Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

Position of Siva/Rudra as being manifested from Sankarsana is explained in CC 1.6.76-80. See whole chapter for context.
CC 1.5, Laghu Bhagavatamrta, etc. speak about caturvyuhas.

this the context; (?)

ADI-LILA; Chapter 5: The Glories Of Lord Nityuc0u257 nanda Balaru257 ma. Chapter 6: The Glories of u346 ru299 Advaita u256 cu257 rya.

HARE KRSNA !
Thank Yours.

Yes, actually chapters 1-7. Youre welcome. Hare Krsna.

Shankar is the aggregate consciousness of the jivas in the material world. The aspect of Brahman that is in contact with the material energy is the jiva / shiva aspect. The individual consciousness is manifested as jiva, the aggregate consciousness is manifested as Shiva. The aspect of Brahman that is not in contact with the material energy is Visnu. This is the difference between shiva-tattva and visnu-tattva. Shiva is Visnu in contact with material energy. The analogy that is given is that of milk and yoghurt. This is explained in Brahma Samhita with commentary by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati.

Thus we have the aphorism: sivo ham - "I am Shiva". That is one aspect of our identity. Its not the most ecstatic however. The Supreme Brahman expanded into many in order to increase bliss, so existing in the separated identity in relation to the Complete Whole is more ecstatic than attempting to merge back into Shiva, Visnu, or impersonal Brahman.

Sada-Shiva is the aggregate consciousness of the jivas in the spiritual world, on the other side of the Viraj river. This was discussed in a room conversation between Srila Prabhupada and Srila B.R. Sridhar Swami.

was this being discussed ?

Sitapati Prabhu wrote:

Shankar is the aggregate consciousness of the jivas in the material world.
This is the difference between shiva-tattva and visnu-tattva. Shiva is Visnu in contact with material energy. The aspect of Brahman that is not in contact with the material energy is Visnu.
The analogy that is given is that of milk and yoghurt. - This is explained in Brahma Samhita with commentary by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. --- The Supreme Brahman expanded into many in order to increase bliss, so existing in the separated identity in relation to the Complete Whole is more ecstatic than attempting to merge back into Shiva, Visnu, or impersonal Brahman.

Sada-Shiva is the aggregate consciousness of the jivas in the spiritual world, on the other side of the Viraj river. This was discussed in a room conversation between Srila Prabhupada and Srila B.R. Sridhar Swami.

can i ask, Bhakta Prabhus, what is this Viraj river ?

A river between a material and a spiritual world. (Caitanya Caritamrta 2.15.172, 2.19.153, 2.20.268-9, 2.21.50-2, 2.21.88)

A short answer to the original question is that Shankar is Lord Shiva and Sankarshana is Lord Vishnu

yes, i thought it be like it
instead the scriptures says that so when Shiv (Param'e4tm'e4) mounts Shankar it is Hare the energy which in narration flows alike, But the scripture say exactly that shivshankar is one and the same soul (person), so here can we differentiate in between Vishnu-tattwa and Shiva-tattwa thence...

shankar keeps being Shiva,
if (rudra) Shiva, takes birth through Brahma'b4s forehead can this shankar be called a brahm'e4 - or are shankar and Shiva different to each other? because the explanation would be more like in whom ever Shiv narrates and enters that person is named after as a Brahma. so how can we know that this is shankar this is sankarshan and that is Shiva, and that sankarshan there are two expantions of which are also part of the more extatic vishnu tattwa in the spititual sense, i thought that sankarshan was the same shankar. but know i understand then that this shankar is not vishnu tattwa and would never be.

well, there is another kind of explanation that i'b4ve found pertaining shankar'b4s role, so i found the place to solve this doubt. ok hari bol,

Shankar means MIX, a mixture. that of souls playing through him, - but, Krsna explains that from Krsna the baladeva plainly expands firstly, the baladeva iss the first plenary expantion of Lord Sri Krsna then from baladeva - balaram, the sankarshan expands and then the Mah'e4-Vishnu does. the visnu-tattwa explains that there are exactly two sankarshan'b4s.

CAN not Shankar part be considered like a third one ? can he (shankar) be a part of Vishnu-tattwa just through this Brahm'e4 ?
becouse when Shiva takes birth the shankar is no longer just shankar it became sada-shiva.

or is it shankar different because of being Shiva-tattwa, then this shankar where does he come from ? from Brahma ?
shankar is said to be doing nothing, what does the sastra say about shankar, whom is shankar, can it be a Brahm'e4, or a single brahmin ?

the upanishads explain that Shiva comes in kali-yuga within a brahmin child.

OK, well these doubts are rising in my mind, i think i will stick to the sastric quote for exactitud. i have got this doubt here, that can the shankar part be a third supreme sankarshan ? so it it differ because of Shiva, right ?

this is what i understand even tho clearly, when they the shankar part and the sankarshan'b4s perform in so similarly.

i am fearing of speculating or committing any offences in regard to the holy name even tho, the sastric quotes are realy nice. thank you.

would someone will like or be able to post this conversation of HDG Bhaktivedanta swami Srila Prabhup'e4da with Sridhar swami ? where does it took place prabhus ?

Please post herewith, inside the thread thankyou.
i mean, if get to understand more clearly it is clear explained through that visnu-tattwa but not so much of how it is shankar different from sankarshan (?) from where does the shankar part appears then. ?

ok, thank
haribol !!

Suryavanshi

so vishnu-tattwa is supreme, instead of preaching m'e4yav'e4da for a somehow higer purpose, which will only shiva know.
so well, shankar belongs to shiva-tattwa as far as Krsna is related might be through that Brahm'e4, becouse Siva actually manifests and takes birth through that Brahm'e4. this is what actually the brahma-samihta explains, but the roles i find very similar perhaps sankarshans are superior to shankar, but i ignore really how that is.. or it if be how can you say that perhaps becouse, "Shankar is the aggregate consciousness of the jivas in the material world". "This is the difference between shiva-tattva and visnu-tattva. Shiva is Visnu in contact with material energy. The aspect of Brahman that is not in contact with the material energy is Visnu." -- "The analogy that is given is that of milk and yoghurt. This is explained in Brahma Samhita with commentary by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. --- The Supreme Brahman expanded into many in order to increase bliss, so existing in the separated identity in relation to the Complete Whole is more ecstatic than attempting to merge back into Shiva, Visnu, or impersonal Brahman.

so there will be no need to argue or even compare them, becouse from the example of the same milk, and take this a tamarind fruit, when i MIX them, it will be no more milk nor tamarind fruit even, instead, it will be yagurt then simply, this is shiva-tattwa, or the explanation of Shiva, in reality everything is there in Krsna then.

have any of you devotees thought or even associate shankar with sankarshan ? why do i related them then.

it may have a dint of relation for the fact that this roles are related to the susteanance of the entire cosmic planetary manifestation.. and or the hole universe, but this shankar is the one engaged in them disolution aspect, that becouse Shiva mounts him. and so they are only subjected parts of the entire play of Krsna.

and so what could posible be the dharma of the sankarshan ? does Krsna tells about why does Shiva needed to preach mayavada ?

OK.. i think i had tried becouse i do not know and in the way of solving my doubt your answers are being really really perfect and so right to the fact that it may boggle my mind out of material contamination. even as to how much variegated might the supreme Brahman expand into many in order to obtain that blissful characteristic ever present in Krsna... i will really love to read that conversation, thanks to sitapati prabhu specially, do you have the actual date of this room meeting Prabhu, or a precise link instead?

thank Your very very Much.
Hare Krsna !

hari bol !

Hare Krsna, since a detailed conclusive point in discussion is not answered from this that had arisen, i would like to quote how they differ, and not just simply accept it as a short answer for it to develop.

the thing is that Amalagaura Prabhu has said it in very short, so from where does shankar came ?

there is this two tattwa, independently that explains how each of this personalities came to being.

is it that, when we talk of shankar is that that brahma gives birth to Siva through rudra and there shankar manifests.. ?
(this part is still unexplained) perhaps, into Brahma-Samhita ?

thank you very much, i am still looking for that room conversation which raised.

hari bol !

The answer based on all of the above and sitapatis quote of the conversation is that IT IS NOT THE SAME. and definitely not very-same. yes two different tattvas. but (as usual) inconceivably same by being two different representation of the creative principle in its functional relationship with material enegry. Different names too.