PDA

View Full Version : Are these verse authentic?



orlando
12 May 2006, 09:09 AM
Namaste all.
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.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."

My questions is:are these verse authentic or are they sectarian man made additions?

Regards,
Orlando.

Arjuna
12 May 2006, 10:25 AM
Namaste all.
Matsya Purana (53.65, 68-69) states
[...]
My questions is:are these verse authentic or are they sectarian man made additions?

Perhaps views will differ: Vaishnavas may assume these as authentic, since it is convenient for them, while Shaivas may reject.

In fact, there are too many contradicting passages in Puranas, Shaiva vs Vaishnava clashes and claims of superiority.
As such, Puranas are just additional sources of tradition and have to be judged by Shruti: Vedas and Agamas.

Jalasayanan
12 May 2006, 01:35 PM
Verses are authentic but translations are wrong.

What I want to say is Tamas many a times though translated as ignorance and darkness, in this place it is translated as illusion (Confusing in nature), thus indicates cannot lead to moksha. There is no point in calling a book of knowledge as ignorance. (Request to remember the difference between knowledge and wisdom; knowledge can confuse many a times, but wisdom does not)

If the current translations are correct, Matsya termed as book of ignorance by Padma will invalidate the claim made by matsya purana earlier. Many a times, translations cannot lead to right approach

Regarding Shaiva and Vaishnava clashes, the facts are exaggerated. Mostly Shaivas who accept vedic cannon as supreme authority fall in Advaita. Other Shaivas, who do not accept vedic cannon take alternative view they establish their siddantha is greater and revelations made to them through their great perceptors are superior to Veda.

Hence, Shaivas can be classified in to two broad categories
1. Advaita Shaivas
2. Agamic Shaivas

With Agamic shaivas the clash is not Siva Vs Vishnu, but Veda Vs Agama, in the sense which is superior

With Advaita Shaivas, Siva or Vishnu makes no difference for all such things are illusions. Till Advaita Shaivas reach proper levels of Jnana they prefer to stick to their kuladharma which directs them to worship Shiva and many Shaivas do worship Vishnu only as a part of mandatory rituals. Hence, Shiva Vs Vishnu makes no space in Advaita Shaivas

Real problems accur when the said two groups overlap

To give examples, for Kanchi Kamakoti peetam, Siva or Vishnu makes no difference but to Madurai Adheenam, it makes the difference for their belief is build around agamas and not on Vedas

Arjuna
12 May 2006, 03:34 PM
Regarding Shaiva and Vaishnava clashes, the facts are exaggerated. Mostly Shaivas who accept vedic cannon as supreme authority fall in Advaita. Other Shaivas, who do not accept vedic cannon take alternative view they establish their siddantha is greater and revelations made to them through their great perceptors are superior to Veda.
Hence, Shaivas can be classified in to two broad categories
1. Advaita Shaivas
2. Agamic Shaivas

1. In fact all Shaiva and Vaishnava traditions are Agamic in their nature. Only Pashupata-shaiva might have had Vedic origins, all other Shaiva sampradayas are essentially Agamic. However most of them acknowledge Vedic Shruti as an equal or additional authority, and only some Bhairavagamas (which belong to Atimarga-shaiva) reject Vedic knowledge as dominated by Maya, delusion.

2. There are Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita Agamic Shaivas, as well as Vaishnavas.

Thus, this classification is inaccurate.

Jalasayanan
12 May 2006, 05:27 PM
1. In fact all Shaiva and Vaishnava traditions are Agamic in their nature. Only Pashupata-shaiva might have had Vedic origins, all other Shaiva sampradayas are essentially Agamic. However most of them acknowledge Vedic Shruti as an equal or additional authority, and only some Bhairavagamas (which belong to Atimarga-shaiva) reject Vedic knowledge as dominated by Maya, delusion.

2. There are Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita Agamic Shaivas, as well as Vaishnavas.

Thus, this classification is inaccurate.

In every thread you are repeating this, but not a problem.

Vaishnav sects, few sects are agamic in nature, however, all vaishnav agamas are drawn from Vedas whose parts are missing now, hence, classified as agama.

Regarding Agamic Shaivas, my comment was not related to rejected Vedic authority but making another authority superior to Veda.

There are no Visishtadvaita and Dvaita Shaivas, both these philosophies are purely Vaishanvite philosophies. Thus you understanding is wrong

Advaiti Vaishnav are supposed to be present as such.

Advaiti Shaivas use agamas for temples etc and its authority is lesser than veda.

All five great philosophers treat Agamas as scriptures realted to temple worship and rituals. Hence agamic authority is drawn from authority of Veda. Like Veda is sun and Agamas are moon.

Hence, essentially, Advaiti, visishtadvaiti and Dvaiti sects are vedic in nature and so do Shaivas and Vaishavite who follow these sects

If Agamas are superior to Shaktha and Kaula, I accept it without any doubt and in the same way, request you not to impose those ideas on other sects

Arjuna
12 May 2006, 05:53 PM
There are no Visishtadvaita and Dvaita Shaivas, both these philosophies are purely Vaishanvite philosophies. Thus you understanding is wrong

Virashaivas have [Shakti]-vishishtadvaita philosophy.
Shaivasiddhanta of Meikandar tradition (current in Tamilnadu) and Pashupata are Dvaita schools.

Have U not known about these? :D


All five great philosophers treat Agamas as scriptures realted to temple worship and rituals. Hence agamic authority is drawn from authority of Veda. Like Veda is sun and Agamas are moon.

I do not understand whom U include into 5 "great" philosophers and for which reasons U exclude for example Sri Abhinavagupta. Do U consider him an "inferior" philosopher? U may not agree with his views, but for a fact he is a great philosopher of Shaivism!
And his opinion on Agamas U have already heard from me :)

kimtadbrahma
13 May 2006, 04:50 PM
The Veera Shaivas who follow Basavanna do not accept the authority of the Veda. Their authority is the Shaiva Agamas and the Kannada Vachanas.

Arjuna
13 May 2006, 08:32 PM
Yes, they usually reject Vedic authority, although not all of them as i know. In any case, as for every Shaiva tradition, Agamic authority is above Vedic one.

But what is a relation of this note with the thread?

Jalasayanan
15 May 2006, 01:50 PM
Virashaivas have [Shakti]-vishishtadvaita philosophy.
Shaivasiddhanta of Meikandar tradition (current in Tamilnadu) and Pashupata are Dvaita schools.

Have U not known about these? :D
Request you to learn those philosophies first.

Virashaiva has not given their concurence to Visishtadvaita and neither Shaiva Siddhanta and pashupata fall in dvaita schools.

Visishtadvaita is fully explored by Shrimad Ramanuja and Dvaita by Sri Madhavacharya as full fledged discussions establishing Vishnu is supreme lord. I cannot understand how few sects can fall into these philosophies rejecting the basic tenant of these philosophies. If you have your own idea of classification, I appreciate it, but request you not to enforce it on others

You are getting carried over by the external appearance.

To be very specific, according to Dvaita, soul is nirguna and god is sampoorna guna viseshana. Never heard Shaiva Siddhanta supports this view.

According to visishtadvaita and Dvaita, tattvas are 25 (26) but according to Shaiva Siddantha it is 36.

Both philosophies identify moksha as reaching vaikunta where in other sects treate moksha as reaching Kailasa.


I do not understand whom U include into 5 "great" philosophers and for which reasons U exclude for example Sri Abhinavagupta. Do U consider him an "inferior" philosopher? U may not agree with his views, but for a fact he is a great philosopher of Shaivism!
And his opinion on Agamas U have already heard from me :)

Hinduism as such is vedic sampradaya. We also include few sects that objects Veda and still remain as Hindus, however, general hindu view cannot include opinions of those who say vedas are inferior in authority to some other texts.

TruthSeeker
15 May 2006, 03:09 PM
Virashaiva has not given their concurence to Visishtadvaita and neither Shaiva Siddhanta and pashupata fall in dvaita schools.


Arjuna is probably referring to the philosophical nature of these schools, and not the specific schools called Visishtadvaita and Dvaita(of vedanta). These are very generic terms isn't it?

There is Shiva Vishistadvaita of Srikanta, which has a close parallel with Vishnu Vishistadvaita of Ramanuja.

Pasupata is of dualistic nature.

Jalasayanan
15 May 2006, 05:22 PM
Arjuna is probably referring to the philosophical nature of these schools, and not the specific schools called Visishtadvaita and Dvaita(of vedanta). These are very generic terms isn't it?

There is Shiva Vishistadvaita of Srikanta, which has a close parallel with Vishnu Vishistadvaita of Ramanuja.

Pasupata is of dualistic nature.
Shiva Visishtadvaita (As you term) of Srikanta is called Kanta Bashyam and it belongs to Shaiva Siddantha school of Tamilnadu, made near 1600 to 1700 AD. However, there are lot of difference between them. One is prakriti Tattvas - Visishtadvaita list it has 26 and Kanta Bashyam lists it as 36 Tattvas. It is not termed as visishtadvaita the very followers but as Kanta Bashyam only.

Similarities cannot be cited but cannot termed as same.

I understand philosophical nature is similar but I expect members to exercise caution before posting. We can explain similarities but not using the same names which might amout to misleading the readers as such.

Pasupatha is dualist in nature, however all dualism cannot be terms as Dvaita Philosophy of Sri Madhavacharya is what I want to say.

TruthSeeker
16 May 2006, 02:42 AM
Shiva Visishtadvaita (As you term) of Srikanta is called Kanta Bashyam and it belongs to Shaiva Siddantha school of Tamilnadu, made near 1600 to 1700 AD. However, there are lot of difference between them. One is prakriti Tattvas - Visishtadvaita list it has 26 and Kanta Bashyam lists it as 36 Tattvas. It is not termed as visishtadvaita the very followers but as Kanta Bashyam only.

Similarities cannot be cited but cannot termed as same.

I understand philosophical nature is similar but I expect members to exercise caution before posting. We can explain similarities but not using the same names which might amout to misleading the readers as such.

Pasupatha is dualist in nature, however all dualism cannot be terms as Dvaita Philosophy of Sri Madhavacharya is what I want to say.

Dvaita Philosophy needs to be referred to as TattvavAda to avoid ambiguity. Luckily there is only one version of Dvaita in vedanta( of Madhva), so generally there is no need to confuse it with other dualist schools.

Vishistadvaita usually refers to Ramanuja school only unless qualified by the prefix Shiva. Even the name Vishistadvaita was not given by Ramanuja isn't it? I beleive it was just called Ramanuja Darshanam during his times. You can see Sri Shankara making reference to Dvaita in his commentaries, but it does not refer to the philosophy of Madva at all.(which did not exist in his times). Thus, Dviata is a broad term in which the soul and God are eternally different, and where God is not the material cause of the world.

Arjuna
16 May 2006, 03:11 AM
Request you to learn those philosophies first.
Virashaiva has not given their concurence to Visishtadvaita and neither Shaiva Siddhanta and pashupata fall in dvaita schools.
Visishtadvaita is fully explored by Shrimad Ramanuja and Dvaita by Sri Madhavacharya as full fledged discussions establishing Vishnu is supreme lord. I cannot understand how few sects can fall into these philosophies rejecting the basic tenant of these philosophies. If you have your own idea of classification, I appreciate it, but request you not to enforce it on others

Namaste,

I wonder how eagerly U start an arguement while having little idea and limited knowledge of discussed matters!
Dvaita, Advaita etc. aren't monopolized by any particular schools or philosophers, there in no "trademark" and copyright stuff. Dualistic schools all fall under Dvaita, and these are Madhva's Dvaita, Pashupata-shaiva Dvaita, dualistic Saiva-siddhanta, Nyaya and Vaisheshika (which are based on Pashupata dualism), Patanjali's Yoga and other traditions.
Similarly with Vishishtadvaita and Advaita.
Vira-shaivism's doctrine is referred to as Shaktivishishtadvaita or Visheshadvaita. Do U insist on any proofs? If google.com doesn't help, i can provide at least several academic works on Shaiva philosophies which provide this type of classifications ;)


Hinduism as such is vedic sampradaya. We also include few sects that objects Veda and still remain as Hindus, however, general hindu view cannot include opinions of those who say vedas are inferior in authority to some other texts.

This is a practical position of most of contemporary traditions of Hinduism. Though we may say that at least formally all sects that reject Vedas fall into non-Hindu group of indian religions (together with Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism), same verily cannot be applied to traditions which accept Vedas but hold their own Agamas as superior in authority.

What U imagine upon this matter isn't a general Hindu view.

Jalasayanan
16 May 2006, 01:55 PM
Namaste,

I wonder how eagerly U start an arguement while having little idea and limited knowledge of discussed matters!
Can I request you to be little bit more polite pls. Atleast you can avoid calling someone whom do not even know by name as a person with little idea and limited knowledge


Dvaita, Advaita etc. aren't monopolized by any particular schools or philosophers, there in no "trademark" and copyright stuff.
I agree there are no trade mark, but usage of these terms cannot refer incorporation of ideas on different school into that of original philosophies. When we refer Advaita, we normally mean Shri Sankara's School of thought. Same way Visishtadvaita refers normally to Shrimad Ramanuja's school. Referring to Visishtadvaiti Shaivites requires qualifying terms before visishtadvaiti.


Dualistic schools all fall under Dvaita, and these are Madhva's Dvaita, Pashupata-shaiva Dvaita, dualistic Saiva-siddhanta, Nyaya and Vaisheshika (which are based on Pashupata dualism), Patanjali's Yoga and other traditions.
Similarly with Vishishtadvaita and Advaita.
The very word Dvaita used in common parlence refers to Shri Madhavacharya's school, though the term dvaita can include all dualist schools. Caution to be exercised while communicating for what you mean might not be the same as what is heard by your audience. What is heard is more important that what you say


Vira-shaivism's doctrine is referred to as Shaktivishishtadvaita or Visheshadvaita. Do U insist on any proofs? If google.com doesn't help, i can provide at least several academic works on Shaiva philosophies which provide this type of classifications ;)
Trust there is some error in spelling. Attached a file herewith, hope you will check


This is a practical position of most of contemporary traditions of Hinduism. Though we may say that at least formally all sects that reject Vedas fall into non-Hindu group of indian religions (together with Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism), same verily cannot be applied to traditions which accept Vedas but hold their own Agamas as superior in authority.

Traditions that hold agamas are superior authority is same as Buddhism and Jainism.

I see no point in nominally accepting Veda while rejecting most of its teachings in the name of Agama. Never heard Veda teach upasana to please Trimurthy's or their consorts using a dead body and menstrual blood. Never ever Veda calls a family girl in the name of Veshya, and never heard veda said married women are veshyas. See Niruttara Tantra for more details (This word, literally, means whore but is applied to initiated Shaktis and to Devis. Shiva enumerates seven, the Gupta Veshya, the Mahaveshya, the Kulaveshya, the Mahodaya, the Rajaveshya, the Devaveshya and the Brahmaveshya - in short there are no family girls once initiated all are called Veshyas)

Vedanta school as practises of rejecting Agamas not falling in line with Vedas. Those rejected agamas get the same treatment as Buddhism and Jainism. (While appreciating niyama in Jainism and buddhism, it is only their philosophies that gets condemned, their Vairaagya is to be learned, where in some agamic sects lust is only given as Vairaagya)

More over, those sects which had their fundamentals based only on Agamas, later on, worked with Vedanta thoughts to take vedic approval to their sects thereby making Vedas more authoritative. Shaiva Siddanta school of Tamilnadu is a classic example

To put it short, accepting Veda should mean accepting in toto. There is no point in invoking agamic authority to negate vedic teachings and insisting on the idea that ACCEPTED VEDA.

Hence, once said "Agamic authority is more superior to Vedic authority" bequests same treatment as Jainism and Buddhism


What U imagine upon this matter isn't a general Hindu view.

Having considering this statement in the light of my response to Shri Abhinavagupta's position in 5 great perceptor, I would like to remind, followers of Shri Abhinavagupta till date, does not even take other philosophers names with respect. Though I am not very sure about your adherence to Shri Abhinavagupta, let me take your statements. When looked upon, you refer Madhavacharya as Madhva always, I see no prefix or suffix reverance attached to Shrimad Ramanuja or Shri Adi Sankara Bhagavatpada. While rejecting Aacharyasthaana to other gurus, you are expecting others (including me) to accept Shri Abhinavagupta as a great perceptor. Though we do not have any problem in accepting Shri Abhinavagupta as a great perceptor, reqeust you to look upon your stance

I also remember you had earlier referred to Swami Sivananda to know the truths but has hidden those from his books (abstained from publishing to be politically correct) - an accusation that has no basis

Further more, having rejecting all philosophies and ideas without any reverance given to great perceptors, you insist other ideas are not general hindu view as such and you insist on accepting Kaula views as general hindu view.

To put it short, what you give to others in terms of respect and importance is not in proportion with what you expect in same terms

Arjuna
17 May 2006, 04:49 AM
Namaste Jalasayanan,


I agree there are no trade mark, but usage of these terms cannot refer incorporation of ideas on different school into that of original philosophies. When we refer Advaita, we normally mean Shri Sankara's School of thought. Same way Visishtadvaita refers normally to Shrimad Ramanuja's school. Referring to Visishtadvaiti Shaivites requires qualifying terms before visishtadvaiti.
The very word Dvaita used in common parlence refers to Shri Madhavacharya's school, though the term dvaita can include all dualist schools. Caution to be exercised while communicating for what you mean might not be the same as what is heard by your audience. What is heard is more important that what you say

This was Ur statement: "There are no Visishtadvaita and Dvaita Shaivas, both these philosophies are purely Vaishanvite philosophies. Thus you understanding is wrong." After this, seeing that it is U who are wrong in this case, i have a right to say U have limited knowledge.
Ramanuja's schools may specifically be called Vishishtadvaita-vedanta, and i never used such term towards Shaiva Vishishtadvaita (though Shrikantha's Shaivism is in fact Vishishtadvaita-vedanta as well). Similarly with Dvaita.
When i say "Dvaita" and U imagine it to be specifically Madhva's Dvaita, it isn't my fault.


Trust there is some error in spelling. Attached a file herewith, hope you will check

I haven't seen any "file" and do not understand what U mean by saying this.


Traditions that hold agamas are superior authority is same as Buddhism and Jainism.

This may be Ur opinion, but not a Hindu one.
Buddhism and Jainism reject Vedas, and thus these are considered as Nastika doctrines together with Charvaka. Agamic Shaivism, Shaktism and Tantrism accept Vedas, but view Agamas as the very essence of Vedas which is exactly similar to Pancharatra view upon Ekayana as Mulaveda.

In Ur case U have to reject Pancharatra as well (as Kurma-purana does), for it considers its texts as highest authority. But at least one Shaiva school is purely Vedic one Pashupata. According to Mahabharata (Anushasana-parvan, ch. 14) Krishna, Yajnavalkya and Vedavyasa were Pashupatas.


I see no point in nominally accepting Veda while rejecting most of its teachings in the name of Agama. Never heard Veda teach upasana to please Trimurthy's or their consorts using a dead body and menstrual blood. Never ever Veda calls a family girl in the name of Veshya, and never heard veda said married women are veshyas. See Niruttara Tantra for more details (This word, literally, means whore but is applied to initiated Shaktis and to Devis. Shiva enumerates seven, the Gupta Veshya, the Mahaveshya, the Kulaveshya, the Mahodaya, the Rajaveshya, the Devaveshya and the Brahmaveshya - in short there are no family girls once initiated all are called Veshyas)

There are many Agamic practices which aren't Vedic (this includes MOST of Vaishnava, Shaiva and Shakta practices!). In Vedic religion we can observe fire-sacrifices, animal-sacrifices, Soma-cult, a cult of a sacred Word and some sexual rituals (which are few). Tantric practice is based upon Agamas, but still it is rather close to a Vedic one. Homa and balidana were preserved in Agamic cult, Soma-cult became a worship with wine (Sura), cult of the Word developed into Mantra-shastra and sexual side was extended. All these practices are essentially Vedic, though their form may differ considerably.


More over, those sects which had their fundamentals based only on Agamas, later on, worked with Vedanta thoughts to take vedic approval to their sects thereby making Vedas more authoritative. Shaiva Siddanta school of Tamilnadu is a classic example

Tantrism also developed Vedantic approval of itself. There are commentaries upon Bhagavadgita (by Sri Abhinavagupta), Upanishads (by Sri Bhaskararaya and some other) and Vedanta-sutra (by Panchanana Tarkaratna, a recent Acharya).
But Agamas are seen as independent and self-sufficient revelation, which is not contrary to Vedic one, but is the essence of it.


Having considering this statement in the light of my response to Shri Abhinavagupta's position in 5 great perceptor, I would like to remind, followers of Shri Abhinavagupta till date, does not even take other philosophers names with respect. Though I am not very sure about your adherence to Shri Abhinavagupta, let me take your statements. When looked upon, you refer Madhavacharya as Madhva always, I see no prefix or suffix reverance attached to Shrimad Ramanuja or Shri Adi Sankara Bhagavatpada. While rejecting Aacharyasthaana to other gurus, you are expecting others (including me) to accept Shri Abhinavagupta as a great perceptor. Though we do not have any problem in accepting Shri Abhinavagupta as a great perceptor, reqeust you to look upon your stance

Out of these Acharyas only Shankara has a certain connection with Tantric tradition. However i acknowledge and respect all these Acharyas as philosophers and ONLY this kind of acknowledgement i want from U. Abhinavagupta was a great philosopher, which is evident from his works not only in a field of Shaivism, but also theory of aesthetics. Whether one accepts him as Guru and Acharya, is up to one's own will. Vaishnavas naturally may not accept Abhinavagupta in this way, which is quite natural.


I also remember you had earlier referred to Swami Sivananda to know the truths but has hidden those from his books (abstained from publishing to be politically correct) - an accusation that has no basis

It isn't an accusation, but the only chance to preserve a respect towards him! For i have read some things which about Tantrism are actually wrong; thus, either i have to admit that Sivananda didn't know Tantrism properly and yet expressed an opinion, or that he had proper knowledge but preferred not to reveal it openly.
The basis for the second option was an opinion of my Srividya Guru and also some members of Shakti-sadhana e-list, who knew personally some close disciples of Sivananda.


Further more, having rejecting all philosophies and ideas without any reverance given to great perceptors, you insist other ideas are not general hindu view as such and you insist on accepting Kaula views as general hindu view.

I never rejected "all philosophies and ideas...", this is Ur supposition alone.
And i never said all Kaula views are "general Hindu" verily NOT, since all Atimarga traditions are meant only for those ready for their practice and having got initiation into them.

Jalasayanan
17 May 2006, 12:18 PM
This was Ur statement: "There are no Visishtadvaita and Dvaita Shaivas, both these philosophies are purely Vaishanvite philosophies. Thus you understanding is wrong." After this, seeing that it is U who are wrong in this case, i have a right to say U have limited knowledge.
In that case, I can also address you as a person with very little knowledge as such. I will substantiate this in followings


Ramanuja's schools may specifically be called Vishishtadvaita-vedanta, and i never used such term towards Shaiva Vishishtadvaita (though Shrikantha's Shaivism is in fact Vishishtadvaita-vedanta as well). Similarly with Dvaita.

Again the same mistakes. The word Shrikanta Shaivism does indicate Shrikanta has propounded a sect of shaivism which is absolutely wrong. Hope you also share knowledge in Tamil or atleast tamil speaking people, request you to inquire within your acquaintances on this. Shri Kanta made a commentary to Brahma sutra falling in line with Shaiva Siddantha of Tamilnadu, which was a pre existing religion and is as old as 2 AD. There is no point in attaching the term visishtadvaita to that commentary.

I had pointed few differences between the sects also.

hence, there are no Visishtadvaita or Dvaita Shaivists.


When i say "Dvaita" and U imagine it to be specifically Madhva's Dvaita, it isn't my fault.
Indeed, in the fault on your part in terms of communication.

You cannot say "I will say what ever, if you mistake it is not my fault". Even in the posting, you had not mentioned by Dvaita you meant all dualist philosophies, instead you try to take alibi with literal meaning of the word.

Request you not to pass over you inaccurate conclusions on others


I haven't seen any "file" and do not understand what U mean by saying this.
As suggested by you I searched for the term you had suggested in Yahoo and google. No items found. Request you to find the right spellings


This may be Ur opinion, but not a Hindu one.
Buddhism and Jainism reject Vedas, and thus these are considered as Nastika doctrines together with Charvaka. Agamic Shaivism, Shaktism and Tantrism accept Vedas, but view Agamas as the very essence of Vedas which is exactly similar to Pancharatra view upon Ekayana as Mulaveda.
Shaivist yes, Shakta and Tantri No. None of agamas of Shakta or Tantris are identified as part of Veda. I have not read any such reference. Request you to provide the data if you have any.


In Ur case U have to reject Pancharatra as well (as Kurma-purana does), for it considers its texts as highest authority.

Paancharaatra does not consider itself as superior authority as such. It indicates Veda as superior authority. Authority of Paancharaatra is the authority of veda for it was a part of Veda (I am using the term WAS because that part of veda is lost now)


But at least one Shaiva school is purely Vedic one Pashupata.
If pashupata is vedic school of thougth given to understand that pashupata is dualist school, it goes without saying that vedic school is dualism. Do you accept this?

This also says agamic religion are non dualist, however this thought is also false for Paancharaatra and certain shaivaagamas followed by Shaiva Siddantins are also dualist.



Some purification rituals are not listed in vedas are used by these sects, I understand. However, none of these rights are exclusively banned in Veda which you fail to notice.

[quote]Tantric practice is based upon Agamas, but still it is rather close to a Vedic one.

I had pointed out list of activities practised by Tantris which are taboo for vedic practioners. I never heard Veda allows person to sit on top of a dead body for a sadhana. Veda never advices to use menstrual blood to be used for an upaasana. (Veda does not even call stinking materials like menstrual blood by the name of Pushpa - flower; for veda flowers indicate material that does not stink). There is no point in accepting veda and going against vedic teachings. It amounts to rejecting veda as such


Tantrism also developed Vedantic approval of itself. There are commentaries upon Bhagavadgita (by Sri Abhinavagupta), Upanishads (by Sri Bhaskararaya and some other) and Vedanta-sutra (by Panchanana Tarkaratna, a recent Acharya).
Does not know which Upanishad or which part of Vedanta Sutra subscribes Moksha along with Boga. When the fundamentals are rejected cannot see how texts can help.


But Agamas are seen as independent and self-sufficient revelation, which is not contrary to Vedic one, but is the essence of it.
Just a mere statement without any substantiating evidence. Max you can get is few people subscribing to your view. Request you to prove your stance


Out of these Acharyas only Shankara has a certain connection with Tantric tradition.
I suppose Shri Sharabhanga and Ramkish has commented on this statement earlier and showed this view is false


However i acknowledge and respect all these Acharyas as philosophers and ONLY this kind of acknowledgement i want from U.
I am yet to see any such acknowledgement


It isn't an accusation, but the only chance to preserve a respect towards him
Indeed it is an accusation


For i have read some things which about Tantrism are actually wrong; thus, either i have to admit that Sivananda didn't know Tantrism properly and yet expressed an opinion, or that he had proper knowledge but preferred not to reveal it openly.
Both stances are false. Let me give you a glimpse of this.

Now I say, as Shri Abhinavagupta as identified few flaws in Shri Adi Sanakaracharya's Kevala Advaita, I have two choices, 1. He does not know Kevala Advaita properly or 2. He had proper knowledge but preferred not to reveal it.

Either stance I take on Shri Abhinavagupta, I indicate subtly, his philosophy is altogether wrong and carries no authority for either he does not know or he has hidden the truth.

Now coming back to Swami Sivananda, you comment indicates you want all to accept Kaula doctrine as correct. I can read between the lines.


The basis for the second option was an opinion of my Srividya Guru and also some members of Shakti-sadhana e-list, who knew personally some close disciples of Sivananda.
Now you blame your guru for the mistakes of yours


I never rejected "all philosophies and ideas...", this is Ur supposition alone.

Your stance of Kevala Advaita and Swami Sivananda is well known. There is no point in hiding this now

Arjuna
17 May 2006, 05:32 PM
Namaste,


Again the same mistakes. The word Shrikanta Shaivism does indicate Shrikanta has propounded a sect of shaivism which is absolutely wrong.

I didn't say that Shrikantha established a sect of Shaivism. "Shrikantha's Shaivism" refers to his darshana (which was a Shaiva one) expressed in his Brahmamimansa-bhashya.
And he developed a version of Vishishtadvaita philosophy, perhaps even before Ramanuja or at the same time with him (Shrikantha is usually placed in 11-12 cc.). In his commentary he argues with Adi Shankara (though not mentioning him by name).


Hope you also share knowledge in Tamil or atleast tamil speaking people, request you to inquire within your acquaintances on this. Shri Kanta made a commentary to Brahma sutra falling in line with Shaiva Siddantha of Tamilnadu, which was a pre existing religion and is as old as 2 AD. There is no point in attaching the term visishtadvaita to that commentary.

No, Shrikantha is "not in line" with Shaivasiddhanta, and his philosophy is named Vishishtadvaita by both scholars and Shaiva teachers.


I had pointed few differences between the sects also.

What U "pointed" was irrelevant to the matter that's the problem :p
Advaita-Dvaita stuff isn't connected with number of tattvas, names given to Brahman etc.


hence, there are no Visishtadvaita or Dvaita Shaivists.

Well, U are free to reject their existence, they won't vanish i deem. For me enough of such type of arguement :). Anyone interested to know whose position is correct may get an idea from studying Shaiva philosophy and history.


Indeed, in the fault on your part in terms of communication.

I use terms which are used by scholars and followers of Shaivism.


You cannot say "I will say what ever, if you mistake it is not my fault". Even in the posting, you had not mentioned by Dvaita you meant all dualist philosophies, instead you try to take alibi with literal meaning of the word.

Dvaita primarily is "dualism" and not "Madhva's philosophy," which is only one out of many dualist schools inside Hinduism.
Ur personal linguistic associations are out of my responsibility ;)


As suggested by you I searched for the term you had suggested in Yahoo and google. No items found. Request you to find the right spellings

Right spelling for Sanskrit words is Sanskrit spelling only!
Thus,
shaktivishiShTAdvaita
visheShAdvaita
vIrashaiva
pAshupata
Anything esle needed? For google U have to try various spellings in english there is no "the only right one." My spellings are correct but not the only possible.

And U in fact use a wrong spelling for Shrikantha, for he is shrIkaNTha and not "kanta" or "kAnta."


Shaivist yes, Shakta and Tantri No. None of agamas of Shakta or Tantris are identified as part of Veda. I have not read any such reference. Request you to provide the data if you have any.

None of Agamas (Shaiva, Shakta or Vaishnava) are literally parts of Vedas.
Shaivagamas consider themselves to be the essence of Vedas (see Makutagama and other).
Regarding Shakta-tantras, please:
Kularnava-tantra (II.10) shows Kula-dharma as the essence of Vedas and Agamas. As i remember i have seen a similar verse in Rudra-yamala as well, but in any case Kularnava passage is enough this Tantra is one of the most authorative.


Paancharaatra does not consider itself as superior authority as such. It indicates Veda as superior authority. Authority of Paancharaatra is the authority of veda for it was a part of Veda (I am using the term WAS because that part of veda is lost now)

This isn't proved historically. Many later Upanishads (of various sects including some Tantric) claim to belong to Atharvana-veda, but that clearly is baseless.
I cannot say this Pancharatra claim is 100% wrong, but it is unsubstantiated and logically improbable.


If pashupata is vedic school of thougth given to understand that pashupata is dualist school, it goes without saying that vedic school is dualism. Do you accept this?

Pashupata wasn't the only Vedic school. But rather probably early Vedic religion was dualistic in its views, though i guess monistic at its heart. This monism got developed in Upanishads and later flourished into great philosophical systems of Advaita, like Paradvaita of Tantrism and Shankara's Vedanta.


This also says agamic religion are non dualist, however this thought is also false for Paancharaatra and certain shaivaagamas followed by Shaiva Siddantins are also dualist.

There are dualistic and monistic Agamas; since in Kashmiri Shaivism and Tantrism the highest Agamas are Bhairava and Kaula (which are monistic), i speak of Monism as Agamic darshana without specifying every time.
(To clear a possible doubt, by Kashmiri Shaivism i mean a group of four monistic traditions, namely Kula, Krama, Trika and Pratyabhijna (which includes Spanda). There existed in Kashmir a dualist Shaiva-siddhanta as well, which later got imported into Tamilnadu.)

Early Pacharatra (referred to as Ekayana) might have been a monistic tradition originated in Kashmir. For this possibility an evidence is Samvit-prakasha of Vamanadatta, a vaishnava from Ekayana tradition, which delivers a monistic philosophy very similar to Paradvaita of KSh.


Some purification rituals are not listed in vedas are used by these sects, I understand. However, none of these rights are exclusively banned in Veda which you fail to notice.
I had pointed out list of activities practised by Tantris which are taboo for vedic practioners. I never heard Veda allows person to sit on top of a dead body for a sadhana. Veda never advices to use menstrual blood to be used for an upaasana. (Veda does not even call stinking materials like menstrual blood by the name of Pushpa - flower; for veda flowers indicate material that does not stink). There is no point in accepting veda and going against vedic teachings. It amounts to rejecting veda as such

1. There are practices in Tantrism which contradict Smriti-shastras (not Vedas as such), those which U mention and some other. They are meant only for adherents of Atimarga, which is beyond social rules of conduct. To all other traditions they do not apply.
If one follows Smriti, he has to reject all these.

2. Blood was shed in Vedic rites, and any fresh blood has a same smell ;)

Arjuna
17 May 2006, 05:35 PM
Does not know which Upanishad or which part of Vedanta Sutra subscribes Moksha along with Boga. When the fundamentals are rejected cannot see how texts can help.

Gita implies such view and many Upanishadic texts. Vedanta-sutra isn't essential for Tantrism (and Shaivism in general), since Shaivism has its own Sutras.
Normally all four Purusharthas are acknowledged in Hinduism (for a grihasthi of course), and thus there is nothing "heretical" in Bhogamoksha-samarasya doctrine.


Just a mere statement without any substantiating evidence. Max you can get is few people subscribing to your view. Request you to prove your stance

What U mean by "prove"? This view isn't "mine," but Tantric one.
Whether U believe that Agamas were revealed by Shiva or not is up to U only.


I suppose Shri Sharabhanga and Ramkish has commented on this statement earlier and showed this view is false

No one can "show" this view is false, since Shankara lived in 8th century and none of us can check what he did teach and what not.
Sarabhanga didn't agree that Shankara could physically practice the 5M of Kula (since Shankara was a sannyasi); i don't remember him rejecting a possibility of Shankara's connection with Tantrism as such! Gaudapada, a Paramaguru of Shankara, wrote Shrividyaratnasutras, that are Shakta-tantric. And Shankara himself wrote Saundarya-lahari, a Tantric mystical hymn (his authorship is accepted by most scholars and also by Shankara's maths — at least in South India).


Both stances are false. Let me give you a glimpse of this.
Now I say, as Shri Abhinavagupta as identified few flaws in Shri Adi Sanakaracharya's Kevala Advaita, I have two choices, 1. He does not know Kevala Advaita properly or 2. He had proper knowledge but preferred not to reveal it.
Either stance I take on Shri Abhinavagupta, I indicate subtly, his philosophy is altogether wrong and carries no authority for either he does not know or he has hidden the truth.
Now coming back to Swami Sivananda, you comment indicates you want all to accept Kaula doctrine as correct. I can read between the lines.

Ur example is irrelevant ;)
If U can see that Abhinavagupta describes Shankara's Advaita improperly, then only U can accuse him of not knowing it. The problem is not criticism, but false depiction.
If i state that Shrivaishnavas worship Narayana with offering of wine, that will be a factual lie. This was a case with Sivananda's statement about Tantrism.
Anyone may reject Kaula doctrine or criticise it, no problem. But none has a right to pervert it, assigning to it ideas of other sects and deliberately changing its teaching.


Now you blame your guru for the mistakes of yours

My Guru corrected me when i accused Sivananda of not knowing Tantric tradition. And after that i admitted that Sivananda had proper knowledge, but concealed certain things.


Your stance of Kevala Advaita and Swami Sivananda is well known. There is no point in hiding this now

Yes, indeed it is known from my own words, not only from Ur opinion about me :D

Arjuna
17 May 2006, 05:38 PM
Shiva Visishtadvaita (As you term) of Srikanta is called Kanta Bashyam and it belongs to Shaiva Siddantha school of Tamilnadu, made near 1600 to 1700 AD.

Shrikantha's commentary upon Brahma-sutras is called Brahmamimansa-bhashya. It was written in 11-12 century C.E., and it doesn't belong to Shaiva-siddhanta.

Arjuna
17 May 2006, 07:54 PM
Srikantha (Shrikantha): A saint and philosopher (ca 1050) who promoted a Saivite theology which embraced monism and dualism. Founder of the Saiva school of Siva Advaita or Siva Vishishtadvaita, teaching a "Saivite qualified nondualism" resembling Ramanuja's Vaishnavite Vishishtadvaita. He was also known as Nilakantha Sivacharya. See: Siva Advaita.
(From http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/mws/mws_glossary_S-Z.html )

Also see: http://www.experiencefestival.com/saiva_vishishtadvaita
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/1998-October/010243.html

Just to give a few examples from Google for Jalasayanan :)

Jalasayanan
18 May 2006, 12:44 PM
No, Shrikantha is "not in line" with Shaivasiddhanta, and his philosophy is named Vishishtadvaita by both scholars and Shaiva teachers.
ShriKanta's philosphical quest is in line with Shaiva Siddantha, his philosophy is identified by scholars as Saiva Advaita and not as Visishtadvaita. Baskara had his own propounding which does not fall fully in line with Shaiva Siddantha, which he preferred to call Siva Visishtadvaita. Like Advaita, visishtadvaita is not propounded by Shrimad Ramanuja but existed even before him. Shrimad Ramanuja says he has learned this system throughly from works of Bodayana Maharishi. However he did not authorise his followers to be termed as Visishtadvaita Shaivas. Qualifying term Siva prefixed to Visishtadvaita indicates the work is in line with Visishtadvaita doctrine but differencitated. Hence, Visishtadvaita indicates Vaishnavite faith. There cannot be Shaivas in visishtadvaita faith but in siva visishtadvaita faith which not realted to visishtadvaita.

Better you name your scholars :p


What U "pointed" was irrelevant to the matter that's the problem. Advaita-Dvaita stuff isn't connected with number of tattvas, names given to Brahman etc.
This shows your weakness in vedanta texts and studies. Try to understand what is the philosophy and basic tenants of philosophy, how it guided etc


Well, U are free to reject their existence, they won't vanish i deem. For me enough of such type of arguement :). Anyone interested to know whose position is correct may get an idea from studying Shaiva philosophy and history.
Good alibi. Once taking such alibis it is for you to abstain


I use terms which are used by scholars and followers of Shaivism.
Which scholars? Even your findings are listed unders Siva Advaita, which you ignore fully. Siva Visishtadvaita has no connection with Shrikanta but with Bhaskara which shows the credentials of your scholars. Your own references will take to this information. Request you to check throughly


Dvaita primarily is "dualism" and not "Madhva's philosophy," which is only one out of many dualist schools inside Hinduism. Ur personal linguistic associations are out of my responsibility
I have accused of delibearately using this term inspite of knowing the fact that Madhavacharya's philosophy is called by the SCHOLARS as Dvaita. You consciously trying to provoke using such terms. It is your responsibility in toto


And U in fact use a wrong spelling for Shrikantha, for he is shrIkaNTha and not "kanta" or "kAnta."
Unnecessary accusation. The web site lists the names in line with tamil traditions, even the name Nilakanta is listed as nilakantha. Think twice before posting and check how authoritative is your information.


None of Agamas (Shaiva, Shakta or Vaishnava) are literally parts of Vedas.
Better you exclude Vaishnava terms from your posts. It has been shown to you already, Paancharaatra is part of Veda and Vaikanasa is highly vedic texts which approved authoritiveness of veda. If Vaikanasa has to be authoritative text, Veda should be a superior texts as such. Same with Paancharaatra.


Kularnava-tantra (II.10) shows Kula-dharma as the essence of Vedas and Agamas. As i remember i have seen a similar verse in Rudra-yamala as well, but in any case Kularnava passage is enough this Tantra is one of the most authorative.
Unnecessary posting. When I accepted Shakta agamas are not part of Veda, I do not know what made you yo indicate this.


This isn't proved historically. Many later Upanishads (of various sects including some Tantric) claim to belong to Atharvana-veda, but that clearly is baseless.
The claim is proven historically. All Paancharaatra followers from early days use vedic rituals and accepted Veda as superior text than that of Paancharaatra. VEDA SAASTRAT PARAM NAASTI, the words of Veda Vyasa is fully accepted by Paancharaatrins. On the contrary, checking the dates of origination, many later upanishads made by individuals claim to be part of Atharvana Veda it to treated baseless, unless the claim is corroborrated in old texts.


I cannot say this Pancharatra claim is 100% wrong, but it is unsubstantiated and logically improbable.
It is fully substantiated and logically probable. It is only you who deny this trying to take unfair advantage.


Pashupata wasn't the only Vedic school. But rather probably early Vedic religion was dualistic in its views, though i guess monistic at its heart.
How can your guess be validated is what I wonder. Request you to list other vedic schools. Pasupatha is purely dualist philosophy, by blood, body and soul :p , hence no need to mention the heart


There are dualistic and monistic Agamas; since in Kashmiri Shaivism and Tantrism the highest Agamas are Bhairava and Kaula (which are monistic), i speak of Monism as Agamic darshana without specifying every time.
Early agamas might have been dualist tradtions on the contrary and later on monistic views could had be forced upon them


There existed in Kashmir a dualist Shaiva-siddhanta as well, which later got imported into Tamilnadu.
This is example of your unwanted statements at irrelevant times. It is enough to say Kashmir also had a dualist Shaiva Siddanta, the later part importing into tamilnadu is purely irrelevant which you cannot substantiate at any time. First shed the idea that all religions came from Kashmir


Early Pacharatra (referred to as Ekayana) might have been a monistic tradition originated in Kashmir. For this possibility an evidence is Samvit-prakasha of Vamanadatta, a vaishnava from Ekayana tradition, which delivers a monistic philosophy very similar to Paradvaita of KSh.
This is your idea. When entire texts spells dualism, you imagine it could had been monitic religion. How vamanadatta got associated with ekayana tradition? I agree there are some monistic Vaishnavs but it cannot invalidate dualistic Paancharaatra. Ekayana seems to be much bigger texts as such as Paancharaatra is deemed as a part of it


1. There are practices in Tantrism which contradict Smriti-shastras (not Vedas as such), those which U mention and some other. They are meant only for adherents of Atimarga, which is beyond social rules of conduct. To all other traditions they do not apply.
If one follows Smriti, he has to reject all these.

2. Blood was shed in Vedic rites, and any fresh blood has a same smell ;)

Vedic stories (part of vedas itself) indicate Rajasvala came to women because of Indra gave a part of his Brahma Hatti Dosha to women. It is indeed deemed as a part of curse. Hence it is against veda itself not only to smriti

Never heard Veda allows using a human dead body for upasana

Further, menstrual blood stinks a lot than fresh blood. I can describe the difference scientifically and even religiously. But I afraid this is not the right place for it. Here I am present to explore hinduism as such not about menstrual blood and sex rituals. Hence I abstain.

Jalasayanan
18 May 2006, 01:18 PM
Gita implies such view and many Upanishadic texts. Vedanta-sutra isn't essential for Tantrism (and Shaivism in general), since Shaivism has its own Sutras.
Yes, with additives. If you add slokas that are not present in Gita originally, it will. Why Gita, for that fact any text can give you those meanings as such.

We will analyse upanishad that gives ideas of Bogha Moksha idea on Upanishad sub forum. Hope you will start threads on it


What U mean by "prove"? This view isn't "mine," but Tantric one.
Whether U believe that Agamas were revealed by Shiva or not is up to U only.
Which agama says it? Vedic Authority is derived from Apourusheyam, all the other texts, which includes revelation of Shri Krishna,


No one can "show" this view is false, since Shankara lived in 8th century and none of us can check what he did teach and what not.
Historically yes, anyone can show this is false. There are no other works of Sankara which falls in this line. His first work Kanakadhara stotram does not has any relation to Tantrism nor his later works. The only hold you have is Soundarya Lahiri.


Shankara himself wrote Saundarya-lahari, a Tantric mystical hymn (his authorship is accepted by most scholars and also by Shankara's maths at least in South India).
I will leave Sharabhangaji to deal with the parts ascribed to his name. I just itereated what his postings meant. No opinions on Ramkish findings. If you say Soundarya Lahiri indicates Sankaracharya is Tantric, then his karavalambams indicates he is dualist and his Bhaja govindam indicates he is a vaishnavite. Many scholars also ascribe to this view that Sankaracharya is vaishnav.

By the way, I am not sure about Kanchi Mutt, even I heard Sringeri Mutt disowned Kanchi mutt as a mutt ascribed to the name of Sankaracharya, however, this is irrelevant to this thread.


Ur example is irrelevant
In fact, your idea was irrelevant


If U can see that Abhinavagupta describes Shankara's Advaita improperly, then only U can accuse him of not knowing it. The problem is not criticism, but false depiction.
Till this point you are not ready to post what Swami Sivananda opined, which shows you are trying to take alibi.


If i state that Shrivaishnavas worship Narayana with offering of wine, that will be a factual lie. This was a case with Sivananda's statement about Tantrism.
Yes, you can state, we will reject for want of evidence. But if you show false evidence and mistreat the slokas to derive at your conclusion, it false depiction and not criticism. Under this light, opinion of Shri Abinavagupta worths my statements


Anyone may reject Kaula doctrine or criticise it, no problem. But none has a right to pervert it, assigning to it ideas of other sects and deliberately changing its teaching.
It is not individuals but scholars. When scholars point out that current practise is not relevant with tradition, we will go with scholars. Till date you could not refute any of the ideas given scholars who opine that Kaula also indicates limiting desires etc. Be it Bharati or Ramkish, be it is from a tantra book or info passed over by Aurthur Avalon, info given was upto the point which you try to manipulate matching to your doctrine. In short, you are giving a preface that you are going to interpret every sloka and every text given to you in such a way that it will match with your ideas.


My Guru corrected me when i accused Sivananda of not knowing Tantric tradition. And after that i admitted that Sivananda had proper knowledge, but concealed certain things.
Atleast, if you say, swami sivananda does not know tantrism, it would reflected some respect, for he is also human, and no human can know all subjects in toto with much expertise. Having corrected, you insist that he knows but concealed, drops him down from Aacharya stana which shows your attitude. Guru should teach what he knows but cannot mislead a disciple by any means, be it direct teachings or publications, atleast on the subject he knows, thus your view on swami sivananda is definitely derogatory. I sincerely doubt your guru's role in it. As it is your personal corroboration, I have nothing to say, but blaming once own guru for the mistake is utterly false.


Yes, indeed it is known from my own words, not only from Ur opinion about me
I am happy that atleast in this level we concur

Jalasayanan
18 May 2006, 01:20 PM
Datings vary. I have few evidences pointed out through temple encarvations which indicate it was made around 16th century.

However, it belongs to Shaiva Siddantha. The text is known popularly as Siva Advaita.

Jalasayanan
18 May 2006, 01:28 PM
Srikantha (Shrikantha): A saint and philosopher (ca 1050) who promoted a Saivite theology which embraced monism and dualism. Founder of the Saiva school of Siva Advaita or Siva Vishishtadvaita, teaching a "Saivite qualified nondualism" resembling Ramanuja's Vaishnavite Vishishtadvaita. He was also known as Nilakantha Sivacharya. See: Siva Advaita.
(From http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/mws/mws_glossary_S-Z.html )

Also see: http://www.experiencefestival.com/saiva_vishishtadvaita
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/1998-October/010243.html

Just to give a few examples from Google for Jalasayanan :)
SrIkaNTha's version of viSishTAdvaita along the lines of Sankaran advaita are the lines used in the text.

Having said that Srikanta does not name his book as Visishtadvaita and it falls in line with advaita, few people calling it Visishtadvaita indicates it is a misnomer and not the fact

Other refereces passed are listed under Saiva Advaita and columns pertaining to Siva Visishtadvaita is missing in toto. Thus this indicates, normaly usage is Siva Advaita and not visishtadvaita, though few people identify similarities between vaishanvite work and this shaivite work.

Thus it is clear that there are no visishtadvaiti Shaivities. Regarding Dvaiti's has Arjuna intends to mean dualism and not Madhavacharya's Tattavada or dvaita as it is popularly known, it is out of context now, for dualist shaivites do exist. For that fact, even Shrikanta's work is a dualist work.

I am still wondering what made people to think Shrikanta's work is not Shaivite?

Arjuna
18 May 2006, 02:41 PM
Namaste,


Better you name your scholars :p

Dr. Kanti Chandra Pandey (M.A., Ph.D., D. Litt., M.O.L. Shastri, Lucknow University) in Bhaskari (Varanasi, 1998, p. VI) lists eight systems of Shaiva philosophy:

1. Pashupata dualism
2. Siddhanta Shaiva dualism
3. Dualistic-cum-Non-dualistic Shaivism of Lakulisha Pashupata
4. Vishishtadvaita Shaivism
5. Visheshadvaita Shaivism (Vira Shaiva)
6. Nandikeshvara Shaivism
7. Raseshvara Shaivism
8. Monistic Shaivism of Kashmir

Shrikantha quotes Utpalacharya's Ishvarapratyabhijna-karika (a Kashmiri monistic text) at least thrice in his commentary on Brahma-sutra.
Shrikantha reject's Bhaskara's Bhedabheda-vada (BrS, 2.1.22).
Appaya Dik****a (1550 A.D.) have commented upon Shrikantha's Brahmamimansa-bhashya in a monistic way, and with that promoted a name Shivadvaita.

Another sourse on Shaiva philosophies is: G.V. Tagare, "Saivism: Some Glimpses", Delhi, 1996.


This shows your weakness in vedanta texts and studies. Try to understand what is the philosophy and basic tenants of philosophy, how it guided etc

Dvaita, Advaita and alike terms are NOT restricted to Vedanta.


Which scholars? Even your findings are listed unders Siva Advaita, which you ignore fully. Siva Visishtadvaita has no connection with Shrikanta but with Bhaskara which shows the credentials of your scholars. Your own references will take to this information. Request you to check throughly

See above.
The very philosophy of Shrikantha was Vishishtadvaita, while Appaya Dik****a later tried to make an Advaita out of it.


I have accused of delibearately using this term inspite of knowing the fact that Madhavacharya's philosophy is called by the SCHOLARS as Dvaita. You consciously trying to provoke using such terms. It is your responsibility in toto

No, it is specifically called Dvaita-vedanta. Dvaita is not a name of any particular school, but merely "dualism".
If a scholar in a context reduces "Dvaita-vedanta" to "Dvaita" only, it is done for convenience. Like that, if Gaudiya-vaishnavism is discussed, one may call it simply "Vaishnavism" that isn't a reason to claim "Vaishnavism" is a doctrine of Chaitanya alone :D


Unnecessary accusation. The web site lists the names in line with tamil traditions, even the name Nilakanta is listed as nilakantha. Think twice before posting and check how authoritative is your information.

Those tamilians who are ignorant of Sanskrit aren't authorities to be followed :p
"Srikanta" instead of "Shrikantha" or "Srikantha" is mere illiteracy.
ta-kAra and tha-kAra are different letters.


Unnecessary posting. When I accepted Shakta agamas are not part of Veda, I do not know what made you yo indicate this.

Since U forgot, let me remind U: this was a REPLY to Ur question.
"None of agamas of Shakta or Tantris are identified as part of Veda. I have not read any such reference. Request you to provide the data if you have any." these are Ur words ;)


The claim is proven historically. All Paancharaatra followers from early days use vedic rituals and accepted Veda as superior text than that of Paancharaatra. VEDA SAASTRAT PARAM NAASTI, the words of Veda Vyasa is fully accepted by Paancharaatrins.

May i ask U, which ancient texts describe Pancharatra as a Vedic system?
Scholars hold it to be undoubtedly non-Vedic.


It is fully substantiated and logically probable. It is only you who deny this trying to take unfair advantage.

Substantiated with WHAT? Pancharatra's own claims?
And U want me to believe that accidentally ALL Vedic Pancharatra texts were lost, while Shaiva texts were preserved. How could this happen? Why there is no historical trace of supposed Vedic Pancharatra?

Arjuna
18 May 2006, 02:42 PM
How can your guess be validated is what I wonder. Request you to list other vedic schools. Pasupatha is purely dualist philosophy, by blood, body and soul :p , hence no need to mention the heart

Please read Upanishads.


Early agamas might have been dualist tradtions on the contrary and later on monistic views could had be forced upon them

28 Shaivagamas are dualistic, while Bhairava- and Kaulagamas ar monistic.
Their dates are approximately same.


This is example of your unwanted statements at irrelevant times. It is enough to say Kashmir also had a dualist Shaiva Siddanta, the later part importing into tamilnadu is purely irrelevant which you cannot substantiate at any time. First shed the idea that all religions came from Kashmir

Tamil tradition says that Rishi from North came to South, entered a body of a cowherd and came to be known as Tirumular, the author of Tirumantiram, the earliest Tamil text on Shaiva-siddhanta.

Earliest Agamas of Shaivism and Pancharatra originated in Kashmir, which is a view held by scholars (N.N. Bhattacharyya and others).


This is your idea. When entire texts spells dualism, you imagine it could had been monitic religion. How vamanadatta got associated with ekayana tradition?

Vamanadatta himself states he belongs to Ekayana tradition and in his SP glorifies Vishnu.


Vedic stories (part of vedas itself) indicate Rajasvala came to women because of Indra gave a part of his Brahma Hatti Dosha to women. It is indeed deemed as a part of curse. Hence it is against veda itself not only to smriti

Vedas have a story of Prajapati copulating with a his own daughter in her periods. But all these are cosmological stories and hymns and not a moral prescriptions.
I am unaware of any VEDIC prohibition in regard of menstrual blood (if there are any, please provide direct proofs).


Never heard Veda allows using a human dead body for upasana

Veda doesn't talk about this matter. Can U show that Veda prohibits it?


Further, menstrual blood stinks a lot than fresh blood. I can describe the difference scientifically and even religiously. But I afraid this is not the right place for it. Here I am present to explore hinduism as such not about menstrual blood and sex rituals. Hence I abstain.

As a Vaishnava U are supposed not to have smelled it! :D
But i KNOW it has no bad smell (if it is fresh and a woman is healthy), and anyone married can check that.

Jalasayanan
18 May 2006, 05:41 PM
Shrikantha reject's Bhaskara's Bhedabheda-vada (BrS, 2.1.22). Appaya Dik****a (1550 A.D.) have commented upon Shrikantha's Brahmamimansa-bhashya in a monistic way, and with that promoted a name Shivadvaita.
Where did Srikanta terms his philosophy as Visishtadvaita was my question? Who are others to ascribe this name to his text?


Dvaita, Advaita and alike terms are NOT restricted to Vedanta.
Better we exercise caution with general terms. Advaita and Dvaita when used, normally it indicates Vedanta schools only.


See above. The very philosophy of Shrikantha was Vishishtadvaita, while Appaya Dik****a later tried to make an Advaita out of it.
I had read the entire text of Srikanta. Nowhere he terms his philosophy as visishtadvaita


No, it is specifically called Dvaita-vedanta. Dvaita is not a name of any particular school, but merely "dualism".
Advaita is never terms as Advaita Vedanta though it can be termed so. So is Visishtadvaita and Dvaita.


If a scholar in a context reduces "Dvaita-vedanta" to "Dvaita" only, it is done for convenience. Like that, if Gaudiya-vaishnavism is discussed, one may call it simply "Vaishnavism" that isn't a reason to claim "Vaishnavism" is a doctrine of Chaitanya alone
Such reduction in terminology is allowed only after starting the discussion and such reduction will not affect the continuity of the discussions. If vaishanvism is said on this thread, it will neither indicate Sri Vaishnavism nor Gaudiya Vaishnavism in specific but all vaishnavism. I cannot be teaching basics in a place where my intentions are to learn


Those tamilians who are ignorant of Sanskrit aren't authorities to be followed. "Srikanta" instead of "Shrikantha" or "Srikantha" is mere illiteracy. ta-kAra and tha-kAra are different letters.
Hence your total citations are wrong for those people are ignorant. :p


Since U forgot, let me remind U: this was a REPLY to Ur question.
"None of agamas of Shakta or Tantris are identified as part of Veda. I have not read any such reference. Request you to provide the data if you have any." these are Ur words
Sorry, Unlike you if I make a confusing statement, upon citation, I will make it clear.

My intention of this statement is as follows.
None of agamas of Shakta or Tantris are identified as part of Veda. I have not read any such reference(indicating these are parts of veda like Paancharaatra). Request you to provide the data if you have any


May i ask U, which ancient texts describe Pancharatra as a Vedic system? Scholars hold it to be undoubtedly non-Vedic.
It is followers who are real scholars of the system. Unlike other religions, Hinduism is a different religion. When a person exclusively identifies himself with a particular agama, Either Vaikanasa or Paancharaatra he is scholar of that particular Agama. These two agamas has separate Gotra Avarna. Paancharaatra is more liberal to include all brahmins in its sect and Vaikanasa is more stringent. Vaikanasa brahmins does not teach Vaikanasa (even Veda) to others. If I write a book, I will terms as scholar. The way you disown Bharati's reference on Kaula in Vamachara thread applies to this case.


Substantiated with WHAT? Pancharatra's own claims?
And U want me to believe that accidentally ALL Vedic Pancharatra texts were lost, while Shaiva texts were preserved. How could this happen? Why there is no historical trace of supposed Vedic Pancharatra?

What Shaiva texts got to do with Paancharaatra. Amongst Ekayana, Paancharaatra had distinct followers who learnt only Paancharaatra, hence it was preserved. Ekayana sakha period is time period before Krishna Dwapaayana Vyasa. It is for you to dig out other followers of Ekayana. Just because others do not exist now does not invalidate this claim.

Jalasayanan
18 May 2006, 06:03 PM
Please read Upanishads.
Wonderful idea. Having terms Pasupatha as earliest school and all monistic school came up later, you want me to read upanishad that support Monistic views and go by the translation and commentaries given by monistic school. If pasupatha is earliest school and having shown it is dualist, and having shown it is vedic religion, then dualism should be vedic religion, hence upanishad should also spread dualism. What makes to ignore dualistic statements in upanishads


28 Shaivagamas are dualistic, while Bhairava- and Kaulagamas ar monistic. Their dates are approximately same.
Hence my view is correct. Agamas are predominantly dualistic

Dates approx same? Can you throw more light on to this. Who dated it and how?


Tamil tradition says that Rishi from North came to South, entered a body of a cowherd and came to be known as Tirumular, the author of Tirumantiram, the earliest Tamil text on Shaiva-siddhanta.

So according to Arjuna the term north is synonymous with Kashmir :p . I wonder for extreme south how northern parts are categorised in other ways other than north:D


Earliest Agamas of Shaivism and Pancharatra originated in Kashmir, which is a view held by scholars (N.N. Bhattacharyya and others).
This is just a possibility. Most of paancharaatra texts talks about southern regions only, hence practically it cannot be ignored that origination can also be in south.


Vamanadatta himself states he belongs to Ekayana tradition and in his SP glorifies Vishnu.
So, with this you got another reference to Ekayana where in the followers are not dualist as Paancharaatris but a monist :D . Like to see that text. Hence it should be clear that all Ekayana sections are not lost. Is there any other reference in his text like any reference to sub sects etc


Vedas have a story of Prajapati copulating with a his own daughter in her periods. But all these are cosmological stories and hymns and not a moral prescriptions.
According to Vedas, Prajapati (I suppose he is Brahma as per story and not Shiva as the name indicates on later days) does not create attachments of paternity or maternity by creation. Anyways this is not part of our discussion. Just a comment passing by


I am unaware of any VEDIC prohibition in regard of menstrual blood (if there are any, please provide direct proofs).
I had already indicated the instance by which Rajasvala nature occured to women and how it got the prohibition. If you need exact verses, I have to dig out. I just moved all my books to attic to accomodate more space for my daughter's materials


Veda doesn't talk about this matter. Can U show that Veda prohibits it?
However, Vedas indicate once a man dies, corpse has to be burried as soon as possible and final rites has to be performed.


As a Vaishnava U are supposed not to have smelled it! :D
But i KNOW it has no bad smell (if it is fresh and a woman is healthy), and anyone married can check that.
I have smelled fresh blood many a times as a human as and when I was injured and it bleeded.

Rajasvala stri herself stinks - As a staunch hindu I should be unware of this, but with emergence of Feminist thought and liberal attitude given to Rajasvala, I meet many a women in work place where in for a normal person it is easy to deduct Rajasvala nature of the women blind folded. If a rajasvala women stands behind my chair, I can sense the stinking.

Hope with mutual consent we will abstain from discussion on Rajasvala blood as I still feel this is not the right place. Here we have discuss about hindu dharma and not about nature of Rajasvala blood.

Arjuna
18 May 2006, 06:18 PM
Yes, with additives. If you add slokas that are not present in Gita originally, it will. Why Gita, for that fact any text can give you those meanings as such.

There are various interpretations of Gita, which do differ from each other.
U may not accept Abhinavagupta's view of it. The fact is that it allows such interpretation and it exists.


We will analyse upanishad that gives ideas of Bogha Moksha idea on Upanishad sub forum. Hope you will start threads on it

I won't start :D
Firstly, it will take unnecessarily much time and secondly i am not interested to analyse texts in order to prove U something. U disagree with my views no problem.


Till this point you are not ready to post what Swami Sivananda opined, which shows you are trying to take alibi.

U may have whatever opinion on this issue. I won't waste time searching in Shivananda's books.


It is not individuals but scholars. When scholars point out that current practise is not relevant with tradition, we will go with scholars. Till date you could not refute any of the ideas given scholars who opine that Kaula also indicates limiting desires etc. Be it Bharati or Ramkish, be it is from a tantra book or info passed over by Aurthur Avalon, info given was upto the point which you try to manipulate matching to your doctrine. In short, you are giving a preface that you are going to interpret every sloka and every text given to you in such a way that it will match with your ideas.

The thing is that i know tradition directly and have read original texts. Scholars may mistake they have to be taken critically as well.

However, the matter was somewhat different, U divert original meaning. The talk with Ramkish was about a state of Jivanmukta. I never stated that Kaula has to fulfill ALL desires without any limitation.


Having corrected, you insist that he knows but concealed, drops him down from Aacharya stana which shows your attitude. Guru should teach what he knows but cannot mislead a disciple by any means, be it direct teachings or publications, atleast on the subject he knows, thus your view on swami sivananda is definitely derogatory.

No, this is essentially wrong view. Guru should NOT teach what he knows to whomsoever. There are rules in scriptures to whom certain things are to be given and to whom not. Guru may go against prescriptions in this case, if he wills. And verily he may conceal some knowledge which he considers to be secret.

Arjuna
18 May 2006, 06:34 PM
Wonderful idea. Having terms Pasupatha as earliest school and all monistic school came up later, you want me to read upanishad that support Monistic views and go by the translation and commentaries given by monistic school. If pasupatha is earliest school and having shown it is dualist, and having shown it is vedic religion, then dualism should be vedic religion, hence upanishad should also spread dualism. What makes to ignore dualistic statements in upanishads

Pashupata is the earliest known Shaiva school, and this doesn't necessarily mean that it was the only Vedic school.
However most probably Advaita was developed in Upanishadic time (i do not mean Shankara's Mayavada, but simply Monism) and not before that. Vedic religion incorporates both Dvaita and Advaita. What is the problem with this?


Hence my view is correct. Agamas are predominantly dualistic

No, predominantly they are monistic (virtually all Bhairavagamas are monistic).


Dates approx same? Can you throw more light on to this. Who dated it and how?

Scholars ;)


So according to Arjuna the term north is synonymous with Kashmir

Not at all. There are evidences for it is precisely Kashmir meant.


So, with this you got another reference to Ekayana where in the followers are not dualist as Paancharaatris but a monist :D . Like to see that text.

It is published in Varanasi.


I had already indicated the instance by which Rajasvala nature occured to women and how it got the prohibition.

Is there (in Vedas) a prohibition provided?


However, Vedas indicate once a man dies, corpse has to be burried as soon as possible and final rites has to be performed.

Burried? :confused:
Most of Hindus burn dead bodies and not bury.


I have smelled fresh blood many a times as a human as and when I was injured and it bleeded.
Rajasvala stri herself stinks - As a staunch hindu I should be unware of this, but with emergence of Feminist thought and liberal attitude given to Rajasvala, I meet many a women in work place where in for a normal person it is easy to deduct Rajasvala nature of the women blind folded. If a rajasvala women stands behind my chair, I can sense the stinking.

The problem is not blood, but the lack of hygiene. Fresh menstrual blood doesn't have any bad smell, and that is used in Tantric rites.

Arjuna
18 May 2006, 06:42 PM
Where did Srikanta terms his philosophy as Visishtadvaita was my question? Who are others to ascribe this name to his text?

Scholars, and i have named at least two.


What Shaiva texts got to do with Paancharaatra. Amongst Ekayana, Paancharaatra had distinct followers who learnt only Paancharaatra, hence it was preserved. Ekayana sakha period is time period before Krishna Dwapaayana Vyasa. It is for you to dig out other followers of Ekayana. Just because others do not exist now does not invalidate this claim.

I understand that Pancharatrins believe in this, but why there is no textual or historical proof of Pancharatra being a Vedic school?
We can trace Pashupatism to Vedas, but not Pancharatra. The earliest references to it appear in some parts of Mahabharata.

Arjuna
19 May 2006, 07:16 AM
ShriKanta's philosphical quest is in line with Shaiva Siddantha, his philosophy is identified by scholars as Saiva Advaita and not as Visishtadvaita.

For differences of Shaiva Vishishtadvaita of Shrikantha from Siddhanta-Shaivism see G. V. Tagare "Saivism: Some Glimpses", p. 96-97.

Apart from Brahmamimansa-bhashya of Shrikantha, promoting Vishishtadvaita, there is a Shrikara-bhashya of Shripati (1200 A.D.), establishing Visheshadvaita (or Shaktivishishtadvaita) of Vira-shaivism.

In ShB 2.1.5.13 Shripati lists seven epithets of Vira-shaiva doctrine: DvaitAdvaita, VisheshAdvaita, SeshvarAdvaita, ShivAdvaita, SarvashrutisAra, BhedAbheda and ShaktivishishtAdvaita.

Jalasayanan
19 May 2006, 12:09 PM
Hi Arjun

Nice debating with you.

I trust by this kind of discussion more info will be flowing, hence I was working on this lines.

Because of the Mods behaviour, I am moving out, All the very best.

Arjuna
19 May 2006, 01:23 PM
Hi Arjun
Nice debating with you.
I trust by this kind of discussion more info will be flowing, hence I was working on this lines.
Because of the Mods behaviour, I am moving out, All the very best.

Namaste,

and all the best to U too ;)

atanu
23 May 2006, 10:38 AM
Paancharaatra does not consider itself as superior authority as such. It indicates Veda as superior authority. Authority of Paancharaatra is the authority of veda for it was a part of Veda (I am using the term WAS because that part of veda is lost now)




This is interesting. First, consider the Veda as the Pramana -- the truth. Then claim that some part of the truth is lost and silently adding "I only am privy to the lost truth".

Can the truth be ever lost? What is your faith on God then? This may be nothing but a means of propping up some verses as shruti or to put a dead mind querying along the correct path. I feel the latter is the purpose of God through using the ego of a few men.

varuna
01 November 2006, 12:59 AM
I moved this post to the new thread 'Vedic Authority' under Hindu Gods.