durga is more of vishnu-shakti than shiva -shakti

[kaisersose]

 

Some of the personal stuff is a bit of distraction but thank you for all these posts, many of which have been most enlightening. Just a couple of points to add, which occurred whilst I was reading.

1. The threefold classification of Puranas does seem to be a part of the Vaishnava view and is found in the Padma Purana, as cited above. There is also a threefold division based on gunas to be found in the Garuda Purana (Brahma Khanda, 1.45-53) but there the three lists are rather different to those given by the Padma. Having read quite a bit of Puranic literature I would say that the guna classification is not sustainable as there is so little difference between works that are said to be tamasic and those judged to be sattvic--apart perhaps from the Deity they revere.

In other words, no Purana that is not Vaishnava in nature, labels itself Rajasic or Tamasic. Nor does it accord Sattva status to any other Purana.

 

2. Radha is not a late invention of the Geeta Govinda. Her name is not mentioned in the Bhagavata Purana but she is mentioned in the Mahashiva Purana and in the Brahmavaivarta Purana.

The Mahashiva Purana is really a Upa-Purana and is dated by Hazra to the 12th century AD - very close to the date of the Gita Govinda. The Vayu is the actual Maha Shiva Purana. And it is specifically mentioned by name in some Purana lists (Matsya, etc) and as the "Shaiva" Purana in some other Purana lists (Bhagavata, etc). The Matsya clearly describes the Vayu as "describing the Mahatmya of Rudra".

The Brahma vaivarta is dated to the 16th century - just 400 years ago. There was an earlier Brahma vaivarta which has been quoted by Smriti scholars from earlier than the 12th century. But out of ~2000 verses quoted, almost none of them are traceable in the present version, which further proves we have a completely bogus text. Again, this is from Hazra backed up by a lot of research.

HH Wilson did not go into depth, but he had the exact same opinion. He was certain that the older Matysa could not have talked about a Purana which mentions Radha who is of modern origin. He says about the present Brahma Vaivarta - "It has not the slightest title to be regarded as a Purana".

 

In short, Radha is a late inclusion. She is completely absent in any text that can be dated earlier than the 10th century.

Cheers

[kimfelix]

Some interesting points there, but I don't think it is as quite as clear as Hazra suggests. The fact that 2,000 verses quoted are not to be found in the present version of a text could merely suggest that these passages have been lost. This is not uncommon. The Narada Purana describes four sections of the Kurma Purana but today only one of these still exists.

 

And I am not convinced about the argument for the Vayu rather than the Shiva Purana. In most lists, at least four that I am aware of, the Purana is described as the Shaiva and not the Vayaviya as one would expect (one list includes both Shaiva and Vayaviya). All the other Puranas are listed by name rather than subject so it would be anomalous to refer to the Vayu Purana as Shaiva. I would not be dogmatic on either of these points but on the latter in particular, I think the evidence is towards the Shiva Purana.

[kaisersose]

 

Some interesting points there, but I don't think it is as quite as clear as Hazra suggests. The fact that 2,000 verses quoted are not to be found in the present version of a text could merely suggest that these passages have been lost. This is not uncommon. The Narada Purana describes four sections of the Kurma Purana but today only one of these still exists.

 

The 2000 verse argument is just one. He has devoted a few pages to his justification for why the present Brahma Vaivarta has practically been rewritten. The same position has been taken by HH Wilson and Winternitz before him. Unforunately I do not have Hazra's book with me now to produce more detail.

 

 

And I am not convinced about the argument for the Vayu rather than the Shiva Purana. In most lists, at least four that I am aware of, the Purana is described as the Shaiva and not the Vayaviya as one would expect (one list includes both Shaiva and Vayaviya). All the other Puranas are listed by name rather than subject so it would be anomalous to refer to the Vayu Purana as Shaiva. I would not be dogmatic on either of these points but on the latter in particular, I think the evidence is towards the Shiva Purana.

 

Again, there is a lot going for the Vayu Purana = Shaiva Purana argument in Hazra's research. He also has researched the Shiva Purana, tried to identify its author and presented his case for why it is an Upa-Purana.

 

Note that the Bhagavatam does not name the 4th Purana as Shiva Purana, but as "Shaiva" Purana, which is more an allusion to the nature of its content than a name. The Matysa specifically names the 4th Purana as the Vayu Purana. Wilson concurs with Hazra on this too. He adds that Balambhatta ( who lived before the time of all these guys) specifically noted that the Vayu is called the Shaiva Purana.

 

Do you know where both Shaiva and Vayu are listed together? I have not seen that before. Unless such a list exists, we can safely assume that the two are not found together in any list because they are one.

 

Cheers

[kimfelix]

The list given in the Kurma Purana (1.1.13-15) includes both the Shiva and Vayu Purana, which it names as Shaiva and Vayaviya in the usual mode of designation for these lists. I agree that Shaiva means 'related to Shiva' rather than giving the direct name of the Purana, but here Vayaviya means 'relating to Vayu'. However, this list has 19 names rather than 18!

 

The Vishnu Purana (3.6.22) gives this list: braahmam paadmam vaishnavam cha shaivam bhaagavatam tatha. Here the Vishnu Purana is referred to as Vaishnavam and so it is logical to take to 'shaivam' as referring to the Shiva Purana, otherwise it would name it as Vayaviyam. No other Purana in the list is mentioned apart from in relation to its conventional name.

 

It may be that it is the content of the Shiva Purana, including the references to Radha, that convinced Hazra that it is not a major Purana but that would be a circular argument.

[ranjeetmore]

 

<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

In other words, no Purana that is not Vaishnava in nature, labels itself Rajasic or Tamasic. Nor does it accord Sattva status to any other Purana.

The Mahashiva Purana is really a Upa-Purana and is dated by Hazra to the 12th century AD - very close to the date of the Gita Govinda. The Vayu is the actual Maha Shiva Purana. And it is specifically mentioned by name in some Purana lists (Matsya, etc) and as the "Shaiva" Purana in some other Purana lists (Bhagavata, etc). The Matsya clearly describes the Vayu as "describing the Mahatmya of Rudra".

The Brahma vaivarta is dated to the 16th century - just 400 years ago. There was an earlier Brahma vaivarta which has been quoted by Smriti scholars from earlier than the 12th century. But out of ~2000 verses quoted, almost none of them are traceable in the present version, which further proves we have a completely bogus text. Again, this is from Hazra backed up by a lot of research.

HH Wilson did not go into depth, but he had the exact same opinion. He was certain that the older Matysa could not have talked about a Purana which mentions Radha who is of modern origin. He says about the present Brahma Vaivarta - "It has not the slightest title to be regarded as a Purana".

 

In short, Radha is a late inclusion. She is completely absent in any text that can be dated earlier than the 10th century.

Cheers

 

Atharva veda,Radha tapni Upanishad-

 

"Yeyam Radhayashca krshno rasabdhirhaichaik kridanarthadvidhabhuta."

 

Sri Radhakrishna is the Same Brahm.They only manifest as Two to display Leelas.

 

 

 

 

Rg veda,Radhikopanishad.

 

"Yeyam Radhayashca krshno rasabdhirdaihainaik. "

 

 

There is not any slightest difference between Sri Radhika and Sri Krsna.

 

 

 

Sanat Kumar Samhita:

 

"Radhika Krsna rupam ca,Krsno Radha Svarupakah"

 

Tantra sastras:

 

"ekam jyotirbhuddvedha Radha Madhava rupakam."

 

"tasya shaktyastvanekadha Hladini,Sandhini jnyanecha..."- Veda.

 

Sri Bhagavan has Three energies,Hladini,Sandhini and Samvit(Jyana).

Hladini is accepted as the greatest of all His energies.

 

That Hladini Sakti is Sri Radha.

[ranjeetmore]

It is extremely sad and demeaning that you should accept the imperfect views of some petty shcolars who do not know even .0000000000000000001% of vedic literature.

 

Dating of Puranas is a very CHEAP process adopted by those who have accepted the world they live as the be all and end all of existence.They thus also accept their senses and Grasping faculties as well as the speculative/reasoning faculties as a perfect means to gaining knowledge.

 

Being in gross ignorance,they thus think that the puranas are "Date-able".

If you like to debate so much on the authenticity of a certain purana,why are you resorting to scholars' views.?

 

Please do all of this to your heart's content...but with the bible and quran,etc.

 

Your limited faculties are of no use here.

[sambya]

 

Being in gross ignorance,they thus think that the puranas are "Date-able".

If you like to debate so much on the authenticity of a certain purana,why are you resorting to scholars' views.?

 

tell me something ........ how do you define ignorance ?

 

one must come out of ignorance to understand what it really is.

 

if dating puranas is spiritual ignorance to you , accepting it unconditionally may be historical ignorance or intellectual deficiency to me .

 

 

Your limited faculties are of no use here.

 

i guess our limited faculties can never be understood through your unlimited passion for contradictory fairytale stories.

[bhaktajan]

TODAY'S CLASS by MASTER SAMBYA:

 

 

"ORTHODOX HINDU THEOLOGY"

Chapter One: "Contradictory fairytale stories"

 

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

tell me something ........ how do you define the transmission of knowledge? [not a rhetorical question. Please answer!]

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

"Contradictory fairytales" --how is your life NOT a 'Contradictory fairytale'?

 

Centainly you are above and beyond 'Contradictory fairytale' living?

 

Really? Your knowledge of 'Brahman' raises you above everyone elses oblivionistic reality?

 

Advertising experts know how to sell their products by dovetailing profundities in the sales pitches.

 

Ok now it's your turn to show off what you learned from your faculty members.

[bhaktajan]

 

Sri Radhakrishna is the Same Brahm.They only manifest as Two to display Leelas.

 

There is not any slightest difference between Sri Radhika and Sri Krsna.

 

That Hladini Sakti is Sri Radha.

 

I am beginning to think that when we consider that One should not regard Shiva & Vishnu a 'unequals' --this is due to the inseperable nature of the roles of Sri Radhika and Sri Krsna's expanded/extended/plenary lilas.

[ranjeetmore]

Sambya,

Seriously.

 

Why do you keep running around MY statements?

 

Why can't you for once address the main content ?

 

Bhaktajan,

Please explain....i didn't really get what you meant.....Thank you.

[bhaktajan]

"The nature of the Sri Radhika and Sri Krsna's inseperability --which can be seen as manifesting in all of creation"

 

.............................................................................

Recently, of course, I have contemplating all the posting everyone has been making, and I have recently considered the nature of Sri Krishna’s Internal prakriti –and thus came to think that: “Devi’s” existence required finding an appropriate Husband”.

For example, once upon a moment, there existed only impersonal Shakti-Brahman-Pradhana-potentiality . It stirred [Purusha {the energetic} provided the seed for Prakriti {the energy}] and Time & Eternity and Adi-Purusha was born.

My [theistic-philosophical-metaphysical] observation is that <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> [who is unborn, divyam, parabrahman et al] is yet born out of his own “internal potency”. No?

[i recognize the circular logic in my thought here, but that seems OK because, God’s own selfhood (his person/persona/personality) is self-defined, self-established and fixed.]

Adi-Purusha was born complete and instantaneously and thus immediately before Adi-Purusha’s eyes was his own “internal potency” [the feminine creative potency].

Therefore, Adi-Purusha, as God, thus provides the “ying” with its own “yang” in all relationships.

Adi-Purusha arranges for prosperity to flourish by finding the proper “mate”.

That “internal potency” [whence <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> manifests] is called Srimati Radharani.

She famously chastises <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> for his separation from her etc etc etc.

And so, the plenary expansions [balaramaè Vishnu expansionsè Mahatattvaè Brahmaè Prajapatisè Manusè Guru/Sadhus/Sastraè monarchsè civil law & order etc] are all encompassed under the umbrella of Prakriti (the energy –albeit the ‘material prakriti’ vs the ‘marginal prakriti’ vs the ‘Internal prakriti’).

So, Lord Shiva’s position, in the complete cosmic creation, is the pastime that ‘cannot & should not be’ overlooked.

Because Lord Shiva’s mood is similar to Srimati Radharani –in regards to “feelings of separation”.

This “feelings of separation” is man‘s lot in life too.

So the highest Vaishnava is showing by example the lament of “feelings of separation”.

So, I see that there is a parallel:

Radha-krsna in the Yoga-maya stratum; and, Vishnu-Siva in the maha-maya stratum.

Now, if you DO NOT understand my point –I’ll believe you.

This two post document some of my studies of the expansion of <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> and the traits of those expansions:

Various-Triads-that -seem-parallel-each-other –In The Vedas and vedic culture:

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/vedic-verses/445824-various-triads-seem-parallel-each-other.html

“Sri Radha appears”:

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/?p=1120168&postcount=3

[bija]

 

Radha-krsna in the Yoga-maya stratum; and, Vishnu-Siva in the maha-maya stratum. by jan

 

Here lies one of the points of contention. Higher and lower.

 

One thought holds to a deep seated transcendental viewpoint, where the other sees the transcendent in the living substance.

 

Where is home really? Or is all this relativity (and word usage) only necessary to lead us from the gross.

 

The Gaudiya seems to have harmonized that discord of the two substances with Sada-shiva...but still that harmony has not yet reached out to other schools (or satisfied them). Therefore I suggest, that is the limit set, by those still in the relative (not the deeper meaning of the teaching itself).

 

Kind of like the little beast worshiping the big beast, and all must follow under the sway of the little beast (caught in dogma). And all schools (people) holding the mark, all must worship that beast. When infact with the mystical encounter, all that is matter (of the beast) is to be burned in the final fire (of sacrifice). Then the appearance of a new earth, which has been here all along.

[sambya]

 

Sambya,

Seriously.

 

Why do you keep running around MY statements?

 

Why can't you for once address the main content ?

 

because every time i showed proper logic you continued your illogical arguments and stopped posting once you were drained of your limited scriptural knowledge and rational sense.

[ranjeetmore]

My exams r goin on...

God i thot i wouldn't have to post this,but now here it is....above,my reason.

 

I earnestly searched for advaita is a hoax thread but all the new threads were so engaging that i coudn't find the time.

 

Exams getting over on 29th.

[raghu]

 

Atharva veda,Radha tapni Upanishad-

 

"Yeyam Radhayashca krshno rasabdhirhaichaik kridanarthadvidhabhuta."

 

Sri Radhakrishna is the Same Brahm.They only manifest as Two to display Leelas.

 

 

 

 

Rg veda,Radhikopanishad.

 

"Yeyam Radhayashca krshno rasabdhirdaihainaik. "

 

There is not any slightest difference between Sri Radhika and Sri Krsna.

 

Ranjeet,

 

If not me, then I am sure that someone else has pointed out to you the obvious problem in quoting these so-called "Upanishads" as a basis for your views. There are a lot of spurious smriti texts written in relatively recent years that are passed off as "Upanishads." If it is not shruti, it cannot be accorded the same level of authority as shruti.

 

 

 

Sanat Kumar Samhita:

 

"Radhika Krsna rupam ca,Krsno Radha Svarupakah"

 

Tantra sastras:

 

"ekam jyotirbhuddvedha Radha Madhava rupakam."

 

"tasya shaktyastvanekadha Hladini,Sandhini jnyanecha..."- Veda.

 

Sri Bhagavan has Three energies,Hladini,Sandhini and Samvit(Jyana).

Hladini is accepted as the greatest of all His energies.

 

That Hladini Sakti is Sri Radha.

 

These are not shruti, but rather are obscure smritis acceptable only to Gaudiyas, which sort of defeats the point of quoting them to non-Gaudiyas.

[ranjeetmore]

I'm sorry to say but you have a lot of nerve deciding which smriti is 'authentic' and which is not.

[kimfelix]

Ranjeet, don't we all have to make that decision as to which smriti is authentic? What else can you do? There is no absolute standard. And ultimately we must make use of shruti and smriti for our own inspiration. Find that which inspires your own spirituality and leave others to use other smriti in pursuit of their own spirituality. I think that is the ultimate criterion but I may be wrong.

[bija]

I agree kimfelix...that way we deeply appreciate our own path in gratitude and allow room for others who choose differently.

 

That way no polemics (no offences). Sounds good to me.

 

Ultimately alot of bad stuff goes on in the world, in the name of religion, when people can't get along. Like one devotee here at audarya posted anti-muslim stuff the other day, then in the same post goes on to say that Sri Caitanya is the last avatara. Crazy really (bad attitude). Attitudes like that cause so much trouble...small scale and big scale... That is why I pull back now, and try and find a more harmonious way that embraces rather than divides.

 

I really feel divided religion that does not see non-dual truth is material activity (a beast). And in many ways non-religious peaceful living (ahimsa) is much more sweet.

[hindustani]

Bija

I see huge improvements in your thinking as time gone by,a real Vaishnava thinks like you.Someone may call it live and let live formula.Be blessed Bija.

[Narasingh]

With all sincerity, could this also be viewed vice versa? Durga Devi's alternate form as Subhadra?

[sambya1]

hi bija !

 

one can actually see the din-bhav or humility shining through your posts . thats how a spiritual aspirant should be like . respect for others and abstaining from ninda.

 

wish you success .

[hindustani]

Exactly and this too I observed hence I congratulated him in my previous post,when we see good things we must make a note of it,Bija is setting a right example here.

 

hi bija !

 

one can actually see the din-bhav or humility shining through your posts . thats how a spiritual aspirant should be like . respect for others and abstaining from ninda.

 

wish you success .

[hareesh]

one of the most important books of shakta literature is durga saptashati or sri sri chandi. it is a part of markendaya purana( chapters 81 to 93 )reference to this book is found in works of bananhatta , dandi and other philosophers of 7th century. mentions of this scripture also occurs in writings of nagarjuna of 5th century.historians estimate chandi to have been written around 350 A.D.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

 

excuse me..likewise durgasaptasati isnt the only scripture of devi

ther r hundreds more inc the devi bhagawata..moreover even in durgasaptasati the devi is described as narayani but then she emerges frm the physical sheath of parvati...neway thr r hundreds of points to argue

[hareesh]

moreover in the same markandeya purana

the devi u mentiuoned as "narayani" who kills mahisa is NOT durga

she is mahalakshmi<not devi lakshmi>

mahalakshmi kills mahisha']

mahasarasvati kills shumbha nishumbha and emerges frm sheath of parvati

mahakali kills madhukaitabh thru vishnu

 

n mahakali is extolled as the controlller of vishnu

 

 

neway in the same purana u find it is parvati but not other goddesses who got the name durga...n thts coz she slays the asura called "durgama"

n the nine durgas r shailaputri brahmacharini kushmanda chandraghanta skandamata katyayani kalaratri mahagauri n siddhiratri

all have a connection with only shiva n not vishnu

[sant]

 

n mahakali is extolled as the controlller of vishnu

Excellent the shakts at it again.