Question about criticism of "the Impersonalists"

[philosoraptor]

The appearance and activities of Lord Buddha, Shakaracarya, Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya is like a puzzle.

Before the coming of Lord Buddha every one was misusing Vedic literature and using it for the purpose of doing animal sacrifices. If someone smokes 10 cigarettes a day ,and i tell you to leave everything
will you leave? no. So first i would have to explain him in nice language that smoking is not good ,then he will agree to me , then you will take 9 cigarettes per day ,then 8 cigates per day ,then 7 then come to zero slowly and slowly. So Lord Buddha wanted to bring the people to people smoking 10 cigarettes to 9(just as example). He told them to reject Vedas, said Vedas are not true. And said soul and God does not exist. Then Lord Vishnu sent Sankaracrya to bring the people from 9 to 5 level. Shankaracharya reestablished the authority of the Vedas but in an indirect way(as I gave the verses from Padma Purana) and also to drive away Buddhism from India. At last Lord Ananta came as Ramanuja acharya and also came Madhvaacharya in order to reestablish the personalism and devotional service to Krishna. They brought the 6 cigaratte smokers to 0. So this how the Lord and acaryas acted according to time, place and circumstance. Intelligent people will understand the whole meaning and get the true bhakti from it as like swan chooses milk even if it is mixed with water.

Hari Bol!

Pranams,

Note that in this theory, followers of Sri Madhva, SrI Raamaanuja, and Sri Shankara are all still "smokers" while only the followers of Chaitanya are free of the lung disease. I think many can immediately appreciate why the Vaishnavas following the former traditions will take offense at such a presumption.

Please note also that the commentaries of these aachaaryas are hardly "puzzle pieces." That would imply that each one revealed a certain aspect of the truth, and that those coming later built off of the ideas revealed by the previous aachaaryas. But if you actually read what these commentators wrote, you will see that they actually spent quite a bit of time refuting certain fundamental ideas in the previous commentaries. Nor did any of them claim to be revealing only partial truth.

regards,

Philosoraptor

[GauraHari]

Pranams,

Note that in this theory, followers of Sri Madhva, SrI Raamaanuja, and Sri Shankara are all still "smokers" while only the followers of Chaitanya are free of the lung disease. I think many can immediately appreciate why the Vaishnavas following the former traditions will take offense at such a presumption.

Please note also that the commentaries of these aachaaryas are hardly "puzzle pieces." That would imply that each one revealed a certain aspect of the truth, and that those coming later built off of the ideas revealed by the previous aachaaryas. But if you actually read what these commentators wrote, you will see that they actually spent quite a bit of time refuting certain fundamental ideas in the previous commentaries. Nor did any of them claim to be revealing only partial truth.

regards,

Philosoraptor

Followers of Madhvacarya , Ramanujacarya are perfectly worshiping Lord Vishnu/Krishna never said they are faulty, please don't misunderstand. I have given scriptural proof why Sankara and Lord Buddha have preached a faulty philosophy. You may not like, that's fine with me. I will not change truth simply because people like or dislike.
Hari Bol!

[philosoraptor]

Followers of Madhvacarya , Ramanujacarya are perfectly worshiping Lord Vishnu/Krishna never said they are faulty, please don't misunderstand. I have given scriptural proof why Sankara and Lord Buddha have preached a faulty philosophy. You may not like, that's fine with me. I will not change truth simply because people like or dislike.
Hari Bol!

Pranams,

But the point is, you are changing the truth. You have no scriptural evidence substantiating your claim that what Madhva and Raamaanuja taught was somehow incomplete. And I think we both know that you have not actually studied the writings of either of these great Vaishnava scholars. You are just repeating a sectarian view commonly heard in ISKCON to the effect that what Sri Chaitanya taught was the most complete presentation of the truth.

Let's take Sri Madhva for example. He wrote commentaries on all of the principal Upanishads, the first 40 suktas of the Rig Veda, the vedAnta-sUtras, the mahAbhArata, the bhAgavata purANa, and the gItA. These are foundational texts on Vedaanta and sanAtana-dharma without which one cannot claim to have authority for one's teachings. Now in contrast to that, Sri Chaitanya wrote no commentaries. Two-hundred years after Chaitanya, Sri Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana wrote a commentary on the vedAnta-sUtras and on the gItA. Interestingly, his own commentary on bhagavad-gItA seems to differ from that of his guru Sri Vishvanaatha Chakravarti. But there are no commentaries on any principal shrutis, and that makes it difficult to take seriously the claim that achintya bedha abedha is somehow superior to or more "complete" than tattvavAda or even viShishtAdvaita.


Jai Shri Krishna!

Philosoraptor

[GauraHari]

Pranams,

But the point is, you are changing the truth. You have no scriptural evidence substantiating your claim that what Madhva and Raamaanuja taught was somehow incomplete. And I think we both know that you have not actually studied the writings of either of these great Vaishnava scholars. You are just repeating a sectarian view commonly heard in ISKCON to the effect that what Sri Chaitanya taught was the most complete presentation of the truth.

Let's take Sri Madhva for example. He wrote commentaries on all of the principal Upanishads, the first 40 suktas of the Rig Veda, the vedAnta-sUtras, the mahAbhArata, the bhAgavata purANa, and the gItA. These are foundational texts on Vedaanta and sanAtana-dharma without which one cannot claim to have authority for one's teachings. Now in contrast to that, Sri Chaitanya wrote no commentaries. Two-hundred years after Chaitanya, Sri Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana wrote a commentary on the vedAnta-sUtras and on the gItA. Interestingly, his own commentary on bhagavad-gItA seems to differ from that of his guru Sri Vishvanaatha Chakravarti. But there are no commentaries on any principal shrutis, and that makes it difficult to take seriously the claim that achintya bedha abedha is somehow superior to or more "complete" than tattvavAda or even viShishtAdvaita.


Jai Shri Krishna!

Philosoraptor

Hare Krishna,
Once again you are the same thing, that I said Madhva and Raamaanuja taught was somehow incomplete. I never said that. I said this instead:

At last Lord Ananta came as Ramanuja acharya and also came Madhvaacharya in order to reestablish the personalism and devotional service to Krishna. This is why Ramanuja acharya and Madhvaacharya bashed Sankara's philosophy constantly. They wanted to bring the 5 cigarette smokers to 0.

Followers of Madhvacarya , Ramanujacarya are perfectly worshiping Lord Vishnu/Krishna never said they are faulty, please don't misunderstand.

I have no right to criticize Vaishnava acaryas. Actually ISKCON uses the works of Madhvacarya and Ramanujacarya to preach. All the Vaishnava philosophies look at Absolute Truth from different angles thats why there are different philosophies and they have different processes of surrendering unto to the Lord.
Acintya bheda abheda means "inconceivable, simultaneous oneness and difference" between the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the living entity or between the energetic source and its energy. The energy is identical with the energetic because it cannot exist without it. At the same time the energy is different from the energetic source, because its effect can be perceived outside the energetic. This relation is inconceivable from the logical point of view.
The jiva is like an atomic ray in relation to the sun-like Lord. As stated in the Svetasvatara Upanishad (6.8), parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate, the Supreme Lord has multifarious energies. Just as a ray is neither different from the sun nor is it the same as the sun, so the jiva is simultaneously one with and different from the Lord. The statements of non-difference refer to their qualitative oneness and the statements of difference refer to their quantitative difference.
To help us understand a comparison similar to the one of the sun and the sunray is given in the Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad (2.1.20), yatha-agneh visphulinga vyuccaranti, "Just as sparks emanate from a fire, so all these planets, demigods, and living beings come from the Personality of Godhead". The sparks are simultaneously one and different from its source.
Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu accepted the doctrine of Sri Madhvacarya, while at the same time recognizing certain important aspects contained in the tattva of the other three Vaisnava sampradayas. Lord Caitanya brought these teachings together in the perfection of prema dharma. His philosophy of acintya bheda abheda combines all Vaishnava philosophies together.

Lord Caitanya's own words, as quoted by Sri Jiva Goswami:

"From Madhva I will take two essential teachings: his complete rejection and defeat of the Mayavadi philosophy and his service to the deity of Krishna, accepting Him as an eternal spiritual personality.

From Ramanuja, I will accept two teachings: the concept of devotional service, unpolluted by karma and jnana, and service to the devotees.

From Vishnuswami's teachings I will accept two elements: the sentiment of exclusive dependence on Krishna and the path of raga-marga, or spontaneous devotion.

From Nimbarka, I will take two very important principles: the necessity of taking shelter of Srimati Radharani and the high esteem of the gopi's love for Krishna."

In one Bhagavad Gita lecture Srila Prabhupada said the following:

"....We Gaudiya Vaisnava follow Srila Ramanuja's philosophy almost in the same manner. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu gives the identification of jiva soul as the eternal servant of Krishna and is situated as marginal potency of the Lord based on the philosophy of acintya-bheda bheda-tattva. This is almost similar to Visistadvaita vada. Vaisnava philosophy is now being pushed on all over the world under the Hare Krishna movement, and we feel Sripada Ramanuja a great support for the Vaisnava philosophical understanding. It is like a combination of nyaya sruti and smrti prasthans. The Bhagavad-gita supports the Vedanta Sutra brahma-sutra-padais caiva. hetumadbhir viniscitaih."

Hari Bol!

[philosoraptor]

Pranams GauraHari,

Earlier, you said that "The appearance and activities of Lord Buddha, Shakaracarya, Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya is like a puzzle." which seems to suggest that each of these systems is like a piece of a philosophical puzzle. Now, it seems you are rejecting the notion that Madhva and Ramanuja presented incomplete views of the Truth, and are only suggesting that Buddha and Shankara did.

Now here is the problem. From an achintya bedha abedha view, Shankara did *not* present an incomplete version of the truth. As you have indicated, the abedha in the philosophy of Chaitanya refers to qualitative similarity as a sunray is to the sun. But for Shankaraachaarya, and this is extremely important to understand, the abedha is an absolute principle without qualification. There is no difference at all between what we think of as "jIva" and Brahman, because in Shankara's system of thinking, the belief in one's individuality and distinction is an illusion, and all of us are actually Brahman. To the best of my knowledge, Sri Chaitanya's followers do not accept this point of view and develop it further, as your earlier words would seem to indicate. Instead, they reject it completely.

Thus, to use your smoking analogy, it might be more appropriate to say (according to an ISKCON point of view), that Buddha told people to cut down on smoking, while Shankara told them to replace nicotine cigarettes with marijuana cigarettes.

regards,

Philosoraptor

[GauraHari]

Pranams GauraHari,

Earlier, you said that "The appearance and activities of Lord Buddha, Shakaracarya, Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya is like a puzzle." which seems to suggest that each of these systems is like a piece of a philosophical puzzle. Now, it seems you are rejecting the notion that Madhva and Ramanuja presented incomplete views of the Truth, and are only suggesting that Buddha and Shankara did.

Sorry, my English is not very good so I might not be able to explain things very clearly.

Now here is the problem. From an achintya bedha abedha view, Shankara did *not* present an incomplete version of the truth. As you have indicated, the abedha in the philosophy of Chaitanya refers to qualitative similarity as a sunray is to the sun. But for Shankaraachaarya, and this is extremely important to understand, the abedha is an absolute principle without qualification. There is no difference at all between what we think of as "jIva" and Brahman, because in Shankara's system of thinking, the belief in one's individuality and distinction is an illusion, and all of us are actually Brahman. To the best of my knowledge, Sri Chaitanya's followers do not accept this point of view and develop it further, as your earlier words would seem to indicate. Instead, they reject it completely.

Sorry but I think you still didn't read the verse from Padma Purana properly. Ok I will bold the important parts for you:

Padma Purana 6.236.7
mayavadam asac chastram pracchannam bauddham uchyate
mayaiva kalpitam devi kalau brahmana rupina
Mayavada or Advaita philosophy is an impious, wicked belief and against all the conclusions of the Vedas. It is only covered Buddhism. My dear Parvati, in Kali-Yuga I assume the form of a brahmana (Adi Shankara) and teach this imagined philosophy.
Padma Purana 6.236.8-9
apartham sruti-vakyanam darsayan loka-garhitam
sva-karma-rupam tyajya tvam atraiva pratipadyate
sarva-karma paribhrastair vaidharma tvam tad ucyate
paresa-jiva-paraikyam maya tu pratipadyate
"This mayavada advaita philosophy preached by me (in form of Adi Shankara) deprives the words of the holy texts of their actual meaning and thus it is condemned in the world. It recommends the renunciation of one's own duties, since those who have fallen from their duties say that the giving up of duties is religiosity. In this way, I have also falsely propounded the identity of the Supreme Lord and the individual soul."
Padma Purana 6.236.10
brahmanas caparam rupam nirgunam vaksyate maya
sarva-svam jagato py asya mohanartham kalu yuge
"In order to bewilder the atheists, in Kali-yuga, I describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead Lord Gauranga Krishna to be without any form and without qualities."
Padma Purana 6.236.11
vedante tu maha-sastrera mayavadam avaidikam
mayaiva vaksyate devi jagatam nasha-karanat
"Similarly, in explaning Vedanta mahashastra, I described the same non-scriptural and inauspicious mayavada philosophy in order to mislead the entire population toward atheism by denying the personal form of my beloved Lord."

Once again this is not my word. This is Lord Shiva's opinion. Also in my second post to this thread, I wrote:

And Advaita defines the spirit soul as Supreme. and therefore they think that the Self is also Narayan. They say aham brahmasmi(I am Brahman). But yes we are Brahman. I am spirit. It is said that one should understand that he is Brahman, spirit soul. One should know that he is not matter; he is pure soul. Mayavadi philosophers misinterpret the aham brahmasmi to mean, “I am the Supreme Brahman” and “I am identical with the Lord.” This kind of false conception, in which one thinks himself the supreme enjoyer, is a kind of illusion. Mayavadi philosophers, they think, “Now I’ve realized that I am not this body, I am not matter, I am spirit soul, so now I have become Narayana. I have become the Supreme.” But no, that is also mistake. When you realize that “Supreme is the Supreme Brahman, Parabrahman, I am part and parcel of the Supreme, I am also Brahman, but I am not the Supreme Brahman, therefore my business is to serve Parabrahman.”

Thus, to use your smoking analogy, it might be more appropriate to say (according to an ISKCON point of view), that Buddha told people to cut down on smoking, while Shankara told them to replace nicotine cigarettes with marijuana cigarettes.

That's a good joke. By the way, if you are still wondering, I used the cigarettes only as a example not as a if it really happened :P

Hari Bol!

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

Perhaps the problem is your lack of English fluency.

The problem is, on one hand you are presenting Shankara as if he gave a part of the truth (hence your cigarette and puzzle piece analogies). But then again, you present evidence indicating (see your bolded quotes) that he gave an "imagined philosophy" that was "against the conclusions of the Vedas."

So, which is it? He presented part of the truth? Or an imagined philosophy that is against all the Vedas? You can't have it both ways.

- Phil

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

Pranams,
We were all like that at one time. We have to read and learn, and not assume that we know something when in fact we do not. There is no substitute for knowledge to alleviate ignorance, is it not?

Yes there is nothing more purifying then knowledge, it does not necessarily follow that by reading we become Pandit, Pothi pad pad jag mua pandit bhaya na koi,dhae akahar prem ka pade so pandit hoye.

Well, not to split hairs over it, but I can think of at least one view Sri Krishna had little regard for, and that was Arjuna's view that he should withdraw from the battle in order to avoid killing family members. In fact, I can think of another view He also had little regard for:

asatyam apratiṣṭhaḿ te jagad āhur anīśvaram
aparaspara-sambhūtaḿ kim anyat kāma-haitukam (gItA 16.8)

Clearly, respecting people is important, but that should not preclude coming to definite conclusions about what is right and what is wrong.

Yes we would be splitting hairs when we make argument different from intended message, perhaps that is not your fault but no where am I expounding demonic nature as you seem to be pointing from Bhagvat Gita.

This is like saying that "sects" are relatively new. Which would in turn imply that Hinduism was more homogenous in its belief system, practices, etc. That would seem very unlikely. Even early Vedaanta commentators like Raamaanuja, Madhva, and Shankara reference a large variety of earlier commentators whose writings are no longer extant.

Even if you look at, say, the Upanishads, it is evident that the sages see that Absolute Truth from different angles, sometimes emphasizing His transcendence while at other times emphasizing His all-pervasiveness. Even in the Puraanas we see evidence of sects devoted to various deities.

What I meant was mass organisation what we have today are relatively new, Hindus have for eons followed their dharma passed down from generation to generation, Kula, Kula guru, varna based.

I would simply have to disagree with you on that one. Any elaboration of a supreme Deity would seem to imply bhakti as a means of knowing Him. Numerous mantras in the Upanishads have a very reverential feel (see for example, Isopanishad 15) , and reverence for a supreme Deity by a non-supreme individual could not be described as anything other than bhakti.

Please read my sentence again I said ‘Bhakti as an organisation force’ otherwise Bhakta siromani Prahlad to Tulsidas to mira to name but a few, inspires even today by their Bhakti.

Yes, but this is nothing more than moral codes. Moral codes have to have a reason to exist - it is not that Hindus merely act moral for its own sake. The gItA 16.23-24 take the position that such moral codes are a means to achieving a supreme goal, which is elsewhere described as achievement of the state of Brahman, the abode of Brahman, etc. It is not likely that we had moral codes prior to having an understand of the supreme goal for which those moral codes were a means.

So what is your point? You don’t’ seem to want to understand that the whole Hindu society was synthesise on this principles, to live in harmony and to contemplate to realise the truth in due course of time.

Neither do the Vedas speak of how to make ghee, how to tie a dhoti or sari, or how to apply turmeric to a new article of clothing. Many of these traditions are just passed down from generation to generation, and that does not necessarily make them invalid or irrelevant to sanAtana-dharma.

Great argument and I like this kula to kula keep going, we might converge in our understanding, I doubt it though.

Others, who are engaged in the cultivation of knowledge, worship the Supreme Lord as the one without a second, diverse in many, and in the universal form.
Well, see, there you go - a perfect example of how different people can approach the Supreme Brahman through slightly different paths. In other words, this is one possible explanation for a certain degree of spiritual variety. Which is not to say that anything different is valid and part of that variety. What this verse and others like it show is that there are multiple angles or moods or methods by which one can worship.

Yes Variety is spice of life, what you call slight is huge and if it was not valid Lord Krishna would not have said it.

I'm not sure I understand this statement or how it fits in with the rest of what you said. A scripture should be interpreted consistently - it makes no sense to accept that part B of a text is endorsing views that contradict part A, for example. Nor does it make sense to accept that, say, the gItA is distilled wisdom from the Upanishads, and then turn around and interpret either the Upanishads or the gItA in ways which leave them contradicting each other. The whole point of reading these books is to understand what the speaker was trying to say. To that end, we shouldn't "interpret" something that does not require interpretation. An interpretation is only for providing a plausible explanation for a verse whose apparent meaning is not otherwise plausible. Case in point - the statement "the house on the river" is, literally understood, not plausible. We can understand that it may mean instead "the house on the riverbank." It doesn't make sense to suggest that both interpretations are acceptable, now does it?

And that does not leave any room for ambiguity! there is no scope to miss represent the scripture! here in lies the problem. If one is adwita or a dwaita from vaishnav to saiva would all start from a base and reconcile the apparent contradictions to suit. You see this subject is not as clear cut as you might seem. Logic fail to reach it that is why Veda proclaim it with trepidation Neti Neti. What one find not plausible it could be a simple to others who live in the river, for them the house is in the river all be it you might want to call it a boat.

Or that some shrutis are "mahA-vAkyas" and have greater authority while others are "alpa-vAkyas" and have less authority....

But regarding your views on the purANas, I just wanted to point out that the threefold classification as sAttvik/rAjAsic/tAmAsic is actually found in the Puraanas themselves - I have seen references in the Matysa Puraana and in the Padma Puraana, to name just a few.

Yes I have heard that but who other then Vaishnava accepts it? It would have been plausible if Vyasji had said so when writing a relevant Purana warning the reader by the way this is Tamsik or Rajsik Satvik but he didn’t did he? What’s more unbelievable about that is, same alleged personalities are present in all the puranas and extolled as already presented by Saha in this thread.

Well, maybe you are following the wrong sects. :-)
But I think you're basic problem is not with sects, but with sectarianism - namely, the noisy and boorish attempts to promote one's own sect with subjective assertions and not cool facts. To decry sects because of sectarianism would be like decrying religion because of religious fundamentalism.

You can have one without the other.

There is no may be about it, I follow no sect, no need to speculate about me.

Jai Shree Krishna

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

Pranam

Yes there is nothing more purifying then knowledge, it does not necessarily follow that by reading we become Pandit, Pothi pad pad jag mua pandit bhaya na koi,dhae akahar prem ka pade so pandit hoye.

Who said anything about becoming a pundit? In response to your comment that, "I like to think majority of Hindus are oblivious of various concepts, I doubt very much a lot of them know difference between advaita dwaita etc. " I was merely pointing out that they should read and become informed. You don't have to become a pandit to have a basic working knowledge of the differences between different Hindu philosophical systems. If Hindus don't want to become informed about their own religions, it hardly makes sense to want outsiders to become informed, now does it?

Yes we would be splitting hairs when we make argument different from intended message, perhaps that is not your fault but no where am I expounding demonic nature as you seem to be pointing from Bhagvat Gita.

You misunderstood the reference. I was responding to your comment that, "as a Hindu, respect for others beliefs are paramount, live and let live. This attitude does not stem without scripture support, as Bhagvat Gita does support such a view" as well as the general tenor of your writing which seemed to equate disagreement with sectarianism. The quotes I provided showed that Sri Krishna did disagree with specific philosophical positions, namely, the position of absolute non-violence and and the idea of the world as unreal. Is Sri Krishna now a sectarian bad guy, or can we just accept that having some views and politely disagreeing with other views is not anathema to the Gita?

What I meant was mass organisation what we have today are relatively new,

I'm not sure what you mean by "mass organization" or why anyone would have issues with "mass organization" to begin with. At least since the time of Shankaraachaarya, Hindus have organized in order to build mathas, so that is most certainly not new. There is nothing wrong with organization per se.

Hindus have for eons followed their dharma passed down from generation to generation, Kula, Kula guru, varna based.

Except for people born outside the varna system, and those born in the varna system who no longer follow it. Taking your statement at face value, it would appear that you would consider such people as not being Hindu.

So what is your point? You don’t’ seem to want to understand that the whole Hindu society was synthesise on this principles, to live in harmony and to contemplate to realise the truth in due course of time.

My point was clearly stated in my response - moral codes have a reason to exist, as a means to a specific end. Hindus not only had moral codes, they also had a conception of the Absolute Truth as the goal of following such moral codes. Thus, I would amend your statement to say that "The social fabric of whole hindu society was based on following dharma for the eventual attainment of Brahman."

Great argument and I like this kula to kula keep going, we might converge in our understanding, I doubt it though.

I'm not sure what this means. Your basic objection seemed to be that you don't like sampradayas because sampradayas are not mentioned in the Vedas. My point is that there are many valid practices within Hinduism that are not mentioned in the Vedas, whether it is in regards to style of dress, the exact way a puja is done, how ghee is made, etc. That they are not mentioned in the Vedas does not make them any less Hindu. By the way, here is something else that is not mentioned the Vedas - temples. Are temples relatively new in your eyes also?

If everyone followed the same teachings of the same preceptorial lineage, then there would be no sampradayas. But how likely is that? We have had sampradaya differences since before the time of Shankaraachaarya. We've had sampradaaya differences ever since the first times when philosophical systems emerged to explain the Absolute Truth and our role in understanding it. Sampradaaya traditions are as Hindu as temples, ghee lamps, and women wearing saris. But, none of these things are mentioned in the Vedas, as you would no doubt be quick to point out.

Yes Variety is spice of life, what you call slight is huge and if it was not valid Lord Krishna would not have said it.

The point is, the verse you quoted does not offer a contradiction. It merely expresses variety. Variety and contradiction are two different things.

And that does not leave any room for ambiguity! there is no scope to miss represent the scripture! here in lies the problem. If one is adwita or a dwaita from vaishnav to saiva would all start from a base and reconcile the apparent contradictions to suit. You see this subject is not as clear cut as you might seem. Logic fail to reach it that is why Veda proclaim it with trepidation Neti Neti. What one find not plausible it could be a simple to others who live in the river, for them the house is in the river all be it you might want to call it a boat.

Ummm, ok. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I like to understand what the author of the text is trying to say, and I favor conservative interpretations by well-read scholars who try to bring out the meaning of the text in a clear and consistent way. But, I guess some people prefer the ambiguity. Who am I to deny people their belief in floating houses? :-)

Yes I have heard that but who other then Vaishnava accepts it?

Acceptance is besides the point. If it is in the scripture, it should be accepted as such. If one is going to ignore scripture whenever it suits him, then there is no common basis for discussing the meaning of the scriptures. I favor the principle of Ockham's razor when trying to select the best explanation of our scriptures - the simplest theory that can explain the greatest body of evidence is most likely the correct one.

It would have been plausible if Vyasji had said so when writing a relevant Purana warning the reader by the way this is Tamsik or Rajsik Satvik but he didn’t did he?

Again, it is explicitly written (presumably by Vyaasa if we accept him as the author) in both Matsya and Padma Puraanas that the puraanas are divided into saattvik, raajaasic, and taamaasic classes. The Matsya Puraana further elaborates on the basic subject matter of each class, while the Padma Puraana actually lists the puraanas that belong in each category. Do you want to see the references?

Jai Shri Krishna,

Philosoraptor

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

Who said anything about becoming a pundit? In response to your comment that, "I like to think majority of Hindus are oblivious of various concepts, I doubt very much a lot of them know difference between advaita dwaita etc. " I was merely pointing out that they should read and become informed. You don't have to become a pandit to have a basic working knowledge of the differences between different Hindu philosophical systems. If Hindus don't want to become informed about their own religions, it hardly makes sense to want outsiders to become informed, now does it?

Why would one have to read about various concepts, if you are comfortable in your environment.
It would be hard to speculate why such knowledge is not considered essential, perhaps people have seen the light of not arguing, perhaps it is more important to concentrate on ones own sadhna or perhaps years of subjugation has made us weary, too concerned to make ends meet to worry about differences. Who said and who is worried about the outsiders?

You misunderstood the reference. I was responding to your comment that, "as a Hindu, respect for others beliefs are paramount, live and let live. This attitude does not stem without scripture support, as Bhagvat Gita does support such a view" as well as the general tenor of your writing which seemed to equate disagreement with sectarianism. The quotes I provided showed that Sri Krishna did disagree with specific philosophical positions, namely, the position of absolute non-violence and and the idea of the world as unreal. Is Sri Krishna now a sectarian bad guy, or can we just accept that having some views and politely disagreeing with other views is not anathema to the Gita?

Where does absolute non violence comes in to the equation? Let us be clear Lord Krishna here is not commenting on any philosophical doctrine but that of a person demonic nature, I hope you are not insinuating something here, which I detects it to be mischievous, if it were so Shankracharya would not have commented on the Gita.
No one is accusing Lord Krishna to be sectarian or bad, to politely agree to disagree perhaps was the reason a hindu is not concerned of the differences, in this way we are having a circular argument going no where.

I'm not sure what you mean by "mass organization" or why anyone would have issues with "mass organization" to begin with. At least since the time of Shankaraachaarya, Hindus have organized in order to build mathas, so that is most certainly not new. There is nothing wrong with organization per se.

In the context of Hindu Dharma and it’s antiquity the time frame you quote is relatively new while the Bhakti movement is even more later, that is what I meant by relatively new. As to its merit, the pros and con ,less said the better. The whole discussion as far as I am concerned, is the fact that someone said or insinuated, outside of the four sampradaya everything is unauthentic. No Guru is bonefide if they don’t come from those four Sampradaya .

Except for people born outside the varna system, and those born in the varna system who no longer follow it. Taking your statement at face value, it would appear that you would consider such people as not being Hindu.

Let that not be my view, just find out for your self what anyone outside of the varna were considered by the Hindus.

My point was clearly stated in my response - moral codes have a reason to exist, as a means to a specific end. Hindus not only had moral codes, they also had a conception of the Absolute Truth as the goal of following such moral codes. Thus, I would amend your statement to say that "The social fabric of whole hindu society was based on following dharma for the eventual attainment of Brahman."

No need to amend my statement I am well aware Dharma Artha Kaam and Moksha, four varna four Ashram no need to repeat my self.

I'm not sure what this means. Your basic objection seemed to be that you don't like sampradayas because sampradayas are not mentioned in the Vedas. My point is that there are many valid practices within Hinduism that are not mentioned in the Vedas, whether it is in regards to style of dress, the exact way a puja is done, how ghee is made, etc. That they are not mentioned in the Vedas does not make them any less Hindu. By the way, here is something else that is not mentioned the Vedas - temples. Are temples relatively new in your eyes also?

I don’t think I am averse to Sampradaya per se or that they are not Hindu but when they contend that they are the ones that represent the parampara, that is when I take an issue because that is not strictly true. We both know Varna, Kula and Ashrama are the one that carried forward the parampara. In grand scheme of things yes temples are new, all the yugas and it is long span will tell us that it was tapas, yagya, in Staya and tetra yuga, so work it out for yourself.

The point is, the verse you quoted does not offer a contradiction. It merely expresses variety. Variety and contradiction are two different things.

I never said it did, different path different mode of worship, so you don’t need to creat your straw man.

Ummm, ok. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I like to understand what the author of the text is trying to say, and I favor conservative interpretations by well-read scholars who try to bring out the meaning of the text in a clear and consistent way. But, I guess some people prefer the ambiguity. Who am I to deny people their belief in floating houses? J

Yes to go that extra yard one has to be adventurers, one can rely on the path the ancient has carved out, the logic don’t go there and we would achieve nothing if we do not go that extra mile.

Acceptance is besides the point. If it is in the scripture, it should be accepted as such. If one is going to ignore scripture whenever it suits him, then there is no common basis for discussing the meaning of the scriptures. I favor the principle of Ockham's razor when trying to select the best explanation of our scriptures - the simplest theory that can explain the greatest body of evidence is most likely the correct one.

And what makes you think the simplest explanation is not interpolation, the most likely cause. Why otherwise the author failed to mention in the relevant puran this information? If I was writing a book I would make sure what contents I am putting forward, especially if it is the truth I am expounding.
And why be selective how many who follow Padma purana and its contents also follow Shiva Gita? Those who live in glass house do not throw stones.

Do you want to see the references?

Not really I have seen enough.

Jai Shree Krishna