I find that the LJA audio recordings for Swamiji’s Bhagavad-gita and Paramarthasara are supremely potent and are like samadhi in a bottle. I find it interesting that these were recorded at the end of his life when his realization of oneness with Parabhairava had reached its peak.
In all honesty though all of Swamiji’s recordings are supremely potent.
They bestow floods of ananda.
Do any practitioners here feel it important to represent the lineage by wearing traditional attire? Perhaps some feel it important to represent Shaivism via visual representation. Trishul, jewelry, necklaces, etc.
If so what do you wear? Pheran, dhoti, kurta, chadar, etc?
Where Utpala doesn’t want moksha, nor even to be Shiva’s worshipper. Utpala just wants the intoxication of love.
Tangentially, as a Shaiva, I adopt that worldview in my own way. I don’t care if others believe in God or not. Jesus or Krishna. I don’t care if others offer a ghee lamp clockwise or counterclockwise. I just want love in my heart. (And I hope others have love in their hearts too.)
That’s it. The Shivastotravali is the sweetest thing Ive ever tasted. Hearing Swamiji sing it is a treasure that I wouldn’t sell for anything in this world.
In Shiva stotravali 18.15, Utpaladeva nominates Lord Shiva as hrdaya harinah purah. He steals your heart when he appears before you so you can’t even make demands for boons before him.
Now in the Puranas that isn’t exactly what we see. We see all kinds of situations where beings get audience with Lord Shiva and they make all sorts of demands. Bhaumasura for example.
Could it be that Puranic Shiva is actually Anantabhattāraka performing for Lord Shiva?
It would also explain other discrepancies between the character of Shiva in the puranas versus how we know Supreme Shiva to be.
Forgive me if this question comes off as kind of childish. I already know there’s a difference between Paramashiva and Lord Shiva still im wondering if the Lord Shiva that most people are familiar with is actually Anantabhattāraka.
When he said “I think Bhatta Narayana was more than Parabhairava.”
Is Swamiji just expressing devotion towards Bhatta Narayana in considering him to be greater than the greatest? Or is there something else? Perhaps it’s in the mood of Shivastotravali where glorifying the devotee is sweeter than glorifying the Lord.
The nondual reality is sometimes described as having form. In texts like Shivastotravali and Stava Cintamani Shiva is sometimes glorified as having jatas and trishul like in the puranic depictions. Other times we say that we don’t mean that Shiva when we talk about Shiva.
Can someone explain the significance of the puranic Shiva within Kashmir Shaivism? Why exactly is Utpaladeva attached to this particular conception of Shiva? Do we accept that this particular form of Shiva is somehow more complete than other divine forms like Krishna etc?
This is something that deeply disturbs me as an individual who has been initiated into both ISKCON and Shaivism.
This notion that Shiva is a demigod is completely unsupported by the shastras. You may find Lord Shiva acting in various humble ways in the Vaishnava shastras out of lila but he is always Mahadeva. The Great God. The God of Gods. Parameshvara, the supreme controller. He is Bhagavan. He quite literally is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Read canto 4 of Bhagavatam.
So many similarities between Vivec and Shiva! Shiva has a hermaphrodetic form called Ardhanarishvara.
This is my first character. Pretty straightforward Nerevarine type build. Beat the main quest and the dlcs and now im doing the redoran quest alongside tamriel rebuilt. I have two other characters. A dunmer male who im using to complete the hlaalu quests and an altmer female for the telvanni.
I dislike the Gita.
I think the opening dilemma, family splintering off into two factions having to fight because the bad side is beyond reconciling with, could have been a great opportunity for a lesson on morality. Unfortunately, the author just misses the mark entirely.
When Arjuna asks Krishna for advice Krishna just gives him a bunch of bad reasons to fight. “Arjuna kill them because they are already dead so you might as well just do what’s expected of you. Oh also they don’t actually die because they are eternal so don’t worry just kill them. Arjuna kill them because by doing so you will be pleasing me.” Yada yada yada.
Krishna could have just given Arjuna the actual reason why he should fight. Krishna could’ve said something like, “O Arjuna, your family is wrong because there is a contradiction in their worldview. They believe agency is sufficient for them to steal your property but also that agency isn’t sufficient for you to own your property. They aren’t willing to revaluate their worldview and rectify their contradiction. They will keep hurting you. Therefore, the right thing for you to do is to stop them.” That’s literally all the author of the og gita had to make krishna say. Instead Krishna’s just saying bullshit.