[Advaita-l] dakSiNAmUrti stOtra from sUta saMhita

[Satish Arigela]

>From: Bhaskar YR bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
 
>'allah' upanishad is not on muslim god 'allah', 'allah' means sister, this upanishad is about devi mAta, though I have not see this upanishad personally, this is what I heard from the very reliable source :-)) 

>I request someone,  who knows the contents of this upanishad,  to  share more information.   
 
I have seen this upaniShad once and there is nothing Hindu about it. It does not matter who your "reliable source" on this matter is, even if this source is a sanyasi from the great shankara order, it does not matter, he deserves to be slapped hard for the above misinformation.
Anyway the idea is that people learn to ask "why" and think deeper instead of hanging to some vague, very late, and biased interpolations in late texts, ignoring the larger and greater references and traditions, suggesting the exact opposite, staring them right in their faces
 
The below comments are generic and not directed at anyone but directed against a certain thought process and trend that is found these days:
 
This simply is a result of intellectual dishonesty and unncessary enthusiasm to show one thing as superior to other, and sometimes if not always, seems motivated by feelings of caste(not varNa) superiority[The ugliest part is even some so called jagadguru-s cant get rid of this complex. How sad? All that learning is such a waste...]. The line of thinking seems to go like this: Since non-brAhmaNa-s, shUdra-s and mleccha-s are also practicing non vaidika mantra-s, how can I claim to be superior to them. If they are also practcicing same mantra-s, in what way am I superior to them? So let us downgrade those traditions which are open to all varNa-s. Let us downgrade the non-vaidika systems, by either making quotes and finding some quote somewhere to that effect,  just so that we can feel good and superior about ourselves. It does not seem to matter for these folks, whether the quote makes sense, or whether the quote is anywhere close to reality.
 Sometimes it is this, but for some people it is plain ignorance of the topic. 
 
To be evenhanded, this applies to tAntrik literature too. Anybody can write something in Sanskrit and name it some x , y, z tantra.. with ample dose of shiva uvAcha-s everywhere: That does not make it a tantra, it does not make it really a shiva uvAcha.
If the tantra says, all veda vidya-s are for pashu-s, at some level, it is nothing more than promotion and exaggeration. It is foolish if a tantrika takes these statements seriously and crusades against vaidika-s...of course that will never happen.. Historcialy those who developed, & patronized many tAntrika systems were orthodox vaidika-s themselves.
 
So if I interpolate the sUta saMhita by having a statement that those who follow vaidika mArga do not attain moxa, and use my money & power to popularise this version of text, will you blindly go ahead and believe whatever is written there? Or will you ask, why is this so, this does not sound right based on what we have studied & observed about vaidika-s and then use your discrimination to ascertain whether that statement is correct or not?
 
 
 
From: Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
To: Satish Arigela <satisharigela at yahoo.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] dakSiNAmUrti stOtra from sUta saMhita


Just like one puts into a trash can something called Allah upanishad even though it is titled an upanishad, 

praNAms Sri Satish Arigela prabhuji 
Hare Krishna 

'allah' upanishad is not on muslim god 'allah', 'allah' means sister, this upanishad is about devi mAta, though I have not see this upanishad personally, this is what I heard from the very reliable source :-)) 

I request someone,  who knows the contents of this upanishad,  to  share more information.   

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! 
bhaskar