• 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!

I used to be a hindu

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Can you just tell which scriptures exactly are authentic? For example, which Upanishads/Samhitas/Puranas are authentic and which ones are fake?

"Fake" is an incorrect term. Rather, any human composition is prone to error, and thus, even the greatest of human-written Scripture is likely to have one or two errors. The Scriptures are still worth much and ought to be read; simply having errors does not remove their inherent values.
 

Shuddhasattva

Well-Known Member
If copy pasting Prabhupad's purports and talking points from ISKCON fundamentalist websites counts as "knowing scriptures," then by all means, I plead ignorant.
 

Shuddhasattva

Well-Known Member
"Fake" is an incorrect term. Rather, any human composition is prone to error, and thus, even the greatest of human-written Scripture is likely to have one or two errors. The Scriptures are still worth much and ought to be read; simply having errors does not remove their inherent values.

Namaste

What is your take on the myriad different versions of the Vedas - all the shakhic recensions, rather as if scribes had organized sects :p (or sects had organized scribes?) How does this pair up with the claimed infallibility/timelessness of the Vedas?

Namaste
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
I quoted from the Srimad Bhagavatam. It is mentioned there, along with the verse.

I see. Well, despite being a good Scripture, I do not hold it infallible. I'm not a Vaishnava.

You can choose to believe that every other scripture except the Vedas is subject to error. I KNOW that scriptures are transcendental knowledge, and are accepted by great rīṣīs, sages and transcendentalists, free from the four defects of conditioned souls, as said earlier. So, I choose to go with them on the matter than to speculate with my limited intelligence.

Padma Purana tells us that there are four authorized disciplic successions in this age of Kaliyuga. So, a scripturally accepted disciplic succession imparts transcendental knowledge, beyond defects of conditioned humans and is trustworthy.

We can choose to conveniently believe or not believe the scriptures. That still does not make the scriptures 'wrong' and us 'right'.

Because scriptures interfere with 'mental speculation' on Hinduism, many persons want to turn a blind eye towards them. Remarks like 'he knows....we do not' or end up banging their heads against a wall, does not change the fact that not one single scriptural evidence has been made to support these claims. At one time, majority of west believed that earth was flat, did it make the earth flat? :)

Wanting to exploit the vastness of Hinduism, keeping one's shallow knowledge over the infallible scriptures, mental speculation and teaching others the same, is beautifully described below:

"Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides [of the blind]. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
— Matthew 15:13-14

"Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher."
— Luke 6:39-40

You assume that I'm just speculating when I'm not. My conclusions are based on observation and logic.

Remember that I said that there is a mathematical error in the Vayu Purana? If such a basic mistake is in the Scripture that was once the preeminent Shaiva Purana, what then of others?

You mention verses of blindness from the Gospels; the irony is that the actions that you're describing as good are blind belief. IOW, you choose to just blindly believe the Scriptures and a select few Sages of a certain lineage.

But, then again, perhaps there's a bit of a misunderstanding. The fact is that Scriptures are not singular pieces of work; they've undergone numerous changes over the centuries. Even the great Mahabharata didn't spring fully formed into its current form from Sri Vyasa's mind and Lord Ganesha's pen. By that text's own admission, it started off as the much smaller work "Jaya", then became a much longer "Bharata". It later expanded in size to become its current form.

Therefore, even if the majority of a piece of Scripture is great, the fact is that there would still be several passages that were added later.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
You mean you have never thought of anyone else, never lusted for someone else or had a relationship with someone else because, you 'love' your girlfriend and do not want to make her unhappy? For her happiness you have sacrificed everything and she has done so for you.

Are you kidding me?!! :)

Sexual lust is a base animal instinct, and periodically, I feel it for others. However, I do not wish such desires upon myself, and deny those feelings any sort of mental or physical satisfaction.

Beyond that, no, I'm not kidding you. I have not yet had to sacrifice everything for her sake, but I would do so. Whether she would do exactly the same for me is irrelevant.

I do not want to make her unhappy, and so I do not push for anything or ask of her something she does not want to do. When she needs something, I gladly get it for her.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Namaste

What is your take on the myriad different versions of the Vedas - all the shakhic recensions, rather as if scribes had organized sects :p (or sects had organized scribes?) How does this pair up with the claimed infallibility/timelessness of the Vedas?

Namaste

To me, the Vedas do not only, or necessarily, refer to the Scriptures and Sciences which bear their name. The word itself means knowledge, and so I agree with what Swami Vivekananda said about them, that they refer to accumulated spiritual knowledge of mankind. Even the verses themselves, written in an archaic form of a human language and full of the variations you mentioned, are just a reflection of the actual Vedas, like the imperfect reflections of stars on a lake.

The different recessions could have several reasons. Some of the Sages could have reinterpreted the Verses by changing a few words here and there, or that same action being used to replace words that have changed meanings over the centuries.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Still waiting for that explanation... you've had plenty of time to google the talking points.

You're not worth it! :)

Does it contradict your point that badly? Or do you have distaste for speaking of the wondrous rasas? Or have you let this be about me?

Discussing scriptures with someone who has no knowledge to impart, nothing to share, and has no willingness to learn; is a waste of time.

But then you can choose to believe what you must! :)

Already the ad hominem? You should go back to botting Prabhupad.

If that is your excuse ... for not knowing the scriptures! :)

Uh, guys, this back-and-forth silliness isn't getting anywhere. I understand the frustration you guys are feeling for each other, but that's not an excuse for this kind of arguing.
 

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
If copy pasting Prabhupad's purports and talking points from ISKCON fundamentalist websites counts as "knowing scriptures," then by all means, I plead ignorant.

If not knowing scriptures is justified by pleading ignorant in a religious debate...hmmm... ignorance certainly is bliss!
 

Shuddhasattva

Well-Known Member
Uh, guys, this back-and-forth silliness isn't getting anywhere. I understand the frustration you guys are feeling for each other, but that's not an excuse for this kind of arguing.

You're right, thank you. Not only are we in violation of DIR rules, I'm also in violation of the sentiments I expressed in a thread sometime back.

That said, I view the pushing of these kinds of views supposedly on scriptural evidence to be a pollution of Hinduism.

Would it be acceptable to propose a 1:1 debate in the appropriate subforum between Vrindavana and I, moderated by mutually accepted judges, framed in various rules, with the loser agreeing to either leave the forum or convert to the victor's nominated religion?
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
I quoted from the Srimad Bhagavatam. It is mentioned there, along with the verse.

I also quoted from the Srimad Bhagavatam.

The jiva is blinded by ignorance; sometimes it is embodied as a man, sometimes as a woman, sometimes as a homosexual. According to its deeds and the nature it acquires thereby, it may be born as a deva, a human or a beast.

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Srimad Bhagavatam 4.29.29.[/FONT]

Seems to me that homosexuality is as natural for a jiva to be born as a homosexual as it is to be born as a woman or a horse or wart-hog.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
You're right, thank you. Not only are we in violation of DIR rules, I'm also in violation of the sentiments I expressed in a thread sometime back.

That said, I view the pushing of these kinds of views supposedly on scriptural evidence to be a pollution of Hinduism.

Would it be acceptable to propose a 1:1 debate in the appropriate subforum between Vrindavana and I, moderated by mutually accepted judges, framed in various rules, with the loser agreeing to either leave the forum or convert to the victor's nominated religion?

That would probably be for the best. :yes:
 

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
But, then again, perhaps there's a bit of a misunderstanding. The fact is that Scriptures are not singular pieces of work; they've undergone numerous changes over the centuries. Even the great Mahabharata didn't spring fully formed into its current form from Sri Vyasa's mind and Lord Ganesha's pen. By that text's own admission, it started off as the much smaller work "Jaya", then became a much longer "Bharata". It later expanded in size to become its current form.

Therefore, even if the majority of a piece of Scripture is great, the fact is that there would still be several passages that were added later.

All scriptures have been derived from the Holy Vedas. Vedas were one. Later, Veda Vyāsa classified the Vedas into four categories. He also gave us the Puranas, Vedanta Sutrās, Mahābhārata, Srimad Bhagavatam etc.

Veda Vyāsa is an accepted 'shakta-veśa' avtār of Supreme Lord. In other words, He is the literary expansion of Supreme Lord. Earlier, Vedic knowledge was handed over aurally through word of mouth and in authorized disciplic succession. Later, as Kaliyuga approached, there was a need to pen down the scriptures as life span, memory and intelligence of persons of this age was extremely low. So, Veda Vyāsa, the empowered literary incarnation of Supreme Lord, authored and compiled the scriptures. Therefore, His work is above the common defects of conditioned souls, which I had enumerated earlier:

1. He is certain to commit mistakes
2. He is subject to illusion
3. He has a propensity to cheat others
4. His senses are imperfect.

So, at least I have no doubt that the scriptures are infallible. also, they have been accepted by great sages, rīṣīs and seers, who know much more than we can know. After all we are depending on the material creations like mind and intelligence to know the higher, transcendental spiritual truth. We cannot know something of superior nature, using inferior nature. It is not logical.
 

Shuddhasattva

Well-Known Member
Perhaps you do not realize that your sampradaya's dogmas are not in accord with shruti, and most smrti, because it rarely causes people to study other texts than its own narrow band of favorites?

Ipso facto, smrti is not infallible as admitted by smrti.
 

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
Seems to me that homosexuality is as natural for a jiva to be born as a homosexual as it is to be born as a woman or a horse or wart-hog.

You are right, homosexuality is natural. I am not debating that.

What I am saying is that Rāvana, Kumbhakarana, Hiranyakaśyapu were born with demonic nature. Such demoniac nature is a reaction of the past actions - law of karma. It would be inappropriate to call it natural and so 'acceptable' from a religious point of view.

In other words, even demons are created by God. Does that mean religious scriptures should accept demoniac propensities as being 'correct'?
 

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
You're right, thank you. Not only are we in violation of DIR rules, I'm also in violation of the sentiments I expressed in a thread sometime back.

That said, I view the pushing of these kinds of views supposedly on scriptural evidence to be a pollution of Hinduism.

Would it be acceptable to propose a 1:1 debate in the appropriate subforum between Vrindavana and I, moderated by mutually accepted judges, framed in various rules, with the loser agreeing to either leave the forum or convert to the victor's nominated religion?

I agree and accept.
 

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
Perhaps you do not realize that your sampradaya's dogmas are not in accord with shruti, and most smrti, because it rarely causes people to study other texts than its own narrow band of favorites?

You must back your claim with appropriate scriptural evidence, justifying the authenticity of your claim.

Ipso facto, smrti is not infallible as admitted by smrti.

Site the appropriate verse from smriti claiming the fallible nature of smriti.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
All scriptures have been derived from the Holy Vedas. Vedas were one. Later, Veda Vyāsa classified the Vedas into four categories. He also gave us the Puranas, Vedanta Sutrās, Mahābhārata, Srimad Bhagavatam etc.

Veda Vyāsa is an accepted 'shakta-veśa' avtār of Supreme Lord. In other words, He is the literary expansion of Supreme Lord. Earlier, Vedic knowledge was handed over aurally through word of mouth and in authorized disciplic succession. Later, as Kaliyuga approached, there was a need to pen down the scriptures as life span, memory and intelligence of persons of this age was extremely low. So, Veda Vyāsa, the empowered literary incarnation of Supreme Lord, authored and compiled the scriptures. Therefore, His work is above the common defects of conditioned souls, which I had enumerated earlier:

1. He is certain to commit mistakes
2. He is subject to illusion
3. He has a propensity to cheat others
4. His senses are imperfect.

So, at least I have no doubt that the scriptures are infallible. also, they have been accepted by great sages, rīṣīs and seers, who know much more than we can know. After all we are depending on the material creations like mind and intelligence to know the higher, transcendental spiritual truth. We cannot know something of superior nature, using inferior nature. It is not logical.

But you're using a logical fallacy, specifically circular logic. I assume you obtained all this from the Scriptures. In essence, you're saying the Scriptures are infallible because the Scriptures say they're infallible. This is not logical.

The Mahabharata itself says that there was, at one time, only one Purana. Therefore, we can infer that all the current Puranas are far later than it. Whenever most Vedic hymns and Upanishads refer to the Vedas, they only refer to the Rig, Sama, and Yajur Vedas, which seems to indicate that the Atharva Veda came much later than them.

Besides, why do you not address the fact of the mathematical error in the Vayu Purana? Here it is:

In each of its seven continents, he made seven Varshas (sub-continents). ...
There are forty Varshas in all the continents together.


As you can see, this is incorrect; 7^7 does not equal forty at all. How could a great Sage such as Vyasa make such a basic error?
 
Top