A Criticism of Nārāyaṇāstra Blog

No debates please! Please respect my time!

If you have read the document, and are in agreement with it, well and good! Smile, and live happily!

A sheep always trusts the butcher till her time comes – If you are a great fan with an unshaken faith in them, and disagree with the revelations of this paper, that’s also very good quality. It speaks high about your faithfulness towards your master. Please continue but feel free to leave this site!

Road signs are to be followed, and traffic rules are to be obeyed. They are there just to guide and help us safeguard ourselves from accidents. However, they cannot prevent us if we care a straw for them. Similarly, this criticism document is just a guide to warn the readers against the clever tactics and unfair means that are used by those bloggers to hypnotize the readers and sell their ideas. Even after reading this paper, if one still wants to believe them with blind faith, I have no intentions to stop such fan-boys/fan-girls. This document intends to be an eye-opener only for those who are awake. It isn’t capable of doing any magic on those who are already under the spell and trance of those magicians. 🙂

All the Best! 🙂

This document can be downloaded from here (Download)

39 Comments

  1. sohini

    santoshji can you give me any link for a full valmiki ramayan translation, the largest valmiki ramayan translation i’ve read is of author Rajshekhar Basu, in bengali

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)
  2. sohini

    hope you never do this to me santoshji as i keep bombarding your blog pages with my questions-
    “Questioning by pretending to be a learner: – Some people approach as if they have genuine queries and are

    trying to seek an answer but in reality they have malicious intentions. They initiate discussions like a learner

    and soon reveal their real face of vampires and start engaging the author in a vitanDa-vAda kind of useless

    debate. I have enough god-gifted intelligence to smell the reality in each and every thought of the people who

    try to interact with me. Such comments meet death (deletion) straight away”

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      Busy with lot many things in personal life. So, would look at your pending comments when I get time. Other smaller comments of yours have been published and answered

      Reply
  3. VikramInside

    Hi Santhosh,

    Srivaishnavites are not blind followers. If Vishnu according to you is great devotee to your Shiva then followers of Vishnu safegaurded by Shiva as well in same context.

    The Butcher goat example is not appropriate. Since you accept you are a drop of Appaya dikshithar swamy then please maintain the same. We have more learned people above us.

    Have you underwent proper Veda abhyAsam? – Sorry this question is inevitable.

    If not, half baked knowledge won’t help you.

    Hanuman got the pride because of Rama Bhakthi. Yatra Yatra Raghunatha keerthanam.

    Parvathy Devi got the pride because kena upayena laghuna vishnor naama Sahasrakam.

    You and we are not sages and not thri kaala gyaanis.

    Your questions with respect to Srimad Bhagavatham is convincing. Whats the place of purAnam in an IthihAsa?

    I have listened to eminent members in Srimad Bhagavatham and not thought for it, will get clarification from one of them. Possibly respond in comments.

    Narayanastram expects us to have folded hands to get saved. Pasupatashtra simply destructs. There is a big difference even in that case.

    When it comes to history fabrication or re-writing history the powerful Shaivaite kings have done no lesser.

    Ekaambareshwar temple is one beautiful example. Similarly Ayodhya, Taj Mahal by the then powerful Muslims.

    Let’s forget and be logical and be reasonable. Dwesham to Srivaishnavites or Shaivaites will take us no further and will not make us become open minded.

    It will lead to BhaAghavatha apacharam.

    Initially it will be interesting due to the fan following and one day lord Shiva himself willl come to your dreams and ask you to stop it. As It’s a blunder.

    I have witnessed 9 Lingas on a single maha Shiv rathri during childhood. Have you? Then how am I a Srivaishnavite? Simple, my surrounding is Shiva sthala. Schooling is Shiva school.

    I was brought up praying in lunch hours ” Anna poorni Sadhaa poorni Shankara praana vallabhey, nyaana vairagya sidhyartham bhikshandhehi cha paarvathi”

    A student in Christian school is brought up ” oh Jesus give me food “. It’s the opportunity one gets.

    Interestingly college is Narayana college even in name for me.

    Remember God respects the one who respects.

    Thanks for reading long comment.

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      Hi Vikram,

      Srivaishnavites are not blind followers. If Vishnu according to you is great devotee to your Shiva then followers of Vishnu safegaurded by Shiva as well in same context.

      You’re right. Followers of Vishnu are very much dear to Shiva. This is mentioned unanimously in all Shiva related Puranas. But then the same puranas mention in Vishnu’s own words that those vishnu devotees who would criticize Shiva would be abandoned by vishnu himself. So, where are the vaishnavites heading towards? Pls think over this problem statement first.

      The Butcher goat example is not appropriate. Since you accept you are a drop of Appaya dikshithar swamy then please maintain the same. We have more learned people above us.

      I don’t remember saying I am a drop of appayya dikshitar. Just out of modesty / respect, I remember somewhere saying I am not even equal to the dust of his feet (if i recollect the words right). Well, all such comparisons are only at the level of respect, and a display of modesty. Not sure what complaints you have on such words offering respect. The fact is, no body can be anybody’s drop or anything as such. Everyone has an independent personality, and it is Mahadeva who decides whom to make what. If shiva decides to make a droplet an ocean, he can make, and if he decides otherwise, even oceans would reduce to droplet. Nothing is in my hands, what shiva would decide, I would become that. And regarding your claim ‘we have more learned people’, I keep more faith on Mahadeva than your so called ‘learned people’. I do not care who they are. My only guru is Shiva, I bow to none else for knowledge. pranamami maheshvaramekamaham!

      Have you underwent proper Veda abhyAsam? – Sorry this question is inevitable. If not, half baked knowledge won’t help you.

      Sorry to say this, it is none of your business. You’re saying as though mere ‘abhyAsaM’ makes a chanter gain the internal meanings of Veda. There are many veda panditas, how many know the meanings of what they chant?

      Hanuman got the pride because of Rama Bhakthi. Yatra Yatra Raghunatha keerthanam.
      Parvathy Devi got the pride because kena upayena laghuna vishnor naama Sahasrakam.

      You vaishnavites take everything just literally, that’s what I have been trying to clarify for so many years now. Anyway, pls be blissful in these verses if they please your heart.

      You and we are not sages and not thri kaala gyaanis.

      Ne need not be. A simple bhakti for shiva is enough. If his hand is on your head, those trikalagyanis would envy you. Read this in Soundarya lahari or shivananda lahari, same thing is said. So, I don’t have to care for rankings as long as mahadeva is with me.

      Your questions with respect to Srimad Bhagavatham is convincing. Whats the place of purAnam in an IthihAsa? I have listened to eminent members in Srimad Bhagavatham and not thought for it, will get clarification from one of them. Possibly respond in comments.

      Very well. And please be informed that in couple of months I am going to update that article with more convincing proofs. So, please do check back my article after few months.

      Narayanastram expects us to have folded hands to get saved. Pasupatashtra simply destructs. There is a big difference even in that case.

      Narayanastra invokes the energy of shatagnis, which is another term to mean shata-rudras. So, the mercy that narayanastra shows is the mercy of those hundreds of rudras only, who naturally would be merciful being of the nature of the Ashutosha (easy pleasing). Pashupatastra on the other hand is not made for worldly usages, it is there to destroy the world during the dissolution. But one who gains it he becomes invincible by just its presence without firing it. The way arjuna won the war because of its presence. So, for a weapon intended to be used to dissolve the universe, there is no need to be merciful or to have a counter or to be lenient. The features are by-design and these cannot be used to say which weapon is more glorious. Both have their own significance in their own boundaries. And narayanastra has a counter too – maheshvarastra can deflect/nullify narayanastra because ultimately both are shiva’s weapons (narayanastra invokes rudras as said earlier), but pashupata has no counter. So, if we have to stoop down to this low level of comparisons, pashupata wins.

      When it comes to history fabrication or re-writing history the powerful Shaivaite kings have done no lesser.

      Obviously! When Vaishnavites do so much harm to Shiva’s worship and glory, somewhere shaivite kings’ patience would break isn’t it? Anyway, I am poor in History subject hence don’t know how much of destruction was done by shaivite kings and vaishnavite kings. And it is of not much use to discuss that today. Physical destruction can be reverted by rebuilding. The destruction by wrong teachings that vaishnavite acharyas have done to shiva’s glory is so deep in effect that it cannot be cured easily. So, no point in complaining about physical destroyers of temples etc., let’s only talk about the intelelctual destructions that were done. No purana says Shiva is a jiva living on the mercy of Vishnu, but the vaishnavite acharyas even of ISKCON teach that. Did you ever question them, how can they preach and interpret such things when veda Vyasa himself never said so? You would not, because that’s not something which hurts you! This is why I am standing against them! Hope it clarifies!

      Ekaambareshwar temple is one beautiful example. Similarly Ayodhya, Taj Mahal by the then powerful Muslims.

      Who denies? I too go to Tirupati, and I do not wish to return from that place but with a heavy heart I return from there, such an extent i love that place. In fact I had been to Srisailam only once, but Tirupati is almost a yearly tour, only in recent years not able to go anywhere due to being busy in worldly matters.

      Let’s forget and be logical and be reasonable. Dwesham to Srivaishnavites or Shaivaites will take us no further and will not make us become open minded.

      I agree with you. But may I request you to first preach this same thing to vaishnavas and get their hatred for shiva totally removed from their hearts? Can you make them accept Shiva as not ‘jiva’? You cannot, because the disease is beyond any corrective measures now. Well, coming to me, only thing I have not been able to explain the readers so far is that – I have no hatred for srivaishnavites or madhvas or any flavor of vaishnavites. I am against their ‘understanding’ of shiva-tatwam, that’s it! My war is NOT against PERSONS, it is against their IGNORANCE. Once in a while to address the problem, the postmen who carried the problems, their names I do mention, and that’s just a part of the game to make the disease as well as the carrier understandable clearly, but personally I do not have any issue with humans. In a flow I might sound harsh on the carriers of the disease, but I have better things to do that focusing on persons. You need to understand where it becomes mandatory to criticize the carriers of disease to make people aware of their gimmicks, names are called out and where it becomes optional, I ignore the names and focus on the content.

      It will lead to BhaAghavatha apacharam. Initially it will be interesting due to the fan following and one day lord Shiva himself willl come to your dreams and ask you to stop it. As It’s a blunder.

      Will wait to have Shiva darshanam in dream. That would be a great night for me. 🙂

      I have witnessed 9 Lingas on a single maha Shiv rathri during childhood. Have you? Then how am I a Srivaishnavite? Simple, my surrounding is Shiva sthala. Schooling is Shiva school.

      Very nice to read this incident. _/|\_ pranams! Vishnu loves me like a loving father, mother lakshmi sustains me on her milk. Do not equate my works with my personal connection with the divinity. My write-ups are my job, a job assigned by mahadeva, and driven and led by Vishnu as my guide. At individual level I am different. 🙂

      I was brought up praying in lunch hours ” Anna poorni Sadhaa poorni Shankara praana vallabhey, nyaana vairagya sidhyartham bhikshandhehi cha paarvathi” A student in Christian school is brought up ” oh Jesus give me food “. It’s the opportunity one gets. Interestingly college is Narayana college even in name for me.

      Let me tell you that, I am not a vishnu-hating hardcore shaivite. My alarm tone is ‘narayana stotram (by adi shankara), which goes like – narayana narayana jaya govinda hare govinda hare…’, listening to which I get up. My daily Puja has ‘lakshmi narasimha karavalamba stotram’ in it. I am as close to mother lakshmi as I am close to mother parvati. In fact Vishnu is my charioteer driving me on this shiva-dharma-sansthapana mission (which you wouldn’t believe, but that is the truth). let me tell you a fact – I am more closer to Vishnu than his modern day vishnu-devotees are. So, all these gyan to me is not needed. I know why these things are being done and what for being done. These are all being done by the divine will and I am just a tool here.

      Remember God respects the one who respects.

      God has no such give and take policy my dear! Even Ravana was respected by Rama after he died. God has no affinity and no avarice for anyone.

      Thanks for reading long comment.

      Thanks for reading my long replies as well. 🙂

      Reply
  4. VikramInside

    *9 Linga temples not just 9 Linga in a single temple on a maha Shiv rathri. Expansion of above comment.

    Devotion is fine but fanaticism is self destructive.

    Santhosh= Happy. Be happy.

    Regarding namakam and chamakam, rudram discourses. If you have Tamil friends ask them to translate Krishna Premi Swami’s Rudhram discourse for you.

    I will share link if you want.

    Veda even hails indran, varunan etc so sticking only to rudram’s rudhra you know where it will lead to.

    Why a Brahmin Shaivaite or Vaishnavite does yagyam?

    “YagnyO yagnyena”
    – For the yagnya to do the yagnya.

    Chamakam:
    I want age, money, happiness etc
    Namakam:
    Nothing is mine

    Finally then why chamakam and namakam?
    Just to do the yagnya for the yagnya as a Brahmin.

    English:
    To do the fire for the fire.

    Dhanyosmi

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (Post author)

      I have not understood anything what you wanted to say through this comment. So, wouldn’t break my head further. No need to clarify again, pls.

      Reply
  5. Subhasis Dey

    While going through Adbhutam’s related Article : The 􀲫Āndhra-mahā-bhāratamu􀲬 – A short study, I have found the Śānti Parva of the said Andhra Mahā Bhāratamu. But I could not fully interpret it as it was entirely depicted in Sanskrit language and nowhere I could find the translation of the entire Chapter. Please guide me where can I find the detailed English translation of the same.

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

      You may find it here

      Reply
  6. Subhasis Dey

    While going through the Adi Parva of the ‘Andhra Bharatamu’, I came across the following verses :
    1.निरुक्तं वेदविदुपो वेदशब्दार्थचिन्तकाः।
    ते मां गायन्ति प्राग्वंशे अधोक्षज इति स्मृतः।। 12-352-18a
    12-352-18b
    2.शब्द एकमतैरेप व्याहृतः परमर्षिभिः।
    नान्यो ह्यधोक्षजो लोके ऋते नारायणं प्रभुम्।। 12-352-19a
    3.विद्यासहायवन्तं मामादित्यस्थं सनातनम्।
    कपिलं प्राहुराचार्याः साङ्ख्या निश्चितनिश्चयाः।। 12-352-30a
    12-352-30b
    4.हिरण्यगर्भो द्युतिमान्य एष च्छन्दसि स्तुतः।
    योगैः संपूज्यते नित्यं स एवाहं विभुः स्मृतः।। 12-352-31a
    12-352-31b
    5.एकविंशतिसाहस्रं ऋग्वेदं मां प्रचक्षते।
    सहस्रशाखं यत्साम ये वै वेदविदो जनाः।
    गायन्त्यारण्यके विप्रा मद्भक्तास्ते हि दुर्लभाः।। 12-352-32a
    12-352-32b
    12-352-32c
    6.तच्च शूलं विनिर्धूतं हुंकारेण महात्मना।
    जगाम शंकरकरं नारायणसमाहतम्।। 12-352-46a
    12-352-46b
    Please let me know the exact meaning of these verses in English. Are these verses present in the original Veda Vyasa Mahabharata as well ?

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

      Andhra mahabharatamu is in telugu not in sanskrit. So, the verses you are quoting is from the vyasa bharatam.
      Entire chapter translation is here

      Reply
    2. Subhasis dey

      Thank you for the link for the English translation of Santi Parva of the Mahabharata. But, I am dumbfounded at the English translation of the verses I am looking for. i am citing them below :
      1.” …the eternal and immutable Hari that is combination of the attributes …..that is inconceivable and unborn,….that is formless and all-pervading, and that endued with the principle of universal creation and of eternity without beginning, middle, or end.” ( p 155)
      2. “…. I was never born. I never take birth. Nor i shall ever be born…..Hence i am called by the name Aja ( unborn)….the existence and non-existence have been merged by me in my Soul.” (p 164)
      3. “The deities and ASuras have never been able to ascertain my beginning, my middle and my end. It is for this reason I am Anadi, Amadhya and Ananta. I am the Supreme Lord endued with puissance, and i am the eternal witness of the universe ( beholding as i do its successive creations and destructions)” ( p 166)
      4.” I am He who am the repository of the science of syllables and pronunciation that is treated of in the supplementary portions of the Vedas. (p 167)”

      I think all these attributes belong to our beloved Lord Siva. Why does Krishna claim these qualities to be his ???

      Furthermore, at page 168 , there is annal of Siva – Vishnu battle where it is said that :
      ” Narayana then seized the rushing Rudra with his hand by the throat. Seized by Narayana , the lord of the Universe, Rudra’s throat changed colour and became dark. From that time Rudra came to be called by the name Sitikantha.”

      What rubbish !!! Lord Narayana in the form of a deity admitted defeat at the hand of Virbhadra, who sprang from merely a hair of the matted lock of Lord Siva. Besides, Krishna himself declared in the Anusashana parva of the Mahabharata that far from the question of stopping Rudra by the throat, the eyes of Narayana Rishi could hardly stand the brilliance of Lord Siva and Mother Bhavani as They appeared before him. Besides, it has been clearly stated in the Anusashana Parva that Narayana Rishi is one of the foremost devotees of Lord Siva who underwent Pasupata Deeksha by observing rigorous penance for about thousand years and he will seize the throat of his beloved Lord by the throat !!! Are these verses really born of Sage Veda Vyasa ? I think he is an ardent devotee of Lord Maheswara. How could the Great Sage who compiled the masterpiece as the Anusashana Parva wrote such delirious and contradictory verses here ? Tell me please that this account of Siva – Vishnu duel is completely fake. All this nonsense is a desperate interpolation of some staunch Siva hater.

      Reply
      1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

        All the attributes you listed are indeed siva’s. Krishna (narayana) is none other than Uma, hence Vishnu who in reality si Uma claims them to be his as Uma and Shiva are identical. So, there is no contradiction, only vaishnavites want all glory for Vishnu and Shiva be left with only defeats and insults.

        Well, Shiva ahd given boon to Narayana rishi that whenever he ahs to fight against shiva, by his boon, narayana would be victorious. So, it is Rudra’s leela to stand defeated. otehrwise, who would dare to venture before him if he really becomes angry?

        Reply
        1. Subhasis Dey

          But it is quite impossible for Narayana Rishi to catch hold of Rudra by the throat. Can a devotee treat his adorable Lord in such a humiliating way ? This verses seem to be interpolations. Would you like to agree with me ?

          Reply
          1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

            That chapter has several other errors too, so based on those other errors, i have my own doubts about that incident too. But i don’t want to right away discard it as interpolation because that can be easily explained because of the boon of shiva. Why would shiva give a boon of victory in battle to narayana if narayana is never to war with shiva? So, it is shiva’s leela; but it could be interpolation also. haven’t ever got a chance to critically analyze this chapter. So, till my critical eyes cast their vision on that chapter, let it live happily. 🙂

  7. Arun Subramaniyan

    Those who abuse Kanchi Mahaswami will never attain moksha and will be abandoned by the very Vishnu for whom they claim to have fanatical devotion. People who have had the great fortune of prostrating before that noble soul say that Kanchi Mahaswami was Maheshwara Himself who out of great compassion for us came down to earth and spent 100 years amongst us.

    I am sure there are also many Sri Vaishnavas who must been extremely fortunate to have secured the blessings of Mahaswami.

    Kind Regards
    Arun

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

      Very true words, Bro!

      Reply
    2. Vikram Srinivasan

      Kanchi Maha Periyava accepted by all. Irrespective of Shaiva, Vaishnava including other religions.

      Let our childish debates & discussion not defame great Acharya purushas.

      As per our Dharma Shastra ” Don’t criticize activities of Acharya purushas”.

      Let’s avoid individual criticisms and post our ideologies.

      Reply
      1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

        You are right Sri Vikram ji,

        However, if you go through the document embedded in this link, you would understand who is criticizing kanchi mahaperiyavaa. It is the narayanastra bloggers who have enormous hatred for paramacharya. The discussion here is going about them.

        Reply
        1. Varisht

          Wow.u love periyava.superb

          “””.If Vyasa’s father was the author of the original Visnu Purana, his son
          Sukracaraya it was who instructed King Pariksit in the Bhagavata. There is
          a difference of opinion about the Bhagavata, whether the term should
          refer to Visnu-Bhagavata or Devi-Bhagavata. The former is devoted to the
          incarnations of Visnu, particularly Krsna, while the latter deals with the
          divine sport of Amba. We need both and both are great works. “”‘”‘

          This I quoted from bharatiya Bhavan translation of the deivathin kural.i.e.his speech condensed in the form of a book.formerly I hesitated to quote as I was unaware whether u ll accept his saying or not.what is ur opinion now Santosh?

          Reply
          1. I still respect him. But his own statements hint a dispute between which one is the original bhagavata and because he was a dharmAchArya who was supposed to lead people into dharmika harmony, he had said both should be respected. But his statement itself has indicated of a question on which one is original bhagavatam.

            I have now proved that original bhagawatam is Devi Bhagavatam. And I too say what Paramacharya said – “Pls follow Vishnu Bhagavatam if that is dear to you, without bothering about what I wrote. For Bhakti, authenticity of a text doesn’t matter”. So, I’m also not denying it you see? 🙂

          2. Karthick

            Do any of you guys have the English copy of Deivathin Kural?

  8. Vikram Srinivasan

    Let’s stop criticising Acharya purushas. It’s against our Dharma.

    Reply
  9. The following is the definition of the word “Vaishnava”, in Anandabhairavi’s own words:

    “आनन्दभैरव उवाच:-
    को वैष्णवो याज्ञिकः को धार्मिको वाऽपि को भुवि ।
    को वा भवति योगी च तन्मे वद सुरेश्वरि ।।
    आनन्दभैरव्युवाच:-
    शंकर श्रृणु वक्ष्यामि कालनिर्गमलक्षणम् ।
    वैष्णवानां वैष्णवत्वं आज्ञाचक्रे फलाफलम् ।।” (Rudrayamala Uttara Tantra 15:36-37)

    Hence, it is a Yogin stationed at Ajna Chakra, who is to be called a Vaishnava.
    Vaishnavas following Pancharatras are more precisely “Bhagavatas”, and their philosophy was refuted by Sri Adi Shankaracharya Bhagavadpada:

    “उत्पत्त्यसंभवात् ।” (Brahmasutra Shankarabhashya 2:2:42)

    Translation by Swami Vireshvarananda of Ramakrishna Mission:-

    “The origination (of the individual soul from the Lord) being impossible (the Pancharatra doctrine is untenable).”

    Commentary:-

    The Pancharatra or the Bhagavata school is now taken up for examination. It recognizes the material and efficient causality of the Lord, but propounds certain other views that are objectionable. According to it Vasudeva is the Supreme Lord, the material and the efficient cause of the world. By worshiping Him, meditating on Him and by knowing Him one attains Liberation. From Vasudeva is born Shankarshana, the Jiva; from Jiva Pradyumna, the mind; from mind Aniruddha, the Ego. These are the fourfold form (Vyuha) of Vasudeva.
    Of these, the view that Vasudeva is the Supreme Lord, to be worshiped and so on, the Vedantin accepts, as it is not against the Sruti. But the creation of the Jiva etc., he rejects, as such creation is impossible. Why? Because if the soul be created, it would be subject to destruction, and so no Liberation can be predicated of it. That the soul is not created will be shown in Sutra 2. 3. 17.

    “न च कर्तुः करणम् ।” (Brahmasutra Shankarabhashya 2:2:43)

    Translation by Swami Vireshvarananda of Ramakrishna Mission:-

    “Nor (is it seen that) the instrument (is produced) from the agent.”

    Commentary:-

    As an instrument, like an axe, is not seen to be produced from the agent, the wood-cutter, the Bhagavata doctrine-that from the individual soul is produced the internal instrument or mind, and from the mind the ego-cannot be accepted. Neither is there any scriptural authority of it. The scripture plainly says that everything originates from Brahman.

    “विज्ञानादिभावे वा तदप्रतिषेधः ।” (Brahmasutra Shankarabhashya 2:2:44)

    Translation by Swami Vireshvarananda of Ramakrishna Mission:-

    “Or if the (four Vyuhas are said to) posses intelligence etc., yet there is no warding of that (viz. the objection raised in Sutra 42).

    Commentary:-

    The Bhagavatas may say that all the forms are Vasudeva, the Lord, and that all of them possess knowledge and lordship, strength, valour etc., and are free from faults and imperfections. In this case there will be more than one Iswara, which is redundant and goes against their own assumption. Even granting all this, the origination of one from the other is unthinkable. Being equal in all respects, none of them can be the cause of another, for the effect must have some feature that is lacking in the cause. Again the forms of Vasudeva cannot be limited to four only, as the whole world from Brahma down to a clump of grass is a form of the Supreme Being.

    “विप्रतिषेधाच् च ।” (Brahmasutra Shankarabhashya 2:2:45)

    Translation by Swami Vireshvarananda of Ramakrishna Mission:-

    “And because of the contradictions (the Bhagavata view is untenable).”

    Commentary:-

    Moreover the theory involves many contradictions. Sometimes it speaks of the four forms as the qualities of the Atman and sometimes as the Atman itself.

    Hence, the Pancharatric philosophy of Bhagavatas, that is propagated by some malicious Shivadrohis, is not acceptable by monists like Shaktas, Shaivas and Advaitins.

    Reply
  10. Vikram Srinivasan

    Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha

    ” In this case there will be more than one Iswara, which is redundant and goes against their own assumption.”

    With due respect to the author of this blog who has got the blessings of both lord Shiva and MahaVishnu according to me, let me try to answer this with blessings of asmad acharya from vishistAdvaitam standpoint.

    Take pure cow’s milk for instance. Pour it into two glasses.

    Now, does both milk differ in quality? VishstAdvaitam does not see dharman and dharmi as two different entities.

    Swami Ramanuja says perceiving dharmi without dharmam is not possible in this state of the world. Reference: Yatindra Mata Dipika.

    Also I have a question speaking of shapeless god, Shaiva worship Linga & Natarajan (king of dance) and his various postures.

    1. Is lingam not a shape?
    2. Is parameshwara/lingam different from Natarajan?
    3. Natarajan is looking thin. Can we say not being fat is a deficit quality of him?
    4. Speaking of brahmam, Veda just does not say Ekameva adwitheeyam, it also says sarvam khalvidam brahma.

    If shiva is the brahmam, then assigning so called lower level perceived with higher level unperceived brings duality dosham.

    Meaning, since brahmam is self manifested into creation with varied perception for us, it’s the same brahmam with vishistAdvaitam and not just advaitham.

    5. One step further, If you quote chidhambara rahasyam as example how will you pin point it’s shiva and not Allah?

    Let myself answer the 5th:
    Both Shaivas and Vaishnavas unitedly accept veda (Shruthi smruthi) and Muslims dont. Our arguments are strictly based on veda.

    No shiva dhrohis here neither Vishnu dhrohis. Let’s not make it ugly. A mistake of few is not that of majority.

    I know this is a huge topic. Just posted for the sake of arguments. Our toungue is not capable of describing the ultimate which both Shaiva & Vaishnava have accepted in their own order.

    Just because someone is doing a mistake it doesn’t mean we also do it. We need open mind and staunch bhakthi towards our respective god.

    Chandrasekhara Kanchi Mahan has accepted Sriman Narayana and while they (Acharyas) end a letter they sign it as Narayana.

    Is mahapasupatastra going to deny it? I am sure it won’t.

    Answering Srimad Bhagavatham validity.

    I have found the following answer.

    A Puranam means old. Anyone can write about the old. Just because it is written recently it doesn’t mean it has no validity.

    We don’t see when it was written but about what is being written.

    If we write Indian Independence we are dating 1947. If we write about dinosaurs, it will date back to billion years.

    That’s what Krishna charithram is all about. Krishna is the one and only Bhagavan 😉 . That’s why it’s called as Bhagavath Gita & Bhaagavatham. His Leela is Bhagavath Leela in Leela vibhuthi.

    I said above because the debate started with ishwara shabdha.

    The older events of Krishna is Puranam and nothing else.

    In Srimad Bhagavath Gita Krishna clearly says to Arjuna, “You are not the first one to receive the preachings of Bhagavath Gita”, I already told this to brahma. It in itself means it has a validity of being a Puranam.

    You can argue Krishna is a liar. Krishna is a shiva glory stealer as he had the habit of stealing butter when he was baby. 🙂 It’s how you take it.

    Krishna is Ksheera chora chitha chora no doubt.

    The answer dasan received from a BhAgavatha:

    Veda Vyasa wanted to focus much on Bhagavan but could not do so in Mahabharatham. That’s why Srimad Bhagavatham was born. It’s similar to Vishnu purana. Vishnu Purana is also called Purana Ratna ( Gem among puranas ). These 2 puranas are considered to be most perfect puranaas as they convey the same message that vedas convey.

    A purana needs to have  the following 5 lakshanas

    Sarga ( creation )Prati sarga ( dissolution )Vamsa ( about surya, chandra vamsa . who were born in these vamsas )Manvantra ( About manu who ruled under the particular period and his  vamsam )vamsanu charitham ( sub vamsams )

    Srimad Bhagavatham has these 5 lakshanas and is rightly called a Purana. Hope this clarifies.

    Dasoham

    @Author my favourite identity vikraminside. It is the same me and apt for the question I guess. Hope this will be published as my earlier ones.

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

      Namaste dear Sri Vikram ji,

      I find a pious hearted Sri vaishnava in you, based on your comments so far. Please accept my heartful pranams to your bhakti. Well, your assessment is right, on me not only Mahadeva but Mahavishnu is also always graceful. In fact all these intellectual write-ups when kept aside, I love my father Narayana like a son. He is my father, goddess Lakshmi is my mother, and they have always been by my side in every walk of my life. I firmly believe, Vishnu himself is driving my chariot in this battle against shiva-ninda. 🙂

      Well, with the initial part of your comment (before the bhagawatam points), I have nothing much to agree or disagree. All darshanas are valid in their own boundaries. Even Vishshitadvaita is correct within it’s boundaries.

      Well, regarding your opinion on purana “in general” what you said is correct. But this won’t help Srimad Bhagawatam to become authentic. I am in process of updating the Bhagawatam article with some more concrete evidences, which would help all such doubts to settle. I’ll soon post an update to that article which would answer all the pending questions. Kindly await that update sir.

      Regarding Bhagawad Gita – you might not have seen my Bhagawad Gita article after I updated it. The updated article would erase all doubts and would help people see what I am able to see.

      Problem is when we update an existing article, system won’t generate any notifications. If i miss posting an explicit post advertising about the update, it goes unnoticed. Anyway, i’ll take care of the update alerts in future.

      Regards

      Reply
    2. True indeed, that a Purāņa is recognised by the Pańcalakşaņas, that you, Śrīmān Vikram Mahāśaya, have already listed.
      However, there are certain other Lakşaņas other than these five, which are required to determine the Bhāgavata Śāstra, which are as follows:-

      From Matsya, Agni and Nāradīya Purāņas:
      1) Documentation of Sārasvata Kalpa.
      2) Māhātmya of Gāyatrī.
      3) Eulogy of Brahmavidyā.
      4) Divided into 18000 chapters and 12 Cantos.
      5) Killing of Vřtrāsura.
      6) Anecdote of Hayagrīva.

      From Vişņu and Śiva Purāņas:
      1) Bhāgavata Purāņa is 5th among 18 Purāņas.
      2) Purāņa documenting martial exploits of Durgā is Bhāgavata Purāņa, also known as Devī Purāņa.

      From Devī Yāmala Tańtra:
      1) Purāņa documenting Pūjā Paddhatī of Rādhā is Bhāgavata Purāņa.
      2) Purāņa documenting the anecdotes of Durgā’s various incarnations is Bhāgavata Purāņa.

      From Āditya Purāņa:
      1) Purāņa consisting 18000 chapters and 12 cantos is Bhāgavata Purāņa.
      2) Bhāgavata Purāņa accounts the killing of Asuras Vřtra, Mahişāsura, Dhūmralocana and Raktabīja.
      3) Bhāgavata Purāņa records the Pāțhavidhi of Devī Māhātmya, also known as Durgā Saptaśatī and Śrī Śrī Caņđī.

      From Kālikā Purāņa:
      “The Mahāpurāņa from which the Upapurāņa of Kālikā has been derived is known as Bhāgavata Purāņa.

      We see that Śrīmad Bhāgavatam deviates from the aforementioned Lakşaņas:
      1) It documents Padma Kalpa.
      2) Gāyatrī is absent.
      3) Brahmavidyā is absent.
      4) Apparently it is the final work of Vyāsamuni and hence should be the 18th (last) Purāņa.
      5) Doesn’t document Durgā’s martial exploits and is definitely not known as “Devī Purāņa”.
      6) Has no mention of Rādhā.
      7) Except Nańdajā (Vińdhyavāsini) and Satī (Dākşāyanī), anecdotes of other incarnations of Durgā like Śatākşī, Śākambharī, Bhrāmarī, Raktadańşțrā, Yoganidrā, Mahişamardinī, Kātyāyanī, Kauşikī, Kālikā, Pārvatī, Bhuvaneśvarī etc are not ducumented.
      8) Killing of Mahişāsura, Dhūmralocana and Raktabīja are not documented.
      9) Pāțhavidhi of Devī Māhatmya is not present.
      10) Although killing of Vřtrāsura is present, and the Purāņa’s 12 cantos are divided into 18000 chapters, yet Vaişņava Bhāgavatam doesn’t satisfy the other lakşaņas.
      11) Vişņu’s incarnation Hayagrīva of Devī Bhāgavatam is slayer of an Asura called Hayagrīva, and the anecdote is in line with Vişņu’s beheading from Śatpatha Brahmaņa. But, Hayagrīva of Vaişņava Bhāgavatam is slayer of Asuras Madhu-Kaițabha, which is not possible since it was Devī Mahākālī who slew the duo as Yoganidrā.

      Keeping these points in mind, the Vaişņava Bhāgavatam is not acceptable as the exalted Bhāgavata Śāstra by Kaulas. We accept Śrīmad Devī Bhāgavata Mahāpurāņa as the true Bhāgavata Śāstra.

      śrī śrī vajra vairocanyē nama: ll

      Reply
      1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

        Please wait for couple of days, I’m going to post an update to my Bhagawatam article and clarify all confusions. There is no need to break our heads on this purana. We don’t need to know purana-lakshana, don’t need to know what other puranas have described about bhagawatam, where brahmavidya is said to be present as a criterion and where it is not etc. Only few clarifications I would add and then it would be impossible to make even any “speculation” in support of SB.

        Reply
        1. May Devī Mahāsarasvatī flow through your pen always.

          śrī śrī uccişțhacāńgulinyē nama: ll

          Reply
          1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

            So nice. Thank you for the blessings. 🙂

      2. Arun Subramaniyan

        Devi is called Panchasankhyopacharini in Lalitha Sahasranama. It makes perfect sense for Bhagavatha Purana to occupy position 5 and sing Devi’s glories. You have posted wonderful reference from Vishnu Purana. Striking Shiva drohis with their own weapon!

        Kind Regards
        Arun

        Reply
        1. Dear Arun Jeu,
          It is by Śrī Durgā’s grace that the point stuck me while reading Vişņu Purāņa. Hence, the credit goes to Ādyāśakti alone.
          Vāgīśvarī, the sister of Rudra has taken that exhalted Aşțabhujā Mahāsarasvatī form on the eve of Sarasvatī Pūjā, who in former times had ripped off the heads of Śumbha and Niśumbha with Her trident. Call it coincidence, call it divine intervention; Vīņāpāņi is gracious upon us.

          śrī śrī hamsavāhinyē nama: ll

          Reply
          1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

            Good discussion happening around the sri panchami day on our mother saraswati. :-).

            Yes, I agree 100% with your point. When we truly have the enthusiasm to know some hidden things, and read scriptures, the lord/lordess would always guide us and show us deeper secrets in the form of ‘insights’. And your insights surely show that you have received that grace. 🙂 _/|\_

    3. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

      UPDATE:

      As promised – here is the updated version of my Bhagavatam refutation article. You may go through it now completely to get convinced without any doubts. 🙂

      http://www.mahapashupatastra.com/2011/12/bhagavatam-of-krishna-is-bogus-devi-bhagavatam-is-authentic.html

      Reply
  11. Subhasis Dey

    One more point please about my comment on January 24, which I think I should bring to your notice. After this I’ll close the discussion about this topic. According the story of the Siva-Vishnu battle in the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata, Lord Siva shed his anger only after this battle when Lord Brahma reminded Him that He sprang from the wrath of Lord Vishnu. But, in the Drona -vadha Parva of the same Mahabharata, Lord Veda Vyasa himself states that “Beholding that arrowy shower, all the gods bowing down unto Maheswara, assigned to Rudra a substantial share in sacrifices……His wrath being dispelled , the great God then restored the sacrifice. ” ( Book 7 , Section CCII) This fact has even been attested in the Valmiki Ramayana ( 1-66-9). The account in the Drona-vadha Parva is ,therefore, valid on the strength of mutual support (with the verses in the Valmiki Ramayana) . According to Siva Puranam, Lord Siva underwent deep meditation after this for a long period. Therefore, the story of Siva- Vishnu duel in the Shanti Parva is completely fake. I wish a detailed Article from you in near future highlighting this as you did in your masterpiece Article ‘the Story of subduing Shiva’s pride from Ramayana cannot be taken on its face value . ‘

    Reply
    1. Santosh Kumar Ayalasomayajula (षण्मातुरः) (Post author)

      I agree with you. This shiva-narayanarishi battle is not usually seen in other texts, this chapter has other inconsistencies as well. May be soon if lord wishes, I would deep dive in and see how much of truth exists in that chapter.

      Reply
  12. Vikram Srinivasan

    Mahadevyaischa vidhmahey, vishnu patheencha dheemahi dhanno lakshmi prachodhayath
    She is the Maha Devi and Maha Lakshmi Devi
    All glories to the Matha Mahalakshmi
    God bless you all in the spiritual discussion
    At least we are not talking about something else not relevant like cinema/entertainment here in this current world
    From ArdhaNari to ChakraDhari
    God Bless you
    Jai Sriman Narayana

    Reply
    1. Beautiful message!! 🙂 _/|\_

      Reply

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: