Worship of Demigods.

[Vaishnava_das108]

Originally posted to Achintya http://www.achintya.org

 

Dear devotees,

 

I would like to clarify that I personally do not have any interest in defaming the demigods. As someone has already said, they are much higher servitors of Krishna and thus deserve the necessary respect according to Vaisnava etiquette. Another devotee stated something to the likes of "we should not be excessively proud of having a monopoly on the truth just because we know that Krishna is the Supreme." Although I do agree in principle that we should not be excessively proud about anything, not just spiritual monopoly, but have received the mercy of Lord Chaitanya even though we are most wretched and unqualified to receive it. Having received such mercy, it is only our proper duty to drink some of the nectar and then share it with others. It is our duty to preach the truth of Krishna Consciousness, and Lord Chaitanya has specifically ordered us to do so, without compromise.

 

I am glad that this has provoked discussion though. Thank you all for your explanations.

 

The whole concept of "demigod worship" is a difficult one to preach to Indians, or people of Indian origin. It is an obstacle that I have to face almost every time I have the opportunity to preach. It may be true that different temperaments are required for different people, but I find that the bold approach that Srila Prbahupada employed often works best, coupled with sastric quotations. Most people have nothing to say when faced with Sri Krishna's words in Bhagavad-Gita as stated in Chapter 7 and others.

 

The main problem is that people have been conditioned to worship demigods. They have grown up seeing mini-temples in every corner of India that are dedicated to some demigod or other. They have grown up witnessing the celebration of many minor festivals. They have grown up listening to bhajans dedicated to demigods. They themselves have prayed to different gods. They may even have heard Mayavadi philosophy that "it doesn't matter which god you pray to because they are all one anyway." Some are even anti-Prabhupada or anti-ISKCON. Therefore it is very hard for people to realise and stomach the fact that they have done the WRONG thing all their lives. After all, Sri Krishna says that a little advancement in devotional service is your asset forever, but how would you feel it you lost it? If it even could be lost? So we can empathise with their feelings I guess?

 

I found a nice purport in Srimad Bhagavatam that nicely explained the whole case quite thoroughly. I discovered it maybe 2 weeks ago, and so far I have not received any objections so far. Please allow me to show it to you:

 

[The setting is the sacrifice at which Daksa cursed Lord Siva]

"After Lord Siva and, previously, Daksa, left the arena of sacrifice, the sacrifice was not stopped; the sages went on for many years in order to satisfy the Supreme Lord. The sacrifice was not destroyed for want of Siva and Daksa, and the sages went on with thir activites. In other words, it may be assumed that if one does not worship the demigods, even up to Lord Siva and Brahma, one can nevertheless satisfy the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is also confirmed in Bhagavad-gita (7.20). Kamais tais tair hrta-jnanah prapadyanta 'nya-devatah. Persons who are impelled by lust and desire go to the demigods to derive some material benefits. Bhagavad-gita uses the very specific words nasti buddhih, meaning 'persons who have lost their sense or intelligence.'

"Only such persons care for demigods and want to derive material benefit from them. Of course, this does not mean that one should not show respect to the demigods; but there is no need to worship them. One who is honest may be faithful to the government, but he does not need to bribe the government servants. Bribery is illegal, one does not bribe a government servant, but that does not mean that one does not show him respect. Similarly, one who engages in the transcendental loving service of the Supreme Lord does not need to worship any demigod, nor does he have any tendency to show disrespect to the demigods. Elsewhere in Bhagavad-gita (9.23) it is stated, ye 'py anya-devata-bhakta yajanta sraddhayanvitah. The Lord says that anyone who worships the demigods is also worshipping Him, but he is worshipping avidhi-purvakam, which means 'without following the regulative principles.' The regulative principle is to worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Worship of demigods may indirectly be worship of the Personality of Godhead, but it is not regulated. By worshipping the Supreme Lord, one automatically serves all the demigods because they are parts and parcels of the whole. If one supplies water to the root of a tre, all the parts of the tree, such as the leaves and branches, are automatically satisfied, and if one supplies food to the stomach, all the limbs of the body - the hands, legs, fingers, etc. - are nourished. Thus by worshipping the Supreme Personality of Godhead one can satisfy all the demigods, but by worshipping all the demigods one does not completely worship the Supreme Lord. Therefore worship of the demigods is irregular, and it is disrespectful to the scriptural injunctions.

"In this age of Kali it is practically impossible perform the deva-yajna, or sacrifices to the demigods. As such, in this age Srimad-Bhagavatam recommends sankirtana-yajna. Yajnaih sankirtana-prayair yajanti hi sumedhasah (Bhag 11.5.32). 'In this age the intelligent person completes the performances of all kinds of yajnas simply by chanting Hare Krsna, Hare Krsna, Krsna Krsna, Hare Hare/ Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare.' Tasmin tuste jagat tustah: 'When Lord Visnu is satisfied, all the demigods, who are parts and parcels of the Supreme Lord, are satisfied.'" - Srimad Bhagavatam 4.2.35 (purport)

 

I think this solves the whole case. Any thoughts?

 

Jay

[Manni]

Hi all,

 

That's a really concise purport by SP, enlightening, as ever...

 

I can't really call myself a Gaudiya Vaisnava, as such, but I see your point. One particular point of doubt for me is the origin of the Maha Mantra, which you just mentioned.

 

Advaitins believe the Gayatri Mantra is the most beneficious and powerful mantra, whilst also acknowledging that Visnu is 'Yagnapurusha' etc. (therefore believing Visnu, or Krsna, is the Eternal reciever of all bhakti). Gaudiya Vaisnavas believe it is the Hare Krsna Mahamantra, as explained by Caitanya Mahaprabhu, is the most powerful etc. mantra of all.

 

But during my reading of a couple of versions of the Srimad Bhagvatam I have not come across the Hare Krsna Mahamantra being explicitly mentioned, word for word. Can anyone explain this, please?

 

I think this is imporatnt to highlight because the main argument of Advaitins towards ISKCON is that Krsna is an Avatar of Visnu and therefore could not exist before Visnu (regardless of any declarations made by Krsna Himself in SB and BG). If the Mahamantra does indeed exist, word for word, in one of the four Vedas for example, then one can confidently say that the name and form of Krsna predates the Srimad Bhagvatam and therefore Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy is 100% correct. I know alot of people here will ring out reems of Caitanya Carutamrita, but let us assume that (as Advaitins believe) the CC was written only after the exit of Caitanya Mahaprabhu from this world.

 

Come to think of it, i did hear the Mahamantra was written except in reverse - Rama first then Krsna - is this true?

 

Any help here will be nice, since it is a major source of confusion for Advaitins coming into the Dvaitya philosophy.

[Guest guest]

Devata in BG refers to people of the indra loka as it is the conventional norm. Sankara also says that worship of the devatas is not for one who is intrested in understanding the Supreme. In fact, the term deva priya is used derogatively to talk about mumukshus who are interested in worshipping the devatas. On the other hand, there is no evidence to show that Lord Siva is a devata. There is evidence to show that Lord Siva is none other than Lord Vishnu Himself. Even in Srimad Bhagavatham Lord Siva is considered Supreme.

 

 

[Streetstraw]

Although Devatas sometimes appear to err, we should cultivate respect for all 33KK, even Mitra.

2nd Canto reveals Mitra can be most troublesome.

So far I've heard, bad plumbing caused the Bubonic Plague to easily spread thoughout Europe.

Better to offer naivedya to Devatas alongside Visnu and Krsna than donate to Preparation H, Pepto Abismol, Malox Foundations.

Unless u prefer bananas, yogurt, rice day after day after day, nahi ara = nothing else.

[Vaishnava_das108]

 

Advaitins believe the Gayatri Mantra is the most beneficious and powerful mantra, whilst also acknowledging that Visnu is 'Yagnapurusha' etc. (therefore believing Visnu, or Krsna, is the Eternal reciever of all bhakti). Gaudiya Vaisnavas believe it is the Hare Krsna Mahamantra, as explained by Caitanya Mahaprabhu, is the most powerful etc. mantra of all.

 

But during my reading of a couple of versions of the Srimad Bhagvatam I have not come across the Hare Krsna Mahamantra being explicitly mentioned, word for word. Can anyone explain this, please?

 

 

Do you mean that you cannot find the Maha-mantra in a VERSE of the Srimad Bhagavatam?

 

Well, throughout the Bhagavatam, it is the direction to constantly chant the holy name of Krishna. The mahamantra itself is found in the Kali-santarana Upanishad. The original Sanskrit can be found here:

 

http://sanskrit.gde.to/doc_upanishhat/kalisantarana_upan.itx [sanskrit]

 

http://www.neonblue.com/tfs/kalisant.htm [English]

 

 

I think this is imporatnt to highlight because the main argument of Advaitins towards ISKCON is that Krsna is an Avatar of Visnu and therefore could not exist before Visnu (regardless of any declarations made by Krsna Himself in SB and BG).

 

 

Why? It is the Vedic tradition to argue cases by referring to the Shastra. If the Advaitins say that Krishna is an Avatar of Vishnu and disregard the direct quotations from Shastra that clearly state the opposite, their position is extremly faulty, not to mention completely irresponsible and incorrect.

By the same logic, we would have to ask them how they know that Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu? And what sources do they use to make this incredible claim.

 

 

If the Mahamantra does indeed exist, word for word, in one of the four Vedas for example, then one can confidently say that the name and form of Krsna predates the Srimad Bhagvatam and therefore Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy is 100% correct.

 

 

Well, according to the second site, the Mahamantra is stated to be in the Kali-santarana Upanishad of the Krishna Yajur-veda, so I guess that one can confidently say that the name and form of Krsna predates the Srimad Bhagvatam and therefore Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy is 100% correct. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

 

I know alot of people here will ring out reems of Caitanya Carutamrita, but let us assume that (as Advaitins believe) the CC was written only after the exit of Caitanya Mahaprabhu from this world.

 

 

It was actually written after the exit of Mahaprabhu.

 

 

Come to think of it, i did hear the Mahamantra was written except in reverse - Rama first then Krsna - is this true?

 

 

I have heard numerous explanations for this:

 

1) Chanting the Mahamantra is an extremely orthodox practice, and caste-brahmins objected to Mahaprabhu's preaching it to "everyone" regardless of caste. So Mahaprabhu reversed the order so that Krishna is mentioned before Rama.

 

2) The original Upanishad contains Krishna first since Krishna is the origin, adi-deva.

 

3) Rama is first because Rama was historically an earlier avatar than Krishna.

 

The arguments can go on and on and will reach nowhere without conclusive evidence. All I know is that as Gaudiya Vaishnavas, we chant 'Krishna' first because that is the way Mahaprabhu (the very same Krishna) said to chant like that.

 

 

Any help here will be nice, since it is a major source of confusion for Advaitins coming into the Dvaitya philosophy.

 

 

I am also an ex-Advaitin who has come into Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I thank Krishna for Srila Prabhupada, who has pulled me out of the deep dark ignorant well of ajnana and who has opened my eyes with the torchlight of knowledge.

[Vaishnava_das108]

 

On the other hand, there is no evidence to show that Lord Siva is a devata. There is evidence to show that Lord Siva is none other than Lord Vishnu Himself. Even in Srimad Bhagavatham Lord Siva is considered Supreme.

 

 

And where is this evidence ?

 

Everything I have ever heard shows that Shiva is in the marginal state between Visnu-tattva and jiva-tattva, so how can he be fully Visnu-tattva?

 

nimna-ganam yatha ganga

devanam acyuto yatha

vaisnavanam yatha sambhuh

purananam idam tatha

Just as the Ganga is the greatest of all rivers, Lord Acyuta the supreme among deities and Lord Sambhu (Siva) the greatest of Vaishnavas, so Srimad Bhagavatam is the greatest of all Puranas. [srimad Bhagavatam 12.13.16]

 

"The living entities are affected by maya, but although Lord Siva apparently associates with maya, he is not affected. In other words, all living entities within this material world except for Lord Siva are swayed by maya. Lord Siva is therefore neither visnu-tattva nor jiva-tattva. He is between the two." - purport to Bhag 8.12.39

[ethos]

"I think this solves the whole case. Any thoughts?"

 

I am enjoying your insightful dialogue and your use of Prabhupada nectar. Hare Bol!

[Guest guest]

quote

__________

Why? It is the Vedic tradition to argue cases by referring to the Shastra. If the Advaitins say that Krishna is an Avatar of Vishnu and disregard the direct quotations from Shastra that clearly state the opposite, their position is extremly faulty, not to mention completely irresponsible and incorrect.

By the same logic, we would have to ask them how they know that Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu? And what sources do they use to make this incredible claim.

__________

Question:

Is there another connection of Krishna to the Vedas besides as an Avatar of Vishnu?

[Manni]

"Do you mean that you cannot find the Maha-mantra in a VERSE of the Srimad Bhagavatam?"

 

Yes, that's what i meant... i'm not an expert on vedic literature so forgive my ignorance but what is the Kali-Santarana Purana and where does it come from, i.e. is it written by man or was it original utterance of God?

 

"Why? It is the Vedic tradition to argue cases by referring to the Shastra. If the Advaitins say that Krishna is an Avatar of Vishnu and disregard the direct quotations from Shastra that clearly state the opposite, their position is extremly faulty, not to mention completely irresponsible and incorrect.

By the same logic, we would have to ask them how they know that Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu? And what sources do they use to make this incredible claim."

 

That's what i'm hoping to find out! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif It is my inderstanding that the Visnu Purana states Krsna is an avatar of Visnu. Please don't take offense, i'm fumbling in the dark compared to you guys -- just trying to get discrepencies straight in my head!

 

Thanks for everything else, Vaishnava_das - u've been very helpful /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[raga]

 

"Do you mean that you cannot find the Maha-mantra in a VERSE of the Srimad Bhagavatam?"

 

 

I believe Srimad Bhagavatam is made of VERSES. To be precise, it is a mixture of verses and prose.

 

 

Yes, that's what i meant... i'm not an expert on vedic literature so forgive my ignorance but what is the Kali-Santarana Purana and where does it come from, i.e. is it written by man or was it original utterance of God?

 

 

I have compiled all references that I know of on the maha-mantra into one document, available below. If I missed out something, please let me know.

 

http://www.raganuga.com/literature/authors/madhava/maha-mantra-references.doc

http://www.raganuga.com/literature/authors/madhava/maha-mantra-references.pdf

[Guest guest]

dear vaishnava dasa,

 

as you consider lord siva as the supreme vaishnava, i am sure you would consider yourself as His servant as much as you consider yourself a servant of Lord Krishna. at least as a liberated vaishnava, i am sure you would consider lord siva as free of faults like lust, anger etc. if one can think of allah or jehovah as supreme and still be thinking of Krishna, it is possible that one can be thinking of siva as supreme and still be thinking of Krishna (God) alone.

 

vaishnavanam yatha sambhu - as mahaprabhu can act as a devotee though God Himself, there is nothing that prevents the lord from acting as a devotee while being God Himself. just as the verse (SB 12.13.16) does not put acyuta in the same category as devas, it does not place sambhu in the same category as other devotees.

 

in discussing the purport of a vedantic school, the purport itself does not become a vidence thereof.

[Guest guest]

dear vaishnava dasa,

 

first of all, who is the avatar of who is not the main argument of advaitins vs. dualists. in the advaitic context, hierarchy of avataras is of least significance.

actually, it is ultimately true in the case gaudiya vaishnavism as well.

 

before calling other schools of vedanta as irresponsible or incorrect, please note that it is the conclusion of other schools of vaishnavism as well. ramanuja and madhwa (who is a pUrvAchAryA of gaudiyas) also consider krishna to be an incarnation of vishnu.

 

this does not necessarily falsify gaudiya conclusions in any way.

[Vaishnava_das108]

__________

Why? It is the Vedic tradition to argue cases by referring to the Shastra. If the Advaitins say that Krishna is an Avatar of Vishnu and disregard the direct quotations from Shastra that clearly state the opposite, their position is extremly faulty, not to mention completely irresponsible and incorrect.

By the same logic, we would have to ask them how they know that Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu? And what sources do they use to make this incredible claim.

__________

Question:

Is there another connection of Krishna to the Vedas besides as an Avatar of Vishnu?

 

Plenty. Here's just one:

 

ete camsa kalah pumsah krsnas tu bhagavan svayam - "All the lists of the incarnations of Godhead submitted herewith are either plenary expansions or parts of the plenary expansions of the Supreme Godhead, but Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself." - Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.28

 

This verse comes after the famous list of avatars in SB. Only AFTER giving the list of avatars, it is clearly stated that all these avatars are plenary expansions or parts of plenary expansions, but Krishna is the supreme. That automatically includes Vishnu because Vishnu as the "purusha avatar" is described as the "first avatar" in that same list.

[Vaishnava_das108]

 

Yes, that's what i meant... i'm not an expert on vedic literature so forgive my ignorance but what is the Kali-Santarana Purana and where does it come from, i.e. is it written by man or was it original utterance of God?

 

 

Oh that's OK, I'm not an expert either. We're all learning here, you see. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

The Kali-santarana Upanishad is one of the 108 recognised Upanishads, so it is definitely bona-fide and it's authority cannot be easily contested. Since it was Vyasa who compiled the Vedic literature, and this Upanishad is from the Krishna Yajur-veda, I'm assuming that it was Vyasa who compiled it. It's exact authorship is unknown. Probaby Narada Muni, since the story is about how he went to Lord Brahma to ask for advice in the first place.

 

 

That's what i'm hoping to find out! It is my inderstanding that the Visnu Purana states Krsna is an avatar of Visnu.

 

 

OK, I haven't read Vishnu Purana so I cannot comment. But one thing that is important to understand is that the Vedanta Sutras are, literally, the end (anta) of the Vedas, and so embody the conclusions of the Vedic literature.

Because of the terse nature of the Sutras, we would do well to understand them with the help of a commentary. Such a commentary can only be written by an Acharya. Sankaracharya wrote the Sariraka-bhasya on the Vedanta. Ramanujacharya wrote his Sri-bhasya. Madhvacharya wrote his bhasya too.

The Gaudiyas, the followers of Lord Chaitanya, accept His opinion that Srimad Bhagavatam is the *natural* commentary on the Vedanta Sutra, since Vyasa wrote it after he completed the Vedanta Sutras, although the Govinda-bhasya commentary by Sripada Baladeva Vidyabhusana is also available.

 

So therefore, Srimad Bhagavatam is praised as the cream of all Vedic literature, and it's conclusive opinion is that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

 

Thanks for everything else, Vaishnava_das - u've been very helpful

 

 

That's ok. I'm glad to be of help. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

Hare Krishna.

[Vaishnava_das108]

 

vaishnavanam yatha sambhu - as mahaprabhu can act as a devotee though God Himself, there is nothing that prevents the lord from acting as a devotee while being God Himself. just as the verse (SB 12.13.16) does not put acyuta in the same category as devas, it does not place sambhu in the same category as other devotees.

 

 

That may be true.

 

Although, the Brahma-samhita notes a clear difference between Siva and the Visnu-tattva.

 

"Just as milk is transformed into curd by the action of acids, but yet the effect curd is neither same as, nor different from, its cause, viz., milk, so I adore the primeval Lord Govinda of whom the state of Sambhu is a transformation for the performance of the work of destruction." [Text 45]

 

The reason is because Siva is in direct contact with the material energy, but Krishna and the Vishnu-tattva are free from all material influence.

[Vaishnava_das108]

 

first of all, who is the avatar of who is not the main argument of advaitins vs. dualists. in the advaitic context, hierarchy of avataras is of least significance.

actually, it is ultimately true in the case gaudiya vaishnavism as well.

 

 

Actually that's slightly untrue. The Dvaitins admit that they follow a hierachy of devatas, and that Vayu is the highest devata [Hari sarvottama, vayu jivottama].

 

As for Gaudiya Vaishnavism, it is clearly stated by Srila Rupa Goswami in his Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu that the Visnu-tattva expansions are not complete in full qualities, but that only Krishna is. This is surprising because this means that even the Visnu-tattva expansions are not quantitatively equal to Krishna, although they are all definitely made of the same spiritual substance.

 

Nice example of acintya-bhedabheda-tattva, huh? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

before calling other schools of vedanta as irresponsible or incorrect, please note that it is the conclusion of other schools of vaishnavism as well.

 

 

I never said that they were irresponsible in that context. I meant that it was said that certain Advaitins refuse to believe in Krishna's supremacy despite many clear sastric quotes to the contrary. *That* is irresponsible.

[theist]

TRANSLATION Adi 10.11

These four brothers and their family members fully engaged in the service of Lord Caitanya. They knew no other god or goddess.

 

PURPORT

Srila Narottama däsa Thäkura has said, anya-deväçraya näi, tomäre kahinu bhäi, ei bhakti parama-käraëa: if one wants to become a pure, staunch devotee, one should not take shelter of any of the demigods or -goddesses. Foolish Mäyävädis say that worshiping demigods is as good as worshiping the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but that is not a fact. This philosophy misleads people to atheism. One who has no idea what God actually is thinks that any form he imagines or any rascal he accepts can be God. This acceptance of cheap gods or incarnations of God is actually atheism. It is to be concluded, therefore, that those who worship demigods or self-proclaimed incarnations of God are all atheists. They have lost their knowledge, as confirmed in the Bhagavad-gétä (7.20): kämais tais tair håta-jïänäù prapadyante nya-devatäù.Those whose minds are distorted by material desires surrender unto demigods.Unfortunately, those who do not cultivate Krsna consciousness and do not properly understand the Vedic knowledge accept any rascal to be an incarnation of God, and they are of the opinion that one can become an incarnation simply by worshiping a demigod. This philosophical hodge-podge exists under the name of the Hindu religion, but the Krsna consciousness movement does not approve of it. Indeed, we strongly condemn it. Such worship of demigods and so-called incarnations of God should never be confused with the pure Krsna consciousness movement.

 

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

 

So can't we understand why people think all philosophies from India are poly-theistic?

[Dharma]

Thanks for the reply-I could not find any concept of avatars in the Vedas. Just in Mahabharata & Bhagavad Purana (which seemed alot like finding the names of the 7 archangels in the bible). It names 22 but then says the number is beyond counting.

 

 

[Guest guest]

even advaitins are against demigod worship. sankaracharya writes that one who is worshipping the indradi devatas for getting some results is like an animal to the gods. the argument that "mayavadis" worship anything and think it is God is false.

 

on the other hand equating lord siva to indradi devatas or jivatma devotees is not supported by the sastras. even srimad bhagavatham extols lord siva as the supreme (poison episode).

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Shankara encourages Panchopasana, which includes worshiping demigods such as Ganesha.

[Vaishnava_das108]

 

even advaitins are against demigod worship. sankaracharya writes that one who is worshipping the indradi devatas for getting some results is like an animal to the gods. the argument that "mayavadis" worship anything and think it is God is false.

 

 

I am an ex-Mayavadi. I was regularly told that I can worship anything or anyone and that would be worship of God. One of the favourite slogans was, 'Manava-seva is Madhava-seva.'

 

So how is it false?

 

 

even srimad bhagavatham extols lord siva as the supreme (poison episode).

 

 

You have to understand the context of the word 'supreme.' Each of us is "supreme" in our situations. I may be a boss in control of my workers, therefore I am "supreme" in the office. I may be a good cook therefore I am the "supreme" chef. The context of the word 'supreme' can also be compared to the Sanskrit word 'Isvara' which literally means 'controller.' So everyone is a controller of something. Brahma exerts control over the task of creation, Siva over destructions, etc.

 

But Krishna is the SUPREME controller.

 

This is backed up by the paribhasa-sutra of Srimad Bhagavatam: krsnas tu bhagavan svayam.

 

This is also reflected in the very first verse of Brahma-samhita: Isvarah paramah krsna.

[Guest guest]

Shankara encourages Panchopasana, which includes worshiping demigods such as Ganesha.

 

prabhu, i will not jump to argue that even sri rupa gosvami instructed that one should worship ganesha because the context appears to be different. as far as sankara is concerned, he advised his followers to worship whoever is revealed as god in the vedas. in that glorifying ganesha, siva etc. one is still glorifying the Supreme only. i am surprised that the hare krishna devotees are very broad minded in accepting that allah, jehova are same person as krishna only where as siva, ganesha are not. this is depite the fact that there are pure devotees of lord siva like nayanmars who will have to be called fools if we consider this demigod worship. who but can deny that the lives of nayanmars can purify us ? apart from a living tradition the vedas themselves reveal these as the supreme - brahman, paramatma etc. in fact, i have once been shocked to hear that one very exalted hare krishna devotee was called a tantric because he chanted lalita sahasranamam -

 

vaishnava dasa prabhu, i dont know why mayavadis should teach that you can worship any thing and every thing. then they cannot be smarthas because they do not follow the smrti or the remembered tradition. did they tell you that sankara taught that or did you care to check ? some people even teach what they want in the name of srila prabhupada.

 

ofcourse, the supreme lord is capable of manifesting Himself in even a block of wood, sound, flour, stone or metal. but a devotee invites the lord only in line with sastras not whimsically into abominable things.

 

may i humbly point out that relativity of the supremacy of siva is an interpretative commentary. this is required only if the direct statements cannot be explained otherwise. but sankara is able to treat these statements where siva is called supreme, same as vishnu etc., on face value. having said this, there is nothing wrong in having ekanta bhakti and worshipping the one's lord as supreme and considering others as His parts as long as we dont find faults with the parts.

 

let us remember the pastime of lord jagannatha where He appears as Ganesh, Durga etc.

[Vaishnava_das108]

 

So can't we understand why people think all philosophies from India are poly-theistic?

 

 

This is the same battle that I face practically every day when I preach, especially to Indians.

 

When I inform them of quotes in Bhagavad-gita that decry demigod-worship and exhort the exclusive worship of Krishna, they are very surprised to learn that their religion of "Hinduism" is monotheistic.

 

Obviously, they still think that they belong to a polytheistic religion, and cannot come up with adequate explanations why we worship som many "gods."

 

And then they have even weirder semi-Advaitic theories that by worshipping any God you like, you will eventually become God yourself.

 

It is because of all this spiritual confusion that it is essential that the philosophy of Krishna Consciousness as presented by Srila Prabhupada MUST be preached, as is in this very nice quotation from CC that you have posted. Thank you.

 

Hare Krishna.

[Vaishnava_das108]

 

Shankara encourages Panchopasana, which includes worshiping demigods such as Ganesha.

 

prabhu, i will not jump to argue that even sri rupa gosvami instructed that one should worship ganesha because the context appears to be different.

 

 

Well, I did not say that. Jahnava-Nitai prabhu said it. The context of worshipping Ganesha according to Srila Rupa Goswami IS different. The aspirant is advised to worship Ganesha in order to worship Krishna with all his obstacles removed.

 

The Gopis similarly worshipped Katyayani to get Krishna as their husband. There is nothing wrong with worshipping demigods if the devotee has Krishna in mind, but to worship demigods independently of Krishna is wrong, and it is also an offense to the Holy Name.

 

 

as far as sankara is concerned, he advised his followers to worship whoever is revealed as god in the vedas. in that glorifying ganesha, siva etc. one is still glorifying the Supreme only.

 

 

I have never read anything like this by Sankara, could you please show me where he said this?

 

As I understand it, it is Krishna who is revealed as God in the Vedas, as He Himself declares 'vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham' - 'By all the Vedas I am to be known; indeed I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.' [bG 15.15]

 

 

i am surprised that the hare krishna devotees are very broad minded in accepting that allah, jehova are same person as krishna only where as siva, ganesha are not.

 

 

That's because 'Allah', 'Jehovah' etc., are different names for the SAME SUPREME PERSON as recognised by all world religions. Each world religion recognises a Supreme Entity, but call it by different names.

 

Are you aware that there is a description of Allah that was made by the Prophet Muhummad, which seems to indicates the form of Allah may be of Maha-Visnu?

 

So in this way, they are different names for the same Supreme Personality. Ganesha and Siva are exalted servants of that Supreme Personality. This has to be very carefully understood.

 

 

in fact, i have once been shocked to hear that one very exalted hare krishna devotee was called a tantric because he chanted lalita sahasranamam -

 

 

I have been informed that there is such a thing as Vaishnava-tantra, but this is not to be confused with Sakta tantra. So it seems out of place for a Vaishnava to read Lalita-sahasranama. What is the objection with reading Visnu-sahasranama?

 

 

i dont know why mayavadis should teach that you can worship any thing and every thing. then they cannot be smarthas because they do not follow the smrti or the remembered tradition. did they tell you that sankara taught that or did you care to check ?

 

 

As far as I know, smartas are an apa-sampradaya and therefore not valid.

 

 

ofcourse, the supreme lord is capable of manifesting Himself in even a block of wood, sound, flour, stone or metal. but a devotee invites the lord only in line with sastras not whimsically into abominable things.

 

 

Well this is exactly what these mayavadis used to do, whimsically. Some of them even kept pictures of their guru in the toilet, and when I objected to this, they brought forth all sorts of silly fictitious stories about Rama and Hanuman to justify their position.

 

 

may i humbly point out that relativity of the supremacy of siva is an interpretative commentary. this is required only if the direct statements cannot be explained otherwise.

 

 

The statement about Siva's relativity to Visnu in the milk/curd example is itself a direct statement in the Brahma-samhita. How else it to be explained? It needs little or no commentary since the verse is clear.

 

 

but sankara is able to treat these statements where siva is called supreme, same as vishnu etc., on face value.

 

 

My dear ram prabhu, why are you so vigorously defending Siva? No one here is putting Siva under an attack. We are simply discussing Bhagavtat-tattva and it's relation to the demigods.

 

I am myself an ex-Advaitin and a former Shaivite. I consider it the mercy of Shiva that I was led to the feet of Sri Krishna. I think this is because of the verse in Bhagavatam, vaisnavanam yatha sambhuh. I must have tried my best to worship Siva with as much purity as I could muster while thinking he was the supreme, and Lord Siva must have kindly shown me the path to Lord Krishna, because he himself is the supreme Vaishnava.

 

Also, in the case of that Bhagavatam verse, Siva is very clearly described as a Vaishnava. Is there any such statements in the Vedic literature that state that Krishna or Vishnu is a Shaivite? Or a follower of any other god?

 

 

having said this, there is nothing wrong in having ekanta bhakti and worshipping the one's lord as supreme and considering others as His parts as long as we dont find faults with the parts.

 

 

Well, this is exactly what Srila Prabhupada disapproves of in the original post. Let me re-clarify:

 

"Similarly, one who engages in the transcendental loving service of the Supreme Lord does not need to worship any demigod, nor does he have any tendency to show disrespect to the demigods. Elsewhere in Bhagavad-gita (9.23) it is stated, ye 'py anya-devata-bhakta yajanta sraddhayanvitah. The Lord says that anyone who worships the demigods is also worshipping Him, but he is worshipping avidhi-purvakam, which means 'without following the regulative principles.' The regulative principle is to worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Worship of demigods may indirectly be worship of the Personality of Godhead, but it is not regulated. By worshipping the Supreme Lord, one automatically serves all the demigods because they are parts and parcels of the whole. If one supplies water to the root of a tree, all the parts of the tree, such as the leaves and branches, are automatically satisfied, and if one supplies food to the stomach, all the limbs of the body - the hands, legs, fingers, etc. - are nourished. Thus by worshipping the Supreme Personality of Godhead one can satisfy all the demigods, but by worshipping all the demigods one does not completely worship the Supreme Lord. Therefore worship of the demigods is irregular, and it is disrespectful to the scriptural injunctions." - Srimad Bhagavatam 4.2.35 (purport)

[Manni]

In reply to:

--

Are you aware that there is a description of Allah that was made by the Prophet Muhummad, which seems to indicates the form of Allah may be of Maha-Visnu?

 

--

 

That's interesting... do you have any more info on that please, Vaisnava_das108?