HOME | DD
Ricardo-Dieguez — Lord Shiva
Published: 2013-05-06 20:43:52 +0000 UTC; Views: 3692; Favourites: 24; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
"The attributes associated with Shiva represents his conceptual identity. Crescent, snake, trident, third eye, drum, ganges etc, each represent a concept of Shiva. Crescent represents Shiva as god of darkness; snake is the symbol of death and poison which means Shiva is the conqueror of death. Trident indicates the three qualities satva, tamas and rajas. With third eye Shiva burnt Kama (desires) to ashes, which means he is beyond the desires of physical world. Drum represents language, music and dance. the Ganges is the representation of purification and fertility."-V.M. LalRelated content
Comments: 15
But apart from that your Shiva has come out really well. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Shiva is not blue, he is while like a camphor. Only his throat is blue because he had consumed halahala poison to save universe. It is Mahakaala who is black and could be depicted blue that is artistic black.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hi Pratyasha, Namaskar, thank you for your comment, I am familiar with the story of the churning of the ocean of milk, in Srimad Bhagavatam, and of the description of Lord Shiva as being white as the himalayas and having a blue throat from drinking the poison created by the churning.. Yet this blackish/blueish form is an image that can be found throughout bharat, in painting or in murti form... In reality this is just my attempt at an artistic representation of the inconceivable Mahadev!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ya I agree that in popular art he is painted blue which is also a wrong representation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't necessarily think it is wrong? there must be a reason in shastra for him being depicted in such a way... I have always seen bhairav & rudra as dark.. Some tantric lineages prefer the dark form of shivaji, arguing that the white form is because of vedic-Aryan influence, and that Lord Shiva was already present in dravidean tribal culture?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Bhairava and Mahakaala are indeed dark. But they are slightly different emanations than Shiva. Hence, because Bhairava and Shiva represent different aspects of same essence, they are depicted, or they appear slightly different in meditation.
About the Aryan-Dravidian issue, it is completely a British concocted myth. I do not subscribe to it. The tradition within Hinduism do not subscribe to it.
The Question is not about right or wrong, it is about understanding the symbolism and essence portrayed by different aspects. Ultimately any image of a deity is supposed to take a seeker towards that aspect of universe, when meditated upon. So, a different symbolism will result in different end result.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Understood... very well put... Thank you for shining clarity on this subject...
lets converse a bit on this if you don't mind...
just like different symbolism gives different result or mood (bhav). I understand that different moods gives different results in the eternal world (vaikuntha), actually some moods even give earthly or demonic results.. sticking to the subject of sanatan dharma (the eternal path or religion).. one worships a particular deity for the development of a certain form of Bhakti (loving devotion) a mood that is the highest of all moods (or Gyan self-realization). for instance my ishtadev is Sri Sri Radhe Govinda... so I understand that a particular mood is supposed arise in the me (as a jiva) that when fully realized is actually awaken me to my svarup (eternal form) and I will be able to serve Sri Radhe Govinda in that particular way eternally (nitya-dharma)... so I would imagine that as there are innumerable amounts of jivas and Bhagavan can relish in innumerable moods then there must be a particular place in vaikuntha that facilitates that nitya-lila (eternal pastime)... the same way that seekers find a particular way or form of lord Shiva that they relish, find deep realization or expanded awareness, but ultimately, that one falls in love with! it seems we are all driven by desire but the key is to refine that desire, and develop a genuine desire to serve god in the way that calls us.. I offer my humble & loving respects. thanks for your time and conversation
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The very first step of Bhakti is to understand the limited aspects of your Ista-Deva. Deity by very definition is bound by name and form and hence it represents only certain specific aspects of Para-Brahma. Only by understanding the limited aspect of the deity can one proceed to the unlimited essence, the Brahman.
It was really nice and thoughtful having this conversation. Thank you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well that depends on whether you take the view that Param-Bramha is the cause of all forms, or if it is the eternal form that is the cause of param-bramha... the effulgence from the source or form... in my sampradaya (brahma-madava-goudiya sampradaya) our acharyas teach that the braman effulgence is emanating from Sri Krishna... and that Krishna is the eternal form... and that Krishna is unlimited in qualities... but has a specific relationship with each jiva, mostly in a loving and playful way... we never want to merge or become one with him, nor do we ever merge... rather we go through various stages of Bhakti until we reach Shuda bhakti (pure-bhakti). Bhakti is the the process and the goal (sadana and sadya) of our practice... and in Bhagavad Gita 14:27 Krishna states "brahmano hi pratisthaham" I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman. this seems to be the main topic of argument amongst most followers of sanatan-dharma.. is the formless the cause of form or is the form the cause of the formless... we argue that something cannot come from nothing, so naturally we consider form as being the source and eternal... Bhakti is pure love, and love cannot exist without both lover & beloved, so there must be the individual jiva and Bhagavan for bhakti to exist. if we where merged or one with, then there would be no need for bhakti... for without form, we would have no relationship and no bhakti... I am not an expert in shastra but our acharyas have argued this point to my satisfaction... we do not accept the impersonal conclusions of advaita philosophy as taught by Sri Adi-shakaracharya, rather we come in the line of Sri Madhavacharya, so we accept the conclusion of beda-abeda-prakash- inconceivable oneness yet diferent from... we can never merge with the paraBrahma, Katha Upanishad states ""Among all the eternally conscious beings there is one supreme eternal living being who is supplying the needs of all the innumerable others." (Katha Upanisad 2.1.12)"... I have heard the description that param-bramha is nirgun and nirvishesa, which meens has no form or qualities and above the gunas, so how can Bhagavan who is the possesor of all qualities, have no qualities?? how can quality arise from no-quality? we have qualities, so does that make us superior to bhagavan? no... i dont think so... in the Brahma Samhita it is stated "yasya prabha prabhavato jagadanda-koti-kotisv asesa-vasudhadi-vibhuti bhinnam tad-brahma niskalam anantam asesa-bhutam govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami"-"I worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead, by whose personal effulgence the unlimited brahma-jyoti is manifested. In that brahma-jyoti there are innumerable universes, and each is filled with innumerable planets." (Brahma-samhita. 5.40) ok.. i have to continue this another time as i have to go... i pray you are well.. Jai Sri RadheShyam!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes I understand you. The Gaudiya path especially follows the Achintya Bheda Abheda philosophy. Upanishads speak about different things to people of different competencies. The highest truth of Brahmopadesha-Tat Tvam Asi was not meant for everyone. Through out the ages, many saints have come and have explained various stages to be the ultimate only in order to make things simple for commoners. But, Shastras clearly do state in many places that, Brahman is indeed Nirguna Sat-Chit-Ananda. But the term "Nirguna" has been grossly mis-interpretated over the ages as formlessness, instead it should be "formfullness"(a state beyond the duality of forms and formless)
The path to the ultimate is through Sadhana. Practice sadhana, in whatever way one can and leave the rest to God.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dandavat pranam to the whole guru-varga. Namaste Pratyashaji, I understand that this philosophical topic would lead to no end, as it has been addressed for thousands of years by expert mahajans, so i dont expect us to find a solution, and i thank you for your time and effort, please forgive me if i make any offense.. I am simply testing myself in understanding, so i thank you for this moment to speak on higher topics.. I have to say that, actually I've never heard that definition of nirguna meaning "formfullness" from even the advaita schools of philosophy... what i have understood is literally nirguna translates to that which is beyond the gunas (satva, raja & tama guna)or modes of material nature... please no offense, but I dont accept that our acharyas have "mis-interpreted" that word... they have made it clear in our philosophy that duality will always exists, the jiva will always remain individual as a part and parcel of Sri Bhagavan, that duality exists so that sweet loving pastimes may occur(bhakti-rasa). so that Bhagavan can relish in those pastimes. A bhakta wants only to serve bhagavan, He/She has no selfish interest, for example a true bhakta is not interested in Bhukti, Mukti, Siddhi or even samadhi. He/She is only interested in serving the lord with love (niskami bhakta), even if he/she needs to bear the pain of a thousand lifetimes in a temporary body which is subject to suffer. That level of Bhakti is rare. I would rather say that shuda-bhakti (pure bhakti) is not for everyone.. most people at the lower state are in Misra-bhakti which is Bhakti mixed with selfish desire like Karma (fruitative activity) or Jnana (self-realization or higher knowledge) Yoga... pure love has no selfish interest (nisKama), other than serving the beloved.. About deity worship, being in the Apara state, It is known that deity worship is only to develop loving attachment to serving a particular form, it is seen that in the highest stages one can simply do bhajana within their heart, still, those types of personalities (sadhus or saintly people) will treat the deity as the actual form of God, not one to be discarded after a so-called higher realization.. The deity or arca-vigraha is installed and perpetually worshiped for the sole purpose of developing bhakti, to build the attachment to a particular form, not to ever be discarded. The deity, in that way, serves the jivas who are lost in sense gratification and selfish interests, it is like a light in a dark place to awaken bhakti in them. it is also known that the deity is nothing without the foot-dust of the saintly people (sadhus), because only they can truly awaken bhakti. only that kind of personality a shuda-bhakta can give shuda-Bhakti. those types of personalities can be worshiped like god, like a Mahabaghavat... as Guru is the same as god.. and can be worshiped like a deity. because of the sole purpose that: they have love and affection for all, and that they awaken bhakti. Bhakti is what we call nitya-dharma (eternal dharma).. it has no end.. but it does have a beginning when the sead is planted by the sadhu, if not we would be lost in cycle of birth and death. It is understood that our soul is born of the white light (tatastha shakti) and we are spark of it, but a bhakta only serches that realization for the sole purpose of being desireles (niskama)in oreder to serve the lord with better attention. "Those who are after fruitive results for their pious activities, those who desire salvation and identity with the Supreme, and those who desire material perfections of mystic power are all restless because they want something for themselves, but the devotee is completely peaceful because he has no demand for himself and is always ready to serve the desire of the Lord." -Sri Sukadev Goswami. thank you for your time... all gloris to Sri Bhakti-Devi!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am not offended at all.
The Advaita philosophy does not reject any other schools of philosophy. All the different schools represent different stages of spiritual evolution. The Great masters have highlighted various stages for people having various understanding capacity. So I am not saying Achintya-Bheda-Abheda is wrong. I am only convinced that it is not the whole truth. There are different facets of truth. Hence as a spiritual seeker my only advice to you is to not close your mind. One should not reject any other philosophy without going deeply into it and then after examining different paths, one should follow that path which is both intellectually and emotionally satisfying to him. God alone knows the truth because He is Satya-swaroopa and Jagat-guru. So one should keep one self open and let God guide the path.
On a personal level I am a Krishna devotee but Gaudiya Vaishnavism is not satisfying for me spiritually, emotionally and intellectually. For me, the highest expression of Bhakti is completely giving up my whole identity and merging with Him.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, I have kept and still keep an open mind, I have been on this path for 17 years and spent much time in India and visited many other temples, I have examined many schools of thought and listened to other Gurus from other lineages and in all my searching I can say that, I am fully satisfied emotionally, spiritually and intellectually by the Goudiya Vaishnava philosophy...
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Then it's the path for you as I said to each his own. All paths ultimately leads to the same destination.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And I am very grateful that this is the path that God has guided me to... thank you for your time.. hope you are well... Jai Sri Radhe Shyam!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0