What did Sankara mean?

[orlando]

Namaste all.
I don't know if this is right topic where to post.
According to Swami Sivananda,Sri Shankaracarya,the famous advaita philosopher,told:
"Brahmacharya or spotless chastity is the best of all penances; a celibate of such spotless chastity is not a human being, but a god indeed... To the celibate who conserves the semen with great efforts, what is there unattainable in this world ? By the power of the composure of the semen, one will become just like Myself."

What did Sankara mean?
Regards,
Orlando.

[Arjuna]

Shankara was a sannyasi and thus [supposedly] celibate. Naturally he spoke about value of what he followed himself.

However if i am not wrong, Shivananda in similar to ISCKON way diverted idea of brahmacharya, trying to impose it upon grihastha-sadhakas (correct me if this is not so).

We can find similar glorifications of sexual act in Shastras and opinions of Masters. So, each one is to follow his own achara and ashrama.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste,

Shri Shankaracarya went directly from Brahmacarya to Sannyasa, and thus remained always celibate.

Shankara went to Prayaga to meet Kumarilla Bhatta, who had been fighting against various non-vedic influences that had crept into the Dharma. In the course of this attempted reformation, Bhatta had offended his own Gurus, and he was preparing to undergo self-immolation in penance for this sin, so he told Shankara to go to Mahishmati (Omkara) on the Narmada and defeat Madan Mishra (one of Bhatta’s own students) in debate, and by so doing the vedic Dharma could be restored.

The debate continued for 18 days, and finally Madan Mishra conceded defeat and offered himself as a disciple to Shankara. But then Mishra’s wife, Ubhaya Bharati, stepped forward and asked Shankara to debate her (since husband and wife are equal partners, and Kumarilla Bhatta would not be truly defeated until she could also be defeated.

Shankara accepted, and they debated for another 18 days; until finally, Ubhaya Bharati questioned Shankara about the erotic arts and sciences, and Shankara fell silent, because he knew nothing about the subject of sex.

Shankara requested one month to find the answers he needed, and went into a cave to meditate. The king of a nearby region had just died, and Shankara’s soul left his own body and immediately transferred into the body of Raja Amaraka, which (reanimated by Shankara) quickly learned all that there was to know about Kama, in the royal palace of Amaraka.

Within the month, Shankara returned to Ubhaya Bharati, answered all of her questions, and won the debate. At which time Madan Mishra became Shankaracarya’s disciple, and he was named Sureshvaracarya (the founder of Shringeri-Math).

Shri Shankaracarya was surely celibate.

Svami Shivananda has NOT “diverted” the ideal of celibacy and “imposed” it on any householders. But if a Grihastha decides to be Yogin, while yet remaining attached to his wife, then I am sure that Shivananda would recommend that no semen should ever be lost in the process.

[ramkish42]

But if a Grihastha decides to be Yogin, while yet remaining attached to his wife, then I am sure that Shivananda would recommend that no semen should ever be lost in the process

Attachment to wife is to have attachment in all levels, and this advice verily goes against attachment of wife, unless one's wife agrees to such effort.

As dharma goes, if wife invites, it is the duty of man to abide by it unless he is not capable of fulfilling due to other reasons.

Grihastha turns yogin still attached to wife is still grihastha, all duties of grihastha follows. Grihastha is defined by presence of spouse and children and not being in lonely places (i.e living in villages, town, cities etc and not in forest)

The problem I understand is that we are trying to fit in the word Yogin in Aashramadharma where as Yogin in independant of Aashramadhrama. Under given conditions, Grihastha is not right Aashrama for a Yogin but other three verily serves.

This is my opinion

[Arjuna]

Namaste,

The reply of Sarabhanga is very reasonable. (Yes, i personally consider Shankara to have been Kaula, in which i follow the teaching of my Masters. But as a scholar i understand that no actual proof for this is there, it is no more than an opinion.)
I would rather assume that Shankara still had sexual experience, even if it was in another's body (what is the difference if consciousness and individuality is the same?). But again, this is my view only.

I have read in one article by Shivananda some wrong things about Tantrism, in particular about 5M. However i was told by my Shrividya Guru that Shivananda had proper knowledge, but did not want to disclose it openly in books. May be; i trust my Guru in this.

I do not see any problem in Sarabhanga's statement about Shivananda advicing husband not to loose virya. This is imporant for yoga indeed (not for Kaula-tantra though), and this doesn't imply husband cannot satisfy his wife and even himself. It is possible to have sexual act without ejaculation, which was well known in India. In yogic paths sex is allowed (for grihasthis) but ejaculation may be not. It is logical in terms of this particular system, hatha-yoga.

If one follows Kaula-mata, rules are different. Even there in some types of sadhana it is suggested to abstain from ejaculation - while in other it is a must. All details are dependant upon sampradaya and ajna of one's Guru. In general case this issue is of no matter to Tantra, rules are put only to ritual use of sex.

Of course, for a Kaula his wife/shakti is also a Guru, thus her opinion must be taken into consideration. This is right also in regard of every grihastha. While it is dharma of grihastha to make his wife happy in all ways, certainly it can be done without loss of physical semen if that is required by one's own specific achara (yogic path in this case).

[Arjuna]

And normally yes, path of yoga is not meant for grihasthis. For them path of Kula is much more suitable and it doesn't create such difficulties of "trying to be a sannyasi" :)

[Singhi Kaya]

I do not see any problem in Sarabhanga's statement about Shivananda advicing husband not to loose virya. This is imporant for yoga indeed (not for Kaula-tantra though), and this doesn't imply husband cannot satisfy his wife and even himself. It is possible to have sexual act without ejaculation, which was well known in India. In yogic paths sex is allowed (for grihasthis) but ejaculation may be not. It is logical in terms of this particular system, hatha-yoga.

Amrauli and vajrauli kriyas?
I have heard negative things about them ... :rolleyes:


If one follows Kaula-mata, rules are different. Even there in some types of sadhana it is suggested to abstain from ejaculation - while in other it is a must. All details are dependant upon sampradaya and ajna of one's Guru. In general case this issue is of no matter to Tantra, rules are put only to ritual use of sex.

White Maithun? Can you name a well know Tantra which describes this differences?

[Singhi Kaya]

And normally yes, path of yoga is not meant for grihasthis. For them path of Kula is much more suitable and it doesn't create such difficulties of "trying to be a sannyasi" :)

You do advertize the kaula path pretty well;).
Amritananda ji's site say physical 5M's is a very small section of the entire path. It is necessary only for sadhaks at vira stage only. And it is mentioned that, there are alternatives to direct physical activity in vira stage also.

I always thought tantra was more yoga than anything else. Yes instead of a direct abstinence it challenges the very ingredients of sensual bondage at a certain stage - meeting the enemy head on, hence the name vira or brave. Celebates try to bypass it in someway and hence are not brave;). But aim is not to derive pleasure - then we can very well do it in normal lives. This view I have now seen in quite a few places not to mention in anadamatha writings. Disscussion at Amritananda Ji's site (http://shaktisadhana.50megs.com/Newhomepage/TheForum.html)

I'm not an expert and I cannot challenge you (yet;)) on this theme, but the theme makes all the difference. Actual use of physical sex in the above theme is as much yogic as celebacy.

But just to point out my feeling, in your posts the yogic aspect of tantra rarely comes up and focus is only on the sex aspect (that too stressed in a different way than the above site) which is only a small section of the path.

[Arjuna]

Amrauli and vajrauli kriyas?
I have heard negative things about them ... :rolleyes:

White Maithun? Can you name a well know Tantra which describes this differences?

Namaste,

As far as i know from my Gurus vajroli&amaroli do not deal with physical semen reversal. Regarding hatha-yoga literal type of these, i also assume may be damageful for health and in any case useless spiritually.
But, this is tradition of my sampradayas. I have no knowledge of each and every.

Almost all Tantras prescribe sex with ejaculation. What i mentioned is based on oral instruction and i do not want to enter into any further details. In general case, there is no insistance in Kaulachara on preventing ejaculation, since it is viewed as the offering to Devi (this idea is already present in Upanishads).

And i know Shri Amritananda personally, so i know what i am speaking about.

[ramkish42]

Namaste,

As far as i know from my Gurus vajroli&amaroli do not deal with physical semen reversal. Regarding hatha-yoga literal type of these, i also assume may be damageful for health and in any case useless spiritually.
But, this is tradition of my sampradayas. I have no knowledge of each and every.

Almost all Tantras prescribe sex with ejaculation. What i mentioned is based on oral instruction and i do not want to enter into any further details. In general case, there is no insistance in Kaulachara on preventing ejaculation, since it is viewed as the offering to Devi (this idea is already present in Upanishads).

And i know Shri Amritananda personally, so i know what i am speaking about.
Does that mean my views are correct.

Yogi cannot be a perfect Yogi as long as he is grihasta

[Singhi Kaya]

Does that mean my views are correct.

Yogi cannot be a perfect Yogi as long as he is grihasta

This has been said by shaktibad swami as well.
Instead of yoga he wrote brahma jnana~I think it means the suprem knowledge. As we know there are several levels of knowledge as well.

[Arjuna]

Does that mean my views are correct.
Yogi cannot be a perfect Yogi as long as he is grihasta

I did not understand exactly to what U refer by "this".

Grihastha can be a perfect yogi and examples were and are there.
Of course, the word "yogi" is used very deliberately now, so it isn't clear what exactly U mean. Up to my knowledge, there is no such teaching even in Gaurakshanatha-yoga and Patanjala-yoga (correct me if i am wrong).
For sure, one can be married and be a perfect Kaula-yogi or Raja-yogi.

[Arjuna]

This has been said by shaktibad swami as well.
Instead of yoga he wrote brahma jnana~I think it means the suprem knowledge. As we know there are several levels of knowledge as well.

I strongly doubt the validity of such statement even according to Vedas. And surely it is not based on Tantras.

Thus, it is just a personal opinion, which is authorative for his disciples only.

[ramkish42]

I did not understand exactly to what U refer by "this".

Grihastha can be a perfect yogi and examples were and are there.
Of course, the word "yogi" is used very deliberately now, so it isn't clear what exactly U mean. Up to my knowledge, there is no such teaching even in Gaurakshanatha-yoga and Patanjala-yoga (correct me if i am wrong).
For sure, one can be married and be a perfect Kaula-yogi or Raja-yogi.

Grihastha being an ashrama, is mandatory and being a yogi is obligatory. Observance of obligatory dharma will not cancel mandatory dharma for mandatory dharma prevails all obligatory dharma

you had previously that "path of yoga is not meant for grihasthis". Why so much of contradictions.

As we know, Yogi cannot indulge in sexual intercourse, and sexual intercourse is not confined only to ejaculation but covers the foreplay also.

The irony here is that, if Yogi is allowed to do such foreplay and intercourse without ejaculation, then other niyamas that bans intercourse during special occasions carries such warranty. Say Amaavashya, Shraardha etc when performed, Adhikari is banned from sexual intercourse for the day, which includes foreplay.

[Arjuna]

Grihastha being an ashrama, is mandatory and being a yogi is obligatory. Observance of obligatory dharma will not cancel mandatory dharma for mandatory dharma prevails all obligatory dharma.

In general case it is right, though special exceptions are there.


you had previously that "path of yoga is not meant for grihasthis". Why so much of contradictions.

This confusion was not created by me, what to do. There is no clear definition of "yoga", everyone uses this word as he likes.
When i said it is not meant for grihasthis, i was referring to Patanjali system and later version of Natha-yoga, ascribed to Gorakhnath.
In fact i would rather say that these systems essentially are not yogic proper, since their aim is division, viyoga. But they are commonly called "yoga".
But even in these systems as i know there are some possibilities for grihasthi to enter (and of course continue his sexual life). Yet indeed they are not meant for him.
Hope this clarifies my point.


As we know, Yogi cannot indulge in sexual intercourse, and sexual intercourse is not confined only to ejaculation but covers the foreplay also.

Where from do "we know" this?
Some later texts do prohibit this, but at the same time other texts describe sexual practice for yogis (i refer here to shaiva-siddhantins and nathas) — like Tirumantiram, Shiva-samhita and Hathayoga-pradipika. So, opinions vary.

In the case of Tantric systems of Yoga sexual intercourse is not prohibited at all.


The irony here is that, if Yogi is allowed to do such foreplay and intercourse without ejaculation, then other niyamas that bans intercourse during special occasions carries such warranty. Say Amaavashya, Shraardha etc when performed, Adhikari is banned from sexual intercourse for the day, which includes foreplay.

At least in some texts and traditions yogi is allowed. There are some regulations, but no prohibition.
I didn't understand whom U call "adhikari" in this case. Besides that, is sexual intercourse somewhere prohibited on amavasya tithi? I hear this for the first time. May be, i do not know Smarta rules in such detail. Tantras never entertain such restrictions.

[ramkish42]

Shri Arjunaji

Want to know that exceptions where obligatory dharma over rides mandatory dharma. I am not talking about occasional occurence vis-a-vis daily occurence where occasionality always overrides daily practise - however, the point is occasional practise and daily practise are both mandatory. Hope you will clarify me

Usage of term Yoga is always a problem. Anything and everything is termed as yoga - probably after this I hope you will clarify you stances on Yoga, for I stick with patanjali for the usage of the term Yoga, where one tries to realise Kundalini, starting from nithya, yama, niyama etc

From the commentaries given for Patanjali's yoga sutras, till kundalini level is reached, sex is barred, and once kundalini is reached, normally sex is always out of context for such person is not interested in it

If tantric system does not prohibit, it is OK. But I want to know, is abstinance from sex is treated in the same way as indulgence? For many of the other system, brahamacharya is adored much, and grihastha too, but at the level of performance of duties and upholding dharma; where sex is always treated as method of having an offspring and nothing more.

Adhikari refers to karta of the said activities, the word specifically used for the duty is bestowed on that person, for he is made incharge of completion of the duty. The said rule is applicable for smaarta as well as vaishnav. I do not know much as you do in Tantric. Probably interaction with you might start my journey

[Arjuna]

Namaste,

1. Let me put it in this way: there is a system of varnashrama which is a social institution with its “mandatory dharma”. In the society based upon it, this dharma has to be followed by every citizen. But there are certain exceptions: Vedic vratyas, then kapalikas, aghoris and other Tantric sects. Adherents of these paths take upon themselves specific dharma, which makes them free from social one.
Also there are some issues in the context of Kaula-tantra, which I do not want to deal with currently. Generally speaking, the authority of Kaula-guru and Kaulagama is above any other outer authority for any Kaula-sadhaka. Thus in the case social dharma or any prescription contradicts Kaula-dharma, one has to follow the latter. Society may not agree with this view and some religious people won’t accept it. But such is the Doctrine revealed by Shiva.

2. There is no concept of kundalini in the system of Patanjali. Kundalini concept appeared in Kaula texts firstly and then was imported into hatha-yoga system ascribed to Gorakhnath. Please do not confuse the matter. Though there are some similarities, systems of Patanjali and Gorakhnath are not the same.
Since “yoga” means “union”, a problem arises. These two systems actually teach viyoga, separation of Purusha and Prakriti. Thus I cannot call them “yoga” in a proper sense. At the same time, Kaula-naya is the path of uniting Shiva and Shakti, and essentially is yogic.

3. Which commentaries do U refer to?
Kundalini is totally absent from Yoga-sutras. As I know, no prohibition of sex is present there and no prohibition for sadhana for grihasthis. Patanjali’s system deal with meditation and thus it is not connected with sex, having it or abstaining. What later commentators developed is not necessary the intention of the author.
The whole idea of Kundalini is taken from Tantras only. So we have to view it in their context, and not that of Patanjalashtanga. Sexual activity can be used in kundalini-sadhana or can exist alongside — it is not contrary to sadhana (temporary and specific exceptions may be there, as per Guru-ajna).
Brahmacharya is Kaula-tantra is understood differently, which I have already explained.

4. Sex is not a “method to make kids” only, but primarily a “method to make one’s wife happy and enjoy oneself”. It is related to Kama, which is one of 4 Purusharthas.
When sexual act is a manifestation of love, it is a sacred act, devotional and godly in its essence and form. And Love is the highest Dharma.

[ramkish42]

Namaste,

1. Let me put it in this way: there is a system of varnashrama which is a social institution with its “mandatory dharma”. In the society based upon it, this dharma has to be followed by every citizen. But there are certain exceptions: Vedic vratyas, then kapalikas, aghoris and other Tantric sects. Adherents of these paths take upon themselves specific dharma, which makes them free from social one.
Also there are some issues in the context of Kaula-tantra, which I do not want to deal with currently. Generally speaking, the authority of Kaula-guru and Kaulagama is above any other outer authority for any Kaula-sadhaka. Thus in the case social dharma or any prescription contradicts Kaula-dharma, one has to follow the latter. Society may not agree with this view and some religious people won’t accept it. But such is the Doctrine revealed by Shiva.

2. There is no concept of kundalini in the system of Patanjali. Kundalini concept appeared in Kaula texts firstly and then was imported into hatha-yoga system ascribed to Gorakhnath. Please do not confuse the matter. Though there are some similarities, systems of Patanjali and Gorakhnath are not the same.
Since “yoga” means “union”, a problem arises. These two systems actually teach viyoga, separation of Purusha and Prakriti. Thus I cannot call them “yoga” in a proper sense. At the same time, Kaula-naya is the path of uniting Shiva and Shakti, and essentially is yogic.

3. Which commentaries do U refer to?
Kundalini is totally absent from Yoga-sutras. As I know, no prohibition of sex is present there and no prohibition for sadhana for grihasthis. Patanjali’s system deal with meditation and thus it is not connected with sex, having it or abstaining. What later commentators developed is not necessary the intention of the author.
The whole idea of Kundalini is taken from Tantras only. So we have to view it in their context, and not that of Patanjalashtanga. Sexual activity can be used in kundalini-sadhana or can exist alongside — it is not contrary to sadhana (temporary and specific exceptions may be there, as per Guru-ajna).
Brahmacharya is Kaula-tantra is understood differently, which I have already explained.

4. Sex is not a “method to make kids” only, but primarily a “method to make one’s wife happy and enjoy oneself”. It is related to Kama, which is one of 4 Purusharthas.
When sexual act is a manifestation of love, it is a sacred act, devotional and godly in its essence and form. And Love is the highest Dharma.

Arjunji,

First I want to make it clear that we are discussing about tantri here but about what Sanakara meant

As you had made some submission, I would like to say the following

1. Kaulagama and Kaulashastra if supercedes all texts, then you do not fall with in Vedic religion itself and this deprives you from using vedic references. You must accept veda supercedes all such kaulagama, lest you fall in line with Jainism. Anyways, this does not affect me in larger scale, for I still feel Tantri is part of Hinduism

2. Arjunji, I am sorry, I had really underestimated your learning. You are really a learned person. I used Kundalini to refer to 7th and 8th anga of Patanjali Yoga for many people I had interacted with are not aware of last phases of patanjali yoga unless the word kundalini is used.

By the way, Yoga referring to Union, essentially cannot refer to union of Shiva and Shakti for this goes against Monism. If both are one, there is no need for union, and if there is a need for union then it means shiv and shakti are not same but different, hence, any one of your premises falls. You have to choose between monism and Kaulanaya

3. As we are discussing about what Sanakara meant within the purview of Advaiti thought and Yoga thoughts in that purview, there is no point in offering Tantri thought of Yoga not banning sex in this thread. This I call consistency. When tantri thread of such issue arises you point is verily valid for Tantri does not bar sex in yoga. However, for a grihasti, higher levels of Yoga is barred for two counts
a) Yoga making way to realise god, atma and reality, cannot go in with grihasta duties to uphold samaanya dharma, progeny etc
b) once, higher level is reached, person automatically loses interest in sex for target is higher, (Sankara categorically treated sex as lower interest)

4. For Sanakara, Duty of grihasta having intercourse is essentially for progeny. I do agree kama is one of the four purushaartha. All gurus, including Sanakara, Shrimad Ramanuja, Shri Madhvacharya, Shri Vallabha, I can say almost all except tantri gurus, never viewed sex as devotion. As this thread is not about tantri, this view is not tenable in this thread

[Arjuna]

Arjunji,
First I want to make it clear that we are discussing about tantri here but about what Sanakara meant

I just replied to Ur previous post and not to the original from which the thread started.
Yet according to my tradition, Shankara was a Kaula. I do not state this is necessarily a historical truth, since there is no proof that the author of Gita-bhashya and other alike works and the author of Saundarya-lahari is one person. Three options are there: either these were two different people (many scholars think in this way), or Shankara at a later age went into Shakta line (as i know, this was a view of B. N. Pandit, as well as of two Shrividya masters personally known to me), or Shakta version of his teaching was existing simultaneously with Vedantic one — and meant for grihasthis (this was a view of Pt. H. Chakravarti).

Regarding Shankara's yoga system, it was aimed at sannyasis and not grihasthis (as i know). Thus, sexual intercourse is of course prohibited — not due to yogic side, but due to ashrama-dharma.


Kaulagama and Kaulashastra if supercedes all texts, then you do not fall with in Vedic religion itself and this deprives you from using vedic references. You must accept veda supercedes all such kaulagama, lest you fall in line with Jainism. Anyways, this does not affect me in larger scale, for I still feel Tantri is part of Hinduism

The view i provided is a view of Shaivism and Tantrism, as well as of Vaishnavism — i mean Agama being superior to Veda. In practice it is a fact, while in theory at times we see claimed equality of these two parts of Shruti.
Tantrism does not reject Vedic authority, but for Tantrism (and Shaivism) it is an additional authority only. This has nothing to do with the heresy of Jainism :). Some Tantras, like Mahanirvana, state that written Vedas are out of date, and for kaliyuga only Agamas are valid. Other see Vedas as an exoteric part of VEDA (Knowledge of Truth), while Agamas are its inner part.


Arjunji, I am sorry, I had really underestimated your learning. You are really a learned person. I used Kundalini to refer to 7th and 8th anga of Patanjali Yoga for many people I had interacted with are not aware of last phases of patanjali yoga unless the word kundalini is used.

Up to my knowledge Patanjali's explanation of dhyana and samadhi is not connected with Kundalini, but with the process of contemplation. In fact Tantrism doesn't accept ashtanga of Patanjali as path to Brahma-jnana. Kshemaraja in his commentary on Netra-tantra says that unlike ashtanga-yoga of Shaivism, Patanjali's one leads to mita-siddhi only, to limited success. In fact Yoga-sutra 1.2 claims the aim of yoga to be "chittavritti-nirodha". This is not a description of the Highest State, but of sushupti.


By the way, Yoga referring to Union, essentially cannot refer to union of Shiva and Shakti for this goes against Monism. If both are one, there is no need for union, and if there is a need for union then it means shiv and shakti are not same but different, hence, any one of your premises falls. You have to choose between monism and Kaulanaya

No, this is not right. Of course, Yoga is not an actual "bringing together two separate things and making them one", but rather a realisation of ever-existent Unity.
Shiva and Shakti are two aspects of one Consciousness; uniting Shiva with Shakti means realising they are one.
Keep in mind, these things cannot be exactly put in words. Also, english isn't native for me, so at times i may use not precise expressions.


As we are discussing about what Sanakara meant within the purview of Advaiti thought and Yoga thoughts in that purview, there is no point in offering Tantri thought of Yoga not banning sex in this thread. This I call consistency. When tantri thread of such issue arises you point is verily valid for Tantri does not bar sex in yoga. However, for a grihasti, higher levels of Yoga is barred for two counts
a) Yoga making way to realise god, atma and reality, cannot go in with grihasta duties to uphold samaanya dharma, progeny etc
b) once, higher level is reached, person automatically loses interest in sex for target is higher, (Sankara categorically treated sex as lower interest)

Let me ask in this way:
Which yoga system and where prohibits sex for grihasthis? I am unaware of such prescription. In fact, it cannot, since it will be a violation of ashrama-dharma. If no sex permitted, then this system is not for grihasthis at all. In this case it doesn't deal with them and thus cannot prescribe or prohibit anything.

I really do not understand Ur a&b points. What is the problem with being married and having children and being at the same time a yogi, who realises "God, atma and reality"? Many Rishis were married, Krishna and Arjuna were, Rama was, many saints and siddhas were married. Didn't they realise God and reality?
About "automatially loosing interest" it is a mere assumption, i would say baseless. To say the least, it is not necessarily true: if grihastha-yogi loves his wife, naturally he will enjoy sex with her — of course such sex will be much more deep and blissful that sex of an ordinary human-pashu. But siddha-yogi will not be dependent upon physical sex, that is right, since the very being for him is a Mahamelana of Shiva and Shakti.

[ramkish42]

Yet according to my tradition, Shankara was a Kaula. I do not state this is necessarily a historical truth, since there is no proof that the author of Gita-bhashya and other alike works and the author of Saundarya-lahari is one person. Three options are there: either these were two different people (many scholars think in this way), or Shankara at a later age went into Shakta line (as i know, this was a view of B. N. Pandit, as well as of two Shrividya masters personally known to me), or Shakta version of his teaching was existing simultaneously with Vedantic one — and meant for grihasthis (this was a view of Pt. H. Chakravarti).

Mutt established by Shri Adhi Sankara should be the authority in deciding such factors. Calling author of Soundarya Lahiri as Shaktha is as absurd as author of Baja Govindam as Shri Vaishnava. In many texts, Sanakara upholds specific physical nature of devatas, which is verily against in basic tenant, still considered valid for those whom are yet to reach higher level (proper) Advaita (Nirguna). Calling Sanakara as Dvaitin based on his various karavalambam is equally absurd.

Researchers submit their opinions but while looking at popular opinions and widely accepted systems, Sanakara can never be Kaula


Regarding Shankara's yoga system, it was aimed at sannyasis and not grihasthis
No. It is valid for all Ashramas


The view i provided is a view of Shaivism and Tantrism, as well as of Vaishnavism — i mean Agama being superior to Veda
Most absurb submission. I am sorry for such wordings. Agamas are not meant to be superior to Veda by any means.

Request you not to use Shaivism and Vaishanavism in such opinions. Regarding Tantri, you can make such claims, as I am not good in that, I am none to comment on that.


state that written Vedas are out of date
From when Veda became written veda


for kaliyuga only Agamas are valid
Verily Jain thought. Jains verily say Vedas are authoritative


uniting Shiva with Shakti means realising they are one
How does sex places a role in this? During our discussion elsewhere you pointed out that intercourse is to make ones wife happy etc, this statement does not corroborate your stance


Which yoga system and where prohibits sex for grihasthis? I am unaware of such prescription
Advaiti system and Patanjai systems does prohibits


In fact, it cannot, since it will be a violation of ashrama-dharma
This is what I am saying. As such prohibition violates Ashrama dharma, grihastis are not encouraged to be yogi in the above mentioned systems to reach the highest node, unless and otherwise, it is explicity vowed for. Yogi and grihasti cannot go with equally unless the activity of sex is out. More over, Grihasti, who abstains from intercourse, with due permission from wife, still considered as grihasti as long as he upholds other duties assigned for him and his concentration is focused only on attaining Moksha (Karma Marga)


yogi, who realises "God, atma and reality
Yogi who realises god, atma and reality does not go with intercourse for his aim is absolutely god and not intercourse and progeny.

Our system of Rishi and Munis are different from Sanyasis, I hope you know, hence I do not want to describe this further. Regarding your question as to whether such persons had not realise god, my answer is yes, they had realised god and reality, but how many of them indulged in intercourse in furtherance of becoming a yogi. Arjuna, (mahabharat) is a different character, who is said went to Swarga after death, hence had not realised god. Rama and Krishna are verily god and assigning realisation of god to them will be absurd.

There is no concept of Grihastha Yogi loving to have sex with his wife. He may love his wife but love is not for enjoying sex with her. Request you not to give an image of sexomanic for people who had realised God.

During the path of becoming a Yogi one is taught to see Atma and Lord in every living things and non living things. A person who is supposed to see Atma and Lord, if you opine, see flesh and sex, the very idea is absurd

[Arjuna]

For Sanakara, Duty of grihasta having intercourse is essentially for progeny. I do agree kama is one of the four purushaartha. All gurus, including Sanakara, Shrimad Ramanuja, Shri Madhvacharya, Shri Vallabha, I can say almost all except tantri gurus, never viewed sex as devotion. As this thread is not about tantri, this view is not tenable in this thread

What is the basis of such statement? I strongly doubt that these acharyas rejected sex as a means to making wife happy and enjoy oneself — this is not contrary to Vedas, Upanishads, Gita and Smriti.

Of course, sex as a part of upasana is a Tantric view. But it exists in Pancharatra tradition, that much i know. Thus, Ramanuja must have been aware of such practice, though it is esoteric one of course and not opened to public.

[ramkish42]

What is the basis of such statement? I strongly doubt that these acharyas rejected sex as a means to making wife happy and enjoy oneself — this is not contrary to Vedas, Upanishads, Gita and Smriti.

Of course, sex as a part of upasana is a Tantric view. But it exists in Pancharatra tradition, that much i know. Thus, Ramanuja must have been aware of such practice, though it is esoteric one of course and not opened to public.
Ever read Moha mutkaram of Shri Sankaracharya? If so, you would not be raising such doubts. All acharyas viewed sex as petty enjoyment and viewed self awarness as greater bliss and one should move towards greater bliss.

I am not saying they asked every one to abstain from sex. They adviced to limit to progeny. Sublime analogy I can provide - Most of the achryas, as you can see from their biographies, had limited themselves in having number of children - Sankara and Shrimad Ramanuja had none

Further where does veda, upanishad and gita asks you to enjoy yourself with your wife and try to realise god in mithuna? Quote any major upanishad or any commentary for Veda, upanishad and gita which subscribes to such views

Yes, sex is a part of upasana only in tantric view. Request you not to extend it to vaishnav philosophy, if so, request you to quote or validate your submission.

Your comments on Shrimad Ramanuja accusing him for not making an information public is highly derogatory. You are accusing an acharya for not disclosing truth. Request you to remeber the story of Shri Dhuruvasa, where he was chased by Shri Sudarsana for this derogatory comments on Bhaktha of Lord.

Jai shree krishna.

After such insults, I am ashamed for two things

1. Having responded to you logically
2. For those people who had increased your reputation to 30.

Further to the readers of this thread, I request you not to insult any guru, be it Prabhupada, Ramanuja, Sankara, Vallabha, Madhavacharya - any negative remarks is a remark against yourself. You can hold a different opinion, that is OK, request you to make your opinons humble.

Remember, even if you try to be one from now onwards, it is going to take your entire lifetime to make a prabhupada out of you. If so, when you are going to be a person like Chaitanya, Ramanuja, Sankara or Madhavacharya.

I tender my apologies to Arjuna, if in any sense, I had hurted his feelings.

Jai shree krishna

[Arjuna]

Namaste,

Hope U excuse me for not dealing with each and every point in details. I have no desire to impose my views (or Kaula views) upon U or anyone. If Kaula-darshana is acceptible, OK. If not, it is Ur will. I respect Ur choice.

Then, to some points:


Most absurb submission. I am sorry for such wordings. Agamas are not meant to be superior to Veda by any means.

U may think whatever U like, but this is the fact. Not only Tantric, but most of Shaiva and Vaishnava traditions regard Vedas as a lesser authority and some even reject it.

For example, Vira-shaivism is fully based upon 28 Shaivagamas and rejects Vedic authority. And it is widely spread Shaiva school, one of major 6 (and not a Tantric one btw). Kashmiri Shaivism also doesn't accept Vedic authority, but only the authority of Bhairavagamas, Shaivagamas and Shaiva-sutras. Pashupata-shaivism is based upon Pashupata-sutra, Panchartha-bhashya and Mrigendragama.
Gaudiya-vaishnavism (original one, not ISCKON) treats Vedas as a lesser authority, while its primary authority are Gita and Bhagavata-purana (vaishnava version of it).

Finally, even when Vedas are theoretically accepted as equal to Agamas, in practice the whole ritual and yoga-sadhana are based on the latter.


Request you not to use Shaivism and Vaishanavism in such opinions. Regarding Tantri, you can make such claims, as I am not good in that, I am none to comment on that.

It is evident U do not have a detailed knowledge of these traditions. It should be easy to check up my statements, why not try?

Regarding Vira-shaivism i just checked with "Shivena Saha Nartanam" by Jagadguru Shivaya Subramuniyaswami. And my Paramaguru in Kalikrama was a Virashaiva Jangama — so i have some knowledge of it. It is not possible to ignore Vira-shaivism, it is an orthodox Shaiva school.


From when Veda became written veda

Veda can mean "eternal Knowledge", Brahma-vidya, Shruti as a whole, Divine Revelation. But usually by Veda we call a set of scriptures limited to 4 Samhitas (in several versions), to these Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads may be added.
I specially used an expression "written Veda", since VEDA in the first sense can never be out of date.


Verily Jain thought. Jains verily say Vedas are authoritative

I do not care what jainas think. If they accept reincarnation or karma-theory, it doesn't make these "thoughts" jaina ones!
Shaktas never borrowed anything from Jainism, as well as Shaivas.


How does sex places a role in this? During our discussion elsewhere you pointed out that intercourse is to make ones wife happy etc, this statement does not corroborate your stance

In normal marriage the aims of sex are two:
1. Enjoyment (kama); and while U may say that enjoyment of oneself is selfish, making one's wife to enjoy is an act or pure love. And to make one's wife happy is a dharma of every husband, be he Kaula, yogi or whosoever.
2. Procreation.

In Tantrism the aims are these:
1. Realising the bliss of Brahman in sexual intercourse (physical and remembered).
2. Devotional act towards Devi, present in a woman.
3. It is a necessary part of specific rituals dealing with Kula-tattvas.
4. Total merging in Love, samavesha.


Advaiti system and Patanjai systems does prohibits

Where? And for whom?


Yogi who realises god, atma and reality does not go with intercourse for his aim is absolutely god and not intercourse and progeny.

I do not see any logical necessity in this.
Is sex apart from God or what? Isn't God present in a woman one loves? How can a realisation of God and Atman suffer from having sex?

We are talking about grihasthis, remember. Siddha-yogi doesn't need physical sex, but he can enjoy Brahmananda in it as well. If he is married and loves his wife (and he will love her as he sees Devi in her), he will enjoy sex with her.

What is the problem in this?


There is no concept of Grihastha Yogi loving to have sex with his wife. He may love his wife but love is not for enjoying sex with her. Request you not to give an image of sexomanic for people who had realised God.

Sex is a natural aspect of Love (though of course not a main one). Natural means it will naturally occur if Love is there, unless one restrains forcefully. And restraint is indeed anti-monistic idea.

What is the problem for a realised Yogi to enjoy sex? He is not dependant upon sex, yes, not sexomaniac. But if he lives with a woman, he enjoys with her.

I request U not to give an image of people who had realised God as lacking Love and rejecting bliss.


During the path of becoming a Yogi one is taught to see Atma and Lord in every living things and non living things. A person who is supposed to see Atma and Lord, if you opine, see flesh and sex, the very idea is absurd

This doesn't mean there is no distinction. Yogi sees divine nature of everything, but it doesn't imply that his Guru and wife are same for him as cowdung or potato!

[ramkish42]

I am just marking my presence and visit to his page. Request for some one to reiterate the words of Shri Arjuna so that I can comment on it.

Thanks

[Arjuna]

I am not saying they asked every one to abstain from sex. They adviced to limit to progeny.

Please, where this is said — to limit sex to progeny?


Further where does veda, upanishad and gita asks you to enjoy yourself with your wife and try to realise god in mithuna? Quote any major upanishad or any commentary for Veda, upanishad and gita which subscribes to such views

Did i say this is a teaching of Vedas? I said only it is not contradicting Vedas, that's all.


Yes, sex is a part of upasana only in tantric view. Request you not to extend it to vaishnav philosophy, if so, request you to quote or validate your submission.

There are several Tantric traditions inside Vaishnavism.
What i said about Pancharatra is a reference to Lakshmi-tantra, one of Pancharatragamas.


Your comments on Shrimad Ramanuja accusing him for not making an information public is highly derogatory. You are accusing an acharya for not disclosing truth.

I do not understand Ur anger. In no way i was insulting Ramanuja. It is natural that certain sadhanas are secret, there is nothing wrong in that.
Moreover, some things have to be kept in secret.

Truth about God is not to be hidden. But methods can be and are, since not every method is opened for everyone. Specific sadhanas demand specific dikshas and upadesha.


After such insults, I am ashamed for two things

Sorry if i made such impression. I never insulted or meant to insult Vaishnavism, Ramanuja or Shankara.

[orlando]

Namaste all.
I offer my respectful obeisances unto Shri Arjuna and Shri Ramkish42.
I hope my post will help to solve your debate.

Brahmacharya is abstaining from all kinds of Maithuna or sexual enjoyment for ever, in all places and in all conditions, physically, mentally and verbally. - Yajnavalkya

Thinking of a woman or her picture, praising a woman or her picture, sporting with a woman or her picture, glancing at a woman or her picture, secretly talking to a woman, thinking of a sinful action towards a woman actuated by sensuality, determining upon the sinful action, and bodily action resulting in the discharge of semen are the eight characteristics of copulation; and Brahmacharya is quite contrary to all these eight indications. - Daksha Smriti


Know that in this world there is nothing that cannot be attained by one who remains from birth to death a perfect celibate... In one person, knowledge of the four Vedas, and in another, perfect celibacy - of these, the latter is superior to the former who is wanting in celibacy. - The Mahabharata


And those students who find that world of God through chastity, theirs is that heavenly country; theirs, in whatever world they are, is freedom. - Chhandogya Upanishad

These sexual propensities, though they are at first like ripples, acquire the proportions of a sea on account of bad company. - Narada

Sensuality destroys life, lustre, strength, vitality, memory, wealth, great fame, holiness and devotion to the Supreme. - Lord Krishna

Death is hastened by letting out semen from the body; life is saved and prolonged by preserving it.

There is no doubt that people die prematurely by letting the semen out of the body; knowing this, the Yogi should always preserve semen and lead a life of strict celibacy. - Siva Samhita

Caution in diet is of threefold value, but abstinence from sexual intercourse is of fourfold value. The Sannyasi had, and has a rule never to look at a woman. - Atreya

Let not a Brahmin see a woman naked. - Manu

21.There are three gates leading to this hell — lust, anger and greed. Every sane man should give these up, for they lead to the degradation of the soul.
22.The man who has escaped these three gates of hell, O son of Kuntī, performs acts conducive to self-realization and thus gradually attains the supreme destination.-Srimad Bhagavad Gita,chapter 16

20.A man or woman who indulges in sexual intercourse with an unworthy member of the opposite sex is punished after death by the assistants of Yamarāja in the hell known as Taptasūrmi. There such men and women are beaten with whips. The man is forced to embrace a red-hot iron form of a woman, and the woman is forced to embrace a similar form of a man. Such is the punishment for illicit sex.
21.A person who indulges in sex indiscriminately — even with animals — is taken after death to the hell known as Vajrakaṇṭaka-śālmalī. In this hell there is a silk-cotton tree full of thorns as strong as thunderbolts. The agents of Yamarāja hang the sinful man on that tree and pull him down forcibly so that the thorns very severely tear his body.-Srimad Bhagavatam,Canto 5,Chapter 26

(1) S'rî Nârada said: 'A student [brahmacârî] living at the residence of the guru, should for the sake of his guru practice restraint, humility and obedience and be firm in friendship towards his spiritual teacher. (2) In both the evening and in the morning should he worship the guru, the fire, the sun and the Best One of Enlightenment [Lord Vishnu], silently murmuring absorbed in prayer [the Gâyatrî]. (3) When called by the spiritual master, he should orderly practice the mantra's and in the beginning and the end well-behaved offer his obeisances with his head at the lotus feet. (4) Equipped with a straw rope around his waist, garments of deerskin, matted hair, a rod, a waterpot and a sacred thread, should he take up the kus'a-gras [for sitting] as is prescribed. (5) In the morning and the evening he should go out to collect alms and offer all that he collects to the guru. He should eat when ordered or otherwise fast at times. (6) Very polite, only eating to necessity should he, industrious and full of faith, to necessity relating with the outward life of women and the men they control, be of control over his senses [compare 3.3: 5]. (7) He, not belonging to the householders life, must, to the as good as invincible senses that even take away the mind of a renunciate, give it up to address women with the observance of the great vow of celibacy [the yama of ashthânga-yoga]. (8) To brush the hair, massage the body, to bathe and rub it in with oil is something that the still young wife of the guru should never be allowed to do as a service if the adept is still young [see also 1.11:29]. (9) Especially the bewildered worship [of her] is like fire to the pot of butter that a man is; with other women, even with his own daughter, should he, living in seclusion, not associate more than is needed.-Srimad Bhagavatam,Canto 7,Chapter 12

(7) Seeing a woman does one who didn't conquer his senses, enticed with that seductive illusory energy of God, blind fall down into the darkness, just like a moth falls into the fire. (8) Upon seeing the clothing, golden ornaments and so on of women as arranged by mâyâ, does a person of no discrimination aroused by lusty desires with the desire for sense-gratification no doubt, the way a moth is destroyed, find his intelligence ruined. -Srimad Bhagavatam,Canto 11,Chapter 8

(14) A man of wisdom should - death to himself - never chase a woman, as he'll be destroyed as an elephant [in competition] is by others superior in strength. -Srimad Bhagavatam,Canto 11,Chapter 8

(29) Giving up being intimate with women [to have sex with them, with others or otherwise] and keeping far from the company of womanizers should one, mastering the self, sit at ease in seclusion and with great care concentrate on Me.(30) No other attachment gives a man as much suffering and bondage like the attachment to women and the association of those attached to women -Srimad Bhagavatam,Canto 11,Chapter 14

(33) With women, or sex-minded living beings, glancing, touching, conversing and joking and such is the first thing that someone not keeping a household [the sannyâsî, the vânaprastha and the brahmacârî] should forsake.-Srimad Bhagavatam,Canto 11,Chapter 17

(22) He who knows what's best for him, should never but even initiate contact with women or men attracted to women for no other reason than the fact that the mind united with the senses reaching out to the sense-objects gets agitated. (23) A thing not heard or seen gives no rise to mental agitation; the mind of the one restricting the forces of life, thus checked, becomes pacified. (24) When the senses, these six enemies, not even by wise men can be trusted, then what to say of persons like me; it is for that reason that one shouldn't seek association with women or men attracted to women .' -Srimad Bhagavatam,Chapter 26

[orlando]

At http://www.yoga-age.com/modern/brahpractice.html you may read the whole book "Practice of Brahmacharya" by Swami Sivananda.
In the first section of the book he says:

6. THE VALUE OF SEMEN
My dear brothers! The vital energy, the Veerya that supports your life, which is the Prana of Pranas, which shines in your sparkling eyes, which beams in your shining cheeks, is a great treasure for you. Remember this point well. Veerya is the quintessence of blood. One drop of semen is manufactured out of forty drops of blood. Mark here how valuable this fluid is!

A tree draws the essence or Rasa from the earth. This essence is circulated throughout the tree, its twigs, branches, leaves, flowers and fruits. The shining colours and life in the leaves, flowers and fruits are due to this Rasa. Similarly, the Veerya that is manufactured by the cells of the testes out of blood gives colour and vitality to the human body and its different organs.

According to Ayurveda, semen is the last Dhatu that is formed out of food. Out of food is manufactured chyle. Out of chyle comes blood. Out of blood comes flesh. Out of flesh comes fat. Out of fat comes bone. Out of bone comes marrow. Out of marrow comes semen. These are the Sapta Dhatus or the seven Dhatus that support this life and body. Mark here how precious is semen! It is the last essence. It is the Essence of essences. The Veerya comes out of the very marrow that lies concealed inside the bones.

There are three divisions in each Dhatu. Semen nourishes the physical body, the heart and the intellect. Only that man who uses the physical body, the heart and the intellect can have perfect Brahmacharya. A wrestler who uses his physical body only, but keeps the intellect and the heart undeveloped, cannot expect to have full Brahmacharya. He can have Brahmacharya of the body only, but not of the mind and the heart. The semen that belongs to the heart and the mind will certainly flow out. If an aspirant does only Japa and meditation, if he does not develop the heart, and if he does not practice physical exercise, he will have only mental Brahmacharya. The portion of the semen, which goes to nourish the heart and the body, will flow out. But an advanced Yogi who dives deep in meditation will have full Brahmacharya even if he does not take physical exercise.

Semen is the quintessence of food or blood. One drop of semen in manufactured out of forty drops of blood according to modern medical science. According to Ayurveda, it is elaborated out of eighty drops of blood. The two testes or seeds that are located in the scrotal bag are called secretory glands. The cells of these testes have been endowed with the peculiar property of secreting semen from the blood. Just as bees collect honey in the honeycomb drop by drop, so also, the cells of the testes collect semen drop by drop from the blood. Then this fluid is taken by the two ducts or tubes to the vesiculae seminalis. Under excitement, it is thrown out by special ducts, called ejaculatory ducts, into the urethra where it is mixed with the prostatic juice.

Semen is found in a subtle state in all the cells of the body. Just as sugar is all-pervading in the sugar-cane, butter in milk, so also, semen is pervading the whole body. Just as the butter milk is thin after the butter is removed, so also, semen is thinned by its wastage. The more the wastage of semen the more is the weakness. In the Yoga Sastras it is said:

Maranam Bindu Patanat,
Jivanam Bindu Rakshanat.

Falling of semen brings death; preservation of semen gives life. Semen is the real vitality in men. It is the hidden treasure in man. It imparts Brahma-Tejas to the face and strength to the intellect.

Modern medical opinion
Eminent European medical men also support the statement of the Yogins of India. Dr. Nicole says: "It is a medical and physiological fact that the best blood in the body goes to form the elements of reproduction in both the sexes. In a pure and orderly life, this matter is reabsorbed. It goes back into circulation ready to form the finest brain, nerve and muscular tissues. This vital fluid of man carried back and diffused through his system makes him manly, strong, brave and heroic. If wasted, it leaves him effeminate, weak and physically debilitated and prone to sexual irritation and disordered function, a wretched nervous system, epilepsy, and various other diseases and death. The suspension of the use of the generative organs is attended with a notable increase of bodily and mental and spiritual vigour."

If the spermatic secretion in men is continuous, it must either be expelled or be reabsorbed. As a result of the most patient and persevering scientific investigations, it has been found that whenever the seminal secretions are conserved and thereby reabsorbed into the system, it goes towards enriching the blood and strengthening the brain. Dr. Dio Louis thinks that the conservation of this element is essential to strength of body, vigour of mind and keenness of intellect. Another writer, Dr. E.P. Miller, says: "All waste of spermatic secretions, whether voluntary or involuntary, is a direct waste of the life force. It is almost universally conceded that the choicest element of the blood enters into the composition of the spermatic secretion. If these conclusions are correct, then it follows that a chaste life is essential to man’s well-being."

Mind, Prana and Veerya
Mind, Prana and Veerya are the three links of one chain. They are the three pillars of the edifice of Jivatma. Destroy one pillar—mind, Prana or Veerya—and the whole building will fall to pieces.

Mind, Prana and Veerya are one. By controlling the mind, you can control Prana and semen. By controlling Prana you can control the mind and semen. By controlling semen, you can control the mind and Prana.

Mind, Prana and Veerya are under the one Sambandha or connection or circuit. If the mind is controlled, Prana and Veerya are controlled automatically. He who suspends or restrains Prana restrains also the working of the mind and the movement of the Veerya. Again, if the Veerya is controlled, and if it is made to flow upwards into the brain by pure thoughts and the practice of Viparita Karani Mudras such as Sarvangasana and Sirshasana and Pranayama, the mind and the Prana are automatically controlled.

The mind is set in motion or rendered active by two things—the vibration of Prana and the Vasanas or subtle desires. Where the mind is absorbed, there the Prana is restrained; and where the Prana is fixed, there the mind also is absorbed. Mind and Prana are intimate companions, like a man and his shadow. If the mind and the Prana are not restrained, all the organs of sensation and action keep actively engaged in their respective functions.

When a man is excited by passion, the Prana is set in motion. Then the whole body obeys the dictate of the mind just as a soldier obeys the command of his commander. The vital air or Prana moves the internal sap or semen. The semen is put into motion. It falls downwards, just as the clouds burst into rain water, just as the fruits, flowers and leaves of the trees drop down by the force of the blowing winds.

If the Veerya is lost, Prana gets unsteady. Prana is agitated. The man becomes nervous. Then the mind also cannot work properly. The man becomes fickle-minded. There is mental weakness.

If the Prana is rendered steady, the mind also becomes steady. If the Veerya is steady, the mind also is steady. If the Veerya is steady, the mind also is steady. If the Drishti or vision is steady, the mind also becomes steady. Therefore, control the Prana, the Veerya and the Drishti.

God is Rasa. Raso Vai Sah. Rasa is Veerya, the vital fluid or semen. You can get eternal bliss by the attainment of Rasa or Veerya only. Rasohyevayam Labdhva Anandi Bhavati.

Grasp fully the importance and value of this vital essence of life. Veerya is all power. Veerya is all money. Veerya is God. Veerya is Sita. Veerya is Radha. Veerya is Durga. Veerya is God in motion. Veerya is dynamic Will. Veerya is Atma-Bal. Veerya is God’s Vibhuti. The Lord says in the Gita: "Paurusham Nrishu. I am the seed or virility in men". Veerya is the essence of life, thought, intelligence and consciousness. Therefore, preserve this vital fluid very, very carefully, my dear readers!


In the second section of the book,Chapter 7,he says:
The door to Nirvana or perfection is complete Brahmacharya. Complete celibacy is the master-key to open the realms of Elysian bliss. The avenue to the abode of supreme peace begins from Brahmacharya or purity.


Regards,
Orlando.

[ramkish42]

Dear Bhakthaji

Thank you

I am waiting for some one who does not insult great gurus to reiterate the views of Arjunaji so that I can present my comments against Sexual intercourse in realising Soul, god and relationship of soul and god

Jai shree krishna

[orlando]

Gaudiya-vaishnavism (original one, not ISCKON) treats Vedas as a lesser authority, while its primary authority are Gita and Bhagavata-purana (vaishnava version of it).
It isn't that Gaudiya-Vaishnavism treats Vedas as a lesser authorithy.It considers impossible to study the Vedas in Kali-yuga.Please read http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/srimad-bhagavatam.html

Regards,
Orlando.

[Singhi Kaya]

To Arjuna,

Any path which considers vedas to be lesser than whatever be their main sastra will not be hindu. I hope you mean in terms of sadhana. Of course vedic karma kanda cannot be exactly followed in this age. And hardly many follow. But vedas or more general sruti are the fountainhead of the dharma. Whether you are sakta, saiva or vaishnava God realization is to be judged as per sruti. I think all paths accept the authority of vedas on knowledge. In sadhana vedas may take a lesser position~or even ignored. I think this should be made very clear.

Also it is not difficult to see how sex can be made part of the upasana, but if most of sruti and words of Shankara and many other acharyas is to be believed enjoying sexual union cannot be held superior to brahmacharya. I think it has it's place in the traditions-that's it. It all depends on the mind set of the upasak~knowledge and self realization is the key of sanatana dharma not the particular external method used to attain so.

Anyway 2 cents. I generally should keep away from discussions on sadhana.

[Arjuna]

Namaste all.
I offer my respectful obeisances unto Shri Arjuna and Shri Ramkish42.
I hope my post will help to solve your debate.

There is nothing new in this.
I know what Vedas and Smriti consider to be brahmacharya. I know it is praised in some passages (which are not intended at grihasthis). Of course, sex is prohibited for sannyasis. And so what?
In proper context these things are right, that's all. Taken out of context they may become wrong (which happen when rules of brahmacharya are imposed upon grihasthis).

Gita clearly says one has to follow his own dharma and somebody's else.

[Arjuna]

It isn't that Gaudiya-Vaishnavism treats Vedas as a lesser authorithy.It considers impossible to study the Vedas in Kali-yuga.
Regards,
Orlando.

This is not exact. Vaishnavas cannot practically accept Vedas as the highest authority for the simple reason — Vaishnava teaching is essentially non-Vedic (note the word, i do not say anti-Vedic).
There is no trace of supremacy of Krishna/Vasudeva/Narayana/Vishnu in Vedas and early Upanishads. Vedas do not promote the doctrine of bhakti. There is no Vedic practice of sankirtana of a Vaishnava manner. Vegetarianism is not a Vedic norm. The whole cult of Vaishnavism has practically nothing to do with Vedic one. Mantras that Vaishnavas use are mostly Tantric (like famous so called Gopala-gayatri). Vaishnavism is even more non-Vedic than Tantrism is!
In several major Puranas Vaishnavas are criticised as being non-Vedic (veda-bAhya) and listed together with Kapalikas, Buddhists and Jainas (for example, Kurma-purana, 1.24.31-33, calls the followers of Pancharatra and Sattvata doctrines "pAShaNDas", heretics).

Gaudiya-vaishnavas consider Gita and Bhagavata-purana (its Vaishnava version) + writings of their Gurus (not only sanskrit, but also bengali) to the main authority, and the sole source of knowledge about Supreme Lord, Krishna. They view Upanishads as speaking about Paramatman and Vedas as speaking about Brahma-jyoti — these two are considered to be not identical with the Lord. Thus, Vedic knowledge according to Gaudiya-vaishnavas does not lead to supreme goal.
Of course, Prabhupada deliberately used the word "Vedic" speaking about Vaishnavism. But this is a pure speculation on the name of Vedas, a cunning trick to befool innocent westerners.

It is said in Bhagavata 4.29.45 that a true devotee whom the Lord gives His grace "leaves the mode of thinking which is based on the world and Vedas".

To conclude, Vaishnava attitude towards Vedas has mych in common with Tantric attitude. It varies, and south indian schools are generally more "Vedic" is their form (like Pancharatra and Shrividya) than north indian. But basic view is the same: the primary authority is not Veda.

[Arjuna]

To Arjuna,
Any path which considers vedas to be lesser than whatever be their main sastra will not be hindu.

Who said this? Which Shastra?
This is blatantly wrong, and many examples of such attitude can be given (not only Tantric of course).


Also it is not difficult to see how sex can be made part of the upasana, but if most of sruti and words of Shankara and many other acharyas is to be believed enjoying sexual union cannot be held superior to brahmacharya. I think it has it's place in the traditions-that's it. It all depends on the mind set of the upasak~knowledge and self realization is the key of sanatana dharma not the particular external method used to attain so.

Sex is not a part of Shankara's system as it exists in mathas. Regarding Shankara's relation to Kaula stream, it cannot be historically proved. So yes, U are right.

Regarding superiority, it depends upon ashrama. For brahmachari and sannyasi celibacy is supreme and it is a must, while for grihasthi sex is supreme and a must (provided there is mutual love and physical capability).

[Arjuna]

At http://www.yoga-age.com/modern/brahpractice.html you may read the whole book "Practice of Brahmacharya" by Swami Sivananda.
In the first section of the book he says:

This is a view of Swami Shivananda, and not a standard of Dharma.
Finally, one can keep his semen (if it is required by his practice of yoga) and still enjoy sex. In any case, celibacy is never meant for grihasthis.

[orlando]

This is not exact. Vaishnavas cannot practically accept Vedas as the highest authority for the simple reason — Vaishnava teaching is essentially non-Vedic (note the word, i do not say anti-Vedic).
There is no trace of supremacy of Krishna/Vasudeva/Narayana/Vishnu in Vedas and early Upanishads. Vedas do not promote the doctrine of bhakti. There is no Vedic practice of sankirtana of a Vaishnava manner. Vegetarianism is not a Vedic norm. The whole cult of Vaishnavism has practically nothing to do with Vedic one. Mantras that Vaishnavas use are mostly Tantric (like famous so called Gopala-gayatri). Vaishnavism is even more non-Vedic than Tantrism is!
In several major Puranas Vaishnavas are criticised as being non-Vedic (veda-bAhya) and listed together with Kapalikas, Buddhists and Jainas (for example, Kurma-purana, 1.24.31-33, calls the followers of Pancharatra and Sattvata doctrines "pAShaNDas", heretics).

Gaudiya-vaishnavas consider Gita and Bhagavata-purana (its Vaishnava version) + writings of their Gurus (not only sanskrit, but also bengali) to the main authority, and the sole source of knowledge about Supreme Lord, Krishna. They view Upanishads as speaking about Paramatman and Vedas as speaking about Brahma-jyoti — these two are considered to be not identical with the Lord. Thus, Vedic knowledge according to Gaudiya-vaishnavas does not lead to supreme goal.
Of course, Prabhupada deliberately used the word "Vedic" speaking about Vaishnavism. But this is a pure speculation on the name of Vedas, a cunning trick to befool innocent westerners.

It is said in Bhagavata 4.29.45 that a true devotee whom the Lord gives His grace "leaves the mode of thinking which is based on the world and Vedas".

To conclude, Vaishnava attitude towards Vedas has mych in common with Tantric attitude. It varies, and south indian schools are generally more "Vedic" is their form (like Pancharatra and Shrividya) than north indian. But basic view is the same: the primary authority is not Veda.

Shri Arjuna,you wrote:"There is no trace of supremacy of Krishna/Vasudeva/Narayana/Vishnu in Vedas and early Upanishads."

By http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/srimad-bhagavatam.html

That the Vedas are eternal and apauruseya is a fact that all sampradayas, including the school of Sankara, unanimously agree with. They constitute the means of receiving knowledge about the Absolute Truth. However, there are certain factors that make it practically impossible to study the Vedas in this age:

After Srila Vyasadeva divided the Vedas into four books (Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva), his disciples further divided them into 1,130 divisions. This is stated in the Kurma Purana (52.19-20):
eka-vimsati-bhedena rg-vedam krtavan pura
sakhanam satenaiva yajur-vedam athakarot

sama-vedam sahasrena sakhanam prabibheda sah
atharvanam atho vedam bibedha navakena tu

‘Previously the Rg Veda was divided into 21 sections, the Yajur Veda into 100 sections, the Sama Veda into 1,000 sections and the Atharva Veda into 9 divisions.’

Each division has 4 minor divisions, namely the Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanisads. Thus altogether the 4 Vedas contain 1,130 Samhitas, 1,130 Brahmanas, 1,130 Aranyakas, and 1,130 Upanisads. This makes a total of 4,520 divisions.

At present, most of these texts have disappeared due to the influence of time. We can only find 11 Samhitas, 18 Brahmanas, 7 Aranyakas and 220 Upanisads which constitutes a mere 6% of the entire Vedic canon!

Even if the Vedas were complete in there entirety, in order to understand them one must first study the Vedangas which includes Siksa (the science of phonetics), Vyakarana (grammatical rules), Kalpa (ritualistic rules), Nirukta (obscure word meanings), Chanda (Metres for chanting Vedic hymns), and Jyotisa (astrology and astronomy).
Since the language of the Vedas is enshrouded in mysterious meanings, one must also be willing to sacrifice years of study in order to learn Vaidika (classical) Sanskrit. This entails primarily learning the basic grammar (which generally takes 12 years or so) and then memorising extra vocabulary in order to decipher the mystical language of the Vedas. 1
Apart from that, it is practically impossible for those born in the age of Kali (who are generally ‘mandah sumanda-matayo’) to memorise even the slightest thing. What to speak of the entire Vedas or even the 6% that still survives today! At present, amongst the brahmana communities in India, it is generally observed that vedadhyayana simply consists of memorising the text of one of the four Vedas ‘parrot-fashion’, but as we can see from above, there is much more to it than that. Therefore, we may conclude that although the Vedas are perfect sabda-pramana, it is impractical to become thoroughly conversant with the Vedas in this day and age in order to understand the Supreme. Hence the solution lies in the Puranas and the Itihasas. This is explained in the following verse -


bharata-vyapadesena hyamnayarthah pradarsitah
vedah pratisthah sarve sarve purane natra samsayah

"On the pretext of writing the Mahabharata, Vyasa explained the meaning of the Vedas. Certainly all the topics of the Vedas have been established in the Puranas." (Visnu Purana)

Furthermore, it is explained in the Mahabharata (Adi Parva 1.267) and Manu Samhita –

itihasa puranabhyam vedam samupabrmhayet

" One must complement one’s study of the Vedas with the Itihasas and the Puranas."

In the Prabhasa-khanda of the Skanda Purana (5.3.121-124) it is said –

veda-van niscalam manye puranartham dvijottamah
vedah pratisthitah sarve purane natra samsayah

bibhety-alpa-srutad vedo mam ayam calayisyati
itihasa-puranais tu niscalo’yam krtah purah

yan na drstam hi vedesu tad drstam smrtisu dvijah
ubhayor yan na drstam hi tat puranah pragiyate
yo veda caturo vedan sangopanisado dvijah
puranam naiva janati na ca sa syad vicaksana

" O best of the brahmanas, the meaning of the Puranas is unchanging just like that of the Vedas. The Vedas are all sheltered within the Puranas without a doubt. The Veda has a fear that unqualified people will read her and then distort her meaning. Thus, the significance of the Veda was fixed in the Puranas and Itihasas. That which is not found in the Vedas is found in the Smrti. That which is not found in the Smrti is to be found in the Puranas. Those who know even the Vedas and Upanisads are not learned if they do not know the Puranas."

The reason they are called ‘Puranas’ is because they make the Vedas complete (puranat puranam iti canyatra). This is not to suggest that the Vedas are incomplete. It simply means that the Puranas are explanatory supplements which aid one to understand the concise and ambiguous passages in the Vedas. If the Puranas complete the Vedas, it is only logical that they must be Vedic in nature.

As already wrote,at present we can find only a mere 6% of the entire Vedic canon!
So,in order to understand who is the Supreme God,one must look for an answer in the itihasas (Ramayana and Mahabharata) and in the Puranas.
Please read my post Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature in hindunet at http://www.hindunet.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=59717&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Regards,
Orlando.

[Arjuna]

1. Modern ISCKON "scholars" have very fantastic views on Vedic canon, which have no base in Shruti and Smriti.
2. Supreme Lord of Vedas is Rudra, and never Vishnu. And Krishna is not even mentioned there.
3. Sri Ramanuja, a Vaishnava authority, in his commentary to Vedanta-sutra (Shribhashya, II.1.3) states that Puranas can have mistakes. Puranas and Itihasas never are seen as equal to Shruti, to Vedas and Agamas. Such view (to think Puranas as equal to Shruti) is a pure heresy according to traditional Hinduism.

And please, could U write in normal black color? It is difficult for my eyes to read this blue.

[orlando]

Namaste Shri Arjuna.
Ok,I will write in black colour.
1.I am not an ISKCONite.I am a Sri vaishnava of Ramanuja-sampradaya.I follow Vadakalai sect.Maybe you rfer to the fact that ISKCONites accept Brahma-samhita as an authentic scripture.
2.Yeah.I already know that Lord Krishna never appears in the Vedas.Then about Rudra,please read the following:
By http://www.srivaishnavan.com/faq_iswara.html
23.In some places in the Vedas, Siva is also called as the supreme deity. How do you explain this contradiction?
24.Can you give some examples?
25.So how do you explain the apparent contradiction?
26.Why can't we take it that the word 'Narayana' (as Paramatma) refers to Siva; instead of saying that the word "Siva" refers to Narayana?
27.Quote some passages in the Vedas, praising the greatness of Siva.
28.Why not we say that Brahma, Vishnu and Siva are all equal?
29.We have got the ancient Tamil works (Sangam literature), which are several thousand years old. What do these mention about the supreme deity?
30.If Narayana is the supreme deity, why should Rama (His Avatara) worship another deity in Rameswaram, as people say?
31.Similarly, there are stories that Narayana took the form of a boar (Varaha) and searched the feet of another deity; that Narayana took out his eye and surrendered it to Rudra and got chakra, etc. What do you say about these?
32.Please tell me something more about Rudra
33.But Harivamsa says Krishna requested for a child, from Siva. How do you reconcile this?
34.Does it mean that we cannot give or we should not

At http://www.srivaishnavan.com/ans_iswara.html#23 there are the asnwers.
23.I have to tell you one thing. Narayana is a proper noun. According to Sanskrit grammar, Narayana can mean only one person. It cannot mean any Other person. But, Siva, Rudra and Sambhu are common nouns. Siva means an auspicious person. Rudra means, one who weeps or one who is dreadful. Sambhu means one who grants happiness and prosperity. So, these are common nouns. So, as common nouns, they can refer to any person, including Narayana; although normally they apply to Siva. This is on the authority of Sanskrit grammar.
24.We have a word in Sanskrit, called Sarasija. This is a common noun. This means that which comes out from a lake. There are so many flowers, which come out from a lake, i.e., which are there in a lake. But still, by common understanding, Sarasija means only a lotus flower. Similarly, there is a word Pankaja in Sanskrit. This means that which comes out of mud or slush. Again, so many flowers can sprout out of mud or slush. But it is commonly accepted in Sanskrit, that Pankaja refers only to Lotus. So, two of the common nouns, Sarasija and Pankaja, although they can apply to all flowers, are still taken to refer only to Lotus. Similarly, Sambhu, Siva and Rudra are common nouns. So, they can refer to any deity or person, although normally we identify these names with Siva.
25.We have to apply some logic here. We accept that the Vedas as a whole, are the ultimate authority. There is nothing in the Vedas, which is not authority. So, in a majority of passages, the word Narayana occurs as Paramatma. In some places, the word Siva or Rudra also occurs as Paramatma. Now, we have to be clear on one thing. Narayana, according to Sanskrit grammar, is a proper noun. It cannot refer to any other person. But Siva and Rudra are common nouns. So they can refer to any other person. Since we do not accept any contradiction among the different passages in the Vedas, we say that the words Siva and Rudra also, when they refer to Paramatma, actually mean Narayana, because these are common nouns.
26.The answer is very simple. Siva is a common noun. It can mean any person and hence it means Narayana in the particular context. But the word Narayana cannot refer to Siva, because Narayana is a proper noun. This is on the authority of Sanskrit grammar; and we have to accept the grammatical position.
27.There are several passages in the Vedas, which praise the greatness of Brahma; which praise the greatness of Indra; which praise the greatness of Agni or fire. Similarly, many passages in the Vedas also praise the greatness of Siva. But the important thing to see is who is declared as the supreme deity or Paramatma. As I have explained to you so far, it is clear from the Vedas and Puranas and Itihasas, that Narayana is the Supreme deity, the Paramatma.
28.What you are saying is not supported by the fundamental authority, the Vedas. From the Vedic passages I have given above, you can see that the Vedas speak of only one supreme deity and that supreme deity is Narayana. There is nothing in the Vedas to show that two or three Gods are equal; and that two or three Gods can be considered as supreme deities. Further, as you will see from the quotations given earlier, both Brahma and Rudra themselves accept that they have come out of Narayana, that they are bom out of Narayana. Nowhere in the Vedas, is it stated that two or three Gods are equal; that Brahma, Vishnu and Siva are equal. The Vedas all along say that there is only one supreme deity and that is Narayana.
29.All these ancient Tamil works also mention that Narayana is the supreme deity.
30.This version is not authentic. We accept Valmiki Ramayana as the authority. There is no mention at all in Valmiki Ramayana about Rama worshipping any deity in Rameswaram. There is no such mention in the authoritative version of Kamba Ramayana also.
31.We can only say that these are not found in any ancient, authoritative works. These have not been quoted by Adi Sankara or any of the Acharyas, belonging to the other schools of Vedanta. These have not been mentioned in Sastras, which are accepted as authority.
32.1) I will give you a quotation from Bhagavata: "The river Ganga is the greatest among all rivers. Narayana is the greatest of all deities. Siva is the greatest of all Vaishnavas. Bhagavata is the greatest of all Puranas." 2) We accept Ahirbudhnya Samhita as one of the respected authorities. Here, Rudra has praised Narasimha in Mantra Raja Pada Stotra. Here, Rudra says as follows: "All the Jivatmas are the servants of you, the Paramatma. So, I am also your servant and worship you." 3) Parvati asks Siva "How can the thousand names of Vishnu be recited easily every day?" Siva replies: "It is enough to say Rama. This is equal to thousand names of Vishnu. I also enjoy Uttering the name Rama."
33.Varahapurana says, that Rudra requested Narayana as follows: "Please grant me a favour. In one of your avataras, you should also pray to me and ask for somefavour." Narayana agreed and said that in one of His avataras He will ask for a favour, from Rudra. That is why, in Krishna avatara. He requested Rudra for a child, as per the promise given earlier. This has been mentioned in Varahapurana. It will also be clear from the fact that, immediately after granting the favour for a child to Krishna, Rudra says as follows:- "Krishna, out of His simplicity only, came to me for a child. But He is the source of all beings. He is the protector of all. He is the supreme Tattva. He alone gives Moksha." Summing up, it is only because of these things, that Vedavyasa says as follows:-
"This is the truth. This is the truth. Again, this is the truth. I raise my hands and say there is no greater authority than the Vedas. There is no greater deity than Kesava." It is in keeping with this only, that Krishna says in Gita "It is I alone, who is understood from all the Vedas."
34.No. It does not mean that. They are also highly respectable. We give them proper and utmost respect, like we will give to other respectable persons. Only thing is, on the authority of the Vedas. Narayana is the supreme deity.

3.The basic rule is that the Vedas are the Ultimate authority or Pramana. So, in the Puranas, whichever does not conflict or contradict the Veda, can be taken as authority.
At http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48174.htm there are the exact words of Srimad Ramanuja-acharya.
And as to the third point, Hiranyagarbha himself is only an individual soul, and hence liable to be overpowered by the inferior gunas, i.e. passion and darkness; and hence the Yoga-smriti is founded on error, no less than the Purânas, promulgated by him, which are founded on ragas and tamas. The Yoga cannot, therefore, be used for the support of the Vedânta.--Here finishes the adhikarana of 'the refutation of the Yoga.'

[orlando]

Matsya Purana (53.65, 68-69) states –

pancangam ca puranam syad akhyanam itarat smrtam
sattvikesu ca kalpesu mahatmyam adhikam hareh

rajasesu ca mahatmyam adhikam brahmano viduh
tadvad agnes ca mahatmyam tamasesu sivasya ca

sankirnesu sarasvatyah pitrnam ca nigadyate

" A Purana consists of five elements, as opposed to an Akhyana. 6 The sattvika Puranas glorify Hari; the rajasika Puranas glorify Brahma, and the tamasika Puranas glorify Siva and Agni. Puranas dealing with mixed modes of nature glorify Sarasvati and the fore-fathers."

The divisions of the eighteen Puranas is defined by Lord Siva to Uma in the Padma Purana (Uttara Khanda 236.18-21):

vaisnavanam naradiyam ca tatha bhagavatam subham
garudam ca tatha padmam varaham subha-darsane

sattvikani puranani vijneyani subhani vai
brahmandam brahma-vaivarta markandeyam tathaiva ca

bhavisyam vamanam brahmam rajasani nibodha me
matsyam kaurmam tatha laingam saivam skandam tathaiva ca

agneyam ca sad etani tamasani nibodha me


" O beautiful lady, one should know that the Visnu, Naradiya, Bhagavata, Garuda, Padma and Varaha are all in the mode of goodness. The Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta, Markandeya, Bhavisya, Vamana and Brahma are in the mode of passion. The Matsya, Kurma, Linga, Siva, Skanda and Agni are in the mode of ignorance."

By http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/srimad-bhagavatam.html
Sri Krsna has clearly expressed in Bhagavad-gita that goodness is superior to passion and ignorance. 8 Similarly, Sri Suta Gosvami explains in the Bhagavata (1.2.24) that "Passion is better than ignorance because it can lead to realization of the Absolute Truth."9 In this verse Suta speaks about which type of worship produces the ultimate benefit, and his conclusion is that one can only achieve the best result by worshipping Lord Visnu. The sattvika Puranas recommend the worship of Visnu / Krsna, whereas the rajasika and tamasika Puranas advocate the worship of minor deities and therefore do not lead the aspirant towards the Absolute Truth.

It is noteworthy that the sattvika Puranas commence with a questioner inquiring from a learned speaker about the nature of the Absolute. The speaker’s answers are clear, direct and unambiguous, leaving no room for misinterpretation. However, in the tamasika and rajasika Puranas questions are put to the speaker which do not pertain to the Absolute Truth. For example, in the Linga Purana the sages request Suta to speak about the glories of the Lingam form of Lord Siva. We may conclude from this that although Sri Suta Gosvami is learned in transcendental subject matters and expert in explaining them, the questions by the sages here restrict him from speaking on it. All rajasika and tamasika Puranas contain this characteristic defect and therefore are not reliable sources of transcendental knowledge.

One may ask at this point why Srila Vyasadeva wrote these Puranas. According to the various desires of the materially conditioned jivas, he arranged the Puranas. Nevertheless, all Puranas contain glorification of Lord Visnu. This was included by Vyasa in order that those in the lower modes of passion and ignorance will slowly develop interest in the Supreme Lord Hari while studying the rajasika and tamasika Puranas. 10 Therefore in the Hari Vamsa (3.323.34) it is said –

vede ramayane caiva purane bharate tatha
adav-ante ca madhye ca harih sarvatra giyate

"In the Vedas, the Ramayana, Puranas and Mahabharata, from the very beginning to the end, as well as within the middle, only Hari, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is explained."

Yet it must be understood that although rajasika and tamasika Puranas do not speak extensively on the Absolute Truth, this does not mean that they give no valid knowledge at all. If this was the case why would acaryas such as Madhva cite from Puranas such as Skanda, Brahma, Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta etc which are not sattvika by nature? The Puranas in the lower modes may also give some insight into the Absolute Truth, although not to the same extent as the sattvika Puranas.

By this we may conclude that the sattvika Puranas are the ultimate pramana. This is also declared by the Padma Purana - sattvika moksa-dah proktah: "The sattvika Puranas give salvation."


By http://www.srivaishnavan.com/ans_vedas.html#36

36.There are 18 Puranas. These are sub-divided into three sets or groups. The first set of six Puranas are authoritative, sacred. These are called Sattvika Puranas. The second set of six Puranas are of medium quality, i.e. the whole thing cannot be accepted as true. These are called Rajasa Puranas. The third set of six puranas cannot be taken as perfectly valid. Only some portions of them, which are not opposed to Vedas, can be taken as authoritative. These are called Tamasa Puranas.
37.1. The first set of six Puranas which are most sacred (Sattvika Puranas) are as follows: Vishnu Purana Bhagavatam Narada Purana Padma Purana Varaha Purana Garuda Purana 2. The second set of six Puranas, which are not wholly authoritative, (Rajasa Puranas) are: Vamana Purana Brahma Purana Markandeya Purana Bhaavishya Purana Brahmanda Purana Brahma Vaivarta Purana 3. The last set of six Puranas, which are not very authoritative (Tamasa Puranas) are: Matsya Purana Kurma Purana Agni Purana Linga Purana Siva Purana Skanda Purana.

Shri Ramanuja was speaking about rajas and tamasic puranas.And not about puranas in general.
I will copy the exact words of Shri Ramanuja in his commentary to Vedanta-sutra,Second Adyaya,First Pâda,verse 3.I will write the verse in red.
3. Hereby the Yoga is refuted.
By the above refutation of Kapila's Smriti the Yoga-smriti also is refuted.--But a question arises, What further doubt arises here with regard to the Yoga system, so as to render needful the formal extension to the Yoga of the arguments previously set forth against the Sânkhya?--It might appear, we reply, that the Vedânta should be supported by the Yoga-smriti, firstly, because the latter admits

p. 413

the existence of a Lord; secondly, because the Vedânta-texts mention Yoga as a means to bring about final Release; and thirdly, because Hiranyagarbha, who proclaimed the Yoga-smriti is qualified for the promulgation of all Vedânta-texts.--But these arguments refute themselves as follows. In the first place the Yoga holds the Pradhâna, which is independent of Brahman, to be the general material cause, and hence the Lord acknowledged by it is a mere operative cause. In the second place the nature of meditation, in which Yoga consists, is determined by the nature of the object of meditation, and as of its two objects, viz. the soul and the Lord, the former does not have its Self in Brahman, and the latter is neither the cause of the world nor endowed with the other auspicious qualities (which belong to Brahman), the Yoga is not of Vedic character. And as to the third point, Hiranyagarbha himself is only an individual soul, and hence liable to be overpowered by the inferior gunas, i.e. passion and darkness; and hence the Yoga-smriti is founded on error, no less than the Purânas, promulgated by him, which are founded on ragas and tamas. The Yoga cannot, therefore, be used for the support of the Vedânta.--Here finishes the adhikarana of 'the refutation of the Yoga.'

I copied by http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48174.htm

Regards,
Orlando.

[ramkish42]

This is not exact. Vaishnavas cannot practically accept Vedas as the highest authority for the simple reason — Vaishnava teaching is essentially non-Vedic (note the word, i do not say anti-Vedic).
There is no trace of supremacy of Krishna/Vasudeva/Narayana/Vishnu in Vedas and early Upanishads. Vedas do not promote the doctrine of bhakti. There is no Vedic practice of sankirtana of a Vaishnava manner. Vegetarianism is not a Vedic norm. The whole cult of Vaishnavism has practically nothing to do with Vedic one. Mantras that Vaishnavas use are mostly Tantric (like famous so called Gopala-gayatri). Vaishnavism is even more non-Vedic than Tantrism is!
In several major Puranas Vaishnavas are criticised as being non-Vedic (veda-bAhya) and listed together with Kapalikas, Buddhists and Jainas (for example, Kurma-purana, 1.24.31-33, calls the followers of Pancharatra and Sattvata doctrines "pAShaNDas", heretics).

Thanks for that tantric view.

Vaishnavite religions is verily Vedic. If you do not see any supremacy it means you studied texts so closely. For that fact, Rig Veda does not speak about Sakthi, hence a claim, Sakthi is not a hindu god is an absurd claim.

There is no agama which is superior to Veda, it is only Tantris who feel so and no one else. I really doubt did any of Tantri proponents read full Sakthaagams (even Shivaagamas for that fact).

Not only in Kurma Purana there are other puranas where you will find such statements, but you must read the puranas further and you will find such claims are shown wrong.

It is style of Tantri to pick up words and get contented with that


Gaudiya-vaishnavas consider Gita and Bhagavata-purana (its Vaishnava version) + writings of their Gurus (not only sanskrit, but also bengali) to the main authority, and the sole source of knowledge about Supreme Lord, Krishna. They view Upanishads as speaking about Paramatman and Vedas as speaking about Brahma-jyoti — these two are considered to be not identical with the Lord. Thus, Vedic knowledge according to Gaudiya-vaishnavas does not lead to supreme goal.
Of course, Prabhupada deliberately used the word "Vedic" speaking about Vaishnavism. But this is a pure speculation on the name of Vedas, a cunning trick to befool innocent westerners.

It is said in Bhagavata 4.29.45 that a true devotee whom the Lord gives His grace "leaves the mode of thinking which is based on the world and Vedas".

To conclude, Vaishnava attitude towards Vedas has mych in common with Tantric attitude. It varies, and south indian schools are generally more "Vedic" is their form (like Pancharatra and Shrividya) than north indian. But basic view is the same: the primary authority is not Veda.

Vaishnav attitude towards veda is exactly opposite to that of Tantric attitude and primary authority is veda

Source of knowledge is sought from Shri Krishna for it is the closest of all Avatars to this Yuga. and Shri Krishna's form is verily the most lovable and charming. Hence, Shri Krishna is primary for Gaudia Vaishnavs. This does not mean, other forms of Shri Vishnu is not given importance. North Indian Bhakti sect has two great division called Rama Bhakthi Shaka and Krishna Bhakthi Shaka, if you are not aware, better read and know.

In fact it is your cunning trick to show that all HIndus are after sex.

Paramatma and Bhrama Jyoti, are indeed refers God. ISKCON does not object this view. As they are ardent followers of Krishna, they want to see Krishna everywhere. This is called LOVE FOR KRISHNA, where anything other than KRISHNA is not treated on par with KRISHNA for rasaanubhava and not literally. For this fact, they do not speak much of other incarnations of Lord. This can be compared to Bhakthi bhavana of Shri Hanuman, where is replies to Krishna, saying unless you are rama, there is no point in abiding your words. This does not mean, Shri Hanuman, is against god, but is more and more drew in by Rama. A similar event is also seen with Jaambavan. As tantri sect is exact opposite of Bhakthi sect, you do not understand these phrases

Commentators for 4.29.45 made it clear that lord clears the devotee from the mode of thinking based on this world and Poorvakanda of veda. Indeed, veda itself, directs us to concentrate on utharakanda of veda where inquiry of brahman is seen which is in sharp contrast with rituals and Yagnas as found in poorvakanda. Maharishi Ved Vyasa, in opening of his vedanta sutra made it clear, after completion of poorvakanda, let us start bhrahma jinjasa - inquiry on Lord. As Tantri deny vedic authority you do not seem to understand it really. Request you to post views against veda as inquiry requesting for clarification than posting things as if it is true.

To conclude Vaishanvas, for that fact Smarta sect too does not has anything resemblence to Tantric views

[ramkish42]

This is a view of Swami Shivananda, and not a standard of Dharma.
Finally, one can keep his semen (if it is required by his practice of yoga) and still enjoy sex. In any case, celibacy is never meant for grihasthis.

What Shri Shivananda is saying is part of standard Dharma. The fact is that Tantri is not standard Dharma for all.

Celibacy is meant for Grihasthis if they are practicing Yoga.

Request you not to spread ideas of Nancy Friday and Harold Robbins in the forum

[ramkish42]

Who said this? Which Shastra?
This is blatantly wrong, and many examples of such attitude can be given (not only Tantric of course).

Pls quote any Shaivaagama or Shakthaagama slokas which says this. The examples you had given denies the understanding of logic.

As you had claimed it, you had to prove it.

Veda saastrat param naasti verily concludes there is no greater scripture than Veda. These are the very words of Maharishi Ved Vyasa

I had given my proof, and now the onus is on you

[ramkish42]

There is nothing new in this.
I know what Vedas and Smriti consider to be brahmacharya. I know it is praised in some passages (which are not intended at grihasthis). Of course, sex is prohibited for sannyasis. And so what?
In proper context these things are right, that's all. Taken out of context they may become wrong (which happen when rules of brahmacharya are imposed upon grihasthis).

Gita clearly says one has to follow his own dharma and somebody's else.

You tantri mind has carefully missed the point

(29) Giving up being intimate with women [to have sex with them, with others or otherwise] and keeping far from the company of womanizers should one, mastering the self, sit at ease in seclusion and with great care concentrate on Me.(30) No other attachment gives a man as much suffering and bondage like the attachment to women and the association of those attached to women -Srimad Bhagavatam,Canto 11,Chapter 14

This clearly says person mastering the self, should sit at ease in seclusion and with great care concentrate on me.

All commentators to this phrase has commented, here seclusion does not mean physical seclusion but mental seclusion.

[Arjuna]

What Shri Shivananda is saying is part of standard Dharma. The fact is that Tantri is not standard Dharma for all.

Celibacy is meant for Grihasthis if they are practicing Yoga.

Request you not to spread ideas of Nancy Friday and Harold Robbins in the forum

No, this is wrong. Celibacy is not meant for grihasthis is any case, since it is against their ashrama-dharma. Yoga can be practices without keeping celibacy, and clear evidence for that is there. In fact sexual practices exist in yoga too (see Tirumantiram, Shiva-samhita and HYP). When Gita speaks about Yoga, it never says celibacy is a must, that too for grihasthis.

What is the basis of Ur odd statement?

[Arjuna]

(29) Giving up being intimate with women [to have sex with them, with others or otherwise] and keeping far from the company of womanizers should one, mastering the self, sit at ease in seclusion and with great care concentrate on Me.(30) No other attachment gives a man as much suffering and bondage like the attachment to women and the association of those attached to women -Srimad Bhagavatam,Canto 11,Chapter 14
This clearly says person mastering the self, should sit at ease in seclusion and with great care concentrate on me.
All commentators to this phrase has commented, here seclusion does not mean physical seclusion but mental seclusion.

1. Bhagavata-purana is a Purana and thus is not an unquestionable authority.

2. This passage doesn't say this to be a path of every man but simply prescribes a possible method. And this passage doesn't imply that grihasthi should be away from his wife!

3. If this is Prabhupada's translation, it has to be checked carefully. He frequently adds some things which weren't mentioned in original.

[Arjuna]

Pls quote any Shaivaagama or Shakthaagama slokas which says this. The examples you had given denies the understanding of logic.

As you had claimed it, you had to prove it.

Veda saastrat param naasti verily concludes there is no greater scripture than Veda. These are the very words of Maharishi Ved Vyasa

I had given my proof, and now the onus is on you

Singhi_Kaya said "Any path which considers vedas to be lesser than whatever be their main sastra will not be hindu". I asked for a proof. No proof i hear from him or U.

Vira-shaivas rejected Vedic authority. Are they not Hindus? They are majority of Shaivas in Karnataka! Their 5 Gurus are respected among Shaivas all over India. Isn't this enough?
Abhinavagupta in Tantraloka says that Vedic knowledge is dominated by Maya.
Sahajiyas rejected Vedic authority totally.

These all are HINDUS.

[orlando]

Namaste all.
Shri Arjuna,I used the translation at http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto11/chapter14.html

Prabhupada's translation is at http://www.srimadbhagavatam.com/11/14/en
It is:


SB 11.14.29: Being conscious of the eternal self, one should give up association with women and those intimately associated with women. Sitting fearlessly in a solitary place, one should concentrate the mind on Me with great attention.

SB 11.14.30: Of all kinds of suffering and bondage arising from various attachments, none is greater than the suffering and bondage arising from attachment to women and intimate contact with those attached to women.


I think that Prabhupada's comment to the two verses may be interesting.
By http://www.srimadbhagavatam.com/11/14/29/en
strīṇāḿ strī-sańgināḿ sańgaḿ

tyaktvā dūrata ātmavān

kṣeme vivikta āsīnaś

cintayen mām atandritaḥ

SYNONYMS

strīṇām — of women; strī — to women; sańginām — of those who are attached or intimately associated; sańgam — association; tyaktvā — giving up; dūrataḥ — far away; ātma-vān — being conscious of the self; kṣeme — fearless; vivikte — in a separated or isolated place; āsīnaḥ — sitting; cintayet — one should concentrate; mām — on Me; atandritaḥ — with great care.

TRANSLATION

Being conscious of the eternal self, one should give up association with women and those intimately associated with women. Sitting fearlessly in a solitary place, one should concentrate the mind on Me with great attention.

PURPORT

One who has intimate contact with women and becomes attached to them will gradually lose his determination to go back home, back to Godhead. Association with lusty men gives exactly the same result. Therefore, one is advised to be fearless and to sit down in a solitary place, or a place where there are no lusty men and women committing spiritual suicide. Without fear of failure or of unhappiness in life, one should remain with sincere devotees of the Lord. Atandrita means that one should not compromise this principle but should be rigid and cautious. All this is possible only for one who is ātmavān, or fixed in practical understanding of the eternal soul.


By http://www.srimadbhagavatam.com/11/14/30/en
na tathāsya bhavet kleśo

bandhaś cānya-prasańgataḥ

yoṣit-sańgād yathā puḿso

yathā tat-sańgi-sańgataḥ

SYNONYMS

na — not; tathā — like that; asya — of him; bhavet — could be; kleśaḥ — suffering; bandhaḥ — bondage; ca — and; anya-prasańgataḥ — from any other attachment; yoṣit — of women; sańgāt — from attachment; yathā — just as; puḿsaḥ — of a man; yathā — similarly; tat — to women; sańgi — of those attached; sańgataḥ — from the association.

TRANSLATION

Of all kinds of suffering and bondage arising from various attachments, none is greater than the suffering and bondage arising from attachment to women and intimate contact with those attached to women.

PURPORT

One should make a great endeavor to give up intimate contact with women and those fond of women. A learned gentleman will automatically be on guard if placed in intimate contact with lusty women. In the company of lusty men,, however, the same man may engage in all kinds of social dealings and thus be contaminated by their polluted mentality. Association with lusty men is often more dangerous than association with women and should be avoided by all means. There are innumerable verses in the Bhāgavatam describing the intoxication of material lust. Suffice it to say that a lusty man becomes exactly like a dancing dog and, by the influence of Cupid, loses all gravity, intelligence and direction in life. The Lord warns here that one who surrenders to the illusory form of a woman suffers unbearably in this life and the next.


Shri Arjuna,what Bhagavata Purana says doesn't contradict Vedas.So it is ok to accept it.And then consider that it is Lord Krishna Him-self who says the two verses.
Please if you didn't already read it,read my previous posts at pag.4 of this topic.
Regards,
Orlando.

[Arjuna]

Vaishnavite religions is verily Vedic.

Non-Vedic nature of Vaishnavism is acknowledged by scholars.


If you do not see any supremacy it means you studied texts so closely. For that fact, Rig Veda does not speak about Sakthi, hence a claim, Sakthi is not a hindu god is an absurd claim.

I never said Vishnu or Krishna is not a hindu god. Whom are U arguing with?


There is no agama which is superior to Veda, it is only Tantris who feel so and no one else.

Once again, i gave an example of Vira-shaivas (Lingayatas) — they are not Tantrics and still reject Vedic authority and varnashrama system.


In fact it is your cunning trick to show that all HIndus are after sex.

Not at all. Ur attitude is a byproduct of Victorian morality and has nothing to do with Vedic dharma or traditional Hinduism. Hinduism was never antisex-biased.

[Arjuna]

Namaste all.
Shri Arjuna,I used the translation at http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto11/chapter14.htmlShri Arjuna,what Bhagavata Purana says doesn't contradict Vedas.So it is ok to accept it.And then consider that it is Lord Krishna Him-self who says the two verses.
Please if you didn't already read it,read my previous posts at pag.4 of this topic.
Regards,
Orlando.

OK, thank U for giving a reference. Very few people do this :)

This passage is OK for all ashramas apart from grihasthis — and thus it should be accepted. It doesn't mean grihasthi should separate from his wife, Vedas or Smriti never taught this.
Moreover, Bhagavata is authorative for Vaishnavas and not for every sampradaya of Hinduism.

So i see no problem in this issue. Non-grihastha Vaishnavas should stay away from women, that's the meaning.

[ramkish42]

No, this is wrong. Celibacy is not meant for grihasthis is any case, since it is against their ashrama-dharma. Yoga can be practices without keeping celibacy, and clear evidence for that is there. In fact sexual practices exist in yoga too (see Tirumantiram, Shiva-samhita and HYP). When Gita speaks about Yoga, it never says celibacy is a must, that too for grihasthis.

What is the basis of Ur odd statement?

First of all your idea of grihasti is wrong. It is not an ashrama made for sex but only ashrama where sex is allowed. These two has lot of differences.

If you idea is correct, then while defining ashrama dharma of grihasti, gurus would had said, it is made for sex, but for that fact, it is made as part of dharma which grihasti has to uphold.

For your information, both Arth and kama are duties of Grihasti, person who cannot uphold Kama can uphold Artha, by which he can support his family there by do panchayajna which is mandatory.

There is no basis for your statement on the contrary

[ramkish42]

1. Bhagavata-purana is a Purana and thus is not an unquestionable authority.

2. This passage doesn't say this to be a path of every man but simply prescribes a possible method. And this passage doesn't imply that grihasthi should be away from his wife!

3. If this is Prabhupada's translation, it has to be checked carefully. He frequently adds some things which weren't mentioned in original.

First do understand that it is agamas which are revealed to people whose names are not known to Hindu people at large. It is these agamas which claim to be revealed, is same as revelation happened to Mohammed as far as Koran as concerned.

As agamas made integral part of Hinduism, great gurus carefully studied these scriptures and suggested which agamas to be taken as mandatory and which cannot.

On this basis, Shri Adi Sankara Bhagavatpada rejected Pancharaatra for it is against advaita, and Shrimad Ramanuja falling in line with his perceptor accepted the authority of Pancharaatra as it supports Visishtadvaita.

From this practise we can know, great gurus had a practise of accepting agamas and had rejected few agamas (and smritis), which was based on Vedas.

On the contrary no guru of respect and reverence of Sankara Bhagavatpada, Srimad Ramanuja, Great Madhavaacharya, Shri Vallabacharya, even Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had practises of rejected mahapuranas. For that fact, Shri Sanakara Bhavatpada accepted the authority of Bhagavata inspite of the fact it contains few phrases which is against Advaita and Srimad Ramanuja never did objected Shiva Mahapurana nor Skanda Purana inspite of the fact these puranas revered other gods than Shri Hari.

18 Mahapuranas and Bhagavatha (esp) cannot be questioned by Tantri for it has no basis of such questioning.

Request you post such things only in Tantri thread and not in Sanakara Bhagavatpada realated threads.

2. Even I am not saying grihasti should stay away from his wife. Do not jump to conclusions. Pls set aside your Tantri mind and try to understand it by logic.

I had highlighted the key words for your better understanding in those translations. They are meant for people who seek Knowledge of Soul, there by God. These phrases are meant for mumukshu. As you feel, Tantri system does allows knowledge of soul and sex simultaneously, thereby allowing mumukshu to have sex, these phrases are made against your contention.

Our mythology has lot of stories pertaining to such mumukshu. Even King Janaka who is said to be man of great knowledge, had no intercourse with his wife inspite of being king upon being a man of knowledge. For that fact, Sita Mata was made available to him and he never begot Sita mata.

3. Again request you not to make any indecent comment of any such gurus. I never said anything about names of gurus you had quoted. Expect the same decency from you.

Can you create one organisation like ISCKON and do some good service to Lord?

Or, atleast, how many times you had successfully organised for group sex as given in Bhairavi Tantra and other Tantra inspite of living in a land of group sex, thereby helping people to realise soul as per your contention?

"It is easy to blame a person like Mahatma Gandhi but very difficult to repeat the bequest he can passed over us" is a quote I remember at this juncture.

[ramkish42]

Non-Vedic nature of Vaishnavism is acknowledged by scholars.
By atheist scholars, indeed yes. They also mimicked Tantri usgaes for that fact. Vaishnavism is verily vedic. Request you to abstain from doing such things for I am not asking you to abstain from practising Tantri. If Tantris feel Vaishnavism is against Veda, better keep the idea within yourself.



I never said Vishnu or Krishna is not a hindu god. Whom are U arguing with?
I thought you will understand my analogy, my mistake. I was replying to your reference to contents of veda where names of Vishnu is missing. This does not mean veda is against Vaishnavism (vaishnavism acknowledge Hari as god, if veda does not, you want to say veda is against vaishnavism for not accepting Vishnu as a god). Veda is one place condemned Phallus worship, for that fact, it is not against worshipping Linga (hope you understand the literal meaning of the word Linga). Similar was my analogy.



Once again, i gave an example of Vira-shaivas (Lingayatas) — they are not Tantrics and still reject Vedic authority and varnashrama system.
I do not want to make a statement against Vira Shaiva now for no Vira Shaiva insulted any gurus in this forum. If such instances arise, I will handle it separately.

Do not post irrelevant topic of Virashiava here for you are a Tantri and I am Vaishav, there is no one on this thread to suppport Virashaiva.


Not at all. Ur attitude is a byproduct of Victorian morality and has nothing to do with Vedic dharma or traditional Hinduism. Hinduism was never antisex-biased.
Only Tantri is sex based religion amongst hindus and deny accepting it. All the pre existing religions of sex and materialist approach been destroyed for it is against Veda. As tantric was not a major religion at the time of great gurus, it went unnoticed.

Great Acharyas of south refused to talk to tantri for they represent Sudhra Mantrika sects which is against Veda. This has happened only after Vedic religion was established well in India.

Even as far as Tirumantiram is concerned, shiavas who were practising certain agamas were turned to Vedic teaching with the advent of GANDABHASHYAM and now this is amongst authoritative texts amongs Shaiva Siddhanta in Sanskrit. This GANDABHASHYAM is made as a commentary to vedanta sutra of Maharishi Ved Vyasa thereby establishing Shaiva Siddantha as vedic religion.

Even practises of Shaktha in southern part of India had lost its Tantric ideas long back by many propenants of this religion. Kerala, which is considered to strong foot hold of Tantric religion of southern India, Tantric practises are stopped with Mantras and Yantras

As the common practise in Indian Hindus, activity of sex is banned religiously between couples when a third human person is with them, thereby rejecting group sex activity as prescribed in Bhairavi tantra etc.

[ramkish42]

Singhi_Kaya said "Any path which considers vedas to be lesser than whatever be their main sastra will not be hindu". I asked for a proof. No proof i hear from him or U.

Vira-shaivas rejected Vedic authority. Are they not Hindus? They are majority of Shaivas in Karnataka! Their 5 Gurus are respected among Shaivas all over India. Isn't this enough?
Abhinavagupta in Tantraloka says that Vedic knowledge is dominated by Maya.
Sahajiyas rejected Vedic authority totally.

These all are HINDUS.

Hindu in common parlence is seen as vedic sect. Technically speaking Hinduism incorporates even atheist and materialist. Legally speaking even Jains, buddhist, sikhs, are also considered as Hindus.

Shri Singhiji by the word Hindu means common parlence Hindus which is verily correct.

Hindus in common see sects that reject veda on par with Jainism. Remember we fought very hard with kapalis for their illicit practises based on agamic authority. In southern part of India, people following Tirumantiram fought vehemently (all these fights were oral and through debates) and defeated many non vedic religions thereby establishing vedic religion throughout.

The phrase which is very common in usage is this

Bhagavath Gita - Chap 10, sloka 22

vedaanaam saamavedosmi, devaanaamasmi vaasavah |
indriyaanaam manaschaasmi, boothamasmi chethanah ||

Here, Lord clearly says amongs Veda he is Samaveda.

Based on this authority those who say veda is not supeirior thereby conclude god is not superior. Here the question is not whether Krishna or rama or shakthi or shiva is lord, as accepted by all great gurus, this is not the place of paratatvanirnaya or purushanirnaya, but it is the place where it is listed that these are special objects that is verily the bimba of lord, to put it properly these are vibhuthi (permeated) of lord.

[orlando]

Namaste all.
About the Shri Arjuna's statement "Non-Vedic nature of Vaishnavism is acknowledged by scholars" I am afraid that he didn't read my previous post.So I will write them again here.

By http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/srimad-bhagavatam.html

That the Vedas are eternal and apauruseya is a fact that all sampradayas, including the school of Sankara, unanimously agree with. They constitute the means of receiving knowledge about the Absolute Truth. However, there are certain factors that make it practically impossible to study the Vedas in this age:

After Srila Vyasadeva divided the Vedas into four books (Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva), his disciples further divided them into 1,130 divisions. This is stated in the Kurma Purana (52.19-20):
eka-vimsati-bhedena rg-vedam krtavan pura
sakhanam satenaiva yajur-vedam athakarot

sama-vedam sahasrena sakhanam prabibheda sah
atharvanam atho vedam bibedha navakena tu

‘Previously the Rg Veda was divided into 21 sections, the Yajur Veda into 100 sections, the Sama Veda into 1,000 sections and the Atharva Veda into 9 divisions.’

Each division has 4 minor divisions, namely the Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanisads. Thus altogether the 4 Vedas contain 1,130 Samhitas, 1,130 Brahmanas, 1,130 Aranyakas, and 1,130 Upanisads. This makes a total of 4,520 divisions.

At present, most of these texts have disappeared due to the influence of time. We can only find 11 Samhitas, 18 Brahmanas, 7 Aranyakas and 220 Upanisads which constitutes a mere 6% of the entire Vedic canon!

Even if the Vedas were complete in there entirety, in order to understand them one must first study the Vedangas which includes Siksa (the science of phonetics), Vyakarana (grammatical rules), Kalpa (ritualistic rules), Nirukta (obscure word meanings), Chanda (Metres for chanting Vedic hymns), and Jyotisa (astrology and astronomy).
Since the language of the Vedas is enshrouded in mysterious meanings, one must also be willing to sacrifice years of study in order to learn Vaidika (classical) Sanskrit. This entails primarily learning the basic grammar (which generally takes 12 years or so) and then memorising extra vocabulary in order to decipher the mystical language of the Vedas. 1
Apart from that, it is practically impossible for those born in the age of Kali (who are generally ‘mandah sumanda-matayo’) to memorise even the slightest thing. What to speak of the entire Vedas or even the 6% that still survives today! At present, amongst the brahmana communities in India, it is generally observed that vedadhyayana simply consists of memorising the text of one of the four Vedas ‘parrot-fashion’, but as we can see from above, there is much more to it than that. Therefore, we may conclude that although the Vedas are perfect sabda-pramana, it is impractical to become thoroughly conversant with the Vedas in this day and age in order to understand the Supreme. Hence the solution lies in the Puranas and the Itihasas. This is explained in the following verse -


bharata-vyapadesena hyamnayarthah pradarsitah
vedah pratisthah sarve sarve purane natra samsayah

"On the pretext of writing the Mahabharata, Vyasa explained the meaning of the Vedas. Certainly all the topics of the Vedas have been established in the Puranas." (Visnu Purana)

Furthermore, it is explained in the Mahabharata (Adi Parva 1.267) and Manu Samhita –

itihasa puranabhyam vedam samupabrmhayet

" One must complement one’s study of the Vedas with the Itihasas and the Puranas."

In the Prabhasa-khanda of the Skanda Purana (5.3.121-124) it is said –

veda-van niscalam manye puranartham dvijottamah
vedah pratisthitah sarve purane natra samsayah

bibhety-alpa-srutad vedo mam ayam calayisyati
itihasa-puranais tu niscalo’yam krtah purah

yan na drstam hi vedesu tad drstam smrtisu dvijah
ubhayor yan na drstam hi tat puranah pragiyate
yo veda caturo vedan sangopanisado dvijah
puranam naiva janati na ca sa syad vicaksana

" O best of the brahmanas, the meaning of the Puranas is unchanging just like that of the Vedas. The Vedas are all sheltered within the Puranas without a doubt. The Veda has a fear that unqualified people will read her and then distort her meaning. Thus, the significance of the Veda was fixed in the Puranas and Itihasas. That which is not found in the Vedas is found in the Smrti. That which is not found in the Smrti is to be found in the Puranas. Those who know even the Vedas and Upanisads are not learned if they do not know the Puranas."

The reason they are called ‘Puranas’ is because they make the Vedas complete (puranat puranam iti canyatra). This is not to suggest that the Vedas are incomplete. It simply means that the Puranas are explanatory supplements which aid one to understand the concise and ambiguous passages in the Vedas. If the Puranas complete the Vedas, it is only logical that they must be Vedic in nature.

[orlando]

By http://www.srivaishnavan.com/faq_iswara.html
23.In some places in the Vedas, Siva is also called as the supreme deity. How do you explain this contradiction?
24.Can you give some examples?
25.So how do you explain the apparent contradiction?
26.Why can't we take it that the word 'Narayana' (as Paramatma) refers to Siva; instead of saying that the word "Siva" refers to Narayana?
27.Quote some passages in the Vedas, praising the greatness of Siva.
28.Why not we say that Brahma, Vishnu and Siva are all equal?
29.We have got the ancient Tamil works (Sangam literature), which are several thousand years old. What do these mention about the supreme deity?
30.If Narayana is the supreme deity, why should Rama (His Avatara) worship another deity in Rameswaram, as people say?
31.Similarly, there are stories that Narayana took the form of a boar (Varaha) and searched the feet of another deity; that Narayana took out his eye and surrendered it to Rudra and got chakra, etc. What do you say about these?
32.Please tell me something more about Rudra
33.But Harivamsa says Krishna requested for a child, from Siva. How do you reconcile this?
34.Does it mean that we cannot give or we should not

At http://www.srivaishnavan.com/ans_iswara.html there are the asnwers.
23.I have to tell you one thing. Narayana is a proper noun. According to Sanskrit grammar, Narayana can mean only one person. It cannot mean any Other person. But, Siva, Rudra and Sambhu are common nouns. Siva means an auspicious person. Rudra means, one who weeps or one who is dreadful. Sambhu means one who grants happiness and prosperity. So, these are common nouns. So, as common nouns, they can refer to any person, including Narayana; although normally they apply to Siva. This is on the authority of Sanskrit grammar.
24.We have a word in Sanskrit, called Sarasija. This is a common noun. This means that which comes out from a lake. There are so many flowers, which come out from a lake, i.e., which are there in a lake. But still, by common understanding, Sarasija means only a lotus flower. Similarly, there is a word Pankaja in Sanskrit. This means that which comes out of mud or slush. Again, so many flowers can sprout out of mud or slush. But it is commonly accepted in Sanskrit, that Pankaja refers only to Lotus. So, two of the common nouns, Sarasija and Pankaja, although they can apply to all flowers, are still taken to refer only to Lotus. Similarly, Sambhu, Siva and Rudra are common nouns. So, they can refer to any deity or person, although normally we identify these names with Siva.
25.We have to apply some logic here. We accept that the Vedas as a whole, are the ultimate authority. There is nothing in the Vedas, which is not authority. So, in a majority of passages, the word Narayana occurs as Paramatma. In some places, the word Siva or Rudra also occurs as Paramatma. Now, we have to be clear on one thing. Narayana, according to Sanskrit grammar, is a proper noun. It cannot refer to any other person. But Siva and Rudra are common nouns. So they can refer to any other person. Since we do not accept any contradiction among the different passages in the Vedas, we say that the words Siva and Rudra also, when they refer to Paramatma, actually mean Narayana, because these are common nouns.
26.The answer is very simple. Siva is a common noun. It can mean any person and hence it means Narayana in the particular context. But the word Narayana cannot refer to Siva, because Narayana is a proper noun. This is on the authority of Sanskrit grammar; and we have to accept the grammatical position.
27.There are several passages in the Vedas, which praise the greatness of Brahma; which praise the greatness of Indra; which praise the greatness of Agni or fire. Similarly, many passages in the Vedas also praise the greatness of Siva. But the important thing to see is who is declared as the supreme deity or Paramatma. As I have explained to you so far, it is clear from the Vedas and Puranas and Itihasas, that Narayana is the Supreme deity, the Paramatma.
28.What you are saying is not supported by the fundamental authority, the Vedas. From the Vedic passages I have given above, you can see that the Vedas speak of only one supreme deity and that supreme deity is Narayana. There is nothing in the Vedas to show that two or three Gods are equal; and that two or three Gods can be considered as supreme deities. Further, as you will see from the quotations given earlier, both Brahma and Rudra themselves accept that they have come out of Narayana, that they are bom out of Narayana. Nowhere in the Vedas, is it stated that two or three Gods are equal; that Brahma, Vishnu and Siva are equal. The Vedas all along say that there is only one supreme deity and that is Narayana.
29.All these ancient Tamil works also mention that Narayana is the supreme deity.
30.This version is not authentic. We accept Valmiki Ramayana as the authority. There is no mention at all in Valmiki Ramayana about Rama worshipping any deity in Rameswaram. There is no such mention in the authoritative version of Kamba Ramayana also.
31.We can only say that these are not found in any ancient, authoritative works. These have not been quoted by Adi Sankara or any of the Acharyas, belonging to the other schools of Vedanta. These have not been mentioned in Sastras, which are accepted as authority.
32.1) I will give you a quotation from Bhagavata: "The river Ganga is the greatest among all rivers. Narayana is the greatest of all deities. Siva is the greatest of all Vaishnavas. Bhagavata is the greatest of all Puranas." 2) We accept Ahirbudhnya Samhita as one of the respected authorities. Here, Rudra has praised Narasimha in Mantra Raja Pada Stotra. Here, Rudra says as follows: "All the Jivatmas are the servants of you, the Paramatma. So, I am also your servant and worship you." 3) Parvati asks Siva "How can the thousand names of Vishnu be recited easily every day?" Siva replies: "It is enough to say Rama. This is equal to thousand names of Vishnu. I also enjoy Uttering the name Rama."
33.Varahapurana says, that Rudra requested Narayana as follows: "Please grant me a favour. In one of your avataras, you should also pray to me and ask for somefavour." Narayana agreed and said that in one of His avataras He will ask for a favour, from Rudra. That is why, in Krishna avatara. He requested Rudra for a child, as per the promise given earlier. This has been mentioned in Varahapurana. It will also be clear from the fact that, immediately after granting the favour for a child to Krishna, Rudra says as follows:- "Krishna, out of His simplicity only, came to me for a child. But He is the source of all beings. He is the protector of all. He is the supreme Tattva. He alone gives Moksha." Summing up, it is only because of these things, that Vedavyasa says as follows:-
"This is the truth. This is the truth. Again, this is the truth. I raise my hands and say there is no greater authority than the Vedas. There is no greater deity than Kesava." It is in keeping with this only, that Krishna says in Gita "It is I alone, who is understood from all the Vedas."
34.No. It does not mean that. They are also highly respectable. We give them proper and utmost respect, like we will give to other respectable persons. Only thing is, on the authority of the Vedas. Narayana is the supreme deity.

Regards,
Orlando.

[ramkish42]

Shri Bhaktha of God has posted some materials in reply to Shri Arjuna opinion.

As the questions listed from 23 to 26 needs some explanation, I purport to give this here. As this thread is vehemently advaitic, request you to bear with me for this (and also Shri Adi Sankara bhaghavatpada never objected the authority of Shri Hari is to be considered)

The word Narayana is combination of Nara and Ayana, here the single word Ayana end with NA sound which is second NA in sanskrit alphabets (न) and according to Shri Panini, first Sanskrit grammarian, if it refers to a person in combination with Nara, then the word Narayana ends with NA which is first NA sound for sanskrit (ण), thus making it proper noun.

While understanding texts that relates to purushanirnaya, (determining who is lord), any reference shall be elevated to mean the lord, say, if the text read, This elephant created this world, as this phrase is related to purushanirnaya, then, the phrase refers soul of elephant, and inner soul of that soul, there by meaning Lord, thus this phrase says lord created this world permeating the soul of elephant. As gaja is common noun where ever purushanirnaya phrases occurs it is meant to refer to lord. If the text says gaja died, this does not refer to purushanirnaya phrases it is verily meant to refer the very elephant and not lord. This is standard method of understanding with realtion to determining who is lord - Purushanirnaya or Paratatvanirnaya

In the same parlence, when Indra said, I am superior, medidate on me, all great gurus commented on this statement saying, Indra referred to inner soul of him, the very lord, hence the statement is meant as per great gurus, including Shri Adi Sankara Bhagavatpada, Lord is superior and medidate on him. This is what Shri Bhakta of God tell us with other names.

Whereas when in comes to the word Narayana, the same could not apply as Narayana by standard method could not refer to superior Lord for there is change in NA sound (ण) thus referring only Shriman Narayana. If the same Narayana word written with न ending, it would had referred a superior lord, who that could be should be pondered over and inquired, where as that is not the case, as sanskrit grammar rules as propounded by Shri Panini, the Change in Na sound point verily Shriman Narayana, and when any phrase like, Ekohavai Narayana Aasit refers only to Shriman Narayana whereas Aatmane aasit, eesane Aasit, Brahmane Aasit etc refers to superior Lord and not what is verily mentioned. (Just for analogy - Even if the phrase reads Vishnaveaasit, it too refers to supeiror lord)

Hope I made clear of what Shri Bhaktha intended to say

[Arjuna]

By atheist scholars, indeed yes. They also mimicked Tantri usgaes for that fact. Vaishnavism is verily vedic. Request you to abstain from doing such things for I am not asking you to abstain from practising Tantri. If Tantris feel Vaishnavism is against Veda, better keep the idea within yourself.

I gave U the reference to Kurma-purana which condemns Pancharatrins. If it were purely Vedic, it couldn't have happenned.
Of course Vaishnavism is in accordance with Vedas (as Shaivism or Tantrsim), but its origin is mainly non-Vedic, and the whole cult and philosophy is Agamic.

I do not want to convince U, since there is enough academic studies of the topic. Anyone interested may find out what the case is. Let i stay with our opinions.


I thought you will understand my analogy, my mistake. I was replying to your reference to contents of veda where names of Vishnu is missing. This does not mean veda is against Vaishnavism (vaishnavism acknowledge Hari as god, if veda does not, you want to say veda is against vaishnavism for not accepting Vishnu as a god). Veda is one place condemned Phallus worship, for that fact, it is not against worshipping Linga (hope you understand the literal meaning of the word Linga). Similar was my analogy.

I perfectly understood what U wanted to say, but the expression U used was not an "analogy", but a mistake.
Again, i never said Veda is AGAINST Vaishnavism. Veda is not against any Hindu sampradaya. But surely many sampradayas are Veda-bahya in their origin.


I do not want to make a statement against Vira Shaiva now for no Vira Shaiva insulted any gurus in this forum. If such instances arise, I will handle it separately.

This was just an example to prove that there are Hindu sects (not Tantric) which reject Vedic authority. So, U and Singhi_Kaya were wrong in Ur statements that this cannot be.


Only Tantri is sex based religion amongst hindus and deny accepting it. All the pre existing religions of sex and materialist approach been destroyed for it is against Veda. As tantric was not a major religion at the time of great gurus, it went unnoticed.

This is verily wrong historically. Tantrism was very influential, especially in high classes — brahmanas and kshatriyas (and not shudras as U try to claim).


Even as far as Tirumantiram is concerned, shiavas who were practising certain agamas were turned to Vedic teaching with the advent of GANDABHASHYAM and now this is amongst authoritative texts amongs Shaiva Siddhanta in Sanskrit. This GANDABHASHYAM is made as a commentary to vedanta sutra of Maharishi Ved Vyasa thereby establishing Shaiva Siddantha as vedic religion.

Still, do U accept Tirumantiram or not? It contains sexual practice.


Even practises of Shaktha in southern part of India had lost its Tantric ideas long back by many propenants of this religion. Kerala, which is considered to strong foot hold of Tantric religion of southern India, Tantric practises are stopped with Mantras and Yantras

My Guru in Shrividya is keralian, don't tell me stories! I know the matter from inside. U are simply unaware of things which are kept secret by Shrividya brahmanas.

[Arjuna]

P.S. I really have no desire to enter into any sectarian disputation "which god is supreme". Supreme is Anuttara, Parabrahman, Parashiva/Parashakti — different scriptures call HIM with various names. I have no problem to call Anuttara as Krishna — as well as Lalita or Kalakarshini.

As Upanishads say, Rudra is Vishnu and Uma is Lakshmi.

[ramkish42]

P.S. I really have no desire to enter into any sectarian disputation "which god is supreme". Supreme is Anuttara, Parabrahman, Parashiva/Parashakti — different scriptures call HIM with various names. I have no problem to call Anuttara as Krishna — as well as Lalita or Kalakarshini.

As Upanishads say, Rudra is Vishnu and Uma is Lakshmi.

If that is the case you should had abstained verily from pointing references as to veda does not say about Vishnu.

This is what I say - If you make a statement, do not retract from it without due notice and apology

I cannot be bothered about mindless statements made and disowned when questioned but when such statement are made as if it is correct, it is my duty to object. This whole issue would had arises had you ever thought of abstaining about giving references to Vaishavism in whole.

If the question is about Kaula let us talk about Kaula.

Now the question verily is What did sankara mean but no where you refer saying of Sankara to support your views

That is why I made an earlier statement - Had you read Moha Muthkaram of Shri Adi Sankara Bhagavatpada. This will tell you clearly about his opinions. It is otherwise called Baja Govindam, the entire text and meaning is available in this forum itself. I also trust you know verily the entire baja govindam

[ramkish42]

I gave U the reference to Kurma-purana which condemns Pancharatrins. If it were purely Vedic, it couldn't have happenned.
Of course Vaishnavism is in accordance with Vedas (as Shaivism or Tantrsim), but its origin is mainly non-Vedic, and the whole cult and philosophy is Agamic.

I do not want to convince U, since there is enough academic studies of the topic. Anyone interested may find out what the case is. Let i stay with our opinions.

I do not understand why you are making references as to establishing Vaishnavism is non vedic in origin. Verily your statement is false. Kurma Purana is verily Vaikanasa supporting purana, more over, as Shri vaishnavite sect of mine has lost its Yoga - Medidation practises, Kurma purana as said by commentators trusted to mean the lost parts of Paancharaatra

Let i stay with our opinions - what you mean by this? I think you meant Let us stay with our individual opinions. I am not the one who is against this - it is indeed you who want to make Kaula views in all thread irrespective of its nature without making any reference to acknowledging the views of other sect and now you suggest to stay with our opinions. you further make your statements as if your Kaula view is the view of entire Hinduism and accuse gurus for hiding this fact.

This I call contradictions. Stay with your words or retract it with due notice and apology


This was just an example to prove that there are Hindu sects (not Tantric) which reject Vedic authority. So, U and Singhi_Kaya were wrong in Ur statements that this cannot be.
There are so many sects that has rejected Vedic Authority. Kaapalikas, Kuru, Chaarvaka and certain sects accepted vedas partially like Nyyaayikas. Verily these sects are not Hindus now in practise. Jains and Buddhist who are technically Hindus, are not considered as Hindus verily for they had rejected Vedic Authority.

Regarding Veer Shaiva, it is defenseless now, hence I deny making any statements pertaining to it. I deny further treating this sect on par with Christianity, Islam and Jewish


This is verily wrong historically. Tantrism was very influential, especially in high classes — brahmanas and kshatriyas (and not shudras as U try to claim).
A mere statement without any evidence

From this point my earlier posting is now edited as I found few software errors while posting

Still, do U accept Tirumantiram or not? It contains sexual practice.
Does it recomment sexual practise to reaching Moksha? if so let me know, I am a native tamilian, I can read tirumantiram in its original form. As thirumantiram is not my sect, I have not concentrated on it


My Guru in Shrividya is keralian, don't tell me stories! I know the matter from inside. U are simply unaware of things which are kept secret by Shrividya brahmanas.
So? When Ramanuja can hide facts as you claim, why cannot your shrividya guru in similar lines. You know few people from Kerala in sharp contrast with my experiences with people of Kerala

[Arjuna]

Namaste,
very briefly to some points:

1. Vishnu is not the Supreme God of Vedas which some people wanted to pose. I merely objected to that. Vishnu is called Upendra, "lesser Indra".
Upanishads do acknowledge Vishnu as same Being as Rudra. Tantras also do the same in a sence.

2. I cannot understand what is the Vedic origin of Vaishnavism. In early times there were sects of Bhagavatas, Sattvatas and Pancharatrins, which are described in several Puranas as non-Vedic.
Again, this is a view of many scholars, and my imagination.
But by saying Vaishnavism is not Vedic in its origin i do not intend to degrade Vaishnavism in any way. May Shaiva and Shakta sects are also not Vedic in their origin, although there are many parallels to Vedic cult with them.

3. Yes, I wanted to write "let us stay with our opinions" - sorry for a typo.

4. Yes, i know about Bhaja-govindam. But it is not 100% sure Shankara's work, as Saundarya-lahari. In any case, i do not want to enter into arguement on Shankara's views, since Dashanami view is different from Shakta one in this issue.

[Arjuna]

Still, do U accept Tirumantiram or not? It contains sexual practice.

My Guru in Shrividya is keralian, don't tell me stories! I know the matter from inside. U are simply unaware of things which are kept secret by Shrividya brahmanas.[/QUOTE]

Please, keep my words as quotations. Otherwise somebody may mix them with Ur words.
These five sentences belong to me :p

[ramkish42]

Please, keep my words as quotations. Otherwise somebody may mix them with Ur words.
These five sentences belong to me :p

My submissions to this is deleted by software. I do not know why.

Really you see this as funny, in sipte of the fact that you can see the word "[/quote]" at the end.

Better you complain to Moderator in the similar tone with similar icons ridiculing him for this

Anyways, I had corrected it now and you can read it

[orlando]

Namaste all.
Shri Ramkish42 and Shri Arjuna,I found a verse that says what is the purpose of sex.
By http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto11/chapter5.html
(13) It is enjoined that wine should be taken by smelling it and that likewise an animal should be killed as prescribed and not in wanton violence [with wide-scale animal slaughter]; the same way is sex there for begetting children and not for the sensual pleasure [on itself] [B.G. 7-11]; this most pure, their own proper duty, do they [the unintelligent] not understand [see also 7.15].

At http://www.srimadbhagavatam.com/11/5/13/en I found the Prabhupada's translation:
yad ghrāṇa-bhakṣo vihitaḥ surāyās

tathā paśor ālabhanaḿ na hiḿsā

evaḿ vyavāyaḥ prajayā na ratyā

imaḿ viśuddhaḿ na viduḥ sva-dharmam

SYNONYMS

yat — because; ghrāṇa — by smell; bhakṣaḥ — the taking; vihitaḥ — is enjoined; surāyāḥ — of wine; tathā — similarly; paśoḥ — of a sacrificial animal; ālabhanam — prescribed killing; na — not; hiḿsā — wanton violence; evam — in the same way; vyavāyaḥ — sex; prajayā — for the purpose of begetting children; na — not; ratyai — for the sake of sense enjoyment; imam — this (as pointed out in the previous verse); viśuddham — most pure; na viduḥ — they do not understand; sva-dharmam — their own proper duty.

TRANSLATION

According to the Vedic injunctions, when wine is offered in sacrificial ceremonies it is later to be consumed by smelling, and not by drinking. Similarly, the sacrificial offering of animals is permitted, but there is no provision for wide-scale animal slaughter. Religious sex life is also permitted, but only in marriage for begetting children, and not for sensuous exploitation of the body. Unfortunately, however, the less intelligent materialists cannot understand that their duties in life should be performed purely on the spiritual platform.

I don't know sanskrit except afew words.I don't know what translation is the rightest.
Regards,
Orlando.

[Bhakti Yoga Seeker]

Really your tantri brain sees this as funny

Moderator Note:

Do not use name-calling or derrogatory terms in your posts when referring to or communicating with other users on the forum. I believe you have been asked this before. Do not use such terms as "your tantri brain" in your posts anymore or action will be taken.

Do you have any questions or comments about moderation policy? If so, please send a private message to Bhakti Yoga Seeker or contact any of the other administrators on this website.

[orlando]

My original question is:
According to Swami Sivananda,Sri Shankaracarya,the famous advaita philosopher,told:
"Brahmacharya or spotless chastity is the best of all penances; a celibate of such spotless chastity is not a human being, but a god indeed... To the celibate who conserves the semen with great efforts, what is there unattainable in this world ? By the power of the composure of the semen, one will become just like Myself."

What did Sankara mean?

Maybe I found the answer.
In his book Practice of Brahmacharya Swami Sivananda says:
8. THE GLORY OF BRAHMACHARYA
There cannot be any language without vowels. You cannot draw a picture without a canvas or a wall. You cannot write anything without paper. Even so, you cannot have health and spiritual life without Brahmacharya. Brahmacharya brings material progress and psychic advancement. It is the basis for morality. It is the basis for eternal life. It is a spring flower that exhales immortality from its petals. It is the substratum for a life of peace in Atman. It is the firm support for Brahma-Nishtha, which is eagerly longed for by sages, aspirants and Yogic students. It is the shield for waging war against the internal Asuras—lust, anger and greed. It serves as a gateway to the bliss beyond. It opens the door of Moksha. It contributes to perennial joy, to the uninterrupted and undecaying bliss. Even Rishis, Devas, Gandharvas and Kinnaras serve at the feet of a true Brahmachari. Even Isvara applies to his forehead the dust of the feet of a genuine celibate. Brahmacharya is the only key to open the Sushumna and awaken Kundalini. It brings glory, fame, virtue and Mana-Pratishtha. The eight Siddhis and the nine Riddhis roll under the feet of the true celibate. They are ever ready to obey his command. The Lord of Death flees from him. Who can describe the magnanimity, majesty and glory of a true Brahmachari!

Brahmacharyena Tapasa Deva Mrityumupagnata. The Vedas declare that by Brahmacharya and penance the Devas have conquered death. How did Hanuman become a Mahavir? It is with this weapon of Brahmacharya that he acquired unsurpassable strength and valour. The great Bhishma, the grandfather of the Pandavas and the Kauravas, conquered death by Brahmacharya. It is only Lakshman, the ideal Brahmachari, who put down Meghanada, the man of inestimable prowess, the conqueror of the three worlds, the son of Ravana. Even Lord Rama could not face him. It is through the force of Brahmacharya that Lakshman was able to defeat that invincible Meghanada. The valour and greatness of emperor Prithviraj was due to the strength of Brahmacharya. There is nothing in the three worlds that cannot be attained by a Brahmachari. The Rishis of yore knew fully well the value of Brahmacharya and that is the reason why they sang in beautiful verses about the glory of Brahmacharya.

Just as the oil comes up in a wick and burns with glowing light, so also, the Veerya or semen flows up by the practice of Yoga Sadhana and is converted into Tejas or Ojas. The Brahmachari shines with Brahmic aura in his face. Brahmacharya is the bright light that shines in the house of the human body. It is the blossomed flower of life around which the bees of strength, patience, knowledge, purity and Dhriti wander about humming hither and thither. In other words, he who observes Brahmacharya will be endowed with the above qualities. The scriptures declare emphatically:

"Ayustejo Balam Veeryam Prajna Sreescha Yashastatha
Punyamcha Sat-Priyatvamcha Vardhate Brahmacharyaya"

By the practice of Brahmacharya, longevity, glory, strength, vigour, knowledge, wealth, undying fame, virtues and devotion to the truth increase.



Please note the words The eight Siddhis and the nine Riddhis roll under the feet of the true celibate

In the same book Swami Shivananda says:By the establishment of continence, vigour is obtained. The Yogi gets Siddhi or perfection by attaining perfect mental and physical Brahmacharya. Brahmacharya helps him in gaining divine knowledge and other Siddhis. When there is purity, the rays of the mind are not dissipated. Focussing of the mind becomes easy. Concentration and purity go together. Although a sage talks a few words only, a deep impression is produced in the minds of the hearers. This is due to his Ojas Sakti, which is conserved by the preservation of semen and its transmutation.

A true Brahmachari in thought, word and deed has wonderful thought-power. He can move the world. If you develop strict celibacy, Vichara Sakti and Dharana Sakti will develop. Vichara Sakti is the power of enquiry. Dharan’a Sakti is the power of grasping and holding the Truth. If a man persistently refuses to yield to his lower nature and remains a strict celibate, the seminal energy is deflected upwards to the brain and is stored up as Ojas Sakti. Thereby the power of the intellect is intensified to a remarkable degree. The intellect becomes sharp and clear by continence. Continence increases infinitely the power of retentive memory. The strict celibate has keen and acute memory even in old age.

A man who has the power of Brahmacharya can turn out immense mental, physical and intellectual work. He has a magnetic aura around his face. He can influence people by speaking just a few words or even by his very presence. He can control anger and move the whole world.


He even says:
Mind, Prana and Veerya
Mind, Prana and Veerya are the three links of one chain. They are the three pillars of the edifice of Jivatma. Destroy one pillar—mind, Prana or Veerya—and the whole building will fall to pieces.

Mind, Prana and Veerya are one. By controlling the mind, you can control Prana and semen. By controlling Prana you can control the mind and semen. By controlling semen, you can control the mind and Prana.

Mind, Prana and Veerya are under the one Sambandha or connection or circuit. If the mind is controlled, Prana and Veerya are controlled automatically. He who suspends or restrains Prana restrains also the working of the mind and the movement of the Veerya. Again, if the Veerya is controlled, and if it is made to flow upwards into the brain by pure thoughts and the practice of Viparita Karani Mudras such as Sarvangasana and Sirshasana and Pranayama, the mind and the Prana are automatically controlled.

The mind is set in motion or rendered active by two things—the vibration of Prana and the Vasanas or subtle desires. Where the mind is absorbed, there the Prana is restrained; and where the Prana is fixed, there the mind also is absorbed. Mind and Prana are intimate companions, like a man and his shadow. If the mind and the Prana are not restrained, all the organs of sensation and action keep actively engaged in their respective functions.

When a man is excited by passion, the Prana is set in motion. Then the whole body obeys the dictate of the mind just as a soldier obeys the command of his commander. The vital air or Prana moves the internal sap or semen. The semen is put into motion. It falls downwards, just as the clouds burst into rain water, just as the fruits, flowers and leaves of the trees drop down by the force of the blowing winds.

If the Veerya is lost, Prana gets unsteady. Prana is agitated. The man becomes nervous. Then the mind also cannot work properly. The man becomes fickle-minded. There is mental weakness.

If the Prana is rendered steady, the mind also becomes steady. If the Veerya is steady, the mind also is steady. If the Veerya is steady, the mind also is steady. If the Drishti or vision is steady, the mind also becomes steady. Therefore, control the Prana, the Veerya and the Drishti.

God is Rasa. Raso Vai Sah. Rasa is Veerya, the vital fluid or semen. You can get eternal bliss by the attainment of Rasa or Veerya only. Rasohyevayam Labdhva Anandi Bhavati.

Grasp fully the importance and value of this vital essence of life. Veerya is all power. Veerya is all money. Veerya is God. Veerya is Sita. Veerya is Radha. Veerya is Durga. Veerya is God in motion. Veerya is dynamic Will. Veerya is Atma-Bal. Veerya is God’s Vibhuti. The Lord says in the Gita: "Paurusham Nrishu. I am the seed or virility in men". Veerya is the essence of life, thought, intelligence and consciousness. Therefore, preserve this vital fluid very, very carefully, my dear readers!


Swami Sivananda says:There is another sect called "Dhiryaretas", or those persons, who, previously a prey to lustful thoughts and deviated from Brahmacharya, later take to the practice of strict celibacy. Such a person, if he practices strict celibacy for twelve years, can acquire superhuman powers. Medha Nadi or Buddhi Nadi is formed in him. By means of this, he can have retentive memory of anything as long as he lives, and he will be in a position to learn all kinds of subjects.

By observance of unbroken Brahmacharya in thought, word and deed for a period of full twelve years, one is bestowed even with the vision of God, if one aspires for it. He can solve the most abstruse and complicated problems easily. But, this kind of observance should commence before the thirty-second or the thirty-fourth year.

That Yogi who has disciplined himself through ceaseless protracted Sadhana, continuous meditation, Pranayama and Atmic Vichara, the practice of Sama, Dama, Yama and Niyama, is also safe, although he has not attained the stage of perfect sex sublimation. Women will hold no attraction for him. He has thinned out his mind. The mind is starved to death. It cannot raise its hood. It cannot hiss.

As far as I know Shri Sankarakarya had siddhis (superhuman powers).
Maybe he refers to his siddhis when he says: a celibate of such spotless chastity is not a human being, but a god indeed...

Regards,
Orlando.

[Arjuna]

Namaste all.
Shri Ramkish42 and Shri Arjuna,I found a verse that says what is the purpose of sex.
I don't know sanskrit except afew words.I don't know what translation is the rightest.
Regards,
Orlando.

In outlines translations are OK, and subtle differences are irrelevant. Thus, such is the view of Bhagavata (at least one of the views present there). But i think context is important - given quotation is in reply to the question:

(1) The honorable king [Nimi] said: 'O you perfect in the knowledge of the soul, what is the destination of those who, as good as never worshiping the Supreme Personality of Hari [see also 11.3: *4], with their lusts not at peace are out of control with themselves?'

Following verses are intended at named materialists; they are not said in relation to upasakas. Given materialists are already too much into enjoyments and have no devotion or jnana, so it may be somewhat reasonable to say these things.

In general case Vaishnavism out of all Hindu traditions is perhaps the most anti-sex biased (exceptions are there though). This view is verily not mainstream Hindu or Vedic. I still hope it isn't common for Vaishnavism as well, since the context of mentioned phrase allows to admit so. Well, if it is really Vaishnava view, i am much disappointed in it... Families are suffering like hell from such "religious" ideas.

And thank U, Bhakta of God, for providing reference. This answers some questions.

[orlando]

Namaste Shri Arjuna.
Please note that devotion to God and sense gratification are not compatible.
In the Srimad Bhagavad-Gita,Chapter 2,Lord Krishna says:
44.In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take place.


Sex is the greatest sense gratification at this world.In Sri Vaishnavism and in Gaudiya-Vaishnavism sex is allowed only after marriage,only for procreative purposes and only for generate children that will be raised spiritually.And only
materialist families are suffering like hell from such "religious" ideas.

Regards,
Orlando.

[ramkish42]

Namaste,
very briefly to some points:

1. Vishnu is not the Supreme God of Vedas which some people wanted to pose. I merely objected to that. Vishnu is called Upendra, "lesser Indra".
Upanishads do acknowledge Vishnu as same Being as Rudra. Tantras also do the same in a sence.
If you do not want to make any sectarian opinions, better stick to your words, there is no point in saying one thing and doing another. Just to clear your thoughts, Vishnu is not called upendra, but Krishna is called upendra, for he is considered as younger brother of Indra. As the Krishna term is much revered term for all vaishnavites, all avataras are referred as Krishna and upendra

Pls know the Vaishnavite philosphies and ideas before making such comments


2. I cannot understand what is the Vedic origin of Vaishnavism. In early times there were sects of Bhagavatas, Sattvatas and Pancharatrins, which are described in several Puranas as non-Vedic.
Again, this is a view of many scholars, and my imagination.
But by saying Vaishnavism is not Vedic in its origin i do not intend to degrade Vaishnavism in any way. May Shaiva and Shakta sects are also not Vedic in their origin, although there are many parallels to Vedic cult with them.
This is again your independant view, many saakthas want to prove this to seek support to their cult which I understand is the way how research scholars work

Bhagavata, Sattvata are synonymous with Paancharaatri. Vaishnavite have another agama which is called Vaikaanasa. While we agree Paancharaatri is not fully vedic, other vaishnava sects are fully vedic


3. Yes, I wanted to write "let us stay with our opinions" - sorry for a typo.

4. Yes, i know about Bhaja-govindam. But it is not 100% sure Shankara's work, as Saundarya-lahari. In any case, i do not want to enter into arguement on Shankara's views, since Dashanami view is different from Shakta one in this issue.

There is always dubiousness casted by Historians and research scholars on any book as such. Bhaja Govindam is one among such opinions. Irrespective of this doubt, it is acknowledged that it is written during the life time of Adi Sankara Bhagavatpada, which verily evidences his acceptance to the ideas propounded in the said text. Whether written Shri Adi Sankara or his first hand disciples, it carries the authority to bind all Advaitin, hence the book is authoritative for all Advaitins thereby the Hindu View

[ramkish42]

Moderator Note:

Do not use name-calling or derrogatory terms in your posts when referring to or communicating with other users on the forum. I believe you have been asked this before. Do not use such terms as "your tantri brain" in your posts anymore or action will be taken.

Do you have any questions or comments about moderation policy? If so, please send a private message to Bhakti Yoga Seeker or contact any of the other administrators on this website.
Rephrased now

[ramkish42]

This is verily wrong historically. Tantrism was very influential, especially in high classes — brahmanas and kshatriyas (and not shudras as U try to claim).
A mere statement without any evidence

I previously claimed this as mere statement without any evidence. To this statement of mine, I hereby present my evidence.

Kulachudamani Tantra

(This is a nigama and not an agama, still an authoritative text, as far as I know. As it is said to revealed by Sakthi to Bhairava, I trust should be more authoritative than regular agamas)

Kaula knowledge, says the text (II, 25) must not be divulged to atheists, fools, Pashus or to persons of the twice-born caste

Thus the entire Kaula knowledge should not divulged to Twice born, i.e. people who wear Yajnopavitha, largely categorised as Brahmana, Kshatriya and Vaishyas.

As I am not sure how many kshatriyas and Vaishyas go without Yajnopavitha now, all I remember is rule of Manu making Yajnopavitha mandatory for trivarna

Previously in first chapter this text kulachudamani tantra also says the following, (II, 25 should be the reason for this)

(I,31) This had not been told to Vishnu nor to Brahma nor to Ganapa(ti)

My contention further strengthens as further this text proceeds saying the listner is Bhairava (not a brahmanic for of Shiva) and with some explicit verses pertaining to Sakthi As Shakti is Kula so Shiva (as distinguished from Shakti) is spoken of as Akula

Probably my last two citations may not be appropriate, as I am a Vaishnava I am trying to reason it out as a normal research scholar. Request Arjun to comment on this text, and if possible also throw some light on this nigama so that we will know about this sect in full

To Moderator:
I am not mentioning Sudhra as derogatory class as such derogatory claim is filthy for me being from Shri Vaishnava sect

[ramkish42]

1. Vishnu is not the Supreme God of Vedas which some people wanted to pose. I merely objected to that. Vishnu is called Upendra, "lesser Indra". Upanishads do acknowledge Vishnu as same Being as Rudra. Tantras also do the same in a sence.

I had posted my comments on this already, however, I would like to do that again with Tantra prespective

a) Brahmayamala
b) Vishnuyamala
c) Rudrayamala
d) Lakshmiyamala
e) Umayamala
f) Skandayamala (Bhaskara substitutes Jayadrathayamala)
g) Ganeshayamala
h) Grahayamala

Does the word Vishnu here as per your Tantra means Narayana or Upendra?

[Arjuna]

I previously claimed this as mere statement without any evidence. To this statement of mine, I hereby present my evidence.
Kulachudamani Tantra

My contention further strengthens as further this text proceeds saying the listner is Bhairava (not a brahmanic for of Shiva) and with some explicit verses pertaining to Sakthi As Shakti is Kula so Shiva (as distinguished from Shakti) is spoken of as Akula

Probably my last two citations may not be appropriate, as I am a Vaishnava I am trying to reason it out as a normal research scholar. Request Arjun to comment on this text, and if possible also throw some light on this nigama so that we will know about this sect in full

Namaste,

1. This might have been told in Kulachudamani, i don't remember (will check). But this is not a general view in any case for two reasons: firstly, it is not common to Agamas, and secondly, actual situation in India always has been different - brahmanas and kshatriyas were leaders of main Tantric communities, most of Tantric Gurus were brahmanas, and large number of brahmanas in North and South are Tantrics till present day. In Nepal chief priests, Rajopadhyayas, are Kaulas, as well as royal family itself (not quite sure about present, but before this was the case).
Kularnava-tantra says that brahmana devoid of Kula-jnana is worse than shudra. This also is exaggeration, but it is relevant to discussed issue.
Personally i assume mentioned passage of KChT refers to followers of Smarta tradition. When brahmana or anyone enters Kula-chakra, he is no more brahmana but Kaula, who is beyond varnashrama (in Chakra, but usually not in practical life).

2. Bhairava is not Vedic form of Shiva, but definitely brahmanic one! Brahmanas in Bengal, Kashmir and Nepal worship Bhairava, as well as all Shrividya brahmanas of South India do!
Bhairava is in fact Tantric form of Shiva, He is worshipped by all varnas.

3. Shiva and Shakti as Akula and Kula has nothing to do with matters of varna etc. These are metaphysical terms and not social in this case.

[Arjuna]

I had posted my comments on this already, however, I would like to do that again with Tantra prespective

a) Brahmayamala
b) Vishnuyamala
c) Rudrayamala
d) Lakshmiyamala
e) Umayamala
f) Skandayamala (Bhaskara substitutes Jayadrathayamala)
g) Ganeshayamala
h) Grahayamala

Does the word Vishnu here as per your Tantra means Narayana or Upendra?

U did not understand the matter. Vishnu is called Upendra in VEDAS and not in Tantras.

There is also one Tantric text called Krishna-mahayamala. So what? For Tantric doctrine Vishnu in "technical" sense is a sustaining aspect/power of the Lord (also called Vamadeva), and in "broad" sense can be another name of Sadashiva.

[Arjuna]

Just to clear your thoughts, Vishnu is not called upendra, but Krishna is called upendra, for he is considered as younger brother of Indra. As the Krishna term is much revered term for all vaishnavites, all avataras are referred as Krishna and upendra

Krishna is not mentioned in Vedas at all. In one of major Upanishads as i remember once some Krishna is mentioned - not as god or avatar, but as a student of some Rishi.
Upendra is a Vedic title of Vishnu.


Bhagavata, Sattvata are synonymous with Paancharaatri. Vaishnavite have another agama which is called Vaikaanasa. While we agree Paancharaatri is not fully vedic, other vaishnava sects are fully vedic

As i know these sects were not identical.
Regarding Vaikhanasa, i heard it is more Vedic. May be, i have no good knowledge of this tradition.


There is always dubiousness casted by Historians and research scholars on any book as such. Bhaja Govindam is one among such opinions. Irrespective of this doubt, it is acknowledged that it is written during the life time of Adi Sankara Bhagavatpada, which verily evidences his acceptance to the ideas propounded in the said text. Whether written Shri Adi Sankara or his first hand disciples, it carries the authority to bind all Advaitin, hence the book is authoritative for all Advaitins thereby the Hindu View

As U said about Jayadeva's Gita-govinda, this is also "mere [devotional] poetry". No doubt it is Hindu, but it is not a Shruti or some text of all-over Hindu authority.

[ramkish42]

U did not understand the matter. Vishnu is called Upendra in VEDAS and not in Tantras.

There is also one Tantric text called Krishna-mahayamala. So what? For Tantric doctrine Vishnu in "technical" sense is a sustaining aspect/power of the Lord (also called Vamadeva), and in "broad" sense can be another name of Sadashiva.
Question is not verily upendra for I had posted my comments on it already.

Question is Upanishad speaking Vishnu as Rudra and Tantra in same prespective to some extent. When Vishnuyamala along with Rudrayamala and other yamala individually, does this refert to Narayana or Rudra or Upendra?

[ramkish42]

Namaste,

1. This might have been told in Kulachudamani, i don't remember (will check).

Pls check and get back. I was typing that message with the book on my desk


But this is not a general view in any case for two reasons: firstly, it is not common to Agamas,

Could be so, but I have to check it out, as I am going to through this Chudamani now, later on will try with some agamas for similar proof, if available


and secondly, actual situation in India always has been different - brahmanas and kshatriyas were leaders of main Tantric communities, most of Tantric Gurus were brahmanas, and large number of brahmanas in North and South are Tantrics till present day. In Nepal chief priests, Rajopadhyayas, are Kaulas, as well as royal family itself (not quite sure about present, but before this was the case).

There is also injunctions, I had observed similar practises by brahmanas without mentioning the name of tantra with Milk instead of Wine, some substitutes for flesh and meat, Flowers to substitute sexual relationship. To what extent this is tantric I am not sure. To the large extent, I could not find any brahmins in my known circle practising this. I have good contacts in Kerala, Andhra and Maharashtra, still none of them are tantris



Kularnava-tantra says that brahmana devoid of Kula-jnana is worse than shudra. This also is exaggeration, but it is relevant to discussed issue.

I have to read this text before making comment on this. You check with Chudamani and I will check this


Personally i assume mentioned passage of KChT refers to followers of Smarta tradition. When brahmana or anyone enters Kula-chakra, he is no more brahmana but Kaula, who is beyond varnashrama (in Chakra, but usually not in practical life).
I am none to comment on your personal opinions. You have every right


2. Bhairava is not Vedic form of Shiva, but definitely brahmanic one! Brahmanas in Bengal, Kashmir and Nepal worship Bhairava, as well as all Shrividya brahmanas of South India do!
Bhairava is in fact Tantric form of Shiva, He is worshipped by all varnas.
Bhairava is indeed treated by Brahmins as non brahmin form of Shiva. Many a times, Bhairava Deva is depicted synonymous with the image of bhaluha, bhaSaka, candramaha, dwadasaayus, (I trust you will make out this, for I do not want to mention it explicitly), and it is devoid of brahmin to approach it or keep it in their house. However, now a days many Brahmins do have a Bhaluha, BhaSaka, but injunction is verily an injunction and anything devoid of it does not have vedic permission.

This is also valid of Tantri Brahmins if they exist, injunciton is injunction as given by chudamani, and anything in devoid of it cannot carry permission


3. Shiva and Shakti as Akula and Kula has nothing to do with matters of varna etc. These are metaphysical terms and not social in this case.
Thanks for this clarification. I had also stated my reservations on this submission, verily you concur with my reservations.

[ramkish42]

Krishna is not mentioned in Vedas at all. In one of major Upanishads as i remember once some Krishna is mentioned - not as god or avatar, but as a student of some Rishi.
Upendra is a Vedic title of Vishnu.
If Krishna name exists in Veda that will result in Inconsistency. At the time of Krishna, Maharishi Veda Vyasa has already classified vedas into four, that verily indicated it.

Regarding Upendra, it is not vedic title of Vishnu. Vedic names are verily with a reasons. The word Vishnu means omni present, which could not the case with Upendra. While referring Upendra all texts refer him as updendra and not Vishnu. Many a times, esp in namaavalis, Vishnu has given the name Upendra, which shows, Vishnu is known as Upendra also, as upendra is Vishnu's Amsaa. When you call a person as Upendra and Vishnu, verily the person has to be vishnu for meaning for Vishnu is verily large when compared to Upendra.

There are other stories in mythology where upendra is directly encountered with Avataaras of Vishnu and punished verily by the avatara. If both of same person, such punishments cases will not be there.

If you can quote specific passages where Vishnu is called Upendra, I will deal with that clearly


As i know these sects were not identical.
Regarding Vaikhanasa, i heard it is more Vedic. May be, i have no good knowledge of this tradition.

No problem, I will try to refrain from indicating anything about Vaikanasaa from now onwards to the maximum as you had told you are not good in it


As U said about Jayadeva's Gita-govinda, this is also "mere [devotional] poetry". No doubt it is Hindu, but it is not a Shruti or some text of all-over Hindu authority.

Nature of Bhaja Govindam is verily different from Gita Govinda, Bhaja Govindam is from the Adi Sankara Bhagavatpada who gave new life of Advaitin, many treat him as propounder as Advaita philosophy (this is not true for advaita existed even before him) and one from Shri Jayadeva who is not ascribed with any such initiation of propounding a philosophy. This is where I make Baja Govindam as authoritative.

This text is originally named as Moha muthkaram, destroyer of Moha, the very title makes it qualified as philosophical treatise when compared with Gita Govinda.

Anyways, it is for you to consider it or not. As I had told, my style is different there is no point in submitting texts known to me but texts known to you should be discussed

[ramkish42]

Quote:
3. Shiva and Shakti as Akula and Kula has nothing to do with matters of varna etc. These are metaphysical terms and not social in this case.
Thanks for this clarification. I had also stated my reservations on this submission, verily you concur with my reservations.

As I am reading, I am posting

The Devi then speaks of the methods (Upaya) of attaining liberation which is the essence of all Tantras and is honoured by all Devatas. These means secure knowledge and awaken Tattvabodha. They destroy both merit and demerit and (v 29) give both enjoyment and liberation (Bhogamuktipradayakam). This doctrine is said to have been kept as a profound secret so that it had not been divulged even to Vishnu, Brahma nor Ganapa. It should be concealed in the heart (Gopaniyantu hridaye). "This wonderful secret, my child, should be kept from Pashus" (v 40. Rahasyam adbhutang vatsa gopavyam pashushangkate). The Devi speaking of this doctrine thus addresses the Bhairava "Child (Vatsa) it strikes me with wonder and bewilders even the wise. It is replete with numerous and bewildering meanings and is the final resting place of all good disciples (Sachchhishya-paramaspadam)

This passage is from Kaulachudamani, you can check this and get back to me.

Who is this Devi who calls Bhairava as Child?
,

[Arjuna]

Question is Upanishad speaking Vishnu as Rudra and Tantra in same prespective to some extent. When Vishnuyamala along with Rudrayamala and other yamala individually, does this refert to Narayana or Rudra or Upendra?

I already expressed Tantric view on Vishnu in a previous post, where i mentioned Krishna-mahayamala.

[Arjuna]

Who is this Devi who calls Bhairava as Child?

There is only one Devi (Paramadevata). Bhairava is generally Her "husband", but in some myths He is Her son as well.

We have to keep in mind that the whole idea of "divine family of Shiva and Devi" is a pure mythology and not Reality per se. When Shastras speak of Ganapati, Skanda or Bhairava as "children" of Devi, these are in fact certain aspects of Shiva.

Bhairava originated through Shakti only, He was born out of Her Yoni. Thus He is a son of Devi. Then, He enters the same Yoni as the Shaktiman, and "becomes Her husband."

Sometimes "bhairava" refers to liberated Kaulas, as "yoginis" - to Kaulikis. In this sense bhairavas also are children of Mahashakti.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste,

Shri Pushpadanta told that the path of Vaishnava is different from the path of Trayi (or pure Vedic Dharma).

The Gandharva’s Mahimna Stava declares that the paths of: (i) Trayi, (ii) Samkhya, (iii) Yoga, (iv) Pashupata, and (v) Vaishnava, all lead to God in the end.

And thus it is clear that Vaishnava is not pure Vedic Dharma.

There is no serious insult here, for even the Atharva Veda is excluded from the ancient Trayi Vidya!

[Ram]

Namaste,

Shri Pushpadanta told that the path of Vaishnava is different from the path of Trayi (or pure Vedic Dharma).

The Gandharva’s Mahimna Stava declares that the paths of: (i) Trayi, (ii) Samkhya, (iii) Yoga, (iv) Pashupata, and (v) Vaishnava, all lead to God in the end.

And thus it is clear that Vaishnava is not pure Vedic Dharma.

There is no serious insult here, for even the Atharva Veda is excluded from the ancient Trayi Vidya!

I am hearing such a view for the first time. I have never heard Vaishnavism being called different from vedic dharma.

Panchatratra religion is mentioned in the Mahabaratha as the religion promulgated by Lord Sriman Narayana, and is considered to be the message of Mahabaratha itself. Calling Panchartra as not a pure vedic Dharma amounts to referring to Mahabaratha itself like that.:)

Anyway, this can just be a personal view, unless substantiated from scripture itself.

As far as the rest of your list:

Shankya and Yoga are considered unvedic, because it denies Isvara being the active cause of the world. Again, the goal of Yoga is only separation of Purusha from Prakriti(kaivalya), which is incomplete Yoga according to vedanta.

Pasupata is unvedic again because it denies Brahman as the upAdAna kAraNa, and due to many unorthodox vedic practices like sacrifices, body piercing etc.

On what basis are you considering Vaishnavism as not purely vedic? Any technical reasons would be useful to discuss. In particular, you can cite reasons with respect to the Pancharatra religion or Srivaishnavism. In the absence of scriptural evidences, this could just be considered as a personal opinion.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Ramji,

The Mahabharata is not part of the Vaidika Trayi (i.e. the Rigveda, Yajurveda, and Samaveda)!

श्री पुष्पदन्त उवाच
त्रयी सांख्यं योगः पशुपतिमतं वैष्णवमिति प्रभिन्ने प्रस्थाने परमिदमदः पथ्यमिति च ।

śrī pushpadanta uvāca ~
trayī sāmkhyam yogah paśupatimatam vaishnavamiti prabhinne prasthāne paramidamadah pathyamiti ca

Trayi Vaishnavam iti Prabhinne Prasthāne

prabhinna means “split asunder, cleft, broken, interrupted, disfigured, or altered” ~ and the path of Vaishnava (like Samkhya, Yoga, and Pashupata) is clearly distinguished from the path of Trayi.

The personal opinion of a Gandharva is sufficient for most Hindus!

The ancient Gandharva, Shri Pushpadanta, told that the path of Vaishnava (which includes Pancaratra) is different from the path of Trayi (or pure Vaidika Dharma).

Shankaracarya, Govindananda, and Anandagiri, have all quoted passages from the Pancaratra school ~ but only to show that those passages hold the Vedas in contempt!

Other teachings of Pancaratra, which do not conflict with the Vedas, have of course been accepted by Shankaracarya and others. But the original point remains ~ that the origins of Vaishnavism are “non-vedic”, in the strict sense of not being wholly derived from the original Trayi Vidya.

[Ram]

Namaste Ramji,

The Mahabharata is not part of the Vaidika Trayi (i.e. the Rigveda, Yajurveda, and Samaveda)!

श्री पुष्पदन्त उवाच
त्रयी सांख्यं योगः पशुपतिमतं वैष्णवमिति प्रभिन्ने प्रस्थाने परमिदमदः पथ्यमिति च ।

śrī pushpadanta uvāca ~
trayī sāmkhyam yogah paśupatimatam vaishnavamiti prabhinne prasthāne paramidamadah pathyamiti ca

Trayi Vaishnavam iti Prabhinne Prasthāne

prabhinna means “split asunder, cleft, broken, interrupted, disfigured, or altered” ~ and the path of Vaishnava (like Samkhya, Yoga, and Pashupata) is clearly distinguished from the path of Trayi.

The personal opinion of a Gandharva is sufficient for most Hindus!


Pusphadanta is at a higher authority than Mahabaratha? For whom? That statement is asampradayik!


And what did you mean by most Hindus? Not less than 50% of the Hindus are direct or indirect disciples of the school of Sri Ramanuja Vaishnavism and its Bhakti movement. Each one of them will reject your unvedic quote outright! Even if you gather mass support for the claims, how does it hold when it contradicts the principal Itihasa - Mahabaratha. Pancharatra has been founded by Lord Narayana himself, and if you dont accept the authority of Mahabaratha( which includes the Gita!), what else is there to discuss?





The ancient Gandharva, Shri Pushpadanta, told that the path of Vaishnava (which includes Pancaratra) is different from the path of Trayi (or pure Vaidika Dharma).


Which contradicts Mahabaratha, a principal smriti. The same way we reject Kapila Smriti, Yaga sutras etc. If something contradicts shruti or smriti like Puranas or Mahabaratha, they have no relevance.




Shankaracarya, Govindananda, and Anandagiri, have all quoted passages from the Pancaratra school ~ but only to show that those passages hold the Vedas in contempt!


Sorry to say this, but since you mention that Panchratra holds the vedas in contempt.

Shankara did not know Panchartara. Even his presentation of it in his BSB is flawed - and severely critized in the Sri Bhasya. Shandilya said that he learnt the Pancharatra shastra because vedas did not give him aparoxa. A similar verse is found in Mundaka which dismisses vedas as a lower knowledge. By your logic, we ought to dismiss Mundaka too.



Other teachings of Pancaratra, which do not conflict with the Vedas, have of course been accepted by Shankaracarya and others. But the original point remains ~ that the origins of Vaishnavism are “non-vedic”, in the strict sense of not being wholly derived from the original Trayi Vidya.

Since you hold non authoritative texts above Mahabaratha, I guess we have no grounds to discuss.

Please define Trayi vidya from first priinciples, and please prove which of the existing Hindu faiths are in accordance with it. Perhaps only your own beleifs?

[ramkish42]

Chill off

Vaishnav phrase is used to refer Paanchraatris. Followers of Vaikaanasa, who fall in Vaishnav fall in Trayi veda sampradaya.

Many get confused with the usage of phrases. In Vaidika sampradaya accepting Trayi, many were Vaishnavs (Vaikaanasa followers) and many were Shaivites.

Not only this, Bhagavatta, Saatvatta are synonyms of Paancharaatri. Vaishnav phrase when used to differenciate vedic religions and Vaishnav religions exclusively refer to Paancharaatri.

Unless we know what is real meaning, it will lead to many problems

Paancharaatra has authority as defined by Brahma Sutra (Shrimad Ramanuja 2.2.39 read with 2.2.40 & Shri Sankara 2.2.42 read with 2.2.43)

[Arjuna]

Pusphadanta is at a higher authority than Mahabaratha? For whom? That statement is asampradayik!

To support Sarabhanga's statement, Kurma-purana (1.24.31-33) calls the followers of Pancharatra and Sattvata "pashandas" (heretics) together with buddhists and jainas.
Kurma-, Skanda- and Devibhagavata-puranas call Pancharatra "veda-bahya" (non-Vedic).

Most scholars (if not all) accept Pancharatra as non-Vedic in origin, but purely Agamic.

[Arjuna]

There was a discussion whether Shankara could teach any Kaula methods. Sures Chandra Banerji in "New Light on Tantra" (Calcutta, 1992) discusses this possibility — see pp. 305-307. There he mentions on authority of Shrividyarnava that Shankara had 14 disciples, 5 sannyasis and 9 grihasthis.

Similar view is held by Pt. Hemenji, who told me that originally Shankara had a Tantric teaching for householders, which later on was almost forgotten.

[Ram]

Chill off

Vaishnav phrase is used to refer Paanchraatris. Followers of Vaikaanasa, who fall in Vaishnav fall in Trayi veda sampradaya.

Many get confused with the usage of phrases. In Vaidika sampradaya accepting Trayi, many were Vaishnavs (Vaikaanasa followers) and many were Shaivites.

Not only this, Bhagavatta, Saatvatta are synonyms of Paancharaatri. Vaishnav phrase when used to differenciate vedic religions and Vaishnav religions exclusively refer to Paancharaatri.

Unless we know what is real meaning, it will lead to many problems

Paancharaatra has authority as defined by Brahma Sutra (Shrimad Ramanuja 2.2.39 read with 2.2.40 & Shri Sankara 2.2.42 read with 2.2.43)

Pancharatra's support within the vedic cannon must be exceptionally good. If you consider the fifteen odd major commentaries on the Brahmasutras,

Only Shankara and possibly Bhaskara, and Srikanta must have rejected Pancharatra in 2.2.42. Sri Ramanuja, and those who followed him have upheld Panchartara easily here, and have also established an authority with the Bhagavad Gita. Sri Madhva is rejecting the Shakta religion in this context( I think).

Only very few people will venture out to confront Vaishnavism given the scriptural strength in its favour.

[Ram]

To support Sarabhanga's statement, Kurma-purana (1.24.31-33) calls the followers of Pancharatra and Sattvata "pashandas" (heretics) together with buddhists and jainas.
Kurma-, Skanda- and Devibhagavata-puranas call Pancharatra "veda-bahya" (non-Vedic).

Most scholars (if not all) accept Pancharatra as non-Vedic in origin, but purely Agamic.

Whether a system is rooted in the vedas has to be judged based on the prastana granthas composed by the system, and not by making sweeping statements or by quoting out of context. Bhagavatam and Mahabaratha give enough support to Pancharatra to override lesser authorities.

For Panchratra( not just any other form of Vaishnavism), many Vaishnava Acharyas have composed the triad. Of the so many commentaries on the Brahma sutras, nearly all of them are based on Vaishnavism, showing its immense scriptural support.

There has been very few for Shaivism, and none for any other diety, including Shakti. Even advaitins( non Shankarites) of later days favoured a Krishna centric Vaishnavism.

[ramkish42]

Paancharaatra has vedic origins. Off late, the portions of veda is lost hence paancharaatra is considered to have non vedic origins.

As this could not be a right thread to discuss this stuff, I just prefer to stop this with a cut and paste from another site regarding origins of Paancharaatra

The date and origin of pAncarAtra:


SrI vedAnta desika in his tatva-mukta-kalApa points out that the pAncarAtra system originated from the ekAyana Sakha portion of the veda-s. The chAndogya upanishad refers to the ekAyana Sakha as the veda of veda-s, the treasure of the gods, and the sacred utterance among all utterances. ekAyana means "the only means".

".....pancamam vedAnAm vedam pitryam rASim daivam nidhim vAkovAkyam ekAyanam ....iti" (chAndogya XIII.6.1.1).
The mahAbhArata states that this ekAnti dharma was promulgated by Lord nArAyaNa during the first stage of the cosmic evolution, or the First Birth of brahma (mAnasa). The terms "bhAgavata" doctrine and "sAttvata" doctrine, are also used synonymously with the term "pAncarAtra". While elucidating the nature of the ekAnti dharma, the Santi parva of the mahAbhArata (332-16-8,336-1-76, 337-61-7) refers to the sAtvata, bhAgavata, and pAncarAtra systems. This goes to show that all these are closely connected systems which believe in the worship of one God. The mahAbhArata states that the sAttvata arose in the Fourth Birth of brahma (SravaNaja), and finally the pAncarAtra evolved at the end of the Seventh Birth (padmaja - out of the lotus?). Thus, this proclaims that the pAncarAtra represents the latest stage of the evolution of the bhAgavata theism. Special mention is also made of the divine authorship of the pAncarAtra, as against the human authorship of the sAnkhya and yoga systems.

[Arjuna]

Namaste Ram,


Whether a system is rooted in the vedas has to be judged based on the prastana granthas composed by the system, and not by making sweeping statements or by quoting out of context. Bhagavatam and Mahabaratha give enough support to Pancharatra to override lesser authorities.

Vedas are Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads. Prasthana-traya which U refer to is a canon of Vedanta system only — which is not the sole standard of Vedic dharma.

Bhagavata is only one of Puranas, and even its status of Mahapurana (one of 18) is very unsure. In its present form Bhagavata is verily of rather recent date and according to some sourses was written by a grammarian Vopadeva. Several scholars hold a view that Devibhagavata-purana is closer to original version of Bhagavata, which is lost.

Mahabharata has very different views incorporated in it, and is full of later additions and interpolations. At some places it supports Shaivism, at another — Viashnavism and even Shaktism. There is a curious issue when Krishna sings a hymn in praise of Devi, somewhere near to Gita section.

In any case Kurma and Skanda Puranas are beyond doubt Mahapuranas. The very fact that they show Pancharatra as non-Vedic system prove that by the time of their composition Pancharatra was still in certain opposition towards brahmanic Hinduism. It was incorporated and accepted later only, as were accepted other Agamic traditions.

This is not to say that Pancharatra (or Vaishnavism in general) is anti-Vedic. Of course it doesn't contradict Vedic teaching — as most of Agamic traditions. But Tantric Shaktism or Siddhanta-shaivism are not less connected with Vedism (i would say more, in fact). However originally all these traditions flourished from Agamic revelation which was independent from Vedic one (Nigamic).


For Panchratra( not just any other form of Vaishnavism), many Vaishnava Acharyas have composed the triad. Of the so many commentaries on the Brahma sutras, nearly all of them are based on Vaishnavism, showing its immense scriptural support.
There has been very few for Shaivism, and none for any other diety, including Shakti. Even advaitins (non Shankarites) of later days favoured a Krishna centric Vaishnavism.

There is Shakti-bhashya on Brahma-sutras, thus U are wrong in Ur assumption. As well as there is a Tantric Gita commentary by Sri Abhinavagupta (10-11 century C.E.), which is more ancient than Ramanuja's one (12 century).

Regarding the Ekayana, there is no proof that Chandogya refers to Pancharatra system (at least definitely not to its later Vaishnava form).
As Bhattacharyya mentions, "Naradapancharatra enumerates seven kinds of Pancharatra of which three are connected with the names of Brahma, Siva and Kumara" (History of the Tantric Religion, p. 41). And after that he writes: " In any case, Pancharatra came finally to be connected with Vaishnavism and became an integral part of it."
He mentions an interesting thing: "The earlier Pancharatra works were probably composed in the Kashmir region" (Ibid., p. 44). There is a view (expressed for example by Navjivan Rastogi) that original Pancharatra was related to Kashmiri Shakta-tantric Krama system, from which it could have borrowed the doctrine of four Vyuhas. The Ekayana could have been in fact Krama or a similar to it Kashmiri monistic Vaishnava system.

[sarabhanga]

Pankaja,

The ancient Trayi Vidya depends ONLY on the Samhitas and Brahmanas of the Three Vedas ~ Rigveda, Yajurveda, and Samaveda ~ nothing more.

The entire Atharvangirasa (Atharva-veda) and all of the Upanishads and Sutras are irrelevant to Trayi Vidya, so it should be no surprise that the Mahabharata (including the Gita) and all of the Puranas are also beyond the purview of Trayi!

The entire corpus of Aryan Dharma is ultimately dependent on the Trayi, but the Trayi has no need for support from any other source.

Pushpadanta told that persons following the various paths of: Trayi (Rik, Yajus, and Sama), Samkhya (of Kapila), Yoga (of Patanjali), Pashupata (i.e. Shaiva), and Vaishnava, ~ be they straight or crooked paths ~ as they each accordingly follow the path that is appropriate for their particular temperament, they ALL attain the same goal in the end. Just as different rivers, coming from very different starting points and following very different routes, all enter the same ocean when their journey is completed.


Shankaracarya, Govindananda, and Anandagiri, have all quoted passages from the Pancaratra school ~ but only to show that those passages hold the Vedas in contempt. Other teachings of Pancaratra, which do not conflict with the Vedas, have of course been accepted by Shankaracarya and others.
Shri Shankaracarya has rejected a few points of Pancaratra doctrine as being not in accordance with the Vedas, but that does not mean that he was bound to reject all Vaishnava philosophy!

Your misguided and indignant response really has no relevance, and does not require further comment.

[sarabhanga]

In the Harivamsha, Shri Krishna describes Himself as the younger brother of Indra.

Vaishnava ritual is relatively peaceful, with fruits, leaves, flowers, and water, offered “with devotion”; and the offerings are accepted by the God BECAUSE of the devotion with which it is offered.

This form of worship is entirely non-Vedic; and it is derived mainly from the Mahabharata and the Puranas.

The whole concept of Avatara is a novel production of the Pancaratra sect ~ probably influenced by the Bauddha Jataka folk-tales.

In Archaeology, there is absolutely no evidence of Vishnu Avataras before the Gupta period (i.e. before the 4th century AD).

The cult of Vasudeva, which later merged with Pancaratra to produce the present “neo-Brahmanic” Vaishnavism, included orthodox Brahmanas, Abhiras, Magas, and Shakas, and their inspired compromise gave rise to the Bhagavad Gita; while the non-Brahmanical sections gave rise to and elaborated the idea of five heroic Vrishniviras (Vasudeva, Balarama, Pradyumna, Aniruddha, and Shamba).

And NONE of this has any basis in the Trayi!

If Vaishnavism were to give up the idea of Avataras of Vishnu, along with all of its sectarian mythology, and return to the old sacrificial rituals, only then could it possibly be equated with the Vaidika Trayi. ;)

[ramkish42]

In the Harivamsha, Shri Krishna describes Himself as the younger brother of Indra.

Vaishnava ritual is relatively peaceful, with fruits, leaves, flowers, and water, offered “with devotion”; and the offerings are accepted by the God BECAUSE of the devotion with which it is offered.

This form of worship is entirely non-Vedic; and it is derived mainly from the Mahabharata and the Puranas.

The whole concept of Avatara is a novel production of the Pancaratra sect ~ probably influenced by the Bauddha Jataka folk-tales.

In Archaeology, there is absolutely no evidence of Vishnu Avataras before the Gupta period (i.e. before the 4th century AD).

The cult of Vasudeva, which later merged with Pancaratra to produce the present “neo-Brahmanic” Vaishnavism, included orthodox Brahmanas, Abhiras, Magas, and Shakas, and their inspired compromise gave rise to the Bhagavad Gita; while the non-Brahmanical sections gave rise to and elaborated the idea of five heroic Vrishniviras (Vasudeva, Balarama, Pradyumna, Aniruddha, and Shamba).

And NONE of this has any basis in the Trayi!

If Vaishnavism were to give up the idea of Avataras of Vishnu, along with all of its sectarian mythology, and return to the old sacrificial rituals, only then could it possibly be equated with the Vaidika Trayi. ;)
How irrelevant could be historical dates

Buddha born in 560 AD approx, where in Bauddha Jataka Tales been dated between 300 BC to 400 AD, before the advent of perceptor, set of tales are named after the religion

More funny is the assumption that Vaidika Trayi is only of Sacrificial rituals, and further more funny is ignoring sacrificial rituals (saatvic rituals) with Vaishnava sect.

Further more funny fact is oftern referred with Avtars, where in any avatar is not listed in the Veda, where in any reference to avatas in vedas will render the supreme authoritative text invalid for mere fact that Avatars came much after Vedas.

Unable to understand the revelance of Harivamsa herein

Archeological proof : "The column indicated that the Indians did not adopt legends of Christ to put in their Puranas to be used for the stories of Krishna as the British had hypothesized since this gave proof that knowledge of Krishna predated Jesus by almost 200 years."

There are words of Mr. Stephen Knapp in http://www.stephen-knapp.com/hinduism_predates_christianity.htm. The said Brahmi script talks about Krishna. Hope Shri Sarabhanga will have some contacts to get it verified.

Alternatively pls look into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarka and if possible edit the dates given in this wikipedia to support the alternative view suggested in this thread

All I want to say is if you prefet not to go with Vishnu and his avtars, it is personal view, if you try to establish that has general Hindu view, then the real problem starts. When the popular belief, Advaita, does not support any personification of Gods, there should be no botheration whether I say Vishnu or Shiva, but the practise is exactly the opposite. When I say Vishnu is superior, I expect Advaiti to say I am living in ignorance for such personification is Maya, where in what I see much different. When Shiva, Rudra, Vishnu all are maya according to Advaita, unable to understand this Vishnu hatered.

I better leave everyone to their own maya - illusion

Jai shree krishna

[Ram]

In the Harivamsha, Shri Krishna describes Himself as the younger brother of Indra.

Vaishnava ritual is relatively peaceful, with fruits, leaves, flowers, and water, offered “with devotion”; and the offerings are accepted by the God BECAUSE of the devotion with which it is offered.

This form of worship is entirely non-Vedic; and it is derived mainly from the Mahabharata and the Puranas.

The whole concept of Avatara is a novel production of the Pancaratra sect ~ probably influenced by the Bauddha Jataka folk-tales.

In Archaeology, there is absolutely no evidence of Vishnu Avataras before the Gupta period (i.e. before the 4th century AD).

The cult of Vasudeva, which later merged with Pancaratra to produce the present “neo-Brahmanic” Vaishnavism, included orthodox Brahmanas, Abhiras, Magas, and Shakas, and their inspired compromise gave rise to the Bhagavad Gita; while the non-Brahmanical sections gave rise to and elaborated the idea of five heroic Vrishniviras (Vasudeva, Balarama, Pradyumna, Aniruddha, and Shamba).

And NONE of this has any basis in the Trayi!

If Vaishnavism were to give up the idea of Avataras of Vishnu, along with all of its sectarian mythology, and return to the old sacrificial rituals, only then could it possibly be equated with the Vaidika Trayi. ;)

This is one of the worst answers you can give. Avatars are found in Vishnu Purana, which is considered the oldest Purana, and which is not related directly to Pancharatra in anyway. Of course, Padmapurana lists Pancharatrins as one of the four types of Vaishnavas, so even here you have scored nothing.

Speaking of Avatara, it is an general Hindu concept. Even Advaitins have such a concept and even Shankara is said to be one of Shiva. And each modern advaiti baba claims to be an avatar - so avatar is kind of attached only to advaita nowadays.:)

Pancharatra is old enough to be mentioned in the Brahma sutras and your knowledge is so good to date avatars to 4th century A.D.

Now you are grasping at straws and questiong the very basic and fundamental beleifs of all vedanta traditions. Classical advaitins beleive that the avatar are for real, and please visit the advaita mailing list for proof. The very happiness and life of many people revolve around their beleif of God as a very personal being, and do not shatter that beleif with such opinions. Nirguna Brahma is of no use for anyone except himself.

Why dont you learn from Adi Shankara? He beleived in the avatars, and he composed many hymns in praise of Krishna. And he usually quoted only from the Vaishnava Puranas.

Dont listen to modern historians and their dating methods of scriptures. They can make good atheists out of Hindus. Never let foreigners even date our scripture - his goal is to prove that Hinduism came from some kind of foreign invasion and were tribalistic as eveident from its primitive methods of sacrifice. They also give different meanings to caste system and the so called Trayi was practicsing that degenerate caste system. Sri Ramnanuja was perhaps the first sage to ever question the caste system, and made every effort to make God available to everyone and introduced baptism (samasshrayanam) even for shudras and outcastes. He could not eradicate it but he did his best. Were advaitins able to do this before?

You can wallow in your illusion and shoot Hinduism at its heart. Do you even know why people like Sri Ramanuja have been a bit bitter with advaitins? Because you are all experts in killing the age old beleiefs of the common man, who knows nothing but devotion which you style as "with devotion" indicating your utter contempt for Bhakti movement. An advaitin's contempt for Vishnu is unwarranted, for his tall claims of secularism. Even a Vaishnavite like me can treat Vishnu and Shiva alike.

[Ram]

Vedas are Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads. Prasthana-traya which U refer to is a canon of Vedanta system only — which is not the sole standard of Vedic dharma.

Bhagavata is only one of Puranas, and even its status of Mahapurana (one of 18) is very unsure. In its present form Bhagavata is verily of rather recent date and according to some sourses was written by a grammarian Vopadeva. Several scholars hold a view that Devibhagavata-purana is closer to original version of Bhagavata, which is lost.

Mahabharata has very different views incorporated in it, and is full of later additions and interpolations. At some places it supports Shaivism, at another — Viashnavism and even Shaktism. There is a curious issue when Krishna sings a hymn in praise of Devi, somewhere near to Gita section.

In any case Kurma and Skanda Puranas are beyond doubt Mahapuranas. The very fact that they show Pancharatra as non-Vedic system prove that by the time of their composition Pancharatra was still in certain opposition towards brahmanic Hinduism. It was incorporated and accepted later only, as were accepted other Agamic traditions.

This is not to say that Pancharatra (or Vaishnavism in general) is anti-Vedic. Of course it doesn't contradict Vedic teaching — as most of Agamic traditions. But Tantric Shaktism or Siddhanta-shaivism are not less connected with Vedism (i would say more, in fact). However originally all these traditions flourished from Agamic revelation which was independent from Vedic one (Nigamic).


There are dozens of vedantic traditions established on the Panchartara or an allied form of Vasihnavism. How many for Shaivism? If you cannot trace your origins to Brahma sutras, how do you claim vedic compliance at all, and yet dare to question the vedic status of Vaishnavism? Try to refute the works of Vaishnava philosophies, and prove your credentials, and not by mere statements.

Every Hindu in India knows about Bhagavad Gita and the stories of Ramayana and Mahabaratha and Bhagavata. Which other Hindu texts can claim such popularity? If a new religion, according to you was able to establish itself so firmly then it must be vedic as well. In traditional philosophical disputations, Vishistadvatins were easily able to hold their positions which would not be possible if they were not compliant with vedanta or rather vedas.

Hindus beleive that Lord Krishna incarnated in around 3102 B.C and delivered the message to Arjuna. This is the classical position. Trying to date scriptures through human logic will bring down the divine status of the scripture. and render it useless. Holding other beleifs are just aping the westerners.

[orlando]

The whole concept of Avatara is a novel production of the Pancaratra sect ~ probably influenced by the Bauddha Jataka folk-tales.

In Archaeology, there is absolutely no evidence of Vishnu Avataras before the Gupta period (i.e. before the 4th century AD).

The cult of Vasudeva, which later merged with Pancaratra to produce the present “neo-Brahmanic” Vaishnavism, included orthodox Brahmanas, Abhiras, Magas, and Shakas, and their inspired compromise gave rise to the Bhagavad Gita; while the non-Brahmanical sections gave rise to and elaborated the idea of five heroic Vrishniviras (Vasudeva, Balarama, Pradyumna, Aniruddha, and Shamba).

And NONE of this has any basis in the Trayi!

If Vaishnavism were to give up the idea of Avataras of Vishnu, along with all of its sectarian mythology, and return to the old sacrificial rituals, only then could it possibly be equated with the Vaidika Trayi. ;)

Namaste.
Shri Sarabhanga,please read the following.
After Srila Vyasadeva divided the Vedas into four books (Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva), his disciples further divided them into 1,130 divisions. This is stated in the Kurma Purana (52.19-20):
eka-vimsati-bhedena rg-vedam krtavan pura
sakhanam satenaiva yajur-vedam athakarot

sama-vedam sahasrena sakhanam prabibheda sah
atharvanam atho vedam bibedha navakena tu

Previously the Rg Veda was divided into 21 sections, the Yajur Veda into 100 sections, the Sama Veda into 1,000 sections and the Atharva Veda into 9 divisions.

Each division has 4 minor divisions, namely the Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanisads. Thus altogether the 4 Vedas contain 1,130 Samhitas, 1,130 Brahmanas, 1,130 Aranyakas, and 1,130 Upanisads. This makes a total of 4,520 divisions.

At present, most of these texts have disappeared due to the influence of time. We can only find 11 Samhitas, 18 Brahmanas, 7 Aranyakas and 220 Upanisads which constitutes a mere 6% of the entire Vedic canon!

bharata-vyapadesena hyamnayarthah pradarsitah
vedah pratisthah sarve sarve purane natra samsayah

"On the pretext of writing the Mahabharata, Vyasa explained the meaning of the Vedas. Certainly all the topics of the Vedas have been established in the Puranas." (Visnu Purana)

In the Mahabharata (Adi Parva 1.267) and Manu Samhita it is said:

itihasa puranabhyam vedam samupabrmhayet

"One must complement one’s study of the Vedas with the Itihasas and the Puranas."

In the Prabhasa-khanda of the Skanda Purana (5.3.121-124) it is said –

veda-van niscalam manye puranartham dvijottamah
vedah pratisthitah sarve purane natra samsayah

bibhety-alpa-srutad vedo mam ayam calayisyati
itihasa-puranais tu niscalo’yam krtah purah

yan na drstam hi vedesu tad drstam smrtisu dvijah
ubhayor yan na drstam hi tat puranah pragiyate
yo veda caturo vedan sangopanisado dvijah
puranam naiva janati na ca sa syad vicaksana

" O best of the brahmanas, the meaning of the Puranas is unchanging just like that of the Vedas. The Vedas are all sheltered within the Puranas without a doubt. The Veda has a fear that unqualified people will read her and then distort her meaning. Thus, the significance of the Veda was fixed in the Puranas and Itihasas. That which is not found in the Vedas is found in the Smrti. That which is not found in the Smrti is to be found in the Puranas. Those who know even the Vedas and Upanisads are not learned if they do not know the Puranas."

rcah samani chandamsi puranam yajusa saha
ucchistaj-jajnire sarve divi deva divi-sritah

"The Rg, Sama, Yajur and Atharva became manifest from the Lord, along with the Puranas and all the Devas residing in the heavens." (Atharva Veda 11.7.24)

"Indeed, Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva are the names of the four Vedas. The Itihasas and Puranas are the fifth Veda." (Kauthumiya Chandogya Upanisad 7.1.4)


asya mahato bhutasya nihsvasitam etad yad rg-vedo yajur-vedah sama
vedo’tharvangirasa itihasah puranam ityadina

"O Maitreya, the Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva Vedas as well as the Itihasas and the Puranas all manifest from the breathing of the Lord." (Madhyandina-sruti, Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 2.4.10)

As I earlier said nowdays we have only a mere 6% of the entire Vedic canon!

Regards,
Orlando.

[ramkish42]

Regarding the Ekayana, there is no proof that Chandogya refers to Pancharatra system (at least definitely not to its later Vaishnava form).
As Bhattacharyya mentions, "Naradapancharatra enumerates seven kinds of Pancharatra of which three are connected with the names of Brahma, Siva and Kumara" (History of the Tantric Religion, p. 41). And after that he writes: " In any case, Pancharatra came finally to be connected with Vaishnavism and became an integral part of it."
He mentions an interesting thing: "The earlier Pancharatra works were probably composed in the Kashmir region" (Ibid., p. 44). There is a view (expressed for example by Navjivan Rastogi) that original Pancharatra was related to Kashmiri Shakta-tantric Krama system, from which it could have borrowed the doctrine of four Vyuhas. The Ekayana could have been in fact Krama or a similar to it Kashmiri monistic Vaishnava system.

As this part alones becomes reply to my submission, I prefer to submit the following

1. Vaishnavism is purely based on Rig Vedic Purusha Suktha, where in direct & explicit relevance is Purusha is displayed evidently in Virat Swarupa

2. Satapaatha Brahmana III.6.1 lists Paancharaatra Yajna

3. Brahma Sutra subscribe to Paancharaatra view vide 2.2.39 read with 2.2.40 of Shrimad Ramanuja segregation and 2.2.42 read with 2.2.43 of Shri Adi Sankara Bhagavatpada

4. Eshwara Samhita from I.11
The Sages sit here praying for Hari's feet and Thou art fit to teach them the SAtvata-Sastra (= PAnca-rAtra).' So saying Sriman NArAyana made Himself invisisble (Eshwara Samhita is popular as Jyotish text)


Pls do clarify what you mean by Later form of Vaishnavism

"In any case, Pancharatra came finally to be connected with Vaishnavism and became an integral part of it" statement of NN Bhatacharji is irrelevant because of the proof he is giving. Out of 108 books 3 are connected with Shiva, 3 with Brahma and 1 with Kaumara. 7 Books named, I repeat JUST NAMED, after Shiva, Brahma and Kaumara out of 108, I do not understand, how it made paacharaatra a non vaishanavite book to be associated with Vaishavism in later days.

Request tantric practioners to date their Tantric practises so that discussion on trying to establish Paancharaatra as Tantra could be more fruitful

[Arjuna]

All I want to say is if you prefet not to go with Vishnu and his avtars, it is personal view, if you try to establish that has general Hindu view, then the real problem starts.

I have personally nothing against concept of avatars of Vishnu, but the fact is that this concept isn't Vedic in any case. Krishna is mentioned once in Chandogya as a student of a Rishi and nothing more.


When the popular belief, Advaita, does not support any personification of Gods, there should be no botheration whether I say Vishnu or Shiva, but the practise is exactly the opposite.

Shankara's advaita doesn't care about personifications. But this doesn't mean an advaitin has to ignore historical and textual facts.
Problem arise when vaishnavas try to make Shiva an "avatar" or aspect of Vishnu and to claim this is the Vedic or Hindu view. This is wrong. Vaishnavas may believe whatsoever, nobody stops — but why to divert Vedic teaching?


When I say Vishnu is superior, I expect Advaiti to say I am living in ignorance for such personification is Maya, where in what I see much different.

Whether U live in ignorance or not, depends not upon a name U choose for Paradevata. There is no problem is calling God as Vishnu or Krishna.


When Shiva, Rudra, Vishnu all are maya according to Advaita, unable to understand this Vishnu hatered.

No one here has any hatred to Vishnu.
Regarding the first point, it depends on what Advaita U speak about. In Tantric Advaita Shiva (Anuttara) is the Supreme Godhead, who is both Nirakara and Sakara, and Maya (Shakti to be precise) is His creative power. Rudra and Vishnu are considered to be aspects of this Shakti, dealing with samhara and sthiti respectively.

[Arjuna]

There are dozens of vedantic traditions established on the Panchartara or an allied form of Vasihnavism. How many for Shaivism? If you cannot trace your origins to Brahma sutras, how do you claim vedic compliance at all, and yet dare to question the vedic status of Vaishnavism? Try to refute the works of Vaishnava philosophies, and prove your credentials, and not by mere statements.

Once again, "Vedic" is based on Vedas, while "Vedanta" is one of the Vedic darshanas only, expressed in Brahma-sutras.

The most part of the doctrine and practice of Vaishnavism is non-Vedic. The fact that Shri Ramanuja and other developed a connection of Vaishnava doctrines with Brahma-sutras doesn't make Vaishnavism a Vedic teaching, which is very clear.

The whole of Pancharatra is based upon Vaishnava Tantras (more that 200 Agamas) and Vaikhanasa is based upon another set of Tantras.

Main Shaiva mantras are present already in Vedas: Panchakshari, Panchabrahman, Mahamrityunjaya and others. But Vaishnava mantras are met only in later sectarian Upanishads and in Tantras.


Every Hindu in India knows about Bhagavad Gita and the stories of Ramayana and Mahabaratha and Bhagavata. Which other Hindu texts can claim such popularity? If a new religion, according to you was able to establish itself so firmly then it must be vedic as well.

A strange arguement. I would rather say that highest teaching were never popular among masses from Vedic times and till these days. Itihasas and Bhagavata are popular, because they were written for understanding of common folk.
Gita is an outstanding text, though of course not the only one or the main one. And again, it isn't a Vaishnava text.

[ramkish42]

I have personally nothing against concept of avatars of Vishnu, but the fact is that this concept isn't Vedic in any case. Krishna is mentioned once in Chandogya as a student of a Rishi and nothing more.

Hi

As you have requested to abstain, I had stopped posting in Vamachara thread. Hence, request you not to treat every post of mine as reply to you.

When you answer a post meant for some one else there will lot of unnecessary vouchings, no problem anyways, I understand.

Anyways, I am saying again, there is no point in asking Vedas for names of different Avtars, first try to understand the fact that Vedas existed even before Avtars. If you manage to find names of Avtars in Veda, in an unrelated manner, it will lead to serious confusion


Shankara's advaita doesn't care about personifications. But this doesn't mean an advaitin has to ignore historical and textual facts.
Problem arise when vaishnavas try to make Shiva an "avatar" or aspect of Vishnu and to claim this is the Vedic or Hindu view. This is wrong. Vaishnavas may believe whatsoever, nobody stops — but why to divert Vedic teaching?

When the reality as per Advaitis and you is different why this has become wrong all of a sudden. Choose either Personification and be a Shaivist in toto or choose Advaiti. When we confuse ourselves with so many philosophies it serves nothing.

When you opinion about mythology itself doesnot match there is no reason why you choose to say this. Anyways, this is your prerogative, but the fact it, it creates inconsistency with what you say in one place and what in another.

As Hindus, our greatest strength is Consistency. When you stay with Tantrics I was really happy the way you stick to your sects. I also stay with my own sect, when we cross over, it serves no one.


No one here has any hatred to Vishnu

On the contrary, Yes. When it comes to Vaishnavs and Vishnu there is too much leg pulling without any support statements

This thread is named after Sankara, of course, we had a debate, hence this derailed much, but we stopped it by mutual agreement, and now, this is gone into Vaishnavs. Hope there will be no more derailing on this.

Jai shree krishna

[ramkish42]

Sorry for answering some one else reply


Once again,
Yes, once again, one more statement explicitly indicating anti Vishu view


Main Shaiva mantras are present already in Vedas: Panchakshari, Panchabrahman, Mahamrityunjaya and others. But Vaishnava mantras are met only in later sectarian Upanishads and in Tantras
If I say, "not only Shaiva mantras, even other mantras pertaining to other saamaanya devatas like Indra, agni and vayu also found in Vedas already, thus shows Shaiva mantras are equally inferior" you guess the reactions


"Vedic" is based on Vedas, while "Vedanta" is one of the Vedic darshanas only, expressed in Brahma-sutras.
Hope you will be listing soon Non Vedanta Vedic darshanas


The most part of the doctrine and practice of Vaishnavism is non-Vedic. The fact that Shri Ramanuja and other developed a connection of Vaishnava doctrines with Brahma-sutras doesn't make Vaishnavism a Vedic teaching, which is very clear.
This is the point. It appears as if it is non vedic because much of original veda is lost. Unlike Saaktha and Shaiva agamas (trust Shaiva agamas is missing much) the origins of Vaishnav Agamas are from Veda. Vaikanasa is highly vedic doctrine. Paancharaatra as traces to Ekayana sakha of Shukla Yajur Veda, much of this realted to Vajasaneya is missing, what we have listed is only 108 texts of Paancharaatra Samhita. Unlike Saaktha & Shaiva Agamas, these two agamas does not refute authority of Veda. (Hope you remember in Vamachara thread, you said agamas refute authority of vedas and forms independent authority)


The whole of Pancharatra is based upon Vaishnava Tantras (more that 200 Agamas) and Vaikhanasa is based upon another set of Tantras.

Tantras - the very word used in Vaishnava agamas as IDEA. This idea as propounded in Tantra becomes basis of Puranas and Upanishad. All Major Puranas has a tantra in the same name describing philosophical aspects and methods of pujas to be performed. It corelates in toto.

With this, my part of response is over

Jai shri krishna

[Arjuna]

Hence, request you not to treat every post of mine as reply to you.

I reply to what U say, which i hope is OK with forum rules.


When the reality as per Advaitis and you is different why this has become wrong all of a sudden. Choose either Personification and be a Shaivist in toto or choose Advaiti. When we confuse ourselves with so many philosophies it serves nothing.
When you opinion about mythology itself doesnot match there is no reason why you choose to say this. Anyways, this is your prerogative, but the fact it, it creates inconsistency with what you say in one place and what in another.

I may reply to this if U take an effort to put it in legible and logical form.


On the contrary, Yes. When it comes to Vaishnavs and Vishnu there is too much leg pulling without any support statements

Vaishnavas here many times have started promoting their views and claimed those to be all-Hindu standard and even Vedic teaching. Since these claims are baseless, naturally there're people who object.

[Arjuna]

This is the point. It appears as if it is non vedic because much of original veda is lost. Unlike Saaktha and Shaiva agamas (trust Shaiva agamas is missing much) the origins of Vaishnav Agamas are from Veda. Vaikanasa is highly vedic doctrine. Paancharaatra as traces to Ekayana sakha of Shukla Yajur Veda, much of this realted to Vajasaneya is missing, what we have listed is only 108 texts of Paancharaatra Samhita. Unlike Saaktha & Shaiva Agamas, these two agamas does not refute authority of Veda. (Hope you remember in Vamachara thread, you said agamas refute authority of vedas and forms independent authority)

This statement is proofless. I strongly doubt there are any historical grounds for this, including what U said about lost Vedic texts.
Moreover, if we accept there are texts which were lost, how can we know they were related to Pancharatra and not to Shaivigama or some other tradition?

Just to clarify, Shaiva and Shakta Agamas do not "refute" Vedic authority (they accept it), but indeed they are independent revelation, being an inner part of Shruti.
As Kularnava-tantra says, Kula-darshana is the essence of Vedas.

[Arjuna]

As this part alones becomes reply to my submission, I prefer to submit the following
1. Vaishnavism is purely based on Rig Vedic Purusha Suktha, where in direct & explicit relevance is Purusha is displayed evidently in Virat Swarupa
2. Satapaatha Brahmana III.6.1 lists Paancharaatra Yajna
3. Brahma Sutra subscribe to Paancharaatra view vide 2.2.39 read with 2.2.40 of Shrimad Ramanuja segregation and 2.2.42 read with 2.2.43 of Shri Adi Sankara Bhagavatpada
4. Eshwara Samhita from I.11
The Sages sit here praying for Hari's feet and Thou art fit to teach them the SAtvata-Sastra (= PAnca-rAtra).' So saying Sriman NArAyana made Himself invisisble (Eshwara Samhita is popular as Jyotish text)

Pls do clarify what you mean by Later form of Vaishnavism
"In any case, Pancharatra came finally to be connected with Vaishnavism and became an integral part of it" statement of NN Bhatacharji is irrelevant because of the proof he is giving. Out of 108 books 3 are connected with Shiva, 3 with Brahma and 1 with Kaumara. 7 Books named, I repeat JUST NAMED, after Shiva, Brahma and Kaumara out of 108, I do not understand, how it made paacharaatra a non vaishanavite book to be associated with Vaishavism in later days.

Request tantric practioners to date their Tantric practises so that discussion on trying to establish Paancharaatra as Tantra could be more fruitful

Shatapatha Brahmana's reference isn't related to Vaishnava Pancharatra. Brahma-sutra and Gita doesn't mention Pancharatra by name.
The existance of Vaishnava Pancharatra can be traced to 7—8 centuries C.E., when first Agamas were written down.

I do not state that Bhattacharyya's opinion is right, but there seems to be no grounds to deny such possibility.

Regarding Vaishnavism being based upon Purusha-sukta, this isn't serious. There are suktas of Devi in Vedas, this doesn't mean that the whole of Shaktism "purely based" on Vedas!

[Singhi Kaya]

This is one of the worst answers you can give. Avatars are found in Vishnu Purana, which is considered the oldest Purana, and which is not related directly to Pancharatra in anyway. Of course, Padmapurana lists Pancharatrins as one of the four types of Vaishnavas, so even here you have scored nothing.

Speaking of Avatara, it is an general Hindu concept. Even Advaitins have such a concept and even Shankara is said to be one of Shiva. And each modern advaiti baba claims to be an avatar - so avatar is kind of attached only to advaita nowadays.:)

Pancharatra is old enough to be mentioned in the Brahma sutras and your knowledge is so good to date avatars to 4th century A.D.

Now you are grasping at straws and questiong the very basic and fundamental beleifs of all vedanta traditions. Classical advaitins beleive that the avatar are for real, and please visit the advaita mailing list for proof. The very happiness and life of many people revolve around their beleif of God as a very personal being, and do not shatter that beleif with such opinions. Nirguna Brahma is of no use for anyone except himself.

Why dont you learn from Adi Shankara? He beleived in the avatars, and he composed many hymns in praise of Krishna. And he usually quoted only from the Vaishnava Puranas.
Gita itself makes it clear that the lord comes to world many times to protect the dharma and destroy the asuriks. Now Gita was much before this dvaita - advaita stuff. There can be no question about not believing in avatar, though the understanding can vary slightly. It is a great concept and so many other religions have their own versions of it. So I fully agree to this point. Needless to say I believe in it very much, but my understanding is not exactly the popular one.

[orlando]

This statement is proofless. I strongly doubt there are any historical grounds for this, including what U said about lost Vedic texts.
Moreover, if we accept there are texts which were lost, how can we know they were related to Pancharatra and not to Shaivigama or some other tradition?

Just to clarify, Shaiva and Shakta Agamas do not "refute" Vedic authority (they accept it), but indeed they are independent revelation, being an inner part of Shruti.
As Kularnava-tantra says, Kula-darshana is the essence of Vedas.

Namaste all.
Dhri Arjuna,didn't you read my previous post.Now please read it carefully.
After Srila Vyasadeva divided the Vedas into four books (Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva), his disciples further divided them into 1,130 divisions. This is stated in the Kurma Purana (52.19-20):
eka-vimsati-bhedena rg-vedam krtavan pura
sakhanam satenaiva yajur-vedam athakarot

sama-vedam sahasrena sakhanam prabibheda sah
atharvanam atho vedam bibedha navakena tu

Previously the Rg Veda was divided into 21 sections, the Yajur Veda into 100 sections, the Sama Veda into 1,000 sections and the Atharva Veda into 9 divisions.
Each division has 4 minor divisions, namely the Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanisads. Thus altogether the 4 Vedas contain 1,130 Samhitas, 1,130 Brahmanas, 1,130 Aranyakas, and 1,130 Upanisads. This makes a total of 4,520 divisions.

At present, most of these texts have disappeared due to the influence of time. We can only find 11 Samhitas, 18 Brahmanas, 7 Aranyakas and 220 Upanisads which constitutes a mere 6% of the entire Vedic canon!

bharata-vyapadesena hyamnayarthah pradarsitah
vedah pratisthah sarve sarve purane natra samsayah

"On the pretext of writing the Mahabharata, Vyasa explained the meaning of the Vedas. Certainly all the topics of the Vedas have been established in the Puranas." (Visnu Purana)

In the Mahabharata (Adi Parva 1.267) and Manu Samhita it is said:

itihasa puranabhyam vedam samupabrmhayet

"One must complement one’s study of the Vedas with the Itihasas and the Puranas."

In the Prabhasa-khanda of the Skanda Purana (5.3.121-124) it is said –

veda-van niscalam manye puranartham dvijottamah
vedah pratisthitah sarve purane natra samsayah

bibhety-alpa-srutad vedo mam ayam calayisyati
itihasa-puranais tu niscalo’yam krtah purah

yan na drstam hi vedesu tad drstam smrtisu dvijah
ubhayor yan na drstam hi tat puranah pragiyate
yo veda caturo vedan sangopanisado dvijah
puranam naiva janati na ca sa syad vicaksana

" O best of the brahmanas, the meaning of the Puranas is unchanging just like that of the Vedas. The Vedas are all sheltered within the Puranas without a doubt. The Veda has a fear that unqualified people will read her and then distort her meaning. Thus, the significance of the Veda was fixed in the Puranas and Itihasas. That which is not found in the Vedas is found in the Smrti. That which is not found in the Smrti is to be found in the Puranas. Those who know even the Vedas and Upanisads are not learned if they do not know the Puranas."

rcah samani chandamsi puranam yajusa saha
ucchistaj-jajnire sarve divi deva divi-sritah

"The Rg, Sama, Yajur and Atharva became manifest from the Lord, along with the Puranas and all the Devas residing in the heavens." (Atharva Veda 11.7.24)

"Indeed, Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva are the names of the four Vedas. The Itihasas and Puranas are the fifth Veda." (Kauthumiya Chandogya Upanisad 7.1.4)


asya mahato bhutasya nihsvasitam etad yad rg-vedo yajur-vedah sama
vedo’tharvangirasa itihasah puranam ityadina

"O Maitreya, the Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva Vedas as well as the Itihasas and the Puranas all manifest from the breathing of the Lord." (Madhyandina-sruti, Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 2.4.10)

As I earlier said nowdays we have only a mere 6% of the entire Vedic canon!
Regards,
Orlando.

[Arjuna]

Namaste all.
Dhri Arjuna,didn't you read my previous post.Now please read it carefully.

Namaste,

This is pure mythology. Vedic samhitas were written in different periods, which is evident from linguistic and structural analisis. There was no event that some Veda Vyasa actually divided one Veda into sections (and that too written Puranas!). Puranas are incomparably late by their date. Mahabharata was started about 4th century B.C.E. and took its present form after that.

I prefer to keep to historical facts and not fairy tales :)

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Ramkish,


How irrelevant could be historical dates
I mentioned only one date, in reference to the earliest discovered murtis of Vishnu Avataras.

There is absolutely no Archaeological evidence of Vishnu Avataras before about 400 AD. Shiva Lingas and rustic Devi idols, however, are commonly found dating back to about 3,000 BC.

Gautama Buddha was actually born about 1,000 years earlier than you suggest!

The “younger brother” of Indra surely comes AFTER Indra ~ i.e. Krishna is later than Indra (the prime deity of the Vedas) in mythology. The mythology is always true, and so Krishna must come later in actual history!


Knowledge of Krishna predated Jesus by almost 200 years
So what? The Vaidika Trayi were well known (at least) 1,000 years before Christ!

I have NOT tried to establish any “general Hindu view” of Vishnu and his Avatars.

I have NOT tried to establish any hierarchy of God names!

What Vishnu hatred?

You really are lost in Maya!

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Ram,

Even the oldest Purana is a thousand years younger than the Vedas!

No concept of any ordered succession of Avataras is evident anywhere in the Vedas!

Since the Brahma Sutras are well known from manuscripts that have been in constant use for centuries, I would not consider them as “archeological evidence”. But I can assure you that there is not a single murti of Vishnu, or any of his Avataras, that is known to have been made before the time of the Gupta Dynasty, whose patron Deity was of course Vishnu. What a coincidence! The Gupta Dynasty began in the 4th century AD, and that is the time that the first Vishnu murtis started appearing.

Of course Vishnu was known in the vedic era, but in the Vedas he is relatively minor, but certainly not unimportant, being the very power of Indra himself! The various Avataras, however, find no mention in the Vedas ~ indeed, there is no clear evidence of any idea of a chain of successive incarnations.

You claim that I am shattering the lives of many people by daring to mention certain facts regarding Vishnu. But you clearly don’t consider it inappropriate to heap abuse on the prime Deity of Advaita!


Don’t listen to modern historians and their dating methods of scriptures. They can make good atheists out of Hindus. Never let foreigners even date our scripture - his goal is to prove that Hinduism came from some kind of foreign invasion and were tribalistic as evident from its primitive methods of sacrifice. They also give different meanings to caste system and the so called Trayi was practicing that degenerate caste system.
Nothing but irrational irrelevant paranoia!

So Shri Ramanuja (in the 11th century AD) introduced the idea of one caste for all, and also Baptism for outcasts, into Hinduism ~ I wonder where he got those ideas from??

I have no idea why followers of Ramanuja are so bitter ~ perhaps it is their concerted lack of introspection and a thousand years of studiously avoiding Jnana! :rolleyes:

Your utter contempt for Jnana and Advaita make any discussion with you difficult. But Advaita certainly has no contempt for Vishnu. You really have no understanding of Shankara’s teaching on Narayana!! :(


This is one of the worst answers you can give ~ so even here you have scored nothing.

[satay]

I better leave everyone to their own maya - illusion

Jai shree krishna

yes, leave it up to bhagwan and don't take it up on yourself to break our illusion you might collect negative karma in the process.

No one here is "Vishnu hater".:confused:

[TruthSeeker]

yes, leave it up to bhagwan and don't take it up on yourself to break our illusion you might collect negative karma in the process.

No one here is "Vishnu hater".:confused:

What a pity the issue of Pancharatra reduced to such meaningless quarrel. Ram said this in an earlier post:



Vedanta + Buddhism = Advaita
Vedanta + Pancharatra (Vaishnavism) = Vishistadvaita
Vedanta + Sankya = Dvaita


http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=19&page=2

I wonder what the debate is all about, after conceding it yourself in another post. Dont quarrel just for the sake of it.