@Rickross "Banging a head to the wall"Talking about a user in that way, when he is not present is not right, Other people too think in that way when argue with you. If you have philosophical differences, leave it. But do not comment like that.
@Rickross Already seen that answer. By smritis I mean Which are remembered, or narrations. They were revealed through conversation between Maharshis to us.
@TheDestroyer Can't remember correctly, I think Malladi Lakshmi narayana.
@Rickross Your statement here contradicts what you said in other room "Shiva is Nirguna brahman and Shakti is saguna brahman". Is this not claiming supremacy of one god?
@TheDestroyer You are only pointing towards Vaishnava sect, all others too say this. So, the actual meaning is not an interpretation?
@TheDestroyer How did one know the actual meaning of the vedas or any other text? By interpretation only. You think that interpretation is right and other think other interpretation is right.
@Rickross No. Being a Hindu you shouldn't say this. Vedas doesn't have expiry date. It depends on the person who are chanting and the devotion he is showing.
@RakeshJoshi Show me a verse by Ramanujacharya where He offended Sankaracharya. He only opposed philosophy.
@TheDestroyer According to Visishtadvaita, there are no two levels and no two brahmans. There is only one brahman who is nirguna and saguna at the same time. Rest of all are Jivas. It is not one's own interpretation. Faith is different from philosophy. What yo u heard is a philosphy from vaishnava user.
@TheDestroyer Sectarianism taking the site? There are many answers where the sources are shaiva and Shakta agamas. Aren't they sectarian? And they call others sectarian. .👏👏
@TheDestroyer See last paragraph, it was false. He didn't know the story of Embar completely. @Rickross read the comlete answer. You will know it is forced or volunarily.
@TheDestroyer So you say, the deity in the temple is not Narasimha?
@SreeCharan praising a God is not problem. But demeaning others is problem With praising others. You can praise Vishnu without demeaning Shiva and Shakti. Even Sri Chinna Jeeyar Swamiji said the same to in his interview with RK
@SreeCharan if you study history of Hinduism, it was common practice. One sect converting temples of others. Not about Simadri Appanna, but about other temples.
@TheDestroyer I have seen that interview. See other videos by HH too. It is common that one sect says other deities as parivara. I have seen commentaries which say VIshnu is best Shaiva. Shall I get offended?
@TheDestroyer They were not converted through bloodshed and violence. They were also not forced like all think. They were made to realise the truth.
@SreeCharan How is my comment targeting Sri vaishnava only? I said in general. I also talked about Swadharma and even said Swa Dharma is important than Paradharma.
@SreeCharan Again, i said these statements with "If". You missed that.
A shaiva thinks Vishnu is shiva parivara. Vaishnava thinks shiva is Vishnu parivara. It is common. There is no need to get offended. Even Vaishnavas invite the devatas during bali pooja in temples. We also worship them but think other Gods as parivara. So nothing offensive. @TheDestroyer
@TheDestroyer Criticizing philosphy in a friendly way pointing out flaws is OK. But simply saying "that philosophy is wrong" is not right and doesn't count as criticism. But criticising philosopher is not OK. It is rude.
@TheDestroyer Commenting on one philosopher/one acharya without knowing them completely is not correct. Read the answer of Rickross. He answered the question before knowing the situation of Ramanujacharya and Embar. The last paragraph is false.
"I don't know what actually happened then.If the question was that by only hailing Shiva once the King would let him go,then he probably should have hailed.
Because essentially Shiva & Vishnu are one entity.And **by virtue of being a Hindu acharya and philosopher he must be knowing that too.**" This implies that he answered without knowing the context.
@TheDestroyer Is answering allowed without knowing completely? It is allowed for questioning. Because Rickross comments under the answer that the answerer doesn't know completely, don't answer without knowing. Says to other users you can't submit sources. You can't show the proof.
@SreeCharan I agree, better answer is from Ramanujacharya perspective. But we shouldn't involve into technicalities of Answer. Upvote agree, - disagree.
@SreeCharan As a Sri Vaishnava, you feel he has no knowledge. But he feels, since Shiva and Vishnu are one and same, he is eligible to answer. Two different perspectives.
@TheDestroyer He feels Shiva is Nirguna brahman and Shakti as saguna brahman. I don't know which philosopher says that. I don't think that implies oneness of Shiva and Vishnu.
@TheDestroyer I am talking about the part which says "But having said that,he himself might have committed the same offence of forcing a deity upon his brother when the later converted to Shaivaism." This is completely false.
There are many statements in Puranas which show oneness of Shiva and Vishnu. Uma is Vishnu. Shiva and Uma are one and same. Shiva and Uma as one constitue complete Brahman. But it's ridiculous to say Shiva is greater than Uma or Uma is greater than Shiva. Problem only arises, when people compare things.
@SreeCharan I said. he said from his perspective. You disagree with him.
@SreeCharan Do you remember Keshav's answer of "Lakshmi choosing Vishnu", ISKCON commentary dragged Shiva into it when Sanskrit verses don't even mention Shiva?
@TheDestroyer He linked an answer in which it is clearly mentioned what actually happened. We can draw conclusions when there is no proof. But there is clear proof of what happened.
emBAr is the cousin(Ramanuja mother’s younger sister’s son) of Sri Ramanuja.
Swami EmBaar was born in Madhuramangalam (then known as Mazhalai
mangalam) to pious couple Periya Pratti and Sri Kamalanayana Bhatta in
the year 1026 CE (Krodana samvatsaram) month of Makara ( Tamil Month
of Thai )...
@TheDestroyer You are uttering some spell. I have never been to Hogwarts. :P
Everyone believes their philosophy is true and tries to disprove others. From what Rickross learned, he believes what he learned his true and he says assuming it as true.
@TheDestroyer The claim being mocked at is that Pancaratra doesn't descend from Vedic Sakha. How is this trivial given the historical nature of the claim?
@TheDestroyer There is another video regarding the mokku topic from this person. IMO There is no need to everyone acharya. You can call them shastragna or a scholar. That episode was telecasted many times on TV.
@TheDestroyer Calling a claim laughable is not opposing the philosophy in a civil manner! it is an invitation for fight! I have taken the high ground and asked for apology and you still don't understand that!!
@SreeCharan now he will say that ask rickross, i didn't say it.
@Tezz You said arguing with user Krishna is funny.Talking about a person who is not present in the forum is not good. He has his points which you don't agree. That's not funny and calling him fanatic is not right. He believes his philosophy.
@RakeshJoshi I don't differentiate between Scriptures so i don't see one as inferior to other etc..Parameswara creates all Shastras depending on our need..So i don't think there is any need to do that..But u r right..people r trying to prove,for eg, that the panchratra agama achamana is a Vedic one..now this is laughable..Its the same if i say that the Srividya Tatva achamana(Atma Tatvam Shodayami swaha one) is Vedic achamana..
as long as no one attacks another they are fine but once you cross the line and make uncivil claims on others' philosophy then you are on the path of fanaticism
@TheDestroyer why are you attacking me instead of specific things i've said? Do you see the difference between attacking a person's opinion and the person itself? I think this is the root of your misunderstanding of this entire situation.
@TheDestroyer I asked you to define it, you keep telling me to look at dictionary, if i come back with the definition you say "no, go look at dictionary" what should i do?
Attacking a person in individual and attacking person's philosophy by showing flaws is different. This is not even called a debate. THere is nothing laughable. @TheDestroyer
@TheDestroyer it is very clear what he meant if you read the entire message he had posted. I fail to understand why you defend him! why not call him out to clarify the whole issue? This is what i said is bias, you feel the necessity to engage me but not doing due diligence in engaging the other party. In short, one sided engagement which is the definition of bias not moderation!
@SreeCharan first of all you should know what debates we had... and why I called it funny... I called it funny because Krishna was replying me taking the messages of The Destroyer... thinking that they were mine messages ...
@Tezz - I am sorry that I mistook the comments from the user as your's. Sorry about that. As the discussion was between you and me, I missed that it was from another use. Pls ignore those comments
@TheDestroyer Well, I am talking about "laughable part". You can give your argument that certain texts aren't vedic. It would be fine. What's laughable in it?
@TheDestroyer what are you even talking about? The whole thing is that what he said is disrespectful and fanatic sentiment against Pancaratra, which i presumed you were aware of as being a central text in Vaishnava Sampradaya!
@TheDestroyer I assumed you knew that the laughable claim is hurtful to vaishnavas
@TheDestroyer that's because he was in that statement uncritically devoted! I am not responsible if he is fitting into your definition of fanatic, but you are responsible for promulgating bias from the moment you are refusing to understand that what he said is hurtful to Vaishnavas.
@TheDestroyer This is not talk about philosophies. It is about faiths. Faith is different from philosophy. What if I say, Shaiva agamas are laughable? Will saivas stay calm?
@SreeCharan In fact i illustrated this as a sarcastic example! they said i was attacking them but failed to recognise the false equivalency of such a claim!!
@SreeCharan He didn't say Agamas are laughable. he said "claim" is laughable. But i agreed thousand time it is not respectful. Please don't change words.
@anuvaramban I know my neutrality. I don't become neutral only if support you.
@TheDestroyer Agree with you. It create wars. But the interpretation looks silly. But users with High rep shouldn't create such things. That will create chaos. @Tezz
@SreeCharan everyone knows that it is misintrepretation... and 'om Namo bhagavate Vãdudevãya...' mantra is unanimously for Vishnu... so I don't think it will create chaos... furthermore I have made it clear that it's just as assumption... and is citing such intrepretation accepted in the site?...
To whom deity a hymn is addressed is known through the 'Devata' of the hymn.
As clearly seen from above the hymn is addressed to Rudra and Rudra Ganas. (Rudra Ganas are those which appear similar like Lord Rudra).
What is the appearance of Lord Rudra in the Vedas?
People might be confused tha...
@Tezz Well it is not an misinterpretation according to some people. You can't judge completely on this. All the meanings we follow are interpretations by some author. Which suits our belief, we follow that.
@Tezz I was thinking about the answer to the question I linked.
@SreeCharan Rudra Suktas also say Rudra as UmaPati and Ambikapati.. now if Vaishnavas intrepret it as Vishnu... why can't Lakshmikantam be intrepreted to Shiva...
@TheDestroyer In way that offender might understand and possibly you as well - I think Saiva agamas are laughable because they don't even claim to derive from Vedic Sakha.
@SreeCharan You said that Puranas are Smritis..But both the Devi Bhagavatam and the Vyasa Smriti say that when there r conflicts between the two accept the Smritis as more authoritative..Now ,if both of them are the same(like u are saying) why wud this question arise in the first place ?So,Puranas are not Smritis..This is what i meant
@anuvaramban But as i said, even Shaiva Agamas are claimed to have Vedic Sakha which has Shiva Samhita. Swami Nityananda claims this. He calls them as Vedaagamas.
@TheDestroyer I never said that some Agama is laughable..Because all Agamas are Amnayas that are created from the 5 faces of Sadashiva only..So all of them are God's words..I said that the claim that Agama is a Sruti text is laughable..Even if someone makes similar claims about my favorite Agama then that it wud have been equally laughable..So,thr's no need to be offended by what i have said..Agamas are not Srutis..
@SreeCharan AFAIK not all of the Puranas are revealed to mankind..Only portions of them are reveled..and it was done thru this path-Vishnu gave them to some Rishis and finally Vyasa compiled them..
According to Matysa Purana, Lord Brahma composed Puranas for the first time. Chapter 3 Primary Creation of Matsya Purana says
Before the creation of all the 'sästras, Brahmä composed the Puränas,
which happen to be indestructible, full of words, auspicious and were
comprised of a hundred...
as i explained it previously, it was meant to show you how it feels when the opposite claim happens, please don't take it out of context. The context is important here. Here is the previous comment to help you understand the context:
"@anuvaramban Rickross said many times Parameswara created many philosophies to confuse people. Previously he said he doesn't stick to any philosophy." Look around this message to get the context.
@TheDestroyer Actually thrs no need to prove that a text can be traced back to Vedas to prove its superiority..As u read more n more such texts you will feel that it is that one God who breathed the Vedas composed all the other Shastras by taking different Rupas at different point of times..So,all such texts are important and not one is inferior or superior to other..Whoever differentiates between them by using their very limited intellect is theirs problem not mine..
@TheDestroyer Yes the Vayu Purana also says the same..So ,basically all are works or orders of God..A simple devotee like me does not differentiate between them..We shd only obey the orders and not discuss or criticize them..That's basically what i think..
@TheDestroyer what is the latter half referring to?
@TheDestroyer If you are stuck on my claim to prove the false equivalency and bias that was subliminal in your early argument - which i pointed out with my juxtaposing claim about shaiva agamas the way @Rickross said about Pancaratra, then i suggest you understand its context as well.
@anuvaramban You say laughable is bad as he has no proof. But neither you have strong proof. So, in this scenario, you could have simply said about "Laughable"
@anuvaramban You are mistaken here..You said Shaiva Agamas are laughable..Its obvious u said that out of ignorance..Because u are insulting God here..I never said that u are fav Agama is laughable...So the two cases are different..The claim that an Agama is a Sruti text is laughable ..No Agama Text makes such claims..
@RakeshJoshi I don't differentiate between Scriptures so i don't see one as inferior to other etc..Parameswara creates all Shastras depending on our need..So i don't think there is any need to do that..But u r right..people r trying to prove,for eg, that the panchratra agama achamana is a Vedic one..now this is laughable..Its the same if i say that the Srividya Tatva achamana(Atma Tatvam Shodayami swaha one) is Vedic achamana..
@Rickross the claim is that they descend/trace their origin to Vedic Sakha, are you saying that it is false?
@anuvaramban Its stupid for me to repeat the same thing over n over again..so this is the last time-Agamas are not Srutis..That's simply why they are called by a different name..I think u shd study some Agama texts urself..
@Rickross I never said they are shrutis! I am saying they are originated from them. You are originated from your father doesn't mean you are your own father! Do you understand?
@anuvaramban No Agamas do not originate from Srutis..But the Panchamnayas (the source of all the Agamas) originate from the 5 faces of Sadashiva,,So,they are as important as Srutis for me..
@TheDestroyer I have explained enough that thr was no need to be offended ..What more can i say?
@anuvaramban That is not my claim..I am talking Scriptures here..And its not clear to me about what u are talking about ? History ?Scripture or something else?
@anuvaramban Tell me first do u have any knowledge about Agamas?Have u studied any single one of them?If no..thrs no point in engaging in any further discussion with u..Sorry about that..
@TheDestroyer Ok..But thr was no need for the apologies...But that was a nice gesture from both keshav and u..:)
@Rickross I am aware of general outline of pancaratra and aware enough that there is a claim about its descent from Vedic Sakhas, i'm searching for that evidence that settles the claim on solid ground. That doesn't mean it is right for anyone to insult by calling the nature of the claim itself as being laughable esp when there's a historical nature to this claim for a considerable period.
@Rickross i'm not saying don't disagree, disagree by all means that are civilised! but not by hurling insults without even realising that you have done it!
@anuvaramban Insulting to whom?? And whn i know for sure that Agamas are different category of Hindu Texts..They are not related to Sruti..
the nirukta of Agama is something like this-That which came from(AGata) the mouth of MAheswara to us (thru Guru Paramapara) is called AGAMA>.they are not Sruti..
@Rickross Oh. But in Trika, Shiva to Shakti is what Fire to capability to burn is. There is Anupaye (ways for liberation) named as Saktopaye, it covers both Vedanta & Shaktism in one shot. :)
@anuvaramban Just being belonging to a different Sect does not make u and me different..we still have the same one Sun to nourish us ..So,the import is that is universal definition of Agama
@Seeker Sadashiva's fav agama is Mahanirvana Tantra..The text that i am planning to buy next is Rudrayamala Tantram..Its a great Agama..Supposedly most part of it is lost..But recently a bengali publisher has made that available..:)
@TheDestroyer yes, I think there might be concept like Subtle lanka and Gross lanka... Subtle lanka which is in another dimension... and Gross lanka which is projection of Subtle lanka in physical level (which we see)...
This is an extension of my older question. As per current thread: Can we revisit the sources required rule?, the general sentiments seems that we must cite the sources for the answers. Hence, it's important to decide, which sources are counted & how are they considered valid?
The objective crite...
It is not a religious practice because it is only limited to some parts. You can call it a social practice. There are instances where wives are not burnt along with the bodies of husbands also. One example of sati in scriptures is Madri who is second wife of Pandu. She voluntarily accompanied her husband in flames. Note that Kunti didn't do that. So we can say this is not a compulsary practice. Later due to some reasons, in 18th and19th centuries, made compulsary in some states.
emBAr is the cousin(Ramanuja mother’s younger sister’s son) of Sri Ramanuja.
Swami EmBaar was born in Madhuramangalam (then known as Mazhalai
mangalam) to pious couple Periya Pratti and Sri Kamalanayana Bhatta in
the year 1026 CE (Krodana samvatsaram) month of Makara ( Tamil Month
of Thai )...
To whom deity a hymn is addressed is known through the 'Devata' of the hymn.
As clearly seen from above the hymn is addressed to Rudra and Rudra Ganas. (Rudra Ganas are those which appear similar like Lord Rudra).
What is the appearance of Lord Rudra in the Vedas?
People might be confused tha...
According to Matysa Purana, Lord Brahma composed Puranas for the first time. Chapter 3 Primary Creation of Matsya Purana says
Before the creation of all the 'sästras, Brahmä composed the Puränas,
which happen to be indestructible, full of words, auspicious and were
comprised of a hundred...
