Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: Disparaging

  1. #11

    Re: Disparaging

    Quote Originally Posted by shiv.somashekhar View Post
    What is misrepresentation?

    Madhvas accuse Shankara of misrepresenting Badarayana in his sutra bhashya, by giving it a completely different twist.

    Besides, the Azhwars existed before the Sri Vaishnava tradition was formed and therefore, it is not entirely correct to identify one with the other.
    Indeed, what is misrepresentation?

    Shankaracharya was a Dvaitin, and Madhvacharya believed all devas to be the same God. Hinduism says Jesus is an avatar of Krishna, and the 63 Nayanars of Shaivism were actually strict Vaishnavas. I'm fairly certain I can "prove" all of the above by some serious, out-of-context, and one-sided quoting, and I won't hesitate to respond with indignation at any attempt to correct me by providing additional, contradictory evidence.

    Anyone who wishes to express their appreciation for my posting should feel free to do so.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  2. #12
    Join Date
    January 2007
    Location
    duhkhalayam asasvatam
    Posts
    1,448
    Rep Power
    79

    Re: Disparaging

    Pranam

    Some people are apt at deflecting the real purpose of this thread. At least if I was going to accuse someone of disparaging, I would have decency to say why and where. That is what this thread is about but I am not expecting a straight answer anytime soon.

    First we must find a contradiction, resolve it by our own standard with rules that we have made and hai presto I am right and you are wrong!!

    Jai Shree Krishna
    Rig Veda list only 33 devas, they are all propitiated, worthy off our worship, all other names of gods are derivative from this 33 originals,
    Bhagvat Gita; Shree Krishna says Chapter 3.11 devan bhavayatanena te deva bhavayantu vah parasparam bhavayantah sreyah param avapsyatha Chapter 17.4 yajante sattvika devan yaksa-raksamsi rajasah pretan bhuta-ganams canye yajante tamasa janah
    The world disappears in him. He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    March 2012
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Posts
    205
    Rep Power
    1316

    Re: Disparaging

    Namaste,

    Some of these Shaiva/Vaishnava assertions & threads are disconcerting - to say the least. Usually I find that Hindus do not add a hierarchy to the deities they worship and they are comfortable in visiting Shiva temple one day and Vishnu temple the other day. I have visited Srirangam and Uchipillayar temple recently on two successive days recently and my experience was wonderful in both visits.

    Now my question. Is this a local issue in certain parts of Tamilnadu only? I am asking this based on azhwar / nayanmar / acaryas discussions that come up invariably whenever these dissentions come up.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    January 2007
    Location
    duhkhalayam asasvatam
    Posts
    1,448
    Rep Power
    79

    Re: Disparaging

    Pranam

    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
    Namaste,

    Some of these Shaiva/Vaishnava assertions & threads are disconcerting - to say the least. Usually I find that Hindus do not add a hierarchy to the deities they worship and they are comfortable in visiting Shiva temple one day and Vishnu temple the other day. I have visited Srirangam and Uchipillayar temple recently on two successive days recently and my experience was wonderful in both visits.

    Now my question. Is this a local issue in certain parts of Tamilnadu only? I am asking this based on azhwar / nayanmar / acaryas discussions that come up invariably whenever these dissentions come up.
    I share your anguish. I must say I had never known of such problem of hierarchy until I came in contact with Iskcon.

    From what I hear this was an acute problem in the south, in the North this was largely avoided due to the influence of GoSwami Tulsidas, he synthesise both the deva in wonderful way while maintaining his Ram Bhakti. In the west that is Gujarat where i come from, I have not come across it at all.

    I am happy to say in my travels, and I have traveled a lot in india, people visit all kind of temples on their pilgrimage. My experience has been all good.

    Jai Shree Krishna
    Rig Veda list only 33 devas, they are all propitiated, worthy off our worship, all other names of gods are derivative from this 33 originals,
    Bhagvat Gita; Shree Krishna says Chapter 3.11 devan bhavayatanena te deva bhavayantu vah parasparam bhavayantah sreyah param avapsyatha Chapter 17.4 yajante sattvika devan yaksa-raksamsi rajasah pretan bhuta-ganams canye yajante tamasa janah
    The world disappears in him. He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.

  5. #15

    Re: Disparaging

    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
    Namaste,

    Some of these Shaiva/Vaishnava assertions & threads are disconcerting - to say the least. Usually I find that Hindus do not add a hierarchy to the deities they worship and they are comfortable in visiting Shiva temple one day and Vishnu temple the other day.
    Your experience has primarily been with lay Hindus and/or Hindus whose conception of religion is based on modern thinkers. Traditional Hindu systems of Vedanta like those of Shankaracharya, Madhva, Ramanuja, Baladeva, Vallabha, et. al. do have deva-hierarchies implicit in their worldviews. I'm sure Omkar can confirm the same regarding various Shaivite sects. I have posted elsewhere showing explicit shruti pramANa acknowledging deva-hierarchy. Once again, this is the politically-incorrect truth that Neo-Hindu thinkers would have you dismiss.

    That's the problem with facts. They don't always lend themselves to supporting Ideology. And many people prefer Ideology over facts.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  6. #16
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    tadvishno paramam padam
    Age
    32
    Posts
    2,168
    Rep Power
    2533

    Re: Disparaging

    It's likely that Ganeshprasad made a mistake since he has no knowledge of Tamil or the Alvars, so it is okay for the Tamil members who are familiar with the Alvars to correct this mistake. I think GP has realised that this was a mistake, so let's acknowledge that first.

    Secondly, let's not define traditional Hinduism as whatever medieval Vedanta acharyas have propagated. And whatever the Alvars or Nayanmars may have written, their works are personal opinions of devotees that matter a lot to some Hindus, but not all.

    Whatever philosophy any acharya like Shankara, Ramanuja or Madhva has propounded are merely limited understandings of individuals. It's no surprise that their followers believe that their own acharya has "cracked the code" so to speak, but their ideas do not define traditional Hinduism.

    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.

  7. #17

    Re: Disparaging

    deva-hierarchy, specifically, the hierarchy of Brahman being above the devas, is not a view exclusive to medieval vedAnta commentators, but is a readily verifiable fact from reading the shruti.

    No one claimed that, "traditional Hinduism as whatever medieval Vedanta acharyas have propagated." This is a misrepresentation of my views, which have always acknowledged the heterogeneous nature of the term "Hinduism," even when discussing only "traditional Hinduism." My exact words were, "Traditional Hindu systems of Vedanta like those of Shankaracharya, Madhva, Ramanuja, Baladeva, Vallabha, et. al. do have deva-hierarchies implicit in their worldviews. I'm sure Omkar can confirm the same regarding various Shaivite sects. " In other words, "all gods are the same God" are not features of most of these systems whose standards of evidence are bit more sophisticated than, "whatever feels good to you is right."

    Whatever your opinions of Shiva's status, it is a fact that he is considered a jIva in Sri Vaishnavism and in many other Vaishnava schools, and that was the original point. The views of these schools should not be misrepresented for ideological reasons. No one's views should be misrepresented for ideological reasons.

    As far as calling them sinful, well, you are entitled to your opinion. But then to be consistent, you should make the same argument against Vyaasa and Paraashara since they both have documented Shiva's bewilderment by Vishnu's mohinI-avatAra. Are they both in trouble and in need of performing prayashchitta? I am well aware of Shaivite texts depiciting Vishnu as a non-supreme being, but it never occurred to me to think of the authors of such statements as sinners guilty of contrived arguments.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  8. #18
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    tadvishno paramam padam
    Age
    32
    Posts
    2,168
    Rep Power
    2533

    Re: Disparaging

    I agree completely that no view should be misrepresented and srivaishnavas should represent what they believe, but what I find troubling is that people are called sectarian when they are obviously not. It can be argued that GP has some neo Hindu tendencies, but I would not accuse him of being sectarian.

    As far as calling them sinful, well, you are entitled to your opinion. But then to be consistent, you should make the same argument against Vyaasa and Paraashara since they both have documented Shiva's bewilderment by Vishnu's mohinI-avatAra. Are they both in trouble and in need of performing prayashchitta? I am well aware of Shaivite texts depiciting Vishnu as a non-supreme being, but it never occurred to me to think of the authors of such statements as sinners guilty of contrived arguments.
    I am not against deva hierarchy completely, the shastras clearly describe that some devas are jivatmas in special position. But any sect that positions either Shiva or Vishnu as a jivatma is clearly non-Vedic, but of course they are also entitled to their opinions. Arguments of south Indian Shaivas and Vaishnavas that Shiva actually means Vishnu or that Vishnu actually means Shiva in the Veda are humorous, but contrived. This is a misrepresentation of the Veda.

    There is no contradiction in the stories of Shiva being bewildered by mohini or being saved by Vishnu from Bhasmasura and stories of Rama, Krishna or Vishnu worshipping Shiva or Aditya. This is part of the lila between Shiva and Vishnu.
    Last edited by Sahasranama; 10 May 2013 at 05:04 PM.

  9. #19

    Re: Disparaging

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahasranama View Post
    I agree completely that no view should be misrepresented and srivaishnavas should represent what they believe, but what I find troubling is that people are called sectarian when they are obviously not. It can be argued that GP has some neo Hindu tendencies, but I would not accuse him of being sectarian.
    Then you probably define "sectarian" differently than I do, since I see Neo-Hinduism as a sect or sects with its own ideology and special interests, and consequently with its own motivations to twist facts to support its theories. It's certainly the case that Neo-Hindus have a lot of animosity if not outright contempt for traditional schools, to the extent that they are forced to acknowledge their differences, and this comes out repeatedly on this forum as it does on many Hindu forums.

    I am not against deva hierarchy completely, the shastras clearly describe that some devas are jivatmas in special position. But any sect that positions either Shiva or Vishnu as a jivatma is clearly non-Vedic, but of course they are also entitled to their opinions.
    Well, then let's be clear. According to you, most if not all of the purANas are "non-Vedic," almost all of the vedAnta schools are "non-Vedic," including those scholars within who have studied the veda better than either you or I. That's a fairly bold claim. Let's also clarify - Vyaasa and Paraashara are also non-vedic, as they repeatedly describe brahmA and shiva as being subordinate to viShNu in the bhAgavata and viShNu purANas, and also in the varAha purANa. These people are all sinners in your view who have to perform prayashchitta. That sounds a bit sectarian to me.

    Arguments of south Indian Shaivas and Vaishnavas that Shiva actually means Vishnu or that Vishnu actually means Shiva in the Veda are humorous, but contrived.
    Don't you think that's a bit trite? After all, you are taking the equally contrived position that:

    There is no contradiction in the stories of Shiva being bewildered by mohini or being saved by Vishnu from Bhasmasura and stories of Rama, Krishna or Vishnu worshipping Shiva. This is part of the lila between Shiva and Vishnu.
    So, according to you, when Lord Shiva asks Lord Vishnu to show His mAyA, and Vishnu responds by appearing as mohinI whose beautiful appearance bewilders Shiva, and that too in a text that repeatedly describes Vishnu as the controller of mAyA, as being transcendental to mAyA, etc, you would have us believe that the author never intended to imply a difference between Shiva and Vishnu?
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  10. #20
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    tadvishno paramam padam
    Age
    32
    Posts
    2,168
    Rep Power
    2533

    Re: Disparaging

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    Then you probably define "sectarian" differently than I do, since I see Neo-Hinduism as a sect or sects with its own ideology and special interests, and consequently with its own motivations to twist facts to support its theories. It's certainly the case that Neo-Hindus have a lot of animosity if not outright contempt for traditional schools, to the extent that they are forced to acknowledge their differences, and this comes out repeatedly on this forum as it does on many Hindu forums.
    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.

    Well, then let's be clear. According to you, most if not all of the purANas are "non-Vedic," almost all of the vedAnta schools are "non-Vedic," including those scholars within who have studied the veda better than either you or I. That's a fairly bold claim. Let's also clarify - Vyaasa and Paraashara are also non-vedic, as they repeatedly describe brahmA and shiva as being subordinate to viShNu in the bhAgavata and viShNu purANas, and also in the varAha purANa. These people are all sinners in your view who have to perform prayashchitta. That sounds a bit sectarian to me.
    I am not calling any person non Vedic, but I am talking about the ideologies they propagate. Ironically, Vaishnavas have no problem claiming that Shaivas are non Vedic and vice versa. Here, I claim from a standpoint that is closer to Smartha that the position of the Shaivas and Vaishnava's are both unvedic. 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.

    I am not speaking of BrahmA, because his position is more complicated and depends on which kalpa we are speaking of. I do not reject the puranas as non Vedic, but most sectarian Vaishnavas and Shaivas do reject the puranas. Shaivas will reject the idea that Shiva had to be saved from Bhasmasura and Vaishnavas will reject the idea that Vishnu offered his eye as a lotus flower when he was worshipping Shiva. But you cannot accuse me of rejecting the puranas. 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."

    Don't you think that's a bit trite? After all, you are taking the equally contrived position that:

    So, according to you, when Lord Shiva asks Lord Vishnu to show His mAyA, and Vishnu responds by appearing as mohinI whose beautiful appearance bewilders Shiva, and that too in a text that repeatedly describes Vishnu as the controller of mAyA, as being transcendental to mAyA, etc, you would have us believe that the author never intended to imply a difference between Shiva and Vishnu?
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •