Kali_Upasaka
-
Content Count
352 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Kali_Upasaka
-
-
-
Just to add
The term used in the Puja is Snapayami or snanam samarpayami. (giving bath)
kshirena-snapayami. (Milk)
dadnasnapayami (Curd)
madhuna snapayami.(Honey)
ajyena-snapayami. (Ghee)
sharkarayasnapayami.(Sugar)
In Kalighat Kali temple we have the annual Snan.
The five ingredients have symbolic significance.
-
The starter of this thread has been posting in many threads now.
A glance at the posts is revealing.
A new thread
(for Vaishnavas) Is Shiva God?
http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/453499-vaishnavas-shiva-god.html
There are some members here who do not even accept Shiva as GOD. Of course they will not even condescend to consider DEVI.
So the starter of this thread does not even consider Shiva as God. He rejects Saivism. Now how about Sakthism and the worship of innumerable folk deities/village Gods/Goddesses? These are all part of the living Hinduism.
He does not even accept the Gods/Goddesses of Hinduism.
So how do we expect him to accept that all religious paths are valid paths.
Again the following two posts by him in another thread is revealing
I'm not worried about the actual facts of the Mahabharata war. What worries me more is this trend of Christians coming here in the guise of "seekers" and posting thinly veiled criticisms of Hinduism disguised as questions. If you at least knew what you were talking about, it might be possible to actually have an intelligent conversation with you. But since you insist on misrepresenting the facts (i.e. your carefully chosen description of the battle as a "slaughter"), one can only conclude that you are incapable of exerting even a modicum of intellectual honesty.Perhaps you have not grasped this yet, but Mr. "Singh" is not interested in any answers. His questions are deliberately worded so as to evoke anger and scorn. No matter what you say, he will twist it around and make it sound like his original hypothesis still holds. Imagine a guy asking questions and covering his ears while singing, "LaLaLaLaLa!" at the top of his voice - he is another Christian born-again type who thinks he has found the answers in the Bible and can only explain away the existence of superior and more intelligent belief systems if he denounces them.So if you question anything you are branded a Christian or worse.
The last post does apply in this case.
The starter of this thread and the author of the web site and article quoted here are not interested in any answers.
According to the author of this thread only his interpretation of a particular stream of Vaishnavism ( not endorsed by all members of the group) is the classical Hinduism.
All the others are Neo- Hindus.
A similar claim has been made by the Wahabi Muslims about Islam in their fight against Sufi and other forms of tolerant Islam.
A post from another member from the above thread sums up the case
.Again it is my humble request not to indulge in all these silly topics.No one can gain anything out of it.
Rather discuss on Bhakta's charitra from which we all can learn something...
Please.....
-
The Puranas are full of stories of Shiva granting boons to Asuras/Rakshasas and any one who pleases him and Vishnu rushing in to protect the Devas from the consequences of Shiva's boons.
Shiva granted boons to all the Bhakthas irrespective of their being humans, Asuras or Rakshasas. But Vishnu always acted as the protector of the interest of the Devas.
All over India Hindus believe that Shiva is a GOD who is easy to please and will grant boons to Bhakthas.
Devotion to GOD is a universal phenomena and not the exclusive privilege of any one religion.
-
Just a small observation. Saiva worship is as old as Vaishnavism. And many members in this forum seem to associate Sankaracharya and his Maya theory with Saivism.
This is absolutely wrong. Sankaracharya was a proponent of Adavita. He was not a Saiva. His theories when against the basic tenets of Saivism.
You can get an idea of Saivism by googling for Saiva Saiddhanta or looking at some of the sites here.
http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Hinduism/Approaches/Shaiva/
Recorded history can not be compared with Puranic legends.
What is nonsense depends on the viewer. Entire Hinduism has been called nonsense and worse by non-Hindus.
It reminds of the attitude of people for whom
What they believe is Belief.
What others believe is superstition or worse.
-
Hare KrishnaI am learning, so please don't be offended by my questions. I'd like to know why Krishna advocated mass murder in the gita. Arjuna was trying to do the right thing by staying away from war, but Krishna forced him to murder his friends and family. How can gita be considered spiritual, then?
Again, I am only asking some straight questions so as to learn. Hope someone can help.
Regards,
MS
1. Thee was no murder. The Kouravas were killed in battle.
2. To get the right answer to your question, you have to understand the concept of Dharma in Hinduism. Please google for it. There are excellent articles about what consitutes Dharma.
3. You can not judge an incident by the values of today. Kings waged wars, occupied land, killed and enslaved people. We would call it Genocide now.
4. The most important aspect is that this story is only a preliminary to the Gita. To place in the correct context. This has nothing to do with the contents of the Gita.
There has been a opinion that Bagavad Gita is an interpolation in the Mahabharata. A spiritual text interpolated in a popular Itihasa. Lots of arguments for and against this theory.
The text had to be introduced somewhere. This was considered the best place because Krishna is telling Arjuna about his Dharma.
Gita is an exposition of the truths revealed in the Upanishads.
5. Please read up about Dharma as defined in Hinduism. It does take some reading. Dharma of a Warrior as Arjuna was one.
6. And then come back to Bagavad Gita.
This is an often asked question. Of course not in such terms. May be someone has written in detail about it. I will let you know if I locate an article.
-
This thread has been started with the basic idea of mounting an attack on the Sri Ramakrishna Movement and Advaita in general.
Why this attack?
Sri Ramakrishna said "There are as many ways as there are Men".
Hinduism accepts all religious paths as valid paths. It is not tolerance, but acceptance.
Modern VedantaThe term "modern Vedanta" is sometimes used to describe the interpretation of Advaita Vedanta given by Swami Vivekananda of the Ramakrishna order of monks. He stressed that:
* Although God is the absolute reality, the world has a relative reality. It should therefore not be completely ignored.
* Conditions of abject poverty should be removed; only then will people be able to turn their minds toward God.
* All religions are striving in their way to reach the ultimate truth. Narrow sectarian bickering should therefore be abandoned, and religious tolerance should be practiced — between different Hindu denominations, as well as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.
Vivekananda traveled to the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago in 1893, and became an influential figure in synthesising Eastern and Western thought. He played a major role in the spread of Vedanta to Western nations. His travel to the West was criticised by some orthodox Hindus. His proponents claim that he made Vedanta living, by understanding how it could be applied to the modern world, and by investing it with his own spirit. For Vivekananda, Vedanta was not something dry or esoteric, but a living approach to the quest for self-knowledge.
In his interpretation of Advaita (as in Shankara's), there is still a place for Bhakti (devotion). Monks of the Ramakrishna order suggest that it is easier to begin meditation on a personal God with form and qualities, rather than the formless Absolute, of which everyone is said to be part. Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman are viewed as obverse and reverse of the same coin.
It is this non-sectarian and acceptance of all religions as valid paths which is under attack here.
The Ramakrishna Mission is the largest Hindu organization in the world and is growing from strength to strength especially among the younger generation Of Hindus in India.
The Ramakrishna Movement has faced many such attacks in newspapers/magazines before the internet age.
According to Wikipedia
Most of the Hindu movements, with the exception of the Hare Krishna movement, reflect a more Smarta-like ideology.I do not think there is any point in replying to the individual posts. This discussion has become Vithanda Vada.
This will be my last post in this thread.
-
There are some experiences you do not share with anyone but your Guru. These are like markers in one's spiritual progress.
But what we can share is happiness. There was a time when I used to think the top of the world feeling was when I was sitting in my favourite chair in the night with a balloon glass of Cognac after a good dinner. With soft music, in front of the french windows which opened out to the view of the distant hills. Late in the night with lights dimmed out.
But then after experiencing the happiness and feeling of spirituality/ Bhakthi or whatever you call it the above experience pales into insignificance.
-
But you are denying the info from wikipedia regarding left hand tantric practices of ramakrishna , so i asked you for a different source.As per the Wikipedia article Maa Bhairavi Brahmani
In 1861, Bhairavi Brahmani, an orange robed, middle-aged female ascetic appeared at Dakshineshwar. She carried with her the Raghuvir Shila, a stone icon representing Ram and all Vaishnava deities. She was throughly conversant with the texts of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and practiced Tantra. According to the Bhairavi, Ramakrishna was experiencing phenomena that accompany mahabhava—the supreme attitude of loving devotion towards the divine and quoting from the bhakti shastras, she said that other religious figures like Radha and Chaitanya had similar experiences.So if you want to believe that a Gaudiya Vaishnavite follower who knew the Bhakthi sasthras and who worshipped Raghubir sila initiated Sri Ramakrishna into Vama Marga tantra, you may. But I do not.
No, i havent got any authority.But i take the lord's words to determine who is an avatar and who is not.:Gita 4:6: Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all sentient beings, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form.
4:7 Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion--at that time I
descend Myself.
4:8: In order to deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I advent Myself millennium after
millennium.
So far none of the claimed avatars have annihilated the miscreants.
So as per the above definition Chaitanya Maha Prabhu and Swaminarayan are not Avataras. I do not know about Swaminarayan. But about Chitanya Maha Prabhu I am sure he was an Avatara.
-
The Bhakthi movement in India was first started by the Nayanmars of Tamil Nadu who were Saivite saints. This is history.
-
Chandu. Back to Islam. Your favorite peeve. Please at least read the article on Sri Ramakrishna in Wikipedia before posting. Learn who Maa Bhairavi Brahmani is from that article.
I said give me a break. You know what it means?
It means;
Stop picking on me. stop victimising me, or stop criticising me
English idioms.
BTW who has vested the authority of deciding about Avataras on you?
-
Who was the real Sankaracharya?
1. The proponent of Advaita.
2. A Saktha Tantrik who wrote Soundarya Lahari and who established Sri Chakra worship as per the Sri Vidya tradittion in many temples.
3. A Shiva Bhakta?
4. A Vishnu/Krishna Bhakta?
5. A Devi Bhakta?
6. A Purva Mimansa follower?
According to the Smartas he was all the above. Ask them. They say "we know." That is all .
So take your pick.
-
I have started this thread to share our experiences in Bhakti.
Not definitions of Bhakti or stages of Bhakti.
Plain and simple experiences we have had. Our feeling, emotions.
There was a saint in Kerala who was a great Bhakta of Narayana. To him all deities assumed the form of Narayana. He went to Chottanikara Bhagvathi temple, a famous Devi temple. He started singing to her
Amme Narayana ( Mother Narayana)
Badre Narayana
Lakshmi Narayana
His words became so popular that the devotees even today pray with these words.
I have found myself calling Maago in Shiva temples.
A true Bhakta is supposed to see his Ishta Devata everywhere.
Then you go a temple. If they sing the Lord's name after the Aarti do you get lost?
I was lost in Bhakti once when I want to the local Gowdiya Math for the evening Aarti. The atmosphere, the singing, dancing. The Bhava overflows and you are lost to the world.
I am sure many of our members would have had such experiences.
So let us have a sathsang.
-
That is the problem hinduism faces.if so and so can be an avatara why not my own guru.So you have saibaba and several such babas claiming to be avathars.Swaminarayan Atleast talked about vaishnavism and his interpretation of vaishnavism.He didnt say outrageous things like some abrahamic jealous god who promises eternal torture for nonworship is same as vishnu.
So if an Avatar talks about Vaishnavism, he can be worshiped. Is that the premise.
Sri Ramakrishna talked about Bhakti, Brahman and the Upanishadic values.
BTW there was a mention about Vamachara and Sri Ramakrishna. This is a quote from a book <cite style="font-style: normal;" class="book" id="CITEREFNeevelBardwell_L._Smith1976">
Neevel, Walter G.; Bardwell L. Smith (1976). "The Transformation of Ramakrishna". Hinduism: New Essays in the History of Religions. Brill Archive. pp. 53–97.
All the quotes are from the same article.
The Wikipedia article also says
</cite>
In 1861, Bhairavi Brahmani, an orange robed, middle-aged female ascetic appeared at Dakshineshwar. She carried with her the Raghuvir Shila, a stone icon representing Ram and all Vaishnava deities.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-A.P.Sen-101_41-0"></sup> She was throughly conversant with the texts of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and practiced Tantra.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-A.P.Sen-101_41-1"></sup> According to the Bhairavi, Ramakrishna was experiencing phenomena that accompany mahabhava—the supreme attitude of loving devotion towards the divine<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-neevel-74_42-0"></sup> and quoting from the bhakti shastras, she said that other religious figures like Radha and Chaitanya had similar experiences.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-43"></sup>I do not think the author of that book knew anything about Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Otherwise he would have never written that a Tantrik from the Gowdiya Vaishnavite Parampara taught Sri Ramakrishna Vama Marga.
The above quote is from
<cite style="font-style: normal;" class="book" id="CITEREFSen2001">Sen, Amiya P. (2001). Three essays on Sri Ramakrishna and his times. Indian Institute of Advanced Study.</cite>
So some unknown author goes around accusing Sri Ramakrishna of practicing Vama Marga taught by a Gaudiya Vaishnavite.
And expect us to believe it.
Give me a break.
-
I believe for 1 and 2, they are regarded by their followers as incarnation of Krishna, the same of the Bhagavatham, and not an abstract "God".You are wrong. Sri Ramakrishna is considered an Avatar of Vishnu. Rama and Krishna combined. Maa Bhairavi Brahmani convened a meeting of Pundits to prove that Sri Ramkrishna was an avatar.
Quotes from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramakrishna
In 1861, Bhairavi Brahmani, an orange robed, middle-aged female ascetic appeared at Dakshineshwar. She carried with her the Raghuvir Shila, a stone icon representing Ram and all Vaishnava deities.<sup id="cite_ref-A.P.Sen-101_41-0" class="reference"></sup> She was throughly conversant with the texts of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and practiced Tantra.<sup id="cite_ref-A.P.Sen-101_41-1" class="reference"></sup> According to the Bhairavi, Ramakrishna was experiencing phenomena that accompany mahabhava—the supreme attitude of loving devotion towards the divine<sup id="cite_ref-neevel-74_42-0" class="reference"></sup> and quoting from the bhakti shastras, she said that other religious figures like Radha and Chaitanya had similar experiences.<sup id="cite_ref-43" class="reference"></sup>
The Bhairavi on the other hand looked upon Ramakrishna as an avatara, or incarnation of the divine, and was the first person to openly declare that Ramakrishna was an avatara.
If Swaminarayan can worshiped in Swaminarayan temples why not Sri Ramakrishna?
Again Please go through this thread.
-
I am not that familiar with Devi Bhagavatham. I am more familiar with Bhagavatham.
As a Bhaktha it matters two hoots to me who has written the scriptures.
Yesterday I made a posting about Bhanumathi, Duryodana's wife in one of the threads. But then I learnt from the net that she is not mentioned at all in the standard Mahabharata. But then I remember this story of her devotion to Krishna.
I learnt the stories of Bhagavatham and Devi Bhagavatham from my grand mother when I was a toddler.
Devi as Mother and Krishna as a friend. Gopal, Gobinda.
That is what they are to me.
BTW K.M. Munshi had written a 10 volume series called Krishna Avatara. Published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. Kulapathi Munshi told us how he has depicted Krishna as the ideal man and asked us to read it. Excellent reading for Krishna Bhakthas.
-
Some of the well known God men/women of India.
1. The Swaminarayan movement - Here Swaminarayan is GOD. he is considered as Krishna.
2. Chaitanya Maha Prabhu whom we consider as GOD.
3. Mata Amrithanandamayi.
4. Ramana Maharishi.
5. Mata Ananda Moyi
6. Sri Ragavendra.
You will find a complete list here.
http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Hinduism/Gurus_and_Saints/
The criticism leveled against almost all organizations in their names is similar to what you have stated.
-
This is getting off topic. The thread is about Classical Hinduism vs Neo-Hinduism. If you want to discuss further the differences between different features of Classical Hinduism such as "Vedic" Hinduism and "Puranic" Hinduism, may I respectfully suggest that you start another thread so that our attention-deficit disorder readers will not get sidetracked?Yes. I agree that this is off topic. But the discussions arose because you did not define Classical Hinduism. Whether it is Vedic or Purna/Itihasa or something else. sambya also asked the same question. You have not replied.
What do you mean by "Purana expert?" Is this a tongue in cheek reference to Vaishnava sampradayas? Because even Vaishnava commentators have specifically taken issue with Buddhist ideas in their Vedanta commentaries.
The fact that Buddha is considered a Vishnu-avatar is not a ringing endorsement of Buddhism. Indeed, I have yet to see in the Puranas any endorsement of Buddhism. Please try not to obfuscate the issues just to give yourself reasons to be argumentative.
regards,
Raghu
I meant Saiva , Vaishnava, Saktha and other religions. All these did exist at that time. May be none of them felt challenged by Buddhism. Abhinavagupta was a contemporary figure. But he does not seem to have challenged Buddhist ideas.
The Vaishnava Acharyas came centuries later when Buddhism was almost non existent in India.
-
Kali_Upasaka wrote:-Puranas are sectarian. Vedas are not.
-Everyone swears by Vedas.
-Most of the Hindus of today have little or no knowledge of the Vedas.
-read the Vedas, not the Puranas
and then,
A British Indologist went to the extent of suggesting
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Herein the problem with your sort is revealed.
"Read the Vedas" --yeah right. I am not correcting you --I am talking straight at you:
"I know when people write from experience & when they are plagerising other's critique(s) and then passing it off as Intellectualism(s) . . . all inorder to 'represent' the contrarian view-point, for your amusement and/or inorder to reconcile bad habits".
The Vedas are as in-decipherable as the Egyptian & Mayan Hyrogliphics.
BE A MAN AND DO YOUR JOB LIKE A DEVOTE SHUDRA WOULD. [best wishes to you with that]
..................................................................
Why do you consider neophytes are reading your posts?
Kali_Upasaka wrote: A British Indologist went to . . . suggest . . .
Ah, come on . . . phhhhaleeeez
What do the Egyptian grave-robbers say after each thieft? . . . "Stupid Pharohs ..."
.................................................
Kali_Upasaka wrote: Everyone swears by Vedas . . . most Hindus . . . no knowledge of the Vedas . . .
Dude! Keep your day job! --Now, that would be wisdom!
You do not have to be rocket scientist to study and understand the Vedas. I give below excerpts from different Sukthas which proves the Vedic worship of different Gods/goddesses.
Vaak Suktham ( attributed to Vak Ambirini a female Rishi) also called Devi Suktham. -- Rig Veda
Aham Rudrebhir vasubhir charami,
Aham aadhithyer uta vaisvadevaii,
Aham mithra varunobha bibharmi,
Aham indragni, aham ashvinobha.
I move with Rudras and Vasus,
I walk with the Sun and other Gods,
I esteem mithra, varuna
And Indra, fire and the Aswini devas.
Aham somam ahaanasam bhibhrami
Aham thwashtaaramr utha pooshanam bhagam,
Aham dadhami dravinam havishmathe,
Supravye yajamanya sunwathe.
I esteem Soma, which is extracted,
I support thwastri, pushan and bhaga,
I give wealth to those who perform yagna,
Who reach the gods with offerings.
Aham rashtri samgamani vasoonaam,
Chikithushee pradhamaa yagniyaanaam,
Thaam maa devaa vyadhaduha puruthra,
Bhuristhathram bhooyar visayanthim.
I am the one who gives wealth to the nation,
I am the first one to whom this sacrifice is addressed,
The gods have found my manifoldness,
And enter in to it and take possession of the manifoldness.
Medha Suktham ( in praise of Medha devi (Saraswati)
Devi jushamana na aagath,
Viswachi bhadra sumanasyamana,
Thvaya jushta jushamana dhurookthan,
Brahad vadema vidardhe suveera.
Let the goddess of intellect come here with happiness,
She is everywhere and has a happy frame of mind,
May we who were grief stricken, before she came,
Become greatly intelligent and know the ultimate.
THwaya jushtaa rishir bhavathi devi,
Thwaya brahmagath srirutha thwaya,
Thwaya jushtaschithramvindathe vasu,
Sa no jushasva dravinena medhe.
By your grace one becomes a saint,
One becomes learned, one becomes rich,
Showered by your grace one gets different kinds of wealth,
And so goddess of wealth, give us wealth and intellect.
Medham ma indro dadathu,
Medham devi Saraswathi.
Medam may ashvinou ubhavadathaam,
Pushkarasrajo.
Let Indra give me intelligence,
Let Saraswathi give me intelligence,
Let the Aswini Kumaras support my intelligence,
For they wear the garlands of lotuses.
Rudram ( In praise of rudra) - Yajur Veda
The great Mrutyunjaya mantra;
“Tryambakam yajamahe
Sugandhim pushtivardhanam
Urvarurkamiva bhandhanam
Mrityor mukshiya ma -mrtat.”
We salute and respect,
Him who is naturally scented,
Him who looks after his devotees with mercy,
And him who has three eyes.
And pray and request,
To move us away from the catch of death,
Like the cucumber separated from its stalk,
And firmly put us in the path of salvation.
Namasthe asthu bhagavan visweswaraaya mahaadevaaya tryambakaaya,
Tripuraanthakaayaa trikagni kaalaaya kaalaagni rudhraaya neela kantaaya,
Mrutyumjayaaya sarveshwaraaya sadashivaaya sriman maha devaaya nama.
Salutations to you God,
Who is the lord of the universe,
Who is the greatest among gods,
Who has three eyes,
Who destroyed the three cities,
Who is master of the three fires,
Who is the Rudura who burns the world,
Who has a blue neck,
Who won over the God of death,
Who is Lord of everything,
Who is ever peaceful,
And who is the greatest God with goodness.
Salutations again.
I can go on.
Making wild accusations or quoting later scriptures can not change facts. One could be a scholar in Bhagavatham and Bagavad Gita. That does not necessarily make him an Vedic scholar.
Your quotes regarding Vedic scholars from the Puranas in your recent post shows why the Puranas were considered anti- Vedic. And why a necessity arose for reestablishment of Vaidhika Dharma.
Again history tells us that Sakya Muni Buddha was opposed to the ritual religion of the Vedas. That is the reason why Kumarila Bhatta an exponent of Purva Mimansa challenged the Buddhists. We do not see any Purana expert challenging Buddhism. Do we? On the other hand Buddha was made an Avatara of Vishnu.
About the knowledge of the Vedas a look at the thread Vedic Verses is self revealing.
Name calling is Tamasic. I would prefer the discussions to be Sattvic.
I only wish I could take your advice regarding my day job. But that would require a time machine, because the last day-job I did was towards the end of the last century.
-
The believers would like to believe. The followers of Vyasa who claim that all the scriptures attributed to Vyasa was written by one and the same person fall in the same category as Sankaracharya's followers.
So as the saying goes "People in glass houses.... "
The main reason that this field of research was not vigorously followed was that it does not make an iota of difference to the devotee. The only result would be the generation of a controversy.
Many subjects in Hinduism are not being researched for the same reason.
Anyway the believers would never accept the findings of any research.
Thank you kaisersose and ranjeetmore for the comprehensive list which would be useful to all devotees.
-
Puranas are Not Vedas. Puranas are sectarian. Vedas are not. The Pouranic/Itihasic religion came thousands of years after the Vedic religion. It is the Pouranic/Itihasic religion which became the popular Hinduism later.
When I talk about Vedas it is from the Vedas. Not from Puranas.
A British Indologist went to the extent of suggesting that the Puranic/Itihasic religion of the Ganges region massacred the Vedic religion of the Sindhu/Saraswati region.
Everyone swears by Vedas. But have you ever wondered why we have no Punya Kshtera along the Sindhu river.
Most of the Hindus of today have little or no knowledge of the Vedas. If you want to know the Vedas read the Vedas, not the Puranas or the Puranic stories about Vedas.
-
may i ask is this true.according to you.as youve read vedas.
its true isnt it.
calling tantras vedic is a trick to give it shruti status.
what do you mean by vedic times.
How long .
The Vedas praise all Gods/Goddesses many of whom the Hindus no longer worship.
Some of the Vedic Sukthams illustrate this.
1. Sri Suktham.
2. Devi Suktham.
3. Medha Suktham.
4. Purusha Suktham.
5. Ratri Suktham.
6. Agni Suktham.
Then you have Aruna Prasna, Rudra prasna.
and so on.
I had given a link to the wikipedia article of the Vedic religion.
Agamas and Tantras fall in the same category. Agamas are Tantras. Both these are supposed to be from the Karma Kanda portion of the Vedas.
Puranas are not Shruti. There are only four Vedas. In fact there are people who even do not consider Atharva Veda as a full Veda because of the non-spiritual material like Ayur Veda included in it. Veda Traiyi.
kaisersose has given a clear answer.
You are now talking about other classes and their suppression etc. This was clearly defined by raghu as neo-hindu thought.
My post crossed that of kaisersose.
-
But what most people do not realize is that the Smartas are not one monolithic bloc. They were originally classified as Smarta Vaishnava, Smarta Shaiva, and Smarta Sakta. Bengal has mostly Smarta Saktas. South India has a predominance of Smarta Saiva and Smarta Vaishnava. The vast majority are Smarta Vaishnava. They believe that Vishnu and his avatars are the supreme deity. But they also accept the other Gods/Goddesses as equal.
It does look strange when you see a Smarta reciting Rudram in praise of Shiva and then at the end dedicating it to Narayana. "kayenavacha ... narayanethi samarpayami."
The Smarta religion came into being basically for reviving Vaidic Hinduism. The Smarta movement was formed by people from all the sects who wanted to unify Hindu religion and free it from sectarian conflicts. It predates Adi Sankaracharya.
Smartas are not all followers of Advaita also. Everyone has their own interpretation of Advaita. Smarta Advaita, Saiva Advaita, pure Advaita are some of the Advaita schools. Smartas are Shad Dharsana.
-
What I stated was from the academic's point of view. When you study Hinduism and its history in an academic institution, you learn some little known facts.
Vyasa was the designation or a title given to a Compiler. There were many Vyasas or compilers who compiles all our scriptures. But the popular belief attributes all the compilation to one person.
How do we find these? The Sanskrit language has undergone a lot of change over a period of time. We can date a work by the language and many other factors. Just to quote an example:
In one of the slokas the author talks about praying to GOD for a long time and says he is more than 85 years old. But this sloka is attributed to Adi Sankara.
None of these academicians are interested in proving the superiority of any doctrine. These are purely academic research. It is upto you to believe it or not to believe it.
The academicians have dated the Vedas. But the believers have their own dates.
We have dated the Vedas to be around 3500 B.C. But do all the Hindus believe it?
This post was to give information. Not to prove any thing.
Neo-Hinduism - What Is It?
in Spiritual Discussions
Posted · Report reply
-- Swami Sivananda of Rishikesh who has authored more than 200 books on Hinduism. There is a bridge named after him called Sivananda bridge in Rishikesh in recognition of his services to the poor.