Fasting Days & Guidelines

[Maija]

Namashkars Friends !

I missed a galore of comments & a tad bit confusion .. :slap:

I do ever so appreciate the input!

Jainarayan - Coming from an Abrahamic faith, I'd be uncomfortable in a temple with a myriad of representations of God. I will be honored and excited to secretly celebrate my first Ekdasi.

You're very lucky to have a temple close to you, even an Iskcon temple, regardless of your opinions on their philosophy at least there are opportunities for kirtan.

:yes: There was talk of a promotion at work so )( if that happens I will be getting a car and be able to get around to a few local satsangs and occasionally go into SF to enjoy the temples there.

Vrindavan Das- thank you for mentioning the times of ekdasi for me, info was very helpful..

Putting the baby to sleep and HARIBOL y'al!

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Now, I do pray to Lord Shiva but I never considered doing that.

Lord Śiva is the highest Vaishnava - “vaishnavanam yatha shambhu”. I pay obeisances to Lord Śiva as the highest Vaishnava and pray to him for devotional service of Krishna. Same goes for other deities I pay obeisances to.

I think the wide range of deities is to cater to the wide range of devotees.

I agree. :yes:

One unfortunate thing about a mixture of deities is that one can feel guilty by not visiting every sanctum and paying obeisance. In itself that can take 15 minutes, at least, more if one circumambulates a shrine or three.

Whenever I go to a temple with many deities, whom I can't pay obeisance (due to time shortage etc.), I tell myself that Kṛṣṇa is the root of the tree (Original Godhead) and all other His parts and parcels - like branches and leaves of that tree. As by pouring water on the root, all parts are nourished; by paying obeisances to Kṛṣṇa, all are satisfied.

 

[Me Myself]

I remember I fasted in Shiva Maharatri.

Generaly, that fast goes without any food, and without drinking water, for a day. then the breakfaast should be "humble".

Now, I wasn`t strict, I went "light" on it because it was my first time and I think I will go light in it a couple of times more till I become a bit more strict on them. I didn`t do the once every three hours worships for example. I did stayed up all night and did not eat anything, but I did drink as much as I felt the need or preference without restriction. Abnd I admit I ate not at all in a humble manner when the sun came out, but it was very very yummy I also slept before the night of that second day, and I understand one is supposed to eat normally on night of the second day.

So I cut myself a lot of slack

That said, I felt a lot closer to Shiva on that day and after that, and I am definetely doing it again

 

[Vinayaka]

T
I think the wide range of deities is to cater to the wide range of devotees.

I think that's only part of it. The other part is that it's Smarta or heavily influenced by Smarta, and Adi Shankara. So many going there would be thinking, "All same, All same" and there would be no difference from one shrine to the other. Vaisnavites, Shaktas, and Saivas wouldn't normally get together and build a temple, especially when there are other temples nearby. Smartas can wear the tilak of any sect they want. You actually have to have some discussion with them to discover what they really think. And it shouldn't take that long. Most won't know the difference.

When I go to such a temple, I only stop and pray sincerely at my own favorites, and sort of do to the rest, just out of respect for the people. But the vibration is usually quite watered down in such temples.

 

[Jainarayan]

Jainarayan - Coming from an Abrahamic faith, I'd be uncomfortable in a temple with a myriad of representations of God.

Well, if you consider that they are just different representations or personalities of God, then in a way, the plethora of murthis and sanctums highlights and celebrates God's many aspects.

Remember, they are not different gods and goddesses as the saints and prophets in Abrahamic religions are separate. Here's an analogy from another thread, it's a compendium of some of the comments:

There is one ingot of gold bullion. To Vaishnavas it is Vishnu; to Shaivas it is Shiva; to Shaktas it is Shakti; to Smartas, it has 6 sides, so it is Ganesha, Shiva, Devi, Surya, Murugan, Vishnu. In all sampradayas that gold bullion or ingot is Brahman.

From that one ingot of gold bullion come a myriad of items in all shapes, sizes and designs... rings, earrings, bracelets, necklaces, coins, and for all different uses and purposes, yet it is stil from that one ingot of gold. Those different shapes and purposes of gold can never not be from their original source. They will always be and become that one ingot of gold.

We might shape the gold bar into a pair of earrings, or a necklace, or an anklet, but it is still the same gold, just expressed in different forms. One person might feel their earrings are more beautiful than any other ornament, and one might feel their anklet is superior in beauty to any other ornament, but really it is the same gold, just shaped in different ways to suit the individual's needs. Yet all these ornaments and pieces of jewelry can be found in the same jewelry store. You are just drawn to one or another.

If I worship a gold rabbit and you worship a gold carrot, we both will acknowledged the gold that these are made of, but one will say the rabbit can eat the carrot, so the rabbit is superior. One might say eating (worshipping) the carrot is not the right way, though the carrot gives life to the rabbit. So which is superior?

So in this way Brahman takes different forms to suit the needs and abilities of each individual, and though each may feel his ishtadeva is supreme, it is all really the same Brahman.

The problem arises when you are in this jewelry store and are overwhelmed by all the beautiful pieces and feel compelled to examine all of them. It can be the same in an eclectic temple setting. You might feel the need to "worship" each of the deities, rather, aspects of God. But that doesn't have to be. I think there is no wrong in making a beeline for one's own ishtadevata's sanctum, though first paying obeisance to the presiding deity of the temple; that's just good manners.

I make "the rounds" because I have an eclectic practice, though I am not Smarta; Vishnu/Krishna is my ishtadevata, as well as the source: Krsnastu Bhagavan Svayam. Literally, "Krishna is God Himself", but intepreted to mean that Krishna is the Supreme Godhead, from which all other manifestations emanate.

OK that was a bit long, and I hope not confusing.

 

[Jainarayan]

Lord Śiva is the highest Vaishnava - “vaishnavanam yatha shambhu”. I pay obeisances to Lord Śiva as the highest Vaishnava and pray to him for devotional service of Krishna. Same goes for other deities I pay obeisances to.

I've given thought to the 'Lord Śiva is the highest Vaishnava' school of thought, and I see it just a little differently. I see Lord Śiva not as a devotee who is inferior, but as a devotee the way one friend is loyal and devoted to another. Mythologically, they are, after all, brothers-in-law, and the Skanda Purana says Śivasya hridayam Vishnur Vishnoscha hridayam Śivah "Vishnu is the heart of Śiva and Śiva is the heart of Vishnu".

I see Lord Śiva teaching us how to become good bhaktas to Lord Vishnu, not because Lord Śiva is subservient, but because one of His aspects and 'specialties' and 'talents' is as a spiritual teacher. He is the ultimate guru.

I see one god or goddess 'praying to' or 'worshipping' another, not as an act of subservience, but asking for a helping hand, as family members do. This, in my mind, is considering that these stories are to teach us lessons. God needs no help from anyone.

This is, of course, just my view to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Maya3]

Well, if you consider that they are just different representations or personalities of God, then in a way, the plethora of murthis and sanctums highlights and celebrates God's many aspects.

Remember, they are not different gods and goddesses as the saints and prophets in Abrahamic religions are separate. Here's an analogy from another thread, it's a compendium of some of the comments:

There is one ingot of gold bullion. To Vaishnavas it is Vishnu; to Shaivas it is Shiva; to Shaktas it is Shakti; to Smartas, it has 6 sides, so it is Ganesha, Shiva, Devi, Surya, Murugan, Vishnu. In all sampradayas that gold bullion or ingot is Brahman.

From that one ingot of gold bullion come a myriad of items in all shapes, sizes and designs... rings, earrings, bracelets, necklaces, coins, and for all different uses and purposes, yet it is stil from that one ingot of gold. Those different shapes and purposes of gold can never not be from their original source. They will always be and become that one ingot of gold.

We might shape the gold bar into a pair of earrings, or a necklace, or an anklet, but it is still the same gold, just expressed in different forms. One person might feel their earrings are more beautiful than any other ornament, and one might feel their anklet is superior in beauty to any other ornament, but really it is the same gold, just shaped in different ways to suit the individual's needs. Yet all these ornaments and pieces of jewelry can be found in the same jewelry store. You are just drawn to one or another.

If I worship a gold rabbit and you worship a gold carrot, we both will acknowledged the gold that these are made of, but one will say the rabbit can eat the carrot, so the rabbit is superior. One might say eating (worshipping) the carrot is not the right way, though the carrot gives life to the rabbit. So which is superior?

So in this way Brahman takes different forms to suit the needs and abilities of each individual, and though each may feel his ishtadeva is supreme, it is all really the same Brahman.

The problem arises when you are in this jewelry store and are overwhelmed by all the beautiful pieces and feel compelled to examine all of them. It can be the same in an eclectic temple setting. You might feel the need to "worship" each of the deities, rather, aspects of God. But that doesn't have to be. I think there is no wrong in making a beeline for one's own ishtadevata's sanctum, though first paying obeisance to the presiding deity of the temple; that's just good manners.

I make "the rounds" because I have an eclectic practice, though I am not Smarta; Vishnu/Krishna is my ishtadevata, as well as the source: Krsnastu Bhagavan Svayam. Literally, "Krishna is God Himself", but intepreted to mean that Krishna is the Supreme Godhead, from which all other manifestations emanate.

OK that was a bit long, and I hope not confusing.

I really like what you are saying. The gold analogy was used by a visiting Advaitin at my temple too.

To me the diversity is what makes it open, it tells me that we understand the many different roads and personalities that lead to the same source.
The "there is only one way" philosophy just makes me uncomfortable.

My temple is Smarta and our main deity is Ganesha, but the other smaller shrines just reminds me that there is space for everyone.

Maya

 

[Vinayaka]

though I am not Smarta;

You're sure about that? Pretty hard to tell, isn't it?

 

[Jainarayan]

Whenever I go to a temple with many deities, whom I can't pay obeisance (due to time shortage etc.), I tell myself that Kṛṣṇa is the root of the tree (Original Godhead) and all other His parts and parcels - like branches and leaves of that tree. As by pouring water on the root, all parts are nourished; by paying obeisances to Kṛṣṇa, all are satisfied.

Yes, another way to look at it is to consider a system of creeks, streams, tributaries, and rivers, which all make their way to the ocean. Follow the smallest creek, and you will eventually get to the ocean. It may take a much longer time, but you'll get there. A demi-god may be that creek or stream of river, but Krishna is the ocean, to which everything flows and is connected to.

Goddess! what a difference a day makes... we're actually agreeing!

 

[Shuddhasattva]

My problem with that way of thinking is that it effaces and makes pointless the Devas; they're held onto as Vedic relics. The Vedas themselves become a relic.

 

[Maya3]

My problem with that way of thinking is that it effaces and makes pointless the Devas; they're held onto as Vedic relics. The Vedas themselves become a relic.

I don't think so, the Devas are there to help you focus and lead you to the ocean.
If you can find the ocean without them that is great, but it is usually easier if you can start of small and slowly make your way so that the waves don't overtake you.

Maya

 

[Vrindavana Das]

I've given thought to the 'Lord Śiva is the highest Vaishnava' school of thought, and I see it just a little differently. I see Lord Śiva not as a devotee who is inferior, but as a devotee the way one friend is loyal and devoted to another.

Mythologically, they are, after all, brothers-in-law, and the Skanda Purana says Śivasya hridayam Vishnur Vishnoscha hridayam Śivah "Vishnu is the heart of Śiva and Śiva is the heart of Vishnu".

kshiram yatha dadhi vikara-visesha-yogat
sanjayate na hi tatah prithag asti hetoh
yah sambhutam api tatha samupaiti karyad
govindam adi-purusham tam aham bhajami​

Just as milk is transformed into curd by the action of acids, but yet the effect curd is neither same as, nor different from, its cause, viz., milk, so I adore the primeval Lord Govinda of whom the state of Sambhu is a transformation for the performance of the work of destruction. [B.S. 5.45]

Govinda manifests Himself as guna-avatara in the form of Sambhu who is the separated portion of Govinda imbued with the principle of His subjective plenary portion. The personality of the destructive principle in the form of time has been identified with that of Sambhu by scriptural evidences that have been adduced in the commentary. The purport of the Bhagavata slokas, viz., vaishnavanam yatha sambhuh, etc., is that Sambhu, in pursuance of the will of Govinda, works in union with his consort Durgadevi by his own time energy. He teaches pious duties (dharma) as stepping-stones to the attainment of spiritual service in the various tantra-sastras, etc., suitable for jivas in different grades of the conditional existence.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

There is one ingot of gold bullion. To Vaishnavas it is Vishnu; to Shaivas it is Shiva; to Shaktas it is Shakti; to Smartas, it has 6 sides, so it is Ganesha, Shiva, Devi, Surya, Murugan, Vishnu. In all sampradayas that gold bullion or ingot is Brahman.

This is Advaita philosophy! Are you sure you are following Vaishnavism?

 

[Vinayaka]

This is Advaita philosophy! Are you sure you are following Vaishnavism?

You and I agree on this much at least. I've heard it put as Smarta leaning towards Vaishnavism, or Smarta leaning towards Saivism, or even Saivism leaning toward Shaktite.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

You and I agree on this much at least.

...

 

[Jainarayan]

You're sure about that? Pretty hard to tell, isn't it?

The difference I see in myself viz. Smartism is that I don't see the classic six deities of Smartism as equal representations of the Supreme, choosing one to worship above the others. I see Them as manifestations and emanations of Vishnu; as I say 'krsnastu bhagavan svayam'. I'll pray to the Divine Mother, e.g. Maa Kali, Maa Saraswati, Maa Durga, Maa Lakshmi knowing She is One, but with several aspects and 'specialties'; I'll pray to Lord Ganesha as obstacle remover; to Lord Hanuman for strength; etc. But ultimately all requests are granted by Krishna/Narayana.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

I've heard it put as Smarta leaning towards Vaishnavism, or Smarta leaning towards Saivism, or even Saivism leaning toward Shaktite.

I don't know who/what a smarta is...

 

[Jainarayan]

I think that's only part of it. The other part is that it's Smarta or heavily influenced by Smarta, and Adi Shankara.

I believe Smartism is southern in origin; this temple is in the southern style, heavily influenced by the south. The 18 steps leading to the sanctum of Lord Ayyappan mirror one of the temples and hills in south India (I always forget which one it is), for example.

When I go to such a temple, I only stop and pray sincerely at my own favorites, and sort of do to the rest, just out of respect for the people. But the vibration is usually quite watered down in such temples.

That's pretty much the same thing I do. I wouldn't fault anyone for heading for their own ishta-deva's shrine, as if it were a separate temple, but for example, when I pass the shrine of Garuda or the Navagrahas I make an anjali mudra, bow my head and move on.

I'll spend more time at the Tridevi shrine, Sri Ganesha, Sri Shiva, Rama Parivar, Sri Hanuman, and of course, Sri Radha-Krishna and Sri Guruvarurappan/Venkateshwara/Satyanarayana Swamy (still at a loss why three to Vishnu ). When I spend time at the Tridevi shrine, why do I need to pray at the shrines of Minakshi, Parameshwari and Ambika? They are all the Divine Mother.

 

[Vinayaka]

I don't know who/what a smarta is...

Really? It's so common. Popularized by Adi Shankara, but existing before that, the very basics is an attempt to unify all sects under one umbrella, a philosophical treatise, more or less, from the frustration at seeing other sects not getting along. Many did buy into it, and it is especially common in South India, but elsewhere too. The offfshoot, or furthering is Liberal Hinduism, or the Sanatan type temples.

But the hard core Shaktas, Saivas and Vaishnavites like you and me, only historically, didn't buy into it. They both see no need, for Siva is all, or Vishnu is all, or Ma is all, and there is simply no need for mix/match. So the net result was a fourth school, that stood on its own. Its quite intellectual, as I said before .. lots of debate, and the hard core Smarta can be just as intolerant of other paths as anyone, thinking he's tolerant, but it's tolerance MY WAY, which really isn't tolerance at all.

 

[Vinayaka]

I believe Smartism is southern in origin; this temple is in the southern style, heavily influenced by the south. The 18 steps leading to the sanctum of Lord Ayyappan mirror one of the temples and hills in south India (I always forget which one it is), for example.



That's pretty much the same thing I do. I wouldn't fault anyone for heading for their own ishta-deva's shrine, as if it were a separate temple, but for example, when I pass the shrine of Garuda or the Navagrahas I make an anjali mudra, bow my head and move on.

I'll spend more time at the Tridevi shrine, Sri Ganesha, Sri Shiva, Rama Parivar, Sri Hanuman, and of course, Sri Radha-Krishna and Sri Guruvarurappan/Venkateshwara/Satyanarayana Swamy (still at a loss why three to Vishnu ). When I spend time at the Tridevi shrine, why do I need to pray at the shrines of Minakshi, Parameshwari and Ambika? They are all the Divine Mother.

You are definitely a Smarta, in my humble opinion. But there is nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't even enter a Vaishnava or Smarta temple if I had a choice. Unfortunately for me, when I travel there is often no choice. So I just use the next best available thing. My temple here is Saiva. There is no Venkateswara, no Krishna, no goddess shrines at all. It makes quite a few people (Smartas) uncomfortable, because they don't get it, because they're not Saivas.