Disparaging

[philosoraptor]

Neo-Hinduism itself is not a sect, but there are various sects that can be considered neo-Hindu. Ganeshprasad is not a member of any neo-Hindu sect and his beliefs are typical of many traditional Hindus in north India. He may have been influenced a little bit by neo-Hindu thinkers, but he certainly is not a sectarian neo-Hindu. On the other hand, Srivaishnavism is a sect and Shaiva Siddhanta is also a sect. It's a bit odd for someone who always takes the Srivaishnava position to accuse someone like Ganeshprasad as sectarian.

Not odd at all. It's just frank and honest recognition of the fact that Neo-Hindus and Neo-Hinduism are not above sectarian behavior, their claims to the contrary notwithstanding. They frequently lock arms on issues like "all devas are the same" and "all paths are equally valid," mostly modern in origin. Not uncommonly, they have very poor grasp of the evidence, and are not prepared to explain any evidence which contradicts their views, and yet they think they know enough to know that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. This is the hallmark of sectarianism and GP is a model, sectarian Neo-Hindu.

I am not calling any person non Vedic, but I am talking about the ideologies they propagate.

Semantics. So you are going to tell me that Madhva and Ramanuja were Vedic, but the sects that they propagated were not? Either way, you are still painting quite a few, erudite scholars with a very broad, brush. Surely you can appreciate the irony of someone lecturing others on what Hinduism really is, while simultaneously denouncing other Hindu philosophical systems as "limited understandings."

Actually, your exact words in this connection were, "Calling Shiva a jivatma is tremendously sinful and the srivaishnavas who make this claim will have to realise their mistake and perform prayaschitta or else suffer the grave consequences of their insults, no matter what arguments they can contrive."

Note that this presupposes the idea that Shiva and Vishnu are the same, which is by no means obvious, and thus is just another sectarian view. Also, you never answered my question - since both Paraashara Muni and Vyaasa have written puraaNas describing Shiva as a jiiva, are they also sinners in your eyes?

Ironically, Vaishnavas have no problem claiming that Shaivas are non Vedic and vice versa.

Which is a strawman, since I made no such claim.

Here, I claim from a standpoint that is closer to Smartha that the position of the Shaivas and Vaishnava's are both unvedic.

In other words, you are speaking from the point of view of the Smaartha sect. Except of course, that you argued that those who had other ideas had "limited understandings." That certainly sounds sectarian to me.

Let me be clear though, I am not claiming that their customs and culture is un-vedic, but the idea that either Shiva or Vishnu is a jivatma. The best arguments the Shaivas have is that when the Vedas speak of Vishnu, Shiva is actually meant. The best argument of the Vaishnavas is that when the Vedas speak of Shiva, Vishnu is meant. To any thinking person this sounds ridiculous, but it makes sense to people who are convinced of their sectarian ideologies.

Well first of all, this is a very trite, and frankly sectarian, analysis. The fact remains that Shiva and Vishnu are treated as two different deities in the scriptures which even you accept. That being said, to argue that they are the same, and that differentiating between them is sectarian, is itself a one-sided, sectarian argument. It also flies in the face of what those scriptures teach us. When the Bhaagavatam shows Vishnu bewildering Shiva with His mAyA, or Krishna defeating Shiva in battle, or Shiva claiming that he always worships vAsudeva, how is a lay person supposed to derive from those statements that Shiva and Vishnu are the same? In fact, the straightforward meaning is that they are different, with one being above the other. Now you may not like that from your sectarian point of view, but it's obvious.

Your entire argument rests on the view than whenever Shiva and Vishnu are depicted as two different beings, the reader was supposed to somehow know that they are actually the same being. This logic seems far more contrived than the logic of the Vaishnavas and Shaivas which you criticize.

I am not speaking of BrahmA, because his position is more complicated and depends on which kalpa we are speaking of.

Well, why not, since the subject came up? A common Neo-Hindu view is that Brahmaa is God also, but in the form of creator. Now, the purANas don't support that view, since they show brahmA taking birth from nArAyana (at least, the ones I read, possibly there are other accounts of his birth). So who gets to decide which idea is vedic or non-vedic? If I say brahmA is a jIva, does that also make me a sinner? Why or why not?

I do not reject the puranas as non Vedic, but most sectarian Vaishnavas and Shaivas do reject the puranas.

That is simply not true. Like the Vaishnavas and Shaivas, you reject those portions of the purANa which contradict your views. Except that, you don't "reject" them outright, you just argue that they mean something other than what they are plainly saying.

The Bhagavata Purana clearly states that Shiva is para brahman, but Vaishnavas reject this and try to falsely represent what is clearly stated in the Bhagavatam with contrived arguments. "It must be Narayana, the inner dweller of Shiva that is praised and not Shiva himself, bla bla bla."

If it truly said that, then I missed it. However, the Bhaagavata Puraana clearly has Shiva saying that he always worships vAsudeva, that he was defeated in battle by Sri Krishna, and that he was bewildered by Vishnu's mohinI-murthy after which the latter warned him about the dangers of mAyA. It doesn't take sectarian interpretation to recognize the fact that the bhAgavatam depicts Shiva as a powerful, respectable, but ultimately subordinate deity to nArAyaNa. The same theme emerges in the viShNu purANa and the varAha purANa, quite explicitly.

This misses the bigger picture of the puranas. There are other passages in the puranas where you would think that Shiva is superior to Vishnu or that Durga is superior to both. For someone who does not look at the puranas with a myopic sectarian view can understand that Shiva and Vishnu are playing with each other. That is their lila, incomprehensible for those who try to dissect it with the blades of dry logic.

Illogical. There is no single, consistent view of everything within the purANas, and no way to reconcile the contradictions if you accept every single statement within them as true. Ultimately, your interpretation is based on a contrived logic of accepting mutually contradictory statements and asserting that they are all somehow inconceivably true. It's not convincing, and certainly does not give me reason to abandon "medieval" vedAntic thinkers as being of "limited understanding."

regards,