« first day (1 day earlier)      last day (19 days later) » 

user131058
1:08 AM
@brahmajijnasa - Not just vaishnava acharyas even Saiva acharyas have not quoted these strange episodes of Narasimha being subdued by Siva, i what i understand. So, in all purpose these episodes of Tamasa puranas should be treated as inteolations at a layer stage. Please refer to the blog sitehttp://narayanastra.blogspot.in/?m=1 for more info on all these.
 
user131058
@Keshav, @brahmajijnasa - Tamasa puranas mean most of content are tamasa. But they also contain sattvic and rajasic contents though at a lower proportion. Similarly, Sattvic puranas are mostly Sattvic, but contain rajasic and tamasic content albeit in lesser proportions. It is combination of three sattvic, rajasic and tamasic content. But in Sattvic puranas , sattvic content is much more than rajasic and tamasic content.
 
user131058
@Keshav, @brahmajijnasa - same is the case with rajasic and tasic puranas wherein rajasic and tamasic content are much more compared to sattvic content.
 
user131058
@Keshav, @brahmajijnasa - that is in Sattvic puranas, the Supreme Lord Narayana/ Vishnu and his pristine avataras are more. Whereas in Rajasic puranas demi gods like brahma, saraswati, Siva, devi's etc are also praised eqially as Lord Vishnu or Krishna or Narayana. In tamasic puranas, Shiva overtakes the content compared to other deities.
 
user131058
@brahmajijnasa - in fact in Mahabharata tatparya nirnaya, madhvacharya says that by his time itself Mahabharata was interpolated.
 
user131058
1:32 AM
@brahmajijnasa @keshav - Please read this Rudra gita from Varaha purana and its meaning at narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/05/…. The blog authors have wonderfully, expalined the meanings
 
user131058
@brahmajijnasa - When i say acharyas have not quoted these spurious sections of tamasa or rajasa purana, i dont intend only Vaishnava acharyas.
 
user131058
@brahmajijnasa -Even, advaita acharyas like Adi Shankara and his immediate disciples, even pseudo advaita acharyas like Vidyaaranya or may be even Appaya dikshita who are considered apara Shankara, dont seem to quote these spurious sections. Just fyi Vidyaaranya and Appaya Dikshita were more inclinedvtowards saivism. Even, they dont quote the spurious versions to prove the supremacy of Siva, i suppose.
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
@Krishna Are there any scriptures that say that Sattvika Puranas have non-Sattvika parts?
 
user131058
2:12 AM
@Keshav - I got this info from narayanastra blog spot. But, it is queit evident from the puranas itself, they contain mixture. Only thing is Sattvic content is max in Sattvic puranas and rajasic and tamasic content are minimum although they do contain the rajasic and tamasic parts. One just need read the puranas and is self evident. Need not be a rocket scientist for that.
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
2:57 AM
@Krishna Well, if they're a mixture as you say, does that mean that the Sattvika Puranas contain some statements that Shiva is superior to Vishnu, for instance? I'm not aware of any such statements.
 
 
2 hours later…
user131058
5:17 AM
@Keshav - There are some instances like devathas worshiiping Siva and other deities and calling him Supreme Lord etc. These kind of stutis to other devathas would confuse devotees. Also, thete are references to kshetras which deal with demi god worship. There are no specific references which indicate Siva is superior to Vishnu in Sattvic, as far as i know.
 
user131058
@Keshav - Also, there are instances of demi god worship by devathas and other characters.
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
@brahmajijnasa I just posted a question about that Vishnu Sahasranamam verse we were discussing:
0
Q: Does the Vishnu Sahasranama call Vishnu Amaritasha or Amritamsha?

Keshav SrinivasanIn this ISKCON commentary on the Srimad Bhagavatam, various scriptural quotes are given in support of Gaudiya Vaishnava beliefs about the forms of Vishnu and his incarnations. In particular, this quote from the Vishnu Sahasranamam is given: Also from the Mahābhārata: amṛtāḿśo 'mṛta-vapuḥ...

vishnu mahabharata history vishnu-sahasranama
 
 
1 hour later…
user131058
6:30 AM
@Keshav - i read some where that Vedanta Desikar mentions Radha in one of works...not sure which one...Maybe, Yadhavabyudhayam..
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
@Krishna I've never even heard of Yadhavabyudhayam, but I'll see if I can find it.
@Krishna Does he equate her with Nappinnai?
@Krishna By the way, HH Chinna Jeeyar Swami doesn't believe that a person called Radha ever existed: chinnajeeyar.org/main/content/…
@Krishna He says "That is the reason why kalyanam is not performed to them. It is done to those who were really there during his period."
 
user131058
@Keshav - i am not sure whether Desikar equates her with Nappinai. Yadhvabhyudhayam is one of magnum opus writings of Vedanta desikar. He more condences the entire Krishna avatara in that work..
 
user131058
@Keshav - Appaya deeshita the famous saivate has written a commentary on Yadhavabhyudhayam of Vedanta Desikar.
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
@Krishna Oh, I'm not really familiar with Vedanta Desikan's works . I only know about the Rahastatraya Sara, Pancharatra Raksha, Virodha Parihara, Tattva Mukta Kalapa, and some of his devotional hymns.
 
user131058
@Keshav - Sorry in case i had gone over board
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
6:46 AM
@Krishna No problem.
@Krishna By the way, have you seen my question about the Alwars and the gods they're incarnated from?
2
Q: Which Alwars mention the gods whom they're incarnations of?

Keshav SrinivasanThe Alwars (also spelled Azhwars) are a group of 12 ancient Vaishnava saints who lived in Tamil Nadu and are famous for their poetry in praise of Vishnu. The collection of their 4000 poems, known as the Nalayira Divya Prabhandam, is considered by many to be the "Dravida Veda", or South Indian Ved...

mythology vishnu avatars sri-vaishnava alwar
 
 
10 hours later…
brahma jijnasa
brahma jijnasa
4:56 PM
@Keshav --- right now I'm reading your post "Does the Vishnu Sahasranamam call Vishnu Amaritasha or Amritamsha?", what does that mean there "no Amritavapuh"?
maybe it's just my bad English, or what?
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
5:15 PM
@brahmajijnasa Sorry, that's a typo. I meant to say "and Amritavapuh". I just corrected it.
 
brahma jijnasa
brahma jijnasa
ok, thanks ... I'm reading all the stuff ...
@Keshav why so many posts deleted here?
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
5:36 PM
@brahmajijnasa Krishna made some remarks that he regretted writing, so he requested that I delete them.
 
 
3 hours later…
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
8:18 PM
@brahmajijnasa By the way, did I satisfactorily answer your question about the length of life being predetermined? If so you should click the accept check mark.
 
brahma jijnasa
brahma jijnasa
Oh yes, thank you for that, I wanted to wait a few more response before anything I do
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
@brahmajijnasa OK. So do you have any thoughts on what's going on with the Sahasranamam verse? Did all the commentators use bad manuscripts, or what?
 
brahma jijnasa
brahma jijnasa
Btw, I am preparing another question that is similar in character but I think it will be more difficult to answer and to substantiate with quotations from the scriptures, accept it as a challenge ... ... stay tuned ... :)
on Sahasranamam: I have some ideas to say ... I'll write an answer I think ...
 
brahma jijnasa
brahma jijnasa
8:55 PM
@Keshav "which means he that consumes our gives nectar"
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
9:13 PM
@brahmajijnasa Thanks, I fixed the typo. And I look forward to the challenge!
 
brahma jijnasa
brahma jijnasa
9:26 PM
@Keshav "I would like to find at least one manuscript or recension that says "Amṛtāśaḥ" --- you mean amṛtāṃśo?
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
9:48 PM
@brahmajijnasa No, the situation is that both the BORI critical edition and the Southern recension say "Amritamsha", but all the commentators say "Amritasha". So I want to find at least one manuscript or recension that confirms the "Amritasha" that the commentators use.
 
brahma jijnasa
brahma jijnasa
@Keshav I thought you want to find a comment that uses amṛtāṃśo
I mean you already have use of Amritasha
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
@brahmajijnasa Well, that would be interesting too, but primarily I'm trying to see how it's possible that the commentators I've cited could say one thing yet all the manuscripts say something different. So I'd like to find at least one manuscript that backs up the commentators I've cited.
@brahmajijnasa I've found use of Amritasha by commentators, but not in manuscripts.
 
brahma jijnasa
brahma jijnasa
obviously they had these manuscripts, no?
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
@brahmajijnasa Yeah, clearly the commentators relied on some manuscripts, and yet the manuscripts I've found use a different word. So I'd like to see whether there are other manuscripts that use the word that the commentators used.
 
brahma jijnasa
brahma jijnasa
Common sense says that both types of manuscripts must exist then --- ok, you are looking for the other one
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
10:02 PM
@brahmajijnasa Yeah exactly. Both types must exist, and yet I've so far only found one type, so I'm looking for the other type.
 
brahma jijnasa
brahma jijnasa
10:31 PM
@Keshav what's "Kalyanam"?
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
@brahmajijnasa Kalyana is the Sanskrit word for auspicious. Kalyana is also used as the word for marriage sometimes. Why do you ask?
 
brahma jijnasa
brahma jijnasa
link above ... what is this all about ... now I'm reading ...
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
@brahmajijnasa Yeah, in that context it means marriage.
 
brahma jijnasa
brahma jijnasa
"I have a question which has been left unanswered by many religious speakers whom I have asked about conducting the Kalyanam of Radha with Lord Krishna. Is Radha Krishna Kalyanm celebrated?"
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
@brahmajijnasa The question is asking why (Sri Vaishnava) temples perform the marriage of Krishna and Rukmini, but not the marriage of Krishna and Radha.
 
brahma jijnasa
brahma jijnasa
10:39 PM
do you believe that Svamiji is saying there at the link ?chinnajeeyar.org/main/content/…
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
@brahmajijnasa Are you asking whether I agree with HH Chinna Jeeyar Swami?
 
brahma jijnasa
brahma jijnasa
well, say what you have on the mind ......
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
@brahmajijnasa Well, personally I'm unsure of whether Radha existed or not. And I don't know whether Radha is the same as Nappinnai, or whether there's any mention of Nappinnai in Sanskrit scripture.
@brahmajijnasa So I'm unsure of the answers to the following three questions: 1. Did Radha exist? 2. Did Nappinnai exist? 3. Is Radha the same as Nappinnai?
 
brahma jijnasa
brahma jijnasa
so you people does not accept all the statements in the scriptures on Radha, but there are many of the verses about her
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
@brahmajijnasa Yeah, but the Sri Vaishnava Acharya HH Chinna Jeeyar Swami argues that those descriptions are metaphorical, plus they're predominantly found in the Rajasa Puranas.
 
brahma jijnasa
brahma jijnasa
10:47 PM
rajasa or not , so what?
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
@brahmajijnasa Well, as we were discussing above, we can't always trust what's written in Rajasa or Tamasa Puranas.
 
brahma jijnasa
brahma jijnasa
actually it's not quite true that Radha is not mentioned in the Bhagavatam, but just her name is not explicitly mentioned --- she is referred to as one gopi favorite to Lord Krishna --- btw I think I saw Radha mentioned in tha Narada Purana -- is sattvic Purana, no?
 
 
1 hour later…
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
11:53 PM
@brahmajijnasa Well, it's not clear that the Bhagavatam description does in fact refer to Radha - it could refer to some other Gopi. Certainly those that do worship Radha interpet it as referring to Radha, but I'm not sure if Sri Vaishnava commentaries on the Bhagavatam interpret it as referring to Radha.
@brahmajijnasa And yeah, the Narada Purana does discuss Radha, but the Narada Purana is considered to have a lot of interpolations, in part because its content diverges wildly from the Matsya Purana's description of the Narada Purana.
@brahmajijnasa Also, even if we grant that there are genuine references to Radha, HH Chinna Jeeyar Swami argues that we should interpret those passages metaphorically, and that Radha wasn't an actual Gopi who was present in Vrindavana.
 

« first day (1 day earlier)      last day (19 days later) »