Is Lord Shiva a demi-god?

[Dark Warrior]

Post Deleted by Admin5

[Dark Warrior]

Post Deleted by Admin5

[Avinash]

 

And Isana is identified as Mahadeva, Pasupati, Ugra, Rudra in Satapatha brahmana.

BG 11.15 uses the word isam and not isanam. It is in object i.e. karma karaka. If we convert it into subject i.e. karta karaka, then we find that BG 11.15 refers to Isa and not to Isana. So, saying that this verse refers to Lord Mahadev means that the word Isa refers to Lord Mahadev.

[kimfelix]

QED, DW

 

Avinash, the phrase in 11.15 is brahmanam isham kamalasana-stham. Because the word isham appears between brahmanam and kamala-asana-stham it is almost certainly a designation of Brahma who sits on the lotus. "Brahma who is the lord situated on his lotus seat". Ramanuja and Madhva both suggest that isha means Shiva who is seated on Brahma who is on the lotus seat. In his Bhashya Ramanuja writes, tatha isham kamalasana-stham kamalasane brahmani sthitam and Madhva follows Ramanuja here.

 

Shankara assumes that isham refers to Brahma. In his bhashya he writes, brahmanam chatur-mukham isham ishataram prajanam kamalasana-stham. Brahma is isham because of his lordship over all creatures. And all of the Western translators follow Shankara on this translation rather than Prabhupada' version. It is an issue because the question then arises as to why Shiva is not seen in the vishva-rupa if he is a part of the creation. Hence the attempt is made by Vaishnavas to explain the verse in that way but it is rather unlikely.

[Dark Warrior]

 

BG 11.15 uses the word isam and not isanam. It is in object i.e. karma karaka. If we convert it into subject i.e. karta karaka, then we find that BG 11.15 refers to Isa and not to Isana. So, saying that this verse refers to Lord Mahadev means that the word Isa refers to Lord Mahadev.

 

Isha and Isana are both same. Sri Rudram also mentions it.

 

Kesava simply means 'Ka, Isa, Va'. Keshava is also acceptable.

 

Like I said before, only if you really have an agenda, you can interpret it that way. My interpretation is in accordance with Shruti, and with Gita, where Krishna reveals His form with 4 hands, Conch, Chakra, etc.

 

 

Shankara assumes that isham refers to Brahma. In his bhashya he writes, brahmanam chatur-mukham isham ishataram prajanam kamalasana-stham.

 

Did you read my post?

 

Brahma has already been mentioned. Hence, to mention him again is a needless redundacy. Why should Brahma be mentioned two times?

 

On the other hand, there is authoritative shruti that says Shiva is Isha. Hence, to remove redundancy, only the Vaishnava interpretation is correct.

 

Shankara also makes grammatical errors in his Upanishads. So, the Bhashya that adheres to Shruti is the correct one. And Sri Ramanujar's view is correct.

 

By the way, you have started with some agenda to try to prove that non advatin interpretations are far fetched. I would like you to look at Shankara's commentary on Ishavasya, and his rendering of sambuti as asambhuti( 14th verse), without any reason and only blinded followers to accept such a distortion.

 

Idiots who have agendas are truly annoying.

 

Isha is the son of Brahma, as per Shruti. Hence, it follows that Shiva is not Brahman. This means, logically, one would expect to see Isha-deva also in the Viswaroopa. Hence, the Vaishnava view is not a far fetched opinion, but a correct one, in view of Shruti.

 

If anyone wants to equate Shiva and Vishnu, the only way to do so is to become an advaitin. After all, Brahman is Nirguna. But then, Vaishnavas will defeat them with philosophy as well.

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[kimfelix]

Isham is a further refinement of brahmanam as is kamala asana stham so there is no redundancy. It is commonplace to list attributes after a name. Isha usually refers to the quality of lordship (as in the Ishavasya Upanishad) rather than being used as a proper name and the placing of kamala asana stham after it very strongly suggests that this is the case here.

 

Shankara certainly hasn't made a grammatical error and that is why Western translators all follow his version. Even Robert Zaehner who favours Ramanuja throughout his commentary does not agree with him on that one. And it is hard to see what 'agenda' they have, whereas the agenda from the other side is really very obvious. I agree that on the Gita, Ramanuja is the most faithful commentator but here it is hard to accept his version over that of Shankara. But of course we must again agree to differ.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Isham is a further refinement of brahmanam as is kamala asana stham so there is no redundancy. It is commonplace to list attributes after a name. Isha usually refers to the quality of lordship (as in the Ishavasya Upanishad) rather than being used as a proper name and the placing of kamala asana stham after it very strongly suggests that this is the case here.

 

Shankara certainly hasn't made a grammatical error and that is why Western translators all follow his version. Even Robert Zaehner who favours Ramanuja throughout his commentary does not agree with him on that one. And it is hard to see what 'agenda' they have, whereas the agenda from the other side is really very obvious. I agree that on the Gita, Ramanuja is the most faithful commentator but here it is hard to accept his version over that of Shankara. But of course we must again agree to differ.

 

OK.

 

I am not denying its grammatical accuracy. But when you interpret something, you look for logic.

 

For instance, both Tat Tvam Asi and Atat Tvam Asi are grammatically correct. But only one could be the true purport (However, let us not go into that).

 

So, logic, and context needs to be applied.

 

Here, the logic adopted by Vaishnavas is simple - Shruti declares Isha Rudra to be the son of Brahma. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad declares the World and everything to be Brahman's body.

 

So, naturally, you would expect to find Isha Mahadeva in the body of Krishna, as Mahadeva is not supreme, as per Vedas. All important devas were mentioned by Arjuna. Hence, Mahadeva must be there as well.

 

Mahadeva, being the son of Brahma, is sitting with his father. That's the interpretation, and its absolutely concordant with Shruti. Furthermore, its redundant to say Brahma is the Lord of all creatures. Arjuna was feeling awed by Krishna, who was Brahman (Vishnu). So, I doubt Arjuna would be calling Devas by their grand titles at that time.

 

Logic says its Shiva. And grammatically viable as well. Its your agenda to blindly equate Vishnu with Shiva that makes you reject this and accept another version. We, however, faithfully follow Shruti.

[kimfelix]

Actually, it's not my agenda at all. And I have always insisted that the Bhagavad Gita should be understood as a Vaishnava work. The interpretation of 11.15 given by Prabhupada et al would certainly support my position on that, but I have never felt able to use it as evidence because I don't think it really means that.

 

For what it's worth I have found it profitable to try to understand the Gita's Vaishnavism within the context of the Mahabharata. A reading of the entire text of the Mahabharata leads to the conclusion that its Vaishnavism is generally not exclusive of Shiva. It seems that Vishnu and Shiva alternate within the Mahabharata as the Supreme Deity. In the Sauptika Parvan for example, Vishnu as Krishna withdraws and Shiva takes centre stage as the form of divinity that inspires Ashvathaman. In the context of the Mahabharata's Vaishnavism it is clearer as to why Shiva is not perceived within the vishva-rupa.

[Dark Warrior]

 

For what it's worth I have found it profitable to try to understand the Gita's Vaishnavism within the context of the Mahabharata. A reading of the entire text of the Mahabharata leads to the conclusion that its Vaishnavism is generally not exclusive of Shiva. It seems that Vishnu and Shiva alternate within the Mahabharata as the Supreme Deity.

 

And your position is refuted by Shruti. No Vedantin considers Smirti as an independent pramana. Paurusheya scriptures CANNOT and WILL NOT be equated to the Apaurusheya Vedas.

 

Its a rule of Vedanta, and cannot be flouted.

 

I have told you a hundred times, contact Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swami or Sri Puttur Krishnamachari Swami for this. Kinchitkaram is an online site of Sri Velukkudi Swami, and he answers all questions immediately. But of course, your bias to equate Shiva and Vishnu prevents you from doing it, doesn't it?

 

C. Rajagopalachari was a Vaishnava. He wrote a commentary on Mahabharata. However, Sri Krishnamachari Swami soundly criticised him for his incorrect translations. So, use your brains here. Don't you think there must be some source that Sri Krishnamachari used to refute Rajagopalachari? The latter apologised to Sri Krishnamachari.

 

You don't seem to understand the basics. If Sri Madhva stealthily omitted any verses about Shiva being praised, he would have received it on all ends from Shaivites. A dozen versions existed during his times.

 

 

In the Sauptika Parvan for example, Vishnu as Krishna withdraws and Shiva takes centre stage as the form of divinity that inspires Ashvathaman. In the context of the Mahabharata's Vaishnavism it is clearer as to why Shiva is not perceived within the vishva-rupa.

 

I said, stop quoting the Mahabharata. You never learn, will you? Even Appaya Dikshitar, a staunch Shaivite, did not use the Mahabharata to attempt to prove his point. Who are you to devise new rules of Vedanta?

 

From the point of Shruti, Vaishnava view of Gita is correct. Shruti > Smriti. Case closed.

 

BOTTOM LINE - If you want to believe this nonsense, go ahead. But do not claim authority for your beliefs, and maintain that it is just a belief of yours.

 

And now, for the last time, I really will stop posting in this thread. Obviously, these people will not change.

[kimfelix]

Just a couple of points on that. Rajagopalachari wrote an abridged version of the Mahabharata not a commentary on it and if Sri Krishnamachari Swami criticised his translation of certain passages then he would have had to use either the BORI Critical Edition or one of the versions included in the BORI Critical Edition.

 

Madhvacharya didn't 'stealthily omit verses' because he never produced an edition of the text to omit verses from. There is no 'Madhvacharya Mahabharata'. He wrote a work entitled 'Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya'. This is not a version of the Mahabharata but a work of his own that retells parts of the story along with incidents taken from the Bhagavata Purana and Harivamsha. Even including the expositions of Dvaita philosophy and the extras from elsewhere it only contains 5200 verses, which is just a fraction of the Mahabharata's content. So in that case he 'stealthily omits' over 90% of the Mahabharata. I hope this makes it clear.

[Avinash]

 

I said, stop quoting the Mahabharata.

Excellent! You quote from Gita, which is a part of Mahabharata, but you prevent people from quoting from Mahabharata.

You say that Itihasa > Purana. You agree that Mahabharata is itihasa and Bhagavatam is purana. You quote from Bhagavatam but you say not to quote from Mahabharata.

If you are able to find any verses in Mahabharata where it is written that Krishna worships Himself, when worshipping Shiva, then you quote it. But, if somebody else quotes from Mahabharata, then you stop him.

[Avinash]

 

Avinash, the phrase in 11.15 is brahmanam isham kamalasana-stham.

Kimfelix, did you notice something? The word is brahmanam and not brahmaam. Lord Brahma is pronounced as brahmaa. So, the object form of this should be brahmaam. But the verse contains brahmanam, which means that the corresponding noun is brahman. If we say brahmanam here refers to Lord Brahma, then it would mean that Arjuna called Lord Brhama as brahman.

[kimfelix]

Avinash, I think your Sanskrit is probably better than mine but when Brahman is declined in the masculine rather than the neuter it is Brahmaanam in the accusative, which would be apposition to isham and kamalasana-stham. I was in Cochin a couple of months ago. It's a delightful city although the hartal was on at the time.

[tackleberry]

 

Kimfelix, did you notice something? The word is brahmanam and not brahmaam. Lord Brahma is pronounced as brahmaa. So, the object form of this should be brahmaam. But the verse contains brahmanam, which means that the corresponding noun is brahman. If we say brahmanam here refers to Lord Brahma, then it would mean that Arjuna called Lord Brhama as brahman.

 

It's Brahman in both cases, so the declension in the masculine gender will be identical; hence the confusion. So we need to understand who it is-whether Chaturmukha Brahma or Brahma-from the context.

[kimfelix]

When declined in the neuter the accusative singular is brahma so it is a reference to chatur mukha Brahma.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Excellent! You quote from Gita, which is a part of Mahabharata, but you prevent people from quoting from Mahabharata.

You say that Itihasa > Purana. You agree that Mahabharata is itihasa and Bhagavatam is purana. You quote from Bhagavatam but you say not to quote from Mahabharata.

 

Are you nuts? The Gita, Sahasranama and Bhagavata has been authoritative for every scholar since ancient times. And you have the ignorance to compare it to a text that has so many corrupted material in it?

 

Mahabharata is a highly interpolated text. But Bhagavatam has had over 10 commentators, who have commentated on the exact verses we have today. Common sense tells us which book is better.

 

Smriti should be used to HELP understand Shruti. It should never be taken as an independent authority.

 

Avinash, you are a very sorry character.

 

 

If you are able to find any verses in Mahabharata where it is written that Krishna worships Himself, when worshipping Shiva, then you quote it. But, if somebody else quotes from Mahabharata, then you stop him.

 

My quotes from Santi Parva have been mentioned by both Vedanta Desikar and Madhvacharya, hence its authentic. So, shut it.

 

Since any quote about Shiva being supreme contradicts Shruti, it is discarded wholesale. That's always been the way of Vedanta. I suggest you first brush up on what constitutes a pramana and what doesn't.

 

 

Just a couple of points on that. Rajagopalachari wrote an abridged version of the Mahabharata not a commentary on it and if Sri Krishnamachari Swami criticised his translation of certain passages then he would have had to use either the BORI Critical Edition or one of the versions included in the BORI Critical Edition.

 

Very good. Then, I have a suggestion. Use your brains and ask Sri Krishnamachari about the Mahabharata. Or better yet, ask Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swami. Still reluctant to do it, eh?

 

Sri Krishnamachari criticised Rajagopalachari for portraying Shiva as equal to Vishnu, I believe. So, there is ample proof that a scholar can resolve your silly queries.

 

Playing guesswork again, I see. And what was that nonsense about western scholars (Robert Zahner) agreeing with Sri Sankara and disagreeing with Sri Ramanuja? Let me tell you something - No Vedantin really cares what your western scholars think. Your 'scholars' still haven't been able to properly understand the Vedas, and make foolish comments like, 'Gita is a Vaishnavite text, but Vedas are Shaivite texts'.

 

So, stop referring to western scholars and indologists.

 

The idea that anyone can write a bhashya on Brahma Sutras or Upanishads using an obviously interpolated text like Mahabharata is so laughable that I shall not even debate it. Next, they will be asking us to consider archie comics as pramana.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Madhvacharya didn't 'stealthily omit verses' because he never produced an edition of the text to omit verses from. There is no 'Madhvacharya Mahabharata'. He wrote a work entitled 'Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya'. This is not a version of the Mahabharata but a work of his own that retells parts of the story along with incidents taken from the Bhagavata Purana and Harivamsha. Even including the expositions of Dvaita philosophy and the extras from elsewhere it only contains 5200 verses, which is just a fraction of the Mahabharata's content. So in that case he 'stealthily omits' over 90% of the Mahabharata. I hope this makes it clear.

 

Aren't you that loser named Kimtadbrahma from hindunet forums? I suspected as much. You had an agenda against the Dvaitins and Vishishtadvaitins there, and you are continuing that vein of ignorance here.

 

IF there was a verse that glorified shiva, and if that had been accepted by everyone, Vaishnavas would have explained it. But of course, a layman like you can never understand what exactly the Vaidika Sampradaya is.

 

Moron, I never said Madhva wrote the entire Mahabharata. I said, he used portions to explain the supremacy of Vishnu. Hence, verses glorifying Shiva are simply to be rejected.

 

Remember the cremation or burial thread? Where you were foolishly quoting Ganguli that Krishna was burnt. That reveals your stupidity. Gita is preferred to interpolated texts like Ganguli's Mahabharata. Krishna is God, not human.

 

Madhva explains that verses that say Shiva is supreme are meant to mislead. Hari Sarvottama is the whole purport of all texts.

 

Shruti says Vishnu is Supreme. We know that Vyasa originally wrote Mahabharata. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that nonsense like the Shiva Sahasranama are interpolations or, as mentioned, simply for rajasic/tamasic people. Of course, Kimfelix is simply an agnostic, so he will never understand this.

 

Shruti has also had interpolations. But Shruti has an advantage in the sense that the metre of hymns will fall if there is an interpolation, which means - nobody can properly get away with it.

 

Kimfelix, or give him the right name, Kimtadbrahma is brain dead. His posts in the other forum were also severly criticised by Vaishnavas there. His total lack of knowledge on what constitutes a pramana is the main problem here. This is why, our books should never be read without proper guidance. These people torture the texts and come up with ridiculous opinions.

 

It is also clear that he relies on indology to explain our texts. Since he apparently doesn't understand the apaurusheyatva of the Vedas, that explains his incompetence. Nobody gives a damn about western scholars. Nowonder Kimfelix is unable to understand anything...his inclination towards indology is clear.

 

And what you are saying is, a text, which has so many versions over the years, is a pramana over Shruti. So, I suggest you stop using BORI, Nilakantha and Ganguli as pramana if you want to gain credibility.

 

Again for the last time - Verses in Smriti that contradict Shruti are discarded as invalid. Is that so hard to understand? Have you ever heard of a Shaivite proving his point with Shiva Purana and Mahabharata, in ancient times?

[kimfelix]

Well it is hard to hold a discussion with an angry man (or woman ) but I am afraid I cannot accept your view of the Mahabharata. There are in existence a number of old manuscripts of the Sanskrit text and although these do differ there is still a very substantial core that is common to all. And I would prefer to regard this as the Mahabharata. It is what we have. Just to say that if it doesn't agree with my own interpretation of shruti it must be an interpolation is not an argument that convinces me. I am sorry if that makes you angry but that is the way it is.

 

My reference to Robert Zaehner's translation was not meant to elevate Western scholars but just to show that people without an agenda (or even with a pro-Vaishnava agenda) for the most part share Shankara's view on the meaning of 11.15. Again people will disagree but there is no malice intended; we are simply exchanging views and inevitably disagreements will arise. It is a shame if such exchanges lead us into anger and other lower states of consciousness.

 

Best wishes, and apologies again for any offence caused. I can assure you it was wholly unintended.

 

Sorry, I missed one point. The cremation of a body of Krishna is mentioned in all the existing Sanskrit manuscripts of the Mahabharata as collected and published by the BORI scholars. Now you can say that it is just an interpolation but that is a bit of a soft argument. There are certainly ways in which a Vaishnava explanation can be given. If you just shout 'interpolation' every time something appears that contradicts preconceptions then anybody else can do the same.

 

I have discussed the Mahabharata with one excellent scholar from the Sri Vaishnava tradition who is based in Chennai. He seemed to have no problem in accepting the BORI Critical Edition and as I recall he used to work from it.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Well it is hard to hold a discussion with an angry man (or woman ) but I am afraid I cannot accept your view of the Mahabharata. There are in existence a number of old manuscripts of the Sanskrit text and although these do differ there is still a very substantial core that is common to all. And I would prefer to regard this as the Mahabharata. It is what we have.

 

You are a prime idiot, Kimtadbrahma. Vaishnavas explained everything to you in Hindunet, yet you never really got their point. Instead, you kept calling their interpretations as 'sectarian'.

 

Whether Vyasa wrote it or not, it is rejected because it is against Shruti. Krishna came as Buddha and told us, 'do not worry about God'. We reject even His words if they are not in line with Shruti.

 

However, I don't expect you to understand, as you never understood it when the Dvaitins and Vishishtadvaitins explained it to you anyway.

 

 

Just to say that if it doesn't agree with my own interpretation of shruti it must be an interpolation is not an argument that convinces me. I am sorry if that makes you angry but that is the way it is.

 

- Your interpretation clashes with other portions of Shruti.

 

- My interpretation makes Shruti uniform.

 

Again, you brought up this same argument in Hindunet. Politely, they called you 'silly', I believe. Well, even 'silly' is too polite to describe you.

 

Whether verses that glorify Shiva were given by Vyasa or not does not matter. But since they contradict Shruti, they are simply aupacharika. Get that, Kimtadbrahma?

 

 

 

My reference to Robert Zaehner's translation was not meant to elevate Western scholars but just to show that people without an agenda (or even with a pro-Vaishnava agenda) for the most part share Shankara's view on the meaning of 11.15.

 

I see. So Kimtadbrahma has no agenda, but all Vaishnavietes have an agenda?

 

Robert Zaehner considers the Veda to have an origin. No Vedantin accepts such ludicrous views. So, shut it.

 

And 'for the most part', who shares Sankara's opinions? Shaivites, Advaitins and of course, non-entities like yourself and Zaehner. All 3 groups have no understanding of Shruti, they have all been defeated.

 

Note the arrogance? Casually dismisses Sri Ramanujar and Sri Madhvar's views for Sankara's? And why, because it suits his asinine opinions. He takes verses from Mahabharata, one verse from Sankara, ignores a major portion of Upanishads, and formulates his views.

 

Vaishnava view is consistent with Shruti and Smriti like Ramayana, Sattvik Puranas and the major part of Mahabharata. Rest of the verses are useless, and Smriti recommends discarding it.

 

So, he takes Sankara's view, ignores pramanas from Shruti, ignores the fact that no scholar has ever commentated on anything like Shiva Sahasranama (Only Vishnu Sahasranama is the essence of Veda), and force his opinion on others.

 

 

Again people will disagree but there is no malice intended; we are simply exchanging views and inevitably disagreements will arise. It is a shame if such exchanges lead us into anger and other lower states of consciousness.

 

Politely labelling every Vaishnava interpretation as 'sectarian', not being able to understand how Shruti should be interpreted, ignoring valid pramanas, calling paurusheya/corrupted scriptures as pramana over Shruti...all this is worse than any anger exhibited by a 'malicious' person.

 

 

 

Sorry, I missed one point. The cremation of a body of Krishna is mentioned in all the existing Sanskrit manuscripts of the Mahabharata as collected and published by the BORI scholars. Now you can say that it is just an interpolation but that is a bit of a soft argument. There are certainly ways in which a Vaishnava explanation can be given. If you just shout 'interpolation' every time something appears that contradicts preconceptions then anybody else can do the same.

 

So,let's see.

 

- Shruti, Gita say Krishna is Supreme.

 

- We know Gita and Shruti are in pristine form.

 

- We know Mahabharata is an interpolated text.

 

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that it is an interpolation. No acharya has ever considered that Krishna is not God.

 

And you say anybody can call anything interpolation if I do so? Funny, because first they have prove their viewpoint from Shruti. Since they can't do that, theirs (and your) opinions are rendered invalid.

 

Even the Shaivites will condemn you for this. You are a bloody atheist, so I don't really care what you think.

 

 

I have discussed the Mahabharata with one excellent scholar from the Sri Vaishnava tradition who is based in Chennai. He seemed to have no problem in accepting the BORI Critical Edition and as I recall he used to work from it.

 

Moron, anyone can accept 'BORI' or 'Ganguli'. But only in light of Shruti. I'd like you to tell any Sri Vaishnava scholar like Sri Puttur Swami your ridiculous opinions that Shiva and Vishnu are one, or that Krishna was burnt. Let's see what happens.

 

Nobody uses BORI for debates, or to establish supremacy of a God. I'd like to know, exactly which 'Sri Vaishnava' Scholar 'works' from it? If he says Vishnu and Shiva are one with BORI as pramana, then he isn't a Sri Vaishnava.

 

Of course, you completely ignore what I said about Sri Puttur Swami, Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swami (whose website is so helpful) and about Shaivites like Appaya Dikshitar not using such pramanas.

 

Kimtadbrahma is just another fool with an agenda. And he has the nerve to call Vaishnavas sectarian, without knowledge of sastra.

 

Kimtadbrahma has been at this for 3-4 years on the net. If people go to Hindunet forums, you will see that he persistently labels Vaishnavas as 'sectarian', calls Svetasvatara Upanishad as 'Shaivite' and maintains this nonsense.

 

So, he is pretty much a useless character. No sense arguing with him.

[kimfelix]

Dark Warrior, I understand everything you say; it is just that I don't share your views or interpretations in their entirety. I do consider the Shvetashvatara Upanishad a Shaivite text because it refers to the Supreme Deity as Rudra and Shiva. I know you don't agree and I completely respect your opinion, although it differs from my own and that of many others. There are some who will agree with and there are many others who will agree with my views. We have to learn to live with that and perhaps try to learn from it.

 

And to insult those who do not share your own view by calling them morons, bloody idiots, ignoramuses etc is in fact an archetypal sign of a one with a sectarian mentality. Again QED.

 

In truth this discussion is doing nothing for either of us is it? And it seems to be having a rather negative effect on our states of consciousness by inducing harsh words and angry sentiments. So I will withdraw from it now. I really will . Thank you again for your attention to what I have said.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Dark Warrior, I understand everything you say; it is just that I don't share your views or interpretations in their entirety. I do consider the Shvetashvatara Upanishad a Shaivite text because it refers to the Supreme Deity as Rudra and Shiva. I know you don't agree and I completely respect your opinion, although it differs from my own and that of many others. There are some who will agree with and there are many others who will agree with my views. We have to learn to live with that and perhaps try to learn from it.

 

Nobody really cares what you think. Who said I wanted to convert you? 4 years at Hindunet could not.

 

You have no knowledge of how to argue. Understand my point. I am not asking you change your opinions. But stop telling me that all Vaishnavas are 'sectarian' and stop attempting to define how Vedanta should be interpreted.

 

Express your belief. Stop calling it authoritative.

 

 

 

And to insult those who do not share your own view by calling them morons, bloody idiots, ignoramuses etc is in fact an archetypal sign of a one with a sectarian mentality. Again QED.

 

You note, that these morons, bloody idiots and ignoramuses are those who cannot get beyond BORI, Shiva Purana and other such texts.

 

You have the cheek to call me sectarian, when your understanding of the Vedic tradition of polemics is abysmal.

 

 

In truth this discussion is doing nothing for either of us is it? And it seems to be having a rather negative effect on our states of consciousness by inducing harsh words and angry sentiments. So I will withdraw from it now. I really will . Thank you again for your attention to what I have said.

 

Sentiments, huh?

 

Did I say it is doing something for us? No. So, go read your Svetasvatara Upanishad, do whatever you want. Just stop plaguing Vaishnavas with your ridiculous opinions.

[Avinash]

 

Whether Vyasa wrote it or not, it is rejected because it is against Shruti.

You are saying that it is possible that something is written by Vyasa in Mahabharata but it is wrong. As you yourself said, Mahabharat (an itihasa) is a better pramana than any purana (including sattvik). Therefore, if Vyasa could write something wrong in Mahabharata, it is possible that he wrote something wrong in a sattvik purana also?

You have said earlier that if some verse in a sattvik purana contradicts shruti, then that verse should be rejected. Fine, no problem.

But consider a verse from a sattvik purana, which neither supports nor contradicts shruti. In other words, shruti does not say anything about it? Should we accept or reject? So far, you have been accepting it. But why can't it be wrong?

If Vyasa can write something wrong in sattvik purana, then even if some verse does not contradict shruti, it may be wrong.

Padma Purana calls Shiva Purana as tamasic. Such a thing is nowhere there in shruti. So, why should we accept it?

Do not say that it does not contradict shruti, so it is pramana. It does not contradict shruti, but it does not support shruti either.

[Dark Warrior]

 

You are saying that it is possible that something is written by Vyasa in Mahabharata but it is wrong. As you yourself said, Mahabharat (an itihasa) is a better pramana than any purana (including sattvik).

 

And Shruti > Mahabharata. Thus, even wrong things in Mahabharata are rejected.

 

 

Therefore, if Vyasa could write something wrong in Mahabharata, it is possible that he wrote something wrong in a sattvik purana also?

 

Certainly. But both Vishnu and Bhagavata Purana are consistent with Shruti.

 

 

You have said earlier that if some verse in a sattvik purana contradicts shruti, then that verse should be rejected. Fine, no problem.

 

OK.

 

 

But consider a verse from a sattvik purana, which neither supports nor contradicts shruti. In other words, shruti does not say anything about it? Should we accept or reject? So far, you have been accepting it. But why can't it be wrong?

 

There is no such verse.

 

 

If Vyasa can write something wrong in sattvik purana, then even if some verse does not contradict shruti, it may be wrong.

 

If a verse does not contradict Shruti, then it is not wrong. Shortage of brain function here?

 

 

Padma Purana calls Shiva Purana as tamasic. Such a thing is nowhere there in shruti. So, why should we accept it?

 

Let's see - Padma Purana says, Shiva Purana lies, and is not consistent with Shruti.

 

We examine Shiva Purana. We find that it lies, and is not consistent with Shruti.

 

So, Padma Purana was correct. And Padma Purana is consistent with Shruti.

 

Hence, Guna Classification is right.

 

Moron, Shruti also does not say Lord will come to give us Gita. So, do we reject Gita as well? Shruti also does not say Bhishma will give Vishnu Sahasranama. Does that mean we reject it?

 

 

Do not say that it does not contradict shruti, so it is pramana. It does not contradict shruti, but it does not support shruti either.

 

Look at my earlier sentence, numbskull.

 

Since Shiva Purana contradicts Shruti, and Padma Purana says so, it means that Padma Purana is correct. And if we examine the core verses of Padma Purana, it is consistent with Shruti.

 

The guna classification is supported by the fact that Shiva Purana contradicts Shruti. Hence, it is accepted as authored by Vyasa, and all schools of Vedanta. No Advaitin, Mimamsa-kara, Vishishtadvaitin, Dvaitin or even Shaivites have ever quoted it.

 

We don't even need a guna classification. Why do you think Buddha's words, Bible and Koran are rejected? Because they are also not consistent with Shruti.

 

Avinash, I am not telling you to stop worshipping Shiva. Just refrain from blindly quoting Shiva Purana. If you have a belief, good. I am not going to hinder it.

 

I have said it 5 times already in this thread, but this time, I will mean it - I am out of here, really. I think I have done enough, and people who read this thread can make their own decisions. Really don't care what these fans of Shiva Purana say anymore.

[cbrahma]

Following this debate between humble Avinash and arrogant name-calling Dark Warrior, I am struck by the illogic of claiming superiority of the Gita over Mahabharata, when Gita is part of Mahabharata.

If Mahabharata has been interpolated, why not Gita? There are umpteen versions of the Gita as there are of the Mahabharata.

Typically argument from sastric authority runs in circles because it requires another standard - guru and sadhu to settle which version, if not which sastra is more authoritative.

[raghu]

 

Following this debate between humble Avinash and arrogant name-calling Dark Warrior, I am struck by the illogic of claiming superiority of the Gita over Mahabharata, when Gita is part of Mahabharata.

If Mahabharata has been interpolated, why not Gita? There are umpteen versions of the Gita as there are of the Mahabharata.

Typically argument from sastric authority runs in circles because it requires another standard - guru and sadhu to settle which version, if not which sastra is more authoritative.

 

Obviously he is referring to Gita vs the rest of the Mahabharata. Your claim that there are "umpteen" versions of the Gita is unfounded. But there are certainly numerous versions of the Mahabharata (excluding the Gita).

 

And as far as your iskcon-logic to the effect that it requires "guru and sadhu to settle which version," that simply makes no sense. If a guru is needed to arbitrarily pick the right version among many wrong ones of a given scripture, then why go to scripture at all? Just go to the guru and believe whatever he says.