Sonic Yogi

Srimad Bhagavatam explains that Lord Shiva is a form of Garbhodakshayi Vishnu that has undergone a kind of transformation in order to be in contact with the material energy Durga Devi. Lord Shiva is in fact in the category of Godhead and not one of the jiva souls like even Lord Brahma, Indra or Agni. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.88.3) it is stated that Lord Śiva is a combination of three kinds of transformed consciousness known as vaikārika, taijasa and tāmasa. Similarly, by expanding Himself as Lord Śiva, the Supreme Lord is engaged when there is a need to annihilate the universe. Lord Śiva, in association with māyā, has many forms, which are generally numbered at eleven. Lord Śiva is not one of the living entities; he is, more or less, Kṛṣṇa Himself. The example of milk and yogurt is often given in this regard — yogurt is a preparation of milk, but still yogurt cannot be used as milk. Similarly, Lord Śiva is an expansion of Kṛṣṇa, but he cannot act as Kṛṣṇa, nor can we derive the spiritual restoration from Lord Śiva that we derive from Kṛṣṇa. The essential difference is that Lord Śiva has a connection with material nature, but Viṣṇu or Lord Kṛṣṇa has nothing to do with material nature. The Viṣṇu incarnation, although master of the modes of goodness within each universe, is in no way in touch with the influence of material nature. Although Viṣṇu is equal to Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa is the original source. Viṣṇu is a part, but Kṛṣṇa is the whole. This is the version given by Vedic literatures. In Brahma-saḿhitā the example is given of an original candle which lights a second candle. Although both candles are of equal power, one is accepted as the original, and the other is said to be kindled from the original. The Viṣṇu expansion is like the second candle. He is as powerful as Kṛṣṇa, but the original Viṣṇu is Kṛṣṇa. Brahmā and Lord Śiva are obedient servants of the Supreme Lord, and the Supreme Lord as Viṣṇu is an expansion of Kṛṣṇa.

The very term "Bhagavat" as in Devi Bhagavat in fact means "in relationship to Bhagavan". So, the title of the Purana called Devi Bhagavat indicates that the book predominantly relates knowledge of Durga Devi in regards to her position concerning Bhagavan. It relates the position of Devi in terms of her relationship to Bhagavan who ultimately is none other than Lord Krishna. So, the very title of the Purana suggests that Devi must in fact be understand in regards to her position with the absolute Bhagavan Sri Krishna or Lord Vishnu. The couple of verses that seem to promote Devi as supreme above Vishnu are taken out of context and abused for dishonest purposes. The whole body of the book most certainly shows Vishnu as supreme, though dishonest people can take a couple of verses out of context and try to show supremacy of Devi, ignoring the verses that explain the supreme position of Lord Vishnu. A thorough, scholarly study of the Devi Bhagavat most certainly will not show Devi as the Supreme Isvara Mukunda. Such a conclusion can only be promoted by taking a few select verses out of context ignoring the many verses that show otherwise.

Puranas are classified as sattvic, rajasic and tamasic based upon which god is most important in the Purana. The Puranas where Vishnu, who is the deity of sattva guna, is most important are the sattvic Puranas. The Puranas where Lord Brahma, the deity of raja guna is most important are the Puranas of the mode of passion. The Puranas where Lord Shiva, who is the deity of tama guna, is most important are the tamasic Puranas. Since Durga Devi is the shakti of Lord Shiva, the deity of tama-guna, the Devi Bhagavat then by default must be classified as for the persons in tama-guna who deny the supremecy of Lord Vishnu. The Devi Bhagavat is not in the list of sattvic, rajasic and tamasic Puranas because it is such an obscure and remote Purana that the Vedic sages didn't even give it in the list of important Puranas to be classified. Durga Devi is the shakti of Lord Shiva and therefore Devi worship is within the same category of the tama guna. Only worship of Vishnu is in the mode of sattva guna. Devi worship is in tama guna because there is ignorance of the truth about the supremecy of Lord Vishnu who is a form of Lord Krishna. This is standard Vedic understanding.

Wrong, in fact many of the followers of Mahaprabhu were great Vedic scholars. Mahaprabhu himself was a great Vedic scholar and Brahmana. That is the difference between the Devi cult and Gaudiyas. The Gaudiyas have established Gaudiya siddhanta on the basis of the Vedic shastra. The shaktas have only the Devi Bhagavat to propound a claim that cannot otherwise be supported with the Vedic shastra.

Really, show me any shastric statement that says that the jiva is sat-cit-ananda-vigraha. I am eager to see shastic statements to support your idea.

No, that is not my point. Vyasadeva himself said that Srimad Bhagavatam was the commentary on Vedanta Sutra and the essence of Vedic knowledge. Devi Bhagavat is only supreme in tamasic Puranas, but Srimad Bhagavatam is the Purana most highly proclaimed by Vyasadeva the compiler of Vedas. No Vedic scholar will claim Devi Bhagavat as topmost Purana. That is only told by those who don't know Vedic siddhanta.

Everything is a manifestation of Brahman. Nothing can exist outside of Brahman. Even maya is a transformation of Brahman. It is not special thing to say that Durga Devi or any goddess is a manifestation of Brahman. Maya means to see something as not Brahman. Because, in reality everything is manifesting out of Brahman.

No. Here is a verse in Sri Isopanisad that explains how and who he would not become less by generating unlimited living entities.

If Durga Devi is Bhagavan, then wouldn't that be Bhagavani ? The cult of Hindus who think that Durga Devi is supreme above Siva, Vishnu or Krishna is a relatively small cult. Most Hindus believe in a male God either as Shiva, Brahma, Vishnu or Krishna. It is laughable that anyone would seriously propose that Durga Devi is the supreme being above Shiva, Vishnu or Krishna. Hindus brought up in their particular family traditions find it almost impossible to rationally approach the Vedic siddhanta. They feel some obligation to just blindly accept and follow the family traditional god and they are not willing to intelligently and impartially study the Vedic shastra like Upanisads and Puranas. Vyasadeva himself said that Srimad Bhagavatam would be his own commentary on Brahma-sutra, but many Hindus ignore that and try to elevate some other Purana above the one that Vyasadeva himself said was the most elevated commentary on Vedanta Sutra. If the compiler of the Vedas says that Srimad Bhagavatam is the essence of the Vedanta Sutra, then shouldn't that give us a clue as to which Purana is the topmost?

ok Do you agree or not agree? What is the point of the topic?

The concept of becoming god is very crazy. Because, god is the sum total of all living beings. To become God would mean that you in effect become everything and everyone. How can any reasonable, rational person possibly imagine that he can in fact become everything and everyone and know the hearts and minds of all living beings as God does? The Gaudiya acharyas explain that the jiva is qualitatively ONE with god, but that in quantity the jiva is just a very finite particle of God. So, the jiva is spirit as God is spirit, but God is the supreme spirit from whom all the other spirit souls come from. So, no, the jiva can never become God. The jiva can merge into the existence of God as a partial aspect of the infinite God, but the jiva can never fully become the Absolute Whole Brahman whom we know as God, Vishnu or Krishna in Vedic shastra. The Paramatmavadi yogis are aiming at merging back into the existence of God and in one sense they "become God" but they only become a small portion of the infinite, they do not become the Absolute Whole. Becoming God is not the highest possible attainment for the soul. Above "becoming God" the jiva can actually control God through pure devotion. So, the jiva cannot become God wholly, but the jiva can control God through pure love and devotion, therefore the bhaktas are above the Paramatmavadi yogis who are merging into Paramatma and identifying themselves with God, though in fact they are not wholly God. There is something to the old Hindu idea of "becoming God" but it is mostly misunderstood because of imperfect understanding of how the jiva can merge into the existence of the Paramatma. However, the Paramatma is only a partial representation of the Supreme Absolute and therefore merging into Paramatma is not tantamount to becoming God in absolute values.

Maybe you should read this.

The author of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, Śrīla Vyāsadeva, first offers his respectful obeisances unto the paraḿ satyam (Absolute Truth), and because the paraḿ satyam is the ultimate source of all energies, the paraḿ satyam is the Supreme Person. The gods or the controllers are undoubtedly persons, but the paraḿ satyam from whom the gods derive powers of control is the Supreme Person. The Sanskrit word īśvara (controller) conveys the import of God, but the Supreme Person is called the parameśvara, or the supreme īśvara. The Supreme Person, or parameśvara, is the supreme conscious personality, and because He does not derive any power from any other source, He is supremely independent. In the Vedic literatures Brahmā is described as the supreme god or the head of all other gods like Indra, Candra and Varuṇa, but the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam confirms that even Brahmā is not independent as far as his power and knowledge are concerned. He received knowledge in the form of the Vedas from the Supreme Person who resides within the heart of every living being. That Supreme Personality knows everything directly and indirectly. Individual infinitesimal persons, who are parts and parcels of the Supreme Personality, may know directly and indirectly everything about their bodies or external features, but the Supreme Personality knows everything about both His external and internal features.

The conception of God and the conception of Absolute Truth are not on the same level. The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam hits on the target of the Absolute Truth. The conception of God indicates the controller, whereas the conception of the Absolute Truth indicates the summum bonum or the ultimate source of all energies. There is no difference of opinion about the personal feature of God as the controller because a controller cannot be impersonal. Of course modern government, especially democratic government, is impersonal to some extent, but ultimately the chief executive head is a person, and the impersonal feature of government is subordinate to the personal feature. So without a doubt whenever we refer to control over others we must admit the existence of a personal feature. Because there are different controllers for different managerial positions, there may be many small gods. According to the Bhagavad-gītā any controller who has some specific extraordinary power is called a vibhūtimat sattva, or controller empowered by the Lord. There are many vibhūtimat sattvas, controllers or gods with various specific powers, but the Absolute Truth is one without a second. This Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam designates the Absolute Truth or the summum bonum as the paraḿ satyam.

Actually, the Gaudiya Vaishnavas have been described as shaktas. Srila Sridhar Maharaja made the point that the Gaudiya Vaishnavas are suddha-shaktas or worshipers of the pure spiritual shakti of Krishna. The point lost on most shaktas is that each shakti or power or energy has a source. We know in this world by looking all around that there is a source to all the energy. We have nuclear powerplants that create this energy or release this energy for use as electricity. So, the very idea that shakti or Devi has no controller or source is against all the teachings of the Vedas on shakti and shaktiman. The Vedic siddhanta clearly established that shaktiman is the source of the shakti, but that under certain conditions the Shaktiman agrees to become subservient to the Shakti. So, in the Devi Bhagavat what we find is the Shakta siddhanta that in fact yes, Vishnu is subordinate to Devi in some ways but what the shaktas fail to grasp is that Vishnu agrees to be subordinate to Devi for the purpose of the material creation. However, through out all the Vedic conclusions we always find that the Shaktiman is the owner and controller of the Shakti even though sometimes for his own lila he chooses to be subordinate to her. This Devi Bhagavat simply emphasis this aspect of the Divine play where Lord Vishnu assumes subordination to Devi as part of his divine lila. However, the Shaktas have taken this concept out of context in abject denial of the Vedic conclusions about the Shaktiman and the Shakti. So, yes Shakta is the topmost position in self-realization if in fact it is Suddha-shakta. The Devi worshipers are not suddha-shakta. They are misra-shakta because their devotion is not pure due to not understanding the Supreme position of Lord Vishnu/Krishna.

Devi Bhagavat: V