shvu

How old is this tamil literature? History dates all non-vedic literature as having come after the birth of Buddhism and Jainism. This is because the Bauddha and Jaina literature refute all the major systems of their time, where there is no indication of Hinduism as we know it today. It was the end of the Upanishad era, and these non-vedic systems (68 or so of them) reject the Vedas. it appears the Brahmanas had amassed a lot of power and this didn't go well with a lot of people. I can provide more info, soon as I can find some of my books. Thus the Mahabharata, Ramayana are dated to 300 BC and later. Interestingly, the Mahabharata is older than the Ramayana, and both texts were continuously evolving for a long time. The Vishnu Purana [400 AD or earlier] is faithful to the Mahabharata wrt it's content unlike the Bhagavatam, which digresses considerably. No, Shankara does not quote the SB anywhere. But the VP lists all the 18 Mahapuranas. So unless we conclude that the VP was interpolated after the time of Shankara, it will mean all the 18 Puranas [in whatever form] were existant before his time. It is believed, the SB reached it's present form sometime during 700 AD - 1000 AD. Cheers

Perhaps I was not clear. I never said Buddhism was a dominant religion in India at any time or a religion of the masses. During the time of Ashoka, due to his missonary efforts, Buddhism started to spread rapidly in India. The present form of Hinduism [with Idol worship, temples, etc] is believed to have been the result of the retaliation of the Brahmanas against spreading Buddhism. Probably their efforts worked out, which is why Buddhism did not grow in India like it did in other countries. The Vishnu Purana also mentions the Buddha as an avatar. But I have no idea what the description is. But there definitely was a Bhagavatam before the time of Shankara. Winternitz, Hazra et al., are unanimously agreed that the Puranas we read today are not what they originally were. Most of their contents have been replaced by interpolaters over the years. Probably Shankara was aware of this during his time. We don't. Or perhaps, they used the term Buddha to mean a realized person in general. I am more inclined to think the term Buddha, when used as a name refers to the founder of Buddhism, although I could be wrong. Cheers [This message has been edited by shvu (edited 12-11-2001).]

Perhaps I was not clear. I never said Buddhism was a dominant religion in India at any time or a religion of the masses. During the time of Ashoka, due to his missonary efforts, Buddhism started to spread rapidly in India. The present form of Hinduism [with Idol worship, temples, etc] is believed to have been the result of the retaliation of the Brahmanas against spreading Buddhism. Probably their efforts worked out, which is why Buddhism did not grow in India like it did in other countries. The Vishnu Purana also mentions the Buddha as an avatar. But I have no idea what the description is. But there definitely was a Bhagavatam before the time of Shankara. Winternitz, Hazra et al., are unanimously agreed that the Puranas we read today are not what they originally were. Most of their contents have been replaced by interpolaters over the years. Probably Shankara was aware of this during his time. We don't. Or perhaps, they used the term Buddha to mean a realized person in general. I am more inclined to think the term Buddha, when used as a name refers to the founder of Buddhism, although I could be wrong. Cheers [This message has been edited by shvu (edited 12-11-2001).]

There is plenty of Buddhist literature in Pali. Buddhism was certainly a prominent force during that time for it was promoted very strongly by Ashoka, who during his time was ruling the major part of India. I cannot give you the specifics now, because I don't have my books at hand. Of course, it was never as prominent as Hinduism, though. All the biographies of the Buddha give a different birth place from that of the Bhagavatam and the name of his mother is also different. Assuming for argument's sake that the Bhagavatam was existant before the Buddha, who decided Sidharta was the Buddha predicted in the SB and on what basis? There is nothing in that verse to show Siddharta was the predicted Buddha. If we take the meaning of the name, it is not surprising that he acknowledged other people before him had discovered the truth. They initially worshipped the places where the Buddha had visited. Then they worshipped symbols and later on Idol worship began in India both in Buddhism and Hinduism. But the Buddhists never claimed avatarship for the Buddha. That was exclusively done by the Hindus, for the reasons I mentioned above. One evidence to arrive at his date, is Ashoka's inscriptions say, his coronation was separated by the Buddha's death by a period of 280 [approx] years, which is how the 600 BC date was fixed. Again, I have to go back to my books for specific details. Cheers [This message has been edited by shvu (edited 12-11-2001).]

There is plenty of Buddhist literature in Pali. Buddhism was certainly a prominent force during that time for it was promoted very strongly by Ashoka, who during his time was ruling the major part of India. I cannot give you the specifics now, because I don't have my books at hand. Of course, it was never as prominent as Hinduism, though. All the biographies of the Buddha give a different birth place from that of the Bhagavatam and the name of his mother is also different. Assuming for argument's sake that the Bhagavatam was existant before the Buddha, who decided Sidharta was the Buddha predicted in the SB and on what basis? There is nothing in that verse to show Siddharta was the predicted Buddha. If we take the meaning of the name, it is not surprising that he acknowledged other people before him had discovered the truth. They initially worshipped the places where the Buddha had visited. Then they worshipped symbols and later on Idol worship began in India both in Buddhism and Hinduism. But the Buddhists never claimed avatarship for the Buddha. That was exclusively done by the Hindus, for the reasons I mentioned above. One evidence to arrive at his date, is Ashoka's inscriptions say, his coronation was separated by the Buddha's death by a period of 280 [approx] years, which is how the 600 BC date was fixed. Again, I have to go back to my books for specific details. Cheers [This message has been edited by shvu (edited 12-11-2001).]

The Rise and Decline of Buddhism in India Author: Kanai Lal Hazra. Published: 1995 ISBN : 8121506514 Publishers : Motilal Banarsidas A good book for those interested in the history of Buddhism. Cheers

The Rise and Decline of Buddhism in India Author: Kanai Lal Hazra. Published: 1995 ISBN : 8121506514 Publishers : Motilal Banarsidas A good book for those interested in the history of Buddhism. Cheers

Unlike Buddhism, Christianity was never a serious force in India to pose a threat to Hinduism. Neither was Jainism, for otherwise Mahavira would also have probably ended up becoming an avatar of Vishnu. Cheers

Unlike Buddhism, Christianity was never a serious force in India to pose a threat to Hinduism. Neither was Jainism, for otherwise Mahavira would also have probably ended up becoming an avatar of Vishnu. Cheers

Good one. To criticize a Guru is to offend his followers. It is as simple as that. Doesn't matter how logical, reasonable or valid, the critic thinks he is. Irrespective of what his intentions are, it is not a kind thing to do. Henceforth, I have decided not to criticize Authors and Gurus. If criticizm is required, I will stick to criticizing Books and Teachings and not the people behind them. That is the way to go. I also recommend the Administrator makes it a policy of the forums, not to speak negatively of any Gurus [including all Babajis, Maharajs, etc]. Hopefully Mahak, you will not be hearing garbage(*) in future and so you will not get tired. * Criticizm of Prabhupada Cheers

Well, nobody knows the answer to that. The Mahabharata, the oldest source for Krishna does not say he had 16000 wives. Next came the Vishnu Purana and again, no mention of 16000 wives. Then came the Bhagavatam and now he had 16000+ wives. So the answer to your question is, yes and no. The 16000+ wives by itself, has no significance and so there is nothing to be imbibed from it. The Bhagavatam is about describing glories of Krishna and to understand that, you will have to study the text in full. Cheers

Well, nobody knows the answer to that. The Mahabharata, the oldest source for Krishna does not say he had 16000 wives. Next came the Vishnu Purana and again, no mention of 16000 wives. Then came the Bhagavatam and now he had 16000+ wives. So the answer to your question is, yes and no. The 16000+ wives by itself, has no significance and so there is nothing to be imbibed from it. The Bhagavatam is about describing glories of Krishna and to understand that, you will have to study the text in full. Cheers

Mahak, What is "valid Vaishnava discussion"? Unlike VNN, this is more than a Vaishnava forum and covers all aspects of Hinduism. Naturally you cannot expect everyone here to be Vaishnavas and/or Prabhupada followers. If this were a Iskcon forum, then criticizing Prabhupada's literature would be inappropriate. But since it is not, any person can be criticized with reasons. And if you take the time to notice, no one has criticized Prabhupada without giving reasons. If you remember, sometime back there was heavy criticism about one Tripurari Maharaj for supporting homosexuality. If one person can be criticized, then so can anyone else, as long as there are reasons supplied. Cheers

No, they are not part of Hinduism and they are atheistic. Cheers

No, they are not part of Hinduism and they are atheistic. Cheers

That just about sums it all, except I don't understand what is meant by faith as a virtue. I have noticed in almost all cases that brothers, are of different natures. Although the upbringing was exactly the same for both, there is some inherent quality that seems to override everything else. So upbringing by itself does not shape a person's nature. But since nothing can be done about that, the parent has to teach the above virtues to their kids and then hope for the best. Cheers

The last thing I want to do is to discourage you, but as someone who knows something about yoga and has lived in India, I have to tell you a couple of things. Do not believe in this upper energy, lower energy, middle energies, etc, until you have actually seen someone in person who can satisfactorily demonstrate such things to you. Stories about dead people like Paramahamsa x and Paramahamsa y, do not count. See for yourself, before you believe. For outsiders, India may seem like a spiritual paradise, but nothing could be more far from the truth. So before deciding to move to India and risk facing disappointment, get your facts right by doing more research and investigation. Con men in the guise of Gurus, are a dime a dozen, in India. They are ever ready to take unsuspecting people for a ride. Good luck.

That sounds cool. Cheers

Karthik, You missed the point. One person asked above if it was possible to change fate by chanting some maha mantra [like overcoming an illness, death, etc]. I said whatever happens is fate, and so fate does not change. Ram diagreed with me and said he believes, the nama [whatever it is] can change fate. Typically in this context, he means nama can help ovecome an illness, death, etc. To this I said, then why bother to go out to work to get money? Sit at home and chant the name, and you should be able to get everything. It has got nothing to do with losing interest in money, as you minsunderstood. Nothing transcendental about it, either. And since you misunderstood my post, the rest of your posting is irrelevant too. Cheers

Evidently, 1. You do not know sanskrit. 2. Have not read the Puranas. 3. Are not familiar with Indian history. But not knowing is not a problem. Purana does not mean history; it means old/ancient. Typically, the Purana literature is a collection of very old stories that were compiled during the first millenium AD. While the stories themselves may be pretty old, in true Indian style they are fact mixed with fable. It is only when one takes the time to read at least 2-3 Puranas together, that one realizes how meaningless, it is to extract historical info out of them. Coming to the scope and purpose of the Puranas, their objective is to provide Info on religion, devotion, philosophy, traditions, etc in a simple and lucid manner, so that they can be understood by the common man. This was necessary because the vedas were restricted to Brahmanas only and are quite complex in nature. The authors used the technique of story telling and embedded these concepts in stories and thus the stories were chosen accordingly. x instructs y, in which appears x1 who instructs y1 and so on. If you have read the Bhagavatam fully, it should be obvious to you, the purpose is to illustrate spiritual concepts and not to present history. Cheers [This message has been edited by shvu (edited 12-02-2001).]

There is also the tower of Babel story from the bible according to which God scattered people all over the earth, after which they began to speak in multiple languages. According to this story, all the civilizations spun off from hebrews. Or at least, that is the standard interpretation. But again, this is not history. Cheers

The Puranas are not history books and are not to be treated as sources of historical information. Their purpose and scope are something else. Cheers

Have you actually seen anyone whose ageing process was reversed after Yoga? Because I personally know a number of people back in India, who have been into Yoga big time, for a number of years now, and they are ageing just like anyone else. This is just like the claim of people levitating thru Yoga. It always happens somewhere else, where we cannot see it happen. On investigation, either it turns out to be a blind lead or the person does not do it in public. Typical Indian yarns. Cheers

There is absolutely no evidence to link Hebrews with Indians. Their history starts about the same time Indian history starts. As for their claim of calling themselves as God's chosen people, so did all the other civilizations of that time. Even now, certain religious groups/organizations like to think, they are somehow better than other religions. That is the basic nature of humans; to from a group and think they are better than the rest. Cheers [This message has been edited by shvu (edited 12-01-2001).]

My Gullible friend, You are either very naive or very very dumb. Let me help you understand, which of these 2 categories you belong to. Why don't you quit your job, sit at home, and chant your maha-mantra asking for your middle class car to magically turn into a Porsche? You know very well, that it will not work, which is why you get up in the morning and go to work like everyone else. The only thing you can get out of chanting your maha-mantra is a dry mouth and nothing else. If mantras could change a person's life, India would have been a haven on earth, given the huge number of mantras they have. If you have ever been there, you would have noticed the pathetic state of India, where countless people do not have enough to eat. So much for their mantras. Mantras changing life styles, producing showers of gold coins, etc happen only in old Indian stories and not in real life. A very good idea: Why don't you think before you talk? That way, you can avoid, making ludicrous comments. Cheers