Oddities of Various Purana-s

[Poeticus]

MaitrAvaruNiH completely ignored the context; therefore, in my opinion, he must have had some alterior motive.

And, what would that be, Jas? What ulterior motive would I have?

So you're a nAstika? Okay...

That's a failed cheap shot, and you know it. In fact, it's quite desperate.

You seem to read into the text that which you like.

What a rash assumption.

Perhaps subconsciously you agree with the ISKCONites and this is why you are making it seem as if the purANam has an anti-shaiva bias, lol.

What are you? A psychoanalyst?

And, I make it perfectly clear in a reply to Madhuri that I didn't know whether this was by Prabhupada or not.

 

[Poeticus]

t's also ridiculous that maitrAvaruNiH was trying to make it seem as if the same text in which shiva himself says the worlds/universe is born and emanates from him, just like how light is released from sun-like spheres (na dR^iShyate punaH pAkAtkuta prAtaHprAtaryathA'loko jAyate sUryamaNDalAt, see the vishvarUpadarshana adhyAyaH from the shivagItA in the pAtAla khaNDam) would also call people who praise shiva pAShaNDI-s.

I wasn't trying to make it seem as if it's anything. Stop going after imaginary baits. Listen, I got that from a Vaishnava website, which Aup linked in another thread. Instead of arguing this with me, why don't you address these points to the dude that wrote it in that link? As for me, the Shrutis are the revelations in which I find divine solace. You very well know this about me. Therefore, any charge [resembling that which "with false tongue"...] levied against me as a nAstika is of extreme oddity...especially coming from you - someone who argued pointlessly a position which has no shAkhic backing that one of the most influential nAstika-s of all time, Rishabha, was praised or lauded or glorified in the Rg-Veda.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

And, what would that be, Jas? What anterior motive would I have?

Your motive is trying to prove that the padmapurANam is highly sectarian/interpolated/non-divine, most likely.

That's a failed cheap shot, and you know it. In fact, it's quite desperate.

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 brAhmaNa states that without studying the itihAsapurANam, one cannot reach the realm of the deva-s. If you reject the divinity of the purANam-s, then you reject the authority of the veda-s and hence are philosophically a nAstika.

What a rash assumption.

You stated that those verses have an anti-shaiva bias, but haven't explained how. All you've done is post biased ISKCONite translations and made it seem as if they themselves are representative of the original text.

What are you? A psychoanalyst?

Perhaps, perhaps not...

And, I make it perfectly clear in a reply to Madhuri that I didn't know whether this was by Prabhupada or not.

How is this relevant? You still knowingly translated from a gauDiya site (shouldn't gaurA~Nga kR^iShNa give it away?) and ISKCON is the most active gauDiya movements/organizations, especially online. Use common sense, sheesh. If it's not going to be directly by their guru-AchArya (prabhupAda), it's at least going to be based on his tAtparyam-s and bhAShyam-s.

Therefore, any charge [resembling that which "with false tongue"...] levied against me as a nAstika is of extreme oddity...especially coming from you - someone who argued pointlessly a position which has no shAkhic backing that one of the most influential nAstika-s of all time, Rishabha, was praised or lauded or glorified in the Rg-Veda.

That "nAstika" is also a lIlAvatAra of viShNu.

 

[Poeticus]

If you reject the divinity of the purANam-s, then you reject the authority of the veda-s and hence are philosophically a nAstika.

That's completely rubbish. Various shAkhA-s have full theological authority to reject any purANa-m at the drop of a hat. And, it can be easily argued, using the same logic, that millions of Hindus that don't conduct the yajna are, by the theology of the Veda-s, are an-agnitra-s. Therefore, your forced attempt to find a desperate correlation should show to you how ridiculous your charge is.

You stated that those verses have an anti-shaiva bias, but haven't explained how.

Duly noted. But, you do realize that this thread isn't for Vaishnava-apologetics, right? It's for non-Vaishnava Hindus to talk about various things in certain Purana-s that they find questionable or of concern. Secondly, I am not supposed to be the one explaining how those verses are anti-Shaiva...since various groups of Vaishnava-s actually believe in those quotes posted in the OP...it's pretty much their job. However, I'm not asking for that. Again...imaginary baiting, Jassi Puttar.

All you've done is post biased ISKCONite translations and made it seem as if they themselves are representative of the original text.

No. That's what you think I have done. Again...another assumption from your part.

That "nAstika" is also a lIlAvatAra of viShNu.

In your wildest, Smritic dreams, Jassi.

and ISKCON is the most active gauDiya movement online. Use common sense, sheesh. If it's not going to be directly by their guru-AchArya (prabhupAda)

Then, talk about that. Trying to argue a fabrication that I believe in those quotes personally or that I acknowledge the Gaudiya theology as valid, is counterproductive.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Sorry to say, but this forum, Hindu DIR has gone to hell with people leaving, people constantly arguing and others making threads that see no replies.

I'll cya guys in a week or so. I need to clear my head of all this rubbish...maybe take a seaside vacation...go and kill some fish etc

I am tired of people calling each other names...telling others their practices are adharmic or tamasic....calling each other NAstikas...outsiders, Mlecchas...etc, it reminds me of high school, but funny thing is, it is my choice to be here.

If it wasn't for Jaya Bholenath reminding me about the basic principles of Tantra - that all three Gunas should be balanced and none should dominate, so I shouldn't get upset if somebody tells me I am Tamasic as if that were a 'bad thing'...

If it wasn't for her saying that in our case (Tantrikas), to be called a NAstika is a compliment, not an insult...I would have told you all where to go a few days ago. Tantrikas are just different that way and we stick by our own.

Still, it is annoying to watch all this childish behaviour and I am not singling anybody out...but it tends to get really old, really fast now as each thread becomes a clone of all the other ones.

So, I'm going to go and pray for a while then watch Da Vinci Code (never seen it), go to sleep, wake up tomorrow and plan a little 'mental health getaway'. I need to gaze at vast, open expanses of stuff to empty my brain out.

Om Namah Shivaya

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's not that they trouble me so much, but rather that I still fail to find a few of them as "divine". Wonderful scriptures with great prose? Definitely. But, "divine"? I'm not too sure about that.

It is not correct to take any scripture as divine, not even Vedas and BhagawadGita. They were thought/remembered/written by wise people. We have to accept that there might be interpolations. After all, it is so easy to write verse in Sanskrit. Many people can do it instantly. There are competitions for this. These people are known as 'ashu-kavis'.

I was made aware of a very odd interpolation in the Manusmriti: something about not marrying females with red hair.

My aunt was a red-head and this cropped up when the marriage was being discussed. But Kashmiris do have this hair-color. Interpolation, because if Manu was from Aryan stock, red-hair would not be uncommon (Tusharas - Tocharians). I think, it is about keeping blood-lines pure.

 

[Poeticus]

Still, it is annoying to watch all this childish behaviour and I am not singling anybody out...

Don't you mean the unnecessary polemics? But, it comes with the Vaishnava territory. In fact, I forgot to express how much I agree with your quote:

I know I shouldn't think like this, but I put a Vaishnava trying to refute my Shaiva teachings through their Scriptures, in the same basket as a Christian trying to preach to me using The Bible...it is an entirely foreign concept for me.

Same. I concur.

 

[Poeticus]

My aunt was a red-head and this cropped up when the marriage was being discussed.

Did the marriage go through?

It is not correct to take any scripture as divine, not even Vedas and BhagawadGita

You take that back, Aup!

We have to accept that there might be interpolations

I know someone very well who used to post here on RF before he decided to no longer post. He made a very convincing argument, using all sorts of things - theological, scriptural, Indological, social, political, you name it - to prove his point, that various parts of the Purusha Sukta were interpolations.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

That's completely rubbish. Various shAkhA-s have full theological authority to reject any purANa-m at the drop of a hat.

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 at least one mantra in the veda-s. I'm not judging or ridiculing nAstika-s, that's YOUR implication.

And, it can be easily argued, using the same logic, that millions of Hindus that don't conduct the yajna are, by the theology of the Veda-s, are an-agnitra-s.

When have I ever contested that? This seems like an odd tangent, especially for you...

Therefore, your forced attempt to find a desperate correlation should show to you how ridiculous your charge is.

I'm not trying to make any desparate correlation, I'm just pointing out the implications of your post.

No. That's what you think I have done. Again...another assumption from your part.
...
Then, talk about that. Trying to argue a fabrication that I believe in those quotes personally or that I acknowledge the Gaudiya theology as valid, is counterproductive.

Let's look at your direct statements, shall we:

And, I'm sure there are numerous useful messages that can be found in the Purana-s - however, I'm just trying to make sense of stuff that comes off far from being "divine". Instead, it comes off to me as rather polemic...such as the Padma Purana and the constant anti-Shiva and anti-Advaita sentiments found within. Mind you, I'm not a fan of Advaita either...but, still...

I shall post more quotes from other Purana-s later. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the above, ha.

Clearly, you seem to believe that the verses (i.e. quotes) themselves have an anti-shiva or anti-advaita bias and that you are literally quoting from the purANa-s and are unable to "wrap your head around them." This indicates that you accept the ISKCONite translation, at least subconsciously. If not, then you would not have had a problem not would you have posted the thread, understand?

And, which mantra(s) would that(those) be? The "interpolations"?

ॠचः सा॑मानि छ॑न्दांसि पुराणं॑ य॑जुषा सह॑।
उ॑च्छिष्टाज्जज्ञिरे स॑र्वे दिवि॑देवा॑दिविश्रि॑तः॥

RIchaH sA\'mAni Cha\'ndAMsi purANaM\' ya\'juShA saha\'|
u\'chChiShTAjjaj~nire sa\'rve divi\'devA\'divishri\'taH||

 

[Poeticus]

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?

What makes you think I dispute that?

Either way, they they would be nAstika in a philosophical sense, as they would be forced to reject the authority of at least one mantra in the veda-s.

And, which mantra(s) would that(those) be? Those that Aup calls "interpolations"? Are they even "interpolations"? And, which shAkhA-member would concentrate on one Veda that he isn't supposed to be concentrating on? Wouldn't that be shAkhAraNDah of him? I think so. Heck, one of my Gurus back in Gujarat became very upset when he found me reading the Atharvaveda.

at least subconsciously...

But, why does it bother you so much if I "subconsciously" do? Get over it and move on.

 

[Poeticus]

ॠचः सा॑मानि छ॑न्दांसि पुराणं॑ य॑जुषा सह॑।
उ॑च्छिष्टाज्जज्ञिरे स॑र्वे दिवि॑देवा॑दिविश्रि॑तः॥

RIchaH sA\'mAni Cha\'ndAMsi purANaM\' ya\'juShA saha\'|
u\'chChiShTAjjaj~nire sa\'rve divi\'devA\'divishri\'taH||

This one from the Atharva-veda? Heck, did the Padma Puran and other Vaishnava Purans that are popular today even exist when the Atharva was codified? Let me guess...you think they did?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I just wanted to hear opinions from non-Vaishnava Hindus on various Puranic scriptures. Or, perhaps, just maybe, it's irrelevant for Shaivas, Shaktas, and other non-Vaishnavas, what various Vaishnava scriptures say? Because, I think most Shaivas, Shaktas, and related others, aren't too bothered by such.

Well, Shaivas know that Vaishnava Puranas will eulogize Vishnu just as Shaiva puranas will eulogize Shiva, so too for Shaktas. Quite understood, therefore, not a problem. The idea is to agree to a certain limit (Yes, Vishnu is Parabrahman, muttering quietly - so is Shiva, in the vein of 'naro vā kunjaro vā'), and when the limit is crossed, counter-attack to bring them in line.

 

[Poeticus]

and when the limit is crossed, counter-attack to bring them in line.

AkramaN!!!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, AKRAMAN !! :rolling:

.. how does a Smarta reconcile all of the inconsistencies?

Though I am an atheist, my views are advaitist/smartist. "Sarve devo (and devis), sama bhava". Equal weightage to all Gods and Goddesses, even the village Gods and Goddesses. They are all ours, so each idea is equally respectable. Comes easy to advaitists. We have no axes to grind against anyone.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

And, which mantra(s) would that(those) be? Those that Aup calls "interpolations"? Are they even "interpolations"? And, which shAkhA would concentrate on one Veda that he isn't supposed to be concentrating on? Wouldn't that be shAkhAraNDah of him? I think so. Heck, one of my Gurus back in Gujarat became very upset when he found me reading the Atharvaveda.

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 relates more to the dIkShA given. In regards to vedashAkhA, only one veda and recension is used, although that only limits how an individual can recite it. There's no limiting factor, as far as I know, in simply reading the text for the knowledge therein.

But, why does it bother you so much if I "subconsciously" do? Get over it and move on.

It doesn't bother me; I just made an observation that I found ironic, you contested that, and I explained my reasons why I believed that you subconsciously agreed with their translations, that's all.

Equal weightage to all Gods and Goddesses, even the village Gods and Goddesses.

Clearly, if you don't believe in any of them, the weightage you give to them is 0, and 0=0=0=0=....

 

[Poeticus]

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.

That's what I call theological-semantics.

There's no limiting factor, as far as I know, in simply reading the text for the knowledge therein

Dude, you're so wrong, dude. Like, take a look in the Manusmriti, like, people can't be doing that, like, reading stuff and stuff for recreational purposes.

 

[Poeticus]

Though I am an atheist, my views are advaitist/smartist. "Sarve devo (and devis), sama bhava". Equal weightage to all Gods and Goddesses, even the village Gods and Goddesses. They are all ours, so each idea is equally respectable. Comes easy to advaitists. We have no axes to grind against anyone.

I'm very supportive of your indirect pro-polytheism. But, I find myself unable to reconcile highlighted-part-one with highlighted-part-two. Even I'll have to agree with Jaskaran, that since you don't believe in the Gods, personally, the equal weight you would give would be zero in the end.

...unless, you weren't talking about yourself, but in general - in advice-like terms.

Maybe?

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Dude, you're so wrong, dude. Like, take a look in the Manusmriti, like, people can't be doing that, like, reading stuff and stuff for recreational purposes.

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 prohibitions, as far as I know, on attaining shAstraj~nAna itself.

This one from the Atharva-veda? Heck, did the Padma Puran and other Vaishnava Purans that are popular today even exist when the Atharva was codified? Let me guess...you think they did?

If the veda-s and purANam-s are considered divine and eternal by the veda-s themselves, then why is it unnatural to assume that one text speaks of another? Indologically dating one before the other in itself denies the authority of the veda. You have problems making a paradigm shift between Indologically-based matters and faith-based matters. Indologically, even the R^igveda is not divine, it was probably composed around 1700-1100 BC.

I'm very supportive of your indirect pro-polytheism.

Since when did one have to give equal weight to all deities in order to be considered polytheistic? The Greeks didn't (Zeus was their chief deity), and they're the inventors of the term polytheïsmós.

 

[Aupmanyav]

45. Let them be outside the fold of Vedic rites. Let this river also have the second name as Godavari.

46. In Kaliyuga, those, who come to this river and give gifts of cows and other materials according to their capacity, will delight themselves with the gods.

47-48. If, at the time when Jupiter is in Leo, one takes bath there and propitiates the manes according to the scriptures, they (the manes) will go to heaven even if they have fallen in hell, and those who are already in heaven will attain liberation.

I see the hand of Dakshinatya brahmins in this. But Narmada, Tapti, Godavari, Krishna, Kaveri, and Pampa are none other than Holy Mother Ganga.

 

[Poeticus]

However, there are no strict prohibitions, as far as I know, on attaining shAstraj~nAna itself.

And, you think I believe there are strict prohibitions on reading said scriptures for the knowledge and wisdom they contain?

If the veda-s and purANam-s are considered divine and eternal by the veda-s themselves, then why is it unnatural to assume that one text speaks of another?

Who is saying it's unnatural?

Indologically dating one before the other in itself denies the authority of the veda. You have problems making a paradigm shift between Indologically-based matters and faith-based matters.

No. It does not deny the authority of the Veda-s, because it's not only an Indological notion that the Veda-s came first, but primarily a Hindu facet of religious reality. You seem to be missing the point. Allow me to explain, even if it may be futile. Since I do not abide by the shAkhA-s of the Veda-s other than one of the Rg-Veda, it would not be of any importance to me on what those Veda-s say. To acquire the pramANa of their inclinations, I would have to consult shAkhA-s that deal with those scriptures.

Therefore, I reiterate it once again: you are addressing imaginary points.

Indologically, the R^igveda is not divine, it was composed around 1700-1100 BC.

Duly noted.

Since when did one have to give equal weight to all deities in order to be considered polytheistic?

And, who is saying otherwise?