Are these verse authentic?

[Jalasayanan]

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.

Shiva Visishtadvaita (As you term) of Srikanta is called Kanta Bashyam and it belongs to Shaiva Siddantha school of Tamilnadu, made near 1600 to 1700 AD. However, there are lot of difference between them. One is prakriti Tattvas - Visishtadvaita list it has 26 and Kanta Bashyam lists it as 36 Tattvas. It is not termed as visishtadvaita the very followers but as Kanta Bashyam only.

Similarities cannot be cited but cannot termed as same.

I understand philosophical nature is similar but I expect members to exercise caution before posting. We can explain similarities but not using the same names which might amout to misleading the readers as such.

Pasupatha is dualist in nature, however all dualism cannot be terms as Dvaita Philosophy of Sri Madhavacharya is what I want to say.

[TruthSeeker]

Shiva Visishtadvaita (As you term) of Srikanta is called Kanta Bashyam and it belongs to Shaiva Siddantha school of Tamilnadu, made near 1600 to 1700 AD. However, there are lot of difference between them. One is prakriti Tattvas - Visishtadvaita list it has 26 and Kanta Bashyam lists it as 36 Tattvas. It is not termed as visishtadvaita the very followers but as Kanta Bashyam only.

Similarities cannot be cited but cannot termed as same.

I understand philosophical nature is similar but I expect members to exercise caution before posting. We can explain similarities but not using the same names which might amout to misleading the readers as such.

Pasupatha is dualist in nature, however all dualism cannot be terms as Dvaita Philosophy of Sri Madhavacharya is what I want to say.

Dvaita Philosophy needs to be referred to as TattvavAda to avoid ambiguity. Luckily there is only one version of Dvaita in vedanta( of Madhva), so generally there is no need to confuse it with other dualist schools.

Vishistadvaita usually refers to Ramanuja school only unless qualified by the prefix Shiva. Even the name Vishistadvaita was not given by Ramanuja isn't it? I beleive it was just called Ramanuja Darshanam during his times. You can see Sri Shankara making reference to Dvaita in his commentaries, but it does not refer to the philosophy of Madva at all.(which did not exist in his times). Thus, Dviata is a broad term in which the soul and God are eternally different, and where God is not the material cause of the world.

[Arjuna]

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

Namaste,

I wonder how eagerly U start an arguement while having little idea and limited knowledge of discussed matters!
Dvaita, Advaita etc. aren't monopolized by any particular schools or philosophers, there in no "trademark" and copyright stuff. Dualistic schools all fall under Dvaita, and these are Madhva's Dvaita, Pashupata-shaiva Dvaita, dualistic Saiva-siddhanta, Nyaya and Vaisheshika (which are based on Pashupata dualism), Patanjali's Yoga and other traditions.
Similarly with Vishishtadvaita and Advaita.
Vira-shaivism's doctrine is referred to as Shaktivishishtadvaita or Visheshadvaita. Do U insist on any proofs? If google.com doesn't help, i can provide at least several academic works on Shaiva philosophies which provide this type of classifications

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.

This is a practical position of most of contemporary traditions of Hinduism. Though we may say that at least formally all sects that reject Vedas fall into non-Hindu group of indian religions (together with Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism), same verily cannot be applied to traditions which accept Vedas but hold their own Agamas as superior in authority.

What U imagine upon this matter isn't a general Hindu view.

[Jalasayanan]

Namaste,

I wonder how eagerly U start an arguement while having little idea and limited knowledge of discussed matters!

Can I request you to be little bit more polite pls. Atleast you can avoid calling someone whom do not even know by name as a person with little idea and limited knowledge

Dvaita, Advaita etc. aren't monopolized by any particular schools or philosophers, there in no "trademark" and copyright stuff.

I agree there are no trade mark, but usage of these terms cannot refer incorporation of ideas on different school into that of original philosophies. When we refer Advaita, we normally mean Shri Sankara's School of thought. Same way Visishtadvaita refers normally to Shrimad Ramanuja's school. Referring to Visishtadvaiti Shaivites requires qualifying terms before visishtadvaiti.

Dualistic schools all fall under Dvaita, and these are Madhva's Dvaita, Pashupata-shaiva Dvaita, dualistic Saiva-siddhanta, Nyaya and Vaisheshika (which are based on Pashupata dualism), Patanjali's Yoga and other traditions.
Similarly with Vishishtadvaita and Advaita.

The very word Dvaita used in common parlence refers to Shri Madhavacharya's school, though the term dvaita can include all dualist schools. Caution to be exercised while communicating for what you mean might not be the same as what is heard by your audience. What is heard is more important that what you say

Vira-shaivism's doctrine is referred to as Shaktivishishtadvaita or Visheshadvaita. Do U insist on any proofs? If google.com doesn't help, i can provide at least several academic works on Shaiva philosophies which provide this type of classifications

Trust there is some error in spelling. Attached a file herewith, hope you will check

This is a practical position of most of contemporary traditions of Hinduism. Though we may say that at least formally all sects that reject Vedas fall into non-Hindu group of indian religions (together with Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism), same verily cannot be applied to traditions which accept Vedas but hold their own Agamas as superior in authority.

Traditions that hold agamas are superior authority is same as Buddhism and Jainism.

I see no point in nominally accepting Veda while rejecting most of its teachings in the name of Agama. Never heard Veda teach upasana to please Trimurthy's or their consorts using a dead body and menstrual blood. Never ever Veda calls a family girl in the name of Veshya, and never heard veda said married women are veshyas. See Niruttara Tantra for more details (This word, literally, means whore but is applied to initiated Shaktis and to Devis. Shiva enumerates seven, the Gupta Veshya, the Mahaveshya, the Kulaveshya, the Mahodaya, the Rajaveshya, the Devaveshya and the Brahmaveshya - in short there are no family girls once initiated all are called Veshyas)

Vedanta school as practises of rejecting Agamas not falling in line with Vedas. Those rejected agamas get the same treatment as Buddhism and Jainism. (While appreciating niyama in Jainism and buddhism, it is only their philosophies that gets condemned, their Vairaagya is to be learned, where in some agamic sects lust is only given as Vairaagya)

More over, those sects which had their fundamentals based only on Agamas, later on, worked with Vedanta thoughts to take vedic approval to their sects thereby making Vedas more authoritative. Shaiva Siddanta school of Tamilnadu is a classic example

To put it short, accepting Veda should mean accepting in toto. There is no point in invoking agamic authority to negate vedic teachings and insisting on the idea that ACCEPTED VEDA.

Hence, once said "Agamic authority is more superior to Vedic authority" bequests same treatment as Jainism and Buddhism

What U imagine upon this matter isn't a general Hindu view.

Having considering this statement in the light of my response to Shri Abhinavagupta's position in 5 great perceptor, I would like to remind, followers of Shri Abhinavagupta till date, does not even take other philosophers names with respect. Though I am not very sure about your adherence to Shri Abhinavagupta, let me take your statements. When looked upon, you refer Madhavacharya as Madhva always, I see no prefix or suffix reverance attached to Shrimad Ramanuja or Shri Adi Sankara Bhagavatpada. While rejecting Aacharyasthaana to other gurus, you are expecting others (including me) to accept Shri Abhinavagupta as a great perceptor. Though we do not have any problem in accepting Shri Abhinavagupta as a great perceptor, reqeust you to look upon your stance

I also remember you had earlier referred to Swami Sivananda to know the truths but has hidden those from his books (abstained from publishing to be politically correct) - an accusation that has no basis

Further more, having rejecting all philosophies and ideas without any reverance given to great perceptors, you insist other ideas are not general hindu view as such and you insist on accepting Kaula views as general hindu view.

To put it short, what you give to others in terms of respect and importance is not in proportion with what you expect in same terms

[Arjuna]

Namaste Jalasayanan,

I agree there are no trade mark, but usage of these terms cannot refer incorporation of ideas on different school into that of original philosophies. When we refer Advaita, we normally mean Shri Sankara's School of thought. Same way Visishtadvaita refers normally to Shrimad Ramanuja's school. Referring to Visishtadvaiti Shaivites requires qualifying terms before visishtadvaiti.
The very word Dvaita used in common parlence refers to Shri Madhavacharya's school, though the term dvaita can include all dualist schools. Caution to be exercised while communicating for what you mean might not be the same as what is heard by your audience. What is heard is more important that what you say

This was Ur statement: "There are no Visishtadvaita and Dvaita Shaivas, both these philosophies are purely Vaishanvite philosophies. Thus you understanding is wrong." After this, seeing that it is U who are wrong in this case, i have a right to say U have limited knowledge.
Ramanuja's schools may specifically be called Vishishtadvaita-vedanta, and i never used such term towards Shaiva Vishishtadvaita (though Shrikantha's Shaivism is in fact Vishishtadvaita-vedanta as well). Similarly with Dvaita.
When i say "Dvaita" and U imagine it to be specifically Madhva's Dvaita, it isn't my fault.

Trust there is some error in spelling. Attached a file herewith, hope you will check

I haven't seen any "file" and do not understand what U mean by saying this.

Traditions that hold agamas are superior authority is same as Buddhism and Jainism.

This may be Ur opinion, but not a Hindu one.
Buddhism and Jainism reject Vedas, and thus these are considered as Nastika doctrines together with Charvaka. Agamic Shaivism, Shaktism and Tantrism accept Vedas, but view Agamas as the very essence of Vedas — which is exactly similar to Pancharatra view upon Ekayana as Mulaveda.

In Ur case U have to reject Pancharatra as well (as Kurma-purana does), for it considers its texts as highest authority. But at least one Shaiva school is purely Vedic one — Pashupata. According to Mahabharata (Anushasana-parvan, ch. 14) Krishna, Yajnavalkya and Vedavyasa were Pashupatas.

I see no point in nominally accepting Veda while rejecting most of its teachings in the name of Agama. Never heard Veda teach upasana to please Trimurthy's or their consorts using a dead body and menstrual blood. Never ever Veda calls a family girl in the name of Veshya, and never heard veda said married women are veshyas. See Niruttara Tantra for more details (This word, literally, means whore but is applied to initiated Shaktis and to Devis. Shiva enumerates seven, the Gupta Veshya, the Mahaveshya, the Kulaveshya, the Mahodaya, the Rajaveshya, the Devaveshya and the Brahmaveshya - in short there are no family girls once initiated all are called Veshyas)

There are many Agamic practices which aren't Vedic (this includes MOST of Vaishnava, Shaiva and Shakta practices!). In Vedic religion we can observe fire-sacrifices, animal-sacrifices, Soma-cult, a cult of a sacred Word and some sexual rituals (which are few). Tantric practice is based upon Agamas, but still it is rather close to a Vedic one. Homa and balidana were preserved in Agamic cult, Soma-cult became a worship with wine (Sura), cult of the Word developed into Mantra-shastra and sexual side was extended. All these practices are essentially Vedic, though their form may differ considerably.

More over, those sects which had their fundamentals based only on Agamas, later on, worked with Vedanta thoughts to take vedic approval to their sects thereby making Vedas more authoritative. Shaiva Siddanta school of Tamilnadu is a classic example

Tantrism also developed Vedantic approval of itself. There are commentaries upon Bhagavadgita (by Sri Abhinavagupta), Upanishads (by Sri Bhaskararaya and some other) and Vedanta-sutra (by Panchanana Tarkaratna, a recent Acharya).
But Agamas are seen as independent and self-sufficient revelation, which is not contrary to Vedic one, but is the essence of it.

Having considering this statement in the light of my response to Shri Abhinavagupta's position in 5 great perceptor, I would like to remind, followers of Shri Abhinavagupta till date, does not even take other philosophers names with respect. Though I am not very sure about your adherence to Shri Abhinavagupta, let me take your statements. When looked upon, you refer Madhavacharya as Madhva always, I see no prefix or suffix reverance attached to Shrimad Ramanuja or Shri Adi Sankara Bhagavatpada. While rejecting Aacharyasthaana to other gurus, you are expecting others (including me) to accept Shri Abhinavagupta as a great perceptor. Though we do not have any problem in accepting Shri Abhinavagupta as a great perceptor, reqeust you to look upon your stance

Out of these Acharyas only Shankara has a certain connection with Tantric tradition. However i acknowledge and respect all these Acharyas as philosophers — and ONLY this kind of acknowledgement i want from U. Abhinavagupta was a great philosopher, which is evident from his works — not only in a field of Shaivism, but also theory of aesthetics. Whether one accepts him as Guru and Acharya, is up to one's own will. Vaishnavas naturally may not accept Abhinavagupta in this way, which is quite natural.

I also remember you had earlier referred to Swami Sivananda to know the truths but has hidden those from his books (abstained from publishing to be politically correct) - an accusation that has no basis

It isn't an accusation, but the only chance to preserve a respect towards him! For i have read some things which about Tantrism are actually wrong; thus, either i have to admit that Sivananda didn't know Tantrism properly and yet expressed an opinion, or that he had proper knowledge but preferred not to reveal it openly.
The basis for the second option was an opinion of my Srividya Guru and also some members of Shakti-sadhana e-list, who knew personally some close disciples of Sivananda.

Further more, having rejecting all philosophies and ideas without any reverance given to great perceptors, you insist other ideas are not general hindu view as such and you insist on accepting Kaula views as general hindu view.

I never rejected "all philosophies and ideas...", this is Ur supposition alone.
And i never said all Kaula views are "general Hindu" — verily NOT, since all Atimarga traditions are meant only for those ready for their practice and having got initiation into them.

[Jalasayanan]

This was Ur statement: "There are no Visishtadvaita and Dvaita Shaivas, both these philosophies are purely Vaishanvite philosophies. Thus you understanding is wrong." After this, seeing that it is U who are wrong in this case, i have a right to say U have limited knowledge.

In that case, I can also address you as a person with very little knowledge as such. I will substantiate this in followings

Ramanuja's schools may specifically be called Vishishtadvaita-vedanta, and i never used such term towards Shaiva Vishishtadvaita (though Shrikantha's Shaivism is in fact Vishishtadvaita-vedanta as well). Similarly with Dvaita.

Again the same mistakes. The word Shrikanta Shaivism does indicate Shrikanta has propounded a sect of shaivism which is absolutely wrong. Hope you also share knowledge in Tamil or atleast tamil speaking people, request you to inquire within your acquaintances on this. Shri Kanta made a commentary to Brahma sutra falling in line with Shaiva Siddantha of Tamilnadu, which was a pre existing religion and is as old as 2 AD. There is no point in attaching the term visishtadvaita to that commentary.

I had pointed few differences between the sects also.

hence, there are no Visishtadvaita or Dvaita Shaivists.

When i say "Dvaita" and U imagine it to be specifically Madhva's Dvaita, it isn't my fault.

Indeed, in the fault on your part in terms of communication.

You cannot say "I will say what ever, if you mistake it is not my fault". Even in the posting, you had not mentioned by Dvaita you meant all dualist philosophies, instead you try to take alibi with literal meaning of the word.

Request you not to pass over you inaccurate conclusions on others

I haven't seen any "file" and do not understand what U mean by saying this.

As suggested by you I searched for the term you had suggested in Yahoo and google. No items found. Request you to find the right spellings

This may be Ur opinion, but not a Hindu one.
Buddhism and Jainism reject Vedas, and thus these are considered as Nastika doctrines together with Charvaka. Agamic Shaivism, Shaktism and Tantrism accept Vedas, but view Agamas as the very essence of Vedas — which is exactly similar to Pancharatra view upon Ekayana as Mulaveda.

Shaivist yes, Shakta and Tantri No. None of agamas of Shakta or Tantris are identified as part of Veda. I have not read any such reference. Request you to provide the data if you have any.

In Ur case U have to reject Pancharatra as well (as Kurma-purana does), for it considers its texts as highest authority.

Paancharaatra does not consider itself as superior authority as such. It indicates Veda as superior authority. Authority of Paancharaatra is the authority of veda for it was a part of Veda (I am using the term WAS because that part of veda is lost now)

But at least one Shaiva school is purely Vedic one — Pashupata.

If pashupata is vedic school of thougth given to understand that pashupata is dualist school, it goes without saying that vedic school is dualism. Do you accept this?

This also says agamic religion are non dualist, however this thought is also false for Paancharaatra and certain shaivaagamas followed by Shaiva Siddantins are also dualist.

[quoteThere are many Agamic practices which aren't Vedic (this includes MOST of Vaishnava, Shaiva and Shakta practices!). [/quote]
Some purification rituals are not listed in vedas are used by these sects, I understand. However, none of these rights are exclusively banned in Veda which you fail to notice.

Tantric practice is based upon Agamas, but still it is rather close to a Vedic one.

I had pointed out list of activities practised by Tantris which are taboo for vedic practioners. I never heard Veda allows person to sit on top of a dead body for a sadhana. Veda never advices to use menstrual blood to be used for an upaasana. (Veda does not even call stinking materials like menstrual blood by the name of Pushpa - flower; for veda flowers indicate material that does not stink). There is no point in accepting veda and going against vedic teachings. It amounts to rejecting veda as such

Tantrism also developed Vedantic approval of itself. There are commentaries upon Bhagavadgita (by Sri Abhinavagupta), Upanishads (by Sri Bhaskararaya and some other) and Vedanta-sutra (by Panchanana Tarkaratna, a recent Acharya).

Does not know which Upanishad or which part of Vedanta Sutra subscribes Moksha along with Boga. When the fundamentals are rejected cannot see how texts can help.

But Agamas are seen as independent and self-sufficient revelation, which is not contrary to Vedic one, but is the essence of it.

Just a mere statement without any substantiating evidence. Max you can get is few people subscribing to your view. Request you to prove your stance

Out of these Acharyas only Shankara has a certain connection with Tantric tradition.

I suppose Shri Sharabhanga and Ramkish has commented on this statement earlier and showed this view is false

However i acknowledge and respect all these Acharyas as philosophers — and ONLY this kind of acknowledgement i want from U.

I am yet to see any such acknowledgement

It isn't an accusation, but the only chance to preserve a respect towards him

Indeed it is an accusation

For i have read some things which about Tantrism are actually wrong; thus, either i have to admit that Sivananda didn't know Tantrism properly and yet expressed an opinion, or that he had proper knowledge but preferred not to reveal it openly.

Both stances are false. Let me give you a glimpse of this.

Now I say, as Shri Abhinavagupta as identified few flaws in Shri Adi Sanakaracharya's Kevala Advaita, I have two choices, 1. He does not know Kevala Advaita properly or 2. He had proper knowledge but preferred not to reveal it.

Either stance I take on Shri Abhinavagupta, I indicate subtly, his philosophy is altogether wrong and carries no authority for either he does not know or he has hidden the truth.

Now coming back to Swami Sivananda, you comment indicates you want all to accept Kaula doctrine as correct. I can read between the lines.

The basis for the second option was an opinion of my Srividya Guru and also some members of Shakti-sadhana e-list, who knew personally some close disciples of Sivananda.

Now you blame your guru for the mistakes of yours

I never rejected "all philosophies and ideas...", this is Ur supposition alone.

Your stance of Kevala Advaita and Swami Sivananda is well known. There is no point in hiding this now

[Arjuna]

Namaste,

Again the same mistakes. The word Shrikanta Shaivism does indicate Shrikanta has propounded a sect of shaivism which is absolutely wrong.

I didn't say that Shrikantha established a sect of Shaivism. "Shrikantha's Shaivism" refers to his darshana (which was a Shaiva one) expressed in his Brahmamimansa-bhashya.
And he developed a version of Vishishtadvaita philosophy, perhaps even before Ramanuja or at the same time with him (Shrikantha is usually placed in 11-12 cc.). In his commentary he argues with Adi Shankara (though not mentioning him by name).

Hope you also share knowledge in Tamil or atleast tamil speaking people, request you to inquire within your acquaintances on this. Shri Kanta made a commentary to Brahma sutra falling in line with Shaiva Siddantha of Tamilnadu, which was a pre existing religion and is as old as 2 AD. There is no point in attaching the term visishtadvaita to that commentary.

No, Shrikantha is "not in line" with Shaivasiddhanta, and his philosophy is named Vishishtadvaita by both scholars and Shaiva teachers.

I had pointed few differences between the sects also.

What U "pointed" was irrelevant to the matter — that's the problem
Advaita-Dvaita stuff isn't connected with number of tattvas, names given to Brahman etc.

hence, there are no Visishtadvaita or Dvaita Shaivists.

Well, U are free to reject their existence, they won't vanish i deem. For me enough of such type of arguement . Anyone interested to know whose position is correct may get an idea from studying Shaiva philosophy and history.

Indeed, in the fault on your part in terms of communication.

I use terms which are used by scholars and followers of Shaivism.

You cannot say "I will say what ever, if you mistake it is not my fault". Even in the posting, you had not mentioned by Dvaita you meant all dualist philosophies, instead you try to take alibi with literal meaning of the word.

Dvaita primarily is "dualism" and not "Madhva's philosophy," which is only one out of many dualist schools inside Hinduism.
Ur personal linguistic associations are out of my responsibility

As suggested by you I searched for the term you had suggested in Yahoo and google. No items found. Request you to find the right spellings

Right spelling for Sanskrit words is Sanskrit spelling only!
Thus,
shaktivishiShTAdvaita
visheShAdvaita
vIrashaiva
pAshupata
Anything esle needed? For google U have to try various spellings in english — there is no "the only right one." My spellings are correct but not the only possible.

And U in fact use a wrong spelling for Shrikantha, for he is shrIkaNTha and not "kanta" or "kAnta."

Shaivist yes, Shakta and Tantri No. None of agamas of Shakta or Tantris are identified as part of Veda. I have not read any such reference. Request you to provide the data if you have any.

None of Agamas (Shaiva, Shakta or Vaishnava) are literally parts of Vedas.
Shaivagamas consider themselves to be the essence of Vedas (see Makutagama and other).
Regarding Shakta-tantras, please:
Kularnava-tantra (II.10) shows Kula-dharma as the essence of Vedas and Agamas. As i remember i have seen a similar verse in Rudra-yamala as well, but in any case Kularnava passage is enough — this Tantra is one of the most authorative.

Paancharaatra does not consider itself as superior authority as such. It indicates Veda as superior authority. Authority of Paancharaatra is the authority of veda for it was a part of Veda (I am using the term WAS because that part of veda is lost now)

This isn't proved historically. Many later Upanishads (of various sects including some Tantric) claim to belong to Atharvana-veda, but that clearly is baseless.
I cannot say this Pancharatra claim is 100% wrong, but it is unsubstantiated and logically improbable.

If pashupata is vedic school of thougth given to understand that pashupata is dualist school, it goes without saying that vedic school is dualism. Do you accept this?

Pashupata wasn't the only Vedic school. But rather probably early Vedic religion was dualistic in its views, though i guess monistic at its heart. This monism got developed in Upanishads and later flourished into great philosophical systems of Advaita, like Paradvaita of Tantrism and Shankara's Vedanta.

This also says agamic religion are non dualist, however this thought is also false for Paancharaatra and certain shaivaagamas followed by Shaiva Siddantins are also dualist.

There are dualistic and monistic Agamas; since in Kashmiri Shaivism and Tantrism the highest Agamas are Bhairava and Kaula (which are monistic), i speak of Monism as Agamic darshana without specifying every time.
(To clear a possible doubt, by Kashmiri Shaivism i mean a group of four monistic traditions, namely Kula, Krama, Trika and Pratyabhijna (which includes Spanda). There existed in Kashmir a dualist Shaiva-siddhanta as well, which later got imported into Tamilnadu.)

Early Pacharatra (referred to as Ekayana) might have been a monistic tradition originated in Kashmir. For this possibility an evidence is Samvit-prakasha of Vamanadatta, a vaishnava from Ekayana tradition, which delivers a monistic philosophy very similar to Paradvaita of KSh.

Some purification rituals are not listed in vedas are used by these sects, I understand. However, none of these rights are exclusively banned in Veda which you fail to notice.
I had pointed out list of activities practised by Tantris which are taboo for vedic practioners. I never heard Veda allows person to sit on top of a dead body for a sadhana. Veda never advices to use menstrual blood to be used for an upaasana. (Veda does not even call stinking materials like menstrual blood by the name of Pushpa - flower; for veda flowers indicate material that does not stink). There is no point in accepting veda and going against vedic teachings. It amounts to rejecting veda as such

1. There are practices in Tantrism which contradict Smriti-shastras (not Vedas as such), those which U mention and some other. They are meant only for adherents of Atimarga, which is beyond social rules of conduct. To all other traditions they do not apply.
If one follows Smriti, he has to reject all these.

2. Blood was shed in Vedic rites, and any fresh blood has a same smell

[Arjuna]

Does not know which Upanishad or which part of Vedanta Sutra subscribes Moksha along with Boga. When the fundamentals are rejected cannot see how texts can help.

Gita implies such view and many Upanishadic texts. Vedanta-sutra isn't essential for Tantrism (and Shaivism in general), since Shaivism has its own Sutras.
Normally all four Purusharthas are acknowledged in Hinduism (for a grihasthi of course), and thus there is nothing "heretical" in Bhogamoksha-samarasya doctrine.

Just a mere statement without any substantiating evidence. Max you can get is few people subscribing to your view. Request you to prove your stance

What U mean by "prove"? This view isn't "mine," but Tantric one.
Whether U believe that Agamas were revealed by Shiva or not is up to U only.

I suppose Shri Sharabhanga and Ramkish has commented on this statement earlier and showed this view is false

No one can "show" this view is false, since Shankara lived in 8th century and none of us can check what he did teach and what not.
Sarabhanga didn't agree that Shankara could physically practice the 5M of Kula (since Shankara was a sannyasi); i don't remember him rejecting a possibility of Shankara's connection with Tantrism as such! Gaudapada, a Paramaguru of Shankara, wrote Shrividyaratnasutras, that are Shakta-tantric. And Shankara himself wrote Saundarya-lahari, a Tantric mystical hymn (his authorship is accepted by most scholars and also by Shankara's maths — at least in South India).

Both stances are false. Let me give you a glimpse of this.
Now I say, as Shri Abhinavagupta as identified few flaws in Shri Adi Sanakaracharya's Kevala Advaita, I have two choices, 1. He does not know Kevala Advaita properly or 2. He had proper knowledge but preferred not to reveal it.
Either stance I take on Shri Abhinavagupta, I indicate subtly, his philosophy is altogether wrong and carries no authority for either he does not know or he has hidden the truth.
Now coming back to Swami Sivananda, you comment indicates you want all to accept Kaula doctrine as correct. I can read between the lines.

Ur example is irrelevant
If U can see that Abhinavagupta describes Shankara's Advaita improperly, then only U can accuse him of not knowing it. The problem is not criticism, but false depiction.
If i state that Shrivaishnavas worship Narayana with offering of wine, that will be a factual lie. This was a case with Sivananda's statement about Tantrism.
Anyone may reject Kaula doctrine or criticise it, no problem. But none has a right to pervert it, assigning to it ideas of other sects and deliberately changing its teaching.

Now you blame your guru for the mistakes of yours

My Guru corrected me when i accused Sivananda of not knowing Tantric tradition. And after that i admitted that Sivananda had proper knowledge, but concealed certain things.

Your stance of Kevala Advaita and Swami Sivananda is well known. There is no point in hiding this now

Yes, indeed it is known from my own words, not only from Ur opinion about me

[Arjuna]

Shiva Visishtadvaita (As you term) of Srikanta is called Kanta Bashyam and it belongs to Shaiva Siddantha school of Tamilnadu, made near 1600 to 1700 AD.

Shrikantha's commentary upon Brahma-sutras is called Brahmamimansa-bhashya. It was written in 11-12 century C.E., and it doesn't belong to Shaiva-siddhanta.

[Arjuna]

Srikantha (Shrikantha): A saint and philosopher (ca 1050) who promoted a Saivite theology which embraced monism and dualism. Founder of the Saiva school of Siva Advaita or Siva Vishishtadvaita, teaching a "Saivite qualified nondualism" resembling Ramanuja's Vaishnavite Vishishtadvaita. He was also known as Nilakantha Sivacharya. See: Siva Advaita.
(From http://www.himalayanacademy.com/reso...ssary_S-Z.html )

Also see: http://www.experiencefestival.com/saiva_vishishtadvaita
http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archi...er/010243.html

Just to give a few examples from Google for Jalasayanan