By Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri
Lord would not place the question as to who is the greatest devotee. More so God will not Himself subject his devotees to barbaric, grim, grisly, ghastly, and gruesome means to test the devotion. Not only God, even Lakshmi, Brahma, Vayu, Garuda, Shesha and Rudras will not ask the devotees for such things.
PurvapakSha :
The very first thing that comes to one's mind is - Why should we even analyze this issue? A great devotee has been extolled, praised, admired and hailed. So, even if there are some logical issues in there, why can't we just ignore those logical inconsistencies and appreciate the positive message embedded in there? Even so, why make a big deal about this episode?
SiddhAnta :
What is devotion or bhakti? As Acharya says - it is mAhAtmya-j~nAnapUrvaka, sudRuDha, sarvato.adhika snEha (The devotion to the Almighty is the incessant flow of deep and unshaken affinity springing from the true knowledge of the greatest, limitless, flawless and untainted auspicious qualities of the Supreme Lord - the constancy or unchangeableness or steadiness of the affinity is such that it transcends many times more than the affinity towards all the material possessions, all the relationships, even oneself and is unstoppable even by thousands of obstacles. The one worthy of such devotion would have all auspicious qualities and no flaws. We have to realize that the Lord is sarva-guNa-sampUrNa and sarva-doSha-vivarjita. If any account or narration that takes the guise that it is speaking about such devotion and still ends up in attributing a flaw to the Lord or diminishes His Supreme qualities, then those who are desirous of glorifying Him must be aware that the so claimed very glorification of the Lord is jeopardized here in this case and every effort must be made to point that out.
The strenuous effort of this whole exercise is only to that end.
PurvapakSha :
There are many such grisly, gory and gross episodes in the sthala-puraNas and scriptures as well.
1. In one of the nAyanmar's stories (Bhakta SiriyALA / Siruthondar), there is an account of a Shiva devotee coming and asking for the flesh of the son and the parents agree to do that.
2. Prahlada was subjected to many kinds of torture because he was highly devoted to God and his father did not like it.
3. The elephant Gajendra was subjected to lot of torture an pain before the Lord came and saved him.
4. In the episode of DurvAsa and AmbarISha, the Sudarshana chakra chases DurvAsa and he had to run all over and even Kailasha, Satyaloka and VaikuNTha
5. Satya Harishchandra was prepared to behead his own son as part of his keeping satyavrata.
6. Shibi cut flesh from his own body to satisfy the hawk (Devendra coming in that disguise).
7. There was a narration of trying to give ShunaHshepa as human sacrifice to Varuna.
8. There is the episode that Ravana sacrificed his heads to Shiva as worship.
9. There is an episode that Banasura offered his body parts as sacrifice to Shiva.
10. AshvatthAma tried to sacrifice himself to Shiva in Sauptika parva, when Shiva devours all his weapons.
11. Even if many of these are with selfish motive, Kannappa tried to offer his own eyes to Shiva. That was only pure devotion.
There may be several such episodes and why single out this or oppose this?
SiddhAnta :
It is not that nothing grisly, gory and gross things should not happen. It is not that the devotees will not have torturous experiences. Many devotees like Bhishma and Drona had terrible death in the war. Many devotees on Pandava side also got all kinds of death in the war. God will not ask for a torture as a trade off for devotion, while the Lord has taken upon Himself to protect the devotee. Not only Vishnu, but also Brahma or Vayu or Rudra will not ask for the body or body parts of the devotee or his close relation to prove the devotion.
The logical flaws that are shown are like signals. There is much stronger root cause that makes the cases of trade between devotion and torture by God asking for it is against the very basic principle.
Let us take every single of these cases and analyze. The objectionable ones show excessive eagerness to prove the devotion. Being unable to find proper means, a hasty step is taken to introduce tAmasik mode of worship.
Case-1: In the Nayanmar (Bhakta SiriyALA / Siruthondar) story, various versions are given - some saying that Shiva appearing as a Jangama(Shiva bhakta) asked directly for the flesh of the son of Nayanmar. In another version, he asked for the flesh of a boy of exactly that age. In another episode, the mother herself was asked to hold the son. In another version, the mother was asked not to shed the tears. In another version, the parents were stopped before they get ready to kill the child. In another version, the child was killed and cooked and yet in another version, the head was not cooked and the parents were asked to cook the head also. The degree of goriness is increased to intensify the devotion. Many times, when the authenticity lacks, this is what happens. The episodes get many shades and colors. The ones who concoct go crazy. The logical issues are this. In that case the Lord Shiva himself played the drama. What happens if a real cannibal comes in the guise of a Jangama?
What moral is given in this story? All through the story, others give troubles and Shiva keeps protecting them and suddenly he decides to subject the devotee to torture so as to test his devotion? So this episode of sthala purANa is strange and questionable and goes against the shAstras. It is not questioning the devotion of that devotee. He may have such great devotion. But the incident is not shAstra-sammata.
In this account, a Shiva devotee came and asked for the flesh of the son and going ahead with the process or the parents getting ready for doing that.
Now let us see the flaws in the story. How do the parents know whether the person is a true devotee of Shiva or even an asura, who came in the guise of a devotee of Shiva. Here Shiva himself comes as Jangama to test. It is equally possible that an asura could come in that form.
Then the narrator does not know how exactly the test is to be made. There is an abrupt switch in the narration that the jangama asks for only the flesh of the devotee's son? Why? No reasons are given. Then both the father and mother get ready to cook the son. They are violating the very principle of sAdhane. They have the freedom to do any sAdhane with their body. How can they prevent the sAdhane of their son?
When some narrators saw the absurdity, they went with more detail, which I think will only be making things worse. In one of the narrations, the Jangama asks for "pashu mAmsa" and later elaborates that it should be five year old boy and to bring some credibility, he says that he eats such every six months. It is the duty of the sAdhaka to make some amount of thinking. If the jangama has lived like for years means, he would have led for the killing of five year old every six months. Thus the details will only make things worse.
Now we have to look at the logic, if there are scriptural pramANAs that discourage such behavior. We will touch that aspect later on.
Case-2: In case of PrahlAda, the Lord does not ask PrahlAda to choose between devotion and escape from the torture. When he chooses the devotion that entails torture, then save him from the torture. That is not what the case is. When PrahlAda chooses the devotion, his father tries to kill him through torturous means and the Lord saves him from all that. As a punishment of subjecting the devotee to such methods, HiraNyakashipu was not just killed, but the Lord tears his stomach and puts the intestines around His neck. If He tried to show to the world that those who trouble His dear devotees will go through such punishment, why would the Lord even think of subjecting his devotee to such torture as a devotion transaction? So, the PrahlAda incident is not only quite logical, but a guiding factor too and that is why it touched the hearts of all the devotees. Touching the hearts is not the criterion, but not being shAstra-viruddha is the criterion.
Case-3: Even in case of Gajendra, when the crocodile was troubling the devoted elephant, the Lord killed the crocodile and saved the elephant. The Lord did not put a tug of war between devotion and safety. Or did not ask His devotee that to prove the devotion, the devotee must undergo torture.
There is no such asking - are you willing to take up the torture to prove your devotion? Whether devotion is already in its peak expression or it is in a subdued fashion and then oozes out and that makes the Lord save the devotee, there is no prior condition setting. Again this is not shAstra-viruddha.
Case-4: In case of DurvAsa and AmbarISha, DurvAsa is a greater devotee and yet, when he tried to hurt the faultless Ambarisha, the Lord comes to the rescue of AmbariSha. Again here there is no condition setting. Neither DurvAsa, nor Ambarisha was asked to prove their devotion by subjecting them to torture. Surely DurvAsa had lot of trouble running around, but that is not to prove his devotion, but quite contrarily for troubling another devotee. Again this is not shAstra-viruddha.
Case-5: In the case of Satya Harishchandra, he was not asked to prove his devotion through the torturous means. The troubles that he had were due to his own satyavrata and there was no asking that to prove the devotion, the devotee must undergo torture.
Again this is not shAstra-viruddha. It is Vishvamtra who tried to test him and the Lords were protecting him only.
Case-6: Similar is the case with Shibi. He was bound by his practice of sharaNAgata rakShaNa. He was not asked to prove his devotion through the giving of his body flesh. It is Indra who tried to test him and Indra himself was satisfied and blessed him. If a soldier takes upon himself to save the nation, then he does not mind losing his life for the country. That is normal. The kings gave their lives for the country or to keep their word. Again this is not shAstra-viruddha.
Case-7: Harishchandra (different from the famous Satya Harishchandra) did not have sons and from Narada's advice, he prayed Varuna and promised that he would offer his male child as sacrifice. He gets a son Rohita, who runs away from home not willing to be sacrificed. He finds a poor Brahmana Ajigarta, whose second and middle son ShunaHshepa was bought by Rohita. But ShunaHShepa gets the mantra from Vishvamitra that would save him and so the story ends on a positive note only. Again here there is no business transaction for devotion. All kinds of transactions happen for other reasons. So no issues. The Lord making a business transaction using devotion did not happen. Again this is not shAstra-viruddha.
Case-8: In the episodes of Ravana, Lord Shiva did not ask for the heads of Ravana. His devotion was sakAma bhakti and meant to achieve some laukika prayojana only. It is almost like he was trying to do blackmail to Shiva. But Vishnu Sarvottama and Shiva VaiShnavottama (after Brahma-Vayus) smiled and granted his wishes, which they know would be of limited help only and does not benefit him fully. He(note that I am not referring to the jiva Jaya in there, but only the asura Jiva in there). He never even had such selfless devotion. Again this is not shAstra-viruddha in the sense that if such tAmasika upAsana is done, then the results will also be according to that only.
Case-9: In the episodes of Banasura and Ravana, Lord Shiva did not ask for his body parts and that is not for any selfless devotion. His devotion was sakAma bhakti and meant to achieve some laukika prayojana only. It is almost like he was trying to do blackmail to Shiva. But Vishnu Sarvottama and Shiva VaiShnavottama (after Brahma-Vayus) smiled and granted his wishes, which they know would be of limited help only to them. He(again the asura in him) never even had such selfless devotion. Again this is not shAstra-viruddha in the sense that if such tAmasika upAsana is done, then the results will also be according to that only.
Case-10: In case of AshvatthAma also, his goal was only to punish PAndavas. Firstly he was Rudra amsha, but did not have the same power as his Mula rUpa. He was bent upon achieving his goal. His act was not to prove his devotion, but to achieve his goal. So, this does not attribute any flaw to Lord Shiva. Shiva knows that that is the will of the Lord and grants it accordingly. Again this is not shAstra-viruddha in the sense that AshvatthAma was supposed to do what happened and that is not for an selfless devotion and there was no business transaction with true devotion.
Case-11: Kannappa episode is fine to the extent that his devotion was selfless. But the issue is again Shiva trying to test the devotion in that weird way. Kannappa was not a shastra-vaidya and how could taking out his eye help if he did not know how his eye would replace Rudra's eye. Further true devotion must be jnAna-based. MAhtmya-jnAna-pUrvakaH sudRDhaH sarvato.adhikaH sneho bhaktiriti proktaH. The inent seemed that mUDha bhakti is also fine. But that is not what Shastra says. It seemed as if Rudra wanted to test the devotion b a kind of Business transaction if Kannappa could give his eyes to Rudra. Rudra had three eyes. Did Kannappa think what he would do if the thrid eye also needed replacement. Of course Rudra wanted to test only that much. It is lot iffy, and does not seem quite shAstra-sammata.
That episode is not in an Shiva puraNa or Linga purANa of Sri Vedavyasa. Why? Because VedavyAsa does not promote mUDhabhakti. It does not mean that every devotee must be a super-jAnai or must have the knowledge of aprAkRuta and prAkRuta or sthUlatva and sUkShmatva, etc. But he must have some minimum level of awareness. Look at the episodes of Guha or shabari, who were also great devotees. They did not do any such crazy things and yet they are regarded as great devotees. To bring out the greatness, there is no need to go to such extremes, that tend to be tAmasika upAsana.
PurvapakSha :
Why should we look at logical inconsistencies and what logical inconsistencies are in the current episode?
SiddhAnta :
The logical inconsistencies are like some signals. If they give red signals, we just think and see if there is any shAstra virodha aspects in there. This will help us in nishchaya-jnAna in shAstras.
1. Why no name of the king or his son was mentioned? May be the pravachanakAra did not mention. May be some names were mentioned from what ever source it came from -
Vatsa_rAja or VasantakumAra or what ever. That does not solve the issue, but will lead to even more questions.
2. Why Sri VedavyAsa did not mention these episodes?
3. Even if he did not describe these episodes, it calls for at least mention of such great characters. Why was it not even mentioned?
4. If the king was so famous, why did he not participate in the MahabhArata war?
5. Did this incident happen before Mahabharata war or after? Irrespective of when, his name should have been mentioned as a participant or non-participant.
6. If he participated, his role in the war should have been dealt in detail.
7. If he did not participate, then as a great devotee of Sri Krishna, why did he not do “nArAyaNa-dviT tadanubandhi nigraha”(It is the ultimate duty to oppose and control the haters of Narayana and supporters of that hatred). Not doing that is even more incomprehensible. Father would have taken part and his wife would have encouraged that.
8. Even if they are not famous for war participation, he should have been famous for devotion. Why these names are not famous like PrahlAda or Dhruva?
9. Contrast detailed accounts for PrahlAda or Dhruva. Not even mentioning these names in Bhagavata or Mahabharata or any of the purAnas or even Harivamsha or Vishnurahasya or any of Vedavyasa’s works is strange. Why was it not mentioned?
10. Lord Krishna would not ask for such tAmasik mode of worship. Lord making such gross, gory and disgusting demand is not mentioned by Sri Vedavyasa anywhere. Even if some argue that the Lord did not allow the gross thing to happen and he stopped it before that, the question is not just about the event itself. Even the thought is very disturbing.
11. We have two eyes, but only one mind. If someone hurts left side of our body, do we get tears in our left eye and if right side part is hurt, do we get tears in our right eye? No matter where we are hurt, we experience with one mind and so tears come in both the eyes.
12. Even granting that the boy had special ability to express feelings of each side by the corresponding eye, did the author forget that great happiness gives tears of joy? This is where even the common sense is sold out.
13. Which one should be more? The sadness of the left side that Sri Krishna did not ask specifically for the left side or the joy of the right side that Sri Krishna asked specifically for the right side? I think the latter. How many have the good fortune that Sri Krishna specifically asks for something? In that case the boy should have gotten more tears of joy from the right eye, than tears of sadness from the left eye.
14. To test the devotee, would Sri Krishna go against His own words? In Gita, He said
patraM puShpaM phalaM toyaM yo me bhaktyA prayachchhati |
tadahaM bhaktyupahR^itamashnAmi prayatAtmanaH || 9-26||
पत्रं पुष्पं फलं तोयं यो मे भक्त्या प्रयच्छतित।
तदहं भक्त्युपहृतमश्नामिम प्रयतात्मनः॥ ९-२६॥
Then why would He ask for the right side of the body to test Bhakti? Bhakti is not tested by what the person gives, but how the person gives.
15. Sri Krishna seemed to have exhibited ignorance also. When He said that the greatest devotee on Earth is the king, He seemed not to know about the devotion of the prince. Instead of Him saying “Adutta Urla rAjA dAn periya aMban bhaktan”, He should have said “Adutta Urla ilavarsan dAn periya aMban bhaktan”. It was a surprise to Sri Krishna that the five year old came out to be the victor, more than his father.
16. If the boy could say - kAlaila sAppaTTAluM sari, madhyAhnaM sAppaTTAluM sari, valakkira olidu iMda oDaMbu kaNNanikku, kaNNanikku, kaNNanikku, kRiShNArpaNam enru solri vaDatren.
If the father did not want to say - “taragirEn(I will fetch)” appaDi arasan soLLalA (The king did not say like that). “taragirEn(I will fetch)” sonna (if told) “ennadu enru onnu irukkiradu(something exists as mine)" ఎన్న అర్థం (that is implied). “kNNa, you own it all, everything is your prperty. What can I give to you?".
If everything already belonged to God, why should and why would the boy shed tears that Krishna did not ask for his left side body. It did not belong to the boy in the first place. Secondly as Krishnarpanam, it had already been given to Sri Krishna, the body belonged to Him, the food that nourished the body belonged to Him, even in thought it was already offered. If he felt sad that Sri Krishna did not ask for left side and happy that He asked for the right side means, he is claiming ownership of both his left and right body. How can that be true jnAnam? The boy still did not give up ownership for his
body. It is perpetuation of aj~nAnam. First of all on one side, he kept on saying it all belonged to KaNNan. On the other side he was thinking that he was the owner and offered to KaNNan. Then once you offered, you should not care as to what God does with it. There should never be a worry whether He took it or not. Then later on thinking that God did not ask for left side means that he still thought left side is with him only. He thought that he is offering the right side now, which means that he still thought that he owned right side.
16. There are many such stories in the market. The question that comes to one's mind or an objector can put forth - "Hey, why do you make an issue out of this? There are good morals for these stories and they need not be fake stories. There is every possibility that these are true."
What is the moral of this story - That there were very ordinary beings, who were greater devotees than Arjuna? And Sri Krishna resorted to gory and gross means to test the devotion? The hidden agenda seems to be to put down Arjuna, rather than upholding a true devotee. That can hardly be a moral.
There are only two possibilities for the narrators of these stories. They can claim that Sri Vedavyasa wrote this episode.
17. The beauty of the truth is such that I had this personal experience. Whenever I heard such stories, I was very confident that they will not be in any authentic sources. Sure enough, they are not to be found.
18. The narrators can claim this - "We accept all that Sri Vedavyasa told. But there can be many additional events that He did not bother to tell. Why can't they be true as well?"
How did these narrators get those revelations? Devotees greater than Arjuna in ordinary mortals - is this not of much importance to Sri Vedavyasa?
Further beauty of this is that those "apara-Vedavyasa-s" have proved the greatness of Sri Vedavyasa this way - in one lakh verses of Mahabharata, in such complex structure, there are no logical flaws, but in such one simple single episode, these narrators commit so many logical flaws.
So the argument that either Sri Vedavyasa missed it or he did not bother to mention cannot hold water.
19. The moral of this is that a common man can conclude in their minds that these episodes cannot be true and they can approach the scholars and verify that their conclusions are indeed true. Of course for that a thorough analysis is needed.
20. The pravachanakaras, who come up with such fake stories may or may not mention the source.
20a. If they do not mention the source, they will be committing the sin of spreading the false stories
20b. If they mention the source as some sthala purANas or compositions by some unknown authors, that does not give credibility at all.
20c. If they mention reliable source as Bhagavata or Mahabharata or Ramayana, they will be committing two sins - one is spreading false stories and second falsely attributing it to Sri Vedavyasa or Valmiki. If they know and still spread, that is even worse.
21. AhankAra can come in any aspect - be due to wealth or beauty or youth or strength or position or land or rulership over people, etc. Or it can even come due to some positive things even like vidya(education), dAna (gifting) or dharma kAryas or social service, etc. But true devotion or true knowledge will not lead to ahaNkAra. What is the effect of devotion - "ISha-daasa bhAva". One who thinks that he is 'daasaanudaasa of God, how can he get ahaNkAra? Then that is not devotion. A true knowledge entails awareness of absence of svAtantrya to us and complete svAtantrya to the Almighty. Then that will also not lead to AhankAra. We do not see an true devotee getting ahaNkAra of devotion. If Arjuna thought that he was the greatest devotee, then he was not true devotee. Devotion automatically leads to humility. Listen to how Hanuman introduced to Ravana. He did not say "I am the greatest devotee of Rama". He said "dAso.aham rAmachandrasya (I am the servant of Rama)". He told Sita, that among Sugriva's followers, he is way below. Thus one can see that devotion leads to humbleness. Surely there were occasions when Arjuna showed some arrogance and other devotees also showed, but that was for some capabilities, not devotion.
22. The crux of the whole thing is this. ParamAtma or any uttama devatas like Vayu Devaru or Rudra dEvaru will not ask for such tAmasik mode of worship.
Sri Krishna gives the following upadesha to Arjuna in Bhagavadgita 17th chapter.
trividhA bhavati shraddhA dehinAM sA svabhAvajA |
sAttvikI rAjasI chaiva tAmasI cheti tAM shR^iNu || 17-2||
yajante sAttvikA devAnyaxaraxAMsi rAjasAH |
pretAnbhUtagaNAMshchAnye yajante tAmasA janAH || 17-4||
ashAstravihitaM ghoraM tapyante ye tapo janAH |
dambhAhaN^kArasaMyuktAH kAmarAgabalAnvitAH || 17-5||
aphalAN^xibhiryaj~no vidhidR^iShTo ya ijyate |
yaShTavyameveti manaH samAdhAya sa sAttvikaH || 17-11||
abhisandhAya tu phalaM dambhArthamapi chaiva yat |
ijyate bharatashreShTha taM yaj~naM viddhi rAjasam || 17-12||
vidhihInamasR^iShTAnnaM mantrahInamadaxiNam |
shraddhAvirahitaM yaj~naM tAmasaM parichaxate || 17-13||
devadvijaguruprAj~napUjanaM shauchamArjavam |
brahmacharyamahiMsA cha shArIraM tapa uchyate || 17-14||
anudvegakaraM vAkyaM satyaM priyahitaM cha yat |
svAdhyAyAbhyasanaM chaiva vAN^mayaM tapa uchyate || 17-15||
manaH prasAdaH saumyatvaM maunamAtmavinigrahaH |
bhAvasaMshuddhirityetattapo mAnasamuchyate || 17-16||
shraddhayA parayA taptaM tapastattrividhaM naraiH |
aphalAkAN^xibhiryuktaiH sAttvikaM parichaxate || 17-17||
satkAramAnapUjArthaM tapo dambhena chaiva yat |
kriyate tadiha proktaM rAjasaM chalamadhruvam || 17-18||
mUDhagrAheNA.atmano yatpIDayA kriyate tapaH |
parasyotsAdanArthaM vA tattAmasamudAhR^itam || 17-19||
त्रिविधा भवति श्रद्धा देहिनां सा स्वभावजा ।
सात्त्विकी राजसी चैव तामसी चेति तां शृणु ॥ १७-२॥
यजन्ते सात्त्विका देवान्यक्षरक्षांसि राजसाः ।
प्रेतान्भूतगणांश्चान्ये यजन्ते तामसा जनाः ॥ १७-४॥
अशास्त्रविहितं घोरं तप्यन्ते ये तपो जनाः ।
दम्भाहङ्कारसंयुक्ताः कामरागबलान्विताः ॥ १७-५॥
अफलाङ्क्षिभिर्यज्ञो विधिदृष्टो य इज्यते ।
यष्टव्यमेवेति मनः समाधाय स सात्त्विकः ॥ १७-११॥
अभिसन्धाय तु फलं दम्भार्थमपि चैव यत् ।
इज्यते भरतश्रेष्ठ तं यज्ञं विद्धि राजसम् ॥ १७-१२॥
विधिहीनमसृष्टान्नं मन्त्रहीनमदक्षिणम् ।
श्रद्धाविरहितं यज्ञं तामसं परिचक्षते ॥ १७-१३॥
देवद्विजगुरुप्राज्ञपूजनं शौचमार्जवम् ।
ब्रह्मचर्यमहिंसा च शारीरं तप उच्यते ॥ १७-१४॥
अनुद्वेगकरं वाक्यं सत्यं प्रियहितं च यत् ।
स्वाध्यायाभ्यसनं चैव वाङ्मयं तप उच्यते ॥ १७-१५॥
मनः प्रसादः सौम्यत्वं मौनमात्मविनिग्रहः ।
भावसंशुद्धिरित्येतत्तपो मानसमुच्यते ॥ १७-१६॥
श्रद्धया परया तप्तं तपस्तत्त्रिविधं नरैः ।
अफलाकाङ्क्षिभिर्युक्तैः सात्त्विकं परिचक्षते ॥ १७-१७॥
सत्कारमानपूजार्थं तपो दम्भेन चैव यत् ।
क्रियते तदिह प्रोक्तं राजसं चलमध्रुवम् ॥ १७-१८॥
मूढग्राहेणाऽत्मनो यत्पीडया क्रियते तपः ।
परस्योत्सादनार्थं वा तत्तामसमुदाहृतम् ॥ १७-१९॥
The quint essence of this is there are three kinds of shraddha - sAttvika, RAjasika and tAmasika. These can reflect in both apparently positive and apparently negative things. For example, killing is bad. But killing to protect the good people is good. Tapas is good. But doing tapas for the sake of tormenting good people is bad. It ma seem that there are just good and bad. The bad can again be of two kinds. For example doing a dAna or tapas in a selfless fashion for Hari Priti or good of all is good. But doing them for show-off or to present oneself as great (but not really hurting any one) is Rajasik and that is bad too. But doing them to hurt good people is tAmasik and that is even worse.
Worshiping Uttama devatas as per tAratamya is sAtvika upAsana. Worshiping yakSha-rAkShasa is rAjasika. Worshiping bhUta-gaNa and preta-gaNa is tAmasika. Even worshiping sAtvika devatas - there are three modes - sAtvika mode is what is prescribed in ShAstras, Rajasika mode is even though it is done as per shAstras, the importance is given only to pomp and pleasing the Lord is not the guiding factor at all. TAmasika is one that is done to hurt good people. Worshiping Sri Krishna and Rudra is fine, but that should not be done by cutting one's own body parts and making claim that the gods wanted the devotees to do that is also very bad.
Shri Krishnarpanamastu !
Comments
Post a Comment