Adi shankarAchArya's views on anya-devata worship

[Omkara]

Regarding mAtRkA - they are assistants of UmA and help Her when She kills the real demons.

No, they are forms of the Divine Mother herself according to Markandeya Purana.

Also, if memory serves me right, the 7 mAtRkA (mothers) are so named because they took care of, hence mothered, nurtured baby kArtikeya when it was too dangerous to keep Him in KailAsh, since The asura (tripurasura family) knew the reason of His birth - to destroy them.

No, those are the Krittikas, and they are 6 in number.

[smaranam]

No, they are forms of the Divine Mother herself according to Markandeya Purana.


No, those are the Krittikas, and they are 6 in number.

Oh yes of course, the KRttikAs. Thanks for the corrections, Omkara
Even if mAtrkA are forms of UmA it does not surprise me, isn't KAli Her form as well? It has a purpose.

_/\_

[Omkara]

Translation of the original text by V. Panoli:

Those Vishnu-Bhakthas who are ever devoted to Me exclusively, owing to ignorance. Therefore they enjoy only little results.

This translation seems to be the exact opposite of what Shankaracharya seems to be saying.

[smaranam]

This translation seems to be the exact opposite of what Shankaracharya seems to be saying.

I noticed that statement does not make sense. It is a typo or some phrase is cut deleted ? That was my first impression on reading it.

I edited the previous post to remove the story of kArtikeya (where I confused mAtRkA with kRttikA, sorry)

[smaranam]

No, they are forms of the Divine Mother herself according to Markandeya Purana.


No, those are the Krittikas, and they are 6 in number.

I found that information from wikipedia (not an ideal source), and unknowingly, i notice now, my memory coincides with what it says about Skanda (kArtikeya). The article notes - some say 6, some 7 and some say there are 8 mAtRkA.

The Matrikas assume paramount significance in the goddess-oriented sect of Hinduism, Tantrism.[4] In Shaktism, they are "described as assisting the great Shakta Devi (goddess) in her fight with demons."[5] Some scholars consider them Shaiva goddesses.[6] They are also connected with the worship of warrior god Skanda.[7] In most early references, the Matrikas are described as having inauspicious qualities and often described as dangerous. They come to play a protective role in later mythology, although some of their inauspicious and wild characteristics still persist in these accounts.[8] Thus, they represent the prodigiously fecund aspect of nature as well as its destructive force aspect.[9]

The article goes on to say they are shaktis of the gods who associate with Shiva. So, if there is a bhairav, there has to be a bhairavi right?

[smaranam]

Don't want to go on about this topic, but in the ShAkta tradition, all are Devi, but one (your IshTa) is the Chief Devi, Shakti, and all others are Her associates, assistants, some pAlya dAsis etc.
e.g. your IshTa could be Lalita-tripurasundari, Durga, KAli, ... and all other forms are either Her subordinates or sakhis (peers).

So, of course these other 'forms' are interacting and assisting UmA - be they Her own forms.

[smaranam]

LAst but not the least (my goodness am i monopolizing this thread?)

To those Shri VaishNav who say that GaNesh does not exist:

Then who wrote down the puranas and mahabharat as VedaVyAsa dictated them?
I guess your answer is GajAnana in VaikunTha - from SB 11.27.29?

[Omkara]

The article goes on to say they are shaktis of the gods who associate with Shiva. So, if there is a bhairav, there has to be a bhairavi right?

There is a goddess called Bhairavi, but she is not one of the Matrikas. The Matrikas are Brahmani, Maheshvari, Kaumari, Vaishnavi, Varahi, Indrani, Chamunda.

According to Wikipedia the Matrikas are mentioned in Matsya Purana, Vamana Purana, Varaha Purana, Kurma Purana,Mahabharata.

[Omkara]

It seems you were not wrong after all.

Apparently there are versions of Skandas birth story in the Mahabharata that have the Matrikas as his mothers. My apologies.

[Sri Vaishnava]

Then who wrote down the puranas and mahabharat as VedaVyAsa dictated them?
I guess your answer is GajAnana in VaikunTha - from SB 11.27.29?

Before trying to be sarcastic, one must check his sources.

The portions describing Ganesha as the scribe of the mahAbhArata are considered as late interpolations. There have been numerous works written by srI puttur swami showing this and it is not mentioned before the 15th century. Even in the harivamSha, it is said that bAnAsura obtained a boon that he would be considered the second son of shiva and pArvati (the first being kArtikEya; no mention of a "third" son there as well).

The author of mahAbhArata was srI veda vyAsa.

Secondly, even if we interpret durga and vinayaka as "vishNu-durga" and "gajanana", it doesn't agree with srila prabhupada's theories of an "original durga" and a "original ganesha" at all, as you tried to claim earlier. The vishNu durga is still a baddha jivA as per sri vaishnavas.

Thirdly, I am still waiting for a response from my side with the vIrarAghavIyam. Will communicate it when (or rather, if) it arrives, for that particular verse.

However, believe what you want. As I said, nobody is forcing anybody to accept one or the other opinions.