Lingāyaṭa Ḍurmaṭa Khandana
Hare Krishna
All Glories To Sri Guru And Sri Gauranga!
This is going to be the last post in the series refuting the lingayat cultists.
The previous post ON lingayats....
This post deals with the incompatibility of the vachanas with the vedas.
One person commented on a previous post on the quora platform as follows, ..........
Pūrvapakṣa: In order to understand these vachanas you have to elevate to the level of nirvaanam. Without that you will cling on to the worldly aspects.
न पुण्यं न पापं न सौख्यं न दुःखं
न मन्त्रो न तीर्थं न वेदा न यज्ञाः ।
अहं भोजनं नैव भोज्यं न भोक्ता
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥४॥
अहं निर्विकल्पो निराकाररूपो
विभुत्वाच्च सर्वत्र सर्वेन्द्रियाणाम् ।
न चासङ्गतं नैव मुक्तिर्न मेयः
चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥६॥
Shiva being described in these selected vachanas is beyond what veda, shaastra, puraana etc can describe. Hence these vachanas ask you to go beyond them. Many other intellectuals who have been able to reach that level have all said the same. The examples quoted above are from Nirvaana Shatkam from Adi Shankara (not a Virashaiva). When someone is stuck in formful god and doesn’t believe in nirguna brahmam, how will he understand the lingAnga sAmarasya and the state of jeevan mukti achieved by those beings who have crossed your level.
Suggest you first understand the differences between Parashiva, Sadaashiva, Maheshwara, Rudra etc, then you can start thinking about interpreting vachana saahitya.
Response: Do the Lingayats not boast about their bogus vachanas being very simple, composed in such a way that it is understandable by all, and different from the complex vedas? Do they not boast that the vachanas are valid for all people regardless of their status, then why is this person defending the Lingayats saying that one has elevate to a so and so level to understand their meaning, is it not for the common mass, that they are made in simple and in the local language? This is not something universal and thus has to be rejected. Even if this is true then how does Basava or their Vachanas help a person who is not on that level, reach that level? That means the vachanas are not ultimate and has to be discarded as false. Krishna assures his guidance in the bhagavad gita, to reach him back, this is the ultimate truth, which is reliable, and the topmost authority, the word of god, which is eternal, the false god of lingayats, forces his devotees to ascend to a certain level inorder to understand the bogus vachana, while god, Sri Krishna, who is the eternal preceptor and a true wellwisher and friend of all living entities, as stated in the gita, himself guides and gives us freedom to choose(as due to that freedom of choice we separated from him).He guides the ignorant to the path of righteousness or dharma, which is totally different from that of the Lingayat cult.
Another reason why vachanas cannot be an authority, the vachanas could be destroyed using this argument.
As Shankaracarya said:—
‘even a hundred Vedic texts cannot establish that fire is cold or does
not give light; for no one can cognise what is opposed to what is seen.
We see that the vachanas make an absurd claim, by which the entire vachana sahitya can be discarded as false, Urupeddalingi, a renowned author of the vachanas, asserts in one of his vachanas that, "DOES FRAGRANCE EXIST WITHOUT FLOWERS?", in the context of disapproving the existence of fragrance without flowers, he gives similar examples, as he also said 'can day exist without sun?', 'can light exist without a lamp'?.This is also a lesson, named vachanagalu, poem number 2.2, in the 12th grade kannada textbook published by the pre-university education department of karnataka. Now it is as absurd as establishing that fire is cold or does not give light, as we all know fragrance can emanate from sandalwood, from chemicals, etc and a lot of substances. So we can discard this statement on the basis of shankaracharya's statement above. Let us say chemicals did not exist then, but when a lingayat says us to elevate to a certain level to understand the vachanas called nirvana, does the person who is qualified enough to write vachanas, not able to know the future, that artificial substances could produce fragrance?
This person has misquoted the acharyas again, even in the vishnu sahasranama, it is described, that god is the one, who is beyond the understanding of the vedas, but for us human beings, vedas are the ultimate level of truth, which is given to us, as per our intelligence by god, how do they know that, someone like shiva exists, basavanna has copied it from the vedas and the virashaivas, the vachanas are made by lingayats, how are they authentic? did shiva come to them and explain them the vachanas? well, the vachanas themselves say shiva is not god, the goswamis of vrindavana have successfully refuted the formlessness of god, god has a form of bliss and knowledge, who is infinite, acharyas like ramanujacharya, madhvacharya, etc have refuted the aspect of formlessness of god, according to the vedas, it is narayana who is supreme, not shiva, shiva is the greatest devotee of narayana, the vachanas have a lot of shortcomings. How could they assume that I have stated, that the vedas, can describe god fully. Please read the bramha sutras, and understand that these people without an authority have deceived them, how are they an authority, what is the source of their knowledge, we can date back to our gurus and back to krishna, can they trace their lineage back to their false god? Shankaracharya, they quoted, has also refuted the pashupata religion, he says that rudra is a servitor of narasimha dev in his stotra, and the word shiva can also be used to describe vishnu, as in the vishnu sahasranama which means, all auspicious, madhvacharya says all the words in the vedas are the names of god, as vishnu is sarvashabdavachyakta, as he is all encompassing. This does not require rocket science but requires minimum common sense. Nirvana means enlightenment, god is merciful enough to have enlightened the entire human race through the vedas, even shiva says only vishnu is the only means of liberation. what is the meaning of liberation according to the lingayats? going up and up to where? kailasa? even that aspect of shiva's abode is copied from the vedas. the biggest proof that the vachanas are bogus is that, it grew up in the criticism of the vedas and its practices, thus it contradicts the very meaning of dharma or religion. it is unnatural. the vachanas are filled with hatred towards varnashrama, and the vedas, without understanding them, as clearly pointed out in the previous posts, this itself disproves the fact that the vachanas are not reliable scriptures. the vedas were born from the breath of god, god himself, wrote it in the form of veda vyasa, many phenomenon mentioned in the vedas, such as gravitation etc are proven, its' prediction of shankaracharya spreading mayavada, madhvacharya refuting him, the spreading of the bhakti movement of chaitanya mahaprabhu, veda vyasa incarnating to write the vedas, many agamas of rishis on whose accounts we can believe that veda vyasa indeed is the incarnation who wrote it down, as vedas existed orally. Vacahanas are unreliable as a religion cannot be just the criticism of another, which was born as a result of criticism, how could this be called as true religion? True religion or dharma comes from god, it fails the criterion of being a religion, like the vachanas, which are nothing but criticism. in short, vachanas are unreliable, because it is not apaurusheya, vedas though they claim themselves that none, including them can describe god, in full because he is infinite. but vedas, have the instructions for human beings, and their upliftment, through which we can get to know god according to our capabilities, and reach him, or back to godhead.
Another Pūrvapakṣin, who claims himself/herself to be a veerashaiva, alleged me of hypocrisy, he/she stated,
Pūrvapakṣa: Criticism of the Vachana Sāhitya is a criticism of Vīrasaiva system which is Vedic.
Your criticisms are based on what nonsensical ramblings? You state In Part 1 Creation of the world does not happen through Love. Your Vishnu creates words free from Desires. So you state that Srī Rāmanuja and others did not emphasize the creation of the world as an act of God's Love?
What hypocrisy is this?
Response: First of all this pseudo veerashaiva, asked me to remove the name "shaiva" from the title, as in his/her own words, lingayats are or a shaiva or a vedic cult.
He/she later responded the above Pūrvapakṣa when I justified the usage of this term in the part 1.
He also later said, "Basavanna never rejected any Vīrasaiva practices. We don't wear yajnopaveeta like Brahmins. Our thread is Self realisation (Srī Jābālopanishad and Srī Nirvānopanishad are authorities). Ishtalinga Puja is what we we only. Not anything else."
Starting from the beginning, all the claims being made are based on vedic literature. And thus it refutes the lingayat nonsense. part 1. is just the introduction to the series, and there is nothing related to creation mentioned in the first part. His words prove the same thing. What it says is that, Vishnu is free of desires, he does not create it out of love but out of mercy, while he/she says, mercy is same as love, but when a person is merciful to someone, it doesn't mean he is merciful out of love, a person can be merciful, in many contexts such as, when he/she is pitiful, that person can show his mercy out of pity.
And later he also claimed that I asserted the fact that, I accused the Lingayats and that I messed up the theory, of god creating the world with love. But I claimed it on the basis of a vachana written by Basavanna, swinging in it in love
In the end concealing it within itself, is the spider.Likewise,
Our Koodalasangamadeva
Can draw it into himself
The world that he has caused.
The spider that has yarn |
It is clear from the highlighted line that Basava considered god to be upadana karana, which again contradicts the basic fundamental tenet of the veerashaivas, and against Srikanta Acharya, the very first acharya of shaivism. It is highly incompatible with the vedas. The god of the lingayats is very much unlike the god of vedas, i.e., is Sri Krishna, who says in the Bhagavad Gita, yogakṣemam vahāmyaham, where the lord promises to protect his devotees, and where he tells he would look after their wellbeing, and nourish them. God is selfless and does not accept anything in return, as he does not require anything, for his causeless gifts, he gave to us. Krishna also says nā mē bhaktaḥ praṇasyaṭi my devotees never perish, he assures us of it. While the false God of the Lingayats demand work, from them. Another question for the Lingayats, why does your false God god not give equal opportunities to all, why are some disabled by birth, hence making them unfit to perform their, " kayaka" or work, how is that a person could steal the results of others kayaka, why is there the desire to do evil things such as robbery, because if kayaka was the ultimate thing that could lead to liberation, then that should be eternal, and could not be stolen by others, but we see that robbers can actually steal the results of others kayaka, which makes it natural that kayaka is not ultimate, as the merit of a person can be easily and unethically stolen by others. This person on quora also claimed that vedas are bound to the 3 modes of material nature, and he ascribed it to the bhagavad gita. Shankaracharya says, vedas are satvika, the puranas are of the 3 kinds. Krishna looks after his devotees unconditionally, while the false god of lingayats, is demanding of his believers. A final question: Basava who fought for the unreal equality between the genders, how did he know that his "koodalasangama deva" is a deva and not "koodalasangama devi"?Why does he associate male gender with his false god, when he believes in the formlessness of his void god, throughout his vachanas? We see that practicing vedic religion/ vaishnavism is authentic, true, based on true facts, logic, reliable testimonies, inference, and science.And practicing the Lingayat religion can do no good for the society at large, since it is a cooked up theory, with no real evidences or scriptures to support them, but rather contains sentimental arguments and baseless criticisms of the vedas. Hare Krishna ṣri kṛṣnārpaṇamasṭu! सर्वं एवं मम हृदयं राज्यं कृत्वा मम प्रेमविषयं श्री अप्रमेय श्री श्रीराधाव्रजचन्द्राय च समर्प्यते। Everything thus is offered to the lord who reigns my heart, and who is the object of my love, Sri Aprameya and Sri Sri Radha Vrajachandra.  |
Comments
Post a Comment