Anya Devatas

[Guest guest]

I am deliberately starting a new thread to address this specific

subject.

 

achintya, subash r <rajaasub> wrote:

 

> One thing about ISKCON which I personally debate is

> that they contradict the Tamasic Puranas and Tantras

> which say that Shiva is eternal, Devi is eternal,

> Ganesha is eternal.

 

As a matter of etiquette, it is not appropriate to make these claims

about a person or persons without quoting them specifically. Please

quote the specific statement of ISKCON which contradicts the eternal

existence of Shiva, Devi, and Ganesha.

 

I can tell you for a fact that there is no Gaudiiya objection to the

eternal existence of anya devatas like Shiva, Durga, Ganesha, etc. In

fact, an entire section of Govinda Bhaashya (the Gaudiiya Vedaanta

commentary) is dedicated to this very subject. I have seen nothing in

ISKCON's core literature to contradict it.

 

They

> refer to these Gods as positions which are occupied by

> different persons in different Kalpas. I find no

> reason for this theory,

 

As per Bhagavad-giitaa 8.16 (http://vedabase.net/bg/8/16/en) all

material planets including the worlds of the devatas up to and

including Lord Brahmaa are places of death and rebirth. This would

imply that the demigods too also take birth and eventually leave

those bodies. This subject is discussed also in the Govinda-bhaashya

3.3.33 under the suutra yAvadadhikAramavasthitirAdhikArikANAm.

 

Krishna has Himself said that

> He stabilizes the faith in the appropriate demigods

> for those devotees, so there is no way Krisha can

> cheat the devotees of demigods by giving them faith in

> a God who is not permanent when their faith has been

> developed by the Vedic Puranas itself.

 

Who are you to say what Krishna can and cannot do? He Himself states

that worship of anya devatas is "avidhi pUrvakam." That He stabilizes

the faith of their bhaktas does not imply any sort of commitment

towards this path of religiosity. It is simply a fact that nothing,

even worship of anya devatas, can go on without His sanctioning it.

He does not have to agree with what He sanctions.

 

Of course this

> reasoning does not apply to Brahma and the lower Gods

> who no Purana or Tantra says is an eternal being.

 

All jiivas are eternal, but their status as a particular demigod is

not necessarily eternal. On the other hand, the posts of each demigod

are certainly eternal since they are spoken of in the shrutis. But

the jiiva occupying such a post is only there for a finite period of

time.

 

> Conclusion: The demigods in the Smarta philosophy

> (Shiva, Ganesha, Devi, Skanda) have to be "eternal

> expansions of Krishna himself", though they manifest

> as beings different from Krishna. This is the only way

> the Puranas and Tantras can be reconciled, without

> cheating the devotees of those DemiGods, and this was

> one of the goals of Sankara's Advaita. This doesn't

> affect Krishna's position as the supreme and brings

> all the schools of Vedanta very close to each other in

> essence.

 

What is your definition of "expansion?" You are using Gaudiiya

Vaishnava terminology to describe a conclusion that is (according to

you) Smaartha in nature.

 

The jiivas are described as amshas of the Lord in Govinda Bhaashya

2.3.41, and yet the idea that these jiivas are the same as the Lord

is refuted in 3.2.18-21. I am referring to a recognized Vedaanta

commentator since it was your position that we should stict to the

existing schools. Yet it is you who are proposing a new conclusion.

 

It is explained in Bhagavad-giitaa 9.25 that one result is obtained

by worshipping the Lord and another is obtained by worship of

dependent entities: yAnti devavratA devAn pitR^In yAnti

pitR^ivratAH / bhUtAni yAnti bhUtejyA yAnti madyAjino 'pi mAm //.

This is simply a fact that one must accept if one is truly serious

about understanding Vedaanta. One who attains the worlds of the

demigods, forefathers, etc is not immune to death and rebirth. In

contrast, those who attain the Supreme Lord never have to take birth

again (BG 8.21). If you want to propose all sorts of artificial

relationships like "not far behind" based on your personal opinions,

then that is your right. But there is no point in using such

terminology to conceal these obvious facts.

 

yours,

 

HKS

[Guest guest]

All jiivas are eternal, but their status as a

particular demigod is

not necessarily eternal. On the other hand, the posts

of each demigod

are certainly eternal since they are spoken of in the

shrutis. But

the jiiva occupying such a post is only there for a

finite period of

time.

 

^^^ It would be devastating for a devotee of Shiva or

Ganesha to be told that these Gods are just posts

occupied by different Jivas. Imagine if someone told

the same thing about Krishna that it were a post.

 

The devotees of DemiGods have gained their faith from

reading the Vedic literature, and those Puranas have

said that Shiva is supreme and eternal and so on. Why

would Puranas and Tantras lie? What I implied was that

these Gods are not posts but that there is a single

Jivaa who is Shiva for eternity and so on. This has to

be the case lest the sentiments of a Shiva or Ganesha

devotee be hurt badly.

 

No Purana says Brahma is free from death, all Puranas

agree that Brahma is a post. But the Puranas never say

that Skanda is a post, Shiva is a post.

 

To ensure that no devotee who follows a Vedic

scripture as basis be cheated : "Krishna is the

supreme being and controller of Maya but he takes the

forms of Shiva, Skanda, Ganesha and Devi (all

proclaimed by Vedic literature to be supreme). These

beings though forms of Krishna manifest as beings

different from him and as servants of him. This is

because of the power of Brahman to become 'many from

one' ". This is what Sankara's Advaita says.

 

But please don't get me wrong. I am of the firm

opinion that ISKCON is the best path, and apart from

the question of these Anya Devatas, I absolutely have

no other disagreements with it.

 

Also I realize that ISKCON cannot change its position

on Anya Devatas because of anyone's cribs. One of the

reasons for posting my mail was that: Being in India,

I can see a tremendous crisis that Hinduism is facing.

And our internal disputes are worsening the situation.

There are enormous commonalities between all schools

and thoughts in Hinduism and I do feel that ISKCON

should emphasize these commonalities and be a unifying

factor for Hinduism in general.

 

Foreigners should be made to realize that all the

schools are in agreement with regard to a large number

of principles of Hinduism and only a few items are

being debated. But unfortunately the divergence is

being magnified many times more than what it actually

is.

 

 

 

 

 

HKS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Achintya Homepage:

achintya

 

DISCLAIMER: All postings appearing on Achintya are the

property of their authors, and they may not be

cross-posted to other forums without prior approval by

said authors. Views expressed in Achintya postings are

those of their authors only, and are not necessarily

endorsed by the moderator or spiritual leaders of the

Gaudiiya school.

 

 

Sponsor

 

 

achintya/

 

achintya

 

Terms of Service.

 

 

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your life partner online

Go to: http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony

[Guest guest]

achintya, subash r <rajaasub> wrote:

 

> ^^^ It would be devastating for a devotee of Shiva or

> Ganesha to be told that these Gods are just posts

> occupied by different Jivas. Imagine if someone told

> the same thing about Krishna that it were a post.

 

Truth is truth, regardless of how people feel about it. We can't

change what is in shaastras simply to appease some people.

 

This entire posting of yours is very sentimental and utterly lacking

in shaastric evidence. You seem more interested in propagating a

particular ideology than in discussing what Gaudiiya Vaishnavism is.

And all this too after telling us to stick with the existing

Vedaantic schools.

 

I request you to reread the Achintya FAQ and rules for discussion,

both of which are available under the Files section at

www.achintya.org. This forum has a very specific scope for

discussion, and that does not include personal opinions or

sentimentalism. For now, I will place you on moderation until you

have shown your understanding of the rules by conforming to the

existing guidelines.

 

Moderation means that if you don't conform to the guidelines, then

your posting will not go through. Since some childish individuals

have attacked me in the past for actively moderating and sending

feedback on rejected postings, I no longer read the postings and help

you to change them. You will have to read the rules on your own - if

your posting does not go through, then you will have to figure out

what's wrong. In most cases, it's pretty obvious. My feeling these

days is that if one isn't considerate enough or bright enough to read

the rules and follow them, then I certainly don't need to waste my

time explaining it to them all over again.

 

Also, just in case it was not clear, I want you to understand that

your affiliation with ISKCON has no bearing on moderation decisions.

Everyone has to follow the rules, including the ISKCON members. I

made this point several times in the past, but it seems some are

still unclear on it.

[Guest guest]

You have rightly said that discussion has to be based on sastras. You

have stated that the bodies of demigods are destroyed like ours

albeit after a long period of time. They are eternal in the sense

that the posts are eternal. But the jivas occupying the posts are

different. But is this true of Siva Tattva who is beyond brahma

loka ? This would mean that the bodies of Siva, Sakti, Ganesha &

Karthikeya eternal also.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote:

>

>

> You have rightly said that discussion has to be based on sastras.

You

> have stated that the bodies of demigods are destroyed like ours

> albeit after a long period of time. They are eternal in the sense

> that the posts are eternal. But the jivas occupying the posts are

> different. But is this true of Siva Tattva who is beyond brahma

> loka ?

 

Gaudiiya Vaishnavas do not consider Lord Shiva and goddess Durga to

be jiivas. My impression is that Shiva and Durga are considered

eternal entities and not merely positions. This is because Durga is

considered to be the presiding deity of the Lord's external potency

(see http://brahmasamhita.com/5/44/en). Lord Shiva is compared to

a "transformation" of Lord Vishnu (see

http://brahmasamhita.com/5/45/en). These are quotes from Shrii Brahma-

samhitaa, a core Gaudiiya Vaishnava scripture.

 

This would mean that the bodies of Siva, Sakti, Ganesha &

> Karthikeya eternal also.

 

I don't see how Shiva and Durga being eternal entities makes Ganesha

and Kaarthikeya eternal entities (not posts) also.

[Guest guest]

> Gaudiiya Vaishnavas do not consider Lord Shiva and goddess Durga to

> be jiivas. My impression is that Shiva and Durga are considered

> eternal entities and not merely positions.

 

in caitanya mangala, it is said that yogi became lord siva by

worshipping gaura sundara. of course, in gaudiya theology there are

multiple sivas. so it need not necessarily be seen as a

contradictiion to other places where it is said that siva is eternal.

probably that is why the original one mentioned in brahma samhita is

called sada siva.

 

> I don't see how Shiva and Durga being eternal entities makes

Ganesha

> and Kaarthikeya eternal entities (not posts) also.

 

they are siva tattva. if they die but durga lives, she will suffer

from putra soha !!! what a paradox for one who is jagan matha -

also in vasudeva mahatmiyam of skanda purana uttara khanda,

karthikeya and narada visit goloka to witness rasa lila. so he cannot

be temporary. same applies to ganesha.

 

the following must be true as per gaudiya theology.

 

1) there are expansions of vishnu who has the name, form & activities

of siva. this is because the vedas (sri rudram) address the supreme

lord as one with blue neck, ashen body etc. even vaishnavas accept

that names & forms of demgods belong to vishnu.

2) there has to be an eternal siva tattva who has the name, form &

activities of siva. this is because siva is beyond the temporary loka

of brahma.

3) there has to be jivas who assume the name, form & activities of

siva temporarily.

 

Agreed ? Once you decide, read on. the following problems occur. my

intention is not to argue but to only point out.

 

 

 

1) there are at least 2 or infinite number of distinct persons

(depending on number of intermediary expansions & qualified jivas who

become siva) with distinct will taking the same function of

destruction.

2) if vishnu has the name siva & form of siva, then worshipping siva

as supreme should be right.

3) if the name and the person indicated by the name are identical

(abhijnatva nama namini), then the demigod siva & vishnu should be

identical. the worst is the one below.

4) if a jiva qualifies to become lord siva, does he have right over

the beautiful wife of original siva ? earlier, we saw how durga

becomes childless and now we see how she becomes unchaste with this

demigod theory.

 

the simpler explanation of sankara that the supreme lord assumes

different names & forms is appealing. of course, then there is not

much room for speculation. you have to start reciting vedas and

worshipping his prescribed forms.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote:

 

> in caitanya mangala, it is said that yogi became lord siva by

> worshipping gaura sundara.

 

This would indeed support your position if it were true. However, as

you are in the habit of not providing explicit pramaanas, we have

nothing but your word to go on at this point.

 

of course, in gaudiya theology there are

> multiple sivas.

 

Up until now, I had understood all of them to be expansions of the

SadaaShiva described in the Brahmaa-samhitaa. If some are jiiva-

tattva and not expansions of Shiva Tattva, I can accept this on the

condition that the evidence (whether from shaastra or Gaudiiya

writings) is presented.

 

> > I don't see how Shiva and Durga being eternal entities makes

> Ganesha

> > and Kaarthikeya eternal entities (not posts) also.

>

> they are siva tattva. if they die but durga lives, she will suffer

> from putra soha !!! what a paradox for one who is jagan matha -

 

This is flimsy, sentimental reasoning at best.

 

The Puraanas describe birth for both Ganesha and Skandha - this is

not disputed by anyone. If these individuals are born, then how

exactly are they eternal? Note that Lord Krishna's appearance is not

described in this way.

 

The fact that jiivas inhabiting the posts of Ganesha and Kaartikeya

disappear after some time does not preclude goddess Durgaa from

having sons in Mahesh Dhaam.

 

Finally, the clincher is that you have not provided any scriptural

evidence which conclusively establishes these individuals as Shiva

Tattva. You have a habit (like this), of making outlandish claims to

the effect that something might be true, based on questionable

reasoning. When scrutinized, you make even more outlandish claims as

to why your theories still *might* be true. But the bottom line is

that you never present conclusive evidence. You must provide proof,

not conjecture.

 

> also in vasudeva mahatmiyam of skanda purana uttara khanda,

> karthikeya and narada visit goloka to witness rasa lila.

 

This may or may not be the case, but since you have not provided the

pramaana, we have no way of knowing if it exists or not.

 

so he cannot

> be temporary. same applies to ganesha.

 

This is again nothing more than flimsy reasoning. How does visiting

Goloka make one's identity eternal? Shriimad Bhaagavatam describes

that Arjuna visited Vaikuntha in verses 10.89.50-57, and yet no one

is claiming that his identity as Arjuna is eternal. On the contrary,

Lord Krishna describes that Arjuna has had many births in the past

(BG 4.5), but he was not known as Arjuna in each of those previous

births. Krishna mentioned this so as to explain how He could have

instructed Vivasvaan prior to Treta-Yuga. If Arjuna was with Him at

that time, then he certainly was not the famous Arjuna of the

Paandavas.

 

> the following must be true as per gaudiya theology.

>

> 1) there are expansions of vishnu who has the name, form &

activities

> of siva.

 

Gaudiiya theology does not put these "expansions" on the same level

as Vishnu-tattva. As per the Brahmaa-samhitaa 5.45, they are

described as transformation of Vishnu. We have discussed this already.

 

this is because the vedas (sri rudram) address the supreme

> lord as one with blue neck, ashen body etc.

 

This may or may not be the case, since as usual you have not provided

the pramaana here. Keep in mind also that Lord Vishnu, being the

repository of all qualities, can also be described by the epithets

traditionally reserved for other deities. In fact, Vaishnva

Vedaantins always interpret such references to Vishnu, in contrast to

your approach which is to argue that the deities traditionally

referred are indicated to be on the same level as Vishnu, in contrast

to other evidence which says otherwise.

 

even vaishnavas accept

> that names & forms of demgods belong to vishnu.

 

Which supports the view that demigod names mentioned in the context

of supremacy, etc can refer to Vishnu and not the demigods.

 

> 2) there has to be an eternal siva tattva who has the name, form &

> activities of siva. this is because siva is beyond the temporary

loka

> of brahma.

 

Gaudiiyas do not dispute the existence of Sadaashiva whose abode is

at the interface of the material and spiritual realms.

 

> 3) there has to be jivas who assume the name, form & activities of

> siva temporarily.

 

Why does there "has" (sic) to be jivas who do this? Why? Is it

because you say so? Or is there scriptural pramaana for this?

 

> 1) there are at least 2 or infinite number of distinct persons

> (depending on number of intermediary expansions & qualified jivas

who

> become siva) with distinct will taking the same function of

> destruction.

 

I don't even know what the above means.

 

> 2) if vishnu has the name siva & form of siva, then worshipping

siva

> as supreme should be right.

 

Except that it is wrong, because the Rig Veda explains that Shiva

derives his power from Vishnu:

 

asya devasya mILhuSho vayA viShNoreShasya prabhR^ithe havirbhiH |

vide hi rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiShTaM vartirashvinAvirAvat || RV

7.40.5 ||

 

With offerings I propitiate the branches of this swift-moving God,

the bounteous Vishnu. Hence Rudra gained his Rudra-strength: O

Asvins, ye sought the house that hath celestial viands. (Rig Veda

7.40.5)

 

> 3) if the name and the person indicated by the name are identical

> (abhijnatva nama namini), then the demigod siva & vishnu should be

> identical.

 

Your premise is wrong. Vishnu is nondifferent from His name. This is

not necessarily true of other entities.

 

the worst is the one below.

> 4) if a jiva qualifies to become lord siva, does he have right over

> the beautiful wife of original siva ? earlier, we saw how durga

> becomes childless and now we see how she becomes unchaste with this

> demigod theory.

 

I have no idea. This is your theory, not ours.

 

> the simpler explanation of sankara that the supreme lord assumes

> different names & forms is appealing.

 

Mostly to closet Mayavadis who use ISKCON as a platform for preaching

their pseudo-devotional ideologies. If you want simplicity, then

simply accept what the Gaudiiya Vaishnavas say without changing it to

suit your fancy. Brahmaa-samhitaa's milk-yogurt analogy describing

Shiva's identity nicely reconciles all the seemingly contradictory

evidence and neatly explains how he is almost on the level of Vishnu

and yet not the Supreme Lord.

 

I really cannot understand why people like yourself and rajaasub

claim to be so enamored with Gaudiiya Vaishnavism, when you go out of

your ways to say things that are contradicted by Gaudiiya

Vaishnavism. It is dishonest to wear one hat and then turn around and

tow someone else's party line. Learn to accept Gaudiiya Vaishnavism

as it is or align yourself with some other sampradaaya.