Hnduism, Srivaisnava Tradition

[openmind77]

I’ve watched quite a number of Bollywood/Kollywood/Tollywood mythologicals (I like N.T. Rama Rao ) to say that there are actually people out there who’ll translate deva as ‘demigod’ or ‘angel’.

I heard that in Vaishnavism, Shiva is Vishnu’s number one devotee. (And if I’m not misremembering, Shaivism has the opposite - Vishnu is Shiva’s devotee.) Is that correct?

I would not say exactly that they claim one as a devotee of the other. However Vaishnavites claim that Vishnu is the superior God and Shaivites say Shiva is the superior God.

In Christian terms it would be like arguing which God proceeds from the Other (or which is begotten from the other) - but not denying the divinity of either.

However most members of any sect do participate in the actual ritualistic worship of the secondary, inferior God (whichever one it may be), so I would hesitate to say they consider him a ‘demigod’ or angel.

This worship also extends to several Goddesses, Ganesh, Hanuman and many other regional deities - so calling them monotheists is stretching the definition of monotheism considerably

The devas or demi-gods you refer to would like Indra, Varuna, Ashwins, Maruts etc - supposedly 330 million of them - they definitely be the Christian equivalent of angels.

BTW, your summary of different schools of Vaishanava was excellent.

 

[Jim_Baur]

What do Hindus say about their many Gods and Goddesses?

Do they tell people that are not Hindus about their inner truths (like Jewish mysticism)?

 

[openmind77]

I am not sure that Hindus say much to non-Hindus about their many Gods and Goddesses. I think many of the educated ones are a bit apologetic or defensive about their polytheism. Hence, the claim to be monotheistic by some Hindus while they go home and worship five different Gods (if not more) .

I personally have no hesitation in saying that I believe in many different Gods (these are not angels or demi-gods) . However there are only three main Gods - Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma. Brahma is the Creator God but after creation he is not worshiped any more (he essentially gets replaced in worship by the Goddesses, Ganesh, Hanuman etc).

And then there are the earthly incarnations of Vishnu - the main ones are Rama and Krishna.

The Hindu teachers who come to the west usually teach meditation, yoga and other practices before they starting talking about the Gods (Hinduism in general does not believe in proselytizing, so there is no attempt to convert anyone).

But ultimately most Hindus do believe in one God in that they believe that the totality of everything including all the Gods (and us and the universe) adds up to a impersonal, unknowable, undiifferentiated Absolute called brahman. There are some variations in this belief as listed by patrick457.

 

[Jim_Baur]

openminded77

THANKS!

I am beginning to get a little of what has been said–a very, very, very little (.00000000001).

Using my poor Westerner’s words, is Hinduism closer to ancient Greek philosophy with the Logos or closer to the God of Abraham?

Is like Boethius’ *Consolation of Philosophy *or the Gospel of St. John?

And again, my goodness–THANKS!!!

 

[openmind77]

I am not sure how to answer this.

I don’t think Hindu Gods are at all like the God of Abraham, but then I don’t think the Christian God as preached by Jesus is at all like the God of Abraham either. We definitely don’t have any angry, vengeful, jealous gods in Hinduism.

I think Hinduism is close to Greek philosophy, but Vaishnavism is not that different from Christianity either.

I know Hinduism seems a bit confusing, but to say you understand only 0.00000000001, seems to go too far.

I think the real difference between Hinduism and Christianity is not the number of Gods, but the Hindu belief in reincarnation and karma and the Christian dogma of original sin (which we don’t accept).

 

[Jim_Baur]

THANKS!

What is Karma? In simple terms, like your most recent posts.

THANKS!

 

[patrick457]

Karma = something like ‘deed’ or ‘action’, the thing which causes the cycle of cause-and-effect. Think of the saying “you reap what you sow.” It isn’t peculiar to Hinduism - Indian religions like Buddhism or Jainism also have the concept.

 

[patrick457]

The devas or demi-gods you refer to would like Indra, Varuna, Ashwins, Maruts etc - supposedly 330 million of them - they definitely be the Christian equivalent of angels.

You know, I find it kinda funny how the ‘old’ gods of the Indo-Aryans got demoted as the ‘new’ gods came to the fore.

BTW, your summary of different schools of Vaishanava was excellent.

I’ve heard that the above philosophies were developed in direct reaction to Adi Shankara’s Advaita philosophy. Apparently Vaishnavites found Shankara’s concept of an impersonal Brahman without any form or attribute at odds with their concept of loving devotion or bhakti to Vishnu as a ‘personal god’ of sorts. They apparently also found his idea of all relationship being an illusion to be anathema. They weren’t looking so much for fusion with the Divine (as Advaita teaches) but communion with it.

Now to be fair, Shankara did teach that Brahman has two levels: saguna (“with attributes”) and nirguna (“without attributes”). The so-called Saguna Brahman is indeed a sort of ‘personal god’ with form and attributes, while the Nirguna Brahman is impersonal and without qualities. Vaishnavites agree with this interpretation, but disagree with Shankara’s placing priority on the impersonal aspect, claiming it to be the source of ‘God’ (or rather, the qualities humans attribute to the deity) and his various incarnations.

P.S. I should note that in Madhvacharya’s Dvaita philosophy, the god of wind Vayu is hailed as the greatest of souls (jivottama) second only to Vishnu and the mediator between god and man. (In fact, Madhva himself was hailed as an incarnation of Vayu by his disciples.

His hierarchy of gods is quite interesting I’d say: at the top of course is Vishnu (identified with Brahman), followed by his consort Lakshmi. Then comes Brahma (the creator) and Vayu, followed by their respective wives Sarasvati - goddess of wisdom - and Bharati. Then comes Garuda, Sesha (Vishnu’s mounts - a bird and a serpent, respectively), Shiva/Rudra, Indra, and then all the other ones in descending order.

 

[openmind77]

THANKS!

What is Karma? In simple terms, like your most recent posts.

THANKS!

As patrick457 says above, Karma according to Hinduism, is a law of nature (like Newton’s laws of motion) that says that every thought, word or action sets into motion future consequences for the doer which are in exact proportion to his current actions (or thought/words).

These results can be experienced in this life or in a future life. So if you abuse someone in this life, you will be abused sometime in the future (maybe in a future life). Similarly a good deed will result in some good fortune in the future.

The belief in reincarnation is essential to the concept of karma, because many if not most people do not experience the consequences of all their actions in this life,

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

As patrick457 says above, Karma according to Hinduism, is a law of nature (like Newton’s laws of motion) that says that every thought, word or action sets into motion future consequences for the doer which are in exact proportion to his current actions (or thought/words).

These results can be experienced in this life or in a future life. So if you abuse someone in this life, you will be abused sometime in the future (maybe in a future life). Similarly a good deed will result in some good fortune in the future.

The belief in reincarnation is essential to the concept of karma, because many if not most people do not experience the consequences of all their actions in this life,

Great description Openmind77. I would add if I may, that karma is also closely involved with such things as sanskara and the three gunas, which are sattva, rajas and tamas. They interact and have influence upon one another.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[openmind77]

You know, I find it kinda funny how the ‘old’ gods of the Indo-Aryans got demoted as the ‘new’ gods came to the fore.

I’ve heard that the above philosophies were developed in direct reaction to Adi Shankara’s Advaita philosophy. Apparently Vaishnavites found Shankara’s concept of an impersonal Brahman without any form or attribute at odds with their concept of loving devotion or bhakti to Vishnu as a ‘personal god’ of sorts. They apparently also found his idea of all relationship being an illusion to be anathema. They weren’t looking so much for fusion with the Divine (as Advaita teaches) but communion with it.

Now to be fair, Shankara did teach that Brahman has two levels: saguna (“with attributes”) and nirguna (“without attributes”). The so-called Saguna Brahman is indeed a sort of ‘personal god’ with form and attributes, while the Nirguna Brahman is impersonal and without qualities. Vaishnavites agree with this interpretation, but disagree with Shankara’s placing priority on the impersonal aspect, claiming it to be the source of ‘God’ (or rather, the qualities humans attribute to the deity) and his various incarnations.

P.S. I should note that in Madhvacharya’s Dvaita philosophy, the god of wind Vayu is hailed as the greatest of souls (jivottama) second only to Vishnu and the mediator between god and man. (In fact, Madhva himself was hailed as an incarnation of Vayu by his disciples.

His hierarchy of gods is quite interesting I’d say: at the top of course is Vishnu (identified with Brahman), followed by his consort Lakshmi. Then comes Brahma (the creator) and Vayu, followed by their respective wives Sarasvati - goddess of wisdom - and Bharati. Then comes Garuda, Sesha (Vishnu’s mounts - a bird and a serpent, respectively), Shiva/Rudra, Indra, and then all the other ones in descending order.

The old Vedic Gods did get demoted, but they are still around as devas/angels.

Shankaracharya may have been a strict Advaita (monist), however he did not deny the divinity of personal Gods like Vishnu - he even wrote some very devotional hymns that are still popular (for instance Bhaja Govinda which is for Krishna).

Madhvacharya’s strict Dvaita philosophy is not followed by that many Hindus today (Shankaracharya is far more influential). Most Vaishnavites even though they worship personal Gods like Vishnu/Krishna, they do accept the concept of brahman, I think Madhvacharya’s hierarchy of Gods is a bit messed up, I don’t think he understood the Trinitarian nature of God very well.

 

[patrick457]

The old Vedic Gods did get demoted, but they are still around as devas/angels.

I find an interesting parallel with Buddhism - where the devas (and below them, asuras) are simply higher beings than humans that are still bound within the cycle of death and rebirth, so to speak. I’m still wondering exactly why these gods got a general ‘downgrade’ in Indian thought after the Vedic period.

Shankaracharya may have been a strict Advaita (monist), however he did not deny the divinity of personal Gods like Vishnu - he even wrote some very devotional hymns that are still popular (for instance Bhaja Govinda which is for Krishna).

Yes. I’m personally familiar with the Dakshinamurti Stotram. And BTW, isn’t Adi Shankara one of the main figures of Smarta Sampradaya - the idea that all the gods are simply aspects or manifestations of the one Brahman and thus are all equal?

Madhvacharya’s strict Dvaita philosophy is not followed by that many Hindus today (Shankaracharya is far more influential). Most Vaishnavites even though they worship personal Gods like Vishnu/Krishna, they do accept the concept of brahman, I think Madhvacharya’s hierarchy of Gods is a bit messed up, I don’t think he understood the Trinitarian nature of God very well.

You mean Shankaracharya’s interpretation of what Brahman is? Oh, and what about, say, Ramanuja (Vedanta Desika, along with Pillai Lokacharya and Manavala Mamuni are successors of his philosophy)? What exactly is his status today?

And granted, Madhvacharya was a staunch Vaishnavite. For him Vishnu is really the only godhead there is - the sole creator and sustainer of the world. (Told you it’s borderline ‘monotheist’.) All the other ‘gods’ - they are simply jīvas that have achieved a high state by realizing the divinity. Yes, he’s really quite unique in his ideas.

 

[Jim_Baur]

THANKS TO ALL OF THE HELPERS!

Have you read Clooney’s work, that is, St. Francis de Sales and Sri Vedanta Desika on Loving Surrender to God BEYOND COMPARE?

Any thoughts?

AGAIN, THANKS!

 

[openmind77]

I find an interesting parallel with Buddhism - where the devas (and below them, asuras) are simply higher beings than humans that are still bound within the cycle of death and rebirth, so to speak. I’m still wondering exactly why these gods got a general ‘downgrade’ in Indian thought after the Vedic period…

Hinduism says there three types of beings - Manav (human), Devas (demi-gods) and Rakshasas/Asuras (these could be considered demons, but they are more like anti-gods) .

The real Gods are above all three of these beings - mainly Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma. (Goddesses, Ganesh, Kartikeya come next, but they are also above those three types of beings).

Yes. I’m personally familiar with the Dakshinamurti Stotram. And BTW, isn’t Adi Shankara one of the main figures of Smarta Sampradaya - the idea that all the gods are simply aspects or manifestations of the one Brahman and thus are all equal?

Adi Shankara is a main figure among Smartas as well as the other Sampradayas. Eevn though he was Advaita, he said all Hindus should worship five Gods - Shiva, Vishnu, the Goddess, Ganesh and Surya (the Sun). I don’t think he said all the personal Gods are equal (actually I don’t think anyone says that). The quarrel (a friendly one) is always about which God is the supreme one - the Shaivites say Shiva, Vaishnavites say Vishnu and Shaktas say the Goddess.

You mean Shankaracharya’s interpretation of what Brahman is? Oh, and what about, say, Ramanuja (Vedanta Desika, along with Pillai Lokacharya and Manavala Mamuni are successors of his philosophy)? What exactly is his status today?

And granted, Madhvacharya was a staunch Vaishnavite. For him Vishnu is really the only godhead there is - the sole creator and sustainer of the world. (Told you it’s borderline ‘monotheist’.) All the other ‘gods’ - they are simply jīvas that have achieved a high state by realizing the divinity. Yes, he’s really quite unique in his ideas.

Ramanuja is pretty big too - in the end most Hindus are not Advaits, but believe in and worship personal Gods and so are followers of Ramanuja’s Vishishtadvaita.

It is Madhvacharya who is really the ‘monotheist’ and in my opinion is a little mixed up.

 

[patrick457]

Hinduism says there three types of beings - Manav (human), Devas (demi-gods) and Rakshasas/Asuras (these could be considered demons, but they are more like anti-gods) .

The real Gods are above all three of these beings - mainly Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma. (Goddesses, Ganesh, Kartikeya come next, but they are also above those three types of beings).

Just speaking for myself, but my personal impression is that asuras tend to be cast more as enemies of the devas while the Rakshasas tend to harass humans and such more. At least, that’s the impression I got from the old stories.

Funny thing though is how in Iranian religion (Zoroastrianism), the ahuras became the good guys (cf. Ahura Mazda) and defenders of ‘the Truth’ (asha) while the daevas became those that are led astray by ‘the Lie’ (druj) and thus are to be rejected. Like the Indian asuras, the Iranian daevas became more and more demonized as time went on.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Thanks!!!1