raghu

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.

Differences of opinion do not concern me. What worries me is the idealist who claims that such diversity is inherently poisonous. If I am unable to have my own view because it generates tension, then the natural conclusion is that I must give my own carefully thought out views and accept someone else's mediocre ideas just to satisfy the proponents of political correctness. In other words, an intellectual dictatorship. Your belief that we all will know the Supreme is unfounded. How do you know some people will not remain averse to the Supreme in spite of hearing about His glories? If everything is predestined, then this renders pointless any attempt at making an effort to do anything. Are you perchance, a Tenkalai Sri Vaishnava?

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?

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

Wow. Let's just throw facts and logic to the four winds and start saying whatever we want. Truth doesn't matter. All that matters is what makes you feel good. Raghu p.s. For the intellectually-challenged, please do not quote me on this. It is sarcasm.

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

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.

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?

quote:Higher worlds are sometimes called arupa-loka in Vedic literature, because our concept of form does not apply there. Their forms are fluid, and take shape from thought, or consciousness. Pure Brahman has no form because it can take any form it likes. That seems like more of a Sri Vaishnava idea. Tattvavadis (and also Gaudiya Vaishnavas as per my understanding) would say that it is in His intrinsic nature for Brahman to have form. But having form does not imply restriction in any way.

Ganeshprasad, Kindly refrain from posting anything on this thread. The specific purpose of this thread is to understand Shiva from the perspective of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I have no interest in your soapbox lectures or holier-than-thou attitude. If you have nothing to contribute regarding the philosophy of Gaudiya Vaishnavism on this subject, then kindly refrain from diverting this thread. As it is, Sonic Yogi will probably feel he has to respond to this nonsense with yet more nonsense, and then someone will respond to that, etc. THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR YOUR EGO WARS! THIS IS A SERIOUS THREAD WITH A SPECIFIC SUBJECT!

Thank you for this. Now, if I accept for the purposes of this argument that there is an entity "Sadashiva" who is non-different from Vishnu, and that "Shiva" is a "demigod" who is lower than Vishnu, then what is the relationship between "Sadashiva" and "Shiva?" Also, someone quoted a "Brahma Samhita" to the effect that Shiva (?Sadashiva) is a "transformation" of Vishnu, just as curd is a transformation of milk. Which Shiva is being referred to by this verse - is it Sadashiva or Shiva? Because if it is Sadashiva, my doubt about the whole "transformation" explanation still remains - and furthermore why describe him as a "transformation" if he is basically non-different from Vishnu. If "shiva" is being referred to, then why doesn't the verse simply say that he is a jiva? I have other questions but let us just clarify these points before moving on. thanks, Raghu

Once again, this is degenerating into a host of opinions, counter-opinions, and free-thinking.

The milk and yogurt example is problematic because Brahman is supposed to be changeless as per Vedantic principles. If Brahman transforms itself to become something less than itself, then not only is this against the principle of Vedanta, but it also opens the door to mayavada - i.e. why not then that jiva is actually Brahman and "transformed?" Saying that Shiva is second to Vishnu is fine, but then why claim that Shiva and Vishnu are one? These are contradictory points of view. Your graphics above hold that "Param Shiva" is a manifestation of Brahma. So that is a whole new view which does not help one way or another here. I do not think this is even Gaudiya in origin.

I do not understand how being situated in everything implies impersonalism. Perhaps you may mean something different by "impersonalism," but from what I gather, most iskcon devotees use the term "impersonalism" in the sense of God being ultimately formless. In that sense, I do not see how the objection arises. I read this, and I am reminded of how the advanced devotee is to appreciate the majesty of the Lord, because He is in everything, and everything is situated in Him, and yet He can still be personally present without any loss of His omnipotence. Indeed, it is because He can be personally present in a form that appears to be localized, limited, etc. that the doubt may arise about His being all-pervading and all-controlling, hence verses like this.

This is only the second thread I have started on this subject, the first one having been hijacked by political postings. I do offer my prayers to the Lord's divine feet, but I do not accept advice on sadhana as a substitute for an explanation on siddhanta. If someone is trying to explain something (i.e. the alleged oneness and difference of Vishnu and Shiva), then it follows that we are meant to understand it. Otherwise, no point in trying to take a position that you cannot explain. The Gaudiya Vaishnava conception of oneness and differences of Vishnu and Shiva seems to be a very vague idea to reconcile what are obviously contradictory viewpoints in the Hindu tradition. The underlying assumptions that rationalize this seem no different that the ones used by mayavadis to rationalize "oneness" of jiva and brahman. But as always, I am happy to update my thinking - hence this thread.

I have started a new thread since this one has been overwhelmed with irrelevant postings.

As my previous thread was hijacked by irrelevant postings, I am starting this again with an attempt at stimulating a serious discussion on the subject. I request input from knowledgeable Gaudiya Vaishnavas on the subject. Please, if you are not fluent in Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta, and/or are not able to write in grammatically correct English, then I request that you refrain from commenting. Vaishnavism is distinguished by its belief in Vishnu as the Supreme Deity, in contrast to other deities who are regarded as subordinate entities. In just about all other Vaishnava traditions with which I am familiar, Shiva is NOT equated to Vishnu, and worship of Shiva, while certainly auspicious in its own way, is NOT regarded as equal in benefits to the worship of Vishnu. Now in regards to Shiva's supremacy or lack thereof vis-a-vis Vishnu, the problem that occurs in considering Shiva to be just another form of Vishnu is that the shAstras treat them as two different entities. This is so regardless of whether you are reading shruti or smriti, sAttvik vs tAmasic purAnas, etc. Hence, it seems that one must necessarily choose one or the other viewpoint - either Vishnu is supreme and the Shaivite verses are sectarian interpolation, or vice-versa. They can't both be supreme, because they are two different deities. The same logic is also used to establish the difference between jiva and brahman. We cannot simply gloss over the stated differences between Vishnu and Shiva, for then by the same logic we could also gloss over the differences between jiva and brahman and come to the conclusion of mayavada, which I am sure no one wants. My point here is that there must be consistency in the principle of interpretation. The evidence from the Bhagavata is interesting. On one hand Brahma addresses Shiva with adjectives that reference the Supreme Lord. Yet on the other hand, the same Bhagavata teaches us that Shiva came under the delusion of maya when confronted with Lord's Mohini-murthi. These two pramAnas are contradictory. He cannot be the supreme Lord and yet fall victim to maya. Strictly speaking according to Vedantic principles, one would be forced to accept only that which is consistent with shruti. If you say supreme Lord can come under illusion, then by the same logic you must accept the Advaitin's logic when he says the same about jiva being brahman under illusion, etc. If it is unacceptable to you that jiva can be the result of brahman coming under illusion, then by the same logic you cannot argue that Shiva is Vishnu coming under illusion. The point is that it is mayavada either way! In the previous thread, someone quoted from an obscure smriti explaining that Shiva was a "transformed portion" of Vishnu or something similar. Now, the problem with this position is that it contradicts the well-known Vedantic principle that Brahman (Vishnu) is changeless - He does not "transform" into something that is less than Himself, and trying to argue that He does is tacit endorsement of mayavada. Why not then argue that Brahman "transforms" and becomes the jivas? You can surely appreciate the slippery slope upon which this argument takes you. The following pramanas were also offered: Now, even though I admit I have not examined context of these relatively obscure smritis, I cannot see (and I doubt anyone here can either) how these references reconcile the position of Siva with that of being supreme deity and yet not supreme. The second reference seems to be saying that Vishnu and Shiva meditate on each other - this is illogical if one or the other is the supreme deity and the other the devotee. If Vishnu and Shiva are two different forms of the same Deity, then saying that they each worship the other is an extremely roundabout way of explaining that - frankly it does not follow. The first reference says that Shiva meditates on Sri Krishna, but then goes on to say that there is "no difference" between the two. Now, if there is "no difference" between the meditator and the object of meditation, then this logic can be used to justify mayavada. If "no difference" on the other hand refers to their being no enmity between them, then this would more logically fit the context of one being the devotee of the other. Besides which, we cannot just say there is "no difference" between them, because that contradicts the shruti: asya devasya mīḷhuṣo vayā viṣṇoreṣasya prabhṛthe havirbhiḥ | vide hi rudro rudriyaṃ mahitvaṃ yāsiṣṭaṃ vartiraśvināvirāvat || With offerings I propitiate the branches of this swift-moving God, the bounteous Viṣṇu.Hence Rudra gained his Rudra-strength: O Aśvins, ye sought the house that hath celestial viands. (Rig Veda 7.40.5) If Shiva is another form of Vishnu, then why would he get his strength by propitiating Vishnu? He should already have his strength, i.e. it should be an intrinsic quality of being who he is. This is clearly a statement of *difference.* I am trying to determine if there is a clear and consistent way to understand Shiva's position in the Gaudiya worldview without making obvious errors in scriptural interpretation. Perhaps there is, and perhaps there is not, but what I have seen so far leads me to believe that the Gaudiyas have endorsed contradictory viewpoints regarding Shiva, in contrast to their viewpoint about all other devatas which is that they are clearly mortals. Perhaps this is an attempt to be accomodating to Shaivites? Again, I request knowledgeable GVs to comment with specific references to their pUrvAchAryas' writings on the subject.

Gentlemen, Thank you for the replies. However, let me again state that I am specifically interested in the Gaudiya Vaishnava conception of Shiva. I apologize that the title of the thread did not make that clear. Sonic Yogi - as you yourself have chided me for taking anything you say about Gaudiya Vaishnavism seriously, may I please request you to refrain from commenting on this thread. Again, my question is in regards to the Gaudiya Vaishnava conception of Shiva, and since you are by your own admission not a Gaudiya, I request you yield the thread to those more qualified than you to speak. Sant - I suspect English may not be your first language, and that is fine. But it would really help me to understand what you are saying if you could run your comments through a grammar checker before posting. I'm sorry, but I just have a hard time understanding you. Now, for Kula and other Gaudiyas, let me clarify my doubts - and I apologize if I am making you reiterate anything you have already said. Vaishnavism is distinguished by its belief in Vishnu as the Supreme Deity, in contrast to other deities who are regarded as subordinate entities. In just about all other Vaishnava traditions with which I am familiar, Shiva is NOT equated to Vishnu, and worship of Shiva, while certainly auspicious in its own way, is NOT regarded as equal in benefits to the worship of Vishnu. Now in regards to Shiva's supremacy or lack thereof vis-a-vis Vishnu, the problem that occurs in considering Shiva to be just another form of Vishnu is that the shAstras treat them as two different entities. This is so regardless of whether you are reading shruti or smriti, sAttvik vs tAmasic purAnas, etc. Hence, it seems that one must necessarily choose one or the other viewpoint - either Vishnu is supreme and the Shaivite verses are sectarian interpolation, or vice-versa. They can't both be supreme, because they are two different deities. The same logic is also used to establish the difference between jiva and brahman. We cannot simply gloss over the stated differences between Vishnu and Shiva, for then by the same logic we could also gloss over the differences between jiva and brahman and come to the conclusion of mayavada, which I am sure no one wants. My point here is that there must be consistency in the principle of interpretation. The evidence from the Bhagavata is interesting. On one hand Brahma addresses Shiva with adjectives that reference the Supreme Lord. Yet on the other hand, the same Bhagavata teaches us that Shiva came under the delusion of maya when confronted with Lord's Mohini-murthi. These two pramAnas are contradictory. He cannot be the supreme Lord and yet fall victim to maya. Strictly speaking according to Vedantic principles, one would be forced to accept only that which is consistent with shruti. If you say supreme Lord can come under illusion, then by the same logic you must accept the Advaitin's logic when he says the same about jiva being brahman under illusion, etc. If it is unacceptable to you that jiva can be the result of brahman coming under illusion, then by the same logic you cannot argue that Shiva is Vishnu coming under illusion. The point is that it is mayavada either way! I am trying to determine if there is a clear and consistent way to understand Shiva's position in the Gaudiya worldview without making obvious errors in scriptural interpretation. Perhaps there is, and perhaps there is not, but what I have seen so far leads me to believe that the Gaudiyas have endorsed contradictory viewpoints regarding Shiva, in contrast to their viewpoint about all other devatas which is that they are clearly mortals. Again, I request knowledgeable GVs to comment with specific references to pUrvAchAryas' writings on the subject. regards, Raghu

Sant, how can Shiva be "ishvara" and "demigod." This is inconsistent. Which is it? The Bhagavatam explains that Shiva became deluded by Lord's Mohini incarnation. If even Shiva can fall under the influence of maya, that how can he give liberation?

So in other words, what you are telling me is that GV's don't object to people worshipping Shiva for liberation. They only object to worshipping Shiva in the context of Advaita?

This is from the siddha-pranali thread. As a matter of good net-etiquette, I did not want to cause that thread to go off on a tangent, so I started a new one. Now my question is this - and this is primarily for Vaishnavas, since Advaitins and Neo-Advaitins may not really care one way or another. If you say Shiva is God, and that he is the same as Vishnu, they why object to Shaivism? Why object to the idea that one can worship Shiva for liberation? In this regard, Gaudiya Vaishnavism seems far less like pure Vaishnavism compared to previous traditions. But then again, I have also read repeated references to Shiva as "demigod" in the iskcon books, which makes the GV position on Shiva somewhat inconsistent.

And as is so often the case when jihadists rampage in Muslim countries, the local police did nothing. "Terrorists Attack ISKCON Temple in Chittagong, Bangladesh," from ISKCON News Weekly, On May 18, ISKCON News Weekly received a distraught message from an obviously emotional monk at ISKCON’s Nandankanan Sri Sri Gour Nitai Ashram in Chittagong, the main seaport of Bangladesh. On May 14 at 3pm, the devotee said, he and his peers were busy preparing for a weekend festival when fifty to sixty terrorists burst into the temple, brandishing knives and iron bars. They first destroyed the kitchens, devotee accommodation, and Gaura Nitai deities. Then, as the devotees ran into the temple courtyard in a panic, the attackers poured boiling water on them from the balcony, badly burning many. The terrorists also stole ten to twelve thousand taka (Bangladesh’s monetary unit) from the temple donation box, as well as a further ten thousand from individual residents. Devotees phoned the nearby police station again and again, but to no avail. “Their negligence of duty came at a terrible cost,” Chinmoydham Dasa said in his message to ISKCON News. “Many devotees were injured and had to be brought to the hospital’s emergency room.” By the time the police finally arrived, the terrorists had caused 80,000 taka worth of damage. Neither did they seem remotely intimidated by the presence of law enforcement. And it was soon clear why. When the terrorists threatened the devotees, “You must all leave now and hand the temple over to us!” the police remained silent, not voicing any defense....

No, this thread was started with the basic idea of telling the truth and setting the record straight regarding what traditional Hinduism is. Not surprisingly, the Neo-Hinduism followers do not like it because it interferes with their virtual monopoly on Hinduism dialog in the popular media. The idea that "all religious paths" are "valid paths" is incomprehensible and not accepted by any intelligent or even semi-intelligent homo sapien. Just see the stupidity of such a belief - if Islam is a "valid path," then even the suras which direct Muslims to murder non-believers are also valid. Razing Hindu temples to the ground and abducting Hindu women is also valid, as per your claims. As far as your far-fetched claim that "Hinduism accepts all religious paths as valid paths," you and I both know that this statement can only stand if you redefine "Hinduism" to include only the last 2 centuries of Neo-Vedantic free thinkers and exclude everyone previous to them. Of course, that is not what most people think of when they think "Hinduism" - hence the dishonesty in arrogating to "Hinduism" the ideas like Radical Universalism which are NOT a part of traditional Hinduism. You have previously quoted Kumarila Bhatta and his refutation of Buddhism. So, he did not accept Buddhism, as you have admitted - is he a Hindu? Your own definition of "Hinduism" is so absurd that it excludes the very Hindus you yourself have previously alluded to. Atheism and moral relativism are the logical consequences of a belief system that tells you that all religious paths are valid. Popular vote is not a measure of validity. Christianity and Islam are also very popular. Good riddance. We need to keep this thread up only for those who can have an intelligent discussion based on facts and evidence. Those who can only restate their tired old refrain over and over again need to go elsewhere.

et tu brute? The Kings of the Mahabharata war did not enslave people. Please get your facts straight before correcting the Jesus groupie. This is bunk. Let's keep the discussion focused on what is likely. Perhaps you have not grasped this yet, but Mr. "Singh" is not interested in any answers. His questions are deliberately worded so as to evoke anger and scorn. No matter what you say, he will twist it around and make it sound like his original hypothesis still holds. Imagine a guy asking questions and covering his ears while singing, "LaLaLaLaLa!" at the top of his voice - he is another Christian born-again type who thinks he has found the answers in the Bible and can only explain away the existence of superior and more intelligent belief systems if he denounces them.

Singh, or whatever your real name is. Doesn't your religion teach you that lying is a sin? Why in the name of missionary work do you misrepresent the Gita and then go on to misrepresent the statements of those who try to correct you? Does it have anything to do with the fact that Christianity is an inconsistent, unintelligible, hodge podge of ideas masquerading as a religion, and that the only way any intelligent person will give it any consideration is only if real religion is discredited first? Are you planning to explain why the Biblical god plays racial favorites, and why he conspires to murder people for little things like (a) not being circumcised, (b) being Egyptian, and © having different religious beliefs?