Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36

Thread: Are these verse authentic?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Italy
    Age
    36
    Posts
    651
    Rep Power
    231

    Are these verse authentic?

    Namaste all.
    Matsya Purana (53.65, 68-69) states –

    pancangam ca puranam syad akhyanam itarat smrtam
    sattvikesu ca kalpesu mahatmyam adhikam hareh

    rajasesu ca mahatmyam adhikam brahmano viduh
    tadvad agnes ca mahatmyam tamasesu sivasya ca

    sankirnesu sarasvatyah pitrnam ca nigadyate

    " A Purana consists of five elements, as opposed to an Akhyana.The sattvika Puranas glorify Hari; the rajasika Puranas glorify Brahma, and the tamasika Puranas glorify Siva and Agni. Puranas dealing with mixed modes of nature glorify Sarasvati and the fore-fathers."

    The divisions of the eighteen Puranas is defined by Lord Siva to Uma in the Padma Purana (Uttara Khanda 236.18-21):

    vaisnavanam naradiyam ca tatha bhagavatam subham
    garudam ca tatha padmam varaham subha-darsane

    sattvikani puranani vijneyani subhani vai
    brahmandam brahma-vaivarta markandeyam tathaiva ca

    bhavisyam vamanam brahmam rajasani nibodha me
    matsyam kaurmam tatha laingam saivam skandam tathaiva ca

    agneyam ca sad etani tamasani nibodha me


    " O beautiful lady, one should know that the Visnu, Naradiya, Bhagavata, Garuda, Padma and Varaha are all in the mode of goodness. The Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta, Markandeya, Bhavisya, Vamana and Brahma are in the mode of passion. The Matsya, Kurma, Linga, Siva, Skanda and Agni are in the mode of ignorance."

    My questions is:are these verse authentic or are they sectarian man made additions?

    Regards,
    Orlando.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Bhakta of God
    Namaste all.
    Matsya Purana (53.65, 68-69) states –
    [...]
    My questions is:are these verse authentic or are they sectarian man made additions?
    Perhaps views will differ: Vaishnavas may assume these as authentic, since it is convenient for them, while Shaivas may reject.

    In fact, there are too many contradicting passages in Puranas, Shaiva vs Vaishnava clashes and claims of superiority.
    As such, Puranas are just additional sources of tradition and have to be judged by Shruti: Vedas and Agamas.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Location
    Chennai
    Age
    48
    Posts
    61
    Rep Power
    0
    Verses are authentic but translations are wrong.

    What I want to say is Tamas many a times though translated as ignorance and darkness, in this place it is translated as illusion (Confusing in nature), thus indicates cannot lead to moksha. There is no point in calling a book of knowledge as ignorance. (Request to remember the difference between knowledge and wisdom; knowledge can confuse many a times, but wisdom does not)

    If the current translations are correct, Matsya termed as book of ignorance by Padma will invalidate the claim made by matsya purana earlier. Many a times, translations cannot lead to right approach

    Regarding Shaiva and Vaishnava clashes, the facts are exaggerated. Mostly Shaivas who accept vedic cannon as supreme authority fall in Advaita. Other Shaivas, who do not accept vedic cannon take alternative view they establish their siddantha is greater and revelations made to them through their great perceptors are superior to Veda.

    Hence, Shaivas can be classified in to two broad categories
    1. Advaita Shaivas
    2. Agamic Shaivas

    With Agamic shaivas the clash is not Siva Vs Vishnu, but Veda Vs Agama, in the sense which is superior

    With Advaita Shaivas, Siva or Vishnu makes no difference for all such things are illusions. Till Advaita Shaivas reach proper levels of Jnana they prefer to stick to their kuladharma which directs them to worship Shiva and many Shaivas do worship Vishnu only as a part of mandatory rituals. Hence, Shiva Vs Vishnu makes no space in Advaita Shaivas

    Real problems accur when the said two groups overlap

    To give examples, for Kanchi Kamakoti peetam, Siva or Vishnu makes no difference but to Madurai Adheenam, it makes the difference for their belief is build around agamas and not on Vedas
    Last edited by Jalasayanan; 12 May 2006 at 01:39 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Jalasayanan
    Regarding Shaiva and Vaishnava clashes, the facts are exaggerated. Mostly Shaivas who accept vedic cannon as supreme authority fall in Advaita. Other Shaivas, who do not accept vedic cannon take alternative view they establish their siddantha is greater and revelations made to them through their great perceptors are superior to Veda.
    Hence, Shaivas can be classified in to two broad categories
    1. Advaita Shaivas
    2. Agamic Shaivas
    1. In fact all Shaiva and Vaishnava traditions are Agamic in their nature. Only Pashupata-shaiva might have had Vedic origins, all other Shaiva sampradayas are essentially Agamic. However most of them acknowledge Vedic Shruti as an equal or additional authority, and only some Bhairavagamas (which belong to Atimarga-shaiva) reject Vedic knowledge as dominated by Maya, delusion.

    2. There are Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita Agamic Shaivas, as well as Vaishnavas.

    Thus, this classification is inaccurate.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Location
    Chennai
    Age
    48
    Posts
    61
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    1. In fact all Shaiva and Vaishnava traditions are Agamic in their nature. Only Pashupata-shaiva might have had Vedic origins, all other Shaiva sampradayas are essentially Agamic. However most of them acknowledge Vedic Shruti as an equal or additional authority, and only some Bhairavagamas (which belong to Atimarga-shaiva) reject Vedic knowledge as dominated by Maya, delusion.

    2. There are Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita Agamic Shaivas, as well as Vaishnavas.

    Thus, this classification is inaccurate.
    In every thread you are repeating this, but not a problem.

    Vaishnav sects, few sects are agamic in nature, however, all vaishnav agamas are drawn from Vedas whose parts are missing now, hence, classified as agama.

    Regarding Agamic Shaivas, my comment was not related to rejected Vedic authority but making another authority superior to Veda.

    There are no Visishtadvaita and Dvaita Shaivas, both these philosophies are purely Vaishanvite philosophies. Thus you understanding is wrong

    Advaiti Vaishnav are supposed to be present as such.

    Advaiti Shaivas use agamas for temples etc and its authority is lesser than veda.

    All five great philosophers treat Agamas as scriptures realted to temple worship and rituals. Hence agamic authority is drawn from authority of Veda. Like Veda is sun and Agamas are moon.

    Hence, essentially, Advaiti, visishtadvaiti and Dvaiti sects are vedic in nature and so do Shaivas and Vaishavite who follow these sects

    If Agamas are superior to Shaktha and Kaula, I accept it without any doubt and in the same way, request you not to impose those ideas on other sects

  6. #6
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Jalasayanan
    There are no Visishtadvaita and Dvaita Shaivas, both these philosophies are purely Vaishanvite philosophies. Thus you understanding is wrong
    Virashaivas have [Shakti]-vishishtadvaita philosophy.
    Shaivasiddhanta of Meikandar tradition (current in Tamilnadu) and Pashupata are Dvaita schools.

    Have U not known about these?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jalasayanan
    All five great philosophers treat Agamas as scriptures realted to temple worship and rituals. Hence agamic authority is drawn from authority of Veda. Like Veda is sun and Agamas are moon.
    I do not understand whom U include into 5 "great" philosophers and for which reasons U exclude for example Sri Abhinavagupta. Do U consider him an "inferior" philosopher? U may not agree with his views, but for a fact he is a great philosopher of Shaivism!
    And his opinion on Agamas U have already heard from me

  7. The Veera Shaivas who follow Basavanna do not accept the authority of the Veda. Their authority is the Shaiva Agamas and the Kannada Vachanas.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71
    Yes, they usually reject Vedic authority, although not all of them as i know. In any case, as for every Shaiva tradition, Agamic authority is above Vedic one.

    But what is a relation of this note with the thread?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Location
    Chennai
    Age
    48
    Posts
    61
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    Virashaivas have [Shakti]-vishishtadvaita philosophy.
    Shaivasiddhanta of Meikandar tradition (current in Tamilnadu) and Pashupata are Dvaita schools.

    Have U not known about these?
    Request you to learn those philosophies first.

    Virashaiva has not given their concurence to Visishtadvaita and neither Shaiva Siddhanta and pashupata fall in dvaita schools.

    Visishtadvaita is fully explored by Shrimad Ramanuja and Dvaita by Sri Madhavacharya as full fledged discussions establishing Vishnu is supreme lord. I cannot understand how few sects can fall into these philosophies rejecting the basic tenant of these philosophies. If you have your own idea of classification, I appreciate it, but request you not to enforce it on others

    You are getting carried over by the external appearance.

    To be very specific, according to Dvaita, soul is nirguna and god is sampoorna guna viseshana. Never heard Shaiva Siddhanta supports this view.

    According to visishtadvaita and Dvaita, tattvas are 25 (26) but according to Shaiva Siddantha it is 36.

    Both philosophies identify moksha as reaching vaikunta where in other sects treate moksha as reaching Kailasa.

    I do not understand whom U include into 5 "great" philosophers and for which reasons U exclude for example Sri Abhinavagupta. Do U consider him an "inferior" philosopher? U may not agree with his views, but for a fact he is a great philosopher of Shaivism!
    And his opinion on Agamas U have already heard from me
    Hinduism as such is vedic sampradaya. We also include few sects that objects Veda and still remain as Hindus, however, general hindu view cannot include opinions of those who say vedas are inferior in authority to some other texts.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Jalasayanan

    Virashaiva has not given their concurence to Visishtadvaita and neither Shaiva Siddhanta and pashupata fall in dvaita schools.
    Arjuna is probably referring to the philosophical nature of these schools, and not the specific schools called Visishtadvaita and Dvaita(of vedanta). These are very generic terms isn't it?

    There is Shiva Vishistadvaita of Srikanta, which has a close parallel with Vishnu Vishistadvaita of Ramanuja.

    Pasupata is of dualistic nature.

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
  •