Dark Warrior

HaHa...Theist, I am not so scrawny. You are a Jesus freak who has created an unappealing mixture of Christianity and Vaishnavism, whereas my whole generation is in 'disciplic succession', as Srila Prabhupada puts it. I see, you accept 'Krsna'. But this same description of Krishna is in the Bhagavatam, which also describes Ugrasena. So, how do you accept the form of Vishnu and not Ugrasena? Theist, you are a Christian. Your Krsna does not represent Gokula Vasudeva. Your 'Supreme Personality of Godhead' is ideally the father of Jesus, the great 'Savior'. Tell me Theist, how am I sectarian? Did I say all Christians will go to hell? On the contrary, Sri Hari gives moksha to anyone He likes. I used the word 'religion' simply because its easier to type. Sanatana Dharma is more like it. BUT, I accept that God has taken avatars only in India. Why? Who really knows how Vishnu acts or thinks? Perhaps in another Yuga all the avatars may be in America. But of course, Theist will say, the idea of God incarnating in only one place is 'illogical'. Because his precious Jesus came in Judea!! Theist, have you ever gone to a temple and drunk in the beauty of the Lord in His archa form? Ever witnessed the grandeur of Lord Balaji or Lord Ranganatha? I suspect not, because of course, your 'Supreme Personality of Godhead' rejects Idol Worship!! Theist, many people bathe in the ganges to get moksha. But only a few do so with the knowledge that the ganges comes from the feet of Sri Hari. So, while the others will have a little 'transcendental experience', the few who know the truth alone benefit. You reject the fact that the Rasa Lila is historical, yet you accept Vishnu's form as real. Tell me, who is contradictory here? I am aware that you accept the 'transcendental form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead' as you put it. But Rasa Lila is apparently a literary sense to you, so do you really believe that Krishna is now in Goloka, or that His form is also literary? Or, do you just believe that there is a Personal God with an unknown form in the heavens? If you believe that Krishna's form is real, you have to believe the Rasa Lila is historical. If you believe Krishna's form is also real in a literary sense, then you are saying that only a personal god with some personal form that is unknown exists. Can you reconcile this? Your views are extremely distorted. But whatever floats your boat. I care two hoots about Hare Christnas. Vishnu is not partial. He gives divine experience to everyone. But the true knowers are those who are in absolute knowledge, as verified by Krishna, 'Those who know of my birth will get moksha'. He wouldn't be saying this if He didn't want us to think His birth is historical. You see Theist's posts. All the time he yammers about 'Krsna' and 'The Supreme Personality of Godhead'. Does he ever talk about the greatness of Trivikrama, Narasimha, or Rama, for instance? Never. Because his 'Supreme Personality of Godhead' is that monotheistic God of the New Testament. You have never called yourself a Vaishnava? Good. But I seem to recall heavy debates where you asserted that Jesus and all christians are Vaishnavas. But Adi Sankara and his followers are demons, according to you. Explain this? Stop this childish pretence. I have had enough of Jesus fanboys telling me what Vaishnavism is. Your confusion is obvious. 'I accept Krsna as eternal, all mayavadis are damned, consider Rasa Lila as allegory and accept Jesus as his only son'. Give me a break.

cBrahma, you certainly do nothing to enhance your image. Utter nonsense without substance. I have explained this same issue in the Jesus thread. Search for it if you wish. EDIT: To shut this fanboy up, The Vedic Scriptures say that the world to be supported upon twelve massive pillars, during the hours of darkness, the Sun passed underneath, somehow managing to thread its way between the pillars without hitting them. According to the Hindus, Earth stood on the back of four elephants, the elephants in turn rested upon the back of a huge tortoise, while the tortoise itself was supported by a serpent floating in a limitless ocean." In fact, after the chaff is removed, the Puranas have a kernel and exhibits what may be termed a reverse symbolism. The twelve pillars that support the world are evidently the twelve months of the year, and they are specifically mentioned in the Vedic hymns. The four elephants on which Earth rests are the Dikarin, the sentinels of the four directions. These in turn rest, in turn, on a tortoise and a serpent. The tortoise is Vishnu's Kurma or tortoise avatar and symbolizes the fact that the Earth is supported in space in its annual orbit around the Sun. Finally, the coiled serpent represents Earth's rotation. Vishnu, or the Sun, himself rests upon a coiled snake - the Ananta, or Adisesha, which represents the rotation of the Sun on its own axis. The Scriptures do not say that the Earth is flat. They only say that the Earth is flat at the poles Now people may say, because the chakra of Vishnu revolves around his finger indicating that the Universe revolves around God, the form of Vishnu is an allegory. However, I take it this way - It is BECAUSE of Vishnu's form that the Universe also follows the same pattern.

Some Christians certainly waste no time in comparing the bible to Bhagavatam. I think a clarification of my position is in order. The reason why I chose Vaishnavism as my religion is because there is no other religion that comes close to it in greatness. It is a fact that the nature worshipping rituals of the Pagans, Romans and Egyptian worship of Sun-God is a direct influence of Vedic Culture. Furthermore, Islam, Christianity and Judaism are also influenced by it. Zoroastrianism and Mithraism is definitely a product of Vedic Culture as well. Logically speaking, it follows that the Vedic Literature alone is divinely revealed, and contains the highest truths. This is proven by the admirable way in which we get to know of the Lord's Kalyana Gunas and His accessibility, and also the superior intellect of Vaishnava Acharyas. Hence, we can accept the sastras wholeheartedly. The main reason for my unshakeable belief includes the fact that there is no alternative religion to this, and the fact that God's very doings are revealed here. Coming to our scriptures. I am not suggesting that if the scripture says the Moon is made of green cheese, we should take it literally. I am saying, apply pratyaksha to reinterpret it in such a way that it becomes concordant with what we perceive. Theist rejects its veracity. This isn't the Vedic method of Pratyaksha. Let me explain - In one example, the Vedas say that the sun is drawn by 7 snakes. By applying my method, one can reason that 7 snakes isn't literal and pertains to 7 colors of light. This is better than saying, 'Texts are incorrect', as Theist would have it. Another case of reinterpretation is that texts say that Moongod is responsible for vegetation. ISKCON people think this means there is vegetation on Moon. But a reinterpretation is required - That the Moon God is responsible for vegetation on Earth. This is a scientific fact and hence, acceptable use of Pratyaksha. Similarly, the cosmology of the Bhagavatam has been reinterpreted in an acceptable manner by Sadaputa Dasa in his book, 'Mysteries of the Sacred Universe'. This is acceptable because he considers the cosmology to be correct and to have a deep meaning, requiring reinterpretation. He does not refute it completely. Then, there is some problems with the issue of Ravana having 10 heads, a man having 60000 wives and Ugrasena's bodyguards. These things cannot be reinterpreted. Hence, it is to be assumed that Sri Hari's lila is such that ANYTHING can happen. You cannot deny the omnipotence of God. Since the texts posit this as fact, you have to accept it. It is accepted that supernatural events happened in previous Yugas. Therfore, logically, this is also possible. In any case, which religion can you turn to for information on God? No religion can explain it adequately. A few things you have to accept on faith. Theist, I am not asking you to believe these things. I am asking you, what makes you call yourself a Vaishnava when you clearly don't accept the form of Lord Vishnu Himself? EDIT: By the way, it would be foolish to say that Vedanta is against Science. The Vedic concept of time and space is extremely advanced, and puts forward ideas such as String Theory, which has only recently been suggested by mordern science. The whole Pralaya, Kalpa and other such things are in accordance with science. The cyclical nature of time is alson outlined in the Vedic Scriptures. The Bhagavatam has described how an embryo develops into a baby. Some scholars also point out that ideas of cloning have also been hinted by this text. In Sayana's commentary on the Rig Veda, he accurately mentions the speed of light to be 186,000 miles per second. Therfore, our texts are concordant with science. It is all a matter of reinterpretation.

Oh get out of here. I am going to celebrate Rama Navami now. If you have a lick of sense, you would do so. Or wait, I don't think you are a Vaishnava. Fine, then just shut it for now.

Another Jesus freak. Sheesh. You don't get a 'Subtle Body' in Naraka. It is just another body. GV interpretations are not agreed on by all Vaishnavas. OK, I have had it up to here with these deluded morons. Its amazing how these forums are plagued by Christians, Pseudovaishnavas and Max Muller worshipping Hindus. There are sane persons like Raghu and Kulapavana here who don't answer them at all, and I see why. Nothing is illogical. If you are an atheist, it is illogical. If you are a theist, you are forced to accept that the Lord is omnipotent. Hence, making Ugrasena fit a billion bodyguards in Mathura can be done by Sri Hari for His lila. And these semitheists have no religion that is more rational than Vaishnavism. There is a lot that agrees with Science in Vedanta. The Hare Krishnas interpret somethings wrongly, so they come to the conclusion that Earth is flat and that Moon has vegetation. This is eaily resolved. It is only in case of stuff like Ugrasena's bodyguards that we need to analyse whether our senses are perfect. So I advise all Jesus Freaks and Pseudodevotees to stop harping about this. Arguing with me or abusing me is not going to give you experience of Sri Hari. Instead, read our sastra and learn about His attributes. Then, you will come to the understanding yourself. In the end, I have no connection with you, and myself have realised how attractive Krishna is. You still haven't, even though you are deluded to believe you have, which is pitiful.

No problem. Other people can read my insults anyway. Atleast you admit your incapability to argue properly. Keeping silent is the best idea Bhagavatalover ever had.

And the point of this is...? If a logical explanation is given, then I am willing to take it, AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT COMPROMISE THE HISTORICITY. In fact, I was unaware of Ugrasena issue until (A)theist brought it up. If any logical explanation is impossible, then it means one must reconcile it with Pratyaksha and reasoning. Which means, 1) We do not see such things in our world now, 2) But this is not proof of its complete non-existence elsewhere, 3) Our texts speak of supernatural events, 4) The fact that Sri Hari is capable of anything in His lilas is to be taken into account. Therfore, verdict - It is beyond our thinking, just like Sri Hari Himself. There is a reason why it isn't mythology. Because it is an expression of the Lord's attributes. I see no reason why Sri Hari should teach us His attributes by allegory. I grew up with the thinking that the Puranas were myths. But not anymore. It is strange, but once I accepted them wholeheartedly, I could find out meanings for many of His pastimes. Theist needs to realise that Mahabharata and Ramayana are not your average Bible and Koran. They are the sastras of the Lord. The Lord is not limited by the reasoning of humans.

This 'grotesque' fashion has been able to obtain many meanings from sastra that your puny minds cannot comprehend. However, I fully agree that you,

I am not an ISKCONite. I do not refute that man has not travelled to the moon, etc. There is plenty of science in our books. The time scales, the creation of the Universe, the sound OM (similar to String Theory), atomic science, etc. No sense in denying it. What I do believe is, there is no proof for all this to have happened. But there is also no proof that this DID NOT happen. Then why the onesided outlook? The texts profess that the Lord came to earth. Can you limit HIM to anything? If He wished, He could move the Earth to the Sun. Are you trying to say Krishna Himself cannot make this happen? You and Bhagavatalover belong in the same platter. EDIT: By the way, understand a basic fact - there is no absurdity in our scriptures, as they aren't man-made. You lack any sort of information and simply bleat, 'Oh Ravana has 10 heads, so its a myth'. By doing so, you are denying yourself of entering into Sri Krishna's understanding. I don't care if you are like this. Just do not spread it to everyone.

I am talking about other Chathur Yugas. Afghanistan may have been America in a previous Brahma's lifetime. Brahma's lifespan is limited to 100 chathur yugas. In another Brahma's time, the Universe may have been bigger. The Earth may have been different. Mathura may have been vast. Nobody knows. Bloody moron. Learn about Krishna more. To summarise, these people are the sort who present distorted messages. Shruti talks about atman, which cannot be perceived. They accept it as fact. Smriti talks about fantastic things at the macro level. Why not accept it? I am not also forcing them to accept it. I am telling them to stop masquerading as Vaishnavas. And Theist, a simple question. I believe everything is true. You don't. See my post in the Rama Navami Thread. Have you been able to conceive of this much meaning in our sastra? No. This clearly shows that one who truly understands the Lord can alone divine meanings from sastra.

And why can't it be true in a 3D way? Either Mathura is bigger in other yugas, or basically, the Devas and Asuras, who come from other Lokas, are able to use their powers to live in large numbers. The book says Ugrasena had this many bodyguards. It does not say how, or in what way, he had them. Therfore, we are forced to speculate. Do you profess to say that we know everything about Devas? For all you know, they may be able to live without eating. And do you profess to know everything about the material universe? In one of the texts, it says Indra shrunk himself to the size of an atom and lived in the fibre of a plant. So, it could be easily possible for people of Dwapara Yuga to attain powers by penance. Ugrasena could have some device that enabled this particular act to come to fruition. Look, I am outlining it for you: 1) Vedas and Upanishads are apaurusheya. 2) They endorse Smriti. 3) Smriti calls itself factual. 4) There is no other religion that can even rival the amount of knowledge found here. Therfore, if you are theist, this is the only complete way. 5) The whole concept of metaphor is unvedic because the whole purpose of Vedic concept is to show how God Himself descends. EDIT: Even the 'extra dimensions' is speculation. For all we know, Ugrasena fit his bodyguards in Mathura somehow. Possibly with help of Penance, possibly by his own device. If you believe in Krishna, this is how you should take it. Unless you accept this, you are not a Vaishnava. So get off your high horse. Your 'Krsna' is an adaptation of your Christian God.

Who said Bhagavatalover was intelligent anyway? At best, it can be said that he/she is an educated chimp, in the sense that his/her posts are absolute nonsense with perfect grammar.

Mocking does not quite become you. With your scant knowledge of Krishna, you have absolutely nothing to argue. Remember that everything has a cause. Bhagavatam also pertains to other yugas. Mathura in another yuga may be bigger.

Look, I am trying to be patient here. Your questions range on 'how could Ravana have 10 heads?', 'How could Ugrasena have billions of bodyguards?', etc. The answer is, we cannot, in the mordern world perceive of a person with 60000 wives, or having 10 heads, etc. But what we do know is that Smiriti talks about the Kalyana Gunas of the Lord. And it posits these events as factual. Since these attributes of the Lord are described gloriously, there is no reason to assume it as myth. The texts talk about this event taking place in Dwapara Yuga. Nobody knows what Mathura may have been like in Dwapara Yuga. Therfore, it is to be concluded that there is talk of other lokas, and other dimensions. Thus, even a billion bodyguards would have fit in Mathura if there were extra dimensions. The bloody point I am trying to make is, you cannot reject it as myth if you can't perceive with your senses. Scripture clearly says people of Dwapara Yuga are different from those of Kali Yuga. Therfore, there is no doubt that they exhibit powers. Thus, pratyaksha is not applicable. The whole argument isn't about whether our sastras are true or not. the point is, YOU are not a Vaishnava, nor do you know anything about Krishna. This moron has inadvertantly supported my case. NOW, the population is 7 billion. During the Dwapara Yuga, sastras say that people were in contact with other Lokas. Nobody knows the population count 5000 years ago, or a million years ago. So, both of you clam up.

Then, your stupidity is completely revealed here. Coming to a Vaishnava forum to argue that Sri Krishna doesn't exist? What a moron. Not only are you an idiot, but a blasphemous idiot. No wonder you have been blasted by even that Tackleberry character. You have no knowledge of our sampradaya. You have no knowledge of our sacred texts. You know nothing about the glorious meanings of our scripture. You have no idea of the Kalyana gunas of the Lord. You are a pathetic, useless, piece of trash who can't post without contradictions. Learn to argue first, then come. Your disrespect for acharyas is nothing more than bad karma.

Good. You are very mature. I also feel that it isn't necessary for me to argue with every confused soul that turns up the pike. Theist, Bhagavatalover, and some others belong in the same ilk.

Of course, if you come on to a Vaishnava forum, then everyone will talk about Sri Krishna's historicity. If you wanted to call it mythology, then go to an islamic or christian forum. And what retarded logic. Of course, non-hindus won't believe it. If you are not a hindu, then of course you won't believe it. but does that mean you are right? Nope. Your idiotic views have been refuted. Your rationalist view is that Max Muller's translations and his dating of the Vedas are right, when he completely ignores the astronomical proof in the scripture itself. Your western scholars are not 'rational'. Every step of their methodology is questionable. Even Max Muller admitted that his dates for the Upanishads are totally unfounded and arbitrary. Your belief in these clowns is itself contradictory to rationality. And disrespecting acharyas clearly proves that you are nothing higher than a little bogey to be flushed away down the drain. <!-- / message -->Oh my goodness gracious, I am devastated that a pea brain who has no clue of our sampradaya is putting me on the ignore list! Tr000ly, I am finished!! Get your sorry carcass out of here until you learn to respect great sages like Sri Ramanujar and Sri Madhvar.<!-- sig -->

LMAO. What a moron. I am the only one who took it seriously? Every Vaishnava, and those who refuted it, along with all Hindus take it seriously. You are really an idiot. Are you implying that we take these western indologists suggestions that the Vedas pertain to a war over skin color (Indra vs. Dasyus) whereas our acharyas see deep spiritual meanings? Have you lost all your common sense to suggest that your 'rational scholars' are actually unopposed? Do you think Vaishnavism is not based on sastra, when we have defeated Saivites, Advaitins and pig headed moronic hindus like you? Stupidity has reached new heights here.

Runt, Whatever credibility you had, is no longer left. The fact is, I have systematically provided refutations of your pathetic opinions, and you don't have the guts to respond. Then, you criticise my knowledge ofr 'indian religions'. Moron, you do not even know how Hari Supremacy is proven in the Vedas. You keep harping about indologists, when you lack a basic knowledge of their techniques. You have studied Gaudiya Vaishnavism, but do not know anything about Vaishnavism itself. Max Muller's translations are contradictory, whereas true Vedantins see no contradictions. Yet, you think the former's opinions are right. that shows you have the IQ of a rat. Its because of these brainless morons that Hinduism is portrayed in a bad light. Now go suck up to your Max Muller's translations of the Vedas, and stop whining like a pig. EDIT: Oh I see. So now, our culture is senseless mythology? Hmm, let's see, these 'senseless' mythologies illustrate the Lord's accessibility more clearly than any religion can. These 'myths' have great and deep meanings of atman and brahman, with invaluable spirituality. So, they are now just kiddish? Oh dear, you are certainly entertaining. Keep this up. DOUBLE EDIT: I had to reply to this. If you knew I was not a GV, then why did you blabber about having studied GV for years and bring up the myth that 'all' Vaishnavas accept Gopala Tapani? You contradict your own brain.

Only when it came to philosophy did the acharyas differ. But you honestly think they weren't capable of determining which texts ae authentic and which are not? Your stupidity amazes me. Max Muller is more of a Vedantin than Madhvacharya or Ramanujacharya? Good Lord. Your indologists wanted to show that the Veda is full of contradictions in order to convert people to christianity. Nowadays, mordern scholars do not hold that position, but due to the fact that these biased fools founded indology, their opinions still carry weight due to respect. And its fools like you who fail to understand. Kimfelix, you obviously lack a knowledge of the Vedas, so I don't hold you at fault. With due respect, back off. The Chandogya Upanishad is talking about some Krishna who isn't Vasudeva. It is true. But the Narayana Upanishad mentions Brahman to be the son of Devaki. And the fact that Bhagavatalover denies this Upanishad to be canonical is indicative of the height of ignorance he possesses. And yet, claims to have studied Vaishnavism for 15 years. It is moronic to assume Krishna is different from Vishnu.

1) I am not a Gaudiya Vaishnava. I know that there are sectarian texts like Brahma Samhita and Gopala Tapani in that Sampradaya. 2) Sri Vaishnavas and even Madhva Vaishnavas base their philosophy only on the principal Upanishads and texts. 3) Your 'indologists' have brought up bizarre ideas of contradictions in Gita, when our acharyas saw absolutely no contradictions. 4) Your indologists claims of dating texts is based on unfounded evidence. Tell me, exactly how does your indologists say the Puranas are recent? 1) Upanishads make a reference to Puranas. 2) It can be argued that these are not the existing Puranas. But it has been proven that both Vishnu Purana and Bhagavatam echo the message of the Vedas. So that argument is defeated. It is idiots like you, who do not possess a lick of sense, yet see it fit to act scholarly about Vaishnavism, that are ruining our culture. Steer clear of our sampradaya if you want to maintain your dignity. EDIT: In case your brain damaged way of thinking perceives me as someone who is quoting without authority, let me say that all indologists opinions have been defeated by scholars. Indology is nothing more than speculation.

Your moronic ideas are reflective of your complete inability to comprehend things. The Brahma Sutras talk about general atheism at points. This can be interpreted to Buddhism and Jainism. But any references to Buddhism and Jainism can also be completely removed by a different interpretation. This leads to two conclusions: 1) The Brahma Sutras refute general ideas of atheism. 2) Buddhism and Jainism existed long before Mahavira and Gautama Buddha. This view is supported by both Jains and Buddhists. Rishabhadeva, the first Jain guru, even finds mention in the Rig Veda. And the Chandogya Upanishad clearly says, 'Puranas and Ithihasas are Panchama Veda'. The vedas also mention how Ithihasas and Puranas manifested from Brahman. The indologists skirt these quotes and make assumptions based on their own biases. Idiot. If there are interpolations, they would contradict the theme of the text, and hence, can be detected. That is what our acharyas did. Sri Madhva Himself was able to identify many spurious versions of the Mahabharata. Are you questioning his capability? Your indiologists see contradictions where contradictions do not exist and hence, they call even genuine verses as interpolation. I don't spend my time searching out your pea brained questions. post it here if you want a reply.

'Pious Beliefs'? First, you haven't been able to answer my questions. Then you simply parrot out the same idiocy you have been spreading all over the forums. Let me show you a few examples of your scholars' expertise: 1) Max Muller, the famous indologist, is unable to interpret Paramahamsa properly. He calls it a 'Great Swan'. 2) A.L. Basham, who thinks the Gita is a work of 3 persons, says that is so because of one line which says 'The Self is the highest realisation', which negates any conception of God as being higher than the Self. But the fool is unable to realise the concept of Kaivalya, ie, blissful enjoyment of the Self. Thus, there are no contradictions. 3) Brahma Sutras are dated to be post buddhistic because they refer to Buddhism and Jainism. But this is negated by the fact that Sutras can be interpreted in such a way that they do not refer to Buddhism and Jainism at all. 4) Puranas are considered to have emerged in the 1st Century AD. But the Upanishads, as well as the Vedas make many references to Puranas and Ithihasas. Your 'scholars' are just like you...dimwitted. OK, how about now? Try to bring your pathetic refutations.

I think a clarification on Upanishads is needed: Of the hundreds of texts today bearing the name 'upanishad', only a handful are universally accepted by orthodox Vedantins. The principal Upanishads can be roughly identified by analyzing their style and investigating whether there are any references to them in early literature. The Brahma-Sutras, the aphorisms whose purpose is to codify the philosophy of the Upanishads, refer to nine or ten of these texts according to the earliest commentators. We also have a 'muktaka' (stray) sloka which refers to 10 of these Upanishads as being the most important. They are, in order of their mention: (1) ISa (2) kena (3) kaTha (4) praSna (5) muNDaka (6) mANdUkya (7) aitareya (8) taittirIya (9) bRhadAraNyaka (10) chAndogya Of these ten, together known as 'daSopanishad', the mANDUkya receives no mention in the Brahma-Sutras. Sri Adi Sankaracharya commented on these ten and no other. A commentary on the SvetASvatara upanishad is sometimes attributed to him, but quite clearly it is a work by a later, inferior writer. In addition to these ten, a few others are referred to by the early commentators and are considered ancient and consequently are accepted by all Vedantins. They are: (11) SvetASvatara (12) kauSItaki (13) maitrAyaNIya or maitrI Only two sections of the taittirIya are commented upon by Sri Sankaracharya, but he and his school also refer to the third section. This section contains many mantras used primarily for ritual, so it is known as 'yAjnikI', pertaining to the yajna. There are also many philosophical portions, including the famed 'nArAyaNa sUkta', the jnAna-yajna, and the second anuvAka of the purusha-sUkta. Consequently, this section, also known as the mahAnArAyaNa upanishad, is also of significance, and is sometimes reckoned a separate upanishad by itself: (14) mahAnArAyaNa There is also the subAla upanishad, which, while not directly referred to by Sri Sankaracharya, is hinted at in his commentary on the brhadAraNyaka upanishad (maitreyi brAhmaNa) and which is mentioned by his immediate disciple Suresvara. The subAla is of fundamental importance to Sri Ramanuja so we also include it here: (15) subAla While the ancient commentators may mention a few other Upanishads here and there, by and large, the 15 above are the fundamental ones and are acknowledged as being the true sourcebooks of Vedanta.

Your ignorance is remarkable. You have quoted so much nonsense already about Hari's supremacy not being provable in the Vedas, and that Krishna was 'cremated', with Rukmini commiting 'Sati', that I do not know why I waste my energy trying to answer you. First check what Vaishnavas have to say about this. Idiotic scholars who couldn't even comprehend Gita properly cannot compare this. NarayanaUpanishad is part of Tattiriya Upanishad. It is called as an 'Upanishad' unto itself because it contains the famed Narayana Suktam. Only two sections of the taittirIya are commented upon by Sri Sankaracharya, but he and his school also refer to the third section. This section contains many mantras used primarily for ritual, so it is known as 'yAjnikI', pertaining to the yajna. There are also many philosophical portions, including the famed 'nArAyaNa sUkta', the jnAna-yajna, and the second anuvAka of the purusha-sUkta. Consequently, this section, also known as the mahAnArAyaNa upanishad, is also of significance, and is sometimes reckoned a separate upanishad by itself. So tell me, which school does not accept the portion of the Upanishads containing the Narayana Suktam? Sri Ramanujar and Sri Madhvar have quoted this portion. I don't accept Gopala Tapani either. That is why I did not mention it. As for Christianity, except for its devotion, it lacks everything that is needed for moksha - Knowledge of God, Knowledge of Soul, Acharya Bhakti, Significance of OM, Different Brahma Vidyas, etc. Just because the word 'Surrender' and 'Devotion' occur in a religion does not make it authentic. OK, chew on this. Just because of linguistic differences, the Vedas and Upanishads are found to belong to different time periods. But amazingly, their philosophies mesh together. Which view is then correct - The view that says that all texts can be unified, or the view that says that all texts are contradictory, based on superficial evidence? We have managed to unify all texts. Upanishads themselves say that Ithihasas and Puranas are Panchama Veda, and this is proven by their (Ithihasas and Puranas) deep meanings. You don't even have the jnana to understand how Hari's supremacy is proven and now you come talking about scholarly census. First learn to stop quoting useless texts like ganguli's (which you did in that cremation thread).