Bharata, thanks for correcting me.
Romani, you bring up too many things. Why do you so badly want dialog? It's very annoying for me to have to write in response (it has to be a lot because you bring up a lot). You're a massive waste of my time. And why are you derailing this thread.
One feels one has to respond, only so that anyone out there, who may ever read this page of the thread, doesn't misconstrue non-response to your assertions as people here having just rolled over and accepted what you said.
The most important topic you brought up (the one I really wanted to respond to) - your view of The Right To Proselytise and how you think Missionising Is A Good Thing - I'll now have to leave for another day yet again.
I.e. ISKCON discourages worship of the other Hindu Gods and forms of Gods, not (satisfied with) merely declaring them "demigods".
This is in direct opposition to what Krishna himself teaches not only in the Gita but elsewhere.
E.g. Considering just Shiva:
I think some 3 of the ~11 Sahasranamas on Shiva are taught to mankind by Vishnu. The Shiva Sahasranaamam in the Mahabharata is taught to the Pandavas by Krishna - who, as Bheeshma intimates, is the one to know it. Then I think the one in the Skanda Purana and I think Linga Purana are also taught by Vishnu.
RuShi Parashurama was a Shiva bhakta. Indeed, as is known, Parashurama's axe is Shiva's own Ayudha which is *called* the "Parashu", and which Shiva gifted Bhagavan Parashurama. (And this is one of several of Shiva's own great weapons that Shiva is known to have given to other Gods and 'men'.)
Rama worshipped Shiva too, as well as of course Rama's worshipping Surya. (And, going by a traditional Tamizh illustration to a narrative about Rama by an Azhwar - and what a thing of beauty the painting is to behold - Rama apparently worshipped Agni too.)
Did ISKCON forget to tell you these simple things?
When Vishnu can advertise for Gods like Shiva/Surya/Durga (see MBh, Lalita Sahasranaamam, etc.), how can ISKCON lie so straight-faced and lecture its clearly ignorant audience that "Krishna discourages worship of 'demigods'"? I don't recall that the Gita alludes to Shiva etc as being demigods: it does not mention them by name in such a reference. (Where various well-known Hindu Gods are named, they are directly identified with Krishna who also identifies himself as the Brahman. So what you have is: A = B = C. Gods = Krishna = Brahman.)
Besides, Devas are not "demigods". So anything translated as "demigod" cannot be speaking of the Hindu Devas. The Vedas are the first authority, and they praise various Gods, not the least the omniscient/sahasraakSha Indra (and Varuna etc). Indeed, Vishnu himself is a Deva, Shiva too is a Deva (hence "Mahadeva") - various Gods are variously called Suresha - lord of the Suras: Vishnu, Shiva, Senapati etc. And definitely Indra/Surendra himself - who is pre-eminently the Lord of all Devas - is known as Suresha too.
The Aditya Hrudayam that Rama learns to recite - which was derived by one Vedic Rushi and imparted by another Vedic Rushi to him - IIRC speaks of Surya as being the Trimoorti as well as of being Indra, Yama, Kubera, Agni and everyone. Surya is parabrahmam.
And in the Gita, Krishna identifies himself with Brahman to Arjuna (as other Gods have also been clearly identified with Brahman in other Hindu literature). There is the section where Krishna displays the Vishvaroopam, which reveals/explains to Arjuna - in a manifest physical form - how Krishna is the All/Brahman (just as Shiva displayed the Vishvaroopam in the earlier Shiva Gita, which was given to Rama - it's in one of the Puranas).
Anyway. In the Vishvaroopam section of Krishna's Gita, he gives Arjuna glimpses of Brahman (which Krishna is too) which has many great forms. To make Arjuna understand how great, as well as listing some of those beings and things he is to be identified with, Krishna lists a few famous examples of superlatives: such as Rama among human Kings I think, and was it [[color="#0000FF"]CORRECTION[/color]: not Bhairava but] Shankara among the ~11 Rudras, Vishnu among the ~12 Adityas, etc. The list is not complete, nor are these the sole superlatives to be had in each category, but these are ones that Arjuna can understand. The other Rudras are all Shiva too, and all 12 Adityas are famous - but Vishnu is particularly well-known. From memory, the other Adityas include of course mitra, and varuNa, indra, twaShTaa, dAtA(?), pUShaa, etc - I can't really spell. Ever since the Vedas - this is going by what I heard in a famous sequence from the YV - I think Vishnu is listed as one among the Adityas. And this fact is naturally repeated by the Gita.
So what does ISKCON mean by "demigods"? Who are they speaking of? Who knows. If one is a "demigod/lesser god", so is the other. But then, that is not what the Hindu texts say. Various Hindu texts and stotras in turn reveal the various Gods (that these texts are primarily about) to be ParaBrahman.
ISKCON is very selective about what it chooses to reveal to those it proselytises. Is it merely ignorant of the other core Hindu texts, or is it being disingenuous? In any case, the effect of the Lie - accidental or intentional though it be - is the same: it produces ignorance. Of a dangerous kind.
And yet, the same founder of ISKCON (hence ISCKON itself), who we've seen propounding that people not worship the other Hindu Gods (for their being 'mere demigods') magically identifies Krishna with the false, non-existent (demonic character) of jeebusjehovallah. That makes the Lie even worse - it is blasphemy against the true and perfect Krishna. This utterly false identification of Krishna with jeebusjehovallah also shows the lack of comprehension/knowledge in ISKCON as to who Krishna is. Krishna is not non-existent. Krishna does not have a demonic character, but the opposite. And yet the founder is willing to relate Krishna back to jeebusjehovallah. Who but one who does not know Krishna could actually do such a thing? Why do people - who ought to know better - follow ISKCON?
Anyway, why does Vishnu go peddling Shiva and other Hindu Gods? Why does Shiva peddle Vishnu and other Gods? Why does Indra peddle Lakshmi? And Shiva and Vishnu together peddle Lakshmi etc. Why do all these Gods always peddle each other and usually not themselves? The answer is obvious and doesn't require articulation.
Krishna certainly does not exclusively advocate himself in the Gita. (Don't read ISKCON's version of the Gita, read a plain vanilla translation.) He merely says in Arjuna's (and creature-kind's) best interest to give one's heart to him, and that by attaching oneself to him, Arjuna/any creature is assured of refuge: one will not be denied. But he also explains that those devotedly attached to their Gods (everything except the jeebusjehovallah type variety) will reach him ('him') - i.e. paraBrahman (which Krishna is too). The Gita is not unique Hindu literature. It is not the sole authoritative Hindu scripture. There are others. And it echoes the knowledge in those others, just as the same lessons are similarly echoed in later Hindu literature. The Gita is quite accurate.
But the ISKCON version of it is something different.
To declare Krishna to be the ParamapuruSha, the Parabrahman/Perfection itself offends no Hindu - because he is (it is our religion).
But going out of one's way to belittle other Gods - when the people doing so obviously don't know anything about the Gods they would speak of (can't they remain silent on what they don't know? just shows their arrogance) - and to furthermore go about telling people not to worship them (and then presenting this as something Krishna is instructing) is entirely uncalled for. They are teaching other people to look down on all those Hindu Gods who ISKCON looks down on.
In any case, the others in your sequence don't all have identical views with ISKCON. So you're asking a trick question by formulating your question (the list in it) falsely.
(People at my father's work took him to a Swaminarayan religious event. "Interesting" views and practices they have concerning women by the way. IIRC from what I heard.)
The Grand Spirit.
The Kami.
Nezha. Yes, Nezha. Hands down.
Oooh, oooh, I know the answer! "The only worthy to be worshipped" MUST BE Julian's father, the Titan Helios. Obviously. Since Julian is the uncontested attested Human Perfection, his father - the divine Sun God Helios - is Divine Perfection. And so too Julian's mother, Rhea. And his other mother Juno. And his other father Zeus. And Pan. And Dion. And Apollo, of course, as if there could be any question on the matter. Julian's taste in such important things is so unquestionably impeccable, that one can blindly accept his authority here. (Something one can't do with ISKCON etc.)
[color="#0000FF"]ADDED:[/color]
When a God (or set of Gods) is the primary one/set being considered in a text, all others are eclipsed.
You can even see examples of this in one composer, such as Shankara's stotras to each God or set of Gods. So you get ones where Lalita(+husband Shiva) is the All. Shiva(+wife) is the All. Vishnu is the All (say in ShaTpadi stotram or bhaja govindam), Murugan is the father of the Universe, Shaarada (Saraswati) is the All, etc.
And this is also how Hindus view their family's major Gods. When they look at one (set), the God(s) in question seems to take up so much room, that all others are reduced to side players. Then, when they turn to look at another (set of) God(s), every other God seems to fade from view. It is just the way things are.
To established Vaishnava communities, Vishnu+Lakshmi are the All - and they are quite right - and the other Gods fade in comparison. Which is sensible, because these are their primary kuladevas, and the ones they are attached to. One's own kuladevas - how ever many these may be - tend to frequently be one's ishtadevas. Just like one's own parents are the best, Hindus' ancestral Divine Parents are frequently the Sole Universe for them.
Puranas on Shiva speak of the superlative greatness of Shiva, like puranas on Vishnu speak of the superlative greatness of Vishnu. The statement of Kambar that Bharatavarsha posted is the view of Hindus who are able to take a step back and see that there's no competition going on:
Romani, you bring up too many things. Why do you so badly want dialog? It's very annoying for me to have to write in response (it has to be a lot because you bring up a lot). You're a massive waste of my time. And why are you derailing this thread.
One feels one has to respond, only so that anyone out there, who may ever read this page of the thread, doesn't misconstrue non-response to your assertions as people here having just rolled over and accepted what you said.
The most important topic you brought up (the one I really wanted to respond to) - your view of The Right To Proselytise and how you think Missionising Is A Good Thing - I'll now have to leave for another day yet again.
Quote:Ive check my romanian version of BG as it is.That chapters indeed talk about demigods.It insists on much more than what you mention, which is why I referred to those chapters. The second reference I provided to ISKCON's "BG As It Is" states in the founder's commentary to Ch 10 Shloka 42 (though the actual shloka athavA bahunaitena kiM j~nAtena tavArjuna | viShTabhyAhamidaM kR^itsnam ekAMshena sthito jagat || doesn't even refer to the following matter) -
Quote:ISKCON's founder in BG As It Is: "There is a Mission that regularly propounds that worship of any demigod will lead one to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, or the supreme goal. But worship of demigods is thoroughly discouraged herein because even the demigods like Brahma and Shiva represent only part of the opulence of the Supreme Lord."
I.e. ISKCON discourages worship of the other Hindu Gods and forms of Gods, not (satisfied with) merely declaring them "demigods".
This is in direct opposition to what Krishna himself teaches not only in the Gita but elsewhere.
E.g. Considering just Shiva:
I think some 3 of the ~11 Sahasranamas on Shiva are taught to mankind by Vishnu. The Shiva Sahasranaamam in the Mahabharata is taught to the Pandavas by Krishna - who, as Bheeshma intimates, is the one to know it. Then I think the one in the Skanda Purana and I think Linga Purana are also taught by Vishnu.
RuShi Parashurama was a Shiva bhakta. Indeed, as is known, Parashurama's axe is Shiva's own Ayudha which is *called* the "Parashu", and which Shiva gifted Bhagavan Parashurama. (And this is one of several of Shiva's own great weapons that Shiva is known to have given to other Gods and 'men'.)
Rama worshipped Shiva too, as well as of course Rama's worshipping Surya. (And, going by a traditional Tamizh illustration to a narrative about Rama by an Azhwar - and what a thing of beauty the painting is to behold - Rama apparently worshipped Agni too.)
Did ISKCON forget to tell you these simple things?
When Vishnu can advertise for Gods like Shiva/Surya/Durga (see MBh, Lalita Sahasranaamam, etc.), how can ISKCON lie so straight-faced and lecture its clearly ignorant audience that "Krishna discourages worship of 'demigods'"? I don't recall that the Gita alludes to Shiva etc as being demigods: it does not mention them by name in such a reference. (Where various well-known Hindu Gods are named, they are directly identified with Krishna who also identifies himself as the Brahman. So what you have is: A = B = C. Gods = Krishna = Brahman.)
Besides, Devas are not "demigods". So anything translated as "demigod" cannot be speaking of the Hindu Devas. The Vedas are the first authority, and they praise various Gods, not the least the omniscient/sahasraakSha Indra (and Varuna etc). Indeed, Vishnu himself is a Deva, Shiva too is a Deva (hence "Mahadeva") - various Gods are variously called Suresha - lord of the Suras: Vishnu, Shiva, Senapati etc. And definitely Indra/Surendra himself - who is pre-eminently the Lord of all Devas - is known as Suresha too.
The Aditya Hrudayam that Rama learns to recite - which was derived by one Vedic Rushi and imparted by another Vedic Rushi to him - IIRC speaks of Surya as being the Trimoorti as well as of being Indra, Yama, Kubera, Agni and everyone. Surya is parabrahmam.
And in the Gita, Krishna identifies himself with Brahman to Arjuna (as other Gods have also been clearly identified with Brahman in other Hindu literature). There is the section where Krishna displays the Vishvaroopam, which reveals/explains to Arjuna - in a manifest physical form - how Krishna is the All/Brahman (just as Shiva displayed the Vishvaroopam in the earlier Shiva Gita, which was given to Rama - it's in one of the Puranas).
Anyway. In the Vishvaroopam section of Krishna's Gita, he gives Arjuna glimpses of Brahman (which Krishna is too) which has many great forms. To make Arjuna understand how great, as well as listing some of those beings and things he is to be identified with, Krishna lists a few famous examples of superlatives: such as Rama among human Kings I think, and was it [[color="#0000FF"]CORRECTION[/color]: not Bhairava but] Shankara among the ~11 Rudras, Vishnu among the ~12 Adityas, etc. The list is not complete, nor are these the sole superlatives to be had in each category, but these are ones that Arjuna can understand. The other Rudras are all Shiva too, and all 12 Adityas are famous - but Vishnu is particularly well-known. From memory, the other Adityas include of course mitra, and varuNa, indra, twaShTaa, dAtA(?), pUShaa, etc - I can't really spell. Ever since the Vedas - this is going by what I heard in a famous sequence from the YV - I think Vishnu is listed as one among the Adityas. And this fact is naturally repeated by the Gita.
So what does ISKCON mean by "demigods"? Who are they speaking of? Who knows. If one is a "demigod/lesser god", so is the other. But then, that is not what the Hindu texts say. Various Hindu texts and stotras in turn reveal the various Gods (that these texts are primarily about) to be ParaBrahman.
ISKCON is very selective about what it chooses to reveal to those it proselytises. Is it merely ignorant of the other core Hindu texts, or is it being disingenuous? In any case, the effect of the Lie - accidental or intentional though it be - is the same: it produces ignorance. Of a dangerous kind.
And yet, the same founder of ISKCON (hence ISCKON itself), who we've seen propounding that people not worship the other Hindu Gods (for their being 'mere demigods') magically identifies Krishna with the false, non-existent (demonic character) of jeebusjehovallah. That makes the Lie even worse - it is blasphemy against the true and perfect Krishna. This utterly false identification of Krishna with jeebusjehovallah also shows the lack of comprehension/knowledge in ISKCON as to who Krishna is. Krishna is not non-existent. Krishna does not have a demonic character, but the opposite. And yet the founder is willing to relate Krishna back to jeebusjehovallah. Who but one who does not know Krishna could actually do such a thing? Why do people - who ought to know better - follow ISKCON?
Anyway, why does Vishnu go peddling Shiva and other Hindu Gods? Why does Shiva peddle Vishnu and other Gods? Why does Indra peddle Lakshmi? And Shiva and Vishnu together peddle Lakshmi etc. Why do all these Gods always peddle each other and usually not themselves? The answer is obvious and doesn't require articulation.
Krishna certainly does not exclusively advocate himself in the Gita. (Don't read ISKCON's version of the Gita, read a plain vanilla translation.) He merely says in Arjuna's (and creature-kind's) best interest to give one's heart to him, and that by attaching oneself to him, Arjuna/any creature is assured of refuge: one will not be denied. But he also explains that those devotedly attached to their Gods (everything except the jeebusjehovallah type variety) will reach him ('him') - i.e. paraBrahman (which Krishna is too). The Gita is not unique Hindu literature. It is not the sole authoritative Hindu scripture. There are others. And it echoes the knowledge in those others, just as the same lessons are similarly echoed in later Hindu literature. The Gita is quite accurate.
But the ISKCON version of it is something different.
To declare Krishna to be the ParamapuruSha, the Parabrahman/Perfection itself offends no Hindu - because he is (it is our religion).
But going out of one's way to belittle other Gods - when the people doing so obviously don't know anything about the Gods they would speak of (can't they remain silent on what they don't know? just shows their arrogance) - and to furthermore go about telling people not to worship them (and then presenting this as something Krishna is instructing) is entirely uncalled for. They are teaching other people to look down on all those Hindu Gods who ISKCON looks down on.
Quote:Are Nimbarka,Vallabhacharya,Madhva,Ramanuja,Sankardeva,Shiva Siddhanta,Swaminarayan ,which all have almost identical views whit ChaitanyaPandyan is not talking about Bhakti, I think. So the sequence you are trying to associate is wrong. (Not that I think anything disrespectful of Chaitanya.)
In any case, the others in your sequence don't all have identical views with ISKCON. So you're asking a trick question by formulating your question (the list in it) falsely.
Quote:Swaminarayan, founder of the Hindu Swaminarayan sectAnd why is this new movement to be considered a magic authority now? Why should I care about them?
(People at my father's work took him to a Swaminarayan religious event. "Interesting" views and practices they have concerning women by the way. IIRC from what I heard.)
Quote:Who is the only worthy to be worshiped?By all means, Indra. Can there be any doubt.
The Grand Spirit.
The Kami.
Nezha. Yes, Nezha. Hands down.
Oooh, oooh, I know the answer! "The only worthy to be worshipped" MUST BE Julian's father, the Titan Helios. Obviously. Since Julian is the uncontested attested Human Perfection, his father - the divine Sun God Helios - is Divine Perfection. And so too Julian's mother, Rhea. And his other mother Juno. And his other father Zeus. And Pan. And Dion. And Apollo, of course, as if there could be any question on the matter. Julian's taste in such important things is so unquestionably impeccable, that one can blindly accept his authority here. (Something one can't do with ISKCON etc.)
[color="#0000FF"]ADDED:[/color]
Quote:We see here that according to Shiva Purana ,Vishnu was lesser then Shiva.Only a servant whit less power.UnHindu minds can't get it (certainly not those christoconditioned), but Hindu literature and praise is *like* that, it's quite typical.
When a God (or set of Gods) is the primary one/set being considered in a text, all others are eclipsed.
You can even see examples of this in one composer, such as Shankara's stotras to each God or set of Gods. So you get ones where Lalita(+husband Shiva) is the All. Shiva(+wife) is the All. Vishnu is the All (say in ShaTpadi stotram or bhaja govindam), Murugan is the father of the Universe, Shaarada (Saraswati) is the All, etc.
And this is also how Hindus view their family's major Gods. When they look at one (set), the God(s) in question seems to take up so much room, that all others are reduced to side players. Then, when they turn to look at another (set of) God(s), every other God seems to fade from view. It is just the way things are.
To established Vaishnava communities, Vishnu+Lakshmi are the All - and they are quite right - and the other Gods fade in comparison. Which is sensible, because these are their primary kuladevas, and the ones they are attached to. One's own kuladevas - how ever many these may be - tend to frequently be one's ishtadevas. Just like one's own parents are the best, Hindus' ancestral Divine Parents are frequently the Sole Universe for them.
Puranas on Shiva speak of the superlative greatness of Shiva, like puranas on Vishnu speak of the superlative greatness of Vishnu. The statement of Kambar that Bharatavarsha posted is the view of Hindus who are able to take a step back and see that there's no competition going on:
Quote:(Kambar) author of Ramayana [...] sings, "(H)aran adhiga ulagalandha (H)ari adhigan ena uraikkum arivilarkku ââ¬â those who dispute in ignorance about who is greater, Hari or Haran."