Advaita vs Jiva Goswami Part 9

We will take up more objections

Q: How can Brahman, which is indivisible, pure consciousness, have portions that fall under the rule of Maya and think themselves jivas?

Ans: Advaita has never stated that due to Brahman coming under Maya Jiva is created or that Brahman becomes Jiva. This is a wrong understanding of Advaita Vedanta to begin with.

Q:Knowledge and delusion cannot share the same location, just as light and darkness cannot both be present in exactly the same place.

Ans: Advaita Vedanta does not state that there is one portion of Brahman that gets covered by Maya, and that portion experiences Avidya and the rest of the portion becomes free of Avidya and so on, this has never been stated to begin with.

Q:Being indivisible, Brahman cannot become fragmented to manifest the jivas

Ans: Advaita has never stated that Brahman became fragmented into Jivas, do not know why Iskconites imagine their own Purvapaksha of Advaita.

Q:Moreover, the absolute existence cannot include Maya (avidya), but only Brahman alone.

Ans: Advaita has never stated that absolute or Non dual reality includes Maya or Avidya.

Q:For Maya to be involved with Brahman, either Brahman would have to degrade itself to Maya’s empirical level so it could be adulterated by upadhis, or else Maya would have to elevate herself to the absolute plane of Brahman so that she could influence it.

Ans: Advaitins have never stated that Maya got involved into Brahman , not does it state that the Non dual reality got adulterated by Upadhis.

Q:The first of these alternatives is impossible because Brahman is without attributes and cannot change.

Ans: We agree that Maya never got involved into Brahman, so where is the objection here ?

Q: The second alternative amounts to dualism, because then Maya and Brahman would have equal status on the plane of absolute reality. This, of course, contradicts the first principles of Advaita monism.

Ans: This also has not been stated by Advaitins or Advaita so what is this blogger even blabbering about ?

He again blabbers the following

“Under the pressure of these arguments, the impersonalists may try to placate us with the claim that the vital issue at hand is not precisely how the jiva came under the influence of Maya but simply that he is now suffering in illusion. “

Not quite, this guy does not understand the fundamentals of Advaita, if we ask him what is exactly meant by Avidya in Advaita Vedanta he will stumble and fumble.

Advaita says that the fundamental problem is mutual imposition of subject and object. Then question may be asked how did this mutual imposition happen ? , Advaitins who are soft on people may say the why or how cannot be questioned. But the actual answer is that, the question is itself stupid, reason being that without Avidya there can be no causation, causation comes with Avidya. This is not to propose that, there was a particular time when Avidya was not there, then it came suddenly. This is not at all the case. So to ask how Avidya came about is like asking how causation came about which is quite silly. Since we are proposing causation before causation which makes no sense.

“Even if we grant this point, the Mayavadis still must convince us that the end they want us to seek, impersonal liberation, is in our best interest. “

Very simple as per Iskconites all were in Goloka, then we were not satisfied in the presence of Shri Krishna so we decided to go into Bhooloka.

Now let me reverse the question to Iskconites

When Shri Krishna is all joy then how did we get dissatisfaction in the presence of Shri Krishna, in bright light darkness cannot enter, so why were we unhappy ?

If Iskconites were to answer that it was due to Maya, the Maya is outside the realm of Goloka, even if Iskconites were to argue that still with the permission of Shri Krishna Maya roams Goloka then we ask the following if we had caught Krishna with Bhakti in Goloka how did we get affected by Maya ? Since this would contradict the very Bhagavat Gita

मूल श्लोकः

दैवी ह्येषा गुणमयी मम माया दुरत्यया।

मामेव ये प्रपद्यन्ते मायामेतां तरन्ति ते।।7.14।।

English Translation By Swami Sivananda

7.14 Verily, this divine illusion of Mine, made up of the (three) alities (of Nature) is difficult to cross over; those who take refuge in Me alone, cross over this illusion.

So people have already taken refuge in Shri Krishna when they are in Goloka, but inspite of taking refuge in Shri Krishna they are dissatisfied and affected by Maya. This is quite strange. Now when we ask these questions Iskconites come under pressure and start abusing, they will then divert the topic, copy paste, start saying you Mayavadi rascal and so on. If they say it is Krishna’s will then in that case they must agree that Shri Krishna is not kind. Not only that such Moksha would be of no use, since even post going to Goloka there is no guarantee that you will not come down back into Samsara. But when we keep objecting Iskconites have no answer to give. They can maximum abuse.

Advaita vs Jiva Goswami Part 8

I have decided to take some better objections of Jiva Goswami than some ridiculous and pathetic objections. Let us look at one such objection.

In the Anuchcheda 38.2 Jiva Goswami says the following.

anyatra siddhasya vastuna evānyatrāropo yathā śuktau rajatasya, etad eva mithyā-khapuṣpāder āropāsambhavāt pūrva-pūrva-vivarta-mātra-siddhānādi-paramparātve dṛṣṭāntābhāvāc ca |

“Only an object that exists elsewhere can be superimposed onto something else, for example, silver on an oyster shell. This is because it is impossible to superimpose a non-existent object, such as a sky-flower, onto something else, and because no example can be given of a beginningless chain of vivarta superimpositions following one another.”

Now let us understand the objection a little bit more clearly, as per Advaita just as due to ignorance of the rope one sees a snake, similarly due to ignorance of the Non dual reality we see the world in place of it. Now Jiva Goswami says that just as only once we have had a previous experience of some object only that object would be superimposed, and not of a non existent object like a hare’s horn. He also says that if you argue that the previous experience is a false experience, which in turn is derived from another false experience and ad infinitum, then he answers that for this there is no example through which you can demonstrate it.  We will need to backtrack on this a bit, Jiva Goswami unfortunately does not understand the fundamental Adhyasa which Advaita talks about. Advaita talks about the imposition of subject over object and object over subject. Known over knower and knower over known. This is the fundamental Adhyasa, which gives the idea of this body and mind complex is me and any thing that belongs to this body-mind complex is mine. Now let us take Jiva Goswami’s objection, if he were to argue that without the previous experience of an object, the subject cannot superimpose the object on the subject, then such an assumption is flawed. Why one may ask ? Following is the reason,

1. Jiva Goswami is assuming the subject to be something which experiences something and then get a memory of it and then superimposes it.

This is a fundamentally flawed assumption, reason being that the subject talked about in Advaita Vedanta is mere witness or knower which is never the known and cannot be known as an object. So for experience to happen, the subject must have an object in front of it. But this subject is a mere subject how can it experience something and then remember, since that is the function of the mind, mind itself cannot come about without the combination of knower and known. So since there is no possibility for the pure subject or witness to experience and then make it a memory the objection of Jiva Goswami is flawed. Further in Advaita the Pramatru ( one who uses the means of knowledge) cannot come about without the fundamental Adhyasa of I am this and this is mine. Without this Pramatru coming about, there can be no experience, remembrance of that experience and then the memory of it. Hence Jiva Goswami not even knowing the fundamentals of Advaita gets the whole objection itself wrong.

Further he says the following

“kiṁ ca, pūrvaṁ vāri-darśanād vāry-ākārā mano-vṛttir jātāpi tad-aprasaṅga-samaye suptā tiṣṭhati tat-tulya-vastu-darśanena tu jāgarti tad-viśeṣānusandhānaṁ vinā tad-abhedena svatantratām āropayati”-

“Moreover, though a mental impression in the shape of water is created after seeing water, it remains inactive in the absence of an appropriate context and becomes activated [only] on seeing an object that resembles water. Without closely examining the specific characteristics of the resembling object, one then superimposes upon it the independent sense of its non-difference from water [i.e., one mistakes it for water]. “”

Notice here Jiva Goswami talks about mental impression, “mano-vṛttir” , he thinks that the subject here is something which experiences something and gets mental impression, this is how poor Jiva Goswami’s understanding of Advaita is to begin with.

Now Jiva Goswami then sums up as follows

“tasmān na vāri mithyā, na vā smaraṇa-mayī tad-ākārā vṛttir, na vā tat-tulyaṁ marīcikādi vastu, kintu tad-abhedenāropa evāyathārthatvān mithyā

“Therefore, it is not the water that is illusory, nor is the mental modification (vṛtti) having the form of water and composed of memory illusory, nor is the mirage that resembles water illusory.””

He is critiquing the Advaitic position of Mithya, he states that the Mirage is not illusory, does this mean I can go to the Mirage water and wash my hands with soap and get them clean ? Since Mirage water is not illusory as per him. This is how ridiculous the logic of these people becomes. The illusory snake seen on the rope cannot put poison into me, it is experienced but still is not reality. Besides Mithya is that which has no independent existence, just as a wave has no actual existence apart from water, just as a pot has not separate existence apart from clay and merely a mould of clay, similarly this world has no independent existence apart from the Non dual reality. These objections were better so I thought I will take them up.

Advaita vs Jiva Goswami Part 7

We will look at how the blogger refutes his own statements

He says the following

“A good analogy must be as similar as possible to what it illustrates. The greater the similarity, the stronger the analogy. But the analogy of the sky and the pot is not similar enough to the situation the Mayavadis try to apply it to: while the sky and Brahman are similar, the sky’s upadhi, the pot, is empirical, while Brahman’s upadhis must be merely apparent”

Now the same blogger says the following

“. In the Bhagavad-gita Lord Krishna addresses Arjuna as purusha-vyaghra, “tiger among men.” In its primary sense the word “tiger” refers to a ferocious animal with claws and fangs. Arjuna was certainly not such an animal, but since Lord Krishna’s words cannot be meaningless, the need arises for a figurative interpretation of purusha-vyaghra. Here the phrase is a metaphor, in which the Lord is calling Arjuna a tiger only to indicate his courage and prowess as a warrior. The word “tiger” in this phrase applies to these two characteristics that the tiger and Arjuna have in common, not to the primary sense of a tiger’s shape, habits, and so forth.”

It is quite amazing how this blogger is readily refuting what he himself proposes.

May be we need not actually refute anything, the blogger is so kind that he readily refuting himself.

Let us see how he refutes his own points again, following is what he states

“The impersonalists compare this world to a dream to show its illusory nature—to show that it does not really exist. But it is unjustifiable to equate the dream world (apparent reality) with the external world (empirical reality) in order to reach this conclusion. If a person commits murder in a dream he is not punished for it, but in the phenomenal world he risks punishment for such an act. So it is improper to say that the world is just a dream. Sin and piety, which pollute or purify the heart of an actor, are not applicable to acts done in dreams; they give their bitter and sweet fruits only in the phenomenal world. The analogy of a dream, therefore, is not adequate for explaining the appearance of the material world from Brahman. The Vedic scriptures present the dream analogy only to illustrate the temporary nature of this world, with a view toward inspiring a sense of detachment from materialism in those desiring to walk the path of transcendence”

Now let us take his own points, see how he refutes himself in another article

Objection:The impersonalists compare this world to a dream to show its illusory nature—to show that it does not really exist. But it is unjustifiable to equate the dream world (apparent reality) with the external world (empirical reality) in order to reach this conclusion.

Refutation: Have you ever experienced a Déjà vu? A feeling of having already experienced the present situation? If yes, perhaps that’s a symptom of you living in a dream world. In dreams, incidents often repeat in themselves.

In reality, both — The day time when we feel we are awaken, and the night time, are dream like in nature. None of them is actually the awakened state. Just like in our night dreams, sometimes even an age old dream and it’s storyline gets continued, so do our day time’s dream continue, and we feel we are awakened.

Please note that these are the blogger’s own words we are just using another article of his to refute his own point.

Objection:If a person commits murder in a dream he is not punished for it, but in the phenomenal world he risks punishment for such an act. So it is improper to say that the world is just a dream. Sin and piety, which pollute or purify the heart of an actor, are not applicable to acts done in dreams; they give their bitter and sweet fruits only in the phenomenal world.

Refutation: Have you ever experienced multiple layered dreams? As shown in the famous movie of Nolan, the Inception? Well, atleast I did. I remember, I now slept in my bedroom (In a dream, already), and then I’m seeing a dream within a dream. As I wake up from the 2nd layered dream, I get up from my bed, move about here and there, and then I actually wake up. And I’m shocked now, thinking, “Hey, I thought I was awaken, did I just saw dream within a dream? at this point, what’s the guarantee that I’m still not in a dream?

Objection: The analogy of a dream, therefore, is not adequate for explaining the appearance of the material world from Brahman. The Vedic scriptures present the dream analogy only to illustrate the temporary nature of this world, with a view toward inspiring a sense of detachment from materialism in those desiring to walk the path of transcendence”

Refutation: In dreams, we feel a huge time has been gone, but when we wake up, we see it’s been only a moment. Similarly, scriptures describe relativity of time of the material world in relation to the spiritual world quite often. Relativity of time is a famous and now a renowned field in the physics world, which was proven by Sir Albert Einstein.

The guy just refutes himself so well, why do we need to go ahead and write a separate refutation for this ?

Let us see his objections further.

Objection: A daydream may be a pleasant reverie, but no one gains any real benefit by imagining he has been crowned emperor of the world. Instead, as he whiles away the time the daydreamer may lose an opportunity for gaining some practical benefit in the real world. However much he dreams, his apparent reality will never become empirically real.

Refutation: In a dream, we never recognize the starting point. We are thrown in the middle of a random storyline, and we blindly follow the storyline, without reasoning it. Similarly, we do not remember the starting point of our life, do we? Just null. And, we are also blindly following the rat race. Striving for the best in the academics, getting a job, getting married, getting children, undergoing oldage & diseases, and at the end we die.That’s what materialism says.

Note all these are refutations I have used from the Iskcon blogger himself. None of the refutations are mine he refutes himself so well.

Advaita Vedanta vs Jiva Goswami Part3

Now we will take up the objection of Jiva Goswami on Bimba Pratibimba Vada as quoted by the Iskcon blogger

He states as follows

“, Shrila Jiva states, can cast no reflection in its upadhis, or subtle bodies of material existence, because Brahman is devoid of all attributes. Only an object possessing attributes like form and color can cast a reflection. If an object is invisible, how can it be reflected in anything?

If it is countered that the sky, although invisible, casts a reflection in water, Jiva Gosvami replies that it is in fact the stars and planets in the sky that cast reflections in water, not the sky itself. If the sky could cast a reflection, then the wind would also be able to cast one, because air is a grosser material element than sky. According to modern science, the bluish background seen behind the visible bodies in the firmament is an optical illusion created by the refracted sunlight passing through the atmosphere. No concrete, underlying object is there to cast a reflection, only the invisible firmament. Hence the analogy comparing Brahman to the sky being reflected in water is inappropriate here.”

From this quote he makes the following points,

1. Only an object possessing form and attribute can cast a reflection in the mirror, since Brahman is without attributes it cannot be reflected in the mirror.
2. In a mirror the sky is not reflected the bluish background which we see is an optical illusion.
3. Advaitins state Brahman who is like the sky is reflected in a mirror.

Now let us relook at this objection, you will notice a certain amount of ridiculousness in this objection.

1st of all the assumption that Advaitins state that Brahman who is skylike is reflected in a mirror is false. No Advaitin says this. Now all of these objections are on this false assumption. So in short these objections are ridiculous. The analogy taken here is different which this blogger himself says as follows

“it appears to be many, just as the one sun reflected in various receptacles of water appears to be many. In this analogy, the sun remains uninfluenced by the agitation of the water in which it is reflected, even while the reflection is influenced. Similarly, Brahman is never influenced by the changes that its reflections, the jivas, undergo.”

So the analogy is actually sun reflected in droplets of water, here he has shifted the analogy to sky or space reflected in the mirror. So he is refuting the wrong analogy to begin with and he plans to call this a refutation ? Further to explain this blunder committed by him we must understand clearly that an analogy is only given to tell a certain point. Suppose I say to someone your face is moon like I do not mean that I that person’s face white and round like the moon with craters. An analogy is only to tell a certain point, it is not meant to be extended. This is very much against reasonable thinking. I thought that I will explain the relationship between subject and object in this part, but these objections are so pathetic that we do not need to even go there.

Advaita vs Jiva Goswami Part-2

We are taking up the remaining objections raised by the Iskcon blogger on the Pariccheda Vada of Advaita, however I would like to point out that I am unsure of where in the Advaitic texts it is called Pariccheda Vada, but we will take up the same name that this opponent of Advaita decides to take.

Now he misrepresents the position of Advaita as seen below

“Brahman being neither pierceable nor divisible, it cannot be broken or delimited into jivas the way one might break a large stone into pebbles.”

Advaitins never claimed that Brahman was divided into Jivas this is a clear misrepresentation of the Advaita doctrine. So there is no refutation, the refutation is itself invalid.

He further objects as follows

“If we hypothetically grant that the upadhis can divide Brahman into jivas, then in that case neither the jivas nor Brahman itself should be called eternal. But the Bhagavad-gita, which the Mayavadis accept as authoritative, describes both the jiva and Brahman as eternal. In Chapter Thirteen, text 20, Lord Krishna says that the jiva is anadi, beginningless. The same is stated in texts 20–24 of the Second Chapter.”

Now nothing can divide Brahman this has already been made clear in the previous post, now let us treat this objection in a different way, we look at empty pots in space, let us take the pot spaces as Jivas and the space outside as Brahman. Now if the pot is broken, there is no Jiva, hence Jiva is not eternal since Jivahood only comes in association with body, mind and vital energies. Now the space outside the pots does not become non-eternal once the pots are broken. Similarly with destruction of the subtle body Brahman is unaffected and it does not make Brahman non-eternal. So the objection by this blogger that Brahman will not be eternal does not stand. Now his other claim that Jiva is not eternal is against Bhagavat Gita does not stand, reason is that the same Bhagavat Gita states that Jiva is Brahman, following is the verse

मूल श्लोकः

उपद्रष्टाऽनुमन्ता च भर्ता भोक्ता महेश्वरः।

परमात्मेति चाप्युक्तो देहेऽस्मिन्पुरुषः परः।।13.23।।

English Translation By Swami Gambirananda

13.23 He who is the Witness, the Permitter, the Sustainer, the Experiencer, the great Lord, and who is also spoken of as the transcendental Self is the supreme Person in this body.

Hence the one within the body who experiences is the Supreme Lord or Brahman.

We see the same in Bhagavat Gita as follows

मूल श्लोकः

अच्छेद्योऽयमदाह्योऽयमक्लेद्योऽशोष्य एव च।

नित्यः सर्वगतः स्थाणुरचलोऽयं सनातनः।।2.24।।

English Translation By Swami Gambirananda

2.24 It cannot be cut, It cannot be burnt, cannot be moistened, and surely cannot be dried up. It is eternal, omnipresent, stationary, unmoving and changeless.

Here one talks about Atman which is omnipresent. Hence even if the Jiva is taken as incidental, it does not really go against Bhagavat Gita. Lastly I would like to quote from the Shruti as well

नान्योऽतोऽस्ति द्रष्टा, नान्योऽतोऽस्ति श्रोता, नान्योऽतोऽस्ति मन्ता, नान्योऽतोऽस्ति विज्ञात, एष त आत्मान्तर्याम्यमृतः,

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.7.23

Translation:There is no other witness but Him, no other hearer but Him, no other thinker but Him, no other knower but Him. He is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

Hence Jiva being merely incidental is neither against Shruti nor against Bhagavat Gita.

Now we will take up one more objection related to this. The blogger quotes the commentary of Shankara on Bhagavat Gita 13.13 as follows

अतीन्द्रियत्वेन उभयबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययाविषयत्वात्। यद्धि इन्द्रियगम्यं वस्तु घटादिकम्? तत् अस्तिबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययविषयं वा स्यात्? नास्तिबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययविषयं वा स्यात्। इदं तु ज्ञेयम् अतीन्द्रियत्वेन शब्दैकप्रमाणगम्यत्वात् न घटादिवत् उभयबुद्ध्यनुगतप्रत्ययविषयम् इत्यतः न सत्तन्नासत् इति उच्यते।।

यत्तु उक्तम् — विरुद्धमुच्यते? ज्ञेयं तत् न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते इति — न विरुद्धम्? अन्यदेव तद्विदितादथो अविदितादधि (के0 उ0 1।3) इति श्रुतेः

Translation:

Reply: No, because, by virtue of Its being super-sensuous, It is not an object of cognition involving either, of the two ideas. Indeed, any object perceivable by the senses, such as pot etc., can be either an object of cognition involving the idea of existence, or it can be an object of cognition involving the idea of non-existence. But this Knowable, being supersensuous and known from the scriptures, which are the sole means of (Its) knowledge, is not, like pot etc., an object of cognition involving either of the two ideas. Therefore It is called neither being nor non-being. As for your objection that it is contradictory to say, ‘It is the Knowable, but it is neither called being nor non-being,’-it is not contradictory; for the Upanisad says, ‘That (Brahman) is surely different from the known and, again, It is above the unknown’ (Ke. 1.4).

Now based on this he says

“So according to the Mayavadis’ own version, Brahman is beyond sense perception, beyond empirical existence and nonexistence. Such being the case, if the upadhis of Brahman are empirically real they can never limit the undivided and indivisible Brahman and produce the jivas”

So his whole idea is that if Brahman is beyond sense perception it cannot have any relationship with bodies or minds in the Vyavaharika level. Although we do not say that the bodies and minds limit Brahman he still misrepresents it. So I have changed his objection to contact of Brahman with the body and mind, as body and mind are Vyavaharika. This objection does not hold water, since Brahman is the knower hence subject, the mind, body and world are known hence object. So there is a relationship between the subject and object, due to which we say I am this and this is mine. One cannot object and ask how this is possible, since this is common experience which cannot be denied by anyone.  We will look further into this relationship between subject and object in the next post.

Untenability of sex slavery in Hinduism

I have decided to answer some fake claims agains Hinduism hence I have taken this objections and answered them.

Claim1: In Ramayana 6.125.43-44 Bharata donated 16 virgin girls gift as wives to Hanuman after he returrned from Lanka

Response: This an absolutely nonsensical claim for sex slavery, reason being that Bharata is promising Hanuman Virgins from high families for marriage. Let us look at the verses once.

देवो वा मानुषो वा त्वमनुक्रोशादिहागतः || ६-१२५-४३

प्रियाख्यानस्य ते सौम्य ददामि ब्रुवतः प्रियम् |

गवां शतसहस्रं च ग्रामाणां च शतं परम् || ६-१२५-४४

सकुण्डलाः शुभाचारा भार्याः कन्याश्च षोडश |

हेमवर्णाः सुनासोरूः शशिसौम्याननाः स्त्रियः || ६-१२५-४५

सर्वाभरणसम्पन्ना सम्पन्नाः कुलजातिभिः |

43-45. saumya = O the gentle one!; tvam = are you; devovaa = a divine being maanuShovaa = or a human being; aagataH = who have come; iha = here; anukroshaat = out of compassion?; te priyaakhyaanasya = to you; who have given this agreeable news to me; dadaami = I shall give (in return); priyam bruvataH = for the pleasant tidings; shatasahasram cha = a hundred thousand; gavaam = cows; shatam = a hundred; param graamaaNaam = best villages; bhaaryaaH = and for wives; shooDasha = sixteen; hemavarNaaH = golden complexioned; kanyaaH = virgin girls; shubhaachaaraaH = of a good conduct; sakuN^DalaaH = decked with ear-rings; sunaa soruuH = having beautiful noses and thighs; sarvaabharaNa sampannaaH = adorned with all kinds of jewels; shashi saumyaananaaH = with charming countenances as delightful as the moon; kulajaatibhiH = and born in a noble family.

“O the gentle one! Are you a divine being or a human being, who have come here out of compassion? To you, who have given this agreeable news to me, I shall give in return, for the pleasant tidings, a hundred thousand cows, a hundred best villages, and for wives, sixteen golden complexioned virgin girls of a good conduct, decked with ear-rings, having beautiful noses and thighs, adorned with all kinds of jewels, with charming countenances as delightful as the moon and born in a noble family.”

If the Virgin girls are of good family then how can these be slaves ?

Claim 2:Manusmriti 7.96 ” Women and other goods belongs to him who wins them in war” hence women are taken as sex slaves.

Response: The Manusmriti verse 7.96 is as follows

रथाश्वं हस्तिनं छत्रं धनं धान्यं पशून् स्त्रियः ।

सर्वद्रव्याणि कुप्यं च यो यज् जयति तस्य तत् ॥ ९६ ॥

rathāśvaṃ hastinaṃ chatraṃ dhanaṃ dhānyaṃ paśūn striyaḥ |

sarvadravyāṇi kupyaṃ ca yo yaj jayati tasya tat || 96 ||

Chariots and horses, elephants, umbrellas, wealth, grains, animals, women, all goods and baser metals belong to him who wins them.—(96)

 Actually this section is dealing with how the King should be in battle how the soldiers should be and also what are ethics that should be adopted by the King while fighting. Now why are women taken along with the goods. Since it ia the duty of the King to take care of these women, obviously it is not married women who are being talked about, it is about young virgin women who are being talked about here in this battle. Now why is the King taking them. We get the answer in Narada Smriti

Narada Smriti 12:22

यदा तू नैव कश्चित् स्यात् कन्या राजनमाश्रयेत् ।

अनुज्ञया तस्य वरं प्रतीत्य वरयेत् स्वयम् ।।

Translation: If a virgin woman is without any kith or kin, she ought to be in the care of the King with the permission of the King she may go ahead and search for a suitable bridegroom.

This clearly indicates that the King is the protector of such women and he must have them in his care. This is how the versw from Manusmruti ought to be understood.

Also forcible marriage is prohibited by the Dharma Shastra itself. We will look at this later.

Claim 3: Rigveda 6/27/8 mentions Abhyavarti, son of Chayaman, presenting a gift of slave girls stuffed in two big wagons to Rishi Bhardavaj. This shows sex slavery in Hinduism.

Response: This verse does not even have anything to do with slave girls being gifted. Following is the verse

द्व॒याँ अ॑ग्ने र॒थिनो॑ विंश॒तिं गा व॒धूम॑न्तो म॒घवा॒ मह्यं॑ स॒म्राट्। अ॒भ्या॒व॒र्ती चा॑यमा॒नो द॑दाति दू॒णाशे॒यं दक्षि॑णा पार्थ॒वाना॑म् ॥८॥

Translation by Dr Tulsi Ram

Agni, refulgent ruler, commanding wealth, power, honour and excellence, dynamic leader ever on the move for progress and victory, revered and celebrated all round, gives me both chariot warriors for defence of the nation and happy families and a team of twenty creative ministers to bear the burdens of the nation, which gift from any of global rulers is invulnerable indeed.

Besides what we have here is वधूमन्तः and रथिनः , here रथिनः indicates charioteers, and वधूमन्तः indicates the quality of the charioteers. Even if वधू be taken as brides, they will be the brides of the charioteers. Hence obviously this Mantra has nothing that our opponent wants to prove.

Claim 4:In Ramayana 2.32.15 Ram donated many slave girls to Brahmins. Hence proving sex slavery

Response: This is one more nonsense, following is that we see in the Ramayana,

कौसल्याम् च याअशीर्भिर् भक्तः पर्युपतिष्ठति |

आचार्यः तैत्तिरीयाणाम् अभिरूपः च वेदवित् || २-३२-१५

तस्य यानम् च दासीः च सौमित्रे सम्प्रदापय |

कौशेयानि च वस्त्राणि यावत् तुष्यति स द्विजः || २-३२-१६

15;16. saumitre = Oh; lakshmana! yaH = which brahmana; taithiriiyaNaam = studying Taittiriya ( a schoolf yajurveda); aachaaryaH = a preceptor; abhiruupashcha = a man of conformity; vedavit = a knower of Vedas; paryupatishhTati = seving; kausalyaam = Kausalya; bhaktaH = with his blessing; tasya = to him; sampradaapaya = in duly gifted; yaanamcha = conveyance; daasiishcha = servant-maids; kaushayaani vastraaNicha = silken clothes; yaavat = till; saH dvijaH = that brahmana; tushhyati = gets satisfied.

“Oh, Lakshmana! Which brahman is studying Taittiriya(a school of yajurveda), a preceptor, a man of conformity; a knower of Vedas, serving Kausalya with his devotion and blessing, to him see that he is duly gifted conveyance, servant maids and silken clothing till he gets satisfied.”

Here Dasi stands for servant maids and not slave girls hence another misinterpretation of our opponent has been proven.

Claim 5: Narada Smriti 12.78 Intercourse is permitted with a wanton woman, who belongs to another than the Brahman caste, or a prostitute, or a female slave, or a female not restrained by her master (nishakasini), if these women belong to a lower caste than oneself; but with a woman of superior caste, intercourse is prohibited”

Response: Now 1st of all this shows the height of misinterpretation by our opponent,if one looks at the Narada Smriti from the verses 12:62 to 12:78 we get the context in which this is being told. It talks about unmarried couples being physically intimate with each other, it seema there is an instruction to the jury as to who is guilty and who is not. Now the Narada Smriti 12:73 to 12:75. Warns about not trying to be physically intimate with one’s father’s wife or keep, or mother’s sister, mother-in-law, maternal uncle’s wife, father’s sister, one’s daughter, daughter-in-law and so on. About 20 prohibitions are provided here, if a person is found to be doing this, it is recommended to dissect that person’s phallus.  Now with respect to this context is what is being told here

Narada Smriti 12:78

स्वैरिण्यब्राह्मणी वेश्या दासी निष्कासिनी च या ।

गम्याः स्युरानुलोम्येन स्त्रियों न प्रतिलोमतः ।।

Translation: One may be intimate with a स्वैरिणी who is not from the Brahmin fold, a prostitute, a servant maid, a woman abandoned due to bad character. One must go as per Anuloma or as per the Jati Varna system same Varna to lower Varna but never to higher Varna.

स्वैरिणी is basically a woman of bad character, what women fall under this category is already discussed earlier in this chapter of Narada Smriti.

This is basically a loop hole in the law, if person is found being intimate with a women to whom he is not married, these loop holes he can use to escape the punishment by the state. Not that he maintains them as sex slaves. In fact this verse mentions prostitutes, if this verse is about sex slavery why will prostitutes be mentioned ? Our opponent uses this type of objection.

Claim 6: Agni Purana 211.37-43 ”…By making the gift of a female slave to one of the foremost of the Brahmanas, a man becomes an inmate of the region of the Apasaras (nymphs)…” Tr. Manmath Nath Dutt

Response: Now our opponent thought we will not recheck his reference. Here also we do not find what he wants to prove.

Following is what we find

39-40. One who gives a maid servant to an excellent brah min would reach the world of nymphs. Having given a copper plate weighing five hundred palas (a measure of weight) or half the weight or a quarter of that weight or one-eighth of the weight would get enjoyment and emancipation. By giving a cart together with a bull one would go to heaven by means of a cart.

The original verse is as follows here

दासीं दत्त्वा द्विजेन्द्राय अप्सरोलोकमाप्नुयात् ।२११.०३९

दत्त्वा ताम्रमयीं स्थालीं पलानां पञ्चभिः शतैः ॥२११.०३९

अर्धैस्तदर्धैरर्धैर्वा भुक्तिमुक्तिमवाप्नुयात्(१) ।२११.०४०

शकटं वृषसंयुक्तं दत्त्वा यानेन नाकभाक् ॥२११.०४०

I fail to see how Dasi is slave girl, even if we take for granted that it is, it still does not prove sex slavery in anyway.

Claim 7:Hinduism also levies custom duties on importing female slaves,

Following is the proof

Agni Purana 223.23-29 ”…Duties payable on importing female slaves into the country should be determined with a due regard to the country imported from and the time of the import. The duties payable on animals and gold shall be a fifth and sixth part of the original value, while a sixth part of their value should be paid as the kings dues on importing articles of perfumery, cereals, flowers, roots…”

Response:This is simply unbelievable, now our opponent is creating his own verses following is what we actually find here

23-29. The property that has been stolen by the inmates of the house need not be restored by the king. O Brahmin ! the king should take one twentieth of the value from the mer chandise belonging to his country. The fees to be levied on goods from foreign countries should be determined after knowing the cost, the wear and tear and the profit got by the trader. (In this case) one twentieth of the profit should be taken. If not (paid) (the importer) should be punished. Freight should not be collected from women and mendicants. The ferryman should be made to repay by the king that which has been lost in transit on account of the fault of the ferryman. The king should take one sixth in the case of the grain fuka (barley) and one eighth in the case of the grain fimbi (a kind of kidney bean) as toll befitting the region and season. The king should take four and five parts respectively in the case of animals and gold. Only a sixth part should be collected in the case of perfumes, herbs,

No female slaves here sorry I think it is unnecessary to put any verses in Sanskrit over here.

Claim 8:Krishna also gave many females slaves,

Following is the proof

Mahabharata 4.72 ”…And Krishna gave unto each of the illustrious sons of Pandu numerous female slaves, and gems and robes…”

Response: The actual verse is as follows

Mahabharata 4.72.26 (4.78.27 in other version)

पारिबर्हं ददौ कृष्णः पण्डवानां महात्मनाम्।

स्त्रियों वासांसि रत्नानि पृथक्पृथगनेकशः।।

Literal translation is as follows : Krishna gave the illustrious Pandavas various gifts such as women, robes, gems and many many more gifts.

Even if we take स्त्रियः to mean women it proves nothing. It is open to interpretation, or let us take the opponents words as female slaves also, this still does not prove sex slavery.

Claim 9:Krishna’s father Vasudeva also a over a thousand concubines,

Following is the proof

Mahabharata 14.7 ”The Brahmanas and Kshatriyas, and Vaisyas, and wealthy Sudras, set out, keeping before them the 16,000 women that had formed Vasudeva’s harem, and Vajra, the grandson of the intelligent Krishna.”

Response: Unfortunately I cannot wonder at the appalling ignorance of our opponent, 1st of all the reference he gave is wrong, it is not in 14.7 but Mahabharata 16.7 . This is the Mausala Parva, this is post the death of Krishna, here Arjuna is escorting Krishna’s 16,000 wives out of Dwaraka. We know Krishna freed the 16,000 princesses from Narakasura and they decided to marry him. So even over here there is no proof of sex slavery.

Claim 10: Hindu god Rama’s father named Dasharath also had many conubines. According to Ramayana 2.34.23 he had 350 concubines.

Response: Let us look at the Ramayana directly

लक्ष्मणम् च अनुजानीहि सीता च अन्वेति माम् वनम् |

कारणैः बहुभिस् तथ्यैः वार्यमाणौ न च इच्चतः || २-३४-२३

23. anujaaniihi = permit; lakshhmaNamcha = Lakshmana also; siitaacha = Seetha too; anveti = is accompanying; maam = me; vanam = to the forest; vaaryamaaNau = even if prevented; bahubhiH = by many; tathyaiH = true; kaaranaiH = reasons; nachaichchhataH = these two are not agreeing.

“Permit Lakshmana also and Seetha too who is accompanying me to the forest. Even if prevented(by me0 on many true reasons, these two are not agreeing to stay behind”

It seems like our opponent has run out of references. Dasharartha had wives not concubines.

Claim 11: Following verse from Matsya Purana proves sex slavery in Hinduism

Matsya Purana 70.44-45 ”That Brahmana should be well fed and be devoutly looked upon as cupid, for the sake of sexual enjoyment. Each and every desire of that Brahmana should be satisfied by the woman devote. She should, with all heart and soul and with a smile on her face, yield herself up to him.”

Response: The context needs to be looked at as follows

एवं सम्पूज्य देवेशमनङ्गात्मकमीश्वरम्। गन्धैर्माल्यैस्तथा धूपैर्नैवेद्येन च कामिनी ॥ ४१ ॥

तण्डुलप्रस्थदानं च यावन्मासास्त्रयोद‍ ततस्त्रयोदशे मासि सम्प्राप्ते तस्य भा विप्रस्योपस्करैर्युक्तां शय्यां दद्याद्विलक्ष सोपधानक विश्रामां सास्तरावरणां शुभ प्रदीपोपानहच्छत्रपादुकासनसंयुताम्।।

This rite should be obse Sunday; and the devotee shoul above mentioned quantity of u a period of thirteen months; which, the same Brāhmaṇa sh full bedding, with all its requisi good sheets, dipa ( lamp ), a umbrella, sandals, a small piec sit upon.

The women folk should then worship the Lord, whose body is Cupid himself, by offering Him incense, flowers, sandal and eatables.

तत आहूय धर्मज्ञं ब्राह्मणं वेदपारगम्। अव्यङ्गावयवं पूज्यं गन्धपुष्पार्चनादिभिः ॥ ४२ ॥

सपत्नीकमलंकृत्य हेमसूत्राड्गुलीयकै सूक्ष्मवस्त्रैः सकटकैर्धूपमाल्यानुलेपनैः

Afterwards, the Brahmana, well versed in the Vedanta, who must be virtuous and free from bodily deformity, should be honoured with the offerings of incense, flowers, sandal.

शालेयतण्डुलप्रस्थं घृतपात्रेण संयुतम् । तस्मै विप्राय सा दद्यान्माधवः प्रीयतामिति ॥ ४३ ॥

Next, that Brāhmana, with be honoured with gold threads, cloth, bangles and with incer flowers and sandal paste.

कामदेवं सपत्नीकं गुडकुम्भोपरि स्थि ताम्रपात्रासनगतं हैमनेत्रपटावृतम् ॥ ५० सकांस्यभाजनोपेतमिक्षुदण्डसमन्वितम् दद्यादेतेन मन्त्रेण तथैकां गां पयस्विनी

And a quantity (of the measure Prastha) of uncooked rice, along with a pot, full of clarified butter, should be given away to the same Brāhmana, after saying, Lord Madhava, be pleased.”

यथेष्टाहारयुक्तं वै तमेव द्विजसत्तमम् ।

रत्यर्थं कामदेवोऽयमिति चित्तेऽवधार्य तम् ॥ ४४ ॥

That Brāhmaṇa should be well fed and be devoutly looked upon as Cupid, for the sake of sexual enjoyment.

यद्यदिच्छति विप्रेन्द्रस्तत्तत्कुर्याद्विलासिनी ।

सर्वभावेन चात्मानमर्पयेत्स्मितभाषिणी ॥ ४५ ॥

The images of Cupid and F plate of copper, placed on a molasses, their eyes being of being well dressed, should be g with a fine milch cow, a vessel a piece of sugarcane, by reciti the following signification.

So this is merely a sort of Vrat where one is giving a meal to the Brahmana for successful intercourse with the partner of their choice.

Claim 12: The following quote from Matsya Purana proves sexual slavery in Hinduism

Matsya Purana 70.56-59 ”Henceforth, any Brahmana coming to them for the sake of sexual enjoyment on a Sunday, should be respected and honoured. If with the consent of that Brahmana, another handsome person come to them, these women should, with love and affection and to the best of their ability, perform all the fiftyeight kinds of observances of Love, favourite of man and gods, which would lead to pregnancy and which is not harmful to their soul’s welfare. ”

Response: The Purana concludes in this chapter that this is for women who are in Prostitution, following is the verse

एतद्धि कथितं सम्यग् भवतीनां विशेषतः । अधर्मोऽयं ततो न स्याद्वेश्यानामिह सर्वदा ॥ ६० ॥

I have described to you this vrata in detail, which, when always performed, never leads the prostitutes to sin.

Refuting the so called Virashaiva stance against Advaita Vedanta -1

It is quite interesting that the attacks on Advaita Vedanta are getting more and more interesting. But we must understand one thing clearly, these people who keep attacking Advaita or Adi Shankara are not people who have actually examined things to even begin with. Infact the article that I will be referring to is voluminous so I am not sure as to how many parts this article will go into.

Following is what our Virashaiva friend states

“We’ll start by examination of the term “māyāvāda” And it’s vocabulary accuracy first. This is so since some people think this term is offensive and resort to terms like Advaitavāda, Ekātmanavāda and Ajāti Brahmavāda. None of these are accurate. Advaita Vād this term is not accurate since schools of Kashmiri Saivism and Vallabhacharya of Vaishnavism are also Advaitins and despite this they have their differences from Shankara’s doctrines.”

Well not quite, the accurate description of Advaita Vedanta would be Ajatavaada or Brahmavada, the reason being that concentration here is about finding out what reality is, see for example we see the Sun rising and setting but is there actually sun rise and sunset, the answer is no, since when looking at this deeply we understand that it is merely the rotation of the earth.  Also the blogger goes ahead and tries to criticize Vyavaharika and Paramarthika Satyam. But the day and night can be taken as Vyavaharika Satta and Earth actually rotating and there being no day and night in actually can be taken as Paramarthika Satta. Therefore there is nothing wrong with Vyavaharika and Paramarthika Satta.

There is one more objection raised by him here that,  Virashaivism and Kashmiri Shaivism can also be considered Advaita, they can be but they have taken the name aa Shivadvaita not as Advaita alone. We will also examine there doctrines and objections later on.

Our Veera Shaiva friend gives the following quote

“In the case an apprehension may arise that there is merely a void everywhere which would be non different from the Buddhistic idea. Hence the text says siva eva kevalah, siva who is pure by nature and not void

~ Svetāshvatara Upanishad Bhashya 4.18″

Here the Bhashya is talking about the Upanishad Mantra which states that at that point there was neither day nor night. In case someone has a misapprenhension that this is the Buddhistic position of Shoonya, the Shloka clarifies that this is not so is what is stated here, but our friend writes as follows

“So since the intellectual admits his own doctrine being only mildly different from the Buddhist system of thought”

This makes absolutely no sense, infact this is what the Bhashyam states

“तर्हि तत्त्वं सर्वत्र शून्यमेव जातमिति बौद्धमताविशेषमाश ङ्कयाह — शिव एवेति ।”

Meaning: Hence to remove the doubt that if it is being proposed (i.e if the Upanishad is proposing) that everything is Shoonya the clarification is given, that it is Shiva alone.

It seems this person has not bothered to look at anything, he also gives 3 quotes from Buddhist Sutras but it seems there is no reference given for them. This shows clearly that our friend knows nothing and has simply copy pasted something.

Our Veerashaiva friend goes ahead and states that Advaita should be derived in the following way, he copy pastes a lot of stuff however we will simply take it point by point

1. If we have Ekam, we want to say not Ekam we say Anekam. Similarly Advaitam should be Anadvaitam .

2. Dvitam and Dvitiyam have a difference, Dvitam means two, Dvitiyam means 2 fold.

3. Before creation the whole cosmos and Shiva were simultaneously in a two as well as not two state hence to indicate this Advitiyam is used.

4. Meikandar a Shaiva Acharya brought this out.

Basically the Schrodinger’s cat problem in which the cat is simultaneously alive and dead at the same time. This actually sounds like nonsense, why people cannot see this interpretation of Advitiyam as nonsense, since the whole passage quoted here, is completely presented in a complicated way.

Also Vachaspatyam a Sanskrit dictionary

अद्वैत

न० द्विधा इतम् द्वीतं तस्य भावः द्वैतं भेदः

Here न is for negation, द्विधा means dual,

So here the translation of the above Sanskrit phrase is ” The dual pair having been obtained the it’s expression is Duality or difference”. Therefore Advaita is Non-duality or Non-difference.

We will examine more of this nonsense later.

HAPPY GREGORIAN NEW YEAR TO ALL my READERS

Relation between Brahman and self.

yat—which; etat—this; vismṛtam—forgotten; puṁsaḥ—of the living entity; mat-bhāvam—My spiritual position; bhinnam—separation; ātmanaḥ—from the Supreme Soul; tataḥ—from that; saṁsāraḥ—material life; etasya—of the living entity; dehāt—from one body; dehaḥ—another body; mṛteḥ—from one death; mṛtiḥ—another death.

When a living entity, thinking himself different from Me, forgets his spiritual identity of oneness with Me in eternity.His material life begins. In other words, instead of identifying his identity with Me, he becomes interested in his material possessions. In this way, by the influence of his actions, one body comes from another, and after one death, another death takes place.
(Srimad Bhagavatam 6,16,57)

Aitareya Upanishad declares:
At the be ginning of creation there was only “One Brahman with out a second” (1.1).There fore it is not reasonable to say that the individual soul is not born, because then there was nothing but Brahman.
The individual soul is not born.Why? on account of the absence of scriptural statement. For in the chapters which treat of the creation the Sruti texts expressly deny birth to the individual soul.

Smriti saysGita 2,20— The soul is neither born, nor does it ever die; nor having once existed, does it ever cease to be. The soul is without birth, eternal, immortal, and ageless.

 

“The great unborn Self undecaying, undying,immortal, fearless is

indeed Brahman” (Bri. Up. IV.4.25). 

“The knowing self is not born, it dies not” (Katha Up. I.2.18). “The ancient is unborn, eternal,everlasting” (Katha Up. I.2.18).

 

It is the one Brahman without a second that enters the in tellect and appears as the individual soul 

“Having sent forth that entered into it” (Tait. Up. II.6).

“Let me now enter those with this living self and let me then evolve names and forms” (Chh. Up. VI.3.2).

 

There fore there is in reality nodifference between the individual soul and Brahman.Jiva is not created.It is not a product.They say further that Brahman can not be identified with the individual souls,be cause He is sin less and pure, whereas they are not so. They further say that all that is separate is an effect and that as the souls are sepa rate they must be effects.

The souls are not separate.The Sruti declares,“There is one God hidden in all beings,all-pervading, the Self within all beings”(Svet. Up. 6.11).It only appears divided owing to its limiting adjuncts,such as the mind and so on, just as the ether appears divided by its connection with jars and the like. It is His connection with the intellect that leads to his being called a Jiva, or the individual soul. Ether in a pot is identical with the ether in space.

Just as a lamp illumines a pot or a jar,the Atma illumines the mind and the sense organs also.These material objects like pot cannot illumine themselves because they are inert and have no chaitanya. The Atma in us is the one illuminating factor, the Pure consciousness, which alone illumines the mind (Buddhi) and sense organs.The intellect creates false individuality appears as Jiva.

Br.up.2.4.12. S.B.—yathaa adbhyaH suuryachandraadipratibimbaH—–

Just as reflections of the sun, moon, etc, arise in water, or a transparent crystal appears red because of the proximity of a red cloth, so also,because of the limiting adjuncts (upaadhi) in the form of the body and organs,Brahman appears as a separate individual entity. On the realization of one’s true nature as being identical with Brahman, the notion that one is a separate individual entity comes to an end. As the reflections of the sun,moon, etc, and the redness of the crystal, disappear when their causes,namely the limiting adjuncts in the form of the water and the red cloth are removed, and the sun, moon and the transparent crystal alone remain as they are, so also, the endless, infinite and limpid Pure Consciousness, or Brahman, alone remains.

Br.up.4.3.7 S.B—buddhistaavat svachchhatvaat ——-yathaa vivekam
jaayate.
The intellect, being transparent and next to the self, easily catches the reflection of the consciousness of the self. Therefore it is that even wise men identify themselves with the intellect first; next comes the mind which catches the reflection of the self through the intellect; then the organs through contact with the mind; and lastly, the body, through the organs.Thus the self successively illumines with its own consciousness the entire aggregate of body and organs. This is the reason why all people identify themselves with the body, mind and organs, to a greater or lesser degree,according to the extent of their discriminating capacity.

If the soul is the Brahman, the question may arise that the Lord also experiences pleasure and pain like the soul, even as a cloth is soiled if its threads are soiled.

Brahma Sutra refutes it and says that the Lord does not experience pleasure and pain like the soul,which on account of ignorance identifies itself with the body and mind,and thereby partakes of their pleasure and pain.Just as the light of the sun, which is all-pervading, becomes straight or bent by coming in contact with particular objects,or as the ether enclosed in a jar seems to move when the jar is moved, or as the sun appears to tremble when the water in which it is reflected trembles,but in reality none of them undergoes those changes, so also is the Lord not affected by pleasure and pain, which are experienced by that imagined part of it,the individual soul, which is a product of ignorance and is limited by the Buddhi,Mind etc.

An objection is raised that on account of the unity of the Self there would result a confusion of the results of actions; that is, everyone would get the results of the actions of everyone else.

Such a possibility; for an individualized soul means the connection of the Atman with a particular body, mind, etc., and since these are not overlapping, the individual souls are different from each other.Hence there is no such possibility of confusion.

The Jiva attains identity with Brahman on the dawning of Knowledge, when ignorance with all its limiting adjuncts disappears: “He who knows that Supreme Brahman becomes Brahman Itself” (Mu.3.2.9).If the difference were real, then one could not become Brahman Itself. Knowledge may destroy ignorance, but not what is real.Now, since the Jiva becomes Brahman, its individuality was not real, and hence it was destroyed by Knowledge, leaving only Brahman.

So the difference is unreal, the identity real.

Who is supreme?

Sanatan Dharma the most ancient belief to mankind.Now popularly called Hinduism.
The topic is God in Sanatan Dharma.Sanatan Dharma has mostly two kind of Scripture Shruti and Smriti.Shruti are more authenticate and always superior to smritis (Manu smriti 2.13). Now God or Gods in Hinduism? It is one of the confusing question.Even to hindus and non hindus what kind of wired religion it is they have so many gods. If you ask to Vaishnab look Who is ultimate god?He would say Vishnu, If you ask the same question to any Shaivatis Who is ultimate god?He would say Shiva, If you ask the same to Shaktas?They would say Devi Shakti. So it is contradiction. There are multiple scripture says One is Supreme another one is demi gods so and so.

So most of the people think it is polytheism but fact is it not polytheism but it is pluralist. It has not multiple God but multiple way like names,form to define same god.
The highest text Rig veda says (1,164,46) Ekam Sat Viprabahuda Vidyante.The truth is one but wise call it in many way.
The same ultimate reality you are calling it in different names and different forms.It actually allows the different individual to relate the same truth according to their own understanding.If you like Krishna chant Hare Krishna if you like Shiva chant Har har Mahadeva If you like Shakti Chant Jai Ma Ambe.

All these clans have been created on the basic of a central character.It is very easy to identify the central character by their names.

The puranas have been written according to their central character.Every purana has a central character and it varies according to puran to puran.One central character of a puran could be the demi god of the other puran.So puranas are sectarian in nature.These puranas have huge influence in the creation of clans in Sanatan dharma.Apart from these there are many sectarian text like Chaitanya charityamrit,
Brhama samhita and some minor upanishds like Jabala,tejobindu,Gopaltapani upanishads.

In veda it clearly says ishwara is one the saints can call it in various name.Now we have to understand veda.Veda has been divived into Mandal and sukta.Each sukta has been dedicated to a deity and the diety is the central character of the sukta.Now we may argue that veda has self contradiction?No.

Because mantras of the sukta sacrifices in Yajna according to the yajna it glorifies the name of ishwara.Another very unambiguous verse says Agni you are the vishnu, you are the brahma it is in Rig veda 2,1,3.

The ultimate concept of God in Hinduism is Brahman not Brahma. The Brahman actually is not a person at all.It is the principle the ultimate reality. So vedantic says It is the consciousness.The core Sanatan Dharma is Principle oriented religion and then it has the expression of Personalization.We all need a personal character because of our human limitation and feeling.It is easy to relate with that principle Brahman to give it a personality. Becasue it is not easy to build a relationship with a principle but it is easy to build a relationship with Personal character.

Deity worshiping or Idolism when it has been started to perceive the infinite for general people.
My dear King, when great sages and saintly persons saw mutually disrespectful dealings at the beginning of Treta-yuga, Deity worship in the temple was introduced with all paraphernalia.

(Srimad bhagavatam7,14,39).

Ultimate reality is one whether you like the name and form of Krishna or like the name and form of Shiva or Vishnu or Shakti.

                                              sa brahmā sa śivaḥ sendraḥ

                                               so ‘kṣaraḥ paramaḥ svarāṭ

                                                 sa eva viṣṇuḥ sa prāṇaḥ

                                                sa kālo ‘gniḥ sa candramāḥ

                                   That is Brahma, that is Shiva, that is Indra.

                                    That is immutable, supreme, and sovereign.

                                       That indeed is Vishnu, that is life.

                                           That is time, Agni, and Chandrama.

                                                Kaivalya Upanishad verse 8.