Question 1) There is a sect X in India, which is more of sankhya/yogic practices sect. This sect revers only vedas and patanjali yoga sutras as revered texts, but it does not hold it(esp. vedas) as canonical text. It treats them more as respectable texts. And hence, it holds that there are many parts of vedas which are problematic/unncessary , so it leaves them out.

So now my question is that, as vedas are not canonical texts in this Sect, so can we consider them a fully valid hindu/sanatani sect or not?

Question 2) There is a sect Y in India; which holds "only one particular upanishada as canonical", and it does not consider rest of vedas or gita etc even in its discussion. So can it be considered a fully valid hindu/sanatani sect or not?

  • 1
    if you don't name these sects, the question is purely theoretical. As a practical matter vaishnavites reject Siva,durga et al and denigrate Shaiva puranas as veda-viruddha, tamasic etc. – S K Feb 25 '18 at 16:21
  • @SK some also call the portion of Mahabharata Interpolated where Shiva is called as Para Brahman. Also, some claims Sri Rudram is not dedicated to Lord Mahadeva. 😂 – Mr. Sigma. Feb 25 '18 at 16:28
  • their foundational argument is exploded - that while EVERY name can refer to ANY god, "narayana" can ONLY refer to the Iyengar god - based on their misinterpretation of Panini. So they collect all instances where narayana is declared supreme and say "thats our man". If Rudra or anybody else is declared supreme, "thats our man too". People have found instances where Siva is called "narayana" which totally destroys the iyengar brand of vaishnavism. the gaudiya brand is based on faith and emotion and therefore cannot be refuted. – S K Feb 25 '18 at 17:52
  • 1
    read here - consciouslivingfoundation.org/ebooks/13/… – Swami Vishwananda Feb 26 '18 at 10:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .