shvu

I am not aware of written down rules for how debates were to be conducted. But the common practice was, if x defeated y, y changed over to x's system. This is how people used to win over followers. If a famous personality was defeated, he and his followers would change over to the winner's system. Kumarila Bhatta, the prominent Purva-mimamsaka icon, defeated lots of Buddhists and converted them back to hinduism. The debate between Shankara and Mandana Mishra is described with a lot of detail, in the Madhaviya shankara vijayam. Finally Mandana lost the debate, gave up Purva Mimamsa and became Shankara'a disciple under the name of Sureshvara [the first pontiff of the Sringeri Math]. However, there are a number of bogus stories of debates between famous personalities, which never happened. For instance, there is a story of Madhva debating with Vidyasankara, who was the pontiff of the Sringeri Math. Apparently the debate went on for 12 days, but the conclusion is not known ! Since the loser would have changed over, this debate never happened. Another prominent Advaitin named Appaya Dixitha, was supposedly defeated by Vijiyendra Thirtha, a disciple of Vyasaraya Thirtha and that too, many times! After defeating him, Vijiyendra apparently told Appaya, "It's ok, dude...you continue with Advaita". Another bogus story, as this is not supported by many Dvaitins themselves. Cheers [This message has been edited by shvu (edited 10-04-2001).]

Exactly.

Who is the soul of Radha? I have long since wondered about this.

In one word, politics. The early Gaudiyas, wanted to come out with a new sampradaya for their new philosophy of Prema-Bhakti, rasa, bhakti > mukti, etc. But unlike the tenets of the other existing sampradayas, these were new concepts not to be found in any cannonical literature. With an attempt to overcome this problem, they claimed their founder was an avatar of Krishna, who came to teach new things. The first question people would have raised would be "no such avatar is mentioned anywhere". Their answer was "he is a secret/hidden avatar". You may remember how the verse from shvetatshvatara, bhagavatam etc, were interpreted to mean they were refering to chaitanya. That is the brief background of this controversy and it has got nothing to do with Shikshashtakam. Cheers

Lord Sandwich? cool.... I did not know sandwich was the name of a person. Presently, im opinion, Bill gates is the person who has influenced the world, the most. His vision of "A PC on every desk, in every home" is fast approaching reality. It is not possible in all countries, of course, but these days, PC's are to be seen everywhere. Cheers

I am going to India next month, and will try to find a copy of the Bhavishya Purana there. Interestingly, it appears, this is the only main Purana which has not been translated into english. I find it odd, given the great curiosity people have towards knowing the future. The sanksrit copies too are not available online anywhere, and so I have to wait to get my hands on the BP. My question was, why isn't chaitanya listed among the avatar lists in the Bhagavatam? The avatars are listed in at least 3 different places in the SB. Apparently it was not a secret, as Vyasa has mentioned his name explicitly in the BP. Also, the founders of the 4 sampradayas are not the only people who would have studied this purana. Several other people would have studied this purana and they must have known about chaitanya, and yet they never mentioned him anywhere. [?] The BP itself saying things like the avatar was a secret, Madhva knew about chaitanya, but did not tell anyone, etc is not surprising, if it is bogus. If it is real, then the above questions remain unanswered and will also mean, Madhva et al., misguided their respective followers. Anyway, I will try to find out more about the different version of the BP available currently and why it is not as commonly available as the other 17. btw the Bhagavatam does talk about the future, viz., buddha avatara, characterestics of Kali-yuga, chanakya, ashoka, etc [Traditionally, SB is believed to be older than these personalities]. Another point of interest, is the www.gosai.com folks, have removed the portion which said "yogamaya had covered all these evidences until the 16th century", from their long list of evidences. Looks like, they changed their minds. Cheers

That was me. I have stated that many times. There certainly was a Bhavishya Purana before the time of chaitanya, as the list of 18 puranas is found in the Bhagavatam and also in the Vishnu Purana. But the content of the present day version of BP is what is dubious. It is impossible for the BP to have had Chaitanya's name, for all the reasons, I have mentioned above. The same logic applies to the present day versions of the Brahma vaivarta Purana, which mentions Radha. Cheers

If Chaitanya's name is explicitly mentioned in the BP, then how are the following questions answered? 1. Why didn't Madhva et al., notice this point and state there was another avatar of Vishnu in Kali-yuga besides the Buddha? 2. If Vyasa felt it apt to mentioned Chaitanya by name in the BP, why did he leave out his name in the Vishnu Purana and the Bhagavatam? 3. If his name is mentioned so clearly in the BP, what is the reason behind the Gaudiyas calling him a "hidden" avatar? The simple answer to all these questions is, the BP was interpolated after chaitanya. But if someone has an alternate plausible answer, I would be very interested to know more. Cheers

Food is eaten by hand or with a fork/spoon in the west, based on convenience. The same applieds to Indians. If an indian wants to eat jamoon or rasmalai, he will use a spoon. It is a matter of convenience. The real problem here, is the barbaric image of India that has been projected to the westerner. Anything that comes out of India is primitive, barbaric or mystical. If the Indian worships an idol of Krishna, he is into idol worship and is primitive. However if a x'tian worships an idol of Jesus, that somehow is not idol worship and is very sensible and intelligent. Don't ask them why. If they are asked such questions, you should watch their ears. The tips will turn red, and then the whole ear. Then the cheeks will turn red and you know you got them ! Cheers

I know many westerners who dislike this habit of eating with hands. That is just the upbringing. But westerners too eat with their hands, foodstuff that cannot be eaten with a fork or spoon. Bread, sandwiches, bagels, fries, etc to name a few. Indian food like roti, rice, etc are best eaten with hands. The simplest way to mix rice and sambar, is using fingers. One of my friends in India eats Vada with a spoon. I would finish 2 vadas in seconds, while he used to take several minutes. People wash their hands before and after eating. So an indepth analysis justifies eating with hands as a clean and sensible habit. Cheers

Dear Aravindaksha dasa prabhu, Same pinch, I have been educated in India too. I think everyone is aware of the importance of Vinayam. My question is, why have you raised the point of vinayam on this thread? I fail to see the reason, which is why I requested you to explain. Is it possible, you feel people who disagree and quibble, lack vinayam? Cheers

kiddo? I am 29, dude. Paranoia? I just thought we would skip a whole round of discussion that we have already done twice. But thanks, anyway Cheers

Perhaps you forgot the discussion about the verse from Shvetashwatara upanishad, etc that went on here? Or are you just pretending to have forgotten it? O Yes ! Shrisha Rao again !!! You can't talk for long without connecting the two of us. I am as genuine as a duplicate rolex watch, which means all my info has to be from some other source. You have me all figured out, haven't you? Let us not bother with Puranas which have multiple versions. That is reason enough to dismiss them. Shvetashwatara upanishad, the Vishnu sahsranama and the Bhagavatam should do. You know very well that all 3 are bogus. And this is beside the point anyway. One certain Srila from KC was strongly talking about logic, reasoning, questioning, etc. The question that I asked was if this "pure devotee" had bothered or even thought of verifying the list. That was the topic to begin with. btw, I looked at your photographs and I think they are cool. Cheers

I gave 3 replies to faithless. Were they out of the category of fair, honest and gentle? Just to clarify, I have not singled out KC, in these 3 replies like some immature people jumped to assume. I was referring to devotees in general and that covers every devotee in the world. Amazing fact: There are devotees on planet earth, who have nothing to do with KC. Cheers

Dear Aravindaksh das prabhu, What is the point that your are trying to drive across? Forgive me, for not understanding your point. Since valaya aappreciates your message, perhaps he can explain. Thanks What about these words? I did think about them for a while though, as you suggested. Cheers

Having seen the quality of your postings in the past, my initial reaction was to simply ignore your drivel, but since your tone was pretty strong about "logic and reason", here is something for you. When a long list of fake verses were offered by your masters to prove the "divinity" of chaitanya, how many of these verses did you verify? Did you even know, there is such a list? You and all your iskcon brethren accepted the claim in full, without doubting it for a moment. See what I mean? Somehow I don't think you will. It requires at least average IQ, which is more than what I can expect from you. More tripe. A gangster is well aware of the existence of law and is also smart enough to know how to go around it. Try a better example next time. It would have been better for a strong representative of iskcon such as you, to offer some useful advice to faithless's questions, instead of whining about me. btw don't expect me to respond to your shallow postings in future, for I most certainly won't. You can consider yourself to have had the last word. Cheers

Karthik, Disciplic succession does not mean that the BG is for the whole world. 4.2 does not refute my position, but actually supports it. Further, your own understanding of 4.3 is, Touchè. Exactly my point. The "only" suggests discretion, which is absent when books are published and distributed to all, isn't it? Note "cheti rahasyam hyetaduttamam" here. Uttamam does not mean transcendental as translated by his divine grace. The BG was Krishna's teaching to Arjuna in his moment of confusion and despair. That is what I mean by saying that it was specifically addressed to Arjuna. I am not implying that the BG was Arjuna only. My point is, the BG is not for the general public, like you think it is. innuendo? Am I missing something here? I have already committed enough Vaishnava Aparadha to last billions of years of hell and it does not bother me in the least. Since you raised the topic of Vaishnava Aparadha, let us see how it works. 1. Shankara, according to the Gaudiyas is an avatar of Shiva [a demi-god, apparently] and is the #1 vaishnava. 2. His divine grace, labels Shankara as cunning, insane, inceremonious, etc. 3. Thus by your logic of Vaishnava Aparadha, His divine grace is a bigtime offender himself and is already in hell, burning in oil. Not to mention him calling his competitors [other Indian Gurus who were trying their gimmicks in the US] as rascals. If a saffron clad gentleman can speak this way of others, it is very easy for people like me to speak about him. QED, thus. I am missing something here. How does 4.15 show that the BG should be propogated? Can you explain? There is no doubt that a master has to propogate teachings, and I have never denied that. I hope you understand, no one is arguing this point. FYI, the above verse does not suggest, the Bg should be preached to all. Perhaps, you missed the clear message in 18.67? To add more, This rules out preaching to any T, D & H, don't you think? All the verses posted by you suggest discrimination in passing on the teaching, and yet that is the point you are arguing against ! I suggest you read texts in sequence and not pull them out of context[viz., 4.15]. It will make things easier for all. Cheers [This message has been edited by shvu (edited 09-26-2001).]

Leyh, As usual you are taking things out of context. If you read my post, you will notice that I never said that the BG was for Arjuna only. My point is the BG is not for everyone and so, your points are moot. Cheers

You took the worlds right out of my mouth. God bless you too. All glories to Gauranga All glories to the lotus feet of Srila Prabhupada hare krishna haribhol your servant

I am sorry Audarya, if you do a search for the word "foolish" in your postings and mine, you will know what I am talking about. Not what I said, at all. ? Let us take an example. A couple of weeks back, you got into a tiff with another camp about the authenticity of a certain maharaj. The argument ran into pages, with each camp calling the other as "foolish", until everone ran out of breath. What kind of discussion was that, may I ask? FYI, I don't remember you discussing scriptures at any time. So I wonder what you are talking about, anyway? The Maharaj example should work here. btw did you read my second posting on that thread? I see you did noy comment on it. Perhaps that will show you, my statement is far from foolish...if you care to keep your mind a little open, that is. Cheers

The Sri Vaishnavas claim that the pancharatra comes directly from Narayana. This does not mean that they call it vedic. As far as upanishads are concerned, anyone can call anything as an upanishad. Bhakti vinod thakur wrote his own upanishad and claimed it was part of the Atharvana Veda. You will be surprised to know, there are people who actually believe such claims. Please. All this has been dealt with at length in the past, and I don't want to go into it again. If it was a "natural" commentary, Vyasa would not have told Madhva to write a new one, don't you think? Why did Baladeva write a new commentary? Where is shunyavAda, sAnkya, etc refuted in the Bhagavatam? You have been misled by typical gaudiya propoganda. The reference to itihasa and purana as panchama veda in the chAndogya does not mean that they form a fifth veda. panchama veda is a term used to state the importance of certain literature and is alsoe use for arcery [dhanur veda], medicine ayurveda, etc. With due repsect, it is not "my opinion". Also remember, a bunch of people from west bengal who didn't have basic traditional training in shAstra, making tall claims about their own literature means nothing. I am aware of the extent of scholarship of the Gaudiya crowd, thank you. See above. Sure, you will. I explained this one too. How would you know? Surely you don't think, everone will end up with the same conclusions as you have? Cheers

Audarya Lila, I wonder why. You very well know , this is my position. Yawn... Vedic again ! Why do you people harp about vedic teachings? FYI, your sampradaya is against the vedas in every way. So much, that there is a website www.gosai.com, where you will find an article titled as "Bhagavatam > vedas". If you remember, the administrator had posted this article here a while back. Sorry...this is your own logic. The position of shastra itself is to provide information which cannot be known thru intellect and reasoning (*). But how can I expect a gaudiya to know these basics? Everything that does not suit your thinking is to be dismissed as "foolish". yawn... [Deleted a lot of poetic material. Nice, but irrelevant] And the point is...? Cheers * Talasiga, if you are planning to do what I think you will do, please don't...because we have already done it twice. Thanks in advance. [This message has been edited by shvu (edited 09-26-2001).]

ggohil, Fine. How does one question Brahman, Karma and creation? I will save my comments for now. With due respect, I say, you (and most people here) have no idea what vedic literature is. Let me call your bluff, anyway. What vedic literature have you studied so far? FYI, Iskcon books, BG, Bhagavatam, etc are not vedic by any stretch of the imagination. See above. Anyway, why bring in the Vedas here, I wonder ? Cheers

I suggest those who are infuriated with my logic, to voice their complain on a new thread, I am starting. The reason is, to avoid digression. Cheers

I think this question has to be answered by the devotees on this forum. Perhaps some of them have gone thru this phase in their own lives. Hopefully someone can offer some useful insights. Good luck