The third offense - Seeing Shiva and Vishnu as different

Just finished the rather extensive section in Madhurya-kadambini on the third offense. It gets into a lot of complex tattva about relative positions of Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu, etc.

From a purely neutral point of view, it seems to me that the "historical" purpose of this aparadh is to avoid useless sectarian bickering about which god is superior. Each sampradaya found a cosmology that fit the competing God into their system, especially in South India, where the conflicts were likely much greater--as the Nayanmars and Alwars had competing bhakti theologies. This eventually calmed down somewhat, through things like the Trimurti, Harihara, and Panchopasana innovations.

At any rate: What I was getting at was this: Has anyone heard this aparadha explained as any kind of sectarianism? i.e. "The third aparadh is religious sectarianism."

Vishwanath actually ends his discussion by saying the exact opposite:


One who looks on Narayan as equal to the other gods like Brahma or Rudra is no better than an atheist.

Here are a few "circles" to get this topic rolling. It tends towards an exegesis for the above statements which may appear contradictory.

1. Shiva and Narayan are Absolutely One. They may appear as different from our conditional perspective because such a perspective cannot cognise Divine Oneness. Such a conditional perspective is "offensive" or repugnant to a unitarian apprehension of the Divine.

2. Narayan does not equal Shiva. Narayan is Absolutely Infinite . Shiva is Absolutely Infinite. Infinitude is not equatable. To pitch a unitarian apprehension of the Divine on the notion of equatability is to pitch on a conditional perspective.

Jagat, I am looking for a sloka to quote on this topic but I don't remember where I read it.

yam saiva yam upasati siva iti brahmeti vedantinah
baudha buddha iti pramana patavahah karteti nyayayika etc

I'll look for the rest but basically the next two lines states that all these different conceptions of God are none other than Keshava (Visnu/Krsna).

Sectarian can mean different things, so as something to be avoided, it would need to be qualified. This is because all the vaisnava sampradayas teach sectarianism to various degrees. All say their way is the best way, and that those who have different beliefs are in some form of ignorance.

They are not Unitarian dogmas. A Guru in a strictly scriptural based sect with an established dogma, is not able to all of a sudden change and adopt a Unitarian outlook and retain his authority over the sects adherents. What would happen if a Gaudiya Guru all of a sudden begins to teach that which is specifically rejected in the Gaudiya canon ? He will lose respect as a bona fide representative. So every strict dogmatic sect is the same like that. There is a fine line between interpretation and outright rejection of dogma.

In the Gaudiya tradition the Shiva question is nicely dealt with in terms of the Shiva/Vishnu conflict. Sometimes Shiva is a jiva, Sometimes not. Both are correct, God in some cases, not God in other cases.

mr.hairy;
Sometimes I think you have to march right in and demand your rights, even if you don't know what your rights are, or who the person is you're talking to. Then, on the way out, slam the door.

pratap bangli;
Sorry..but I know my rights quite well, and part of that right is to point out when you put your foot in your mouth like you did with this statement, quote..
"What would happen if a Gaudiya Guru all of a sudden begins to teach that which is specifically rejected in the Gaudiya canon?"

Get used to it..

I agree that there are degrees of sectarianism. This is why you may have noticed that I also sometimes defend sectarianism--such as when I talk about taking a guru, or identifying as a Gaudiya, or being loyal to Mahaprabhu and Rupa Goswami, all of which I consider essential to spiritual advancement for a person whose faith has descended by that route.

No one gets anywhere without knowing first of all who he is, where he wants to go, and how to get there. Sambandha, abhidheya and prayojan.

These items are all tied in with sectarian identity and cannot be dispensed with any more than we can deny our nationality or mother tongue. Universalism at this level is little more than a kind of childish idealism. Universalism without firm self identity falls short, because it is short on gratitude, short on self-awareness and short on clearcut self-definition, to name a few.

On the other hand, it is a sign of spiritual maturity to be able to recognize and appreciate other people's faith--to recognize that they are also being guided by faith, are seeking spiritual goals and in many ways are achieving the fruits of God's mercy even more than we are. If one has faith in the Holy Name, will it not reveal how it is working elsewhere--especially since it is working everywhere in its infinite forms?

Krishna consciousness is there for those who have this faith. A preacher's duty to God is to make the sectarian elements of Krishna consciousness as meaningful as possible to all, so that Krishna can reveal himself in that form to those who are waiting for him.

But don't you think that sectarianism where it leads to hatred and war, for instance, is not a kind of offensiveness? Henceforth, I will take Shiva to be simply an upalakshana, a stand-in for all forms of the Deity and faith.

And verily it is said,

harir eva sadArAdhyaH
sarva-devezvarezvaraH
itare brahma-rudrAdyA
nAvajJeyAH kadAcana

Krishna alone is always worshipable, for he is the lord of all gods. And yet one should never disrespect the other gods, like Rudra or Brahma. (BRS 1.2.116, from Padma Purana).

Sorry Jagat, I just came across the quote I wanted to post on this thread, here it is:

yaM zaivas samupasate zIva ItI brahmeti vedantinaH
baudha buddha iti pramana patavaH karteti nyayayikaH |
arham nItyata jaina zasanarataH karmeti mimamsikaH
so'yaM bho vidha dhatu vaGcita phalam zrI kezava sarvada ||

(sorry if the sanskrit is wrong, I am open to corrections)

For the Saivites, He is Siva,
For the Vedantins, He is Brahman,
The Buddhists say He is Buddha,
The Logicians call Him the Doer,
For the Jains He is Arhat (this World),
and for the Mimamsakas He is Action (Karma),
actually all of them worship none other than Sri Keshava.

(You can see why this was a favorite sloka of mine.)

Actually this was the very first thing that my Pancaratra Guru Y.R. Vasudeva Bhattar taught me in my first lesson on Pancaratra from him. He said that you should say this sloka when coming to the Dvajastambha, where traditionally you pay your obeisances when entering a temple. I was really surprised that he said this. There are some other versions of this sloka that include Allah and Jesus too. Also the following:

I am doggedly going through the Madhurya Kadambini still. I was reminded of this topic as I revised the sections on the third aparadh, but was also struck by the way Vishwanath deals with the fourth offense as well. This was striking because I have been accused of the fourth offense on these forums (as well as the first, sixth and I forgot what else.)



I think that this also clearly applies to scriptures in non-Vaishnava or non-Hindu traditions as well.