listening to the holy name from the lips of mayavadis

[shvu]

 

i personaly believe that Dark warrior is the Supreme personality of Godhead.Who else has the audacity to dismiss Radharani as a mere jeevatma ? ?

Wait...he can also be a big fool.

 

Dude,ur knowledge is useless.You are frm the Ramanujite school.Stick to subjects pertaining to Aishwarya rasa and the vaikuntha...dont tread near madhurya rasa.Your dry understanding cannot fathom it.

Hladini-saar-bhuta tattva is the origin of Bhagvati Laxmi Herself.Its not open to debate.Its fact.

 

Thank your stars I am not the moderator here. I would have booted you out (head first) for your poor netiquette.

 

Try and keep your Hare Krishna arrogance in check. You have neither brains nor the necessary knowledge to pull it off. You should know all this by now as your bogus claims of Shankara were exposed.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

Good..

 

For me, I've got a better realisation...

 

I prefer now to be silent, it is wiser to be so.

 

Best decision you made so far. Better to be silent than to make ignorant & incorrect assertions about Shankara & Bhaja Govindam.

 

Cheers

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

Krishna is Vishnu

Secondly, Rama never worshipped Shiva. Valmiki Ramayana says Rama worshipped Himself, ie, Narayana.

Stop relying on Tulasidas Ramayana. It isn't authentic. Valmiki says Rama broke Shiva's bow. There is no reference of Rama consecrating a Shiva Linga, as mordern day hindus believe.

And nice logic. Rama being supreme is interpolated? That means the entire Ramayana is an interpolation!!

The Ramayana is in pristine form. The only identified interpolation is Aditya Hridayam.

Sry, I didn't know there was such a difference between Tulsidas Ramayan and Valmiki Ramayan.

 

..The very fact that you ask if the Vedas are interpolated shows your complete ignorance of Vedanta.

The Veda cannot be interpolated because an interpolation will cause the metre of the hymn to fall. This way, a couple of interpolations have been identified.

Therefore, Vedas are apaurusheya and authority. Whatever they say is ultimate. So, only those parts that agree with Shruti are accepted. This is the first and most important rule of Vedanta.

Quite simple. You, being an ignoramus, lack a complete knowledge of Veda.

Why could someone not interpolate something and still keep the metre of the verses? People do it in song writing all the time.

 

If you want a reference to Santi Parva, I suggest you search these forums. Not just me, many people have quoted it here. Not hard to find in the old Shiva/Vishnu threads.

it is your duty to show me a reference. Give me a Shaivite commentary of Shiva Gita or Shiva Sahasranama dating to the 13th century.

Srimad Bhagavatam agrees with Shruti. It is also quoted by Sri Madhva. Since Madhva was able to identify spurious versions of many texts, I believe his scholarship.

Once again, Srimad Bhagavata Purana didn't have any commentaries or copies earlier than the 10th century. Does that mean it didn't exist beforehand? Yes or no? If no is your answer, then that means that you can't prove that Shiva Sahasranam and Shiva Gita didn't exist before their copies and commentaries were written.

 

Happened with Appaya Dikshitar's works.

The deterioration of Advaita came about the 16th century. Advaitins naturally will not be able to understand why they should worship one god alone, naturally, it has resulted in this.

You keep making claims, but you cite no references. You should really work on that.

 

Sankara and his disciples were Vaishnavas and that cannot be denied. Although in a sense, it seems useless to restrict worship to one god if you are an advaitin, Sri Sankara apparently still advocated only Vishnu bhakti because he, being a Vedantin, knew that Vishnu was praised as Supreme throughout the Veda.

Could it be that Vishnu was his Ishta Deva, and that's why he put so much focus on him?

 

This will be the last time I explain this. If anyone else comes again asking for it, I won't.

In one portion, Shruti says Rudra is supreme. In another portion, it says Rudra was created.

Brihadaranyaka says, everything, Prakrti, Jivas, etc. are the body of Brahman.

When I call you 'Radhey', I refer to your body and soul together as one entity. Since Brahman resides in the soul of Shiva, to say 'Shiva is Supreme' addresses Brahman within Shiva.

Purusha Suktam identifies Brahman as Lakshmi Pathi.

In an analogy, if I address a woman saying 'hair is beautiful', the praise goes to the woman and not just to the hair. Hence, all devas are parts/limbs of Vishnu, and praise of any deva goes to Vishnu. Anganyanya Devata, meaning, all these devas are His limbs. Confirmed by Vishnu Sahasranama as well.

That Vishnu is Brahman is substantiated everywhere in Veda.

If you do not interpret Veda his way, you have contradictions everywhere because in some portions one deity is called supreme, and elsewhere this same deity also has faults.

There are 3 ways of interpretation:

1) Vishnu is the referrant of all names. 'Shiva' simply means 'Auspicious'. 'Rudra' means 'Destroyer of Evil'. Hence, 'Brahman is Shiva' can mean 'Brahman is Auspicious' and not Mahadeva.

2) If however, the Vedas say something like 'Mahadeva with 3 eyes is Supreme', the body/soul concept I explained can be applied. Because in Mahanarayana Upanishad, Shiva is mentioned to be a part of creation.

3) Thirdly, each deva is endowed with an attribute of Brahman. However, Brahman, being Vishnu, has all their attributes. Praise of any deva is equivalent to praising one attribute of Brahman.

Hence, do not aimlessly post 'Agni is Supreme', 'Indra is Supreme', 'Rudra is Supreme', etc. There is a systematic way to understand who is Supreme. Just because Krishna says 'I am Brahma, I am Vayu' it does not mean these devas are identical to Him. Rather, He is the soul of Brahma's soul (as per Brihadaranyaka) and hence, just like your body and soul are together called by one name, Vishnu alone is the referrent of hymns like 'Indra/Rudra/Agni is Supreme'.

You might ask, why can't we say, 'All praise goes to Shiva and not Vishnu? Simple. Because, the birth of Mahadeva is given in S.Brahmana, Yajur Veda, Rig Veda and Mahanarayana Upanishad. He is mentioned to vanish during pralaya along with stars, sun, moon and Brahma. A created and flawed entity cannot be supreme.

Vishnu, however, is praised as unborn and the Lord of Devas. Purusha Suktam and Narayana Suktam further elaborate the supremacy of Vishnu.

It says that He is self-dependent. That means He is not dependent on Vishnu. Explain the actual verse, please.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Sry, I didn't know there was such a difference between Tulsidas Ramayan and Valmiki Ramayan.

 

Why could someone not interpolate something and still keep the metre of the verses? People do it in song writing all the time.

Last time, so that you can understand. These are the rules of Vedanta:

 

- Shruti is apaurusheya and uncontaminated. Whatever Shruti says is ultimate. Commentaries exist from ancient times for all canonical Shruti texts. Every hymn is identified as authentic.

 

- Smriti is valid pramana as long as it doesn't contradict Shruti.

 

- Those portions of Smriti such as Ramayana, Puranas, etc. which have been proven to have existed atleast during the time of Sri Madhva are pramana. Because they have already been quoted by scholars in debates. Commentaries also exist for these books.

 

- Since no-one has written a commentary on Mahabharata, and no Shaivite has quoted Shiva Gita or Shiva Sahasranama.

 

You cannot interpolate the Vedas. Are you even aware of why its called 'Apaurusheya'? If you had a working knowledge of Vedanta, you wouldn't ask these things.

 

There are many fake Upanishads, but only the 10 (+3) that have been quoted by Sankara are accepted.

 

Look, its clear that you doesn't understand anything about the Vedas. Then why keep arguing about it?

 

Shruti has had many commentaries, as has Srimad Ramayana. Hence, one can be sure of its authenticity.

 

 

Once again, Srimad Bhagavata Purana didn't have any commentaries or copies earlier than the 10th century. Does that mean it didn't exist beforehand? Yes or no? If no is your answer, then that means that you can't prove that Shiva Sahasranam and Shiva Gita didn't exist before their copies and commentaries were written.

Srimad Bhagavatam has been quoted by Sri Madhva and by Sri Nayanar in the 11th century. It has been used in debates as well.

 

That is all I am asking. Show me a commentary of Shiva Gita or Sahasranama by the 11th century atleast. Because during those times, debates were pretty much fierce. A Shaivite would have grasped at all straws to win the argument.

 

Forget the 11th century. In the 14th Century, Appaya Dikshitar did not quote Shiva Sahasranama in his works. And he was a staunch Shaivite trying to prove Shiva's supremacy. Therefore, your quotes can be dismissed as very late interpolations. They weren't even around during the 16th century.

 

It is strange that no shaivite has used these texts in debates to attempt to prove Shiva's Supremacy.

 

 

You keep making claims, but you cite no references. You should really work on that.

I do not feel the need to post the same things that I already did. Look at the Shiva is a Demigod thread, you will know. Fools like you keep coming, so I can't keep writing the same things again and again.

 

 

Could it be that Vishnu was his Ishta Deva, and that's why he put so much focus on him?

In which case, there was no need for him to condemn Rudra worship or Shaivism. Sankara calls Shaivism and Shaktism as Unvedic. 'Ishta Devta' is a Vivekananda concept, not Advaitic. And if any Vedantin believed in that concept, one would see him mentioning it in his commetaries. Sankara was not a follower of this ludicrous concept.

 

No scholar ever passes his sentiments on Bhashya. Sankara meant every word he wrote, that's for sure. Nobody ever forces 'ishta devta' on a sastra. Sankara was not an emotional type.

 

 

It says that He is self-dependent. That means He is not dependent on Vishnu. Explain the actual verse, please.

 

The verse says 'SvadhAvne'. It does not mean 'Self Dependant'. Roughly, it translates as 'By his own will' or 'His own individuality' or 'Voluntary'. Therefore, it does not mean he is self dependant, but that he performed this action of using his bow and shafts out of his own desire/characteristic or did it voluntarily. No indication of supremacy here.

 

Copy and Paste from Sacred Texts.com, huh?

 

Did you even understand what I said about all Devas being the body of Brahman? Vishnu is the soul of Rudra's soul. Hence, all praise goes to Vishnu alone. Therefore, 'Rudra is Self Dependant' simply pertains to Vishnu and not to the Jiva named Rudra.

 

Three ways to explain it:

 

1) Rudra means 'He who causes people to cry'. Hence, 'Rudra' is a common noun and can be applied to any person, not just Mahadeva. It is not just Rudra deva's name, but is also a name of Narayana. Hence, Narayana is being referred to here and not Shiva. (Chaga Pasu Nyaaya)

 

2) If we take it to mean the deva Rudra, then also, by using body/soul concept, the actual praise goes to Vishnu, the indweller of Rudra's soul. Because, Rudra is mentioned to be born, and to have acquired powers by meditating on Vishnu (Sarira/Sariri Bhava).

 

3) Rig Veda says Brahman is the referrent of all names. Hence, by default, Rudra here is Narayana and not Mahadeva (Sarva Shabdha Vachyatva).

 

In any case, that verse says 'svadhAvne'. It does not mean 'Self Dependent'. You can't rely on translations by Indologists. However, it doesn't matter much.

 

In any case, every god, such as Agni, Indra is praised as 'Unconquerable' or defeating enemies with ease. All you have to do is use the Sariri/Sarira bhava.

 

I told you that whenever any god is addressed, it is only Brahman, ie, Vishnu, who is being addressed.

 

At the most, even if we take the translation as 'Self Dependant God', the Sarira/Sariri bhava can be used. Birth of Rudra is mentioned elsewhere. Rig Veda says Rudra gets his power by meditating on Vishnu, hence he is dependant on Vishnu. Rudra is a Jiva who has Narayana as his indweller. Since the soul of Rudra is the body of the indwelling Narayana, saying 'Rudra is Self dependant' would simply pertain to Narayana and not to Rudra.

 

Thus, even the most biased translation cannot disprove Sri Hari's supremacy.

 

Therefore, even if Mahadeva is called 'God of Gods', or 'Unconquerable god', or 'Greatest', it doesn't matter.

 

Again, stop posting nonsense. You do not even know how to proceed in proving a particular point. Not even Shaivites have quoted that verse as proof, then why do you do it?

 

Even Shaivites like Dikshitar had a methodology. They did not even bother quoting these verses. A knowledge of philosophy is needed to prove the supremacy of a God.

[Dark Warrior]

To understand Sarira/Sariri bhava, look at Bhagavan's beautiful example, 'Everything is strung on Me, like pearls on a thread'.

 

Now, the pearls represent the Universe, the Jivas, devas and everything that is created. The thread represents Vishnu. The pearls are beautiful when they are seen together, but they depend wholly on the thread. Otherwise, they would fall apart. The thread, is also present in each pearl, holding it up.

 

Together, the pearls and the thread can be called by one name, ie, 'Necklace'. However, even though you refer to this by one name it is clear that there is a difference between the pearls and the necklace.

 

Each pearl can be said to be a part of the Necklace. Loss of a pearl does not harm the necklace in anyway. But the Thread is the main reason the Necklace exists, without which there is no Necklace.

 

Thus, the thread can say, 'I am the whole Necklace, without me there is nothing'. An individual pearl cannot do that.

 

Similarly, Bhagavan can say 'I am Brahma, I am Vayu, I am Rudra' because they are all strung on Him and He is the indweller of their souls. In the Vishvarupa, Arjuna saw all of them as the body of Vishnu.

 

Mahanarayana Upanishad (from the other thread):

 

atha puruSho ha vai naaraayaNo 'kaamayata prajaa sRijeyeti |

naaraayaNaat praaNo jaayate manaH sarvendriyaaNi cha kha.m vaayur jyotir aapaH pRithivii vishvasya dhaariNii |

naaraayaNaad brahmaa jaayate |

naaraayaNaad rudro jaayate |

naaraayaNaad indro jaayate |

naaraayaNat prajaapatiH prajaayate |

naaraayaNaad dvadashaadityaa rudraa vasavaH sarvaaNi chandaa.msi naaraayaNaad eva samutpadyante naaraayaNat pravartante naaraayaNe praliiyante |

etad Rig-vedo-shiro 'dhiite ||

 

Naaraayana is the Supreme Purusha. He desired, "I shall create children." From Naaraayana the life breath, mind, all the senses, either, air, fire, water, and earth, which maintains the universe, were born. From Naaraayana Brahmaa was born. From Naaraayana Shiva was born. From Naaraayana Indra was born. From Naaraayana Prajaapati was born. From Naaraayana the twelve Adityas, the Rudras, the Vasus, and all the Vedic hymns were born. From Naaraayana they were manifested. Into Naaraayana they again enter. This is the crown of the Rig Veda.

 

Note, that first the Upanishad says 'Narayana rudro jaayate', then once again later on, mentions creation of 'Rudras'. There are 11 Rudras, of which Sankara is the chief. So, the Upanishad mentions him first, then the other 10 lesser Rudras.

 

Who is this chief? Mahanarayana Up. says his name is Isana, and he has 3 eyes and a trident. He was created by Narayana shortly after the birth of Brahma.

 

Just like thread and pearls together are called by one name 'Necklace', The Vedas praise each Deva as Supreme. Simple logic.

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by Dark Warrior

Fools like you keep coming, so I can't keep writing the same things again and again.

 

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

MUSIC INTRO: Fade-in Heavy Metal Music Drum & Base build up to crescendo . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

 

Dark Warrior! You rule.

 

 

 

 

And it's just the tip of the Ice-burg.

 

 

 

 

~

 

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling nearer.

I can hear the Jaggerunaut Rolling nearer.

I can hear the Jaggerunaut Rolling nearer.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling nearer.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

 

 

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

~

 

 

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

MUSIC: Fade-out . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

 

 

[Baobabtree]

 

Originally Posted by Dark Warrior

Fools like you keep coming, so I can't keep writing the same things again and again.

 

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

MUSIC INTRO: Fade-in Heavy Metal Music Drum & Base build up to crescendo . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

Dark Warrior! You rule.

 

 

 

And it's just the tip of the Ice-burg.

 

 

 

~

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling nearer.

I can hear the Jaggerunaut Rolling nearer.

I can hear the Jaggerunaut Rolling nearer.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling nearer.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

 

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

~

 

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

MUSIC: Fade-out . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

 

 

What is the point of filling your posts with irrelevant cultural references and phrases? I'm going to be honest and say almost none of your posts have any actualy substance behind them.

 

Now, on to the subject at hand, I really have to congratulate and give my respects to Dark Warrior for his superior debating schools. As a Shaiva, I can't say I can ever be fully convinced without a doubt that the Vedas promote Vaishnavism, but at the moment it sure seems like they do.

[shvu]

 

What is the point of filling your posts with irrelevant cultural references and phrases? I'm going to be honest and say almost none of your posts have any actualy substance behind them.

Bhaktajan can learn to write coherently. Or maybe he already knows how, but is not inclined to go that way.

 

Now, on to the subject at hand, I really have to congratulate and give my respects to Dark Warrior for his superior debating schools. As a Shaiva, I can't say I can ever be fully convinced without a doubt that the Vedas promote Vaishnavism, but at the moment it sure seems like they do.

What the Vedas promote is strictly prone to interpretation. There have been some odd cases where Shaiva scholars interpreted the Sutras to establish the supremacy of Shiva. But in general, the various Shaiva groups have their own scriptures and therefore what the Vedas say or do not say – is of no concern to them. A comon overlooked fact is the majority of HIndus do not bother with the Vedas and the Gita, though the Gita is pushed as a "Hindu Bible" in the west.

The Advaita tradition does not care for assigning supreme status to any one form. The whole debate of Vishnu vs. Shiva is redundant in that tradition. They interpret the Veda to show oneness of a Nirguna Brahman.

So it is certainly not the case that there is some kind of single universal truth that the Veda declares. It depends on your source.

Cheers

[Dark Warrior]

 

There have been some odd cases where Shaiva scholars interpreted the Sutras to establish the supremacy of Shiva

 

Actually, Vishnu Sarvottama is undefeated. And no, it isn't Vaishnava propaganda.

 

If you are referring to Appaya Dikshitar, he certainly tried to establish the supremacy of Shiva. But the etymology of NarayaNa prevented him from ascribing all names to Shiva. This, and the fact that only Brahman can be the recepient of all names. All his challenges have been answered by Vaishnavas.

 

I believe Srikantha's approach was different. He tried to show that there was a 'Rudra' above the 11 Rudras, and that all of them, including Vishnu, were a manifestation of this Rudra. I am not too knowledgeable about this, so excuse any error.

 

In any case, both these approaches are flawed, and have been refuted. That is why Shaivas do not associate themselves with Vedantic schools, and often rely on non-canonical texts.

 

Only the indologists still assert that the Rig Veda talks about Indra, Yajur Veda about Rudra, Narayana Upanishad about Vishnu, etc. However, that is just without any foundation.

[shvu]

 

Actually, Vishnu Sarvottama is undefeated. And no, it isn't Vaishnava propaganda.

If you are referring to Appaya Dikshitar, he certainly tried to establish the supremacy of Shiva. But the etymology of NarayaNa prevented him from ascribing all names to Shiva. This, and the fact that only Brahman can be the recepient of all names. All his challenges have been answered by Vaishnavas.

I believe Srikantha's approach was different. He tried to show that there was a 'Rudra' above the 11 Rudras, and that all of them, including Vishnu, were a manifestation of this Rudra. I am not too knowledgeable about this, so excuse any error.

It isn't as simple as you are putting it. I am not taking about Appaya, I was talking about Shrikanta. It is not the question of who deafeated whom, but I am saying various interpretations have come out of the Veda. The Purva Mimamsa tradition which was the precedent for Vedanta traditions was practically atheistic.

So the same set of scriptures were used to draw up different conclusions by different traditions.

 

In any case, both these approaches are flawed, and have been refuted. That is why Shaivas do not associate themselves with Vedantic schools, and often rely on non-canonical texts.

Only the indologists still assert that the Rig Veda talks about Indra, Yajur Veda about Rudra, Narayana Upanishad about Vishnu, etc. However, that is just without any foundation.

Not really. There are many Yajurvedin Shaiva Iyers where Rudram, chamakam, etc., play a major role. They are Advaitins of course, but setting that aside, they do not see Vishnu supremacy in the Yajur.

When talking about Hinduism as a whole, then the dynamics change. Brahmins form a tiny part of the whole group and for the rest, obviously there will not a direct connection to Vedanta. That is why they have their own scriptures or no scriptures. This is true for non Brahmin Vaishnavas too as they never bother with the Veda or the Gita or anything else. They are happy enough worshipping Narayana/Narasimha/Krishna and visiting Tirupathi, etc.

This is also true for the Hindus who flock ISKCON temples. Their presence there does not mean they to Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I will bet most of them never even heard of the tradition. To them, it is just another Krishna temple.

 

To close, a final point on "defeating" other interpretations. If you check with Advaita Mathas, they are absolutely undefeated. You check with Udipi and tattavada has been the most successful in debates. Ditto with Sri Vaishnavas. And to add, Chaitanya from Bengal, visited South India and defeated everyone there!

 

Cheers

[Dark Warrior]

 

It isn't as simple as you are putting it. I am not taking about Appaya, I was talking about Shrikanta. It is not the question of who deafeated whom, but I am saying various interpretations have come out of the Veda. The Purva Mimamsa tradition which was the precedent for Vedanta traditions was practically atheistic.

 

The Supremacy of a God does not come into the equation. It is the philosophy of the Veda that is subject to multiple interpretations.

 

Take advaita. If you can prove it is there in Vedas, then naturally, noone will care about which God is hailed as supreme. So, they simply neglect or disregard that portion of the Vedas. However, even Sankara accepts that Narayana is the Brahman of the Vedas. He just doesn't pay much attention to it because that is his philosophy.

 

However, when it comes to superiority of a God, there is absolutely no ambiguity. Look at the names of prominent vedantins - Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, Nimbarka, Baladeva...all Vaishnavas. A couple of Shaivas have been mentioned, but as I said before, their arguments do not hold water.

 

I agree that interpretation of philosophy is varied and diverse. This interpretation will have an implication on the way a Vedantin views concepts of Supremacy. However, the interpretation of which God is supreme has absolutely no ambiguity.

 

Hence, Shiva vs. Vishnu does not arise due to the Veda itself. Interpretations are certainly varied. However, some interpretations like Appaya's or Srikantha's are not supported gramatically or logically.

 

Now, take the Gaudiya Viewpoint. Krishna is supreme, Vishnu is anexpansion. This can be called as one way of 'interpretation', but it certainly can be disproved easily.

 

There are many Yajurvedin Shaiva Iyers where Rudram, chamakam, etc., play a major role. They are Advaitins of course, but setting that aside, they do not see Vishnu supremacy in the Yajur.

 

Certainly, mordern day smarthas don't. But who has the patience to read about the different ways of interpretations like the Sarira/Sariri bhava? Nowadays, one quote 'Rudra is supreme' is simply taken out of context.

 

EDIT: You mentioned Mimamsa. There itself you see the point. Just like advaitins who lay stress on Nirguna Brahman, Mimamsa lays stress on rituals. Hence, they do not care about supremacy of a God and focus on Vedic rites. So, if you find a pramana in Veda saying 'Rituals are more important than gods', naturally, you fail to focus on the 'gods' part.

 

Thus, philosophy influences a Vedantin's outlook and belief. Vishnu Sarvottama does not come as an ambiguous statement in anyway.

 

Hinduism can be divided into two sects - Vedantic and Non-Vedantic. The former sect is entirely composed of Vaishnavas (including Advaitins).

[bhaktajan]

 

What is the point of filling your posts with irrelevant cultural references and phrases?

 

I humbly ask, "Why did you wait until this post to as this rhetorical question? You are kidding, yes?"

 

If not You are kidding --[regarding my last post that you re-posted]--please tell me:

 

1) which cultural reference?,

 

and,

 

2) which phrases is irrelevant?

 

I may be bereft of coherentcy so please take a moment and tell me?

 

Please don't feel obliged to respond -- I quess I'll just speculate as to how to be coherent on my own.

 

PS: In my opinion, if a person possesses a beautiful voice & unflinching devotion to Krishna by way of vijnana (realized conviction [knowledge])--then when they sing a Bhajan-- they attact everyone's heart to Krishna instantly.

 

A poor voice has the same potentcy --but we are referring to a non-follower's mundane sensibilities to grasp the sublime.

 

Beautiful voice, song & musical sentiments are beloved on the mundane level.

 

The Holy name song by devotee with pure love --when heard by the ears of mayavadi will change the heart instantly.

 

Unlike how all The Devas possess material bodies made of material elements --anyone can recite Devine Transcendental sound vibrations and thus purify all misgivings.

 

your struggling incoherent...what's the word I'm searching for? Oh yes, your struggling incoherent fool,

Bhaktajan

 

PS: If any one asks, them them bhaktajan is an incoherent fool--I don't need people annoying me. Thanks in advance --salam alekum Habibi.

[srikanthdk71]

 

Look at the names of prominent vedantins - Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, Nimbarka, Baladeva...all Vaishnavas.

 

Dear DarkWarrior, as Sri Shankara is considered a Vaishnava Born(not Advaitin by birth), Madhvacharya was a Shaiva Smarta Brahmin(Advaitin by birth) born. He was not a Vaishnava born. He has infact done his earlier schooling on Advaita and in the later years he was called 'Teekacharya' for his commentaries against the Advaita/Visistadvaita philosophy. There was no constructive work on the 'Siddhanta' aspect unlike his predecessors(Sri Shankara and Sri Ramanuja) but his primary duty was to destroy Advaita and Visistadvaita. Jayateertha and Vyasaraja gave their contributions too to this philosophy. This demolition was tagged as Dwaita philosophy which is successfully taught by their schools even today. This philosophy could never cross the borders of Karnataka like Advaita & Visistadvaita. But in the later years, the founder of a World Renown Organisation found Madhvacharya's way more applicable to float his own sect with certain variations in the Mudra Dharana and the use of Gopichandan. All he said was already said by Madhvacharya and there was NOTHING NEW. But the difference was the country he chose to say. Indians believe more in Americans words than their own. It was just the old wine in new bottle.

 

I will also try and explain the base of most Vaishnava belief (the Srimad Bhagavata Purana of today) and its authenticity. There is a feeling that if at all it will be proved that it was not written by Sri Ved Vyasji Maharaj himself, the whole Vaishnava tradition would be shaken. Yes, there is a BIG HOLE in the authenticity of Srimad Bhagavatam. But I must admit it is a GREAT GREAT WORK.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

Srikant is making a point in suspecting Vyasa's authership of purana texts.

In fact there is a thesis, based on historical evidences, that Puranas are not written by a single person and written by a variety of authors all over the place – some even supposed to have arrived from Yavanas ( Greeks), and attributed to Vyasya as it is the custom those days to write books and attribute them to some past respectable personalities.

This is not an unlikely thesis, given the stark difference of the contents of Vedas and Puranas. The quality of sublimeness of Veda is almost entirly missing in Puranas and a low level ‘Cock and Bull’ stories fill the pages of Puranas exclusively. Though it is assumed to be written for low intellects (of and children’ IQ) who cannot grasp the philosophic and mystical truths of Veda, by Vyasa himself (as a strategy to communicate the high truth to dull minds), it is not a likely thesis as it reduces the intelligence of Vyasa himself. A man who have understood Veda and organized them (if he has done that) to have written cock and bull stories – what a contradiction!

K.Ravindran

[Dark Warrior]

 

Dear DarkWarrior, as Sri Shankara is considered a Vaishnava Born(not Advaitin by birth), Madhvacharya was a Shaiva Smarta Brahmin(Advaitin by birth) born. He was not a Vaishnava born. He has infact done his earlier schooling on Advaita and in the later years he was called 'Teekacharya' for his commentaries against the Advaita/Visistadvaita philosophy. There was no constructive work on the 'Siddhanta' aspect unlike his predecessors(Sri Shankara and Sri Ramanuja) but his primary duty was to destroy Advaita and Visistadvaita. Jayateertha and Vyasaraja gave their contributions too to this philosophy. This demolition was tagged as Dwaita philosophy which is successfully taught by their schools even today. This philosophy could never cross the borders of Karnataka like Advaita & Visistadvaita. But in the later years, the founder of a World Renown Organisation found Madhvacharya's way more applicable to float his own sect with certain variations in the Mudra Dharana and the use of Gopichandan. All he said was already said by Madhvacharya and there was NOTHING NEW. But the difference was the country he chose to say. Indians believe more in Americans words than their own. It was just the old wine in new bottle.

 

Dude, nobody gives a damn. A Vaishnava is not born one, but practises it. Madhva proved that Hari Sarvottama is the purport of the Vedas. He was a Vaishnava, that's all there is to it.

 

 

I will also try and explain the base of most Vaishnava belief (the Srimad Bhagavata Purana of today) and its authenticity. There is a feeling that if at all it will be proved that it was not written by Sri Ved Vyasji Maharaj himself, the whole Vaishnava tradition would be shaken. Yes, there is a BIG HOLE in the authenticity of Srimad Bhagavatam. But I must admit it is a GREAT GREAT WORK.

 

I am quaking and shaking in my boots....

 

News Flash - Bhagavatam is not the 'base' of Vaishnavism. The tradition of Vaishnavism is solidly placed in the Apaurusheya Vedas, The Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Puranas. The Brahma Sutra itself makes a mention about the Bhagavata, ie, Pancharatra religion and accepts their doctrine of Narayana being supreme, which shows exactly how much validity the Vaishnavas have.

 

Hence, its no biggie even if the Bhagavatam is a recent work.

 

In the Krita Yuga, Vaishnavas attained knowledge of Sriman Narayana by austere penances (Eg: Dhruva). In Treta Yuga, Sacrifices were performed to propitiate Vishnu. In the Dvapara and Kali Yugas, Vaishnavas were Pancharatrins who advocated Bhakti.

 

I could easily prove Shiva's Supremacy in Veda and proceed to demolish it. I am equipped with the knowledge of Srikantha and Appaya's methodology. But I have respect for the Shaivites here, since this is a neutral forum. And Shavism is not really the topic of the thread.

 

Here is a quote from the Shaivite scholar, Appaya Dikshitar's commentary on Ananda Lahiri:

 

veda vibhagarTham ivavatheernena sakala veda tatparyabhijnena sarvajna

siromanina veda vyasena pulastya varadana labdha devatah paramarthya

videna parasarena anyishcha maharshibih vedopa ..............

 

 

atho narayanah parabrahma kotireva iti asmakam siddhantah:

 

 

meaning:

 

 

Our tongue would not rise to assert in the wake of a few mantras, arthavadas and puranic statements found in some insignificant place that sri narayana is a jiva, since He has been worshipped by sadhus as Godhead and has been confirmingly declared as Parabrahman in Mahabharata, vishnu-purana and other religious works, which were composed solely for bringing out the essence of vedas by eminent sages like Veda Vyasa, who classified and analyzed the vedas and Parasara, who was blessed with the true knowledge about Godhead by Sage Pulastya. If any such attempt were made, our heads would burst into a hundred pieces. We would be guilty of treachery to the vedas, sages and deity itself. Therefore, it is our considered opinion that Narayana alone qualifies for the title of godhead.

 

Strong words from a staunch Shaivite. Should be enough proof for everyone that Appaya himself was unable to push Shiva over Narayana. But of course, he could not bring himself to say he had failed...rather, he goes to say that he will never try to say Narayana is not Brahman. A nice choice of words.

 

However, after admitting this method to be a failure, Appaya tried another way - He tried to prove that NEITHER Siva nor Vishnu were Brahman , and that Narayana was a deity distinct from Vishnu (A case of "If I go down, you rotten Vaishnavas go down too"!!). However, this too backfired due to many vakyas and the chaga pasu nyaaya.

 

 

‘Cock and Bull’ stories fill the pages of Puranas exclusively. Though it is assumed to be written for low intellects (of and children’ IQ) who cannot grasp the philosophic and mystical truths of Veda

 

The only thing 'Cock and Bull' around here are your posts. Hence, stop kissing the rear ends of Indologists and grow yourself a brain. I see no reason to argue with you, as you are beyond arguments anyway.

[RadhaMukunda]

Darkwarrior, I respect your knowledge of the Shastras and your intelligence. I tried to post in the Shiva Demigod thread, but the thread was closed. So forgive me if I ask this question here. Do you know why the devotees who are initiated in the Pushti Marga are not allowed to worship Shiva? I have a quote from vallabhacharya that places Vishnu and Shiva on the same level.

 

I disagree with you about Swami Vivekananda and neovedantists spreading the idea that Brahman takes the form of different Gods. This idea was already present in the Puranas and in the time of Tulsidasa. In the Devi Mahatmyam of the Markandeya Purana Brahma says praying to Devi: Vishnu Sharira Grahanam Aham Ishanameva Cha: Vishnu took the form of me and that of Shiva. Different names are given to Devi in the Markandeya Purana, like Vaishnavi, Narayani, VishnuMaya. In the Bhagavatam, story of Prajapati Daksha, Vishnu also says that the person who sees no difference between Brahma, Shiva and himself will attain peace.

 

There are dozens of quotes like this in the 18 Puranas, but I see no reason to post them all here.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Darkwarrior, I respect your knowledge of the Shastras and your intelligence. I tried to post in the Shiva Demigod thread, but it was closed. So forgive me if I ask this question here. Do you know why the followers in the Pushtimarga don't worship Shiva? I have a quote from vallabhacharya that places Vishnu and Shiva on the same level.

Both the traditions of Vallabha and Chaitanya pay more emphasis to Krishna. Therefore, they tend to distinguish between Krishna and Vishnu by saying Vishnu is a bit lesser in potencies than Krishna. Hence, Vishnu is often equated with Shiva. This is due to lack of a proper methodology, as both traditions rely more on Bhagavatam rather than Veda.

 

However, both these traditions are Vaishnavas in the sense that they do not accept anyone other than Krishna as Para Brahman.

 

 

I disagree with you about Swami Vivekananda and neovedantists spreading the idea that Brahman takes the form of different Gods. This idea was already present in the Puranas and in the time of Tulsidasa. In the Devi Mahatmyam of the Markandeya Purana Brahma says praying to Devi: Vishnu Sharira Grahanam Aham Ishanameva Cha: Vishnu took the form of me and that of Shiva.

 

Vivekananda is not a Vedantin. I am sick of these Neovedantins who act supercilious and advocate the 'all paths are equal' nonsense. One sloka of the Rig Veda is enough to show that the path to spiritual knowledge, according to the Veda, is 'sectarian', as some people call it.

 

Devi Mahatmyam is not an acceptable pramana. Markandeya Purana, I believe, is a sattvik Purana, but unfortunately, it has never been mentioned by Vedantins, hence, it is an interpolated work.

 

The Puranas classify themselves as sattvik (praising Hari), rajasic (praising Brahma), tamasic (praising Shiva). Now, its up to you to accept this classification or not. However, judging by the fact that the Vedas support my viewpoints, I'd say this sloka is genuine. You have the word of Vedantins themselves.

 

And no offense. I am not a follower of Arya Samaj, nor do I have a bias against Shiva. I consider Shiva as an enlightened bhakta of Narayana. Its the truth that matters.

[RadhaMukunda]

 

And no offense. I am not a follower of Arya Samaj, nor do I have a bias against Shiva. I consider Shiva as an enlightened bhakta of Narayana. Its the truth that matters.

LOL, that last question was for Ravindra Keshavan who is posting about Cock and Bulls.

 

The Markandeya Purana is actually a Rajasik Purana, therefore the praising of Durga doesn't necessarily have to be an interpolation. When did it start considering rajasik and tamasik puranas as non suitable as pramana, even if authentic and not interpolated?

 

The popularity of the Puranas was decreasing after buddhism spread in India. Even if early Vedantins didn't quote some verses, that doesn't necessarily mean the verses were later additions. In some parts of India the Vishnu Purana might have been more popular and the Varah(sattvik), Narada(sattvik) or Kurma(sattvik) Purana less known.

 

I also don't buy the all paths are equal of Vivekanda. But all paths in Sanatan Dharma have their beauty and I am definitely proud to be a Hindu.

[bhaktajan]

(Iso M6, P):

Anupaçyati — One should “observe,” or systematically see.

This means that one must follow the previous äcäryas, the perfected teachers.

Anupaçyati is the exact Sanskrit word used in this connection.

Anu means “to follow,” and paçyati means “to observe.”

Thus the word anupaçyati means that one should not see things as he does with the naked eye but should follow the previous äcäryas.

Due to material defects, the naked eye cannot see anything properly. One cannot see properly unless one has heard from a superior source, and the highest source is the Vedic wisdom, which is spoken by the Lord Himself.

Vedic truths are coming in disciplic succession from the Lord to Brahmä, from Brahmä to Närada, from Närada to Vyäsa, and from Vyäsa to many of his disciples.

Formerly there was no need to record the messages of the Vedas, because people in earlier ages were more intelligent and had sharper memories. They could follow the instructions simply by hearing once from the mouth of a bona fide spiritual master.

At present there are many commentaries on the revealed scriptures, but most of them are not in the line of disciplic succession coming from Çréla Vyäsadeva, who originally compiled the Vedic wisdom. The final, most perfect and sublime work by Çréla Vyäsadeva is Çrémad-Bhägavatam, which is the natural commentary on the Vedänta-sütra.

There is also the Bhagavad-gétä, which was spoken by the Lord Himself and recorded by Vyäsadeva. These are the most important revealed scriptures, and any commentary that contradicts the principles of the Bhagavad-gétä or Çrémad-Bhägavatam is unauthorized.

There is complete agreement among the Upaniñads, Vedänta-sütra, Vedas, Bhagavad-gétä and Çrémad-Bhägavatam, and no one should try to reach any conclusion about the Vedas without receiving instructions from members of Vyäsadeva’s disciplic succession, who believe in the Personality of Godhead Bhagavan Shree Krishna and His diverse energies.

[Dark Warrior]

 

The Markandeya Purana is actually a Rajasik Purana, therefore the praising of Durga doesn't necessarily have to be an interpolation. When did it start considering rajasik and tamasik puranas as non suitable as pramana, even if authentic and not interpolated? The popularity of the Puranas was decreasing after buddhism spead in India. Even if early Vedantins didn't quote some verses, that doesn't necessarily mean the verses were later additions.

 

I also don't buy the all paths are equal of Vivekanda. But all paths in Sanatan Dharma have their beauty and I am definitely proud to be a Hindu.

Actually, no Vedantin has ever flouted the Sattva/Rajas/Tamas classification. As I mentioned before, Sri Sankara, Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva abide by them. Even Appaya Dikshitar holds Vishnu Purana in greater esteem, as compared to Shiva Purana.

 

The Rajasic/Tamasic Puranas are not called Rajas or Tamas because of the deity, but because they deviate from the Vedas.

 

Now, as far as the Sattvik Puranas are concerned, they are accepted as pramana. However, some of the more obscure Sattvik Puranas contain verses saying Vishnu=Shiva. If these verses were genuine, the Purana cannot be Sattvik, as the whole purpose of a Sattvik Purana is to show that Hari is superior to all other devas. Furthermore, a Vedantin like Sri Ramanuja or Sri Madhva, who have so rigorously considered every text to prove their points, should have explained those verses if they had been genuine.

[RadhaMukunda]

What is the purpose of Rajasik and Tamasic puranas? I have heard that even mantras from the vedas have gunas. Isn't this supported by the Bhagavad Gita: Traigunya Vishayaa Veda? It is said that the mrityonjaya mantra is Rajasik, because the reason the use the mantra is to gain something. Some mantras of the atharva veda are tamasik. Those are the mantras used for magical purposes.

[Dark Warrior]

 

What is the purpose of Rajasik and Tamasic puranas? I have heard that even mantras from the vedas have gunas. Isn't this supported by the Bhagavad Gita: Traigunya Vishayaa Veda? It is said that the mrityonjaya mantra is Rajasik, because the reason the use the mantra is to gain something. Some mantras of the atharva veda are tamasik. Those are the mantras used for magical purposes.

 

No mantra in the Veda is tamasic or rajasic. Every mantra is sattvik, no matter what deity is addressed, because the indweller of the mantras is Sriman Narayana.

 

Vedas contain information, though, that will be useful for even rajasic and tamasic persons. The Vedas preach animal sacrifice in some instances. But a bhakta should avoid it. Then what is the reason for the sacrifices? Because, if a person eats animals indiscriminately, he attains a lotof bad karma.

 

So, the Vedas prescribe some proper methodology to allow this person to regulate his consumption of meat. The Vedas acknowledge that not everyone will be able to give up bad habits at once, so they allow some freedom with restrictions and rules. Just like curing a drug addict...you cannot stop his drug intake immediately, otherwise withdrawal symptoms occur. The Vedas hope to discourage meat eating by imposing strict and tedious rules of sacrifice.

 

This is the triguna vishaya of Veda.

 

According to Vaishnava theology, the rajasic and tamasic Puranas are written for those who have not sufficiently cleansed their karmas to worship Vishnu. The devas like Shiva, Brahma, etc. have a role - until a person accumulates sufficient merit to worship Vishnu, the devas will take that person under their care. They will make sure that the person does not become an atheist, but reposes faith in some deity.

 

Vaishnavas believe that one must be a Shaivite for 7 births to attain Vishnu bhakti. Again, don't take it personally if you are a Shaivite...this is just Vaishnava belief based on pramana.

 

Lord Krishna succintly explains that different religions are created due to the trigunas. Worship of Devas is sattvik, and it makes people sattvik. However, sattvik guna is also a cage. It does not give moksha, but only better births.

 

That is why Vedas are given so much importance. Vishnu, being omnipotent, is even capable of lying (as in Buddha avatara or rajasic/tamasic Puranas). Hence,even Bhagavan's words need to be verified by the apaurusheya Vedas (which are unauthored by even God).

 

Krishna is just a butter thief really. Can you trust a playful and mischievous god without understanding His mischief? Certainly, He is lovable, and that very mischievous nature is one of His greatest and most attractive traits a devotee loves.

[srikanthdk71]

Dear DarkWarrior, it is true that Vaishnavas do not depend on puranas. I am talking about the "Modern Vaishnavas" and not the True Vaishnavas. Anyway, dude, you seem to have a strong knowledge of books. Can you please tell me the meaning of a line in 'Purusha Sukta'(a Vedic Hymn) which may be recited by all of us n number of times. You also said that your debate is based on the Vedas.

 

Ajaayamaano Bahudaa Vijaayate.

 

That is all the point I am trying to make in all my posts and nothing else. Yes, I am a monoist.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Dear DarkWarrior, it is true that Vaishnavas do not depend on puranas. I am talking about the "Modern Vaishnavas" and not the True Vaishnavas. Anyway, dude, you seem to have a strong knowledge of books. Can you please tell me the meaning of a line in 'Purusha Sukta'(a Vedic Hymn) which may be recited by all of us n number of times. You also said that your debate is based on the Vedas.

 

Ajaayamaano Bahudaa Vijaayate.

 

That is all the point I am trying to make in all my posts and nothing else. Yes, I am a monoist.

 

Debate is not at all the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is, 'What is the exact relation between Mayavadis and Vaishnavas?'.

 

Therefore, if you wish to debate, please desist. I have no intention to argue over either philosophy or religion here.

 

Ajaayamaano Bahudaa Vijaayate. It means 'He is unborn, but appears in many ways'. Simple.

 

Vishnu is unborn, but He appears in many ways. He appears as a fish, a boar, the son of Dasharatha, the Son of Devaki, as the Horse Rider Kalki, etc.

 

He also appears in different ways to the person who performs upasanas. To the Rishis and the Devas, the Purusha appears Kingly, as the Lord of all. To a Bhakti Yogin or a Prapanna, He appears as a sweet, accessible, innocent person. To a Karma Yogin, He appears as a boss. To the wicked, He appears fearsome.

 

Purusha Suktam talks a lot about the kalyana gunas of the primordial purusha.

 

The Vedas do not talk of Nirvishesha Brahman. Only Savisesha Brahman, who is gunapurna, full of kalyana gunas, is being talked about. The Svarupa of Brahman is formless, and has all the attributes of Jnanam, Anatam, etc. This Brahman is called Narayana. The whole of existence is the body of this svarupa.

 

Since Brahman has Jnanam, He realises that He needs to be beautiful to please His devotees. Hence, He resides in Vaikuntha and in the material world (Vishnu Loka). By His mere will and omnipotence, the formless svarupa, who has everything as His body, is also present within His own body (viz., existence) as a beautiful Lord. Since time is AnAdi, both form (rupa) and Svarupa are nityam.

 

The whole of Purusha Suktam is tinged with adoration and bhakti for the Purusha:

 

Verse 6 - hreeshca te lakshmeeshca patnyau | ahorAtre pArshve |

nakshatrANi roopam | ashvinau vyAttam |

 

Hree and Lakshmi Are your consorts, your Two sides, Day and Night, The stars your form, Healing your words.

 

The Purusha is Sriman Narayana, Lord of Lakshmi and Hree (a name of Bhu Devi). He is Vishnu, the all-pervader. He is Krishna, who gave the Bhagavad Gita.

 

Verse 16 - vedAhametam purusham mahAntam

Aditya varNam tamasaH parastAt |

tam evam vidvAn amRta iha bhavati

na anyaH panthA vidyate 'yanaaya ||

 

This great Purusha, brilliant as the sun, who is beyond all darkness, I know him in my heart. Who knows the Purusha thus, attains immortality in this very birth. I know of no other way to salvation.

 

Neovedantins like Vivekananda seem to think of themselves as 'superior' because they believe Nirguna Brahman as the absolute truth. To them, a personalistic view of Brahman appears immature and childish. This is laughable, considering that there is little evidence in the Veda to suggest Nirgunatva. And only by realising how brilliant, auspicious and accessible that Parama Purusha is, can one really know Him.

 

If you know Him, you become immortal in this very birth because your love for Him will override even your desire for moksha or Vaikuntha. Basically, love for Vasudeva becomes unselfish, and thus, you become liberated in this birth itself.

 

To know Brahman is to become Brahman. Meaning, if we know Him through Meditation, ie, Bhakti Yoga, we attain some qualities of Brahman, viz., we get Jnana, Ananda and Vairagya equal to Him, we are free from Karma, Disease, Births and Death, we attain beauty equal to Him (in Vaikuntha). However, we remain dependent on Him, and everything we get is due to His grace and affection. A mumukshu attains equality with Brahman, but not identity (Paramam Samyam).

[Brahmoham]

Mr. Dark warrior,

You can fabricate anything if you are claver with words, given the same Vedic texts. I have done it myself. I used to argue with supportive Pramanas that Brahman is Brahma the creator deity. I have done it for many years. And I am really good at it. I tell you it is much easier and much more convincing to show that Brahman is Brahma than it is Narayana. . Now I don’t do it. Credit goes to my Guru. He had Brahma Jnyan.

When I met him, he told me a story of a blind man whose ancestors were expert art weavers and painters. This blind man has in his collection a mind boggling painting on a cloth canvas. But he could not see the beauty of it and could not understand the value of it as he was blind from birth. But he had heard its greatness from his grand father and his father. For many years he was wondering what could be is the greatness of this plain useless cloth. Then one day he pulled out a few strands of threats and cut a few patches out of the great art canvas and stitched an underwear out of it. Now he could understand the value of it. On the top of it all he was trying to sell it as the original work of the great ancestors.

My guru pointed to me that I am like that blind man. Not having Bhrama-jnyan, I don’t see the truth of the grand work of the grand Seers. In my blindness I pull our Pramanas here and there and cut patches here and there out of Veda, put them together and stitch an underwear out of the marvelous Vedic design, try to sell it as an authentic Seer’s work.

I dint see the point even then. My guru initiated to an Upanishad Vidya. A few years of rigorous practice opened my spiritual eye and I saw the truth, of the seers. Then my understanding of Veda changed drastically and I stopped stitching underwear and promoting it as the seer’s original work. .

You don’t have Brahmajnyan. Do you? You don’t see the Seer’s truth. Or do you think you see? I understand you too well as I was like you once. My advice to you: Stop all this cross-word games with Veda. Approach a realized Guru and try to acquire the inner wisdom of the seers. With out such knowledge no one can understand Veda.

Brahmoham