Are these verse authentic?

[Jalasayanan]

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

ShriKanta's philosphical quest is in line with Shaiva Siddantha, his philosophy is identified by scholars as Saiva Advaita and not as Visishtadvaita. Baskara had his own propounding which does not fall fully in line with Shaiva Siddantha, which he preferred to call Siva Visishtadvaita. Like Advaita, visishtadvaita is not propounded by Shrimad Ramanuja but existed even before him. Shrimad Ramanuja says he has learned this system throughly from works of Bodayana Maharishi. However he did not authorise his followers to be termed as Visishtadvaita Shaivas. Qualifying term Siva prefixed to Visishtadvaita indicates the work is in line with Visishtadvaita doctrine but differencitated. Hence, Visishtadvaita indicates Vaishnavite faith. There cannot be Shaivas in visishtadvaita faith but in siva visishtadvaita faith which not realted to visishtadvaita.

Better you name your scholars

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.

This shows your weakness in vedanta texts and studies. Try to understand what is the philosophy and basic tenants of philosophy, how it guided etc

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.

Good alibi. Once taking such alibis it is for you to abstain

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

Which scholars? Even your findings are listed unders Siva Advaita, which you ignore fully. Siva Visishtadvaita has no connection with Shrikanta but with Bhaskara which shows the credentials of your scholars. Your own references will take to this information. Request you to check throughly

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

I have accused of delibearately using this term inspite of knowing the fact that Madhavacharya's philosophy is called by the SCHOLARS as Dvaita. You consciously trying to provoke using such terms. It is your responsibility in toto

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

Unnecessary accusation. The web site lists the names in line with tamil traditions, even the name Nilakanta is listed as nilakantha. Think twice before posting and check how authoritative is your information.

None of Agamas (Shaiva, Shakta or Vaishnava) are literally parts of Vedas.

Better you exclude Vaishnava terms from your posts. It has been shown to you already, Paancharaatra is part of Veda and Vaikanasa is highly vedic texts which approved authoritiveness of veda. If Vaikanasa has to be authoritative text, Veda should be a superior texts as such. Same with Paancharaatra.

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.

Unnecessary posting. When I accepted Shakta agamas are not part of Veda, I do not know what made you yo indicate this.

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.

The claim is proven historically. All Paancharaatra followers from early days use vedic rituals and accepted Veda as superior text than that of Paancharaatra. VEDA SAASTRAT PARAM NAASTI, the words of Veda Vyasa is fully accepted by Paancharaatrins. On the contrary, checking the dates of origination, many later upanishads made by individuals claim to be part of Atharvana Veda it to treated baseless, unless the claim is corroborrated in old texts.

I cannot say this Pancharatra claim is 100% wrong, but it is unsubstantiated and logically improbable.

It is fully substantiated and logically probable. It is only you who deny this trying to take unfair advantage.

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.

How can your guess be validated is what I wonder. Request you to list other vedic schools. Pasupatha is purely dualist philosophy, by blood, body and soul , hence no need to mention the heart

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.

Early agamas might have been dualist tradtions on the contrary and later on monistic views could had be forced upon them

There existed in Kashmir a dualist Shaiva-siddhanta as well, which later got imported into Tamilnadu.

This is example of your unwanted statements at irrelevant times. It is enough to say Kashmir also had a dualist Shaiva Siddanta, the later part importing into tamilnadu is purely irrelevant which you cannot substantiate at any time. First shed the idea that all religions came from Kashmir

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.

This is your idea. When entire texts spells dualism, you imagine it could had been monitic religion. How vamanadatta got associated with ekayana tradition? I agree there are some monistic Vaishnavs but it cannot invalidate dualistic Paancharaatra. Ekayana seems to be much bigger texts as such as Paancharaatra is deemed as a part of it

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

Vedic stories (part of vedas itself) indicate Rajasvala came to women because of Indra gave a part of his Brahma Hatti Dosha to women. It is indeed deemed as a part of curse. Hence it is against veda itself not only to smriti

Never heard Veda allows using a human dead body for upasana

Further, menstrual blood stinks a lot than fresh blood. I can describe the difference scientifically and even religiously. But I afraid this is not the right place for it. Here I am present to explore hinduism as such not about menstrual blood and sex rituals. Hence I abstain.

[Jalasayanan]

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.

Yes, with additives. If you add slokas that are not present in Gita originally, it will. Why Gita, for that fact any text can give you those meanings as such.

We will analyse upanishad that gives ideas of Bogha Moksha idea on Upanishad sub forum. Hope you will start threads on it

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.

Which agama says it? Vedic Authority is derived from Apourusheyam, all the other texts, which includes revelation of Shri Krishna,

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.

Historically yes, anyone can show this is false. There are no other works of Sankara which falls in this line. His first work Kanakadhara stotram does not has any relation to Tantrism nor his later works. The only hold you have is Soundarya Lahiri.

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).

I will leave Sharabhangaji to deal with the parts ascribed to his name. I just itereated what his postings meant. No opinions on Ramkish findings. If you say Soundarya Lahiri indicates Sankaracharya is Tantric, then his karavalambams indicates he is dualist and his Bhaja govindam indicates he is a vaishnavite. Many scholars also ascribe to this view that Sankaracharya is vaishnav.

By the way, I am not sure about Kanchi Mutt, even I heard Sringeri Mutt disowned Kanchi mutt as a mutt ascribed to the name of Sankaracharya, however, this is irrelevant to this thread.

Ur example is irrelevant

In fact, your idea was 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.

Till this point you are not ready to post what Swami Sivananda opined, which shows you are trying to take alibi.

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.

Yes, you can state, we will reject for want of evidence. But if you show false evidence and mistreat the slokas to derive at your conclusion, it false depiction and not criticism. Under this light, opinion of Shri Abinavagupta worths my statements

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.

It is not individuals but scholars. When scholars point out that current practise is not relevant with tradition, we will go with scholars. Till date you could not refute any of the ideas given scholars who opine that Kaula also indicates limiting desires etc. Be it Bharati or Ramkish, be it is from a tantra book or info passed over by Aurthur Avalon, info given was upto the point which you try to manipulate matching to your doctrine. In short, you are giving a preface that you are going to interpret every sloka and every text given to you in such a way that it will match with your ideas.

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.

Atleast, if you say, swami sivananda does not know tantrism, it would reflected some respect, for he is also human, and no human can know all subjects in toto with much expertise. Having corrected, you insist that he knows but concealed, drops him down from Aacharya stana which shows your attitude. Guru should teach what he knows but cannot mislead a disciple by any means, be it direct teachings or publications, atleast on the subject he knows, thus your view on swami sivananda is definitely derogatory. I sincerely doubt your guru's role in it. As it is your personal corroboration, I have nothing to say, but blaming once own guru for the mistake is utterly false.

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

I am happy that atleast in this level we concur

[Jalasayanan]

Datings vary. I have few evidences pointed out through temple encarvations which indicate it was made around 16th century.

However, it belongs to Shaiva Siddantha. The text is known popularly as Siva Advaita.

[Jalasayanan]

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

SrIkaNTha's version of viSishTAdvaita along the lines of Sankaran advaita are the lines used in the text.

Having said that Srikanta does not name his book as Visishtadvaita and it falls in line with advaita, few people calling it Visishtadvaita indicates it is a misnomer and not the fact

Other refereces passed are listed under Saiva Advaita and columns pertaining to Siva Visishtadvaita is missing in toto. Thus this indicates, normaly usage is Siva Advaita and not visishtadvaita, though few people identify similarities between vaishanvite work and this shaivite work.

Thus it is clear that there are no visishtadvaiti Shaivities. Regarding Dvaiti's has Arjuna intends to mean dualism and not Madhavacharya's Tattavada or dvaita as it is popularly known, it is out of context now, for dualist shaivites do exist. For that fact, even Shrikanta's work is a dualist work.

I am still wondering what made people to think Shrikanta's work is not Shaivite?

[Arjuna]

Namaste,

Better you name your scholars

Dr. Kanti Chandra Pandey (M.A., Ph.D., D. Litt., M.O.L. Shastri, Lucknow University) in Bhaskari (Varanasi, 1998, p. VI) lists eight systems of Shaiva philosophy:

1. Pashupata dualism
2. Siddhanta Shaiva dualism
3. Dualistic-cum-Non-dualistic Shaivism of Lakulisha Pashupata
4. Vishishtadvaita Shaivism
5. Visheshadvaita Shaivism (Vira Shaiva)
6. Nandikeshvara Shaivism
7. Raseshvara Shaivism
8. Monistic Shaivism of Kashmir

Shrikantha quotes Utpalacharya's Ishvarapratyabhijna-karika (a Kashmiri monistic text) at least thrice in his commentary on Brahma-sutra.
Shrikantha reject's Bhaskara's Bhedabheda-vada (BrS, 2.1.22).
Appaya Dik****a (1550 A.D.) have commented upon Shrikantha's Brahmamimansa-bhashya in a monistic way, and with that promoted a name Shivadvaita.

Another sourse on Shaiva philosophies is: G.V. Tagare, "Saivism: Some Glimpses", Delhi, 1996.

This shows your weakness in vedanta texts and studies. Try to understand what is the philosophy and basic tenants of philosophy, how it guided etc

Dvaita, Advaita and alike terms are NOT restricted to Vedanta.

Which scholars? Even your findings are listed unders Siva Advaita, which you ignore fully. Siva Visishtadvaita has no connection with Shrikanta but with Bhaskara which shows the credentials of your scholars. Your own references will take to this information. Request you to check throughly

See above.
The very philosophy of Shrikantha was Vishishtadvaita, while Appaya Dik****a later tried to make an Advaita out of it.

I have accused of delibearately using this term inspite of knowing the fact that Madhavacharya's philosophy is called by the SCHOLARS as Dvaita. You consciously trying to provoke using such terms. It is your responsibility in toto

No, it is specifically called Dvaita-vedanta. Dvaita is not a name of any particular school, but merely "dualism".
If a scholar in a context reduces "Dvaita-vedanta" to "Dvaita" only, it is done for convenience. Like that, if Gaudiya-vaishnavism is discussed, one may call it simply "Vaishnavism" — that isn't a reason to claim "Vaishnavism" is a doctrine of Chaitanya alone

Unnecessary accusation. The web site lists the names in line with tamil traditions, even the name Nilakanta is listed as nilakantha. Think twice before posting and check how authoritative is your information.

Those tamilians who are ignorant of Sanskrit aren't authorities to be followed
"Srikanta" instead of "Shrikantha" or "Srikantha" is mere illiteracy.
ta-kAra and tha-kAra are different letters.

Unnecessary posting. When I accepted Shakta agamas are not part of Veda, I do not know what made you yo indicate this.

Since U forgot, let me remind U: this was a REPLY to Ur question.
"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." — these are Ur words

The claim is proven historically. All Paancharaatra followers from early days use vedic rituals and accepted Veda as superior text than that of Paancharaatra. VEDA SAASTRAT PARAM NAASTI, the words of Veda Vyasa is fully accepted by Paancharaatrins.

May i ask U, which ancient texts describe Pancharatra as a Vedic system?
Scholars hold it to be undoubtedly non-Vedic.

It is fully substantiated and logically probable. It is only you who deny this trying to take unfair advantage.

Substantiated with WHAT? Pancharatra's own claims?
And U want me to believe that accidentally ALL Vedic Pancharatra texts were lost, while Shaiva texts were preserved. How could this happen? Why there is no historical trace of supposed Vedic Pancharatra?

[Arjuna]

How can your guess be validated is what I wonder. Request you to list other vedic schools. Pasupatha is purely dualist philosophy, by blood, body and soul , hence no need to mention the heart

Please read Upanishads.

Early agamas might have been dualist tradtions on the contrary and later on monistic views could had be forced upon them

28 Shaivagamas are dualistic, while Bhairava- and Kaulagamas ar monistic.
Their dates are approximately same.

This is example of your unwanted statements at irrelevant times. It is enough to say Kashmir also had a dualist Shaiva Siddanta, the later part importing into tamilnadu is purely irrelevant which you cannot substantiate at any time. First shed the idea that all religions came from Kashmir

Tamil tradition says that Rishi from North came to South, entered a body of a cowherd and came to be known as Tirumular, the author of Tirumantiram, the earliest Tamil text on Shaiva-siddhanta.

Earliest Agamas of Shaivism and Pancharatra originated in Kashmir, which is a view held by scholars (N.N. Bhattacharyya and others).

This is your idea. When entire texts spells dualism, you imagine it could had been monitic religion. How vamanadatta got associated with ekayana tradition?

Vamanadatta himself states he belongs to Ekayana tradition and in his SP glorifies Vishnu.

Vedic stories (part of vedas itself) indicate Rajasvala came to women because of Indra gave a part of his Brahma Hatti Dosha to women. It is indeed deemed as a part of curse. Hence it is against veda itself not only to smriti

Vedas have a story of Prajapati copulating with a his own daughter in her periods. But all these are cosmological stories and hymns and not a moral prescriptions.
I am unaware of any VEDIC prohibition in regard of menstrual blood (if there are any, please provide direct proofs).

Never heard Veda allows using a human dead body for upasana

Veda doesn't talk about this matter. Can U show that Veda prohibits it?

Further, menstrual blood stinks a lot than fresh blood. I can describe the difference scientifically and even religiously. But I afraid this is not the right place for it. Here I am present to explore hinduism as such not about menstrual blood and sex rituals. Hence I abstain.

As a Vaishnava U are supposed not to have smelled it!
But i KNOW it has no bad smell (if it is fresh and a woman is healthy), and anyone married can check that.

[Jalasayanan]

Shrikantha reject's Bhaskara's Bhedabheda-vada (BrS, 2.1.22). Appaya Dik****a (1550 A.D.) have commented upon Shrikantha's Brahmamimansa-bhashya in a monistic way, and with that promoted a name Shivadvaita.

Where did Srikanta terms his philosophy as Visishtadvaita was my question? Who are others to ascribe this name to his text?

Dvaita, Advaita and alike terms are NOT restricted to Vedanta.

Better we exercise caution with general terms. Advaita and Dvaita when used, normally it indicates Vedanta schools only.

See above. The very philosophy of Shrikantha was Vishishtadvaita, while Appaya Dik****a later tried to make an Advaita out of it.

I had read the entire text of Srikanta. Nowhere he terms his philosophy as visishtadvaita

No, it is specifically called Dvaita-vedanta. Dvaita is not a name of any particular school, but merely "dualism".

Advaita is never terms as Advaita Vedanta though it can be termed so. So is Visishtadvaita and Dvaita.

If a scholar in a context reduces "Dvaita-vedanta" to "Dvaita" only, it is done for convenience. Like that, if Gaudiya-vaishnavism is discussed, one may call it simply "Vaishnavism" — that isn't a reason to claim "Vaishnavism" is a doctrine of Chaitanya alone

Such reduction in terminology is allowed only after starting the discussion and such reduction will not affect the continuity of the discussions. If vaishanvism is said on this thread, it will neither indicate Sri Vaishnavism nor Gaudiya Vaishnavism in specific but all vaishnavism. I cannot be teaching basics in a place where my intentions are to learn

Those tamilians who are ignorant of Sanskrit aren't authorities to be followed. "Srikanta" instead of "Shrikantha" or "Srikantha" is mere illiteracy. ta-kAra and tha-kAra are different letters.

Hence your total citations are wrong for those people are ignorant.

Since U forgot, let me remind U: this was a REPLY to Ur question.
"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." — these are Ur words

Sorry, Unlike you if I make a confusing statement, upon citation, I will make it clear.

My intention of this statement is as follows.
None of agamas of Shakta or Tantris are identified as part of Veda. I have not read any such reference(indicating these are parts of veda like Paancharaatra). Request you to provide the data if you have any

May i ask U, which ancient texts describe Pancharatra as a Vedic system? Scholars hold it to be undoubtedly non-Vedic.

It is followers who are real scholars of the system. Unlike other religions, Hinduism is a different religion. When a person exclusively identifies himself with a particular agama, Either Vaikanasa or Paancharaatra he is scholar of that particular Agama. These two agamas has separate Gotra Avarna. Paancharaatra is more liberal to include all brahmins in its sect and Vaikanasa is more stringent. Vaikanasa brahmins does not teach Vaikanasa (even Veda) to others. If I write a book, I will terms as scholar. The way you disown Bharati's reference on Kaula in Vamachara thread applies to this case.

Substantiated with WHAT? Pancharatra's own claims?
And U want me to believe that accidentally ALL Vedic Pancharatra texts were lost, while Shaiva texts were preserved. How could this happen? Why there is no historical trace of supposed Vedic Pancharatra?

What Shaiva texts got to do with Paancharaatra. Amongst Ekayana, Paancharaatra had distinct followers who learnt only Paancharaatra, hence it was preserved. Ekayana sakha period is time period before Krishna Dwapaayana Vyasa. It is for you to dig out other followers of Ekayana. Just because others do not exist now does not invalidate this claim.

[Jalasayanan]

Please read Upanishads.

Wonderful idea. Having terms Pasupatha as earliest school and all monistic school came up later, you want me to read upanishad that support Monistic views and go by the translation and commentaries given by monistic school. If pasupatha is earliest school and having shown it is dualist, and having shown it is vedic religion, then dualism should be vedic religion, hence upanishad should also spread dualism. What makes to ignore dualistic statements in upanishads

28 Shaivagamas are dualistic, while Bhairava- and Kaulagamas ar monistic. Their dates are approximately same.

Hence my view is correct. Agamas are predominantly dualistic

Dates approx same? Can you throw more light on to this. Who dated it and how?

Tamil tradition says that Rishi from North came to South, entered a body of a cowherd and came to be known as Tirumular, the author of Tirumantiram, the earliest Tamil text on Shaiva-siddhanta.

So according to Arjuna the term north is synonymous with Kashmir . I wonder for extreme south how northern parts are categorised in other ways other than north

Earliest Agamas of Shaivism and Pancharatra originated in Kashmir, which is a view held by scholars (N.N. Bhattacharyya and others).

This is just a possibility. Most of paancharaatra texts talks about southern regions only, hence practically it cannot be ignored that origination can also be in south.

Vamanadatta himself states he belongs to Ekayana tradition and in his SP glorifies Vishnu.

So, with this you got another reference to Ekayana where in the followers are not dualist as Paancharaatris but a monist . Like to see that text. Hence it should be clear that all Ekayana sections are not lost. Is there any other reference in his text like any reference to sub sects etc

Vedas have a story of Prajapati copulating with a his own daughter in her periods. But all these are cosmological stories and hymns and not a moral prescriptions.

According to Vedas, Prajapati (I suppose he is Brahma as per story and not Shiva as the name indicates on later days) does not create attachments of paternity or maternity by creation. Anyways this is not part of our discussion. Just a comment passing by

I am unaware of any VEDIC prohibition in regard of menstrual blood (if there are any, please provide direct proofs).

I had already indicated the instance by which Rajasvala nature occured to women and how it got the prohibition. If you need exact verses, I have to dig out. I just moved all my books to attic to accomodate more space for my daughter's materials

Veda doesn't talk about this matter. Can U show that Veda prohibits it?

However, Vedas indicate once a man dies, corpse has to be burried as soon as possible and final rites has to be performed.

As a Vaishnava U are supposed not to have smelled it!
But i KNOW it has no bad smell (if it is fresh and a woman is healthy), and anyone married can check that.

I have smelled fresh blood many a times as a human as and when I was injured and it bleeded.

Rajasvala stri herself stinks - As a staunch hindu I should be unware of this, but with emergence of Feminist thought and liberal attitude given to Rajasvala, I meet many a women in work place where in for a normal person it is easy to deduct Rajasvala nature of the women blind folded. If a rajasvala women stands behind my chair, I can sense the stinking.

Hope with mutual consent we will abstain from discussion on Rajasvala blood as I still feel this is not the right place. Here we have discuss about hindu dharma and not about nature of Rajasvala blood.

[Arjuna]

Yes, with additives. If you add slokas that are not present in Gita originally, it will. Why Gita, for that fact any text can give you those meanings as such.

There are various interpretations of Gita, which do differ from each other.
U may not accept Abhinavagupta's view of it. The fact is that it allows such interpretation and it exists.

We will analyse upanishad that gives ideas of Bogha Moksha idea on Upanishad sub forum. Hope you will start threads on it

I won't start
Firstly, it will take unnecessarily much time and secondly i am not interested to analyse texts in order to prove U something. U disagree with my views — no problem.

Till this point you are not ready to post what Swami Sivananda opined, which shows you are trying to take alibi.

U may have whatever opinion on this issue. I won't waste time searching in Shivananda's books.

It is not individuals but scholars. When scholars point out that current practise is not relevant with tradition, we will go with scholars. Till date you could not refute any of the ideas given scholars who opine that Kaula also indicates limiting desires etc. Be it Bharati or Ramkish, be it is from a tantra book or info passed over by Aurthur Avalon, info given was upto the point which you try to manipulate matching to your doctrine. In short, you are giving a preface that you are going to interpret every sloka and every text given to you in such a way that it will match with your ideas.

The thing is that i know tradition directly and have read original texts. Scholars may mistake — they have to be taken critically as well.

However, the matter was somewhat different, U divert original meaning. The talk with Ramkish was about a state of Jivanmukta. I never stated that Kaula has to fulfill ALL desires without any limitation.

Having corrected, you insist that he knows but concealed, drops him down from Aacharya stana which shows your attitude. Guru should teach what he knows but cannot mislead a disciple by any means, be it direct teachings or publications, atleast on the subject he knows, thus your view on swami sivananda is definitely derogatory.

No, this is essentially wrong view. Guru should NOT teach what he knows to whomsoever. There are rules in scriptures to whom certain things are to be given and to whom not. Guru may go against prescriptions in this case, if he wills. And verily he may conceal some knowledge which he considers to be secret.

[Arjuna]

Wonderful idea. Having terms Pasupatha as earliest school and all monistic school came up later, you want me to read upanishad that support Monistic views and go by the translation and commentaries given by monistic school. If pasupatha is earliest school and having shown it is dualist, and having shown it is vedic religion, then dualism should be vedic religion, hence upanishad should also spread dualism. What makes to ignore dualistic statements in upanishads

Pashupata is the earliest known Shaiva school, and this doesn't necessarily mean that it was the only Vedic school.
However most probably Advaita was developed in Upanishadic time (i do not mean Shankara's Mayavada, but simply Monism) and not before that. Vedic religion incorporates both Dvaita and Advaita. What is the problem with this?

Hence my view is correct. Agamas are predominantly dualistic

No, predominantly they are monistic (virtually all Bhairavagamas are monistic).

Dates approx same? Can you throw more light on to this. Who dated it and how?

Scholars

So according to Arjuna the term north is synonymous with Kashmir

Not at all. There are evidences for it is precisely Kashmir meant.

So, with this you got another reference to Ekayana where in the followers are not dualist as Paancharaatris but a monist . Like to see that text.

It is published in Varanasi.

I had already indicated the instance by which Rajasvala nature occured to women and how it got the prohibition.

Is there (in Vedas) a prohibition provided?

However, Vedas indicate once a man dies, corpse has to be burried as soon as possible and final rites has to be performed.

Burried?
Most of Hindus burn dead bodies and not bury.

I have smelled fresh blood many a times as a human as and when I was injured and it bleeded.
Rajasvala stri herself stinks - As a staunch hindu I should be unware of this, but with emergence of Feminist thought and liberal attitude given to Rajasvala, I meet many a women in work place where in for a normal person it is easy to deduct Rajasvala nature of the women blind folded. If a rajasvala women stands behind my chair, I can sense the stinking.

The problem is not blood, but the lack of hygiene. Fresh menstrual blood doesn't have any bad smell, and that is used in Tantric rites.