Episode #125 of the Stack Overflow podcast is here. We talk Tilde Club and mechanical keyboards. Listen now
6 Rollback to Revision 4
source | link

The only way to say that somebody is an avataara of somebody, is through Agama pramANa. If it is not supported by Agama pramANa, it is just blind belief - be it in case of Sri Krishna being Vishnu's avatara.

There are conflicting pramanas even for the ones that we accept. But that does not mean we resort to blind belief

Instead, we should resort to thorough analysis i.e. determine the relative strength of contradicting pramanas, and arrive at the correct tenet. For example, consider the tenet that Bhimasena is a vAyu-avataara. If one line in Mahabharata says that he is vAyu's avatAra

 vAyur bhImo bhImanAdo

vAyur bhImo bhImanAdo

in another verse, bhIma says that he will win against jImuuta by the prasAda of mahAdeva (Rudra).

So do we give more importance to the first pramANa and say that the mahAdeva actually refers to Vishnu by yaugikaartha OR do we give more importance to the second pramANa and hold that Bhima is not vAyu's avatAra (or that vAyu is inferior to rudra)? .This kind of analysis is inevitable, especially for those who are not satisfied with just assertions from scholars, swamijis etc..

The only way to say that somebody is an avataara of somebody, is through Agama pramANa. If it is not supported by Agama pramANa, it is just blind belief - be it in case of Sri Krishna being Vishnu's avatara.

There are conflicting pramanas even for the ones that we accept. But that does not mean we resort to blind belief

Instead, we should resort to thorough analysis i.e. determine the relative strength of contradicting pramanas, and arrive at the correct tenet. For example, consider the tenet that Bhimasena is a vAyu-avataara. If one line in Mahabharata says that he is vAyu's avatAra

 vAyur bhImo bhImanAdo

in another verse, bhIma says that he will win against jImuuta by the prasAda of mahAdeva (Rudra).

So do we give more importance to the first pramANa and say that the mahAdeva actually refers to Vishnu by yaugikaartha OR do we give more importance to the second pramANa and hold that Bhima is not vAyu's avatAra (or that vAyu is inferior to rudra)? .This kind of analysis is inevitable, especially for those who are not satisfied with just assertions from scholars, swamijis etc..

The only way to say that somebody is an avataara of somebody, is through Agama pramANa. If it is not supported by Agama pramANa, it is just blind belief - be it in case of Sri Krishna being Vishnu's avatara.

There are conflicting pramanas even for the ones that we accept. But that does not mean we resort to blind belief

Instead, we should resort to thorough analysis i.e. determine the relative strength of contradicting pramanas, and arrive at the correct tenet. For example, consider the tenet that Bhimasena is a vAyu-avataara. If one line in Mahabharata says that he is vAyu's avatAra

vAyur bhImo bhImanAdo

in another verse, bhIma says that he will win against jImuuta by the prasAda of mahAdeva (Rudra).

So do we give more importance to the first pramANa and say that the mahAdeva actually refers to Vishnu by yaugikaartha OR do we give more importance to the second pramANa and hold that Bhima is not vAyu's avatAra (or that vAyu is inferior to rudra)? .This kind of analysis is inevitable, especially for those who are not satisfied with just assertions from scholars, swamijis etc..

5 Rollback to Revision 1
source | link

The only way to say that somebody is an avataara of somebody, is through Agama pramANa. If it is not supported by Agama pramANa, it is just blind belief - be it in case of Sri Krishna being Vishnu's avatara.

There are conflicting pramanas even for the ones that we accept. But that does not mean we resort to blind belief

Instead, we should resort to thorough analysis i.e. determine the relative strength of contradicting pramanas, and arrive at the correct tenet. For example, consider the tenet that Bhimasena is a vAyu-avataara. If one line in Mahabharata says that he is vAyu's avatAra

vAyur bhImo bhImanAdo

 vAyur bhImo bhImanAdo

in another verse, bhIma says that he will win against jImuuta by the prasAda of mahAdeva (Rudra).

So do we give more importance to the first pramANa and say that the mahAdeva actually refers to Vishnu by yaugikaartha OR do we give more importance to the second pramANa and hold that Bhima is not vAyu's avatAra (or that vAyu is inferior to rudra)? .This kind of analysis is inevitable, especially for those who are not satisfied with just assertions from scholars, swamijis etc..

The only way to say that somebody is an avataara of somebody, is through Agama pramANa. If it is not supported by Agama pramANa, it is just blind belief - be it in case of Sri Krishna being Vishnu's avatara.

There are conflicting pramanas even for the ones that we accept. But that does not mean we resort to blind belief

Instead, we should resort to thorough analysis i.e. determine the relative strength of contradicting pramanas, and arrive at the correct tenet. For example, consider the tenet that Bhimasena is a vAyu-avataara. If one line in Mahabharata says that he is vAyu's avatAra

vAyur bhImo bhImanAdo

in another verse, bhIma says that he will win against jImuuta by the prasAda of mahAdeva (Rudra).

So do we give more importance to the first pramANa and say that the mahAdeva actually refers to Vishnu by yaugikaartha OR do we give more importance to the second pramANa and hold that Bhima is not vAyu's avatAra (or that vAyu is inferior to rudra)? .This kind of analysis is inevitable, especially for those who are not satisfied with just assertions from scholars, swamijis etc..

The only way to say that somebody is an avataara of somebody, is through Agama pramANa. If it is not supported by Agama pramANa, it is just blind belief - be it in case of Sri Krishna being Vishnu's avatara.

There are conflicting pramanas even for the ones that we accept. But that does not mean we resort to blind belief

Instead, we should resort to thorough analysis i.e. determine the relative strength of contradicting pramanas, and arrive at the correct tenet. For example, consider the tenet that Bhimasena is a vAyu-avataara. If one line in Mahabharata says that he is vAyu's avatAra

 vAyur bhImo bhImanAdo

in another verse, bhIma says that he will win against jImuuta by the prasAda of mahAdeva (Rudra).

So do we give more importance to the first pramANa and say that the mahAdeva actually refers to Vishnu by yaugikaartha OR do we give more importance to the second pramANa and hold that Bhima is not vAyu's avatAra (or that vAyu is inferior to rudra)? .This kind of analysis is inevitable, especially for those who are not satisfied with just assertions from scholars, swamijis etc..

4 deleted 2 characters in body
source | link

The only way to say that somebody is an avataara of somebody, is through Agama pramANa. If it is not supported by Agama pramANa, it is just blind belief - be it in case of Sri Krishna being Vishnu's avatara.

There are conflicting pramanas even for the ones that we accept. But that does not mean we resort to blind belief

Instead, we should resort to thorough analysis i.e. determine the relative strength of contradicting pramanas, and arrive at the correct tenet. For example, consider the tenet that Bhimasena is a vAyu-avataara. If one line in Mahabharata says that he is vAyu's avatAra

 vAyur bhImo bhImanAdo

vAyur bhImo bhImanAdo

in another verse, bhIma says that he will win against jImuuta by the prasAda of mahAdeva (Rudra).

So do we give more importance to the first pramANa and say that the mahAdeva actually refers to Vishnu by yaugikaartha OR do we give more importance to the second pramANa and hold that Bhima is not vAyu's avatAra (or that vAyu is inferior to rudra)? .This kind of analysis is inevitable, especially for those who are not satisfied with just assertions from scholars, swamijis etc..

The only way to say that somebody is an avataara of somebody, is through Agama pramANa. If it is not supported by Agama pramANa, it is just blind belief - be it in case of Sri Krishna being Vishnu's avatara.

There are conflicting pramanas even for the ones that we accept. But that does not mean we resort to blind belief

Instead, we should resort to thorough analysis i.e. determine the relative strength of contradicting pramanas, and arrive at the correct tenet. For example, consider the tenet that Bhimasena is a vAyu-avataara. If one line in Mahabharata says that he is vAyu's avatAra

 vAyur bhImo bhImanAdo

in another verse, bhIma says that he will win against jImuuta by the prasAda of mahAdeva (Rudra).

So do we give more importance to the first pramANa and say that the mahAdeva actually refers to Vishnu by yaugikaartha OR do we give more importance to the second pramANa and hold that Bhima is not vAyu's avatAra (or that vAyu is inferior to rudra)? .This kind of analysis is inevitable, especially for those who are not satisfied with just assertions from scholars, swamijis etc..

The only way to say that somebody is an avataara of somebody, is through Agama pramANa. If it is not supported by Agama pramANa, it is just blind belief - be it in case of Sri Krishna being Vishnu's avatara.

There are conflicting pramanas even for the ones that we accept. But that does not mean we resort to blind belief

Instead, we should resort to thorough analysis i.e. determine the relative strength of contradicting pramanas, and arrive at the correct tenet. For example, consider the tenet that Bhimasena is a vAyu-avataara. If one line in Mahabharata says that he is vAyu's avatAra

vAyur bhImo bhImanAdo

in another verse, bhIma says that he will win against jImuuta by the prasAda of mahAdeva (Rudra).

So do we give more importance to the first pramANa and say that the mahAdeva actually refers to Vishnu by yaugikaartha OR do we give more importance to the second pramANa and hold that Bhima is not vAyu's avatAra (or that vAyu is inferior to rudra)? .This kind of analysis is inevitable, especially for those who are not satisfied with just assertions from scholars, swamijis etc..

3 Rollback to Revision 1
source | link
2 improve formatting
source | link
1
source | link