Agree? Disagree?

[Jainarayan]

Namaste.

I am right now undecided exactly *what* path I should choose. At first I instantly assumed I was a Vaishnava. Now I am much less sure... At the same time I want to be careful about how to approach other deities. I have decided not to practice certain mantras I am not fully knowledgeable about.

I feel your confusion, as I was in the same place. I thought I was Vaishnava, but I didn't know what it really was because I thought I understood all deities to be different and equal manifestations of God with Krishna as my Ishta-devata. Someone told me that is Smarta (to a degree). So I believed I was Smarta. But I have no affinity for Surya or Murugan, and it just didn't feel right.

Then I thought I needed to pray to all the deities and worship Them at my altar. But that didn't feel right either. I think Lord Krishna was having a good chuckle (you know He is the consumate prankster and practical joker), yet He was guiding me.

Finally, through reading things on the internet and learning and understanding, I came to understand Him as svayam bhagavān, even though some would say that is a Gaudiya tradition. How can He not be (in my estimation) considering the image here?

I offer strotras to the other deities, and ask for Their help... especially Lord Hanuman for strength in physical activities and devotion; Maa Saraswati for help in my music; Lord Shiva and Maa Parvati as powerful helpers to be a better devotee of Lord Krishna. But this is my way, not necessarily anyone else's. This is the way that talks to my heart.

After all is said and done, and all my rambling... you will find the way. Or rather, it will find you. Don't force it, but open yourself and be a lightning rod.

[reshmita]

Nice to read insightful thoughts from all of you. It's nice to think that people of this generation can think in this way. Thanks to all of you.

[philosoraptor]

All behavior and practice instructed in Sakta-dharma is helpful only in the preliminary stage. Such behavior and practice is meant to bring one closer to spiritual life, and materialistic people may be attracted by this only until they begin to inquire about the Supreme Absolute Truth. Sakta-dharma is the living entities initial spiritual endeavor, and it is extremely essential for people of that level. When the preliminary stage is further strengthened, one attains the next level. One then considers the energy of work and the superiority of heat over dull matter, and one therefore accepts the sun-god, who is the source of heat, as one's worshipable deity. At that time, Saura-dharma is awakened. Later, when one considers even heat as dull matter and animal consciousness as superior, one attains the third stage, Ganapatya-dharma. In the fourth gross stage, Lord Siva is worshiped as the pure consciousness of the living entities, and Saiva-dharma manifests. In the fifth stage, the consciousness of the living entity worships the supreme consciousness, and thus Vaisnava-dharma is manifest. By nature, there are five types of paramarthic dharmas, or spiritual duties, which have been known throughout the world by different names at different times. If one considers all the different dharmas that are current in India and abroad, one can see that they certainly fall within these five categories."

I wonder if anyone else noticed that these five categories of worship are the same ones mentioned in the panchopasana doctrine of the Advaitins - Surya, Ganesha, Devi, Shiva, and then Vishnu. Except that while the Advaitins (if memory serves) do them simultaneously and/or say that all 5 are equally valid, Bhaktivinod appears to be arranging them in hierarchical order.

As far as where this specific hierarchy is stated in shruti, I am not aware of an explicit reference per se. However, it doesn't contradict anything I read in shruti to date. Aitareya Braahmana 1.1.1 also describes a hierarchy of devas with Agni being lowest and Vishnu being highest. The Kena Upanishad mentions Indra, Agni, and Vaayu as dependent entities on Brahman, who had to be instructed by Uma about the nature of Brahman. So, Brahman is clearly different from these devas. The Gita mentions that anya-devata worship is actually indirect worship of Krishna Himself, who is equated with Brahman in this text. It goes on to say that those desiring various benefits in this world worship anya-devatas, and they go the worlds of those anya-devatas. This is unlike those who worship Krishna who go to His abode and never return. In the Varaaha, Vishnu, and Bhaagavata Puraanas, devas like Brahma, Shiva, and Shakti are clearly above other devas like Indra, etc, but not are quite on the same level as Vishnu. So... the arrangement doesn't seem inconsistent with shAstra.

regards,

philosoraptor

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

As far as where this specific hierarchy is stated in shruti, I am not aware of an explicit reference per se. ------

The Kena Upanishad mentions Indra, Agni, and Vaayu as dependent entities on Brahman, who had to be instructed by Uma about the nature of Brahman. So, Brahman is clearly different from these devas. -------

In the Varaaha, Vishnu, and Bhaagavata Puraanas, devas like Brahma, Shiva, and Shakti are clearly above other devas like Indra, etc, but not are quite on the same level as Vishnu. So... the arrangement doesn't seem inconsistent with shAstra.

regards,

philosoraptor

This debate of hierarchy has been debated here in this forum till one is blue in the face.

We may refer this matter to an expert (but again I fear that experts are themselves of many kinds, driven by their predilections.) Everyone starts from a base and then reconcile the apparent contradictions in shastra to suit.but off course if we were to accept this vakya from sruti we would see no contradictions.
46 They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and heavenly nobly-winged Garutman.
To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan.

47 -----

48 Twelve are the fellies, and the wheel is single; three are the naves. What man hath understood it?


Note: The wheel is single and the 12 spokes (fellies) are perceived as different aspects. To what is One, sages give many a title.


The point is very clearly explained in Brihadaraynaka: "What did Brahman know that it became all?"
Resolution of such debates is never possible. Ending of questions is never possible -- new doubts will be ever cropping up.
Those with hierarchy problem will never be able to resolve so call contradiction.(because egos will always persists).

Off course we can site some Puranas that extoll Vishnu and some Puranas that extol either Brahma or Shiva but we can also quote from Bhagvat Puran where Lord Shiva is extolled if you like i quote you it.

Jai Shree Krishna

[philosoraptor]

Is Ganeshprasad suggesting that the shrutis are an inconsistent hodgepodge of contradictory ideas?

If not, then I would assume we would want to understand the shruti in a consistent way.

"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and heavenly nobly-winged Garutman.
To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan."

So this means that Brahman can also be referred as Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, etc.

But then in the Kena Upanishad, we have the following:

III-1. It is well-known that Brahman indeed achieved victory for the gods. But in that victory which was Brahman's the gods reveled in joy.

III-2. They thought, "Ours alone is this victory, ours alone is this glory". Brahman knew this their pride and appeared before them, but they knew not who this Yaksha (worshipful Being) was.

III-3. They said to Agni: "O Jataveda, know thou this as to who this Yaksha is". (He said "So be it."

III-4. Agni approached It. It asked him, "Who art thou?" He replied, "I am Agni or I am Jataveda".

III-5. (It said "What is the power in thee, such as thou art?" (Agni said "I can burn all this that is upon the earth."

III-6. For him (It) placed there a blade of grass and said: "Burn this". (Agni) went near it in all haste, but he could not burn it. He returned from there (and said "I am unable to understand who that Yaksha is".

III-7. Then (the gods) said to Vayu: "O Vayu, know thou this as to who this Yaksha is". (He said "So be it".

III-8. Vayu approached It. It said to him, "Who art thou?" He replied, "I am Vayu or I am Matarsiva".

III-9. (It said "What is the power in thee, such as thou art?" (Vayu said "I can take hold of all this that is upon the earth".

III-10. For him (It) placed there a blade of grass and said: "Take this up". (Vayu) went near it in all haste, but he could not take it up. He returned from there (and said "I am unable to understand who that Yaksha is".

III-11. Then (the gods) said to Indra: "O Maghava, know thou this as to who this Yaksha is". (He said "So be it". He approached It, but It disappeared from him.

III-12. In that space itself (where the Yaksha had disappeared) Indra approached an exceedingly charming woman. To that Uma decked in gold (or to the daughter of the Himalayas), he said: "Who is this Yaksha?"


IV-1. She said: "It was Brahman. In the victory that was Brahman's you were reveling in joy". Then alone did Indra know for certain that It was Brahman.

IV-2. Therefore, these gods viz. Agni, Vayu and Indra excelled other gods, for they touched Brahman who stood very close and indeed knew first that It was Brahman.

So, QED, there is another Indra, another Vayu, and another Agni who are not Brahman.

I guess we just have to reconcile ourselves to the idea that Brahman can have the same names as the other devas, in spite of being different from those other devas. That seems simple enough to me. I would never assume that two people with the same name are ipso facto the same person. But then, I'm a simple-minded kinda guy...

:-)

philosoraptor

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

The hint to the knowledge found in the kena upaniṣad (some write kenopaniṣad) is found in the first word 'keneṣitaṁ'. It means 'by whom' or 'by what' , or 'how, why' - caused ( or sent out or discharged )

• kena - by whom ?
• iṣita - caused

It is the śiṣya (student) asking the teacher , by whom or who causes the mind to alight on its objects ( of perception is implied).

Thus begins the teaching of brahmavidya. The whole first kaṇḍa ( section sets the stage to explain that brahman is the essence (sāraḥ) of everything seen and unseen.
Once this is apprecaited then in the 3rd kaṇḍa can be put in proper perspective. It is the senses that think they are superior,then the devatā think they are the ones. The kenopaniṣad puts in perspective who really is Supreme and is behind all, the essence of all.


praṇām

[philosoraptor]

Namaste,

I don't see how "keneShitaM" alters the straightforward meaning of the third kaNDa regarding the devatas' subserviance to Brahman. On the contrary, it is in perfect harmony with it. The first mantra translated:

"Prompted by whom does the mind function in its objects? Being directed by whom does the Chief vital air proceed to function? By whom is this speech directed that people utter? Who is that effulgent God that directs the eyes and the ears?"

The student is asking about that principle upon which everything else is dependent, namely Brahman. The third kaNDa is in accord with this, as it demonstrates that even the devas are not independent of Brahman. Hence it begins with the statement that Brahman actually won victory for the devas.

This is actually quite reminiscent of Sri Krishna's instruction to Arjuna that the Kauravas on the battlefield are already killed by Him, and that Arjuna should merely fight as His instrument. How much more clearly to make the point of everyone's dependence on Brahman, than to illustrate the principle with regard to the devas!

regards,

philosoraptor

[Ganeshprasad]

Is Ganeshprasad suggesting that the shrutis are an inconsistent hodgepodge of contradictory ideas?
:-)

philosoraptor

Pranam

Where do you get off from your high horse, here is a person who withdrew from a discussion because I posed a question (insinuation it was not) yet here he is accusing me of presenting shruti to be hodgepodge.

I never said they are contradictive either. All of them who have preconceived ideas will try and match to suit even if one has to force the meaning. All Vedic Devas are an aspect of one Brahman as Yagnavalkya explains to King Janak, from 33 to to 1

Funny how you insist on straightforward meaning with your debate, here as well with Devotee ji but suggest in order to understand Rishi Dirghatamas sukta we have to fall back on Brahman claiming all the names, only problem is Vaishnava claim it to be theirs Saiva would do the same but a simple understanding that all these devas represent the same Brahman in its various aspect makes the best plausible understanding.
Only when we have hierarchy problem it begins to pose a question. Oh yes you provided a verse where Indra is lowest and Vishnu is highest for which you did not have the verse no, that�s ok I have no problem with that. Question is do we compare the likes or do we compare Jiva and god?

As to kena UP that is also very interesting yes these deva fails to comprehend Brahman and Uma show the way , now I am not trying to prove Shiva is Brahman and not Vishnu, far from it, just to say it is more then just meet the eye.

Book 1 HYMN CI. Indra.
1. SING, with oblation, praise to him who maketh glad, who with Rjisvan drove the dusky brood away. Fain for help, him the strong whose right hand wields the bolt, him girt by Maruts we invoke to be our Friend.
-----
5 He who is Lord of the entire world that moves and breathes, who for the Brahman first before all found the Cows; Indra who cast the Dasyus down beneath his feet,-him girt by Maruts we invoke to be our Friend.

6 ------
7 Refulgent in the Rudras' region he proceeds, and with the Rudras through the wide space speeds the Dame

Note: Indra first came to know about Brahman. This is mentioned in Keno Upanishad where Parvati first reveals the secret of Brahman to Indra. It is Durga alone who can open the gates of knowledge.

Note: Indra remains refulgent in the Rudras' region, and with the Rudras through the wide space speeds the Dame.

Jai Shree Krishna

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

Pranam

Where do you get off from your high horse, here is a person who withdrew from a discussion because I posed a question (insinuation it was not) yet here he is accusing me of presenting shruti to be hodgepodge.

Again, your earlier statement:

This debate of hierarchy has been debated here in this forum till one is blue in the face......

We may refer this matter to an expert (but again I fear that experts are themselves of many kinds, driven by their predilections.)... Resolution of such debates is never possible. Ending of questions is never possible -- new doubts will be ever cropping up.

The above statement sounds it like it is saying one of two things:
1) There can be no clear resolution to the discussion of deva-tAratamya. There will always be contradictory evidence and no way to reconcile them.
2) There can be no clear resolution to the discussion of deva-tAratamya. Although there are references indicating hierachy, these should be reinterpreted in such a way as to indicate no hierarchy.

Hence, the question. Is Ganeshprasad claiming that the shrutis are internally contradictory? Or is he merely stating that any interpretation he does not like is contradicted by evidence, and only his interpretation reconciles the contradiction?

I think it's a fair question. And just to reassure you, I'm not posing it from a high horse. In fact, I'm seated on a chair. And it's not even a high chair. It's just one of those rolly-office-type chairs.

regards,

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

Pranams,



Again, your earlier statement:



The above statement sounds it like it is saying one of two things:
1) There can be no clear resolution to the discussion of deva-tAratamya. There will always be contradictory evidence and no way to reconcile them.
2) There can be no clear resolution to the discussion of deva-tAratamya. Although there are references indicating hierachy, these should be reinterpreted in such a way as to indicate no hierarchy.

Hence, the question. Is Ganeshprasad claiming that the shrutis are internally contradictory? Or is he merely stating that any interpretation he does not like is contradicted by evidence, and only his interpretation reconciles the contradiction?

I think it's a fair question. And just to reassure you, I'm not posing it from a high horse. In fact, I'm seated on a chair. And it's not even a high chair. It's just one of those rolly-office-type chairs.

regards,

Fair question or not it is all in your head because you are only reading what you want to hear, i am not suggesting sruti is contradictory or insisting my own interpretation to it, i am all for applying straight forward meaning to it. on the contrary it is likes of you who have to fall back on interpretation. Shrutis are revelation of various Rishis looking at from different angle, at the end of the day no amount of revelation will make you realized person, we have to apply and seek the truth. the truth that Saiva, Vaishnava or a Sakta will apply from their perspective.

i leave you with Manduka UP to perhaps understand where i am coming from.

He is not knowable by perception, turned inward or outward, nor by both combined.
He is neither that which is known, nor that which is not known, nor is he the sum of all that might be known.
He can not be seen, grasped, bargained with.
He is undefineable, unthinkable, indescribable.
The only proof of his existence is union with him.
He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.
This is the fourth condition of the self- the most worthy of all. (Mandukya Upanishad)

Off course we may have a slight difference in our translations but i like the gist of it, the only proof of his existence is in knowing him.

Jai Shree Krishna