A general question

[JRMcC]

Hi everybody!
I was reading about Hanuman, and apparently he is said to be an incarnation of Lord Shiva. Actually, I was quite sure I saw him described as an aspect of Lord Shiva in one place. It just got me to thinking: Why worship an incarnation of a God instead of the God who has been incarnated? If you worship Vishnu don't you also worship Rama and Krishna at the same time?

 

[StarryNightshade]

The incarnation of the God is sometimes more approachable than God in his original form. For example, many find Krishna to be easier to worship, because he is more personable and approachable than Vishnu in his 4 armed form. Yet, it's still Vishnu being worshiped. The same goes for any of his incarnations, or the incarnations/manifestations of any God or Goddess. No matter the form, it is still the same deity who is being worshipped.

At least, this has been my understanding and experience.

 

[Poeticus]

Hi everybody!
I was reading about Hanuman, and apparently he is said to be an incarnation of Lord Shiva. Actually, I was quite sure I saw him described as an aspect of Lord Shiva in one place. It just got me to thinking: Why worship an incarnation of a God instead of the God who has been incarnated? If you worship Vishnu don't you also worship Rama and Krishna at the same time?

Keep in mind, the story about Lord Hanuman being an incarnation of Lord Shiva is not a traditional Shaiva narration. If I recall correctly, it was initially espoused in Vaishnava narrations. Regarding why one can't just worship the god instead of a god that is in the form of an incarnation, it depends. It's really no biggie. It pretty much comes down to which form or representation one feels more comfortable with. Personally, I adore Lord Shri Rama, the most noble and glorious warrior. I also hold Lord Vishnu in high regard, but the Vishnu that many Vaishnava-s worship ... I'm just not familiar with that deity. The Lord Vishnu that I'm familiar with is the warrior of old, a total and complete bad***.

 

[Shantanu]

Hi everybody!
I was reading about Hanuman, and apparently he is said to be an incarnation of Lord Shiva. Actually, I was quite sure I saw him described as an aspect of Lord Shiva in one place. It just got me to thinking: Why worship an incarnation of a God instead of the God who has been incarnated? If you worship Vishnu don't you also worship Rama and Krishna at the same time?

First, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are the triad gods of the Trimurti with no powers of incarnating themselves or sending avataras. Only Sri Krishna the Supreme God has got powers to act through avataras. In this regard you should note that Mahabharatta was a divinely-inspired mythological story (as was its essential component the Bhagavad Gita) in which Krishna was depicted as an incarnation of Sri Krishna.

Second, Ramayana is also a mythological story that was divinely-inspired into the narrator Valmiki. In this story Hanuman is seen as a monkey who was supremely knowledgeable and a devotee of Ram who Hanuman regarded as god and so provided supreme service to him. Hanuman therefore was not an incarnation of anyone and least of all Shiva who is the tamasic god of the Hindu trimurti. The lesson of Hanuman is to draw attention to the similarity between humans and monkeys, which of course is true because humans evolved from monkeys.

 

[JRMcC]

Keep in mind, the story about Lord Hanuman being an incarnation of Lord Shiva is not a traditional Shaiva narration.

Ah yeah, I wasn't sure about the whole story as a whole, but I read that Shiva took the form of a monkey as a symbol of obedience to Rama I figured I was reading a Vaishnava view

 

[JRMcC]

First, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are the triad gods of the Trimurti with no powers of incarnating themselves or sending avataras. Only Sri Krishna the Supreme God has got powers to act through avataras. In this regard you should note that Mahabharatta was a divinely-inspired mythological story (as was its essential component the Bhagavad Gita) in which Krishna was depicted as an incarnation of Sri Krishna.

Second, Ramayana is also a mythological story that was divinely-inspired into the narrator Valmiki. In this story Hanuman is seen as a monkey who was supremely knowledgeable and a devotee of Ram who Hanuman regarded as god and so provided supreme service to him. Hanuman therefore was not an incarnation of anyone and least of all Shiva who is the tamasic god of the Hindu trimurti. The lesson of Hanuman is to draw attention to the similarity between humans and monkeys, which of course is true because humans evolved from monkeys.

I think I understand. Learn to Worship Hanuman - Sanskrit chants
Is the lesson of Hanuman you're talking about similar to the one described in this link?

 

[Vinayaka]

As Poeticus said, Siva doesn't incarnate. That idea is a transfer from another great tradition within Hinduism. But Hanuman is still a great deva all on His own. Like Murugan, or Ganesha, but belonging to another sect. I know of a few stories, (and people) who have had mystic visions of Hanumanji. Apparently He is larger than most other devas. That's why many murthies of him are also larger. There is a beautiful Hanuman murthi in a temple dedicated to Him in Vancouver, BC. Sri Yoga Hanuman Temple The murthi there is Hanuman sitting. He's heavy and solid.

One of His specific jobs is moving things.

 

[Shantanu]

I think I understand. Learn to Worship Hanuman - Sanskrit chants
Is the lesson of Hanuman you're talking about similar to the one described in this link?

The idea perhaps is to be kind to animals because they have feelings.

 

[Vinayaka]

Why worship an incarnation of a God instead of the God who has been incarnated?

Sorry, I didn't really address this essence of your question earlier, and got offtracked into Hanumanji. I cannot answer on behalf of Vaishnavites, who do (at least it appears that way) to worship incarnations of Vishnu. But in Saivism, as you know there are no incarnations of Siva, so we always just worship Siva. Different forms like Nataraja, Lingam, Dakshinamurthy, yes, but not incarnations, because there aren't any.

 

[Chakra]

Hi everybody!
I was reading about Hanuman, and apparently he is said to be an incarnation of Lord Shiva. Actually, I was quite sure I saw him described as an aspect of Lord Shiva in one place. It just got me to thinking: Why worship an incarnation of a God instead of the God who has been incarnated? If you worship Vishnu don't you also worship Rama and Krishna at the same time?

1) AFAIK, Shri Vaishnavites do not consider Shri Hanumath to be an incarnation of Lord Shiva.
2) There are many explanations. For one, everyone has a different taste when it comes to their favorite form of the Lord. If it's just one form, people lose interest. Some people are more attracted to Lord Vishnu, while others are more attracted to Lord Krishna. Thirumangai Azhwar was more attracted to archa forms like Ranganatha and Venkateshwara than the incarnations themselves! And yes, by worshiping one form, you are worshiping them all. And on the other hand, if you consider Sri Krishna to be Parabrahman and adore him, while you call Sri Vishnu as a demigod and an inferior incarnation, then neither will be happy.

Regards

 

[Aupmanyav]

Statues and idols of Lord Hanuman are everywhere in India and they are getting bigger and bigger by the day.
hanuman idols in india - Google Search

India’s tallest Hanuman statue (176 feet) is being constructed near Madapam in the Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam District.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Hi everybody!
I was reading about Hanuman, and apparently he is said to be an incarnation of Lord Shiva. Actually, I was quite sure I saw him described as an aspect of Lord Shiva in one place. It just got me to thinking: Why worship an incarnation of a God instead of the God who has been incarnated? If you worship Vishnu don't you also worship Rama and Krishna at the same time?

According to Madhva's Dvaita system of Vedanta, Hanuman is an incarnation of Vayu, as was Madhva.

In my opinion, the incarnation concept has two uses - to give divinity to certain humans and to unify different belief systems. When disciples believe their Guru is Narayana or Krishna who has descended to the Earth in human form, it elevates the Guru's credibility and power. The other case is where one would say the Budda is an avatar of Vishnu or Jesus is an avatar of Krishna to give a Hindu perspective to these belief systems, making it easier for adherents of these beliefs to migrate to Hinduism. It is entirely possible that Krishna and Rama followers were thus absorbed into Vaishnavism by making them avatars of Vishnu.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is entirely possible that Krishna and Rama followers were thus absorbed into Vaishnavism by making them avatars of Vishnu.

IMHO, all avataras of Vishnu were regional Gods, though all the worshipers were already Hindus (in the broad sense of Hinduism). Even now, there are Gods and Goddesses are worshiped in various parts of India, Mariamman, Yelamma, Hinglaj, Karni, Bahuchara, etc. Their worshipers are all Hindus. Making them avataras of the Aryan God Vishnu (who also were in the process of assimilation) or forms of Durga, the Mother Goddess (Aryan Goddess Sarasvati also was accepted as a form of Durga, Maha Sarasvati), only brought a consolidation and perhaps removed what little conflicts that might have been there.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

IMHO, all avataras of Vishnu were regional Gods, though all the worshipers were already Hindus (in the broad sense of Hinduism). Even now, there are Gods and Goddesses are worshiped in various parts of India, Mariamman, Yelamma, Hinglaj, Karni, Bahuchara, etc. Their worshipers are all Hindus. Making them avataras of the Aryan God Vishnu (who also were in the process of assimilation) or forms of Durga, the Mother Goddess (Aryan Goddess Sarasvati also was accepted as a form of Durga, Maha Sarasvati), only brought a consolidation and perhaps removed what little conflicts that might have been there.

My thoughts, exactly.

For example, the Buddha was not "avatarized" until the 5th Century AD - several centuries after his time. Kalki is believed by some to have been Pushyamitra Sunga, who restored some of the power that Brahmins lost during the time of the Mauryas.

It continues to this day. Many contemporary Gurus today are seen as avatars by their followers.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Seems immaterial. I'm sure he's been an incarnation of every God in every story.

 

[Shantanu]

Seems immaterial. I'm sure he's been an incarnation of every God in every story.

I do not know what Buddha did discover to be known as an avatar of any God. Perhaps someone can explain.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I do not know what Buddha did discover to be known as an avatar of any God. Perhaps someone can explain.

It is not about what he discovered. The reason is the rise of Buddhism to prominence during the Maurya and Gupta period. Buddhism held very high sway during those days. "Avatarizing" the Buddha was a tactical move to discredit Buddhism (as an avatar who came down to delude Asuras) and make it easier for Buddhists to convert over and also to discourage Hindus who were inclined to cross over to Buddhism. It is doubtful, if this tact ever worked. Though, there are several reasons for the disappearance of Buddhism in India, this is not a commonly accepted one.

 

[Chakra]

My thoughts, exactly.

For example, the Buddha was not "avatarized" until the 5th Century AD - several centuries after his time. Kalki is believed by some to have been Pushyamitra Sunga, who restored some of the power that Brahmins lost during the time of the Mauryas.

It continues to this day. Many contemporary Gurus today are seen as avatars by their followers.

Kalki has not come yet.