Re: Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism
Originally Posted by
brahma jijnasa
Do you remember that I've already said that your comments on my posts are ridiculous. Now you are going from the ridiculous towards even more ridiculous.
Will there be at least one post of mine which you will not misunderstand or misinterpreted?
Man, get a life!
regards
Yes, I remember. You have a tendency to make puerile misinterpretations of straightforward scriptural statements (such as, for example, arguing that anAdi karma does not imply anAdi samsAra) which no reputable Vaishnava scholar would make. And then, when it is pointed out that you are going against the grain of Vaishnava Vedantic standards of interpretation, you usually respond with something along the lines of the above.
Getting back to the point, your attempt to rationalize gaNesha worship from the standpoint of "Vaishnavism" is incorrect even as per the particular subsect of gauDIya sampradAya to which you belong. In his own books, Sri Prabhupada did not encourage the worship of gaNesha, and in fact he overtly discouraged worship of other devas when asked about it by his disciples. Although he mentions its place once in his book Nectar of Devotion, there is not a single temple established by him in which gaNesha was installed for worship. He did not, as your have suggested, try to argue that worship of gaNesha with the meditation of his inner paramAtmA was an acceptable meditation. There is no doubt that the AtmA of gaNesha also has nArAyaNa as his inner paramAtmA. The same is true of son, moon, stars, planets, jIva-s, matter, etc. However, that specific meditation (of meditating on the paramAtmA within the AtmA of gaNesha) is not recommended in shAstra - not in any universally accepted shruti, and certainly not in the bhAgavata purANa which is given the greatest importance by Hare Krishna devotees (at least, in theory.... I'm assuming a certain purity of presentation and not some self-motivated need to ingratiate one's self with other Hindus).
Originally Posted by
hinduism♥krishna
Namaste , bandhu.
Where is the point ? Worshipping other supreme gods doesn't mean krushn or Vishnu can't do that thing ! Then tell me, Why worshipping radha for moksh wouldn't mean Krishna can't do that ( although worshipping radha is a non-vedic practice ) ? Why worshipping durga wouldn't mean mean Krishna can't ? Why worshipping balaram wouldn't mean krishna cant do that? & so on.......
This is one of the problem when we consider bramh as sagun bramh with form. We can't accept omnipresent nature of bramh unless we are stuck on supremacy.
Hare Krishna govind
The above is an example of the kind of hazy, confused, free-thinking that occurs when one applies expectations based on one's provincial mindset to larger, more venerable traditions outside those of his local community. First, there is no "other supreme gods" as per Vedaantic Vaishnavism, and thank goodness for that. The idea of multiple, supreme gods is inconsistent with the shruti which describes brahman as "one without a second." It also happens to defy common sense, since everyone knows there can be only one best or supreme among things. Second, jijnasu's point is abundantly clear and does not require explanation - everything can be had from worship of nArAyaNa, and thus there is no need to go to any other deity. This has been a cornerstone of Vaishnava philosophy for centuries, upheld by shruti and smRiti, and indisputably consistent and logical. Moreover, this is the Vaishnava forum, and the irony is thick that those who don't like views preached against their own views, are here preaching a view that gaNesha worship should be done in a forum dedicated to traditions endorsing the exclusive worship of nArAyaNa. Is that hypocrisy? Um.... yeah, that is. Finally, neither the bhAgavata purANa, nor the viShNu purANa, nor the upaniShad-s, nor any other principle texts of Vedantic Vaishnavism recommend the worship of gaNesha in any context, and arguing against this point because one's sectarian, family traditions hold otherwise, is an arbitrary position that is beyond ridiculous in its execution.
Read the description: "Vaishnava Forum for discussion of Vaishnava Dharma." This isn't the forum for new-agey, free-thinkers to push their non-Vaishnava views onto those who believe in Vaishnavism. At the very least, if you are going to disagree with established Vaishnava traditions with foundations built on centuries of scholarship, you could at least offer logical, scripturally-based arguments, instead of the same old, same-old....
Philosoraptor
"Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato
Bookmarks