Demigod worship (was Katyayani vrata begins)

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Jay" <dark_knight_9> wrote:

 

> Exactly, and it is these people who must be shown the error of

their

> ways and that it is the correct and ultimate goal of life to

worship

> Krishna. Logically, easily or forcefully, the truth is the same,

but

> it must be preached.

 

I am very much in favor of directing people towards pure and

uncompromising Krishna-consciousness. What I am against is the manner

in which some immature devotees choose to do it. In particular,

phrases like "it is these people who must be shown the error of their

ways" tend to arouse my suspicions fairly quickly. For one thing, one

who is secure in his Krishna-consciousness isn't going to feel

threatened by another's faith to the point of wanting to ram it down

their throats overnight. A fortunate few experience the change as

quick and delightful, but most change only after prolonged and

deliberate consideration. A preacher's behavior is very important and

cannot be overlooked in this regard. Statements like "easily or

forcefully, the truth is the same" simply overlook the fact that one

can preach the right thing, yet do so improperly and in such a way as

to invite anger and conflict. That kind of preaching is counter-

productive. Worse yet, it is against Vaishnava etiquette and most

certainly against Srila Prabhupada's own instructions:

 

"One should not speak in such a way as to agitate the minds of

others. Of course, when a teacher speaks, he can speak the truth for

the instruction of his students, but such a teacher should not speak

to those who are not his students if he will agitate their minds.

This is penance as far as talking is concerned. " (BG 17.15 purport)

 

> When you say that there are regulative principles for worshipping

the

> demigods, I think you are mixing up the directions for each

demigod's

> *pooja*. There seem to be two different concepts of regulation

here,

> but the context of both has to be understood clearly and concisely.

 

The context of "regulation" as it regards the puja of various devatas

is not the same as what Srila Prabhupada indicated in the purport you

quoted, at least, not in the minds of Hindus whom you will find

yourself preaching to. My point is that there are strict regulations

for the worship of anya devatas, and that is an indisputable fact. If

you say it is not "regulated" based on the purport you quoted, most

Hindus will have no idea what you are talking about. You will have to

explain clearly what it is you mean by that, and back it up with

shaastric references. If you are trying to say that Vedas ultimately

want us to worship only Krishna, then you must be clear on this point

and back it up with evidence.

 

My point all along here is simply that demigod worship has a basis in

the Vedas, so the faith invested in it should not be destroyed, but

simply redirected towards Krishna. The fact that anyone in this day

and age has any faith in the Vedas is amazing; it should be nurtured

properly rather than neglected (i.e. - allow demigod worship to

continue without trying to preach) or destroyed (by overtly

denouncing it).

 

> >> Demigod worship is not, to the best of my knowledge, a "shaastra-

> aparaadha." If it were, then much of the Vedas (karma-kaanda) would

> be guilty of aparaadha to itself. That is, unless you are prepared

to

> prove that all those statements recommending worship of various

> demigods in fact refers only to the Supreme Lord and not to the

> demigods. I somehow doubt that you are prepared to do that. <<

>

> Nobody said that demigod-worship is sastra-aparadha,

 

It seemed like this was exactly what you were saying. You quoted

Srila Prabhupada as saying that demigod-worship was disrespectul to

scriptural injunctions, and then you went on to say in the very next

sentence that disrespecting the scriptural injunctions is shaastra-

aparaadha. Well, in any case I'm glad we have clarified that. Demigod

worship is not shaastra aparaadha.

 

While we're on that subject, most Hindus these days hardly even read

scripture anymore. You are likely to find that they are simply

unaware of the scriptural directives to worship Krishna, or that they

simply do not understand them (because they misunderstand that

Krishna is different from the demigods). The specific

misunderstanding should be corrected. We shouldn't denounce other

types of Vedic worship since that will just anger people. The

strategy should be to praise them for what they do observe, and then

point out how much more beneficial it would be if the same faith was

applied to Krishna worship.

 

but disrespcting

> the sastra and the sastric conclusions is a sastra-aparadha.

 

And please be cognizant of the fact that many followers of Gaudiiya

Vaishnavism in the West are just as guilty of this as anyone. On

the "new and improved" Chakra website, there is a letter by some

mataji requesting the ISKCON GBC to change some statements in

the "holy books," as if anyone actually had the power to change what

is in the eternal Vedas?! Similarly, I have been to Ratha Yatra

festivals where there were "devotees" who cross dress and dance like

drunken men. I have been to wedding parties arranged by initiated

devotees where Bollywood rock music is played and devotees actually

danced to it, much to my shocked surprise.

 

My point here is not to point fingers at anyone, but rather to curb

the tendency of finger pointing. Only when one is clearly following

all of the shaastric regulations can he preach them to others. Until

then, all he can do is repeat the shaastric statements and exhort

others to follow them in a compassionate and nonjudgemental way.

 

> >> One should *not* compromise on the truth of Krishna-

consciousness,

> but this isn't the same thing as being uncompromising in the face

of

> opposition. <<

>

> Could you explain more clearly what you mean by this? Isn't

> opposition the very reason for real preaching?

 

What I mean is, one should not admit any validity to any

misconception simply to flatter one's opponents. I do not wish to

name names here, but there are a few senior devotees working in the

academic world who are now promoting the theory that Vedas were

originally spoken in some language other than Sanskrit - this is

clearly a type of mental speculation that has no place in orthodox

Vedaanta, although secular scholars might certainly appreciate it.

 

In all honesty, I don't remember what I meant with the second part of

that statement, "being uncompromising in the face of opposition." I

think what I was trying to say is that one shouldn't recklessly

destroy another person's faith. Rather, one should refute what is

clearly anti-Veda, and then one should encourage and nurture

scripturally compatible faith and then try to transform it into pure

Krishna-consciousness. Again, we aren't talking about people who

worship streetwise godmen who spout some watered down Advaita

philosophy, but rather about those who are at least worshipping some

Vedic deity.

 

yours,

 

K