PDA

View Full Version : How far is it right to consider Shaivism and Vaishnavism as seperate entities?



upsydownyupsy mv ss
04 April 2010, 01:26 AM
How far is it right to consider Shaivism and Vaishnavism as two different entities with seperate origins and existance? I ask this question only because I see a lot of confusion and arguments between Shaivaites and Vaishnavaites saying their lord is god. But it is to be noted that the characters of Shiva in Shaiva stories and theories is same as that of Vaishnava. Hence I prefer them as seperate entities to avoid confusions. In Vaishnavaite stories, such as that of the Bhagavata Mahapuranam, that Shiva is sub-ordinate of Vishnu, which is the reverse in Shaiva scriptures like Shiva Mahapuranam. This only points that the two sects are of different origin, but ended up joining somewhere in the middle of the ancient times. Lets not create anymore confusions in our heads now. While most of us (like me, smarthas and shankaracharya) do consider Vishnu and Shiva as single entity, yet we find arguments between the other two sects, trying to degrade the other or twist the thesis of the other for example:

The people from Iskon say Shiva has his eyes closed and meditates upon Vishnu. Well, if you ask a shaiva about the same, he'd answer that the supreme Shiva meditates upon all his devotees. Since, Vishnu is one of his devotees, Shiva meditates on Vishnu as well. Shaivas also do something similar and they usually say that Vishnu in yoga nidra thinks only of Shiva and prays on him. But, a vaishnava would answer its because the supreme vishnu meditates on all his devotees, since shiva is supreme vaishnava, he is meditated upon.

Such arguments puts an innocent devotee into confusions only. If such confusions continue, a day is not far when confused hindus themselves attack hinduism and get converted to other religions without even sparing a thought to the vedas and other massive hindu scriptures. I was once prey to such confusions too once. Is considering the two sects as 2 different religions is beneficial? Well... I found it benefitting while listening to stories from both shaiva and vaishnava scriptures, and I've found no confusions while doing so. Please do think about this matter without considering yourself as a shaiva or vaishnava, but as a devotee who wants to remove some confusions in others and or yourself. Hope I'm clear and hope this thread does not create any arguments and hope it does not attract evil thoughts to the minds of the readers. Satay please do remove this thread if it does so, but before that inform me satay in private and get my permission.

satay
04 April 2010, 02:41 AM
Admin Note

namaste upsy (or is it downy?)


Satay please do remove this thread if it does so, but before that inform me satay in private and get my permission.

Please get familiar with the forum rules by going to the FAQ section.

Site administrators don't need any permission to perform their duties.

FYI.

devotee
04 April 2010, 02:43 AM
Dear SS,

Unless you are deciding to join a certain sect, I would advise yo to see things as a common non-sectarian Hindu sees.

For a non-sectarian Hindu :

a) God is One & He manifests in different forms.
b) Shiva, Vishnu (even as Krishna, Rama or any of his Avatars) & Mother Goddess are supreme deities and each one of them is fully omnipotent as any other ... no one is subordinate to anyone. You may find Shiva praying to Vishnu ... Vishnu praying to Shiva ... both praying to Mother Goddess etc.
c) Each form has different characteristics from other. They perform different functions as various officers within a single governing body.
d) Though each one seems limited by the characteristics of that form, each one can transcend that limitations if situation so demands.

Your choice of a form depends upon your own Gunas.

OM

upsydownyupsy mv ss
04 April 2010, 04:16 AM
Admin Note

namaste upsy (or is it downy?)



Please get familiar with the forum rules by going to the FAQ section.

Site administrators don't need any permission to perform their duties.

FYI. Yes, I know that you dont need permission, but I wanted you to tell me if you wanted to delete it, thats all. Thanks for telling me to read the FAQ. O.K I will :)

upsydownyupsy mv ss
04 April 2010, 04:18 AM
Dear SS,

Unless you are deciding to join a certain sect, I would advise yo to see things as a common non-sectarian Hindu sees.

For a non-sectarian Hindu :

a) God is One & He manifests in different forms.
b) Shiva, Vishnu (even as Krishna, Rama or any of his Avatars) & Mother Goddess are supreme deities and each one of them is fully omnipotent as any other ... no one is subordinate to anyone. You may find Shiva praying to Vishnu ... Vishnu praying to Shiva ... both praying to Mother Goddess etc.
c) Each form has different characteristics from other. They perform different functions as various officers within a single governing body.
d) Though each one seems limited by the characteristics of that form, each one can transcend that limitations if situation so demands.

Your choice of a form depends upon your own Gunas.

OM
I'm still not clarified. :(

Eastern Mind
04 April 2010, 07:28 AM
Vannakam upsy:

Firstly, there is no right or wrong. Most Hindus just see the multitude of correct paths, correct for each individual. If you are looking for right and wrong concepts, you came to the wrong place.

I'll try to answer your question, but then again, it is just my take on it.

There are 4 main and many minor sects within Hinduism. The four main sects are Vaishnava, Smarta, Saiva, and Shaktite. Then there are tons of in between variations, and some that worship the formless only, or the Ganapatyans, who worship Ganesha as the supreme.

Staunch Vaishnavites and Saivas don't usually directly worship the other sects main God much, yet they recogise that sects right to do so, and wouldn't insult it. (With sone exceptions) The reason for this isn't anything unusual, its just the belief that, "I have everything I need here, so why go elsewhere?"

Smartism was an attempt at unification, by stating that all Gods are Supreme, and that devotees can choose their particular ishta. A lot of what devotee said, in my opinion, was a result of Smarta influence. A Hindu who is non-sectarian has likely had Smarta influence from somewhere. For example, a smarta priest can work in almost any temple, for he doesn't see any difference really, whereas Vaishnava or Saiva trained priests are trained differently, and would have gotten slokas from different places.

Shaktism is most closely aligned to Saivism, and the 'effectual' principle, not truly feminine, more just ida current, or 'the soft side'. There is no masculine/feminine duality in actuality with God, although it is portrayed that way. God is genderless.

There are two approaches to deciding on what you believe. One is intellectual. Read a lot of scriptures by all sects, get to know who is who, what is what, and decide what makes sense to you.

The other is by feel or intuition. Attend your local temples and find out what they are first. Perhaps you will just feel more comfortable in one or the other, as they all do have different vibrations.

Its extremely vast and this can never be stressed enough. Many 'non-sectarian' Hindus actually are sectarian, its just that they don't know it. Many Bengalis have never seen South Indian Saivism practised, and vice versa, so whatever they have grown up with is 'Hinduism', and they mistakenly think that that version of Hinduism is the whole of Hinduism. For the more well travelled or well read, they see both as correct. Here is a simple example: Is it Siva, or is it Shiva? It's both, you and I can see, but yes I have heard both sides trying to tell the other that that they were saying it wrong.

There is a ton of info on line. Here is one link to a simplified version: http://www.freebase.com/view/en/shaivism

Don't know it this helped or not, but...

Aum Namasivaya

atanu
04 April 2010, 11:57 AM
I'm still not clarified. :(

namaste upsy

I think Devotee's post was clear enough. The following text from a scripture indicates the functional aspect of different deities we may meditate upon for realising the Atman-Purusha, which is your own nameless self and which is called by different names.

(Meditate) On the moon (Indra-Indu) as one with the internal organ (Mind), on the quarters of the horizon as one with his sense of hearing, on Vishnu as one with his (power of) motion, on Hara (Rudra) as the same with his strength, on Agni (Fire) as identical with his speech, on Mitra as identical with his excretions, and on Pragapati as one with his organ of generation.

The atman is that which is before the mind (or any of the above deities). But I suppose that arguments based on one's own path and resultant preferences will always be there. Although, Shaivism and Vaishnavaism are different paths, both are based on Veda and mostly have the same goal of attainment of Atman.


Om Namah Shivaya

isavasya
04 April 2010, 05:26 PM
Dear downy ,

H2O is a susbtance which can be called water, it can also be called ice and it can also be called steam. Changing of form doesnt means it becomes differnt substance. The same applies for GOD. The great vedas say, "Ekam sat vipra bahuda vadanti"- Truth is one, but sages call it by various names. The same goes for God. Dear downy Please pardon me in saying that, I dont agree there is really any differnces in shaivas or vasihnavas, at least I havent met any among 1000 of hindus who suffer from any such difference. There are few over internet thats all. How ever as a student we have all the right to question the truth.You said, our shastras seem to be biased, I say they can be taken the way a reader wants to be. We see lord hanuman always showing great devotion for Lord rama, and similarly we see lord rama worshiping a shivlingam.It is not about superiority, it is the humble nature of our one great lord with differnt forms, who wants to garner same feelings of humbleness in others. Remember only one thing

|| Shivaya Vishnu rupaya Shiva Rupaya Vishnave.||

upsydownyupsy mv ss
05 April 2010, 03:08 AM
Thank you everyone. Now I'm clear, especially by the last post. :)

NayaSurya
05 April 2010, 04:15 AM
I think Devotee's post was clear enough. The following text from a scripture indicates the functional aspect of different deities we may meditate upon for realising the Atman-Purusha, which is your own nameless self and which is called by different names.

(Meditate) On the moon (Indra-Indu) as one with the internal organ (Mind), on the quarters of the horizon as one with his sense of hearing, on Vishnu as one with his (power of) motion, on Hara (Rudra) as the same with his strength, on Agni (Fire) as identical with his speech, on Mitra as identical with his excretions, and on Pragapati as one with his organ of generation.

The atman is that which is before the mind (or any of the above deities). But I suppose that arguments based on one's own path and resultant preferences will always be there. Although, Shaivism and Vaishnavaism are different paths, both are based on Veda and mostly have the same goal of attainment of Atman.


Om Namah Shivaya

I love this. Called by the many names. So true.

srinivas1950
06 April 2010, 12:00 PM
God is one. God is truth. Everything in the nature is manifested by God in this universe. God has infinite names and forms, each name with a certain power and vibration (Brahma as creator, Shiva as transformer and destroyer of the lower nature and Vishnu as Protector).

We pray for the God in a certain name, the mantra which is Sanskrit-invocations of the Supreme Being. Reinforced and propelled by japa meditation, they pass from the verbal level through the mental and telepathic states, and on to pure thought energy. It is the most direct way to approach the transcendental state.

Mantras used by spiritual aspirants to achieve God- Realization are called deity Mantras.
Aum Namah Shivayah,
Aum Namoh Bhagavateh Vasudevayah,
Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare

It must never be forgotten that the deities are aspects of the one Divinity whose grandeur is too vast for the mind to comprehend at the beginning of spiritual practice. To use again the analogy of the hill, the many paths to the top can be viewed as the worship of the various aspects of the God. The hill itself is the one hill, and the summit is the same. After reaching the pinnacle, one will have the vision to encompass the totality.

All devotees are really worshipping the same Supreme Atman. Differences are only the differences in worshippers. These differences arise from the need for multiplicity in approach to Godhead. Various temperaments are attracted to particular manifestations of the Divine. Some people are drawn by silence, others by activity; some lose themselves in nature, others in intellectual abstractions. One can approach God more easily if there is a compatible relationship with the most suitable manifestation. Harmony between aspirant and chosen deity is essential. However, the goal will be reached only when one can see his chosen deity in all deities and in all living and non living beings.

Questions will remain no more when you attain this state of God Realization where you can see God in everything and everything as a manifestation of God.

Aum Namoh Narayanaya

upsydownyupsy mv ss
10 April 2010, 02:02 AM
A beautiful answer by srinivas!!!

Onkara
10 April 2010, 09:01 AM
I agree, this is a well focused and beautiful post, thank you!

Can we truly say that All devotees are really worshipping the same Supreme Atman? Can I reduce my understanding of Sanatana Dharma to this single post?

I am not suggesting I have a better answer, but the thought you post is itself a profound and uniting one. :) It unites Shavism and Vaishnavism. In fact lets drop all isms and attempts to categorise, but rather embrace what we intuitively feels brings us bliss, inner peace and wisdom (guided by scriptures and guru if the individual requires them). In a way I am only reciting what you say below, but each angle I look at it brings refreshing sense of liberation.

So how to stop the thoughts which arise and make these schisms? How to put an end to doubts, questions and the search? Surely there is no reason or way to stop them, they are as old as religion itself. What needs to be known is the Supreme Atman. Is it not? As in the Supreme Atman all thoughts return and all doubts are answered.





God is one. God is truth. Everything in the nature is manifested by God in this universe. God has infinite names and forms, each name with a certain power and vibration (Brahma as creator, Shiva as transformer and destroyer of the lower nature and Vishnu as Protector).

We pray for the God in a certain name, the mantra which is Sanskrit-invocations of the Supreme Being. Reinforced and propelled by japa meditation, they pass from the verbal level through the mental and telepathic states, and on to pure thought energy. It is the most direct way to approach the transcendental state.

Mantras used by spiritual aspirants to achieve God- Realization are called deity Mantras.
Aum Namah Shivayah,
Aum Namoh Bhagavateh Vasudevayah,
Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare

It must never be forgotten that the deities are aspects of the one Divinity whose grandeur is too vast for the mind to comprehend at the beginning of spiritual practice. To use again the analogy of the hill, the many paths to the top can be viewed as the worship of the various aspects of the God. The hill itself is the one hill, and the summit is the same. After reaching the pinnacle, one will have the vision to encompass the totality.

All devotees are really worshipping the same Supreme Atman. Differences are only the differences in worshippers. These differences arise from the need for multiplicity in approach to Godhead. Various temperaments are attracted to particular manifestations of the Divine. Some people are drawn by silence, others by activity; some lose themselves in nature, others in intellectual abstractions. One can approach God more easily if there is a compatible relationship with the most suitable manifestation. Harmony between aspirant and chosen deity is essential. However, the goal will be reached only when one can see his chosen deity in all deities and in all living and non living beings.

Questions will remain no more when you attain this state of God Realization where you can see God in everything and everything as a manifestation of God.

Aum Namoh Narayanaya

Ramakrishna
12 April 2010, 11:53 PM
God is one. God is truth. Everything in the nature is manifested by God in this universe. God has infinite names and forms, each name with a certain power and vibration (Brahma as creator, Shiva as transformer and destroyer of the lower nature and Vishnu as Protector).

We pray for the God in a certain name, the mantra which is Sanskrit-invocations of the Supreme Being. Reinforced and propelled by japa meditation, they pass from the verbal level through the mental and telepathic states, and on to pure thought energy. It is the most direct way to approach the transcendental state.

Mantras used by spiritual aspirants to achieve God- Realization are called deity Mantras.
Aum Namah Shivayah,
Aum Namoh Bhagavateh Vasudevayah,
Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare

It must never be forgotten that the deities are aspects of the one Divinity whose grandeur is too vast for the mind to comprehend at the beginning of spiritual practice. To use again the analogy of the hill, the many paths to the top can be viewed as the worship of the various aspects of the God. The hill itself is the one hill, and the summit is the same. After reaching the pinnacle, one will have the vision to encompass the totality.

All devotees are really worshipping the same Supreme Atman. Differences are only the differences in worshippers. These differences arise from the need for multiplicity in approach to Godhead. Various temperaments are attracted to particular manifestations of the Divine. Some people are drawn by silence, others by activity; some lose themselves in nature, others in intellectual abstractions. One can approach God more easily if there is a compatible relationship with the most suitable manifestation. Harmony between aspirant and chosen deity is essential. However, the goal will be reached only when one can see his chosen deity in all deities and in all living and non living beings.

Questions will remain no more when you attain this state of God Realization where you can see God in everything and everything as a manifestation of God.

Aum Namoh Narayanaya

This is a perfectly explained answer! Ultimately we must remember that Vishnu, Shiva, Durga, etc. are all ONE God. That God is Brahman, the ONE God who pervades everything and is incomprehensible here on earth. Just find whichever path you are most comfortable with and go with it. Whether its Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, Smartism, or another one, just find whichever one draws you closest to the Divine. You don't have to be set in stone committed to one path either. I am a Vaishnavite and the majority of my prayers are to Krishna, yet I also pray to Shiva daily. Just remember that they are all ONE, and just find whatever your comfortable with.

Eastern Mind
14 April 2010, 05:52 PM
Vannakkam all:

All dharmic paths do lead to the ultimate. That much I can agree to. However, having said that, I also see in the practice a similarity as saying "All religions are the Same" or whats called radical universalism by some.

The fact is that there ARE subtle differences. Rules on vegetarianism, advaita versus dvaita, temple architecture, temple procedures, rationalism versus mysticism, methods of meditation, and many many more.

Suppose there are two (or more) paths going up a mountain. Which is better, to try to walk both paths at the same time, or to try to walk on just one? Which will lead you to the mountaintop faster? I see nothing wrong with walking up one and looking over 100 metres to the other path, and waving a friendly hello, realizing we are both going to the same place. But to try to walk them both together MAY lead to confusion. I think in the beginning stages when you haven't looked at any paths at all, it might be a good idea to take a look around with an open mind, and try to determine which fits you best.

Maybe an analogy is finding a doctor ... you have a rare disease, get 4 opinions, then use your discrimination to go with one. Otherwise if you keep going to all 4, you may soon find yourself taking 4 different medications, and your mind being confused from it.

Aum Namasivaya

ScottMalaysia
14 April 2010, 09:06 PM
Many 'non-sectarian' Hindus actually are sectarian, its just that they don't know it. Many Bengalis have never seen South Indian Saivism practised, and vice versa, so whatever they have grown up with is 'Hinduism', and they mistakenly think that that version of Hinduism is the whole of Hinduism. For the more well travelled or well read, they see both as correct.I think it would be more accurate to say that many Hindus' religious practices are influenced by certain sects; however, their beliefs and the gods they worship may differ from the beliefs of the sect. For example: My wife's family are Malaysian Hindus of South Indian descent (they speak Tamil). Most of the practices are Saivite. However, most of them wouldn't consider Shiva to be the highest form of God - they believe that all Gods are different forms of God, which I don't think Saivism teaches (correct me if I'm wrong, Eastern Mind). My wife's (maternal) grandfather is a devotee of Murugan, but he also has a picture of Hanuman (a Vaishnava God) on his altar. My wife's (paternal) grandmother is a devotee of Krishna, but I don't think she follows Vaishnava philosophy. I think she would see Krishna as one form of the Supreme and that is the one she likes. But when they go to the temple and pray, the rituals they all take part in are Saivite.

Also, the majority of the Hindus in Wellington are either immigrants from Gujarat or of Gujarati descent. Vaishnavism is the predominant sect in Gujarat, but our temple has murtis of Durga, Shiva and Parvati.



Here is a simple example: Is it Siva, or is it Shiva? It's both, you and I can see, but yes I have heard both sides trying to tell the other that that they were saying it wrong.In proper Sanskrit transliteration, it is written 'Śiva'. The 's' with the accute accent is used to represent the Sanskrit letter श which has the sound of 'sh' in English 'ship'. there is another 'sh' letter ष which is transliterated as 'ṣ' to distinguish it from the former as the pronunciation is slightly different. Now when typing, you can either write the transliterated name without the accent mark, resulting in 'Siva' or you can transcribe the sound of the name, resulting in 'Shiva'. I think 'Siva' (and variant 'Sivan') is used also by Tamil speakers, as there is no native Tamil letter for 'sh' so the letter for 's' (ச) is used instead, giving 'Siva'. I prefer 'Shiva' because it's a more accurate represenatation of the Sanskrit pronunciation without confusing people with diacriticals. I also prefer 'Krishna' over Krsna, which is an incorrect spelling without the diacriticals (it should be Kṛṣṇa)

Eastern Mind
14 April 2010, 09:41 PM
Vannakkam Scott:

A Tamil scholar friend of mind said told me that the closest he could come to the pronunciation was a ch then sh blend. So for him neither was correct.

My point was it doesn't matter, and to get adamant over 'my way is the right way' is verging on fanatically adharmic ... at least rude. (I had one lady tell me I was saying sugar (shugar) wrong, that it should be sugar (s)but hey if self-realisation had anything to do with pronunciation, I'd be out studying. BTW, realise is just the Canadian spelling of realize, so both are correct.

But it is very difficult to switch to any language that has different sounds. At least we're not trying the clicking sounds of the Kalihari Bushmen. You should see the universal diacritical transliteration marks for those things.

Aum Namasivaya

Onkara
15 April 2010, 07:47 AM
The Bhagavad Gita is a wonderful way to approach Krishna (Vishnu). Is there something similar for Shiva, which draws a person closer to Him?

Eastern Mind
15 April 2010, 08:33 AM
Vannakkam Snip:

Certainly there is nothing comparable in Saivism in propensity, or amount its read. There is scripture such as Saiva Agamas, and several ancient Tamil works like Tiruvacagam, Tirumantiram etc. Some of these are very lengthy books. In my view, Saivism tends to be less scriptural. You just don't see reading groups around, like you do in Vaishnava practice.

I realise this doesn't help much, if you're into scripture. But like I said, most Saivas aren't ... much. Rather just go to temple and experience god's presence there.

Aum Namasivaya

Onkara
15 April 2010, 09:24 AM
Thanks EM
Your posts are always helpful!
You are right of course, no amount of reading will amount to going to the temple and experiencing God's presence. Fate hasn't placed me near any temple (although there is an ISKON).

Eastern Mind
15 April 2010, 12:31 PM
Vannakkam Snip:

Where are you? Maybe there is a temple you don't know of. Quite a few temples 'hide out' . The one I went to in Utah the other day wasn't in the phone book there. I only knew about it because of a small presence on the net.

There are a couple of Sri Lankan diaspora temples I know of ... one in Hamm, Germany, and another in Paris.

Aum Namasivaya

atanu
19 April 2010, 01:10 AM
The Bhagavad Gita is a wonderful way to approach Krishna (Vishnu). Is there something similar for Shiva, which draws a person closer to Him?

Namaste Snip,

I had earlier commented to a similar question of yours.

Sruti says: rudro visnave. The Yajur Veda, especially the Rudra Adhaya, does not leave anything out of or separate from Rudra. Upanishads also name the all pervasive Atman as shivo or as Shivam Narayanam. These scriptures also clarify that the Atman has no mouth or hands but that it is the energiser of every hand and every mouth. Shri Krishna teaches that He manifests Himself by assuming help of His own Maya. He also speaks of the Supreme as the first and third persons both.

To me it is simple: the Atman is ever unborn. If it has to manifest it has to do so using the manifest Pragnya (Devi-Mahamaya-Moola Prakriti). So, no teacher or no avatar or no deity is outside of the Devi-Vach-Pragnya.

But usually for the mind, depending on its locus, a manifested effect, such as a great name-form, takes the centre stage. For example, before Gautama, the Buddha word might not have been known or at least was not associated with the primeval unborn being. But for Buddhists, the Buddha word is the centre. And so it goes on for everyone.

I take that all the universes with all names and forms (all words) are expression of the power of Shantam Shivam Narayanam alone. In this respect, the whole of Veda, which is said to be revealed by Dhatar (Indra), Vishnu and Vashista, is said to be the body of Ishwara, who is manifest form of Shivam Narayanam.

Om Namah Shivaya

ScottMalaysia
19 April 2010, 05:53 AM
There is scripture such as Saiva Agamas, and several ancient Tamil works like Tiruvacagam, Tirumantiram etc. Some of these are very lengthy books. In my view, Saivism tends to be less scriptural. You just don't see reading groups around, like you do in Vaishnava practice.

The Saiva Agamas are not generally available in English. The Tirumantiram can be read online here (http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/tirumantiram/TableOfContents.html). However, neither of these are as straighforward as Bhagavad-Gita, because I'm assuming they were written or spoken over a long period of time. Bhagavad-Gita is short because Krishna had a limited time to explain things to Arjuna before the battle.

However, I consider Krishna to be non-different from Shiva, and thus I revere the Bhagavad-Gita. If you can get the translation by Swami Chidbhavananda (you can buy it here (http://www.vedanta.com/store/bhagavad_gita_chidbhavananda.htm?__utma=1.817529561.1271673996.1271673996.1271673996.1&__utmb=1&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1271673996.1.1.utmccn%3D%28organic%29%7Cutmcsr%3Dgoogle%7Cutmctr%3Dchidbhavananda%2Bbhagava d-gita%7Cutmcmd%3Dorganic&__utmv=-&__utmk=106537476)), then he explains the verses in a non-sectarian manner.


Fate hasn't placed me near any temple (although there is an ISKON).

An ISKCON temple is better than nothing. As I said above, I consider Krishna and Shiva to be different forms of the same God, so praying to one doesn't mean you can't pray to the other. Although, if they only have Gaura-Nitai Deities I'm not sure how that would go down with traditional Saivites (or non-Gaudiya Vaishnavas) as not all Hindus consider Chaitanya to be an incarnation of God (although Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa did).

A word of advice about going to the ISKCON temple: If you are Saivite, or have an Ishta-devata that is not Krishna or one of His incarnations, do not mention this to the devotees there. I had one devotee tell me that I shouldn't be worshipping Durga but worshipping Krishna instead. Just go, take part in kirtans and bhajans, and enjoy their prasadam. However, some ISKCON centres charge admission or "request" a donation, so take some cash along with you.