Did Lord Vishnu recommend Goddess worship?

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

 

Many people pray to Durga. That is power of Krishna the Powerful is Krishna. So they are the same. She is sister of Krishna. So people usually pray for Material Gains. Durga in this World is called Durga. Durga in the Spiritual World is Sri Radha. So they are the same. But one is for Material Gains. Other is for ONLY Bhakti. It may be said why sister? Why Durga is sister? Why Sri Radha is lover of Krishna?

 

Trancendental relationship. In Krishna-lila Durga came as Sister to womb of Yashoda. When Kamsa tried to Kill. Also we have Subhardra who is Krishna sister but she is Fully Spiritual. Not the same. They are different. {Ps Material always comes from Spiritual so Durga is From Yoga-Maya {Internal energy of Krishna}. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

 

Subhadra is yogamaya. The spiritual energy is called yogamaya. And she has 16 different expansions. Out of these 16 expansions, Subhadra is one. The mahamaya of the material energy is also expansion of the energy of yogamaya; and both yogamaya and mahamaya are equally important to Krishna as much as any government department is equally important for functioning of the government. The police department may be horrible for the criminals, but to the government it is a department as good as university department. Similarly, mahamaya is horrible to the conditioned soul, but to the liberated soul, there is no fear of mahamaya, because he is protected by yogamaya.

 

 

 

--

Regarding your question about Subhadra and Durga, they are not at all the same. Durga's other name is Bhadra, not Subhadra, and Durga's activities are within the material world. Subhadra does not work as Durga. Subhadra is internal energy, and Durga is external energy. As energy, they have a relationship as much as we are energies of Krishna, but the energies are working in different capacities. Although originally the energy is one, by their expansion, the accents of the energies are different, and as we are not impersonalists, this variegatedness of actions are essential for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as much as the government is one but there are multi-departments for management of the government. The education department and the criminal department are all departments of the government. The government is connected with all parts and departments, but the education activities are different from the criminal activities. This is the philosophy of inconceivably simultaneously one and different manifestations of the Absolute Truth.

--

 

[Guest guest]

Your point is well noted, but keep in mind that this is only from one source. The hindu religion is too complex and at the best of times confusing to understand, so I have decided to study various text and sources to find, in my mind the right answer. It should also be pointed out that any writer or composer, be it a sage, saint or professor will and have impose their own views and opinions on matters that are not easy to deciper. To make my point that I consider the goddess to be SUPREME, I will bring to your attention various points and their sources. Starting with the Devi Mahatmyam (the ultimate text used in the worship of the Devi). In the very first hymn, the Brahmastuti - Brahma hymned the goddess as such: By you, he who creates, protects adn devours the world is subdued with sleep, Who here can praise you? You have caused even Vishnu, Siva and me to assume our embodied form, Who then can truly praise you. In of course all the verses she is hymed as the greatest of being having powers over all the gods. In the other hymn I saw posted earlier in this discussion - known as the Aparajitastuti (hymn to the Invincible Devi) This hymn is of course a celebration of the Devi immanence, praising her various aspects from the formless abstraction of supreme power to specific forms assumed by that power. Also this hymn sheds light on the meaning of the name Durga as you have pointed out in your response - basically means "difficult to access or approach" - similar to a fort - but of course with a different spin as explained in your source. I also would like to bring to your attention the mention of the goddess, Aditya and Vac who are Vedic goddesses, whose hymns are on par with the hymns to the Gods of the Rig Veda. This is a rare occurence in the Vedas, moreso the Rig Veda where these two hymns are found. These two goddesses have in later Vedic period become identified with the Great Devi herself. The Rig Veda hymn to Vac become known as the Devi Sukta hymn and is recited at the beginning of the Devi Mahatmyam. These two hymns establishes the Goddess (or some feminine power) as the mother of the Gods and the very creation of this world. Something we can discuss later. I would like to hear your response and we can continue with this dicussion later.

[Guest guest]

- To THE World -

 

There is only thre power in this world ,by which the world is running.

 

1. Fire

2. Water

3. Air

 

and the only one things in this world that has thease three things - that is SHREE.

 

I want to change this world into the Heaven.

 

As i feel I had a radha , and I got that.. that is SHREE,

 

Just i am waiting for her , as soon as she is comes , the world will be changed.

 

yes! its TRUE if you belive.

 

thank you

chandra bhushan kumar

<font color="red"> </font color> <font color="red"> </font color>

[bhadramoorthi]

you said:

"..The difference between worshipping Vishnu and Lakshmi is that it is even harder to get the blessings of Lakshmi - because she herself is devoted to Vishnu. If one can, however, somehow get Lakshmi's blessings then it is an amazing acheivement, since one automatically gets the blessing of Vishnu..."

 

Mother is all merciful and cant bear the cries of the child for so long.

 

Differentiating and comparing the several forms of mother is stupidity.

Mother takes several forms .As we are Her children, we should not be deceived by the change in forms.

 

you said:

"...Lakshmi controls Vishnu, Radha controls Krishna...but Durga only controls the material energy..."

 

LAKSHMI IS THE WEALTH GODDESS!

ANY DOUBT IN THAT???

 

Radha was the lover of Krishna.

 

Durga= Dur+ ga

Dur= difficult

ga = to attain or reach

 

I could say Krishna was attached to the material world, since He took several avatars in this "MATERIAL" world.

 

ANY REASONS FOR NOT CONSIDERING HIM "MATERIAL" ??

[Guest guest]

Those who argue in the name of gods, claiming one to be superior or inferior over the others are agyanis(ignorants)and should be I wholly agree with ONE that the gods and goddesses are the manifestations of the one and onyl PARAMATMAN the 'SUPREME SOUL'

[aditya]

the first offense to the holy name is to consider anything independent of krishna..the neophytes maynot get this now but grdually they will know tht shiva,devi or brahma are not independent of HIM but manifestations of HIMSELF...KRISHNA is parabrahma but so is shiva n devi

[aditya]

Prabhupada quotes from brahma samhita - so there is no speculation involved...

 

2) Prabhupada is in the bona fide disciplic succession, so there is no doubt that he is an authority...

 

chayeva - shadow is from the actual Brahma Samhita shloka...

 

If worshipping the shadow of God is your goal of life, then do so...

 

But why not worship the source of the shadow?

 

Does it not make logical sense?

**********************************************************

 

 

no it doesnt really...coz the stupid statement tht u quoted is from brahma samhita no doubt....but did u ever use ur head and pondered as to wat exactly is brahma samhita?which u guys r so pompously quoting to every tom dick n harry? jus bcoz u guys r advertising it doesnt mean it is bonafide...brahma samhita is neither from any vedic scripture nor a purana or upanisha..it is a paltry article taken by chaitanya mahaprabhu in some adi keshava temple in south india...and sir! every temple has some quoting or the other..if u go to tamilnadu u wud find millions of temples each with their own intepretations of their deities..ud see vishnu worshipping parvati doin tapasya and so on...so do u regard them as bonafide too? just becoz other shaivaites or impersonalists dont have enough funding and brainwashing capacities like u pple doesnt mean brahma samhita is authentic? and now u mite even say tht chaitanya charitamrita is a"scripture"....no doubt about tht? but letme tell u smthin...brahmastuti a hymn to the goddess by brahma is more bonafide as it is written by vyasadava and not derived from some temple....ok?and ur prabhupad quotes so many things to suit his own agendas....tht doesnt mean he is bonafide...and regarding the parampara system......ramanujacharya was a big fool like u and ur prabhupada and went to puri and halted the entry of commoners into the temple and even he like a bigotted idiot said"i come from a parampara and things shud be done in my own way"...as a consequence to that the supreme lord appeared in his dream as jagannatha and warned him with dire consequences and asked him to leave puri asap... u guys have a dearth of common sense and ur fanatics......ur like frogs in a well..u cannot think of nethin beyond urstories fecund with nonsense.. and dont ever dare to call urself as the only bonafide cult..there are many cults in chennai and tirupati who preach far more better philosophy about krishna than u pple..just tht u guys are ignorant about it...coz ur brainwashed... lord krishna is the most merciful god and he is not limited to a particular form unlike how fools think...HE is everything and everthing is HIM...he is vishnu,shiva,devi and ganesha....u pple have money so u go and broadcast shit about hinduism but tht doesnt mean ur correct/...thts y the success in the foreign countries..where drug addicts n maniacs n hippies n depressed morons are hell bent to join ur cult

[gokulkr]

Hey adithya,

 

Stop telling "ramanujacjarya" as a fool. Krishna wont love you or accept you just because you are calling krishna's beloved devotee as a fool. First try to respect bagawathas first before respecting God itself. You have committed a great sin by calling "Ramanujacharya" as a fool.

You are the biggest fool in this universe by calling respected achryas like "Ramanujacharya" as fools.

Neither Shiva or Vishnu will love stupid arrogrant fools like you.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya

[Tantrayoga]

Of course all respected acharyas and Gurus should be given due respects.

But the problem is that some vaishnava acharyas don't exactly refrain from calling other Gurus as fools and rascals and putting them down while keep hailing their own parampara as super duper supreme.

 

So its a very biased kind of situation. My sampradaya is super cool and if you utter a word against it you are doomed and blasphemed and will have the wrath of krsna etc. But I can call you whatever since according to quote number so and so in my sampradaya's accepted scripture, such and such conduct is not exactly falling in line with it.

 

I think in spiritual life, we should learn to respect all.

A small example is Sai Baba. I do not follow Sai Baba of Puttaparthy.

But I would not abuse him either. He is be 70+ and walks with difficulty. And I've heard a lots of pseudo Krsna enthusiasts hurling abuses like pedophile, sexist etc. What sex can you be doing at that age? Maybe use some discretion and logic?

I heard a few of his lectures and he was hailing bhakti to Shri Krsna, in another lecture to Shri Shiva. If someone increases his bhakti to Krsna or Shiva by hearing that, then its good. So my opinion is that we just tend to form a mob opinion about someone and start hurling our stones.

If I'm not sure about something or haven't exactly experienced it myself, I would refrain from abusing a Guru. But I didn't really appreciate Prabhupada calling Shri Ramakrishna Paramahansa as "fool" publicly and other Indian Gurus as fools and rascals. That's a hard thing to swallow. And I see his followers easily abusing others while praising their own sect. How close this is to Vaishnavism or to Lord Vishnu, see for yourself.

Aditya has made some noteworthy points.

 

 

 

 

Hey adithya,

 

Stop telling "ramanujacjarya" as a fool. Krishna wont love you or accept you just because you are calling krishna's beloved devotee as a fool. First try to respect bagawathas first before respecting God itself. You have committed a great sin by calling "Ramanujacharya" as a fool.

You are the biggest fool in this universe by calling respected achryas like "Ramanujacharya" as fools.

Neither Shiva or Vishnu will love stupid arrogrant fools like you.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya

[Tantrayoga]

I agree with this actually.

 

 

Your point is well noted, but keep in mind that this is only from one source. The hindu religion is too complex and at the best of times confusing to understand, so I have decided to study various text and sources to find, in my mind the right answer. It should also be pointed out that any writer or composer, be it a sage, saint or professor will and have impose their own views and opinions on matters that are not easy to deciper. To make my point that I consider the goddess to be SUPREME, I will bring to your attention various points and their sources. Starting with the Devi Mahatmyam (the ultimate text used in the worship of the Devi). In the very first hymn, the Brahmastuti - Brahma hymned the goddess as such: By you, he who creates, protects adn devours the world is subdued with sleep, Who here can praise you? You have caused even Vishnu, Siva and me to assume our embodied form, Who then can truly praise you. In of course all the verses she is hymed as the greatest of being having powers over all the gods. In the other hymn I saw posted earlier in this discussion - known as the Aparajitastuti (hymn to the Invincible Devi) This hymn is of course a celebration of the Devi immanence, praising her various aspects from the formless abstraction of supreme power to specific forms assumed by that power. Also this hymn sheds light on the meaning of the name Durga as you have pointed out in your response - basically means "difficult to access or approach" - similar to a fort - but of course with a different spin as explained in your source. I also would like to bring to your attention the mention of the goddess, Aditya and Vac who are Vedic goddesses, whose hymns are on par with the hymns to the Gods of the Rig Veda. This is a rare occurence in the Vedas, moreso the Rig Veda where these two hymns are found. These two goddesses have in later Vedic period become identified with the Great Devi herself. The Rig Veda hymn to Vac become known as the Devi Sukta hymn and is recited at the beginning of the Devi Mahatmyam. These two hymns establishes the Goddess (or some feminine power) as the mother of the Gods and the very creation of this world. Something we can discuss later. I would like to hear your response and we can continue with this dicussion later.

[new---new]

 

But I didn't really appreciate Prabhupada calling Shri Ramakrishna Paramahansa as "fool" publicly and other Indian Gurus as fools and rascals. That's a hard thing to swallow. And I see his followers easily abusing others while praising their own sect. How close this is to Vaishnavism or to Lord Vishnu, see for yourself.

Aditya has made some noteworthy points.

 

Dude ... if this is true ... i.e. prabhupada publicly calling ramakrishna a fool......then i too am shocked......... r u really sure ..?......

one thing to keep in mind is that prabhupada was preaching to vaishnavas.. who are .....sorry to say this in this forum........are the neophytes as far as spiritual understanding.......is concerned.............but i think ....it is for the rest of us ..to understand this and not be unduly harsh on vaishnavas......for being so closed minded. they will learn ..in their own sweet time.........

 

Besides ..there is no need for anyone to be surprised about hayagriev instructing agastya to worship goddess............as even in the mahabharata......krishna instructs arjuna to worship Durga before the war.....

 

The Bottomline is this ........ If someone wants to change something in this Material world ... then he will have to worship the material energy ........if someone is only interested in his liberation then he doesnt need to do anything .... like prahlada..... he can just do bhakti...... but in such a situation .....ones patience is likely to be fully tested .....all kinds of miseries were brought upon phralada but he had full faith and was saved ..... however in case of arjuna ...krishna knowing his kshatriya nature .instructs arjun to worship shiva and durga and acquire divine weapons.......and krishna even says this in the geeta where he says to arjuna that even if he leaves the battlefield and decides to live by begging .....he will be forced to come to the battlefield driven by his kshatriya nature...indirectly telling him that he will be unable to bear injustice .........

 

so if a material end needs to be achieved the one needs to worship durga or any of her forms ..........besides if one worships durga without any expectations then that will still count as karma yoga and bring about spritual progress and liberation.......

 

the best thing vaishnavas can do is follow the guru chant their rounds and stick to sattvik diet ........practice will bring experiences and all doubts will be cleared.......

[dhaa]

 

Of course all respected acharyas and Gurus should be given due respects.

But the problem is that some vaishnava acharyas don't exactly refrain from calling other Gurus as fools and rascals and putting them down while keep hailing their own parampara as super duper supreme.

 

So its a very biased kind of situation. My sampradaya is super cool and if you utter a word against it you are doomed and blasphemed and will have the wrath of krsna etc. But I can call you whatever since according to quote number so and so in my sampradaya's accepted scripture, such and such conduct is not exactly falling in line with it.

 

I think in spiritual life, we should learn to respect all.

A small example is Sai Baba. I do not follow Sai Baba of Puttaparthy.

But I would not abuse him either. He is be 70+ and walks with difficulty. And I've heard a lots of pseudo Krsna enthusiasts hurling abuses like pedophile, sexist etc. What sex can you be doing at that age? Maybe use some discretion and logic?

I heard a few of his lectures and he was hailing bhakti to Shri Krsna, in another lecture to Shri Shiva. If someone increases his bhakti to Krsna or Shiva by hearing that, then its good. So my opinion is that we just tend to form a mob opinion about someone and start hurling our stones.

If I'm not sure about something or haven't exactly experienced it myself, I would refrain from abusing a Guru. But I didn't really appreciate Prabhupada calling Shri Ramakrishna Paramahansa as "fool" publicly and other Indian Gurus as fools and rascals. That's a hard thing to swallow. And I see his followers easily abusing others while praising their own sect. How close this is to Vaishnavism or to Lord Vishnu, see for yourself.

Aditya has made some noteworthy points.

 

It's the fundamentals of any religion to be respectful. I'm clueless how a practitioner of any religion for decades like Prabhupada can disrespect anyone, moreso clueless how he can consciously choose to spend his time to disrespect another holy person. This behavior isn't holy or religious. Bottom line its not Vaishnavism. He accomplished many great things but this duplicitious behavior of his is rather peculiar.

[dhaa]

Narayan or Goddess Narayani - same

 

Bhagavat Puran or Devi Bhagavat Puran - same

[krishnaleela]

 

how a practitioner of any religion for decades like Prabhupada can disrespect anyone, moreso clueless how he can consciously choose to spend his time to disrespect another holy person. This behavior isn't holy or religious. Bottom line its not Vaishnavism. He accomplished many great things but this duplicitious behavior of his is rather peculiar.

 

Prabhupada was likely speaking out of frustration. We need not dissect his words said in general lectures or conversations and make them the cornerstones of his personality. Saintly people can take breaks and indulge in their groups at a lower level of push and shove, which may translate as slighting other groups.

 

The Vaishnava sampradaya believes in a one-pointed approach and feels that a more embracing viewpoint can dilute the devotees' pursuit of Satya. "Nishta" to one's own ideal; unfortunately that often degenerates to abuse of other approaches in order to feel secure in one's own.

 

One way the Hindu avoids fanaticism in the face of differences is to give accomodation for the other party and accept that their path will ultimately lead to our conclusion in understanding. The other's path is not invalid but rather incomplete. [The followers of Sri ramakrishna (and general Hindu viewpoint) will not even allow this much : they will say for example that the other person also has the same realization of Truth, only the expression differs according to the standpoint taken.] If we read Prabhupada's intro to his BG commentary, we see that this is how he accomodates the advaita viewpoint. The impersonal Brahman, according to him, is not the final aspect; it is like a glow of the Personal -- so the advaitin stops midway and will have to return to Krishna Consciousness (in Vaishnava sense) to "go all the way".

 

Prabhupada also does not condemn Shankaracharya and considers him among the "great acharyas", and the Iskcon viewpoint gives Shankara a legitimate position as divine incarnation of Shiva for a specific purpose (of dealing with atheists/buddhists). In fact, he repeatedly points out that Shankara also holds Krishna as supreme personality and thereby tries level best to accomodate the acharya. Of course, ultimately he does not agree with advaitic position of Shankara and is more severe upon the later advaitins (i.e. mayavadis:-)) who, according to him, did more damage.

 

This "more damage" to the Vedic position on Truth and the Vedic culture has (if I am to guess Prabhupada) led to an irrepairable degeneration among the Hindus from the Vedic ideals. He recognizes in the BG intro that the Hindu considers the Vedas infallible; hence in essence and principle he is one with us. However in practice, the general Hindu community hardly represents the Vedic life and has become a mix of "accept anything and everything under a blanket of philosophy". [but really to mention here, our subordination under Moghuls and British has a lot to do with present state.]

 

Hence the frustration and occasional lashing out at others and apparent separating himself from the Hindus. To go back to the Vedic past, we, who are caught in today's modernisms, know is a tremendous task. We die before putting on the least of our religious symbols/dresses on our bodies. But when we see ISKCON doing it, we feel proud and think "ah, real Hindus", exactly so, until we find their views regarding us !! The point is: in order to get this march back to the Vedas (and hence to Krishna), Prabhupada had to commit ISKCON to the military one-pointed unyielding approach, in order to survive this modern world. We have to look for the positives of this movement and seek to learn: It is a Hindu group representing the Vedic ideals. Let's not get caught in the uncomprehending slogans coming from the "later ISKCONians".

[suchandra]

 

Prabhupada was likely speaking out of frustration. We need not dissect his words said in general lectures or conversations and make them the cornerstones of his personality. Saintly people can take breaks and indulge in their groups at a lower level of push and shove, which may translate as slighting other groups.

 

The Vaishnava sampradaya believes in a one-pointed approach and feels that a more embracing viewpoint can dilute the devotees' pursuit of Satya. "Nishta" to one's own ideal; unfortunately that often degenerates to abuse of other approaches in order to feel secure in one's own.

 

One way the Hindu avoids fanaticism in the face of differences is to give accomodation for the other party and accept that their path will ultimately lead to our conclusion in understanding. The other's path is not invalid but rather incomplete. [The followers of Sri ramakrishna (and general Hindu viewpoint) will not even allow this much : they will say for example that the other person also has the same realization of Truth, only the expression differs according to the standpoint taken.] If we read Prabhupada's intro to his BG commentary, we see that this is how he accomodates the advaita viewpoint. The impersonal Brahman, according to him, is not the final aspect; it is like a glow of the Personal -- so the advaitin stops midway and will have to return to Krishna Consciousness (in Vaishnava sense) to "go all the way".

 

Prabhupada also does not condemn Shankaracharya and considers him among the "great acharyas", and the Iskcon viewpoint gives Shankara a legitimate position as divine incarnation of Shiva for a specific purpose (of dealing with atheists/buddhists). In fact, he repeatedly points out that Shankara also holds Krishna as supreme personality and thereby tries level best to accomodate the acharya. Of course, ultimately he does not agree with advaitic position of Shankara and is more severe upon the later advaitins (i.e. mayavadis:-)) who, according to him, did more damage.

 

This "more damage" to the Vedic position on Truth and the Vedic culture has (if I am to guess Prabhupada) led to an irrepairable degeneration among the Hindus from the Vedic ideals. He recognizes in the BG intro that the Hindu considers the Vedas infallible; hence in essence and principle he is one with us. However in practice, the general Hindu community hardly represents the Vedic life and has become a mix of "accept anything and everything under a blanket of philosophy". [but really to mention here, our subordination under Moghuls and British has a lot to do with present state.]

 

Hence the frustration and occasional lashing out at others and apparent separating himself from the Hindus. To go back to the Vedic past, we, who are caught in today's modernisms, know is a tremendous task. We die before putting on the least of our religious symbols/dresses on our bodies. But when we see ISKCON doing it, we feel proud and think "ah, real Hindus", exactly so, until we find their views regarding us !! The point is: in order to get this march back to the Vedas (and hence to Krishna), Prabhupada had to commit ISKCON to the military one-pointed unyielding approach, in order to survive this modern world. We have to look for the positives of this movement and seek to learn: It is a Hindu group representing the Vedic ideals. Let's not get caught in the uncomprehending slogans coming from the "later ISKCONians".

Even when people who grew up in India are becoming atheists, still they feel attached to their murtis and at least get born as human beings in the next life to make further advancement. People of "Western culture" - things look worse than one would imagine. Their living is so sinful that it's rather realistic they become something like birds and even lower animals in their next life.

In almost every Indian shop you find Lord Ganesh, who's related to Srila Vyasadeva and helps people to gradually advance in spiritual life.

 

 

 

Wikipedia: Ganesha, Sanskrit: गणेश; Gaṇeśa, also spelled Ganesa or Ganesh and known as Ganapati and Vinayaka, is one of the best-known and most-worshipped deities in the Hindu pantheon;[5] his image is found throughout India.[6] Hindu sects worship him regardless of other affiliations.[7] Devotion to Ganesha is widely diffused and extends to Jains, Buddhists, and beyond India.[8]

 

Although he is known by many other attributes, Ganesha's elephant head makes him easy to identify.[9] Ganesha is widely revered as the Remover of Obstacles[10] and more generally as Lord of Beginnings and Lord of Obstacles (Vighnesha, Vighneshvara),[11] patron of arts and sciences, and the deva of intellect and wisdom.[12] He is honoured at the start of rituals and ceremonies and invoked as Patron of Letters during writing sessions.[13] Several texts relate mythological anecdotes associated with his birth and exploits and explain his distinct iconography.

 

Ganesha emerged as a distinct deity in clearly-recognizable form in the 4th and 5th centuries CE, during the Gupta Period, although he inherited traits from Vedic and pre-Vedic precursors.[14] His popularity rose quickly, and he was formally included among the five primary deities of Smartism (a Hindu denomination) in the 9th century. A sect of devotees called the Ganapatya, (Sanskrit: गाणपत्य; gāṇapatya), who identified Ganesha as the supreme deity, arose during this period.[15] The principal scriptures dedicated to Ganesha are the Ganesha Purana, the Mudgala Purana, and the Ganapati Atharvashirsa.