Why does Prabhupada say that Haridasa Thakura is superior to Lord Shiva?

From Promila Mataji

In one of the purports in BG chapter 2, Srila Prabhupada cites a comparative example that how Lord Shiva was agitated by Parvati whereas Hari Das Thakur wasn’t even moved a bit by the prostitute who came to allure him. This was in the context of establishing that devotional service is superior to any other path on the yoga ladder.

SB say Shiva is the best of all vaishnavas. So in a way the comparison is between two vaishanvas. And despite being the best vaishnava Shiva was agitated. Please could you shed some light on this?

Answer Podcast:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Krishna. Question from Pramila Mataji. In one of the purports in chapter 2 of the Bhagavad Gita, Prabhupada says that Haridas Thakur was not agitated by a but Lord Shiva was agitated by Parvati.
So therefore he says that Haridas Thakur, now does this imply that Haridas Thakur is superior to Lord Shiva? Now we also know that Shiva is the greatest of, Lord Shiva is the greatest of Vishnavas, Vishnavana Mithashambhu. So how do we understand this? Answer, the comparison there is not a comparison of people, it is a comparison of processes. The point of that is, now Lord Shiva is described as being in meditation, it is not exactly, when it is said he is in dhyana, it is not exactly described as devotional dhyana.
Many times in personal lists they consider Shiva, Lord Shiva as their ideal and their goal is Jeeva or Shiv ek ho jayega. That the Jeeva, that is the soul and Shiva, whom they consider to be supreme soul, they will become one. So quite often when Shiva is worshipped, he is worshipped impersonalistically and Lord Shiva attracts that kind of people also.
That’s why he also comes as Shankaracharya. So the point is, here when Shiva is meditating, that meditation is considered to be impersonal or non-devotional meditation, whereas Haridas Thakur is meditating devotionally and chanting of the holy names and the point of the comparison is to illustrate how the process of bhakti centered on chanting of the holy names, which brings about a direct connection with Krishna, that provides a higher taste by which lower tastes can be overcome and such a higher taste is not so easily accessed, is not accessible through other processes, such as the process of impersonal meditation or non-devotional meditation. So that is the thrust of the comparison and we should not reduce that which is a comparison of processes to a comparison of people.
We also have to remember that Prabhupada has spoken about Lord Shiva very highly elsewhere also, Prabhupada writes about how when he was studying in his college and he read in Kumar Sambhav of how Kalidas and others, they have depicted based on the scriptures that when the Parvati Devi came to agitate Lord Shiva and she actually came and touched his private organ, but still Lord Shiva was not agitated. He says this is a dheera. So Prabhupada quotes in a lecture also that Lord Shiva was so sober that he was not agitated, even when his private parts were being touched and fondled and now, so that means there is, we cannot understand based on just one purport or one statement of Prabhupada.
We have to see the broad context and what Prabhupada said elsewhere about Lord Shiva also. Now going further, if we see there was a celestial, there was a divine purpose in each of these pastimes and those pastimes served the purpose accordingly. Now if we see Chindachau, Haridas Thakur’s pastime, the point is that Haridas Thakur is a nunciate and this woman is coming as a prostitute.
So it is a temptation to adharmic sex and dharma vriddho bhuteshu kama usmi bharatarsabha. So Krishna says that that kama which is not contrary to dharma, I am that. So that sort of kama is definitely not condemned.
It is not the purusha of adharma or the kama moksha. So Haridas Thakur is showing how the temptation towards adharma, which came in the form of this prostitute tempting him, that he overcame through the chanting of the holy names. Now if we look at this context of the pastime of Lord Shiva, it was when the asuras were becoming very powerful and the devatas needed a formidable commander to lead them, in the battle against the asuras, so that they can be successful.
And they came to know that the son of Shiva will be a powerful commander who will lead us to victory. And so they wanted a commander and that’s why they told Parvati to go to Lord Shiva. And even when Parvati went there, at that time, for a long time she was not able to agitate Lord Shiva.
But eventually Lord Shiva united with Parvati and then Kartikeya, Skanda was born. So he is the commander of the army of devatas and he led the devatas to victory. So here, Parvati and Shiva are duly married husband and wife and the union that happens between them is not at all abhormic.
And it is meant for, as we see, it is meant for procreating a great son. So that’s why we should not consider Lord Shiva as lower in any sense. The point is a comparison of processes and when we understand that purpose and look at the broader context, then there is actually that Lord Shiva, for the sake of the devatas, united with Parvati and produced an illustrious son as Kartikeya.
Kartikeya is also his glory. So there are different Vaishnavas who can be glorified in different contexts and in different ways. And so Lord Shiva is also glorious as a Vaishnava or a Kshambho and Arudra Sthakur is also glorious as a Namacharya.
Thank you.