Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

So, back on the original subject: Is Kena Upanishad Abrahamic? After all, the Kena satisfies Devotee's criteria of drawing distinctions between gods, and naming one as superior to the others. So: Abrahamic or not?

Original subject?
Wow

Jai Shree Krishna

[philosoraptor]

That's right. There were two original subjects. The first original subject was Ganesh Prasad's view that the Puranas contain no incorrect material, with the caveat that they do contain incorrect material when he deems them as such. The second subject raised by devotee is that those who draw distinctions between deities, making one superior to the others, are supposedly "Abrahamic."

Hence, my question regarding Kena Upanishad in the context of the second subject. Is Kena Upanishad "Abrahamic?" Why or why not?

[charitra]

'Arupavadev hi thath pradhanathvaath' (Brahmasutra Bhashya III.ii.13)

Brahman is only formless to be sure, for that is the dominant note (of Upanishadic teaching)

It is common knowledge that Puranas are not rated as high as the vedopanishads, Gita and BrSutraas.

.....that the texts like the following have for their main purport the transcendantal Brahman which is the Self, and not minute, neither short nor long (Br.III.viii,8), " soundless,touchless,colorless,undiminishing" (Ka.I.iii.15), That which is known as Spaceis the accomplisher of name and form:That which they are included is Brahman" (Ch, VIII.xiv,1), "Purusa is transcendental, since He is formless; He is coextensive with all that is external and internal, since He is birthless (Mu. II. i.2), "The Brahman is without prior or posterior, without exterior and interior. The Self, the perceiver of everything is Brahman "(Br.II.v.19), and so on.........But the other texts speaking of Brahman with form, have the injunction about meditation as their main objectives. So long as they do not lead to any contradiction their apparaent meaning should be accepted. But when they involve a contradiction, the principle to be followed for deciding one or the other is that, those that have the formless Brahman as their main purport are authoritative than the others which have not that as their main purport. (excerpt from Brahmasutra Bhasya of Shankaracharya , translated by Ghambirananda).

In post #15 Narayana was used interchangeably with the Brahman, and scriptures were cited for authenticity , I fully agree with this kind of usage of Brahman connotation for both Narayana or shiva. For that is the Sat really. Narayana has a synonym which is Brahman and similarly Shiva also has a synonym which is Brahman again. These sampradayak should be left alone to continue with their sadhana invoking the two figure heads as the sole authorities (supreme godheads) of their paths. One Brhman can be inferior or superior to other Brahman depending on the meditational requirement of the individual sadhaka. In their Bhakti Paravashya (devotional ecstacy) pouranic writers have gone all the way to praise the glory of Lord with the form and denounced the worth of other forms. It is in this extreme realm of Bhakti that shiva or vishnu are pitted against eachother. There is nothing wrong with this, the Advaita doesnt see which formed Brahman is superior or inferior if the form is used for Bhakti (meditational) purpose, at least that is the position of B.S.from my reading.

One has to go back to much more basic question before one decides on the sampradaya one prefers to profess. Is it Advaita or dvaita they are following ( or if it is VA then vishista avdvaita may be called the middle ground IMO). Very strict dvaitists are unwittingly lumping themselves with the abrahamic faiths, as thats what the Abrahamics do: God on oneside and the rest on the other (along with satan on the other end of the world of their god's non-creation, which of course hindus dont agree with) side of the cosmic aisle. Thus the 'abrahamic 'parallel has a two fold meaning: One is the dvaitist posturing, and the second being 'my way or highway' dictum. Again this is WRT to uncompromising dvaitins only. Namaste.

[Amrut]

Namaste,

Not taking side of devotee ji, but as I understand it means

With the intention of making mockery, when someone says my God (ishwara) and yours is demi-god (deva) ...

I agree that there is a definite hierarchy among demi-gods and other higher spiritual beings like we have 7 lokas and 14 bhuvanas, some below and some above ground.

Even I am interested to know if the puranas are considered as accurate and authentic and upanishads and Gita.

Perhaps knowledgeable members can throw some light one it.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

That's right. There were two original subjects.

Wow again, I better agree to this or else I might get accused of insulting Phil!

The first original subject was Ganesh Prasad's view that the Puranas contain no incorrect material, with the caveat that they do contain incorrect material when he deems them as such.

Stop playing immature games, at least I don't call them nonsense.
Let me remind you a question that remains unanswered, does VedVyas ji know Sruti or not?

The second subject?

Not mine, please open a new thread.

Jai Shree Krishna

[philosoraptor]

'Arupavadev hi thath pradhanathvaath' (Brahmasutra Bhashya III.ii.13)

Brahman is only formless to be sure, for that is the dominant note (of Upanishadic teaching)

Pranams,

Here is a translation of the same according to rAmAnuja's system:

The small (ether) (is Brahman), on account of the subsequent (arguments).

It is common knowledge that Puranas are not rated as high as the vedopanishads, Gita and BrSutraas.

Precisely. They are authoritative only to the extent that they do not contradict shruti. This was never controversial among informed persons.

.....that the texts like the following have for their main purport the transcendantal Brahman which is the Self, and not minute, neither short nor long (Br.III.viii,8), " soundless,touchless,colorless,undiminishing" (Ka.I.iii.15), That which is known as Spaceis the accomplisher of name and form:That which they are included is Brahman" (Ch, VIII.xiv,1), "Purusa is transcendental, since He is formless; He is coextensive with all that is external and internal, since He is birthless (Mu. II. i.2), "The Brahman is without prior or posterior, without exterior and interior. The Self, the perceiver of everything is Brahman "(Br.II.v.19), and so on.........But the other texts speaking of Brahman with form, have the injunction about meditation as their main objectives. So long as they do not lead to any contradiction their apparaent meaning should be accepted. But when they involve a contradiction, the principle to be followed for deciding one or the other is that, those that have the formless Brahman as their main purport are authoritative than the others which have not that as their main purport. (excerpt from Brahmasutra Bhasya of Shankaracharya , translated by Ghambiranand

Note in the above how Sankaraachaarya arbitrarily designates formless shrutis as being "more authoritative" than shrutis describing the Lord as having form. Whereas, a more consistent, integrative approach, is to accept all of the shruti in toto as equally authoritative, since the shrutis give us no reason to think otherwise.

In post #15 Narayana was used interchangeably with the Brahman, and scriptures were cited for authenticity , I fully agree with this kind of usage of Brahman connotation for both Narayana or shiva. For that is the Sat really. Narayana has a synonym which is Brahman and similarly Shiva also has a synonym which is Brahman again.

nArAyaNa, according to the rules of Sanskrit grammar formulated by pANinI, is a proper noun, and can thus only refer to one entity, namely the Lord of Lakshmi. In the yajur veda, nArAyaNa is equated to the puruSha of countless limbs and this entity is stated to be the consort of lakShMI. This entity is also various referred to as indra, agni, rudra, among other names. The principle is that when an entity is being referred to by a name associated with an entity other than brahman, and yet is described with characteristics exclusive to brahman, then it is to be understood that brahman aka nArAyaNa is the being referred to. Names like "rudra," "shiva," "indra," "agni," and so on are not proper nouns and can refer to more than one entity depending on context. For example, "indra" simply means "Lord" in a very generic sense and can apply to brahman just as much as it can apply to the king of the devas. However, "nArAyaNa" can only refer to the Lord of Lakshmi, for reasons mentioned above. That there are other devas by names like "indra" and so on who are not brahman was amply demonstrated in previous postings.

These sampradayak should be left alone to continue with their sadhana invoking the two figure heads as the sole authorities (supreme godheads) of their paths. One Brman can be inferior or superior to other Brahman depending on the meditational requirement of the individual sadhaka.

This is not a feature of devotional vedAnta. There is nothing like "one brahman superior to the other." Brahman is one without a second, period. He is formless in the sense that He does not have form made up of matter - rUpa is said to be the characteristic of the pancha-bhUtas. Yet, He is clearly described as having a divine form with countless limbs, eyes, heads, etc. Both descriptions apply to the same entity with countless divine attributes.

In their Bhakti Paravashya (devotional ecstacy) pouranic writers have gone all the way to praise the glory of Lord with the form and denounced the worth of other forms. It is in this extreme realm of Bhakti that shiva or vishnu are pitted against eachother. There is nothing wrong with this, the Advaita doesnt see which formed Brahman is superior or inferior if the form is used for Bhakti (meditational) purpose, at least that is the position of B.S.from my reading.

There is no need for any bhAgavata to "pit one deity against another." The purANas contain the histories of ancient dynasties, gods, the Lord and His descents, creation and secondary creation. They are mentioned in chAndogya upaniShad as one of the branches of veda studied by nArada muni. But they are not shruti, and their meaning has been corrupted over time from the interpolation of sectarian interests. This is why their authority is dependent on upholding shruti.

One has to go back to much more basic question before one decides on the sampradaya one prefers to profess. Is it Advaita or dvaita they are following ( or if it is VA then vishista avdvaita may be called the middle ground IMO). Very strict dvaitists are unwittingly lumping themselves with the abrahamic faiths, as thats what the Abrahamics do: God on oneside and the rest on the other (along with satan on the other end of the world of their god's non-creation, which of course hindus dont agree with) side of the cosmic aisle. Thus the 'abrahamic 'parallel has a two fold meaning: One is the dvaitist posturing, and the second being 'my way or highway' dictum. Again this is WRT to uncompromising dvaitins only. Namaste.

I cannot make any sense of the above. There is no dvaitist here or anywhere who is "lumping themselves with the abrahamic faiths." This is nothing more than a baseless accusation repeated by Neo-Vedantic Hindus who have inherited a very Christian prejudice against polytheism. Because they are ashamed of polytheism, they then try to interpret all scriptural references to a plurality of gods as being all one God, and usually they cite some watered down version of Advaita to support this view.

Again, I will continue to cite the Kena Upanishad until one of the Neos can offer a convincing explanation to explain away the fact that it clearly differentiates between brahman and other devas. Both brahman (God) and devas ("gods" "demigods" or whatever) exist and are part of Vedic cosmology and theology.

[philosoraptor]

Again, I will continue to cite the Kena Upanishad until one of the Neos can offer a convincing explanation to explain away the fact that it clearly differentiates between brahman and other devas. Both brahman (God) and devas ("gods" "demigods" or whatever) exist and are part of Vedic cosmology and theology.

Actually, I can quote bRihadAraNyaka upaniShad, aitareya upaniShad, chAndogya upaniShad, and a wide variety of texts on this issue. However, I am trying to keep this focused, since the tendency of ideologues is to be evasive. Few people know most or even all of the shruti. But, if one has a consistent set of principles by which to approach the shruti, one should be able to employ them with any specific shruti in question. Hence, the kenopaniShad, which differentiates devas from brahman. What explanation, sufficiently convincing to an objective outsider, can be offered to explain this from the perspective of "all gods are the one brahman and anyone who disagrees is an Abrahamic?"

[shiv.somashekhar]

Again, I will continue to cite the Kena Upanishad until one of the Neos can offer a convincing explanation to explain away the fact that it clearly differentiates between brahman and other devas. Both brahman (God) and devas ("gods" "demigods" or whatever) exist and are part of Vedic cosmology and theology.

Not just neos, traditional advaitins (including Shankra himself) would obviously not differentiate between a deva and Brahman. Ergo, their interpretation of the Kena would be different from yours - just like you posted a Ramanuja interpretation earlier.

So, I am a little unclear on your question. Are you saying, no one on this forum has access to Shankara's Kena Upanishad Bhashya or are you saying Shankara was wrong? I donated my copy a long time ago or else I could have posted it.

[charitra]

Pranams,

I cannot make any sense of the above. There is no dvaitist here or anywhere who is "lumping themselves with the abrahamic faiths." This is nothing more than a baseless accusation repeated by Neo-Vedantic Hindus who have inherited a very Christian prejudice against polytheism. Because they are ashamed of polytheism, they then try to interpret all scriptural references to a plurality of gods as being all one God, and usually they cite some watered down version of Advaita to support this view.

.

polytheism is not the issue, it isthe comparativeanalysis and allocating a n ascending.descending order of importancethat has potential disharmony written all over it.

Speech which causes no excitement and is truthful, pleasnt and beneficial (satyam, priyam, hitam), and the practice of the study of vedas, these constitute "austrity of speech" (Gita XVII.15)

You have rightly cited Upanishads profusely, but i see Brahman written all over them, although saguna Brahman was very much mentioned, nirguna was more glorified in so far as i see it. As my quote from BrahmaSutras above, if one focuses on ones own daivarupa and be able to reach deeper planes of meditation, then it is the highly desirable practice, polytheism is fine. Whereas resorting to comparative analysis to bring down other rupas yields no rewarding outcome. Shiva, Vishnu, durga or Brahman are the names we gave them for our sadhana purposes. Thanks to puranas, we have to deal with the diiscrepancies and the inconsistencies inherent in this system ourselves, what counts in karma siddanta, as you all very well know, is the degree of dharma ingrained in our words and deeds. My analogy with abrahamic faith is mainly from the intolerence angle really (of other sampradayas) not against the dvaita itself . Namaste.

[devotee]

Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

Taking a few verses in isolation of a particular scripture without seeing the complete picture is sure to lead to erroneous interpretation of scriptures. We have to take all scriptures considered as Shruti and see the complete picture.

Indra, Agni, VAyu etc. have been extolled as the Supreme in the Vedas. However, they have also been described as devas for performing a particular job by the Brahman. Now, if they themselves are Supreme then they can't be subordinated and put to different jobs by anyone. A very pertinent example is Vishnu. Vishnu has been seen as the supreme at many places in the Vedas and the Upanishads. However, the same Vishnu has been described as the son of Aditi who is just like any other deva. Now, the Vishnu, if he is unborn, how can be a son of Aditi ? Vritra was conquered by Vishnu and Indra together. If Vishnu is really all powerful, why was there any necessity to take the help of Indra.

How do we solve this puzzle ?

We have forgotten that in the Vedas, the Devas are supposed to be assigned to a particular task and also shown as the supreme in different places. This is because, the same Brahman projects these deities and these deities are Brahman alone. If we remember PraSna Upanishad : PrANa is created by PrajApati with his tapasyA. However, just a few verses after, PrANa has been described as the PrajApati Himself. We all know how dear is held, "Gayatri" mantra by the Hindus. This Gayatri which has been accepted as a mantra dedicated to Brahman is actually devoted to SavitA i.e. Sun God and not NArAyaNa.

The key is the bhaava of the seeker. He has freedom to see Shiva as a deity assigned a certain task of annihilation and he also has liberty to see Shiva as the Supreme. You have liberty to see Agni as a deity assigned with the task of taking sacrifices to God and also have liberty ti worship it as the Supreme. Similarly is the case of Indra and other God/Goddess-forms. It is like position of an electron in the electron-cloud which is affected by the presence of observer.

Now, the question of hierarchy among the deities. When you don't consider a particular form and name as the Supreme but the deva then there are different devas assigned with various tasks and then there will be hierarchy ! This has to be understood very clearly and carefully. If one reads Veda samhitA then it becomes very very clear how the same deity can be seen as just a deva and also as the Supreme Brahman. It is also reflected in 108 Upanishads.

*********

I must clarify here why I said in one place that those who try to prove the superiority of one God-form above another are better fit for Abrahimic religions.

a) First of all, it was not directed at anyone on this forum. This statement was made due to these reasons :

AbrAhmic religions are very much bogged down with this question : Who is the True God /False God ? There have been strict actions recommended in their scriptures for people who worship "false" god(s).

Somehow, the Hindus in general accept that it is the same Brahman who is worshipped in various forms and names : Ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti.

b) I have no issues if someone says, "NArAyana" is supreme ... it is ok as Shstras say so. But when you start saying that "Lord Shiva is a demi-god and not supreme" you are violating many Shruti texts. Shastras also say that "Shiva is Supreme".

Now, it may be difficult for an average person to accept so many supreme Gods ! So, if you are a Vaishnava, Vishnu is Supreme ... if you are a Shaiva, Shiva is supreme ... if you are a devotee of KAli, Goddess KAli is supreme ... if you worship Indra as the Supreme ... Indra is supreme.

There is famous couplets from Harivansa Roy Bacchan, father of great actor AmitAbh Bacchan :

"MadirAlaya jaane ko ghar se chaltaa hai peene waalaa, kis path se jaaon asmanjas main hai wo bholabhala, alag alag path batlate sab par main yah batlata hun, raah pakad too ek chalal paa jaayega madhusaalaa".

Literal meaning :

The habituated drinker sets out from home for going to the bar. He, a simpleton, is in a dilemma which path to choose to reach there (bar). Many people are advising him many different paths but I tell him just one thing : Pick up one path and keep going on that path ... you will reach the bar.

Real meaning :

For understanding the real meaning :

Replace "bar" with the highest spiritual goal/God. Habituated drinker is spiritual seeker who is lost in dilemma which path to choose from many paths in the front.

*******

There is no fight. Why to be so much angry/hurt/stubborn/combative over this issue ? Please choose any path that suits you .... but please don't ridicule others who choose paths different from you. That is the greatness of Hindu Dharma ... let's accept this as Hindus.

If anyone has any issue with it, I recommend that he should try to understand IsAvAsya Upanishad's invocation verse :

"Om pUrNamadah pUrNamidaM pUrNAt pUrNamudacyate
PUrNasya pUrNamAdAya pUrNamEvAvashiSyate"

You may read this : http://www.arshavidyacenter.org/verse/purna.pdf

OM