Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 92

Thread: Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

  1. #1
    Join Date
    January 2007
    Location
    duhkhalayam asasvatam
    Posts
    1,448
    Rep Power
    80

    Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

    Pranam

    Puranas extols certain deities that are unpalatable to certain people for various reasons.

    to some it is not acceptable if it does not align with sruti, rightly so, but then the question arises did Vyasdev not know sruti when he compiled the Puranas?
    Off course he did because he compiled, the Vedas, in written form.

    to some it is not accepted because they say it is Tamsik or Rajsik, apparently Padma puranas (no surprise here) categorise them in such a manner.

    Question, would that not be easy if the author had from the onset classified them all!! instead we are at a mercy of Padma puran to tell us the different divisions, so if one never read that said puran one would never have known that they are reading a particular type of Purana. strange to say the least it would have saved us endless amount of debate and anguish.
    Perhaps we are forgetting the purpose of Puranas, hear and learn the the divinity of those great personalities, instead we indulge in mud slinging.

    Why is this so ridiculous?

    This was stated in other thread;

    Why indeed. Lots of smRiti texts teach "some nonsense." There is the padma purANa in which Lord Krishna decorates His body with ash and takes shaivite initiation (alluded to by omkar previously), linga purANa which teaches that brahmA and viShNu were fighting over who is supreme ------ The "why" of it can be attributed to human agency if you wish, -----
    Nonsense!!!

    Is it because Lord Krishna smear Ash on his body? Hope not because he smears much more than ash on his body in his bal lila.

    Brahman who is Umapati Lord Shiva (ok, I am happy to know him as Narayan only) actually smears ash on his body, is he so ridiculous?

    Is Vyasdev taken leave of his senses for writing such rubbish! Is Avadhut in our hindu tradition who smears ash on his body, so ridiculous ?

    Why is it the idea that Krishna actually worshiped lord shiva so repulsive ?
    Because it should not be, both Mahabharata and bhagvatam informs us that at various stages Krishna or his associate whom he ask actually to worship lord shiva.


    Human agency, possible!!
    I think of several incidence that what Purana describes, sounds so ridiculous, at least to me for several reasons,
    The passage that says, rather orders lord Shiva to lie and mislead the public by teaching Mayavad! Now I can't imagine lord Vishnu actually do such an act but even if we think it was for some higher purpose(cant imagine what) are they really that stupid! That they would broadcast their plan in advance for people to know.
    If such a passage were to be in the Purana why would Madhavacharya not quote it, would have saved him a lot of time and energy to negate Adwaita. this was discussed here
    http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...classification

    Bhagvat Purana great work of Bhakti for Hindu's and Vaishnava in particular have few passages that crack me up, In fact it use to infuriate me especially because in the days gone by Iskcon' s bhaktivedanta players use to have this play in glorification of Lord Shiva, on Maha Shivratri day, Vaishnava Yatha Sambhu( what a joke), yes that play, "Bhasmasura" Lord Shiva is shaking and trembling fleeing from this demon, who had a boon from lord Shiva. Is this the great lord who can destroy by his mere glance, one who is described in Vedas as sparkling God whom no one can defeat. Whose work?surely not Veda Vyas ji.

    But then I know nothing happens without a reason, what reason that I don't know.

    Jai Shree Krishna
    Last edited by Ganeshprasad; 15 February 2013 at 06:12 AM.
    Rig Veda list only 33 devas, they are all propitiated, worthy off our worship, all other names of gods are derivative from this 33 originals,
    Bhagvat Gita; Shree Krishna says Chapter 3.11 devan bhavayatanena te deva bhavayantu vah parasparam bhavayantah sreyah param avapsyatha Chapter 17.4 yajante sattvika devan yaksa-raksamsi rajasah pretan bhuta-ganams canye yajante tamasa janah
    The world disappears in him. He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    1117

    Re: Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

    I think the main objection of the poster in question is that Sri Krishna is shown taking Shaivite initiation and accepting Shiva's supremacy over him, something which you would find equally unpalatable. The passage is from the Mahabharata,Shiva and Vayu puranas by the way, not from padma purana. The padma purana contains a description of Sri Rama worshipping Shiva.
    Last edited by Omkara; 15 February 2013 at 08:31 PM.
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

  3. #3
    Join Date
    July 2012
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,912
    Rep Power
    2518

    Re: Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

    I respect both Shaiva and Vaishnava deities. But I agree with the poster whose quote you have referred - not because Krishna or Rama are shown to have taken Shaivite initiation - but because then arises the question, "What of Vishnu then?". It is similar to saying, for instance, "Ganesha was a devotee of Vishnu" -if some smriti which is not considered authoritative says this, then Shaivites do feel like saying, "this is not agreeable to me because it then goes to show as if our Shiva is not sufficient to be prayed to" -- it is a similar feeling for Vaishnavas too. (Well, atleast to me).
    jai hanuman gyan gun sagar jai kapis tihu lok ujagar

  4. #4
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    57
    Posts
    3,213
    Rep Power
    4713

    Re: Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

    Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

    I couldn't get who said this. However, imho, this must have come from people who swear by other smritis alone and not the Veda Samhitas and VedAnta.

    Some people would vouch for the supremacy of Padma PurAna and some for Srimad Bhagwat and conveniently discard what doesn't suit them. The Six VedAngas, the Gitas, the ItihAsAs and the PurANas are all clubbed as Smriti.

    People suspect that everything was not written/compiled by VedvyAs. That is why the seers have decided to have an order of hierarchy in authority in case of dispute for understanding the Smritis. The Smritis if understood in right perspective won't pose any problem. Those who try to show Lord Shiva as inferior God by quoting excerpt from Padma PurANa forget that Shiva Gita is part of Padma PurANa which extols Lord Shiva as the Supreme.

    I remember here the great Vaishnava Sri TulsidAs who was very much fond of RAm's form of God. However, when he wrote Rudrashtakam, he praised Lord Shiva as Supreme Brahman. When we read Veda SamhitAs we find that the SamhitAs praise almost every form of God, Agni, VAyu, Surya, Indra, Soma etc. as Supreme at one point or the other. It finally says, "Ekam Sad Vipra Bahudha vadanti".

    The real message is that you can choose any form and worship that form as the Supreme. God will come to the devotee in that chosen form. There is no harm in it. However, when someone wants to ridicule others with assertion, "I worship the real God and your God is actually a demi-God" .... then certainly he is fit for AbrAhimic religions and not for Hindu-Dharma.

    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  5. #5
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    1117

    Re: Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post

    However, when someone wants to ridicule others with assertion, "I worship the real God and your God is actually a demi-God" .... then certainly he is fit for AbrAhimic religions and not for Hindu-Dharma.
    I.e. Ramanuja, Madhva,Nimbarka,Vallabha,Caitanya,Srikantha,Meykandar,Gorakshanath,Abhinavagupta,Vedanta Desika,Vyasa Tirtha,Jaya Tirtha,Shripati Pandita,Nayanars,Azhwars etc. are all unfit to be called Hindu according to you? Oh well.....
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

  6. #6
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post
    The real message is that you can choose any form and worship that form as the Supreme. God will come to the devotee in that chosen form. There is no harm in it. However, when someone wants to ridicule others with assertion, "I worship the real God and your God is actually a demi-God" .... then certainly he is fit for AbrAhimic religions and not for Hindu-Dharma.
    If this is really so, if every deva is the Supreme, then why Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gītā 9.25:

    yānti deva-vratā devān

    "Worshipers of devas will go to the devas"

    yānti mad-yājino 'pi mām

    "but My devotees will come to Me"

    Here we clearly see that Lord Krishna differentiates between Himself and devas. If Lord Krishna thought that to go to the devas actually means to come to Him, He would not differentiate but would have said "Worshipers of devas will come to Me". But He doesn't say so! Neither He says "My worshipers will go to the devas".

    In Bhagavad-gītā 9.24 Lord Krishna says

    "I am the only enjoyer and master of all sacrifices. Therefore, those who do not recognize My true transcendental nature fall down."

    What about some particular deva. Would anybody fall down if he fails to recognize some particular deva such as Brahma, Indra or Agni?

    In Bhagavad-gītā 7.19 Lord Krishna says

    "After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare."

    Would anyone who is actually in knowledge surrender himself to some particular deva such as Brahma, Indra or Agni?

    In Bhagavad-gītā 7.14 Lord Krishna says

    "This divine energy of Mine, consisting of the three modes of material nature, is difficult to overcome. But those who have surrendered unto Me can easily cross beyond it."

    Would anybody who have surrendered unto Brahma, Indra or Agni be able to cross beyond it?

    In Bhagavad-gītā 7.18 Lord Krishna describes himself as

    mām evānuttamām gatim

    "the highest and most perfect goal"

    What about devas such as Brahma, Indra or Agni. Are they "the highest and most perfect goal"?

    I do not see how to attain deva such as Indra would be "the highest and most perfect goal" if we look at Bhagavad-gītā 9.20 - 21 where heavenly planet of Indra is described as "achieve only repeated birth and death".

    regards

  7. #7
    Join Date
    July 2012
    Age
    46
    Posts
    1,912
    Rep Power
    2518

    Re: Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

    Actually in this site, it is being repeatedly said that Rama and Krishna worshiped Shiva - actually, the deity Rama worshiped is Sri Ranganatha who was brought over to SriRangam, and the deity Krishna worshiped is another form of Vishnu known as 'Ramapriyan' (as he was also worshiped by Rama before) and is now currently in 'Melkote'. This clearly shows Rama and Krishna did not take Shaivite initiation.
    jai hanuman gyan gun sagar jai kapis tihu lok ujagar

  8. #8
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1353

    Re: Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

    Quote Originally Posted by Omkara View Post
    I.e. Ramanuja, Madhva,Nimbarka,Vallabha,Caitanya,Srikantha,Meykandar,Gorakshanath,Abhinavagupta,Vedanta Desika,Vyasa Tirtha,Jaya Tirtha,Shripati Pandita,Nayanars,Azhwars etc. are all unfit to be called Hindu according to you? Oh well.....
    Do you understand the difference between

    Dis-agreement, rejection, denial, defamation, hate speech.

    What is the foundation of these paths or as you say beliefs?

    Defamation / hate speech. Whats their intention? and whats yours?

    An Idea or philosophy or concept is not agreed / rejected / denied pm fair logical basis.

    re-read the statement

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post
    However, when someone wants to ridicule others with assertion, "I worship the real God and your God is actually a demi-God" .... then certainly he is fit for AbrAhimic religions and not for Hindu-Dharma.

    OM
    In an attempt to defame / criticize other members you are actually defaming

    Quote Originally Posted by Omkara View Post
    I.e. Ramanuja, Madhva,Nimbarka,Vallabha,Caitanya,Srikantha,Meykandar,Gorakshanath,Abhinavagupta,Vedanta Desika,Vyasa Tirtha,Jaya Tirtha,Shripati Pandita,Nayanars,Azhwars etc.
    so much so of your intelligence and your intentions and purity of mind.

    I am yet to see politeness and salutations (which find may find it so unecessary) to other members specially who are of your father's age.
    Just to make you aware namaste, pranama, etc, these are starting and ending salutation
    Only God Is Truth, Everything Else Is Illusion - Ramakrishna
    Total Surrender of Ego to SELF is Real Bhakti - Ramana Maharshi

    Silence is the study of the scruptures. Meditation is the continuous thinking of Brahman which is to be meditated upon. The complete negation of both by knowledge is the vision of truth – sadAcAra-14 of Adi SankarAcArya

    namah SivAya vishnurUpAya viShNave SivarUpiNe, MBh, vanaparva, 3.39.76

    Sanskrit Dict | MW Dict | Gita Super Site | Hindu Dharma

  9. #9
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    1117

    Re: Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

    Quote Originally Posted by Indiaspirituality View Post
    Do you understand the difference between

    Dis-agreement, rejection, denial, defamation, hate speech.

    What is the foundation of these paths or as you say beliefs?

    Defamation / hate speech. Whats their intention? and whats yours?

    An Idea or philosophy or concept is not agreed / rejected / denied pm fair logical basis.

    re-read the statement



    In an attempt to defame / criticize other members you are actually defaming



    so much so of your intelligence and your intentions and purity of mind.
    Do you understand english? If, as devotee says, mere assertion of a hierarchy among devas is ridicule/hate speech and makes one an abrahamic, all those eminent personalities I named are guilty of hate speech.
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

  10. #10
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    1117

    Re: Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

    Quote Originally Posted by Indiaspirituality View Post
    Do you understand the difference between

    Dis-agreement, rejection, denial, defamation, hate speech.
    Just out of curiousity, in what category would you classify Ramanuja's comments on Advaita-

    This entire theory rests on a fictitious foundation of altogether hollow and vicious arguments, incapable of being stated in definite logical alternatives, and devised by men who are destitute of those particular qualities which cause individuals to be chosen by the Supreme Person revealed in the Upanishads; whose intellects are darkened by the impression of beginningless evil; and who thus have no insight into the nature of words and sentences, into the real purport conveyed by them, and into the procedure of sound argumentation, with all its methods depending on perception and the other instruments of right knowledge. The theory therefore must needs be rejected by all those who, through texts, perception and the other means of knowledge--assisted by sound reasoning--have an insight into the true nature of things.

    Shankara has used similar language,as have all the other acharyas. Obviously this does not justify us using the same kind of language, but the point is, as you have self-admittedly not read anything by those acharyas, do not make baseless statements.
    Last edited by Omkara; 16 February 2013 at 08:57 AM.
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Law of Manu - Caste System
    By IcyCosmic in forum Scriptures
    Replies: 192
    Last Post: 25 September 2012, 07:48 AM
  2. Hi everyone! I have some questions.
    By Bethany in forum New to Sanatana Dharma
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 28 May 2012, 05:13 PM
  3. Vedanta Sutra - read this translation
    By Mohini Shakti Devi in forum Vedas & Brahmanas
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03 May 2010, 11:58 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01 August 2007, 03:39 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •