Is Shaivism non-Vedantic?

[kalyan]

@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

its not you or I that would be determining who is supreme, it is the vedas which have existed from time immemorial and they say supreme as 'nArayaNa/Vishnu/Sri Krushna'

 

[kalyan]

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.

1. In his commentaries to the Upanishads, where the shruti (the text of the Upanishad) talks about the Supreme Deity but does not show that the name or form of the deity, Shankaracharya clearly identifies the Supreme Being as

1. "Supreme Lord with with the name nArAyaNa" (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad bhAShya, 3.7.3)

1. "Vishnu, or Ananta, who is the primordial being, who has all the three worlds for His body, and who is the in-dwelling Soul of all the beings" (Mundaka Upanishad bhAShya, 2.1.4)

1. "The all-pervading Brahman, the Supreme Soul, known by the name vAsudeva" (kaTha upaniShad bhAShya, 1.3.9

1. In the bhagavad gItA bhAShya 11.43, Shri Shankara says that Vishnu is the unparallelled Supreme Deity, and that there can not be another Supreme Deity, since that would violate logic: [GBhS:4]

na tvat samo.asti, abhi adhika kuto-anyo loka-trayo-api, apratima-prabhAva?

 

[ShivaFan]

The Upanishads are not the famous Four Vedas, and certainly commentaries on the Upanishads are not the Four.

But all this who is What is nonsense, this is not the Spirit of Hinduism to be so fixated.

Let me mention something. I was asked, where did the Skull fall?

Kapalamochana is the spot Where The Skull Fell. Shiva is known as Kapalin.

Let me explain Hinduism as Life of the people, that is what Hinduism is. Have you heard of Shyama Kali and Shyama Krishna and Bengali village Hinduism? Then I will tell you about Where The Skull Fell. It will only take a minute.

Lord Caitanya is beloved by our family. He is beloved by Bengal and Oriya. He is seen as a personification of the Prema Bhakti pure Love of Radha-Krsna.

Caitanya has a famous Leela or "spiritual adventure" in Jagannath Puri (temple complexes) in Oriya (Orissa) India. This is the "Great Land of the Devis". Durga rides a Lion. But here, where there is the Bengali Tiger, you will see Durga ride a Tiger.

So we hear of Caitanya, we say Vaishnav. And Devi, we say Shakta. We go to all the temples, these Bengalis do that.

In Kashi (Varanasi, India) from ancient times of the most hoary past, East Indians have been going to Kashi. Some of the temples were destroyed by Muslims. But devotion was never destroyed. At Kashi, East Indians would worship both "Shyamas" (Dark Blue Ones, Kali, Krishna), side by side, and of course Vishveshvara the Lord of the Universe as a Name of Shiva, His Queen the Goddess of Food. And "savants" and pundits of Kashi would journey all the way to East Bengal to tell of the Shyamas often.

Lord Caitanya went all the way to Puri. The King of Puri has the Family Deity, Shyama Kali. The Royals worship Her, The Devi of Puri. Inside the Deity of Jagannath, worshipped by Caitanya, is a "bone" of the Buddha.

In the complexes in Puri is the temple of Kapalamochana. I can assure you, Caitanya danced there.

The reason it is there, is Jagannath is considered The Lord of the Universe in Puri. The Murti there. You see, Where The Skull Fell is far away in Kashi. That is in the Universe. So it is also a Temple in Puri, like a cosmic dot on the map of the Universe in Jagannath Puri. Hinduism is a Universe.

So we hear Caitanya, Vaishnav. And Devi, Shakta. And Kashi, Saiva. What a wonderous Universe. There are Wonders in India. This is Hinduism. Well, certainly East Indian Hinduism.

Jai Shyama Kali, Jai Bhairava, Jai Caitanya. All Glories to the City of Light, and everywhere it Shines spots and stars of Lights.

 

[Kirran]

1. In his commentaries to the Upanishads, where the shruti (the text of the Upanishad) talks about the Supreme Deity but does not show that the name or form of the deity, Shankaracharya clearly identifies the Supreme Being as

1. "Supreme Lord with with the name nArAyaNa" (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad bhAShya, 3.7.3)

1. "Vishnu, or Ananta, who is the primordial being, who has all the three worlds for His body, and who is the in-dwelling Soul of all the beings" (Mundaka Upanishad bhAShya, 2.1.4)

1. "The all-pervading Brahman, the Supreme Soul, known by the name vAsudeva" (kaTha upaniShad bhAShya, 1.3.9

1. In the bhagavad gItA bhAShya 11.43, Shri Shankara says that Vishnu is the unparallelled Supreme Deity, and that there can not be another Supreme Deity, since that would violate logic: [GBhS:4]

na tvat samo.asti, abhi adhika kuto-anyo loka-trayo-api, apratima-prabhAva?

To me, none of that confirms that Vishnu is the only correct view of the Supreme. In many contexts Shankara was referring to Brahman by the name Vishnu.

 

[kalyan]

The Upanishads are not the famous Four Vedas

............I stopped reading at this sorry :\

 

[Kirran]

.............I stopped reading at this sorry :\

Kalyan, I really don't feel this disrespect is merited in this discussion.

 

[kalyan]

Kalyan, I really don't feel this disrespect is merited in this discussion.

not disrespect, but that statement was blunder, ...upanishads are most important part of vedas..the jnana part are the upanishads.....

 

[Kirran]

not disrespect, but that statement was blunder, ...upanishads are most important part of vedas..the jnana part are the upanishads.....

Upanishads are certainly a very important part of the Vedas, I also think the most important. We're in agreement.

But stating that opinion doesn't necessitate rudeness.

 

[DeviChaaya]

It's @kalyan. I honestly don't expect much better.

 

[ShivaFan]

No... the Upanishads are NOT the Four Vedas. You stop anywhere as what makes you feel comfortable, they simply are not the Vedas, they are treatises that came AFTER the Vedas and a focus on the Brahman. They are commentaries, they may reference a Veda, they also reference works from some schools of Hinduism that are not Vedic per say at all and are schools of philosophy. To quote an Upanishad to "prove Krishna" (or for that matter Narayana) as Veda proof of "Supreme" is beyond a stretch. If anything is seen as Supreme from instruction within the Upanishads, it would be the Supreme Brahman and not Krishna nor Narayana. In addition, there are MANY Upanishads revealed over a long stretch of time later than the Vedas and in fact there is no One Upanishad but a vast collection of works over a vast period of time. Again, they are commentaries, not one of the Four Vedas, and actually the Upanishads only demonstrate my point of Hinduism as a vast Universe, not the sectarian ownership of one Vaishnav subset. In addition, there is some Buddhist reference in them.

Om Namah Sivaya

 

[Amrut]

Namaste @Mandi

Most vaiShNav sampradAya believes in Brahman is nArAyaNa and viShNu is nArAyaNa. While advaitins take viShNu and nArAyaNa as all-pervading consciousness, which is formless, vaiShNava sampradAya-s believe brahman, to be a person. So viShNu is caturbhuja viShNu and is the supreme brahman. Just like one country cannot have 2 PM (Prime Minister) or Presidents, similarly if viShNu is supreme, then all others have to be inferior to them. In support of their claim, they have quoted various SAstra pramANa-s to establish viShNu sarvottama and following theory, sva mata vistAra, para mata bhanga meaning spreading opinion of siddhAtna that we believe and refuting all other siddhAnta.

I would not like to quote any proofs, as now I am tired of Siva-viShNu fight, which at times gets ugly. Just letting you know the differences.

Saiva-s are mostly following Agamic like vIra Saiva-s / lingAyat. SrIkAntAcArya, a great Saiva AcArya has written commentary on brahma-sUtra-s establishing Saiva mata.

SrI abhinavgupta, a unique AcArya of Kashmir Shaivism has written commentary on Bhagavad gItA and has written tanttaloka for advanced disciples.

bhAskarAya makin (not BhaskarAcharya of bheda-abheda), was a shakta-advaitin, was blessed by the then Sringeri Jagadguru (of Advaita vedAnta) has written commentaries on many upanishads and stotra-s and on lalitA sahasranAma

There are many siddhAnta-s adhering to vedAnta, each claiming their siddhAnta (philosophy) as the supreme.

1. vaiShNavism

vaishNava-s believe brahman is a person, caturbhuja viShNu is nArAyaNa, the supreme reality. viShNu avatAra-s are also considered as manifestations of Brahman. KrShNa as supreme brahman is adapted from bhAgavat mahApurANa. Some verses from bhagavad gItA are also quoted in support of this claim.

mAyA and this world is real. Brahman cannot be formless.

Word nirguNa is taken as 'that which does not have dur-guNa' i.e. that which is very pure and subtle. Literal meaning of nirguNa is - 'That which does not have any guNa-s' or 'that which is beyond guNa-s'. nirguNa is free from impurity and gross body.

5 Different philosophies regarding final position of jIva w.r.t to Brahman
jIva, jagat and ISvara are eternal. jIva and jagat are dependent upon ISvara for their existence, but ISvara is not dependent upon them.

Each philosophies are different then others, but two are very distinct-

viSisTAdvaita of SrI rAmAnuja - jIva is qualitatively same, qualitatively different. It is like drop in ocean. A drop cannot be an ocean, though it has all qualities of ocean.

dvaita of SrI mAdhvA - jIva is different than ISvara. They cannot be same.

Note: rAdhA is not found in bhAgavat purANa, viShNu purANa and in veda-s. She is not KruShNa's lover in mahAbharata. rAdhA (different than rAdhArAnI, Krishna's lover) is karNa's mother. rAdhA is only found in brahma-vaivarta purANa and in devi bhAgavat.

Apart from vedAnta, vaiShNava-s practice and accept philosophy of 2 main Agama-s

1. pancharAtra Agama - popularized by rAmAjuna and mAdhva
2. vaikhAnAsa Agama

2. Saivism

Saiva-s believe Siva as ultimate truth. Siva has a form, but the real nature of Siva is formless.

Hence they can agree that viShNu is supreme, if viShNu is a tatvam and not a person.

Definition of nirguNa is same as that of vaiShNava-s. This world is a play of Siva and Sakti

Real nature of jIva (incarnated soul) is Siva.

Unlike vaiShNava-s whose final destination is vaikunTha, Saiva-s do not ascend in kailAsha. Nothing exists which is not Siva. Siva is consciousness, all-pervading paramAtmA.

Some Saiva schools do not believe that jIva is Siva but believe in viSiSTAdvaita with Siva as Brahman.

4. Sakta

They believe that tripurAsundarI, is the supreme brahman and all avatAra-s including rAma nad kruShNa are under her sway.

Their path is similar to Saiva-s. Saiva-s take help of Sakti to reach Siva, but for Sakta-s the real nature of tripurAsundarI is formless.

Definition of nirguNa is same as that of vaiShNava-s. This world is a play of Siva and Sakti

Saivism in itself is not non-vedic

5. Other siddhAntas like gaNapatya-s, saura-s) Worshippers of sUrya deva)

Similar concepts as that of Saiva-s.
sUrya is praised and eulogized as Brahman in Aditya hridayam. sUrya is also worshipped as sUrya-nArAyaNa (not a person but as supreme consciousness)

6. smArta-s

Believe that brahman can exists in different forms. Worship 5 forms - gaNesha, suyra, Siva, Sakti, viShNu and sUrya as forms of brahman. Some people of South India also add skanda as 6th deity.

The central deity is the main God, ISTa devatA, chosen deity. Other 4 deities are placed in 4 corners. In one family one brother can be a sakta-smArta, other Saiva-smArta, another vaiShNava-smArta and so on.

Philosophically, they believe brahman to be formless. Later on after karma kANDa is finished, i.e. mind and heart are sufficiently pure, then they adopt advaita, the path of renunciation.

This world is a creation of mAyA and ultimately it is illusion, not eternal and hence mithyA. Worlds existing in it are relative reality and not absolute reality. Only Brahman, which is unchanging undivided, omnipresent, beyond guNa-s, infinite, beyond space and time is the ultimate truth. There can be no creation or activity beyond time. Hence Brahman is always in unmanifested form without any shapes and forms.

jIva is Brahman, there is no duality


Below is the famous advaita verse found in brahma-GYAnAvalI mAlA

Brahman is the truth, this world is an illusion, Jiva is not different from Brahman

The belief - 'World is illusion' - is unique to advaita.

Since beyond time there can be no creation and hence no one to experience, hence it is Brahman which is the ultimate reality. This is experienced not as separately but by being Brahman itself, as knower of Brahman is Brahman itself.

There are three levels of reality. first two are combined under relative reality.

1. Relative reality

1.a. vyavahArika satya - Practical or empirical reality. This reality is true only in waking state

1.b. prAtivbhAsika sattya - Dream reality. Only real to the dreamer until s/he is dreaming

2. pArmArthika satya - Absolute reality. does not depend upon space and time.

smArta was propagated (not invented) by SrI Adi SankarAcArya

P.S. Please dont Start 'My siddhAnta is the only truth'

Hari OM

 

[DeviChaaya]

@Amrut, this is an absolutely lovely explanation! Thank you so much! I, personally, think your explanation should close this thread.

 

[Amrut]

@Amrut, this is an absolutely lovely explanation! Thank you so much! I, personally, think your explanation should close this thread.

Thank you for appreciation. Will try to correct Typos.

Pranams

 

[kalyan]

Thank you for appreciation. Will try to correct Typos.

Pranams

Ezcept the REAL Adi Shankara was not a smarta..that is misconception, refer his authentic commentaries on Vishnu sahasra namam, Bhagawad Gita and Upanishads and Brahma sutra bhasyams...he clealy said Vishnu is the supreme brahman.....Your post is good but it is not u or me or the siddhantas that were propagated by some who define who is supreme...it is the eternal VEDAS and they say it is nArayaNa. BG has become such a pramana because it is in absolute line wuth vedas....Krushna says Jiva and Prakriti belong to him and he is supreme brahman from whom sristi stithi layam takea place

 

[Amrut]

Ezcept the REAL Adi Shankara was not a smarta..that is misconception, refer his authentic commentaries on Vishnu sahasra namam, Bhagawad Gita and Upanishads and Brahma sutra bhasyams...he clealy said Vishnu is the supreme brahman.....Your post is good but it is not u or me or the siddhantas that were propagated by some who define who is supreme...it is the eternal VEDAS and they say it is nArayaNa. BG has become such a pramana because it is in absolute line wuth vedas....Krushna says Jiva and Prakriti belong to him and he is supreme brahman from whom sristi stithi layam takea place

Namaste,

Brother, As I have said earlier, Please do not start this topic, Adi Sankara was vaiShNav, and all other things. Lets just practice what our AcArya-s have told us to. There is no Misconception on my part. Just as you have mentioned viShNu sahasranAma, please refer vishNu sahasranAma bhashya #114 rudra

Please lets not start this topic. Let us (wrongly or rightly) believe Adi Sankara preached smArta dharma.

Hari OM

 

[StarryNightshade]

Ezcept the REAL Adi Shankara was not a smarta..that is misconception, refer his authentic commentaries on Vishnu sahasra namam, Bhagawad Gita and Upanishads and Brahma sutra bhasyams...he clealy said Vishnu is the supreme brahman.....Your post is good but it is not u or me or the siddhantas that were propagated by some who define who is supreme...it is the eternal VEDAS and they say it is nArayaNa. BG has become such a pramana because it is in absolute line wuth vedas....Krushna says Jiva and Prakriti belong to him and he is supreme brahman from whom sristi stithi layam takea place

This is a DIR, let us please not debate in here. Especially not the "Adi Shankara was a Smartha vs Viashnva" or the infamous "Vishnu vs Shiva" arguments. Let us worship who we please and let others do the same.

 

[Kapalika]

So what I've gotten from this thread is three things..

First I probably should of put this in the same-faith/scripture debate forum lol (if a moderator want's to move it to one of those two forums that might be a good idea).

Two as far as I can determine no one has shown me where it states it in the Vedas but it where it does in the Upanishads.

And three I need to brush up on my Sanskrit because a few of the words thrown around I don't know the meaning of.

Also as a side note, I'd consider the Vedas to be the Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Samaveda and Atharva Veda....

But apparently as for "vedantic":

"Vedanta (Devanagari: वेदान्त, Vedānta) initially was connotation for the Upanishads comprising the Brahman Sutras and the Bhagavadgita. There are many schools of Vedanta including the well propagated schools of Advaita Vedanta, Vishishtadvaita, and Dvaita."

In that sense I can understand if the concept of Shaivism being not fully in line with some things in Vedanta (Vedantic) given the quotes I was provided from the Upanishads, but I've yet to see anything indicating that Shaivism is non-Vedic. Perhaps I've misunderstood but it looked like a couple of people used the terms interchangeably but maybe I am missing something from the context. Talking about Shaivism being non vedantic and the claim about the Vedas saying Krishna is supreme were related questions but still about two different bodies of texts.

But then when I think about it like that it seems obvious that Shaivism wouldn't be the same as another school of thought in all respects but I was thinking about it in terms of the connotation of the scriptures the adjective references, not in the definition of the school of thought. Though I'd personally argue that one's interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita as saying Krishna/Vishnu is supreme is subject to one's belief in other texts, by itself nothing I've ever read in the Bhagavad Gita would say that Krishna/Vishnu is somehow supreme in a way that no other deity is.

But I think that point also goes into what Amrut said about some believing the deities to be persons and some thinking of it as being something more abstract than that... how you interpret the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, or really any other text, will hinge on your belief in what the nature of Brahman and deities are.

 

[kalyan]

So what I've gotten from this thread is three things..

, by itself nothing I've ever read in the Bhagavad Gita would say that Krishna/Vishnu is somehow supreme in a way that no other deity is.
.

From the 2nd chapter itself, Krushna clearly says he is supreme and was accepted by acharyas from Adi Shankara and before too...Refer 7th chapter where he divides jivas/atma/souls into 2 kinds, also refer BG Chapter 20th sloka, he clearly says he is the creator, sustainer and destroyer of the universe and from him alone the universe again comes which is of repeated cycles.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Two as far as I can determine no one has shown me where it states it in the Vedas but it where it does in the Upanishads.

And three I need to brush up on my Sanskrit because a few of the words thrown around I don't know the meaning of.

Also as a side note, I'd consider the Vedas to be the Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Samaveda and Atharva Veda....

But apparently as for "vedantic":

"Vedanta (Devanagari: वेदान्त, Vedānta) initially was connotation for the Upanishads comprising the Brahman Sutras and the Bhagavadgita. There are many schools of Vedanta including the well propagated schools of Advaita Vedanta, Vishishtadvaita, and Dvaita."

Well, this is a misconception.
The Vedas consist of the following:
1- Samhitas / mantra
2- Brāhmaṇas / ritual methodology treatise (though not only that)
3- Āraṇyakas / inquiries into metaphysics, further extended in
4- Upaniṣads
The Vedas are actually only two - Ṛg and Yajurveda, poetry and prose respectively. Ṛg provides the mantras and yajus details their usage and application. Sāma is composition of Ṛg mantras with nāda (~music). Atharva is a selection of mantras from Ṛg and Yajurveda detailing specific applications. They are together referred to as śruti -- those that were "heard". The Upaniṣads are as valid as the mantras / āraṇyakas / brāhmaṇas and can be rightly considered as vedas.

However, some schools hold the upaniṣads to be jñāna (wisdom) kaṇda while the other portions as karma (ritualistic) kaṇda, and emphasize the importance of the former over the latter (predominantly in advaita/māyāvāda of Śri Śaṅkara).

The Vaiṣṇava understanding is that the entire corpus of śrutis speak of the greatness of One Supreme Nārāyaṇa / Viṣṇu. There isn't a single verse that doesn't uphold His supreme position. The famous śatarudrīya too is a eulogy of Viṣṇu as much as it is of Rudra. But quoting verses can never convince one of anything at all, if it can't be understood in the first place. It takes surrendering unto the Vedas for the mantras to reveal their true import. Until then it is mere verbal jugglery. So if you truly possess the conviction to realize, you will have to seek a Guru who can bestow that knowledge.

how you interpret the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, or really any other text, will hinge on your belief in what the nature of Brahman and deities are.

That is true for everything, the ontology and epistemology of any school of thought influences its conclusions. Only that individual who has experienced all schools of thought and realized their shortcomings can conclude which one is the best. For, this inquiry is into something that transcends the mundane. But its certainly not true that one can read whatever one wants into the Gītā, Vedas, or any other text. The entire corpus is internally consistent in its overarching purport.

Perhaps your OP was intended for Śaiva defense, but the question implied as if the Vaiṣṇava position is rather unjustified. There is no hatred for other schools in any Vaiṣṇava schools. Vaiṣṇava schools have also been the most peaceful schools historically and even until just a few years back, Vaiṣṇava theology was most accepted form of practical hinduism with endorsement from the likes of even Mahātma Gandhi.

This song from Narsinh Mehta (who prayed in front of a Śiva liṅga and was led by Śiva himself to Vṛndāvan to witness Kṛṣṇa's eternal rāsa līla) best describes the outlook of a Vaiṣṇava and was one of the few songs that Gandhi propagated widely during his interactions with public.

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि ।

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Sure, Shiva worship is not RigVedic, and so is the worship of Shakti, Rama or Krishna. None of them are mentioned in the RigVeda. They were Gods and Goddesses of the Indigenous people, though after assimilation, Aryans too started worshiping them. The Chief God of the Indo-Aryans was Indra.