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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Shruti and Puranas are different things, Smritis are different from the first two. Different views, different ages.
Oh good, that validates Shiva Purana, Skanda Purana, Agni Purana, Linga Purana, Matsya Purana and Kurma purana.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).
Oh good, that validates Shiva Purana, Skanda Purana, Agni Purana, Linga Purana, Matsya Purana and Kurma purana.
Srila Veda Vyasa himself in Padma Purana:Who has ranked puranas?
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.
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.If you accept that there have been interpolations, then a shloka quoted by an acharya does not automatically become authoritative.
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.Not really, but if the manuscript with them is corrupted, they are helpless.
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 . 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.
Not if they are Griffith's or Mueller's translations, eh?Quoting Shruti is always problematic.
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.If you accept that there have been interpolations, then a shloka quoted by an acharya does not automatically become authoritative.
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.Oh good, that validates Shiva Purana, Skanda Purana, Agni Purana, Linga Purana, Matsya Purana and Kurma purana.
Where did you get this 'information' that Sri Krishna is higher than Lord Vishnu?Sri Krsna is the source of Visnu tattva. This is because of our understanding of Bhagavatam (the verse I quoted above) as well in terms of rasa vichara. Sri Krsna has 64 super-excellent qualities while Lord Narayan has 60. Furthermore, Sri Krsna is situated in madhurya rasa, which is categorically higher than the aiswariya rasa that Lord Visnu in situated in. This is because even Lakshmi desires to dance with Krsna in the rasa (according to Bhagavatam) yet Radharani is never attracted to Lord Visnu, only Sri Krsna. Anyway this Rasa Vicara is very high topic, so I don't know much. Our basis however is the verse I showed from Bhagavatam for this claim.
Where did you get this 'information' that Sri Krishna is higher than Lord Vishnu?
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.Not if they are Griffith's or Mueller's translations, eh?
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.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.
All the old puranas are Sattvika. I do not make any distinction between them. All these distinctions are because of prejudices.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.
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.
Scripture is secondary. Experience/individual knowledge is best to realise the Lord. Scripture gives us that push.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.