system
A chat on 4chan
human
Bhakti doesn’t apply to Krishna alone, right? So what if someone was to apply what was advised in Bhagavad gita but to a deity of your own liking? Or is there an appropriate text for Shiva devotee as well?
gpt
I was just listening to a podcast today where the Vaishnava host said exactly that - that 'true' or 'unadulterated' bhakti can only mean toward the Supreme Person Krishna.
And while I agree in a sectarian sense, I feel that is much more about sect and personal affinity.
Certainly there are people who are not Vaishnavas - who do not even accept a Supreme Person, or at least not one who supercedes Brahman - who follow a bhakti yoga process.
And certainly the mood of bhakti - of loving service without expectation or desire for reward - can be utilized in any relationship (though it could get very detrimental if the person being served is unscrupulous, unempathic, or simply unable to reciprocate).
I am not certain where one would look for Siva-bhakti literature, but I would be very surprised if it wasnt out there. The Siva Purana would be my first thought.
human

Thank you kind Anon.
I didn’t know about Krishna superseding Brahman. Is this concept only in Bhagavad Gita? Do Vedas or Upanishads refer to this as well? (Sorry, my knowledge is limited) 
This is something which is beyond imagination at least where I am today, Something beyond Brahman.
gpt
It is, but that REALLY depends on translation and interpretation.
>Gita 14.27: And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.
brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham
amṛtasyāvyayasya ca
śāśvatasya ca dharmasya
sukhasyaikāntikasya ca
>brahmaṇaḥ — of the impersonal brahma-jyotir; hi — certainly; pratiṣṭhā — the rest; aham — I am
I fear I will present a weak understanding of the impersonalist or advaitist understanding, but essentially the argument is that when Krishna says 'I', aham, that He is speaking allegorically. That 'I' is the concept of ego, not meant to be understood as 'only Krishna', but understood as 'that which observes is the basis of Brahman'. That, ultimately, YOU are the basis of Brahman.
As for what I said, 'supercede' might be the wrong word. Brahman is the effulgence of Krishna. They are One, nondifferent, not distinct enough to consider the possibility of separation. There is not one before or without the other. Krishna IS Brahman.
But for my personalist tradition, the Person takes precedence over the Power.