Satyanarayan Khatha - Is there a redeeming reason.

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Stories like the Sathyanaraya Katha pose some serious challenges to the theists who want to be seen as rational. How can a rational person believe in such a petty and vengeful God? What sort of a God would shower his bountiful grace only if sycophantic prayer is offered. What sort of a God would unleash untold torment if a promise of sycophantic praise is not kept? These are difficult questions to answer even for the high priests of true knowledge.

However, if you are a theist, if you are one who believes Srimat Bhagavat Geeta is God's own inerrant and eternal words, then you have to accept what Lord Sri Krishna himself says about his bhaktas. He classifies his bhaktas into four categories, (i) ones who wish to recover lost treasures (Arto), (ii) those who wish to accrue new wealth (arthArtI), (iii) those who seek self knowledge (jngyasu) (iv) those who seek knowledge of paramatma (jnyanI). (Verse 7.16)

Lord Sri Krishna goes on to say his favorite devotee is the fourth kind, so much so that for him this fourth kind of devotee is his very inner soul. Having said this, Lord Sri Krishna asserts he never fails to fulfill the wishes of the other kinds of Bhathas as well.

Given these explicit words of the Lord Himself, it is nothing short of blasphemy to find fault with those who seek material benefits through the Lord, especially if one is not even a jngyasu, let alone a jnyani.

If you are a theist, please, be consistent. If you are embarrassed, then let it go altogether. This is why I respect my father, father-in-law, my own wife, who beleive in their God for material benefit as well as any other benefit. They don't try to prevaricate.

Cheers!

 

[Raji Ram]

Dear Prof. Sir,

Each individual has his / her own 'ishtadEvatA'. No one is forced to be devoted to ALL Gods and Goddesses!

We DO have a choice. So, IMHO, a person can avoid a particular pooja, if it is unacceptable to him / her!

P.S: You can not force me to go to Kolkata KAli temple and eat meat because it is one of the 'prasAd's distributed there!

Devi KAli is also a Hindu Goddess!

Regards...........

 

[saidevo]

namaste sarvashrI Ravi, TKS, Nara and all others.

Ravi and TKS,
I think I have said this before about me: whatever knowledge or skill I seem to display in my posts is chiefly due to contextual search for relevant contents on the Net and in books; I am NOT AT ALL versed in Sanskrit or Hindu texts.

TKS in post #25:
In strict sense there is no exclusive thing called Bhakthi path! A Bhakta is doing a Karma all the time. It is hard to be a Karma Yogi without being a Bhakta as well . Here I do not mean Bhakti to just mean worshiping a personal deity.

There are only two *lifestyles* towards seeking knowledge as explained in B.Gita. *Only with unified understanding of all these so called 'paths'* it is possible to explain any of these one 'paths' properly. Even so following one means following all others!

A contextual search of Bhagavad GItA brings up the following (I have limited exposure to GItA as well):

• shrI KRShNa himself recognizes bhaktiyoga in his GItA!

मां च योऽव्यभिचारेण भक्तियोगेन सेवते ।
स गुणान्समतीत्यैतान्ब्रह्मभूयाय कल्पते ॥ १४.२६ ॥

mAM cha yo&vyabhichAreNa bhaktiyogena sevate |
sa guNAnsamatItyaitAnbrahmabhUyAya kalpate || 14.26 ||

14.26: And one who serves me with unswerving yoga of devotion,
having transcended these guNas, is capable of becoming Brahman.

IMHO, this should settle the case against any discussion that seeks to discount bhakti-yoga by such epithets as worldy, materialistic, immature, irrational, unadvaitic or any other. RAjAji in his introduction to the recorded recital of bhajagovindam by MS, states, "bhakti and jnAna are one and the same."

• And then there is this famous quote of his:

9.26: One who offers me with devotion a leaf, flower, fruit or water, I accept that devote offering of that one whose Self is pious.

Nara in post #26:
Lord Sri Krishna goes on to say his favorite devotee is the fourth kind, so much so that for him this fourth kind of devotee is his very inner soul. Having said this, Lord Sri Krishna asserts he never fails to fulfill the wishes of the other kinds of Bhathas as well.

shrI KRShNa in that same chapter goes on to say the following too about the jnAnis:

• 7.19: At the end of many rebirths, the possessor of knowledge resorts to me, thinking, "The son of VAsudeva is everything." Such a great-souled one is very hard to find.

Curiously, here, shrI KRShNa describes himself as "son of VAsudeva"--saguBa brahman?!

• 7.21: To any devotee who desires to worship with faith in any form, I grant him that same unshakable faith.

TKS in post #25:
So I am against this kind of fear based teaching and they cannot be justified in my view by adding Sanskrit words or by quoting some authors.

shrI KRShNa says in GItA:

• 10.4: "Intellect, knowledge, absence of delusion, patience, truthfulness, self-control, peace, happiness, suffering, existence, non-existence, both fear and fearlessness--bhayaM chAbhayameva,

10.5: non-violence, equanimity, contentment, austerity, genorisity, fame and infamy--these various states of being arise from me alone.

• 3.35: It is better to perform one's own dharma imperfectly than to perform another's dharma well. Death in one's own dharma is better. Others' dharma brings fear.

• shrI KRShNa says in verse 11.32 that he is "kAlOsmi" (kAlA and 'destroyer' are epithets for Shiva). Although Arjuna and KRShNa are Nara and NArAyaNa, vishvarUpa darshanam of shrI KRShNa evokes only fear in Arjuna.

Being the essence of the UpaniShads, Bhagavad GItA is an ocean where different kinds of treasures to suit different levels of the devotee--and the jnAnin--can be found.

Finally, shrI TKS, I am neither a 'scholar' nor a 'teacher'--only a humble learner, who would like to recognize and reconcile all the different 'lifestyles' of our Hindu dharma.

 

[tks]

namaste sarvashrI Ravi, TKS, Nara and all others.



TKS in post #25:
In strict sense there is no exclusive thing called Bhakthi path! A Bhakta is doing a Karma all the time. It is hard to be a Karma Yogi without being a Bhakta as well . Here I do not mean Bhakti to just mean worshiping a personal deity.

There are only two *lifestyles* towards seeking knowledge as explained in B.Gita. *Only with unified understanding of all these so called 'paths'* it is possible to explain any of these one 'paths' properly. Even so following one means following all others!

A contextual search of Bhagavad GItA brings up the following (I have limited exposure to GItA as well):

• shrI KRShNa himself recognizes bhaktiyoga in his GItA!

मां च योऽव्यभिचारेण भक्तियोगेन सेवते ।
स गुणान्समतीत्यैतान्ब्रह्मभूयाय कल्पते ॥ १४.२६ ॥

mAM cha yo&vyabhichAreNa bhaktiyogena sevate |
sa guNAnsamatItyaitAnbrahmabhUyAya kalpate || 14.26 ||

14.26: And one who serves me with unswerving yoga of devotion,
having transcended these guNas, is capable of becoming Brahman.

IMHO, this should settle the case against any discussion that seeks to discount bhakti-yoga by such epithets as worldy, materialistic, immature, irrational, unadvaitic or any other. RAjAji in his introduction to the recorded recital of bhajagovindam by MS, states, "bhakti and jnAna are one and the same."

• And then there is this famous quote of his:

9.26: One who offers me with devotion a leaf, flower, fruit or water, I accept that devote offering of that one whose Self is pious.

.
.


TKS in post #25:
So I am against this kind of fear based teaching and they cannot be justified in my view by adding Sanskrit words or by quoting some authors.

shrI KRShNa says in GItA:

• 10.4: "Intellect, knowledge, absence of delusion, patience, truthfulness, self-control, peace, happiness, suffering, existence, non-existence, both fear and fearlessness--bhayaM chAbhayameva,

10.5: non-violence, equanimity, contentment, austerity, genorisity, fame and infamy--these various states of being arise from me alone.

• 3.35: It is better to perform one's own dharma imperfectly than to perform another's dharma well. Death in one's own dharma is better. Others' dharma brings fear.

• shrI KRShNa says in verse 11.32 that he is "kAlOsmi" (kAlA and 'destroyer' are epithets for Shiva). Although Arjuna and KRShNa are Nara and NArAyaNa, vishvarUpa darshanam of shrI KRShNa evokes only fear in Arjuna.

Being the essence of the UpaniShads, Bhagavad GItA is an ocean where different kinds of treasures to suit different levels of the devotee--and the jnAnin--can be found.

Finally, shrI TKS, I am neither a 'scholar' nor a 'teacher'--only a humble learner, who would like to recognize and reconcile all the different 'lifestyles' of our Hindu dharma.

Sri Saidevo -

I do not approach any text (which includes B.Gita as well) that it is always correct but in trying to understand properly I have not succeeded in proving anything as incorrect (yet). I have found that a great deal of context is important to correctly interpret the verses including the ones you have quoted. They do not apply to the points I was making.


By learning that emotion such as Fear itself is Isvara the teaching is trying to remove the *cause of fear* and not teaching one to use 'fear' as a means to preach. The scriptures teach one about Strength aptly described by Swami Vivekananda (quoted in one of my other posts here). Any ritual that rely on Fear to generate something called Bhakti is flawed. All such people do not understand the true meaning of Bhakthi, IMO.

So my point is not to discount Bhakthi but ask that to properly understand Bhakthi one requires deep Knowledge. It is OK in my view to start off with simple rituals and interpret them as Bhakthi. A older person holding on to similar views of Bhakthi is equivalent in my view to someone watching a children show 'Sesame Street' for knowledge at the age of 40!

India and Hindus suffer from mistaken notion of Karma theory being preached whose origin most probably lies in Islam since the idea of inaction and cop out is alien to our teaching. Similarly an incorrect interpretation of Bhakthi by people who are in a position of teaching (Here I do not mean you, Sri Saidevo) are causing harm in my view. A simple start is fine but if unreasonable beliefs and superstition rule it is better to be an Atheist.

Bhakti Yoga is not what is broadly preached - it has nothing to do with an irrational devotion to a figure appearing in a story!
That is why Knowledge is needed to understand what Bhakthi is really about.

An Atheist is in better shape because at least the person is trying to hold reason and logic above blind faith. In fact blind faith which means suspension of reason is still thought to be a virtue by Hindus just like it is preached in other religions. So if someone is confused they are taught to have more unshakable faith by many elders! Fear mongering in rituals is creating a weak society, IMO!

Let me quote a passage from Swami Vivekananda again:

I would rather see every one of you rank atheists than superstitious fools, for the atheist is alive and you can make something out of him. But if superstition enters, the brain is gone, the brain is softening, degradation has seized upon the life. Avoid these two.Brave, bold men, these are what we want. What we want is vigour in the blood, strength in the nerves, iron muscles and nerves of steel, not softening namby-pamby ideas. Avoid all these. Avoid all mystery.There is no mystery in religion. Is there any mystery in the Vedanta, or in the Vedas, or in the Samhitas, or in the Puranas? What secret societies did the sages of yore establish to preach their religion? What sleight-of-hand tricks are there recorded as used by them to bring their grand truths to humanity? Mystery mongering and superstition are always signs of weakness. These are always signs of degradation and of death. Therefore beware of them; be strong, and stand on your own feet.Great things are there, most marvellous things. We may call them supernatural things so far as our ideas of nature go, but not one of these things is a mystery. It was never preached on this soil that the truths of religion were mysteries or that they were the property of secret societies sitting on the snow-caps of the Himalayas. I have been in the Himalayas. You have not been there; it is several hundreds of miles from your homes. I am a Sannyasin, and I have been for the last fourteen years on my feet. These mysterious societies do not exist anywhere. Do not run after these superstitions. Better for you and for the race that you become rank atheists, because you would have strength, but these are degradation and death.Shame on humanity that strong men should spend their time on these superstitions, spend all their time in inventing allegories to explain the most rotten superstitions of the world. Be bold; do not try to explain everything that way. The fact is that we have many superstitions, many bad spots and sores on our body - these have to be excised, cut off, and destroyed - but these do not destroy our religion, our national life, our spirituality. Every principle of religion is safe, and the sooner these black spots are purged away, the better the principles will shine, the more gloriously. Stick to the principles.
Source: Swami Vivekananda Lecture - Faith or Superstition

 

[Nara]

Each individual has his / her own 'ishtadEvatA'. No one is forced to be devoted to ALL Gods and Goddesses! We DO have a choice. So, IMHO, a person can avoid a particular pooja, if it is unacceptable to him / her!

P.S: You can not force me to go to Kolkata KAli temple and eat meat because it is one of the 'prasAd's distributed there!

Dear Mrs. RR, I must say I am scratching my head now, did I say any of what you are commenting about?

BTW, I didn't say anything about Kolktta Kali kovil, but, since you have brought it up here -- even this animal sacrifice is perfectly alright not only according to Vedic scripture, but also according to the interpretations offered by many acharyas. I forget the actual source, if Sangom is here he would probably provide the exact reference for this, there was a dispute between the devas and some rishees about this matter. These rishees wanted the devas to accept figurines made of dough in stead of actual meat as havis. The devas refused, they demanded actual meat, not some symbol in place of it. The dispute was resolved in favor of the devas.

Also, Bhagavat Ramanuja in His Gita Bashyam actually says the act of cutting the poor animal's head is not himsai at all!!

Cheers!

 

[Raji Ram]

Dear Mrs. RR, I must say I am scratching my head now, did I say any of what you are commenting about? ..........

Dear Prof. Sir,

Sorry! Effect of reading some random posts in this forum!! I should have written, 'no one can force me.... '

I was just mentioning that each person has an 'ishtadEvatA' and he / she can't be forced to worship other deities.

It is unbelievable that someone could say that the act of cutting a poor animal's head is NOT 'himsai'!!

Regards........

 

[ozone]

There are comments here that attach rituals to superstition (at least thats how I read them) and shun them as signs of weakness or degradation. Advaita and Sri Shankara are also being quoted to explain that rituals are not required to make progress. With my abysmal knowledge in this subject, I may not be able to help change the perspective, but would like to share some relevant quotes, without any reference to any specific individuals or their posts here.


Sri Shankara Says:


people may quote the scriptures, make sacrifices to the gods, perform actions and pay homage to the deities, but there is no liberation without recognising the onesness of the ones own true being not even in the lifetime of a hundred Brahmas (meaning countless years)


It is evident that liberation cannot be brought about by Karma


The above probably are basis for the claim that one can 'find a path' without performing the rituals.


However, He also adds:


these three things are hard to achieve and are obtained only by the grace of god :
human nature, the desire for liberation and finding refuge with a great sage.

Karma is for the purification of the mind, not for the understanding of reality.


Superstitious people performing rituals does not make the ritual superstitious. The fear
expressed in these stories are not a fear to force some one to perform a ritual, but to reinforce a sense of need for integrity in the minds. One has to apply and appreciate the context in which such stories were told to make proper sense of this. In current context also such messages of integrity makes sense but people can be brave enough to defy them. This cannot be called weakness, although the latter can be termed courageous.


An illness is not cured just by pronouncing the name of the medicine without drinking it, and you will not be liberated by just pronouncing the word God without direct experience.




Further BG's view is that of giving up the desires or fruits of Karma, not giving up Karma - which would be termed 'akarman'.


Sri Shankara also says:


In purity, mixed with the other qualities: virtues such as humility, restraint, truthfulness,
faith, devotion, desire for liberation - spiritual tendencies and freedom from entanglement occur.

 

[prasad1]

Mr. Tks,

Putting fear may be a tactic and may work but needs to be removed with proper knowledge soon after. Otherwise it produces dysfunctional human beings.

I understand this part. But tear after year you have to listen to the story, is too old. There never is an explanation given for the story. I do not buy the Bhay-bhakti at all. It is like the tooth fairy tale, you can pretend till you are 5 or 6 then you play along.

 

[Raji Ram]

Just for fun...

LEnA TamilvANan is a popular Tamil writer and once he wrote the meaning of 'Bhaya Bhakthi' in temples as this:

'Bhayam' because the expensive slippers left outside might be lost; 'Bhakthi' towards the Deity in the temple! :hail:

 

[tks]

Mr. Tks,


I understand this part. But tear after year you have to listen to the story, is too old. There never is an explanation given for the story. I do not buy the Bhay-bhakti at all. It is like the tooth fairy tale, you can pretend till you are 5 or 6 then you play along.

Sri Prasad -

Proper Rituals enrich a society. Even Sri Vivekananda has spoken about the importance of rituals. Vedas emphasize rituals until the last part where there is a different focus. Understanding all these and resolving apparent contradictions takes lot of training in my view.

Proper rituals usually have a basis and someone or the other should be able to explain the significance.

In modern days people want a quick results and dont want to invest time to learn. Hence they make things up if one were to ask for significance.

Most of such people are harmless in my view and if the rituals give them peace of mind then my view is 'why not?'

I have not participated in reading such stories in a ritualistic sense though I have enjoyed the Prasadam afterwords