[Advaita-l] 'VinAyaka' in ShAnkara GItA BhAShyam
satisharigela at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 2 03:41:10 CDT 2011
>If vinayakas are taken as plural, they are one of these types of devayonis.
>They can cause obstacles in >successful pursuit of purusharthas if not
>propitiated. Ganesha Bhagavan is the remover of all obstacles. He >has power
>of these vinayakas so he is called Vinayaka on the analogy of a king who is
>called by the name of >the country or people that he rules.
gaNesha pArvatI-putra is earlier works are seen is described both as causing
obstacles and also removing them. This aspect of causing obstacles is not missed
out by later works. Being the putra of rudra he is also rudra-like. See old
mantra-s where rudra is asked not to harm. We have clear parallel.
>I think we are looking at this from the wrong direction. It is not the worship
>of spirits that makes bhakti >tamasic but the tamasic attitude to bhakti that
>leads people to worship certain forms of devatas.
This works both ways. There are certain yakShiNi-s which are worshipped for some
things. Normally one does not do this but it is possible that one can take up a
yakShiNi or a similar lesser deity with good intentions. The intention does not
change the manner of worship in this case and can remain tAmasic.
>tamasika bhakti - done out of fear. "Bad things will happen to me if I don't
I think the gIta(or a bhAShya on it) mentions tAmasika bhakti as being done with
the intention of causing hurt to someone. For shatrunAshana etc.
>So the hostility is not towards the devata per se but particular modes of
>worship. This is also a more >satisfying explanation in my opinion as to why
>worship of vinayaka, matrkas are still accepted by Smartas >when other "hostile"
>forms such as Buddhism as roundly rejected rather than "it was snuck in later
The first time when I noticed this, this is where my thoughts ran to i.e. I was
content thinking that it perhaps was referring to some vAmAchAra procedures. But
rethinking about it again after some years, I was asking myself if the procedure
is what is AchArya against, why chose these devata-s in specific. In vAmAchAra
the devata-s propitiated are not any different. It is the same
shiva/rudra/bhairava, viShNu, gaNesha, devI, various entities familiar to the
smArta-s. Why limit the criticism to only one group? Let us make a guess here
and say maybe it is just that he is aware of only particular group which
indulges in extreme vAmAchAra practices. This is not necessarily so, because by
the time of shankara the bhairavAchAra(which certainly has practices which
smArta-s which object to) is well established as can be seen from various works
on kAvya, and we know for sure that the central deity of bhairavAchAra is not
parameshvara in the glorious form of tumburu shiva/rudra but it is a parallel
form with another clear name. bhairava/svacchanda-nAtha or svacchanda bhairava
>Also, it has been been mentioned before but I must once again bring up
>brahmasUtrabhAshya 2.2.44 where an >agamic doctrine (the chaturvyuhavAda of the
>pa~ncharAtrAgamas is explicitly criticized but Shankaracharya >takes pains to
>note that the worship of Vishnu bhagavan in temples etc. is _not_ being
I remember this one. Yes he is very clear in this case. So here there is no
scope for speculation whether based on some evidence or without it.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list