When we consider Lord Shiva to be the greatest Vaishnava why don’t we celebrate Mahashivaratri the way we celebrate the appearance and disappearance day of so many Vaishnava acharyas?

If we consider Lord Shiva to be the highest Vaishnava, vaishnavānām yathā śambhuḥ, why don’t we celebrate festivals like Mahashivratri? And there are so many Acharyas whose appearance and disappearance are mentioned—almost over a hundred—in the Vaishnava calendar. Yet Lord Shiva is not included in that. First, let’s look at it from three different perspectives.

The Vaishnava calendar was largely adopted from the Gaudiya calendar. And the Gaudiya Math, which largely existed in Bengal, in many ways solidified its organizational structure by adopting many of the festivals that were locally celebrated in Bengal. That’s why we have Katyayani Puja included within the Vaishnava calendar. Now, who celebrates Katyayani Puja? It is mainly Vrindavan devotees who celebrate it, although it is there in the calendar. That is more of a legacy—an artifact from the past—rather than something dynamic today.

So there have been various calendar committees within our movement to see what modifications should be made in the calendar and what should be continued. The point is: the calendar should not be seen as scripture. It is basically a circumstantial record of what festivals were considered significant, and what is considered significant will evolve with time. There are many places in India where, in temples, Shivratri is celebrated, and that is part of the local calendar.

Second, with respect to why Lord Shiva’s festivals are not included: within the tradition there has been a historical change—possibly in response to circumstances—about how the devatas are approached. In the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, there is a very natural and respectful acceptance of the worship of the devatas, even by the main characters who were Vaishnavas. So, who worships which deity was not a big issue. In the Mahabharata, Vishnu’s ashram is mentioned, Shiva’s ashram is also mentioned.

Over the centuries, especially as the Vaishnava sampradayas became more solidified, Shankaracharya introduced the Panchopasana. This had valid historical reasons, as he was trying to unify followers of the Vedic path under one broad umbrella. But the result was that confusion began about the interrelationship between the devatas and the Supreme Lord—about who is supreme and how worship of one should relate to another. To counter this, the sampradayas began to draw sharper demarcations: “We should worship only this deity and not others.”

Some traditional sampradayas would never go to a Shiva temple at all; if they went, even by mistake, they would fast. This resembles (not exactly, but somewhat similar to) a Christian-style exclusivity: just as a wife would not go to another man’s house, devotees considered that they should only worship their Lord. Even today, some modern Vaishnava leaders may go for interfaith meetings in mosques or churches but will not go to a Shiva temple.

However, Mahaprabhu did not exemplify such rigid demarcation. When He went to Bhubaneswar, He visited the temple of Lord Shiva. So, within ISKCON too, we need to understand that while at one time sharp demarcation served a purpose, if carried too far it can appear extreme—though there was some justification for it in its context.

On the other side, every tradition has to live within a particular environment and connect with people in that environment. As our movement is now becoming more mainstream and is seen as one of the leading Hindu organizations, sometimes we may also celebrate Mahashivratri, but in a way that focuses on glorifying Lord Shiva as the topmost Vaishnava. Respect for local customs is important.

Mahaprabhu also showed this principle. For example, He did not support the idea that Haridas Thakur should be barred from entering the Jagannath temple, but He did not fight against the temple authorities either. He respected both Haridas Thakur and the temple tradition. Similarly, in different places our leaders may choose whether to celebrate certain festivals or not, depending on the local situation.

So, not everything in a living tradition is monolithic. Depending on the dynamics of particular places and decisions of local leaders, some festivals may be celebrated and some may not. As individuals too, we may have to balance our cultural background and family expectations with our institutional practices.

That is why it is important to remember the distinction between principles and details. The principle is eternal, but the details—such as which festivals are celebrated and how much emphasis is given—can be adjusted according to time, place, and circumstance.