Why denigrate?

[DeviChaaya]

Namaste

I have recently felt the stirrings of my love for Shiva and Shakta growing stronger again and so there has been on my mind a thought. Let me preface this as saying I have not heard this said by anyone but Vaishnavas but please do not feel I am attacking you.

Why do I keep seeing, hearing asmnd reading about how devotees of Shiva or Shakta are only materialistic? Or only interested in powers? I have only ever heard someone say 'oh, they're a a devotee of Krishna' in a derogatory tone once. ONCE. But I am constantly hearing, seeing, reading and being told to my face how my devotion is somehow lesser because I am not a Vaishnava.

But then the very same Vaishnava who has turned to me and said 'oh, Krishna/Vishnu is the highest, you're just not there yet' will add on 'no offence'.

Adding on 'no offence' does not make what they've said any less offensive. I do not go around telling then that they are deluded by Maya and will one deluded day see the error of their ways so why do they feel the need to insist so?

'Shiva is Krishna's greatest devotee!' They exclaim. 'Durga is Visnu's deluding potency!' By exclaiming this they and route implying that my deities are lesser yet they seem unable to understand how hurtful that can be?

I do not run about exclaiming that Krishna is merely an expansion of Shakta. I do not tell them they're wrong so why are they so adamant in telling me?

 

[Madhuri]

Maybe it's the Hindus you're talking to. Where you and I live, I think that most western Hindus are Vaishnavas and specifically Gaudiyas who are conditioned to have that mentality toward others which kind of sucks since Chaitanya did not hold those attitudes at all.

 

[निताइ dasa]

With all due respect, this is a question of Siddhanta. No one can judge your devotion apart from you and God. I do apologize on behalf of anyone who may have said something to offend you. That being said, within certain philosophies there are levels of worship. Not every philosophical school believes that all deities, nor the fruits they give, are equal. There is a reason why certain people say such statements, and often times they don't mean it in a derogatory way. I agree some people go overboard with this (and often descend into a derogatory tone) but you also have to consider the major philosophical differences between certain schools.

Of course there is a problem with shoving this information in your face (with the intent to hurt you). This is wrong. A Vaishnav is trnad api sunicena, thinks himself lower than a blade of grass. But where people preach something based upon their own philosophical understanding, please understand that there is no intent to hurt you directly. When Adwaitins say things like "everything is God" or "You are Krsna, I am Krsna" this is also very offensive and hurtful to me, but I don't hold it against them because that is their philosophy. I simply walk away from that place. We must learn to understand the variety in philosophies.

 

[Terese]

Pranam Devi Chaaya ji, In Vaisnavism Lord Siva and Durga are devas, and so their fruitive benefits to devotees are minuscule compared to Vasudeva.

Now that said, yes, it is rude to say such things to a Saivite or a Shakta, but this is simply the way it is for us. You can keep worshipping Durga and Siva, but the fact that Lord Krsna has said these words from Chapter 7 verse 20 to 22 of the Bhagavad Gita makes all the difference.

"Those deprived of discrimination by various desires impelled by their particular natures worship the lesser demi-gods adapting to the applicable rites and rituals." - BG 7,20

Madhvacharya's commentary:

"The compound word hrta-jnanah (meaning: those deprived of discrimination) means one whose spiritual intelligence has been diverted by distortion. This is due to their inherent natures, innate attributes and over attraction to sense gratification. Being enslaved by cravings they choose a path away from Lord Krishna which looks most likely to grants them their material desires and they ingratiate themselves unto the demigod of their choice. The Supreme Lord is not averse to those who worship the demigods but He makes a distinction between worship to Him and worship to others. The results of worshipping all other gods is temporary and fleeting because the inherent power invested in them has limitations being only applicable to the material worlds; but the results of worshipping the Supreme Lord are permanent and eternal because unlimited power is possessed by Him"

But in the next verse, Lord Krsna says:

"Whichever demigod a particular devotee desires with faith to worship, i surely sustain firmly that faith with Him." - BG 7,21

Madhvacarya's Commentary:

The words yam yam tanum (meaning: which ever demi-god) means according to whichever demigod such as Brahma the architect of creation, Indra the celestial chief, or Laxsmi the goddess of wealth. The Narada Purana states: There will be cessation to the votaries of Brahma and others due to their temporary nature; but for the devotees of the Supreme Lord Krishna there is no cessation due to His eternal nature. What is the goal of moksa or liberation from the cycle of birth and death? Where does the atma or soul go after attaining moksa? All these considerations are deliberated upon in the chapters of the Bhagavad- Gita dealing with liberation. Even though the avatars or incarnations of the Supreme Lord are numerous and His expansions are unlimited, moksa is guaranteed and assured to the devotee who devoutly worships any one of them.

And the next:

"Endowed with that firm faith the devotee executes worship of this demi-god and sanctioned by Me solely; obtains that which he desired from that demi-god." - BG 7,22

Ramanujacharya's Commentary:

Whosoever then worships the demigods with unflinching faith which was bequeathed by the Supreme Lord and constitute a portion of His body, will certainly obtain their cherished desires; but such desires were sanctioned and granted by the authority of the Supreme Lord. When a votary of the demigods is engaged in ingratiating themselves into their good graces they are oblivious to the reality that the demigods comprise the Supreme Lord's body and that worship offered to them is actually in fact offerings rendered to Him. But even though such worship is not directed towards Himself, the Supreme Lord accepts such offerings as if they were to Him and therefore grants the desires so longed for by the votary.

Lord Krsna is so kind, He does not let those who worship the devas go astray, but permits it, through His causeless mercy!

Hurtful or not, Vaisnavas say these things from shastric evidence, not from mere power plays. That being said, please do not think i hate Durga or Siva, that would be abominable, and it would directly hurt you, which is a real no no in my book. So, without futher adieu, Jai jai Durga Maa! Jai jai Sivaya! Jai jai Vasudevaya!

 

[Madhuri]

Terese, those quotes are valid but they do not mention Shiva and Shakti as demi-gods. As far as I'm aware, even Vaishnavas consider Vishnu and Shiva to be One. Or the way my ISKCON taught father explains it, Shiva is the glance of Vishnu on the material world.
"According to the Brahma-samhita, even Maha-Vishnu’s glance does not directly touch material nature. There are intermediaries. The first is Rama Devi herself, who “carries the function of His glance” to her shadow nature. (Brahma-samhita 5.7) And at the point where this transported, effulgent time-glance touches the material nature, a reflected halo appears that is known as Sambhu, or Lord Siva."
http://btg.krishna.com/time-and-again

Shiva is clearly a manifestation of Vishnu in the material world and is therefore not equivalent to a demi-god.

 

[Terese]

Terese, those quotes are valid but they do not mention Shiva and Shakti as demi-gods. As far as I'm aware, even Vaishnavas consider Vishnu and Shiva to be One. Or the way my ISKCON taught father explains it, Shiva is the glance of Vishnu on the material world.
"According to the Brahma-samhita, even Maha-Vishnu’s glance does not directly touch material nature. There are intermediaries. The first is Rama Devi herself, who “carries the function of His glance” to her shadow nature. (Brahma-samhita 5.7) And at the point where this transported, effulgent time-glance touches the material nature, a reflected halo appears that is known as Sambhu, or Lord Siva."
http://btg.krishna.com/time-and-again

Shiva is clearly a manifestation of Vishnu in the material world and is therefore not equivalent to a demi-god.

I do not find the Brahma Samhita to be authoritative, as my sampradaya does not, so those points are moot. Lord Siva and Durga from what i know, are devas administering the material world in the same fashion as Indra.

If Lord Siva and Shakti are not demi-gods, what are they, to you? And yes, Lord Krsna does not directly refer them as demi-gods, but this is beside the point. Vasudeva is Supreme.

If Lord Siva is a manifestation of Lord Visnu, it would not do us any good, as Siva is ruled by tamas.

 

[Terese]

Shiva's position is actually really complex,( because He is not Vishnu Tattva at all, but falls into a category of Shiva Tattva, who has a completely different function). Yes you are right, Vishnu is Shiva but there is also a difference between them. Just like Durga is non-different from Krsna (because She is His Maya Shakti), still Durga is a demigod, while Vishnu is not. The very definition of God vs demi-God is based upon this distinction between Vishnu Tattva and other Tattvas (whether it is Shakti, Shiva or Jiva). They are non-different from Narayana, but also different from Him, just like a drop of water is different from an ocean.

Lord Sadashiva on the other hand, is more important in GV. He is directly Narayana and is eternal.

Who is Lord Sadashiva? Directly Narayana and eternal?

 

[निताइ dasa]

Who is Lord Sadashiva? Directly Narayana and eternal?

I'll PM you, don't want to derail this thread.

 

[Madhuri]

Shiva's position is actually really complex,( because He is not Vishnu Tattva at all, but falls into a category of Shiva Tattva, who has a completely different function). The quote you are referring to is Sadashiva not Shiva as we understand it (who is one of the 11 Rudras). The Rudra in this world is not eternal (He is the form of Vishnu in tamo Guna to destroy the world) while Sadashiva is the eternal form situated in Vaikuntha.

When we're discussing Shiva/Shakti from the Shaiva perspective, I already assume we are referring to Sadashiva, hence why I don't see them as devas.

 

[निताइ dasa]

When we're discussing Shiva/Shakti from the Shaiva perspective, I already assume we are referring to Sadashiva, hence why I don't see them as devas.

Yes you are right in this sense. That being said, even in Vaikuntha, Lord Sadashiva is not worshiped independently of Vishnu. He exists there as a devotee only. The actual mood and conception of worship is very important. Shakti (as Durga Devi) does not exist with Sadashiva in Vaikuntha but she exists with Rudra. I guess it depends on the understanding itself of Lord Shiva's relationship with everything else. There are two Shivas in GV theology, one is a demigod, the other is not.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Need I remind that Vishnu was a minor God (demi-God ?) in RigVeda, just 6 hymns? Indra, Agni, Soma, Ashwins were the main Gods. Why do we get into this all the time?

 

[Kirran]

This reminds me of a story I was told of a Gaudiya who'd come to visit the temples at Skanda Vale (three temples, to Murugan, Maha Shakti and Vishnu) and asked, with genuine confusion, 'Why are you worshipping all these demigods? ' Haha

 

[Vinayaka]

I believe that if you want to practice Hindu Solidarity, or a unity in diversity, the most appropriate action to work on while with members of other sects is to hold your tongue. Private beliefs should be held back. Do you walk into a person's house and insult their food?

One has to remember that psychologically, the root of the action of denigration is insecurity.

 

[Kapalika]

Maybe it's the Hindus you're talking to. Where you and I live, I think that most western Hindus are Vaishnavas and specifically Gaudiyas who are conditioned to have that mentality toward others which kind of sucks since Chaitanya did not hold those attitudes at all.

I live in America, and most of the Hindus I've heard say what the OP is talking about are actually from Viashnavas living in India that I met online. I don't really talk to them anymore, but there were a few that were like that. Never heard any other demographic say that stuff to me.

 

[Madhuri]

I live in America, and most of the Hindus I've heard say what the OP is talking about are actually from Viashnavas living in India that I met online. I don't really talk to them anymore, but there were a few that were like that. Never heard any other demographic say that stuff to me.

Interesting! Were they general Vaishnavas or Gaudiyas or both?

 

[Terese]

Need I remind that Vishnu was a minor God (demi-God ?) in RigVeda, just 6 hymns? Indra, Agni, Soma, Ashwins were the main Gods. Why do we get into this all the time?

The Rig Veda does not refer to the actual demi-gods Indra, Agni or Varuna at all, but Narayana's qualities. Narayana is praised everywhere in The Vedas, the 6 hyms that you talk about praise Him as all-pervading, as that is what Visnu means.

 

[Vinayaka]

A lot of times, because they haven't gotten around much, people don't even realise they're doing it. Personally, unless its confrontational denigration directly to my face, it gets dealt with in the light of understanding the situation. So I just think, 'they're young, they're enthusiastic about their version, and they haven't yet gotten around much'. Then I won't return to their temple or even attempt to strike up another conversation. It becomes some pointless ego battle debate. This pattern of behaviour is a persistent one.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Namaste,

I do not run about exclaiming that Krishna is merely an expansion of Shakta. I do not tell them they're wrong so why are they so adamant in telling me?

I feel this is merely a modern day sensitivity that i notice predominantly among non-Indian adopters of non-vaiṣṇava school/s of hinduism. Among those knowledgeable in the śāstras this - "denigrating" other school/s of thought - is a very common theme amongst all schools. This is not at all a new phenomenon.

Refer to say, tirumantiram - a classic śaiva composition - that uninhibitedly portrays viśṇu (referred to a mal) as an inferior deity compared to the all-powerful śiva while also holding that devotees of these lesser deities certainly suffer the wrath of the only true-lord śiva. In fact there are more instances in the purāṇas where śiva supposedly is portrayed as supreme which have hidden meanings that are mentioned in the purāṇas too; however, it will only the former part (portraying śiva's supremacy) that will be eulogised/publicized and even made into huge temples. Many śaivas even consider that only śaiva schools is the original path, whereas even sākta and vaiṣṇava schools emerged when people supposedly forgot/misled from the only true path. In fact in contemporary India, it is the śaiva/śākta combo that usually has the upper hand in enforcing their views right from community events like kumbha-melas to trivial things like purāṇa portrayals on TV!

I'm sure you don't indulge in 'denigrating' other schools of thought, but i know for a fact there are as many (if not more) śaiva/śaktas who've made it (denigrating vaiṣṇava schools) their life-mission. I certainly can't comment on how it is in other countries, at least w.r.t. India, no offence (notwithstanding the offensive nature of hypocrisy involved in accusing vaiṣṇava schools on the very characteristics commonly accepted among non-vaiṣṇava schools), but your accusation is unfair if not bigoted.

Imo, if only those not conversant with śāstras stay away from such discussion these misunderstandings will not arise at all. Those with knowledge of śāstric prakriyas will not be so sensitive to the claims of other schools because they usually have a counter or a modified version of the same view. I would even confidently challenge you to show / provide even one instance of "denigration" from the vaiṣṇava schools (or its followers) that doesn't find a parallel and equally denigrating viewpoint from śaiva/śakta schools.

Need I remind that Vishnu was a minor God (demi-God ?) in RigVeda, just 6 hymns? Indra, Agni, Soma, Ashwins were the main Gods. Why do we get into this all the time?

Ap, salila, nīram, jala, toyaḥ, ambaḥ, ambu, all are different epithets for the same entity, similarly all hymns praise Viṣṇu alone using different epithets. So the contention based on number of hymns is baseless. Since the only possibility of your contention is based on western-indologists translations, it is not admissible commonly among vaidikas, irrespective of whether one is of vaiṣṇava or śaiva conviction, for, even the (vaidika) śaivas accept that the vedas all emanated from śiva and they glorify śiva alone. I guess we keep getting into this because you keep posting atheistic views in theistic threads (i know you consider yourself a "cultural-theist" but it doesn't really count ). That all hymns convey one supreme is not a moot point b/w vaiṣṇavas and śaivas, but "WHO" these hymns convey as the supreme is the point of contention, the debate on which is beyond both the scope of this thread as well as the scope of veda interpretation that you accept.

I'm merely presenting my observations and don't intend to unduly condemn/criticise views of others.

सदाशिवान्तर्गतनृसिम्हार्पणमस्तु |

 

[Kirran]

I'll be honest, my experience of such denigrating views is much the same. It tends to be Vaishnavas on the Internet who I see espousing views that denigrate aspects worshipped by others and holding to exclusivist ideals. I am based in the West though, so I totally concede things may be different in India. The only time I've ever heard any other combination was a man in Varanasi proclaiming Shiva the all-powerful and Mataji to be nothing. But I think he was just angry because I didn't want to buy opium from him.

 

[Jainarayan]

Well... the Yajur Veda and Brihadaranyaka Upanishad both say:

śivāya vishnu rūpaya śivaḥ rūpaya vishnave
śivasya hridayam viṣṇur viṣṇoscha hridayam śivaḥ

Vishnu's appearance is Shiva; Shiva's appearance is Vishnu.
Vishnu is the heart of Shiva; Shiva is the heart of Vishnu.

There is a verse in Tirumantiram that says “Though the three, Brahma Vishnu and Siva form an integral whole the world considers them separate and quarrels.”

“Those who find indifference in Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva and recognise the oneness in them obtain eternal peace.” Srimad Bhagavatam chapter 4.

“Shiva Brahma and Vishnu are thy manifested forms, which create, maintain and destroy the universe at thy will. Thou is Ishwara who delivers Moksha. Thou is Parabrahman.” SB chapter 8.

Narada Pancharātra:

śivo harirhariha śakshatchiva eva nirupitaha |
śhivadveshi haridrohi vishnum nityam bhajanapi ||

‘Shiva is Hari and Hari is none other than Shiva. An enemy of Shiva is an enemy of Hari, even though he may daily worship Vishnu.’