama, the expansion of Sadashiva who devotes himself to Lord Krishna in Goloka Vrindavana.

"Krihsna is the character of such a spiritually realised being in the living world"

But Krishna is also living eternally in the spiritual world in His own abode, Goloka Vrindavana. Therefore how can He be relegated to just being in the living world?

"it's our true spiritual nature"

Our true spiritual nature is to be sac-cid-ananda - however never is it written that we can actually be avataras of the Lord.

So the question is still not answered. How can Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna simultaneously be Paramatma when Paramatma is one?

I would appreciate some enlightenment on the matter.

Hare Krishna,
Your Servant.

"Shiva is the Mahadev & all pervading bramhan, the universal self, the perferctly rennounced, the formless."

But Shiva exists eternally in a form - i.e. the form that sits on Mount Kailash with Parvatidevi - and the same Lord Shiva that inhabits Mahesh-Dhama, the expansion of Sadashiva who devotes himself to Lord Krishna in Goloka Vrindavana.

"Krihsna is the character of such a spiritually realised being in the living world"

But Krishna is also living eternally in the spiritual world in His own abode, Goloka Vrindavana. Therefore how can He be relegated to just being in the living world?

"it's our true spiritual nature"

Our true spiritual nature is to be sac-cid-ananda - however never is it written that we can actually be avataras of the Lord.

So the question is still not answered. How can Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna simultaneously be Paramatma when Paramatma is one?

I would appreciate some enlightenment on the matter.

Hare Krishna,
Your Servant.

"Shiva is the Mahadev & all pervading bramhan, the universal self, the perferctly rennounced, the formless."

But Shiva exists eternally in a form - i.e. the form that sits on Mount Kailash with Parvatidevi - and the same Lord Shiva that inhabits Mahesh-Dhama, the expansion of Sadashiva who devotes himself to Lord Krishna in Goloka Vrindavana.

"Krihsna is the character of such a spiritually realised being in the living world"

But Krishna is also living eternally in the spiritual world in His own abode, Goloka Vrindavana. Therefore how can He be relegated to just being in the living world?

"it's our true spiritual nature"

Our true spiritual nature is to be sac-cid-ananda - however never is it written that we can actually be avataras of the Lord.

So the question is still not answered. How can Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna simultaneously be Paramatma when Paramatma is one?

I would appreciate some enlightenment on the matter.

Hare Krishna,
Your Servant.

Lord in Bagawad geetha appeals to arjuna for realization of Brahman.

And admits that bramhan realization is difficult. Therefore suggest certain options as alternatives out of compassion.

You guys want to know from Krishna that the next-best is as good as the best. This is ragging or in other words this can't be called bakthy.

What you need to know is while you may aim to realize the brahman, and this might take time or life-times, the alternatives can be followed for better progress towards spirituality. Our aim should be the same, darted on brahman realization auspiciously named as Shiva, all the time.

Krishna says creation came from Bramhan in Bagawat geetha. The non-spiritual keep focusing on creator as the highest, and these leads to whole lot of confusion. And why wouldn't there be questions to clarify


Overwhemed by creation and aiming for bakthy on creator is

not equivalent to

aiming for spiritual realization, overwhelmed by bramhan all pervasive, and seeing yourself as part of it. And thereafter uncovering the true nature in you of spiritual being.

It's is said that the true nature (Krisha) is packaged in the soul & travels from janma to janma. The egoistic personality which all of us focus upon so much dies with the body. So Shiva and Krisha, the bramhan & it's true nature of ones own spirituality are one and same, inseperable.

The true nature of the spiritual being is call the Guru. And therefore it's only with the grace of guru, that Bramhan realization is obtained and thereafter the true surrender to ones own true nature begins.

Surrender to ones own true nature and krishna is impossible for the non-spiritualist. Shedding the personality of egoitic nature itself is surrender, and that's what Krishna comments in most of the alternatives to Branhman realization

Lord in Bagawad geetha appeals to arjuna for realization of Brahman.

And admits that bramhan realization is difficult. Therefore suggest certain options as alternatives out of compassion.

You guys want to know from Krishna that the next-best is as good as the best. This is ragging or in other words this can't be called bakthy.

What you need to know is while you may aim to realize the brahman, and this might take time or life-times, the alternatives can be followed for better progress towards spirituality. Our aim should be the same, darted on brahman realization auspiciously named as Shiva, all the time.

Krishna says creation came from Bramhan in Bagawat geetha. The non-spiritual keep focusing on creator as the highest, and these leads to whole lot of confusion. And why wouldn't there be questions to clarify


Overwhemed by creation and aiming for bakthy on creator is

not equivalent to

aiming for spiritual realization, overwhelmed by bramhan all pervasive, and seeing yourself as part of it. And thereafter uncovering the true nature in you of spiritual being.

It's is said that the true nature (Krisha) is packaged in the soul & travels from janma to janma. The egoistic personality which all of us focus upon so much dies with the body. So Shiva and Krisha, the bramhan & it's true nature of ones own spirituality are one and same, inseperable.

The true nature of the spiritual being is call the Guru. And therefore it's only with the grace of guru, that Bramhan realization is obtained and thereafter the true surrender to ones own true nature begins.

Surrender to ones own true nature and krishna is impossible for the non-spiritualist. Shedding the personality of egoitic nature itself is surrender, and that's what Krishna comments in most of the alternatives to Branhman realization

Lord in Bagawad geetha appeals to arjuna for realization of Brahman.

And admits that bramhan realization is difficult. Therefore suggest certain options as alternatives out of compassion.

You guys want to know from Krishna that the next-best is as good as the best. This is ragging or in other words this can't be called bakthy.

What you need to know is while you may aim to realize the brahman, and this might take time or life-times, the alternatives can be followed for better progress towards spirituality. Our aim should be the same, darted on brahman realization auspiciously named as Shiva, all the time.

Krishna says creation came from Bramhan in Bagawat geetha. The non-spiritual keep focusing on creator as the highest, and these leads to whole lot of confusion. And why wouldn't there be questions to clarify


Overwhemed by creation and aiming for bakthy on creator is

not equivalent to

aiming for spiritual realization, overwhelmed by bramhan all pervasive, and seeing yourself as part of it. And thereafter uncovering the true nature in you of spiritual being.

It's is said that the true nature (Krisha) is packaged in the soul & travels from janma to janma. The egoistic personality which all of us focus upon so much dies with the body. So Shiva and Krisha, the bramhan & it's true nature of ones own spirituality are one and same, inseperable.

The true nature of the spiritual being is call the Guru. And therefore it's only with the grace of guru, that Bramhan realization is obtained and thereafter the true surrender to ones own true nature begins.

Surrender to ones own true nature and krishna is impossible for the non-spiritualist. Shedding the personality of egoitic nature itself is surrender, and that's what Krishna comments in most of the alternatives to Branhman realization

Lord in Bagawad geetha appeals to arjuna for realization of Brahman.

And admits that bramhan realization is difficult. Therefore suggest certain options as alternatives out of compassion.

You guys want to know from Krishna that the next-best is as good as the best. This is ragging or in other words this can't be called bakthy.

What you need to know is while you may aim to realize the brahman, and this might take time or life-times, the alternatives can be followed for better progress towards spirituality. Our aim should be the same, darted on brahman realization auspiciously named as Shiva, all the time.

Krishna says creation came from Bramhan in Bagawat geetha. The non-spiritual keep focusing on creator as the highest, and these leads to whole lot of confusion. And why wouldn't there be questions to clarify


Overwhemed by creation and aiming for bakthy on creator is

not equivalent to

aiming for spiritual realization, overwhelmed by bramhan all pervasive, and seeing yourself as part of it. And thereafter uncovering the true nature in you of spiritual being.

It's is said that the true nature (Krisha) is packaged in the soul & travels from janma to janma. The egoistic personality which all of us focus upon so much dies with the body. So Shiva and Krisha, the bramhan & it's true nature of ones own spirituality are one and same, inseperable.

The true nature of the spiritual being is call the Guru. And therefore it's only with the grace of guru, that Bramhan realization is obtained and thereafter the true surrender to ones own true nature begins.

Surrender to ones own true nature and krishna is impossible for the non-spiritualist. Shedding the personality of egoitic nature itself is surrender, and that's what Krishna comments in most of the alternatives to Branhman realization

"And admits that bramhan realization is difficult. Therefore suggest certain options as alternatives out of compassion."

No he says that the bhakta acheives Brahman automatically by performing devotional service. He says those who strive for Brahman realisation by Jnana will have to eventually attain bhakti anyway - so he recommends Arjuna to take the obvious short-cut bhakti route - which takes the devotee past the stage of Brahman, Paramatma and to the stage of Bhagavan realization.

" next-best is as good as the best. This is ragging or in other words this can't be called bakthy"

I don't know what u mean by that, but if u talk about bhakti, then Krishna is clear about bhakti being the highest yoga.

"Our aim should be the same, darted on brahman realization auspiciously named as Shiva, all the time."

Where does Krishna say that we must realize Brahman named Shiva?

"Krishna says creation came from Bramhan in Bagawat geetha."

Krishna says "I am the original seed-giving father"


"aiming for spiritual realization, overwhelmed by bramhan all pervasive, and seeing yourself as part of it. "

But Krishna says he is the basis of the brahman - not that the brahman is the basis of Him. Therefore, surely brahman emanates from Krishna i.e. Parabrahman

"And admits that bramhan realization is difficult. Therefore suggest certain options as alternatives out of compassion."

No he says that the bhakta acheives Brahman automatically by performing devotional service. He says those who strive for Brahman realisation by Jnana will have to eventually attain bhakti anyway - so he recommends Arjuna to take the obvious short-cut bhakti route - which takes the devotee past the stage of Brahman, Paramatma and to the stage of Bhagavan realization.

" next-best is as good as the best. This is ragging or in other words this can't be called bakthy"

I don't know what u mean by that, but if u talk about bhakti, then Krishna is clear about bhakti being the highest yoga.

"Our aim should be the same, darted on brahman realization auspiciously named as Shiva, all the time."

Where does Krishna say that we must realize Brahman named Shiva?

"Krishna says creation came from Bramhan in Bagawat geetha."

Krishna says "I am the original seed-giving father"


"aiming for spiritual realization, overwhelmed by bramhan all pervasive, and seeing yourself as part of it. "

But Krishna says he is the basis of the brahman - not that the brahman is the basis of Him. Therefore, surely brahman emanates from Krishna i.e. Parabrahman

"And admits that bramhan realization is difficult. Therefore suggest certain options as alternatives out of compassion."

No he says that the bhakta acheives Brahman automatically by performing devotional service. He says those who strive for Brahman realisation by Jnana will have to eventually attain bhakti anyway - so he recommends Arjuna to take the obvious short-cut bhakti route - which takes the devotee past the stage of Brahman, Paramatma and to the stage of Bhagavan realization.

" next-best is as good as the best. This is ragging or in other words this can't be called bakthy"

I don't know what u mean by that, but if u talk about bhakti, then Krishna is clear about bhakti being the highest yoga.

"Our aim should be the same, darted on brahman realization auspiciously named as Shiva, all the time."

Where does Krishna say that we must realize Brahman named Shiva?

"Krishna says creation came from Bramhan in Bagawat geetha."

Krishna says "I am the original seed-giving father"


"aiming for spiritual realization, overwhelmed by bramhan all pervasive, and seeing yourself as part of it. "

But Krishna says he is the basis of the brahman - not that the brahman is the basis of Him. Therefore, surely brahman emanates from Krishna i.e. Parabrahman

"And admits that bramhan realization is difficult. Therefore suggest certain options as alternatives out of compassion."

No he says that the bhakta acheives Brahman automatically by performing devotional service. He says those who strive for Brahman realisation by Jnana will have to eventually attain bhakti anyway - so he recommends Arjuna to take the obvious short-cut bhakti route - which takes the devotee past the stage of Brahman, Paramatma and to the stage of Bhagavan realization.

" next-best is as good as the best. This is ragging or in other words this can't be called bakthy"

I don't know what u mean by that, but if u talk about bhakti, then Krishna is clear about bhakti being the highest yoga.

"Our aim should be the same, darted on brahman realization auspiciously named as Shiva, all the time."

Where does Krishna say that we must realize Brahman named Shiva?

"Krishna says creation came from Bramhan in Bagawat geetha."

Krishna says "I am the original seed-giving father"


"aiming for spiritual realization, overwhelmed by bramhan all pervasive, and seeing yourself as part of it. "

But Krishna says he is the basis of the brahman - not that the brahman is the basis of Him. Therefore, surely brahman emanates from Krishna i.e. Parabrahman