Smriti vs Shruti

[Riverwolf]

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

Ja ne!

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Haha, you joker. 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

Lol!

Ramakrishna Mission is more of a philanthropic organization that a religious one. 'Religion' is for the satisfaction of Supreme Lord and is taught in the scriptures.

One example: Meat-eating is against the religious principle of 'mercy'. This is so because you are participating in a violent act against another child of God (the slaughtered animal) and being merciless to him in getting his life ended.

Their Swāmis eat non-veg and it is okay...

Just by wearing the dress of a swāmi and doing all nonsense does not make it religion. Such persons are fooling themselves in the name of religion and persons who believe them are either innocent or even more foolish!

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

I just told you (above) why the person you are reading is not authorized to translate. He does not belong to a bonafide spiritual school. If you want to believe that translation, it is your choice!

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)

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.

Who does not know the Upniṣads?

 

[Vrindavana Das]

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

Srīlā Vyāsadeva gave 18 Purānas.

From Padma Purana we see the eighteen puranas are:

'Lord Shiva says Parvati:

vaisnavam naradiyanca tathabhagavatam subham garudanca tathapadmam varaham subhadarsane sattvikanipuranani vijneyani subhani vai brahmandam brahmavaivartam markandeyam tathaiva ca bhavisyam vamanam brahmam rajasani nibodhame matsyam kaurmam tathalaingam saivam skandam tathaiva ca agneyam ca sadetani tamasani nibodhame.

O beautiful lady (Parvati), know that the Visnu, Narada, Bhagavata, Garuda, Padma and Varaha Puranas are sattvika; the Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta, Markandeya, Bhavisya, Vamana and Brahma Puranas are rajasika; and the Matsya, Kurma, Linga, Siva, Skanda and Agni Puranas are tamasika.'

These are the accepted major 18 Purānas.

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.

What Gītā says is what I have mentioned. If it is not your position, then it is your personal opinion. Two are not the same, although they should be.

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

My friend, there is more evidence in the scriptures than you know. You have to be willing to see it!

 

[Vrindavana Das]

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

Yeah sure!

...It is you who is denying Upniṣads, Purānas, Vedas, Ayurveda....advocating historians over timeless Hindu scriptures and teachings. And then you call yourself a Hindu and others a pseudo! Hilarious!

Believe what you must!

 

[Riverwolf]

Srīlā Vyāsadeva gave 18 Purānas.

From Padma Purana we see the eighteen puranas are:

'Lord Shiva says Parvati:

vaisnavam naradiyanca tathabhagavatam subham garudanca tathapadmam varaham subhadarsane sattvikanipuranani vijneyani subhani vai brahmandam brahmavaivartam markandeyam tathaiva ca bhavisyam vamanam brahmam rajasani nibodhame matsyam kaurmam tathalaingam saivam skandam tathaiva ca agneyam ca sadetani tamasani nibodhame.

O beautiful lady (Parvati), know that the Visnu, Narada, Bhagavata, Garuda, Padma and Varaha Puranas are sattvika; the Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta, Markandeya, Bhavisya, Vamana and Brahma Puranas are rajasika; and the Matsya, Kurma, Linga, Siva, Skanda and Agni Puranas are tamasika.'

These are the accepted major 18 Purānas.

Then why do these accepted Puranas give different lists of Puranas? Why is the Vayu Purana listed in some of them but not others?

What Gītā says is what I have mentioned. If it is not your position, then it is your personal opinion. Two are not the same, although they should be.

My stance is what the Gita says.

That's why it's such an amazing and popular book: it's as universal as any Scripture has ever been. Both of our stances are represented in it. To say that it only has one stance is an insult to it.

My friend, there is more evidence in the scriptures than you know. You have to be willing to see it!

Evidence, by its very nature, cannot come from Scripture.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Then why do these accepted Puranas give different lists of Puranas? Why is the Vayu Purana listed in some of them but not others?

I am aware of the accepted major 18 Purānas, which I have mentioned. Can you please provide the verse (with the original Sanskrit) from other Purānas suggesting Vayu Purāna as a major Purāna.

Please also be advised that there are many uppurānas, sthala purānas, Kula Purānas, Buddhist Purānas, Jain Purānas, etc. We cannot attribute all of these as spiritually accepted and authored by Srīlā Vyāsadeva.

My stance is what the Gita says.

That's why it's such an amazing and popular book: it's as universal as any Scripture has ever been. Both of our stances are represented in it. To say that it only has one stance is an insult to it.

Please provide the verse from Bhagavad Gītā to clarify how Gītā is confirming to the stance you take on Kālī worship.

Evidence, by its very nature, cannot come from Scripture.

I just provided a link earlier, giving us all details of cosmology, which ahs been researched by PhD.s and who confirm the cosmology in scriptures explains all phenomenons that science can explain and even the ones science cannot explain yet.

For me, that is evidence. If you believe in going by the 'letter' leaving out the 'spirit' of evidence, then we differ in our position.

 

[Riverwolf]

I am aware of the accepted major 18 Purānas, which I have mentioned. Can you please provide the verse (with the original Sanskrit) from other Purānas suggesting Vayu Purāna as a major Purāna.

Please also be advised that there are many uppurānas, sthala purānas, Kula Purānas, Buddhist Purānas, Jain Purānas, etc. We cannot attribute all of these as spiritually accepted and authored by Srīlā Vyāsadeva.

[FONT=Arial Unicode MS, Arial Unicode MS Standard]śaivaṃ bhāgavataṃ caiva bhaviṣyaṃ nāradīyakam // KūrmP_1,1.13 //
mārkaṇḍeyamathāgneyaṃ brahmavaivartameva ca /
laiṅgaṃ tathā ca vārāhaṃ skāndaṃ vāmanameva ca // KūrmP_1,1.14 //
kaurmaṃ mātsyaṃ gāruḍaṃ ca vāyavīyamanantaram /
aṣṭādaśaṃ samuddiṣṭaṃ brahmaṇḍamiti saṃjñitam // KūrmP_1,1.15 //[/FONT]

From the Kurma Purana. As you can see, the Vayu Purana (here referred to as the Vayaviya) is there.

Please provide the verse from Bhagavad Gītā to clarify how Gītā is confirming to the stance you take on Kālī worship.

Well, first of all, 4:11 declares:

In whatever way they resort
To Me do I thus reward them.
It is My path which ev’rywhere
All men follow, O Arjuna. (11)

Here, a declaration that no worship is invalid. And by the way, Ramakrishna also gave worship to Krishna.

In addition, in Chapter 11, when Arjuna asks for the Cosmic Form to identify itself, the response is:

I am, indeed, mighty world-destroying Time,
Here made manifest for destroying the world.
Even without you, none of the warriors here
Arrayed within the hostile armies shall live. (32)

Kali is Time, ultimately. Her Name is derived from the word used in this verse, "Kala". Mahakala is also the name of a form of Siva, in that same destructive form. Kali is the feminized form of this same force.

I've already explained this to you.

I just provided a link earlier, giving us all details of cosmology, which ahs been researched by PhD.s and who confirm the cosmology in scriptures explains all phenomenons that science can explain and even the ones science cannot explain yet.

For me, that is evidence. If you believe in going by the 'letter' leaving out the 'spirit' of evidence, then we differ in our position.

I demonstrated that every single one of those things have other explanations.

In any case, just because someone has a Ph.D. doesn't mean they necessarily know what they're talking about. After all, they could have been C-average students.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

[FONT=Arial Unicode MS, Arial Unicode MS Standard]śaivaṃ bhāgavataṃ caiva bhaviṣyaṃ nāradīyakam // KūrmP_1,1.13 //
mārkaṇḍeyamathāgneyaṃ brahmavaivartameva ca /
laiṅgaṃ tathā ca vārāhaṃ skāndaṃ vāmanameva ca // KūrmP_1,1.14 //
kaurmaṃ mātsyaṃ gāruḍaṃ ca vāyavīyamanantaram /
aṣṭādaśaṃ samuddiṣṭaṃ brahmaṇḍamiti saṃjñitam // KūrmP_1,1.15 //[/FONT]

From the Kurma Purana. As you can see, the Vayu Purana (here referred to as the Vayaviya) is there.

Okay.

Well, first of all, 4:11 declares:

In whatever way they resort
To Me do I thus reward them.
It is My path which ev’rywhere
All men follow, O Arjuna. (11)

Here, a declaration that no worship is invalid. And by the way, Ramakrishna also gave worship to Krishna.

This is not in reference to worship. Also, this is no declaration that Kāli worship is valid. Please do not change meaning.

In addition, in Chapter 11, when Arjuna asks for the Cosmic Form to identify itself, the response is:

I am, indeed, mighty world-destroying Time,
Here made manifest for destroying the world.
Even without you, none of the warriors here
Arrayed within the hostile armies shall live. (32)

Kali is Time, ultimately. Her Name is derived from the word used in this verse, "Kala". Mahakala is also the name of a form of Siva, in that same destructive form. Kali is the feminized form of this same force.

I've already explained this to you.

Kali is different and Kaal (time) is different. Please do not mix the two.

I demonstrated that every single one of those things have other explanations.

This is no demonstration my friend. Please provide valid proofs.

In any case, just because someone has a Ph.D. doesn't mean they necessarily know what they're talking about. After all, they could have been C-average students.

That is convenience of rejecting what you do not want to believe.

 

[Riverwolf]

Okay.

And in that Vayu Mahapurana, there is a clear mathematical error.

Therefore, the Puranas are not infallible.

This is not in reference to worship. Also, this is no declaration that Kāli worship is valid. Please do not change meaning.

Seems like a clear reference to worship. I'm not changing any meaning; I'm calling it like I see it. It's saying there is no such thing as invalid worship, since all paths lead to the same thing.

In whatever way they resort
To Me

That is, however people resort to God (i.e., worship),

do I thus reward them.

they are given the proper reward.

It is My path which ev’rywhere
All men follow, O Arjuna.

Everyone, regardless, follows the same path.

Here's another translation that's from Vaishnavas:

All who in whatever way surrender unto Me, I reword them accordingly. All mankind follows my path, O Arjuna, in all respects.

Kali is different and Kaal (time) is different. Please do not mix the two.

I don't. Kali is derived from Kala. It's a well-known fact.

This is no demonstration my friend. Please provide valid proofs.

Oh, wait. I misread. My mistake.

I am taking a look at those links. One of them is clearly biased, and not reliable(vedicsciences.net). The other one, after some investigation, seems to exaggerate a few effects of the Ganges, while ignoring the fact that the river is so polluted these days that it's not safe to swim in anymore. If it truly had those magical cleansing properties, it would not be like that.

That is convenience of rejecting what you do not want to believe.

Hardly. I'm being what's called skeptical. This is a rational stance to be had until physical evidence is presented. Just because a few scientists agree doesn't mean it's true, since those scientists are humans, and therefore just as flawed as the rest of us.

You've given me no reason to believe your statements.

 

[Riverwolf]

One example: Meat-eating is against the religious principle of 'mercy'. This is so because you are participating in a violent act against another child of God (the slaughtered animal) and being merciless to him in getting his life ended.

So is eating plants, curing bacterial disease, etc.

One cannot live without taking life in some form.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

And in that Vayu Mahapurana, there is a clear mathematical error.

Therefore, the Puranas are not infallible.

Hardly. I'll be what's called skeptical. This is a rational stance to be had until physical evidence is presented. Just because a few scholars, untrained and unqualified in Vedic science agree doesn't mean it's true, since those unqualified scholars are humans, and therefore just as flawed as the rest of us.

Seems like a clear reference to worship. I'm not changing any meaning; I'm calling it like I see it. It's saying there is no such thing as invalid worship, since all paths lead to the same thing.

In whatever way they resort
To Me

That is, however people resort to God (i.e., worship),

do I thus reward them.

they are given the proper reward.

It is My path which ev’rywhere
All men follow, O Arjuna.

Everyone, regardless, follows the same path.

Here's another translation that's from Vaishnavas:

All who in whatever way surrender unto Me, I reword them accordingly. All mankind follows my path, O Arjuna, in all respects.

Please check out the very next verse. Lord Kṛṣṇa is clearly separating demigod worship as follows:

kāńkṣantaḥ karmaṇāḿ siddhiḿ
yajanta iha devatāḥ
kṣipraḿ hi mānuṣe loke
siddhir bhavati karma-jā​

Men in this world desire success in fruitive activities, and therefore they worship the demigods. Quickly, of course, men get results from fruitive work in this world. [B.G. 4.12]

If there is still a doubt, please check this out. A clear verse on people who do Demigod worship. It too is from the Bhagavad-Gītā:

kāmais tais tair hṛta-jñānāḥ
prapadyante 'nya-devatāḥ
taḿ taḿ niyamam āsthāya
prakṛtyā niyatāḥ svayā​

Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures. [B.G. 7.20]

I don't. Kali is derived from Kala. It's a well-known fact.

False statement. Please prove your claim with appropriate scriptural verse. Trust me, you will find none!

Oh, wait. I misread. My mistake.

I am taking a look at those links. One of them is clearly biased, and not reliable(vedicsciences.net). The other one, after some investigation, seems to exaggerate a few effects of the Ganges, while ignoring the fact that the river is so polluted these days that it's not safe to swim in anymore. If it truly had those magical cleansing properties, it would not be like that.

Pollution due to industrial waste etc. is different. What I am talking about is clear. Also links to site with details of scientific research, substantiating my claim is there. You are free to accept or deny.

Hardly. I'm being what's called skeptical. This is a rational stance to be had until physical evidence is presented. Just because a few scientists agree doesn't mean it's true, since those scientists are humans, and therefore just as flawed as the rest of us.

The Vedic scriptures are incorrect, whole of Hindu religion is incorrect, PhD.s who have researched on the topic are incorrect. Seems like only you know. Fine.

You've given me no reason to believe your statements.

Believe what you must.

 

[Riverwolf]

Hardly. I'll be what's called skeptical. This is a rational stance to be had until physical evidence is presented. Just because a few scholars, untrained and unqualified in Vedic science agree doesn't mean it's true, since those unqualified scholars are humans, and therefore just as flawed as the rest of us.

You're learning. :yes: Keep that skepticism up and apply it to all things, regardless of source.

Now, here's the evidence: the verses that are a mathematical error, from chapter eight:

13. In each of the seven continents, he made seven Varshas (sub-continents). He levelled the uneven places and collected the mountains with (heaps of) rocks.
14. There are forty Varshas in all the continents together.

7 * 7 =/= 40, it's 49. A clear mathematical error. Therefore, it should say there are 49 Varshas in all the continents together.

Now, make sure to keep that skepticism up, since I'm unable to provide the original Sanskrit(I can't find it online); it's possible this is a mistranslation. If you have access to the Vayu Purana in Sanskrit, then you should double-check this to see if the error is in there. I'd love to know.

BTW, as an addendum, earlier I said that Scriptures cannot, by their very nature, contain evidence. To clarify, I mean they cannot contain evidence in matters of the physical world. However, when debating the Scriptures themselves, passages from them can be used as evidence.

As for qualifications, the only qualification required to translate a piece of Scripture is knowledge of the language being translated (in this case Classical Sanskrit) and the language being translated into (in this case modern English), comparative linguistics, and historical context. Scholars have all these qualifications, and therefore their translations are qualified. Now, that doesn't mean they're 100% reliable, but they're not less reliable than anyone else's.

Please check out the very next verse. Lord Kṛṣṇa is clearly separating demigod worship as follows:

kāńkṣantaḥ karmaṇāḿ siddhiḿ
yajanta iha devatāḥ
kṣipraḿ hi mānuṣe loke
siddhir bhavati karma-jā​

Men in this world desire success in fruitive activities, and therefore they worship the demigods. Quickly, of course, men get results from fruitive work in this world. [B.G. 4.12]

Well, I don't worship the Gods for worldly success.

If there is still a doubt, please check this out. A clear verse on people who do Demigod worship. It too is from the Bhagavad-Gītā:

kāmais tais tair hṛta-jñānāḥ
prapadyante 'nya-devatāḥ
taḿ taḿ niyamam āsthāya
prakṛtyā niyatāḥ svayā​

Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures. [B.G. 7.20]

And the very next verse says this:

Whatever form a devotee
May seek to worship with full faith–
That faith of his is blessed by Me
To be steadfast, unwavering.

Therefore, it seems that verse you quoted is referring not to people who simply worship the Gods, but to those who do so out of selfish desires, while attributing their own qualities onto Them. ("I'm okay with lazing about; my God is okay with lazing about.")

False statement. Please prove your claim with appropriate scriptural verse. Trust me, you will find none!

Kalakashtadhi roopena parinama pradhayini,
Visvasyoparathou shakthe, narayani namosthuthe.

Salutations to you, O Narayani, O you who, in the form of minutes, moments, and other divisions of time, bring about change in things, and have (thus) the power to destroy the universe.
Devi Mahatmyam 11:9 (from the Markandeya Purana)

Later on, that same hymn of praise says:

Salutations to you, O Narayani, O you who have a face terrible with tusks, and are adorned with a garland of heads, Camunda, O slayer of Munda! (11:21)

That good?

Pollution due to industrial waste etc. is different. What I am talking about is clear. Also links to site with details of scientific research, substantiating my claim is there. You are free to accept or deny.

I checked. The one that I looked into didn't have any links to extensive research that I saw. Link me to the research that I may have missed instead.

Link me to some .edu, .gov, etc. websites, peer-reviewed papers, etc.

And no, what you're talking about is not clear. You can't assume that just because something is clear to you that it will be clear to other people.

The Vedic scriptures are incorrect, whole of Hindu religion is incorrect, PhD.s who have researched on the topic are incorrect. Seems like only you know. Fine.

Dude, relax. I never made the statement that the Vedas are incorrect, that Hinduism is somehow "incorrect" (would I identify as Hindu if I believed that?), or that Ph.Ds are incorrect, nor did I mean to imply anything like that. I simply said that just because someone has a Ph.D. doesn't necessarily mean they are correct. They may be, they may not be.

It's just that these alone are not good enough to substantiate your claims. You need to do better than that.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

You're learning. :yes: Keep that skepticism up and apply it to all things, regardless of source.

Now, here's the evidence: the verses that are a mathematical error, from chapter eight:

13. In each of the seven continents, he made seven Varshas (sub-continents). He levelled the uneven places and collected the mountains with (heaps of) rocks.
14. There are forty Varshas in all the continents together.

7 * 7 =/= 40, it's 49. A clear mathematical error. Therefore, it should say there are 49 Varshas in all the continents together.

Now, make sure to keep that skepticism up, since I'm unable to provide the original Sanskrit(I can't find it online); it's possible this is a mistranslation. If you have access to the Vayu Purana in Sanskrit, then you should double-check this to see if the error is in there. I'd love to know.

That is no proof. It is most likely a printing error and cannot be taken as an evidence.

BTW, as an addendum, earlier I said that Scriptures cannot, by their very nature, contain evidence. To clarify, I mean they cannot contain evidence in matters of the physical world. However, when debating the Scriptures themselves, passages from them can be used as evidence.

Okay. Please provide passage from scriptures to validate your stance that 'scriptures cannot contain evidence in matters of physical world.'

As for qualifications, the only qualification required to translate a piece of Scripture is knowledge of the language being translated (in this case Classical Sanskrit) and the language being translated into (in this case modern English), comparative linguistics, and historical context. Scholars have all these qualifications, and therefore their translations are qualified. Now, that doesn't mean they're 100% reliable, but they're not less reliable than anyone else's.

Here also, please cite appropriate passage from scriptures. Also, please advise why only the Brahmins could read the Vedas earlier if it is okay scripturally.

Well, I don't worship the Gods for worldly success.

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.

That is what we are talking about.

And the very next verse says this:

Whatever form a devotee
May seek to worship with full faith–
That faith of his is blessed by Me
To be steadfast, unwavering.

Therefore, it seems that verse you quoted is referring not to people who simply worship the Gods, but to those who do so out of selfish desires, while attributing their own qualities onto Them. ("I'm okay with lazing about; my God is okay with lazing about.")

I have given you a clear verse confirming my stance. What you are giving is not regarding Demigod worship. It is not doing any value addition to either of us. It is just mental speculation to prove your point.

Kalakashtadhi roopena parinama pradhayini,
Visvasyoparathou shakthe, narayani namosthuthe.

Salutations to you, O Narayani, O you who, in the form of minutes, moments, and other divisions of time, bring about change in things, and have (thus) the power to destroy the universe.
Devi Mahatmyam 11:9 (from the Markandeya Purana)

Later on, that same hymn of praise says:

Salutations to you, O Narayani, O you who have a face terrible with tusks, and are adorned with a garland of heads, Camunda, O slayer of Munda! (11:21)

That good?

Not good.

Check out:

http://stotraratna.sathyasaibababrotherhood.org/g149.htm
Chapter 11: Prayer to Narayani. | Sthothra Rathnas

Kāl (time) is different and Kāli is different.

I checked. The one that I looked into didn't have any links to extensive research that I saw. Link me to the research that I may have missed instead.

Link me to some .edu, .gov, etc. websites, peer-reviewed papers, etc.

I am not trying to prove anything to you. I have provided what substantiated my claim. If it is not okay for you...it is still okay.

And no, what you're talking about is not clear. You can't assume that just because something is clear to you that it will be clear to other people.

If we are discussing to 'learn' and do 'value addition' to each other, what I am saying is clear. If we are trying to 'prove' our view-point at the cost of religion and scriptures, I could be 'not clear'. This is my belief.

Dude, relax. I never made the statement that the Vedas are incorrect, that Hinduism is somehow "incorrect" (would I identify as Hindu if I believed that?), or that Ph.Ds are incorrect, nor did I mean to imply anything like that. I simply said that just because someone has a Ph.D. doesn't necessarily mean they are correct. They may be, they may not be.

In that case, the 'benefit of doubt' lies with the PhD.s. Till proven otherwise, they should be understood to know their subject.

It's just that these alone are not good enough to substantiate your claims. You need to do better than that.

For me, just the scriptures are good enough. I am only supporting them with these various resources. If you want to see the truth in the scriptures, you will see what I am providing is good enough. If you want to see faults with the scriptures, no proof will be good enough.

 

[Riverwolf]

That is no proof. It is most likely a printing error and cannot be taken as an evidence.

Unlikely, actually. I didn't put it, but just after the 40, there is a question mark in parenthesis.

Printing errors like that are extremely unlikely, considering the fact that, while it was translated by one person, it went through editorial committees. They would catch something like that.

Okay. Please provide passage from scriptures to validate your stance that 'scriptures cannot contain evidence in matters of physical world.'

Logic, which, when properly applied, is infallible, is what tells me.

The way to learn about the physical world is to go and observe it. If you just read about it, you get only a tiny bit of what's actually there, and it may not even be accurate.

People are also very gullible. Charismatic people can claim to be Sages and gain thousands, if not millions, of followers. Happens all the time. Such people can "improve" or "finish" Scriptures (read: change) with their own ideas, present it as the real thing, and you now have a successful interpolation. Such deceptions can last centuries, long after the person has died.

I'm not saying that this did happen. But it is a plausible scenario, and it's the reason why even tourist pamphlets are bad sources of information on a particular location.

Here also, please cite appropriate passage from scriptures. Also, please advise why only the Brahmins could read the Vedas earlier if it is okay scripturally.

Brahmins were the only ones allowed to, probably because it kept them in power. Truth is, anyone who can read Sanskrit can read the Vedas. That's true now, and it was true when they were first written.

Brahmins are people like everyone else.

That is what we are talking about.

I don't understand.

I don't worship the Gods for worldly success, but the Gita didn't look like it was condemning such worship. It simply stated that people do so.

I have given you a clear verse confirming my stance. What you are giving is not regarding Demigod worship. It is not doing any value addition to either of us. It is just mental speculation to prove your point.

You've never really told me what "mental speculation" really is, and how it's different from regular speculation.

I've provided you a verse that confirms that any worship done in pure faith is valid.

Not good.

Check out:

http://stotraratna.sathyasaibababrotherhood.org/g149.htm
Chapter 11: Prayer to Narayani. | Sthothra Rathnas

Kāl (time) is different and Kāli is different.

First off, I don't trust anything from Satya Sai Baba's group, since he's been demonstrated to be a stage magician.

Second, why is the translation you provided more accurate than the one I provided?

A quick google search has yielded two other translations, one that seems to be closer to the one you provided, and one that is closer to the one I provided.

Third, look at this:

Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

Kala can mean black, death, and time in this case, all of which apply to Kali.

One of Siva's forms is called Kala. Kali is one of Siva's consorts.

Kali is time.

I am not trying to prove anything to you.

Then why are you here?

If we are discussing to 'learn' and do 'value addition' to each other, what I am saying is clear. If we are trying to 'prove' our view-point at the cost of religion and scriptures, I could be 'not clear'. This is my belief.

Well, I'm afraid that's not correct. My intention is to learn. But intentions and clarity are not connected.

You need not worry: religion is not at stake here at all.

In that case, the 'benefit of doubt' lies with the PhD.s. Till proven otherwise, they should be understood to know their subject.

Very good.

Which is why I trust those with PhDs in Sanskrit, linguistic, history, anthropology, etc. to translate Scriptures.

For me, just the scriptures are good enough. I am only supporting them with these various resources. If you want to see the truth in the scriptures, you will see what I am providing is good enough. If you want to see faults with the scriptures, no proof will be good enough.

If you want to see the secrets of enlightenment in Mortal Kombat, you'll see it. If you want to see only falsehood in the Golden Rule, you'll see it.

That's why observation and study needs to be as unbiased as possible. It's why we have the peer-review process.

 

[Riverwolf]

The crux of my argument is that I am not dominated by Scriptures. They are just guidebooks, nothing more.

I do not gain knowledge from Scriptures; I gain knowledge from my senses, like everybody else. Scriptures provide guidance for how to act, but it's their spirit that's important, not their letters. Letters can be wrong; strong spirit never falters.

One more thing regarding Kali... She's been with me in various forms since before I knew anything about Hinduism.

 

[jg22]

Hello RiverWolf,

I do not gain knowledge from Scriptures; I gain knowledge from my senses, like everybody else.

May I ask how you can get knowledge of your AtmA if not from scriptures, since it is not an object available to the senses?

Thanks

 

[Riverwolf]

Hello RiverWolf,

May I ask how you can get knowledge of your AtmA if not from scriptures, since it is not an object available to the senses?

Thanks

Excellent question.

Scriptures only point the way to the Atma, but they can't take me to it. Just as a road sign pointing to London won't give you knowledge of that city, so Scriptures won't actually give me knowledge of Atma.

Such knowledge can only come from experience. I have experienced it a few times briefly, so I know of its existence. Without those experiences, I would still have doubts as to whether the Atma existed.

But it's not that different from gaining knowledge from the senses. That experience is felt by the brain, and the brain is also the repository of the knowledge gained by it, which I can access in the form of memory. The senses operate by detecting certain types of particles in the objective world, and then transferring that detection to the brain, which then interprets it into knowledge.

 

[jg22]

I see where you are coming from. Thanks.

 

[Riverwolf]

I see where you are coming from. Thanks.

No problem.

 

[paarsurrey]

It seems common knowledge that Smriti (like the Puranas) is considered secondary authority to Shruti texts (like the Vedas).

But who decided that one is a greater authority than the other?
And if Smriti is considered more as 'tradition' and not as having divine origin, why is it given any authority? Again though, who decided that Smirit texts are not of divine origin?

Do Smriti and/or Shruti have claims and reasons in the text/context like Quran has?

Thanks for friend Vinayaka to suggest reading this thread.

I don't think it is a DIR sub-forum. Is it?