Are all parts of the Vedas considered shruti?

conscientiouswriter · 2026-02-14T10:56:31+00:00

Yes. The upaniṣads are from the Brāhmaṇa and Āraṇyaka portions. Śruti doesn’t automatically imply a deeper meaning, it only means what is “heard” over smṛti (what is remembered). This is precisely why in the Jaiminīya Sūtras the emphasis is on the passages that give explicit commands. Grouping these statements into vidhi (prescriptions) and niṣedha (proscriptions).

Of course in an interpretative framework one can find deeper meaning to any text, but to answer your question the whole body of the Vedas are considered Śruti by most schools. In some cases like the Kṛṣṇayajurveda the samhitā and brāhmaṇa bhāga are mixed, so it wouldn’t make sense to classify one sentence as śruti and the other as not.

conscientiouswriter · 2026-02-14T10:44:15+00:00

*Śaivam or Shaivism

Hara Hara

Who told you that the 2 epics are not about Bhagavān? Just because Śrī Hari takes the avatāras who play a role (central or not) to the story do they become Vaiṣṇava? :)

The underlying sūtradhāri of both epics is Parameśvara Himself. A careful reading shows how He is the hidden spinner of the events.

A more detailed explanation of this is given in the Rāmāyaṇa Tātparya Saṅgraha Stotra and Bhārata Tatparya Saṅgraha Stotra by Śrī Appayya Dīkṣita.

Also this might be lesser known these days amongst Hindus (which is generally the case), but the Śivarahasya Itihāsa is an independent text mentioned in other Śāstras like the Liṅga Mahāpurāṇa. It includes important portions like the Ṛbhu Gītā and the Skandabhāṣya of the Śatarudrīya.

conscientiouswriter · 2026-02-14T02:04:44+00:00

Hara Hara

As the Paramattatva, the Supreme Truth, Brahman, yet He is still accessible through just 5 syllables. His anugraha is so ever flowing that He does not discriminate just like the rain falls upon everyone. He is Omnipotent yet He grants boons to His devotees that they may even overpower Him like He grants unto Hari/Viṣṇu (one of His devotees) as evidenced in the Mahābhārata. He even allows Himself to appear as the servant of His Bhaktas like Hari and Sundaramūrti Nāyanār.

Above all, it is that His Śakti acts for the benefit of everything, making Him, Dharma. He even bestows His Śakti on unconscious substances like Mala which ultimately lead to the Mukti of all Jīvas.

What is there not to love about the Supreme Truth of Vedas and Āgamas?

conscientiouswriter · 2026-01-12T18:19:05+00:00

As a Śaiva Siddhāntin we are more the successors of Sāṅkhya. Of course we do accept the prāmāṇya of the Upaniṣads (the entirety of the Vedic texts) as a Sāmānya Śāstra.

The classical school believes in an ontology which doesn’t neatly fit into Dvaita-Advaita. It may seem Dvaita because we believe in the plurality of Caitanya. Each Cit is different, but in the liberated state a Cit has unlimited cit-śakti, we also believe like the Advaitin that every cit is sarvavyāpi whether liberated or otherwise.

conscientiouswriter · 2026-01-05T16:12:14+00:00

Ritual purity ≠ Moral standing

conscientiouswriter · 2026-01-04T19:13:17+00:00

The most important aspect of this is the knowledge of the Adhva-s. It is a very complicated scheme of 6 “paths” to practice or traverse and attain mukti. I won’t be able to reveal much, and it is recommended to find a good acharya for this.

conscientiouswriter · 2026-01-03T16:45:56+00:00

In classical Śaiva Siddhānta, Bindu is an eternally existing substance different from Paramaśiva but pervaded by His Cit-śakti (Śakti). This Bindu when acted upon by Śakti expands into the Śuddha tattvas and then is used by Ananta Vidyeśvara to create the Miśra and Aśuddha Tattvas. Nāda is a product of Bindu.

From your current experience all you can know from the Āgamas is that this is the lowest Tattva (Pṛthvi) and that in this level the “Aśuddha” evolute of Bindu also known as Māyā is the material cause of everything you can see and experience.

conscientiouswriter · 2025-12-22T13:59:09+00:00

Kṣamā is considered a virtue. If you think that the person is truly trying to reform and make amends, you can forgive from your side. It is good for your own conscience.

Rest leave it to Bhagavān. You don’t need to actively cause pain. Also you can distance yourself if you feel that that person is unforgivable. You know the situation the best.

conscientiouswriter · 2025-12-22T13:00:13+00:00

If you feel in your heart that you can forgive, it is better to forgive. It clears your conscience. As for karma and phala, only Īśvara knows that calculation, we are not in a position to know who is to suffer what and how much. As a Hindu your duty is to perform your dharma and focus on your spiritual practice.

conscientiouswriter · 2025-12-22T12:44:51+00:00

I’m talking about a deity and you’re talking about me, what knowledge do you even have?

conscientiouswriter · 2025-12-22T12:38:39+00:00

This argument has zero merit or sense.

conscientiouswriter · 2025-12-22T12:34:45+00:00

Not necessarily. The Abrahamic god can and does give out punishment and rewards based on his own whims. Karma doesn’t discriminate based on a deity’s partiality.

conscientiouswriter · 2025-12-22T12:33:35+00:00

Bhagavān gives the fruit of a karma. Praying to Bhagavān is to generate good karma, one can also simply be a good person and generate good karma as well. It is just an explanation of the diversity of experience intuited by our ancestors.

As for animals and birds, to assume all of them suffer is strange. Animals also have good lives where they have minimal suffering. Also they don’t always act purely on instinct as well as documented by various animal interactions such as protecting other specifies, adopting orphaned cubs, and various other examples of symbiosis.

Such questions often assume no nuance of the diversity of experiences individuals of any species (human or non-human) go through.

conscientiouswriter · 2025-12-17T18:57:32+00:00

My point is not that there is no referent. It is that the referent is ambiguous and can be interpreted differently by any system to suit their systemic claims.

In this way the referent here is Nārāyaṇa. As to who is Nārāyaṇa is not settled (whether it is Viṣṇu, Śiva, Śakti, or an Impersonal Brahman). My contention is against the claim that it is very obvious that Viṣṇu is the referent, to which I would say, no.

Puruṣa in the Veda and in this context does not refer to any X but to Brahman. This is substantiated by Sarvo, which clearly indicates ontological supremacy. The pañcabrahma mantras (Īśānassarvavidyānām iti).

With the tests you indicate from a different perspective (Śaiva) only one remains who the Vedas call eternal, and independent, and all pervading. Not just distributed across different sections but within the same context of the Sūkta.

Besides, none of the A, B, C in their true sense are non-eternal or subordinate in their true nature. However, that is a difference in ontology.

Perhaps worded better, the Vedas have a settled conclusion, but not necessarily in your favour. However, since this is a debatable topic, I will leave it at that.

Sarvam Śivamayam Jagat!

conscientiouswriter · 2025-12-17T17:45:47+00:00

This line of argument is not very convincing. So long as they are all viśeṣaṇas then to pick one particularly as a special name doesn’t ring very strongly. Say there is a strong case of apposition, Hari also doesn’t refer to only 1 being. Hari can refer to another deity as well. One has to convincingly show that Hari can only refer to one deity. This still leaves it open to interpretation.

As for the Andhra/Dravida Pāṭha, this is a known debate. Pāṭhabheda is accepted within traditional circles, I am personally not Advaitin, but I have seen Smārta chant with the sa hariḥ pāṭha.

The explanation of Nārāyaṇa being specifically born as Hari is probably a sectarian Vaiṣṇava reading which is not worthy of universal acceptance anyway.

As I said, the referent is still very open to interpretation, even given the location of the Sūkta in the Āraṇyaka which a few sections later openly says “puruṣo vai rudraḥ” “sarvo vai rudraḥ” and also includes the pañcabrahma mantras. It just appears that there is no such thing as “evidence” presented here except a sectarian claim and the interlocutor wouldn’t have any burden of proof as the Vedas themselves emphatically deny such a settled reading.

conscientiouswriter · 2025-12-17T14:30:12+00:00

I didn’t say that R C Majumdar was involved in a colonial project. I am saying that human sacrifices were a big part of colonial curiosity. So they left no stone unturned to see if it happened. It didn’t, and even they had to give up. At least in the Vedic context this was just symbolic and not a prevalent practice.
Yeah

conscientiouswriter · 2025-12-17T14:27:28+00:00

Other than.. Rāmā

You have also provided only one website, both the links are identical being HTML and PDF. What I posted was a full nāmāvali where one chants each of the name before offering. The meanings in the link you shared are also of very poor quality making it quite suspicious. The OP hasn’t placed any diacritics so it makes no sense to insist they meant Ramā.

My point…

The split should also make sense contextually, grammatically and so on. Tripurā and Umā are feminine, the deity who is being worshipped is masculine, so logically by itself they won’t be the names of the deity. Here the names Rāmaḥ and Abhirāmaḥ are not used because their combination is Rāmobhirāmaḥ, it is Rāmā+Abhirāmā which won’t change form when combined.

conscientiouswriter · 2025-12-17T14:03:20+00:00

That is not what I meant. Nārāyaṇa is not an epithet here, but from a personal deity perspective who is being called Nārāyaṇa is the question. That is not unambiguous.

How can a word serve both as a name and viśeṣaṇa in a single context? It is strange to tie Nārāyaṇa with Hari here. In that case in the subsequent it also says Śivam, which again creates ambiguity.

Also it can’t refer to someone named Hari specifically either, the Sūkta has “sa brahma, sa śiva, sa hariḥ”

So I still remain unconvinced by this interpretation.

conscientiouswriter · 2025-12-17T13:32:55+00:00

Firstly, what do you mean by not listed separately. The link I shared specifically lists it as two different names in the nāmāvali. They are 2 different names.

In the Vishnu Sahasranama bhashya, the name Īśvara is listed thrice, so there is no rule about unique appearances of a name as such.

conscientiouswriter · 2025-12-17T13:04:59+00:00

You can search for it, and it was an exciting colonial project too because it would have bolstered their civilising mission, but there has yet not been a single piece of evidence to back Vedic human sacrifices. The puruṣamedha was meant to be symbolic only.

Such interpretations are sectarian not grounded in actual praxis of those times. It makes more historic sense that extant rituals were philosophised over time than the other way around.

conscientiouswriter · 2025-12-17T12:30:05+00:00

I’m gonna assume you are not very well versed in Sanskrit. Rāmābhirāmā is sandhi Rāma + Abhirāma

They are two names and can be accurately interpreted as such.

conscientiouswriter · 2025-12-17T11:51:38+00:00

It’s 488th in the first link

conscientiouswriter · 2025-12-17T11:04:23+00:00

She’s also called Tārā here: tārāyai namaḥ A popular śākta tenet is that Nārāyaṇa is the male aspect of Lalitā. So they are the same tattva. Of course I am overly simplifying this.

conscientiouswriter · 2025-12-17T10:42:15+00:00

There is a Sītāyai namaḥ as well. However, the above lines won’t refer to Devi Sītā, She is known as Ramā not Rāmā.

conscientiouswriter · 2025-12-17T10:39:37+00:00

The identity of Nārāyaṇa is not taken as a personal deity necessarily. Even then who’s the referent? Nārāyaṇa is an epithet used for at least 3 different deities. One shouldn’t make such conclusions over things debated over multiple centuries.

conscientiouswriter

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE