Shaivism vs. Vaishnavism

Siva, per se, is a Dravidian, or Pre-Hindu deity, still worshipped through various tantras. Vishnu/Krishna, may well be Vedic equivalents of the also Dravidian Mahakali, which is a variation on the Shakta Lajja Gauri, or lotus headed Goddess. At any rate, the Vedists at some point incorporated what they felt to be the essential core of their beliefs around the Black God.

Shivism is very accepting and one can find many Shiva cults which will accept one with all their many human faults, whereas Vaishnavas are very society and caste oriented and follow Vedism to the extreme.

Moreover Shivittes are mostly advaita or nondualists whereas most Vaishnavas are dvaitas or dualists, maintaining separation from God as a tenet of devotion. Thus there are many many differences between the two religions.


Sometimes people say that all is Brahman and leave it at that, but that ignores the differences in specificites involved in worship. While Shivism is considered devloved from the Yajur Veda, nonetheless, that is hearsay, and the reality is that Shivism is one of the oldest monistic religions still extant upon Earth, the other being the complimenting Shaktism, or Goddess worship, which I personally believe has antecedated Shivism by many many thousands of years, which is why we find 50,000 year old Goddess icons like the Venus of Mittendorf.


As spoken, Shiva is at the heart of Vishnu, and Vishnu is at the heart of Shiva. This from the Skandopanishad. Some persons who try to view both objectively may say that one is a centripetal and one a centrifugal force of satchidanand.


May this benefit.

 

Good comments Chodpa - I'd only add that according to some, the Dravidian Shiva was later identified with the Rudra of the Vedas.

 

But BBB, this is contradictory to the claim that one has to reach sattvic bhava. That claim however is not made by me, its been being made by every guru Ive come across... (in ofcourse my brief existence on this planet ) . I am sure any authentic guru will agree that people who worship Ghosts or perform human/animal sacrifices for kali may get terrible powers but those powers will put them in more ignorance and finally destroy them. I know this sounds like the star wars dark side deal... but its just the way it is.

 

sorry Jedi - you've lost me here - do you mean the Shiva/Rudra identification is wrong, or that only pleasant and nice forms of the divine are useful?
If it's the second point, I'd draw your attention to some of the Vishnu forms such as Nirishima as non-sattvic - yet Vaishnavas venerate them.

I don't think worshipping ghosts, animal sacrifice or such stuff leads anywhere at all. The powers gained by 'black magicians' aren't worth having. However, the 'dark side' certainly exists.

However - another point is that Kali was worshipped by spiritual personalities such as Ramakrishna. It doesn't seem in his case to have led to negative consequences.

Some say that Kali represents the destructive energy - but that energy is needed for the cosmic manifestation. There has to be death and decay etc. When the moon is full, waning must follow.
What looks bad from our human standpoint may be good from other points of view.

On another level, Kali is identified (by Ramakrishna) as Shakti - the energy of the divine Ishwara, and as pure consciousness, not different from Brahman.
Nirguna Brhaman, it is said, is like the sun's disk, Shakti is like the sun's rays. The enegetic and its energy.

 

...I could have quoted everyone of you, since my last post, as this discussion here has helped me so much! Then again, it is basically like I thought it is.

I have found out, that if God represents the universe, than god is everything and so god is part of everything. All the different gods in hinduism just represent different aspects of life. Or rather, they administer different aspects of life.

The only thing I definately oppose to is: I do not believe, all gods are the same person , but I think Jedi you just tried to explain the constellation of one god with different names to me. I do understand that.

Namaskar!

 

sorry BBB, I guess i was a bit elusive... I don't have anything against Rudra/Shiva (not anymore anyway), if one is worshipping rudra or shiva, he has to really appreciate what shiva/rudra represents, he has to look at what shiva/Rudra really stands for, which is namely rejuvenation or he could see Him as the supreme lord, who is the symbol of purity and light. the devotee should not see God as killer and destroyer wanting human sacrifice or something crazy like that.


This was an answer to the question of why one cannot risk creating his own image of God- because in doing so, one may just decide to create an image that does not clearly represent what God truly is...

Now, you can say that God is the creator, sustainer, rejuvenator, he is everywhere and in everything so you cannot "not" create an image that represents God, but then the answer for this would be that it does not work that way. "Molly" here needs to understand that you , I nor anyone except very few people (mahatmas) have to capacity to truly see God everywhere (different from imagining that one is seeing God). he/she needs to understand that this is the reason why he/she needs to see God in a form that represents light and purity, so that person can appreciate God the way God should be appreciated.

Yes beware of the darkside -haha even starwars teaches us something i guess.

thats because ramakrishna saw the divine mother- the supreme Lord, Krishna comes to the devotee in any form he prays to Him.

That is exactly what i mean too.. However God is still a person, he is the supreme person, although we are not seperate from him, we really sort of are... in a very complicated way.

 

Do you know what God truly is? Well, I don´t - not yet

Sorry, but I disagree! I also think that there is very few people, that can see God in everything. However, who is there to tell me HOW God should be appreciated? As I already know God is everything physically, to me my goal has become to completely open up for God and let God become a solid "element" or "part" of my soul.

I have to disagree again. I do not think God is a person! If I read God and he , I keep finding this fairly irritating. I think this was one of the most irritating aspects of Christianity to me, too. Jesus (a human being) is worshipped as a God. I know of the explanations for this within Christianity, but they do not convince me. In the late middle ages in Europe they tried to make the popes become God-like, too.

I don´t want to say what is good and what isn´t. My believe is that God is not a person, but rather that God is part of everything. Consequentely, God is part of every person, too.

 

Yes I do, He is Sat Chit Ananda. Existence , knowledge, Bliss (well, there are many interpretations to it).

The scriptures, a guru or maybe you should listen to Him talking in Bhagavad Gita.

I don't get it , first you say God is everything then why are you letting God become part of your soul? what need is there to do that when you already know God is everything?

Why? if God is everything , why isn't he a person too? why do you find this irritating?

I don't understand, do you have a problem with the fact that catholic church is run like an organization or is it because they worship Jesus Christ? you don't want to worship Jesus the human being, others worship Jesus the God, so whats the problem, by the looks of this- your Jesus is not their Jesus.

Very well, but in Hinduism, God is not just "part of all persons" God is the only person. He is the only reality, you don't see that because of His maya (illusion).

 

In everyday life I get distracted by different things, if I say I want to let God become part of my soul, I mean I do no longer want to be distracted, but rather want to strive after liberation.

God is part of any person, but no person is God! I think it might just be a question of definition.

In Hinduism, in Dvaita Vedanta or Advaita Vedanta?

 

Dvaita is not vedanta. Advaita is vedanta.

 

???

'Vedanta' means 'the end of Veda'.
Vedantic teaching is based on the Brahmasutra, which is regarded as a distillation of the essence of the Vedas - the commentaries of various teachers on this work are the basis of Vedanta, of which there are 10 main schools, some are monists, some dualists, some qualified non-dualists.
The ten schools and their founders are:

Advaiata Vedanta - Shankara.
Visistavaita Vedanta - Ramanuja.
Dvaita Vedanta - Madhva.
Bhedabheda - Bhaskara.
Dvaitvaita - Nimbarka.
Suddhavaita - Vallabhacarya.
Acintya Bhedabheda - Baladeva.
Dvaitadvaita - Sripati.
Sivadvaita - Srikantha.
Samanyavada - Vijnannbhiksu.

 

Bill...that's a very comprehensive list!

I've always viewed Vedanta as an inclusive term for all the traditional approaches to Sanatana-dharma, much in the same way that "Christianity" refers to a broad range of philosophical approaches, with Vedantist used in the same general way as Christian.

Srila Prabhupada referred to his disciplic lineage as the Brahma-sampradaya, with Madhva as the fifth acharya in this lineage.

 

The source was 'A Concise Enyclopedia of Hinduism' by Klaus M.Klostermaier - a useful reference book. But I've come across the same thing in the writings of Swami Nikhilananda - can't recall exactly where now.

Srila Prabhupada's title 'Bhaktivedanta' shows clearly enough that Gaudiya Vaishnavas regard themselves as Vedantists.

 

The sannyasls at 7 Banerjee Lane were impressed by the scope of Abhay's thought and intentions. As it was customary to award a title to an especially worthy Vaisnava according to his qualities, Bhaktisaranga Gosvami wanted to confer upon Abhay the title Bhaktisiddhanta. Sridhara Maharaja, however, thought it inappropriate to give Abhay the same title as their spiritual master, and he asked that Abhay's title be changed to Bhaktivedanta, bhakti meaning "devotion" and vedanta meaning "the end of knowledge." Abhay was grateful. The title combined the devotion of religion with the scholarship of the most rigorous philosophy, as passed down by the scholarly followers of Lord Caitanya. He appreciated the sincere gesture of his Godbrothers and accepted the title as a further commitment to his spiritual path of preaching Krsna consciousness. (events ca.1939)

Source: Srila Prabhupada-lilamrita, page 103

 

I stand corrected.

 

So... where does Ramajuna show up in Gaudiya Sampradaya? or is Gaudiya sampradaya different from Sri Vaishnavas (alwars) and all in the south?

 

As far as I know, Ramanujacharya isn't considered to be in Gaudiya Sampradaya, although Sri Sampradaya is very closely related philosophically. Gaudiya is most prominent in Bengal.

 

Wow, thats pretty interesting spook- the idea of two seperate sampradayas saying the samething, were the movements going on at the same time I wonder?.. anyway, thats pretty interesting.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem that Ramanuja pre-dates Gaudiya Vaishnavism by a few centuries. Ramanuja lived from 1017 - 1137, Chaitanya (founder of the Gaudiya Smpradya) 1486 -1533. So it seems likely that Chaitanya was developing further what was already an extant philosophy.

The main difference on a broad philosophical level would be that Ramanuja was a dualist whilst Chaitanya taught abhedabehda (qualified non-dualism).
So far as I know, Sri Vaishnavas are focused on the Goddess Lakshmi as an approach to Vishnu, hence 'Sri' - an epithet of Lakshmi.

 

Bill & Jedi, off the top of my head...

Gaudiya-sampradaya is a later designation for what is also known as Madhva-sampradaya or Brahma-sampradaya. The term Gaudiya came into use after the time of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, because he was active in a geograhical area known as Gauda.

Madhvacarya was the first leading theologian in this sampradaya and he was timewise between Ramanuja and Chaitanya Mahaprahbu...1238-1317.

Historically, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was a charismatic revivalist of the bhakti traditions that were more-or-less-common to both the Madhva-sampradaya and Sri-sampradaya of Ramanujacharya. His purpose was to introduce nama-sankirtana or congregational and personal chanting of the Hare Krishna Maha-mantra as a unifying spiritual principle and practice.

As far as who were the particular originators of the concepts of acintya-bhedabheda and qualified dualism, I can't say accurately at the moment...Bill's probably correct.

Srila Prabhupada gave his spiritual geneaology immediately after the introduction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Madhvacharya is listed as the fifth acharya, immediately after Srila Vyasadeva, and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as the twenty-second; Ramanujacharya isn't on this list.

Both Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati considered Ramanujacharya to be a great Vaisnava saint and theologian; there are spiritual initiates in ISKCON with the name Ramanuja dasa, and I think Srila Prabhupada gave one of his earliest American disciples this name.