shvu

Hi Dasha, That sounded very sincere. Don't worry because 100% of all humans can only pray to get something. It is impossible to do something without a reason. Don't feel like the odd person out. You are not doing anything wrong. What you are doing is what all the Gurus suggested too. Continue to do whatever you are doing with the same intensity and faith. If there is such a thing as God and such a thing as unconditonal true devotional love, it will certainly happen. An all-knowing God knows what is good for you. Good luck

And milk cannot be used in the place of curds either. So that is not a good argument. Referring to Shiva as a demi-God has been another reason for people to reject Prabhupada's translation as biased. The most oldest Purana known is the Vishnu Purana. Yet being Vaishnavas, the GVs will maintain silence about it and will never quote from it. And they know why. Cheers

Hi a6v, 'I would disagree with Gauracandra as it was never the muslims who coined the term Hindu. It came from the river Sindhu (or Indus)' The name did come from the river. But who coined this name? Obviously it has to be foreigners. And it has to be either the Greeks or the Muslims. 'Evidence that Hinduism must have existed even circa 10000 BC is available even Rigveda was being composed well before 6500 BC' The oldest known civilization according to history is the Mesapotamian civilization and that is 7000-8000 bc. As far as I know noting has been discovered yet to show that Hinduism is that old. Neither can the Rig-veda be pushed back to 6500 BC. 'Basically Hinduism does not support forced conversion from any other religion and this is due to the ancient belief that a Hindu is born and cannot be converted into one. ' As far as I know, none of the old religions had a conversion policy. Because they all maintain that they were originally from God. For them there was no question of any parallel religions and hence the question of conversion does not arise. However with changing trends, coonversion to hinduism is available now. One can visit a Arya Samaj center and they handle that, although I am not aware of the details. With ISKCON, westerners have switched to worshipping Krishna and some have even taken Sanskrit names. They can come under the label of Hindus too, I guess. Cheers

I think some people here may not understand that. Let me make it more clear. Without thinking, one doesn't even exist for oneself, let alone the world. The whole world including oneself is born alongwith thought and dies alongwith thought. Cheers

I think some people here may not understand that. Let me make it more clear. Without thinking, one doesn't even exist for oneself, let alone the world. The whole world including oneself is born alongwith thought and dies alongwith thought. Cheers

I would suggest that you do not take Swami Vivekananda's words seriously. In my opinion he wrote a lot of nonsense.

That is right. Without thinking, one doesn't even exist. Cheers

That is right. Without thinking, one doesn't even exist. Cheers

It is time to to close this down. You guys will not get around to admitting that the translation is flawed. And I have read the sanskrit version myself to see that Prabhupada has been biased in his translation. So I cannot come around to your way of thinking either. That brings us to a dead-end. Sumeet, I have said before that critizing the translation of prabhupada is not to be taken as criticizing your Sampradaya. I fail to see how you cannot understand something so trivial. You are taking it as a personal attack on your sampradaya. I suggest that you think a little more before you draw your conclusions. Will make life simpler. Gauracandra, We seem to be fighting all the time ? Anyway I must say that I consider the people whom you have mentioned above to belong to the second category. I don't believe that they bothered to compare translations and find out what the differences were and why. And those statements above don't say otherwise. The right place to add this : A very simple example which you can verify for yourself. 'Original form' : Show me one verse in the Gita where there is a sanskrit equivalent to that. You may dismiss it as unimportant. But it changes the whole meaning of the verse. And that in my opinion is distortion based on the translator's background. Do I think by posting these quotes that I will convince Gauracandra or the other fanatics? Certianly not. He will no doubt follow up this post, trying to wiggle the words in his favor. In simple english, I believe that it is a position taken by a person when he does not have the good sense to do some home-work before jumping to conclusions. Or more simply, does not have the courage to see that his Guru may have been biased. It does take a lot of guts to come to terms with something like that. btw Gauracandra, you may want to post something after this, so that you end up having the last word. I assure you that I won't reply to that and that way you can feel pleased with yourself. Cheers

Much as I did not want to get into this, I feel I should do this, or else people will end up thinking that the review of Shrisha Rao is a faulty one! Again I must say that Shrisha Rao is a Dvaiti scholar who maintains the Dvaita.org web-site and is not the kind of person to make baseless allegations as some people here seem to think. If someone takes to read his postings in ghen.net and dvaita.org, they will see that for themselves, if they are unbiased people, that is. Firstly, a brief note on SR's review : The scope of the review is clear. To show that the translation is not in accordance to Madhva's. Which should not be the case, since Prabhupada claims that his statements are in accordance with that of Madhva's. One verse is enough to show the difference and that is what SR has done. Secondly, coming to the review of the review, ---- There is not a single philosophical analysis in the reviewers article. If the difference was so obvious, as is claimed, it should be easy to show to us common folks. ---- Now I wonder if we both are referring to the same article. I am referring to the one available at the url posted by Bhakta Shakta at the beginning of this thread. There is an analysis on the variation in the way the Verse of BG 9-47 has been translated by Prabhupada. --------- * "In fact, given the evidence, it is far more correct to say that Prabhupada's interpretations derive from Shankara's than from Madhva's." * Again this is an unsupported claim by the reviewer. He even avoids discussing the philosophical conclusions of either madhva or shankara in favour of some faulty gramatical argument. ----- Again I wonder if we read the same article. The statement clearly is in reference to the Bhashya of Verse 9-47 by Shankara as 'tvadanyena tvattaH anyena kenachit.h na dR^ishhTapUrvam.h' --------- * "...Therefore, Madhva says, as clarified by his commentator..." * Just out of curiosity does Madhva's statement need to be clarified by a later commentator? -------- It does not have to be and that is not what it is. It is just an example that people who follow Madhva interpret that particular verse that way. ---- And if Madhva's statement isn't crystal clear, then how can we compare it to Prabhupada's translation. I hope you understand my logic here. Is the reviewer comparing Prabhupada's translation to Madhva's direct statement or to a later conclusion which was "clarified" by a future "commentator." ? ---- SR compares it to Madhva's Bhasya as he has quoted. Like I said before, Raghavendra is quoted as an example of adhering to the Madhva. ---- According to the reviewers own words, he is comparing Prabhupada's statements to a later comentator in the line of Madhva. ----- Sorry. You may want to read that bit again. That is not what SR has done. --- The fact is the followers of Prabhupada do not object to the mentioned interpretation. Thus to write an article based on such a point is a waste of time. --- The objective of the article was to show that Prabhupada varies from Madhva's interpretation of the Gita. Which is fine, except for the one catch that he claims to adhere to the Madhva Sampradaya. Ironically that translation is more close to Shankara's interpretation. Also considering the number of ISKCON people who log into the Dvaita forum and argue based on prabhupada's translation, this review is hardly a waste of time. Such people can simple be reffered to this article. ----------- * "...our purpose here is only to establish an irreconcilable difference in this matter between Madhva and Prabhupada..." * Did he establish an "irreconcilable difference"? I failed to see it. ------- ?? ------ This is the problem when we study a book academically without the guidance of a sat-guru. We fail to see beyond the text. ------ Which raises the question of how does one differentiate between the different kinds of Gurus? Unless this point is clear, then one really cannot use that argument. --------- Yet the reviewer again shows his true position as follows: * "Egregious as Prabhupada's error in this instance is, it is not the only one..." * Is he saying that Prabhupada's statement is an error (which he claims is also made by shankaracharya), or is he saying Prabhupada's statement disagrees with that of Madhva's. From his words he is saying Prabhupada's translation is an error. --------- He is saying that Prabhupada differs from Madhva. He did not say that Shankra made an error. I guess this is sufficent to drive the point across. Lastly, ----- I can only conclude that such an individual must be pretty shallow. But then again there are 6 billion people on this planet. And here is one reviewer that doesn't like the Bhagavad-Gita translation by Srila Prabhupada. Does it really matter? ----- Hopefully after this, people will reconsider their conclusions on who is shallow and who isn't. Considering the fact that only a fraction of the 6 billion have read the Gita in sanskrit and have also taken the time to compare various translations, I must say that a scholar such as SR's opinion definitely matters. Especially because he is not the only one to say so. Which brings us back to the point that there are 2 kinds of people who will favor the BG as it is, as I have mentioned earlier. While Prabhupada may have done a great service by bringing Krishna to the west, it does not mean that whatever he wrote is the truth and that everyone who disagrees with his translation is a shallow person. He was a human like everyone else and naturally would have made mistakes or would have been biased. If some fanatic disciples are unwilling to admit this simple fact, then that is ok too. Nothing is lost. Can't all these systems co-exist? Not according to Madhva. He has said that his disciples should actually study other systems, point out all the errors and discard them. So arguments and criticism are part and parcel of the Madhva Tradition. It is considered a healthy thing and not as something political. Cheers

Thanks for the Information, I will read those verse in the Gita today. Since you say Gaur Govinda Swami possessed these qualities, I take it that he is no longer alive. Do you or anyone else know of some-one who is alive today and confirms to the Sat-Guru Lakshanas as described in the Gita? Thanks

Hi Animesh, Yes, devotees consider the Puranas to be very old. But history says otherwise. Of course, the history that we know could be wrong, but there is nothing that we can do about it. I remember reading somewhere that the years mentioned for Yugas were not actual years. This was the theory of some scholars who claimed that 400 of these years mean one calendar year. According to which, if the text says Dasharatha lived for 33,000 years, it actually means that he lived for 80 years. I don't know how they arrived at that logic. Perhaps they were trying to make it part of history. The same figures for durations of Yugas is also present in some other civilization (Babylonia? ). I have to check that. The flood tradition is present in almost every country. They all have a story of God warning a person about an impending flood and telling him to carry all the species on a special boat, which would be kept safe. Cheers

I have been wanting to ask you this for sometime. You say 'Sat-Guru'. How does one identify a Sat-Guru out of several Gurus that we have? Is there a a method for this, because if I do come across one sometime, I would like to be in a position to identify him. It will also be useful to other people who read it. Cheers

Hi Rajesh, --- ...the only thing i'ld like u to know that we all have offended Krishna some time or the other that is why we are here in this material world... --- That's a brand new one. --- Specially myself,(who might had commited a unpardonable offence) because i am seeing,reading so much rubbish garbage from u. --- Does that mean that you will be suffering beside me, when the time comes? I feel sorry for you. --- hope u say cheeers again when u r suffering. --- I am sure you know that people say cheers only when they are happy. No one will say that when he is suffering. Anyway if I get around to that, I will be happy that there is a Krishna afterall, even if he is someone who gets mad at people who rationlize about him. So I may still say cheers. --- Hare krishna. please don't mind if u find me harsh. --- I don't know if you are saying that to Krishna or to me. I don't know about Krishna, but I certainly don't mind. Especially after reading all your previous postings I had an opinion about your IQ level, which was justified by your latest posting. I would have been very surprised to expect anything polite and sensible from you. Cheers

--- ... In response I noted that many highly educated (in the material sense of the word) people had dedicated their lives to the teachings propounded by Prabhupada. Thus the faulty premise that one who has completed highschool will accept everything taught in highschool is dismissed. --- I am sorry to say that I don't understand this. --- This is of course false, as we can prove by citing many scholars of Hindu philosophy who consider Prabhupada's Gita as the best english translation in the world. --- I must say that, it is highly unlikely that anyone with knowledge of sankrit and is familiar with other transaltions would favor the BG as it is unless for one of the two reasons mentioned above. I am sure you aware that Vaishnavas of other traditions do not actually hold the stand of 'Original form' whoch is exclusive to GVs. Neither do the Advaitis. So who are these other scholars who consider this translation as the best in the world? --- And of course you imply that other "learned people" some how are not in the special position which you are in, which allows you to see things which they cannot. Could you remind us exactly what that special position you are in is ? --- I don't see where I implied anything of that kind. Perhaps you could point it out to me. Then I can answer the question of my 'special position', as you put it. I won't get into a review of your review of his review of the BG as it is. I will just point out that some people take a critical review of Prabhupada's works, as an attack on Gaudiya Vaishnavas. I will just say that Shrisha Rao does not say so anywhere and there is no reason for people to jump to such conclusions. Cheers

Hi Animesh, You have asked a lot of questions. Let me jog my memory. As far as I know, the duration of a year is almost the same around the world. The westerners and some parts of India like Punjab and Tamilnadu use solar calendars where the duration is 365 days. The Muslims use a lunar calendar of 12 months, where every month is one revolution of the moon [360 days]. The rest of India use a Luni-solar calendar which comes close to this figure. They have a concept of adding an extra 13th month sometimes to balance the figure. I have forgotten the logic behind that. All the new years in all calendars used to begin sometime during march/April when the sun entered Aries, which is considered the first month. That is why we have Sept [seven], Oct [eight], Nov [nine] for the months which were named so when the March used to be the first month of the year. Then Julius Ceasar shifted the new year to January. The answer to your question is that the sanksrit year is not exactly solar, but Luni-solar and comes close to that same duration as that of a solar year. I remember reading somewhere that this is the 28th Kali-yuga of the present Manu. The present Manu is Vaivasvata manu. He is the person in the Dashavatara story who went on a boat during the flood. It has to be the day of Brahma. The night is when everything is submerged in the great flood. I have forgotten when a Brahma gets destroyed and a new one is created. Cheers

I would like to point out that Shrisha Rao, the reviewer is a an educated person and is a Dvaiti Scholar. He maintains the dvaita.org site and is extremely qualified. As one can see, he has not just made a blunt statement . He has also provided all the sources by which he arrived for that conclusion. And can anyone refute that? 'Yet hundreds of thousands of highly educated devotees have dedicated themselves to his teachings' Millions of people follow Mohammad's teachings. Scores of people were impressed by Hitlers' ideas. Rajneesh at one time had a very impressive following too. The number and size of the following hardly indicates anything. Two kinds of people will favor the BG as it is. 1. People who belong to Prabhupada's system and think along his lines. 2. People who have not read other translations of the Gita. No matter how learned they may be, they are not in a position to know about the distortions which exist in this translation. Cheers

Hi, Just to clarify : I never said anywhere that emotions come from memory. And I don't know if you really understand what I mean by 'no memory'. To add: Feelings are just hormones running around in the body, which require that a person eats and drinks regularly. No food and water for 72 hours and there will be no feelings, not even a feeling of hunger. Because the hormone production would have stopped. So they have got nothing to do with the soul, if there is one. it is purely a physical thing. Cheers

Hi, Just to clarify : I never said anywhere that emotions come from memory. And I don't know if you really understand what I mean by 'no memory'. To add: Feelings are just hormones running around in the body, which require that a person eats and drinks regularly. No food and water for 72 hours and there will be no feelings, not even a feeling of hunger. Because the hormone production would have stopped. So they have got nothing to do with the soul, if there is one. it is purely a physical thing. Cheers

Hi Ggohil, It simply means that I don't know Compassion comes out of comparison. As far as I know no one has conducted an experiment to raise a huamn being in solitude without exposing him to anyone else, and then studying his behavior to see if he begins comparing things. Cheers

Hi Ggohil, It simply means that I don't know Compassion comes out of comparison. As far as I know no one has conducted an experiment to raise a huamn being in solitude without exposing him to anyone else, and then studying his behavior to see if he begins comparing things. Cheers

Hi Dasha, You yourself came up with a good example. Gautama Buddha when he first saw a man in pain, did not know why this person seemed different. His charioter had to explain things to him. Also I have already told before that I am not stating that all virtues have to be taught. I don't know that. Of course, we don't follow everything that we are taught. It depends on several factors and it is natural that there will be incompassionate and indifferent people. It takes all kinds of people to make up the world. Cheers

Hi Dasha, You yourself came up with a good example. Gautama Buddha when he first saw a man in pain, did not know why this person seemed different. His charioter had to explain things to him. Also I have already told before that I am not stating that all virtues have to be taught. I don't know that. Of course, we don't follow everything that we are taught. It depends on several factors and it is natural that there will be incompassionate and indifferent people. It takes all kinds of people to make up the world. Cheers

Irrespective of whether it was taught or ot, it is definitely from memory. Unless your memory tells you that someone else is in pain, how will compassion arise? The same with hatred too.

Irrespective of whether it was taught or ot, it is definitely from memory. Unless your memory tells you that someone else is in pain, how will compassion arise? The same with hatred too.