Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Improper?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Posts
    1,525
    Rep Power
    2741

    Re: Improper?

    You should follow the custom of first darshan, homage, greeting, then Who is next, etc. and so on OF THAT TEMPLE AND RESIDENTS OF THAT TEMPLE.

    Otherwise, please do not go to that temple! Go to your "own temple" or the one that matches your practice. But as for me, I go to LOTS of temples, not just those that match my practice. For example, I might be on a business trip, I might visit the Vaishnav temple, or next Saiva, or Devi, so on, because that is the temple there.


    I might be visiting some other realm, or province or town, they may have a Realm Goddess there, I visit it then I FOLLOW THE PROTOCOL OF HER REALM.


    Perhaps a personal example is in order. My Ishta is Hanuman. And yes it is true, many if not most temples have Ganesha and expect you to first See Him. Even if Ganesha is not the presiding deity. That is their protocol ... THEN I DO THAT even if the presiding Deity is Hanuman in that temple, I do not ignore Ganesha and rush directly to Hanuman. No.


    Some tempies have Bhairava as the Door Keeper. You are expected to Honor Bhairav first, IF THAT IS THE PROTOCOL OF THAT TEMPLE THEN I DO THAT!


    Who am I to insult a temple's protocol? If I must be a stubborn head strong donkey, then better I do not go to that temple at all! I first learn, what is the protocol of that temple? If I visit it, then I follow that protocol or not go at all.

  2. #12

    Re: Improper?

    [My personal view as polytheist, let no one take offense of it]

    Namaste,

    We may want to realize that when you go to a temple of a Deva, we meet the Deva in an entourage, and it is no different than going on other official visits. These are not informal visits. Suppose we are invited to a party of a very important person. Will we be walking straight up to him? No.

    They have an entourage around them and they await the guests. There will often be a line up to shake hands with all the guests arriving. It is not so that the most important person is met first or last. If this were so he would have to be the gatekeeper, letting you in or out. No it it is more like ascending a mountain one side and descending another side. The highest person will be in the center, because he is in the center of things.

    The first people to shake hands with would be his assistances and envoys, the people that represent him, and then his children. The children are put forward purposely as the are the next generation and need to build contacts. They may not yet be important but they are the future. As the future they are before us. So they are greeted before. Envoys are like the hands on our long arms, they are the first to make contact. They are before us, so they are greeted before.

    Then there are also people that represent the past or are in the shadow, less active but very important and influential. They have eyes sharpened by experience. These can be personal advisers, parents, great-parents, aunts and uncles. These are people not on the "fore-ground" but "back-ground". These people normally do not interact with the outside world directly but are still very important through their influence. They are purposely in the shadow of the most important person.

    If the most important persons brother is greeted before him, this means he plays an active role and he is someone you will normally meet first. Not someone you can pass by! If on the other hand he is greeted after him, this means you are not considered to meet him bypassing the most important person. You may however become to meet them through the most important person.

    So this line up of people that are waiting to shake hands is actually telling a story and any change in the line up also tells a story. This is no different in corporate business today than it was in the earlier times at courts. The principles of power do not change. We should not forget that Devas are also principles of powers. And like principles of powers they are interrelated with other principles of powers, but uniquely in a particular setup.

    But like the same person can have different positions in different environments, so can the Devas. For instance someone can have an important position in a sports organization, but a lesser one in the company he works for. And even a lesser person will be presented as the important person when you meet him in his own home. In the same way the line up of Devas is different in different temples. It is never telling us what the absolute division of power is, only in this particular setting.

    We should also want to recognize that Devas are very dynamic entities that lend their power to others and back. For instance this picture is not an insult at all.
    ]
    It simply means that Lord Hanuman (son of wind) lends his powers to Lord Ganesha (the winds takes things higher), so Lord Ganesha can defeat some adversary, probably a demon. This is cooperation, and who only greets the one top is a fool. Hanumans servitude has nothing to do with submission that [some] monotheists like to read in things. If that were the case than Lord Krishna being a King would not take the role as a charioteer. The essence of Dharm is servitude to all others, not servitude to who his higher in the picking order.

    In polytheistic traditions we also see Gods come up and then go to the background. That is how Nature is. Today you may be "on top", tomorrow someone else is at the center. That is no different with the gods, that is why the times are changing. In every era of history other principles become dominant. Yes, one day you are "a rising star", and one day you will be "over the hill". But that is no tragedy, there will be a new life and you will rise once again. The Devas do not loose their lives, they just lose their rule, until time has made a circle and they rule again.

    In a formal setting we "pay" respect to people according to their position, because we are not interested in the persons themselves but what they can mean for us in their present role. If you go to a rulers court or a company, you do not go there to make intimate friends, but to represent certain interests, yourselves but often also others. It would even be presumptuous that anyone can walk in and say: Glad to meet you, my dear friend. Friendship is build mutually, not self-proclaimed. Public women open their intimate doors to many, but they too have limits.

    Still, realizing that each being is self-aware we should also treat each being with a deeper respect that is not limited by the interests we represent. And at all times we may want to remember it is just roles we are playing on a big stage. In Nature each plays his part. We talk about more and less important roles, but they are never more than roles. That goes as much for the Devas as ourselves.

    When it seems that a Deva plays "a lesser part" in a scene or subservient role that does not mean he has lost position and respect. We should look better. Devas lend their forces where needed. The wind can become a hurricane and dominate all, but it can also be a light breeze that cools us, or a hard wind that makes ships sail. In all cases it is about the particular qualities that the wind adds to the scene. A play is made by all roles working together

    Feelings of insults come easily when people get to much attached to their roles and lose sight of the real purpose of the play, which is simply to create happiness for all in playing. We should not want to worship any being because they are "the highest" in a certain setting. We should each give respect for their unique contribution, and for their Divine essence in general.

    Meeting with the Devas is like meeting with honorable people. Do not offend them with pity bias. If you meet an important business contact and praise him abundantly, but slightly insult his wife, you think you will enter a successful business relationship? If your are intelligent you will want to understand the roles each of them plays. And if that is not clear to you, you will be careful to give each the same amount of respect.

    The Devas are not considered simply forces, technical principles of Nature, but self-aware beings. As such they sense, feel and have feelings. They cooperate and also compete at times. Even among honorable people their is a danger of jealousy, even more if beings have great pride. People in North European traditions did not do much sacrifices to the Gods, only if utmost necessary. But they did bring a lot of sacrifices to their servants and other lower spiritual beings. Which is logical. A employee will not bring his requests to the highest CEO either, he will talk to his chef. That is the natural order.

    The idea that every other being should preferably address directly to the highest being is unnatural. That is why they call it "supernatural". But in Nature religions, polytheistic, pantheistic religions there is no supernatural, Natural order prevails. In fact Nature religion is no religion as many understand religion today, it simply is the reality we live in. The world of Gods and other spiritual beings simply is part of our Natural environment, part of daily reality. You sense it in the world around you.

    The idea of worshiping one God as highest, can easily become deifying a self-chosen boss that favors you. The more important you make your boss, the more important you feel yourself. That is why some monotheists developed into the most arrogant people. Hey, we work for the number one. We talk to him directly. We have a special communication channel with the ruler of this world. We can phone him up. In their arrogance they do harm to others they regard as "children of the lesser gods". This worship of only the highest is low consciousness. Lower consciousness tends to be more aggressive and big claims tend to come from big egos.

    In commercial temples people are made to believe they are welcome as they bring money. Then priests become more like pimps. Now when someone goes to a temple and treats Ganesha like the doorman and then hurries to the prime deity? Is he honoring the Gods? Is his conduct creating a favorable impression? Is this opportunist attitude going to be rewarded by the Gods? Maybe he had better stayed at home.

    One may want to understand that the mere "presence" of a statue of a God mean (s)he is considered "present" in this setting. Ignoring them is putting yourself above them. No matter how deep you kneel for your personal God, there is little modesty or awareness in such behavior. If your excuse is that you did not know, than you are still living in lower consciousness most of the time, because your heart surely knows. The one that only does do it because he is taught it is the correct procedure, does not know either.

    Revering the highest consciousness means little if it does not allow us to act out of this high consciousness from within. A deeply felt respect for all comes with this consciousness. Then the right behavior comes natural, and is no longer learning. Too much learning easily creates a false feeling of accomplishment. You have read many books but still do not know how to behave respectfully? How tragic. You think reading one more book will help? That is like plastic surgery. One operation leads to another.

    It serves a person better to respect the Gods and to know he knows little. Then the Gods will surely come to teach him. Because when we meet with the Gods, is not our deepest desire to hear them talk, so our heart will speak to us?
    Last edited by Avyaydya; 19 April 2015 at 03:35 PM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    March 2014
    Posts
    554
    Rep Power
    1405

    Re: Improper?

    Quote Originally Posted by Avyaydya View Post
    [My personal view as polytheist, let no one take offense of it]

    Namaste,

    We may want to realize that when you go to a temple of a Deva, we meet the Deva in an entourage, and it is no different than going on other official visits. These are not informal visits. Suppose we are invited to a party of a very important person. Will we be walking straight up to him? No.

    They have an entourage around them and they await the guests. There will often be a line up to shake hands with all the guests arriving. It is not so that the most important person is met first or last. If this were so he would have to be the gatekeeper, letting you in or out. No it it is more like ascending a mountain one side and descending another side. The highest person will be in the center, because he is in the center of things.

    The first people to shake hands with would be his assistances and envoys, the people that represent him, and then his children. The children are put forward purposely as the are the next generation and need to build contacts. They may not yet be important but they are the future. As the future they are before us. So they are greeted before. Envoys are like the hands on our long arms, they are the first to make contact. They are before us, so they are greeted before.

    Then there are also people that represent the past or are in the shadow, less active but very important and influential. They have eyes sharpened by experience. These can be personal advisers, parents, great-parents, aunts and uncles. These are people not on the "fore-ground" but "back-ground". These people normally do not interact with the outside world directly but are still very important through their influence. They are purposely in the shadow of the most important person.

    If the most important persons brother is greeted before him, this means he plays an active role and he is someone you will normally meet first. Not someone you can pass by! If on the other hand he is greeted after him, this means you are not considered to meet him bypassing the most important person. You may however become to meet them through the most important person.

    So this line up of people that are waiting to shake hands is actually telling a story and any change in the line up also tells a story. This is no different in corporate business today than it was in the earlier times at courts. The principles of power do not change. We should not forget that Devas are also principles of powers. And like principles of powers they are interrelated with other principles of powers, but uniquely in a particular setup.

    But like the same person can have different positions in different environments, so can the Devas. For instance someone can have an important position in a sports organization, but a lesser one in the company he works for. And even a lesser person will be presented as the important person when you meet him in his own home. In the same way the line up of Devas is different in different temples. It is never telling us what the absolute division of power is, only in this particular setting.

    We should also want to recognize that Devas are very dynamic entities that lend their power to others and back. For instance this picture is not an insult at all.

    In polytheistic traditions we also see Gods come up and then go to the background. That is how Nature is. Today you may be "on top", tomorrow someone else is at the center. That is no different with the gods, that is why the times are changing. In every era of history other principles become dominant. Yes, one day you are "a rising star", and one day you will be "over the hill". But that is no tragedy, there will be a new life and you will rise once again. The Devas do not loose their lives, they just lose their rule, until time has made a circle and they rule again.

    In a formal setting we "pay" respect to people according to their position, because we are not interested in the persons themselves but what they can mean for us in their present role. If you go to a rulers court or a company, you do not go there to make intimate friends, but to represent certain interests, yourselves but often also others. It would even be presumptuous that anyone can walk in and say: Glad to meet you, my dear friend. Friendship is build mutually, not self-proclaimed. Public women open their intimate doors to many, but they too have limits.

    Still, realizing that each being is self-aware we should also treat each being with a deeper respect that is not limited by the interests we represent. And at all times we may want to remember it is just roles we are playing on a big stage. In Nature each plays his part. We talk about more and less important roles, but they are never more than roles. That goes as much for the Devas as ourselves.

    When it seems that a Deva plays "a lesser part" in a scene or subservient role that does not mean he has lost position and respect. We should look better. Devas lend their forces where needed. The wind can become a hurricane and dominate all, but it can also be a light breeze that cools us, or a hard wind that makes ships sail. In all cases it is about the particular qualities that the wind adds to the scene. A play is made by all roles working together

    Feelings of insults come easily when people get to much attached to their roles and lose sight of the real purpose of the play, which is simply to create happiness for all in playing. We should not want to worship any being because they are "the highest" in a certain setting. We should each give respect for their unique contribution, and for their Divine essence in general.

    Meeting with the Devas is like meeting with honorable people. Do not offend them with pity bias. If you meet an important business contact and praise him abundantly, but slightly insult his wife, you think you will enter a successful business relationship? If your are intelligent you will want to understand the roles each of them plays. And if that is not clear to you, you will be careful to give each the same amount of respect.

    The Devas are not considered simply forces, technical principles of Nature, but self-aware beings. As such they sense, feel and have feelings. They cooperate and also compete at times. Even among honorable people their is a danger of jealousy, even more if beings have great pride. People in North European traditions did not do much sacrifices to the Gods, only if utmost necessary. But they did bring a lot of sacrifices to their servants and other lower spiritual beings. Which is logical. A employee will not bring his requests to the highest CEO either, he will talk to his chef. That is the natural order.

    The idea that every other being should preferably address directly to the highest being is unnatural. That is why they call it "supernatural". But in Nature religions, polytheistic, pantheistic religions there is no supernatural, Natural order prevails. In fact Nature religion is no religion as many understand religion today, it simply is the reality we live in. The world of Gods and other spiritual beings simply is part of our Natural environment, part of daily reality. You sense it in the world around you.

    The idea of worshiping one God as highest, can easily become deifying a self-chosen boss that favors you. The more important you make your boss, the more important you feel yourself. That is why some monotheists developed into the most arrogant people. Hey, we work for the number one. We talk to him directly. We have a special communication channel with the ruler of this world. We can phone him up. In their arrogance they do harm to others they regard as "children of the lesser gods". This worship of only the highest is low consciousness. Lower consciousness tends to be more aggressive and big claims tend to come from big egos.

    In commercial temples people are made to believe they are welcome as they bring money. Then priests become more like pimps. Now when someone goes to a temple and treats Ganesha like the doorman and then hurries to the prime deity? Is he honoring the Gods? Is his conduct creating a favorable impression? Is this opportunist attitude going to be rewarded by the Gods? Maybe he had better stayed at home.

    One may want to understand that the mere "presence" of a statue of a God mean (s)he is considered "present" in this setting. Ignoring them is putting yourself above them. No matter how deep you kneel for your personal God, there is little modesty or awareness in such behavior. If your excuse is that you did not know, than you are still living in lower consciousness most of the time, because your heart surely knows. The one that only does do it because he is taught it is the correct procedure, does not know either.

    Revering the highest consciousness means little if it does not allow us to act out of this high consciousness from within. A deeply felt respect for all comes with this consciousness. Then the right behavior comes natural, and is no longer learning. Too much learning easily creates a false feeling of accomplishment. You have read many books but still do not know how to behave respectfully? How tragic. You think reading one more book will help? That is like plastic surgery. One operation leads to another.

    It serves a person better to respect the Gods and to know he knows little. Then the Gods will surely come to teach him. Because when we meet with the Gods, is not our deepest desire to hear them talk, so our heart will speak to us?


    Quote Originally Posted by Avyaydya View Post
    Hanumans servitude has nothing to do with submission that monotheists like to read in things.
    Namaste Avyaydya Ji,

    Firstly,it is not about servitude and monotheism vs polytheism,it is about following the scriptures as they are,we are not supposed to make hotchpotch,that image is an example of what should not be done.


    Quote Originally Posted by Avyaydya View Post
    It simply means that Lord Hanuman (son of wind) lends his powers to Lord Ganesha (the winds takes things higher), so Lord Ganesha can defeat some adversary, probably a demon.
    It would be better if can you enlighten us by quoting from scriptures when this incident happened,who that Demon is and why exactly did Ganesha ride on Hanuman.

    Everything in Hinduism has a hidden meaning.Lord Shiva has many mounts like Ravana Vahana though his chief mount is Vrishabha(Bull) Vahana and there is purpose for all types of Vahanas.

    Do you know why Sri Ganesha sits on Mushika(Rat) Vahana?


    From the internet.
    There was a demon called Mushikasura. He did penance to Shiva and got several boons by which he became extremely powerful. He started pestering gods who pleaded Ganesha to save them. Ganesha went with several weapons to kill him. As one of the boon to Mushikasura was that he will not be destroyed by any weapon. So all weapons of Ganesha were useless. Finally Ganesha broke off his right tusk and used it to kill Mushikasura. As Mushikasura's wife was a great devotee of Parvathi, she worshipped Parvathi to save her husband. So Parvathi had to save him by throwing her bangle which confronted Ganesha's tusk. Finally Mushikasura surrendered to Ganesha who later became his ride and his wife became Ganesha's umbrella.
    There is a background story to this which I know from childhood.

    There was once a Gandharva who performed a very great penance for Devi and obtained many boons from Her.He saw that the Goddess held the vessel called Amritapatra(Amrita grants immortality) in Her hand and asked her to give it to him immortality,the Goddess said that She had already granted him great powers and he should put them to use for the welfare of the world.But he was overcome by greed for eternal life and using one of the boons(which enables a person to change into various forms one whishes to)he just received from the Devi ,he assumed the form a rat, climbed onto the Goddess and sipped the Amrita.Seeing this The Goddess said that you have misused the boons and cheated your own Goddess.She said,"Though you have taken Amrita by deceptive means you shall have no place among the Devas" and cursed him to become an asura by the name Mushikasuara as he had taken the form of a rat.Mushikasura asked Devi to forgive him and She said that he would liberated from his asura nature by a Great Deity who would be born in the future.After some time Sri Ganesha appeared,we all the know the popular narrative of how Sri Ganesha was created by Devi Parvati.Much later,after the battle between Ganesh and Mushika, Mushika surrendered to Ganesha,Devi Parvathi told Sri Ganesha to control Mushika's nature by making him His Vahana.

    An interesting explanation on Wiki about Mushika:
    The mouse is interpreted in several ways. According to Grimes, "Many, if not most of those who interpret Gaṇapati's mouse, do so negatively; it symbolizes tamoguṇa as well as desire". Along these lines, Michael Wilcockson says it symbolizes those who wish to overcome desires and be less selfish.Krishan notes that the rat is destructive and a menace to crops. The Sanskrit word mūṣaka (mouse) is derived from the root mūṣ (stealing, robbing). It was essential to subdue the rat as a destructive pest, a type of vighna (impediment) that needed to be overcome.

    KC Ji and Avyaydya Ji,please tell us what you wish to prove by saying Sri Ganesha sits on Sri Hanuman?
    He dances in the golden hall of Chidambaram, Let us worship His rosy anklet girt Feet.

  4. #14

    Re: Improper?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ram11 View Post
    Namaste Avyaydya Ji,

    Firstly,it is not about servitude and monotheism vs polytheism,it is about following the scriptures as they are,we are not supposed to make hotchpotch,that image is an example of what should not be done.
    Namaste Ram11,

    [This a personal opinion of a Polytheist, let no one take offense of it]

    Servitude is a virtue in both monotheism and polytheism. But in general I think in monotheism tends to view things in a vertical hierarchal power structure in which servitude easily becomes subservience.

    By the way, for me Sanatan Dharm is NOT monotheistic, but rather pantheistic polytheistic. Monotheism as understood in the west means that God is a being separated from creation, controlling from the outside (above). Ideas like the Divine spirit is in all beings making the total an all-being are pantheistic not monotheistic. The trend of the past centuries to call Hinduism monotheism, and universalism is done to get away from Abrahamic criticism. I will not say that there are no pure monotheistic traditions in Sanatan Dharm as Hinduism spans/encompasses every religious idea, but calling it basically monotheistic I find a wrong depiction.

    By the way, I think reading scriptures is as healthy as eating, but like with eating, it is easy to overeat and then food becomes fat rather than processed properly for good health,


    Quote Originally Posted by Ram11 View Post
    Everything in Hinduism has a hidden meaning.Lord Shiva has many mounts like Ravana Vahana though his chief mount is Vrishabha(Bull) Vahana and there is purpose for all types of Vahanas.

    Do you know why Sri Ganesha sits on Mushika(Rat) Vahana?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ram11 View Post

    There is a background story to this which I know from childhood.

    There was once a Gandharva who performed a very great penance for Devi and obtained many boons from Her.He saw that the Goddess held the vessel called Amritapatra(Amrita grants immortality) in Her hand and asked her to give it to him immortality,the Goddess said that She had already granted him great powers and he should put them to use for the welfare of the world.But he was overcome by greed for eternal life and using one of the boons(which enables a person to change into various forms one whishes to)he just received from the Devi ,he assumed the form a rat, climbed onto the Goddess and sipped the Amrita.Seeing this The Goddess said that you have misused the boons and cheated your own Goddess.She said,"Though you have taken Amrita by deceptive means you shall have no place among the Devas" and cursed him to become an asura by the name Mushikasuara as he had taken the form of a rat.Mushikasura asked Devi to forgive him and She said that he would liberated from his asura nature by a Great Deity who would be born in the future.After some time Sri Ganesha appeared,we all the know the popular narrative of how Sri Ganesha was created by Devi Parvati.Much later,after the battle between Ganesh and Mushika, Mushika surrendered to Ganesha,Devi Parvathi told Sri Ganesha to control Mushika's nature by making him His Vahana.

    An interesting explanation on Wiki about Mushika:
    Thanks, these are interesting stories to hear/read. And it is good to "read" them to know them. If that is you point, I agree. But for me these stories rather belong to oral than scriptural tradition (not really scripture) They exist in the common consciousness of people and are kept alive by telling them to others like you do here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ram11 View Post
    It would be better if can you enlighten us by quoting from scriptures when this incident happened,who that Demon is and why exactly did Ganesha ride on Hanuman.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ram11 View Post
    ...
    KC Ji and Avyaydya Ji,please tell us what you wish to prove by saying Sri Ganesha sits on Sri Hanuman?
    How am I to know that on the basis of a picture of an event? I went from Kalicharan saying that it depicts Sri Hanuman carrying Sri Ganesha on his back, which is what it looks like. I am reacting to this depiction, not the story behind it. A story is many lines, many pictures. Each scene has a concealed meaning.

    I think the point I tried to make did not come across. Which is not about what the story means, but how we are to interpret such descriptions whether in words or art. That does not mean I pretend to know all the meaning. All I say is that when two Devas concur, it tells us about different aspects concurring. As each Deva represents many aspects. Poets deliberately wrote texts in such a way that they are puzzles to challenge peoples mind.

    I think it is a fair assessment that Hanuman is flying here, as we know he does. The flying aspect of Hanuman has to do with him being son of the Wind. The Wind itself a huge force, and his children are heavily associated with war and destruction. In the Ramayana we meet Hanuman in the Mahabharata his brother Bhima. Both are fierce and destructive warriors. But both represent different aspects of the Winds powerful force. One is civilized, one is not. In the times of the Ramayana everything was more civilized. In the Mahabharata there is another wind (of time) blowing, far less civilized. Thus Hanuman is replaced by Bhima. The aspect we find with Bhima (the terrible!) is all about the ability of the Wind to tear things to shreds.

    He tears Jarasandh in two peaces. He tears Dushasan's chest open. He breaks Duryodhana's thighs. Bhima is a force of Nature. Dharm governs the forces of Nature in their own way. The Gods are above moral right or wrong. No one blames the wind for ripping things apart. It is the very nature (dharma) of Bhima to do these things.

    The real meaning of these stories is NOT the moral meaning that people like to read into them. Nor are these stories "mythical" (fantasy). As the Devas are part of reality, these stories depict how things really are. The laws of Nature are not moral laws. In nature religion there is free will, that is why you have to know how Nature works, so you will understand the consequences of your actions.

    In Monotheism free will is subservient to Gods will. That is why Muslims are so fatalistic and say Insjallah (God will it) all the time. In Christianity it used to be "Deo volente" (God will it). It is only later that Christianity added free will to the belief system (Irish pagan influence). Monotheism is basically moralism, doing what God orders. Little room for free will. Sanatan Dharm is about choosing a path and accepting the consequences. Thus you go towards your destination.

    That is why science is an aspect of Nature religion, not Monotheism. Science probes into Nature so we can understand it. In the old days there was no separate religion or science, just the knowledge of the complex reality of Nature and all her beings brought together in stories. Stories kept alive in the minds of people, not in scripture. People then had a much more subtle intelligence, different from today.

    Today in modern thinking everything has to be flat, unambiguous, straightforward, without contradictions, like mathematics. Our minds have become simple as a result. The paradox is that to build complex things you need to break down everything to simple building blocks, and that takes a rigid logical mind. But this mind is not likely to understand or appreciate poetic texts, which are subtle rather than complex. in which things are intricately coded based on similar feeling aspects. Modern man will misinterpret them. As he is used to simple moral stories modern man will seek, find and read a moral into them.

    Like Ganesha riding a rat, is supposed to mean you must control your desires (moral). But it rather means something like: Certain aspects of Ganesha allow to control certain desires. (no moral but science). In my humble opinion Vedas simply means Sciences. Only Scientific knowledge can be eternal. The relations found in Nature are eternal. Moral, or as monotheists call it "Gods word", is not.
    Last edited by Avyaydya; 19 April 2015 at 07:37 PM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    July 2010
    Location
    The Holy Land - Bharat
    Posts
    2,842
    Rep Power
    5499

    Re: Improper?

    Namaste,

    Quote Originally Posted by Avyaydya View Post
    Only Scientific knowledge can be eternal.
    That seems to be basic flaw in thinking, which becomes the basis for long winded posts!

    Pranam.

  6. #16

    Re: Improper?

    Dear Friends

    The Atmic connection between KumAra a.k.a. Murugan a.k.a. Skanda a.k.a. KArtikeya (Son of Shiva Parvati and brother of GaNEsh) with HanumAn is all good, but that is not needed to explain that picture of Ganesh and Hanuman,

    This is a "dekhAvA" -- "decoration" of GaNesh Utsav in Maharashtra typically, where the thought and influence is heavily smArta. In GaNesh Utsav, no corner is spared to portray
    "GaNesh as the Omkar PradhAn as the Supreme who is that same Rama and Krishna, VishNu"
    Shocking for some, but this is the thought protrayed.
    That picture of GaNesh is not GaNesh but " GaNesh as dhanurdhArI Shri RAma " !
    Have you not seen baby GaNesh wearing a peacock feather ? Shocking? But people do it. They put a peacock feather on their favorite Santa Mahatma to show that that being is One with NArAyaN

    So, which kumAra kArtikeya will you bring in to explain Ganesh with peacock feather ? It is the same thing here --- Ganesh with bow and arrow, posing as Shri Ram and Hanuman carrying Him "across the ocean"

    The arguments and explanations given are many -- ranging from Ganesh atharvashirsha "tvam bramhA tvam rudra tvam indrascha agnischa vAyu..."
    to advaita and smArta tradition, to Love. You cannot defeat them in Love
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  7. #17

    Re: Improper?

    Moreover, the spirit of Ganesh Utsav is to invoke that Supreme Parameshwar ParamAtmA , that virAt svarUpa and the highest subtlest ParamAtmA, the One, who is the innermost being of Ganesh Who is One with that One and is also the loving Gateway to Him

    Please watch, listen and read this video to understand the spirit of this annual celebration

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLLcyy82Is4

    (GhAlin lotANgaN -- Aarati apparently to Ganapati Bappa but guess to Whom?)
    This lovely Arati is composed by Santa NAmdev a great sakhA , a pure devotee of Shri KRshNa as Vitthal of Pandharpur, Who appeared in person to eat the naivedya offered by little NAmdev.

    ....
    nArAyaNayeti samarapayAmi (SB 11)
    Achyutam keshavam rAm nArAyaNam
    KRshNa dAmodaram vAsudevam Harim
    shridharam mAdhavam gopikA-vallabham
    jAnakI-nAyakam rAmchandram bhaje

    Hare RAm Hare RAm Ram RAm Hare Hare
    Hare KRshNa Hare KRshNa KRshNa KRshNa Hare Hare

    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  8. #18
    Join Date
    March 2014
    Posts
    554
    Rep Power
    1405

    Re: Improper?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalicharan Tuvij View Post
    Namaste,

    Again, let us come back to the other types I mentioned earlier, and make an in-context study.

    The innocuous, ignorant-Hindu says, "well, I don't know who KumAra is. I never heard about him. Never, ever, never, ever, never, ever." REALLY? Ask anyone, even Muslims and Christians, in the South, "do you know kumAran?"

    Now, the deepest secret of Astika:
    Hanuman, Murugan and AsviniKumar -- all are ("male"-) manifestations of Lord KumAra, the Devata who is the Center of Dharmic Universe. Those who are not connected to this deity -- are not Hindus in a functional and also mystical sense. (IMHO)

    And indeed kumAra is to be worshipped before All, whenever possible.


    Namaste KC Ji,

    Most Hindus knows who is Lord Kumara Swamy(Sri Skanda/ Kartikeya).I knew about Lord Subrahmanya(in our family circle we call him so)since childhood.My cousins are devoted worshipers of this Deva as he is their Kula Devata.I have participated in their family rituals & festivals connected with Shadanana and regularly visited Kumara Kshetras with them.Because of this connection, much before I knew the concept of Ishta Devata I worshiped Subramanya with deep attachment and I still hold Him in great reverence.When I was child,once an image of the Lord Kartikeya was printed in a paper and I myself cut the picture,made a frame for it and put it in our altar,even today it is there.I am from the South and everybody here knows about Him,even the Vaishnavas know about Him from His birth episode found in the Ramayana.I'm following Saiva Siddhanta,there is no need to say specially that Lord Kumara is one of our most important Devas.As a Saiva I have no problem with Kaumaram & I will not go into your personal beliefs but when you say that those who don't know Lord Kumara are not Hindus,this is certainly a very extreme view.

    Sir,not knowing about Sri Kumara doesn't make anybody an ignorant Hindu.If a person knows just the name of his Ishta Devata it is more than enough,a person who has tasted the sweetness of his Ishta's name does not thirst for anything else.


    Even those who have heard the word Hinduism for not more than five times know that Hinduism is a polytheistic tradition. Those who are our honourable enemies also tell you that Hinduism is polytheism.

    Hinduism is polytheism but it is very consistent, and isn't just a hodgepodge. A polytheist, who is a Ganesha devotee, wrote in the earlier posts here about why Sri Ganesha riding Hanuman ji isn't an insult to the latter. And then some very good insights and analogies were connected and explained with.

    I will speak for myself(by the way,I am a 'Saiva Hindu').In our system,it is very clear that there is only 'One',our scriptures(especially Saiva Shastras) say that 'God is One' only and that 'One' has taken many forms and.We worship many manifestations as we know that each manifested name/form corresponds to a particular function/concept.But that does not make me a polytheist as I understand very well(at least in theory) that only 'One exists behind every form/name' and I do not qualify to be known as a rabid monotheist because as I have already said I worship many manifestations.

    To sum up, I may not know who is a Hindu and who isn't, but it turns out that I am a pervert troll. Hehe, for sure.


    You should find somebody who is well versed like yourself,who is capable of matching your wavelength and bombard them with your exquisite theories,most of us are common Hindus,to us you are simply trolling.

    ____________________________________________________________________________________
    Namaste Smaranam Ji,
    Thanks for conveying your opinion on this issue.
    ___________________________________________________________________________

    P.S. Avyaydya Ji,I would like to know which traditional Hindu polytheisitic Sampradaya you follow?


    He dances in the golden hall of Chidambaram, Let us worship His rosy anklet girt Feet.

  9. #19

    Re: Improper?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ram11 View Post

    ____________________________________________________________________________________
    Namaste Smaranam Ji,
    Thanks for conveying your opinion on this issue.
    ___________________________________________________________________________

    Namaste
    I was not giving my opinion, but explaining the thought and spirit behind that picture
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  10. #20
    Join Date
    September 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    70
    Posts
    7,191
    Rep Power
    5038

    Re: Improper?

    Quote Originally Posted by c.smith View Post
    Hari Om!

    Am wondering as to the proper protocol for this situation. Is it O.K. to go straight to ones Ista at the mandir instead of paying respects/offering prayers to the other deities first? I always pray to Ganesha first, but given that Hanuman is all of the gods, I am wondering if it is acceptable to go to Him next.

    Thank you for your kind consideration and enlightenment on this subject.

    Om
    Vannakkam C. Smith: Hove our answers been helpful in any way at all, or did the thread take on a life of it's own to no longer be helpful?

    Aum Namasivaya

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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
  •