durga is more of vishnu-shakti than shiva -shakti

[kaisersose]

 

That was not the issue.

And why drag Hare Krishnas in all that.. you are always on the prowl to sprout your feelings.

 

Here is why. Other than HKs, no one else on the planet has a problem with the original classification.

 

That's why.

 

Cheers

[bija]

Bhagavatam is considered smrti by HK's.

 

 

In Vedic culture the available body of knowledge comes from the revealed scriptures called Vedas. The word comes from root "vid" (to know, knowledge). The scriptures are mainly of two categories: sruti and smrti. Sruti refers to the four Vedas and they were originally received by Brahma from the Supreme Lord, Krsna. The smrtis are the literature compiled by self-realized sages based on their realizations of the sruti. Sruti is composed in Vedic Sanskrit and smrtis in laukika Sanskrit. There are some basic differences between these two types of Sanskrit. In Vedic Sanskrit the words have accent, akin to notes in music, and a word's meaning can change drastically simply by changing the accent of its letters. Therefore these words have to be heard properly from the guru in disciplic succession and hence Vedas are called sruti (lit. hearing). Nobody has the authority to change even a single syllable of the sruti. They are passed on from one age to another. Sometimes some parts of srutis get lost due to break in disciplic succession. Then they are again heard in trance by great sages called rsis. Rsi means a seer, or one who sees the Vedic texts. He hears it in trance and realizes its meaning. The Vedic Sanskrit has its own grammar and it is used only in the Vedas. No new book can be composed in Vedic Sanskrit.

 

Smrtis on the other hand are written in laukika Sanskrit or Sanskrit spoken by people. It does not have accent in its words. Itihasas, Puranas, Agamas are all part of smrtis. Among the smrti literature there is a body of literature which is also called smrti such as Manu-smrti. These smrtis are part of dharma sastra or books giving religious code. Smrti sastras are compiled remembering the meaning of the sruti and hence the name smrti (lit. remembrance). The smrtis change from age to age in their structure but the essence is same.....

 

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/scriptures.htm

The rest of the article also explains a littlle about Sri Caitanya's recommendation of Bhagavatam. The article also says a little why the Goswami's rasa literature is held in highest esteem.

 

These ideas are not a new concept originating in the modern Gaudiya groups. They orginate from its founder...Sri Gauranga (who is considered to be Sri Krsna).

 

If that doesn't sit well....then the vedic tradition is very broad with other perspectives to satisfy...

 

...now that is surely a grace and gift! Most followers/teachers of vedanta accept that there is something on offer to uplift various people and their dispositions. Teaching the followers the highest dharma... Maybe people need a stable rock to place faith in?

 

People need a fair go in this world....

[kaisersose]

 

Bhagavatam is considered smrti by HK's.

 

 

The rest of the article also explains a littlle about Sri Caitanya's recommendation of Bhagavatam. The article also says a little why the Goswami's rasa literature is held in highest esteem.

 

These ideas are not a new concept originating in the modern Gaudiya groups. They orginate from its founder...Sri Gauranga (who is considered to be Sri Krsna).

 

If that doesn't sit well....then the vedic tradition is very broad with other perspectives to satisfy...

 

...now that is surely a grace and gift! Most followers of vedanta accept that there is something on offer to uplift various people and their dispositions.

 

Bija,

 

There have been HKs right on this forum who have disagreed with the original classification. As a matter of fact, there was a poster named Chandu who was just recently arguing that the entire country (India) accords Sruti status to the Bhagavatam.

 

Else, I would have no reason to make that statement.

 

Cheers

[bija]

ok...no worries

thx

 

What I find interesting in this culture, is that expressions developed from smrti, for example rasa sastra based on Bhagavatam, is held as pinnacle literature.

 

Personally I think that kind of evolution is great, because then we are not stuck. The evolution of consciousness and awareness is ongoing for man, and I would not like to be stuck.

 

A balance between the richness of our traditions and 'now' is aspired for personally. Otherwise I may be limiting potential, or attempting to live rigid fundamentalism or something (like an attempt to implement something from a different time). Maybe it takes good intelligence to keep tradition rich while moving forward.

 

I am tired of these fundamentalist approaches that pervade religion and religious. I have always been tired of group think.

 

Ofcourse some may disagree (and attempt to convert all into a mono-genus). If hinduism (hindu culture) is evolving into that, then I would never have joined up to carry its flag...

[Amlesh]

 

Here is why. Other than HKs, no one else on the planet has a problem with the original classification.

 

That's why.

 

Cheers

That's why I don't like the Group Thinking ideas.

[sambya]

 

Is Durga specifically called a "goddess" or "Hindu goddess" in any scripture? What are these terms that are used by the Hindu laity based on? Where is she explicitly described as a "Hindu goddess?"

she has been referred to as devi , maheshwari , ishwari , etc which can be interpreted in english as goddess.

 

 

I think the less-than-ideal iskcon translation as "demigod" is just trying to get across the point that they are elevated beings but not on the same level as God/Brahman. If you think they mean something else by it, you are welcome to explain yourself. It's not my translation.

merely elevated beings ? you think so ? ill show you......................

 

1-- " sura asura siro ratna nighrishta charanam buje............" [markendaya purana]

 

the crow jewels of sura( gods) and asuras(demons) are sitauted at your lotus feet.

 

2--"krishnena samstute devi shashadbhyakta sada ambike............"

[markendaya purana]

 

krishna always worships your lotus feet with unfaltering bhakti.

 

3--tvam swaha tvam swadha tvam hi basatkarah swaratmika.

sudha tvam ahshare nityye tridha matratmika stitha"

 

[markendaya purana, brahma stuti to devi]

 

o devi you are the swaha mantra of yajnas, swadha mantra of sraddha(funeral) , vasat mantra of invokoing the gods, you are amrita swarup and omkara (tridha matra)

 

4--"..............twameva sa tvam savitri tvam dev janani para"

 

[markendaya purana , brahma stuti]

 

o devi you are the revered savitri of the gayatri mantra and the mother of all gods(devajanani)

 

5--"vishrishtau shrishti rupa tvam stithirupa cha paalane

tatha samhriti rupaante jagatohasya jaganmaye"

 

you are the one responsible for creation and its maintenence.in the end its you who destroys it with parlaya.

 

6--" yaya twaya jagatshrashta jagatpaataatti yo jagat

sohapi nidrabasham nitah..........vishnu sarirgrahan mahamishaan eva cha"

 

[brahma stuti]

 

o devi !! you are resomsible for causing the yoganidra of vishnu himself.who can realise your mahima?

you are the cause of vishnu , maheshwar and myself......

 

6--tvam ambika akhila deva maharshi pujyam ....."

 

we bow to that ambika who is revered by all devas and maharshis.

 

7--"yasyah prabhavam atulam bhagavan ananto

brahma harascha na hi baktumalam balancha"

 

we bow to that devi who is incomprehensible even by bhagavan ananta , brahma and hara(shiva) himself.

 

8--".............na gyayase hari haradi bhirapyapaara."

 

even hari hara and other gods cannot understand you

 

9--"...............mavyakrita hi prakitistvam adya"

 

you are without sadavikar(janma , astitwa , vridhi , viparinaam , apakshay , vinash ) and you are the eternal prakriti.

 

10--"moksharthi-bhirmuni-bhirasta-samasta-doshai......................"

 

you are the cause of mukti or moksh.

 

11--"sabdatmika subimalam...............samnaam"

 

you are the shavda brhman omkaar

 

12 --" prathame pujita sa cha krishnena paramatmana.

vrindavane cha srishtaadyaou golake raas mandale..........

...........................................................................

..................................sarittwate"

[ brahmavairvarta purana , pratikandha , 57 ]

 

devi was first worshipped by bhagavan sri krishna in raas mandal and golaka secondly by brahma due to fear of madhukaitav, thirdly by mahadev or shiva seeking respite from tripurasur, fourthly by devaraaj indra after being cursed by durvasa. at that time all munis, liberated souls, devas and demigods( not isckon demigod) came to worship her...................

 

13-- subhadra is also anothother expansion of durga. here is subhadra dhyanam for you to realise...............

 

"subhadram swarna padmabhyam padmapatraaya-tekhshanam . bichitra vastrasamchhannam haar keyur shovitam . vichitra bharanopetam muktahaar bilamvitam . pinnonnata kucham rama madyam prakritirupikaam. bhkti mukti pradatrincha dhyayet ambikam param ."

 

i meditate upon subhadra with the complexion of a golden lotus and eyes like padma patra . she's dressed in multi hued clothings and decorated with necklace and earrings.her full breasts are adorned with necklace of pearls and she is ramaa(lakshmi) herself. she grants both BHUKTI and MUKTI. she is AMBIKA AND PARAMA PRAKRITI.

 

14--subhadra stava

 

devi tvam vishnu mayasi mohayanti characharm. hrit padma samsthasi vishnu bhavanusarini. tvam mata jagatm devi pita narayano hi sah . stri rupam sarvameva tvam purusho jagadishwara.............................................................................

............................jaya bhadre subhadreyam sarvesham bhadradayini . bhadraa bhadra swarupe tvam BHADRAKALI namahastute."

 

o devi , you as vishnu maya ia the cause of ignorance. you reside in the heart of vishnu and follow the bhava of vishnu . you are our mother and narayana is our father . you are the ultimate prakriti and narayan is the ultimate purusha. i bow to bhadre in form of subhadra who is bestower of vidya. she herself is all good things in earth . i bow to BHADRAKAALI .

 

 

 

I THINK ITS CLEAR BY NOW THAT SUBHADRA AND DURGA ARE NON DIFFERENT.

 

15-- jiva goswami in bhagavat sandarva says--

 

" yah krishna sa iva durga syat ya durga krishna eva sah.

anayorantaradarshi samsaronno vimuchyate "

 

the same krishna is also called as durga and that durga is also krishna himself.ignorant people seperate the two

 

 

16--she has numerous incarnations as naarasimhi( female component of nrisimha , looka like nrishimhadev) , vaarahi( female component of lord varaha with boar head) , narayani( female component of narayan shown as seated on garuda with sankha chakra etc in hand) , aindri (female of lord indra with thousand eyes) , braahmi( female part of brahma with beads and vedas in hand) , kaumari( shakti of skanda seated on peacock) etc.

 

this clearly shows that durga or devi is the inherent shakti of all deities. she is the only existing energy in this manifestation(also in non manifestation)

 

 

 

also ckeck out the nondifference of radha and durga in the other thread titled --" radha and chandi - same?"

 

 

there are numerous other scriptural qoutations which i didnt qoute because i think this much is sufficient.

 

clearly durga being nitya(eternal) and lords potency ( before advent of radha the only potency) cannot be merely a elevated being.

 

neither can she be called demigod. if she is bahiranga shakti of vishnu she can never be demigod.for if she were , that would instantly turn a part of vishnu into demigod and make thus make him imperfect( demigods are finite and imperfect) and hence not god.

 

I DO NOT WANT TO PROOVE THE SUPREMACY OF DURGA OVER OTHER DEITIES. I JUST WANT TO SHOW THE GAUDIYAS THAT ITS NOT JUST KRISHNA WHO IS GLORIFIED TO THE TOPMOST POSITION IN THE SHASTRAS.

 

we all know that puranas were written till 18th century , so qouting from them to establish supremacy of one deity is not an intelligent idea. but since all vaishnavas like to rely more on smriti than on shruti i resorted to puranic qoutations.

 

now dont come up saying padma purana has a list of satvik purana. satvik purana is a self proclaimatory statement by padma purana and is not verifiable by any other text. going by this logic one i can show millions of similar tantric texts establishing the superiority of tantras and kaali over the rest . self proclaimatory texts cannot be the basis of arguments. one must show that 'non satvik' puranas accepts this grouping before qouting such things.

 

puranas were all written to glorify a particular diety which vaishnavs tend to disagree.

[melvin]

 

she has been referred to as devi , maheshwari , ishwari , etc which can be interpreted in english as goddess.

 

 

merely elevated beings ? you think so ? ill show you......................

 

1-- " sura asura siro ratna nighrishta charanam buje............" [markendaya purana]

 

the crow jewels of sura( gods) and asuras(demons) are sitauted at your lotus feet.

 

2--"krishnena samstute devi shashadbhyakta sada ambike............"

[markendaya purana]

 

krishna always worships your lotus feet with unfaltering bhakti.

 

3--tvam swaha tvam swadha tvam hi basatkarah swaratmika.

sudha tvam ahshare nityye tridha matratmika stitha"

 

[markendaya purana, brahma stuti to devi]

 

o devi you are the swaha mantra of yajnas, swadha mantra of sraddha(funeral) , vasat mantra of invokoing the gods, you are amrita swarup and omkara (tridha matra)

 

4--"..............twameva sa tvam savitri tvam dev janani para"

 

[markendaya purana , brahma stuti]

 

o devi you are the revered savitri of the gayatri mantra and the mother of all gods(devajanani)

 

5--"vishrishtau shrishti rupa tvam stithirupa cha paalane

tatha samhriti rupaante jagatohasya jaganmaye"

 

you are the one responsible for creation and its maintenence.in the end its you who destroys it with parlaya.

 

6--" yaya twaya jagatshrashta jagatpaataatti yo jagat

sohapi nidrabasham nitah..........vishnu sarirgrahan mahamishaan eva cha"

 

[brahma stuti]

 

o devi !! you are resomsible for causing the yoganidra of vishnu himself.who can realise your mahima?

you are the cause of vishnu , maheshwar and myself......

 

6--tvam ambika akhila deva maharshi pujyam ....."

 

we bow to that ambika who is revered by all devas and maharshis.

 

7--"yasyah prabhavam atulam bhagavan ananto

brahma harascha na hi baktumalam balancha"

 

we bow to that devi who is incomprehensible even by bhagavan ananta , brahma and hara(shiva) himself.

 

8--".............na gyayase hari haradi bhirapyapaara."

 

even hari hara and other gods cannot understand you

 

9--"...............mavyakrita hi prakitistvam adya"

 

you are without sadavikar(janma , astitwa , vridhi , viparinaam , apakshay , vinash ) and you are the eternal prakriti.

 

10--"moksharthi-bhirmuni-bhirasta-samasta-doshai......................"

 

you are the cause of mukti or moksh.

 

11--"sabdatmika subimalam...............samnaam"

 

you are the shavda brhman omkaar

 

12 --" prathame pujita sa cha krishnena paramatmana.

vrindavane cha srishtaadyaou golake raas mandale..........

...........................................................................

..................................sarittwate"

[ brahmavairvarta purana , pratikandha , 57 ]

 

devi was first worshipped by bhagavan sri krishna in raas mandal and golaka secondly by brahma due to fear of madhukaitav, thirdly by mahadev or shiva seeking respite from tripurasur, fourthly by devaraaj indra after being cursed by durvasa. at that time all munis, liberated souls, devas and demigods( not isckon demigod) came to worship her...................

 

13-- subhadra is also anothother expansion of durga. here is subhadra dhyanam for you to realise...............

 

"subhadram swarna padmabhyam padmapatraaya-tekhshanam . bichitra vastrasamchhannam haar keyur shovitam . vichitra bharanopetam muktahaar bilamvitam . pinnonnata kucham rama madyam prakritirupikaam. bhkti mukti pradatrincha dhyayet ambikam param ."

 

i meditate upon subhadra with the complexion of a golden lotus and eyes like padma patra . she's dressed in multi hued clothings and decorated with necklace and earrings.her full breasts are adorned with necklace of pearls and she is ramaa(lakshmi) herself. she grants both BHUKTI and MUKTI. she is AMBIKA AND PARAMA PRAKRITI.

 

14--subhadra stava

 

devi tvam vishnu mayasi mohayanti characharm. hrit padma samsthasi vishnu bhavanusarini. tvam mata jagatm devi pita narayano hi sah . stri rupam sarvameva tvam purusho jagadishwara.............................................................................

............................jaya bhadre subhadreyam sarvesham bhadradayini . bhadraa bhadra swarupe tvam BHADRAKALI namahastute."

 

o devi , you as vishnu maya ia the cause of ignorance. you reside in the heart of vishnu and follow the bhava of vishnu . you are our mother and narayana is our father . you are the ultimate prakriti and narayan is the ultimate purusha. i bow to bhadre in form of subhadra who is bestower of vidya. she herself is all good things in earth . i bow to BHADRAKAALI .

 

 

 

I THINK ITS CLEAR BY NOW THAT SUBHADRA AND DURGA ARE NON DIFFERENT.

 

15-- jiva goswami in bhagavat sandarva says--

 

" yah krishna sa iva durga syat ya durga krishna eva sah.

anayorantaradarshi samsaronno vimuchyate "

 

the same krishna is also called as durga and that durga is also krishna himself.ignorant people seperate the two

 

 

16--she has numerous incarnations as naarasimhi( female component of nrisimha , looka like nrishimhadev) , vaarahi( female component of lord varaha with boar head) , narayani( female component of narayan shown as seated on garuda with sankha chakra etc in hand) , aindri (female of lord indra with thousand eyes) , braahmi( female part of brahma with beads and vedas in hand) , kaumari( shakti of skanda seated on peacock) etc.

 

this clearly shows that durga or devi is the inherent shakti of all deities. she is the only existing energy in this manifestation(also in non manifestation)

 

 

 

also ckeck out the nondifference of radha and durga in the other thread titled --" radha and chandi - same?"

 

 

there are numerous other scriptural qoutations which i didnt qoute because i think this much is sufficient.

 

clearly durga being nitya(eternal) and lords potency ( before advent of radha the only potency) cannot be merely a elevated being.

 

neither can she be called demigod. if she is bahiranga shakti of vishnu she can never be demigod.for if she were , that would instantly turn a part of vishnu into demigod and make thus make him imperfect( demigods are finite and imperfect) and hence not god.

 

I DO NOT WANT TO PROOVE THE SUPREMACY OF DURGA OVER OTHER DEITIES. I JUST WANT TO SHOW THE GAUDIYAS THAT ITS NOT JUST KRISHNA WHO IS GLORIFIED TO THE TOPMOST POSITION IN THE SHASTRAS.

 

we all know that puranas were written till 18th century , so qouting from them to establish supremacy of one deity is not an intelligent idea. but since all vaishnavas like to rely more on smriti than on shruti i resorted to puranic qoutations.

 

now dont come up saying padma purana has a list of satvik purana. satvik purana is a self proclaimatory statement by padma purana and is not verifiable by any other text. going by this logic one i can show millions of similar tantric texts establishing the superiority of tantras and kaali over the rest . self proclaimatory texts cannot be the basis of arguments. one must show that 'non satvik' puranas accepts this grouping before qouting such things.

 

puranas were all written to glorify a particular diety which vaishnavs tend to disagree.

 

Does it mean that Durga and Radha are on equal footing? Because all these descriptions you made regarding Durga points to Radha.

-----

[sambya]

 

Does it mean that Durga and Radha are on equal footing? Because all these descriptions you made regarding Durga points to Radha.

-----

according to gaudiya vaishnavism no . but from historical , puranic , shakta and tantric perspective yes .

 

radha existed in the folklores of indian subcontinent until she was given the formal shastric recognition at the begining of last millenium by nibarka sampradaya and mainly by gaudiya sampradaya.as gaudiya vaishnavas were the ones to restore vraj bhumi , their thought naturally ruled over vrindavan area . this quickly spread over entire north india and radha's seat grew permanent.

 

the first historical record of radha appears in geet govinda where krishna directly adresses radha as chandi . chandi is a name associated with the fierce ugra aspect of devi .this shows the evolutionary process of radha . it was after chaitanyadev that radha was gradually seperated from the mainstream shaktism and given a distinct and superior status to devi .

 

in early vaishnava texts only devi as yogamaya , vishnumaya and laxmi appears as the shakti of vishnu , not radha.

 

analyzations of early hindu text shows no depiction of radha. obviously vaishnavs cleverly attributed this absence to the imcomprehensibility of radha tattwa. they said that as radha tattwa is the most difficult and impossible to explain great saints like vyasa and sukhadev were silent on this issue . but this ridiculous theory creates some paradoxes. for example this suggests that saints of kali yuga are higher souls than saints of satya yuga or dwapara yuga. this goes against the principle that dharma continuously decreases with each passing day of kaliyuga . this makes jayadev a higher soul than vyasa or sukhadev goswami. moreover going by this logic one can say that philosophy of santoshi maa ( a diety solely created by bollywood cinema overnight ) was so diffficult that no earlier saints could realize her . only the film director understood her merit in the last decade.

 

one do find the name radha , although not in the same sense as todays radha. similarly you can find the word kali in few vedic text but they were not used in the same sense as the goddess of today.

 

radha was a concept that gained universal acceptance under gaudiya vaishnavism and nimvarkas.

 

all this is purely from historical prespective . gaudiya vaishnav texts wouldnt conform to these theories but nonetheless , one cannot deny history .....

 

shakta and tantric veiws still see no difference between the two.from a shastric viewpoint durga says " ekaivaham jagat tatra dwitiya ka mam apara ?? " . this means -- in this manifestaions its only me who exists.im the only female .

 

this also indicates the oneness of them.

 

but in case you dont want to believe history or selectively accept history ( most gaudiyas habitually do that along with science) you are free to do so. im not forcing these thoughts on anybody.

 

dandavat.

[sambya]

gaudiya vaishnavas are perhaps more reluctant to accept shaktism than other vaishnav sampradyas. this can be attributed to the fact that the feud between shaktas and vaishnavs was predominant throughout history . their clashes and rivalry has been the topic of discussion and amusement in bengali literature through out ages.

 

the beliefs and customs of the two are also entirely seperate . shaktism was often mistankenly viewed as being same with vamaachara tantrikism( a corrupted form of tantrikism where rituals included sex, meat and fish eating along with liqour and various occult practices).

 

shakta sadhana is also very different from vaishnav one. the former lays stress on virbhava and is primarily monistic while the latter in madhur bhava and is solely dualistic in nature. many robbers used to sacrifice humans to kaali and such acts were understood by the vaishnavas as shakta sadhana out of ignorance.

 

obviously one cannot blame the religion for the malpractices that have crept in it at a later date . for example one cannot blame the gaudiyas to encourage sex just because some sahajiya sects do that .

 

this defference in opinion and practices led to the general abhorrence of shaktas by the vaishnavs. gradually they started making consciouss eforts to distance themselves form the shakta followers and it resulted in the sectarian teachings in their texts.

 

once again , all this is purely from historical prespective and one is free to accept or reject.

[melvin]

 

according to gaudiya vaishnavism no . but from historical , puranic , shakta and tantric perspective yes .

 

radha existed in the folklores of indian subcontinent until she was given the formal shastric recognition at the begining of last millenium by nibarka sampradaya and mainly by gaudiya sampradaya.as gaudiya vaishnavas were the ones to restore vraj bhumi , their thought naturally ruled over vrindavan area . this quickly spread over entire north india and radha's seat grew permanent.

 

the first historical record of radha appears in geet govinda where krishna directly adresses radha as chandi . chandi is a name associated with the fierce ugra aspect of devi .this shows the evolutionary process of radha . it was after chaitanyadev that radha was gradually seperated from the mainstream shaktism and given a distinct and superior status to devi .

 

in early vaishnava texts only devi as yogamaya , vishnumaya and laxmi appears as the shakti of vishnu , not radha.

 

analyzations of early hindu text shows no depiction of radha. obviously vaishnavs cleverly attributed this absence to the imcomprehensibility of radha tattwa. they said that as radha tattwa is the most difficult and impossible to explain great saints like vyasa and sukhadev were silent on this issue . but this ridiculous theory creates some paradoxes. for example this suggests that saints of kali yuga are higher souls than saints of satya yuga or dwapara yuga. this goes against the principle that dharma continuously decreases with each passing day of kaliyuga . this makes jayadev a higher soul than vyasa or sukhadev goswami. moreover going by this logic one can say that philosophy of santoshi maa ( a diety solely created by bollywood cinema overnight ) was so diffficult that no earlier saints could realize her . only the film director understood her merit in the last decade.

 

one do find the name radha , although not in the same sense as todays radha. similarly you can find the word kali in few vedic text but they were not used in the same sense as the goddess of today.

 

radha was a concept that gained universal acceptance under gaudiya vaishnavism and nimvarkas.

 

all this is purely from historical prespective . gaudiya vaishnav texts wouldnt conform to these theories but nonetheless , one cannot deny history .....

 

shakta and tantric veiws still see no difference between the two.from a shastric viewpoint durga says " ekaivaham jagat tatra dwitiya ka mam apara ?? " . this means -- in this manifestaions its only me who exists.im the only female .

 

this also indicates the oneness of them.

 

but in case you dont want to believe history or selectively accept history ( most gaudiyas habitually do that along with science) you are free to do so. im not forcing these thoughts on anybody.

 

dandavat.

 

Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was described by his followers as Radhakrsna but never Durgakrsna maybe it`s because Durga would best fit with Siva or with Balarama. It`s Durga who destroys not Radha.

----

[sambya]

 

Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was described by his followers as Radhakrsna but never Durgakrsna maybe it`s because Durga would best fit with Siva or with Balarama. It`s Durga who destroys not Radha.

 

thats obvious !!! because the concept of radha had already formed around that time. remember jayadev predates chaitanya by 500 years approx. after that chandidas of bengal also extolled radha to a high degree. by that time she was already a shastric deity and not merely a legendary character found in rural folklore.

 

It`s Durga who destroys not Radha.

 

what does that mean ? durga also creates and sustains . same with radha in gaudiya philosophy.

[melvin]

 

thats obvious !!! because the concept of radha had already formed around that time. remember jayadev predates chaitanya by 500 years approx. after that chandidas of bengal also extolled radha to a high degree. by that time she was already a shastric deity and not merely a legendary character found in rural folklore.

 

 

what does that mean ? durga also creates and sustains . same with radha in gaudiya philosophy.

 

Durga maintains and sustains the cosmic manifestation but she is also a destroyer. Radha doesn`t have this quality. Just like Krsna. He uses Lord Siva to destroy. Brahma to create and Vishnu to maintain the cosmic manifestation. If Durga has all of this three qualities, then there`s no need for me to worship Krsna because Durga is greater than Krsna.

 

----

[sambya]

 

Durga maintains and sustains the cosmic manifestation but she is also a destroyer. Radha doesn`t have this quality

that would mean durga is the main shakti and radha her expansion. i dont object ...................

 

 

If Durga has all of this three qualities, then there`s no need for me to worship Krsna because Durga is greater than Krsna

she does have all these three qualities . the combined shaktis of all gods including vishnu himself is personified as durga. she in form of braahmi ( shakti of brahma) creates , in form of naraayani or vaishnavi (shakti of vishnu) preserves and rudraani or maaheswari( shakti of maheswar or rudra) destroys).

 

this is indeed difficult to understand. for example durga is the mother of skanda or kartikeya and yet she is the shakti of kartika in form of kaumaari. this is beacause she is the only existing power in the earth.

 

i dont object if you worship durga. in case you follow gaudiya vaishnavism or similar faiths check out prabhupadas comment on durga and krishna in the book 'KRSNA' ( the chapter where kamsa throws durga up in the air) . he clearly said that there is no distinction between powerfull and the power.

[melvin]

 

that would mean durga is the main shakti and radha her expansion. i dont object ...................

 

 

she does have all these three qualities . the combined shaktis of all gods including vishnu himself is personified as durga. she in form of braahmi ( shakti of brahma) creates , in form of naraayani or vaishnavi (shakti of vishnu) preserves and rudraani or maaheswari( shakti of maheswar or rudra) destroys).

 

this is indeed difficult to understand. for example durga is the mother of skanda or kartikeya and yet she is the shakti of kartika in form of kaumaari. this is beacause she is the only existing power in the earth.

 

i dont object if you worship durga. in case you follow gaudiya vaishnavism or similar faiths check out prabhupadas comment on durga and krishna in the book 'KRSNA' ( the chapter where kamsa throws durga up in the air) . he clearly said that there is no distinction between powerfull and the power.

Then there`s really no distinction between Catholicism and Hinduism. Catholics worship Mother Mary on equal footing with God the Father. Some Hindus worship Durga on equal footing with Krsna. Catholics worship also saints while Hindus worship. demigods.

--

[sambya]

 

Then there`s really no distinction between Catholicism and Hinduism. Catholics worship Mother Mary on equal footing with God the Father. Some Hindus worship Durga on equal footing with Krsna.

firstly it would be MOST hindus rather than SOME hindus.

 

yes , philosophically there is no distinction . both of them are just the reflection of the eternal sankhya philosophy as laid down by sage kapila which deals with the concepts of purusha and prakriti as the cause of the universe.

 

purusha , the male component of truth

prakriti , the female component of truth

[melvin]

 

firstly it would be MOST hindus rather than SOME hindus.

 

yes , philosophically there is no distinction . both of them are just the reflection of the eternal sankhya philosophy as laid down by sage kapila which deals with the concepts of purusha and prakriti as the cause of the universe.

 

purusha , the male component of truth

prakriti , the female component of truth

 

In other words the concept of prakrti(female) and purusa(male) as the cause of the universe according to Kapila`s sankhya philosophy is to a Chinese Tao, the yin(female) and yang(male) components of the Absolute Truth.

-------------------------

[sambya]

 

In other words the concept of prakrti(female) and purusa(male) as the cause of the universe according to Kapila`s sankhya philosophy is to a Chinese Tao, the yin(female) and yang(male) components of the Absolute Truth.

 

maybe they have also realised the same philosophy although bit differently . obviously its not exactly similar .

 

ultimately the truth is same .the level and type of understanding vary. the examples you gave maybe the instances where their philosophy matches with ours .

[melvin]

 

maybe they have also realised the same philosophy although bit differently . obviously its not exactly similar .

 

ultimately the truth is same .the level and type of understanding vary. the examples you gave maybe the instances where their philosophy matches with ours .

 

The concept of Kapila`s sankya philosophy and Taoism maybe more or less is the same. In my country, the Philippines, we have the concept of malakas(male- meaning strong) and maganda(female-meaning beautiful)-said to be mankind`s origin. Just like Adam and Eve in the Bible. In short the concept and philosophy of Durga & Krsna/ Radha & Krsna as the cause of the universe is a universal one. In that case, then nobody I think has the monopoly to state that he/she alone knows absolutely the Absolute Truth.

 

-----

[Deathless]

 

Perhaps by underworld, Melvin means the Mafia realm. The Gotti family in the west, Dawood and gang in India, etc., perform Durga Puja before starting any major activity, like planning an execution, or expanding their extortion rackets.

 

Perhaps he means Durga makes their desires come true - as the Goddess of the underworld.

 

Cheers

Oh, goddess of the proverbial "underworld".

[Deathless]

 

Is Durga specifically called a "goddess" or "Hindu goddess" in any scripture? What are these terms that are used by the Hindu laity based on? Where is she explicitly described as a "Hindu goddess?"

DEVI Mahatmyam. The title of the scripture describing her origin even has the word 'goddess' in it!

 

Since the scriptures are written in Sanskrit, you can quibble all you want with any translation of words like "deva." Or you can use the original words and understand the concept behind them. I think the less-than-ideal iskcon translation as "demigod" is just trying to get across the point that they are elevated beings but not on the same level as God/Brahman. If you think they mean something else by it, you are welcome to explain yourself. It's not my translation.

I think they're trying to promote their philosophy by being dishonest in their translation.

I don't see how one can get 'demigod' or 'demigoddess' out of 'deva' or 'devi'. Krishna is called 'Vasudeva' and no one translates that as 'demigod of the Vasu clan'. Balaram is called 'Baladeva' and no one translates that as 'strong demigod'.

They aren't trying to give the 'general idea of the passage' in translating it like that. They're just incorporating their own ideas into their biased translations.

 

Every so often we get another round of Shaivite/Shaktaite postings by authors who think they can convince those silly little Hare Krishna people to give up their Vishnu-centric beliefs by quoting from some esoteric section of a virtually unknown smriti that extols the virtues of some other devata. I thought this was where you were coming from. If not, then we have nothing here to disagree about as far as I can tell.

I have no problem with people worshipping MahaVishnu. I'm not trying to make anyone give up their worship of Vishnu. I would just like it if some of Lord Vishnu's worshipers would stop degrading the other devas and devis, as if it were some alternate way of praising Vishnu.

[raghu]

 

she has been referred to as devi , maheshwari , ishwari , etc which can be interpreted in english as goddess.

 

Which brings to mind what you mean by "goddess." Webster's dictionary gives the first definition of "God" as

 

–noun <TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD class=dnindex>1.</TD><TD>the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

I am sure you would agree that English dictionaries are a standard authority on the English language.

 

From the above, it is obvious why any Vaishnava would be reluctant to translate terms like "deva" as "God/Goddess" when describing subordinate devas like Indra, Surya, Durga, Shiva, etc. as this is not accurate as per their worldview.

 

This is not to say that I entirely agree with the terms "demigod" or "demigoddess" either, since those are not technically accurate as per strict definition in English dictionaries. However, if the point is to get across the idea that they are not God then I don't think that is inaccurate.

 

 

merely elevated beings ? you think so ? ill show you......................

 

Thank you for proving my point. Shaktaism and other later religious systems can only stand by taking very out of the way smritis and unheard of "shrutis" as evidence while ignoring more mainstream sources that contradict them. Hence my initial point that neither your nor Deathless have given adequate reasoning that would be acceptable to a strict Vedantist as to why one should place Durga on the same level as Vishnu.

 

 

now dont come up saying padma purana has a list of satvik purana. satvik purana is a self proclaimatory statement by padma purana and is not verifiable by any other text.

 

This is grossly incorrect. The Matsya Purana also has the same classification of puranas into sattva, rajas, and tamas. And by the way, Matsya Purana happens to be in the latter category. So no help for you there.

[raghu]

 

DEVI Mahatmyam. The title of the scripture describing her origin even has the word 'goddess' in it!

 

No, it has the word 'devi' in it. "Goddess" is an English word.

 

 

I think they're trying to promote their philosophy by being dishonest in their translation.

I don't see how one can get 'demigod' or 'demigoddess' out of 'deva' or 'devi'. Krishna is called 'Vasudeva' and no one translates that as 'demigod of the Vasu clan'. Balaram is called 'Baladeva' and no one translates that as 'strong demigod'.

They aren't trying to give the 'general idea of the passage' in translating it like that. They're just incorporating their own ideas into their biased translations.

 

I think you are being rather obtuse, whether deliberately so or not I am not really sure. There is certainly more than adequate evidence in the pramAna-s that they accept which supports the idea of deva-tAratamya with Vishnu at the top. Do I really need to quote them for you? Let me just assume that you have picked up the gItA and read it for now, which is probably more than I can say for most critics of Vaishnavism.

 

Based on these pramAna-s, one who wants to translate these sources into English must necessarily translate "deva" in such a way as to differentiate the referent from paramAtmA. Since "god" refers to a supreme Being in English (English being a language that is influenced by Christian monotheism), it would not be accurate to translate anya-devatas as "gods" as that would not be keeping with the spirit of the text. Otherwise, what does it mean to you when Sri Krishna says antavat tu phalaM teShAM tad bhavatyalpamedhasAm / devAn devayajo yAnti madbhaktA yAnti mAm api //" If other worshippers of other devas go to one destination and worshippers of Krishna go to another, it follows that they are not the same, right? And if "God" refers to a supreme being (standard English usage), and Krishna is declared to be supreme, then other devas cannot also be referred to as "Gods," right?

 

My main problem with the translation of "demigod" is that the term literally refers to beings that are the offspring of a human and a god, like some characters from Greek mythology. Thus, I don't think the iskcon translation is exactly in keeping with the historical use of the word "demigod." Devas like Shiva, Ganesha, etc are not half human - they are in a class of their own, but still not on the same level as paramAtmA. But if the iskcon people are just using the term to differentiate anya-devatas from paramAtmA then there should be no problem with it. It's a translation after all. No translation will be 100% perfect. Like any translation, it's important to understand the basis for the translation rather than quibbling over hair-splitting analyses. If they are not to use the term "demigod," and "god" is inaccurate for reasons that were already mentioned, then what English translation would you have them use?

[kaisersose]

 

This is grossly incorrect. The Matsya Purana also has the same classification of puranas into sattva, rajas, and tamas. And by the way, Matsya Purana happens to be in the latter category. So no help for you there.

 

The Matsya does not have such a classificaton. The exact classification of Sattva Puranas comes from Padma (which classifies itself as Sattva, of course).

 

The Matysa says Puranas with Vishnu as the main theme are Sattva Puranas, but does not name the Puranas that qualify as Sattva. So the Matysa does not classify itself as Tamasic - and as is evident by its name, it is a Vaishnava Purana with emphasis on the Matsya avatar and Vishnu in general.

 

In short, the Padma and Matsya say Puranas with Vishnu as the main theme are Vaishnava Puranas and not surprisingly, both these Puranas have Vishnu as the main theme. No non-Vaishnava Purana contains such a concept. The only inconsistency in this whole story is the Padma classifying the Matsya as Tamasic. This inconsistency does not support the Vaishnava=Sattva theory, but actually repudiates it.

 

Cheers

[melvin]

Why I became lukewarm with Christianity is because Catholics and protestants argue with whom they worship whether its Mother Mary or God the Father. The same with Hinduism. Hindus argue if Durga is more of Vishnu-shakti than shiva-shakti. Blah blah.We have forgotten that devotion to God can never take place if we don`t put LOVE at the center.

----

[sambya]

 

Which brings to mind what you mean by "goddess."

 

most hindu terms and words cannot be translated correctly in english . we take the nearest equivalents to them. take for example the word dharma . how can one translate this word in english . it is a multi dimensional word with many deep meanings.

 

in hinduism the supreme is described as :

 

brahman , baghavan , narayan ( to vaishnavs) vishnu( to vaishnavs ) etc

 

all these words have their female counterparts . durga is reffered as : brahmamayi , bhagavati , narayani , vaishnavi etc

 

 

 

From the above, it is obvious why any Vaishnava would be reluctant to translate terms like "deva" as "God/Goddess" when describing subordinate devas like Indra, Surya, Durga, Shiva, etc. as this is not accurate as per their worldview.

 

 

durga doesnt fall in the catogary of 'subordinate devas' . she shares no characteristics with such devas . she is eternal , without birth or death which is not the case with the devas you are suggesting .

 

and if you still prefer to call her demi god or half god then admit that vishnu and krishna to be imperfect ( half of them turns demigod ) .

 

 

........while ignoring more mainstream sources that contradict them

 

what is mainstream sources according to you ? bhagavat ? charitamrita and brahma samhita ?