shvu

Excellent point, Animesh. Cheers

Excellent point, Animesh. Cheers

Hi Satyaraja Dasa, I know you from the VNN forums. Welcome aboard. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>That assertive is quite ridiculous. No Gaudiya-vaisnava Acarya ever said that the sastric sources pointing out Sri Caitanya avarata were lost. They say that there are many sastric evidences that corroborate Sri Caitanya's avatara.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They did say that there were 'many' evidences. On scrutiny it was found that they were all false. Then they added that these evidences were from lost sources. You have quoted SB 11.5.32. Now I will quote the same verse from a different translation, which not surprisingly, is quite different from yours. The wise ones then adore him as black in complexion, but brilliant like a sapphire. He is worshipped with all his limbs, decorations, weapons and his attendants. Recital of his excellences and chanting of his names form the principal part of worship. SB 11.5.32 Now which translation is the right one? 1. In this chapter, KarabhAjana is asked how the Supreme lord is worshipped by men of different ages. KarabhAjana then proceeds to explain how worship varies in different ages in the next 25 (approx) verses. When he comes to how worship in Kaliyuga is done, he tells the above. As you can see, my translations fits in the context, while yours is totally out of context. 2. Go back a chapter to 11.4. Here all the incarnations of Narayana are described. After the Buddha, the next avatar is Kalki. The avatars are described in 2 other places in the SB and at all times, it is the Buddha followed by Kalki. Needless to say, there is no Chaitanya in between. 3. Madhva clearly said that Vishnu does not incarnate during the Kali-yuga until the dawn of the Krita-yuga. Since he had access to the Bhagavatam, it is clear that he did not interpret that verse as you have. Guess the above points suffice. To check out the article where the Gaudiyas claimed about lost sources, goto www.gosai.com which is a Gaudiya site. I will not bother with your other evidences as you have not mentioned the sources. Anyway I can say with certainity, that they are not from the Bhagavatam or any other valid source. Bet it does not sound ridiculous anymore, does it ? Cheers

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Others would prefer a different approach to your challenge, but I would like to suggest that there are many things in the official biographies accepted by the devotees of Sri Shankar, Madhva and Ramanuja which are as apparently 'dubious' as those you object to in the Gaudiya Vaishnava versions of the biographies. Thus you may be a little hasty in rejecting these points which are new to you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am presenting a few facts, so no challenge there. Regarding the accepted biographies of the big 3, they were written just after their time and are accepted biographies by their respective traditions and hence by all. Although not all the points may be accepted by all traditions, the biography itself is accepted as the standard one. The same applies to Chaitanya too. The life story of Chaitanya as written by his disciples is the standard one. If an advaitin writes a life story of Chaitanya now which has some new stories like Vivekananda had appeared in Chaitanya's dream and quotes lost verses from a Purana, how much of credibility will it have? In the first place, an advaitin has to properly justify why he is even bothering with the life story of a person belonging to some other tradition. This applies to the author of the Navadwipa-dham too.

Finding a liberated soul: Frankly, this is a difficult task and is not clearcut. Most people usually put on a show and deceive people. Anyone who knows how to pass off as a guru can play this role. I can do it myself because I know exactly what sounds pleasing to whom. If I never get exposed, I will go down in history as a great Guru. Some examples, 1. Swami Sivananda had a Yoga school in the himalayas. Once one of his disciples saw him eating pickles behind closed doors. That was disillusioning for the disciple. A Guru must be someone who has experienced his teaching. If Swami Sivananda lacked discipline himself, he should not have been teaching others to be disciplined. 2. Osho Rajneesh was considered a great Guru until he was exposed. Ultimately he died in prison and is rumored to have been poisoned to death. If Rajneesh had died earlier, he would not have been exposed and he would have gone down in history as a great liberated soul. 3. The general western opinion of India was that India was full of spirituality. Paul Brunton, a english journalist was a spiritual seeker and came to India with high hopes during the 1940s. He searched high and low for a genuine Guru and was disappointed. He found out the hard way, that most of the people parading as Gurus were bogus. He made plans to leave and had a meeting with the pontiff of Sringeri. This person told Brunton that there was a person named Ramana who could help him. Brunton by then, had lost faith and was not interested. However circumstances pushed him to make a trip to Ramana and that meeting blew the top of his head off. Finally, after his long search he had found what he was looking for. It is no picnic searching for a Guru. Eventually we may find someone who fits the description we have in mind. From there, it is faith. It will be our good luck, if he is genuine and our bad luck otherwise. Cheers

I had this doubt myself and got it clarified. Veda Vyasa composed the Bhagavatam that was told by Shuka to Parikshit. But the final form of the Bhagavatam with all the conversations was by someone else. Commonly believed to be one of his disciples. Cheers

I had this doubt myself and got it clarified. Veda Vyasa composed the Bhagavatam that was told by Shuka to Parikshit. But the final form of the Bhagavatam with all the conversations was by someone else. Commonly believed to be one of his disciples. Cheers

Sushil, Sorry for deviating...but I could not resist this. ------ It just struck me that this forum has all the ingredients of a successul action movie. Heroes - All the ISKCON devotees. Some are highly evolved philosophically and I will explain how. Their revered Guru was fond of criticizing other traditions. That was all part of a positive attitude in life and is also being faithfully carried out by his disciples...the heroes who needless to say are all very positive in their outlook. However if someone takes a potshot at their cult, they are quick to jump up and scream foul. Anyone who disagrees with their cult has a negative attitude and a sour disposition towards life which brings us to the villains. Villains - All those who disagree with ISKCON; people who are all set to land in hell. Especially myself who am so villainous that it takes multiple heroes to subdue, the process of which is still going on. Humor: The heroes apart from all the action, handle the humor too. They sit in judgement of others and yet call themselves as humble servants. They also advice others to be humble! Ever come across better humor than this? Althoug the villain, I cannot help enjoying some of their heroic activites. Cheers

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> After more than four years, there wasn't any bacterial growth and the water was still clean. Ordinary water goes bad in a couple weeks. All sorts of things will grow in it, and the smell will be terrible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very Interesting. While fish can live in the Ganga, bacteria cannot grow in this water. Evidently there must be something different about water from the Ganga. I will see if I can pull up some more inormation this. Cheers

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Your observations are based on two faulty premises. The first is that these articles are from ISKCON. They aren't. The second is that they are biographies. They aren't. They just contain some general information.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First point: These articles are by Sriman Atma Tattva Das Adhikari, who I presume is from ISKCON. If he is not, then I stand corrected on the first point. But since I see these articles on several Iskcon websites, it is not incorrect to call them as Iskcon versions. Second point: An article titled as Shankara is by default a biography or life-story of his. Of course, a one page biography can only contain general information. Since the same author felt that Madhva and Ramauja's life stories needed to be described, why not Shankara's? <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Regarding the source of the text Navadvipa-mahatmya, these stories of Chaitanya meeting the previous acharyas in His aprakata-lila are originally found in Bhavishya Purana.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In other words, from the traditional view, this information was available to the public from the time of Vyasa. So what exactly was suposed to be kept a secret by Madhva and Ramanuja and from whom? However it is surprising that this public information was not known to either Ramanuja nor Madhva nor any of their followers. Considering the fact that there are different regional versions of the Puranas, I would be very surprised to see a non-Bengal version of the Bhavisya Purana that talks about Goswamis. About the divine nature of Chaitanya: All the evidence presented to show that Chaitanya was an avatar were false. When challenged with this, the Gaudiya Acharyas said they were all from lost sources. Highly unnacceptable because the GV Sampradaya is less than 500 years old. It is hard to accept that the people of a school would loose sources which show that their school was authorized by an avatar. Another interesting fact is that, they have lost all the sources! Let us assume that they did exist and were lost over time. That implies they were existent at least until the 16th century because the Gaudiyas recorded them in their own literature. Since they were authentic sources, it also means that they were around during the time of Madhva and Ramanuja. Why then, did Madhva say that Vishnu does not incarnate during the Kali yuga? It is quite obvious that Madhva was not aware of these verses about Chaitanya. It follows that, 1. This evidence was not around during the 12th century. 2. It was existent during the 16th century. 3. It disappeared again after that. Anyway considering that Chaitanya is an avatar, why wasn't he mentioned in the Bhagavata Purana or the Vishnu Purana? It was no secret after all, since there are whole chapters about him in the Bhavisya Purana which is also supposed to have been composed by Vyasa in full. In view of all this, it is impossible for people of other schools of Vedanta to take these claims seriously. For the Gaudiyas Chaitanya is an avatar because all their authoritative Literature written by their Acharyas say so just like Madhva is an avatar to the people of his own Sampradya but not necessarily to the people of other schools. Cheers

I have been reading the ISKCON versions of the biographies of the 3 great Acharyas [The big 3] Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva. Shankara The ISKCON version of Shankara's biography says nothing about his life details nor his philosophy nor his works. All 100% of it has been spent in saying that Mayavada is false. One wonders if the author knew the meaning of the term biography. Needless to say, none of the arguments provided are true. Ramanuja Much better than the Shankara version as true to it's title this actually appears to be a biography. However there is an interesting incident included from a work named Sri Navadwipa-dham Mahatmya. According to this, Lord Gauranga [Chaitanya] appeared in Ramanuja's dream and told him to keep this vision a secret [one wonders why] and not to broadcast it until he actually takes birth. Ramanuja is moved and desires to see him in action. So Ramanuja was reborn as Anantha during the time of Chaitanya and his desire was fulfilled. Very interesting, considering that, 1. Ramanuja lived centuries before Chaitanya. 2. This story is not to be found in the original life story of Ramanuja. Of course, he was keeping it a secret and never told anyone. So how then did the author of Navadwipa Mahatmya come to know about this top-secret dream? Divine vision perhaps. Unfortunate because now the people of Ramanuja school do not know about the divine nature of Chaitanya. Madhva Again we have an interesting incident included from the Sri Navadwipa-dham Mahatmya. Surprise, surprise...Lord Gauranga appeared in Madhva's dream too! As usual it was to be kept a secret [because Madhva lived much before Chaitanya] until the author of this work chose to reveal it to us lay people. Which is again the reason why the unfortunate people of the Madhva schools know nothing about this interesting piece of information. It is pathetic to see people faking stories to promote themselves as better than others. One is reminded of all the fake verses quoted to claim that Chaitanya was an avatar. Allthough such stories can only be circulated among the Gaudiyas and ISKCON, it is still not a nice thing to do in my opinion. However it is only an opinion and if people think there is nothing wrong about circulating fake stories, then they are welcome. Another thing is that these biographies are also found in this web-site. Since this is a Web-site on Indian Spirituality in general, one expects to see genuine, unbiased biographies and not the false and biased ISKCON versions. It gives a false picture of Indian traditions. Again, this is only my opinion. Disclaimer: This is posted as a piece of constructive criticism . I state that I am not pretending to be superior, with no hidden motives and holding no special positions. Any apparent sign of sarcasm is strictly coincidental. Cheers

Any person who takes a dip in the 'holy' Ganga is likely to catch a cold or contract some disease. The water is that polluted and dirty. If taking dips in rivers cleaned people of all their sins, then India would have been full of enlightened people. While it is natural for people to stick to tradition, they should also be willing to reject some things which are so obviously false. Cheers

Some Jains do not eat any vegetables that grow below the ground. The reason given is that in the process of digging the vegetables out, several insects and organisms are killed. This is a possible reason for why eating carrots can lead to hell. Cheers

Cows have been known to give more milk if they are listening to music during the milking process. I remember reading that construction during the Dwapara Yuga was done entirely by chanting. An interesting coincidence is that Edgar Cayce the sleeping prophet who said that the Great Pyramid was built in 10500 BC by the Atlanteans said that the pyramid was built by chanting. The massive stones were levitated and stacked one over another by chanting! [Out of topic] An interesting point is that containers shaped as pyramids have special properties. Milk and vegetables stored in such containers stay fresh for a longer time. A shaving blade stored in such containers apparently gives more number of shaves. Cheers

Vaasudeva also means the all permeating one which is used to refer to Vaasudeva the Supreme. It also means son of vasudeva which is used to refer to the Krishna of Mahabharata. The Sri-Vaishnavas differentiate between the two, quoting from the padma-tantra and the Taittreya Upanishad [Vishnu-Gayathri passage]. Quoting from these sources they maintain that the Pancharathras mean Vaasudeva the Supreme and so were in existence from time immemorial. The Gaudiya Vaishnavas don't differentiate between the 2 Vaasudevas and hence state that Krishna is the source of all. I have no idea about the position of the Sad-Vaishnavas on this. Shankara rejected the Pancharathras showing that they were contradicting the Vedas (If I am not mistaken, he accepted part of it as true). Cheers

Vaasudeva also means the all permeating one which is used to refer to Vaasudeva the Supreme. It also means son of vasudeva which is used to refer to the Krishna of Mahabharata. The Sri-Vaishnavas differentiate between the two, quoting from the padma-tantra and the Taittreya Upanishad [Vishnu-Gayathri passage]. Quoting from these sources they maintain that the Pancharathras mean Vaasudeva the Supreme and so were in existence from time immemorial. The Gaudiya Vaishnavas don't differentiate between the 2 Vaasudevas and hence state that Krishna is the source of all. I have no idea about the position of the Sad-Vaishnavas on this. Shankara rejected the Pancharathras showing that they were contradicting the Vedas (If I am not mistaken, he accepted part of it as true). Cheers

I found the following guidelines for cooking food to be offered to God. I am not sure if these rules are valid for general cooking too. ------ There are many kitchen rules for cooks and helpers preparing foodstuffs to be offered to the Lord. The primary rule is to think of Krishna while preparing the foods. Other rules include: One should wash hands thoroughly upon entering the kitchen. Foodstuffs should be washed as they are prepared. Nothing that touches the floor or other contaminated areas, such as the sink or garbage pails, should be used, unless it can be immediately cleansed. In all preparations only fresh foods should be used. Neither canned foods not leftovers are used. Leftovers should never be brought back into the kitchen, but should be kept in a specific place in the dining room. In cooking, one should refrain from using garlic, onions or mushrooms and from mixing salt with fresh milk (although salt can be mixed with other milk cultures). One should not taste food during its preparation, not even to see if it is done or if it is seasoned properly. Krishna is the first to relish prasadam. ------ Unfortunately it does not say why. There are portions in the Padma Purana which talk about Ekadasi and strictly say that one should refrain from eating grains on that day. However the reason given is a story which can be found at the following web-site. http://www.acbspn.com/ekadashis/ekadashi-story.htm Although I could be wrong, I think most of the Puranas when giving guidelines do not give the reason. At best they give stories. I remember one Purana saying that eating carrots will lead to hell. I don't remember if this is for some particular day or valid all the time. Cheers

There is a book titled Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy by one Richard Thompson aka Sadaputa dasa. He is a devout disciple of his divine grace and has written about Srila Prabhupada's observations on Physics, Astronomy and the credibility of the US astronauts. Some interesting points, (Note: The author for some reason thinks that Puranas are Vedic and hence the title) 1. His divine grace has asserted in this book that the astronauts could not have travelled to the moon because the moon is much further away from the earth than believed by people of science and hence the conclusion. In general, the US govt was conning the world. 2. SP has pointed out that according to Vedic understanding, planets float in outer space by the manipulation of air. He has rejected the idea of gravitation calling it an imaginary law. 3. The geocentric theory may be correct. 4. SP says, "... therefore the stars that twinkle in the sky also reflect the light of the sun. The theory that there are many suns in the universe is not accepted by Vedic literature .... The Sun is one and as by the reflection of the sun the moon illuminates, so also do the stars. The twinkling stars are not suns but similar to the moon." Quite a lot of such interesting facts as pointed out by his Divine grace that upsets modern science as we know it. I find it fascinating that a religious person also has such an amazing grasp of Physics and Astronomy. Shame on Sir Isaac Newton for giving false gravitational theories. We are truly blessed to have this unique opportunity of reading true science which is different from modern science. For more information refer to this book of Richard Thompson who is a Phd. (Note again: The author thinks that Puranas are Vedic and hence the title) Cheers

I almost forgot... That article is pure, unadulterated junk. The people who wrote and verified it are not even hindus, let alone pundits. It is Islam propaganda and several such articles can be found on the Islam web-sites. It is similar to some Hindus claiming that Jesus visited India and studied Yoga! I won't go into the details of why it is wrong as that has already been done by others above. A useful tip: Always treat articles written by authors of one religion/system about people belonging to another religion/system with caution. More often that not, they will be incorrect. Cheers

Sushil, The article was posted by that person to get other opinions. Pundit, A suggestion. You have to be aware of some points while posting here. As you see, some of the pure devotees on this forum get touchy and their BP soars up when they read such postings as made by yourself. Their blood boils and their eyes turn red with ferocity; so much that they have to really control themselves from smashing the monitor. Henceforth if you want to post anything that is not conforming to ISKCON, you add a clear note saying what your reason is for posting such *nonsense* and also your hidden/open motives. That will hopefully prevent people from getting ulcers out of anger. Cheers

Hi Sushil, <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>...So still you think that Shiva is Supreme personality of GODHEAD ?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> God forbid! No, I don't think so anymore. Your enlightening information has changed my life. Thank you. Cheers

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>It's nice to see you figured it all out. Thouands of saints, sadhus and pandits throughout India for centuries just weren't able to catch the contradictions you discovered.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Easy there; don't get upset. I said that it contradicts the Vedas as well as the Puranas. Not that it is stupid or silly or any such thing. Can you prove me wrong? <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Good that you are in possession of the original story. Thats probably where the saints, sadhus and acharyas of other sampradayas went wrong. They couldn't get their hands on the original story.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My source for the story is the Mahabharata and the Bhagavatam, which clearly says that the Supreme Bhagavan took birth as several avatars among which Krishna was one. If you can explain how Krishna is the source of all avatars, then I will take my statements back. For example, I have never come across something like Rama was an avatar of Krishna. I hope you understand what I mean here. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I agree that those who belong to the Gaudiya lines should take the effort to study other Vaishnava conclusions to understand their positions, but I would have to ask the same from others who are not Gaudiyas. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Certainly. Every Sampradaya has something that is unique to it's own and not to be found elsewhere. I am not criticizing anything that is specific to any Sampradaya. However I can always point out something that deviates from the commonly known view which is what I have done above. I fully respect your position as a GV. If you begin to interpret everything as sarcasm, then there will be no point in discussing. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>It is the same Lord revealing His hidden qualities. The original qualities of the Lord displayed in full are those of Lord Krishna. When Lord Krishna covers certain qualities, he is known as Garbhodakashayi Vishnu. When he again reveals those qualities he is again known as Lord Krishna.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I never said that Krishna is not Vishnu. All I am saying is that the name Krishna used the way you do is confusing. Your description still does not say why you use the name Krishna to describe the source of all. If you can show me something specific in the Vedas or the Bhagavatam or some such source, then I will take back my statement. If your source for this information is something else, then I was not debating that at all which makes me wonder why my statements upset you. I'll again repeat that I never said that it is incorrect to refer to Krishna as the ultimate. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Perhaps you think too much of yourself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Since I don't know of any standard which can be used for comparison in this context, I can't say what is too much and too less. So I really don't know the answer. If you happen to have a way of measuring how much we think about what, you can let me know and then I can answer this to your satisfaction. Cheers

To say Krishna is the Ultimate is correct as he is an incarnation of Vishnu. However the statement 'Krishna is the source of all avatars' is to be taken with a pinch of salt. With a lot of salt actually, when we consider the fact that Krishna was an avatar himself and yet another fact that such a statement is is direct contradiction to the Vedas and the Puranas too. Once there was a question about why Matysa, Kurma and Varaha also being Avatars were not worshipped on the scale of Rama. The answer was a fish, tortoise and a boar are simply not as interesting as Rama. Similarly Krishna being the most heroic and dashing of all the avatars of Vishnu, became the most popular. Then some people went a little farther by reversing the direction and said Vishnu himself is an extension of Krishna! While there is nothing wrong with such sectarian beliefs from a devotional perspective, there is this small problem that it is distorting the original story. So much that some people have been led to believe that worshipping Vishnu will not fetch the same results as worshipping Krishna. I must also add that the Sad-Vaishnavas [Madhva] do not have the concept of Krishna is the source of all avatars. Cheers

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The 18 Puranas are written for people influenced by the three modes of nature. Six Puranas are aimed at those within the tamo-guna, six for those within rajo-guna, and five for those within the sattva-guna. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This again is from the Padma Purana, which is a Vaishnava Purana. Naturally being sectarian, it calls all the Puranas praising Vishnu as Sattvic and everything else as inferior. Note that Vyasa himself never added a disclaimer anywhere in the Shiva Purana or Skanda Purana saying that it was only for Tamasic people. It is highly unlikely that he will write the Skanda (the biggest Purana) and then mention elsewhere that it is for tamasic people. Another point to be noted that is that the Vaishnava Puranas say that only Vishnu can grant Moksha. However the Shiva Purana says that it is Shiva who is the granter of Moksha, thus creating clear contradiction. The only way to make all this consistent is to say Shiva = Vishnu. Or else, dismiss them as sectarian. Cheers

I may be wrong, but I believe that ISKCON teaches that Krishna is the ultimate and real form. Let alone Shiva, even Narayana and Vishnu are considered as extensions of Krishna! I can safely say that such a statement has no support from any Vedic text and also the Puranas. Chandrashekhara Bharati of the Shankara line said, "You don't see the Lotus feet of the Lord. Why are you fighting over what his face looks like?" Cheers