Not if it's considered to be one of one's nityakarma-s; therein, it is mandatory.
Again, that's why the mahAbhAratam was made by vyAsa, so that shUdra-s could attain vedaj~nAna without having to read or listen to the veda-s themselves.
Talk about hyperbole, lol. You seem to be the one making...
Stating an observation doesn't affect how I feel. The sky is blue, but stating as such doesn't change how I feel.
Since when was this a "feel good" diatribe? You're the one making a big drama off of a single statement. :p Regardless of whether you stressed that you reject that statment, your...
Who said that? In vaiShNava thought, the purANa-s, just like the veda-s, are manifested during each kalpa and both are coeternal with bhagavAn, for they proceed from him, just as jIva-s do. In a sense, the purANa-s too are neither born, nor are they destroyed. This is similar to the view of...
:facepalm: Again, taking verses out of context. According to the manusmR^iti (which I DO consider interpolated by the way), shUdra-s are punished for listening to or reciting the veda-s, but then again, that was the reason that vyAsa compiled the mahAbhAratam. However, there are no strict...
Again, this is tangential, although a shrauta member can also be nAstika, assuming we define the term in regards to the view of vedApauruSheyatva as defined in the mImAMsA sUtra-s of jaiminI and vedAnta sUtra-s of baudhAyaNa. In regards to one of your guru-s being very upset, I think that...
They even have full "theological authority" to reject the "divinity" of the veda-s, since the concept of vedApauruSheyatva is first actually developed in the mImAMsA sUtra-s, so? Either way, they they would be nAstika in a philosophical sense, as they would be forced to reject the authority of...
Your motive is trying to prove that the padmapurANam is highly sectarian/interpolated/non-divine, most likely.
That is not a cheap shot, it was an honest question. The atharvavedasaMhitA states that the purANam (the original one before it was split) was given by the deva-s and the shatapatha...
praNAma and suprabhAtam HLK,
This is one time you have been the most reasonable person on the thread, wow! I'm glad you pointed out the rudragItA (BTW, the padmapurANam also has a shivagItA which praises shiva, probably moreso than the rudragItA and ribhugItA combined, lol) and I'm surprised...
What's stranger is that racism against red-haired people has been present in many societies; in ancient Greece, people believed redheads would become vampires if they died; in Egypt, they were considered so unlucky that many redheads were burnt alive to their god Orisis; in Medieval Europe (not...
Mythological? You sound exactly like Aupamanyav. I don't take all the purANam-s literally, nor do I think that the sun rides on a chariot, that gaNesha literally has an elephant's head, or that the sun revolves around the earth, but I still don't consider everything in the purANam-s to be...
The garuDapurANam is a strange text; it seems almost devoted entirely to talking of hell or the afterlife. The "kaShThamAShamarIchAni tagaraM madhu pippalI..." part particularly was quite gross.
So what? There's also parts in the veda-s that's hard to "wrap your head around," like in the...
I think he either meant it as a joke (i.e. poking fun at the fact that the term Hinduism relates to a region, i.e. bhArat [India in English]) or he might just be using it as a catch-all to mean that he respects non-Hindu bhAratiya/Indian religions/philosophies too, like Buddhism, Jainism, etc.
I've heard hare kR^iShNa people call shiva a demigod before (their "guru-AchArya," prabhupAda, practically coined the term), but never a devil or rAkShasa (my gosh). Are you sure about that, or are you just slightly exaggerating?
Actually, indra is not called vR^itraghna in the veda-s, he's called वृत्रह॑न्तमः
(vR^itrahántamaH, i.e. the one who is victorious over vR^itra); it's in the Zoroastrian texts (I think its the vahiShtoiShti gAthA) where he...
Indology or no indology, claiming that a sacred scripture that is said to be unauthored can be restricted to a certain region of the earth doesn't seem to make any coherent sense.
Wait, so claiming that one mantram is more important than another "downplays the concept of the apaurusheya," yet claiming that the same scripture can be "limited" by a certain piece of land does not? What?
It was still a response to a post on the forum, no? I created a new thread because I didn't want to necro-post on the vegan thread and I wanted to make a general topic discussion rather than just some sort of rebuttal to your statements (which would be counterproductive). I honestly didn't think...
praNAm,
Perhaps, although I would assume that even if they were meant to be taken literally, the view that one animal can be considered as less important solely because it is sacrificed seems to make absolutely no sense, if looking at it from a vedic perpective.