tackleberry

Correct. But to be fair, nobody's suggesting that, except the OP.

Cbrahma, answer with a yes or no. Do you or do you not believe in Christ Loka? Don't evade this, don't change the subject.

Let's see. In your case, the inference is: Rama made a smart move because he didn't have the capacity to defeat Vali. In another person's argument, the inference could be: Rama is a coward because he hid behind a tree. Both arguments are flawed, because your inferences contradict the source (upajIvya) of its hetu. Bottom line, no matter what the anumAna is (whether your inference that Rama couldn't have defeated Vali, or another inference that Rama was a coward), if it contradicts upajIvya, it's flawed.

According to MadhvAchArya, the arguments pointing to alleged flaws in the Lord suffer from upajIvya virodha. Put simply, it goes like this, if we consider the oft-repeated accusation that Rama was a coward and lacked powers, because he killed Vali hiding behind a tree etc. etc. Inference or anumAna: Rama is a coward Source of Inference (hetu): Vali Episode Source of this hetu: RAmAyaNa, which NEVER says Rama is a coward. Conclusion: anumAna contradicts the source of its hetu, and therefore renders itself invalid. Technically, it's called upjIvya virodha. The same logic provided by Madhva can be extended to ANY accusation regarding the Lord's alleged flaw, doing which we can render the opponent's argument invalid and meaningless.

Why don't you just answer this question for our benefit? Do you or do you not believe in Christ loka? If you do, please provide shruti pramANa. Thank you.

Agreed, but the Brits did what they had to do. As a conquering race, their job was to demoralize the enemy, which they did. Not that it makes it right, but it's *normal* for the conqueror to demoralize the enemy by attacking his culture and so on; it's more or less a war tactic. If not forgivable, at least it's understandable. But what is neither forgivable nor understandable is Indians doing the exact same thing.

Which you're not following, are you? Let's see. The AmbrAni Sukta in Rg Veda, for instance, says that Shri, the Goddess of the universe, derives her power from Vishnu. There are multiple places where Vishnu's supremacy is mentioned. Now if we consider the Rudra of SU to mean the deity Shiva, one portion of the veda will contradict another. To avoid this contradiction, one has to accept Rudra as another name of Vishnu, so that shruti won't be self-contradictory. Your approach will put SU in conflict with other parts of Shruti.

There are no 'many' ways of interpretation at all, except in the minds of neo-hindus. All interpretation must follow one rule and one rule only-it shouldn't contradict veda. And because veda says Vishnu is supreme, other texts must be interpreted in tune with Vishnu's supremacy, failing which we indirectly admit inconsitencies in the veda. And once you admit contradiction in the veda, any 'proof' you give of Shiva's supremacy would be invalid, because you consider the very source of this so-called evidence to be invalid and full of contradictions. It's that simple.

Which means you accept that Shiva isn't supreme based on the Mohini, BakAsura, BanAsura, and similar incidents. Thank you!

So you and your illiterate hippie friend-Mahaaak-know better than Madhva, Ramanuja, and several other vaishnava achArya-s, who opined that Shiva is jiva-tattva. Oh well....

Then please quote SU. The word 'shiva' means auspicious, doesn't refer to the deity shiva. And shiva purana is tamasic.

Whatever we think of Hinduism, nobody is suggesting Hindus are angels who can do no wrong. Nobody ever did on this forum, or elsewhere, at least to my knowledge.

Who cares where blasphemy comes from? Whether it's from India or west, it's wrong and must be condemned. There must be no distinction in these matters, abuse is abuse.

That's the question I am asking you. Do you believe Bhagavatam when it says Shiva's mind is filled with kazmala as mentioned 8.12.35? If you don't, you don't believe in bhagavatam. If you do, you do NOT accept him as supreme. So which one is it? Don't evade the issue.

My personal opinions or yours are immaterial here. What bhagavatam says is important. Bhagavatam is calling Shiva as one fooled by the Lord's Maya, and that his agitated mind is full of kazmala, filth. See 8.12.35 for reference. Now tell me, could this entity be supreme?

Careful! On this forum, you can attack Krishna, no problem. But you cannot attack the pope, and hope to get away with it. The hare christians are watching.

I wish you all the success. But out of curiosity, what would you like to pursue in the material world? Any specific interest like music, writing? Because these professions may be a little more conducive to spirituality....

Thank you for accepting that Shiva lost control due to lust. Now do you think an entity subject to flaws like lust etc. can be supreme?

Bhagavatam doesn't say it's all fun (if so, provide verse number), it clearly says Shiva is overwhelmed by lust, loses control and runs like a mad elephant. Do you accept it or not?

Read Shvu's post to which Amlesh has responded. You'll understand.

If you define polytheism as the belief in multiple gods, yes, most traditions within Hinduism are polytheistic. Classical traditions consider deva-s like Indra, Surya etc. to be real entities. Even advaita considers them real, at least on the vyavahArika (sp) level. But this is totally different from believing that all gods are equal, and except neo-vedanta, no tradition within Hinduism does that, because they do believe in the Supremacy of One God, to which different traditions may give different names. Which makes most of Hinduism monontheistic, except advaita which is monistic as well. As you can see, this is quite complicated, and the simplistic 'western' idea of defining Hinduism as 'this or that' just doesn't work. Words like polytheism, monotheism may be useful in understanding western religions, but to understand Vedic traditions, it's better to approach them with a mind uncluttered by such notions.

Excellent! The same Bhagavatam also says in 8.12.27: tām anvagacchad bhagavān bhavaḥ pramuṣitendriyaḥ kāmasya ca vaśaḿ nītaḥ kareṇum iva yūthapaḥ TRANSLATION His senses being agitated, Lord Śiva, victimized by lusty desires, began to follow Her, just as a lusty elephant follows a she-elephant. -------------------------------- So Ganesh Prasad, do you accept what Vyasadeva says in the above instance? In that case, you also believe in the following bhagavatam verses, right? 8.12.28 so 'nuvrajyātivegena gṛhītvānicchatīḿ striyam keśa-bandha upānīya bāhubhyāḿ pariṣasvaje TRANSLATION After following Her with great speed, Lord Śiva caught Her by the braid of Her hair and dragged Her near him. Although She was unwilling, he embraced Her with his arms. 8.12.31tasyāsau padavīḿ rudro viṣṇor adbhuta-karmaṇaḥ pratyapadyata kāmena vairiṇeva vinirjitaḥ TRANSLATION As if harassed by an enemy in the form of lusty desires, Lord Śiva followed the path of Lord Viṣṇu, who acts very wonderfully and who had taken the form of Mohinī. ---- So Ganesh Prasad, do you accept the above verses given in the bhagavatam?

LOL...speak of taking the bait.

That was funny. The reason why no one responded was because those verses had nothing to do with Raghu's question. Put simply, the verses don't prove your point, so why would anyone care to respond?

In many places, Prabhupada doesn't give the exact meaning of the Sanskrit words while translating. Whenever there's the word 'Brahman,' he translates it to mean 'brahma jyoti' or 'impersonal brahman,' which isn't at all accurate. There's no Sanskrit equivalent for these words found in the scriptures. So whilst Prabhupad's efforts are laudable, we must also learn the real meaning of the words to deepen our understanding. Blind faith isn't gonna help.