Gaudiya Vaishnavism queries and discussion thread.

[Terese]

namaskaram Chakra ji



Brahma , Visnu and Siva are in some respects nondifferent to the supreme in that they are expansions , Brahma ji however has fulfilled his duty thus we tend to overlook him Shiva ji from the vaisnava perspective still pays a vital role , ..as the lords greatest devotee , ....may I paste a story commonly told amongst Gaudiyas , ....by Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja , ...

Once, the great sage Narada Muni traveled to the abode of Lord Siva and began to glorify him, saying, "You are very near and dear to the Supreme Lord Krsna. Not only that, you are Krsna's manifestation; you are non-different from Him. You can give liberation and also Krsna-prema, the rare jewel of transcendental love for Krsna."


Hearing Narada glorify him in numerous ways, Lord Siva became angry and said, "Your glorification of me is false. I am not at all dear to Sri Krsna." Lord Siva is actually most dear to Sri Krsna, and therefore Krsna can give him services which He cannot give anyone else. When the demigods and demons were churning the Milk Ocean in order to obtain the nectar of immortality, the first substance produced was a powerful and dangerous poison, burning the entire world. The demigods appealed to Sri Krsna, and He advised them to request Lord Siva to drink the poison. Thus, they worshiped Lord Siva and prayed, "Please save us! Only you can protect us!" Lord Siva collected the poison and took it in his mouth, but he hesitated to swallow it, considering, "Lord Krsna is in my heart. The poison will affect Him." He therefore kept the poison in his throat, which was burned, and his neck turned the color blue.


Now, out of genuine humility, Lord Siva told Narada: "I want to be His beloved devotee, but actually I am not. You know that I always wear ashes from the burial grounds, and a garland of skulls. All my associates are ghosts and witches, so I am not qualified to be Krsna's dear devotee. If I am so dear to Him, why would He have ordered me to engage with the mode of ignorance in the terrible function of destroying of the universe? ....however Narada Muni said , "Master, please don't try to mislead me'' , '' I know that whatever you do is to please Lord Krsna and to assist Him in His pastimes, for the benefit of all beings'' .




Adi Sesha is an epansion of the supreme appearing as one of the lords eternal associates ,as the shelter and resting place of Narayana , as Laxman who stood guard over Lord Rama whilst he slept in the forest , similarly he came as Balarama and Baladeva ,as he gave shelter to lord Narayana and Lord rama also he gave shelter to Lord Buddha whilst he sat in meditation under the Boddhi Tree , he came as Ramanujachariya again to give shelter to Narayana , and as Nityananda , the support of Lord Chaitanya , ....

Garuda prehaps is seen in a different light , ....as the mount of lord Visnu , the embodiment of the Vedas and the servant of Lord Krsna , ...who granted him imortality , ....

Isn't Narada a devotee of Vishnu?

 

[kalyan]

, out of genuine humility, Lord Siva told Narada: "I want to be His beloved devotee, but actually I am not. You know that I always wear ashes from the burial grounds, and a garland of skulls. All my associates are ghosts and witches, so I

This is actually an insult for Maha Siva...These stories are injected stuff by ISKCON. No valid pramana talks about this stories...Point me one....Siva only wears skulls at the time when he cuts off Brahma deva's head and does the aparAdham....Siva comes out of Brahma's anger and hence he is called rudra and also he cries looking at brahmas 4 heads (rOdhanath ithi rudra) and takes off one and from there as instructed by Brahma, he begs until Sri Maha Vishnu gives him the alms, then the brahma head which is stuck to his hand comes off....Later rudra becomes siva (mangaLakAri)..His associates are not ghosts but bhoota gaNas, bhoota means one that exists, u r a bhootam and i am a bhootam too....It seems to me now, gaudiyas have lots of edited stuff from non valid authorities

 

[Aupmanyav]

So, the Shiva who drank the poison was not Rudra-Shiva, but Sada-Shiva?

I think that is true because Rudra-Siva is Aryan. Please carry on.

Isn't Narada a devotee of Vishnu?

Yes, Sage Narada is a devotee of Lord Vishnu as well as of Lord Shiva. Narada's world was not divided by the various sampradayas of Vaishnavism. That came later.

Aup what is that?

That is one of the most beautiful temples in India, when Indian stone-carving reached its zenith.

At that time, the garland would have been unbroken and hanging like what you see between the legs of the lady, all carved out of one block of stone.
https://www.google.co.in/search?q=chennakesava+temple&newwindow=1&rlz=1C1LENP_enIN576IN576&espv=2&biw=1455&bih=705&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjK--jw1f3JAhXXA44KHRnzCZEQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=K12VcUdzgPh4pM:

 

[kalyan]

Isn't Narada a devotee of Vishnu?

Well...these are all injected stories of ISKCON and their associates....

 

[kalyan]

I think that is true because Rudra-Siva is Aryan. Please carry on.

Oh aup you should stop your aryan mythologies...every sane person knows it is bull...idk why do u want to remain in a delusion. Arya describes a person who sees past and future and applies to present, the ones who established sampradayam, the rishis , the Alwars are all aryas

 

[निताइ dasa]

<delete line>

the sampradaya is accepting some stuff from vedas but rejecting other stuff and inserting as they like which is the problem.

Edit: I respect all sampradayas but a vaishnava sampradaya in which slokas are attributed to Siva is illogical to say the least and the last verse is much worse, this one below :

shri-rama govinda mukunda saure, shri-krsna narayana vasudeva
ity adi-namamta-pana-matta-bhngadhipayakhila-duhkha-hantre 18

"`O Shri Rama! O Govinda! O Mukunda! O Sauri! O Shri Krishna! O Narayana! O Vasudeva!' I offer my obeisances unto you, Shri Siva, who are the monarch ruling over all the bee-like devotees who are mad to drink the nectar of these and other innumerable names of Hari, and who thus destroys all grief."

I understand completely that is a gaudiya thread but questions are always asked if you or i need to spiritually progress and it will make you explore more about the corresponding sampradaya. dont take offense ......

Oh Hari Hari!!! I finally get your point. Yes, I completely agree with you here. The english translation of the shloka is not that clear, sorry. Its my fault I did not read the english translation before I posted. I apologise. It is not attributed to Shiva, but rather the verse is saying that Shivji is always in the mood of the devotee singing names like "Rama, Govinda Mukunda etc". We are not actually equating him with Sri Narayan as that is a big aparadha. Just like yogurt can never be called milk, similarity, Shivji generally cannot be called Bhagavan Tattva. If you look at the sanskrit, it says "ity adi namanta pana" or "Shivjo is relishing these names (of the Lord), like a bee". Again I think is may be a misunderstanding on this verse, we are not calling Shivaji these names of Narayan, but rather Lord Shiva at every moment is singing "Rama, Govinda" and other names of Lord Hari.

 

[Chakra]

I think that is true because Rudra-Siva is Aryan. Please carry on.

I have no clue what this has to do with Aryans.

 

[kalyan]

I have no clue what this has to do with Aryans.

Haha

 

[निताइ dasa]

Well...these are all injected stories of ISKCON and their associates....

Prabhuji, this story is from Chaitanya Mangala, which is an authorized biography (to us) of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Please do not take offense, but we consider this pastime to be authentic because it was written by Srila Locana das Thakura, our previous acharaya. You don't have to accept that is fine. Again whatever is revealed by Acharayas we call Veda. That is the faith in our Guru Parampara. Valid pramana is that which is spoken by Sri Guru and parampara, not that which is simply picked up and read. I mean, if we want to talk about valid pramana, then why do you reject the various proofs given in Shastra which confirm the divinity of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as Narayana? It is because your Acharayas have not said so (though pranama is there), and hence you reject. Similarly, we accept Lord Chaitanya, as Narayan Himself (as per the proofs of the Bhagavatam) and therefore this stories become authoritative for us. Nitai!

 

[kalyan]

Prabhuji, this story is from Chaitanya Mangala, which is an authorized biography (to us) of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Please do not take offense, but we consider this pastime to be authentic because it was written by Srila Locana das Thakura, our previous acharaya. You don't have to accept that is fine. Again whatever is revealed by Acharayas we call Veda. That is the faith in our Guru Parampara.

@Nitai dasa i completely understand and agree, this is like a different writings altogether...its ok as long as the eternal vedam and its supporting angas are not tampered with some stories that were dreamt by some author to glorify even Krushna...All 3 of the acharya trayam from shankara echoed the same, as vedas are shabda pramana, they exist the same as they did millions of years ago. Nothing goes beyond vedam, if BG is against vedam (which it is not), then BG can be rejected...That is the authority they ordain...Your postings of sada siva amd the posts by ratikala and events of sAgara mathanam as was described by ratikala is not there in any vedam or veda angas...If one writes as he wishes without any authority, its complete chaos...I understand your thing but at the same time it should not touch or inject falsism into established valid authorities

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have no clue what this has to do with Aryans.

There was no Rudra in India, only Siva. Just like Vishnu, Rudra came with the Aryans.

"Shivji is relishing these names (of the Lord), like a bee"

Sure Shivji is relishing the names of Narayana just like I relish the names of my brother. We had Krishna, Rama, Parashurama, Vamana, Nrisimha, Varaha, Kachapa and Matsya.

 

[निताइ dasa]

This is actually an insult for Maha Siva...These stories are injected stuff by ISKCON. No valid pramana talks about this stories...Point me one....Siva only wears skulls at the time when he cuts off Brahma deva's head and does the aparAdham....Siva comes out of Brahma's anger and hence he is called rudra and also he cries looking at brahmas 4 heads (rOdhanath ithi rudra) and takes off one and from there as instructed by Brahma, he begs until Sri Maha Vishnu gives him the alms, then the brahma head which is stuck to his hand comes off....Later rudra becomes siva (mangaLakAri)..His associates are not ghosts but bhoota gaNas, bhoota means one that exists, u r a bhootam and i am a bhootam too....It seems to me now, gaudiyas have lots of edited stuff from non valid authorities

Here you are, some proof from Bhagavatam (4.2.14-15):

pretāvāseṣu ghoreṣu
pretair bhūta-gaṇair vṛtaḥ
aṭaty unmattavan nagno
vyupta-keśo hasan rudan
citā-bhasma-kṛta-snānaḥ
preta-sraṅ-nrasthi-bhūṣaṇaḥ
śivāpadeśo hy aśivo
matto matta-jana-priyaḥ
patiḥ pramatha-nāthānāṁ
tamo-mātrātmakātmanām

"He (Shiva) lives in filthy places like crematoriums, and his companions are the ghosts and demons. Naked like a madman, sometimes laughing and sometimes crying, he smears crematorium ashes all over his body. He does not bathe regularly, and he ornaments his body with a garland of skulls and bones. Therefore only in name is he Śiva, or auspicious; actually, he is the most mad and inauspicious creature. Thus he is very dear to crazy beings in the gross mode of ignorance, and he is their leader."

However this is never an offense against Lord Shiva. Though a Vaishnav may appear to be performing the most degrading things, still He is concidered to be very exalted and pure, as per BG:

api cet su-duracaro
bhajate mam ananya-bhak
sadhur eva sa mantavyah
samyag vyavasito hi sah

"If even a man of abominable character engages in My exclusive bhajana, he is to be considered a sadhu, due to his being properly situated in his determination"

Though Lord Siva does descend in tamo guna, still He is considered above them because he is a Vaishnav.

 

[निताइ dasa]

@Nitai dasa i completely understand and agree, this is like a different writings altogether...its ok as long as the eternal vedam and its supporting angas are not tampered with some stories that were dreamt by some author to glorify even Krushna...All 3 of the acharya trayam from shankara echoed the same, as vedas are shabda pramana, they exist the same as they did millions of years ago. Nothing goes beyond vedam, if BG is against vedam (which it is not), then BG can be rejected...That is the authority they ordain...Your postings of sada siva amd the posts by ratikala and events of sAgara mathanam as was described by ratikala is not there in any vedam or veda angas...If one writes as he wishes without any authority, its complete chaos...I understand your thing but at the same time it should not touch or inject falsism into established valid authorities

Haribol, and we respect your great faith with the Vedas. I think we fundementally differ on this, so further debate would be anti-productive. For us, we accept the highest validity of Srimad Bhagavatam, because for us, even the Vedas and its anga should not be read without the support of the Bhagavatam. Srila Jiva Goswami says that a great portion of the Vedas have been lost to us, while Srimad Bhagavatam is all intact (all 18000 verses are there due to Sridhara Svami's commentary). Again I have posted by we accept SB as praman amalam. For us it is "nigama kalpa taror amrtam phalam" (the fully ripened fruit of the Vedas). Anyway, who are we to call certain things authoritative or not. I mean if this philosophy (of proof based primarily on sruti) was established by Adi Sankaracharya, then we Gaudiya Vaishnavs reject it as we also reject his Kevala-Adwaita Vada, in accordance with a injunctions in Padma Purana regarding him.

Nothing Ratikalaji has said contradicts with the Bhagavatam (if they do please point it out kindly). Even the story of the Samudra Manthan is in accordance with the Bhagavatam, so I don't understand the point you are bringing here. Our Acharayas have simply expanded the meaning, not contradicted it. This is done by all major schools, when they write their commentaries. Anyway let us agree to disagree here. Nitai!

 

[Chakra]

There was no Rudra in India, only Siva. Rudra came with the Aryans.

Heh.

@Nitai-Dasji, what is the general view of Gaudiyas on Adi Shankara? Do you consider him a Vaishnava or no?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Prabhupada said 'a demon'.
Anyone not worshiping Lord Vishnu exclusively for Vaishnavas is either demonish, or at their most liberal, an 'ajnani', absolutely wrong, as Tattva informs me.

 

[Pavank]

I feel god is merely a belief.

 

[Terese]

I think that is true because Rudra-Siva is Aryan. Please carry on. Yes, Sage Narada is a devotee of Lord Vishnu as well as of Lord Shiva. Narada's world was not divided by the various sampradayas of Vaishnavism. That came later. That is one of the most beautiful temples in India, when Indian stone-carving reached its zenith.

At that time, the garland would have been unbroken and hanging like what you see between the legs of the lady, all carved out of one block of stone.
https://www.google.co.in/search?q=chennakesava+temple&newwindow=1&rlz=1C1LENP_enIN576IN576&espv=2&biw=1455&bih=705&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjK--jw1f3JAhXXA44KHRnzCZEQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=K12VcUdzgPh4pM:

I'd love to go to that temple

Prabhupada said 'a demon'.
Anyone not worshiping Lord Vishnu exclusively for Vaishnavas is either demonish, or at their most liberal, an 'ajnani', absolutely wrong, as Tattva informs me.

Aren't Saivites like that also? And i'd never say anything negative to Shiva or Durga, or Ganesha or Murugan or their worshipers.

 

[Terese]

I feel god is merely a belief.

Brahman is much much more than that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Aren't Saivites like that also? And i'd never say anything negative to Shiva or Durga, or Ganesha or Murugan or their worshipers.

Normally, Shaivas are not bitten by that 'exclusivity' bug. Sure, Shiva is their 'ishta', but they are equally respectful of Vishnu and his avataras.

I'd love to go to that temple

There is another in close vicinity, Helebidu. That is a Shiva temple, Kedareshvara. Just 28 kms. Both places were capitals of Hoysala emperors at different times.

https://www.google.co.in/search?q=Halebidu&newwindow=1&rlz=1C2LENP_enIN576IN576&biw=1455&bih=705&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjiz7iDlP7JAhWDCo4KHZLwCZ0QsAQINQ#imgrc=LwxBvgHgDcNjkM:

Gravity pillar at Helebidu. This is just placed on a platform and not fixed in ground, and has been standing for a thousand years.

 

[Terese]

Normally, Shaivas are not bitten by that 'exclusivity' bug. Sure, Shiva is their 'ishta', but they are equally respectful of Vishnu and his avataras.

That's an unfortunate side of Vaishnavism.