-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Nityananda, Sri Chaitanya's associate, Gaudiya Vaishnava saint
- Thread starter Sirona
- Start date
निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
I humbly disagree with "different views" statement. Both Sruti and Smrit say the same Truth. Both were scribed by Srila Veda Vyasa. Only difference is Sruti wording never changes (and thus is heard) while Smrti wording may change from age to age (hence that which is remembered).
My evidence for the claim is as follows:
“My dear Maitreyi, the Rg, Yajur, Sama, and Atharva Veda, Itihasas and Puranas are manifest from the breath of the Supreme Lord” (Brhadaranyaka 2.4.10).
rcah samani chandamsi puranam yajusa saha
ucchistajjajnire sarve divi deva divisritah
(Atharvaveda 11.7.24) “The Rg, Sama, Yajur, and Atharvaveda, along with the Puranas, and all the demigods residing in the heavenly planets appeared from the Supreme Lord.”
sa brhatim disamanuvyacalat
tamitihasasca puranam ca gathasca
itihasasya ca sa vai puranasya ca gathanam ca
narasamsinam ca priyamdhama bhavati ya evam veda
“He moved favorably towards Brhati and thus the Itihasas, Puranas, Gathas, and Narasamsi became favorable to him. One who knows this verily becomes the dear abode of the Itihasas and Puranas, Gathasand Narasamsi”. (Atharva 15.6.10,12)
evamime sarve veda nirmitah sakalpah
sarahsyah sabrahmanah sopanisatkah
setihasah sanvakhyatah sapuranah
“In this way all the Vedas became manifest along with the Kalpas, Rahasyas, Brahmanas, Upanisads, Itihasas, Anvakhyatas and Puranas”. (Gopath Brahmana Purva 2.10)
nama va rgvedo yajurvedah samaveda atharva-
nascaturtha itihas puranah pancamo vedanam vedah....
“Indeed Rg, Yajur, Sama, and Atharva are the names of the four Vedas. The Itihasas and Puranas are the fifth Veda.” (Ch. U. 7.1.4)
Here, the Smrti and Sruti are both put in the same category of divine origin. There is also verse from Mahabharata that substantiate this. Nitai!
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Oh good, that validates Shiva Purana, Skanda Purana, Agni Purana, Linga Purana, Matsya Purana and Kurma purana.
निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
Yes it does. However just like the Vedas describe different versions of Truth according to qualification of listener (e.g Sat Darshana, Karma Khanda and finally Vedanta) similarly the Puranas are also ranked due to the knowledge given. Nitai!
निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
Srila Veda Vyasa himself in Padma Purana:
shAstrANyapi cha sarvANi trividhAni mahAmate ||
yAni satyavaraM viShNuM vadanti parameshvaram.h |
tAni shAstrANi sarvANi sAtvikAni matAni vai ||
prajApatiM kR^ishAnuM cha tathA devIM sarasvatIm.h |
paratvena vadachChAstraM rAjasaM parichaxate ||
yachChAstraM liN^gapAramyaM vAmadevamumApatim.h |
tamaH pravartakaM vakti tattAmasamudAhR^itam.h ||
"All Shastras are of three types. That Shastra which praises Lord Vishnu as Parameshvara is Satvika. That which praises Brahma or Agni or Sarasvati Devi is Rajasika. That which praises Shiva, since it leads to Tamas, is Tamasika shAstra."
And even in the sattvic shastras, Srimad Bhagavtam is given the exalted position as the natural commentary of the Vedanta. (Artha yat brahma-sutrani). Again please see my previous post, for more evidence for this. Nitai!!
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Wikipedia: "A large compilation of diverse topics. The north Indian manuscripts of Padma Purana are very different than south Indian versions, and the various recensions in both groups in different languages (Devanagari and Bengali, for example) show major inconsistencies. Describes cosmology, the world and nature of life from the perspective of Vishnu. Discusses festivals, numerous legends, geography of rivers and regions from northwest India to Bengal to the kingdom of Tripura, major sages of India, various Avatars of Vishnu and his cooperation with Shiva, the story of Rama-Sita that is different than the Hindu epic Ramayana." There have been interpolations in Puranas. Or is it like Muslims and Christians that the God ensures the sanctity of Puranas? Sage VedaVyasa had his opinion. And opinions differ in Hinduism. That is what created sects.
निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
Im sorry prabhuji, but I don't think Wikipedia is a good source of evidence here. All this is showing is that current manuscripts of Padma Purana may have been altered. The verses quoted by past and authorized commentators still exist. The categoration of the Puranas can also be found in Matsya Purana.
We do agree on that certain Puranas have been tampered with. That is why we only accept the authorized shlokas as quoted by our Acharyas. Sridhara Swami was merciful enough to comment on every Shloka of the Bhagavatam and therefore all original eighteen thousand verses are still intact without any interpolation. Furthermore the verses quoted by the Goswamis and other Vaishnav Acharayas we also deem authentic. Srila Veda Vyasa is accepted by all Vaishnav schools as an incarnation of Narayan Himself, and therefore His words are concidered authoritative, not simply an opinion. I mean, Veda Vyasa wrote the Vedanta Sutra, so without Him, Adwaita Vada would have no basis either. Opinions do differ yes. But those opinions not based upon authorized scripture should be understood to be wrong.
निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
To each Sampradayas their own. We have great faith in our Gurus, as the upanisads reveal, "yasya deva para bhaktir, yatha deve tatha guru". We accept the verses of Sridhara Swami, as do the other a Vaishnav Sampradayas therefore we can discuss on that basis. It is a question of common Pramana here. Sabda works on the basis of hearing from a authoritative figure. If sampradayas share the same source, then they have a common pool of evidence which to draw from. To call the shlokas quoted by acharyas as unauthorative would be in fact calling them liars and thus call their character into question.
Last edited:
निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
Yeah, but that is why we have faith in the Guru Parampara. What a realised soul speaks becomes scripture, and that is why the previous acharyas, have written volumes on new topics (like Rasa Vichara) which cannot be found in any of the Vedanta. It is because we have Sraddha that they are self-realised, that their words become shastra to us
. That is the true meaning of Sabda Pranam. Not simply picking up scripture and reading with the strength of one's intellect, but surrendering to a self realized soul who can impart to you knowledge. Doubt never brings happiness, in this world or the next.Nice to have you hereYeah, but that is why we have faith in the Guru Parampara. What a realised soul speaks becomes scripture, and that is why the previous acharyas, have written volumes on new topics (like Rasa Vichara) which cannot be found in any of the Vedanta. It is because we have Sraddha that they are self-realised, that their words become shastra to us
Not if they are Griffith's or Mueller's translations, eh?
Actually, they are authoritative. If any Vedantin quoted a verse that was found to be an interpolation, his rivals would rip him apart. No dignified acharya would think about quoting spurious additions to any text. Even then, it is possible that they had access to earlier versions of the texts that didn't have the interpolations, so they were easily able to spot the interpolations in the current editions. Finding an interpolation is quite easy, ask any knowledgeable Vedantin.
Nah, they have been termed tamasic by Veda Vyasa, Adi Shankara, Madhva, Ramanuja and every other self-respecting Vedantin. There are some sattvik parts in these Puranas, but in general, they are termed tamasic due to the main content. Originally, Puranas were one, but they were later divided based on their inclinations. If you can't understand this and continue to harp on about tamasic puranas being as authoritative in Vedanta as Sattvik Puranas, perhaps you should desist calling yourself a Vedantin because that philosophy does not mesh well with your love of tamasic puranas.
Where did you get this 'information' that Sri Krishna is higher than Lord Vishnu?
निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
Nitai! I have already answered this query in response to Chakraji's initial question. I will post the support from Bhagavatam here:
ete camsa-kalah pumsah krishnas tu bhagavan svayam
indras vyakulam lokam mrdayanti yuge yuge
"All the incarnations are plenary portions or explansions of plenary expansions appearing in various universes to protect the theists; but Lord Krishna is the original Supreme Lord and the source of all."
(Srimad Bhagavatam, 1.3.28)
According to our Acharayas, ete, here refers to all the previous Visnu tattva incarnations listed previously In the verses preceding this one. This is summerized by camsa (expansions) and pumsah (purusha avatars, like Maha Visnu etc).
Note that the Sri Krsna is different from the Krsna avatar who is concidered an incarnation of a Visnu. The latter appears every chatur-yuga while the former (swayam bhagavan) appears only once every day of Brahma. This concept has been established through scripture in the Krsna Sandarbha of Srila Jiva Goswami. Srila Jayadeva Goswami also supports this claim in his Dasavatar Stotram.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
They too have their problems. That is why I like B.G. Tilak. Unequivocally Hindu, as well as scientific. Just like the acharyas, one cannot doubt the integrity of Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak. As you know, most of my information comes from his two books.
What if the Acharyas had a prejudice? You have a Vishnu/Krishna prejudice, others may have a Shiva/Shakti prejudice. We smarta type of people like neither. If someone will go overboard about Shava/Shakti, we will feel just as much chafed as when people go overboard about Vishnu/Krishna and now, Nitai, Sahajananda, Puttaparthi baba and Shirdi baba. New God's spinging up all the time, even Rajneesh
.They have made a mess of Hinduism.
All the old puranas are Sattvika. I do not make any distinction between them. All these distinctions are because of prejudices.
निताइ dasa
Nitai's servant's servant
They too have their problems. That is why I like B.G. Tilak. Unequivocally Hindu, as well as scientific. Just like the acharyas, one cannot doubt the integrity of Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak. As you know, most of my information comes from his two books.What if the Acharyas had a prejudice? You have a Vishnu/Krishna prejudice, others may have a Shiva/Shakti prejudice. We smarta type of people like neither. If someone will go overboard about Shava/Shakti, we will feel just as much chafed as when people go overboard about Vishnu/Krishna and now, Nitai, Sahajananda, Puttaparthi baba and Shirdi baba. New God's spinging up all the time, even Rajneesh
Nitai! Please do not group Lord Nitai with those other fake personalities whose presence cannot be found in scripture. I have given so many quotes from scripture to support the divinity of Lord Gauranga and hence Lord Nitai. If you don't accept it, that is fine, but there is no need to be antagonistic. Even if you dont accept Lord Nitai as God, still he is a Vaishnav, and thus you are committing Vaishnav aparadha. Especially on a thread that is meant to discuss Lord Nityananda.
I have given numerous scriptural injuctions to support my claims, and you have not given one. You talk about prejudice but you refuse to debate on the strength of Scripture. I am sorry, but I am very much against people who criticize the teachings of the Guru Parampara with unsubstantiated claims. In our view, the Acharayas never have a prejudice against anyone. They have studied the scriptures under the guidance of a self realized Guru and thus understood the position of Lord Narayan as Supreme. It is only Sankaracharaya who says otherswise, and even the reason for that contradictory claim can be found in Padma Purana. Scripture is all we have, and when we start applying our own mundane logic upon it, then these sects start to arise. The Truth is one, to say that all paths are equal is going against the fundamental teachings of Vedanta. I have said nothing bad against your philosophy, so I ask you do to the same.
Last edited:
Scripture is secondary. Experience/individual knowledge is best to realise the Lord. Scripture gives us that push.