4

I raised a flag for this answer in this question saying it was rude. It was declined. I explained why this language is unacceptable in my next flag, which I raised as below.

"My last flag was declined.This answer clearly disrespects some of the topmost saints who hold Srimad Bhagavatam in high esteem. The language in this answer is completely unacceptable. If the word neovedanta can be deemed to be hateful, I wonder how this answer is not the same. The author is pretty much inactive for 3 years or so. So any reason why this answer is acceptable here?"

The mod who reviewed it has this to say: "This answer only has arguments that which support Devi Bhagavatam is authentic. This is old age debate between two Bhagavatams. I don't think language in answer is offensive or rude."

There was a question which mentioned the word neovedanta and everyone was jumping on the poster to be respectful, yet someone, who clearly seems to have created an account just for posting this answer, states basically that Bhagavatam was a vaishnava creation to demean Lord Shiva and everyone seems to be ok with that.

So, next time someone decides to drag another sampradaya or another well respected and commented text through the mud, would we have the same standards applied?

Of course, I have also seen disregard for factual inaccuracies as well but I kind of get a feeling that it is all fine as long as the majority sentiment is not hurt.

2
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Pandya Jan 21 '19 at 6:50
  • Yeah, we should not entertain such answers which accuse scriptures intentions in this bad way. We need to be inclusive. Flagged the answer. – Ankit Sharma Feb 14 '19 at 18:44
3

Question asks

Does this mean that both Bhagavatam and Devi Bhagavatam count as Mahapuranas? Or does it mean that the Devi Bhagavatam was (somehow) replaced by the new edition of Srimad Bhagavatam?

and title of question is "Can the Devi Bhagavatam and Srimad Bhagavatam co-exist?". Here question doesn't explicitly ask opinion of Acharyas or Swamis which means any user can answer this question given he/she cites references for his arguments.

There are many possible answers for this question. One answer can say only one of the Bhagavatams is true and other answer can say both are true and another answer can say none of them is true. Here, OP chose one possibility which is Devi Bhagavatam is only true providing his arguments by quoting from Srimad Bhagavatam and other scriptures.

Question here says

..states basically that Bhagavatam was a vaishnava creation to demean Lord Shiva.

Nature of question itself here invites such arguments. Moreover OP quoted references from scriptures (whether factually correct or not is irrelevant) to prove his points. If we don't want such arguments in answers, we should first restrict question or shouldn't allow such questions in first place. How can a user answer this question in their perspective without refuting a scripture (either Devi Bhagavatam or Srimad Bhagavatam)?

If we shouldn't see such arguments and filter arguments of users, as some users say opinions of OP are gross misinterpretation of Srimad Bhagavatam verses, then we shouldn't allow question in first place. Another user might post answer which says only Srimad Bhagavatam is true saying Devi Bhagavatam is created text to praise Shiva and Durga. It is simply question here which invite such arguments.

Generally most of the answers on site are quoted from direct scriptures or views of Acharyas or Swamis. Even some criticisms from Acharyas seem to be offensive to users of some Sampradayas. Since we accept words of all Swamis or Acharyas, we allow such criticisms on site. So ,it is generally suggested users to not post their opinions alone on site. But here question itself ask opinions of users. So, we should consider Question and Answer as whole for any conclusions here.

12
  • So do u think the question should be closed as opinion based? – Rickross Jan 21 '19 at 7:15
  • @Rickross Questions like these will produce answers with these arguments. If some users are offended with arguments in first place, what else can be done? – The Destroyer Jan 21 '19 at 7:17
  • 2
    Yes the Q itself is asking for such an analysis ... – Rickross Jan 21 '19 at 7:20
  • 2
    There is a difference between analysis and passing opinion based statements. CoC and all others apply even when the question invites some sort of discussion. An answer was deleted as rude once and meta was also raised. In another instance, I think I have said this more than 10 times. Answer which used similar language saying another purana was fake was deleted as rude by users.. but here, support is shown. Care to explain this? – Sarvabhouma Jan 21 '19 at 7:59
  • 1
    "Why Srimad Bhagvatam created? --To Demean Lord Shiva", "From the above mentioned curse it is clear what kind of mentality the author of Srimad Bhagvatam possessed.", "Because it was authored by some Vaishnava and he presented a finely Grained story." - You are saying these statements are acceptable. Sure. Going forward, many others will share opinions and let's see if they survive the downvote machinery. I can already see my question getting downvoted for even a logical and valid stand. Respect and courtesy is all just in rule book here. – Ambi Jan 21 '19 at 8:04
  • @Ambi If you don't want answers with such arguments, then first we shouldn't allow such questions. You can't say answer is not acceptable while question is acceptable. – The Destroyer Jan 21 '19 at 8:16
  • 3
    @Rickross opinions need to stop where assumption of intent and unsubstantiated claims begins. The OP of the answer needs to prove that he actually has material to substantiate some Vaishnava coooked up the book in full or that the intent was indeed to demean Lord Shiva or that the author was indeed a full fledged Shiva dveshi. In the absence of any proof for those, this answer either needs to be blacklisted or edited severely. But since you as well as the mod think only downvote and move on is the only option, we all know how the winds are blowing. – Ambi Jan 21 '19 at 8:17
  • 1
    @TheDestroyer What arguments? Those statements that we have highlighted are not arguments. If you cannot recognize that simple fact, then the problem is not going to be resolved. Besides, are you the moderator that declined my flag? If yes, please recuse yourself from this discussion further. – Ambi Jan 21 '19 at 8:19
  • 2
    @Ambi Looks like you only want arguments which are pleasing to you. In such questions that are moot, not all arguments will be pleasing to everyone. The solution can't be removing arguments in answers or deleting the answer as offensive when question itself ask opinions of users. If users are sensitive then let such questions be restricted. – The Destroyer Jan 21 '19 at 8:24
  • 2
    @TheDestroyer Oh so now you are assuming my intentions. I think I have said it clearly. Blacklist the answer because of the "hateful and unsubstantiated statements" it make about Vaishnavas. I don't really care about the arguments. You and others too don't seem to get that part and swiftly resorted to whataboutery. Just remember that the inaction is setting the standard for future questions and answers. – Ambi Jan 21 '19 at 8:29
  • 1
    @Ambi You are simply missing one point. What is "hateful and unsubstantiated statements" for you need not be the same for others. How can such statements be removed from answer by listening to views of some users? Only solution is not to allow such questions. – The Destroyer Jan 21 '19 at 8:31
  • 3
    @TheDestroyer That's Perfect! "What is "hateful and unsubstantiated statements" for you need not be the same for others". This standard should and will be applied diligently by everyone going forward. – Ambi Jan 21 '19 at 8:38
1

There is nothing wrong with the answer when the question is also taken into consideration. Some people are unhappy with the answer but they fail to take into account the full picture, i.e answer along with question. Question is about Devi Bhagavatam vs Srimad Bhagavatam.

Question is asking how can they both co-exist, which should be considered as Maha Purana?

To answer such a question, it is required to put forth verses from one of those Puranas to conclude why one shouldn't be considered as Maha Purana and the other should. And that answer did exactly that, verses from Srimad Bhagavatam are posted to show why it shouldn't be considered as Maha Purana.

One of the verse posted in that answer is this:

One who takes a vow to satisfy Lord Siva or who follows such principles will certainly become an atheist and be diverted from transcendental scriptural injunctions.

The above is the not the creation of the one who posted that answer, it is present in Srimad Bhagavatam itself and such verses are shown as proof that Srimad Bhgavatam shouldn't be considered a Maha Purana or even an authentic text.

Of course, some users don't agree with the answer but that doesn't make answer unacceptable. The nature of question is that if it can be answered then verses like the above will have to be used, if that is not allowed to use, then the question will remain answerless as you can't just say, "No, some people believe this; some believe that".

One has to understand that the views of the particular user is based on the verses from Srimad Bhagavatam like above, it is not created out of thin air. Views of user is based on verses present and answer is based on the requirement of question.

Blaming answer in isolation is wrong, question has to be taken into consideration as well. And if such answers shouldn't be allowed then one has to first look into which types of questions are allowed.

As things stand, that answer is perfectly valid.

19
  • 3
    Neither you nor I get to decide what is a maha purana and what is not. The saints and acharyas of past have already done that. And you need to read the question more clearly. I was flagging for the language and unsubstantiated claims about Vaishnavas. But there is clear bias here, evident in the many answers, comments and chat transcripts I have looked at. So, I don't have my hopes up. – Ambi Jan 21 '19 at 1:58
  • 3
    @Ambi " language and unsubstantiated claims about Vaishnavas"?? OP quoted verse references and block quotes to prove his points. What are unsubstantiated claims? "evident in the many answers, comments and chat transcripts I have looked at". This site even allowed language which say some sect is anti-vedic and erroneous. Ain't these kind of statements offensive to saints who proposed them? More importantly, it is the question which invites such answers here. – The Destroyer Jan 21 '19 at 3:44
  • 2
    @Ambi "Neither you nor I get to decide what is a maha purana and what is not. The saints and acharyas of past have already done that." But here question asks "can this be reconciled" which means users here post arguments not Acharyas or saints. – The Destroyer Jan 21 '19 at 5:26
  • 4
    @TheDestroyer The OP is not quoting or citing anyone when he said Bhagavatam was created by Vaishnvas and it is a finely grained story. Where is it quoted and what is quoted when they said it was created to demean Shiva? His own personal opinion. Can I quote a verse out of context or say an incident and then say some purana was created out of thin air by some sect? I already seen that happen once. Then the answer was deleted as rude. Did you read that answer? and what happened to the policy about "Citation banner".. What is the reference that Bhagavatam is created to demean Shiva? – Sarvabhouma Jan 21 '19 at 5:28
  • 3
    Have you read complete answer or the complete meta question? "Why Srimad Bhagvatam created?--To Demean Lord Shiva" what was quoted here? "Because it was authored by some Vaishnava and he presented a finely Grained story. Countless mistakes while trying to create new texts:" these are OP's words. Who is the author of Bhagavatam? A Vaishnava? It is already said it is not about the answer content.. but the language used against Vaishnavas. The same policy of allowing such statements based on a verse or incident were deleted as rude by users. This answer is not. Hence the question. Address it. – Sarvabhouma Jan 21 '19 at 5:42
  • 3
    and @Ambi also raised another point about Neo Vedanta which you and other mods missed. There also, the OP formed his opinions based on articles, comparisons posted by Advaita ashramas only. But the mods and users said it is a demeaning term and said one should not demean a sect or group of users. Question got closed. What do you say about that? Why does that not apply to the Bhagavatam answer? I see no comment at least asking the user to use soft language but comments like amazing answer. Why this change? Did the persons change or the policies? – Sarvabhouma Jan 21 '19 at 5:48
  • 3
    @Sarvabhouma Among the many verses in Srimad Bhgavatam, one of the verse says followers of Lord Shiva are atheists and won't get any spiritual progress, reading such verses what kind of reaction do you expect? Who do you think wrote such verses - certainly not Vyasa. Padma Purana itself says that Shiva is Vishnu's right arm or something like that and any attempt to demean Shiva is a path to hell. Based on verses like those, one cannot blame OP. – Pinakin Jan 21 '19 at 5:51
  • 1
    According to Sri Ramakrishna, Srimad Bhagavatam is clearly an authoritative Purana. – user9969 Jan 21 '19 at 5:54
  • 3
    Such verses r present in many texts including Shankara Bhashya. You need not to go to Padma Purana to glorify Shiva. Bhagavatam itself says he is a greatest Vaishnava and respected, Apparently people had problems with that too. Moreover, it was sage Bhrigu who said those verses in context of Daksha Yajna. This incident has many different versions one of it says Vishnu is powerless. Should I be agitated & call that text as created? Will the reaction be the same? See the comments on question. I already talked about it. But I want same reaction users got when someone said Linga Purana is fake. – Sarvabhouma Jan 21 '19 at 6:02
  • 2
    If a Purana like Srimad Bhagavatam is written with devotion, it cannot have been written to demean Lord Shiva. True devotion and bigotry cannot coexist. Sri Ramakrishna and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu accepting Srimad Bhagavatam should be enough proof for a follower of Vivekananda that it is an authentic Purana. Also, Srimad Bhagavatam itself has verses in the eighth canto which points out Lord Shiva as the Supreme Lord. – user9969 Jan 21 '19 at 6:09
  • 2
    @Sarvabhouma As I said, the requirement of question is how can both co-exist, as there are 18 Maha Purana, only one of either Srimad Bhagavatam or Devi Bhagavatam can fit. And OP gave reasons and verses from text itself to show why Srimad Bhagavatam cannot be considered. I don't see anything out of scope in that answer. – Pinakin Jan 21 '19 at 6:10
  • 1
    It clearly defeats the argument of the Purana being written to demean Lord Shiva. So please don't cherry-pick verses to prove the whole Purana wrong. I can use the same arguments for Shiva Purana. – user9969 Jan 21 '19 at 6:16
  • 2
    @SuryaKantaBoseChowdhury The question is not about glorifying Shiva, the question is which one of the Purana is Maha Purana and authentic. And OP gave verses, other verses may be present but how can you say that answer is invalid when the question itself asked for it? Didn't the answer post verses saying why Srimad Bhagavatam shouldn't be considered? You may not agree with the assessment that the text demeans Shiva but based on the verses posted, an argument can be made that Srimad Bhagavatam is not authentic. This is the whole point here. – Pinakin Jan 21 '19 at 6:21
  • 2
    The answer is written to target a particular sect which violates the rules of this site. Does he have any basis to prove these verses were written to demean Lord Shiva. He's just assuming it's the reason for the presence of such verses without any evidence. The language used is clearly unacceptable as @Ambi pointed out. – user9969 Jan 21 '19 at 6:26
  • 2
    Use the chat room for further discussion. – Pandya Jan 21 '19 at 6:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .