Categorization of devatAs and bhUtAs

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

There was a discussion in a group about vinAyaka.
bhAShyam of shrI sha~Nkara-bhagavatpAda on gItA has counted either one or more of : vinAyaka, sapta-mAtR^ikA, rudra-pArShada, mAtR^i-gaNa, chaturbhaginI, yakSha, rakShaH, pishAcha, bhadrakAlI, durgA - as bhUta-gaNa or bhUta.

1. Now, people following vedas have a view that vinAyaka, etc. said as bhUta-gaNa are different from vinAyaka, etc. who are famous as devatA.
2. People having inclination towards tantra say that commentators (mainly sha~Nkara-bhagavatpAda) is against upAsanA of gaNesha, etc.
3. Their is another view : even if vinAyaka, etc. are counted as both devatA and bhUta, it doesn't prove that vinAyaka is more than one. It just says that vinAyaka, etc. are subject of worships both as devatA and bhUta according to wish of worshiper. Commentaries of gItA just say their upAsanA as bhUta is tAmasa.
   

This created big confusion.

After reading many posts with little useful information, I came to know that talking without proof is useless in this case and most are doing the same.

So, I checked all commentaries of gItA which were available. All say the same thing and repeat it at other places too. So, I can say that they were firm on their view. It proves that they had access to some standard text according to which they categorized vinAyaka, etc. as tAmasa.

I want to know definitions of devatA, preta, bhUta, gaNa, etc., with quotes from scriptures, dictionaries, etc. So, please post whatever you know and is useful.


After getting these definitions,

If devatA and others are proved far different, and vinAyaka, etc. are counted as both devatA and bhUta, then view of vaidikas will gain some force.

Even if vaidikas don't get any clear classification, tAntrikas have to show that their view of holding vinAyaka, etc. as devatA only has some proof. They may say it's popular belief or it is said as such in tantra, we remember vinAyaka, etc. as devatA in viniyoga, etc. of mantra ; but even then the cause of all commentaries being in same line will need explanation. In fact, commentaries of old people with same explanation will prove their view false and based on rumors, lack of deep study, etc.

Third view fits more than other views in present condition. But, any proof of two vinAka, etc. will be enough to make it wrong.

Please share your views regarding this. Arguments based on scriptures are most welcome.

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

[murthy]

Valmiki's Ramayana has no reference to Vinayaka or Ganesha altough Kartikeya is referred to at several places.

There is only one reference to Vinayaka perhaps as a bhutagaNa

विनायकाश्च शाम्यन्ति गृहे तिष्ठन्ति यस्य वै । युद्ध-१२८-११५ गोरखपुर्

Regards

Murthy

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

[hnbhat B.R.]

GaruDapurANa has the following verse:

GarPur, 1, 5, 37.2
śambhor bhāryābhavad gaurī tasyāṃ jajñe vināyakaḥ

to the effect that विनायक was born to शम्भु by his wife of गौरी and his worship to be observed by one who wants to have success in his deeds.

GarPur, 1, 51, 20.1
karmaṇāṃ siddhikāmastu pūjayedvai vināyakam / 

KurmapurANa also has the same line of GaruDa:

KūPur, 2, 26, 40.2
karmaṇāṃ siddhikāmastu pūjayed vai vināyakam // 

Yājñavalkyasmṛti

vināyakaḥ karmavighnasiddhyarthaṃ viniyojitaḥ / (271.1)
gaṇānām ādhipatye ca rudreṇa brahmaṇā tathā // (271.2)

The last line of the reference in YajnavalkyasmRti draws attention. The leader of the गण-s need be one of them or not is another line of thinking. If he is considered as one of them, विनायक can be considered as गण like भृङ्गिरिटि, नन्दिकेश्वर etc. deformed figures prominent among the गण-s. He is worshiped with his mother too:

YāSmṛ, 1, 290.1
vināyakasya jananīm upatiṣṭhet tato 'mbikām / 

 

SkandaPurana has another line:

SkPur, 25, 31.2
tvaṃ bhūto bhūtanetā ca nāyako 'tha vināyakaḥ /

which is too clumsy to arrive at any conclusion. In the context, Nandin is addressed as vinAyaka, as their head.

No decision can be arrived at conclusively from the above references.

With regareds

--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
Research Scholar,

Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry

16 & 19, Rue Dumas

Pondichéry - 605 001

[Viswanath B]

I am not sure the following words offer any additional information, but i type in anyways -

1. the 'paMchayatana-puja' that shrI sha~jkara said to have constituted, has gaNapati in there. Since this is daily ritual for most of the vaidikas (depending on how you define this term), I don't believe its tantric. So this should rule out the possibility of gaNapathi being a  non-devatA (only). Also, shrI sha~jkara doesn't seem to be against gaNapati upasana.

2. We offer explicit prayer to gaNapati as 'gaNAAMtwA gaNApatigms havAmahE', which is a vedic mantra, this should rule out the possibility of gaNapathi being a  non-devatA (only).

3. May be some explicit references would be there in 'gaNapati Adhwara shIrSha', but I can't mention off my head.

I think there is a description of the terms in rAmayANa uttara kANDa.

Now, a related but unrelated item - In bhAgavata, there is a mention of how viShnu is reborn in different manvantaras under various names (not the dashavatara). For example in a certain manvantara, he is born as a son of 'vikuNThi', and (hence)  known as vaIkuNTha and has built a big city (?) called vaIkuNThaM. Lakshmi is also reborn and married him. We don't seem to distinguish between various such 'forms' of nArAyANa, we just worship one.

May be vinAyakA also has similar forms, and that explains your query " is vinAyakA one or two ? '

Viswanath

2011/8/21 श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaa...@gmail.com>

[Vimala Sarma]

Replying only from an etymological perspective:

devatA –deva+tA fem sg, secondary nominal, meaning any divinity

preta – departed ones

bhUta – gross elements (philosophical); but could just be something which exists, a being

gaNa – means hosts or crowd  (such as the Shiva’s gaNas of dwarfs and goblins)

But there are a hierarchy of celestial beings such as devas, apsaras, gandhArvas, yakshas, nagas, and demons of various types –rakshasas, pishAchas.

There are also different types of semi-divine beings – rishis, such as nArada.

 

I will leave it to the scholars in this forum to add traditional knowledge.

Vimala

[Vimala Sarma]

The mantra 'gaNAAMtwA gaNApatigms havAmahE' is written in vedic style but this does not mean it was written in the Vedic period historically, because there is no mention of gaNapati in the Vedas.  This deity developed  later.

 

There are many scholars to-day, who can easily compose mantras in the Vedic style, so there were in the past also. 

 

Vimala

 

From: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Viswanath B
Sent: Tuesday, 23 August 2011 3:09 AM
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Cc: advaitin-yahoo-group
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Categorization of devatAs and bhUtAs

 

I am not sure the following words offer any additional information, but i type in anyways -

[hnbhat B.R.]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Vimala Sarma <vsa...@bigpond.com> wrote:

The mantra 'gaNAAMtwA gaNApatigms havAmahE' is written in vedic style but this does not mean it was written in the Vedic period historically, because there is no mention of gaNapati in the Vedas.  This deity developed  later.

 

There are many scholars to-day, who can easily compose mantras in the Vedic style, so there were in the past also. 

 

Vimala

Anyhow, I do not contribute to this view. The hymn appears as follows in the early part of the Rigveda 2nd Mandala:

गणानां त्वा गणपतिं हवामहे कविं कविनामुपमश्रवस्तमम्। ज्येष्ठराजं ब्रह्मणां ब्रह्मणस्पत (ब्रह्मणस्पते voc.) आ नः शृ्ण्वन्नूतिभिः सीद सादनम् ।। (ऋग्वेद २।२३।१). 

But here the mention of गणपति is not addressed to the गणपति of the पुराण-s as it is obviously addressed to ब्रह्मणस्पति a popular Vedic diety  In the 23rd Sukta, of the total hymns, the same ब्रह्मणस्पति is addressed explicitly, 5, 9, 11, 17 and 19 who is again called as बृहस्पति also in the other hymns in this सूक्त itself. Hence it is clear that it is different from the गणपति of the पुराण-s project as the son of शिव and the leader of गण-s.

 

The literal meaning of the above hymn is very clear: O Brahmanaspati, we invoke you, the leader of the group among the गण-s, (the group of देव-s according to the commentator, but it applies to the next groups of which he is distinguished) - the most popular  कवि among  (the group of) कवि-s, best lord of prayers (for the group of) prayers.  In short, it is this deity is addressed as the prominent one among any group, and as example two are cited. And it can be a general statement praising this Vedic deity.

Now coming to the identification of this with the invoking the गणपति in the पञ्चायतन system, as the one related to the पौराणिक गणपति, described as एकदन्त, वक्रतुण्ड, विघ्नविनायक, लम्बोदर, गजानन etc. epithets project, the transformation is based on the very word here in this hymn गणपति. I am also the one, among them using this मन्त्र to invoke गणपति in the पञ्चायतन system. The same transformation had already taken in the गणपत्यथर्वशीर्ष which again specifically mentions एकदन्त, etc.

Shri Ganapati Atharvashirsha occurs in the atharva veda . It is considered to be most important text on Lord Ganesha . 

Several translations of the text are available.

1- Ganapatyatharvasirsopanisad by Sukthankar. 2- Ganapati : Song of the Self by Grimes 3- Saiva upanisads translated by Srinivas Ayyangar 4- Aum Ganesha : The peace of God by Navaratnam 5- Ganesha : Lord of Obstacles, Lord of Beginnings by Courtright 6- Glory of Ganesha by Swami Chinmayananda 7- Ganesha Kosha by Rao.

I remember there was a study of Ganapati cult too by some European Scholar. Dr.S.M. Michael did field studies on the origin, development and political implications on Ganapathi cult in India. Here in this link there are more references to independent studies on different aspects of Vinayaka cult.  One gives the idea of a female Vinayaka(I) too. Here is the link:

http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/lg/lg_supplementary_studies.html

Here is the extract from गणपत्यथर्वशीर्ष -

. s:ò\:a g:N:ðS:ev:½a .. g:N:k?e\:H .. en:c:à·ay:*:icCödH .. g:N:p:et:dðüv:t:a .. ! g:ö g:N:p:t:y:ð n:m:H .. 7.. .. g:N:ðS: g:ay:*:i .. Okdöt:ay: ev:¼hð . v:#t:ØNRay: D:im:eh .. t:À:ð döet:H )c::ðdy:at:Î .. 8.. .. g:N:ðS: -p: .. Okdöt:ö c:t:Øhüst:ö p:aS:m:ökÙS:D:aerN:m:Î .. rdö c: v:rdö hst:òeb:üB:ÒaN:ö m:Ü\:kDv:j:m:Î .. rVt:ö l:öb::ðdrö S:Üp:ükN:ükö rVt:v:as:s:m:Î .. rVt:g:öD:an:Øel:pt:aög:ö rVt:p:Ø\p:òH s:Øp:Üej:t:m:Î .. B:Vt:an:Øköep:n:ö dðv:ö j:g:tkarN:m:cy:Øt:m:Î .. A:ev:B:Üüt:ö c: s:à\®ad:ò )kát:ðH p:Ø,\:atp:rm:Î .. Ov:ö Dy:ay:et: y::ð en:ty:ö s: y::ðg:i y::ðeg:n:aö v:rH .. 9..

which clearly modifies his form and ideology parallel to other Upanishad-s. Historically it may be a later production and an attempt to combine Vedic and पुराण ontological descriptions into one. 

[hnbhat B.R.]

which clearly modifies his form and ideology parallel to other Upanishad-s. Historically it may be a later production and an attempt to combine Vedic and पुराण ontological descriptions into one. 

The Vedic Sukta has the deity ब्रह्मणस्पति, whereas in its modified version later, we use to change the deity in worshiping in पञ्चायतन with the same ऋषि is changed to गणपति conveniently to suit the purpose. गृत्समदो गणपतिर्जगती - whereas according to वैदिकानुक्रमणी-s the deity is ब्रह्मणस्पति explicitly invoked by the vocative. When this shift took place is a matter of opinion if historicity is acceptable. If not, voluntary volatile freedom of the worshipers accounted for.

 

Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
Research Scholar,

Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry

16 & 19, Rue Dumas

Pondichéry - 605 001

[hnbhat B.R.]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:52 AM, Vimala Sarma <vsa...@bigpond.com> wrote:

Replying only from an etymological perspective:

devatA –deva+tA fem sg, secondary nominal, meaning

 

Etymological Explanation is one thing according to Grammar and their definition according to their usage in different schools/sects of Indian Philosophy/Religion (there has always been a great confusion between the overlapping nature of these two categories in the western view of these two terms in the broader sense) otherwise according to PurANa-s and Veda-s (BrahmaNa-s offer etymological explanation according to derivation following some episode).

 

Now, coming to the word, अमर classifies देव, असुर, यक्ष, गन्धर्व etc. divine, semi-divine categories without consideration of Puranic legends or Vedic passages. देव and देवता both are considered as synonoms signifiying gods in general. असुर, किंनर, etc. are celestial occupiants according to him.

According to my earlier cited quotations, one says there is a group of Vinayaka-s, for which it uses the word in plural: विनायक-s of which I do not have any idea. May be, one of them is considered as their head विनायक, and may be considered as the Tantric one. But Vedic विनायक appears in अथर्ववेद , in गणपत्यथर्वशीर्ष explicitly with the attires of the one described in पुराण-s.

 

--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
Research Scholar,

[Vimala Sarma]

Bhat Mahodaya

There is also the deity bRhaspati and the suktam is also applied to gaNapati nowadays – however the elephant-headed god did not exist in Vedic times.

The quote you have given at the end is not presenting in correct font on my computer.  Can you please send again?

Vimala

 

From: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of hnbhat B.R.
Sent: Tuesday, 23 August 2011 3:20 PM
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Categorization of devatAs and bhUtAs

 

 

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Vimala Sarma <vsa...@bigpond.com> wrote:

--

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 07:33, Vimala Sarma <vsa...@bigpond.com> wrote:

The mantra 'gaNAAMtwA gaNApatigms havAmahE' is written in vedic style but this does not mean it was written in the Vedic period historically,

Why did such doubt arise ? There seems no genuine cause. Denying anything without any genuine conflict to suite your own views based on incomplete information is not a good thing. It clearly says that you are biased.
Again, people saying 'vedic period' are outside tradition and whatever they say after reading writings of others is useless to vaidikas.
 

because there is no mention of gaNapati in the Vedas.  This deity developed  later.

gaNAnAntvA is  itself veda. What other veda do you need ?
How could you say that deity developed later ? Just because he is elaborately explained in purANas. According to vyAsa, etc. purANa are either explanation or helpful for understanding of veda. So, they describe only those things which are said in veda in bIja-rUpa even.

 

There are many scholars to-day, who can easily compose mantras in the Vedic style, so there were in the past also. 

No scholar was such shameless and fearless of adharma as are now-a-days' people. So, elders didn't do that. And I don't know any people capable of doing this. Too much speculation is very bad and that too in negative direction.
Moreover, which mantra is veda and which not is defined by paramparA of veda-pAThins and not by anyone.
Some people say that, since sha~Nkara-bhagavatpAda didn't explain such and such upaniShat, so I don't believe that upaniShat. This is wrong, because sha~Nkara is not an authority on this subject. Same is true for people tainted with negative-speculations.

[Ram Kumar Krishnan ராம குமரன்]

These are my notes based on Kanchi Sri.Chandrasekara saraswathis discourses Deivathin kural . Based on this what we have as Vedas is only a small drop of the ocean. and based on the argument telling ganesha is not described in the vedas wont be fair. 

--------------------

vyasa classified vedas into 1180 shakas and classified them as four vedas

out of that 1000 shakas were in samaveda,21 in rigveda,109 in yajur,21 in atharva

but now only 6-7 shakas are available for us

rigveda only 1 is available (shakala shaka)

out of 15 shukla yajur only 2 are available (kanva shaka,mathyanthina shaka)

krishna yajur out of 94 only thaithriya is there

out of 1000 sama only 3 are remaining (thavalavakar (or) jaimaniya shaka,gautuma shakaraanayaneeya shaka) 

atharva nobody is there who knows even one shaka they searched and found only one person in gujarat who knew it

they send some ppl from mutt to learn it

out of bramhanas only aithreya and kaushethakee are available from rigveda

shatapatha bramhana is only available in shukla yajur

thaithriya bramhana is the only one available in krishna yajur

thantya bramhanam,aarsheya bramhanam,thevathaatyaay bramhanam,samhithopanishad brammanam,vamsa bramamam(shatvimsa,samavithana bramhana,santhokya bramhanam,jaimineeya bramhanam) are also available

only kobatha bramhanam is available in atharva veda

[vishvAs vAsuki]

 

There are many scholars to-day, who can easily compose mantras in the Vedic style, so there were in the past also. 

My impression is that this is extremely rare, not only because of accenting, but because the verses should be composed by some extraordinary inspiration (and not just as intellectual exercise): the last person I read about who did this was kAvyakaNTha-gaNapati-shAstrI over a century ago.

 

--
vishvAs