Nearly forgot the reason I wanted to comment at all:
vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=2298
[color="#0000FF"]Anyone else suspect that that serial morph - the Romanian - carefully morphed himself into one "Hariharan" to comment at the above article?[/color]
All his usual arguments about "Shankara" and "monotheism" are there:
- "hidden-buddhism" accusations (there's a simple reason Shankara can't be a Buddhist. IIRC, he declared in his writings that Buddha was either willfully or ignorantly wrong. Hard to be a Buddhist after declaring the Buddha is simply wrong...)
- that Shankara "invented nirguna/saguna". Said "hariharan": "saguna/nirguna brahman also in coined by him only to prove his point no else is using it"
Again, the same argument Romani made, except that the LalitopAkhyANam is supposed to be older than the Adi Shankara and it uses Saguna and Nirguna to describe its Subject.
- that Adi Shankara (and only that Vedantic Acharya) is selective in finding proof for his position, something which Romani also claimed:
- that Vaishnavam is "monotheism".
- brings in Romani's usual favourites as "argument":
"Acharyas like Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, Nimbarka advocate the worship the one God Narayana,Vishnu, Vasudeva as the supreme god" **
What, no mention that Shri Vaishnavam worships Lakshmi too? I count 2 Gods already.... And Shri Vaishnavam is more particular as to kuladevam than Madhvas are (e.g. in TN, I even saw some Kannadiga Madhva vedabrahmanas perform a homam to Parvati-Shiva just this year.)
Also, Vaishnava Hindus from TN are unlikely call upon all of these simultaneously, and are likely to stick to their own branch of Vaishnavam, which in TN tends to be either of Shri Vaishnavam, Madhva or the Advaitic kind - the last are the Vaishnava Hindus attached to Shankaracharya mathas)
- plus this is *exactly* the very topic that interests Romani (and hence the very arguments he brings up)
- But Hariharan does mention "Lord Muruga and Lord Indra" and speaks of "our Vedic religion" - although variations on that last phrase seems to have been used quite often by Vijaya Rajeeva and commenters in various recent articles. But this does not necessarily disprove that it could be Romani, as all this would be entirely in line with the carefully morphing Romanian, learning from each encounter with Hindus, especially when he wants to peddle his "monotheism" vs "Shankara" without being caught. (I.e. morphing into a Tamizh Hindu and speaking of "our Vedic religion" to parrot the writers would be very much the sort of thing he would do now, to lay himself above suspicion as a meddling alien. And he has amply proven his desire to meddle and influence Hindus in this very matter.)
But far better to have a look at the link for all occurrences of "Hariharan" so people can decide for themselves based on his numerous comments there.
** Meanwhile, apparently even the Srimad Bhagavatam (in Skandha IV) praises Brahma and Rudra. And thereafter it sees Vishnu identify himself with them again: saying he *is* BrahmA and he is Rudra. (That he is the trimoorti essentially. I.e. the same thing that's also regularly said of Saraswati, Lakshmi, Shiva, Ganapati, etc. etc.)
Just before all of that, it sees Rudra prostrate to BrahmA, before BrahmA then declares Rudra to be the Brahman and mentions Shiva-Shakti too.
Clearly the Srimad Bhagavatam (SB) finds BrahmA and Rudra worshipful too.
(Plus it turns out that not only Vaishnava Hindus but other kinds too use the SB for ritualistic purposes.)
vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=2298
[color="#0000FF"]Anyone else suspect that that serial morph - the Romanian - carefully morphed himself into one "Hariharan" to comment at the above article?[/color]
All his usual arguments about "Shankara" and "monotheism" are there:
- "hidden-buddhism" accusations (there's a simple reason Shankara can't be a Buddhist. IIRC, he declared in his writings that Buddha was either willfully or ignorantly wrong. Hard to be a Buddhist after declaring the Buddha is simply wrong...)
- that Shankara "invented nirguna/saguna". Said "hariharan": "saguna/nirguna brahman also in coined by him only to prove his point no else is using it"
Again, the same argument Romani made, except that the LalitopAkhyANam is supposed to be older than the Adi Shankara and it uses Saguna and Nirguna to describe its Subject.
- that Adi Shankara (and only that Vedantic Acharya) is selective in finding proof for his position, something which Romani also claimed:
Quote:As regards shankara he cuts and paste from the upanishads and thereby 'proves' his theory of monism. For this he disregards most of the vedas/brahmanas portion , ignores the dualistic passages in upanishads and claims he is a vedantist/vedic and further states vedas proclaim the identity of jiva and brahman. The saguna/nirguna brahman also in coined by him only to prove his point no else is using it.
- that Vaishnavam is "monotheism".
- brings in Romani's usual favourites as "argument":
"Acharyas like Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha, Nimbarka advocate the worship the one God Narayana,Vishnu, Vasudeva as the supreme god" **
What, no mention that Shri Vaishnavam worships Lakshmi too? I count 2 Gods already.... And Shri Vaishnavam is more particular as to kuladevam than Madhvas are (e.g. in TN, I even saw some Kannadiga Madhva vedabrahmanas perform a homam to Parvati-Shiva just this year.)
Also, Vaishnava Hindus from TN are unlikely call upon all of these simultaneously, and are likely to stick to their own branch of Vaishnavam, which in TN tends to be either of Shri Vaishnavam, Madhva or the Advaitic kind - the last are the Vaishnava Hindus attached to Shankaracharya mathas)
- plus this is *exactly* the very topic that interests Romani (and hence the very arguments he brings up)
- But Hariharan does mention "Lord Muruga and Lord Indra" and speaks of "our Vedic religion" - although variations on that last phrase seems to have been used quite often by Vijaya Rajeeva and commenters in various recent articles. But this does not necessarily disprove that it could be Romani, as all this would be entirely in line with the carefully morphing Romanian, learning from each encounter with Hindus, especially when he wants to peddle his "monotheism" vs "Shankara" without being caught. (I.e. morphing into a Tamizh Hindu and speaking of "our Vedic religion" to parrot the writers would be very much the sort of thing he would do now, to lay himself above suspicion as a meddling alien. And he has amply proven his desire to meddle and influence Hindus in this very matter.)
But far better to have a look at the link for all occurrences of "Hariharan" so people can decide for themselves based on his numerous comments there.
** Meanwhile, apparently even the Srimad Bhagavatam (in Skandha IV) praises Brahma and Rudra. And thereafter it sees Vishnu identify himself with them again: saying he *is* BrahmA and he is Rudra. (That he is the trimoorti essentially. I.e. the same thing that's also regularly said of Saraswati, Lakshmi, Shiva, Ganapati, etc. etc.)
Just before all of that, it sees Rudra prostrate to BrahmA, before BrahmA then declares Rudra to be the Brahman and mentions Shiva-Shakti too.
Clearly the Srimad Bhagavatam (SB) finds BrahmA and Rudra worshipful too.
(Plus it turns out that not only Vaishnava Hindus but other kinds too use the SB for ritualistic purposes.)