Is Shaivism non-Vedantic?

[Kapalika]

Someone recently told me that Shaivism was non-vedantic and that the Vedas confirmed that Krishna/Vishnu was equivalent to Brahman, and that deities like Shiva are not equal to him. I've also heard the same thing in the past from other Vaishnavites as well.

From a Shaivite standpoint, how would this argument be addressed? I admit to my ignorance of the Vedas' contents, I've not read a lot of scriptures. Mostly just books on Hinduism in general.

 

[Valjean]

Google "Vedic Gods" and you'll find Vishnu, but I don't think there are any detailed descriptions of Krishna or Shiva -- though many Hindus identify Shiv with Rudra, from the Rik. The original Vedic deities were mostly personified forces of Nature.

The popular "Hindu" deities have evolved over time. Originally you had Indra, Agni, Varuna, Yama, &al. Later a multitude of new Gods emerged, even a Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva 'trinity' (trimurti),
Today Ram, Ganesh, Hanuman and Krishna are all the rage.
Shiv is conceived of differently by different schools and traditions. He's all over the place in other schools and traditions.

I wouldn't worry overmuch about His 'Vedicness'. There's no official Hindu theology. Hinduism's all over the map. It's probably the world's least homogenous religion -- if it even is "a" religion.

 

[Kapalika]

Then what about the claim of Krishna's position according to the Vedas? I've been told that somehow Krishna is the supreme personality and thus deities like Shiva are lesser.

I'm not the most well versed in Hindu theology, but it seems to me that Brahman, defined as an impersonal being, can't have a "supreme" personality. So I don't get it. But maybe that is because I'm used to yoga where it doesn't matter and whatever one's Ishvara is is the supreme personality to them personally.

 

[DeviChaaya]

It's sectarian jibber jabber. They need to put one conception of god down in order to feel superior. Many of them like to quote Daksha's curse after Bhairav ruined the yagna but it was curse made in anger. There are many scriptures that say one or the other is supreme. This whole 'Krishna is Vedic' is a load of cobswallop too. The ancient culture of Mohenjo-daro appears to have worshipped an analogue of Shiva.

Why must we fight over this? If you like Krishna, go like Krishna with sincerity but don't belittle Shiva because Shiva is not your Krishna. As a devotee of Shiva and Shakti you do not see my going around saying Krishna is un-vedic, Visnu is a minor deity according to the Vedas, only Shiva is supreme. If you have to do that I think you are not very far advanced in your search for God.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

I have to agree with DeviChaaya on this - the suggestion that one deity is superior to others is completely counter intuitive to the idea that we all hold within us the spark of the divine. There is not more "God juice" in one form of god than in another because the forms of god are man-made - created as tools for our spiritual development. They may have "real" forms (for those who are polytheistic they may exist in some distinct way beyond our perception) but they are all made of the same "stuff".

 

[Kapalika]

Well I don't know, I tend to mostly get that from Indians who are trying to convince me to their tradition on facebook or whatever. I guess it's just what they were taught and they don't question it. But it's hard for me as a white, female American to really be in a position to correct them. It just feels weird even though I consider myself a newbie Hindu of only a few short years (I would of studied more scripture but been to focused on some other stuff sadly, ive read a number of books on hinduism in general just not a lot of scriptures itself). I just feel like for cultural reasons I'll never understand Hinduism on the kind of level that many others will as I just don't have that context. But at the same time I find myself completely agreeing with both of you.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

Well I don't know, I tend to mostly get that from Indians who are trying to convince me to their tradition on facebook or whatever. I guess it's just what they were taught and they don't question it. But it's hard for me as a white, female American to really be in a position to correct them. It just feels weird even though I consider myself a newbie Hindu of only a few short years (I would of studied more scripture but been to focused on some other stuff sadly, ive read a number of books on hinduism in general just not a lot of scriptures itself). I just feel like for cultural reasons I'll never understand Hinduism on the kind of level that many others will as I just don't have that context. But at the same time I find myself completely agreeing with both of you.

Just remember a few things - even for Indian Hindus, Hinduism is an ocean. It's so big that almost no one understands it completely. What Indian Hindus raised in the tradition have is an integral understanding of how Hinduism fits in with their culture, but as we see with other religions, things change depending on the culture. Hinduism is new to America and it will change along with American culture over the years. It's hard now because it's the very early stages.

On the flip side, I encourage you to be humble and tread lightly in terms of cultural and religious matters. Even if I think I understand something about Puja or Havan I always listen when it's explained to me again because I may get some detail I never knew before, because again - Hinduism is very vast.

When people try to say "My way or the Highway" about anything, don't be afraid to say "See ya later!" or "I really would need to do more reading first". There's nothing wrong with that. There are a lot of opinions and not all of them are worth listening to.

 

[Kapalika]

Ya, I get that... when someone tells me that I need to only trust "authorized texts" I start to get wary. There's just so many more texts than the Vedas, I can't even keep them all straight. But then again it's only been a small handful of people I've gotten that from.

 

[Valjean]

From an advaitic point of view, the Gods are as much maya as a unicorn in a dream or a teakettle in waking-state.. As consciousness expands and merges with Brahman, the Gods are transcended and dissolve into Unity with all other properties.
So don't sweat it. They're ultimately figments of your imagination anyway. Use One for spiritual focus if you find that useful, or focus on a Navajo sand painting -- it doesn't matter. They're just spiritual tools. Don't get all tied up in mythological details.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Someone recently told me that Shaivism was non-vedantic and that the Vedas confirmed that Krishna/Vishnu was equivalent to Brahman, and that deities like Shiva are not equal to him. I've also heard the same thing in the past from other Vaishnavites as well.

From a Shaivite standpoint, how would this argument be addressed? I admit to my ignorance of the Vedas' contents, I've not read a lot of scriptures. Mostly just books on Hinduism in general.

Well, the so called "sectarianism" is nothing new and has been characteristic feature of dharmika traditions. What would matter for a sādhaka is only what he received from a tradition usually thru' a Guru and her/his family. The Jaina system has its own theology (though not necessarily theistic), so do Buddhist schools; both interpret and accommodate popular hindu deities in different ways.

The vedas use several names referring to various deities. But it also makes unequivocally and unambiguously clear that all these names are but epithets of One Supreme. For an unbiased seeker there is sufficient indicators to put Indologist surmises of various 'isms' to rest.

Now for the question of 'who' that Supreme is - there were predominantly three schools right from the ancient vaidika times: Vaiṣṇava, Śaiva, and Śākta and each had(s) its own tantra (practical theology). Vaiṣṇava tantras have been strongly guarded secrets and is extremely difficult to find a master even now. Śaiva and Śākta on the other hand were relatively easier to acquire. The Vaiṣṇava practices were necessarily based on the vedas, and therefore accessible, even during ancient times, only to few chosen brāhmaṇas of specific gotras (lineage based on a ṛṣi/sage), whereas, Śaiva and Śākta āgamas had no such requirement and was open for all. Śaiva and Śākta āgamas also proclaim their superiority over the vedas for e.g., pancākṣarī and ṣoḍaṣī (vidyas/liberating-knowledge of Śiva and Śakti) are considered greater than gāyatrī (the liberating knowledge of the vedas). So in their strong days, the Śaivas and Śaktas had absolutely no enamor for being considered as Vaidika.

From a vedānta point of view there are again many schools, but most popular are: Advaita/māyāvāda of Śri Śaṅkara, Viśiṣṭādvaita of Śri Rāmānuja, and Tattvavāda of Śri Madhva. Śri Śaṅkara proposed that irrespective of what form of deity you worship, it is only the formless that can grant ultimate mokṣa/~liberation (called nirguṇa-upāsana) whereas, devotion to forms is for the neophytes; with this he found a perfect philosophical proposition to supersede all existing theologies with that of his, subsequently winning over several followers from Śaiva and Śākta schools and gave rise to smārta theology (akin to but not exactly universalism/omnism). Both of the other two schools are purely of Vaiṣṇava theology. Even Śri Śaṅkara, based on his works, can be (arguably) considered to be of Vaiṣṇava persuasion; many of his prominent and highly regarded followers were evidently so. From a purely scholarly perspective, there is really no doubt amongst Vedāntins as to who that Supreme is, but on internet forums it is just an inconvenient truth.

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि ।

 

[kalyan]

The OP is correct.....Vishnu/ Krushna /nArayaNa is the supreme brahman as established by vedas..Many confuse 'sanatana dharma' as poly but it is mono.......only 1 single god and all others are mini gods employed by Sri Krushna

 

[Kirran]

I am a Vedantin, but I don't believe that any one God is the Supreme. I am more drawn to Brahman in the impersonal aspect (perhaps because of my atheistic background) but am also to a lesser extent drawn to Shakti. This is a development which is ongoing, as in the past I have been more drawn to Shiva.

 

[kalyan]

I am a Vedantin, but I don't believe that any one God is the Supreme. I am more drawn to Brahman in the impersonal aspect (perhaps because of my atheistic background) but am also to a lesser extent drawn to Shakti. This is a development which is ongoing, as in the past I have been more drawn to Shiva.

your first statement is in contrary with second...Vedas clearly say only 1 supreme brahman not multiple 'ekameva adviteeyam' and they say it to be nArayaNa/Vishnu

 

[Kirran]

your first statement is in contrary with second...Vedas clearly say only 1 supreme brahman not multiple 'ekameva adviteeyam' and they say it to be nArayaNa/Vishnu

Can we not keep Hinduism clear of exclusivism?

 

[DeviChaaya]

Can we not keep Hinduism clear of exclusivism?

No, no we can't. @kalyan is determined that we're all misled. So, @kalyan, let me say this nice and simple; people who worship Shakti or Shiva, especially if they are members of Saiva Siddhanta, we don't care about the Vedas; yeah, they're good, they're important but they're not as important as the agamas and tantras. It's great that you love Krishna but stop trying to force everyone else to. Hinduism is an umbrella term; it includes Vedantins and Tantriks and all sorts of other things. Just relax and stop trying to force your beliefs on us.

 

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

The general public does not know all the Vedas. The Vedas are not fixed in one time, also really the term Vedas is an example of this, because in one sense it really should be Veda, singular, verse Vedas, plural and tied to historical times, in my school the general term as in singular that this is simply an acknowledgement of truth which has no time, but it is also history and time involved, there are also reasons and purpose for Vedas, plural, tied to very real events.

So for example, in my school, which is an obscure in one way and Kashi centric Saiva school but from family connections I have strong East Indian Shakta overtones, there is going to be a Veda (coming in the future) with a specific author linked to the White Veda but coming at a time of destruction which is not one of the "current" four Vedas but link to one of them.

In addition, the Four we hear of today, were once One but divided for certain reasons but we hear of the Four, yet there were Five, not Four. Your school may not agree, typically Vaishnav, but that is my school, Lord Brahma once had Five Heads, each Head would speak and chant the Five Vedas (spoken tradition) but Lord Shiva cut off one of Brahma's Heads, this Fifth head was carried by the emanation of Shiva as Bhairava the naked mendicant as a skull begging bowl (not for the "sin of killing a Brahmin, BECAUSE LORD BRAHMA NEVER DIED and was not killed" but yes in a leela of yatra) and "where the skull fell" (released from Bhairava's hand) this Head fell just at the border into Kashi (Varanasi, India) and into today if you get the SIDDHA you can hear this Fifth Veda which others do not know.

Later from this Fifth Veda came a Mystic Siddhi Veda from a cave.

The "Vedas" are often thought of as "books", especially by "Westerners". But they are absolutely not books. Oral tradition captures powers, that move about, and the mantras can invoke, and the sounds help explain, and when some great event may happen at the time the powers are moving here or there, the One who spoke the oral tradition that Day may mention the Devas or Devi who were there, the Vedas are not perchance the Ones mentioned, but of course it might be interesting to know, do not get too fixated on such things.

I mentioned the Fifth Veda, there is also a tradition that the Ramayana is the Fifth Veda. Or such histories as the Fifth. This is also true, no doubt about it. But just to make clear, this Fifth Veda that I mention is not that. You may have a chance to hear it in Kashi and it is linked to Shiva, perhaps you can consider going there. But all I am pointing out is, the Vedas are not books. Before these famous Four you may have heard of there was One, but in my school before this One there were Many, then One before that, there is a Fifth Today, and there is a Sixth to come.

Indeed... Hinduism is an ocean.

You practice what is making you see your path. It is ok. Good luck on your journey, the vast numbers of souls is great, but actually "the world" is small, and we will cross paths. Perhaps we will see something nice at that ford, togeher.

The Fifth Head of Brahma still speaks.

 

[Kapalika]

The OP is correct.....Vishnu/ Krushna /nArayaNa is the supreme brahman as established by vedas..Many confuse 'sanatana dharma' as poly but it is mono.......only 1 single god and all others are mini gods employed by Sri Krushna

Can you tell me where I can find this part in the Vedas so I can read it and see for myself? That's what I'm really after.

 

[ShivaFan]

Krishna is never mentioned by name in the Vedas, the Name Krishna comes later, such as in the Puranas, since the apperance is documented as a post-Vedic avatar, a period of time after the mantras and spoken tradition of the famous Four Vedas known today. Just as some manifestations of Devi came after. Events in History indeed do have a time and place in the calendar of things. While some Hindus do not accept this, in my path the events such that involved Krishna were "post-Vedic", meaning they happened after the current Four Vedas as chanted were sung and told and currently rendered. There are older, current, and will be new Vedas with the same power and life but appear different in "words". And they are also One.

If there is any approximating "the Supreme God of the Vedas" (the ones you may have heard of), it would be Indra. But the end game, is not this discussion of "Supreme". The end game is an endless experience. Do not only see a single point in time, you need to see the forest as the visionary way to determine where the sparrow made her nest in the forest.

 

[atanu]

Someone recently told me that Shaivism was non-vedantic and that the Vedas confirmed that Krishna/Vishnu was equivalent to Brahman, and that deities like Shiva are not equal to him. I've also heard the same thing in the past from other Vaishnavites as well.

From a Shaivite standpoint, how would this argument be addressed? I admit to my ignorance of the Vedas' contents, I've not read a lot of scriptures. Mostly just books on Hinduism in general.

The easiest and profoundest teaching of the Veda is "The truth is one that sages name variously".

In Yajur Veda, in the Rudram, Rudra is praised as all other deities, including as the all pervading and as Shiva too. Further, there is the celebrated sruti, "eko hi rudro dvittiya nasthu" which means the one without a second is rudra.

Whoever told you that Shiva is non vedic did not tell you correctly.

 

[StarryNightshade]

@Mandi

Depending on who you talk to depends on who will be considered "supreme". In my lineage (Vadakalai Sri Vaishnavism), it's Lord Vishnu as well as Lakshmi. However, to Shaivas it's Shiva, to Shaktas it's Devi, and to Smarthas it's generally the impersonal Brahman. These groups (particularly Vaishnavas and Smarthas), will claim that the Vedas confirm their God(s) as the Supreme. Some lineages, however, put less emphasis on the Vedas themselves and more on particular Agamas and Upanishads (in my experience, mostly certain schools of Shaivism and Shaktism).

With that being said, most of these lineages place, at least, some emphasis on the Upanishads; which are a part of the Vedas (the "end of the vedas", so to speak) and are generally the key scriptures in Vedanta anyway.

Point being, welcome to the world of Hinduism. Where everything kinda does it's own thing, but all ultimately works themselves out