Kyros

The classifications of the Puranas are from the Puranas themselves. Padma Purana, Uttara-khanda, 236.18–21 vaisnavanam naradiyam ca tatha bhagavatam subham garudam ca tatha padmam varaham subha-darsane sattvikani puranani vijneyani subhani vai brahmandam brahma-vaivarta markandeyam tathaiva ca bhavisyam vamanam brahmam rajasani nibodha me matsyam kaurmam tatha laingam saivam skandam tathaiva ca agneyam ca sad etani tamasani nibodha me " O beautiful lady, one should know that the Visnu, Naradiya, Bhagavata, Garuda, Padma and Varaha are all in the mode of goodness. The Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta, Markandeya, Bhavisya, Vamana and Brahma are in the mode of passion. The Matsya, Kurma, Linga, Siva, Skanda and Agni are in the mode of ignorance." Matsya Purana 190.13-14 “The glory of Hari is greater in sattvika scripture; the glory of Brahma is greater in rajasika scriptures; and that of Agni and Siva greater in tamasika scriptures. In mixed scriptures the glory of Sarasvati and the pitrs is said to be greater." Combine these two verses to the Bhagavad Gita verses I mentioned, and you can understand which Puranas bring knowledge and which ones don't. Please don't neglect to understand the three modes, they are essential to Vedic understanding. They are especially used in Ayurveda, and sattvic products are always beneficial while tamasic products bring harm. Also, just because the Puranas are named Matsya, Vamana, Skanda, etc, doesn't mean anything significant. Kind of like how the Katha Upanisad is named after the sage Katha, who promoted the particular Upanisad. The Matsya Purana glorifies Lord Siva more than Lord Visnu, but it considers those Puranas that glorify Lord Siva are tamasic. With this understanding the contradiction is reconciled. As for the Puranas being written in different time periods, that's impossible, because all the Puranas have coordinates on the arrangement of the universe, and if one of them were missing, it wouldn't work.

There is no interpretation needed. You already accept the fact that the Linga Purana is a tamasic, and by just using common sense, we can understand that there must be something wrong with this Purana to be classified as tamasic. There is also this verse from the Gita that will explain things better. Bhagavad Gita 14.17 sattvāt sañjāyate jñānaḿ rajaso lobha eva ca pramāda-mohau tamaso bhavato 'jñānam eva ca From the mode of goodness, real knowledge develops; from the mode of passion, greed develops; and from the mode of ignorance develop foolishness, madness and illusion. (Only the sattva-guna can reveal real knowledge, while tama-guna brings foolishness. The three modes of nature do not apply to how a person acts either, it applies to a lot of other things. Ayurveda uses the three modes to separate foods. However, if you're one of those people who don't accept the Gita, then here are these verses.) Skanda Purana (2.6.4.3): srimadbhagavatasyatha srimadbhagavatah sada svarupam ekamevasti saccidanandalaksanam "The nature of the Srimad Bhagavatam and the Personality of Godhead is always the same - full knowledge, bliss, and eternal existence." (Here the Skanda Purana clearly states that the Bhagavad Purana and the Personality of Godhead are of the same nature. There is no interpreation needed, and note that this is also a tamasic purana.) Skanda Purana, Prabhasa Khanda (7.1.2.39-42) and Agni Purana (272.6,7) "That which gives accounts of the humans and demigods in the Sarasvata Kalpa, explains the supreme religion, basing itself on Gayatri, and narrates the slaying of Vrtrasura is to be known as the Srimad Bhagavatam. It has eighteen thousand verses. Whoever makes a copy of the Bhagavatam and donates it, on a golden lion throne, on the full moon day in the month of Bhadra, will attain the supreme destination". (It is also interesting to note that these two Puranas declare the Srimad Bhagavatam to explain the supreme religion. It also declares that by solely donating the Bhagavatam, fulfilling a certain criteria, will attain the supreme destination. Also take note that the Agni Purana is also a tamasic Purana.)

Sensible_bloke, if you're going to quote a scripture, then quote one that wasn't translated by a white European supremacist.

The Puranas hold relative measurements of how the universe is made up. When these measurements are put together, they can produce similar results as the modern astronomical method. This would establish the superiority of the Puranas above all other scriptures, including the sruti, because it'll be scientific and empirical. All by using a completely different coordinate system to explain the universe and provide the same results. Try asking any other form of religion to do that, and they won't because they can't.

SB 11.30.33: Just then a hunter named Jarā, who had approached the place, mistook the Lord's foot for a deer's face. Thinking he had found his prey, Jarā pierced the foot with his arrow, which he had fashioned from the remaining iron fragment of Sāmba's club. However, Lord Krsna's actual disappearance is described in Srimad Bhagavatam 11.31.* Here's the verse that specifies that Lord Krsna does not die like ordinary people. SB 11.31.11: My dear King, you should understand that the Supreme Lord's appearance and disappearance, which resemble those of embodied conditioned souls, are actually a show enacted by His illusory energy, just like the performance of an actor. After creating this universe He enters into it, plays within it for some time, and at last winds it up. Then the Lord remains situated in His own transcendental glory, having ceased from the functions of cosmic manifestation.

Kailash, she is Lord Siva's wife. I don't see why she would reside anywhere else.

Maharaja Yudisthir is not God. Sahadev is not God. Nakul is not God. Draupadi is not God. Lord Krsna is God. Asvatthama was a twice born who fell from his position. Hence why Lord Krsna refers to him as a relative of a brahmana and says he can be killed. Mahabharata (Shanti-parva, Moksha-dharma, Chapter 188) bharadvaja uvaca jangamanam asankhyeyah sthavaranam ca jatayah tesham vividha-varnanam kuto varna-vinishcayah bhrigur uvaca na vishesho 'sti varnanam sarva-brahmam idam jagat brahmana purva-shrishtam hi karmabhir varnatam gatam himsanrita-priya lubdhah sarva-karmopajivinah krishnah shauca-paribhrashtas te dvijah shudratam gatah “Bharadvaja said: There are innumerable categories of animate and inanimate living entities. How can one determine their various varnas?” “Bhrigu replied: There are no real differences among varnas. When Brahma first created the universe, it was inhabited only by brahmanas. Later on, as a result of their activities, people attained the designations of different varnas. “When the brahmanas commit violence, speak lies, become greedy, earn their livelihood by any and all activities, lose their purity by sinful activities, then they become degraded into shudras.” Take note of the word "dvijah" up above. Just because it says "twice-born" in sanskrit doesn't mean anything. Asvatthama is a twice-born, and comitted sinful activities and degraded himself into a sudra. I never said he wasn't addressing him by his apparent low birth. You're making assumptions here. If my father was a janitor, and I end up being the President of a country, why would I get mad if someone calls me the son of a janitor? Am I suppose to be insulted? In case you don't know, they teach in the American schools here that the caste system is based on birth, not qualities like I'm saying. You're the one agreeing with them, not me. Being a Kshatriya was Arjuna's individual duty, and Lord Krsna was telling him to do just that. Here's some more scriptural quotes that should make this MORE clearer, as if they're not already. Srimad Bhagavatam 9.2.17 dhṛṣṭād dhārṣṭam abhūt kṣatraḿ brahma-bhūyaḿ gataḿ kṣitau nṛgasya vaḿśaḥ sumatir bhūtajyotis tato vasuḥ "From the son of Manu named Dhṛṣṭa came a kṣatriya caste called Dhārṣṭa, whose members achieved the position of brāhmaṇas in this world. Then, from the son of Manu named Nṛga came Sumati. From Sumati came Bhūtajyoti, and from Bhūtajyoti came Vasu." Srimad Bhagavatam 7.11.35 yasya yal lakṣaṇaḿ proktaḿ puḿso varṇābhivyañjakam yad anyatrāpi dṛśyeta tat tenaiva vinirdiśet "If one shows the symptoms of being a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya or śūdra, as described above, even if he has appeared in a different class, he should be accepted according to those symptoms of classification." Mahabharata (Anushasana-parva 163.5, 8, 26, 46, 48, 51, and 59) “Uma said: O Lord, O sinless master of the living entities, I have some doubt about how members of the three castes-kshatriya, vaishya, and shudra-will attain through their own nature the platform of brahmanas. “Maheshvara replied: If kshatriyas or vaishyas become situated in the behavior of brahmanas and spend their lives in the occupations of brahmanas, then such persons can attain the position of brahmanas. “O goddess, by the same procedure a shudra can become a brahmana and a vaishya can become a kshatriya." “By the results of these activities and by becoming an adherent of the agama scriptures, or in other words, by taking initiation through the pancaratrika system, then a low-born shudra also becomes a brahmana." “O goddess, Lord Brahma has personally declared that by performing pure activities, a self-controlled shudra is fit to be served just like a brahmana." “In my opinion, if pious activities and good character are found in a shudra, it should be understood that he is better than a brahmana." “Birth, purificatory processes, study of the Vedas, and good birth are not the criterion for being a brahmana. The only criterion is one's behavior." “A person is born as a brahmana in this world simply as a result of his nature. A shudra situated in the profession of a brahmana also becomes a brahmana." “I have thus explained to you the secret of how a person who is born as a shudra becomes a brahmana and how by deviating from his occupational duties a person born in the family of a brahmana becomes a shudra.”

The edit feature goes away after some time.

It only takes common sense to understand the difference. You can't reject Puranas like the Padma Purana, or Matsya Purana (which also mentions Puranas glorifying Lord Siva to be tamasic in general, and itself IS a Purana that glorifies Lord Siva). Bhagavad Gita 14.17 sattvāt sañjāyate jñānaḿ rajaso lobha eva ca pramāda-mohau tamaso bhavato 'jñānam eva ca From the mode of goodness, real knowledge develops; from the mode of passion, greed develops; and from the mode of ignorance develop foolishness, madness and illusion. Sattvic Puranas glorfy Lord Visnu, tamasic Puranas glorify Lord Siva. People just don't want to admit the truth. That's not my problem, that's theirs Even sruti-sastra confirms Lord Visnu's supremecy. Rg Veda 1.22.20 tad visnoh paramam padam sada pasyanti surayah diviva caksur atatam visnor yat paramam padam "Those who are entirely devoted to Lord Vishnu,after death, go to the supreme spiritual planet, where they lead eternal lives under the thralldom of His superior, internal energy." The sruti is filled with them. Clear? SB 1.7.33 tata āsādya tarasā dāruṇaḿ gautamī-sutam babandhāmarṣa-tāmrākṣaḥ paśuḿ raśanayā yathā Arjuna, his eyes blazing in anger like two red balls of copper, dexterously arrested the son of Gautamī and bound him with ropes like an animal. SB 1.7.35 mainaḿ pārthārhasi trātuḿ brahma-bandhum imaḿ jahi yo 'sāv anāgasaḥ suptān avadhīn niśi bālakān Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa said: O Arjuna, you should not show mercy by releasing this relative of a brāhmaṇa [brahma-bandhu], for he has killed innocent boys in their sleep. Clear? Bhagavad Purana 1.7.53-54 śrī-bhagavān uvāca brahma-bandhur na hantavya ātatāyī vadhārhaṇaḥ mayaivobhayam āmnātaḿ paripāhy anuśāsanam kuru pratiśrutaḿ satyaḿ yat tat sāntvayatā priyām priyaḿ ca bhīmasenasya pāñcālyā mahyam eva ca The Personality of Godhead Sri Kṛṣṇa said: A friend of a brāhmaṇa is not to be killed, but if he is an aggressor he must be killed. All these rulings are in the scriptures, and you should act accordingly. You have to fulfill your promise to your wife, and you must also act to the satisfaction of Bhīmasena and Me. The keyword in this verse is brahma-bandhur. Lord Krsna (God) does not even consider Asvattama a brahmana, but a friend of a brahmana and must be killed. Bhagavad Purana 1.7.55 sūta uvāca arjunaḥ sahasājñāya harer hārdam athāsinā maṇiḿ jahāra mūrdhanyaḿ dvijasya saha-mūrdhajam Just then Arjuna could understand the motive of the Lord by His equivocal orders, and thus with his sword he severed both hair and jewel from the head of Aśvatthāmā. Draupadi may have spared Asvatthama, but Lord Krsna (GOD) and Bhima wanted him dead. Clear? Despite all that, he still never called Karna directly a "suta." He only made fun of his heritage, not himself. Mahabharata Anusasana-parva 143.50 na yonir napi samskaro na srutam na ca santatih karanani dvijatvasya vrttam eva tu karanam "Neither birth, nor samskaras , nor learning, nor progeny are the qualifications to be a brahmana . Only brahminical conduct is the basis for brahminical status." Clear? And you wonder why the people of India was so easily brainwashed by the British? I rest my case. Arjuna's family tradition was to live according to the Vedas, as was everybody elses. And you wonder why the people of India was so easily brainwashed by the British? I rest my case. Arjuna's family tradition was to live according to the Vedas, as was everybody elses.

I've actually recently learned/remembered that there is a ceremony called the garbhadana-samskara ceremony which is done by families to acquire a child in accordance to their own caste. This is also mentioned in the Manu-Smriti 2.27 and various other places. I don't know where to find details of the ceremony at the moment. Most "brahmana" families aren't aware of this and don't do it, so they may get a child from a different caste and as a result, you get a child who acts completely differently than what a brahmana does, yet they still consider him a brahmana. I believe that's where the mistake arises. Noone expects caste to be determined immediately. It takes time to understand someones nature. When you meet someone, you have no idea who they are, but after awhile you get used to their nature and character. This is the only way to understand someones position. Mahabharata Anusasana-parva 143.50 na yonir napi samskaro na srutam na ca santatih karanani dvijatvasya vrttam eva tu karanam "Neither birth, nor samskaras , nor learning, nor progeny are the qualifications to be a brahmana . Only brahminical conduct is the basis for brahminical status." There's also the mention of Visvamitra who was a Kshatriya, but became a Brahmana through his actions. Mahabharata, Adi-parva 174: ksatriyo'ham bhavan vipras tapah-svadhyayah-sadhanah sva-dharmam na prahasyami nesyami ca balena gam dhig balam ksatriya-balam brahma-tejo-balam balam balabalam viniscitya tapa eva param balam tatapa sarvan diptaujah brahmanatvam avaptavan "Visvamitra said to Vasistha: You are a brahmana, endowed with the qualities of austerity and Vedic knowledge. I am a ksatriya, so on the basis of my nature I will forcibly take this cow (Nandini). "Later, when Visvamitra was defeated, he declared that the strength of the ksatriya was inferior to that of the brahmanas. He thus decided that the performance of austerities was the only way to empower one with superior strength. "The greatly effulgent Visvamitra thus performed all kinds of austerities and attained the position of a brahmana."

You didn't prove me wrong, but I'll admit I was narrow-minded and quick to judge your post. No post is pointless, I apologize. I'm only here to understand the position my understanding of the Vedas are at, and many more came before me, and many more will come after me. Forever. I have never seen Vedic cosmology talk about there being more than two sun-like objects. If there are more, I haven't run across them, and unless they're stated in the Bhagavad Purana or similar texts, I won't for a long time. If they're in astronomical texts like the Surya Siddhanta and Siddhanta-Siromani, then great, I got those sitting in my bookshelf.

Yes, but Arjuna did ask about his opulences to. Lord Krsna answered Arjuna how he can be remembered by his opulences. This is mentioned before he starts explaining them. Not at all. There really is nothing for me to hide. I assume you're one of those people confused about Lord Visnu and Lord Siva's actual position. Well let me tell you. Lord Visnu is Supreme; Lord Siva is not. That's the conclusion of the sastras. The purpose of the Siva Gita, Siva Purana's, Siva Tantra, and anything else that places Lord Siva above Lord Visnu is explained in the Padma Purana. Call it an excuse if you want, but it's a true excuse. Lord Krsna and Arjuna didn't consider him a Brahmana; neither did the rest of the Pandavas. That's many against one, and one of them is God himself. Your choice. Have you forgotten what Karna has done? After all he's done, why would Arjuna give any respect to him? I would offer you quotes of Lord Krsna condemning Arjuna for repeatedly calling Karna "suta-putra," but I have none until I look it up. There's a story of two brahmana born boys who ended up being even lower than mlecchas. They were beat and/or kill people, kidnap people, raped women, eat cow beef, among other things. They were known as sons of a brahmana, but they were offered no respect. The brahmin thread means nothing if their nature isn't that of a brahmana. It's just a costume, and the less intelligent class of men follow them around just dogs. You can live with that kind of concept if you want, but it's never the Vedic way. I suppose you would even pay obeisances to that "Brahmin" atheist and wash his feet when he comes to your house? There is a reason why it's called "Vedic" culture. How one is suppose to act, is based on the scriptures.

No, allegories and examples are constantly used in the Upanisads. I accept all Vedic texts. They all have a purpose. I accept the Shiva Purana, Siva Gita, and the Siva Tantras. Common sense is not beyond human faculty. There are many descriptions of brahmanas, kshatriyas, vaisyas, and sudras in the Vedas. Qualities still take precedence over birth by caste with the garbhadana ceremony. No, it doesn't, he bases it on qualities. It does not get more clear than this. But they were still mostly endowed with the qualities of a kshatriya. Those kinds of kshatriyas are called rajarsi's; saintly kings. No I didn't. He should've gotten his head cut off. Ironically, Asvathama is going to be the next Vyasa... Say you're father is a business man, but you take up the profession of a doctor. Despite your profession, you are still the son of a businessman. Similarly, Karna, while a kshatriya, was still a son of a suta. Following the Vedic way of life. As I type, many people are leaving ISKCON, but many more are joining or taking it up. Things aren't as bad as they were back in the 80's, but ISKCON still grew. Yes. Hare Krsna

No, it's hard to pay attention in American schools. The moon naturally reflects sunlight. Luminous- 1 a: emitting or reflecting usually steady, suffused, or glowing light b: of or relating to light or to luminous flux Please don't bring up pointless arguments. I'm not here to argue, I'm only pointing out possible reasons why Prabhupada may have translated the word as star while others have translated it differently. From what I've been exposed to on Vedic cosmology, it talks only about one (two) suns. Unless YOU, who supposedly knows better, points it out to me, I, and many others, remain ignorant.