Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

[devotee]

Namaste all,

When you can twist the facts and stand firm on irrational arguments .... you are sure to win any argument.

Just for the sake of people who may have doubts due to so much irrational posts around :

Those who have not read Veda-samhitA and 108 Upanishads should not accept what is being offered by self declared experts here. PLease read from beginning to end and you will have no doubts that what I have stated above is all correct. There also you can see that how proper nouns have been cleverly declared as common nouns here. PANiNi or no PANiNi ... if someone is addressed with a name personally, that name has to be proper noun. Such arguments can be given by only those who have not thoroughly read samhitAs and the Upanishads .... why go for theory when practical proof is there ? One of my friends' name is Indra ... should I say that this Indra is a common noun just because of some unknown rule existing somewhere ? In fact, by the nature of name, NArAyaNa appears to be a common noun due to its meaning which it draws from combination of other words (NArA + Ayana) ... so this name can be used for anyone possessing that attribute related with the words' meaning and that is common noun whereas Agni/VAyu/Indra are not drawing their meaning from other words but these words are used to give special meanings with their characteristics to other words. It is like use of word, "Einstein" which is a proper noun for a particular scientist ... but a very intelligent and expert in math can also be called an "Einstein". So, what is being offered is nothing but all kutarka.

Anyway, my final words are ... those who want to know the Truth, should neither believe me nor any other poster on this forum. They should read the samhitAs themselves ... they should read the Upanishads themselves and that will give them the clarity.

Now I will not post in this thread and someone will go with this satisfaction that he has won ! How does it matter ? Truth cannot be changed by arguments.

OM

[Sahasranama]

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.

I don't agree with the Vaishnava position, the shastras clearly give higher positions to deities like Shiva and Kali than Vaishnavas want to admit. But there is a very clear distinction between the Smartha point of view that the main deities of Sanatana Dharma, nota bene not all deities, are manifestations of the same brahman and the neo-Vedanta point of view that maintains that a deity reigns supreme by mere wishful thinking of a devotee. Indra cannot be considered supreme. Indra only temporarily holds a position as the ruler of svarga which he earned with his good deeds. He can fall or rise from this position. Wishful thinking can be extended ad absurdum to say that if a devotee worships a goat as supreme brahman, then the goat is supreme. This reasoning lays the foundation of Universalism and it's no wonder that neo-Vedantins start equating Gods from other religions with Brahman.

To go back to the original subject, Vaishnavas tend to raise eyebrows when there are instances like Krishna taking Shaiva initiation or Rama worshipping Shiva or Aditya and Internet-Advaitins and Shaivites tend to get offended by stories like Vishnu helping Shiva when he was being chased by Bhasmasura. I don't think any of these stories are dubious and I consider them to be part of the divine lila. It was quite inconsistent to raise of objections about such incidences in the Bhagavata while defending similar occurrences elsewhere in smriti. I agree that Tulasi Dasa has unbiasedly represented the greatness of Shiva according to Shastra without any sampradayik dogma.

[shiv.somashekhar]

I don't agree with the Vaishnava position, the shastras clearly give higher positions to deities like Shiva and Kali than Vaishnavas want to admit. But there is a very clear distinction between the Smartha point of view that the main deities of Sanatana Dharma, nota bene not all deities, are manifestations of the same brahman and the neo-Vedanta point of view that maintains that a deity reigns supreme by mere wishful thinking of a devotee. Indra cannot be considered supreme.

That is interesting.

Not that I am disagreeing or anything, but what according to you is the criteria to differentiate between Supreme and non-supreme deities? How do you classify Ganesha, Sringeri Sharada, Tirupathi Venkatesh, Ambaal, etc.? We have quite a few people who are staunch devotees of these Gods and I am curious to know what would differentiate them from devotees of Shiva, Rama, etc.

[Sahasranama]

[/font][/color]

That is interesting.

Not that I am disagreeing or anything, but what according to you is the criteria to differentiate between Supreme and non-supreme deities? How do you classify Ganesha, Sringeri Sharada, Tirupathi Venkatesh, Ambaal, etc.? We have quite a few people who are staunch devotees of these Gods and I am curious to know what would differentiate them from devotees of Shiva, Rama, etc.

Ganesha is pratyaksha brahman. Sharada is a particular aspect of Shakti. Shakti is as much supreme as Shaktiman, as per Sri Sukta, ishvari sarvabhutanam. Venkatesh is how Vishnu is worshipped in the South. The criteria is that some deities are partial or full manifestations or aspects of Brahman and others are jivatmas that have temporarily obtained the position of devata through their good deeds. In a previous life you or me could have been Indra or Brahma, but not Vishnu, Shiva or Durga. In the smartha sampradaya (the word smartha originally comes from the word smriti, but was in later time associated with Shankaracharya's sect) five or six deities including their permutations are considered manifestations of the supreme. This idea is not exclusive to advaita vedanta and is a bigger theme in the Itihasas and Puranas, hence a Vaishnava like Tulasi Dasa also held this position. Fights between sampradayas are much stronger in people who adhere very strongly to one particular Agamic or Tantrik school, while the Itihasa and Puranas stress the equality of Vishnu and Shiva and also between Ishvara and Ishvari.

[philosoraptor]

When you can twist the facts and stand firm on irrational arguments .... you are sure to win any argument.

Just for the sake of people who may have doubts due to so much irrational posts around :

Those who have not read Veda-samhitA and 108 Upanishads should not accept what is being offered by self declared experts here. PLease read from beginning to end and you will have no doubts that what I have stated above is all correct. There also you can see that how proper nouns have been cleverly declared as common nouns here. PANiNi or no PANiNi ... if someone is addressed with a name personally, that name has to be proper noun. Such arguments can be given by only those who have not thoroughly read samhitAs and the Upanishads .... why go for theory when practical proof is there ? One of my friends' name is Indra ... should I say that this Indra is a common noun just because of some unknown rule existing somewhere ? In fact, by the nature of name, NArAyaNa appears to be a common noun due to its meaning which it draws from combination of other words (NArA + Ayana) ... so this name can be used for anyone possessing that attribute related with the words' meaning and that is common noun whereas Agni/VAyu/Indra are not drawing their meaning from other words but these words are used to give special meanings with their characteristics to other words. It is like use of word, "Einstein" which is a proper noun for a particular scientist ... but a very intelligent and expert in math can also be called an "Einstein". So, what is being offered is nothing but all kutarka.

Anyway, my final words are ... those who want to know the Truth, should neither believe me nor any other poster on this forum. They should read the samhitAs themselves ... they should read the Upanishads themselves and that will give them the clarity.

Pranams,

Devotee has not responded to any arguments at all. Whenever one disagrees with him, that person is accused of making "irrational arguments," offering "kutarka," declaring himself an "expert," and so on. Merely assuming the correctness of one's opinions to be self-evident, and declaring any objection ipso facto argumentative or irrational, is not convincing in the least, except to those who have already decided they will believe in your opinions, and not conclusions based on facts and logic. Devotee's argument rests on believing that entities can be both Supreme and not Supreme at the same time, and that a flawless religious scripture can hold both contradictory views, with the contradiction being reconciled by the devotee's subjective belief. As one member noted, if reality becomes malleable under the weight of personal, wishful thinking, that by the same logic one can make anyone or anything the Supreme and be correct in worshiping it. I think I speak for all of us when I say that we object to Hinduism being portrayed in such a frivolous manner, as that would turn our grand traditions into a laughing stock in front of others.

I am gratified to hear that devotee has read translations of all the veda saMhitA-s and 108 upaniShad-s. However, I am continuously perplexed by his inability to offer a logical explanation for specific upaniShads I quoted which contradict his views, such as the Kena Upanishad in which "Supreme Lord" Indra, "Supreme Lord" Agni, and "Supreme Lord" Vaayu are all humbled by Brahman in the guise of a Yaksha. If you truly have a correct understanding of the shruti, then you should be able to offer, based on those principles of interpretation, a convincing explanation for any individual upaniShad of undisputed authenticity. Members may recall a time when you asserted that there was no such thing as "jIva" in the upaniShads, to which I corrected you by giving explicit evidence from the svetAshvatara upaniShad to the contrary. It was not very well received by you. I suggest that the reason you divert our attention to other texts in the name of "108 Upanishads" is because your philosophy does not fit what is taught in the principal upaniShads whose authority is accepted by all. It also seems to me that while you have no qualms attacking the beliefs of other acharyas (e.g. calling them "fit for Abrahamic religions" and so forth), you are uninterested and unprepared for anyone to question the validity of your own beliefs. Why not instead refrain from attacking other religions, and engage in healthy dialogue?

Again, it bears repeating that "nArAyaNa," when it occurs in the shruti, always is used in the context of a Supreme Deity. Always. The same is not true for many other names like "indra," "agni," "vAyu," "rudra," etc. These other names are sometimes used in the context of describing a Supreme Deity, and sometimes used in the context of describing a subordinate deva. This is factual observation and not interpretation.

Again, pANinI's rule is pretty clear, regardless of what it appears to you. I suggest that you are dismissing his views because you do not understand them, just as you dismissed the concept of sandhi rules when you did not understand those and your knowledge of Sanskrit was found wanting. Now, I don't have any problems with people not knowing Sanskrit, but I think when it is obvious that you do not understand something, you ought to suspend argument and try reading up on the issue. You just might find it worth your while.

Still, I agree with devotee on one thing. Don't believe anything because we say so. Read the scriptures yourself! And I will disagree with devotee on this additional point - please read them preferably under the tutelage of a qualified guru.

[devotee]

Namaste Philosoraptor,

Though I don't like discussing with you due to your kutarkas which need lot of effort to to show how these are irrelevant but I think I owe you some answer why I said what I said. So, this may be my first post after a very long time directed to you. I have not responded to your arguments because I had promised you that I won't ... as it doesn't lead to the Truth but endless mindless discussion.

Please see these :

a) You have said that "NArAyANa" is Common noun. PLease show me texts from any of the SamhitAs where "NArAYaNa" has been used for Agni/Vayu/Indra etc. as common noun.

b) Why don't you accept the 108 Upanishads as the authority ? Your logic that except 10 major Upanishads all are spurious and unreliable has no support. You have said that as "Allopanishad" is fake Upanishad ... all these Upanishads must be fake is an irrational argument. Everyone knows that "Allopanishad" was written in the time of Akbar for a motive which is clear. With only that example, all other Upanishads cannot be considered fake and unreilable. Moreover, our discussion is for judging the supremacy of deities where these Major Upanishads don't say much.

c) In how many major Upanishads "NArAyANa" who is spouse of Laxmi has been considered Brahman ? Please quote only from major Upanishads i.e. Aitreya Upanishad, Chhandogya Upanishad, Kena, Katha, Taitriya, SvetAsvatar, Maitrayani, Isha, BrahdAraNyaka, MAndukya, Mundak and Prashna.

d) How do you refute verses of Veda SamhitAs where Shiva, Indra, Agni, Vayu etc. have been praised as Brahman is praised ?

e) You say that "NArAyANa' is always considered as Supreme ... is true. However, that was never an issue at all. However, SamhitAs don't talk about NArAyaNa (as far as remember. Please correct me if I wrong). Instead, Vishnu is mentioned therein. Vishnu has been praised as Supreme and also described as one of the Devas. So, your argument falls apart.

f) I don't refute what you quoted from Kena Upanishad. I am saying that if that was the Only Truth, then this should have echoed in Veda-samhitAs too. In the absence of that, Only Kena Upanishad cannot be interpreted as you are doing. Moreover, I would be grateful if you can show me where Kena Upanishad says that it was NArAyaNa. See, Brahman is Supreme ... there is no doubt about it. So, everyone agrees as all deities if shown separately with Brahman as another entity in the same context will be inferior to Brahman. However, it doesn't mean that that Brahman is NArAyana. Also, it doesn't mean that Brahman and deities are "really" different from each other. We must see what is written in all other texts considered as Shruti.

It also seems to me that while you have no qualms attacking the beliefs of other acharyas (e.g. calling them "fit for Abrahamic religions" and so forth)

Please don't malign me unnecessarily. I am not your enemy. I have nowhere said anything wrong against any Acharya. If I said so, please show me that. I would like to express my apology for that.

OM

[philosoraptor]

a) You have said that "NArAyANa" is Common noun. PLease show me texts from any of the SamhitAs where "NArAYaNa" has been used for Agni/Vayu/Indra etc. as common noun.

I said no such thing. I said that it was a proper noun, as per pANinI's rules, and as such refers to only one deity, namely the Lord of Sri. This is in contrast to names like Indra, Agni, Vaayu, etc each of which can refer to 2 or more different entities based on context.

b) Why don't you accept the 108 Upanishads as the authority ? Your logic that except 10 major Upanishads all are spurious and unreliable has no support. You have said that as "Allopanishad" is fake Upanishad ... all these Upanishads must be fake is an irrational argument. Everyone knows that "Allopanishad" was written in the time of Akbar for a motive which is clear. With only that example, all other Upanishads cannot be considered fake and unreilable. Moreover, our discussion is for judging the supremacy of deities where these Major Upanishads don't say much.

The above is what is known as a "strawman" argument. I never said that "except 10 major Upanishads all are spurious and unreliable." What I have said is that there are texts of human origin that have been passed off as "Upanishads," and such texts cannot be genuine Upanishads when they are not unauthored. We know the principal Upanishads are canon because they have been commented on by AchAryas from multiple different traditions going back to 8th century, are still taught in living oral traditions today, and so no doubts exists regarding their authenticity. The same is true for a handful of other upaniShads such as the shvetAshvatara, the mahAnArAyaNa, and few others which have been quoted by pUrvAchAryas in their writings. By contrast, a large number of the so-called 108 Upanishads have never been quoted by any of the AchAryas, and it is not believable that they would have neglected to quote them when they contain such philosophically relevant material. Hence, I stated that their authority is dubious. As in, I'm waiting to hear proof of their antiquity, but until I do so, I can only assume that those who retreat into these other Upanishads do so because they cannot defend their views based on the principal ones quoted by the AchAryas. Just as an aside, several of these Upanishads contain material that does seem consistent with my position, but I am hesitant to quote them until I know for sure that they are genuine.

c) In how many major Upanishads "NArAyANa" who is spouse of Laxmi has been considered Brahman ? Please quote only from major Upanishads i.e. Aitreya Upanishad, Chhandogya Upanishad, Kena, Katha, Taitriya, SvetAsvatar, Maitrayani, Isha, BrahdAraNyaka, MAndukya, Mundak and Prashna.

The short answer is: All of them, since the genuine upaniShads represent a consistent school of thinking and do not contradict each other.

The long answer is: the question is irrelevant - you are the one who argued against artificially relying on only the principal upaniShads. I have argued for using all upaniShads known to be genuine. The mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad is the 10th prapataka of the taittirIya AraNyaka and has been quoted by Shankara, Shayana, and Raamaanuja. Although it is not one of the principal 10, its authenticity is not disputed, and any commentary on vedAnta must reconcile with it. Since the taittirIya AraNyaka equates nArAyaNa with brahman, several times unequivocally, and nArAyaNa is a proper noun according to pANinI's rules, it must be understood that brahman (who is one without a second) anywhere else also means nArAyaNa. Unless of course, you accept the Western Indologist view that shrutis are inconsistent hodge podge....

Even if (for whatever reason), you ignore mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad, you are still left with the unmistakeable conclusion that brahman is superior to the devas, that brahman is the parama puruSha, and that He is the Lord of Sri (as per puruSha-sukta). Now, if you want to argue that brahman is not nArAyaNa, but rather someone else, you are free to do so. But your logic must be consistent. There is no question that the devas are different, distinct beings throughout the Vedic canon. You have to pick one and see if that one really qualifies as the Supreme Brahman consistently or not.

d) How do you refute verses of Veda SamhitAs where Shiva, Indra, Agni, Vayu etc. have been praised as Brahman is praised ?

There is no need to refute them. All of shruti is 100% true. When brahman is addressed as rudra, indra, agni, vAyu, etc these have to be understood as referring to nArAyaNa aka brahman by those names. When rudra, indra, agni, vAyu, etc are spoken of as created entities who are subordinate to brahman, then those references must be understood to refer to subordinate devas rather than brahman. This is a clear and logical approach to the shruti, as opposed to the one which holds that the same entity can be the Supreme Lord in one context and not the Supreme Lord in another.

e) You say that "NArAyANa' is always considered as Supreme ... is true. However, that was never an issue at all. However, SamhitAs don't talk about NArAyaNa (as far as remember. Please correct me if I wrong). Instead, Vishnu is mentioned therein. Vishnu has been praised as Supreme and also described as one of the Devas. So, your argument falls apart.

If the shruti declares A to be Supreme, B to be Supreme, and C to be Supreme, then it logically follows that A = B = C. Again, elementary logic.

f) I don't refute what you quoted from Kena Upanishad. I am saying that if that was the Only Truth, then this should have echoed in Veda-samhitAs too. In the absence of that, Only Kena Upanishad cannot be interpreted as you are doing. Moreover, I would be grateful if you can show me where Kena Upanishad says that it was NArAyaNa. See, Brahman is Supreme ... there is no doubt about it. So, everyone agrees as all deities if shown separately with Brahman as another entity in the same context will be inferior to Brahman. However, it doesn't mean that that Brahman is NArAyana. Also, it doesn't mean that Brahman and deities are "really" different from each other. We must see what is written in all other texts considered as Shruti.

No, the problem is you cannot accept what the Kena Upanishad is saying, because it contradicts your theory that all devas are the same Brahman. The traditionalists' position has always been that there is only one truth in the veda-s from beginning to end. If devas are beings who depend on brahman in the Kena Upanishad, then they are beings who depend on brahman in every other shruti as well. Not just in the Kena, but many Upanishads speak of the devas as having attributes contradicting the notion that they are Brahman. For example, in the aitareya, they are spoken of as being created by brahman, and in the bRihadAraNyaka, they are spoken of as being dependent on prANa. Brahman, as you know, is one without a second, without origin, and completely independent. So let's apply common sense: if A is created and dependent, and B is without origin and independent, can A = B?

I have listed multiple shruti pramANas proving the different attributes of the devas with respect to brahman. There is no getting around it: Brahman and devas are different beings! What is correct may not be politically correct, but it is what it is.

Please don't malign me unnecessarily. I am not your enemy. I have nowhere said anything wrong against any Acharya. If I said so, please show me that. I would like to express my apology for that.

Nobody has maligned you. It was you who claimed that those who believed in deva-hierarchy were "fit for Abrahamic religions." Since the vast majority of Vedaantic and post-vedaantic thinkers accept deva-hierarchy, your remarks constitute an ill-conceived and uninformed attack against all of them: Sridhar Swami, Madhva, Raamaanuja, Chaitanya, Vallabha, Jayatirtha, Vyasatirtha, Vedanta Desika, Sri Ranga Ramanuja Muni, Baladeva Vidyabhushana, Jiva Gosvami, Nimbarka, Vishnuswami, Adi Shankara, Madhusudana Saraswati, and so on. These high-souled, erudite individuals all left their mark on Hinduism with their learned commentaries and other writings, and they deserve your respect even if you are going to disagree with them. And if you are going to disagree with them, let me suggest that you do so politely. No matter how much we read, we are certainly not on the level of any of these great scholars in terms of their dedication or erudition.

As far as I personally am concerned, I don't need any apology for myself from you. You are completely free to attack me and malign me whenever you wish.

pranams,

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

Sridhar Swami, Madhva, Raamaanuja, Chaitanya, Vallabha, Jayatirtha, Vyasatirtha, Vedanta Desika, Sri Ranga Ramanuja Muni, Baladeva Vidyabhushana, Jiva Gosvami, Nimbarka, Vishnuswami, Adi Shankara, Madhusudana Saraswati, and so on. These high-souled, erudite individuals all left their mark on Hinduism with their learned commentaries and other writings, and they deserve your respect even if you are going to disagree with them. And if you are going to disagree with them, let me suggest that you do so politely. No matter how much we read, we are certainly not on the level of any of these great scholars in terms of their dedication or erudition.

pranams,

And towering above all these, great, mostly Vaishnava personalities( no surprise there), is our great Krishna Dvaipayana Veda Vyasa, who deserve our utmost respect, so i ask again the original purpose of this thread, does he teach some non sense in smriti text?
Did Vyasdev not know sruti? To think he could write non sense, is an insult of a monumental proportion don't you think?
How would majority of Hindus who had no access to Sruti, reconcile them? Mind boggles.

Jai Shree Krishna

[philosoraptor]

And towering above all these, great, mostly Vaishnava personalities( no surprise there), is our great Krishna Dvaipayana Veda Vyasa, who deserve our utmost respect, so i ask again the original purpose of this thread, does he teach some non sense in smriti text?
Did Vyasdev not know sruti? To think he could write non sense, is an insult of a monumental proportion don't you think?
How would majority of Hindus who had no excess to Sruti, reconcile them? Mind boggles.

Your mind perhaps, not mine. As far as I am concerned, anything in the itihAsa/purANa which contradicts shruti is not vyAsa's doing and is most likely sectarian interpolation.

pranams,

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

Your mind perhaps, not mine. As far as I am concerned, anything in the itihAsa/purANa which contradicts shruti is not vyAsa's doing and is most likely sectarian interpolation.

pranams,

That's very nice and I am happy for you, unfortunately most Hindus who had no excess to Shruti, will not know the contradictions,the ones you perceive are in your mind.

More later.

Jai Shree Krishna