Shaivam more famous than Vaishnavam?

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

2. Your saying that one should be strong and not pray to god amidst chaos and utmost difficulties only shows to me that you have been blessed with a good life without facing any undue difficulty so far! I have, though not at firsthand, experienced the pain in others from extreme difficulties (such as mental illness in offspring, death of progeny to cancer, etc) and I tend to think that this is why for the most part, god has given us a weapon called 'parihara' and a structured religion to go to at difficult times. Although pariharas by themselves may not work all the time and will need constant faith and constant effort.

Dear JR,

I had written in another post earlier to you that I too have faced the ups and downs of life.Life is not always a smooth sailing situation...its just that I cant write personal details here.

BTW even before I could only pray when I was happy..when I was not happy or faced some problem I used to tell God 'Let me solve this problem..recover and get back to You"

I somehow felt I could only connect to God when I was happy and sans problems becos I did not feel right burdening God.

You see I have a habit of putting myself in anothers place when I see problems and start to think "If I keep burdening God each time how will He feel?"

Becos you see day in and day out hearing problems will not give time to God to "rest".

I know all these assumptions sound kiddish but this is how my mind worked since a kid and even till some time back.

Then I realized that problems come and go.

Some people run towards God when they face problems and forget God when they are happy...but I was doing the exact opposite..that is I would run away from God when I was facing problems becos I did not want to trouble Him with my problems and I would run towards God when I was happy cos I only wanted to give God my happiness.

Then I realized that the secret is to be stable and face all problems no matter how hard it is.

Its not that I do not have faith in God but its just that I have come to understand that God is a witness...even grace of God is actually our Karmic entitlement.

Ok making the decision to stop praying is not easy..cos a mind that is used to praying will feel a vacuum and at one time you will feel a temptation to pray.
Then when you resists the temptation you might feel an increased level of stress and then at one time you feel "It seems that prayer is to decrease stress for us humans"

yes..its true..prayer decreases stress..now the next feeling that comes is when stress levels go up becos of stopping praying..then the body goes into repair mode..you see some changes in your thinking..you become mentally stronger and more understanding to the problems around you and I can also safely say that you will tend to smile more and feel more compassion.

Dont get me wrong I am not saying that one can not be loving and compassion when one still prays but I am just sharing my personal experience with you.

 

[krish44]

I find people taking refuge in temples and God very strange.

It is a way of coping with stress of living.

as renukaji says, people expect God to solve all their problems and go to Him when they have problems and not when they are

happy
temple goers might feel a vacuum when they do not pray.But personally I do not have any such feeling as I have hardly

prayed anytime. I do not require crutches to see me thru life. I live in the real world and find no need to run after Godmen

or Gods. I am happier because of that.

what one does to handle stress , whether one follows any God or Godman is his personal choice.

 

[sarang]

There is samanya dharma and visesha dharma. All do not have to carry the same black umbrella; different colours are OK and different sizes too fine. Most of imaginary and forced and perceived inequality will vanish if this is understood.

Unfortunately I think the members of that assite have failed to understand the essence of Hinduism.

 

[sangom]

All the talk about god, prayer, bhakti, etc., have to ultimately relate to the "Dukrinjkarane" moment, in my view. Shri Vaagmi Sir had written how his mother comforted him when he had a dog-bite (and the dog died also, perhaps). I feel ultimately it will all be immeterial at the appointed moment (saṃprāpte sannihite kāle) whether one believes that some god or his dootas will come with a golden chariot to take "him/her" to the beyond, or whether one believes that everything will end, (and that the 'he' or 'she' character will vanish) just like the end of a cinema or youtube video clip and nothing will be left except a blank screen/monitor screen (in the case under consideration, this phenomenal world with all its live characters to carry on the never-ending drama of Samsaara). IMHO, that (Death) will be a unique experience for each one, which no humans have had any exposure so far, notwithstanding all that goes under the label of NDEs or Near Death Experiences.

Bhakti, the word is believed to have its origin from the root bhaj-, meaning — to assign, allot, apportion, dispense, distribute ; to share, divide, etc. It is my view that bhakti was part of the strategy adopted for successful "marketing" the different godheads but deliberately or unknowingly, certain divine halo has got attached to this bhakti phenomenon as time passed. The sine qua non of bhakti has always been exhibition of the bhakti to the public; unless this is done, a person does not become bhakta or bhaktaa, as the case may be.

Some scholars say that 'bhakti' is from the root bhanj-, to break, destroy, divide and that bhakti is the method of "dividing" the god among the bhaktas, as exemplified by the gopis of Brindavan. I don't know which of these two is more appropriate. Anyway, the word bhakti has no great relevance, etymologically, to whatever is considered to be bhakti, today.

As regards Shaivam vs Vaishnavam, since all smartas worship all the hindu pantheon, vaishnavam included, vaishnavam will have more number of people, whereas Shiva will lose the votes of the fanatical among the vaishnavas.

Just my views, please.

 

[Vaagmi]

1)All the talk about god, prayer, bhakti, etc., have to ultimately relate to the "Dukrinjkarane" moment, in my view. Shri Vaagmi Sir had written how his mother comforted him when he had a dog-bite (and the dog died also, perhaps). I feel ultimately it will all be immeterial at the appointed moment (saṃprāpte sannihite kāle) whether one believes that some god or his dootas will come with a golden chariot to take "him/her" to the beyond, or whether one believes that everything will end, (and that the 'he' or 'she' character will vanish) just like the end of a cinema or youtube video clip and nothing will be left except a blank screen/monitor screen (in the case under consideration, this phenomenal world with all its live characters to carry on the never-ending drama of Samsaara). IMHO, that (Death) will be a unique experience for each one, which no humans have had any exposure so far, notwithstanding all that goes under the label of NDEs or Near Death Experiences.

2)Bhakti, the word is believed to have its origin from the root bhaj-, meaning — to assign, allot, apportion, dispense, distribute ; to share, divide, etc. It is my view that bhakti was part of the strategy adopted for successful "marketing" the different godheads but deliberately or unknowingly, certain divine halo has got attached to this bhakti phenomenon as time passed. The sine qua non of bhakti has always been exhibition of the bhakti to the public; unless this is done, a person does not become bhakta or bhaktaa, as the case may be.

3)Some scholars say that 'bhakti' is from the root bhanj-, to break, destroy, divide and that bhakti is the method of "dividing" the god among the bhaktas, as exemplified by the gopis of Brindavan. I don't know which of these two is more appropriate. Anyway, the word bhakti has no great relevance, etymologically, to whatever is considered to be bhakti, today.

4)As regards Shaivam vs Vaishnavam, since all smartas worship all the hindu pantheon, vaishnavam included, vaishnavam will have more number of people, whereas Shiva will lose the votes of the fanatical among the vaishnavas.

Just my views, please.

My views on the ideas expressed here:

1) We came into this world without asking for it. we will leave here without asking for it. After life what? This is a mystery and there is no way we can know it for sure. This idea has been stated here by Sangom sirji with some flourish. It is a known fact and so a statement of the obvious for the umpteenth time. Let us move to the next idea here.

2) I do not believe in performing a dukrinjkarane in all situations. When I am dealing with science i need to do that because it is an effective tool for exploration. I go to sub-atomic particle level and even deeper than that to understand a little-just a little only-more about the situation as it exists. But when it comes to bhakti I do not indulge in dukrinjkarane by dividing bhakthi into irreducible letters. As far as I am concerned, as many others are concerned, after a lot of dukrinjkarane people have reached the conclusion that a belief system is needed for the human society to lead the life happily in this world as long as the individuals live here. Hindu religion-which is one such belief system-tells me that scriptures are very old, that they contain the essence of knowledge in its purest form-a knowledge which is not relative to time-not subject to flaws, that this knowledge has been preserved in its pure form by adopting very fool-proof methods etc., We believe that after assessing this claim. Then all that is said there follows-a God, angels, God's abode, God's nature, Why this creation etc. etc., Human nature being what it is, we are aware that there are people who believe in a different system of religion. They have different ideas about God, his nature, his abode, his creations etc., May be if I were born in a distant aboriginal jungle hamlet in Nicobar Islands I would have had the opportunity to look at the religions offered and pick one which appeals to my intellect. But being born a Hindu I found I have no reason to discard my ancestor's belief system and look for a better one.
. So I am a hindu vaishnavite-hindu because I accept vedas and vaishnavite because I prefer to call my God by the name Vishnu. My religion understands bhakti as love for God. It is not the carnal desire which is generally understood as bhakti. It is a love which comes out of an underlying complete understanding of God and myself and the relation between us two.

As bhakti is love for God from the Jiva, thelove of a poor maami wondering "கிருஷ்ணா!! உன்னை இப்படிப் போட்டு ஆட்டராளே. உனக்கு வலிக்காதா. தாங்கமுடியலியேப்பா" ,the love from me when I just melt while rendering the "காரொளிவண்ணனே கண்ணனே கதறுகின்றேன்" partduring my nithya arAdhanam, the love of my friend for his Akkini Maadan when heoffers his rich offerings during a kodai festival in my village are allexpression of this love for God as accepted by the individuals and so is calledbhakti. all other bhaktis in which some thing is expected in return forsome thing else given as bhakti are aberrations. But human beings areknown for such aberrations because everyone does not have the same equipment tothink and understand.

a digression here:

a) you have said" 'bhakti' is from the root bhanj-, to break, destroy, divide and that bhakti is the method of "dividing" the god among the bhaktas, as exemplified by the gopis of Brindavan. I don't know which of these two is more appropriate"I would just add this: Gopis did not divide the God among themselves. Each Gopi had a Krishna to dance with. It was not as if Krishna's hand danced with one gopi and leg danced with another. The rasa lila which you are alluding to is to be understood at another level. It is the play of Jiva with Brahman. There is no other way in this world to get to anywhere near Sayujyam other than through the rasa leela like play. There has to be a consummation. To understand this we have to move to another plane which you do not appear to be capable of. You are still stuck in your dukrinjkarane and the pleasure you derive from it. You are like Newton's child. The child who picks a pebble here and a shell there on the beach and is happy with it while the vast ocean that lies before it remains unconquered and not understood. about rasa leela a book can be written. This is not the place for that. so I stop here.

b)You also said:
"It is my view that bhakti was part of the strategy adopted for successful "marketing" the different godheads but deliberately or unknowingly, certain divine halo has got attached to this bhakti phenomenon as time passed. The sine qua non of bhakti has always been exhibition of the bhakti to the public; unless this is done, a person does not become bhakta or bhaktaa, as the case may be."

I do not understand the mind set which sees a diabolic intent in the simple progression of life in the ancient times. If love for God was thought to be different from the worldly love for various things I would consider it as a maturing of the society in its evolutionary progression. But you see there a diabolic intent. There is something missing which is disturbing me. Is it just ego? If so it can be just harmless. But if it is like blaming brahmins for their devotion to intellectual pursuit as a diabolic conspiracy to keep out others, then there is something seriously wrong. The need for a thorough self-examination is indicated.

To be continued in part 2......

 

[Vaagmi]

part 2 continued.......

4) here your observation is uncalled for. vaishnavites are only as much fanatical as other factions of hinduism. When it comes to fanaticism there is nothing to choose. at least vaishnavites base their steadfast loyalty to a particular belief system of monotheism on solid understandable principles like saivites, muslims and christians, smarthas loyalty is to multiple godheads simultaneously. It is like in the morning sandhi a person worships parameshwara, narayana, navagrihas, yamadharma all at the same time. That has a diabolic intent there. They try to pray to each one because they do not know their god. It is like paying the Municipal office peon bakshees for telling you when the boss will be in good mood so that you can go to him for his favour. LOL. It is my principle that i would reply about vaishnavism specifically only when some one needles that belief system. so I had to say this. No malaise.

 

[auh]

at least vaishnavites base their steadfast loyalty to a particular belief system of monotheism on solid understandable principles like saivites, muslims and christians, smarthas loyalty is to multiple godheads simultaneously.

What is the solid understandable principle in monotheism? You could just say it is a belief system. Nothing more. Nothing less. When everything is a belief system, what is wrong in that of smarthas'?

It is like in the morning sandhi a person worships parameshwara, narayana, navagrihas, yamadharma all at the same time. That has a diabolic intent there. They try to pray to each one because they do not know their god. It is like paying the Municipal office peon bakshees for telling you when the boss will be in good mood so that you can go to him for his favour. LOL. It is my principle that i would reply about vaishnavism specifically only when some one needles that belief system. so I had to say this. No malaise.

If prayer is "bakshees" then the only difference in SV is that the king himself accepts "bakshees" in the form of bhakthi.

What if, actually, there is no one single god & a multiplicity of godheads do exist?

Since no one can prove any of their claims or beliefs, it is better if we take it a little easy.

No malaise here as well.

 

[sarang]

Our belief system is based on srutis amd smrutis. So mono -poly-theism has to be derived from these.

What is the solid understandable principle in monotheism? You could just say it is a belief system. Nothing more. Nothing less. When everything is a belief system, what is wrong in that of smarthas'?



If prayer is "bakshees" then the only difference in SV is that the king himself accepts "bakshees" in the form of bhakthi.

What if, actually, there is no one single god & a multiplicity of godheads do exist?

Since no one can prove any of their claims or beliefs, it is better if we take it a little easy.

No malaise here as well.

 

[krish44]

there is nothing much to choose between belief system of vaishnavites or shaivites

of course it is more difficult to choose which poster is more steadfast than the another in promoting his sect.lol

 

[Vaagmi]

What is the solid understandable principle in monotheism? You could just say it is a belief system. Nothing more. Nothing less. When everything is a belief system, what is wrong in that of smarthas'?

This has been repeatedly discussed. I will repeat it once more.

What is God principle? If there are many gods who is the god of gods? then why should be again a god?

mono theism is believing that there is one god.
poly theism is believing that there are many gods.

Now think about it and perceive. I do not want to elaborate.