Hare Krsna,
Sorry have not answered sooner. Let's take a look at what respected Avyaydya ji has written:
Originally Posted by
Avyaydya
As a polytheist I do not believe in or hold on to absolute truths.
You are ascribing philosophical nuances which are peculiarly your own concept of polytheism, for polytheism in general definition does not imply disavowal of absolute concepts. For one thing, Vedas as described as apaurushya because the sages in higher states of consciousness perceived God as sound vibration Shabda Brahman implies a source which is "absolute." Concepts of an Absolute Divinity permeate Upanishads and Puranas. If you want to disavow all the scriptures within Sanathana Dharma you can, but it wouldn't be intellectually honest.yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante
"The entire material cosmic manifestation is born of the Supreme Brahman."
-Taittirīya Upaniṣad 3.1
It is a pluralistic thinking in which different views are just that: different views on reality. I accept that a Belief in a supreme God creates its own unique viewpoints. That is the difference with monotheism who sees its view as supreme as its God.
I'm unaware of any philosophical school in history, with the exception of modern New Age movement, which holds pluralistic views on reality. This is tantamount to saying, every view is correct even in contradiction. Moreover, I don't see the pluralistic paradigm as being the same as "polytheism." It's simply an unsupported inference... "Polytheism means... all these views... which amounts to virtually every view with the exception of any one dominant view." It's just an opinion with label of "polytheism" on it. Polytheism simply means a pantheon of separate gods who are often in competition or condition of jealously. The power of the Vedic conception of multiple lights (devatay) is the underlying "unity."
Monotheism is based on acceptance of a view called belief.
Are you really insinuating that "belief" has no basis in the polytheistic conception? Again, just opinion latched onto a concept of polytheism. Polytheism is not a specific philosophical school, it's a generic term describing multiplicity and doesn't even disavow potential of a unitarian principle. Neither is polytheism the obverse of monotheism. All "religions" throughout the ages whether monotheistic or polytheistic have a basis in "beliefs."
For me all views are true from a personal perspective and false from an absolute perspective.
If you do not believe in or hold absolute truths, then are you denying the Divine origin of the Vedas? Because Sanathana Dharma is very much a religion with absolute truths, not least of which is belief that Vedas are originating as Sruti of the Divine in Sound Swaroop. For this reason Vedas and Upanishads are an absolute source.
Why do you insist on pigeon-holing beliefs into such extremely narrow categories like polytheist, and implying some superior philosophical properties to that, and then monotheist and implying foreign Abrahamic religion to that? Sanathana Dharma includes scriptural legacy of interpretive work by the sages which includes a form of monotheism. There is nothing foreign or falsely interpolated about it.
Savo deve eko Narayana na dwitiyacha kaschit
"There is only one God, Narayana and no second"-Yajur Veda
etAvAn asya mahima | ato jyAyAGSca pUrusha: |
pAdo 'sya vishvA bhUtAni | tripAdasyAmRtam divi || 3 ||
(etAvAn) All that is here seen (asya) is his (mahima)
greatness. (ata: ) And then, beyond all this (purusha: ca)
is that Purusha (jyAyAn) great. (vishvA bhUtani) All
that was created in this world (pAdo) is but one part
(asya) of him. (tripAd) The other three parts are (divi)
in heaven, (amRtam) where they are eternal.
-Purusha Sukta, verse 3
I think that is the Vedic perspective too, that is why it is called: Sanatan DHARM and not Sanatan Jnaan.
You really think you personally speak for the authorized interpretations of the Vedas and this gives you the right to invalidate Vaishnava Siddhanta? On what qualification do you make such claim? May I ask who is your Guru?
The Richis believed in Man constantly renewing himself, like Cosmic Man Purusha is constantly renewing himself through sacrifice. That is why Sanatan Dharm constantly renews itself through gurus developing new paths.
Do you really believe any guru can come and invent some new "truths" without establishing his teaching on what is apaurusheya? Where are the various "paths" even going? What is there purpose? Or do we simply invent a purpose for the path to suit our new fandangled conceptions? In actuality, the principles of religious practice change with the Yuga Dharma as the mentality of humanity changes in different ages. In the primary age, Satyuga, the Dharma Bull stands on all 4 legs. In each succeeding yuga, it loses one of it's legs until finally in Kali Yuga, there is only one leg left standing, and all mankind have become shudras (lost principles of religion).arjuna uvāca
yo 'yaḿ yogas tvayā proktaḥ
sāmyena madhusūdana
etasyāhaḿ na paśyāmi
cañcalatvāt sthitiḿ sthirām
Arjuna said: O Madhusūdana, the system of yoga which You have summarized appears impractical and unendurable to me, for the mind is restless and unsteady.
-Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 6.33
The path of spiritual practice in Satyuga and Tretayuga becomes increasingly difficult even during the Dwaparayuga, as stated here by Arjuna and next to impossible in Kaliyuga.tapah saucam daya satyam
iti padah krte krtah
adharmamsais trayo bhagnah
smaya-sanga-madais tava
In the age of Satya [truthfulness] your four legs were established by the four principles of austerity, cleanliness, mercy and truthfulness. But it appears that three of your legs are broken due to rampant irreligion in the form of pride, lust for women, and intoxication.
-Srimad Bhagavatam 1.17.24
Bookmarks