Laxshmi and Vishnu

[Onkara]

Why is Sri Laxshmi treated as less than Vishnu? Specifically in the Purunas, I can provide quotes if useful.
Also Vishnu says He is indifferent in his feelings towards Her, which I understand philosophically from Krishna in the B.Gita, but where does She actually stand?

 

[Andal]

Why is Sri Laxshmi treated as less than Vishnu? Specifically in the Purunas, I can provide quotes if useful.
Also Vishnu says He is indifferent in his feelings towards Her, which I understand philosophically from Krishna in the B.Gita, but where does She actually stand?

As far as my limited understanding goes- Sri Lakshmi is not different from Sri Vishnu. Just as Sri Radha is not different from Sri Krishna. They are the emanations of very specific energies of the Lord. So if Lakshmi is the Lord how can she be less?

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[Onkara]

As far as my limited understanding goes- Sri Lakshmi is not different from Sri Vishnu. Just as Sri Radha is not different from Sri Krishna. They are the emanations of very specific energies of the Lord. So if Lakshmi is the Lord how can she be less?

Aum Hari Aum!

Namasté Krishnakanta
Yes, how can she be less? Your logic is my logic, so to speak haha, everything comes from the same source and we are told that they are all Brahman (or that all Krishna/Vishnu) I am of the mind that they are the same, yet when reading the Srimad Bhagavata I don't get this impression. I will try to find some quotes to illustrate my point and hopefully someone can explain further...

 

[Andal]

Namasté Krishnakanta
Yes, how can she be less? Your logic is my logic, so to speak haha, everything comes from the same source and we are told that they are all Brahman (or that all Krishna/Vishnu) I am of the mind that they are the same, yet when reading the Srimad Bhagavata I don't get this impression. I will try to find some quotes to illustrate my point and hopefully someone can explain further...

I look at it this way, Radha is the symbol of perfect bhakti and she is the embodiment of the type of devotion we should have. Radha with Krishna is the divine representation of what our relationship should/will be with Krishna. Thinking about it this way, I don't think Krishna see's Radha as lower than him but Radha sees her self lower as a perfect devotee should. Of course though this is just my thought and I speak with no authority on the matter.

Aum Hari Aum

 

[Onkara]

I look at it this way, Radha is the symbol of perfect bhakti and she is the embodiment of the type of devotion we should have. Radha with Krishna is the divine representation of what our relationship should/will be with Krishna. Thinking about it this way, I don't think Krishna see's Radha as lower than him but Radha sees her self lower as a perfect devotee should. Of course though this is just my thought and I speak with no authority on the matter.

Aum Hari Aum

I agree, that is a positive and stable out look. I enjoy seeing Radha and Krishna in the divine relationship of male and female. I would like to know more about their love and the story (I am still on the first book of the Srimad Bhagavata) so I hope to come across that in more detail.


A text which I think prompted my question is a word document linked from this site: Oriya Nari - A site of, by & for Oriya women (which is pro-female it seems).
Doc in web format:
Lakshmi Purana

As this document is translated I think perhaps it could be the choice or English words that cause me concern. I cannot vouch for this texts authenticity either, but have no reason to doubt it. Some of it might be my 20th Century morals conflicting with a more ancient way of life. I see male and female as equal.

I quote a few parts in blue (slightly out of context to the story of course), my comments below:

One day Lakshmi told Jagannath (Vishnu) with folded hands, “Lord, it is my vrat day today and if you permit, I would go round the city.”
Why is the supplication necessary if they are both equal, perhaps it is traditional courtesy?

Lakshmi said, “Throw me out after giving me a divorce.” Jagannath said, “In our caste, there is no system of divorce.” Lakshmi said, “You got me out of the churning of the ocean and you had promised my father Varuna that you would excuse ten transgressions of mine. I have only committed one and that you do not tolerate.” Jagannath said angrily, “Your father is just so much salt and he is roaring all the time. We had to build a wall around the temple to escape the noise.”

Well, I think this shouldn't be taken too literally as for me it isn't a useful to think of Jagannath (Vishnu) being angry with Lakshmi and punishing her or as having a caste. So I won't put to much empahsis on this being a problem. What I would like to read is how great the Goddesses are in their own right.

 

[Andal]

I agree, that is a positive and stable out look. I enjoy seeing Radha and Krishna in the divine relationship of male and female. I would like to know more about their love and the story (I am still on the first book of the Srimad Bhagavata) so I hope to come across that in more detail.


A text which I think prompted my question is a word document linked from this site: Oriya Nari - A site of, by & for Oriya women (which is pro-female it seems).
Doc in web format:
Lakshmi Purana

As this document is translated I think perhaps it could be the choice or English words that cause me concern. I cannot vouch for this texts authenticity either, but have no reason to doubt it. Some of it might be my 20th Century morals conflicting with a more ancient way of life. I see male and female as equal.

I quote a few parts in blue (slightly out of context to the story of course), my comments below:

One day Lakshmi told Jagannath (Vishnu) with folded hands, “Lord, it is my vrat day today and if you permit, I would go round the city.”
Why is the supplication necessary if they are both equal, perhaps it is traditional courtesy?

Lakshmi said, “Throw me out after giving me a divorce.” Jagannath said, “In our caste, there is no system of divorce.” Lakshmi said, “You got me out of the churning of the ocean and you had promised my father Varuna that you would excuse ten transgressions of mine. I have only committed one and that you do not tolerate.” Jagannath said angrily, “Your father is just so much salt and he is roaring all the time. We had to build a wall around the temple to escape the noise.”

Well, I think this shouldn't be taken too literally as for me it isn't a useful to think of Jagannath (Vishnu) being angry with Lakshmi and punishing her or as having a caste. So I won't put to much empahsis on this being a problem. What I would like to read is how great the Goddesses are in their own right.

Thanks for the interesting post! I'm not super familiar with the Lakshmi Purana. If someone else is, hopefully they can explain. However, some things stick out in my mind immediately. The first is a concern over language. Was it translated directly from Sanskrit to English or was it translated here from Sanskrit to Oriya then to English? Also sometimes translations aren't great.

If this is a common enough text however, the translation issue shouldn't be a problem. The other way to look at this, is through the lens of lila. If Vishnu and Lakshmi are not Vaikuntha, which it doesn't sound like it from this text, then they are working within the frame work of lila so different rules apply.

I think reading the Srimad Bhagavatam will be helpful for you. It may raise even more questions but it gives insight both into the relationship between God and Goddess as well as the importance of divine lila.



Aum Hari Aum!

 

[DreadFish]

Im only relatively educated on the subject and I dont have any scriptural knowledge but, its my understanding that Laxshmi is representative of love and devotion, and as Sri Vaishnava look to go to Vishnu through Laxshmi, it is representative of how, through love and devotion (Laxshmi) you get to the Absolute (Vishnu).

Just my understanding

 

[Andal]

Im only relatively educated on the subject and I dont have any scriptural knowledge but, its my understanding that Laxshmi is representative of love and devotion, and as Sri Vaishnava look to go to Vishnu through Laxshmi, it is representative of how, through love and devotion (Laxshmi) you get to the Absolute (Vishnu).

Just my understanding

Excellent post! I had this in my head but couldn't convey it so elegantly

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[ZoyaHayat]

Why is Sri Laxshmi treated as less than Vishnu? Specifically in the Purunas, I can provide quotes if useful.
Also Vishnu says He is indifferent in his feelings towards Her, which I understand philosophically from Krishna in the B.Gita, but where does She actually stand?

Is she Onkarah? :S...i am sure she is'nt...

Please do provide the quotes because i have always known that they both are the True One in reality...

xxx

 

[Onkara]

HI Zoya and all
The quote is above in blue and the link to full text in post 5
It was composed by Balaram Das, here is what I have found on Balaram Das:

"Balaram Das was a reputed saint and poet of Orissa, in the 16th century. He was one of the ‘Panchasakhas’, five companions of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Balaram Das is renowned for his own version of the Ramayana, called ‘Dandi Ramayana’ written in Oriya which is more popular by the name ‘Jagamohan Ramayana.’ He also wrote many books on religion and Yoga. Noted among them are Guptagita, Amarkosh Gita, Vendantasara Guptagita, Bata Abakasa, Bramhanda, Bhugola, Saptanga Yogasara Tika, Bhabasamudra and Lakshmi Purana." LINK

So, yes, Krishnakanta, it appears to be a 15th century work, translated from Orisya. As to how much one should invest in this as a reflection of Vishnu and Laxshmi's relationship I am note sure. I am not convinced is should be considered a core work for all devotees and people interested in Shri.

Really I would like to focus on the positive aspects.

 

[ZoyaHayat]

HI Zoya and all
The quote is above in blue and the link to full text in post 5
It was composed by Balaram Das, here is what I have found on Balaram Das:

"Balaram Das was a reputed saint and poet of Orissa, in the 16th century. He was one of the ‘Panchasakhas’, five companions of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Balaram Das is renowned for his own version of the Ramayana, called ‘Dandi Ramayana’ written in Oriya which is more popular by the name ‘Jagamohan Ramayana.’ He also wrote many books on religion and Yoga. Noted among them are Guptagita, Amarkosh Gita, Vendantasara Guptagita, Bata Abakasa, Bramhanda, Bhugola, Saptanga Yogasara Tika, Bhabasamudra and Lakshmi Purana." LINK

So, yes, Krishnakanta, it appears to be a 15th century translation from Orisya. As to how much one should invest in this a reflection of Vishnu and Laxshmi's relationship, I am not convinced is should be considered a core work.

Really I would like to focus on the positive aspects.

I agree with you Onkarah xxx

 

[Satsangi]

Friend Onkarah,

I am just going to post my opinion here which may not be congruent to popular opinion here; nevertheless I find it necessary to post it as it is based on Scriptural support. In my opinion, taking Laxmi-Vishnu, Shiva-Parvati and Linga-Yoni into "male-female" categories is a huge mistake. They should be rather taken as God and the ideal devotee- who is a role model for the other devotees like us.

The Shruti says Ekam Eva Advitiyam. This means that there is only one God and no one else can be God; in other words there is only one Narayan and no one can be Narayan- not even Laxmiji ( I am not taking the Advaitin meaning of the Shruti here). Yes, Narayan can make anyone like Him (Sadharmya Mukti), but when Narayan is taken out of the "equation", then no one stands on their own merit to be called God- not even Laxmiji. When you put Narayan back into the equation, Laxmiji is also God and Naradji is also like God.

Laxmiji stays only where there is Lord Narayan. She is the ideal devotee of the Lord. For Mumuksha like us, She is the ideal to learn devotion from and to reach Narayan easily. Hence, we rever Laxmiji as much as Lord Narayan. Laxmiji is our "easy way" to the Lord.

On His part, the Lord also is BOUND to the devotee- Laxmiji. He cannot tolerate anyone who insults his devotees. Even His guards like Jay and Vijay who insulted Sanakadik, they had to undergo three births as Asuras. The Lord resides in His devotees and hence Laxmiji is also a Goddess.

Regards,

 

[Cypress]

I think the relationship between Vishna & Lakshmi simply reflects the patriarchal attitude towards women.

 

[Onkara]

Friend Onkarah,

I am just going to post my opinion here which may not be congruent to popular opinion here; nevertheless I find it necessary to post it as it is based on Scriptural support. In my opinion, taking Laxmi-Vishnu, Shiva-Parvati and Linga-Yoni into "male-female" categories is a huge mistake. They should be rather taken as God and the ideal devotee- who is a role model for the other devotees like us.

The Shruti says Ekam Eva Advitiyam. This means that there is only one God and no one else can be God; in other words there is only one Narayan and no one can be Narayan- not even Laxmiji ( I am not taking the Advaitin meaning of the Shruti here). Yes, Narayan can make anyone like Him (Sadharmya Mukti), but when Narayan is taken out of the "equation", then no one stands on their own merit to be called God- not even Laxmiji. When you put Narayan back into the equation, Laxmiji is also God and Naradji is also like God.

Laxmiji stays only where there is Lord Narayan. She is the ideal devotee of the Lord. For Mumuksha like us, She is the ideal to learn devotion from and to reach Narayan easily. Hence, we rever Laxmiji as much as Lord Narayan. Laxmiji is our "easy way" to the Lord.

On His part, the Lord also is BOUND to the devotee- Laxmiji. He cannot tolerate anyone who insults his devotees. Even His guards like Jay and Vijay who insulted Sanakadik, they had to undergo three births as Asuras. The Lord resides in His devotees and hence Laxmiji is also a Goddess.

Regards,

Thanks Satsangi
I enjoy your response because this is helpful in respect to understanding the Purunas and the roles of the consort. If we take them as devotees then we can see that their supplication is divine rather than from repression, of course.

I too would like to raise some points from your post which are congruent to popular opinion, and I hope we can all explore them amicably.

Krishna says:

Even those who with faith worship
Other gods, also worship Me,
Though with a mistaken approach–
This is the truth, Son of Kunti. (9.23) Link

To the gods go their devotees;
To fathers go their devotees;
To spirits go their devotees;
And to Me go My devotees.8 (9.25)

From the Bhagavad Gita, it is clear that it is Krishna Himself that all worship and that all God's are only a way to Him, or even below Him.

When faced with this how is one to come to terms with the Hindu Pantheon of Gods as having any value? How can one not say that worshiping Laxshmi is not a wasted effort in respect to the ultimate goal of "going to the True One"?

When people first look into Sanatana Dharma they often comment that they can choose their God or Goddess with equal success? However after reading the Bhagavad Gita this is not so sure?

We know that all manifestation is the Lord's prakriti and so that all form is only the form of the Lord. That is not so much what I am hoping to clarify, rather how does a devote Hindu worship anyone other than Lord Krishna when faced with these verses and the understanding that the divine Consorts are are the ideal devotee rather than a Goddess to be worshipped in their own right, as One True Divinity?

If we say the ultimately all is Brahman, then we only regress to the statement that all forms must be Brahman and so all forms (e.g. Vishnu or Lakshmi) can be worshipped equally knowing them to be Brahman.

Constructive thoughts, anyone?

 

[Cypress]

I have also a question about Vishnu & Lakshmi, so I hope nobody minds if I use this thread to ask it.

Shiva & Parvati have 2 sons, Ganesha & Skanda.
Why do Vishnu & Lakshmi have no child?
At least I never read about them having a child and I have read quite a lot about Hinduism.
Did I miss something?

 

[Satsangi]

Friend Onkarah,

Your question made me think a while. Here is my take on this one.

(1) From an Advaitic realization, one only sees Brahman and hence the initial question does not arise.

(2) As you correctly point out, Lord Krishna says that His devotees go to Him. But then He also says that people who worship other forms of God also worship Him indirectly. This is because everything is in Him.

The above statement, in my opinion, does not mean that Lord Shiva or other Gods/Goddesses are "inferior" to Lord Krishna; but this Shloka has been used by Krishna devotees to claim only His Supremacy. But who is a devotee of Krishna? In BG He classifies them into four types- one who wants material things, one who is curious, one who is interested in AtmaJnana and the one who only wants Krishna- the last one is the the devotee which Lord Krishna calles is very own Atman- the fourth type of devotees are the ones who go to Him directly without any other "stops." In Srimad Bhagvatam, Lord says that His real devotees are only interested in Him; they are not even interested in four types of Muktis (Sarupya, Samipya, Sayujya, Sadharmya).

Again, in my opinion, a devotee of Lord Shiva who only wants Him will attain the Ultimate in THAT form; and make no mistake- that is the Ultimate form too. And the devotees of Lord Krishna or Lord Shiva who want material things like job, money, wife, kids etc... will also get these "bhog" if not in this birth, then in Swargaloka or other lokas. They will only go to the Ultimate after they renounce everything except Him. This also has been put by Lord Krishna in the BG- "anek janma sansiddhastatho yaati param gatim."

Coming back to the initial question about Laxmiji and Lord Narayana. If one worships Laxmiji as the Ultimate; She is the Narayana for that devotee. Hence, my first statement was that it is not proper to view them as "male-female" categories. But, generally we take Narayana as the God and hence I said that if you take Narayana out of the equation, even Laximiji cannot be called a Goddess.

My above opinion however should not be taken as negating the view of Vaishnava, Shaiva and Shakta sects who traditionally view their Ishtadeva as the Supreme- and rightly so. Even Hanumanji wanted Lord Krishna to give Him darshan in the form of Lord Rama because Lord Rama was His Ishtadeva; Hanumanji did know that Lord Krishna was Lord Rama in the previous incarnation. I would not say that Hanumanji got "inferior form" of God.

I hope that this answer, although complex, makes sense.

Regards,

 

[Onkara]

Thanks Satsangi
Good answer. Of course, the Purnas preceed Advaita, which is why I feel my question arises (also I have not finished reading them). I don't consider my view of the world as completely Advaitin at the time of posting this thread. I see Advaita as a very good way to reach the ultimate level of understanding.

However I see the question of the role of consort and worship only arises when we think dualistically i.e. looking for an answer to which goddess might be worshipped as the supreme deity when at the ultimate level of understanding all deities, their forms and personalities are equally an expression or limited understanding of the non-dual Brahman.

Aum!

 

[rcscwc]

I think the relationship between Vishna & Lakshmi simply reflects the patriarchal attitude towards women.

No. They are complementary principles, male and female. Together they sustain the world. Both are unborn too.

Patriarchy is a fact across the culture, so no point in underlining it. But only "patrirahist" Hindu scriptures invariably mention the name of the mother. Arjuna is frequently refered as Kunti's son. Krishna too is known as Devaki Nandan [Devaki who bore Him] AND also as Yashoda Nandan [Yashoda who raised him]. Only in Hindu scriptures are mothers given a very high place, not only because she bears, but is also the First Teacher.
***
Friend Onkara

Laxami is not really different from Vishnu. He is incomplete without Her. But remember, while Vishnu can be a disciplinarian parent, Laxami is a loving mother. Their natures are different and so are their roles. Laxmi blesses with prosperity, Vishnu has strength. She does not have an iferior stutus. Lastly, Hindus hold them on equal footing, which is what matters.

 

[Pradyumnan]

I have also a question about Vishnu & Lakshmi, so I hope nobody minds if I use this thread to ask it.

Shiva & Parvati have 2 sons, Ganesha & Skanda.
Why do Vishnu & Lakshmi have no child?
At least I never read about them having a child and I have read quite a lot about Hinduism.
Did I miss something?

Ganesh was born when pArvathi created him out of sandal nirmAlya. Skanda was born out of the fruit given by Rudra dEvaru in the gamgA river(read kumArasamBhva). But for lakShmi and nArAyaNa, no children were born out of wedlock. But nArAyaNa bore brahma from his navel and anamga(manmaTha) from his senses.