Shiva and Vaishnavism?

[StarryNightshade]

Okay, to prevent from further derailing Maya's http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/hinduism-dir/161297-our-virtual-ashram.html (sorry, by the way ), I'm going to start this thread to answer some of my responses in her sticky thread, as well as to ask this question:

Is there anything inherently wrong with a Vaishnava revering any Deva that isn't a part of the Vaishnava pantheon? Specfically, Shiva or his family, as well as Shakti?

Although I'm a budding Vaishnava, and thus Vishnu being supreme in my practice, I find that the bulk of my personal worship goes to three principle deities: Narasimha, Hanuman, and Ganesha. Most people don't have an issue with this line up (especially the first two), but I have been told, on more than one occasion, that a Vaishnava should not worship Ganesha. For one reason or another.

I know that Hinduism, for the most part, does not have a "Do and Don't" list, but I do think that this is something to consider. Personally, I don't think it should be that restrictive, even if a certain philosophy proposes that one Deva is supreme to the rest. To me, while Vishnu may be the supreme, I see other Devas as being important too. They just have different roles and modes of worship than Narayana does. Heck, I've even spoken with a few ISKCON-ites who highly revere Shakti alongside Krishna.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Namaste


I dont know the poem (I suppose I should google it), except that the poem has an association with spiritual crisis, I do hope you are not suffering in such a way at present ?

Not necessarily. I'm of the belief that doubt is an inherent part of religious faith, and that doubt can sometimes be a greater force for religious realization than faith. To me, Dark Night of the Soul, while not being the happiest of Poems, really can emphasize that if read from such a POV.

come across as dismissive? You personaly ? no not at all, you are only commenting on what you have heard. And I have heard some pretty dumb things said by many devotees from all sorts of traditions.

I know that some ISKCON-ites do come over a bit heavily on the ''Srila Prabhupada savior of the whole world'' but it is just loving pride with most, after all you love batman, Everybody loves to love a hero, and lets be honest how many spiritual heros are there in this day and age?
Look at the mess this world is in hatred and corruption permeate every level of society, so is it any surprise that people not just in the west are looking for something they feel that they can trust.
First Srila Prabhupada became a hero in the west, now the following in India is growing too, I know so many Indian converts, they are second or third generation born here in the west whos parents gave up their beleifs and traditions because they came here to financialy better themselves and they naturaly left the old ways behind and took up a very material perspective on life. But now these young guys want their cultural identity back, and there is a big gap in learning no one even told them their heritage or explained Dharma. Their parents were more concerned to get them into Uni and into a good job. and now they are asking questions what is this life all about ? and Srila Prabhupada is making sence to them so they are enthusiastic and incredibly loyal, it is gratitude and adoration.

But this problem of them appearing dissrespectfull towards Shiva devotees it is wrong, and realy it doesnot fully reflect what Srila Prabhupada taught.

I guess that's where some of my skepticism and weariness comes in. It's one thing to be viewed as a great spiritual hero, but it's another thing when it seems like there is a massive cult of personality built around him. Like you said, not everyone in ISKCON does this, but they sure like to make themselves known.

I dont want to start any fight by even commenting on what Shiva is or is not, let me just say I am glad when another finds a form of worship and divinity which works for him. It is so childish when people start to insinuate that my god is better than your god, Oh help ....just Get me out of here !

We just choose a form which we feel some affinity towards, there that is it enough said !
Yes Ill Happily go with Ramanujas veiw where that is conserned.

That's very refreshing to hear. Thank you for that. Honestly, sometimes it's a bit too much to constantly hear "Do this", "Don't do that", "This God is better", "This God is inferior", etc. While the different traditions are different from one another, I don't think that they are as different as many people think. I think they share more similarities than they do differences.

in my veiw we need to learn to live together in the spirit of co-operation and celebration

I agree.

Jai Shree Krishna

:namaste

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

Okay, to prevent from further derailing Maya's http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/hinduism-dir/161297-our-virtual-ashram.html (sorry, by the way ), I'm going to start this thread to answer some of my responses in her stciky thread, as well as to ask this question:

Is there anything inherently wrong with a Vaishnava revering any Deva that isn't a part of the Vaishnava pantheon? Specfically, Shiva or his family, as well as Shakti?

Although I'm a budding Vaishnava, and thus Vishnu being supreme in my practice, I find that the bulk of my personal worship goes to three principle deities: Narasimha, Hanuman, and Ganesha. Most people don't have an issue with this line up (especially the first two), but I have been told, on more than one occasion, that a Vaishnava should not worship Ganesha. For one reason or another.

I know that Hinduism, for the most part, does not have a "Do and Don't" list, but I do think that this is something to consider. Personally, I don't think it should be that restrictive, even if a certain philosophy proposes that one Deva is supreme to the rest. To me, while Vishnu may be the supreme, I see other Devas as being important too. They just have different roles and modes of worship than Narayana does. Heck, I've even spoken with a few ISKCON-ites who highly revere Shakti alongside Krishna.

I think most people gt caught up in the need for a hard and fast category/label. Labels help us organize the world, so people do it naturally. However, most things in life run on a spectrum. I think you're just encountering people who have forgotten about the spectrum.

Gravitate to what feels natural. If Ganesh calls to you, don't feel like you have to ignore him. However, if you think that he's distracting your from your focused devotion toward Vishnu, then work on cultivating your relationship there.

Early on I had a strong affinity for Hanuman even though I have always considered Devi to be my main focus. Then, because I read that usually people start pujas with Ganesh, and usually people include him in daily worship, I felt I had to include him too, even there there was no strong pull in that direction. Eventually I drifted away from both Hanuman and Ganesh as focuses of worship and I feel like I'm being much more true to myself. But that's just one example.

:camp:

 

[StarryNightshade]

Thanks Fireside.

I personally don't think Ganesha is a distraction. Like you said, many Hindus start Pujas with the point of devotion being towards Ganesha. That's how my temple does it. Besides, he's been with me since the beginning; even before I came to Hinduism.

I guess this is all just a matter of trying to figure things out.

 

[Poeticus]

Is there anything inherently wrong with a Vaishnava revering any Deva that isn't a part of the Vaishnava pantheon? Specfically, Shiva or his family, as well as Shakti?

There is nothing wrong with a Vaishnava revering any "non-Vaishnava" deity.

Likewise, there is nothing wrong with a Vaishnava revering, to the exclusion of others, only Vaishnava deities/avatars/figures of importance/etc.

 

[StarryNightshade]

There is nothing wrong with a Vaishnava revering any "non-Vaishnava" deity.

Likewise, there is nothing wrong with a Vaishnava revering, to the exclusion of others, only Vaishnava deities/avatars/figures of importance/etc.

Agreed. On both points.

 

[Chakra]

Namaste DKOTS-ji,

Is there anything inherently wrong with a Vaishnava revering any Deva that isn't a part of the Vaishnava pantheon? Specfically, Shiva or his family, as well as Shakti?

Depends on how your revere the particular Deva or Devi. If you revere Shiva as a supreme God of some sort, then that is tamasic worship according to Vaishnavism.

Although I'm a budding Vaishnava, and thus Vishnu being supreme in my practice, I find that the bulk of my personal worship goes to three principle deities: Narasimha, Hanuman, and Ganesha. Most people don't have an issue with this line up (especially the first two), but I have been told, on more than one occasion, that a Vaishnava should not worship Ganesha. For one reason or another.

Make sure you only worship Lord Narasimha in his gentle form and not in his ugra form. Other than that, he is a great deity to be worshiped.

There are some reasons why Vaishnavas should not worship Ganesha, and I don't mean to say that I believe in everything that I am about to write right now. First of all, Ganesha isn't accepted as a Vedic deity in Sri Vaishnavism (no offence to anyone). Hence, we do not worship Ganesha in the beginning of our Puja. Secondly, worshiping Devas is not recommended for Sharangatis. Sharangati means absolute surrender to God, Vishnu, and not to anyone else. It is the highest form of servitude towards God where you realize that he alone is your master. Worshiping Devas as hari-bhaktas is recommended for people like me and you, but eventually, we are supposed to surpass this. Also, the Acharyas of every single Vaishnava tradition have said that the only way to completely understand Lord Vishnu is to worship him alone.

I know that Hinduism, for the most part, does not have a "Do and Don't" list, but I do think that this is something to consider. Personally, I don't think it should be that restrictive, even if a certain philosophy proposes that one Deva is supreme to the rest. To me, while Vishnu may be the supreme, I see other Devas as being important too. They just have different roles and modes of worship than Narayana does. Heck, I've even spoken with a few ISKCON-ites who highly revere Shakti alongside Krishna.

The Vaishnava claim is simple. Lord Vishnu (Narayana) alone is Parabrahman and by worshiping him alone. we can come to a greater understanding and eventually liberation. The thing is, if you worship Narayana and try to please him, then you will please all the Devas, because Narayana is their inner soul. The conclusion is that you are free to worship Devas as hari-bhaktas, but the main focus should always be on Hari.

Regards

 

[ShivaFan]

Gosh, if there is something wrong with it then there are a whole lot of Hindu Temples where I live here in California which are in big trouble with some Divinity. They have Shiva, Lingam, Ganesha, Krishna, Ram, Hanuman, Shani, Durga and usually two more Devis, it is not uncommon to also find Sai Baba at some non-Sai Hindu temples, Lakshmi, then there might be Kali, and Tirupati, and Vishnu, and .... Saraswati maybe, then even Surya I have seen, Indra invoked, homas (fire) and Agni invoked and ...

Trouble in Paradise.

Lot's of good food sometimes.

Dancing even. And OM too. And even the Supreme Brahman. Even Murugan sometimes.

Big trouble in River City.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is so childish when people start to insinuate that my god is better than your god, Oh help ....just Get me out of here !

We just choose a form which we feel some affinity towards, there that is it enough said !
Yes Ill Happily go with Ramanujas veiw where that is conserned.

I go with what Asha said. Yajnas apart, I do not think any ritual without invoking Ganesha first is permissible in Hinduism.

 

[Goblin]

Does it ever occur to Hindus that picking this philosophy or that philosophy is tantamount to. Compartmentalization of reality. Which is way to vast for comprehension. Perhaps all the philosophies are correct from a bunch of different perspectives.

a house holder who is very involved in life might swing towards ramnj
While a yogi who is disassociated from life might swing toward advaita.
and people who need a "point of entry" into that
magical world would favour dvaita.

That said just practice like smarta, regardless of philosophy. Brahman is God and you have the mental right to dress him/her up in whatever way you like best.
From Krishna to genesha.
Nothing is true but since nothing is true use whatever lie suitable you best personally.

I mean I worship shakti, but I don't think God has a gender or breasts, or form, etc.

 

[Aupmanyav]

A house holder who is very involved in life might swing towards Ramanuja.
While a yogi who is disassociated from life might swing toward advaita.
And people who need a "point of entry" into that magical world would favour dvaita.

That said just practice like smarta, regardless of philosophy. Brahman is God and you have the mental right to dress him/her up in whatever way you like best. From Krishna to genesha.
Nothing is true but since nothing is true use whatever lie suitable you best personally.

I mean I worship shakti, but I don't think God has a gender or breasts, or form, etc.

Inclinations, and do not generalize about Hinduism. People have all sorts of reasons. I am a householder but my path is advaita, atheism. Vaishnava renunciates do not like advaita. I do not think Smarta automatically mean advaita. Smarta means no problem in worshiping deities mentioned in smritis. That is true which suits your inclination. Worshipers of Mother Goddess find peace in her lap. Godesses have ample bosoms and Shiva sprayed all around when following Mohini. That is how diamond, gold and silver mines came into being. My humble submission.

 

[Vinayaka]

Is there anything inherently wrong with a Vaishnava revering any Deva that isn't a part of the Vaishnava pantheon? Specfically, Shiva or his family, as well as Shakti?

Frankly, I do not understand why such a question would be posted in this forum, on Hinduism, one of the most tolerant loving faiths on the planet. The answer is so obvious to anyone whose been around Hinduism for any length of time at all.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Frankly, I do not understand why such a question would be posted in this forum, on Hinduism, one of the most tolerant loving faiths on the planet. The answer is so obvious to anyone whose been around Hinduism for any length of time at all.

Well:

A.) I think we sometimes view Hinduism from a rose-tinted lens and forget that, while there may be no basis for intolerance in Dharma, many practitioners certainly don't come across as "tolerant" or "loving,".

B.) Much like like illkitty or Jamesworth, I'm just simply trying to find my way within Sanatana Dharma.

 

[Vinayaka]

Well:

A.) I think we sometimes view Hinduism from a rose-tinted lens and forget that, while there may be no basis for intolerance in Dharma, many practitioners certainly don't come across as "tolerant" or "loving,".

B.) Much like like illkitty or Jamesworth, I'm just simply trying to find my way within Sanatana Dharma.

Yes, I realise that. Here's hoping you will choose one of the more tolerant versions. In my personal experience, I've rarely encountered intolerance. Perhaps Ganesha has had a hand (noose) in that.

From a talk one of my Gurus gave on Hindu Solidarity, a devotee asked him, ... "Should I call myself a Saivite, or a Hindu?" The answer was, "Both." For truly we are both.

I practice Hindu Solidarity, a unity in diversity. Trust me, I strongly believe in that. We accept all paths as valid.

It seems to me your question was like trolling, just looking for someone to come along and be intolerant ... and for that reason alone I found it kind of unfair, and I almost didn't contribute at all ... and now I'm out. I'll get some popcorn.

 

[StarryNightshade]

.

I practice Hindu Solidarity, a unity in diversity. Trust me, I strongly believe in that. We accept all paths as valid.

I strongly believe in this as well.

It seems to me your question was like trolling, just looking for someone to come along and be intolerant ... and for that reason alone I found it kind of unfair, and I almost didn't contribute at all ... and now I'm out. I'll get some popcorn.

Rest assured, trolling was not the intention of this thread. Granted, looking back, the OP does seem like it could be inferred as a little antagonistic, but that was not what was intended.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, many people on this site (including me and you) have stated that adding extra elements could water down the core philosophy of a faith. As such, I was simply trying to find out if being a Vaishnanva while also revering Shiva or Ganesha was tantamount to that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

A.) I think we sometimes view Hinduism from a rose-tinted lens and forget that, while there may be no basis for intolerance in Dharma, many practitioners certainly don't come across as "tolerant" or "loving,".

Then, as I told Axlyz, they are a little less Hindu. It is not Hinduism, if it is not tolerant.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, many people on this site (including me and you) have stated that adding extra elements could water down the core philosophy of a faith. As such, I was simply trying to find out if being a Vaishnanva while also revering Shiva or Ganesha was tantamount to that.

One may not worship them, but one will not speak ill of them. And have you found the core philosophy of Hinduism - IMHO, it is tolerance. Look, I am a strong atheist, but I do not deny others the worship of deities.

 

[Goblin]

Inclinations, and do not generalize about Hinduism. People have all sorts of reasons. I am a householder but my path is advaita, atheism. Vaishnava renunciates do not like advaita. I do not think Smarta automatically mean advaita. Smarta means no problem in worshiping deities mentioned in smritis. That is true which suits your inclination. Worshipers of Mother Goddess find peace in her lap. Godesses have ample bosoms and Shiva sprayed all around when following Mohini. That is how diamond, gold and silver mines came into being. My humble submission.

i didnt say any of that.
i said "might" alot
smarta is a way of going about hindu devotionalism.

but people who have traversed these different states of mind understand clearly why all these different philosophies happened

 

[Kalidas]

Okay, to prevent from further derailing Maya's http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/hinduism-dir/161297-our-virtual-ashram.html (sorry, by the way ), I'm going to start this thread to answer some of my responses in her sticky thread, as well as to ask this question:

Is there anything inherently wrong with a Vaishnava revering any Deva that isn't a part of the Vaishnava pantheon? Specfically, Shiva or his family, as well as Shakti?

Although I'm a budding Vaishnava, and thus Vishnu being supreme in my practice, I find that the bulk of my personal worship goes to three principle deities: Narasimha, Hanuman, and Ganesha. Most people don't have an issue with this line up (especially the first two), but I have been told, on more than one occasion, that a Vaishnava should not worship Ganesha. For one reason or another.

I know that Hinduism, for the most part, does not have a "Do and Don't" list, but I do think that this is something to consider. Personally, I don't think it should be that restrictive, even if a certain philosophy proposes that one Deva is supreme to the rest. To me, while Vishnu may be the supreme, I see other Devas as being important too. They just have different roles and modes of worship than Narayana does. Heck, I've even spoken with a few ISKCON-ites who highly revere Shakti alongside Krishna.

Ithink I have an answer you will find suitable. Look to my signature, that is a quote from the Rig Veda THE oldest living religious text. This text contains in it the wisdom of thousands of years of wise enlightened Rishis (I think I spelled that wrong) "Truth is one, sages call it by many names." Ever read the Gita? If not you should. Krishna tells Arjuna that all prayers go to him. So when one prays to Genesha they pray to Vishnu.? If not you should. Krishna tells Arjuna that all prayers go to him. When one prays to Genesha they pray to Vishnu.

 

[Kalidas]

Sorry about my post doubling up on the Gita message. New phone I think it hates this site

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram dark knight ...

Is there anything inherently wrong with a Vaishnava revering any Deva that isn't a part of the Vaishnava pantheon? Specfically, Shiva or his family, as well as Shakti?

the question here is do you mean revering or worshiping ?

as faras I am concerned , speaking as a Vaisnava , ... primarily we ' Worship' Visnu and Visnu avataras , .. and 'Revere' all othe Hindu deities.

however on specific days we honour many deities but in particular we have great respect for Hanuman ji as he was the greatest servant of lord Rama . we pay great reverence to Ganesha for his Qualities as the remover of obsticals on ones spiritual path .

and a true Vaisnava never disrespects Siva nor Brahma it would be the same as dissrespecting Vsnu himself . as each are considered to be equaly important and perform their own functions for the creation , maintainance and destruction of this universe , ....

what we shouldn't do is concoct our own worship ...

Although I'm a budding Vaishnava, and thus Vishnu being supreme in my practice, I find that the bulk of my personal worship goes to three principle deities: Narasimha, Hanuman, and Ganesha. Most people don't have an issue with this line up (especially the first two), but I have been told, on more than one occasion, that a Vaishnava should not worship Ganesha. For one reason or another.

I dont want to be a kill joy as it is wonderfull to have such fondness for these deities ,

But if one wants to call one self a vaisnava then ones primary focus should be on Visnu Narasimha is an incarnation of Visnu but even still he is only worshiped on specific occasions .
Ganesha and Hanuman again are worshiped only on specific occasions , ...

in Vaisnavism the Guru is all important and each tradition will have a different set of practices layed down by that Guru who acts in the tradition of his sampradaya ...
there is an order of worship and strict instructions even as to how ones shrine is layed out and which Deities are to take which position and which deity is worshiped first .

sometimes the Guru will advise a specific worship for a lay practitioner , but in the temple a strict procedure must be followed .

I know that Hinduism, for the most part, does not have a "Do and Don't" list, but I do think that this is something to consider. Personally, I don't think it should be that restrictive, even if a certain philosophy proposes that one Deva is supreme to the rest. To me, while Vishnu may be the supreme, I see other Devas as being important too.

yes they are all important but they have their own places , their own functions , it might not seem to be restrictive from outside but for initiated devotees there is a strict code that must be followed a callender of dated on which each deity should be worshiped , ...it is an exact science ,...and it is perfect if adhered to correctly , if it is not adhered to correctly it is like a recipe for a particular efect , take out one single ingredient and the efect is different , it may be just as nice but it is not the same . but the serious devotee is not here for ''nice'' he is here to fulfill a purpose .

in the case of a scientific formula we must be very precice or the effect may be deminished , changing a tradition of worship would be like changing Mantra , something would be lost

this dosent mean that a lay practitioner canot revere all deities or particular ones of their choosing , but we canot pick and choose and muddle worship from different traditions if we do this may seriously retard our progress spiritualy .

what I am stressing is the difference between Revering and Worshiping !

They just have different roles and modes of worship than Narayana does. Heck, I've even spoken with a few ISKCON-ites who highly revere Shakti alongside Krishna.

this is correct Revere all Deities , but Worship the Deities of your chosen tradition .

yes , each has their place their function but each form of worship is a formula .

sorry if I sound a little inflexable about this but this question seems to go round endlessly but if we are realy going to understand it we need to realise that sometimes there is a sreict formula , and it dosent mean that by my self following a vaisnava tradition and Vinyaka ji the Siva path , that either is wrong , or that one is superior to the other , ...we have our own infividual Dharmas and this is where the tollerance comes in , ...accepting anothers Dharma .
http://www.religiousforums.com//uk.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/