Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva

12-28-2003, 04:08 AM

Hare Krishna

Here is a quote from Vishnu Purana (5.33.46)

"yo harih sa sivah saksad yah sivah sa svayam harih
ye tayor bhedamati sthan narakaya bhave nnarah "

TRANSLATION: Whoever is Lord Hari, He Himself is Lord Shiva indeed.
Whoever is manifesting as Lord Shiva, He Himself is Lord Hari. Any
human being who mistakes both the Lords to be different, he/she
surely goes to hell.

How this is understood in Vaishnava tradition ? Please reply with
scriptural and acarya commentary support. Anyone knows, how Sridhar
Swami comments on this verse ?

Your Servant Always
Sumeet.

12-28-2003, 07:29 AM

--- In achintya (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "sumeet1981" wrote:
> Hare Krishna
>
> Here is a quote from Vishnu Purana (5.33.46)
>
> "yo harih sa sivah saksad yah sivah sa svayam harih
> ye tayor bhedamati sthan narakaya bhave nnarah "
>
> TRANSLATION: Whoever is Lord Hari, He Himself is Lord Shiva indeed.
> Whoever is manifesting as Lord Shiva, He Himself is Lord Hari. Any
> human being who mistakes both the Lords to be different, he/she
> surely goes to hell.
>
> How this is understood in Vaishnava tradition ? Please reply with
> scriptural and acarya commentary support. Anyone knows, how Sridhar
> Swami comments on this verse ?
>

Sumeet, I have no commentary on the Vishnu Puraana upon which to base
my response. Anand Karalapakkam (is he here?) is a Sri Vaishnava who
might be more familiar with the text and how Sri Vaishnavas usually
interpret it. However, I can say a few things with the edition I have
(the critical edition published by H.H. Wilson):

(1) Shaivites frequently quote verses out of context to establish
that Shiva is absolutely the same as Vishnu. This is no exception.
This chapter describes the battle between Krishna and the thousand-
armed Baanaasura, who was aided by Lord Shiva. The Bhaagavatam
describes that Krishna fought with Shiva before engaging Baanaasura,
and that Shiva was defeated by Him. The Vishnu Puraana agrees with
this account - indeed, in this very chapter the Vishnu Puraana states:

harisha.nkarayoryuddhamatiivaasiit sudaaruNam |
chukShubhuH sakalaa lokaaH shastraastraa.nshuprataapitaaH || vp
5.33.22 ||
pralayo 'yamashoShasya jagato nuunamaagataH |
menire tridashaa yatra varttamaanu mahaahave || vp 5.33.23 ||
jR^imbhaNaastreNa govindo jR^imbhayaasaasa sha.nkaram |
tataH praNeshurdaiteyaaH pramathaashcha samantataH || vp 5.33.24 ||
jR^imbhaabhibhuutashcha haro rathopastha upaavishat |
na shashaaka tathaa yoddhu.m kR^iShNenaakliShTakarmmaNaa || vp
5.33.25 ||

A fierce combat took place between Hari and Shankara; all the regions
shook, scorched by their flaming weapons, and the celestials felt
assured that the end of the universe was at hand. Govinda, with the
weapon of yawning set Shankara a-gape; and then the demons and the
demigods attendant upon Shiva were destroyed on every side; for Hara,
overcome with incessant gaping, sat down in his car, and was unable
longer to contend with Krishna, Whom no acts affect. (viShNu puraaNa
5.33.22-25)

>From this account, several questions naturally arise:

a) If Vishnu Puraana says that Krishna and Shiva are the same Supreme
Personality of Godhead, then why is the Lord fighting with Himself?

b) If Vishnu Puraana says that Krishna and Shiva are the same Supreme
Personality of Godhead, why does it say that Krishna defeated Shiva,
making Shiva vulnerable to Krishna's "yawning weapon?"

c) If Vishnu Puraana says that Krishna and Shiva are the same Supreme
Personality of Godhead, why does it describe Krishna only as one whom
no karma affects, in contrast to Shiva for whom no such description
is given, and who fell victim to Krishna's yawning weapon? Two things
which are the same must have the same properties; this is simple
logic.

d) Baanaasura requested the boon of Shiva to fight with an opponent
worthy of his newly acquired power (the thousand arms given by
Shiva). If Shiva is the same as Krishna, then why didn't Shiva
himself offer Baana that fight, instead of cursing him that Krishna
would do so later instead?

If Krishna = Shiva, and this is really the conclusion of the Vishnu
Puraana, then the Shaivites should have perfectly logical
explanations for the above discrepancies. Try asking them about them.
If my past experience is at all predictive, then I guarantee you that
any answer you receive by the internet Shaivites to these very
logical and appropriate questions will be something to the effect
that you are a fanatic for daring to disagree with them.

(2) The verse you quoted is not to be found in the critical edition
of the Vishnu Puraana which I have. However, scanning back and forth,
I did find a similar verse which yours might be an alternate version
of. This verse is spoken by Lord Krishna to Lord Shiva at the
conclusion of the chapter. Here it is:

yuShmaddattavaro baaNo jiivataameSha shankara |
tvadavaakyagauravaadetanmayaa chakra.m nivattitam || vp 5.33.46 ||
tvayaa yadbhaya.m datta.m taddattamakhila.m mayaa |
matto 'vibhinnamaatmaana.m drShtumarhasi shankara || vp 5.33.47 ||
yo 'ha.m sa tva.m jagachcheda.m sadevaasuramaanuSham |
avidhyaamohitaatmaanaH puruShaa bhinnadarshinaH || vp 5.33.48 ||

Since you, Shankara, have given a boon unto Baana, let him live, from
respect to your promises, my discus is arrested: the assurance of
safety granted by you is granted also by me. You are fit to apprehend
that you are not distinct from me. That which I am, thou art; and
that also is this world, with its gods, demons, and mankind. Men
contemplate distinctions, because thy are stupified by ignorance.
(viShNu puraaNa 5.33.46-48)

Now, call me crazy, but looking at this verse as it is written, and
within the context in which it is found, it seems quite obvious that
this is not a specific statement of identity between Vishnu and
Shiva. Rather, it is a statement of the general "oneness" of things,
from which the "oneness" of Vishnu and Shiva is also understood.
There is a place in achintya bedha abedha for some sense
of "oneness." One could argue however, that the "oneness" spoken of
here is kevalaadvaita. However, I do not wish to get into that here,
as that is by no means obvious, and in fact it can be defeated with
many logical and shaastric arguments.

The point here is that Krishna is NOT telling Shiva that they are the
same Supreme Lord - rather, He is clearly telling him that there is
oneness between them just as there is oneness between Himself and
this world, the gods, demons, etc.

Thus, if Shaivites use this verse to say that one can worship Shiva
instead of Krishna because they are "one," then by the same logic,
they must conceed that one can also worship this world, other gods,
or even demons, who are also included in the list of things which
are "one." Will they accept it? I do not think so.

In my experience, Shaivites try to prove unsuccessfully that Vishnu
and Shiva are the same Deity. When this fails, they then try to to
give the same argument by using Advaita philosophy - Vishnu and Shiva
are the same because everything is the same. When they do that, you
can simply revert to anti-Advaita logic to refute them.

yours,

K

12-28-2003, 07:31 AM

I forgot to mention - you have my permission to forward this posting
only to anyone via e-mail or other forums if you wish.

12-29-2003, 02:05 AM

Haribol Krishna Prabhu
While i agree with the main intent of your argument, i feel that one of your
questions is untenable.

>From this account, several questions naturally arise:a) If Vishnu Puraana says
that Krishna and Shiva are the same Supreme Personality of Godhead, then why is
the Lord fighting with Himself?[Kizhakkemadam, Sriram N (MED)] When Lord Vishnu
descended as Srinivasa, he had a fight with Lord Varaha who was occupying the
present day tirumala area. So, one expansion of the Lord is fighting with His
other expansion and this is perfectly tenable as a divine sport. Therefore, the
same argument can be applied to prove Shiva = Vishnu (logically only).
Your servant,
k.n.sriram

12-29-2003, 07:54 AM

Please accept my humble obeisances. All Glories to Srila Prabhupada!Haribol. Let
us look to Srila Prabhupada for the answer, he is so kind to give us his mercy
and guidence through his.books although he is no longer here with us phicially,
he is here with us in his instructions. He lives on in his words. Jai
Prabhupada!
Srila Prabhupada writes in Bhagavad Gita As it is, 10.8 - "The Opulence of the Absolute"
.
aham sarvasya prabhavo mattah sarvam pravartate iti matva bhajante mam budha bhava-samanvitah
.
aham--I; sarvasya--of all; prabhavah--source of generation; mattah--from Me;
sarvam--everything; pravartate--emanates; iti--thus; matva--knowing;
bhajante--becomes devoted; mam--unto Me; budhah--learned;
bhava-samanvitah--with great attention.
TRANSLATION
I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from
Me. The wise who know this perfectly engage in My devotional service and
worship Me with all their hearts.
PURPORT
A learned scholar who has studied the Vedas perfectly and has information from
authorities like Lord Caitanya and who knows how to apply these teachings can
understand that Krsna is the origin of everything in both the material and
spiritual worlds, and because he knows this perfectly he becomes firmly fixed
in the devotional service of the Supreme Lord. He can never be deviated by any
amount of nonsensical commentaries or by fools. All Vedic literature agrees
that Krsna is the source of Brahma, Siva and all other demigods. In the Atharva
Veda it is said, "yo brahmanam vidadhati: purvam yo vai vedams ca gapayati sma
krsnah." "It was Krsna who in the beginning instructed Brahma in Vedic
knowledge and who disseminated Vedic knowledge in the past." Then again it is
said, "atha puruso ha vai narayano 'kamayata prajah srjeya ity upakramya."
"Then the Supreme Personality Narayana desired to create living entities."
Again it is said:
narayanad brahma jayate, narayanad prajapatih prajayate, narayanad indro jayate,
narayanad astau vasavo jayante, narayanad ekadasa rudra jayante, narayanad
dvadasadityah.
"From Narayana, Brahma is born, and from Narayana, the patriarchs are also born.
>From Narayana, Indra is born, from Narayana the eight Vasus are born, from
Narayana the eleven Rudras are born, from Narayana the twelve Adityas are
born." It is said in the same Vedas, brahmanyo devaki-putrah: "The son of
Devaki, Krsna, is the Supreme Personality." Then it is said:
eko vai narayana asin na brahma na isano napo nagni samau neme dyav-aprthivi na
naksatrani na suryah sa ekaki na ramate tasya dhyanantah sthasya yatra
chandogaih kriyamanastakadi-samjnaka stuti-stomah stomam ucyate.
"In the beginning of the creation there was only the Supreme Personality
Narayana. There was no Brahma, no Siva, no fire, no moon, no stars in the sky,
no sun. There was only Krsna, who creates all and enjoys all"
In the many Puranas it is said that Lord Siva was born from the highest, the
Supreme Lord Krsna, and the Vedas say that it is the Supreme Lord, the creator
of Brahma and Siva, who is to be worshiped. In the Moksa-dharma Krsna also
says,
prajapatim ca rudram capy aham eva srjami vai tau hi mam na vijanito mama
maya-vimohitau. "The patriarchs, Siva and others are created by Me, though they
do not know that they are created by Me because they are deluded by My illusory
energy." In the Varaha Purana it is also said,
narayanah paro devas tasmaj jatas caturmukhah tasmad rudro 'bhavad devah sa ca
sarva-jnatam gatah. "Narayana is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and from
Him Brahma was born, from whom Siva was born."
Lord Krsna is the source of all generations, and He is called the most efficient
cause of everything. He says that because "everything is born of Me, I am the
original source of all. Everything is under Me; no one is above Me." There is
no supreme controller other than Krsna. One who understands Krsna in such a way
from a bona fide spiritual master and from Vedic literature, who engages all his
energy in Krsna consciousness, becomes a truly learned man. In comparison to
him, all others, who do not know Krsna properly, are but fools. Only a fool
would consider Krsna to be an ordinary man. A Krsna conscious person should not
be bewildered by fools; he should avoid all unauthorized commentaries and
interpretations on Bhagavad-gita and proceed in Krsna consciousness with
determination and firmness.
....
SO very clearly Krsna says, 'narayanah paro devas tasmaj jatas caturmukhah
tasmad rudro 'bhavad devah sa ca sarva-jnatam gatah'. "Narayana is the Supreme
Personality of Godhead, and from Him Brahma was born, from whom Siva was born."
In closing, we can say that Lord Visnu and Lord Siva, as well as Lord Brama are
one in the same in ESSENCE but not in QUALITY, just as the son is of the same
essence as the father.
Hare Krsna.-Madhumangala dasa

12-29-2003, 01:28 PM

For those who have read Krishna Susarla's response to the following query, I'm
sorry that before I saw his post I also wrote much of what he already observed;
anyway, here's my reply.

> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, sumeet1981 wrote:
> > Here is a quote from Vishnu Purana (5.33.46)
> >
> > "yo harih sa sivah saksad yah sivah sa svayam harih
> > ye tayor bhedamati sthan narakaya bhave nnarah "
> >
> > TRANSLATION: Whoever is Lord Hari, He Himself is Lord Shiva indeed.
> > Whoever is manifesting as Lord Shiva, He Himself is Lord Hari. Any
> > human being who mistakes both the Lords to be different, he/she
> > surely goes to hell.
> >
> > How this is understood in Vaishnava tradition ? Please reply with
> > scriptural and acarya commentary support. Anyone knows, how Sridhar
> > Swami comments on this verse ?

I don't know of any Gaudiya Vaisnava commentary on the Visnu Purana, nor do I
have access to Madhva's or Ramanuja's tikas at the moment. However, neither can
I provide Sridharasvami's comments either, but only because the above verse
isn't Visnu Purana text 5.33.46, at least not in both of my editions.* Each one
gives another verse instead, while neither contains the above verse.

That said, there are some statements that somewhat resemble the incorrect
Sanskrit transliteration given above. The context of the passage involves
Krsna's instructions to lord Siva regarding the latter's destructive boon to
Banasura.

Significantly, the closest thing to the above verse, is Krsna's following
comment (VP 5.33.47-48):

tvayA yad abhayaM dattaM tad dAnaM akhilaM mayA |
matto 'vibhinnam AtmAnaM draSTum arhasi zaGkara ||

"Whatever fearlessness was given by you is wholly a gift from Me.
O Sankara, you're fit to see that you yourself are not apart from Me."

yo 'haM sa tvaM jagac cedaM sa-devAsura-mAnuSam |
avidyA-mohitAtmAnaH puruSA bhinna-darzanaH ||

"What I am, you are--as well as the universe with its gods, demons, and men.
Those who are bewildered by ignorance see with separate vision."

Sridharasvamin's only remark for this and all following verses in the chapter is
that "matto vibhinnam" means "chedah," or "cut off," "from Me" (mattaH, i.e.,
from Krsna). The word "cheda" (splitting) implies a conflict of interest or
even deliberate separatism. That is, one should not try to be independent of
the Lord.

Moreover, Krsna explicitly mentions that not only lord Siva, but the demigods,
demons, and humans--everything in the universe--are also nondifferent from
Himself. Of course, this also simply reiterates what Krsna says in Gita,
18.20-22. It doesn't establish any unique equality with Vishnu for Siva.

Clearly, Krsna's emphasis is that no one--and no thing--is autonomous or truly
separate from Him, including Siva. To demonstrate the ultimate harmony that
exists between the Lord and all his servants, as well as to fortify the
authority He so invests in lord Siva, Krsna even agreed to respect Siva's
problematic benediction to Bana. Then Krsna resolved Banasura's situation by
His own perfect intelligence.

I would say the purport is that no one should be divisive or independent, for
that only cuts one off from Krsna's mercy, one's own welfare. Separatism is an
unhealthy condition among those bewildered by ignorance.

The logic here also seems fairly analogous to that of "saksad dharitvena
samasta-sastraih uktas tatha bhavyata eva sadbhih, kintu prabhor yah priya eva
tasya" (the Lord's representatives are nondifferent from the Lord because of
being dear to Him, and all authorities uphold this widely recognized principle).

I hope this clarifies things.

MDd

*
1)
Upreti, Thanezacandra, ed. 1987. _viSNu-purANam:
zrIdharasvAmi-kRtAtma-prakAzAvyAkhyayA bhUSitam_. DillI: Parimala. (in
Sanskrit)

2)
Gupta, MunilAla, trans. 1993 _zrIzrIviSNupurANa_. Gorakhapura: gItA-presa

aditya · 09-08-2007, 09:15 AM

the same krishna in the same mahabharata quotes the imp of shiva in anushasana parva and even constructs shivasahasranama....and the same vishnu offers his lotus eyes to shiva and gets the name padmaksha......

Tantrayoga · 11-16-2007, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madhumangala dasa

All Vedic literature agrees
that Krsna is the source of Brahma, Siva and all other demigods.

When Prabhupada (PBUH), says " .. all other DEMIGODS like SHIVA..." doesn't he contradict both Lord Shiva and Krsna? And Lord Shiva and Krsna are a much much higher authority than Prabhupada!! Would you agree??

Tantrayoga · 11-16-2007, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aditya

the same krishna in the same mahabharata quotes the imp of shiva in anushasana parva and even constructs shivasahasranama....and the same vishnu offers his lotus eyes to shiva and gets the name padmaksha......

So true Aditya ji.
But that part is always ignored sadly. Its a mockery when you accept one thing said by the Lord at one place, but totally ignore when He Himself speaks on another occasion. As Shri Chaitanya said "In this age of hypocrisy ... "

Arjuna Haridas · 11-17-2007, 06:13 PM

To quote myself:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjuna Haridas

Few Vaishnavas realize that Krishna is the equivalent to Shiva of Shaivism and that Radha is equivalent to Devi of Shaktism. Krishna is Brahman and Radha is Shakti; both are equal and are two aspects of the Divine. The Vaishnava knows this, but unfortunately the Vaishnava associated the Supreme Lord Krishna as the equal with Vishnu. In reality, it's more like:

Bhagavan Krishna

Radharani

Devi
Durga
Kali
etc.

Brahma
Vishnu
Matsya
Kurma
Varaha
etc.
Shiva

Krishna (Brahman) incarnates as the Trimurti Who in turn incarnate as Matsya, etc.

Radha (Shakti) incarnates as Devi Who in turn incarnates as Durga Maa, Dasmahavidyas, etc.

This is why Vaishnavism IS Shaivism and the two ARE Shaktism. It is because the 3 sects are just one, but they give different names to Brahman-Shakti, the Supreme Divine. Unfortunately, only the Smartas realize this and so we have blatent sectarianism between Vaishnavas and Shaivas that manifest themselves in the various denominations of the two religions.

JayaMahaDevi · 01-05-2008, 01:39 PM

God may have many forms such as Maa, Shiva, Krishna, Vishnu, etc. But ALL forms are emanations of one divine soul... So why should we see ANYTHING as seperate. The divine soul in fact has no name, gender, forms until it manifests through Shakti. So why argue about this god being seperate from that god, and that this path is higher than that path. That is all futile arguments. All have god as a divine spark within them, and through that personal spark they can go back to the source. Shiva is God's destructive personality as Vishnu is the personality the preserves... But in the end, they are all indeed one in the same. Seeing everything as seperate will also keep YOU seperate from God, and it is also the reason why people must see themselves as distinct from each other through paths, creeds, classes, castes, genders, etc. Yes we all have minor differences but we are all gods children. And all emanations of God are infact all connected to one divine source. I choose to worship that as Maha Devi Mata, but does that make me any different from someone who worships Shiva or someone who worships Krishna? Only by the name we are calling out in our prayers in the images we choose to see as the form of our beloved.

JayaMahaDevi · 01-05-2008, 01:42 PM

Let us look at the image of Hari Hara...

tackleberry · 01-06-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayaMahaDevi

God may have many forms such as Maa, Shiva, Krishna, Vishnu, etc. But ALL forms are emanations of one divine soul... So why should we see ANYTHING as seperate. The divine soul in fact has no name, gender, forms until it manifests through Shakti. So why argue about this god being seperate from that god, and that this path is higher than that path.

If it were that simple, every scripture would've so declared in no uncertain terms. The fact that it doesn't proves otherwise. Nor is it illogical to consider every god as distinct. We do consider every human as distinct, don't we? We don't observe all objects and entities as one, we do perceive differences between various objects such as a table, chair etc. So why is it so hard to consider that every god is distinct?

Baobabtree · 01-06-2008, 01:37 PM

Quote:

So why is it so hard to consider that every god is distinct?

Perhaps because Rig Veda 1:164:46 declares

Quote:

46 They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.
To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan.

JayaMahaDevi · 01-08-2008, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tackleberry

If it were that simple, every scripture would've so declared in no uncertain terms. The fact that it doesn't proves otherwise. Nor is it illogical to consider every god as distinct. We do consider every human as distinct, don't we? We don't observe all objects and entities as one, we do perceive differences between various objects such as a table, chair etc. So why is it so hard to consider that every god is distinct?

I do not see anything as REALLY distinct. It is only distinct through the play of Maya. But when you see reality you will see all things in existence as one.

--- · 01-10-2008, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baobabtree

Perhaps because Rig Veda 1:164:46 declares

here's one of my posts from another forum........ hope it clarifies the rigvedic declaration........

when scriptures say that at first vishnu was lying on the great ocean (read ocean=consciousness,visnu = vishwa(universe)+ anu(atom) i.e one that permeades every atom of the universe = SPACE)... lying on sesh......(sesh mathamatically means remainder ....I.E REMAINDER OF KARMAS WHICH MAKES SOULS TO BE BORN.(in vishnu===in space).....(SESH IS TAMASIC)...... now from visnu's navel a lotus springs up and from lotus bhrama is born .....bhrama is the first indiavidual in space (duality has arrived)....... now bhrama is troubled by the two demons madhu(means too much ) and kaitabh(too little ) ie excess of indulgence and desire for more indulgence (what he has is perceived to be too little).........bhrama is the first fallen soul (according to prabhupada when a soul falls he first becomes bhrama).........now vishnu is god of maintainence because ... a world of duality can only exist(MAINTAINED)only in SPACE and TIME..............BHRAMA is the god of creation because the world exists only relatively (percieved by bhrama who see himself to be seperate from space(visnnu) and time(shiva,ie kala,ie maha kala) ........ now bhrama is the the lord of creation falls for saraswati his own daughter (saraswati is knowledge(GODDESS OF )(I.E ...RELATIVE KNOWLEDGE)....... saraswati is said to be bhramas daughter because she is born of him ....I.E. she is not created by vishnu(space) or time (kala ,shiva).......BOTTOM LINE = RELATIVE KNOWLEDGE IS BORN OF "THE KNOWER"..........

now shiva the god of destruction is a state where the difference between the perciever ,the percieved and perception ....is lost
(those who really want to understand please read the "tripura rahasya.".......if you manage to understand it you will be very pissed to find out what you do ...it is an advaitic and a sakta text)..........

shiva is a state of monoism .....the scriptures say that there is no such thing as shiva and soul for where there is a soul shiva is not and where there is shiva there is no soul(duality ie the difference between the perciever and the percieved is lost)...it is the state of advaitic moksh or buddhist nirvana........it is beyond duality .....of existance and non existance............it is in this context that the statement (EKAM BHARM DWITIYA NASTI........is to be understood ..........EKAM BHRAM...ETC......DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS ONE GOD ...........IT MEANS THERE IS ONLY "ONE".......call this "ONE" as god or bhram or parabhram or WHATEVER.........but where this "ONE" exists there is no other .........

also the superiority of one god over the other is relative superiority of one tattva over other ........when scripture say that shiva is supreme because neither vishnu or bhrama could find his beginning or end ........it means THE STATE OF SHIVAHOOD CANNOT BE PERCIEVED,OR KNOWN IN SPACE(vishnu)OR BY BHRAMA(relative knower)....BECAUSE WHERE THERE IS SHIVA THERE IS NO OTHER ............... WHEN SCRIPTURES SAY THAT VISHNU IS SUPREME ...IT IS INDEED TRUE BECAUSE WHERE THERE IS PERCEPTION OF VISHNU(space..in a duality world) ....THERE IS NO SHIVA.(state of oneness)................

AGAIN THE SCRIPTURES AT TIMES TALK ABOUT VISHNU AS space TATTVA and at other time as PARABHRAM .............at times they talk about SHIVA ..as TIME tattva ...and at other times as parabhram.......................all statement of scriptures are true when understood in the right context........but in this day and age people have neither time nor inclination to research everything ....

PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THE ABOVE INTERPRETATION OF THE SCRIPTURES IS BASED ON THE INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO THE "TATTAVAS"but there are many interpretations....based on jnana,bhakti,mantras,tantras,yagnas,kriyas(for kriya yogis).......etc......

the rishis who wrote the scriptures were GENIOUS....

but as JALALUDDIN RUMI ... the sufi mystic would say ......"we have all said and heard ..but as for the way to go Words are no prepration........

so everyone ..lets stop fighting ....just do your daily practice ..follow the rules ..and follow your guru....walking the path will reveal the truth through experience ..and then you would need no theory..........