07-21-2005, 07:29 PM
I didn't want to dignify this thread with a response, but this one is too much to resist. <b>gangajal</b>, you have put your foot in your mouth again:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Advaita view that Shiva and Vishnu are all different names of Brahman leads to harmony among different Hindu sects.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Advaita"? You mean NEO-Advaita! Let's see what Shankara has to say about confusing Shiva with Vishnu. I cross-post from the article I posted on the "who is a Hindu?" thread:
----------
"<b>[Neo-Vedanta] fails to recognize the partial Vaisnava character of even Sankara's major commentaries by proposing that the deities Kali and Siva are also complete aspects of Brahman, in addition to Visnu.</b> However, <b>in his unquestionably authentic works, Sankara only identifies God (isvara) as Visnu, rather than as any other deity. In his Gita commentary (13.2), isvara is identified with Visnu: isvarasya visnoh. Another identification occurs in Vedanta-sutra 2.2.42, where he accepts the Pancaratra teaching that Narayana is 'higher than the undeveloped, the highest Self and the Self of all' and is the source of innumerable expansions.</b> (See also similar acknowledgements in his comments to Vedanta-sutra 1.4.1, 1.4.3 and Gita 15.6.) The same idea is repeatedly expressed in his exaltation of Visnu's abode as the pure highest place (paramam padam) and as the end of the spiritual journey.[21] <b>Even his commentary to the Svetasvatara Upanisad, with its usage of the names 'Siva' and 'Hara', does not make any identification of Isvara with the deity Siva. Furthermore, in his Vedanta commentary, Sankara refutes certain concepts of ancient Pasupata (Saiva) schools. Therefore, [neo-Vedanta's] presentation of Sankara acknowledging an equality of various deities is misleading.</b>"
-------------
Just like neo-Buddhists make a mockery of the Buddha's teachings, the neo-Vedantins and neo-Advaitins have made a concoction of various nonsense and have tried to plagiarize the reputations of great teachers and philosophies. <b>Neo-Vedanta misrepresents Shankara as much as it misrepresents true Vaishnavism.</b> A lack of "harmony" always exists between ignorant people. Artificial harmony is not achieved by twisting eternal shruti out of shape, because ignorant people will always find other reasons to fight.
<b>And here's what Vaishnavism has to say about Lord Shiva:</b>
Since difference is a property inherent in Brahman itself (rather than something relative to it), therefore, difference percolates to every aspect of the Absolute, and has several levels of ramification. Therefore, Brahman has variegatedness as a matter of property. So while the Supreme Purusha certainly has innumerable forms (such as Narayana, Pradyumna, etc), which are compared to different phases of the One Moon, Shiva-tattva is a different CATEGORY in itself. Shiva is not an ordinary deva, but is a combination of vaikarika, taijasa and tamasa.
It is meaningless to speak in terms of "superior" and "inferior" in the mundane sense of the terms. But in terms of relationship with Shiva versus relationship with Vishnu, there are certain differences. Shiva has two types of kripa -- nishkapata-kripa and sakapata-kripa. This is double-edged. <b>A devotee who worships Shiva with a heart completely free of any material contamination achieves pure Vaishnava-bhakti. Therefore, exalted Vaishnavas have ALWAYS paid obeisances to Lord Shiva, and have obtained ecstatic Love of God. However, on the other side, Shiva also dispenses what SEEM like material benedictions to materially contaminated persons (including asuras).</b> These benedictions result in material powers and opulence, <b>but spiritually-speaking they are totally destructive.</b> Therefore, unless one is an uttama-adhikari, Vaishnavas consider it "risky" to worship Lord Shiva, because they fear their own hearts are not pure enough. <b>However, the worship of Vishnu is Absolute, and not relative. Any call to Lord Hari will be answered in a spiritually positive direction.</b> Contrary to the former case, Krishna gives the devotee what he NEEDS (for spiritual progress), and not what he ASKS for. That's why Krishna often says that he actually takes away everything material from His closest devotees, just to increase their love and dependence on Him. <b>Whereas Shiva (known as Ashutosha), responds relative to what is in the worshipper's mind. This double-edged, relative nature of Shiva's reciprocation is the reason why Shiva says about Himself, that He helps to separate the devotees from the non-devotees.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Advaita view that Shiva and Vishnu are all different names of Brahman leads to harmony among different Hindu sects.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Advaita"? You mean NEO-Advaita! Let's see what Shankara has to say about confusing Shiva with Vishnu. I cross-post from the article I posted on the "who is a Hindu?" thread:
----------
"<b>[Neo-Vedanta] fails to recognize the partial Vaisnava character of even Sankara's major commentaries by proposing that the deities Kali and Siva are also complete aspects of Brahman, in addition to Visnu.</b> However, <b>in his unquestionably authentic works, Sankara only identifies God (isvara) as Visnu, rather than as any other deity. In his Gita commentary (13.2), isvara is identified with Visnu: isvarasya visnoh. Another identification occurs in Vedanta-sutra 2.2.42, where he accepts the Pancaratra teaching that Narayana is 'higher than the undeveloped, the highest Self and the Self of all' and is the source of innumerable expansions.</b> (See also similar acknowledgements in his comments to Vedanta-sutra 1.4.1, 1.4.3 and Gita 15.6.) The same idea is repeatedly expressed in his exaltation of Visnu's abode as the pure highest place (paramam padam) and as the end of the spiritual journey.[21] <b>Even his commentary to the Svetasvatara Upanisad, with its usage of the names 'Siva' and 'Hara', does not make any identification of Isvara with the deity Siva. Furthermore, in his Vedanta commentary, Sankara refutes certain concepts of ancient Pasupata (Saiva) schools. Therefore, [neo-Vedanta's] presentation of Sankara acknowledging an equality of various deities is misleading.</b>"
-------------
Just like neo-Buddhists make a mockery of the Buddha's teachings, the neo-Vedantins and neo-Advaitins have made a concoction of various nonsense and have tried to plagiarize the reputations of great teachers and philosophies. <b>Neo-Vedanta misrepresents Shankara as much as it misrepresents true Vaishnavism.</b> A lack of "harmony" always exists between ignorant people. Artificial harmony is not achieved by twisting eternal shruti out of shape, because ignorant people will always find other reasons to fight.
<b>And here's what Vaishnavism has to say about Lord Shiva:</b>
Since difference is a property inherent in Brahman itself (rather than something relative to it), therefore, difference percolates to every aspect of the Absolute, and has several levels of ramification. Therefore, Brahman has variegatedness as a matter of property. So while the Supreme Purusha certainly has innumerable forms (such as Narayana, Pradyumna, etc), which are compared to different phases of the One Moon, Shiva-tattva is a different CATEGORY in itself. Shiva is not an ordinary deva, but is a combination of vaikarika, taijasa and tamasa.
It is meaningless to speak in terms of "superior" and "inferior" in the mundane sense of the terms. But in terms of relationship with Shiva versus relationship with Vishnu, there are certain differences. Shiva has two types of kripa -- nishkapata-kripa and sakapata-kripa. This is double-edged. <b>A devotee who worships Shiva with a heart completely free of any material contamination achieves pure Vaishnava-bhakti. Therefore, exalted Vaishnavas have ALWAYS paid obeisances to Lord Shiva, and have obtained ecstatic Love of God. However, on the other side, Shiva also dispenses what SEEM like material benedictions to materially contaminated persons (including asuras).</b> These benedictions result in material powers and opulence, <b>but spiritually-speaking they are totally destructive.</b> Therefore, unless one is an uttama-adhikari, Vaishnavas consider it "risky" to worship Lord Shiva, because they fear their own hearts are not pure enough. <b>However, the worship of Vishnu is Absolute, and not relative. Any call to Lord Hari will be answered in a spiritually positive direction.</b> Contrary to the former case, Krishna gives the devotee what he NEEDS (for spiritual progress), and not what he ASKS for. That's why Krishna often says that he actually takes away everything material from His closest devotees, just to increase their love and dependence on Him. <b>Whereas Shiva (known as Ashutosha), responds relative to what is in the worshipper's mind. This double-edged, relative nature of Shiva's reciprocation is the reason why Shiva says about Himself, that He helps to separate the devotees from the non-devotees.</b>