Vaishnava_das108
-
Content Count
270 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by 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.
-
"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.
-
Exactly, what will you do if and when you find Kalki Avtar of the Lord........
Run away! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Or at least try to.
-
Haribol.
I've recently come across a text that suggest that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura may have eaten meat at some point in his life.
The "evidence" comes from 'Svalikitha Jivani,' an autobiographical text written by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura in the form of a letter to his seventh son, Srila Lalita Prasada Thakura.
I suspected that it may be a spurious and/or invented text, but it seems that this text is rather authentic and has been used for consultation by Rupa-vilas das, who wrote the 'Seventh Goswami' bioraphy of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura.
Below are the relavant verses:
"225. Everyone in Chapra became my friends. The lawyer, Kesab Babu, always supported my point of view. The Judge Saheb also was favourable towards me. The people of Chapra made many kinds of pickle. A certain type of vinegar pickle was the best. I began to make it. [Their] mustard oil pickle had a pleasant taste and I began to make that also. At that time I ate a lot of fish and meat. I had known that killing animals was bad for a long time, but I had a strong desire to enjoy fish and meat."
"226. I ate a lot of fish in Chapra, but it was not very good. Therefore, I ate more goat meat. After the prolonged eating of food of this kind combined with red chillies and mustard seed pickle, I developed a bleeding ulcer. The first [attack] occurred on a full moon day. Gradually I got pains every new moon and full moon day. It took 5 to 7 days from the day the pain started for it to go away. So much suffering! When the pain [started] I automatically suffered from vomiting and diarrhea for 10 to 17 hours. At first I
went to the doctor, and a close friend, Manohar Babu, gave me medical treatment. Thereafter, I tried Moslem natural medicine. Finally, Mahendra Mama brought some Ayur Vedic herbs from the jungle and a local Vaidya made a little medicine."
I looked long and hard, and was finally able to find
an online copy of this text at:
So if it is true that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura ate meat, how does this fit in with the perception of a liberated soul as being nitya-siddha according to A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada's teachings?
Or nitya-siddhas in general?
Any thoughts?
WMakzPIflhUY reacted to this -
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
__________
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
[qb]I'm not sure that it is the same one, but the Nrsimha mantra was given by Srila Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati to his disciple Srila Puri Maharaja. As far as I know, he was the only person who received it, and the only person he in turn gave it to was H.H. Indradyumna Maharaja of ISKCON.
MDd[/qb]
How do you know?
-
siva
in Vedic Verses
Haribol.
The concept originates from a verse in the Srimad Bhagavatam that states:
'Vaisnavanam yathah sambhuh.'
This literally means,'Of all Vaishnavas, Shambhu [siva] is the greatest.' SB 12.13.16
"Just as the Ganga is the greatest of all rivers, Lord Acyuta the supreme among deities and Lord Sambhu [siva] the greatest of Vaisnavas, so Srimad-Bhagavatam is the greatest of all Puranas."
-
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
-
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
-
You might like to take a look at these sites:
http://www.philosophy.ru/library/cremo/puranic_time.pdf
http://www.krishna.com/puranic.htm
http://www.mcremo.com/vedic.htm [with pictures]
-
The scriptures must be read literally.
We do not care for "Sri Yukteswar's" definition of Vedic time cycles, although I would be interested to know how hw figures his time cycles out from a Vedic perspective. Otherwise, the scriptures are read literally.
The Kali-yuga lasts for 432,000 years. Of those, nearly 5105 years have passed. We then have approximately 426,895 years before the Kali-yuga ends. Sri Kalki Avatar will appear at this time. There is no other reasonable explanation.
Worship of Demigods.
in Spiritual Discussions
Posted · Report reply
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?
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.
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!