Guest guest Posted November 11, 2003 Report Share Posted November 11, 2003 93 Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law > hmmm ok.. let me be BLATANT.. check this word in the dictionary if you are unsure of the meaning.. i'm still able to understand sm simple things LOL [Laugh Out Loudly]. if i do not know the meaning, i see in dictionary. > I was being sacastic (also check the meaning) when i mention of you being "provocative" -- i was stating my opinion in response to that question asked by some guy in the e-group.. but your response was filled with cute, little LOL (which by the way, does not mean Little Old Lady) and it is not nessary .. are you still following me? Although i can say all this in mandarin, french or spanish if you prefer... not necessary... btw ur feeling of self-importance is overgrown. simple words make u offended, alas > And now.. back to what we were talking about.. You were so positive about the little detail that vishnu is from devi and you said that it is written from a purana... i gave that quote as an example, that EVEN in a purana it was said. the source of this knowledge isn't of course puranic stuff. > go back to your own message and read it if you are have convienently forgetten ... and now .. and may i qoute you> > "puranas i do not concider to be God's revelation... > to speak in general, we can't put Veda and smriti-shaastra on equal level."> > So, you were and you are contradicting yourself.. however i am not. never i put Veda and Agama equal to purana-smrityaadi shaastras. even in normal orthodox hinduism purana is never concidered as revelation... > Secondly ... you said.. and may i qoute you ... > > "we can't put Veda and smriti-shaastra on equal level." > > Correct me if i am wrong but where in any of the Vedas did you find the little detail that Lord vishnu is from devi .. i dare you ,, my sweet honey pie to find it ... it is not written there. in Vedas Vishnu is a demi-god with secondary role and functions. he is even called \little Indra\, Upendra. Vedas are to be understood not literally. It is not my opinion only, but opinion of masters and saints. Dayananda Sarasvati [vaidic pandit] held that view, Abhinavagupta [tantric master] as well etc. but that thing was written in Tantras, which are concieved as a part of Shruti aka Veda by followers of kaula schools... > Thirdly .. let me point out an universal fact about hinduism .. this religion or santhana darma is so vast and so deep that so much has been said, studied and analyzed that it impossible to untangle the branches and tell where it starts and where it ends.. Hinduism is not a porridge where every stuff is mixed up LOL. There is an hierarchy of acharas, doctrines. myself i'm representing the point of view of kaula-tantrism. but note, ur statement is wrong not only from that point of view... > You were probably right.. and i was probably wrong about the whole vishnu/devi thing .. quiet obvious LOL > but my point is.. In hinduism .. unless it is written in vedas or your smriti-shaastra .. anything is possible.. are you still following me? So, there is no need to play the "babu" ( look it up in the Indian cultural context dictionary) .. i'm not playing anything. but before giving answers to others, u may firstly study the matter urself. ppl who speak about their religions without proper knowledge, bring more damage to them, than those, who are enemies of those religions... > Lastly .. and may i qoute you .. > > with respect, > Arjuna Taradasa.. > > With respect ?? ha ha ha ha.. you are in need of a really good dictionary ... ciao i've got rather nice one... anyway, i do not show a disrespect to u, i just point out ur mistakes. ... > "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha wrote: > 93 Jaya Devi > > > what is so funny about my supposedly apparent mistake? ok.. qoute > > from the puranas or the vedas in which i highly doubt.. > > puranas i do not concider to be God's revelation... > to speak in general, we can't put Veda and smriti-shaastra on equal level. > > the village > > level in which u talk about is Goddess Meenaksi of madurai .. > > no, not only. that is a common point in folk mythologies of hindus. > > but do > > brothers COME from their sisters? And tantra is a Devi-centered > > philosophy and symbolic gestures worship.... just as saivaism is > > centered on shiva while vaishaism is centered on Vishnu.... it is > > logical for tantric practisioners to believe that Devi is the source > > of all > > this isn't quiet correct as well. however i don't want to go deep into details now. > simple note for example - kashmiri shaivism is definitely tantric, but only krama branch of it is purely Devi-centered... also i can point, that several schools of vaishnavism are centered on female Divinity. > > > so .. either english is not your finer medium of communication or it > > is your delibration to appear provocative, either way.. you are > > really not winning points with the devi, tantric or not.. ciao > > english isn't my native tongue, so yes it may be improper in sm cases. > also i may be provocative smtimes LOL, why not? > > > God bless > > with respect, > Arjuna Taradasa > > 93 Jaya Kali! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.