[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Siva as yogi?
In article <4a2cin$dch@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
rbalasub@culbertson.ecn.purdue.edu (Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian) wrote:
>Subject: Re: Siva as yogi?
>susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu wrote:
>
>>rbalasub@engibous.ecn.purdue.edu (Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian) wrote:
>>That is fine, but the verse does not say that Shiva is to be considered
>>supreme over Vishnu. Vaishnavas also worship Shiva, as an elevated devotee
who
>> is considered an authority in devotional service to Vishnu. There is
nothing
>
>In the Shiva Rahasya Chapter in the Skanda Purana, there is a shloka of 40
>verses where Vishnu praises Lord Shiva as the Ultimate truth and it ends as
>
>Ithi Sthuthva shivam vishnu: pranamya cha muhurmuhu:
>etc. so on and so forth.
>
>This is enough proof that Shiva is worshiped by Lord Vishnu. Of-course one
>can invent yet another classification that these Puranas are tamasic so that
>ignoring such verses or interpreting it according to one's convenience is
>justified.
>
Vishnu is also very devoted to His devotees. I don't know about this business
about Vishnu praising Shiva as the "Ultimate truth." I do know, however, that
such an idea is not supported by the Vedas or the sattvic puranas.
You write, "Of-course one can invent yet another classification that these
Puranas are tamasic so that ignoring such verses or..." In fact, I did not
"invent" this classification. It is there in the Puranas themselves, and is
accepted by the acharyas whose philosophies are supported by the Puranas.
The Padma Purana, one of the sattvic Puranas, describes which interpretations
and schools of Vedic thought are authentic:
sampradayavihina ye mantras te viphala matah
atah kalau bhavishyanti chatvarah sampradayinah
shri-brahma-rudra-sanaka vaishnava kshitipavanah
chatvaras te kalau bhavya hy utkale purushottamah
ramanujam shrihi svichakre madhvacharyam chaturmuhash
srivishnuswaminam rudro nimbadityam chatuksanaha
"One who chants a mantra, or prayer, but was not given that mantra in one of
the four bona-fide disciplic successions, is more or less wasting his time.
Thus, in Kali-yuga, there will be four important teachers representing each
of these sampradayas, known as the Shri, Brahma, Rudra, and Sanaka (or Kumara)
sampradayas. Shri (Lakshmi, Vishnu's consort) chose Ramanuja [to establish her
sampradaya]; the four-headed Brahma chose Madhva; Rudra (Shiva) chose Vishnu
Swami; and the four "Sanas" (Sanaka, Sanatkumara, Sananda, and Sanatan) chose
Nimbarka."
These four sampradayas are all Vaishnava sampradayas (even the one founded by
Lord Siva). And all Vaishnavas accept the 3-fold classification of the Puranas
into sattvic, rajasic, and tamasic, and they give most weight to the sattvic
ones, which, as Sri Narender Reddy pointed out, always present some form of
Vishnu as supreme.
The Puranas are divided into three modes, because there are many people
attracted to activities in the mode of tamas and rajas who will not be ready
to accept Vishnu as supreme. So these Puranas present some other demigod for
them to worship, so that they can gradually become qualified (by their worship
of that god) to worship Vishnu. Although they may even state that some other
demigod is supreme, this is only meant to appeal to people in the lower 2
modes. It is not a statement of absolute fact, but an attempt to bring such
people into *some* kind of religious practice so that they can eventually be
led to a higher understanding. The Bhagavad-Gita confirms:
"Those who are devotees of other gods (anya-devataa)and who worship them with
faith actually worship only Me, O son of Kuntii, but they do so in a wrong way
(avidhi-puurvakam)." (Gita 9.23)
In fact, this same Purana also mentions Sankaracarya, and states that he was
an incarnation of Lord Siva who was instructed to teach an incomplete
understanding of the Vedanta (advaita) that would appeal to the shunyavadi
Buddhists. Therefore, his philosophy of worshiping all the gods as the same
God is not Vedic, but was simply made up by him as a temporary understanding
to appeal to people who were otherwise not ready to become proper Vaishnavas.
Now, you can claim that this is fanaticism, sectarianism, or whatever. But
since you yourself started quoting from the Padma Purana, then you have to
also accept its statements on the authenticity of the Vaishnava sampradayas,
all of whom state that Shiva is subordinate to Vishnu. Unless, of course, you
are only interested in taking statements with agree with your own personal
opinions and rejecting everything else. As the Vaishnava acharyas have
explained, the presentation of other demigods as supreme is simply a temporary
understanding, but it is not consistent with the Vedas, the itihaasas, or the
sattvic Puranas.
>>>Unlike you who uses the "my sect is the only right sect and all others are
>>>wrong" approach. How un-enlightened of him.
>
>>Please refrain from making personal attacks. I never made such a statement,
>>and I challenge you to find an example of such if you beg to differ.
>
>Post after post you have clearly revealed this attitude of yours. If it
>is not obvious enough read your own posts. In any case where is the personal
>attack? It was merely an observation.
No, it was definitely a personal attack. Please quote the posting where I have
stated "my sect is the only right sect..." I accept the Padma Puranas'
conclusion that followers of the four sampradayas mentioned therein are all
bona fide. Note that I agree that there is more than one authentic belief
system, but this is a far cry from saying that *all* religions and beliefs are
right.
>>Please reread my message, and not your own interpretations of it. If you had
>>bothered to consider the context, you would note that I was pointing out
that
>>what Ken labeled as a "sect" was in fact not so. As an outside observer, it
is
>
>Of course it is a sect of Hinduism, as Catholicism is a sect of Christianity.
In order to say that something is a sect of Hinduism, you have to first
understand what Hinduism is. There is no such thing as a religion called
Hinduism. Nowhere in the scriptures do you see this term mentioned or defined.
It was invented by foreign invaders to describe the various indigenous
religious systems on the other side of the Indus river, nothing more.
Therefore, people who state that Vaishnavism is a "sect" of Hinduism are
certainly begging the question. Certainly no one has been courageous enough to
define the term, as any such definition would naturally exclude some group.
Even the SRH charter contains no meaningful definition of Hindu dharma.
>You clearly stated that since so many people have adopted Vaishnavism it must
>have some merit on its own. It was quite obvious. In fact you again say the
>same thing in your following sentences.
I wish you would take my statement in context, rather than trying to start
trouble. I stated that because so many people from non-"Hindu" cultures were
taking to Vaishnavism (and practicing the austerities required therein), that
this was evidence of its nonsectarian appeal. I have heard of many Jews,
Christians, Muslims, and other non-Vaishnava Hindus becoming Vaishnavas,
whereas I don't see this happening in any other religion. The only other
religions that get so many followers from different cultures are those which
appeal to them by sanctioning their material desires (and hence, the appeal is
materialistic, not spiritual).
>>plainly obvious to me that this movement is teaching people to give up all
>>kinds of vices and embrace a form of monotheism that is sanctioned by the
>>Vedas.
>
>Plainly nonsense. The vedas say no such thing.
om' tad visnoh paramam padam sadaa pashyanti surayah (Rig Veda 1.2.22.20)
"The demigods are always looking to that supreme [paramam] abode of Vishnu."
vedais` ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedaanta-kRd veda-vid eva caaham (Gita 15.15)
"By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedaanta,
and I am the knower of the Vedas."
The idea that the Vedas present some conclusion other than monotheism came not
from the Vedas themselves, but from Christian fundamentalist missionaries
whose ulterior motivation was to break the faith of the people in Vedic
religion. By presenting the Vedas as inconsistent and preoccupied with
superstitious worship of various demigods, they managed to gain many
converts by showing that theirs was the only monotheistic faith. Although
there are many facilities for worshipping various demigods for material
benediction in the Vedas, the Vedas are nonetheless clear that Vishnu is the
Supreme Personality of Godhead, and that worshipping Him is the goal of human
life.
>
> In contrast, many other world-wide religious movements become popular
>>because they sanction certain material desires, such as the desire for
illicit
>>sex, the desire to eat meat, the desire to become independent of God, or the
>>desire to become God. I argued that because Gaudiya Vaishnavism is finding a
>>strong following in people of all cultures and creeds, that is good evidence
>>that is not a mere 'sect.'
>
>The same can be said of Buddhism. And Buddhism is against any desire, infact.
>So what's the point?
>
Present day Buddhism is a far cry from what the Buddha himself preached. The
real Buddha stressed ahimsa and vegetarianism, whereas many Buddhists take
meat today with very little restriction. Actually, i know of one sect of
Tibetan Buddhists that have some restrictions on meat-eating; they are
forbidden from eating crocodile flesh, snake flesh, human flesh, etc. which
means that they can go on eating practically everything else (I'm not kidding
about this, I actually met some Tibetan Buddhist monks and asked them about
their dietary restrictions!) *Most* of what is called Buddhism today is
appealing because it allows people to think that they don't have to surrender
to any God and/or perform any austerities. As the Lord Himself states, the
goal of religion is "sarva dharman parityajya maam ekam s`aranam vraja" (Gita
18.66), which means that the devotee must eventually place himself completely
at the mercy of the Lord. But people don't want to do that. They may think,
"why should I surrender? I will become God. I am so prominent, etc." and then
they make up all kinds of philosophies which take the Supreme Personality of
Godhead out of the equation and artificially put themselves in positions of
high spiritual importance. These kinds of things have materialistic appeal.
>>Let me explain this further to you. I said that I was a "Smartha Shaivite,"
>>which means that my family followed the Smartha philosophy, and that we held
>>Shiva to be our primary deity. I know the meaning of both, having grown up
in
>>that environment.
>>I know very well what Smarthaism is, and can't understand what I said that
got
>>you so agitated. "Smartha Shaivite" does not mean that I was saying that all
>>Smarthas worship Shiva. It means that I was a Smartha who worshipped Shiva.
>>This ought to have been clear to anyone who wasn't simply looking for
trouble.
>>
>
>Indeed. You were trying to club Saivism and Smarthaism together. I thought
you
>didn't know. I must have guessed better. It's again the "Vaishnavites
>vs the rest of the ignorant folks tactic".
I was trying to do nothing of the sort. But I will not continue to dignify
such accusations with response. I find it more pleasing to talk about saastra
rather than indulge in ego wars.
>
>>
>>What quotes? And if such quotes exist how do you justify the fact that such
>>quotes would be contradicted by the Vedas and the other Puranas?
>
>Simple. Various people saw various aspects of the truth and emphasized what
>they saw. The very fact that contradictions exist can mean only that.
But this conclusion is not accepted by the Vedas and the Puranas. They always
consistently present Vishnu as supreme, except in the tamasic and rajasic
Puranas. And even those Puranas contain verses glorifying Narayana as the
Supreme Personality.
If I accept your opinions on the Vedanta, then I have to conclude that the
Christian missionaries were right after all, and the Vedic literatures are
nothing more than a hodgepodge of contradictory truths. In fact, in order to
accept this, I would have to ignore the authority of the Bhagavad-Gita, the
Srimad Bhagavatam, the Vedas and Upanishads.
The Bhagavad-Gita clearly states that Lord Krishna is deva-deva jagat-pate
"God of gods, Lord of the universe!" (Gita 10.15) I'm terribly sorry if you do
not wish to accept it, but it is there in scripture, and who am I to say that
it should be otherwise? The acharyas all accept the supremacy of Narayana, and
even Sankaracharya, the founder of the monistic sect, has accepted it. Only
the various practitioners of Hinduism who watered down his philosophy do not
accept it, because due to envy they do not want to surrender to the Supreme
Personality of Godhead. The desire to be known as a great philosopher,
devotee, political leader, karmi, or yogi is incompatible with surrendering to
the Lord, which requires that one be free of such mundane desires for power
and prestige.
>>one of the 18 major puranas, stating that Shiva is a devotee of Vishnu.
>>Considering that the Bhagavatam belongs to the sattvic class of Puranas, it
>>carries at least as much weight as the Shiva purana (actually, it carries
>>more, since the Shiva purana is supposed to be in the tamaasa category). So
>>what is your response?
>
>This "tamasic purana" is another fiction invented by bigots. As I said before
I see. One can clearly see where you are going with this. It's so easy and
tempting to call someone a bigot rather than indulge in scholarly discussion.
After all, once the bigotry-astra is used, one need not admit that one is
unable to respond point-for-point through saastra. Too often I find that the
definition of "bigot" on SRH is a sanatana-dharmist (a follower of the Veda)
who has won an argument with an impersonalist (i.e. someone who is
superimposing his own opinions on the Veda).
I'm sure you must feel very righteous going about it this way. After all, who
would not feel like a hero who tried to speak out against bigotry? So, if you
are unable to substantiate your arguments, just label the other person or idea
as bigot/prejudice/intolerance/etc and go on about your way. Frankly, I don't
see why such a tactic should be used if you were so secure in your opinions.
>it is an excuse. If contradictory view points exist in some other purana,
just
>say that it's tamasic and for lower people. I refuse to accept that the
>verses I quoted are tamasic unless you find verses in the same purana, said
>by Vishnu himself that he said it for tamasic people. Any other purana or
>quotes from Vaishnavite leaders will not be accepted.
I have already shown that the Padma Purana (which you accepted) sanctions
this belief, as the acharyas who are mentioned therein all accept the 3-fold
classification. So what is your argument now? Perhaps you will say that Srila
Vyasadeva, the compiler of the Puranas, is a bigot? Or maybe you will just
claim that all the Vaishnavas are bigots? Or perhaps you will say that Lord
Krishna Himself is the bigot. After all, He did state that worship of other
demigods is avidhi-puurvakam "without proper knowledge." Is He also a bigot
then? Or is it only bigotry to repeat what He said?
>
>>Just ignore it and say everything is one?
>
>Yes.
>
>Ramakrishnan.
>
It figures.
By the way, I noticed that no one ever really addressed the point I made
originally in this thread. It was asked why Shiva is always depicted as a yogi
(which implies that he is a devotee of someone, an idea which runs contrary to
contemporary Hinduism which considers him to be equal to Vishnu). I quoted
saastra to show that he is the greatest devotee of Visnu, and that is why he
meditates on japa beads. Other than the standard accusations of bigotry,
sectarianism, etc no one has been able to conclusively explain how it is Shiva
can be both the supreme God and a devotee of God. If you take the explanations
given in the Vedic literatures, then a consistent picture of the Absolute
Truth and the multiplicity of the demigods emerges. However, if we take the
opinions of Ken Stuart and Ramakrishna Balasubramanian on this topic, then you
have to accept that there is no absolute understanding; just believe whatever
you want.
So, I guess it's really a question of sanctioned faith vs. blind faith. One
side is free of personal speculation, and is based on scripture. The other
side states that somehow or other (no explanation offered) two totally
contradictory ideas can both be true. Now, I can't make any of you accept one
view over the other, but I can say this. When we went to school and took our
respective science classes, I don't think any of us could have gotten away
with saying that two mutually-exclusive facts could both be true (if you did,
I suggest you call your alma mater and ask for your money back!) Certainly no
scientist worth his money would accept such an absurd proposition. The
rationale for finding out what the Absolute Truth is is that we should be able
to correctly describe what it is and what it is not. The moment someone states
that two contradictory theories are acceptable, without giving any kind of
explanation reconciling them, is the moment he states that there really is no
*Absolute* understanding. Hence, the whole purpose of science and religion is
lost, and we might as well all just go back to crass materialism and give up
all pretense of religion.
Albert Einstein said that, "Science is the search for truths, even when they
are opposed to one's wishes." I will argue that the same holds true for
religion. After all, what is religion but the search for the *Absolute Truth*?
The problem we have here is that there is one group of people, the theists,
who insist on basing religion on scriptural authority, and coming up with a
very consistent and logical system of belief as a result. The other group, the
impersonalists, insist (in the name of Hinduism) that completely contradictory
ideas about the Absolute Truth are both acceptable. Of these two ideas, the
latter is certainly more appealing to us. If completely contradictory ideas
are both true, then this is the same as saying that we really don't know what
the Absolute Truth is. Therefore, we can all hold hands, have touchy-feely
group hugs, and say that all religions are good and fine (regardless of the
fact that some may have very destructive belief systems). It's a very nice
sentiment, but just ask yourselves: "is this what the absolute truth is, or is
this just what I want it to be?" It's easier to say that there is no absolute
definition of God, because that way we don't have to bother ourselves with the
troublesome issue of surrendering to Him. It's easier to say that Vishnu is
God, but so is Shiva, so is Indra, so is Bill Clinton, so is X-Baba and
Y-Baba, so am I, etc. One follower of a very famous Hindu Godman in India even
told me recently that Madonna, the American queen of rock, was God for some
people, and that we should just accept this without question. If you want to
give up all discrimination in the name of Hinduism and claim to accept
everything, then what is the purpose of religion? Accepting one thing
necessarily means rejecting another; we're all grownups now, and I don't think
we need to fool ourselves about this basic fact. How serious can we be about
searching for the Absolute Truth, when we don't even take it as seriously as
we do our science classes, which are only concerned with the relative truths
of this material world? If you told your science professor that Darwin's
natural selection theory and Lysenko's adaptive evolution theory were both
correct explanations of evolution, you would probably flunk the class. And
what to speak of the classroom of human life, the purpose of which is to learn
about the Absolute Truth, which can give us eternal happiness? Can we really
afford not to take this knowledge seriously?
With this thought, I remain.
H. Krishna Susarla
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator: Ajay Shah Submissions: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Administrivia: srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Archives: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
Follow-Ups:
References:
- Re: Siva as yogi?
- From: rbalasub@culbertson.ecn.purdue.edu (Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian)
