Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 185

Thread: Is Vamachara marga Dharmic ?

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42

    In Gita, Shri Krishna procceds by saying, those who worship demi-gods and follow different paths established for demi-gods, gets limited & adequate fruits entitled through the demi-gods by my (Shri Krishna's) grace.

    This explains, though all paths for established by god, not all leads to god for limited and adequate applicable for that demi-god is offered by supreme being through that demi-god. If you consider reaching demi-god as reaching god himself, then this should be OK, otherwise, it is not. The phrase you had quoted becomes obselete with the second premise.
    No where in the Bhagavad Gita is contained the term "demi-god." The closest English translation would be "deva." "Demi-" in the English language means "half" or "partial." There is no such concept in Sanatana Dharma. Also, "deva" refers to the avatars of the Supreme. They could be agents of God or simply God taking on different forms and personalities depending on how you look at it and obviously depending on which dharma school you follow. But any mention of "demigods" in Hinduism is bogus and such use of that term is actually derrogatory and offensive toward the avatars that Hindus respect and worship. I don't want to see any talk of Shiva, Ganesh, Kali, etc. being called a half of God or a fourth of God. It is disrespectful and doesn't make any logical sense. Namaskaar. ~BYS~

  2. #42
    I realized something about these terms. There is no term "deva" or "devata" in English. It apparently isn't even an English term as I couldn't find it in the dictionary. I assume it is a commonly used term in Hindi as well as other Indian languages. Regardless, it is crucial that a translation be kept as close to the original as possible. Every time a text is translated from one language to another, even if the words have the same meanings, the connotations are often slightly different. You can essentially say the same thing many different ways and put a different spin on each method causing the person to interpret each one slightly differently. Using the term "demigod" in the Bhagavad-Gita definitely skews the meaning of what Krishna is saying. It is much safer to just stick to the term "deva." Also, many times in the Gita, Krishna will refer to the Supreme in a general sense and other times call it "me." In other words, at one time Krishna will refer to the Supreme as himself and other times talk about the Supreme in third person.

    Biased translations will tend to favor one description or the other in the Gita. For instance, Prabhupada's translation which is in favor of the Gaudiya Vaishnava path will use the term "Supreme Personality of Godhead" in place of "Supreme" or "Krishna" even though the Sanskrit does not point to the use of such a term in all cases. It is important to review the original Sanskrit along with the translation to fully understand what is being said. Namaste. ~BYS~

  3. #43
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71
    It is logical to use "god" or "diety" for deva/devatA, which doesn't divert the meaning.

    Hierarchy of devatas is somewhat relative; for Shaivas Vishnu is one of 5 faces of Shiva, while for Vaishnavas Shiva is an aspect of facet of Vishnu. In any case we can see by the context who is meant by this or that name.
    For example, sometimes "Shiva" means Paramashiva, Anuttara, while in another context it is a name of Sadashiva (aspect of Revelation or Grace of God) or even some minor diety.

    Finally, some deities are always viewed as aspects (kaLAMsharUpANi) of Godhead and not GOD (Purnabrahman), like Hanuman, grama-devatas or Graha-devatas.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71
    Many Shastras have statements like:
    rudro viShnur umA lakShmIs tasmai tasyai namo namaH (this is from one Upanishad).
    Hinduism is totally lacking Prabhupada's sectarian idea, which was borrowed from christianity. The hierarchy of paths is based upon levels of understanding (paradvaita, advaita, vishishtadvaita and dvaita the lowest), and not on the name of God used.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    48
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    Vedas and Agamas are the two halves of Shruti, general and specific.
    As you will remember the discussion is on Murthi Puja - having said, Agama and Veda are two halves of sruthi, and agamas having texts pertaining to establishing temples, rituals of temples, its guidelines, sytle of murthi's kept in the temples, it should mean, Murthi puja is as old as Veda

  6. #46
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    48
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    Shiva and Shakti are essentially non-mythological, but are directly experienced and logically proved. Of course we have a large mythology of Shiva and Devi, but it is symbolic only.

    I do not see any problem in Consciousness having aspects. It does have, but still remain One. The whole world with all its differences is its manifestation, how can one say there are no aspects in it?

    Monism doesn't mean one thinks there is only void-like Brahman which is practically same as Shunya. Brahman is both passive and active, His active "part" is Mahashakti or Parasamvit, Consciousness.
    Shiv and Shakti are esstentially mythological. I do not understand how mythology is symbolic

    The basic problem with such tenants is inconsistency - If brahman has both passive and active forces emboided in it. Once you try to divide active part as shakti and passive part of Shiv this goes against your monism. Further more it is aggrevated by your logic of union of Shiv and Shakti in the name of Yoga where in it is clearly shows the division is real. When the division is real how do you corroborate it with monism.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    48
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Bhakti Yoga Seeker
    No where in the Bhagavad Gita is contained the term "demi-god." The closest English translation would be "deva." "Demi-" in the English language means "half" or "partial." There is no such concept in Sanatana Dharma. Also, "deva" refers to the avatars of the Supreme. They could be agents of God or simply God taking on different forms and personalities depending on how you look at it and obviously depending on which dharma school you follow. But any mention of "demigods" in Hinduism is bogus and such use of that term is actually derrogatory and offensive toward the avatars that Hindus respect and worship. I don't want to see any talk of Shiva, Ganesh, Kali, etc. being called a half of God or a fourth of God. It is disrespectful and doesn't make any logical sense. Namaskaar. ~BYS~
    How do you explain the presence Indra and his family of deva. I had further clarified that the word demigod is essentially english word and it means A person who is part mortal and part god like Indra and other devas. This concept is essentially Sanatana.

    Let us not confuse ourselves with different philosophies and try to establish our own philosophy as a combination of many philosophies.

    Devas does not refer to avataras of god. Kenopanishad as categorically classified God Vis-a--vis other devatas. It clearly deciphered, god disappeared leaving behind Uma to answer Indra, agni, vayu and other deva

    The talk is not about Shiva/kali/ganesh being half/quarter of god and this thread is not even about purushanirnaya. We are here discussing about vamachara and murti puja

    Let us not confuse ourselves with so many ideas. Let us try to classify ideas in accordance with respective philosophy and make things clear

  8. #48
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    48
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Bhakti Yoga Seeker
    I realized something about these terms. There is no term "deva" or "devata" in English. It apparently isn't even an English term as I couldn't find it in the dictionary. I assume it is a commonly used term in Hindi as well as other Indian languages. Regardless, it is crucial that a translation be kept as close to the original as possible. Every time a text is translated from one language to another, even if the words have the same meanings, the connotations are often slightly different. You can essentially say the same thing many different ways and put a different spin on each method causing the person to interpret each one slightly differently. Using the term "demigod" in the Bhagavad-Gita definitely skews the meaning of what Krishna is saying. It is much safer to just stick to the term "deva." Also, many times in the Gita, Krishna will refer to the Supreme in a general sense and other times call it "me." In other words, at one time Krishna will refer to the Supreme as himself and other times talk about the Supreme in third person.

    Biased translations will tend to favor one description or the other in the Gita. For instance, Prabhupada's translation which is in favor of the Gaudiya Vaishnava path will use the term "Supreme Personality of Godhead" in place of "Supreme" or "Krishna" even though the Sanskrit does not point to the use of such a term in all cases. It is important to review the original Sanskrit along with the translation to fully understand what is being said. Namaste. ~BYS~
    I used the word Demigod to refer to higher forms of living things. In fact, Gita uses the word YAAM YAAM refering it as what ever (it is not whomever but it says whatever, thus using more derogatory term)

    Pls refer Chap 7 Sloka 21 and 22

  9. #49
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    48
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    It is logical to use "god" or "diety" for deva/devatA, which doesn't divert the meaning.

    Hierarchy of devatas is somewhat relative; for Shaivas Vishnu is one of 5 faces of Shiva, while for Vaishnavas Shiva is an aspect of facet of Vishnu. In any case we can see by the context who is meant by this or that name.
    For example, sometimes "Shiva" means Paramashiva, Anuttara, while in another context it is a name of Sadashiva (aspect of Revelation or Grace of God) or even some minor diety.

    Finally, some deities are always viewed as aspects (kaLAMsharUpANi) of Godhead and not GOD (Purnabrahman), like Hanuman, grama-devatas or Graha-devatas.
    I agree with the first line. Devata can easily be depicted as deity.

    However, I deny using the term minor deity as the word minor always stands as qualifying word for the very word deity - this is in sharp contrast with the word demigod which is a single word and as separate listing in english dictionary.

    I am very surprised about this word usage. I know this word even before this word was popularised by Prabhupada, which is used by christians to refert to angels. I have no objection for your views against Gaudia Vaishnav for I see both of us belong to different sect, but philosophy is different from english language. Let us understand it

  10. #50
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    As you will remember the discussion is on Murthi Puja - having said, Agama and Veda are two halves of sruthi, and agamas having texts pertaining to establishing temples, rituals of temples, its guidelines, sytle of murthi's kept in the temples, it should mean, Murthi puja is as old as Veda
    Agamas historically are obviously post-Vedic and approximately of same period as Puranas. Thus, murti-puja is of course not as old as Vedas.
    But Agamas have equal to Veda authority (practically even higher), thus murti-puja is accepted according to Shruti.
    Historical and religious dimension are different.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •