New Deities

[Chakra]

For all of the history of Sanatana Dharma, there've been changes in the deities being worshipped. While of course there's been shifting between Shaivas, Vaishnavas, Sauras (who used to be much more common) etc, these kinds of changes have been most evident among 'Folk' Hindu beliefs, which are far more likely to be polytheistic and/or animistic.

Included in such changes in worship are the emergence of new deities. This has happened in ancient times (the deity Pabuji worshipped by some Rajasthanis was once a warrior, who became a mythological figure, and eventually a deity to be worshipped) and more recently as well (that murti of Narendra Modi somebody mentioned, a goddess worshipped in, I think, Kolkata representing opportunity and freedom who looks peculiarly similar to the Statue of Liberty - no I couldn't dig out the source I'm afraid). Some Hindus will have a little picture of Jesus who they do puja to in the temple.

Nice topic.

While I'm certain that the main gods of Hinduism are not going anywhere, there will be more deities added to the pantheon from different religions. I don't think that historical figures will become very big deities (or a so called "manifestation" of Brahman).

Being a Shri Vaishnava, I do include all other Gods in my worldview, although I only focus on a few deities. Being traditionalist, I am not fond of Hindus placing more emphasis on Sai Baba or Jesus than the actual Hindu Gods. Now, I totally understand ancestor worship, and I do understand why some Hindus act very universal in their beliefs. Of course, they are the good guys.

Also, might the deities of some other pagan religions, such as Celtic religions, Asatru and so on, come to be worshipped by some Hindus in Europe, as being the 'local' deities? (Personal interest because I've been getting pretty interested in Neopaganism of late)

This whole area fascinates me.

Many of the deities that many Hindus worship are not even mentioned in scriptures, the "folk deities". So I see no reason why Hindus in Europe some folk deities over there. I certainly hope that the pagan religions in Europe are not eradicated if there happens to be a Hindu majority, just like how I would not want Hinduism and its deities/shrines/temples to be dismantled and removed if another religion took over...

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Namaste Kirran ji

I don't think 'who is Brahman?' really makes a lot of sense as a question.

Thats interesting! Are you implying that the entire brahmasūtras which is inquiry into brahman (including who/what) doesn't really make sense?

Nirguna Brahman is not anyone, by definition.

The nirguṇa in 'nirguṇa brahman' is a conceptual construct. Just as 'para' brahman in order (usually in advaita) to differentiate b/w prajāpati brahma and the brahman.

Saguna Brahman has attributes, and can be said to be Visnu.

For an unbiased seeker, athāto brahma jijñāsa - the inquiry into brahman is immediately answered as janmādyasya yataḥ - from whence and therefore from whom sṛṣṭi, sthiti, saṁhāra, niyamana, jñāna, ajñāna, bandha, mokṣha ensue is brahman. 'Nirguṇa' brahman cannot, by definition, be the subject of this inquiry. The test of vedantic school of thought is based on the brahmasūtra bhāṣya of the siddhāntin. In vedānta schools, at least, there is no confusion on the identity of brahman. Śri Śaṅkara accepts in a roundabout way, while all other schools accept that brahman is Nārāyaṇa. Brahman, being a vedantik concept is very much within the ambit of brahmasūtras.

The entire vaidik corpus present the brahman to be ananta kalyāṇa guṇa paripūrṇa. The dichotomy of saguṇa and nirguṇa is necessary only in order to conceptually deprive brahman of such a well established status in the texts to be replaced with a nirguṇa, nirviśiṣhṭa, nirdharmika, avācya, brahman which in turn relies on the prologue of adhyāsa. This ontological assumption influences the entire epistemology in advaita which is why it is referred to as māyāvāda.

The hindu culture may, and has, incorporate newer deities; i've seen pictures of jesus placed on the same altar with that of say Gaṇeśa, Śiva etc. But such syncretism is not found in vaidik traditions.

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि ।

 

[Aupmanyav]

Many of the deities that many Hindus worship are not even mentioned in scriptures, the "folk deities". So I see no reason why Hindus in Europe some folk deities over there. I certainly hope that the pagan religions in Europe are not eradicated if there happens to be a Hindu majority, just like how I would not want Hinduism and its deities/shrines/temples to be dismantled and removed if another religion took over...

Not that it is going to happen but even if Hindus become a majority in West (very much hypothetical, only a stance), the pagan Gods and Goddesses will be respectfully accepted. lMHO, what generally rankles Hindus is monotheism of any type. We are traditionally polytheists. I love all pagan Gods and Goddesses.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The nirguṇa in 'nirguṇa brahman' is a conceptual construct. Just as 'para' brahman in order (usually in advaita) to differentiate b/w prajāpati brahma and the brahman.

For an unbiased seeker, athāto brahma jijñāsa - the inquiry into brahman is immediately answered as janmādyasya yataḥ - from whence and therefore from whom sṛṣṭi, sthiti, saṁhāra, niyamana, jñāna, ajñāna, bandha, mokṣha ensue is brahman. 'Nirguṇa' brahman cannot, by definition, be the subject of this inquiry. The test of vedantic school of thought is based on the brahmasūtra bhāṣya of the siddhāntin. In vedānta schools, at least, there is no confusion on the identity of brahman. Śri Śaṅkara accepts in a roundabout way, while all other schools accept that brahman is Nārāyaṇa. Brahman, being a vedantik concept is very much within the ambit of brahmasūtras.

The entire vaidik corpus present the brahman to be ananta kalyāṇa guṇa paripūrṇa. The dichotomy of saguṇa and nirguṇa is necessary only in order to conceptually deprive brahman of such a well established status in the texts to be replaced with a nirguṇa, nirviśiṣhṭa, nirdharmika, avācya, brahman which in turn relies on the prologue of adhyāsa. This ontological assumption influences the entire epistemology in advaita which is why it is referred to as māyāvāda.

Now let me try to give people the meaning of Sanskrit terms that my friend, Tatvaprahva has used. They may not be the exact meanings because my knowledge of Sanskrit is rudimentary, but will give people the idea.

Nirguna = without atributes, Saguna = with atributes, Para Brahman = the ultimate Brahman (though I do not believe in any difference between the 'ordinary' and 'para'. Brahman is one without a second), Janmadasya yatah = (Brahman is that) from which the origin etc., (i.e. the origin, sustenance and dissolution) of this (world proceed) - Swami Krishnananda, Srishti = creation, Sthiti = condition, Samhara = destruction, killing, Niyamana = rules, Jnana = knowledge, Ajnana = ignorance, Bandha = bondage, Moksha = deliverance, Ananta = eternal, Kalyana = Welfare, Guna = Quality, Paripurna = full, Nirvishishta = non-specific, Nirdharmika = without having a dharma/duty, Avachya = unexplainable, Adhyasa = case of mistaken identity, appendix, attachment (to e-mail) - Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit Advaita = non-duality,

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brahma Sutras Overview: Brahma Sutras - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Brahma Sūtras are also known by other names: Vedānta Sūtras, Uttara Mīmāmsā-sūtras, Śārīraka Sūtras, Śārīraka Mimāmsā-sūtras. Vaishnavas also call this the Bhikṣu sūtras.

The Brahma Sūtras attempt to reconcile the seemingly contradictory and diverse statements of the various Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gītā, by placing each teaching in a doctrinal context. The word "sūtra" means "thread", and the Brahma sūtras literally stitch together the various Vedanta teachings into a logical and self-consistent whole.

However, the Brahma Sūtras are so terse that not only are they capable of being interpreted in multiple ways, but they are often incomprehensible without the aid of the various commentaries handed down in the main schools of Vedānta thought.

The Vedānta Sūtras supply ample evidence that at a very early time, i.e. a period before their own final composition, there were differences of opinion among the various interpreters of the Vedānta. Quoted in the Vedānta Sūtras are opinions ascribed to Audulomi, Kārshnāgni, Kāśakŗtsna, Jaimini and Bādari, in addition to Vyasa.

These sūtras systematize the jñānakāņda (path of wisdom, as opposed to Karmakāņda, the path of action) of the Veda, by combining the two tasks of concisely stating the teaching of the Veda and argumentatively establishing the specific interpretation of the Veda adopted in the sūtras.

The sūtras also discuss the role of karma and God and critically address the various doctrines associated with Buddhism, Jainism, Yoga, Nyāya, Vaisheshika, Shaiva, Shakta, Atheism, and Samkhya philosophies."

 

[spiritualhitchhiker]

That situation was entirely different. Draupadi was originally married to Arjun, but due to the mother's wish Draupadi married all 5 of them.

As far as I know, our religion does not encourage kama and the sort. In fact, our religion tells us to restrain our desires at all time.

Whatever maybe the reason, she did marry 5 men, that is what matters.

:scratches his head: But what do I know about ways of deities?

I tend to disagree. Will Ganesha and Kartikeya have no obligation to Shiva or Parvati? Why did Ganesha stop Shiva from entering on Mother Parvati's instruction when she was bathing? Why did Ganesha go around his parents when asked to go around the world?

'Pitr rina' is not the obligation Ganesha and Kartikeya have towards their parents? 'Pitr rina' is payed off by begetting children so that there will be vacant bodies for 'pitrs' take birth in, if a human isn't getting children, they are not giving 'pitrs' opportunity to take birth, which would make 'pitr loka' over crowded. 'Pitr rina' is only for humans who are not Sanyasies.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Whatever maybe the reason, she did marry 5 men, that is what matters.

That is mythology. However, if men can marry five or more, how does Draupadi's marriage to five men matters? Should not they have equal rights? Till recently, it was a tradition in a part of India.

'Pitr rina' is only for humans who are not Sanyasies.

I agree. Seems you are right.

 

[spiritualhitchhiker]

That is mythology. However, if men can marry five or more, how does Draupadi's marriage to five men matters? Should not they have equal rights. Till recently, it was a tradition in a part of India.

I was just stating.

 

[Kirran]

Namaste Kirran ji

Namaste

Thats interesting! Are you implying that the entire brahmasūtras which is inquiry into brahman (including who/what) doesn't really make sense?

Certainly not. I am just saying that to say 'which anthropomorphic deity is Brahman?' doesn't make sense.

The nirguṇa in 'nirguṇa brahman' is a conceptual construct. Just as 'para' brahman in order (usually in advaita) to differentiate b/w prajāpati brahma and the brahman.

Yes, I concur.

In vedānta schools, at least, there is no confusion on the identity of brahman. Śri Śaṅkara accepts in a roundabout way, while all other schools accept that brahman is Nārāyaṇa. Brahman, being a vedantik concept is very much within the ambit of brahmasūtras.

So you would say that Shiva Advaita, for example, is not Vedantik?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

So you would say that Shiva Advaita, for example, is not Vedantik?

Shrikanta wrote a commentary on the Brahma sutras, from a Shaiva perspective. I remember reading this in Dr BNK Sharma's "A History of the Dvaita school of Vedanta".

Also, like I said earlier, for Advaitins, Narayana = Brahman is not the same as Brahman = Narayana.

For the Smarta, Shiva = Brahman, Ganesha = Brahman and so on are equally valid identifications. Therefore, while the Smartha accepts Narayana as Brahman, it is not an exclusive identification.

 

[Kirran]

Shrikanta wrote a commentary on the Brahma sutras, from a Shaiva perspective. I remember reading this in Dr BNK Sharma's "A History of the Dvaita school of Vedanta".

Also, like I said earlier, for Advaitins, Narayana = Brahman is not the same as Brahman = Narayana.

For the Smarta, Shiva = Brahman, Ganesha = Brahman and so on are equally valid identifications. Therefore, while the Smartha accepts Narayana as Brahman, it is not an exclusive identification.

Well, I'm with you.

I think Shankara was saying that what was being referred to as Narayana was in essence Brahman. Not that Brahman was in some way Narayana.

 

[kalyan]

Shrikanta wrote a commentary on the Brahma sutras, from a Shaiva perspective. I remember reading this in Dr BNK Sharma's "A History of the Dvaita school of Vedanta".

Also, like I said earlier, for Advaitins, Narayana = Brahman is not the same as Brahman = Narayana.

For the Smarta, Shiva = Brahman, Ganesha = Brahman and so on are equally valid identifications. Therefore, while the Smartha accepts Narayana as Brahman, it is not an exclusive identification.

There cannot be multiple paramaatma, as paramaatma is only one i.e Sri Krushna....Living in denial about that or not trying to accept that fact is not gonna change the fact! Have very high respect for Maha Siva, but the one who cannot save himself from Bhasmasura, how can he be Brahman ? Siva is one of the greatest Sri Vaishnavites as per Bhagawatham and he is the son of Brahma who comes from Maha Vishnu/nArayaNa.........The Ganga in Siva's head is the result of Maha Vishnu appearing as Vamana avatar and when he measures all the 3 worlds, one goes to Brahma Loka, Brahma does abhishekham to the divine feet and that water descends down as Ganga which is worn by Siva in his hairlocks.

One has to dig the MahaBharatam where Markendeya explains about vatapatra sai/Maha Vishnu only there and witnesses the creation, Siva also goes in the Maha Pralayam,

adiyen Chinna Jeeyar Swamy Daasa
adiyen Ramanuja Daasa.

 

[kalyan]

Well, I'm with you.

I think Shankara was saying that what was being referred to as Narayana was in essence Brahman. Not that Brahman was in some way Narayana.

so who do you say is Brahman ?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Certainly not. I am just saying that to say 'which anthropomorphic deity is Brahman?' doesn't make sense.

It does to many people and I am with them if that floats their boat. 'Vipra bahudha vadanti'.

Have very high respect for Maha Siva, but the one who cannot save himself from Bhasmasura, how can he be Brahman? Siva is one of the greatest Sri Vaishnavites as per Bhagawatham and he is the son of Brahma who comes from Maha Vishnu/nArayaNa ..

Then why did all the deities had to come to Shiva to drink Halahala which came out of sagara? And what happened when Mother Kali was going berserk? Shivāya hridayam Vishnuh Vishnoscha hridayam Shivā. Shivāya Vishnu rūpāya Shiva Rūpāya Vishnave. Are they one or two? They are happy there, and we differ.

 

[Chakra]

Shivāya hridayam Vishnuh Vishnoscha hridayam Shivā. Shivāya Vishnu rūpāya Shiva Rūpāya Vishnave.

Which scripture is this verse from?

 

[Aupmanyav]

'Yatha shiva mayo vishnu, yevam vishnu mayah shiva'
Just in the way Vishnu includes Shiva, in the same way Shiva includes Vishnu.
As is if you find one, you have found the other.

'Yathantaranna pashyami, tathatme swastirayushi'
Those who realize that there is no difference, they gain welfare and long life.

This mantra/sloka is found in the yajurveda. It can also be found towards the end of the yajurveda sandhyavanam.
Shivaya Vishnu Rupaya: Shivaya Vishnu Rupaaya,Shiva Rupaaya Shiva Rupaaya vishnave, Shivassya Hrudayam Vishnor Vishnoscha Hrudayam Shiva ha (modified for clarity)

 

[Chakra]

Just wondering, but this is the entire Yajur Veda right?

The Yajur Veda

Or are there more parts to the Yajur Veda that this website did not include.

 

[kalyan]

It does to many people and I am with them if that floats their boat. 'Vipra bahudha vadanti'. Then why did all the deities had to come to Shiva to drink Halahala which came out of sagara? And what happened when Mother Kali was going berserk? Shivāya hridayam Vishnuh Vishnoscha hridayam Shivā. Shivāya Vishnu rūpāya Shiva Rūpāya Vishnave. Are they one or two? They are happy there, and we differ.

Your points make zero sense...why what it has to with who drank halahala to determine who is brahman? Every deva is assigned 1 responsibility....For example Agni has the power to burn, then you cant say see no other deva has this, he must be brahman..illogical...What happened when prahlada drank dreadful poison kaalakuta visham, he did not die because the antaryami of him is Srimannarayana and by his wish alone he stopped it...Siva is jiva and his antaryami is narayana only. Do you know who is responsible and how many avatars did Vishnu take during churning of great ocean?????let me know.

So you do agree now Rudra is son of Brahma?

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Certainly not. I am just saying that to say 'which anthropomorphic deity is Brahman?' doesn't make sense.

The theory of anthropomorphism doesn't apply because it is not an imaginary personification of brahman. As long as the vedas are accepted as pramāṇa, that brahman is a personality and is the cause of janmādi require no other construct. Else, there is no explaining tadaikṣata, tatsṛṣṭvā tadevānu prāviśat.

So you would say that Shiva Advaita, for example, is not Vedantik?

Shiva-advaita became popular no earlier than 15-16 century, borrowing many ideas from vīra-śaivism propagated in the north by the likes of Abhinavagupta, glimpses of which philosophy can be also seen in Soundarya Lahiri ascribed to Śri Śaṅkara. In the south, it is mostly due to efforts of Appayya Dīkṣhita (16 century) that śivādvaita gained popular currency among the smārtas. Appayya tried to place different philosophical systems in a gradation as dvaita < viśiṣṭādvaita < śivādvaita < advaita.

Also, like I said earlier, for Advaitins, Narayana = Brahman is not the same as Brahman = Narayana.
For the Smarta, Shiva = Brahman, Ganesha = Brahman and so on are equally valid identifications. Therefore, while the Smartha accepts Narayana as Brahman, it is not an exclusive identification.

Namaste shiv ji,
Who is to say there haven't been changes in the smārta tradition. For instance, even in the guru-vandana, you have nārāyaṇaṁ-padmabhuvaṁ.. and sadāśiva-samārambham, the only way to reconcile being that Sadāśiva is but another epithet of Nārāyaṇa, whereas the other way round is not acceptable according to grammar. That brahman is the eternal and is not created is a defining characteristic. All other deities including padmasaṁbhava Brahma, Śiva, etc have been stated to have been born in the śāstras unambiguously. So Nārāyaṇa=Brahman, but to say it is not the same as Brahman=Nārāyaṇa begs for proof. Especially given that ajasya nābhāvdhyekamarpitaṁ yasminviśvā bhuvanāni tasthuḥ (RV 10|82|6) and nāmāni sarvāṇi yamāviśanti taṁ vai viṣṇuṁ paramamudāharanti (bhāllavīya khila).

'Vipra bahudha vadanti'

The sūkta earlier states saptārdhagarbhā bhuvanasya reto viṣṇostiṣṭhanti pradiśā vidharmaṇi (RV 1|164|36), unfair to quote selectively. It is therefore that viṣṇu that viprā bahudhā vadanti.

Now let me try to give people the meaning of Sanskrit terms that my friend, Tatvaprahva has used.

Thank you Aup ji, i refrain from translating because it is close to impossible to find exact words in English without compromising brevity. Also, the very translating act destroys the context, the root cause of most ambiguities and confusion in the minds of readers of various translations.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Aupmanyav]

So you do agree now Rudra is son of Brahma?

Shiva is not Rudra. And Rudra is not son of Brahma. Rudra is an (Swayambhuh) Aryan God, and Shiva is a (Swayambhuh) Dravidian God. In India, they merged, just like the Dravidian Gods Krishna, Rama, Parashurama, Vamana, Nrisimha, Varaha, Kurma and Matsya merged with Vishnu. But there are many views.