Page 17 of 18 FirstFirst ... 7131415161718 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 173

Thread: Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism

  1. #161
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    25
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    1121

    Re: Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganeshprasad View Post
    Pranam



    How can you be so sure!


    Much water has cascaded since, I see no clear mention of Ganesha in the commentary by Shankara in relation to BG 9.25 sure he says Vinayaka-s, as the verse it self is in plural for Bhutas I have no reason to believe otherwise, under such circumstances I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of Ganesha Bhujanga of Adi Shankracharya

    Next you probably refute the Panchayatana puja as prescribed in smarta tradition

    I believe this was established by Shankara although I have heard it existed even before him!
    the worship of five deities:
    "Adityam Ambikaam Vishnum Gananaatam Maheswaram"

    Jai Ganesha

    Jai Shree Krishna
    "Vinayaka" is rendered in plural by those who wish to change the meaning of Shankaracharya's words.

    25. Votaries of the gods reach the gods; the votarites of the manes go to the manes the worshippers of the Beings reach the Beings; and those who worship Me reach Me. Deva-vratah, votaries of the gods, those whose religious observances [Making offerings and presents, circumambulation, bowing down, etc.] and devotion are directed to the gods; yanti, reach, go to; devan, the gods. Pitr-vratah, the votaries of the manes, those who are occupied with such rites as obsequies etc., who are devoted to the manes; go pitrn, to the manes such as Agnisvatta and others. Bhutejyah, the Beings such as Vinayaka, the group of Sixteen(divine) Mothers, the Four Sisters, and others. And madyajinah, those who worship Me, those who are given to worshipping Me, the devotees of Visnu; worship Me, those who are given to worshipping Me, the devotees of Visnu; reach mam, Me alone. Although the effort (involved) is the same, still owing to ingorance they do not worship Me exclusively. Thereby they attain lesser results. This is the meaning. reach mam, Me alone. Although the effort (involved) is the same, still owing to ngorance they do not worship Me exclusively. Thereby they attain lesser results. This is the meaning'Not only do My devotees get the everlasting result in form of non-return form of non-return(to this world), but My worship also is easy.' How?

    Other than the prasthanatrayi bhashyas of Shankaracharya, most other works of his are considered of doubtful authenticity.

    In his prasthanatrayi Bhashyas, he does not once call Brahman by any name other than Narayaba. He calls Surya and Rudra as Jivas.

    Mist importantly, though Shiva Purana and Skanda Purana identify the Supreme being who humilated the devas in Kena upanishad as Shiva, Shankaracharya does not mention this. Why?
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

  2. #162

    Re: Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism

    Quote Originally Posted by ShivaFan View Post
    The context of my questions are how can someone proclaim some so-called litmus test on explicit Vedic references regarding Ganapati or members of the Cosmic Family of Shiva, and yet cannot even provide the same litmus test regarding references to members of the Cosmic Family of Vishnu in the Four Vedas regarding Ram, Krishna, Garuda or Ananta Shesh Nag.[
    The problem is, nobody did that. As usual, when you feel the need to argue, you first transform the other person's argument into a strawman you feel more comfortable knocking down. I am well aware of the paucity of references to kRiShNa and rAma. However, kRiShNa and rAma are not the deities worshiped in vedic yagnas, and thus this issue is moot. Feel free to disbelieve in kRiShNa and rAma if you wish. The vedic basis of kRiShNa/rAma/other viShNu avatArs was not the issue. The issue was why Sri Vaishnavas worship some devatas (indra, agni, vAyu, etc) as part of yagna dedicated to pleasing viShNu, and not other devatas (i.e. gaNesha). The answer is that the former are found in the veda-s and the latter are not. It takes only a modicum of common sense to realize that that Vedic yagna must be done according to the prescriptions found in the Veda.

    I honestly don't know if you are really this obtuse, or if you just pretend to be. It would be helpful if you could exercise a bit of intellectual honesty and stop misrepresenting my words just to give yourself a reason for sectarian one-upmanship.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  3. #163
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism


    Regarding anadi karma.
    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    I said that your misinterpretations of scripture are puerile. Let us not confuse the two. Gaudiya Vaishnavas accept the Vedaantic view that karma is anAdi, and that karma means what everyone else understands it to mean - action in the material world which results in puNyam or pApam.
    Nowhere in the writings of Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana do we see ...
    No, they do not!
    Not long ago I have demonstrated this with examples from Bhagavatam purports by Srila Prabhupada where he refers to the opinion of previous Bhagavatam commentators as for example Gaudiya Vaishnava acharya Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura who clearly states that we have not always been trapped in material world or beginningless samsara.
    It seems that you very quickly forget.
    Since Baladeva Vidyabhusana was a disciple of Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura it is not to be expected that he disagreed with the idea endorsed by his spiritual master.

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    Asking for proof that anAdi karma implies anAdi samsAra is moronic. Every Vedaanta commentator knows that it does, since that is a straightforward inference - Adi Shankara, Madhva, Raamaanuja, Baladeva... they all do. In none of their writings do we see them referring to a "fall from Vaikuntha." The burden of proof is on the challenger to centuries of Vedaantic interpretation to show otherwise.
    No, the burden of proof is on you!
    That what you think is "centuries of Vedaantic interpretation" is just your own misunderstanding of all the acaryas the Vedantists.
    If you really think that "Every Vedaanta commentator knows that it does" then give me examples of their statement where they say that there is "beginningless samsara". Even better than that, give me examples from the scriptures where it says "beginningless samsara".

    Not only that, but if you think the idea of Gaudiya Vaishnavas is unacceptable then you can keep your own children locked up in a dungeon in miserable conditions for no reason. Then, while holding them captive so you hope that one day they will strive towards liberation, and when they do, you will release them and ask them to join you on the 1st floor. ... (Remember my 1st reason and also 2nd reason of why the idea of bondage of the jiva soul in beginningless saṃsāra is wrong. It is there in "Start of the 'Atma'/Soul" thread http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...=11407&page=10)

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    First of all, as a believer in "Jesus is a pure devotee" and "Mohammed is a shaktyavesha avatar," what to speak of other non-Vedic deviations like "fall from Vaikuntha," you have no credibility to speak on behalf of Gaudiya Vaishnavas, what to speak of Vaishnavas in general.
    I have never said "Jesus is a pure devotee", nor did I ever said "Mohammed is a shaktyavesha avatar".


    Regarding worship of other devatas.
    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa
    If that specific meditation on the paramatma within the divinities is not recommended in the scriptures then why did Sri Radha worshiped Ganesha in this way?
    I have already quoted Brahma-vaivarta purana, Krishna janma khanda, ch. CXXIII.54-59, p. 534.
    Which is not a core scripture for Gaudiya Vaishnavas, and is also not shruti. Thus it has no bearing on practices based on authorized Vedic hymns
    Yes it is a core scripture for Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Is it shruti or not does not matter because Gaudiya Vaishnavas accept the authority of the Puranas. This Brahma-vaivarta purana is one of the most important scriptures for Gaudiya Vaishnavas from which we learn about Sri Sri Radha and Krishna, gopis, their place of residence Goloka, their pastimes, etc., if you did not know I can tell you. Every Gaudiya Vaishnava can confirm the enormous significance of Brahma-vaivarta purana for Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy and siddhanta.

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    There are no authorized Vedic hymns discussing the worship of an elephant-faced deity who is the son of Shiva, making your point moot.
    ...
    In fact, there is no universally accepted shruti which even mentions gaNesha.
    In this very passage from the Brahma-vaivarta purana
    (http://www.archive.org/stream/brahma...ge/11/mode/1up)
    Krishna janma khanda, ch. CXXIII.54-59, p. 534.
    where Radha eulogised Ganesha "You are the supreme Brahma ... there is none superior to you ... you cause the gods to manifest themselves"
    we read that this eulogy of Ganesha is "the hymn mentioned in the Kauthuma branch of the Vedas". Kauthuma branch of the Vedas belongs to Sama Veda. So this hymn is taken from shruti.
    I do not know if you care, but I can tell you Gaudiya Vaishnavas have no reason to doubt whether the author of Brahma-vaivarta purana actually took this hymn from Kauthuma branch of the Sama Veda.

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    This is completely irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. Here is the commentary on that verse from your own sampradAya:
    Purport: ...
    ...
    Now, you either agree with jIva gosvAmI or you don't. If you don't, then you are no Gaudiya Vaishnava and have no business misrepresenting yourself as such. If you do, then this verse does not bolster your case any, making it quite dishonest for you to try and imply otherwise.
    And my case was ... ... what?
    Are you sure you understood what was my case?

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    Because you are obviously confused, let me remind you that the title of this thread is "Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism." In response to jignyAsu's very correct position that nothing need be sought from anya-devatas that cannot be had from the worship of shrIman nArAyaNa, it was you who jumped in and rambled on about tangential points regarding the merits of worshiping entities other than shrIman nArAyaNa, obviously to lay the foundation for your implied position that gaNesha-worship as a liberated soul might be acceptable.
    Well finally we came to the crux of the problem. Are we?
    Why are you putting in my mouth words that I did not say?
    Excuse yourself from commenting on my posts if you do not understand them or you do not even care to read them carefully.

    Where did I said that I disagree with the opinion provided by Viraja and jignyAsu?
    My position was that whoever Ganesha is, a liberated soul or Shiva's son, worship of Ganesha, worship of mentioned divinities and various demigods is not prohibited because we can clearly see that even Bhagavatam 11.27.29 approves such a worship.
    Sometimes even the Vaishnavas think "Oh, I'm not allowed to worship Ganesha, divinities and various demigods because my Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita that we should not worship them".
    "Oh, I can not do it, OMG, I can not do it because I'll be accused of being a demigod worshiper".

    Sometimes people who lack in understanding of the scriptures and Vedanta think so. They think that the instruction of Lord Krishna given in Bhagavad-gita is somehow contradictory to the instruction given by this very same Lord Krishna in Bhagavatam 11.27.29:

    "With offerings such as prokṣaṇa one should worship Durgā, Vināyaka, Vyāsa, Viṣvaksena, the spiritual masters and the various demigods. All these personalities should be in their proper places facing the Deity of the Lord."

    They do not realize that Sri Radha's worship of Ganesha is not contrary to Vaishnava doctrine if properly understood. Sri Radha was not a demigod worshiper. She did not think "I surrender my life in the hands of Ganesha. He is my Lord, he is Supreme Brahman, etc".
    I think I was clear on this matter when I said that the words of Sri Radha's eulogy were not actually addressed to Ganesha but were addressed to the Supreme Lord, Supreme Brahman situated in his heart in the form of paramatma.
    So then whom is she worshiped? Ganesha or The Supreme Lord who is Supreme Brahman?
    The answer is obvious.

    regards

  4. #164

    Re: Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism

    Quote Originally Posted by Omkara View Post
    Other than the prasthanatrayi bhashyas of Shankaracharya, most other works of his are considered of doubtful authenticity.
    In his prasthanatrayi Bhashyas, he does not once call Brahman by any name other than Narayaba. He calls Surya and Rudra as Jiva.
    This same point is made by U.Ve Velukkudi Krishnan Swami in his discourses. I'm only just now becoming aware of the controversies surrounding the authorship of some of shankara's works.

    I'm going to take a closer look at the Sanskrit for shankara's commentary on gItA 9.25 when I get a chance. I did get the impression that the Advaita list members were confounding the issue in order to avoid confronting an unpleasant truth. It should be easy enough to tell whether viNAyaka is singular or plural.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  5. #165
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    25
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    1121

    Re: Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism

    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa View Post

    Regarding anadi karma.


    No, they do not!
    Not long ago I have demonstrated this with examples from Bhagavatam purports by Srila Prabhupada where he refers to the opinion of previous Bhagavatam commentators as for example Gaudiya Vaishnava acharya Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura who clearly states that we have not always been trapped in material world or beginningless samsara.
    It seems that you very quickly forget.
    Since Baladeva Vidyabhusana was a disciple of Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura it is not to be expected that he disagreed with the idea endorsed by his spiritual master.
    I have asked you this before but you did not reply.
    The purvapaksha in the anadi karma sutra as intetpreted by Baladeva and all other Vedantin commentators is that God is partial because there is no prior karma before the first birth yet the first birth of every jiva is unequal- Some are born blind, crippled, poor etc.

    Baladeva's answer is that karma is anadi. If Baladeva means something else by anadi than beginningless then he is merely restating the purvapajsha and not answering it.
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

  6. #166
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    25
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    1121

    Re: Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    This same point is made by U.Ve Velukkudi Krishnan Swami in his discourses. I'm only just now becoming aware of the controversies surrounding the authorship of some of shankara's works.

    I'm going to take a closer look at the Sanskrit for shankara's commentary on gItA 9.25 when I get a chance. I did get the impression that the Advaita list members were confounding the issue in order to avoid confronting an unpleasant truth. It should be easy enough to tell whether viNAyaka is singular or plural.
    If you leave aside the controvery about "Vinayaka" for a moment you will notice the unequivocal condemnation of the worship of the matrikas in the same paragraph.
    Also, Sri Vaishnava says Shankaracharya has referred to Surya and Rudra as jivas in his upanishad bhashyas.

    So there goes the myth that Shankaracharya was a Smarta.
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

  7. #167
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism

    Quote Originally Posted by Omkara View Post
    I have asked you this before but you did not reply.
    The purvapaksha in the anadi karma sutra as intetpreted by Baladeva and all other Vedantin commentators is that God is partial because there is no prior karma before the first birth yet the first birth of every jiva is unequal- Some are born blind, crippled, poor etc.

    Baladeva's answer is that karma is anadi. If Baladeva means something else by anadi than beginningless then he is merely restating the purvapajsha and not answering it.
    Yes I did:
    http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...000#post104000

    regards

  8. #168
    Join Date
    January 2013
    Age
    39
    Posts
    327
    Rep Power
    593

    Re: Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism

    Quote Originally Posted by Indiaspirituality Amrut View Post
    My question is, for layman, karma-kand is not to be renounced. In this case, are they advised to chant veda mantra-s, which would even say that other deities like Ganesh or Shiva are supreme Godhead or are they instructed to chant mantra-s which praise a particular deity.

    Another question is, are there separate instructions for laymen and spiritually advanced bhakta-s?
    ......

    Though it may look like the answer is already given in this thread i.e. exclusive devotion to Sriman Narayana, my query is - it is for for all or just for sanyasins.
    Namaste Amrut Ji,

    Lord Krishna instructs Arjuna after advising him against taking up sanyAsa and so I deem His instructions to pertain to even non Sanyasis.

    In chapter 7 there arises a comparison of different types of Bhaktas. He identifies 4 types of His devotees and He celebrates all of them. This is immediately followed by the verse 20 onwards where He says that those who resort to other gods gain limited fruit. He also says that He is the one that makes their faith steadfast as per their desires. Those 4 kinds of His devotees include those who seek wealth and release from distress, which is not at all the mind of a mumukshu.

    Therefore, to answer your question, our Acharyas have instructed us to resort to Sriman Narayana only irrespective of our spiritual level. However in all Upanyasams, they keep urging to ask Him only for His Kainkaryam and association instead of any material needs. That many iyengars continue to visit all temples is a proof that such instructions is given only in a friendly way instead of pushing anyone.

    Also we are encourage to visit only Vishnu temples where only Vedic hymns pertaining to Vaishnava Agamas are recited. Having a basic understanding that all hymns finally address Keshava only, is encouraged.

    As you say, at the eod, it boils down to the Achaya that appeals to your heart the most.

  9. #169

    Re: Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism

    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa View Post
    No, they do not!
    Not long ago I have demonstrated this with examples from Bhagavatam purports by Srila Prabhupada where he refers to the opinion of previous Bhagavatam commentators as for example Gaudiya Vaishnava acharya Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura who clearly states that we have not always been trapped in material world or beginningless samsara.
    It seems that you very quickly forget.
    Since Baladeva Vidyabhusana was a disciple of Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura it is not to be expected that he disagreed with the idea endorsed by his spiritual master.
    Rubbish. VCT stated no such thing, and neither he nor Baladeva ever wrote about a "Fall from Vaikuntha." Bhagavatam purports are not the Bhagavatam, and in any case, you only accept the BBT purports when they suit you, as for example, when Sri Prabhupada says that aside from cases like Jaya and Vijaya, no one falls from Vaikuntha. You had no sensible response to this statement of his.

    No, the burden of proof is on you!
    That what you think is "centuries of Vedaantic interpretation" is just your own misunderstanding of all the acaryas the Vedantists.
    If you really think that "Every Vedaanta commentator knows that it does" then give me examples of their statement where they say that there is "beginningless samsara". Even better than that, give me examples from the scriptures where it says "beginningless samsara".
    BJ, you are embarrassing your self by trying to pretend that you have some kind of argument here. Everyone knows that anAdi karma implies beginningless bondage. The bhAgavata purANa also confirms that both bondage and avidyA are also anAdi:

    ekasyaiva mamāṁśasya jīvasyaiva mahā-mate |
    bandho 'syāvidyayānādir vidyayā ca tathetaraḥ || bhA 11.11.4 ||

    anādy-avidyā-yuktasya puruṣasyātma-vedanam |
    svato na sambhavād anyas tattva-jo jāna-do bhavet || bhA 11.22.10 ||

    Predictably, the ISKCON translator, whose views on anAdi karma you accept, and who is also the same one who wants to promote homosexual monogamy and believes ancient Indian women walked around with their breasts exposed, mistranslates "anAdi" as "from time immemorial," implying that there was a beginning and that it just happened before recorded time. Translating "anAdi" as meaning that there was a beginning is wrong. "anAdi" literally means without beginning.

    The burden of proof is on you to say that anAdi means something other than what it means. It is obvious that anAdi-karma is synonymous with beginningless bondage. Only you and a handful of misguided ISKCON devotees seem to be unclear on this point.

    Not only that, but if you think the idea of Gaudiya Vaishnavas is unacceptable then you can keep your own children locked up in a dungeon in miserable conditions for no reason. Then, while holding them captive so you hope that one day they will strive towards liberation, and when they do, you will release them and ask them to join you on the 1st floor. ... (Remember my 1st reason and also 2nd reason of why the idea of bondage of the jiva soul in beginningless saṃsāra is wrong. It is there in "Start of the 'Atma'/Soul" thread http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...=11407&page=10)
    I have no idea what the above is supposed to mean. I do not find the idea of Gaudiya Vaishnavas (as described by Baladeva and other pre-ISKCON writers) regarding beginningless karma to be unacceptable because it is the exact same idea that mAdhva-s and followers of rAmAnuja have. It is the non-vedAntic idea of karma beginning at some "time immemorial" which is unacceptable because it contradicts the argument vyAsa is trying to make in his sUtra-s, a fact which would be apparent to you if you had the basic skills of reading comprehension that would allow you to understand the discussion taking place just prior to sUtra 2.1.35.

    I don't subscribe to the hubris that your theories represent Gaudiya Vaishnavism. So far as I can see, you are just another ISKCON devotee who likes to argue about things he does not understand, even when it is obvious that he has no idea what he is talking about. The fact that you could give us a lesson on Sanskrit translation ("hiraNmayena pAtrena....") without yourself knowing the basics of Sanskrit grammar just underscores this desperate need you seem to have to be perceived as some kind of authority on something.

    I have never said "Jesus is a pure devotee", nor did I ever said "Mohammed is a shaktyavesha avatar".
    It's in the BBT purports which you claim to accept.

    Regarding worship of other devatas.


    Yes it is a core scripture for Gaudiya Vaishnavas.
    Oh really? Then please let me know which Gaudiya Vaishnava wrote a commentary on the Brahma-Vaivarta Purana, and I'll retract my claims that it is not a core scripture for Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

    Is it shruti or not does not matter because Gaudiya Vaishnavas accept the authority of the Puranas.
    This is false. In his tattva-sandarbha, shrI jIva gosvAmI states that he will place greatest emphasis on sAttvik purANa-s, and even then only to the extent that they support his interpretations of the bhAgavata purANa. According to the three-fold classification of the purANa-s which constitutes a major cornerstone of his argument, the brahma-vaivarta belongs in rAjAsic class and thus, by that classification, should be less authoritative.

    [unsubstantiated remarks deleted]

    In this very passage from the Brahma-vaivarta purana
    (http://www.archive.org/stream/brahma...ge/11/mode/1up)
    Krishna janma khanda, ch. CXXIII.54-59, p. 534.
    where Radha eulogised Ganesha "You are the supreme Brahma ... there is none superior to you ... you cause the gods to manifest themselves"
    we read that this eulogy of Ganesha is "the hymn mentioned in the Kauthuma branch of the Vedas". Kauthuma branch of the Vedas belongs to Sama Veda. So this hymn is taken from shruti.
    This argument again. You really need to take a course on elementary logic before you bore us with these kinds of childish arguments.

    As is obvious to anyone who can think, merely claiming that a certain hymn comes from shruti is ultimately baseless if one cannot demonstrate where that hymn is actually found. By your standard of "logic," anyone can claim anything based on it supposedly being from a "lost" hymn from the Vedas. Essentially, you argue that the purANa is genuine, because it is based on a lost shruti. Then you will say that the claim about the lost shruti is genuine, because it comes from the purANa. This is a classic tautology, and is unacceptable.

    I do not know if you care, but I can tell you Gaudiya Vaishnavas have no reason to doubt whether the author of Brahma-vaivarta purana actually took this hymn from Kauthuma branch of the Sama Veda.
    So far, you haven't even quoted the writings of one Gaudiya Vaishnava who makes this claim. Once again, the ISKCON hubris - we are meant to think that if brahma-jijnasa accepts it, then Gaudiya Vaishnavas accept it.

    And my case was ... ... what?
    Are you sure you understood what was my case?
    You don't have a case. What you have is a lot of garbled reasoning based on disconnected thinking. I don't find that your being ignorant of Sanskrit, Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy, and the logic of vedAnta-sUtras to be a problem. What I find troublesome is your continued need to appear that you know more than you actually do.

    Where did I said that I disagree with the opinion provided by Viraja and jignyAsu?
    My position was that whoever Ganesha is, a liberated soul or Shiva's son, worship of Ganesha, worship of mentioned divinities and various demigods is not prohibited because we can clearly see that even Bhagavatam 11.27.29 approves such a worship.
    No it does not. The BBT purport clearly states: "According to Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, the Gaṇeśa and Durgā mentioned in this verse are not the same personalities present within the material world; rather, they are eternal associates of the Lord in Vaikuṇṭha. In this world Gaṇeśa, the son of Lord Śiva, is famous for awarding financial success, and the goddess Durgā, the wife of Lord Śiva, is famous as the external, illusory potency of the Supreme Lord. The personalities mentioned here, however, are eternally liberated associates of the Lord who reside in the spiritual sky, beyond the material manifestation."

    So in other words, according to shrI jIva gosvAmI, who knows more about Gaudiya Vaishnavism than you do, the viNAyaka mentioned here is not shiva's son, but rather an eternal associate in Vaikuntha.

    Sometimes even the Vaishnavas think "Oh, I'm not allowed to worship Ganesha, divinities and various demigods because my Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita that we should not worship them".
    "Oh, I can not do it, OMG, I can not do it because I'll be accused of being a demigod worshiper".

    Sometimes people who lack in understanding of the scriptures and Vedanta think so.
    Sometimes fallen people with no social status get attracted to revisionist, neo-Hindu ideologies which promise to turn them into great spiritual authorities. Such people, having no status in their previous material lives, become very intoxicated at the prospect of wearing dhoti and tilak and being regarded as great preachers who can teach and command others. Such people have a desperate need to believe that others don't understand the religion as they do, and must hear from them in order to make any advancement in spiritual life. Whatever the subject may be, whether it be Sanskrit, the vedAnta-sUtra-s, the veda-s, the upaniShad-s, these fallen people will always wish to appear to be the authority on the subject, even if their knowledge of the subject comes entirely from the internet. Such people will never admit that they are wrong. How can they be wrong? They are "bona fide." They will twist simple arguments around and proclaim their correctness as obvious.

    I have seen hundreds of people just like this, who eventually fell down from ISKCON and start websites and cults devoted to the exposition of their deviant doctrines in the name of "Gaudiya Vaishnavism." The world does not need more false religions and false prophets. Please stop misusing Gaudiya Vaishnavism for your own impure goals.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  10. #170
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Posts
    1,521
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism

    Namaste Philosoraptor

    Philosoraptor: The issue was why Sri Vaishnavas worship some devatas (indra, agni, vAyu, etc) as part of yagna dedicated to pleasing viShNu, and not other devatas (i.e. gaNesha).
    Actually, no, that was not the subject of the OP, the OP and thread was not asking why Vedic Devatas such as Indra are worshipped by Vaishnavas and not Ganesh, the thread subject was the OP question as to why Ganesh puja and at this time of recent Vinayaka Chaturthi is celebrated by Vaishnavas and Ganesh is also worshipped as part of Satyanarayana Puja.

    The Vedic injunctions and Shri Devatas was introduced by an insistence through such comments as yours "There are no authorized Vedic hymns discussing the worship of an elephant-faced deity who is the son of Shiva" as a strawman argument that Ganesh puja is not authorized, and is a classic example of what you claim of others in that you cannot even apply the same litmus to other Vaishnava Devatas such as Garuda or Ananta.

    This is not my litmus or example, this was yours. I do not agree with such a litmus as meaningful to this discussion about Vaishnavas giving puja to Ganesha, something which you seem to claim Vaishnavas do not do even though the OP makes explicit example of observing Vaishnavas giving such worship, celebration and praise, and which I have observed myself as well as a fact that does occur.

    You have to learn to "eat your own dogfood" as the old American saying goes.

    Om Namah Sivaya

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Self-realization in Vaishnavism
    By wcrow in forum Vaishnava
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 18 April 2011, 04:05 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 31 December 2010, 01:17 AM
  3. Can Vaishnavism AND advaita philosophy merged?
    By Elizabeth108 in forum Vaishnava
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05 September 2010, 11:55 AM
  4. Importance of murti pooja and shivaling?
    By indian in forum God in Hindu Dharma
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10 June 2009, 08:41 PM
  5. How to perform Gayatri pooja
    By Hiwaunis in forum New to Sanatana Dharma
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 22 March 2007, 07:04 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •