Post

āṅgīrasaśreṣṭha

@GhorAngirasa

Jun 30, 2019 • 36 tweets • 6 min read • Read on X

Read a comment to the effect that using the term “myths” means that the person has no faith & should be committed to an asylum. By that logic, many great AcAryas would be worthy of being committed for holding that myths reflect certain truths outside historical time & space.

Poor @Dauhshanti was getting trolled by low-IQ, hare-brained pests. Hence my comment.

A huge consequence of technological egalitarianism (equal access to technology/resources) is that individuals of very mediocre abilities watch a few videos of famous Hindutva tweeple, get all woke & go around giving their useless opinions on complex theological issues.

You have never put in the hours to do the hard work. You don’t even possess a basic vocabulary of the matters on which you abuse others. You can’t even say the names of relevant works of AcAryas since all you know is a few hot-off-the-press titles written in the last 5-10 years.

Unpopular opinion: Forming opinions & arguments on Hindu theological issues should never be a democratic, free-for-all process. There should be a diversity of opinions, yes; but from a small group of intelligent people. Unfortunately, we can’t enforce that here.

Are you more Hindu than the great kumArila-bhaTTa who said that the indra-ahalyA AkhyAna should be seen symbolically such that indra stands for the sun with ahalyA representing the night that disappears (lIyate/लीयते) by day (ahani) (i.e. ravished by the rising sun)??

Are you more Hindu than the great shaivAcArya rAmakaNTha of 900+ CE kAshmIram, who wrote that paramashiva doesn't actually bear a moon on his head, being beyond form or that the paurANika AkhyAnas (killing andhakAsura, etc) should be understood for the subtle truths they teach?++

Are you more Hindu than the venerable traditional scholar, Hindu revivalist & anti-missionary, intellectual warrior, shrI ARumukha nAvalar of Jaffna, who taught that the skanda-vaLLi story should be understood in light of its tattva-rahasya & not literally??++

1. The truth of paurANika kathas has nothing to do with literal occurrence in historical time. Sure, great bhaktas will speak as if they occurred in such a manner. That is to induce a certain rasa in oneself & others.++

2. Nowhere in dharma is the literal understanding of paurANika kathas as actual occurrences in historical time in some corner of the universe deemed as some fundamental article of faith. That is your own assumption, due to your sheer lack of reading/training.

3. By privileging the materialist definition of truth as "actual, historical occurrence", you have completely ceded the ground to your enemies. Both Xtians & their earliest opponents (the post-Enlightenment atheist freaks) were literally 2 sides of the same coin++

3'Contd: Both based their respective stances on the historical reality of the bible. The Xtians attempted to prove the accuracy of their bible by demonstrating how historical evidence matches with biblical testimony. Atheists tried to show how it did not match.++

3'Contd: Don't get sucked into the game. I am not saying that matters of historical value can't be found in our texts. Of course they can & we must do all we can to uncover our history. But we do not need "actual occurrence" to extract the truth of purANa-kathas.

The idea that historical actuality of scripture is essential in order for scriptures/traditions to have any worth/value is shared by both abrahamisms & modern atheism.

By Liam Jerrold Fraser in "The Secret Sympathy: New Atheism, Protestant Fundamentalism, and Evolution":

Since a few people have misunderstood my thread and many more are likely to misunderstand later, let me surmise the several conclusions from this thread & side-threads:

1. Take any divya-shAstram (divine shAstra). Is it "true"? 1-word answer: YES. It applies to all categories:

1. Descriptive accounts of events/persons
2. vidhi/pratiSedha: Injunction/prohibitions with specified fruits for adherence/violation
3. Description of tattva-viSaya

2. If that shAstra is giving us certain accounts of devas, humans, etc, does it need historical actuality to be true? No, it does NOT NEED it all.

Can it be true without any historical evidence? YES.
Can it be true even while contradicting supposed evidence? YES.

3. Main purpose of a divya-shAstra is to do 2 things:
a. Give us injunctions/prohibitions whose observance/non-observance bears fruits in a non-worldly (a-laukika) manner.
b. Give us, descriptively, tattva-viSayas which are utterly a-laukika & can't be known in an empirical way.

4. AcAryas got the importance of reading a shAstra properly. Merely saying, "Oh I easily believe all these things as they are; you dare reflect on this? You faithless intellectual" is no display of shraddhA. It is lazy thoughtlessness & vain virtue-signalling disguised as piety.+

5. When a great man from a hoary guru-parampara, who lived & taught more than a 1000 years ago, explains painstakingly why purANa stories (shiva entrancing the wives of daruka-vana sages, killing andhaka, etc) are to be understood non-literally, you can either give up or read.

6. Saying snarky things like, "Oh I can believe these things happening literally anyway; what is all this highfalutin stuff?" does not make you a "simple-minded bhakta". It makes you an arrogant person who puts down great gurus without putting in the effort to understand them.

7. Now, some nuances. Take "symbolic interpretation" & take the 3 categories mentioned in point 1 above.

1st category: Symbolic reading does NOT necessarily have to displace a literal reading of accounts/events. Both literal & symbolic readings can coexist. No problem.+

7. Cont'd:
Classic example of co-existence: rAmAyaNa-vyAkhyAna: The great teacher, piLLai-lokAcArya, reads many rAmAyaNa events in light of an inner meaning in his shrI-vacana-bhUSaNam. But this doesn't imply denial of literal occurrence within this world.+

8. 2nd Category: Symbolic meaning cannot wish away or invalidate the literal performance of ritual injunctions (i.e. vedic sacrifices), unless it can be established that the literal carrying out of the vidhi will result in a serious contradiction or absurdity.++

8'Cont'd:
Injunctions are there to be acted upon when heard. Symbolic interpretation cannot destroy the potency of an injunction to convey that literal meaning. Some may ask, "What is this literal meaning you are speaking of?"+

8'Cont'd:
There is a core principle in interpretation called, "रूढिर्योगमपहरति", accepted by all mainstream traditions/teachers.

Meaning: The रूढि: (conventional usage) of a word will set aside the यौगिक meaning (Etymological meaning formed by union of a word's components)

8'Cont'd:
Thus, one cannot wish away the conventional meanings of words like pashu, vapA (omentum/fat), etc simply because they are displeased with the literal sense. One can choose not to implement the literal sense, sure. But one cannot deny the literal sense of the injunction.

9. 2nd Category: Sometimes, there may be contradictions in the same shAstra's ritual injunctions (vidhis). So, a skilled guru may then rely on the concepts of "arthavAda", "prashaMsA" (praise) & ninda (condemnation) to resolve it.++

9. Cont'd: Sometimes, in order to highlight the merit of a particular method of doing something, the shAstra may put down another method which it had praised earlier.++

10. 1st/3rd Category contradictions: Sometimes, there may be contradictions between a tattva-viSaya & an account of events or there may be contradictions between 2 descriptive passages discussing tattva-viSayas.++

10. Cont'd: Will not delve into detailed examples as they can be technical. The teacher will sometimes reconcile two contradictory descriptive, tattva-viSaya passages with the help of the surrounding context. Or, he may utilize a higher "meta", tattva-viSaya to resolve it.

10. For example, as to the question of where a certain category of souls are situated, different Agamas will give different bhuvanas (Worlds). The teacher briefly notes that the category of souls in question possesses omnipresence & so the precise location doesn't really matter.

11. Sometimes, certain purANa-kathas have to be explained in a non-literal fashion. Why? Say that a shAstra teaches you paramashiva exists beyond time (kAla) & form (rUpa). How would one then understand kathas where shiva is with a particularized form & acting within time??++

11 Cont'd. So, andhaka-vadhaH (slaying of andhaka) is interpreted as the destruction of mala (the impurity which blinds a soul to its true nature. There are many more examples, but I will stop here.

12. Interpretation of texts is a very complex task. There is no single way to look at it. There is no one conclusion. "Historicity is good", "Historicity is bad", "Symbolic meaning is good for everything". There is a case by case approach for all of this.

13. We should NOT use "historicity" to undermine our shAstras/sampradAyas. We should NOT limit our definition of "truth" to "occurrence in historical time". Having said that, we can use both historical & symbolic readings to enhance our appreciation of certain matters.//End

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

More from @GhorAngirasa

āṅgīrasaśreṣṭha

@GhorAngirasa

Oct 24

https://x.com/GhorAngirasa/status/1980973812620599750

A thread on Purāṇa-s and the answers they give for commonly held questions--I intend for this thread to be a long-continuing series--To save time, I will share screenshots of the original and translation:

A burning question that many of us have: Why do devotees of the Gods suffer?

Nārada relates to Arjuna in the Skāndapurāṇa (here, we will see the version of the text with seven khaṇḍa-s) the story of a pious trader, Nandabhadra, who has the same question. Nandabhadra was not just an external worshiper but one who was righteous within and theDevas themselves were pleased with his character. Nandabhadra had recently lost his son and wife. He had a neighbour--an atheist who found delight in causing the pious to deviate from their belief in Dharma, but called himself Satyavrata (one who has taken a vow to speak only the truth).

Given Nandabhadra's devastating personal losses, Satyavrata, using sympathy as pretext, uttered the following words to break Nandabhadra.

This consists of the usual tripe from atheists that we hear even today.

Where are the Devas? This is false; they would be visible if they existed - kva devāḥ saṃti mithyaitaddṛśyaṃte cedbhavaṃtyapi |

All these are the imagination of untruthful Vipras (Brāhmaṇa-s) for the sake of wealth/goodies - sarvā ca kūṭaviprāṇāṃ dravyāyaiṣā vikalpanā

There is nothing worse than human birth. It is full of miseries. Human birth is a tax. It is better to be born as animals.

Nandabhadra is not swayed by Satyavrata's atheistic speech and rebukes him. He then goes to worship the Kapileśvara Liṅga on the banks of Bahūdaka Kuṇḍa.

https://x.com/GhorAngirasa/status/1980973812620599750

However, he does feel miserable with all that has been going on his life and recited the following verses to Sadāśiva, expressing his deep grievance with the nature of existence.

On the 4th day, a young boy, looking extremely ill with leprosy, appears before him and starts conversation with Nandabhadra. The young boy chides Nandabhadra for wishing to die and starts his discourse on the nature of suffering and the importance of being freed from greed.

Nandabhadra then takes up the four things which are reproached: kāma (desire), krodha (anger), ahaṃkāra (egoism/sense of I-ness) and indriya-s (sensory faculties). He makes an opt observation. Kāma is needed for even the pursuit of svarga and mokṣa.

Without krodha (anger), one is regarded by enemies, external and internal, as a blade of grass. Without ahaṃkāra (sense of I-ness), one will be regarded as mad. If one causes his Indriyas to withdraw from everything, how can one hear the Dharma (such as the Boy's discourses) and, as a matter of fact, even live?

The Boy then refers to the tattvas immediately higher than ahaṃkāra and the Indriyas: the Guṇas (sattvaguṇa, rajoguṇa & tamoguṇa) and buddhi (Intellect) and explains how to regulate the earlier 4 by means of sattvaguṇa. He ends that part of the discourse with a statement:

mānuṣyamāhustattvajñāḥ śivabhāvena bhāvitam || 76

The human condition, the knowers of Tattvas say, is imbued with Śiva-nature.

Contrast this with the atheist Satyavrata's statement that human existence is cursed. It is at this point Nandabhadra asks the question, "Why do the pious suffer?"

All you say may be true but the Īśvara-s, who are givers of everything, the Devas worshiped by all--why do they not protect their own devotees from sorrows? Particularly, some of these devoted ones are sunk in misery. My intellect is deluded because of this, boy! What do you think?

The Boy divides the devotees into two types--pure and impure--and warns about the consequences of worshiping Devas when 'impure'. When an 'impure' man worships Devas, the Bhūta-s take over him and make him resort to improper acts, causing him to perish quickly--adā bhūtānyā viśaṃti sa ca muhyati tatkṣaṇāt || vimūḍhaścāpyakāryāṇi tāni tāni niṣevate|--akārya here means an improper/unbefitting act.

What does impure mean here? Here, it means a spiritually impure person who does not do the duties placed upon him by Īśvara.

Now, what about the pure bhaktas, the real ones who perform their obligations faithfully and then worship? Why do bad things happen to them?

The Boy answers that a huge amount of previous karma-s, which may take several painful lifetimes, are rapidly consumed in the course of a single life--tasya pūrvakṛtaṃ vyaktaṃ karmaṇāṃ koṭi mucyate|--bahubhirjanmabhirbhojyaṃ bhujyetaikena janmanā

When such a huge amount of karmas is burnt off, the soul can proceed to realize its true objectives (happiness here and hereafter) without obstacles.

Read 6 tweets

āṅgīrasaśreṣṭha

@GhorAngirasa

Jul 28

Sadly, there is no link between “constructive activities” and “sticking with the right path” in terms of values,

Carnatic music, etc are purely performative for many of these kids—something to master & carve out a niche place for oneself in terms of skill and something to serve as a source of fame.

If you define right path in terms of religious & moral values, Carnatic music or traditional dance have hardly an impact. Chess, etc-abysmally less significant.

Parents’ upbringing is the one *external* thing that comes closest in terms of having an impact and even that is not at all determinative. At best, it acts as a dam against bad, innate vāsanas or a force multiplier for good, innate vāsanas. That’s all.

We see many cases where a child is brought up in a very wholesome, traditional environment (traditional but not autistically absurd/harsh; firm but loving) and yet goes astray.

Problems which arise at the level of Svābhāvika machinery cannot be combatted by a purely empirical/pragmatic approach: parental upbringing, good schools, etc.

A truly potent & “awakened” temple, cleaning up the corrupt practices at temples, ensuring a competent & honest priesthood at every temple. reviving Tīrthakșetras in every nook & corner of the country, revival of Utsavas, mass sponsoring of anāthapreta-samskāras so that no Hindu body ever gets left behind, frequent recitation of Vedas, purāņas & āgamas at every corner of Bhārata, frequent pravacanas by truly learned Vidvāns, dīkșā-s & imparting of ntiyapūjās for eligible ones of all backgrounds—all these will do far more to suppress evil Vāsanas.

It won’t be immediate. May take 2-3 generations to see a truly tangible effect. But this is what I personally feel.

You can partake in zero “constructive” or cultural things and instead play sports or read books or watch anime as a child and still turn out alright. The sauce is not in these “constructive hobbies”. You want your kids to do it because you consider them as domains to manifest one’s excellence—that’s fine. But it has zero to do with one’s moral/religious quality.

Read 6 tweets

āṅgīrasaśreṣṭha

@GhorAngirasa

Jun 9

This goes well with the Saiddhāntika conception of Ātmā (Self/Soul) & its inseparable Cicchakti (which is the Ātmā’s individuality). Every Ātmā, when divested of all non-innate, insentient characteristics (form, name, māyā which supplies it with the stream of bodies/faculties through births, karmic baggage, etc), is a unique sentient, whose fundamental nature cannot be further simplified.

I was also trying to formulate, yesterday night, the “categorical”/“univeraal” Śivatvam as an analog of the One before I decided to write this morning:

1. Every sentient is *a* Śiva (*a* Cidghana, a unique unit of consciousness) and therefore has an inseparable Cicchakti (individuality), which is but its Śivatvam/Śiva-ness.

2. Imagine a set consisting of every sentient’s Śivatvam. One may therefore speak of a universal Śivatvam, for discussion’s sake.

3. In the Siddhānta, universals are denied—there is no universal separate from the individuals which partake in it.

4. “The One/Śivatvam neither is”—Śivatvam as universal does not exist, separate from individual instances or Śivatvam.

5. “Nor is Śivatvam one”—There is no universal Śivatvam that is ‘one’—i.e. a unique entity—as it cannot partake in itself.

6. Therefore, Śivatvam is an infinite class of members, one for each sentient.

Hope this made some sense: @premavardhanam @EPButler

x.com/premavardhanam…

Or one may change the set of Śivatvam-s to a set of Śiva-s and the result will be the same because Śiva and Śivatvam are considered different-yet-non-different. It may be, in fact, more cogent.

CC: @premavardhanam @EPButler

//End

Read 4 tweets

āṅgīrasaśreṣṭha

@GhorAngirasa

May 23

https://twitter.com/potturirat58839/status/1925804342298218843

Typical understanding of Āgama/Tantra that is present in those who have no idea of it.

https://twitter.com/potturirat58839/status/1925804342298218843

Fact is, it is the Āgamika-Tāntrika religion that saved the Vaidika-Paurāņika religion. Firstly, it supplemented the latter in the form of material incorporated into the Purāņas.

Secondly, the developed methods in Tantrāgama have been incorporated into vaidika praxis (nyāsa, mudras, etc).

Thirdly, when the Aupanișada Vidyās and Upāsanas had mostly died off due to broken transmission, it is the Upāsanakrama of the Tantrāgama that was adopted by the Yatis of the different schools of Vedānta: Śrīvidyā by the Advaitīs, Pāñcarātra by the Vaișņavas.

Tantrāgama massively built on Sāńkhyā and its Tattvajñāna has proven to be an invaluable supplement to the Dharma as a whole.

Those who think Tantrāgama is about worship or Kșūdradevatas have zero idea of what they are discussing.

Even outside the realm of theology, Tantrāgama has helped the Vaidika-Paurāņika religion. For example, Kāmikāgama has a whole chapter dedicated to gifting qualified Vipras for their Vedic learning.

It is to the credit of Siddhānta (which falls under Tantrāgama) that Vedic institutions were supported in TN by groups across the board and a large group of non-Brāhmaņas became teetotalers and took up an Ācāra that was compatible with Vaidikācāra.

Who do you think made large swathes of people adopt such an Ācāra? Vaidikas?

No. It’s the Ācāryas of the Siddhānta who drew upon the power of Śiva to impress Vaidikācāra and its associated norms and habits on large groups of families, which were otherwise untouched by Vaidikācāra. The Pāñcarātra too made similar contributions.

Read 4 tweets

āṅgīrasaśreṣṭha

@GhorAngirasa

May 13, 2024

Anyone who ignores the Brāhmaṇa texts of the Veda & the Karmakāṇḍa, and treats them as if they are non-existent, in their overall narrative on the meaning of the Veda, no matter how eloquent they are or sagacious they sound, cannot be authoritative, let alone a Ṛṣi.

Problem is even those who affirm the Vedatvam of the Brāhmaṇa texts ignore their importance & their overall interpretative framework makes Śrauta rituals & Karmakāṇḍa redundant & meaningless.

How good is your system if it does not, for example, have a stimulating explanation for why the Hautra Brāhmaṇa give 100s of correspondences (bandhas) between a particular Śastra (not Śāstra, but Śastra which is a particular combination of Ṛk-mantras) & the day/time of a particular sacrifice (To give a generalised form: “Let Hotṛs recite X-Śastra for Nth day of Y ritual as X contains word A & A is related to N”).

Where does this tie in with soteriology & metaphysics? Does this have a meaning beyond fulfilling desires? What was & is the point of all this? Are these rites still relevant given the advent of later rites & paths? What is the relationship between the old rites & new rites/knowledge?

Read 6 tweets

āṅgīrasaśreṣṭha

@GhorAngirasa

May 11, 2024

https://x.com/GhorAngirasa/status/1789312856347054532

What is the significance of Duryodhana being equated with the Yajamāna (the sacrificer for whose benefit the priests perform the Yajña) in Karṇa’s rich, allegorical description of the Raṇayajña (War-Sacrifice)?

What is the significance of Draupadī’s brother, Dhṛṣṭadyumna, being equated with the Dakṣiṇā (fees paid to the priests at the end of a sacrifice)? The priests are Kṛṣṇa & the three Kaunteyas among the Pāṇḍavas.

These identifications are not arbitrary & come to bear deep significance.

https://x.com/GhorAngirasa/status/1789312856347054532

https://x.com/ghorangirasa/status/1728105611076989152?s=46

Duryodhana: 👉🏾

The war ends with a curse on Kṛṣṇa & the Yādavas & culminates in Kṛṣṇa’s giving up of his physical body & the advent of Kaliyuga (Duryodhana is him). In other words, the Yajamāna (Kaliyuga) attained full reign of the earth & prosperity through the war-sacrifice.

https://x.com/ghorangirasa/status/1728105611076989152?s=46

Dhṛṣṭadyumna:👉🏾 x.com/ghorangirasa/s…

Being the Dakṣiṇā, Dhṛṣṭadyumna should have been given to the Ṛtvik-s (priests) of the war-sacrifice at the successful end of the sacrifice. i.e. He should have followed Kṛṣṇa, Yudhiṣṭhira, Bhīma & Arjuna.

Instead, on the 18th & last night, Kṛṣṇa asks the Pāṇḍavas to not sleep at the campsite as it would not be “auspicious” (presumably, not auspicious to return to the camp where warriors rest before the war resumes on the next day, as the war has now ended). But Dhṛṣṭadyumna (the Dakṣiṇā) is left behind at the camp.

Now, we have from the Veda a story where Manu, having divided all his wealth among all his sons but one, asks the remaining son to secure his wealth by assisting the Āṅgirasas at a sacrifice. At the successful completion of the ritual, the Āṅgirasas ask him to take the cows as Dakṣiṇā, which were left at the sacrificial site.

When Nābhānediṣṭha proceeds to collect the cows, Rudra comes from the northern quarter & tells him that whatever is left behind at the sacrificial site belongs to him. Nābhānediṣṭha goes to his father, Manu, & tells him all this & Manu confirms that is indeed the case. Now, this story has a happy ending where Rudra blesses the boy with the cows. Let that be.

Coming back to the Mahābhārata, the “Dakṣiṇā” (Dhṛṣṭadyumna) is left behind at the campsite. So, who comes to “collect” the Dakṣiṇā as his portion? It should be Rudra.

And Rudra indeed collects what is due to him. He enters Aśvatthāman’s body & then carries out a brutal raid of the camp site, killing Dhṛṣṭadyumna in a gruesome way.

Read 4 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

āṅgīrasaśreṣṭha

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @GhorAngirasa

āṅgīrasaśreṣṭha

āṅgīrasaśreṣṭha

āṅgīrasaśreṣṭha

āṅgīrasaśreṣṭha

āṅgīrasaśreṣṭha

āṅgīrasaśreṣṭha

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!