Smriti vs Shruti

[Surya Deva]

Another unauthorized commentary, another unqualified author...if you learn physics from a politician....

I beg your pardon? In the Hindu canon the Brahmanas, belonging to the Vedas is considered Sruti and given the highest authority. As what defines Hinduism is whether you accept or reject the Vedas, by rejecting the Vedas as authority you are effectively excommunicating yourself from the religion of Hinduism. You cannot be considered Hindu if you do not accept the Vedas. This is why Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism are considered separate religions.

There are many authorized disciplic successions. As for Vaiśnava disciplines, there are four that are authorized. Padma Purāna says:

sampradāyavihīnā ye mantrāste niṣphalā matāḥ|
ataḥ kalau bhaviśyanti catvāraḥ sampradāyinaḥ||
Śrī-brahmā-rudra-sanakā vaiṣṇavā kṣitipāvanāḥ|
catvāraste kalau bhāvya hyutkale puruṣottamāt||
rāmānujaṃ śrī svicakre madhvācaryaṃ caturmukhaḥ|
śrīviṣṇusvāminaṃ rudro nimbādityaṃ catuḥsanāḥ||​

All mantras which have been given (to disciples) not in an authorised Sampradāya are fruitless. Therefore, in Kali Yuga, there will be four bona-fide Sampradāyas. Each of them were ignaugurated by Śrī Devī and known as the Śrī Sampradāya, Lord Brahmā and known as the Brahmā Sampradāya,Lord Rudra and known as the Rudra Sampradāya; and the Four Kumāras and known as Sanakādi Sampradāya. Śrī Devī made Rāmānujācārya the head of that lineage. So too Lord Brahmā appointed Madhvācārya, Lord Rudra appointed Viṣṇusvāmī and the four Kumaras chose Nimbāditya (an epithet for Śrī Nimbārkācārya).

You can read the commentary from any of the above schools.

In other words you only accept the Puranas as authority? Then why don't you just say so and stop pussyfooting around by citing from the Vedas and ambigiously using words like "scripture says" However, at this point I can safely say you are not Hindu, because you reject Sruti and accept the authority of Smriti.

Srīlā Vedavyāsa gave 18 Purānas. These are enlisted in Padma Purāna:

Vishnu Purana, Bhagavata Purana, Naradeya Purana, Garuda Purana, Padma Purana, Varaha Purana, Brahmanda Purana, Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Markandeya Purana, Bhavishya Purana, Vamana Purana, Brahma Purana, Matsya Purana, Kurma purana, Linga Purana, Shiva Purana, Skanda Purana, Agni Purana.

You are merely restating your position and ignoring the fact that Riverwolf pointed out different Puranas contain different numbers. In fact you are pretty much ignoring every piece of evidence that is contradicting the Puranas in this thread. I think you are being intellectually dishonest, but it is obvious enough for everybody to see, so it is your loss really. You will just be treated as somebody lacking in credibility when it comes to Hinduism.

That is an example to show we need to take trained and bonafide teachers as an authority to learn even mundane material subjects then why do you think spiritual science, which is the science of Supreme Lord and of self-realization, is so cheap that you can read commentary of any Tom, Dick and Harry and become an expert?

You are again restating your position when we have clearly explained to you science does not depend on human authority, but on the scientific method. There are cases of scientists who have not had a high level of training in science, but who then go onto make great discoveries. Einstein is a good example of somebody who worked as a clerk, but in his past time he worked on his theory of relativity. Some discoveries are made completely by accident.

Even if the information is available on internet, you still need to acquire the knowledge under a bonafide teacher. Will you let me perform a surgery on your body if I have read medical books online, without the expert guidance of a trained and bonafide teacher and practitioner?

You are comparing apples and oranges. Medical knowledge is scientific knowledge gathered using scientific methodology over centuries and peer-reviewed and tested. What you are referring to is religious beliefs carried over by tradition which are unfalsifiable, they cannot be tested. I cannot test for example that Krishna had sixteen thousand wives or that Krishna revealed his divine form to Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra or that the elephant god transcribed the Mahabharata on the dictation of eternal sage Vedvyasa. However, on the other hand, the truth is none of these beliefs actually hold up even on the slightest scrutiny or historical evidence. We clearly know what secular scholarship has to say about these beliefs, and to be honest it is their expert opinion that matters, and not what some religious fundamentalists say. You guys carry no credibility.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Surya Deva,

You conveniently accept the authority of Upniṣads over Purānas. When shown verse from Upniṣad contradicting your claim, you conveniently reject the Upniṣads.

I am interested in discussing Hindu religion in the light of revealed scriptures. If you have some scriptural verses to back your statements, please quote them. I am willing to discuss with you further on the subject. If you want to speak your mind as scriptures and Hindu religion, I am sorry, I am not interested.

As for other points, I will take just one point as a sample:

I said that the water of river Ganges, unlike water from other sources, does not rot, even after it is stored for long a duration.

In response, you are talking of pollution of river Ganges!

Please check:
Science In the News as related to the Vedic Conception
The Incorruptibility Of The Ganges

 

[Vrindavana Das]

iamfact,

I will take only a few of your points as I am not trying to prove anything to you. Scriptures teach us the science of self-realization. Of Supreme Lord. If you think that you can accept some portions of scriptures as 'correct' and certain other as 'incorrect'; then that is not religion. It is mental speculation.

This is a false statement. If this were the case then people would not have existed who had scripture-based beliefs (such as the sun revolving around the earth, men being descendants of Manu and Shraddha, the universe being 156 trillion years old, the world being a flat disc with a super tall mountain at the centre) that we know to be false today. Furthermore, people never believed that a solar eclipse was caused by Rahu engulfing the sun instead they were always aware of how a solar eclipse occured when the moon got in between the earth and the sun. There are a limitless number of examples that I can use to prove that this sentence is false.

Considering that this sentence is inherently false, I'm wondering if you actually meant something else other than you wrote because accidentally misworded it. In that case, I'm awaiting the new sentence

On the contrary, scripture-based structure of solar system is what I am taking about.

Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy

Unsubstantiated claim and unwarranted assumptions. There is no way you can know that science cannot explain certain phenomenons, and that religion can explain them. You can only guess. Here, you are portraying what you guess as a fact but a guess ≠ a fact.

It is you who is doing the guesswork here my friend. Please check the above link.

Fallacy: argument from authority - look it up.
What's more, the ambiguity of this claim makes it impossible to argue against it. Why? There is insufficient information. You fail to give the name of the PhDs. You fail to give links to the studies by these PhDs. You fail to mention how the works of these PhDs are viewed by other scientists. You fail to mention if this view is an empirically tested and accepted view in the field.

Please check the link. It will give you sufficient information, the PhD. names, study, logic ... everything!

 

[iamfact]

iamfact,

I will take only a few of your points as I am not trying to prove anything to you. Scriptures teach us the science of self-realization. Of Supreme Lord. If you think that you can accept some portions of scriptures as 'correct' and certain other as 'incorrect'; then that is not religion. It is mental speculation.

Who said I have a religion? In my view, religion is not necessary because it is based on faith rather than logic, often contains irrational laws and is very corrupted. Instead, my spirituality is inherently Hindu and I take influence from Buddhism, and Taoism. You use the word mental speculation: I think it's more analysis, discernment, application, contemplation and experience.

On the contrary, scripture-based structure of solar system is what I am taking about.

Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy

I'll check the link later, when I have time and I'll respond

It is you who is doing the guesswork here my friend. Please check the above link.

And what exactly am I guessing? I didn't say that I know that science can explain everything. I don't know that. I don't make a claim that science can explain everything, nor do I make a claim to the contrary like you have based on guesswork. Again, you're viewing what I say as black and white, while I'm speaking from the gray area.

Please check the link. It will give you sufficient information, the PhD. names, study, logic ... everything!

Alright. I'll check the link out.

 

[Surya Deva]

Surya Deva,

You conveniently accept the authority of Upniṣads over Purānas. When shown verse from Upniṣad contradicting your claim, you conveniently reject the Upniṣads.

You have not actually shown me in any verses from the Upanishads contradicting my claims. In fact all statements you have pulled out to from the Upanishads to support Dvaita, I have demonstrated to be out of context and when contextualized they are shown not to support your position at all.

The statements you have produced that state the Purana is the 5th veda have also been refuted, because even if we were to accept the Purana at the time of the Upanishads were reliable, the fact that the Puranas have been constantly interpolated right up to the 19th century, means the Puranas we now have in our possession are not the original Puranas.

I am interested in discussing Hindu religion in the light of revealed scriptures. If you have some scriptural verses to back your statements, please quote them. I am willing to discuss with you further on the subject. If you want to speak your mind as scriptures and Hindu religion, I am sorry, I am not interested.

You have proven yourself to be inconsistent even when we talk about scriptures. Riverwolf and myself have pointed out discrepancies in the lists given in different Puranas and the duration of geneologies of kings, as well the obvious fact they contain post-factum information like historical personalities, historical buildings, many of which were not built until after the 10th century AD. You have ignored this.

When Riverwolf cited the Shatapata Brahmana which is part of the Hindu sruti canon of scriptures, you told him it was not authorized, and then proceeded to tell him what was authorized by citing a very specific Purana Padma Purana. So one can only surmise from this the only scriptures you accept as authorized are the Puranas. Fair enough, then say Puranas and stop using vague terms like "scripture says" say "Puranas says" So we know exactly which texts you are citing from.

Hinduism is a religion based on the Vedas, not the Puranas.

As for other points, I will take just one point as a sample:

I said that the water of river Ganges, unlike water from other sources, does not rot, even after it is stored for long a duration.

In response, you are talking of pollution of river Ganges!

I feel like this myself talking to you. You are making a claim that the Ganga was is holy or special, but the fact that it is actually incredibly toxic contradicts your claim it is holy. The river is poisonous and kills people. Are you deliberately pretending to be ignorant?

Please check:
Science In the News as related to the Vedic Conception
The Incorruptibility Of The Ganges

Pseudoscience

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Who said I have a religion? In my view, religion is not necessary because it is based on faith rather than logic, often contains irrational laws and is very corrupted. Instead, my spirituality is inherently Hindu and I take influence from Buddhism, and Taoism. You use the word mental speculation: I think it's more analysis, discernment, application, contemplation and experience.

Like I said, religion says that you should inquire. Do not accept something blindly. So, your premises that religion is based on faith and not logic, is incorrect. Asides, what scriptures have you read to come to this conclusion?

I'll check the link later, when I have time and I'll respond

We will take it from there then.

And what exactly am I guessing? I didn't say that I know that science can explain everything. I don't know that. I don't make a claim that science can explain everything, nor do I make a claim to the contrary like you have based on guesswork. Again, you're viewing what I say as black and white, while I'm speaking from the gray area.

Unsubstantiated claim and unwarranted assumptions. There is no way you can know that science cannot explain certain phenomenons, and that religion can explain them. You can only guess. Here, you are portraying what you guess as a fact but a guess ≠ a fact.

Alright. I'll check the link out.

Great!

 

[Surya Deva]

By the way Vrindivan Das, I put your claim to the test that you do not do idol worship according to Abrahamic religions here: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...dir/137563-idol-worship-vs-deity-worship.html

According to people from Abrahamic religion you do. Please stick to your Puranas and and stop appealing to other scriptures, when they clearly do not support your beliefs. You just come across as inconsistent and dishonest.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

You have not actually shown me in any verses from the Upanishads contradicting my claims. In fact all statements you have pulled out to from the Upanishads to support Dvaita, I have demonstrated to be out of context and when contextualized they are shown not to support your position at all.

Lol!

Just proves the credibility of your words. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3053416-post33.html

Your convenient answer, without any scriptural evidence was: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3053418-post34.html

....and you want me to take you seriously!

The statements you have produced that state the Purana is the 5th veda have also been refuted, because even if we were to accept the Purana at the time of the Upanishads were reliable, the fact that the Puranas have been constantly interpolated right up to the 19th century, means the Puranas we now have in our possession are not the original Puranas.

Purānas have been interpolated is what you say. I say they have been not. My logic tells me, had they been interpolated, one or the other self-realized souls would have pointed it out. You believe the 'historians'. Fine. You have your belief and I have mine.

You have proven yourself to be inconsistent even when we talk about scriptures. Riverwolf and myself have pointed out discrepancies in the lists given in different Puranas and the duration of geneologies of kings, as well the obvious fact they contain post-factum information like historical personalities, historical buildings, many of which were not built until after the 10th century AD. You have ignored this.

I told you there are 18 purānas that are written by Vyāsadeva. Then there are many uppurānas. Then their are Buddhist and Jain Purānas. You ignore simple fact that Bhavishya Purāna, as the name suggests is a text predicting future events. So, it is no surprise that it has events and names of future, when the events had not taken place. You ignore this fact. Because something does not appeal to your logic, so it becomes incorrect? Very convenient logic!

When Riverwolf cited the Shatapata Brahmana which is part of the Hindu sruti canon of scriptures, you told him it was not authorized, and then proceeded to tell him what was authorized by citing a very specific Purana Padma Purana. So one can only surmise from this the only scriptures you accept as authorized are the Puranas. Fair enough, then say Puranas and stop using vague terms like "scripture says" say "Puranas says" So we know exactly which texts you are citing from.

Unauthorized commentaries will be called unauthorized. You may not like it, but that does not change the fact.

Hinduism is a religion based on the Vedas, not the Puranas.

Hinduism is based both on Vedas and Purānas.

I feel like this myself talking to you. You are making a claim tha the Ganga was is holy or special, but the fact that it is actually incredibly toxic contradicts your claim it is holy. The river is poisonous and kills people. Are you deliberately pretending to be ignorant?

I just substantiated what I claimed with fact. You do not accept it (look below), that does not make it incorrect. It just shows that you are only trying to score debating points.

Pseudoscience

Lol! It is there for you to see.

http://www.vedicsciences.net/articles/science-in-the-news.html
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf094/sf094g11.htm

So, what you do not accept is pseudoscience! This is your logical and rational approach?!!

 

[Vrindavana Das]

By the way Vrindivan Das, I put your claim to the test that you do not do idol worship according to Abrahamic religions here: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...dir/137563-idol-worship-vs-deity-worship.html

According to people from Abrahamic religion you do. Please stick to your Puranas and and stop appealing to other scriptures, when they clearly do not support your beliefs. You just come across as inconsistent and dishonest.

LOL!!!

This is hilarious!

I told you that Hindus do Deity worship in the temples and not idol worship. I even told you how both are different.

Where did I say anything about what persons from Abrahamic religion say about it? Please quote me, if I mentioned anything like that!

You assume something, set out to prove it and then come back telling me about it. Great!

 

[Surya Deva]

Your convenient answer, without any scriptural evidence was: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...18-post34.html

If we put the statement into context by citing the next line it becomes clear that it is referring not to the Atman, but the jiva.

"That inferior soul is seen to be finer than the tip of the iron piece at the head of a goading stick" SV. V.8

The Upanishads confirm that the Atman has no dimension and is all pervasive and partless "And it is all pervasive like space and eternal" Tai.II.i. 1

The Upanishads make a distinction between the Atman and the Jiva. The Jiva is the atomic soul that resides in the heart of the body, which has subtle dimension and is what goes and leaves from the body. The Atman, on the other hand, is the eternal self which is all pervading and present within every being as the inner-self. When the jiva realizes its essential unity with Atman all duality ceases and it becomes Brahman.

 

[Surya Deva]

Purānas have been interpolated is what you say. I say they have been not. My logic tells me, had they been interpolated, one or the other self-realized souls would have pointed it out. You believe the 'historians'. Fine. You have your belief and I have mine.

I care about what actually secular historians and scholars say based on actual evidence, and they and I both can see that the Puranas have been interpolated and can date their date of composition accordingly. The Puranas mention different geneologies of kings, some don't mention some kings because those kings came later, but later Puranas mention them. The Puranas mention different temples, some don't mention them all, they mention some temples, but later Puranas do. The fact that we can see very clear historical discrepancies between different Puranas is clear proof they have been composed at different times.

You can deny all the evidence all you want, it not going to change anything. Scholars are taken seriously in the professional world, not what some fundamentalists say. In the end the scholars views will be published in journals and authorized text books and taught in education. Your views are laughed at and ridiculed as the views of an ignorant simple minded person.

And please stop pretending you are rational, you are in the same category as any other religious fundamentalists I have talked to. Accepting blindly some religious authority because they are holy, self-realized, enlightened is not rationality, it is faith. You are a man of faith, and don't pretend you are not. You have said it yourself. I would respect you more if you just admitted it.

I told you there are 18 purānas that are written by Vyāsadeva. Then there are many uppurānas. Then their are Buddhist and Jain Purānas. You ignore simple fact that Bhavishya Purāna, as the name suggests is a text predicting future events. So, it is no surprise that it has events and names of future, when the events had not taken place. You ignore this fact. Because something does not appeal to your logic, so it becomes incorrect? Very convenient logic!

And Riverwolf pointed out a discrepancy and you still have not engaged his points. I won't argue anymore about Bhavishya Purana, because it is rather insulting to my intelligence. You can insult your intelligence as much as you want, believe what you want lad lol

Unauthorized commentaries will be called unauthorized. You may not like it, but that does not change the fact.

And who said the Shatapata Brahmana is unauthorized commentary?

Hinduism is based both on Vedas and Purānas.

Nope sorry, Puranas are smriti and they hold no authority. I don't grant them authority and nor do many other Hindus. They are not essential in Hinduism. Smriti by definiton means man-made/reconstructed/remembered. Shruti on the other hand means directly revealed or heard. Hinduism is a religion that is based on the Vedas, rejecting the Vedas in favour of the Puranas effectively excommunicates you out of the religion.

I just substantiated what I claimed with fact. You do not accept it (look below), that does not make it incorrect. It just shows that you are only trying to score debating points.

You have not actually answered the point both myself, iamfact and Riverwolf have made, that the Ganga is highly toxic, polluted, bearing many diseases-causing bacteria and viruses and has killed many people. How can you hold something to be holy that is actually toxic and kills people?

o, what you do not accept is pseudoscience! This is your logical and rational approach?!!

No pseudoscience is when something actually is passed of as scientific without actually being tested and peer-reviewed. Please cite any authorized scientific journal which states the Ganga is anti-microbial? In fact how you actually maintain this when international scientific organizations have independently verified the Ganga water is one of the most toxic germ infested rivers in the world? Are you an ignoramus?

 

[Riverwolf]

Another unauthorized commentary, another unqualified author...if you learn physics from a politician....

No, that was a translation, word-for-word. It's not a commentary.

Do you have an actual counter by providing what an "authorized" translation might say? Simply saying "that one doesn't count" is completely useless to me.

There are many authorized disciplic successions. As for Vaiśnava disciplines, there are four that are authorized. Padma Purāna says:

sampradāyavihīnā ye mantrāste niṣphalā matāḥ|
ataḥ kalau bhaviśyanti catvāraḥ sampradāyinaḥ||
Śrī-brahmā-rudra-sanakā vaiṣṇavā kṣitipāvanāḥ|
catvāraste kalau bhāvya hyutkale puruṣottamāt||
rāmānujaṃ śrī svicakre madhvācaryaṃ caturmukhaḥ|
śrīviṣṇusvāminaṃ rudro nimbādityaṃ catuḥsanāḥ||​

All mantras which have been given (to disciples) not in an authorised Sampradāya are fruitless. Therefore, in Kali Yuga, there will be four bona-fide Sampradāyas. Each of them were ignaugurated by Śrī Devī and known as the Śrī Sampradāya, Lord Brahmā and known as the Brahmā Sampradāya,Lord Rudra and known as the Rudra Sampradāya; and the Four Kumāras and known as Sanakādi Sampradāya. Śrī Devī made Rāmānujācārya the head of that lineage. So too Lord Brahmā appointed Madhvācārya, Lord Rudra appointed Viṣṇusvāmī and the four Kumaras chose Nimbāditya (an epithet for Śrī Nimbārkācārya).

You can read the commentary from any of the above schools.

...so who are the modern representatives of these Sampradayas? This is still completely useless.

Srīlā Vedavyāsa gave 18 Purānas. These are enlisted in Padma Purāna:

Vishnu Purana, Bhagavata Purana, Naradeya Purana, Garuda Purana, Padma Purana, Varaha Purana, Brahmanda Purana, Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Markandeya Purana, Bhavishya Purana, Vamana Purana, Brahma Purana, Matsya Purana, Kurma purana, Linga Purana, Shiva Purana, Skanda Purana, Agni Purana.

Did you not read what I wrote? Other Puranas give different lists than that.

Your reply is out-of-context. Please re-read what I said.

Just did, and I fail to see how it is so.

That is an example to show we need to take trained and bonafide teachers as an authority to learn even mundane material subjects then why do you think spiritual science, which is the science of Supreme Lord and of self-realization, is so cheap that you can read commentary of any Tom, Dick and Harry and become an expert?

I don't.

The Sages I've listed were extremely well-learned, well-read, and very much representative of their respective schools.

It's actually quite easy to see the fake ones.

Even if the information is available on internet, you still need to acquire the knowledge under a bonafide teacher. Will you let me perform a surgery on your body if I have read medical books online, without the expert guidance of a trained and bonafide teacher and practitioner?

Spirituality is not as complicated or dangerous as surgery. False analogy.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

"That inferior soul is seen to be finer than the tip of the iron piece at the head of a goading stick" SV. V.8

This is an incorrect interpretation. Please head to a sanskrit dictionary. That is why I say you should not read unauthorized commentaries. You have done the effort of learning a 'wrong interpretation' and thereby getting mislead. All the time, energy and effort of a rare human life, which will never come back....wasted in learning something wrong!

Quite frankly, I do not want to waste my time with you, discussing your opinion, which is formed on such useless and unauthorized commentaries.

The Upanishads confirm that the Atman has no dimension and is all pervasive and partless "And it is all pervasive like space and eternal" Tai.II.i. 1

The Upanishads make a distinction between the Atman and the Jiva. The Jiva is the atomic soul that resides in the heart of the body, which has subtle dimension and is what goes and leaves from the body. The Atman, on the other hand, is the eternal self which is all pervading and present within every being as the inner-self. When the jiva realizes its essential unity with Atman all duality ceases and it becomes Brahman.

Earlier, you said this:

In any case you actually believe in a completely separate and supreme god that is distinct from other souls. There is absolutely no basis for this in the Upanishads. All the mukhya Upanishads teach the essential identity of self and Brahman, that they use the terms interchangeably. There is no Bheda, except in the Dvaita forgeries.

Suddenly, there is a distinction now; that has been detected by you in the Upniṣads:

The Upanishads make a distinction between the Atman and the Jiva. The Jiva is the atomic soul that resides in the heart of the body, which has subtle dimension and is what goes and leaves from the body. The Atman, on the other hand, is the eternal self which is all pervading and present within every being as the inner-self. When the jiva realizes its essential unity with Atman all duality ceases and it becomes Brahman.

Going forward, let us discuss scriptures with verses. I am not interested in knowing and discussing your mind.

 

[Surya Deva]

Btw Vrindandas, I am not going to let you get away with not responding to Riverwolf's point he made.

Each Purana lists a different set of Puranas.

For example:

The Matsya Purana, Narada Purana, Devi Bhagavata, and Agni Purana include the Vayu Purana as the fourth Mahapurana, while the Bhagavata Purana, Linga Purana, Brahmavaivarta Purana, and Markandeya Purana do not, putting the Siva Purana at that spot. The Kurma Purana has both in a list of nineteen Mahapuranas.

Respond to his point.

 

[Riverwolf]

Unauthorized commentaries will be called unauthorized. You may not like it, but that does not change the fact.

The Shatapatha Brahmana is part of the Vedas.

Specifically, the text is the companion book for the Sukla Yajur Veda, with each Yagya listed in it corresponding to the hymns of that book.

It would have been composed by a member of the Yajnavalkya lineage, since the Sukla Yajur Veda is attributed to that Sage's son, Vajasaneyi, hence it's alternative title, Vajasaneyi Samhita. That Samhita is the one where the famous Isha Upanishad, for me perhaps the Most Holy Poem, comes from.

That's as authorized as you can get.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

...so who are the modern representatives of these Sampradayas? This is still completely useless.

Please 'google'. You will find their websites. There you will find the necessary information.

Did you not read what I wrote? Other Puranas give different lists than that.

I am talking of the authorized 'Vaiśnava' Purānas, authored by Srīlā Vyāsadeva.

Just did, and I fail to see how it is so.

Then just drop it.

I don't.

The Sages I've listed were extremely well-learned, well-read, and very much representative of their respective schools.

It's actually quite easy to see the fake ones.

There is a difference between popular and authorized ones. Example - you said Vivekānanda and Ramkrishna Paramhamsa. Ramkrishna Paramhamsa worshiped Goddess Kalī. Such worship is condemned in Gītā. So, how can you expect correct interpretation of Gita from him? Because you think it is authorized, does not make it so.

Spirituality is not as complicated or dangerous as surgery. False analogy.

False. Human birth is very rare. Missing one opportunity may mean many many births and millions of years. It is more dangerous than surgery.

 

[Surya Deva]

This is an incorrect interpretation. Please head to a sanskrit dictionary. That is why I say you should not read unauthorized commentaries. You have done the effort of learning a 'wrong interpretation' and thereby getting mislead. All the time, energy and effort of a rare human life, which will never come back....wasted in learning something wrong!

Quite frankly, I do not want to waste my time with you, discussing your opinion, which is formed on such useless and unauthorized commentaries.

This is a translation by Swami Gambhirananda from the Ramakrishna Matha, one of the most reputable Hindu organizations in the world and one of the biggest publishers of translations of Hindu scriptures done by learned swamis in the tradition. They are also behind the Ramakrishna foundation internationally and teach Hinduism in school, colleges and universities

You keep saying who is authorized and who isn't to translate/comment, how do you decide that?

Suddenly, there is a distinction now; that has been detected by you in the Upniṣads:





Going forward, let us discuss scriptures with verses. I am not interested in knowing and discussing your mind.

What do you mean suddenly? I have always said there is a distinction between jiva and atman. Anybody can read my posts and confirm I have never said otherwise. Jiva is the individual empirical self and atman is the universal self that is identical to brahman. When the jiva attains self-realization the jiva-identity disappears and actual true identity(svarupa) of Atman or Self remains which is identical to Brahman. As the Upanishads themselves explicitly declare ayam atma brahma -my atma is brahman.

It's not my fault you have not made an attempt to understand the position of Advaita(or read the Upanishads properly)

 

[Riverwolf]

Please 'google'. You will find their websites. There you will find the necessary information.

Very well, I'll take a looksie.

I am talking of the authorized 'Vaiśnava' Purānas, authored by Srīlā Vyāsadeva.

The Matsya Purana, Narada Purana, and Kurma Purana, all of which list the Vayu Purana as a Mahapurana, are Vaishnava Puranas.

There is a difference between popular and authorized ones. Example - you said Vivekānanda and Ramkrishna Paramhamsa. Ramkrishna Paramhamsa worshiped Goddess Kalī. Such worship is condemned in Gītā. So, how can you expect correct interpretation of Gita from him? Because you think it is authorized, does not make it so.

Dude, Ramakrishna never interpreted the Gita, to my knowledge. In fact, he never interpreted any Scripture.

But even if he did, the Gita doesn't condemn any worship. And you already know my position in regards to Kali and the Gita.

False. Human birth is very rare. Missing one opportunity may mean many many births and millions of years. It is more dangerous than surgery.

There is no evidence of that, so I have no reason to believe it.

 

[Riverwolf]

Okay, I briefly looked at those Sampradayas, and I've seen nothing to indicate that they're anything more than just other sects of Vaishnavism, no more authoritative than any other. (Though rest assured that I'm not done looking into them.)

I need a bit more, though. Some recommended reading, for example? Articles? Books?

 

[Surya Deva]

I am talking of the authorized 'Vaiśnava' Purānas, authored by Srīlā Vyāsadeva.

Ah ha, so this is what you meant by scripture all along So we can be clear on your position you consider authorized scripture only the Vaishna Purana(and even here you are being inconsistent because you ignore the discrepancies in these Puranas).

You deny the actual authorized canon of Hinduism, the Vedas. You are as Hindu as a Christian who denies the bible and a Muslim who denies the Quran is Christian or Muslim.

I am withdrawing from this debate now lol