This take on Lord Shiva is interesting

[Jainarayan]

Shiva and Durga

Shiva works for the benefit of everyone, and tries to help the living beings make spiritual advancement. This is why he has his own line of disciplic succession. This is also why he says to the sons of King Pracinibarhi, “Any person who is surrendered to the Supreme Personality of God, Lord Krishna, the controller of everything, is very dear to me.”1

...

“A person who is directly surrendered to Lord Krishna, or Vishnu, in unalloyed devotional service is immediately promoted to the spiritual planets. I, Lord Shiva, and other demigods attain these planets only after the destruction of the material world. You are all devotees of the Lord, and as such I appreciate that you are as respectable as the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself. I know in this way that the devotees also respect me and that I am dear to them. Thus no one can be as dear to the devotees as I am.”2

In this way, a devotee of Krishna does not disrespect Lord Shiva, but worships him as the greatest of devotees of Lord Krishna. A Krishna bhakta also prays to Lord Shiva, but asks Shiva to assist him in attaining the favor of Lord Krishna, and not merely for material benefits. As we find in the Tulasi Ramayana (Uttara-Kanda, Doha 45), Lord Rama says “With joined palms I lay before you another secret doctrine: without adoring Sankara (Lord Shiva) man cannot attain devotion to Me.” So in this way, Shiva can assist us in attaining devotion to Lord Krishna and His expansions.

CHAPTER NOTES
1. Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.24.22-28
2. Ibid., 4.24.29-30

 

[Gaura Priya]

Praying to the demigods is generally not recommended for Vaishnavas who desire pure love of God as opposed to material benefits and fulfillment of material desires in this material world, however we can pray to the demigods for assistance.

Lord Shiva is the greatest Vaishnava, and thus his position is very high. Even in Gaudiya Vaishnava literatures such as the Brahma-samhita, his loka stands between the material worlds and the spiritual worlds. We respect him and give him proper obeisances, but do not worship him as the Supreme as Lord Vishnu's position.

Every year, we have a little festival of Shivaratri dedicated to Lord Shiva. Otherwise, Lord Shiva, who is the greatest of the demigods, is supremely pleased in our devotion to Lord Krishna. By seeing Lord Shiva and the demigods in their proper respects, as well as giving them due worship as accord to pure Vaishnavas, their benedictions can aid us in our love for God.

Lord Shiva himself says in Padma Purana:

aradhananam sarvesham, vishnur aradhanam param
tasmat parantaram devi tadiyanam samarchanam

"Lord Siva told the Goddess Durga, 'My dear Devi, although the Vedas mention the worship of the demigods, the worship of Lord Vishnu is topmost and is ultimately recommended. However above the worship of Lord Vishnu is the rendering of service to Vaisnavas who are related to Lord Vishnu."

Literally, of all the forms of worship, the highest is the worship of Lord Vishnu. But even higher than the worship of Vishnu is the worship of the servants of Lord Vishnu.

All pure Vaishnavas are highly worshippable, and thus Lord Shiva is a pure devotee of the Lord.

 

[Jainarayan]

I didn't know this before (praying to Lord Shiva for assistance in worshipping Krishna). I think he's emphasizing assistance from Lord Shiva to become a more devoted devotee. Stephen Knapp has a definite Vaishnava leaning.

The local temple which is primarily a Vaishnava temple holds abishekams to Lord Shiva, Lord Ganesha and Maa Durga. They celebrate Shivaratri and Durga Puja. I suppose this is in honor of Lord Shiva's devotion to Lord Vishnu.

This is the telling sentence: So in this way, Shiva can assist us in attaining devotion to Lord Krishna and His expansions.

Lord Shiva to Maa Parvati:
Sri Rama Rama Rameti Rame Rame manorame
Sahasranama tattulyam Rama nama Varanane.

"O lovely faced-woman, saying the name of Rama is equal to the 1,000 names of Vishnu."

 

[DreadFish]

From my understanding, certain Vaishnava sects (specifically Krishna oriented) have propagated this idea to subjugate Shiva to the position of demigod, while also having Shiva himself claim to be a demigod and devotee to Krishna. There has long been struggles between Vaishnavas and Shaivites as to which form of God is the supreme. Likewise, both have texts that claim their form of God is the supreme Brahman. Its a bit like "he said, she said" in my opinion.

On the other hand, other texts used by both Vaishnavas and Shaivites have illustrated that Shiva is a devotee of Vishnu and Vishnu is a devotee of Shiva. Thats where the Rama quote comes in. Ultimately, Shiva and Vishnu are the same, and not separate different devas in varied positions of power or worthiness of worship. Vishnu and Shiva are one.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

In the Mahabhrata the Lord Krishna gives us the 1000 names of Shiva. If you read the Siva Sahasranama there is no way you can see the Lord Siva as anything less then the Supreme Lord.Unless of course you just change the meanings.

Here are just a few of the names Krishna gives Siva.

-Atman of all

-Creator of all

-Universal being

- Pervades the whole universe

- Unborn

-Ultimate realization

Some call Vishnu Ishvara to others it is Siva. All depends what path you follow.

Jai Maa

 

[atanu]

Shiva and Durga

Stephen represents a viewpoint. Sadashiva, as per scriptures, is the foundation of all viewpoints and guides brahmA to the correct viewpoint.

Mahanarayana Upanishad

XXI-1: May the Supreme who is the ruler of all knowledge, controller of all created beings, the preserver of the Vedas and the one overlord of Hiranyagarbha, be benign to me. I am the Sadasiva described thus and denoted by Pranava.​

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Of coarse The Lalita Trisati ( from the Brhamanda Purana) says that both Vishnu and Siva suckle the breast of the Divine Mother because she is the Supreme Lord of all.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Mahanarayana Upanishad

XXI-1: May the Supreme who is the ruler of all knowledge, controller of all created beings, the preserver of the Vedas and the one overlord of Hiranyagarbha, be benign to me. I am the Sadasiva described thus and denoted by Pranava.​

Nice Quote

 

[atanu]

Of coarse The Lalita Trisati says that both Vishnu and Siva suckle the breast of the Divine Mother because she is the Supreme Lord of all.

That is true. The Supreme Being, who is nameless and who is without a second cannot appear as many without the shakti.

But Lalita Trisati is not about the shatkti but is about the Supreme Being as Mother of All. Similarly, Supreme Being is Father of All; Maintainer of All; and Liberator of All.

Shruti speaks of these aspects. At the time of Moksha, however, it is said that only the auspicious Atman Is.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

That is true. The Supreme Being, who is nameless and who is without a second cannot appear as many without the shakti.

But Lalita Trisati is not about the shatkti but is about the Supreme Being as Mother of All. Similarly, Supreme Being is Father of All; Maintainer of All; and Liberator of All.

Shruti speaks of these aspects. At the time of Moksha, however, it is said that only the auspicious Atman Is.

Well said!

 

[Gaura Priya]

There are also points in the Vedic literatures to support a Vaishnava standpoint, and that Narayana is described as the Supreme.


eko ha vai narayana asin na brahma neshanah

"In the beginning of creation there was only the Supreme Personality, Narayana, and there was no existence of Brahma or Shiva."
-- Maha Upanishad


"I shall now describe to you in brief that ultimate truth that all the Vedas have repeatedly described as the supreme object of attainment. That abode of Vishnu (the all-pervading Paramatma, Vasudeva) is the only supreme destination."
-- Katha Upanishad 1.3.9


The Vaishnavas and the Shaivas have been at it for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. It is for this reason that I respect Shaivism and see both Shaivism and Vaishnavism as verily separate religions that merely share the same terminology.

Dreadfish, I respect your opinion, and respectfully disagree. But at least we can all be muddled into one hullabaloo of Hinduism together.

 

[Jainarayan]

Stephen represents a viewpoint. Sadashiva, as per scriptures, is the foundation of all viewpoints and guides brahmA to the correct viewpoint.

True, it's a viewpoint. Consider all the various schools and acharyas and interpretations. Interesting stuff. Is Sadashiva the Shaiva equivalent to Krishna's Universal Form?

 

[atanu]

True, it's a viewpoint. Consider all the various schools and acharyas and interpretations. Interesting stuff. Is Sadashiva the Shaiva equivalent to Krishna's Universal Form?

Sadashiva is universal veda teaching and not a particular shaiva view, as far as i know, since the reference of sadashiva that i cited is from a samanya (general) upanishad, which is not a view really being a sruti.

Sadashiva is said to be the peace, the blissful whole being without any division that one can sense at the silent end of AUM. Some upanishads also call this Vishnu. Veda calls Rudra Vishnave. So, to me Sadashiva is not other than Vishnu. Upanishads say that the universe is Peace. Krishna's universal form is kAla form wherein all are bound to be destroyed. So, this is the world soul, after the conception of the Universe. But Shri Krishna Himself teaches:

Gita

Yo maamajamanaadim cha vetti lokamaheshwaram;
Asammoodhah sa martyeshu sarvapaapaih pramuchyate.

10. 3. He who knows Me as unborn and beginningless, as the great Lord of the worlds, he, among mortals, is undeluded; he is liberated from all sins.

The unborn maheswaram are not many and world disappears and emerges in/of this.

Mandukya Upanishad calls this Turiya, the fourth, beyond the three experiential states of Waking, Dreaming, and Sleeping:

Mandukya Upanishad

12. That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious (shiva) and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/vedanta-dir/109924-mandukya-upanishad-text.html​

..................

Once one assigns a anthropomorphic characters to Deities, then the single indivisible nature of Self gets hidden.

 

[atanu]

I think in Shaiva theistic view, parashiva and parashakti are higher than sadashiva.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

"I shall now describe to you in brief that ultimate truth that all the Vedas have repeatedly described as the supreme object of attainment. That abode of Vishnu (the all-pervading Paramatma, Vasudeva) is the only supreme destination."

-- Katha Upanishad 1.3.9

Yes the Vedas and the Upanishad teach many different views. There is not just one point of view taught from the Vedas. All groups and sects can find there beliefs and Ideas supported in the Texts. This has been the way the religion of the Indian Subcontinent from before recorded history. And, still is today

The Vaishnavas and the Shaiva's have been at it for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. It is for this reason that I respect Shaivism and see both Shaivism and Vaishnavism as verily separate religions that merely share the same terminology.

The fighting and violence started after the Abrahamic Religions conquered India. Before this point, folks argued, held differing views, but did not fight or kill (as a general comment). Even with in the Vaishnava community you find Advaita that are closer to Sankara then Madhva. Many of the most important places of pilgrimage for you followers of Vishnu were set up by Adi Sankaracara himself.(Badrinath is just on of the many examples of this fact) It was this impersonalist (thats what many have falsely identified him as) who event set up the puja in these spots that are still used today.I went to a very old temple of Vishnu in Orissa and all the Vaishnava community told me they were followers of Sankara. It is not so easy to dichotomize the sects of Hinduism.

 

[atanu]

There are also points in the Vedic literatures to support a Vaishnava standpoint, and that Narayana is described as the Supreme.
eko ha vai narayana asin na brahma neshanah
"In the beginning of creation there was only the Supreme Personality, Narayana, and there was no existence of Brahma or Shiva."
-- Maha Upanishad

Esha sarvesvara is the third Pada, the prajna and it is not shiva, who is the chathurtam, the turya.

"I shall now describe to you in brief that ultimate truth that all the Vedas have repeatedly described as the supreme object of attainment. That abode of Vishnu (the all-pervading Paramatma, Vasudeva) is the only supreme destination."
-- Katha Upanishad 1.3.9

1-III-9. But the man who has a discriminating intellect as his driver, and a controlled-mind as the reins, reaches the end of the path – that supreme state of Vishnu.​

Yes. Everyone's ultimate abode is all pervading Paramatma only.

 

[DreadFish]

There are also points in the Vedic literatures to support a Vaishnava standpoint, and that Narayana is described as the Supreme.


eko ha vai narayana asin na brahma neshanah

"In the beginning of creation there was only the Supreme Personality, Narayana, and there was no existence of Brahma or Shiva."
-- Maha Upanishad


"I shall now describe to you in brief that ultimate truth that all the Vedas have repeatedly described as the supreme object of attainment. That abode of Vishnu (the all-pervading Paramatma, Vasudeva) is the only supreme destination."
-- Katha Upanishad 1.3.9


The Vaishnavas and the Shaivas have been at it for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. It is for this reason that I respect Shaivism and see both Shaivism and Vaishnavism as verily separate religions that merely share the same terminology.

Dreadfish, I respect your opinion, and respectfully disagree. But at least we can all be muddled into one hullabaloo of Hinduism together.

I think you're still attached to forms.

Yes, they come from different religions, its said that the Aryans brought what became Vaishnavism, and the indigenous peoples of south India had what would become Shaivism.

They are both talking about the supreme, they both have different names and forms. Who was right? The deities mentioned in the vedas werent exactly what they are considered now, some of them had different images, names, or forms. Shiva wasnt mentioned as the deva Shiva that we know now, rather Rudra was described as "shiva" (auspicious).

They are just names and forms, the vedas were not to be taken literally and were written symbolically after all.

 

[DreadFish]

1-III-9. But the man who has a discriminating intellect as his driver, and a controlled-mind as the reins, reaches the end of the path – that supreme state of Vishnu.​

Yes. Everyone's ultimate abode is all pervading Paramatma only.

Exactly. The word/name Vishnu simply means "all pervading," likewise the devas are symbolic in their way and so are their names.

You know like, God is Vishnu and Shiva (all pervading and auspicious). I think we can agree that ultimately, the supreme Brahman is both these, and neither of these, given that the supreme Brahman is beyond all pervasiveness or auspiciousness.

 

[atanu]

Exactly. The word/name Vishnu simply means "all pervading," likewise the devas are symbolic in their way and so are their names.

You know like, God is Vishnu and Shiva (all pervading and auspicious). I think we can agree that ultimately, the supreme Brahman is both these, and neither of these, given that the supreme Brahman is beyond all pervasiveness or auspiciousness.

There are many layers with layer specific truths. The non dual truth is said to be sadashiva (all good) since attaining that is the only good. It is also all pervading since it is before All and All subsist in it.

That my layer of course.

 

[Jainarayan]

Thanks everyone. Too much reading is not good, I suppose. Just go with what's in your heart and don't question or think too deeply or over-analyze.