PDA

View Full Version : Respect for...



Divine Kala
15 June 2011, 08:11 PM
Among the first ten guiding principles of Rupa Goswami's 64 is the injunction to show respect to other Vaishnavas but what of others? Does this give a Vaishnava implicit permission to show disrespect to other sects and beliefs such as those of the Shaiva, Shakta and Smarta schools because they do not recognise Visnu (or Krishna) as the absolute?

I am not sure were this belongs, possibly in the Vaishnava sections but I don't know for sure.

I ask this question because I have seen amongst the different schools such fierce opposition. As a soul that ascribes to the Advaitic school of thought I can, with ease, agree that Vishnu is all there is but I can also say the same of Shiva and Shakti. God takes many forms and has called to me as ShivaShakti but that does not mean it might not take the form of Vishnu or Krishna or Narayana for someone else.

Just because God calls to a person in one form and to another in a different form does that mean I should pay more respect to one than another?

Eastern Mind
15 June 2011, 09:08 PM
Vannakkam DK: I don't think there is anything to say that since you're a staunch whatever, you also have to diss everyone else. It's fine to accept that what works for you may not work for others.

If they want to tell you that your version is inferior, then that's their problem.

Its kind of like a tall man focusing on all others being short instead of just being thankful and courteous for his own tallness, and leaving it at that.

My goodness, if we can't get along as Hindus, whatever sect we're in, it sure doesn't leave a lot of hope for all of mankind, now does it?

Aum Namasivaya

Ramakrishna
16 June 2011, 02:23 AM
Namaste Divine Kala,

I had never heard of Rupa Goswami before. Just looked him up really quick and he seems like a good saint. Do you have a specific quote from this injunction? Does it explicitly state not to respect non-Vaishnava Hindus? Or does it just state to respect other Vaishnavas? Perhaps he is implying to show greater respect to Vaishnavas than you would to non-Vaishnavas, but to still show respect towards everybody. But I don't know, I'm just guessing here.

I would imagine it would be part of a Hindu's dharma to show respect to everybody and every living thing. Obviously though some people deserve more respect than others, but as Eastern Mindji said, something like which sect of Hinduism someone follows shouldn't determine the respect you show to that person. We are all brothers and sisters in Sanatana Dharma.

Jai Sri Ram

Onkara
16 June 2011, 02:41 AM
India is a big country and the dispora was perhaps not as great in the 1500s as it has been in the last 100 years. People were more isolated, they spoke to others who shared similar theology, customs and villages.

I would not take this (or any ancient scripture) as indication of discrimination, but rather assume it was humble words which are still being repeated today.

Jainarayan
16 June 2011, 10:39 AM
I've learned that Hinduism has a lot of room for a lot of beliefs. If it didn't I think there would be millions of Hindus (especially in India, with the highest concentration of Hindus) at each others' throats for having the "wrong" beliefs.

I found myself to be Vaishnava because I have an affinity and am drawn to Sri Krishna as my ishta-devata. I can't judge or condemn a Shaivite or a Shakta for feeling the same affinity to their ishta-devata that I feel for Lord Krishna. If you judge, you'll be judged the same way.

Eastern Mind
16 June 2011, 11:06 AM
.

I found myself to be Vaishnava because I have an affinity and am drawn to Sri Krishna as my ishta-devata.

Vannakkam: Just as a point of information for you, this concept of ishta-devata is stronger in some sects than in others. A Saivite chooses only a deity within Saivism for example. Similarly with Vaishnavites. In the Smarta philosophical stream, the concept is stronger, and you'll hear it talked about more.

So there is quite the difference between a Saivite worshipping Siva than a Smarta worshipping Siva as his ishta. the difference is more noticable in the way other Gods would be approached.

Aum Namasivaya

Jainarayan
16 June 2011, 11:33 AM
Vannakkam: Just as a point of information for you, this concept of ishta-devata is stronger in some sects than in others. A Saivite chooses only a deity within Saivism for example. Similarly with Vaishnavites. In the Smarta philosophical stream, the concept is stronger, and you'll hear it talked about more.

So there is quite the difference between a Saivite worshipping Siva than a Smarta worshipping Siva as his ishta. the difference is more noticable in the way other Gods would be approached.

Aum Namasivaya

Understood, and thanks. I had an inkling of this from years ago. I remember a co-worker saying, and this is an almost direct quote: "my wife will pray only to Shiva, and no one else".

Adhvagat
16 June 2011, 01:14 PM
Red, yellow and blue blend perfectly in the color wheel, all separation is arbitrary. ;)

sunyata07
16 June 2011, 03:12 PM
Namaste,

Until I became more acquainted with my faith, I had not realised how much petty squabbling there was within Hinduism. Granted, it's not nearly as much as you would find in some other religions, but it was still a bit depressing to find that there are some groups who have the same dogmatic stance as you'd find in some Christian sects with the whole "my way or the highway" attitude. It was also unfair of me, but I admit I had thought at one stage that much of this rigid way of thinking came from only the Vaishnava side, but after a bit of reading and surfing, I find that I stand corrected on that. I think any sect is capable of adopting this unhealthy viewpoint.

I'm not sure I even like identifying myself with a sect for this very reason. It diverts the whole attention away from God Absolute, and seems to have us stuck down here on the shallow, earthly plane bickering over what God wears and how He/She looks. Waste of energy, in my opinion. I guess in some ways it's natural to have this polarised view of things once you become quite serious about your sect and sampradaya, but at the same time this attitude is also highly egotistical. It assumes that everyone else around you has gone through the same experiences as you have, and so they should naturally have followed the same path you have taken. But the wise know that all these paths do lead back to the same Source. Some just love pointing out how much longer other paths take!

Om namah Shivaya

smaranam
16 June 2011, 08:33 PM
Namaste dear DivineKala and Shunyata

I need not have come here, but before jumping to any conclusions,

The argument that in those days Rupa Goswami did not have the internet to broadcast this to non-vaishnavs is a very good one.

With that out of the way, let us try to understand Rupa Goswami's instruction. He is a nitya-siddha i.e. eternally perfect being who came down with Lord Chaitanya just for us.

The 64 instructions from UpdeshAmrita / Bhakti Rasamrit Sindhu are for BEGINNER NEOPHYTE ASPIRING PRACTICING ALBEIT SEROUS DEVOTEES, BHAKTI YOGIS.

So, of course a VaishNav by definition, is not a VaishNav unless he/she respects all jivas from the ant/insect/bacterium to Lord BrahmA. If this was the case, they are all set and not beginner practicing aspiring devotees. Respect here means a lot more than ordinary worldly respect.

To advance spiritually they must respect VaishNavs implying advanced devotees, look up to them, learn from them and serve them humbly. Those they are not in a position to serve, they must respect from a distance. This does not say anything about others. It does however, imply his other instruction to serious aspiring bramhacharis and sanyasis : respect all beings from a distance, but stay in the company of like-minded VaishNavs, not others - who are not interested in bhakti, as it will hamper their progress since they are still not strong enough to go out into the world and not waiver. Materialists will laugh at their practices and try to bring them into material world. Other sects who do not think KrushNa/VishNu is the Supreme Person, God, but the ultimate supreme is a formless principle of existence, and everything is equally God, we are all 100 percent God in magnitude, will seriously mess with their bhakti-lata (creeper of devotion) whose seed has been carefully sown in the heart by the Guru.


Also dear Shunyata - the error in thinking VaishNavs or other SD sects are bickering just like fundamentalist Christians is: know that VaishNavs are the softest compassionate jivas who will never tell anyone they are going to hell.


praNAm

charitra
16 June 2011, 11:41 PM
''Until I became more acquainted with my faith, I had not realised how much petty squabbling there was within Hinduism. Granted, it's not nearly as much as you would find in some other religions, but it was still a bit depressing to find that there are some groups who have the same dogmatic stance as you'd find in some Christian sects with the whole "my way or the highway"


Namaste,
That’s quite opposite view I have from my direct exposure to a large number of hindus. A vast majority of hindus don’t identify with any sampradaya whatsoever, but from classification stand point this lot can be lumped with the smarta group, with or without their well informed and self choosing of the said sect. What majority hindus pray in their puja room at home is to a cluster of deities, just as we see in a large number of mandirs here in the west. Here one observes one main deity accompanied by other deities of other sampradayas within the 4 walls of same mandir. Only in non hindu lands one witnesses this amazing presence of an assortment of deities of all sampradayas in one mandir, Im not sure if we are unwittingly sending a secular hindu message to hindu lands. Contrarily, older mandirs there were built by adherents of one sampradaya or the other, hence we get to see only one deity there. That doesn’t stop, even in the hindu lands from people worshipping at all those strictly Krishna/ shiva/durga mandirs depending upon the festive season, say for example on durgashtami a durga mandir gets very busy, on rama navami the ram mandir and on shiva rathri naturally shiva mandirs get thronged. A few sampradaya nuts may resort to heated academic debates, but whats funny is that the lot belonging to shiva sect hug and smooch the Krishna people on the sidelines and vice versa right after the pitched battle...

Western hindus mustn’t get tempted to draw parallels to the schism that is seen between say, catholics and Baptists, and Yehova witness and mormon sects etc etc. Iam not taking a swipe at abrahamics here really, just trying to make you understand the difference between hindu and Christian denomination divide. Simply inter denominational poaching/ ‘conversions’ are out of the question and never heard of in hindu dharma. At most a shaivite will devotioanally places a Krishna idol along side shiva in his home puja room and that’s about it. No specific ‘conversion’ takes place over and beyond this. Iam aware that I have oversimplified the whole issue in my own way, others may have more in depth understanding on the so called inter sampradaya rows and dichotomies.
The examples cited above in post 1 and 9, are anecdotal and far removed from mainstream practice in day today life of hindus. The sampradaya nuts, as always been the case, cannot stand the test of the time. As and when one guru dies his pragmatic position disappears and his followers mingle into majority tolerant hindu pool, just as a river rejoining the ocean, once dams built across it collapses.

NayaSurya
17 June 2011, 05:34 AM
There is a song this morning that this post remind me of greatly. "I guess it true what they say about the squeaking wheel always getting the grease."

(Shower the people you love" James Taylor)

Often times the loudest voice can make the biggest impression on one not aware of the full picture. It is a shame this does seem always the case.

Mana
17 June 2011, 07:54 AM
It may indeed appear to be the case NayaSurya, but I am sure that that is all just Maya!

:)

Jainarayan
17 June 2011, 10:13 AM
Namaste charitra.


What majority hindus pray in their puja room at home is to a cluster of deities, just as we see in a large number of mandirs here in the west. Here one observes one main deity accompanied by other deities of other sampradayas within the 4 walls of same mandir.

I self-identify as Vaishnava because I accept Sri Krishna as the Supreme manifestation of God. But I also see other deities as manifestations of God in different aspects.

For example in my little home shrine, I have Sri Krishna and Sri Rama central, but surrounded by an image of Saraswati Maa because she is my musical inspiration; murti of Mahalakshmi (good fortune and wisdom, and boy do I need wisdom!); murti of Sri Ganesha to me to find my way through life and show me how to remove my own stumbling blocks; image of Sri Hanuman to teach me bhakti and devotion to others; and murti of the (as I say) Holy Family of Lord Shiva, Parvati Maa, and Sri Ganesha, because of their aspects of conquering negativity, lust, etc.


Only in non hindu lands one witnesses this amazing presence of an assortment of deities of all sampradayas in one mandir, Im not sure if we are unwittingly sending a secular hindu message to hindu lands.

Do you think this is a good or bad thing?

charitra
17 June 2011, 02:07 PM
“Do you think this is a good or bad thing? "

From sampradayaks’ standpoint understandably it is not good, whilst no hindu ever complained about it.Some pondering here.. strong believers in sampradaya sect are very devout hindus and they elect to attain bliss through Bhakti path, and thus they are GOOD hindus by any measure. As we can expect, their own rituals and other puja activities are defined by the directives of the sampradaya they follow, it is simply not possible that one spends such quality and quantity time in puja and yet keep off all sampradayas completely. In other words the deeper you dwell in bhakti landscape the greater the chances of your favoring one sampradaya over the rest. That is fine in itself and in fact very much expected of most serious devotees. They, for sure, get labeled ‘nuts’ and deservedly so, once they start throwing punches at other sampradayas. For sadly they are submerged in their own ahankara (ego) whilst ignoring all important cosmic fact that RigVeda declared millennia ago: Truth is one, wise call (it) by many names. Would be nice to see comments of serious sampradayaks here.[/font]

Also I must say that whatever may be the underlying reasons, sampradayas DO NOT act as divisive forces in hindu faith, if at all collectively they somehow manage to strengthen this oldest dharmic faith. Namaste.[/font]

Jainarayan
17 June 2011, 02:17 PM
“Do you think this is a good or bad thing? "

From sampradayaks’ standpoint understandably it is not good

That does make sense.


Also I must say that whatever may be the underlying reasons, sampradayas DO NOT act as divisive forces in hindu faith, if at all collectively they somehow manage to strengthen this oldest dharmic faith. Namaste.

Yes, Hinduism is a paradox... at once being the most diverse faith (and way of life), and the most cohesive and unified.

sunyata07
17 June 2011, 02:30 PM
Namaste,

Smaranam, I have the greatest respect for your fixed devotion to Sri Krishna and I understand you completely. Please don't misunderstand me. I would never suggest that even the most devout and proud Vaishnava's are like the Bible-thumping Christians you see ranting about hellfire and brimstone for those who don't conform to their beliefs. And I do think that other sects are just as capable of being exclusionist in their worship and associations. For example, I was speaking to this Shakta convert over the internet (I had it in my mind in the past that these guys are similar to Smartas in being quite embracing of God as male as well as female), and I was shocked at how little he regarded the other Devas aside from his own ishta-devata, Maa Kali. It was almost as if he refused to acknowledge the power and the presence of other aspects of God. Now this would have been perfectly fine if it was left at that, but when I tried talking to him about Shiva, Krishna, Rama etc. he dismissed these Godheads, saying it was only Divine Mother who would come to one's aid, while the other Devas tend to watch on in indifference. Nonsense, of course. That, for me, is showing a kind of disrespect to other Hindus. So, like I said, I stand corrected on this. I guess I'm still learning, and I'm willing to be told otherwise by more knowledgeable members if they have differing viewpoints.

Om namah Shivaya

Eastern Mind
17 June 2011, 03:45 PM
Truth is one, wise call (it) by many names. Would be nice to see comments of serious sampradayaks here.[/font]
[/font]

Vannakkam charitra: I'm a nut. A Saiva nut. The basic reason is the same one as I'm not a universalist. Its all I need. All my religious needs and wants are met right there in Saivism. There is simply no need to go elsewhere.

I simply don't need Vaishnavism or Shaktism, or anything else. I own one car. I simply don't need three or four. Does that mean I hate or despise or put down other cars? No, not at all.

I've been to quite a few temples here in the US and in Canada, (and in India) and for me, the traditional ones work best. Temple design, at least South Indian style is from scripture, namely the agamas. There is a reason for the design. Learned sages of the past brought that knowledge out from within. They discovered it within themselves, just like a lot of other things. (Chakras come to mind ... but that's another story ... chakras aren't just some wild fiction from imagination; a sage or two discovered them within themselves, and saw with their inner sight clear enough to be able to draw them once back in external consciousness)

The reason temples are built this way is you're building it for the Gods, or God. The sages of the Agamic era had direct communication, and asked, or were told, "This is how I want it built." The reason is that that is what works best to sustain vibration, to harness all the divine energies that flow there.

The temples I've been to that aren't designed this way are beautiful. Some even have incorporated modern themes, or modern designs. They have wide open space, and carpets, and beautiful colors. I love them, and God is there. Devotion is there. They can be really really nice.

Then there are the ones that try to incorporate some aspects of agamic architecture, but don't always follow the rules, such as having one central moolasthanam for the presiding deity. Again, there is devotion in the people. But for me, the mystic energy bounces around. Too many gods, too many vibrations, some sort of confused cloud. This is mixing of sampradayas. A Vaishnava priest chants Vaishnava mantras while on his way to a Krishna shrine while passing a Murugan abhishekham going on. I go, but they certainly aren't my favorite.

Lastly are the ones that follow an ancient tradition. They stick to being pure Vaishnava, pure Shakta, or pure Saiva, even pure Smarta with the traditional set of 6. Now these are my favorite. You know what you're getting. Everything is laid out, simple and clear. You know who God is there. The knowledge of those ancient sages brought down through the ages in scripture is put to good use. I can FEEL it. They have energy! The managing board makes sure some discipline like silence and a modest dress code are followed. And of all these, I'll take the Saiva ones, because of what I said earlier.

Aum Namasivaya

smaranam
17 June 2011, 04:18 PM
Dear Shunyata,

Although my words may have sounded a bit strong, the feeling wasn't, and certainly not towards such a soft, sweet and caring person who welcomes everyone, inquires after them, and helps solve people's problems :)

Yes, i understand you mentioned - it was not as much as the Christians, but were a bit dissappointed that this element had to be present.

Well, much as you would like, we are not in Utopia here .... but more than that, it should not be expected. The mistake perhaps is
1. To keep such unrealistic expectations
2. To try some combined sadhana on the internet perhaps ?

We can have a forum for Bhartiya SaMskrti, culture, or a hub for resources on all different branches of Sanatan Dharma, but the moment it comes to tattva discussions, we are poles apart in philosophy.

Not all sects are 100% from Vedas. The internet is a boon from Bhagvan to devotees, yet it has downsides when we read each other's scriptures or guru-instructions unnecessarily.

Your anecdote of the Devi bhakta made me smile rather than upset, because i do not keep any expectations from him/her. Why should we get upset because a Shakta says Devi is the best and BhagvAn just looks on ?
That is what MAKES him a Shakta. KrushNa would not appear to the bhakta to interfere with Subhadra's territory, except that He says what He says in the Gita

And, you will be similarly surprised with the staunch Shaivas.

VaishNavs follow Bhagvad Gita as the primary word of Shri KrushNa, and they say that by watering the roots they are watering the entire tree. The roots here are Bhagvan Shri KrushNa, VishNu. Anya devta make up the rest of the tree. Since these anya devas are very close associates and pure devotees of Shri VishNu , they are automatically ArAdhya, but the tree gets watered. If someone takes offense to this they are taking offense to what KrushNa says in BG 9.20 - 9.23.

Should a serious devotee compromise spiritual treasure for political correctness ? Is it not better to talk to a fellow sanatani about weather or cricket instead, yet possibly meet at the Temple(s) and celebrate Durga Puja, Mahashivratri and Janmashtami ?

praNAm

sunyata07
19 June 2011, 11:11 AM
Thank you for the explanation, Smaranam.

I think I am beginning to understand what you mean. My answers I suppose are tainted with my own experiences and feelings about worship. I can see now what EM means when he says Saivism is enough for him, just as Vaishnavism is enough for you. It may sound silly, but I used to feel (and still do whenever the occasion calls for it!) obligated to "defend" the authenticity of the Devas, whether it was(is) Lord Shiva, Krishna or my Beloved Mother. Cause I'm strange like that, I guess... or else I am in the unfortunate position of being called by God in a multitude of guises.

Om namah Shivaya

Ganeshprasad
19 June 2011, 01:08 PM
Pranam Sunyata


It may sound silly, but I used to feel (and still do whenever the occasion calls for it!) obligated to "defend" the authenticity of the Devas, whether it was(is) Lord Shiva, Krishna or my Beloved Mother. Cause I'm strange like that, I guess... or else I am in the unfortunate position of being called by God in a multitude of guises.

Om namah Shivaya

Certainly not sound silly.
you are not alone in thinking the way you do.

Jai Shree Krishna

Arjuni
19 June 2011, 04:43 PM
Namasté,

It may sound silly, but I used to feel (and still do whenever the occasion calls for it!) obligated to "defend" the authenticity of the Devas, whether it was(is) Lord Shiva, Krishna or my Beloved Mother.

:giggle: :snicker: :guffaw: Oh, Sunyata, hehehe...it's like you read my mind and then made a post about it.

I think at least once a week, I read or see something Deva-wise that gets on my nerves, and makes me think, WAIT a minute, this is TERRIBLE and I should change the world by being LOUDLY AGAINST THIS!
Then I realise, oh hey, I did kind of change the world! Now my brain is even louder and more aggravated, and I'm ready to spread my irritation to other people! Look what I did there. :P

I think it's because we a) deal with humans, where "silence" to a controversial statement is considered the same as "quiet agreement," and b) read stores like that of Devi Sati, where the correct reaction to the Devas being insulted or challenged is..erm...not calm.

So I keep reminding myself that dharma does not need an impetuous dope like me to defend it, and that calm, maturity, and tolerance speak better for the Devas' truth than a bunch of hot-headed blathering. (And then I blog all of my whining, because there's only so mature I can be at any given time. :P )

I'll post more regarding the original topic later.

Indraneela
===
Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.

smaranam
19 June 2011, 06:20 PM
It may sound silly, but I used to feel (and still do whenever the occasion calls for it!) obligated to "defend" the authenticity of the Devas, whether it was(is) Lord Shiva, Krishna or my Beloved Mother. Cause I'm strange like that, I guess... or else I am in the unfortunate position of being called by God in a multitude of guises.

Om namah Shivaya

That is not silly Shunyata, but futile or meaningless trying to explain authenticity of Shiva, KrushNa or Divine MA to non-hindus. As for Hindus, they do not deny authenticity of anyone you have mentioned. It is really a question of interpretation of Vedas and Vedanta, or combination of Vedas with Agamas - which make different religions under the umbrella of Hinduism.

However, take your Shakta example - here, the Shakta says "Kali maa comes to his rescue while KrushNa just looks on." Now, there is nothing offensive about this because KrushNa tells us that He reciprocates as we surrender. The surrender of that Shakta devotee was just that - Subhadra-consciousness, or Kali-consciousness, not KRshNa-consciousness. So that is what he gets. I should have made it clearer last time :
KrushNa would not appear to a Kali devotee to interfere in Her (or Durga/Katyayani/Subhadra's territory ) , although He makes Himself clear in the Bhagavad Gita. Kali devotees are not originally expected to follow the Bh Gita. He does that not only to honor His Sister but because that is the devotee's consciousness. For the VaishNavs, Durga (MayaDevi) is a pure devotee of KrushNa and takes charge of the material world - prakruti - as per His Wish.

The Shakta path is different, practices entirely different, and the outcome is entirely different.

-------

VaishNavs actively try to keep/save those under their shelter away from "Mayavadis" because they think KrushNa/VishNu is not eternal, His form is mayic, moreover jivas are not jivas but 100% God when the "pot" breaks. Yet my heart would go out to the vedantins as i did not have a true picture of what they think.
The goal AND basics are drastically different. Again, KrushNa reciprocates as one surrenders. VaishNavs call the advaita goal "staying dormant in the BrahmaJyoti" and the fight continues - because everyone gets to read everything on the internet :)
About Shiva supremacy - the argument is - "the One you fight for is ultimately not even a Person to you whereas to us He is what happens when Bhagvan-milk turns into curds - highest VaishNav."

That is why i said: Combined learning is not a good idea. When the groups come together, just talk about weather and cricket and perhaps share in the festivals :)

Om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya