Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 92

Thread: Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

  1. #11
    Join Date
    January 2007
    Location
    duhkhalayam asasvatam
    Posts
    1,448
    Rep Power
    81

    Re: Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

    Pranam

    I hope we can all remain civil to each other and don't turn this in to some kind of personal vendetta.

    It also does not hurt, as has been a practice here on HDF to start and end with with some kind of greetings.

    Having said this I realise the nature of question, could lead to debating hierarchy of Devas, that is not my intention.

    My questions are related to Smriti text, we accept Vyasdev having authored them.

    Question was did Vyas not know the Vedas?

    If he had extol a certain deity in ithihas or Puranas why should it become nonsense?
    Are we not insulting the author here? Omkara how about this personality?

    Is it not a reasonable question to ask, why did the author not mention the calcification in each purana, as is alleged in Padma Purana ?

    Sure there are interpolation for that there is no doubt but the core remains intact, each deities that the text extol is neither exaggerated or made up so how can it be a nonsense?

    Jai Shree Krishna
    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. #12
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1354

    Re: Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganeshprasad View Post
    Pranam

    I hope we can all remain civil to each other and don't turn this in to some kind of personal vendetta.

    It also does not hurt, as has been a practice here on HDF to start and end with with some kind of greetings.

    Having said this I realise the nature of question, could lead to debating hierarchy of Devas, that is not my intention.

    My questions are related to Smriti text, we accept Vyasdev having authored them.

    Question was did Vyas not know the Vedas?

    If he had extol a certain deity in ithihas or Puranas why should it become nonsense?
    Are we not insulting the author here? Omkara how about this personality?

    Is it not a reasonable question to ask, why did the author not mention the calcification in each purana, as is alleged in Padma Purana ?

    Sure there are interpolation for that there is no doubt but the core remains intact, each deities that the text extol is neither exaggerated or made up so how can it be a nonsense?

    Jai Shree Krishna
    Namaste,

    Sorry for the trouble. My apologies, but things are blown out of proportion.

    I have not read all puranas and so I did not comment on this thread,but was keeping an eye as it was of interest to me.

    To your question, I would say that Gods (Ishwara) never fight like us.

    Ask the question WHY? Whats the purpose behind their saying or contradiction.

    Krushna takes initiation from Shiva and applies ash - what is the purpose.

    To prove superiority of Shiva adn make himself inferior. NO. The purpose, as I understand is to make us understand that Each rupa of ishwara is equally powerful and worthy of respect and worship. Krushna shows respect to Shiva and his farourite ash, but it is us who do not show respects to other devas (forms of Ishwara). Krushna, by applying ash acknowledges that the way of Shiva and so shiavites is equally divine like that of vaishnava way.

    But what do we do?

    I was talking to a staunch devotee of Krushna (Vaishnav) on phone over general matters. At the end, I simply said 'Hari Aum'. She simply said 'haa' and quickly disconnected. When we talked again, I said, 'Jai Shri Krushna' I got a reply 'Jai Shri Krushna'

    I always say, ask the purpose behind the actions. Ask, Why? what's the reason? It cannot be negative. Can you think that all they want is to quarrel each other?

    It definitely cannot be.

    It is our impure mind that wrongly interprets things. Mind reflects it's status. By thinking and talking about superiority / inferiority, in-equality, etc, we are reflecting our status of mind and it's purity.

    Saints like Veda Vyasa can never intent to destroy harmony.

    The purpose, as I understand, when any form of God is praised and declared as supreme is just to make the mind stable in one god and not to keep peeping into other paths and other Gods. Any one God is capable to take to to reach the supreme state and give his darshan (vision) and also makes us know who they are.

    A demi-god is praised:

    Everybody do not have moksha as the only goal. everybody do not have faith in god. We want to live and enjoy, take responsibility. If something is hindering our progress in social and professional life, we are upset. So we take refuge in demi-god. By doing bhakti, and observing fasts, rituals, etc, we can please a demi-god. We get what we want.

    Now, whats the purpose of all this. What do you gain from spiritual stand point.

    1. Faith. Faith is a quality and it can be turned towards God (ishwara)
    2. Onepointedness.
    3. Control over senses and mind - by observing strict rituals and fasts, etc
    4. Peace of mind. When you get what you wish, mind becomes peaceful. So a religious person can progress on spiritual path if he/she chooses to. When prarabhdha, dis-satisfied desires are satisfied, one feels peace and develops faith in the system.

    Later, one can divert all this qualities towards the worship of supreme God.

    Our mind is such that it gets influenced by things which it finds important. So when you here that this god is the best and than if you chant his name, your sorrows will be gone, mind will find a ray of hope. I think this is the intention. Not to defame any other God.

    As the mind becomes pure by meditation, it gets clarity and understands better. So an advanced meditator or a bhakta of Krushna can experience bliss and ananda if someone is devotionally (bhava) singing praise of Shiva.

    Respect all forms of God, but worship only once for salvation. Worshiping other forms are not required. All forms of Gods are equally potent and capable if giving what you want.

    I think the intention or purpose behind the so-called controversies has to be known. An important factor is mental purity.

    Entire shastra and it's upadesha is based on adhikaara bheda - I heard this in a discourse. This is seen in Gita and in prakarana granths too.

    e.g.

    Ashtavakra Gita is based on Ajata vada

    Ajat-vada rejects even Advaita of Shankara. Advaita says Maya is mithya, Ajata means a-janma. Nothing is born. It says that there si no such thing as maya. only Brahman. nothing else. No meditation, no sadhaka, no guru, etc. It talks about pure non-dual state.

    Ashtavakra Gita is not for impure / immature hearts:

    It is said in AG that if impure heart or mind reads it and wrongly interprets it, he will fall like anything and will leave everything (puja path, etc), but if a mature mind, pure mind reads it, he/she can quickly rise above maya and just be in Atma-shiti.

    Moksha - also a desire - a Mahabranti

    If bandhan is Branti, Moksha is Mahabranti says Ashtavakra Gita.

    I want Moksha - is also the desire. With the help of his desire, all other desires are renounced. Only desire - I want Moksha, remains. This produces agitation. So Ashtavakra Gita comes into picture and says, you think yo are meditating? you are still on duality, as you are still meditating on supreme brahman. Do you need to Meditate? You are Brahman !!. Drop this mahabrahti of Moksha. Even meditation is a mental kriya. Drop it. It breaks our presumptions. there is no doer, no bhakta, no guru, no God, no experience, just Brahman - You - consciousness, beyond maya, beyond the reach of mind - Just Brahman. nothing else.

    there is khandan, but the purpose is to rise above it, as all things are tools, meditation is tool, body is tool and not destination.

    Likewise, for some people, they simply cannot accept that God is without form. They find it hard to accept. Their consciousness is strongly tied to body.. So it is better to give them a form of God. Now if you give a form of God, you will need to add divine character and praise it. I do not say Krushna / Rama are just mythologies.

    Now, since you find it hard to accept formless god, but you want to progress in spirituality, what can be done. Another point is that generally, we live by mind and not intellect. Even an intelligent person smokes, can have issues co-members, wife, etc. Why does an intelligent person have issues? Cannot he understand? Why are there likes and dislikes? Mind. Mind makes us to do. An intelligent Grand parent will protect his grandson, no matter is grandson is right or wrong. I see this often. Mind is an important factor.

    Coming back,

    If a person finds hard to accept formless God or a person has read a lot of advaita shastras intellectually, but mind is not that pure so that he can apply them, what will be the condition? Hell - you cannot live what you say, accept and believe. Intellectually you can accept even ajata vada, but cannot you live in that state. No.

    So what can be done in this case? show another way. But there is already so much dumped into your little brain. Can you write on a slate which is already filled? So what you need to do? Erase it, right. Make it blank. Now since those concepts of advaita cannot be applied by you, how to remove them. Contradict them. Do ''khandan'

    Tell them, if your wife is dying in front of you, will you keep watching her as she is suffering her own doing, or god will protect or just be an observer. The answer is no. Do karma take responsibility, you will do whatever best you can in those circumstances. Now where is your tatva Jnana. etc, etc.

    You contract advaita and say this world is real, it is not illusion and give explanation.

    The purpose of contradiction is not to defame, but the ultimate purpose and intention is to make one progress in spirituality.

    One quesiton can have 2 different answers, but to person with differnet mindset.

    Q: How can you attain moksha by living in this world.
    A: right, do not have a second thought. Do not waste a single moment. Walk away from this mundane world. ... and Guru gives a list of 101 men who have realized brahman after renunciation.

    Q:Is it necessary to take sanyas to attain moksha? Should I take it?
    A: No, there is no need.... and Guru will give a list of 101 men who have attained moksha by staying in society.

    In the process, same Guru will contradict another way of life to each other. To one, he will talk about the temporary nature of world, etc and to other he will give e.g. of King Janak and say that by renouncing fruits of karma and being neutral, youy are already living like a sanyasin. It is attachment and your mental state and not a colour of cloth that matters.

    Summary and conclusion:

    The purpose of contradiction - to establish faith, confidence in path, remove thoughts and concepts that obstruct it. All these is ultimately done so that a disciple can progress. A Guru never makes disciple. Guru always makes another Guru.

    Again, I have not studied puranas or upanishads, so cannot quote them. This reply is a compilation of the discourses by a Swami ji who has studied shastras for 25 years, my Guru, limited but repeat study of shastras like Gita, vivekchudamani, Ramakrihsna's teachings, Sri Ramana Maharshi's teachings and insights in meditation. My reply flows from my heart refer blue line in my signature

    Our deeds and words, reflect our mental status and our purity.

    Does it now make sense

    Aum
    IS

    NOTE: I have not tried to make advaita superior than other path. It's just for explanation only. All paths are created by God. Disrespecting them means disrespecting Gods.
    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

  3. #13
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1354

    Re: Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

    condt..

    when Buddhism was in full swing and brahmins were just satisfied by mere parroting of shastras, Shankarcharya came, saved hinduism, our shastras, and re-established Vedanta and Advaita-Vedanta.

    When other acharyas came, there was a time when again brahmins or advaitains did not gave any imortance to bhava, bhakti and did not practiced advaita, but just by-hearting shastras.

    Ramajuna, madha, and other acharya, brought back the long lost and less appreciated ways of bhakti to reach the supreme. They say, better to practice then mere parroting. Have direct experience and let the experience flow through you.

    This was their purpose, not to just contradict and destroy the harmony.

    What you say to establish one faith or a way one has to do 'khandan' of another one

    Again, ask the purpose?

    For one-pointedness, and devotion to one path. It does not apply to all people, but to people of a particular mindset and prakruti, else there would have been just one path, one way, one god, one approach to worship and reach him.

    Purpose - Bhatki is NOT inferior. You WILL reach the supreme God through bhakti. Ultimate purpose of contradiction is make people progress on spiritual path according to the prakruti.

    Jnana does not suits everyone. Same with bhakti, karma and Yog. Thats why Gita covers them all. Else there could have been one God, one Religion, one path to reach supreme God.

    Saints and acharyas counter the popular belief / theory / philosophy / path at that time, so that people can stop parroting and start living a spiritual life and to cover and encourage people whom the current popular path does not suit their prakruti. Popular widespread belief does have influence, as a person is brought up in that environment (vAtAvaraNa).

    Saints do not feel happy by seeing us fighting. It is the need of the hour, necessary at that time.

    Sri Ramakrishna gave ashtavakra gita to Swami Vivekananda. Sri Ramakrishan was a bhakta of Maa Kali.

    Sri Ramana Maharshi instructed and even blseed one person who was practising Yog.

    Nisargaddata ji Maharaj, who practiced advaita, also told some devotees to go and sing bhajans. He said it positively so that they can progress in spirituality.

    Guru will never try to hinder a sincere devotee's progress and encourage him to go ahead in his path. But devotees make mess.

    But it's like snake has gone, now only marks of it's vakra gati are left.


    To me, different paths to Gods are paths and not just beliefs. Yes, I do not remain contended by just believing in them. I live them. I apply them in practical life. I meditate as they instruct. I walk on the path.

    --

    This is my personal opinion.

    Aum
    IS
    Last edited by Amrut; 16 February 2013 at 12:42 PM.
    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

  4. #14

    Re: Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

    Pranams,

    This thread, which started as a response to a comment I made on another thread (which was itself a response to another comment), is certainly a lot shorter than when I last left it.

    I hesitate to add any comments, as experience has taught me that those who profess the greatest "tolerance" are not uncommonly the ones who have the greatest objections to those opinions which fail to match their own. Case in point: the original poster argues against the idea that any passages in the smRiti are incorrect, and then goes on to ridicule those passages from the smRiti which he has a personal problem with:

    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!

    Bhagvat Purana great work of Bhakti for Hindu's and Vaishnava in particular have few passages that crack me up,
    As if this self-contradictory behavior were not strange enough, another poster chimes in support with the following:

    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.
    Now, there is more than adequate evidence from both shruti and smRiti that there is an hierarchy of devas (see here and here for a brief list of evidences), and more importantly, almost all of the traditional Hindu scholars acknowledge and accept that view. One response gave a long list of those scholars. Unfortunately, that message, which made a very valid and so far unanswered point, was deleted, while the original ugly remark above, which essentially insults all those great scholars who don't agree with it, remains.

    Let me again state the truth of the matter. In the Hinduism of the Vedas, Puranas, and Itihasas, deva-tAratamya (hierarchy) is an accepted fact, even to schools with very different God-concepts (like Vaishnavas and Shaivas). The idea that "all gods are the same God" is not based on our scriptures and is basically a modern idea which became popular in the last few centuries. Those who wish to believe that all "gods" are the same are welcome to do so. But those of us who insist on a standard of truth-telling are not going to sit idly by as this belief is advertised as the de facto standard for Hinduism. More to the point, when some posters insist on arguing that the hierarchical paradigm is equivalent to Abrahamic religions, e.g:

    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.
    ... then I am going to join in with the voices of protest which request him to own up to those nasty comments, and get him to acknowledge who he is disagreeing with: almost every Sanskrit scholar who has ever written a commentary on the vedAnta.

    Now, I don't mean to stir up bad feelings, but when you don't even know Sanskrit, does it strike you as perhaps difficult to swallow that you know something about these Sanskrit texts which all those great vidvAns did not? Let's be honest with ourselves. You didn't even know how to decline "brahman" in Sanskrit and plainly advertised your lack of understanding of basic Sanskrit grammar just a few weeks ago, yet you are labeling quite a few true Sanskrit scholars with a very broad stroke.

    Those who speak the truth need not be afraid of discussion. I've calmly allowed you to insult me and even insult traditions you thought I represented. Yet here I am, ready to have a discussion about the facts. You should consider what it is you want out of a forum like this. Do you want free discussion of ideas, or an ideologically-slanted forum where all detractors are labeled as offensive and summarily dismissed?
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  5. #15

    Re: Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

    Namaste,

    I would just like to add one thing. Though I've been insulted several times by members of these forums, and even seen the same members utter insulting remarks about great acharyas whom I respect, I have never asked the moderators to censor anything to protect my sensibilities, and I never will.

    I repeat my request that anyone who wishes to hurl insults at me in the course of a discussion be allowed to do so. When people look back on these digital discussions immortalized in the newsgroup archives, I want them to see who is being a gentleman arguing based on evidence and logic, and who is arguing based on sectarian prejudice.

    regards,
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  6. #16
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    tadvishno paramam padam
    Age
    33
    Posts
    2,168
    Rep Power
    2536

    Re: Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

    Whenever posts get deleted I feel like I am too late to the party.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    57
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4717

    Re: Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

    Namaste Brahmajijnasa,

    As I said, if the Smritis are understood "correctly", there won't be any conflict. However, when there is a biased understanding, we find conflicting views expressed in various places in Shruti and between Shruti and Smriti.

    My understanding is based on reading Veda-samhitAs and VedAnta and also Bhagwad Gita. I had started a thread which has been contaminated by some members' biased views and distorted meanings but please read what is written in Veda-smahitAs and VedAnta at various places which has been quoted in that thread and form your own opinion. http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=9647

    I don't disagree that Bhagwad Gita does say, "Krishna is supreme" but such statements can be quoted for Rudra/Shiva too from one or the other ShAstra which is not purely Vaishnava (ref : Sharabhopanishad, Rudrahrdayopanishad etc.). MahAnArAyaNa Upanishad extols both Shiva and NArAyANa "XXIV-1: All this verily is Rudra. To Rudra who is such we offer our salutation. We salute again and again that Being, Rudra, who alone is the light and the Soul of creatures. The material universe the created beings and whatever there is manifoldly and profusely created in the past and in the present in the form of the world, all that is indeed this Rudra. Salutations be to Rudra who is such" as the Supreme. AtaharvashirA Upanishad says :

    "Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra and Indra are creating all beings, all organs and all karanas. They are also capable of controlling them. But Lord Shiva exists in between them like sky and is permanently stable. 2.2"


    Similarly, if we see Veda SmhitAs, it extols many devAs as the supreme at one or the other places : See Rig Veda's richas for Agni :

    2.1.1-6 .... You are born from water. You grant the boons (to Hota) for the Yagna. You are Adhvaryu and BrahmA. You alone are Vishnu, the God worth praising through Stutis, Lord and you guide the intellect of people. You are Varuna, the strict observer of rules. You are Aryama and you are Surya. You are the terrible doer, the Rudra and power of MarudgaNa. You alone are PushA who guard the people from all sides.

    for Indra it says :

    10.128.7 I adore Indra who is the Creator of the creator of this creation, who is the Lord of the worlds and and who proptect us.

    For Soma it says :

    9.86.28-29 O Lord of the world, all Jeevas are born by your tejas. You support the world and the directions. ... You are the knower of the world.

    etc.

    ********

    Now, is Bhagwad Gita wrong when it says that Anya-devatA are inferior to Lord Krishna ? No, if the meaning is taken correctly. If you read the verse it says that these anya-devatAs are worshiped by people for worldly gains and they get that as decreed by God/Lord Krishna by that worship. Now, here the catch is the motive behind worshiping a form and not the form or the name itself. If the form and name was so important, the Lord would have not appeared as MahAkAl with his most fearsome form to Arjuna in MahAbhArata war. Now, if we see that form of God ... and also his form with four arms, chakra, gadA etc. in hands ... which should be accepted as the true one and which the false or both as True ? Certainly all forms must be accepted as True.

    One God Itself takes various names and forms depending upon his devotee's faith, motive and for the purpose and larger interests of this universe. God is beyond form and also formlessness ... "MaYA tatam idam sarvam jagat avyakta murtinA" and "I am in the heart of all beings" ... is impossible if God has a certain form only. The same God is BrahmA, Vishnu and also Shiva, Agni, VAyu etc. Why ? Because He is sarvagatah, sthAnuh, achala and SanAtana ... He is Infinite and if there is one Infinite then there can't be anything else. When he is worshipped as Krishna's supreme form and name, his other forms like Surya, Agni, VAyu, Shiva become inferior .... however when the same God is worshipped as Shiva as the supreme, then Shiva's form/name becomes supreme and his other forms become inferior.

    **************

    That said, is Krishna not supreme ? Yes, undoubtedly. However, if someone worships Shiva as the supreme, then the same God who is Krishna would come to him in the form of Shiva as the supreme. This has to be understood correctly. If I am a Vaishnava, then Vishnu/Krishna/NArAyaNa will act as supreme for me and Shiva and other forms of Gods will act inferior to Vishnu but if I am a Shaiva the reverse will be true i.e. Shiva will act as supreme and other forms would become inferior. That is why the Upanishads say, "He (God) became what He was worshipped as".

    ***************

    BTW, I have no stakes here. You are free to accept whatever suits you.

    OM
    Last edited by devotee; 16 February 2013 at 09:43 PM.
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  8. #18
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    57
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4717

    Re: Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

    Namaste,

    Some members have expressed hurt feelings in this thread and also have said what they should not have said. My humble submission to them :

    a) I sincerely am sorry if my any word or writing on this forum has hurt anyone's feelings. This is with no strings attached. I come here for sharing my views with knowledgeable members and not for mindless fights.

    b) If someone feels that he has been insulted ... he should see his own language that he uses while posting. How ridiculing languages, unfair barbs, satire has been used without provocation ... must be seen by himself and see if that act was fair.

    c) One member has undue ahamkaar over his knowledge of Sanskrit. May I request him not to read foreigner's translations of VedAs and VedAntas if he is really that knowledgeable ? However, if that knowledge is faked and is only due to Google search and paste ... then ... he should himself decide what he should do. I don't find his claim true when I see his posts which are copied from some internet translations and pasting and also so much distortions in his understanding belies his claims. We don't know what a person really is ... but his posts certainly give some indications.

    ******

    BTW, I don't understand why is it important that everyone must discuss everything with everyone even if some member doesn't want to discuss things with a particular member ? If someone is unfairly hostile in language and in posting to someone else then both should stop responding to each other. Why it is so important for some people to gather brownies on this forum against fellow members is beyond my understanding. Do they have anything lacking in their real life that they seek satisfaction in playing games, "I know better than you", "I must win in arguments by hook or by crook" etc. on a virtual forum like this ? This is nothing but sickness and unripe mentality of a teenager.

    OM
    Last edited by devotee; 16 February 2013 at 09:46 PM.
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  9. #19

    Re: Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

    Of course, that is the typical excuse these days. "If I insulted someone, it's only because I imagined that they insulted me first. In this way, I am never at fault."

    In any case, Devotee is merely rehashing arguments that were already refuted in previous threads. The shrutis clearly describe the one brahman nArAyaNa who is known by many names, including indra, agni, rudra, vAyu, varuNa, and so on. The same shrutis also acknowledge the existence of other entities known as indra, agni, vAyu, varuNa, etc who are subordinate, created entities - not the same as brahman. I gave explicit pramANas showing this already, in links referenced in my previous message.

    Deva-tAratamya is a fact of Hinduism. Here is a partial list of Hindu scholars who accepted this concept:

    viShNusvAmI / shrIdhar svAmI
    nimbArka
    Adi shankarAchArya (at least at the vyavahArika level of perception)
    rAmAnujAchArya
    madhvAchArya
    madhusUdhana saraswatI
    chaitanya
    vallabhAchArya
    tulasi dAsa
    baladeva vidyAbhUshana
    and so on, and so on....

    This is just a small list of learned Hindu commentators whom Devotee regards as being "Abrahamic" because they accept the Vedic conclusion of one Brahman ruling over many devas, instead of the incorrectly fashionable "all gods are the same God" idea promoted by modern, Neo-Hindu thinkers. Now, everyone has a right to his opinion, obviously. But when one objectively weighs the qualifications of those holding each of these opinions, it's hard to come to anything other than this simple, obvious conclusion: It is absurd for scholars like these who lived and breathed the scriptures they taught to be criticized as "Abrahamic" by someone whose sole knowledge of those scriptures comes from translators preselected by him based on a shared set of biases.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  10. #20

    Re: Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

    I will again suggest that everyone consult Kena Upanishad 2nd and 3rd chapters (one translation available at http://www.celextel.org/upanishads/sama_veda/kena.html) which clearly describes how indra, agni, and vAyu were made to understand that brahman was the cause of their victory, and their own excellence was only due to their proximity to brahman. Any objective person can acknowledge that the shruti is clearly describing entities who are different from and subordinate to brahman. That they have the same names as brahman (i.e. indra, agni, and so on) does not change this basic fact. As always, those who doubt the translation are welcome to check the Sanskrit themselves. The Sanskrit Documents website has the mUla available for public review.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

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, 08:48 AM
  2. Hi everyone! I have some questions.
    By Bethany in forum New to Sanatana Dharma
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 28 May 2012, 06:13 PM
  3. Vedanta Sutra - read this translation
    By Mohini Shakti Devi in forum Vedas & Brahmanas
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03 May 2010, 12:58 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01 August 2007, 04:39 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
  •