shvu

Hello Ggohil, ----- I really do not understand the point you are trying to make. : ) ----- There is no specifc point here. I was reading that story about the devotee and that set me off, thinking. If you ask, 'So what should we do ?', the answer is 'I don't know'. There is nothing we can do about it, I guess.

It is interesting to observe how condtioned we all are. If Krishna appeared before us now with a hair-cut, t-shirt and jeans, we would not react at all. However if we had a hallucination about a dark figure, with a peacock feather and a flute, we would get all excited. That is conditioning to an image. We are in love with the image. There was a Rishi who lived in a desert. He had a boon from Krishna, that whenever he felt thirsty, Krishna would get him water to drink. Once when this Rishi felt thirsty, he remembered Krishna, and Krishna decided to give his devotee Amrutha [Nectar] instead of water. Indra stopped him and said that was not a good thing to do. But Krishna insisted and then Indra relented with the condition that he would personally carry the nectar. Indra then appeared before the Devotee as a Chandala [low caste guy] and offered him the nectar. The devotee was apalled by the sight of the Chandala and refused it accept it, in spite of Indira's insistence. Indra vanished and Krishna appeared before the devotee and explained things to him. The devotee then realized his folly. That is a good example of Conditioning. Cheers

Dear Sumeet, >I don't understand why you call it a >question of faith. Let me explain. Madhva's Guru was AchyutaPrakashacharya and not Vyasa. Madhva according to the biography, travelled to Badarikashrama and met Vyasa, who instructed him to write the Bhashyas on the Gita. I personally don't believe these things. Apparently Vyasa also met Shankara. Shankara's initial life-span was only 16 years. Then Vyasa and some other Rishis met him and doubled his life-span to 32 years, because he had to fulfil a mission. Going by this, Vyasa was around during the time of Krishna [atleast 5000 years back], then during the time of Shankara [700 Ad], then again during the time of Madhva [1200 Ad]. The biography also says that Madhva disappeared and is now in Badarikashrama serving Vyasa in person. I am not the believing type, so I refuse to accept such information as true. It sounds like cooked up information to promote their Acharyas. It may be true or false. But the fact remains that it cannot be proved and I am very skeptical about it. Do you believe that Jesus was the only true son of God, as the Bible says ? Do you believe that he walked on water and came back from the dead ? If not, why ? The Bible happens to be an older authority than Shankara, Madhva and Chaitanya. Would you believe it, if some Guru now suddenly claims that he met Vyasa yesterday evening ? Again if not, why ? So now you see why I call it a question of faith. About Advaita Vedanta, my knowledge is very limited and I am not the person to clarify doubts. I recommend www.advaita-vedanta.org Vivekananda's philosophy is not actually Adviata although it may appear so. It is termed as Neo-Vedanta, and is his own and appears to be liked by several people. Transcendental form of God: Like I said before, Transcendental cannot be conceived and so Acintya Rupam is contradicting itself. We cannot talk about or imagine aything that is Transcendental, so let us not talk about it. Anything that we have to imagine or say about it, will invariably be false. 4)Authorization of Brahma Samhita. Yes, I am looking forward to that. >They very well know what Advaita is. I am sure that there are lots of Acharyas who know what Advaita is. Unfortunately there are some who know nothing about it, and just ridicule Advaita, because they think that is what they should be doing. It would be futile to talk to them, and that is why I was checking that. > we become God. Am I correct ? Not quite. Advaita says that everything is Brahman and all division is Maya, which is right. The sanskrit word Maya means 'to measure'. That means that for the universe to exist a reference point is required, from which the Universe is seen. Absence of Maya, is absence of a reference point and then there is no division. Then there is no Universe, no concept of a God and so 'Becoming God' is not right. I"M ATMAN. [Yes, according to all systems] ATMAN IS BRAHMAN. [Yes according to all systems] So I'M BRAHMAN [Yes again, and this where all the confusion begins. It is to be understood correctly as explained above] I AM GOD HIMSELF [No, as explained above] Again I am no authority on Advaita . So I am not competent enough to talk in depth, about it. Cheers

The following verses are from the Bhagavatam describing Krishna as an Avatar. The translations are by Swami Tapasyananda. For the record, the Bhagavatam is the best authority available on the life of Krishna alongwith Hari-Vamsha and Vishnu Purana. -------- Desirous of creating the Universe, the Omnipotent and Omniscient Lord assumed by his creative will, the cosmic form formed of the sixteen categories. 1.3.1 This Purushavatara is the source of numerous incarnations, as also the centre of their withdrawal. 1.3.5 In his nineteenth and twentieth incarnations, he took birth as Rama [balarama] and Krishna among the Vrishnis in order to lighten the burden of the earth. 1.3.23 While all these are the parts and particles of the Supreme Being, Krishna is Bhagavan himself. 1.3.28 ------- Once Krishna took Arjuna to Vaikuntha the abode of Vishnu.The following verses are from that incident. ------- He [Arjuna] saw the Transcendent, Supreme Lord, blue like a thunder cloud, dressed in yellow, and having a serene face with attractive long eyes. 10.89.55 Achyutha [Krishna] made obeisance to himself in a different form, as part of His divine play. 10.89.58 The Lord said 'You leaders of men are incarnations of the Rishis Nara and Narayana. Though you have no desires of your own to achieve, perform your duties in the world for the good of the society and the maintenance of Dharma. 10.89.60 By the experience of the Supreme Abode of Vishnu, Arjuna learned wisdom, that all success achieved by man, appearing to be through self-effort is only by the operation of divine grace. 10.89.63 ------- The following verse is during the event of Krishna's death. ----- Seeing Brahma, the grandsire of the world and other divine manifestations of his own power, the Lord closed his eyes and his self became one with the supreme self in Samadhi. 11.31.5 ----- Cheers

Hello Ggohil, The Buddhists have no concept of a Brahman or Paramatma. There is the soul and depending on it's past Karma, it keeps reincarnating. When a person gives up desire, then Karma stops adding on, and eventually the soul is liberated into Niravana after which it is not born again. Niravana to the Buddhists is a void. The path is controlling desire, practising non-violence, etc. Advaita has the concept of Brahman, which is also the paramatman and the Atman [soul]. Everthing is explained in accordance with Shruti and the final point is the Atman giving up the illuions of Maya and becoming the Universal Brahman, which is considered as immortality. The path is discrimination and Bhakti. Bascally Shankara interpreted Scriptures to explain things the Buddha way, to bring back the Buddhists to hinduism. You should be able to find people to explain the differences and similarities in detail in some of the Advaita web sites. The Buddha did not encourage questions on creation, how the whole thing came about, etc. His answer was "If your house is on fire, will you focus on putting out the fire or instead, will you start analysing the cause of the fire ? " Cheers

Dear ggohil, Krishna is the Supreme. It is the Supreme power [Narayana] that incarnated as Krishna. So one cannot really differentiate between the two. However we should differentiate between Krishna the supreme power, and Krishna the human being. The Bhagavatam has ample Information to show that Krishna was an [one of] avatar of Narayana. I will post some of the verses tonight. Cheers

Hello Ggohil, Advaita is the name given to the philosophy where, the soul [Jiva] becomes one with Brahman during enlightenment. Basically there is no difference between Jivatma and Paramatma. It is all Brahman. This is the monistic system, also called as Mayavada by some people. As opposed to this, we have the Dvaita system where the Jivatma is distinct from the Paramatma and always remains so. This is the dualistic system. Shankara established Advaita in India by overthrowing Buddhism. Later Madhva came out with the Dvaita system and he overthrew the Advaita system. I have heard that even to this day, whenever Dvaitis and Advaitis engage in debates, the Dvaitis win 95% of the time. Madhva's Dual system is very robust that way. Vayasa composed the Vedanta Sutras or Brahma Sutras. Interestingly Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva [in that order] all wrote Bhashyas [Commentaries] on the Vedanta Sutras, each different to explain his view-point. That is a spectacular feat and demonstrates that they were people of exceptional intelligence. It is also explained this way, 1. The Brahmin priests had become corrupt and sacrificial rites were rampant. The Buddha came in and introduced Non-violence. He also rejected the authority of the Vedas. 2. Now Buddhism on account of their missionary activities became popular and Hinduism was taking second place. Shankara came in and interpreted Hinduism the Advaitic way, which came quite close to Buddhism. That way he cleverly bought back the authority of the Vedas. Today if India still remains a Hindu country without turning Buddhist, the credit goes to Shankara. 3. But Advaita is clearly not for the masses and the idea of 'I am Brahman' doesn't work well in general. Then Madhva came in and established the Dvaita tradition, which works well for the masses. This pattern is in keeping with Krishna's 'Whenever Dharma declines, I take Birth to restore Dharma'. You can find a lot of Info about these systems on the net. Cheers

Dear Sumeet, I understand what it means to nurture a belief. It is natural to get upset with people who do not see things our way. I am fine with that. And I am sorry if my statements seem Blasphemous [Aparadha]. It is my view and I am taking exceptional care not to belittle any Person or System. I am trying to point out certain things based on whatever I know. And frankly the ISKCON statements like 'Forgive this fool', 'Your humble servant', etc make me uncomfortable. They are not required. A person can be labelled a fool, if there are others who can be labeled as intelligent. Since by your earlier definition of fool, everyone is a fool, there is no point in usiing that label. And also, I don't understand the servant concept here. -------- Dear you must see that I'm totally absorbed in the thought that Lord Chaitanya is Supreme Person. And I fully know that Brahma Samhita is a fully bonafide scripture since it is in full accordance with Bhagavata, Upanisads. -------- To each his own belief and I am absolutely ok with that. I never tell anyone to stop looking at their Idol as divine. As for the Advaita part, you have come up with quotes directly from the Shruti. So that clarifies things that Shruti does support Advaita. About Madhva and Vyasa, it is more a question of faith and I will not argue with that. My approach was from an analytical point of view based on time periods, content of the Bhagavata and the existing beliefs and traditions during those times. It is just that I am the skeptical type and tend to question and probe. Otherwise, in my opinion the Bhagavata is a wonderful book and I have always enjoyed reading it. I would still like to see references to Avatars in Shruti. That would be interesting because I always thought that the Avatar concept came from Vyasa's works. Cheers

Dear Sumeet, I have a translation of the Chandogya and here is the actual verse. Perhaps you made a mistake ? ----- From the dark (the Brahman of the heart) I come to the nebulous (the world of Brahman), from the nebulous to the dark, shaking off all evil, as a horse shakes his hairs, and as the moon frees herself from the mouth of Rahu. Having shaken off the body, I obtain, self made and satisfied, the uncreated world of Brahman, yea, I obtain it. - Chandogya Upanishad 8.13.1 --------- The Chandogya is a Principle Upanishad and is part of the Sama Veda. Which by the way was in existence long before the time of Krishna and Radha. How can they talk about them ? Cheers

Dear Sumeet, ------- Shankara could not have refered to bhagavat because his advait philosophy is not actually supported by Srimad bhagavatam neither does the Sruti supports it. -------- Really ? Before proceeding further on this, I would just like to make sure, if you even know what Advaita philosophy is. If you do happen know something about that, we will talk further. The reason being, I have encountered some Gaudiyua Vaishnavas who are 'partial scholars' and have a lot of negative comments on 'Mayavada' without even knowing what it is. They have heard their Gurus talk so, and just go on repeating it. About the Puranas describing the Bhagavata - If a book describes the Quality of some other book, obviously the referred book is older. Hope that is clear. ------ This is wrong because: In the Chandogya Upanisad (8.13.1) it is said: "To attain Sri Radha I surrender to Lord Krishna. To attain Lord Krishna I surrender to Sri Radha." --------- The Chandogya Upanishad is part of the Sama Veda and there is no way it can talk about Krishna and Radha. I will confirm that soon. -------- Furthermore why her[srimati Radhika]worship is bonafide because she is: The goddess of fortune here is Srimati Radharani, who is described in the Purusa-bodhini Upanisad. " Candravali and Radhika always remain at Lord Krishna's side. Laksmi, Durga, and the Lord's other potencies are expansions of Sri Radhika." ------- The PurushaBodhini Upanishad is not a major Upanishad and came up much later. So I wouldn't consider that as an authority. As for Laxmi being an expansion of Radha, it sounds ridiculous at the least. No offense here, but this is what is meant by Sectarian distortion. Like Prabhupada says elsewhere that Vishnu is an extension of Krishna. It will work well, with people of his own group, but unfortunately will fall flat outside. As for all the other references to the divine aspect of Radha, they are all later than 800 AD. Like I said before that is when the concept of worshipping Radha came up. May I repeat that Hari Vamsha, Vishnu Purana and the Bhagavata have no material on Radha'a divinity ? ------ It is atleast more than 500-600 years old since Lord Chaitanya quoted from it. ------ That is right. That is the most recent Purana of all the Puranas. When we are discussing time in thousands of years, 500 years old is considered as recent. ------- Then Veda Vyasa ji expanded it into 18000 verses based on Vedanta and not whimsically. Since then Bhagavatam remains as it is. Neither did Madhvacarya edited Bhagavatam. --------- How do you know that Vyasa composed all the 18000 verses ? There is no reference to the Bhagavatam before 800 AD. That does not mean that it is not older than that. But it is a debatable issue. As for Madhva not editing it, the Bhagavata had reached it's final form before Madhva who came later. ------- This is very absurd comment and under wrong impression you are offending the Supreme Personality of godhead[Lord Chaitanya] Himself. --------- Makes me a real rascal. doesn't it ? I guess I am destined to rot in hell for that. Anyway when you begin to abuse, I would expect you to give reasons. Do that and we will talk further. ------ All the incarnations of Lord has been decribed in Vedas itself. ------- I would like to see that for myself. I am always open to new information and have absolutely no hassles in changing my stand, in the light of proper evidence. If Chaitanya was indeed an Avatara as clearly pointed out in the Vedas, then what is stopping the other Vaishnavas from accepting him as Bhagavan ? Think that over. Just for the record, there are several scholars there too, and they are neither foolish nor arrogant to discard plain straightforward evidence. Cheers

The Avatar concept came with Vedha Vyasa's works. He came up with a list of Avatars and that's where the whole thing began. Since then we have had several of them. Apparently the Puranas were writen before the time of Buddha and they predicted the coming of Buddha. It is to be noted that the location, mothers's name, etc of the Buddha mentioned in the Bhagavatam do not match with that of the Buddha we know. His name was Sidhartha. So we have 3 possibilities, 1. Somebody decided that he was the Buddha mentioned in the Puranas [for whatever reason]and he became famous as the Buddha. 2. The Puranas were written after the Buddha and are cooked up. [unlikely because they would not have mismatched names] 3. The Buddha mentioned in the Puranas is different from the Buddha we know. He may be yet to come or may have come and gone as some people believe. Since then, Shankara was called as an Avatar of Shiva. Madhvacharya was called as an avatar of Hanuman. Chaithanya was called as an avatar of Krishna. Now recently Ramana was called as an Avatar of Subramanya, Shirdi Sai Baba as an avatar of Dattatreya Avadhut. Later people may begin to call Prabhupada as an avatar of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and so on. It is to be noted that none of these people with the possible exception of Krishna called themselves as divine. It was always the people around them who did the Branding work. Cheers

Yes, that is right. btw I have got hold of my copy of the Bhagavatam. If you need any info from it, let me know. Happy reading,

Dear Ggohil, ------- One must give one’s unconditional and unreserved submission, to experience the Glory. ------- If the intent is to experience the glory, then the submission is not unconditonal. We are being submissive only to get something in return. ------ If one’s scrutiny or focus is only on the finger then one will miss the glory of the Moon. ------ Good one. I remember this line from Enter the Dragon. Bruce Lee tells this to his student. Cheers

Dear Sumeet, All the Acharyas mentioned by you came into existence after 1000 AD. The Bhagavatam was already in existence by that time. So it is not surprising that they all refer to the Bhagavatam, as it talks about Bhakti the glory of Krishna, which in essence was their mission. However remember that the earliest Acharyas Shankara and Ramanuja have not referred to the Bhagavatam at all. Quotes from the Bhagavatam talking about it's own greatness is to be expected. Most books are that way. As for refernces to the Bhagavatam in other Puranas, these Puranas are more recent than the Bhagavata. The Bhagavata does not talk about worshipping Radha as divine. The earlier Puranas like Vishnu Purana and Hari-Vamsha do not mention devotion to Radha either. However by the time the other Puranas began to develop, some sects of Krishna worshippers started worshipping Radha [after 800 AD] and so these Puranas contain devotion to Radha as well. The Brahma Vaivarta Purana is the most recent one of them all, with a distinctly different style from the other Puranas. Brahma only tells the creation part to Narda and tells him to develop the Bhagavata. Then Vyasa added to it, and then it has constantly been revised by others to arrive at the present form. So while the origin or the core of the Puranas may be ancient the final form is not. Chaitanya wold most naturally have referred to the Bhagavatam as it contains all that his mission stood for. If he could place importance to a text like the Brahma Samhita, which was unknown, why would he not refer to the Bhagavatam which was already popular? He was not concerned about the authorship and date of the text. The content was what he was focussing on. His mission was to spread Bhakti to Krishna. Also I must add that Chaitanya is an Avatar only to the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. To others he is a Saint like several others. Just like Jesus is the only true God, son of God, etc to the Christians, but not to the others. It is natural that people like to think that their own idol is the real, original and the best one. Animesh, The Puranas can be edited and modified according to changing times. They come under the Smriti. The Vedas are the Shruti, which remain constant for all times and so are not to be changed. You can try reading Tapsyananda's translation which comes in 4 volumes [Ramakrishna Math]. Prabhupada's translation comes in 30 volumes and is good except for the 'Original form', 'Personality of godhead', etc. If you can get around all the sectarian stuff, then that is a very good translation. It is expensive, though. There are several other abridged translations that you can find. Cheers

I had always taken it for granted that the Bhagavata was wholly composed by Vyasa and was 5000 years old...until recently. Interestingly it appears that none of the Puranas, especially the Bhagavata exist today in their original form. They all have taken their final shape sometime during 700 -800 AD. The original Bhagavata is supposed to have been edited significantly and modified by the tamil Alvar saints, to the version what we have today. A number of reasons are given to support this theory, the basic one being the way the Bhagavata is organised. The structure appears like there have been later insertions at certain places. The earliest known reference to the Bhagavatam is not older than 1000 years. The Bhagavata talks about Krishna in the past-tense and the Buddha in future-tense. It says Vyasa composed it after the death of Krishna, to aid the people of Kali-yuga. And in another place it says that during creation, the Puranas came out of one of the heads of Brahma. Clear contradiction. More later...

Hello Ggohil, ------ They may help some people, but for how long?Until some one comes with a another clever idea. ------- If the latter person's idea is clever and sounds more reasonable, then isn't it better? It can be considered as an advancement. ------ Failure of Jana Marga’s appeal does not make it invalid. -------- I did not understand this statement. ------------ Yes, but my point was that our sense principally picked this knowledge from Vedas, the senses did not create it at will. ------- The senser are incapable of creating any knowledge. They only serve as an interface through which any information can be acquired. So all knowledge that we have and can be had, is and will only be through the senses. Cheers

Hello Ggohil, -------- However, in nature they are nothing but just clever arguments. In truth they neither seem to resolve or conclude anything. -------- They may help some people out. But the fact remains that the Jnana marga [Path of knowledge] appeals to very few people. -------- Our knowledge will always be limited if the source of the knowledge is our senses. --------- May I point out that the source of all our knowledge, at all times, is our senses only ? -------- By default, we as a human beings are just not capable of ascertaining the absolute truth, if the conclusions are based solely on our senses. ------- There is no other way of gathering information, is there ? So all our conclusions are based on the information that we have and the way our intellect interprets it. -------- Personally, I prefer to listen to Sri Krsna. -------- Personally, we all prefer that which we find appealing, logical and attractive. Cheers

Vishnu-Tattva : Tattva - (Principle, Doctrine) In the 12th Century, Madhvacharya established the Dvaita Tradition/System which is a dualistic system according to which the Jiva (Soul) is distinct from the Supreme Vishnu. The later Vaishnava traditions have their roots in this Madhva System. So Vishnu Tattva is the basic principle on which all these systems are based upon.

Sorry for the confusion here. Those answers by UG were to a person who asked 'How to become selfless ?' He points out that it is not possible to become selfless. Wanting to 'become selfess' is by itself a selfish activity. And there is nothing wrong in being selfish. That is our true nature. Religion and society step in and say 'You should not be selfish', which is a fictitous state. In UG's words, Be selfish, stay selfish. Charity is selfishness, wanting enlightenment is selfishness.

Q: You are ruthlessly condemning whatever people have said so far. You may, in time, also be condemned and blasted for what you are saying. UG : If you have the guts, I will be the very first to salute you. But you must not rely on your holy books -- the Bhagavad Gita or Upanishads. You must challenge what I am saying without the help of your so-called authorities. You just don't have the guts to do that because you are relying upon the Gita, not upon yourself. That is why you will never be able to do it. If you have that courage, you are the only person who can falsify what I am saying. A great sage like Gowdapada can do it, but he is not here. You are merely repeating what Gowdapada and others have said. It is a worthless statement as far as you are concerned. So don't escape into meaningless generalizations. You must have the guts to disprove what I am saying on your own. What I am saying must be false for you. You can only agree or disagree with what I am saying according to what some joker has told you. That is not the way to go about it. If others have said the same thing I am saying, why are you asking questions and searching for solutions here? You are merely looking for new, better methods. I am not going to help you. I am saying, "Don't bother about solutions; try to find out what the problem is." Why in the hell are you looking for another solution? You will make out of what I am saying another solution, to be added to your list of solutions, which are all useless when it comes to actually solving your problems. If anyone says there is a way out, he is not an honest fellow. He is doing it for his own self-aggrandizement, you may be sure. He simply wants to market a product and hopes to convince you that it is superior to other products on the market. If another man comes along and says that there is no way out, you make of that another method.

Q: So this pursuit has to go? UG : Don't say it should go. Wanting selfishness to go is part and parcel of the selfish pursuit of a more pleasurable state. Both the spiritual goal and the search for happiness are the same. Both are essentially selfish, pleasurable pursuits. If that understanding is somehow there in you, then you will not use the energy in that direction at all. You know, I've been everywhere in the wold, and have found that people are exactly the same. There is no difference at all. Becoming is the most important thing in the world for everybody -- to become something. They all want to become rich, whether materially or spiritually, it is exactly the same. Don't divide it; the so-called spiritual is the materialistic. You may think you are superior because you go to temple and do puja, but the woman there is doing puja in the hope of having a child. She wants something, so she goes to the temple. So do you; it is exactly the same. For sentimental reasons you go, but in time it will become routine and become abhorrent to you. What I am trying to point out is simply this: your spiritual and religious activities are basically selfish. That is all I am pointing out. You go to the temple for the same reason you go other places -- you want some result. If you don't want anything there is no reason to go to the temple.

Dear Ggohil, I strongly recommend that you talk to people who are from other Vaishnava Traditions too. Not that they are right, but it helps in the sense that you will have more information to choose from. Like Dvaita.org and ramanuja.org Get onto their mailing lists and ask questions. There are several scholars there to give you great answers. You can see how the same thing is interpreted differently by different systems. In my own experience I have found that very enlightening and disillusioning too. It broadens our outlook and makes it a lot more healthier. Cheers

Dear Ggohil, There is no evidence that the Brahma Samhita was written by Brahma. It consists of prayers to Brahma, Goddess Durga, Brahman, Vishnu etc. Samhita means collection. If it was authored by Brahma, it would have been immensely popular and would have found a place among other well known Vedic Classics. But it is not so. As for the content and translation, I have not read it, and so am not in a position to comment on that. Cheers

Dear Ggohill, Yes. The Bhagavata Purana is one of the 18 Principle Puranas. It is more popularly referred to as the Srimad Bhagavatam. About the Brahma Samhita, it was found by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu about 400+ years back, when he was touring South India in a temple. He attached a lot of importance to it, and it went on to become one of the important Shastras for the Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

Dear Ggohil, Why is the Bhagavatam a better authority ? Because it is said to have been composed by Vyasadeva who also recorded the Gita, which is Krishna's own words, and also the Mahabharatha. So the Bhagavatam is considered as the oldest authority on Krishna [Not the oldest on Narayana, though]. Note - The Bhagavatam is said to have been composed by Vayasadeva for the people of Kali yuga. Post Krishna and Pre-Buddha, which makes it about 5000 years old. However If I am right, the earliest known reference to the Bhagvatam is not until the 12th century. So there are some scholars who are of the opinion that the Bhagavatam was written in South India about 1000 Ad, after the time of Shankara. But that is debatable.