[Advaita-l] dakSiNAmUrti stOtra from sUta saMhita

Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan rama.balasubramanian at gmail.com
Fri Jun 15 08:46:49 CDT 2012

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Satish Arigela <satisharigela at yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Venkata sriram P venkatasriramp at yahoo.in
> The first shloka can be found in a number of places, devI bhAgavatha, kUram purANa etc etc
>>tAntrikANAmahaM dEvi na labhyO(a)vyavadhAnataH
>>labhyO vEdaikaniSTAnAM ahaM avyavadhAnataH
> It is clear then that the idiot who authored this shows that he does not understand that tAntrIka-s are not one group and that there never existed a group called tAntrika-s.
> This is exactly why I said earlier, "not to lose one's mind by blindly taking every sanskrit shloka that you come across".
> I suggest that one use her/his brain and do not  lose simple common sense.
> Overtime, the abrahamic type madness madness seemed to have taken over the minds of some smArta-s.
> Just like one puts into a trash can something called Allah upanishad even though it is titled an upanishad, likeiwse, one discards trash like this using one's discrimination.
> It is better to ask yourself the question why... instead of blindly quoting some shloka-s.

First of all, I think you need to understand some basic mImAmsA. No
one is blindly following any Sanskrit shloka. This is the sUta samhita
which has been accepted as pramANa buy shiShTas such as Vidyaranya.
What is an "authentic" scripture comes from shiSTAchAra and not by
relative study of texts by oneself and discarding shlokas which do not
*seem* correct. Then there is no point in calling a text prAmANa -
instead we become the pramANa! When a straightforward interpretation
does not seem correct one has to look for other avenues of
interpretation, Please consult the tantra-vArttika and such texts on

That said, let us accept that there is a whole lot of tantra which is
essentially advaita, if not exactly the same, and advaitins have no
problem with that. So the verse must essentially be pariplava of a
certain mArga or must refer to some tantric text(s) which is not
advaitic. Surely you must agree there are branches of tantra even
within the shAkta paradigm that do not agree with advaita. I don't see
any problem with this verse. People interpret texts literally without
understanding how to interpret them - this is a very Western concept.

The example of Allah upanishad is irrelevant since shiShTAchara - not
just in advaita but everyone else - does not recognize Allah

That said I think you need to examine yourself and ask why you need to
engage in Dennis Rodman like trash talk in any discussion.


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list