Confusion over the gods

[LostKiera]

Hi all. I'm fairly new to Hinduism, but more and more I'm feeling I could have found the religion for me. However there ae some things I find plain confusing and would appreciate some guidance about. To start off I want to apologise if I misrepresent any group's views - like I say I'm a bit confused! So stop me if I say aything completely off-base.

My main point of confusion concerns gods or perhaps more precisely God. My initial understanding of the Hindu view of God was one probably a lot of non-Hindus have as it seems to be the most commonly offered academic explanation. That is, basicaly God is Brahman and Brahman is everything and impersonal. However aspects of Brahman are the three "great" gods, Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Maintainer and Shiva the Destroyer. There are also various lesser gods.

However, after doing a bit of research, it turns out very few Hindus actually subscribe to this "official" stance. Most could be categorised as Vaishnavites (worshippers of Vishnu), Shaivites (worshippers of Shiva), Shaktivites (worshippers of Shakti) or Smartivites (non-sectarian universalists regarding five major gods). Putting Smartism to the side for the time being, the other three sects each equate their own God solely with Brahman. Other gods are either lesser gods, different aspects of that main god or plain non-existent.

So this is where my confusion starts. If Vaishnavites say Brahman is Vishnu, Shaivites say Brahman is Shiva and Shaktivites say Brahman is Shakti, is it a case that the only real difference between the theology of the three sects (ignoring their practices for the time being) is they just give different names to Brahman? Or are there integral differences between say Vishnu interpreted as Brahman and Shiva interpreted as Brahman? Do Vaishnavites who believe in Shiva think of Shiva the same way that Shaivites do, only they don't interpret him as Brahman? Or does the Vaishnavist view of Shiva bear no real relation to the Shaivite version bar the name? Similarly do Shaivites and Shaktivites tend to believe in the 10 incarnations of Vishnu? Or do they see them as incanations of Shiva/Shakti or not divine at all (or perhaps even dispute their existence completely)?

Some things I have read seem to suggest the only real difference between the sects is practice. Vaishnavism tends to focus on devotion and community life, Shaivism on the self and austerity and Shaktism on magic and power. Is there much to this?

Sorry I know this is a massive post, but would love to hear some views on the subject.

 

[SomeRandom]

Well you're probably going to get a whole heap of different answers. Because everyone has their own sect (or none) and their own beliefs, their own interpretation and their own spiritual relationship with God/Brahman.

I come from a rather Universalist background. I was always taught that they are all the same God, merely different aspects. And the supremacy one holds is merely how God speaks to that person. So I was taught that it's merely semantics and that no one can truly know God, just interpret God our own way. But I can only speak of my family tradition, I cannot speak for "all Hindus" nor will I.

I lean towards Shaktism. That is I view Kali Mata as the supreme. But I do not place Mata Parvati, or Durga Ma or any Mata incarnation as above or below each other. I view them as different facets of the same entity. I do not even put Lord Shiva above or below Kali Ma, for they are two sides of one whole. But I tend to float around, see what's out there. So my position isn't really fixed.

I do not know specifically the differences between the sects. Where I live they all seem to live alongside each other, borrowing and exchanging thoughts and ideas (with hearty debate of course.). Except the ISCON who are very respected and admired for their devotion, albeit with a slightly......erm sideways glance shall we say. Not that I'm saying there's anything negative about ISCON of course. Just an observation.

I suppose their approach to Dharma, the scriptures that each venerates and the specific teachings each emulate are really the differences.

 

[LostKiera]

Thank for the response. If it's not too personal a question, why do you view Kali Mata as the supreme?

 

[Valjean]

Welcome to RF, Kiera.

If you aren't confused you're not paying attention. You'll find everything from atheists to polytheists among Hindus. Trouble is, it's not really a single religion. It's a crazy-quilt of hundreds of different beliefs and traditions, with no official doctrine, creed or clergy. It does have the Vedas, but you'd have a hard time finding anything resembling Vedic culture today.

My advice, don't accept something just because an appealing sect embraces it. Believe what you believe. If you find yourself 'a religion of one,' so be it -- you'll get to name your own sect.

Going with the preponderance of evidence is usually a good approach.

 

[Prana Pastime]

Hi all. I'm fairly new to Hinduism, but more and more I'm feeling I could have found the religion for me. However there ae some things I find plain confusing and would appreciate some guidance about. To start off I want to apologise if I misrepresent any group's views - like I say I'm a bit confused! So stop me if I say aything completely off-base.

My main point of confusion concerns gods or perhaps more precisely God. My initial understanding of the Hindu view of God was one probably a lot of non-Hindus have as it seems to be the most commonly offered academic explanation. That is, basicaly God is Brahman and Brahman is everything and impersonal. However aspects of Brahman are the three "great" gods, Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Maintainer and Shiva the Destroyer. There are also various lesser gods.

However, after doing a bit of research, it turns out very few Hindus actually subscribe to this "official" stance. Most could be categorised as Vaishnavites (worshippers of Vishnu), Shaivites (worshippers of Shiva), Shaktivites (worshippers of Shakti) or Smartivites (non-sectarian universalists regarding five major gods). Putting Smartism to the side for the time being, the other three sects each equate their own God solely with Brahman. Other gods are either lesser gods, different aspects of that main god or plain non-existent.

So this is where my confusion starts. If Vaishnavites say Brahman is Vishnu, Shaivites say Brahman is Shiva and Shaktivites say Brahman is Shakti, is it a case that the only real difference between the theology of the three sects (ignoring their practices for the time being) is they just give different names to Brahman? Or are there integral differences between say Vishnu interpreted as Brahman and Shiva interpreted as Brahman? Do Vaishnavites who believe in Shiva think of Shiva the same way that Shaivites do, only they don't interpret him as Brahman? Or does the Vaishnavist view of Shiva bear no real relation to the Shaivite version bar the name? Similarly do Shaivites and Shaktivites tend to believe in the 10 incarnations of Vishnu? Or do they see them as incanations of Shiva/Shakti or not divine at all (or perhaps even dispute their existence completely)?

Some things I have read seem to suggest the only real difference between the sects is practice. Vaishnavism tends to focus on devotion and community life, Shaivism on the self and austerity and Shaktism on magic and power. Is there much to this?

Sorry I know this is a massive post, but would love to hear some views on the subject.

Hi, welcome. I am a new Vaishnava. I go to an ISKCON temple in America. ISKCON in America founded by Srila Prabhupad(a) doesn't like/favor the impersonalist conception of god or the supreme. They feel the supreme has a personality and very much incarnates as a person. The Divine personality is Visnu or Krsna. However ISKCON( in my experience) is very accepting of those who like to view god as impersonal because they accept the concepts of the Transcendent. The Transcendent truth is that the supreme being is both personal and impersonal. Sri Krsna Chaitanya had the doctrine of Simultaneous Oneness and Difference. I like Vedanta and Hinduism for the very fact that they are open to the interpretations described here in this response. I want to answer some more of your inquiries but I'm burnt out at this moment from responding to another thread. I'll check back later. Best wishes.

 

[LostKiera]

It's a crazy-quilt of hundreds of different beliefs and traditions, with no official doctrine, creed or clergy

Yeah that's the impression I'm getting. I definitely find this appealing but given my Roman Catholic upbringing it's very differeent to what I'm used to!

I like Vedanta and Hinduism for the very fact that they are open to the interpretations described here in this response.

Yes, it does seem so rich and varied to me. Regarding ISKCON, is Krishna the only one of the avatars of Vishnu that ISKCON accepts or do they accept some/all of the others but regard them as lesser than Krishna? Does ISKCON have any beliefs regarding Shiva etc? Again, excuse my ignorance here.

 

[SomeRandom]

Thank for the response. If it's not too personal a question, why do you view Kali Mata as the supreme?

It's probably a combination of things.
See in my household no religion was off limits, no religious barriers were erected. So I was free to play in various traditions as a pleased. Living in Australia I mainly interacted with Christianity and half my family (for better or worse) were........well blackmailed into Catholicism, so I was sort of taught a blend of Hindu traditions and Catholic understandings. Which made understanding morality a tad confusing for me as a child.

Now Kali Mataji, I always had a soft spot for. Always drawn to her. Even as a little kid. She was this awe inspiring unbridled ****** with a strong maternal side. Being taught the versions of the OT and NT God, to me Kali Ma was like both rolled into one. So as a kid I interpreted this to mean that Kali was the true supreme incarnation.

Now what I was always taught is this. God appears to people in an incarnation (or even without one) which is a version that is very personal. This allows various people of different backgrounds, upbringings and personalities to become closer to God in their own way. Now I had my share of heartache. Family illness and so forth. So I guess the ideal version of God in my circumstances, to me, was essentially a protecting force but also gentle and kind. Mata Kali is exactly that. She fiercely protects her charges, but is ultimately caring and will nurture her devotees like a calm patient loving mother.

Hinduism is a very personal path. We may talk to each other, guide each other. But ultimately it's one that sort of leaves you to your own devices. You essentially have to make up your own mind on practically everything. As for God. We are drawn to what we are drawn to. Some to Lord Krishna, some to Lord Shiva, some to Lord Vishnu etc. I think it's generally viewed as just something that occurs. *shrugs*

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is, basicaly God is Brahman and Brahman is everything and impersonal. However aspects of Brahman are the three "great" gods, Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Maintainer and Shiva the Destroyer. There are also various lesser gods.

However, after doing a bit of research, it turns out very few Hindus actually subscribe to this "official" stance.

Is it a case that the only real difference between the theology of the three sects (ignoring their practices for the time being) is they just give different names to Brahman?

Or does the Vaishnavist view of Shiva bear no real relation to the Shaivite version bar the name? Similarly do Shaivites and Shaktivites tend to believe in the 10 incarnations of Vishnu? Or do they see them as incanations of Shiva/Shakti or not divine at all (or perhaps even dispute their existence completely)?

Vaishnavism tends to focus on devotion and community life, Shaivism on the self and austerity and Shaktism on magic and power. Is there much to this?

Don't worry about offending us. You are new to Hinduism. We appreciate and understand that. My humble reply to your questions (I have chosen a few lines from your post to reply):

Spellings: Shakta (for whom the Mother Goddess is Supreme), Smarta (who worship five Gods and Mother goddess). Use ‘Vaishnavas’ for ‘Vaishnavites’, ‘Shaivas’ for ‘Shaivites’, ‘Shaktas’ for ‘Shaktivites’ and ‘Smartas’ for ‘Smartivites’. Much simpler.

There is no common official stance in Hinduism except 'dharma' which means fulfilling one's duties and engaging in righteous action.

Yes, there may be no relation between what Vaishnavas believe of Shiva with what Shiavas believe of him. Same for other sects too. Yes, all agree to and do not dispute the Vaishnava view of ten avataras of Lord Vishnu (and not of any other God).

Generally that is true. Although there is not much to this. Even Shaivas, Shaktas and Smartas are devotees and live peacefully with all other people.

It does have the Vedas, but you'd have a hard time finding anything resembling Vedic culture today.

'Yajnas' are still conducted today, and in 'yajnas', 'homas', prayers and other rituals, we do invoke the Vedic Gods.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is Krishna the only one of the avatars of Vishnu that ISKCON accepts or do they accept some/all of the others but regard them as lesser than Krishna? Does ISKCON have any beliefs regarding Shiva etc? Again, excuse my ignorance here.

For ISKCON, Krishna is the Supreme entity but they accept all other avataras. Even their chants say "Hare Krishna, Hare Rama".

"Lord Shiva has a very unique and significant position in the cosmic manifestation. In fact Lord Shiva is the most powerful, second only to Lord Vishnu. Shiva is an expansion of Lord Krishna. Lord Brahma posses 78% of these qualities and Lord Shiva possesses 84% of these qualities. ( Very analytical. They seem to have rounded off the percentage)"
http://www.iskcondesiretree.com/profiles/blogs/unique-position-of-lord-shiva

@ SomeRandom, I highly appreciate your last post.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

In general, not all hindus are vaidika (those who follow one or more understanding of the vedas) but all vaidikas are hindus. Popular hinduism is geo-socio-cultural framework which can (and used to) include religions as diverse as jainism, sikhism, and even atheism.
Now, brahman is a vaidika concept that denotes/connotes that ultimate principle responsible for everything and was popularized by the vedānta schools. In most of the hindu theistic schools, philosophy, theology, psychology, and ethics are tightly coupled and each school has its own internally consistent system encompassing all of these. So from a purely philosophical perspective there are six schools - nyāya, vaiśeṣika, yoga, sānkhya, pūrva-mīmāṅsā, & uttara-mīmāṅsā (vedānta) in which there are varying levels of theism and even agnosticism and atheism. Of these yoga and vedanta are extremely well established and to some extent have absorbed/adapted different concepts from the other schools. The pūrva-mīmāńsā school emphsized ritualistic performance of sacrifices and was popular before vedanta school gained pre-eminent position following the brahmasūtra of Veda Vyāsa. It was in the brahmasūtras that brahman was emphasized as the overarching and supreme object of the upaniṣads as well as that which is responsible for creation-sustenance-dissolution etc, of which there are three predominant schools - Advaita (Smārta, popularized by Śri Śaṅkara), Viśiṣṭādvaita (Vaiṣṇava, popularized by Śri Rāmānuja), and Tattvavāda (Vaiṣṇava, popularized by Śri Madhva) (also otherwise known as dvaita).
From a theological persective, there are five schools as ancient as the vaidika tradition - vaiṣṇava, śaiva, śākta, saura, & gāṇapatya and later also skānda. Of these Vaiṣṇava theology is based fully on the vedas, and the remaining schools are based on independent scriptures called āgamas which at times are in conflict with the import of the vedas, which is why all vedanta schools are vaiṣṇava, even Śri Śaṅkara arguably is of vaiṣṇava persuasion, though he proposes an impersonal absolute as the ultimate, circumventing the problem in an attempt to unify all the different theological schools, even as he rejects pāśupata and śākta theology. If such an absolutely impersonal brahman is tenable and whether it agrees with the import of vedanta is debatable.

If Vaishnavites say Brahman is Vishnu, Shaivites say Brahman is Shiva and Shaktivites say Brahman is Shakti, is it a case that the only real difference between the theology of the three sects (ignoring their practices for the time being) is they just give different names to Brahman?

The idea of brahman is predominantly aupaniṣadic - based on the upaniṣads. It only within among the śaiva/śākta vedāntins who joined the advaita school that brahman is used to connote the supreme equivocating it with Śiva/Śakti. Each school has its own metaphysics and therefore unique ontology, epistemology, and theology within the framework of vedānta. The Śaiva/Śākta āgamas need not (and do not) agree with the vaidika scheme of things. But within the vedanta schools Śiva/Śakti=Brahman is same as Vişṇu=Brahman but only within the advaita school. The two other vaiṣṇava-vedānta schools have their individual theology and do not agree with each other either. Also, this does not imply that Śiva and Śakti are not vaidika deities, only their conceptualization in the respective āgamas is rejected.

Do Vaishnavites who believe in Shiva think of Shiva the same way that Shaivites do, only they don't interpret him as Brahman? Or does the Vaishnavist view of Shiva bear no real relation to the Shaivite version bar the name?

No, Śiva in Vaiṣṇava schools is a jīva (~soul, for lack of better word) but is nevertheless a deity very high up in the order of divine beings.

Similarly do Shaivites and Shaktivites tend to believe in the 10 incarnations of Vishnu? Or do they see them as incanations of Shiva/Shakti or not divine at all (or perhaps even dispute their existence completely)?

Most do, but tend to conceptualize them as emanations form Viṣṇu empowered by Śiva/Śakti as the case may be.

Vaishnavism tends to focus on devotion and community life, Shaivism on the self and austerity and Shaktism on magic and power. Is there much to this?

This is not entirely true. Although devotion gains great significance, it is not blind devotion that is encouraged. Bhakti (~devotion) based on tattvajñāna (wisdom) alone is eulogized in all Vaiṣṇava schools. It is also true that most insightful wisdom arose of deep and mystic states of bhakti. Similarly both Śaivism and Śākta practices are not devoid of bhakti or wisdom. To emphasize one aspect is oversimplification, and if at all there is a need for this, then that realizing innate wisdom is the quintessence of all these schools may be a better one.

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि ।

 

[kalyan]

Vaishnava believe Srimannarayana or Sri Krushna is only supreme and he is the creator, sustainer and annhilator too and is cause of giving liberation to jivas/souls. All other mini gods and Siva go to Maha Vishnu for help but Vishnu never approaches anyone as he is the cause of entire universe...Brahma and Rudra/Siva also have a certain period of life time after that another Brahma comea, you see these are just positions appointed by Maha Vishnu based on their Karma....Vedas is the standard and supreme authority. Vedas say the nArayaNa is supreme. If you want to chose a path I would suggest surrendering to Sri Krushna or Maha Vishnu but thats just me, anyway the point is to get released from cycles of life and death well that is the goal of a serious seeker and Maha Vishnu is only capable of giving that.

 

[LostKiera]

Wow, thanks for all the respones everyone.

So I guess the ideal version of God in my circumstances, to me, was essentially a protecting force but also gentle and kind. Mata Kali is exactly that. She fiercely protects her charges, but is ultimately caring and will nurture her devotees like a calm patient loving mother.

Fascinating. I think like a lot of westerners, my view of Kali has been way too coloured by watching Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom as a kid. I'll have to look into her maternal side more.

Hinduism is a very personal path. We may talk to each other, guide each other. But ultimately it's one that sort of leaves you to your own devices. You essentially have to make up your own mind on practically everything. As for God. We are drawn to what we are drawn to. Some to Lord Krishna, some to Lord Shiva, some to Lord Vishnu etc.

Yeah, I'm beginning to realise that you can pick and choose to a certain exent and there doesn't have to be one person or school you agree with about everything. I feel I'm leaning most towards Shiva at present but I guess that could change as I find my path. Shiva appeals to me because of his focus on meditation and because I'm transgender I feel a kind of kinship to his Ardhanārīśvara form.

Spellings: Shakta (for whom the Mother Goddess is Supreme), Smarta (who worship five Gods and Mother goddess). Use ‘Vaishnavas’ for ‘Vaishnavites’, ‘Shaivas’ for ‘Shaivites’, ‘Shaktas’ for ‘Shaktivites’ and ‘Smartas’ for ‘Smartivites’. Much simpler.

Thanks - had a feeling I was getting things wrong!

There is no common official stance in Hinduism except 'dharma' which means fulfilling one's duties and engaging in righteous action.

Would I be right in saying though that a Vaishnava would see dharma differently from how say a Shakta might? For instance from what I've read Vaishnavas are vry against meat-eating while Shaktas are more open-minded about it.

"Lord Shiva has a very unique and significant position in the cosmic manifestation. In fact Lord Shiva is the most powerful, second only to Lord Vishnu. Shiva is an expansion of Lord Krishna. Lord Brahma posses 78% of these qualities and Lord Shiva possesses 84% of these qualities. ( Very analytical. They seem to have rounded off the percentage)"

Wow very precise indeed!

For ISKCON, Krishna is the Supreme entity but they accept all other avataras.

Ah ok. Would non-ISCKCON Vaishnavas see the ten avatars as roughly equal to one another?

Thanks for all that तत्त्वप्रह्व, very well explained!

If you want to chose a path I would suggest surrendering to Sri Krushna or Maha Vishnu but thats just me, anyway the point is to get released from cycles of life and death well that is the goal of a serious seeker and Maha Vishnu is only capable of giving that.

Not sure I'm quite at that stage yet!

 

[SomeRandom]

Fascinating. I think like a lot of westerners, my view of Kali has been way too coloured by watching Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom as a kid. I'll have to look into her maternal side more.

I love Indiana Jones. Grew up watching the trilogy. But they're dumb fun 80s action movies. I don't think many of my friends took it all too seriously even as kids. Probably because they're pretty silly movies once you really look at them. Though I find westerners mostly look at Kali like some sort of rock 'n' roll sex goddess. Which is ironic given her status as a virgin.

Yeah, I'm beginning to realise that you can pick and choose to a certain exent and there doesn't have to be one person or school you agree with about everything. I feel I'm leaning most towards Shiva at present but I guess that could change as I find my path. Shiva appeals to me because of his focus on meditation and because I'm transgender I feel a kind of kinship to his Ardhanārīśvara form.

That's a good guiding light. Just traverse your path, you'll find your way. Lord Shiva has a very free sort of persona. He does not need or want for materialism. He lives very simply and happily. As is my understanding he can appear to be very stern, but is actually very soft/kindhearted. So I certainly see the appeal.

There is a story I recall from my childhood. I'm sure Uncle Aup-ji could be more precise than I.
Anyway there was a very great but somewhat arrogant devotee of Lord Shiva who built a large golden palace in his honor. Lord Shiva was pleased with this devotion, but did not feel comfortable to live in such a place. But in order to please his consort (wife) Mata Parvati agreed to live there with her. The devotee was happy with this, but showed disrespect by talking down to and otherwise belittling Nandi. When Lord Shiva and Mata Parvati arrived the devotee greeted them graciously and offered them the best hospitality he could. When asked (as is customary) what present Lord Shiva could bestow upon him for the hospitality the devotee at first refused. Then told Lord Shiva that he wanted the palace (for he arrogantly thought that Lord Shiva and Mata Parvati would automatically live there.) Offended by this act, for this is a grave social faux pas, and demonstrates great pride and arrogance, Lord Shiva gave the palace to the devotee and immediately left to live upon his beloved mountain without hesitation.
I always liked that story. Though I find that it is sometimes difficult for me to approach Lord Shiva. Because I feel like I am too arrogant and too full of pride at times. Ahh the arrogance of youth, eh?
I wish you luck in your journey.

(Sorry, got the attention span of a goldfish I swear. I tend to meander around rather aloof like this.)

 

[LostKiera]

No need to apologise - nice story and not one I'd heard before

 

[SomeRandom]

No need to apologise - nice story and not one I'd heard before

 

[StarryNightshade]

Like others have said, what answer to get is going to greatly depend on what individual and sect they belong to.

Some believe Vishnu is supreme; others Shiva; others Shakti; while some claim multiple Gods are supreme, or even none.

As a Vadakalai Sri Vaishanava, Lakshmi-Narayana is supreme, along with Vishnu's avatars. There is also a plethora of Devas, celestial beings, saints, and poets which make up the rich tradition I'm a part of.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Would I be right in saying though that a Vaishnava would see dharma differently from how say a Shakta might? For instance from what I've read Vaishnavas are vry against meat-eating while Shaktas are more open-minded about it.

You are right. 'Dharma' would be different for each person, for a brahmin, for a person of a warrior clan, for a trader, for a manual worker (however these classifications do not hold today with the same force in India), for a man, for a woman, for an elderly person, for a king, for a judge, for a person who belongs to a particular sect of Hinduism. But being kind to others, trying to be truthful, giving in charity, etc. are not going to differ.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is a story I recall from my childhood. I'm sure Uncle Aup-ji could be more precise than I.
Anyway there was a very great .. beloved mountain without hesitation.

I may have heard the story but do not remember it, can hardly add anything to it. Yes, Shiva has no need for anything, except the nearness of Mother Parvati. And SomeRandom, Aup is OK, Uncle Aup too is OK, but not Uncle Aup ji. Let us be modern.