Hi,
Thanks for all the comments. I agree that I am an agnostic type but I don't think anyone here will say Adi Shankara too was an agnostic! In addition, I feel he (Adi shankara) would definitely have known all the interpretations which many here are trying to give to the sloka and its varied meanings. Still he says without any ambiguity that vinayaka, saptamatrukas, chaturnhaginis etc., are "bhootas" (may be elementa or ghost-types) and explains the sloka with the additional meaning that even though the effort is equal, the others do not worship me exclusively, owing to their ignorance. Therefore, they enjoy only little results. Hence is it not clear as daylight that those who worship Siva, Muruga, etc., get only "little results (alpaphala)"?
I am not trying to do any சிண்டு முடிச்சுfying but am trying to point out the hollowness in our whole system of worship of gods. And, after doing whatever pleases one, every one firmly believes that his/her god will bestow moksham, liberation, etc. Is this not rather foolish, especially when a person of Adishankara's stature himself says that worship of gods other than Krishna will yield only "little results"?
I will now like to know from our esteemed members how they justify their own devotion system/s in the light of Adi Shankara's opinion.
In reply to the last sentence, I wish to post my views (As yourself and others are aware, am no esteemed member, Am an ordinary person with views developed over the last 5 years or so of digging into history, regarding how and why religions developed).
First my personal views. WRT to Vinayaka and Sapta Matrikas, I have no special personal attachment for them. However, I worship them. Incidentally deities belonging to the Sapta Matrikas are kuladevis for a number of families. I generally tend to encourage the concept of kuladeva and kuladevi worship.
Temples of kuldev / kuldevi are often the only place where a tribal, a trader, a priest, a parayar, an irula, a vanniyar, a vellalar, an iyer, worship as equals before god. It becomes very easy to explain the concept of kul (clan) to casteist elders who believe in exclusivity or imagine different origins. I tell them to think of days when people of a clan organized themselves into different occupations; and when social mobility across occupation groups existed until birth-based rigidity by vested interests took root. It helps, i think, at least in the smallest of ways, to soften bias, and to see of others as folks of same origin as themselves.
Second, my views from books. Not just, Vinayaka and
Sapta Matrikas, but also Shiva, Murugan, Krishna, Narasimha did not come under the deva category once (most deities we worship today were elevated as 'devas' in puranic period). So not just people, even gods, went up and down the social ladder; with some being elevated as devas and some being downgraded as bhootas or vamamarga.
Majority of gods and goddesses we worship today are atharva deities. Probably, these belonged to the elamo-dravidian or non-indoaryan people once upon a time. The culture of these non-vedic agamic people was of course, very far from being uniform. I presume the worship of certain deities were downgraded over time because
(a) They belonged to atheist schools, which understood the world as something made up of 'materials'. They believed in revering prominent ancestors (bhootas or spirits so to say) but did not believe in a creator god. Not just Sankhya and Vaisheshika (before they fell to theism), but also Jainism and Buddhism subscribed to the atheist or material theory. The theist school may have downgraded them and their deities.
(b) A number of devis (including
Saraswati for wisdom) are categorized as
Yakshinis (ie., non-vedic deities). But these Devis are revered in Jainism and Buddhism. There was a time period when creators of 'hinduism' (ie., dharmashastra religion in this context) cut off links with agamas (and agamic deities) which did not accept the authority of dharmashastras (ie., these remained avaidika agamas). Hence, these deities though considered bhootas (as materials or spirits) in a positive light by their respective schools, were downgraded, or were relegated to vamamarga.
(c) Tantricism of certain devis was associated with se*ual stuff (such as cults of Durga and Yellamma (aka
Renuka Devi, some of these claim to be of the Parashurama cult). Perhaps there was a bid to downgrade these cults; and in the process all other devis also got downgraded. Maybe, downgrading females with denial of education, as evinced in the later-dharmashastras, came about by a cumulative effect.
Finally, my very personal views. Though no concrete proof is available, i presume, Thiruvenkata, the only deity for whom i have a very deep attachment, also did not come under the deva category once.
I do not really see a difference between element, spirit, asura, yaksha, deva, etc. Nor do i see a difference between Shiva, Vishnu, Murugan, Durga, etc. People have great abilities to conceptualize and differentiate. I don't. Nobody has come back from the dead to tell us if they went to the loka of pitrus or bhootas or got liberation by worshiping one god alone.
To surmise, in matters of faith, it does not matter what commentators opined. Adi Shankara's writings only help understand how religion developed. I do not care for religion (on the other hand, am against religious laws). So obviously, i do not care for Adi Shankara's opinions.
Thanks.
