Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism

[Omkara]

But if you are looking for explicit hymns in the Vedas regarding members of one Cosmic Family or another, as some criteria for what is proper for puja, then perhaps you should give puja to Indra.

Shivafan, the Vedas are clear that worship is to be given to the supreme Brahman alone-

Atharvashika Upanishad
39. Siva alone is to be meditated upon, Siva the Giver of good. Give up all else. Thus, concludes the Atharvasikha.
RV 2.33.4 Let us not anger thee with (imperfect) adorations, Rudra, unworthy praise,or mixed oblations (worship along with worship of other gods) Strong God!

Of course, Vaishnavas will say that 'Rudra' and 'Shiva' here refer to Lord Vishnu. What is important here is that the Vedas recommend one-pointed devotion.

[philosoraptor]

Namaste Philosorsptor

Your statement "There are no authorized Vedic hymns discussing the worship of an elephant-faced deity who is the son of Shiva", is clearly groping for an explicit reference in the Vedas of hymns to someone described very explicitly as with an elephant-face as the Son of Shiva and the name "Ganesha".

Namaste ShivaFan. I am stunned as always with your ability to grasp the obvious.

Hymns of Vedas, and Vedas in this context means the Four Vedas, and not commentaries on the Vedas or later holy texts.

Vedas means shruti. Commentaries on Vedas are not shruti.

Instead what is offered is the word Krishna in the chAndogya upaniSha which is a commentary.

Non-sequitur. It was you who claimed that Krishna is not mentioned in Vedas. I merely pointed out that He is mentioned in chAndogya upaniShad, which is part of the Veda. It even mentions that He is the son of devakI. You can do whatever you like with that information. Don't dislike me merely for having the audacity to correct you. I'm only from a "vile" culture, remember?

The Sanskrit word garuda means eagle, the verse you reference with garutmAn can mean nothing more than comparing the supreme to a flying eagle or the constellation Aquilla and the verse does not even mention Vishnu in this context but does mention Indra as is typical because there are many such hymns to Lord Indra. This is not an explicit reference in description as you demand of Ganapati as Son of Shiva.

Again, it was you who claimed that garuDa is not mentioned in the veda, and I was merely correcting you. The reason for wanting more explicit identifying information about gaNesha (i.e. remove of obstacles, son of rudra, elephant-faced, etc) is because there already exists an older tradition of identifying one of the nitya-sUri-s as an elephant-faced deity with some features resembling those of gaNesha, but who is not gaNesha. Hence, the desire for shruti-pramANa-s which can only be interpreted to refer to the elephant-faced son of shiva. If such pramANa-s exist, then it is logical to assume that gaNesha should be worshiped in the same context as indra and agni. But the reality remains that in vedic yagnas, gaNesha is not so worshiped. In vedic yagnas, we find viShNu/nArAyaNa, lakShmI, umA, rudra, indra, agni, vAyu, mitra, varuNa but no gaNesha. And I for one would like to know why that is, if gaNesha is indeed a Vedic deity.

By contrast, there is no other tradition identifying a non-supreme garuDa as anyone other than the carrier of viShNu. Hence the same question does not arise.

I do not need an explicit reference to cherish Ganapati, Ram, Garuda and so on. There is no explicit reference to Hanuman, so what? From my perspective, the events of the Ramayana on Earth planet came later after Indra killed the Serpent Snake, the Ramayana discusses Ram and Hanuman and not the Four Vedas, which makes sense to me since the focus of some Vedas is on yagna or sacrifice and homas and rites. This does not mean Hanuman or Ram should not have puja.

Again, irrelevant. No one is talking about pUja to hanumAn, or even about pUja to kRiShNa or rAma. The context of this discussion was vedic yagna-s. Can you not focus on what we are discussing, instead of going off on tangents?

If some Vaishnavas do not want to give puja to Ganapati, then they should do whatever is their tradition. I know for a fact, that some Vaishnavas to offer pujas to Ganesha.

Sri Vaishnavas and Chaitanya Vaishnavas do not do pUja to gaNapati or worship him in vedic yagnas. That is a fact. If you know of a Vaishnava Vedaanta tradition that does, please furnish references to writings belonging to them in which prescriptions for such worshp are found.

But if you are looking for explicit hymns in the Vedas regarding members of one Cosmic Family or another, as some criteria for what is proper for puja, then perhaps you should give puja to Indra. Even Indra must still exist, since there is a very clear and explicit reference to Indra in the story of Govardan Hill even though some Vaishnavas have told me the purport of this Govardan Hill means from the time of Krishna and forward this means one should worship Krishna for what Indra may provide. I don't know about that in detail, but I think Indra is still holding the position in Indra Loka before and after Govardan. He certainly exists.

Vaishnavas do vedic yagnas in which indra is worshiped as part of the sacrifice. jinyAsu already said this and I also acknowledged that. Is there any reason why you have trouble grasping this?

[philosoraptor]

You might want to read the rest of the posts on the topic. There are various interpretations, and it is not clear that Shankaracharya is speakung of Vinayaka in the plural.

I am not claiming that Shankaracharya considered Vinayaka a non-Vedic deity. I was just pointing out this controversy as it is germane to the topic being discussed.

You are right - I just now noticed the older thread in which this was discussed. I was looking at another thread with 3 postings. I'll check out the earlier one that is longer.

[Sri Vaishnava]

Hmm...my post seems to opened a hornet's nest here. The point I was trying to make is that sri vaishnavas do not accept Ganesha as a vedic deity or as the son of Shiva. The so-called Ganesha gAyatri is indeed taken as a referrent of Gajanana in our tradition. Others are free to worship Ganesha and need not accept our opinions. Simple as that.

Shruti only talks about nArAyaNa, so it is silly to ask a vaishnava for pramAnAs to prove his existence. Bit of information.

Brahmanaspati = Lord of Brahma = nArAyaNa.

Agni = Agra Netha = One who leads = nArAyaNa.

Indra, the vajrapAni, slayer of vRtra = The foremost one (Indra), who destroys the covering known as prakrti (vRtra) and who bears the vajra mark on his foot (vajrapAni) = nArAyaNa.

Manyu = Angered Narasimha/Yajna (Sacrifice)/Intelligent One (root-man) = nArAyaNa.

vAyu = One who moves (towards his devotees) = nArAyaNa.

Rudra = Destroyer of samsAra dukham = nArAyaNa.

Bhaga = Gracious Lord = nArAyaNa.

Kshetrapati = Lord of Kshetra (body or holy place) = nArAyaNa.

Isa = Ruler = nArAyaNa.

Shambhu = One who causes happiness (by his beauty) = nArAyaNa.

Vishnu = all-pervading One = nArAyaNa.

nArAyaNa = nArAyaNa (from mahAnArAyaNa up.)

---

This is the view of all vedAntins.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Omkara

That is all well and understood, the context of my questions however are not regarding Whom we should worship, Who is "supreme" or what constitutes the Brahman.

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.

And what was provided in the same dismissal tone as was expected was zero, just some dubious rehashed propaganda that only proves the pertinance of my question.

It is truly amazing to me how some, who actually seem to have no respect for the Shri Devatas of the Vedas who are obviously and clearly proclaimed in hymns, have entire pantheons of Devatas which are given puja which have no reference or dubious wordsmithing in these same Vedas, while at the same moment stating some other puja is somehow unauthorized because it is not referenced in the same scripture. It's sort of like saying baby pigeons do not exist because they have only seen grown pigeons.

Om Namah Sivaya

Shivafan, the Vedas are clear that worship is to be given to the supreme Brahman alone-

Atharvashika Upanishad
39. Siva alone is to be meditated upon, Siva the Giver of good. Give up all else. Thus, concludes the Atharvasikha.
RV 2.33.4 Let us not anger thee with (imperfect) adorations, Rudra, unworthy praise,or mixed oblations (worship along with worship of other gods) Strong God!

Of course, Vaishnavas will say that 'Rudra' and 'Shiva' here refer to Lord Vishnu. What is important here is that the Vedas recommend one-pointed devotion.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

The stotra you have cited is a later work falsely attributed to Shankaracharya. Shankaracharya has explicitly mentioned in his Gita Bhashya that Vinayaka is not to be worshipped in the commentary to verse 9.23.

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

[jignyAsu]

Omkar, are you sure about that reference? I checked shankara's commentary to 9.23 in Sanskrit and found no reference to gaNesha or viNAyaka.

"viNAyaka" has also been mentioned in Gita Bhashya translated in this site: http://www.sankaracharya.org/gita_bhashya_9.php

I was always curious to get the actual sanskrit verse of Adi Shankaracharya.

The so-called Ganesha gAyatri is indeed taken as a referrent of Gajanana in our tradition.

Pranam Sri Vaishnava,

Would you happen to know who "durgAm" is in our tradition?

I thank Philosoraptor for bringing up the verse here. This seems so similar to the Bhagavatam verse.

[Sri Vaishnava]

"viNAyaka" has also been mentioned in Gita Bhashya translated in this site: http://www.sankaracharya.org/gita_bhashya_9.php

I was always curious to get the actual sanskrit verse of Adi Shankaracharya.



Pranam Sri Vaishnava,

Would you happen to know who "durgAm" is in our tradition?

I thank Philosoraptor for bringing up the verse here. This seems so similar to the Bhagavatam verse.

Durga certainly exists! We are not denying the deities mentioned in the mahAnArAyaNa upanishad.

The tatpurusha mantras are interpreted as "we meditate on nArAyaNa, the tatpurusha by meditating on Durga/Shiva/etc who will guide us" if we take "tatpurusha as "sa chAsou purushashcha".

OR "we meditate on Durga/Shiva/etc (designated as purusha) who belong to nArAyaNa (designated as Tat), ie, his vibhUtIs, to help us progress. This interpretation is if we take "tatpurusha" as "tasya paramAtmanaH purushAya". "Tat" refers to parabrahman nArAyaNa - "Om tatsadhithi nirdeshaH".

These tatpurusha mantras are to be recited by upAsakas seeking to attain sriman nArAyaNa by the grace of these deities and are not required for daily recitation for prapannas or even other upAsakAs.

But even the female names belong to nArAyaNa. The vishnu sahasranAma contains the name of Durga as well and it applies to him. But of course, context is important, one must use that interpretation only if it fits the subject in hand. Interpetation always require careful analysis of context.

[jignyAsu]

The tatpurusha mantras are interpreted as "we meditate on nArAyaNa, the tatpurusha by meditating on Durga/Shiva/etc who will guide us" if we take "tatpurusha as "sa chAsou purushashcha".

In the Bhagavatam verse posted by smaranam:

SB 11.27.29
durgāḿ vināyakaḿ vyāsaḿ
viṣvakṣenaḿ gurūn surān
sve sve sthāne tv abhimukhān
pūjayet prokṣaṇādibhiḥ

who would the durgA be if we interpret as vinAyakA as Gajananar? I do know that in events like BrahmOtsavam all the nitya suris starting from VishvaksEnar and also the dEvas like Brahma etc are invoked into specific places by mantrAs. Is this durgA a nitya suri or the respective consort of Lord Shiva?

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

Jai Ganesh

Maha narayana Upanishad I.24 and Taittiriya Aranyaka 10.1.5 of the Krsna Yajurveda.

Aum tatpuruṣāya vidmahe | vakratuṇḍāya dhīmahi | tanno dantiḥ pracodayāt ||
'Aum! May we know that divine Person, And meditate upon Him with a curved trunk, May the tusked One guide us on the right path.'

Krsna Yajurveda - Maitrayani Samhita 2.9.1

Aum tatpuruṣāya vidmahe | hastimukhāya dhīmahi | tanno dantiḥ pracodayāt ||
'Aum! May we know that divine Person, And meditate upon Him with an elephant visage, May the tusked One guide us on the right path.'

Now Vaishnava may wish to interpret this any which way they like but for most Hindus it leaves no doubt, it is an invocation to Gouri putra Ganesh, similarly

Shuklaam Baradharam Vishnum
Shashi Varnam Chaturbuhjam
Prasanna Vadanam Dhyaayet
Sarva Vighno Pashaantaye

One may argue Vishnum that it refers to Vishnu but then when we take both the stanza together it leves no doubt that it is addressed to Vighnaharta Gajananam Eakdanta Ganesha.


Agajaa Aanana Padmaarkam
Gajaananam Aharnisham
Anekadantam Bhaktaanaam
Ekadantam Upaasmahe.

Jai Shree Krishna