Worship of Demigods.

[Vaishnava_das108]

"Narrated Imran bin Husain: The Prohet said, 'There was nothing but Allah, and His Throne was over the water, and He wrote everything in the Book (in the Heaven) and created the heavens and the earth.'

"Then a man shouted, 'O Ibn Husain! Your she-camel has gone away!' So I went away and could not see the she-camel because of the mirage. By Allah, I wished I had left that she-camel (but not that gathering)." [sahih al-Bukhari 4.414]

 

EXPLANATION: One may ask why such stories are "narrated". Well, within Islam there are two major sources of shastra, which are the Qur'an and the Hadiths. The Hadiths are the collection of the sayings and doings of the Prophet Muhummad, and each incident is related by an eyewitness. The rationale behind the collection of the Hadiths is to preserve for posterity the example set by the Prophet and is also the Muslim basis for it's Gaudiya parallel, 'mahajano yena gatah sa panthah.'

Next, we can easily see by virtue of clear description that Allah was sitting on His "Throne" over the "water". I believe that this corresponds to Ananta-Sesa and the Garbhodaka Ocean respectively. Finally, readers may be confused by the strange anecdote about the she-camel. The idea is that while Imran bin Husain was listening to the Prophet's lecture, he was alerted that his camel had escaped and he went off in search of it. He then laments that he should have ignored his camel and sat down to hear more about Allah from the Prophet.

 

We can also lament, because had Imran bin Husain testified to more of the Prophet's commentary, we may have acquired more evidence to suggest the possibility of a "formful" God within Islam.

 

Conversely, we can study the arguments of Lord Chaitanya with the Pathans, in which He conclusively proved (by quoting the Qur'an) that Allah was of a dark colour and that there are descriptions of karma, jnana and bhakthi within the Qur'an.

 

So we can easily see that a devout Muslim who follows the rules and regulations of Islam and manages to chant the Shahadha declaration at the time of death may very well get a spiritual body to serve Garbhodakasayi Vishnu or serve Vishnu in one of the Vaikuntha planets. Speaking of which, Srila Prabhupada once related to Hari Sauri das that he had a dream about a planet where pious Muslims go after death.

[Vaishnava_das108]

I will post an extract from the Dvaita website (www.dvaita.org) that will serve my point.

 

It should be noted that this very same webpage was the one that contributed to my disillusionment with Advaita Vedanta and enlivened my path to Gaudiya Vaishnavism. http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/prameya.html

 

So this is the particular line, http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/prameya.html#section_7

 

The fourth prameya is: jIvagaNAH hareH anucharAH - The classes of jîva-s are cohorts of Hari.

 

Notice the use of `jIva-gaNAH' rather than `jIvAH'. The latter would simply mean "jîva-s," but by using the former, it is indicated that the jîva-s (souls) are not uniform, but are graded in quality.

 

How so?

 

The Taittirîya Upanishad says:

 

te ye shataM mAnushhA AnandAH |

sa eko manushhyagandharvANAmAnandaH |

...

te ye shataM devAnAmAnandAH |

sa eka indrasyA.a.anandaH |

etc.

A hundred times the enjoyment of a human; that is the enjoyment of a human-gandharva.

 

...

 

A hundred times the enjoyment of the deva-s; that is the enjoyment of Indra.

 

The Padma PurâNa also expounds upon that portion of the Taittirîya Upanishad, and other such Shruti quotes, as follows:

 

nR^ipAdyAH shatadhR^ityantA muktigA uttarottam.h |

guNaiH sarvaiH shataguNaiH modante iti hi shrutiH |

From the foremost-among-humans, to Brahma, the jîva-s attain mukti, with each step up qualifying for a hundred times the enjoyment of the previous -- thus indeed says the Shruti.

Thus, it is clearly indicated that all jîva-s do not have identical degrees of enjoyment. This can also be derived from inference, as a matter of fact:

 

Consider that all do not have identical positions of joy/suffering; why? If all jîva-s are inherently identical, what causes them to be different in their positions in reality?

 

1> If because of the Creator, Lord Vishnu, then He may be accused of favoritism, malice, etc., and that is unacceptable.

 

2> If because of past karma, then why is the past karma different for jîva-s that are identical? What caused those to be different?

 

3> If because the jîva-s themselves have different desires and thus choose different paths, how can they be called identical at all?

 

Thus, it follows from logic as well, that all jîva-s are not identical.

 

But even granting that all jîva-s are not identical, why would any jîva do Vishnu's bidding? No one wants to be a servant; all want to be free. Yet, as Ananda Tîrtha puts it:

 

svatantramasvatantraM cha dvividhaM tattvamishhyate |

svatantro bhagavAn.h vishhNuH bhAvAbhAvau dvidhetarat.h ||

 

All entities are divided into two kinds -- the independent and the dependent. Lord Vishnu is independent, as He alone is different from both the positive and the negative.

 

The use of `bhAvAbhAvau dvidhetarat.h' is to indicate that Vishnu is not simply different from the things existing; for instance, if one simply says that Vishnu is not like anything in the universe, there might be a suspicion as to whether He is similar to some inexistent entity that might be imagined.

 

Therefore, as only Vishnu is truly Independent in every respect, it follows that all else must follow His dictates, one way or another.

 

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says:

 

IshvaraH sarva-bhUtAnAM hR^iddeshe.arjuna tishhThati |

bhrAmayan.h sarva-bhUtAni yantrArUDhAni mAyayA ||

The Creator resides in the hearts of all creatures; He makes them act, as though they were parts mounted on a machine.

[Guest guest]

It is debatable whether Brahma Samhita is the authority on which the conclusion of the Vedas should be established. But even Brahma Samhita does not say that Siva is different from Vishnu. With due respect to the gaudiya acharyas who definitely have a purpose in their commentary, let us see the facts as they are.

 

In the Text 10 of Brahma Samhita,

 

saktiman purusah so 'yam linga-rupi mahesvarah

tasminn avirabhul linge maha-visnur jagat-patih

 

saktiman--joined to his female consort; purusah--person; sah--he; ayam--this; linga-rupi--in the form of the male generating organ; maha-isvarah--Sambhu, the lord of this mundane world; tasmin--in that; avirabhut--manifested; linge-- in the manifested emblem; maha-visnuh--Maha-Vishnu; jagat-patih--the Lord of the world.

 

The direct meaning ofthis sloka is that Maha Vishnu is manifest in the linga. This means that the person in the linga is Maha vishnu and He is same as Siva. (Bhakti siddhanta Sarawati Thakur writes about Vishnu being manifest through glance in His purport but I would like to point out that is not there in the original verse itself.)

 

Obviously Yogurt example cannot give a conclusion that is different from this verse. It further clarifies the point that Lord Siva and Vishnu are the same.

 

ksiram yatha dadhi vikara-visesa-yogat

sanjayate na hi tatah prthag asti hetoh

yah sambhutam api tatha samupaiti karyad

govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami

 

ksiram--milk; yatha--as; dadhi--yogurt; vikara-visesa--of a special transformation; yogat--by the application; sanjayate-- is transformed into; na--not; hi--indeed; tatah--from the milk; pr thak--separated; asti--is; hetoh--which is the cause; yah--who; sambhutam--the nature of Lord Siva; api-- also; tatha--thus; samupaiti--accepts; karyat--for the matter of some particular business; govindam--Govinda; adi-purusam--the original person; tam-- Him; aham--I; bhajami--worship.

 

 

In this verse, there is no mention of two persons Krishna and Siva. Pl. note the words sambhutam - nature of siva. Thus it is the same Govinda who assumes a different nature for the purpose of destruction. This nature issues forth from Him like curd comes from milk.

[Guest guest]

Only the difference is that curd can't make milk, whereas milk can make curd along with all the other by products of barfi, butter, cheese, ghee and lets not forget ras malai!

[Guest guest]

Pl. see the more elaborate note to avoid this confusion.

[Guest guest]

The difference between Siva and Krsna.

 

 

siva - maya-sakti-sangi, tamo-gunavesa

mayatita, gunatita "visnu" - paramesa

 

Lord Siva is an associate of the external energy (maya). Therefore he is absorbed in the material quality of darkness. Lord Visnu is transcendental to maya, and the qualities of maya, therefore He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. (Caitanya-Caritamrta Madhya 20.31)

 

The materialistic Rudra is always absorbed in a synthesis of the qualities of maya

 

 

sivam saktiyutam sasvat trilingo guna-samvrtam

vaikarikas-taijasas ca tamasas catyaham tridha

 

The truth about Lord Siva is that he is always covered with the three material coverings: vaikarika, tejasa, and tamasah (the modes of goodness, passion, and ignorance and their perverted egoic misconceptions). Because of these three modes of material nature, he always associates with the external energy and with egotism itself. (Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.88.3)

 

nijamsa-kalaya krsna tamo-guna angikari'

samhararthe mayasange rudra-rupa dhari'

 

Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, expands a portion of his plenary portion, and accepting the association of the material mode of ignorance, assumes the form of Rudra to dissolve the cosmic manifestation. (Caitanya-Caritamrta Madhya 20.307)

 

The distinction between Krsna, Siva, and jiva

 

 

mayasange vikare rudra bhinnabhinna rupa

jiva-tattva haya, nahe krsnera svarupa

 

Rudra has various forms which are transformations brought about by association with maya. Although Rudra is not on the same level as jiva-tattva, He still cannot be considered a personal expansion of Lord Krsna. (Caitanya-Caritamrta Madhya 20.308)

 

Rudra is one with and different from the Lord. The example of milk and yogurt.

 

 

dugdha yena amlayoge dadhi-rupa dhare

dugdhantara vastu nahe, dughda haite nare

 

Milk is transformed into yogurt when it associates with a yogurt culture. Thus yogurt is nothing but milk; still it is not the same as milk. [in the same way, Visnu transforms Himself into Siva. Thus Siva-tattva is similar to Visnu-tattva but not identical.] (Caitanya-Caritamrta Madhya 20.309)

 

I think because Lord Siva is so close in qualities to Load Krsna it causes a lot of confusion, there is no problem worshipping Lord Siva as an expansion or devotee of the Supreme so long as we never fall into the misconception of seeing Him as the one without a second always remembering who is Supreme. The biblical conception of Satan is similar to this, where satan wished to experience the Supreme position of Godhood.

Of course even Lord Siva himself recognizes he is a servant of Visnu and meditates on that regardless of his devotees wanting to see him as the Supreme.

I also think it can be understood where Krsna states Acharyam mam vijaniyam "I am the Acharya" Although this applies far more to Srimate Radharani as she is the perfect example of devotion. But it can also apply to any empowered representative who directs the living entities back to God.

Hence Lord Siva could be seen as non-different from the Lord in that sense.

 

[Vaishnava_das108]

 

It is debatable whether Brahma Samhita is the authority on which the conclusion of the Vedas should be established. But even Brahma Samhita does not say that Siva is different from Vishnu. With due respect to the gaudiya acharyas who definitely have a purpose in their commentary, let us see the facts as they are.

 

 

Now, if you are trying to debate the authority of the Brahma Samhita, why have you used TWO verses of it to put forth your latest argument?

 

Isn't that a contradiction?

 

 

The direct meaning ofthis sloka is that Maha Vishnu is manifest in the linga. This means that the person in the linga is Maha vishnu and He is same as Siva. (Bhakti siddhanta Sarawati Thakur writes about Vishnu being manifest through glance in His purport but I would like to point out that is not there in the original verse itself.)

 

 

Now this seems to me to be an example of "over-intelligence."

 

We cannot understand the terse commentary of Brahma-samhita without the guidance of an Acarya, that is why the Acaryas comment on the shastra. If, according to you, MahaVisnu is manifest in the linga, how does this make sense with the rest of Vedic theology? How does this relate with the other verses in the samhita? I'm sure you will agree that it makes no sense whatsoever.

 

 

Obviously Yogurt example cannot give a conclusion that is different from this verse. It further clarifies the point that Lord Siva and Vishnu are the same...In this verse, there is no mention of two persons Krishna and Siva. Pl. note the words sambhutam - nature of siva. Thus it is the same Govinda who assumes a different nature for the purpose of destruction. This nature issues forth from Him like curd comes from milk.

 

 

I fail to understand how you can claim that yoghurt and milk are the same. This goes against even the known laws of the material world, never mind the spiritual world!

[Guest guest]

first of all, it will take us on circuitous path if we debate the authority of brahma samhita vs. vedas. so it is easier to accept the authority of brahma samhita which is a great devotional work in praise of govinda. and establish advaitam. this way we can prevent offense at the lotus feet of lord siva who is but the supreme lord govinda.

 

it is not my statement that maha vishnu is manifest in the linga. it is the statement of the brahma samhita. in the verse it self, there is no mention of the lord glancing at the linga etc. and this tallies with bhaktisiddhanta's transliteration. but his transliteration does not tally with his translation. this is perhaps his intention.

 

in the verse on yoghurt, it is easy to see that the meaning is that the nature of sambhu (sambhutam) issues forth from Govinda if you just read the transliteration which differs from the translation. this would mean that it is the same person who acts as siva and krishna. please tell me why sambhutam is used instead of sambhu.

 

i think gaudiya acharyas teach covered advaitam.

[theist]

 

i think gaudiya acharyas teach covered advaitam.

 

 

Too many books from too many sources perhaps ram. They are not saying the same thing and there is no need to try to force some harmony where real differences exist.

[Guest guest]

theist prabhu,

 

i am not sure for the following reasons :

 

1. sankara is by no means a popular personality atleast in the west. even in india saakara mutts are not having much influence. it is hard to find even a translation of sankara's teachings. srila prabhupada goes out of the way to popularize sanakara through his writings.

 

2. the acharyas tranliterate in advatic sense and translate in dwaita sense. read brahma samhita verse for example. there is no need to do that if they did not want to preach advaitam.

 

3. no one has documented the exact arguments caitanya Himself.

[theist]

ramji,

 

I am not an educated person. I can't even remember how English sentences are properly diagramed. So what do I know of Brahma Samhita? I have read our English translation and Bhaktisiddhanta's purports. I can't match the sanskrit against the English or the purports to the text. I do accept however that a pure devotee of Krsna can reveal Radha Krsna to me through a simple stone on the ground, should my faith allow and should he grant me that mercy. So I have no problem with Radha and Krsna being revealed through some verse even though to the untrained eye it may appear They are not there.

 

This much I believe I understand. I am eternally a separated particle of God. At the same time I am sharing a oneness with that God.

 

From what I understand this is not taught by Sankara but is by Caitanya.

 

The GV acaryas speak of variegated worlds beyond the brahmajyoti. Advaita proponents do not. That is a major difference.

 

I'm not sure what goes in in sankara mutts but impersonalism in its various forms is pervading the world philosophies in. I consider it very dangerous.

Most of us in the world are not sophisticated enough to see the danger on our own. That is why Prabhupada spoke so strongly on this issue. He was protecting us.

 

ram you have such a strong and agile brain. But sometimes you must let it rest. During those times just turn your higher intution towards the Lord in the heart. It's from that place that the answers to these deep philosophical questions will flow .

 

Please forgive my arrogance in offering unsought advice. It is not really my place I know.

 

Hare Krsna

 

 

[Guest guest]

We offer full obeisances to all the demigods especially Lord Mahadev who helps us to overcome attachment to this material world, who in their awsome statue appear like gods to our fallen selves, and pray they help us engage their respective boons in the service of the Absolute Truth personified Lord Sri Krsna. May they look upon our miserable and hopeless condition and help our troubled plight to rise above this ignorant cloud of misconception we have fallen asleep under.

[Vaishnava_das108]

 

so it is easier to accept the authority of brahma samhita which is a great devotional work in praise of govinda. and establish advaitam. this way we can prevent offense at the lotus feet of lord siva who is but the supreme lord govinda.

 

 

So you are an Advaitin?

This would surely explain your bias towards Advaita, and your repeated insistence on the equality of Siva with Visnu in the face of sastric opposition.

 

 

it is not my statement that maha vishnu is manifest in the linga. it is the statement of the brahma samhita. in the verse it self, there is no mention of the lord glancing at the linga etc. and this tallies with bhaktisiddhanta's transliteration. but his transliteration does not tally with his translation. this is perhaps his intention.

 

 

My point was, we do not know what the Acaryas know. We can at best have a grammatical knowledge of Sanskrit, and interpret the Sastras as gramatically correct but they would have no meaning in a theological light. Allow me to quote from the Dvaita website:

 

"Deeper understanding of such texts is possible with training, intuition and commentaries of those great minds like Sri Madhva, who have experienced the truth and expressed it in more elaborate terms. The use of symbols and metaphors, extreme brevity of statement, contextual assignment of meaning to expressions, complexity of the Supreme Divine person and His relationships with the rest of the world, and the apparent inconsistency in different passages make the task of understanding the Vedas a formidable one. The Vedas cannot be just read like a book on the basis of an acquaintance with the language and grammar. An expression like "mR^ida bravIt.h" -- the mud spoke, "yajamAnaH prastaaraH" -- the person performing the sacrifice in a bundle of darbha grass, etc., would be totally meaningless for such a person."

 

In this context, "mR^ida bravIt.h" may be gramatically correct, but what does it mean when translated into English with no meaning? Nothing at all. We have no choice but to accept the translation/commentary of an Acarya, such as Srila Sarasvati Thakura or Srila Jiva Goswami.

 

 

in the verse on yoghurt, it is easy to see that the meaning is that the nature of sambhu (sambhutam) issues forth from Govinda if you just read the transliteration which differs from the translation. this would mean that it is the same person who acts as siva and krishna.

 

 

Nobody is denying that Siva is a part of Govinda. We are all parts of Govinda, graded in quality. There is a difference between everything, though, and those differences should be known. Siva is also a guna-avatar of Krishna. This does NOT mean that Siva IS Krishna. By that same logic, if everyone is a part of Govinda, that means I am a guna-avatar of Krishna too. Which I'm not, beg pardon for my offence in saying so.

 

Also, if Siva was really equal to Krishna, then why does verse 43 say that Mahesa-dhama is below Hari-dhama and Goloka?

 

"Lowest of all is located Devi-dhama [mundane world], next above it is Mahesa-dhama [abode of Mahesa]; above Mahesa-dhama is placed Hari-dhama [abode of Hari] and above them all is located Krsna's own realm named Goloka. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda, who has allotted their respective authorities to the rulers of those graded realms." [brahma-samhita 43]

 

Also, have you read Bhakti-rasamrita sindhu by Srila Rupa Goswami? Have a look at this:

 

"Krishna means all-attractive. Bhagavan Sri Krishna. Krsnas tu bhagavan svayam. There are other great personalities. Lord Siva is also sometimes described as Bhagavan. Similarly, Lord Brahma, Narada, others are also sometimes described as Bhagavan. But real Bhagavan means Krishna. They are..., they are Bhagavan partially. All these things have been very much carefully analyzed by Srila Rupa Gosvami. He has analyzed in the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, which we have translated into English: Nectar of Devotion. He has analyzed that Krishna is cent percent Bhagavan. And Narayana is ninety-four percent Bhagavan. And Lord Siva is eighty-four percent Bhagavan. And all other living entities, all living entities, we are, we are minutely seventy-eight percent Bhagavan. That means when you come to the perfection of life, when you are actually in the spiritual stage, then you are..., you have got the qualities of Bhagavan in minute quantity, but not all the qualities--eighty, seventy-eight percent. These have been very nicely analyzed in Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu. And the sastra says also: krsnas tu bhagavan svayam . In the Srimad-Bhagavatam there is a list of all the incarnations, that "Such and such incarnation appears for such and such particular activities." In that incarnation list there is name of Lord Ramacandra also, Lord Buddha also. Buddha's name is also there. But in the conclusive portion it is declared there: ete camsa-kalah pumsah krsnas tu bhagavan svayam. In that list, the name of Lord Krishna, Lord Balarama is there also. But the conclusion is given by Vyasadeva that "Except Krishna, all others, they are plenary expansion of Krishna, or part of plenary expansion of Krishna." Amsa-kalah. Amsa means direct expansion. And kalah means expansion of the..., secondary expansions. So it is concluded there that ete camsa-kalah pumsah. All these incarnations, they are either amsa or kalah. But Krishna, the name Krishna, krsnas tu bhagavan svayam: He's the original Personality of Godhead, Krishna." ACBSPN

 

 

please tell me why sambhutam is used instead of sambhu.

 

 

No idea. It might be something to do with Sanskrit grammar. You might like to ask someone in the "Sanskrit" forum.

 

 

i think gaudiya acharyas teach covered advaitam

 

 

You will have to prove it, with backup quotes from sastras including Bhagavad-gita, SrimadBhagavatam and Caitanya Caritamrita.

 

I think that even a preliminary investigation will show that the Gaudiya sampradaya has always smashed Advaita with no compromise.

[Vaishnava_das108]

 

sankara is by no means a popular personality atleast in the west. even in india saakara mutts are not having much influence. it is hard to find even a translation of sankara's teachings. srila prabhupada goes out of the way to popularize sanakara through his writings.

 

 

How did Srila Prabhupada popularise Sankara in his writings? In almost every mention the philsophy of Advaita Vedanta (Mayavada) is criticised and thje correct conception is given.

 

 

the acharyas tranliterate in advatic sense and translate in dwaita sense. read brahma samhita verse for example. there is no need to do that if they did not want to preach advaitam.

 

 

So on the basis of one translated verse which you do not agree with, you therefore conclude that Gaudiya Acaryas preach Advaita, while conveniently ignoring everything else that they have said against Advaita?

 

 

no one has documented the exact arguments caitanya Himself.

 

 

I assume you have left out the word "of," so this means to say that you think that "no one has documented the exact arguments OF caitanya Himself," right?

 

Well, that is an untrue statement. There is plenty of evidence from Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in the Caitanya Caritamrita, Caitanya Bhagavata, Caitanya Mangala, etc etc etc.

[Guest guest]

such arguments can be endless and they do not produce even one bit of love of godhead. in the long run, it increases one's pride and leads to fall down. it is not that such arguments cannot be won. defeating your arguments will belittle the great mercy showered by gaudiya acharyas through spreading faith in krishna.

 

and how can we establish the truth without realizing it ourselves ? all we can say is that the acharya i believe in spoke thus. it is better to follow our path and try to endeavour for self realization. without even the ability to see the lowest of the celestial species, what is the point in us ascertaining the position of Lord Siva etc. ?

 

it is better to help one another through forums like this to serve the lord and spread the holy name.

[Guest guest]

The conquest of Love is to be desired!

What holy warrior would deny His merciful arrows?

All glories to the honorable devotees

All glories to the debating devotees

All glories to the loving vaisnava.

Lord Siva ki Jaya!

Lord Sri Krsna Ki jaya!

Gaura premanande Hariiii Boooolllll