Chitta

Poor thing. My challenge is still waiting for at <font color="red">8th Feb 2004</font color>.

Thank you for making my task easier. I did not know that you would throw in the Vaishnava towel, which is emblazoned with the Chakra and conch shell, that prematurely. Whatever that you had asked for I had provided. Yet, you tergiversate. You flee, fudge and hedge. Perhaps, I am expecting too much from one with such lilliputian intellect. The least you could do, in your condition, is to declare that you are now a 'nirayuthabani', completely at my mercy. I shall punish you no more. Your red herrings, double talk and blathering, seriously, have been tried by too many netters to influence intelligent people. Now that I have pulverized you, I shall see whether, by the Mercy of your Lord Maha Vishnu <font color="red">(of the interpolated Rg Veda)</font color>, you will be able to rise from the ashes like the phoenix.

<font color="red">Your method of dodging issues and direct debate is not new on the net.</font color> It has been tried long enough for it to have become tiringly trite. Beneath the veneer of your long irrelevant postings, I could espy an insecure Vaishnava seething piteously. You might just want to answer my posting for you on <font color="red">8th Feb.</font color> That will help you. Pelting innuendoes, ducking cowardly behind irrelevancy compels one to ignore you.

I do not know which 'Guest' you are although your ideas sound as gassy as the other I dealt with on 8th Feb. Anyhow, read my posting on <font color="red}8thFeb2004at04:07PM[/color">. It has the answer to your present posting.

You might want to read what I have told you on 02/08/04 at 10:15 AM. Having dealt with that, you may proceed with the rest. Otherwise, do not expose your ignorance too much.

Dear Guest (who is hiding dastardly behind an anonymity), Would I keep you on tenterhooks? Let me give you the starter before the full course. I welcome you to the world of real debate. As I had said before, you might condescend to allow me to introduce my credentials and background myself. I require no proxy, especially one of an ignoble and mediocre material. Thus, leave it to me, if I see fit, to dilate on my proficiency in anything. My principal object is to dismantle the elaborate belief system of the Vaishnava, and my mention of the ISKCON or the Hare people is by way of illustration and incidental reference only. You said, You also <font color="red">claimed,</font color> Evidently, you did not bother to read what I had said of the excerpt. The war and rivalry between the Vaishnavas and the Shaivites were so intense that both started tampering with the Puranas, interpolating, altering and corrupting the puranas by inserting new and foreign matters, information and texts which are foreign to the purpose of Vyasa. The puranas of the 1st stratum (which covers the period extending to the reign of Janamejaya) were compiled by Romaharsanaat. Those of the 2nd stratum (which extends to the time of Asima Krishna) were compiled by Ugrasrava (the son of Romaharsanaat). Those of the 3rd stratum covered the period after Asima Krishna till the close of the 4th centurt AD. The puranas were passed on in this fashion. There was no writing, so the compositions passed by word of mouth. In the process, therefore, the fanatical opportunists added their own compositions. Padma Purana is but one of those texts that have suffered at the hands of the rascals. If you were to examine the Venkateshwar Press edition (1880s) version of Padma Purana and Nag Publishers', you would see a world of difference. And it is, therefore, not surprising that your "...multiple different recensions of a purAna separated in both time and space", are no exceptions to the skullduggery. The Vaishnavas are fond of quoting the following interpolations which I have obtained from two different recensions that the Vaishnava so-called Uttama-Adikaris rely on. These are some of the texts that the Vaishnava had purposefully <font color="red">fabricated</font color> to show Lord Shiva denigrading himself: "Addressing Lord Shiva, the Supreme Personality of Godhead said, 'Please make the general populace averse to Me by imagining your own interpretation of the Vedas. Also, cover Me in such a way that people will take more interest in advancing material civilization just to propagate a population bereft of spiritual knowledge.' "Lord Shiva informed the goddess Durga, the superintendent of the material world, 'In the age of Kali, I take the form of a brahmana and explain the Vedas through false scriptures in an atheistic way, similar to Buddhist philosophy.'" [The above is stated in the Padma Purana, and quoted in the Chaitanya-caritamrta (Madhya-lila Ch.6:181-182), that Lord Shiva was requested by the Lord to appear as a brahmana to deviate the human race from Him.] "The mayavada philosophy", Lord Shiva informed his wife Parvati, "is impious (asac-chastra). It is covered Buddhism. My dear Parvati, in the form of a brahmana in Kali-yuga I teach this imagined mayavada philosophy. In order to cheat the atheists, I describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be without form and without qualities. Similarly, in explaining Vedanta I described the same mayavada philosophy in order to mislead the entire population toward atheism by denying the personal form of the Lord."* This is also described in the Brhat-sahasra-nama, where Lord Krsna orders Lord Shiva: "In Kali-yuga, mislead the people in general by propounding imaginary meanings of the Vedas to bewilder them."* [The above is found in Padma Purana, Uttara-khand] May it be the puranas, Darsanas, or the Shrutis, the Vaishnavas, like all other opportunists, did not leave things to chance when mutilating the texts to suit their purposes. They inserted texts, deleted words, paraphrased passages, misrepresented symbols, and presented canards unashamedly. Because the Shrutis generally are not the favourite of the hoi polloi, they found the Puranas their vehicle for propagating insulting lies. You asked me, The list, evidently (as any intelligent being would know), cannot be exhaustive, especially when the research work spans a whole anthology of diverse works. (Do not pick holes in me as to why I have not stated all the works. Despite this caution, of course, (I know) you would do just that --- for that would only help you in your desperation to throw the readers off the scent): 1. Weber Max: "The Religion of India" --- The sociology of Hinduism & Buddhism; 2. Zimmer, Heinrich: "Philosophies of India"; 3. Potter, Karl H: "Presuppositions of India" 4. K.M. Sen: "Hinduism"; 5. Chatterjee, Satischandra: "The Fundamentals of Hinduism"; 6. J. Gonda: "Visnuism and Sivaism"; 7. Sastri, Nalinimohan S: "A study of Sankara"; 8. Shri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham: "Hindu Dharma". 9. Swami Prakashanand Saraswati: "The True History & the Religion of India" 10. K.V. Paliwal, Ph.D: "What Hindus Should do?" (an article) 11. Sadhu Prof. V. Rangarajan: "Who is a Brahmin"; 12. Swamy Jyotirmayananda: "Vedas & Varnas";. 13. St Martin's College (Division of Rel & Philo): "Overview Of World Religions"; 14. Ronald Inden, Jonathan Walters, and Daud Ali. "Querying the Medieval: Texts and the History of Practices in South Asia" 15. Blavatski: "The Secret Doctrine" 16. http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1996_11/msg00031.html (papers on the net) 17 http://www.swami.org/sanga/archives/pages/volume_three/m132.html (papers on the net) I would advise you to write to the authors to find out how they conducted their research, and what the basis of their findings was, and what verifiable scientific methology that they had used to insure their works against the charge of prevarication, etc. Once again, you did the unholy thinking for me when you surmised, This is one of the typical Vaishnava tactics of putting words in the mouth of their adversaries. There is no issue of what you like and what I dislike. My purpose, as I have reiterated ad nauseam is to demolish/dismantle the Vaishnava belief system. <font color="red">It is, in fact, the work of the Hare people and the Vaishnava at large to quote those passages which are favourable to their preaching and teachings and pooh-pooh those that are at variance with their belief system. For instance, the same Vaishnava who condemn the Shiva-category puranas as Tamasic are the self-same Vaishnava unashamedly accept portions of Skanda Purana when they find things that serve their purpose. Similarly, Vaishnava who demean the Guru Gita (which is part of the Skanda purana) quote but one sloka, "....Ajnana Timirathus-ya....". Where would you find evidence of hypocrisy more than in the life of a Vaishnava (who dastardly hides behind pseudonym) who attributes his qualities to the others?</font color> You said, .emphasis added by this writer You had very generously quoted some verses (purportedly from the Rig Veda), of course (although properly literate in Devanagiri) in transliteration only. What I am going to tell you will throw cold water on your exuberance: one, you are thoroughly ignorant that the <font color="red">Rig Veda is not free from interpolations and mutilations by fanatics; two, anything (even those which have not been marred by human intervention) can sound something else when quoted out of context.</font color> If you insist that we should go by whatever that these opportunistic fanatics have given us as gospel truths, let me quote you a number of verses, purportedly from the Rig Veda, "[sacrificer:] 'They are pressing out the impetuous, exhilarating Soma juices with the pressing-stone, for you, Indra. Drink them! They are cooking bulls for you; you will eat them, generous Indra, when they summon you with food.' "<font color="red">Rig Veda 10:28:3.</font color> "[indra:] 'They have cooked for me fifteen bulls, and twenty, so that I may eat the fat as well. Both sides of my belly are full.'<font color="red">Rig Veda 10:86:14.</font color> "[indra:] 'Because I was in desperate straits, I cooked the entrails of a dog, and I found no one among the gods to help me. I saw my woman dishonoured. Then the eagle brought the honey (soma) to me.'<font color="red"> Rig Veda 4:18:13.</font color> "[indrani:] 'No woman has finer loins than I, or is better at making love. No woman thrusts against a man better than I, or raises and spreads her thighs more.'; <font color="red">Rig Veda 10:86:6.</font color> Of course, by the above, I would not want the discussion on RigVeda to close. I would want to prove to you what Vishnu's constitutional position was, and how he ascended to the level of the so-called supremacy. I would, at the same time, show proofs that there is evidence in the Sattic Puranas (which the Vaishnavas worship as the only texts that they should read as God's chosen elites) that Lord Shiva has been seen as Vishnu's equal. If all things go well, I would want to show to some of fanatical Vaishnava here the history behind all the rivalry and antoganism between the Shaivites and Vaishnavites. This will help put all their texts in context. I, sincerely, hope that the Webmaster or any others here will not ban me from this site. If you do, then, you are deviating from the tradition started by Sanatana Dharma, which is to engage in Vada to establish the Truth. I hope Guest could come out in the open and take me on. I shall present him and his faithful votaries with a gallimaufry of evidence that would allow the curtain to come down on their sophistry.

This post is to the Guest who posted his message on 7.2.2004 at 9.17 am. Please don't go. I am coming to you soon after my lecture.

I, really, am amazed at your ability to talk through the hat. We do not require commercial breaks like you. If you intend to join in the fray, please read and respond to my postings on 7th Feb 2004 (2.00 am & 2.05 am). Red herring, exit.

Just as you have the volumes of works with you in the comfort of your home, I too have mine in my house. Fret not though --- write to them, ask for their source, they would be just too glad to assist you. In this day and age, information can be obtained fast. In the mean time, please get back to the original discussion, which I have highlighted in red in the above posting.

As you discuss more and more with me, you are revealing how much you are in want of information and knowledge. But that wouldn't be bad at all provided you did not, with that scanty knowledge, try to preach to others and misled people. I am afraid, therefore, I would have to set the record for you and innocent people here. First, you try to misrepresent Vyasa by quoting Madhva; and now, to misrepresent Ragavendra, you're quoting Madhva. I do not see the logical flow in your argument. You would want me to accept what you're saying based on reckless, spurious conjectures. You might want to remain religiously focussed. As if your purposeful obfuscation was not enough, you have now introduced Ramanuja into the picture too. <font color="red">If I am going to be led into that discussion, then, I would allow you to get away with your initial prevarication, i.e., that Vyasa believed in your interpretation of what the Gunas that the Puranas represent.</font color> Please prove the portion in red first. Do not obfuscate the issue by all the ramifications.

There is no point in becoming emotional. If you cannot sustain a good debate, then, you should not have entered the arena. Being dogmatic does not help prove your point. Like I said, it is worth your while to check all your volumes of Ragavendra's teachings. <font color="red">What I have quoted is from the works that I have obtained from Mantralaya, the nerve centre of his teachings.</font color> You might want to check with your sources before you deny yourself the right to know the Truth.

Just a correction --- I am not a Shaivite. If you have accepted the Gurus you quoted, then, it is your problem. I wonder why you think others who do not belong to your sampradayats should 'accept them'. It is the same as what the others insist that you should accept what Sudheendra Tirtha of Kashi Mutt or Vidhyadhiraj Tirtha of Gokarn Mutt say; or should surrender to Sachidananda Saraswati of Kavale Mutt or Sadyojat Shankarashrama of Chitrapur Mutt.

First, you quoted Madhva and now Raghavendra, another pontiff who comes in the tradition of the Madhva lineage. You cannot prove that Vyasa did, in fact, mean the meaning that you had attached to the classification of the Puranas. I am sorry but I have to point out to you an important aspect of Sri Raghavendra's later life, before his expiration. As he soared higher in Bhakti, he declared in an open court that was presided by a Muslim emperor that <font color="red"> one who makes a distinction between Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu, and claims that one manifestation is 'higher' than the other, one shall make Hell one's eternal abode.</font color> It is worth your while, especially in your earnest effort to propagate your faith, to check this historical fact up immediately. I know, next you would quote a train-load of other pro-Vaishnava scholars and believers and exhort me to surrender to them. Wouldn't the Shaivites and Samarthans too quote their Mutt leaders and pontiffs, and archaryas to do the same? Would you, then, accept their exhortation? If you don't, why should the others? The discussion has just warmed up, to say the least!

You have very consistently proved here that you lack scriptural knowledge and the knowledge of the entire history that led to all these divisions in the Indian society. Earlier when you quoted Veda Vyasa, you gave your readers the impression that even the interpretation of what the Gunas were, was that of Vyasa. Now, you claim that it was that of Madhva, who evolved a dualistic system of philosophy out of the Prasthana-Traya. <font color="red"> The classification was not that of Vyasa. Period.</font color>

So, do you agree that Padma purana contains interpolations? You, therefore, also agree (as you quote the so-called Shaivite antics) that the Vaishnavites have engaged in the tit-for-tat puerile conduct? Hence, you have, like most other Vaishnavites, had the knowledge that there is something egregiously wrong with how they have treated the so-called Demi-gods in the Vaishnavana puranas? The Padma purana is but one example of a text that had been mutilated by fanaticism.