Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

[philosoraptor]

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.

What you mean is "access" to shruti. And yes, non-dvijas don't have access to shruti. That is why we have these things called "gurus."

regards,

[devotee]

Namaste Phil,

Let's take issues one by one to keep the reply-posts within readable length.

First of all, let's take this issues. You have alleged that : " I have been intolerant against those who disagree with "… …. ...." I have attacked the beliefs of the Acharyas. ..... My remark was ill-conceived and uninformed attack against the Acharyas".

Please see my original statement below :

"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.

... and your attacks against me ....

1.

The only intolerance I saw in this thread was the esteemed member who declared all those who disagree with his "all gods are the same God" theory as "Abrahamic."

Please see above what I have said. I nowhere said that anyone who disagrees with "All gods are the same God" theory, are fit for Abrahamic. Please mark my words, "… and your God is actually a demi-God". Please stick to my words and don't put your words into my mouth.

You have distorted my statement and I am certainly not responsible for that. You appear highly biased and out to malign me for no reason. Can you say how I fit into "Intolerant" category ?

2.

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)

I have never named any of the Acharya in any of my posts, so will you accept that you have extended the logic as per your convenience to malign me ? How did I attack the beliefs of other Acharyas ?

3.

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.

I have quoted my original statement and your protest and explanation above. Please see how you have distorted the whole thing. You have called my remarks 'ill-conceived" and "uniformed attack" against the Acharyas. Please prove that I really said as you have presented my statement in your series of posts otherwise please take back you words.

As Surya, Indra, Agni have not known followers these days and among the dualists there are two prominent sects : Vaishnavas and the Shaivas. So, let's limit ourselves to Vishnu and Shiva. I am not aware if anyone of the Acharya said that Lord Shiva is a demi-God. Please quote if anyone of them said that. In fact, you have listed 15 Acharyas. I would like you to quote their exact words of all the 15 Acarysas where they have said that, "Only NArAyANa (or the deity the Acahrays worshiped) is God and all other deities like Lord Shiva etc. being worshipped as God by other people are demi-Gods."

BTW, even if anyone said this at any point of time, I cannot be held guilty of speaking ill of them as my statement is general in nature and if unknowingly any of the Acharyas fit into that category … it is not my fault. I have not taken name of any of the Acharyas and I am not aware if they said as you have stated in your posts.

It is clear that you deliberately distorted the facts to malign me.

I will take up other issues one by one once we settle this issue.

OM

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

What you mean is "access" to shruti.
regards,

Damn this predictive text, still it managed to convey the desired meaning so no harm. thank you.


Talking about meaning, lets face it, there is a huge difference admitting categorically, no Vyasji did not contradict Ithihas/Puranas, against the answer you gave. ''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."

Your idea of interpolation is not a simple adulteration of Puranas by vested interest like Sheiva inserting derogative stories about Vishu or Vaishnava doing the same about Shiva.

lets face it and be honest here, with or without the interpolation, according to your preconceived ideas, i.e. vishu sarvotam, the yard stick you use to reconcile apparent sruti contradictions, you want to apply it here. you want your cake and eat it.

As far as i am concerned, there are no contradictions in sruti or puranas save for some minor interpolation, which does not change the major theme of the lilas of Devas as written.
Obviously that would contradict your Narayan only theory, a theory that is based on some grammar rule! since when do we decide who the Brahman is based on it?

You might look at it this way, i doubt it though, If we find within the Vedas and Puranas explicitly that Vishnu is supreme and then another that says Rudra is supreme, we might conclude that Vishnu and Rudra must be the same being or different aspects of the same being. In that way there is no inconsistency in the Veda or Puranas and we can accept its statements as they are, without recourse to unusual interpretations and rejection.

Sruti vakya confirms this, Eakam sad vipra bahuda vadanti.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

-- And yes, non-dvijas don't have access to shruti. That is why we have these things called "gurus."

regards,

Yes highly venerated Gurus and they do come with messages eulogizing different Ista deva reading from vast cannon of Hindu shastras.

One such Goswami Tulsidas, great Ram bhakta, a radical highly venerated, who made Ramayan story available in local language called Ram charitra manas. Also wrote Rudrastakam.

Jai Shree Ram
jai shree krishna

[philosoraptor]

And towering above all these, great, mostly Vaishnava personalities( no surprise there)

If Omkar were here, he could give you a list of mostly Shaivite personalities who accepted deva-hierarchy. Actually, he did do that, but the posting was inexplicably deleted.

As far as quoting the exact statements of each of these AchAryas to you and Devotee proving that they did indeed say what their followers have long held them to say, I'm not going to bother today. I've already quoted numerous shrutis and gItA-shlokas showing the difference between Brahman and the devas, and both of you ignored them. I see little evidence that either of you would change your views when confronted with new evidence, and I don't see how my pouring through multiple books and providing you with the quotes in question is going to make either of you back down. The bottom line is Devotee will continue to see nothing wrong with declaring all those who accept deva-hierarchy as "fit for Abrahamic religions," and you will see nothing wrong with ridiculing Vishnu-centric passages in the Puraanas while simultaneously claiming that there are no incorrect verses in the same.

What all of this illustrates is the deeply entrenched animosity that modern, Neo-Hindu thinkers have against traditional Hindu systems of thinking. I see little evidence of logic or reasoning here, and will end my involvement in this thread with this post. You both can argue with each other from now.

regards,

[truth_seeker]

If Omkar were here, he could give you a list of mostly Shaivite personalities who accepted deva-hierarchy.

Well, I'm not affiliated with any given sampradaya (even though I do appreciate much from across a wide repertoire of Hindu notions), and have openly admitted my more-agnostic-than-anything-else standpoint in my profile details, but you have a point for sure here. Certainly, the acceptance of a hierarchy of celestial, godly beings is central to the Saiva Siddhanta worldview, there's no shying away from that. In addition, adherents of Vira Saivism, i.e. Lingayats, are as Siva-centric as your average Sri Vaisnava or Tattvavadi is Visnu-centric, perhaps even more so.

[Ganeshprasad]

----
What all of this illustrates is the deeply entrenched animosity that modern, Neo-Hindu thinkers have against traditional Hindu systems of thinking. I see little evidence of logic or reasoning here, and will end my involvement in this thread with this post.
regards,

Pranam

You do what is right for you, weather you continue or not, makes no difference but since you have accused me of ridiculing Vihnu centric passages, perhaps you be kind enough to saw me, if you wish that is.

And you continue to misquote me although I have qualified my position several times.

Reasoning and logic can be very subjective depending on what angle one is looking at, blind man looking at an elephant, I am sure you know that analogy.

You continue to misquote me, while I am happy to say unequivocally that Vyas ji do not contradict you will continue to maintain Puranas and ithihas has to agree with sruti using your yard stick.

You have failed to convince me, if that was an answer,how non dvijas would reconcile them because as I said Gurus comes with different darsans and Goswami Tulsidas is a prime example, although a Ram bhakta, had no qualms about the position of Lord Shiva.

As to what is traditional and what you say neo is also not very clear, would you say Tulsidas is neo? Would you say Atri Rishi a neo, he desiring a son equal to Brahman ended up having all three as sons, what say you about him?
I am sure these are some off the questions, you may ponder over it but I don't expect a straight answers if there is any forthcoming.

Jai Shree Krishna

[devotee]

Namaste Phil,

The bottom line is Devotee will continue to see nothing wrong with declaring all those who accept deva-hierarchy as "fit for Abrahamic religions," and you will see nothing wrong with ridiculing Vishnu-centric passages in the Puraanas while simultaneously claiming that there are no incorrect verses in the same.

HDF may please note Phil's Kutarka :

This is how Phil behaves. In spite of my showing that I never said anything like that and posted exact version, Phil has no hesitation in blaming me again and again for something I didn't do.

This is well expected from a person who is adept at Kutarka.

What all of this illustrates is the deeply entrenched animosity that modern, Neo-Hindu thinkers have against traditional Hindu systems of thinking. I see little evidence of logic or reasoning here, and will end my involvement in this thread with this post. You both can argue with each other from now.

No, No. How can you leave this thread dear ? Everyone knows that I respect everyone's faith and have always advocated that all paths are True and valid. For buying peace, I have requested you dozen times to stop reacting against my posts but you have kept going after each and every post of mine even though I refrained from responding against your posts. So, let's continue to the end ... even if takes months together.

BTW, there is no animosity. However, "some people" always try to create animosity.

.... So, Phil has no argument left against the first issue and that proves that he willingly distorted my statement just to malign me. The worst part is that he is not even ashamed for it.

Now, I will take up other issues.

OM

[devotee]

Namaste Phil and all,

Let's take the issue of "Coomon Noun" Vs "Proper Noun" and how it makes or doesn't make NArAyAna the ONLY God enjoying Supreme status.

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.

====> Before analysing the above in entirety, I must make people aware, how Phil might have got this "brilliant" idea of "Common Noun" and "Proper Noun" which is laughable argument to show supremacy of one deity over the other. This has probably been taken from this site : http://sriranganatha.tripod.com/id95.html

Now, Let's analyse the statement. "NArAyaNa" is a proper noun by a certain PANiNi rule. OK. However, this was no news to us as we always considered "NArAyANa" word a proper noun. Now, to extrapolate that logic and say that all other nouns which are not as per this particular rule of PANiNi, are common noun … is nothing but Kutarka. The rules says what it says … it should not be distorted to take out meaning which is not there. NArAyaNa is a proper Noun … OK. but it doesn't prove that all nouns (like Agni, VAyu, Indra, Shiva etc.) which don't follow that rule are common nouns. Moreover, why should one go to see a rule when the actual usage of the word is in front of him ? It doesn't make any sense. PANiNi is much newer as compared to the Rig Vedas and also other SamhitAs.

Now, in this context let me tell all Forum Members that :

a) The whole argument has been built to show that ONLY NArAyaNa is Brahman and that is supported by Shruti. However, NArAyANa is not mentioned (or hardly mentioned) in Veda-SamhitA as far as I know and Phil has not quoted any verse from the Veda-samhitAs to show otherwise so far.

As the Veda-SamhitAs are vast and I might have missed a particular verse, I would be happy, if someone can show me any text where Brahman has been praised in Veda-SamhitAs as NArAyaNa. Though Uttar NarayaNa Purusha Sukta (Yajur Veda) hints at the Purusha which can be accepted as NArAyaNa but here we are talking of the word NArAyAna's significance as proper noun. In fact, Vishnu / NArAyaNa has been accepted as Brahman but if NArAyaNa word was so important, why at all, it was so scantily used in SamhitAs ?

b) NArAyaNa word is not mentioned in any of the Major Upanishads.

c) Agni, Indra, Vayu etc. have been used as individual deities in the Veda-SamhitAs i.e these nouns have been used as Proper Noun and not as Common Noun and there is no scope to see their usage in the SamhitAs as the common nouns. These individual devas have been praised as the Supreme in various places of the SamhitA and have been praised as individual devas with particular characteristics too.

So, this Common Noun and Proper Noun issue has been brought in just to misguide people and brew meaning what is not really there. This is a Kutarka by all standards.

OM

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Namaste Phil and all,

Let's take the issue of "Coomon Noun" Vs "Proper Noun" and how it makes or doesn't make NArAyAna the ONLY God enjoying Supreme status.
........
http://sriranganatha.tripod.com/id95.html
..........

OM

Dear Devotee ji,

Thank you for the post.
I checked out the link, the material sure does seem to me "extremist political view".
Yes, I am sorry to say that there is nothing holy, dharmic or spiritual in the unholy nexus between Brahman "head" and Vishnu "body" (and ShUdra "feet" if one may add).

There is, though, more to the politics than it seems.
Puranas are considered history. Well, Shiva rendered Daksha "head" of Vishnu and Brahma "body" of Brahman ineffective, after becoming himself deeply hurt. Earthly parallel of this story is the war between Varnas of Vedic society when the civilisation was on decline. Shudras (Judiciary) resisted, while Brahmanas (Legislature) and Kshatras (Executive) joined flanks to counteract. Much in the same way as in today's India where Politicians and Government are together, and Judiciary is trying to take on.

For Hinduism to survive, this issue must be corrected. Each one of us must take a stand. From a careful study of RgVeda, it is Mighty Lord Daksha who emerges as the "source", or "resting place", or "head" of Vishnu.

The Absolute, anyway, is named as the three-head of "Sat-Chit-Ananda". So there is not one "supreme", there are three. I will reiterate myself here:
Sat: Brahman
Chit: Daksha
Ananda: Rudra

P.S.: let ideas, not people, compete with each other. the issue has to be resolved, now.