Re: Defining Hindu
Originally Posted by
MahaHrada
I do not need to amend views or change opinions that i never expressed, the same goes of course for your assorted insults and accusations i do not have the time to spent and defend myself against all kind of obvious nonsense.
Since the majority of the content of your postings are misrepresenting or simply inventing opinions i never expressed, something that is called libel and slander among civilized people, there is almost nothing rational left in your postings i can respond to.
Pranams. Unfortunate that Maha sees scrutiny of his opinons as "libel" or "slander." Once again, while he reserves the right to question our religious traditions (which I for one, support), he is hostile to any scrutiny of his own views.
That puja paddhatis were authored in medieval times does not make temple worship of medieval origin. That is because most pUja paddhatis are extracts of directives from older scriptures, authored by an AchArya within the sampradAya to standardize the worship for priests of that time. I have seen several pUja paddhatis which invoke similar mantras and shlokas despite being from different traditions, all pointing to a common set of foundation texts from which these manuals are derived.
At this time, since this is a major point of criticism for Maha, I invite him to give us the publication information for the Nambhoothiri pUja paddhatis which he claims to have studied. I will be happy to review them and compare/contrast with previous pUja paddhatis which I have seen.
I can only repeat that even if the Nambudiri brahmins have preserved the practice of ancient shrauta rituals faithfully it does not mean that the tantric pujas they have equally well preserved, (following medieveal source texts), must be of the same antiquity.
Again, it was not I who claimed that they were of the same antiquity, but you who claimed that the pUjas were not of the same antiquity. Being unable to prove that, you are now claiming that we have not proven that they are. The burden of proof lies on the challenger to tradition, and you have not proven your views by any reasonable standard of evidence.
I can also only repeat that in the ancient vedic shrauta rituals that have been carefully and secretly, preserved most of what is practised in modern Hinduism is missing and has developed or has been assimilated at a later date and, besides some vedic norms and customs, these tantras contains a considerable assimilation of non vedic practises, deities, customs and norms.
It is such a process that has been giving birth to the development of the medieveal religion we now call Hinduism. Tantric, agamic and puranic traditions which make up the majority of customs of modern Hinduism have very little in common with the traditional vedic religion.
In other words, you are just repeating the very thing you failed to prove in the first place. Hence, my opinion that repeating unproven theories until they are accepted as truthful is your MO.
Philosoraptor
"Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato
Bookmarks