RadheyRadhey108

Puranas are not reliable

 

According to the Hindu religio-philosophy of Mimamsa (1), a genuine Hindu religious text needs to be compatible with the Srutis (Veda). In other words, the edicts and practices mentioned in it should conform to the Srutis. Srutis, which are also mentioned in the Gita (or the Bhagavad Gita), include the Vedas (Rig, Yajur and Sam) and the Vedantic Upanisads. Note, the Gita is considered an Upanisad (even called as the Gitoapanisad) because the spiritual and philosophical contents of Gita are Upanisidic in nature.

 

There are many literary texts in Hinduism and these are classified as Srutis, Smritis, Puranas (Itihasas) and Epics etc. The Srutis or Vedas (meaning, literally, the acquired or compiled knowledge) belong to the earliest times when information used to be recorded and stored on papyrus and parchment etc. and transmitted from one person to other mainly through oral process (as sruti, by hearing). Since the Vedas, the most ancient Hindu texts, have stood the test of time, they are considered eternal or Sanatana. Needless to say, the most important texts in Hinduism, representing the foundation of Hindu religion and philosophy, belong to the category of Srutis or Vedas. Smritis, Puranas (Itihasas) and Epics, on the other hand (unlike the Sruti or Vedas), belong to the ancillary or secondary category. They sometimes can be used to support the Srutis on various moral issues, social traditions, and historical events etc. but only if they remain realistic and are compatible with the Srutis (1).

 

Although there are many texts that form the Srutis, there is a definite hierarchy or precedence related to their order. Rig Veda stands at the top in significance as a Sruti because it is recognized as the oldest or the most ancient Hindu scripture. Next in the Sruti hierarchy is Yajur Veda, followed by Sam Veda and then the Upanisads. The reason to also include Upanisads in the Srutis is that they are considered as the Vedanta or Vedas’ finale, which indicates that the Upanisads were directly tied to the Vedas. Note that, in some cases, Upanisads even form an integral part of the Vedas, e.g. the Isha Upanisad in the Yajur Veda.

 

The logic for establishing the importance and authenticity of various texts, i.e. assigning a certain hierarchical order to the Srutis and considering the compatibility of a given text (e.g. a smriti) with the Sruti or Vedas, is simple and straightforward. This basically helps in deciding that a genuine scriptural text meets the religio-philosophical requirements of the Srutis without violating their scriptural hierarchy or precedence. It is similar in logic and importance to the lineage principle - father coming before the son, grandfather coming before the father, and so on .

 

Since Rig Veda is the first among Srutis, any other text (another Veda or a smriti), needing a religious acceptance or validation, should be in agreement with the Rig Veda or, at least, it should not be in direct opposition to the essential themes of the Rig Veda. The philosophical rules on enquiry and investigation of a text with respect to the Vedas (especially the Rig Veda) are indicated below.

 

The rules on enquiry according to Purva Mimamsa philosophy or the Mimamsa (1) require that "The smriti and other texts (documents on traditions or customs etc.) are supposed to have corresponding sruti texts (Vedas). If certain smriti is known to have no matching sruti, it indicates that either the corresponding sruti was lost over time or the particular smriti is not authentic. Moreover, if the smritis are in conflict with the sruti, the formers are to be disregarded. When it is found out that the smritis are laid down with a selfish interest, they must be thrown out."

 

Thus, since Yajur Veda and Sam Veda agree quite well with the Rig Veda, they are considered as legitimate Srutis. Similarly, Upanisads also can be shown conforming to Vedic standards and as part of the Shrutis. Note, as indicated earlier, a number of Upanisads (philosophical Vedanta texts) form an integral part of the legitimate Vedas (e.g. Isha Upanisad in the Yajur Veda). Since Yajur Veda is recognized as a legitimate Sruti, because of its compatibility with the Rig Veda, the Isha Upanisad (a part of the Yajur Veda - a Sruti) is also considered belonging to the Srutis and in agreement with the Rig Veda. Needless to say, other Vedantic Upanisads (e.g. Katha, Kena, Prasna, Mundaka, Mandukya, Taittiriya, Aitareya, Chandogya, Brihadaranyaka, Kaivalya, Svetasvatara, and Bhagavad Gita), being religio-philosophically similar to Isha Upanisad (a Sruti), are also considered Srutis and ultimately compatible with the Rig Veda.

 

Note, while there is a scriptural compatibility involving Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sam Veda and Upanisads, same cannot be said of many other texts. For example, in spite of Atharva Veda being called a Veda, it fails to meet the Mimamsa criterion (1) because of its contradiction of Rig Veda on several key issues, such as in its lending a support to magic and sorcery etc. which are strongly condemned in the Rig Veda. Thus the Atharva Veda, due to its violation of Rig Veda, cannot be considered a genuine Veda or Sruti. Note also that even though Atharva Veda is named after the famous ancient Vedic sage Atharvan, it might not be really his creation. Its author most likely, not Atharvan, was someone else, perhaps a lesser known person, who seems to have used the famous name (Atharvan) to make Atharva Veda popular among public. In addition, there are no references to Atharva Veda in the Srutis. For example, even though Gita mentions the names of Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sam Veda and the Vedanta (Upanisads), it does not refer to the Atharva Veda anywhere. This indicates that Atharva Veda might not be known to ancient sages, or at least they did not consider it as a genuine Veda or Sruti. Thus it seems that Atharva Veda most likely is a recent compilation by some unknown author and has little scriptural value.

 

The same thing, as in the case of Atharva Veda, applies to the Manusmriti as not being a genuine Hindu text. It also appears to misuse the famous name Manu (ancient sage Manu) by someone else and contradicts Rig Veda on several key issues (2).

 

Regarding the Puranas (including the Itihasas) and Epics, these basically represent the ancillary (secondary) texts and are not considered as part of Vedas (Srutis). They do not adhere strictly to the rules of Mimamsa. Various Puranas generally describe the same story of creation and evolution, while changing emphases on different deities, characters and places from one text (version) to other. The Epics (different versions of Ramayana and Mahabharata) on the other hand narrate stories and folklores on people and places from the past and even provide lessons in morality. In addition, Puranas and Smritis etc. are also used to convey the message of Srutis and philosophies (including the lessons on morality etc.) to people by using easy to understand examples, parables and metaphoric tales. They may even make use of animals and fictional characters for conveying the message. In general, the nature and scriptural quality of Puranas, Smritis and Epics is not at the same level as in the case of Vedas or Srutis (listed in Ref. 3).

 

Note that sometimes Puranas and Smritis might also include totally ridiculous explanations and unbelievable tales on deities, worship practices and social customs etc. These types of flawed narrations usually are not found in the Srutis and therefore have little support from the Vedas. Needless to say, such misleading tales and texts (in Puranas etc.) fail to qualify according to Mimamsa (1) in their acceptance as genuine and reliable scriptural sources (Srutis). Moreover, the reason for such flawed information in a Purana could be that it probably was put together rather recently by an individual or individuals who were unable to correctly explain things related to certain natural phenomenon or pre-existing customs and practices. It is thus up to a reader of these texts (Puranas, Smritis and Epics etc.) to use discretion and not believe everything written in them blindly. For example, there is no reason to take things literally if they indicate a lack of common sense and seem unrealistic (fictitious) and ridiculous. They most likely are the result of author’s misunderstanding and misinterpretation etc. and therefore totally unacceptable according to Mimamsa (1).

So, I take it you don't believe in Krishna Lila, since we only know of it through Puranas (the Mahabharata covers some of it, but not all of it)? It's always nice to have a mleccha at Audarya.

Sure, we are. With absolutely no shastric evidence, are we not accepting Jesus as avatar based on our personal preference? The same goes for those who don't believe in the Buddha.

I'm not sure about Jesus being an avatar. He isn't specifically mentioned in shastra, so I suppose that would be personal preference without shastric evidence for or against the belief.

However, there is evidence in shastra that there is a Buddha avatara, and people still refuse to believe in Him.

One could say Siddhartha was born in Lumbini and the Buddha appeared at the time of His enlightenment in Gaya for that is when he is said to have become the Buddha.

Also, He was hardly known before His enlightenment. He made Himself (His appearance) known at Bodh Gaya. Before His enlightenment, He was just another prince among princes.

Gautama Buddha's father’s name was Suddhodana and mother’s name was Mayadevi. He was born in the Lumbini forest of Kapilavastu in Nepal.

He made His appearance known in Gaya at BodhGaya, and His mother was often called Anjanaa since she was the daughter of King Anjana.

I didn't know it either until ten minutes ago when I Googled Buddha's birthplace.

Haha

First I heard of this controversy was when someone told me that the guru of Narayana Maharaja, Kesava Maharaja, wrote a book about this. Never read the book myself so I can't explain his reasoning.

Rather strange. I wonder where he even came up with the idea in the first place?

Some people apparantly think the Lord can only have sanskrit names even though Lord Caitanya said He has hundreds of millions of names.

I don't think the Lord only has Sanskrit names. He has many names, and there are many Lokas for the devotees of these different names and forms (Vaikuntha for Lakshmi-Narayan worshippers, Goloka for Radha-Krishna worshippers, Ram-Rajya for Sita-Rama worshippers, etc...). For all I know there could be a Christ-Loka for Jesus worshippers or a Yahweh Loka for Yahweh worshippers (although I really wouldn't want to go there). But, the people who go to Yahweh Loka or Christ Loka wouldn't be Vaishnavas, since they wouldn't be recognizing Vishnu/Krishna or His avatars. I don't consider myself a Muslim, Jew, or Christian, as I worship a completely different concept of God. Likewise, a Muslim, Jew, or Christian most likely isn't a Vaishnava. It's not a bad thing, it's just a difference. And diversity is what makes the world go round, LOL

This post makes no sense to me. You say "they don't worship Vishnu ..."and then you speak of those of them that "sincerely loved God."

 

So you are saying Vishnu and God are not the same person?

 

Is it not more correct to say they worship God(or Vishnu by another name) imperfectly and therefore are not ready to enter the perfect kingdom without more refinement in realization.

There's nothing wrong w/ what I said. I said, "sincerely loved God in the form they were taught to worship Him. I said that they weren't worshipping God in the form of Krishna/Vishnu (who is the Supreme Form of God, but there are many others who worship the concept of God in the form of Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, etc...), and so, therefore, couldn't be considered Vaishnavas, and most likely wouldn't go to Goloka, Vaikuntha, or Ram-Rajya.

Gaudiya Vaishnavism is a sect of Vaishnavism which is a sect of Hinduism. So, yes, it does fall under the large umbrella that is Hinduism... and that's coming from a Gaudiya Vaishnava

Lumbini Nepal is said to be his birthplace. Lumbini is just a little north of Gaya. As was just mentioned his mother was Maya. Sounds like Gautama is the one spoken of in that Bhagavatam verse to me also.

Same here (interesting about Lumbini's location, though... I didn't know that... thanks ). It only makes sense to me. All of the Lord's avatars are famous, and I don't think there's any buddha as popular as Gautama Buddha (esp. since He's the only one mentioned as belonging to our current world age).

Also, although Gautama Buddha's mother was named Maya, she was often called Anjanaa (since she was the daughter of King Anjana). So, maybe there's only one Buddha after all.

Strangely enough, Gautama Buddha attained enlightenment at Gaya.

RadheyRadhey relax!

Hahahaha... sorry

I'm sorry you're so hurt Bhairo. I'm sure Khal Bhairo loves you very much for defending Him.

For example Gautama Buddha did not appear in Gaya, like the verse you cited mentions. The older Buddha, did appear in Gaya. This Buddha is the one we accept as the Supreme Lord.

Buddhists also accept the presence of older Buddhas... so the Lord may very well have incarnated as one of them

But, could you tell me about the older Buddha?

You can not go to a world you never wanted to join as your final destination.

True, but I still don't think they're sent to a Naraka or something for 'mis-belief'.

Jai! Om Namoh Buddha Avatara!

Lord Buddha is clearly an avatar of Bhagavan, as is detailed in shastra, so why are there any Hindus (especially Vaishnavas) who refuse to recognize Him as such when He is clearly called an Avatar of Bhagavan in the Srimad Bhagavata Purana?

Sanskrit:

tatah kalau sampravrtte

sammohaya sura-dvisam

buddha namnanjana-sutah

kikatesu bhavisyati

English:

Then, in the beginning of Kali Yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.

--Srimad Bhagavata Purana 1.3.24

Are we now allowed to pick and choose which avatars are real avatars based on our personal preference?!

Very much so. However, I do not consider the believers of Abrahamic traditions to be Vaishnavas. They may be good people, religious people, godly people (sura), but they are not Vaishnavas IMO. Anybody who thinks that a destination of a good Christian, Muslim, or Jew, is Krsnaloka or Vaikuntha, should start studying the shastra.

I agree that many of them are godly people, but not Vaishnavas (since they don't worship Vishnu or any of His avatars). I'm not sure where they go after death if they sincerely loved God in the form they were taught to worship Him, but I'm sure it's not a bad place.

Jai! It looks like there are dogs in Shiva-Dhama, too!

lol....than you haven't heard about guys like Zakir Naik & Dr.Vedavyas (not Maharishi Vyas muni). These guys have claimed that not only Virgin Mary or the mission of Jesus Christ has been predicted but also Prophet Muhammed's parents names (leave alone his own name) have been mentioned (in Sanskrit) in Puranas. You should do some more research on this.

Oh please. What were Mohammad's parents named? From what I know, his parents both died in his childhood. And, where in shastra is it mentioned that an avatar of Vishnu named Jesus would be born to a lady named Mary in th provence of Nazareth in Israel at the beginning of the Kali Yuga? Same goes for Mohammed. Where are they specifically listed by time, location, pedigree, and name? None of these things are mentioned about Jesus or Mohammed in shastra. However, the Buddha is mentioned specifically by name, it is described where He would be born, when He would be born, to whom He would be born, and why He would be born. And, no, I'm just taking what if obviously written in Shastra and incorporating it into my life (unlike you, who thinks you can just pick and choose which of the Lord's Dasha Avatara to believe in).

You are not any different from these guys & lots of others who keep claiming that how their 'Gurus' have been predicted in this & that Puranas. There's no dearth of fools like you. If we believe in each one of you than there would be 'Shata Avatars' & not just 'Dasha Avatars'

Lord Buddha is one of the Dasha Avatara! Where is your mind? Dasha means Ten... if Lord Buddha weren't an avatar, there'd only be nine and it would be called "Nava Avatara".

You are forgetting that Hindus were under the influence of meat eating Muslims & Christians since past 1000 years & were forcefully made to eat meat & beef in order to convert them, on top of that there were people like Buddha who preached that anything that is offered as Bhiksha (including meat) should be accepted without hesitation & the Pali canon scriptures, well lets not even talk about them

Oh, boo-hoo. Stop making excuses for Hindus who don't follow their scriptures. I mean, you can criticize SOME Buddhists all day long for eating meat, and then go around painting all of them as meat-eating, war-hungry mongols, but when I tell you of my experience with several Hindus who even go to the extent of eating their own Mother (Go-Mata), you make excuses for them. You are so hypocritical, it's ridiculous.

Today there are hardly any Hindus who live by the Vedas or know whats written in Vedas regarding Ahimsa & animal Killing & moreover the way the Mcdonalds & KfC's entice people, through advertisements, to eat meat, what else can you expect ?

I live in America. I'm not tempted by McDonald's or KFC. Face it, the Hindus that eat meat have no excuse for murdering their own Mother, especially when they're told over and over again that it's a sin.

Well the purpose of Ram Avatar was not to keep the savages & voracious meat eating Hindus (as the elite historians have portrayed Hindus) from killing animals so a discussion on His diet is immaterial

Well, if you're going to change it from Dasha Avatara to Nava Avatara (by leaving out the Buddha b/c of your ridiculous and unfounded doubts about His ahimsa) then why not make it Ashta-Avatara and leave out Lord Rama (since so many doubt His practice of vegetarianism) or how about Sapta-Avatara and leave out Lord Krishna (b/c you doubt His practice of Brahmacharya) or how about Pancha Avatara, and leave out Lord Narasimha Deva and Kurma Avatara b/c you doubt Their historical existence? Why, if you refuse to believe in an avatar of the Lord who is specifically mentioned BY NAME, LOCATION, TIME, AND PEDIGREE IN SHASTRA, do you believe in ANY avatar of the Lord? You're full of doubts. You are the most hypocritical mleccha I've ever met in my life and you criticize people of other belief systems. It's honestly nothing but a joke.

The contention is that how could someone who preached Ahimsa & Vegetarianism (the purpose cited for this Avatar) himself never practised them.

Honestly, how thick are you? How many times do I need to show you evidence from Buddhist scripture (including the Buddha's own words!) showing that He clearly practiced Ahimsa?!:

"Abandoning the taking of life, the ascetic Gautama dwells refraining from taking life, without stick or sword."

--Digha Nikaya 1.18

"Hatreds do not ever cease in this world by hating, but by love. This is an eternal truth... Overcome anger by love, overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth."

--Dhammapada 1.5, 17.3

"If one should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a dagger, you should abandon all desires and utter nothing evil."

--Majjhima Nikaya 21.6

What I find curious and somewhat twisted is that in our movement devotees badmouth and condemn the VAIHNAVA sahajiyas while they heap praises on the Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity. IMO that is just a propaganda issue because Gaudiya Vaishnavism is 95% similar to Vaishnava sahajiya schools, while it may only share 25% similarity with Christianity.

Hey Kulapavana Ji I think that as Vaishnavas, we should honor all paths to Krishna, especially those followed by our fellow Vaishnavas.

yes exactly what i'm saying!

Some people really need to get their 'swami license' taken away from them if you ask me!

Theist Prabhu Ji, I must say that I truly admire your following of go-dharma.

It all sounds so lovely, I'd like to think that there was once a Dakshinachara Vaishnava Sahajiya. by radhey

 

It is lovely isnt it:). It is interesting and beautiful.

 

Maybe sometime you can teach me what dakshinachara means:ponder:. All these big words lol. Magic))

 

I gotta run...the day is getting away from me. Thx for the questions...it was fun. Adios:outta:

Indeed

Dakshinachara means "Right (Dakshina) (path to) attainment (chara)", while Vamachara means "Left (vama) (path to) attainment (chara)". The Dakshinacharyas ("Right Attainers") are the ones that practice the Panchamakara ('Five Ms') symbolically, while the Vamacharyas ("Left Attainers") are the ones that practice it literally (the paths would be equally beautiful to me if there weren't Mamsa (meat) and Matsya (fish) in the Panchamakara (Five M's)... but I don't think that our paths to Krishna should ever involve the suffering of sentient beings... so I prefer Dakshinachara ('Right attainment')).

Thanks for answering my many questions Vaya con Krishna

Degradation may have various defintions from various viewpoints possibly. You have answered your question in the above quote:). I see degradation as this: practice and teaching that clouds the essence.

I get what you're saying. The practices that may have went on in Vaishnava Sahajiya might not have been what it was meant to be all about.

So, there may have been two different groups in Vaishnava Sahajiya. It all sounds so lovely, I'd like to think that there was once a Dakshinachara Vaishnava Sahajiya.

Maybe look at it this way. Purity? The finest of finest of finest, essence (experience of love)....where that is we gotta go...

 

I think that is what Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura and his followers are 'seeking' eternally and teaching. The finest conception.

 

Fine is a word for me like a very subtle thing, airy and essence like...full of lightness and color.

Interesting... maybe your area is more like philosophy!