sumeet

Hare Krishna Please accept my humble obesiances unto you lotus feet Ram and Karthik prabhuji I can wait for sure. Let me see if i can contribute on brahmanohi verse. Your Servant Always OM TAT SAT Sumeet.

Karthik wrote: " Please note that Sri Aurobindo treats the verse as figurative speech and argues that mukham actually stands for the face of the truth. " The verse is not to be treated as a figurative speech. I have shown you the direct interpretation of the verse based on various texts from upanisad and Gita. Sri Aurbindo is wrong to treat it figuratively when it literally makes complete sense. Also mantra 16 is not figurative. There is a sensible direct explanation for it too from Vaishnava perspective. If you want i can post that too for you.

Hare krishna Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet. Dear Karthik it is very clear that Lord has a transcendental form. No one can deny it. This is an assertion I make based on the Vedic literature and Vaishnavas commentaries that I know of on prashan traya and other vedic literatures. Like the Isopanisad Mantra 15: " O my Lord, sustainer of all that lives, Your real face is covered by Your dazzling effulgence. Kindly remove that covering and exhibit Yourself to Your pure devotee. " This verse actually asks Supreme Lord to remove His effulgence so that a devotee can see Him. The word "mukham" meaning face refers to face of the Supreme Person[brahman]. One should not abandon primary meaning of the word "mukham" without any reason. Lets see what upanisads have to say about having a form or not: Also in mundaka upanisad 3.1.7 " brhac ca tad divyam acintya-rupam " " He is immense, transcendental and possesses an inconcievable form " And mundaka 2.1.2 "divyo hy amurtah purusah" "The Supreme Person[Purusa] is formless and divine." These two statements say that there is a Purusa --- 1) Who is formless 2) Whose form is inconcievable. We cannot choose one statement over the other. Neither we can interpret them independent of each other. So we have to give an interpretation that harmonizes both. Logically thinking if Supreme is Formless then there is no point in saying anything about the the form of Supreme. Why ?? ---> Becoz it is something which it doesn't have. So there is no point in describing it. I mean according to first statement Supreme is formless, then there is no need to say it has an inconceivable form [provided by the word formless we take it to mean that literally Supreme has no form i.e. neither material nor immaterial nor form of any other kind]. However if we interpret 2.1.2 in that way we will have trouble with 3.1.7. Becoz 3.1.7 talks about form of Supreme by attributing inconceivability to it. It says Supreme has a form and it is inconceivable. So how to reconcile ??? ---> If we take formless in 2.1.2 to mean lacking any material form then it will be easy to interpret 3.1.7. Becoz 2.1.2 says He is formless meaning has no material form and 3.1.7 says His form is incoceivable meaning cannot be comprehended. And yeah if something lacks a material form then it is impossible for us to comprehend it, the only exception being if we are helped by some immaterial power by its own will. So Lord definately possesses a form, though he is described as formless because of the fact that he lacks any material form or materially conceivable form. In this way we can harmonize the two. Now Holy Gita 8:9 " sarvasya dhataram acintya-rupam aditya-varnam tamasah parastat" or "sarvasya--of everything; dhataram--the maintainer; acintya--inconceivable; rupam--form aditya-varnam--illuminated like the sun; tamasah--of the darkness; parastat--transcendental." " He is maintainer of everything, possessing inconceivable form, resplendent like Sun, transcendental to material conception " So here we see that form of brahman is effulgent just like Sun. Also in gita 4.9 "janma karma ca me divyam" "transcendental nature of My appearance and activities" For someone to do some action one has to possess a form. There is where Advaitins introduce their concept of Saguna Brahman to explain away Upanisadic statements about Brahman creating world. But Sri Krsna calls his activities divine because He possesses a divine form through which he acts. So it is true that Brahman has divine form and also that it is effulgent. Look at bhagavata 10.2.17 " While carrying the form of Supreme Personality of godhead within the core of His heart, Vasudeva bore the Lord's transcendental illuminating effulgence and thus became as bright as sun." It is also mentioned in Gita that form of Supreme is resplendent like Sun. Also in Mundaka 2.2.9-10 " hiranmaye pare kose virajam brahma niskalam tac chubhram jyotisam jyotis tad yad atma-vido viduh. " "In the Transcendental Golden covering is Supreme Lord who is Absolute Truth, impeccable and indivisible. He is radiant-- lights of light and that very one whom the knowers of soul knows." "na tatra suryo bhati na candra-tarakam nema vidyuto bhanti kuto 'yam agnih tam eva bhantam anu bhati sarvam tasya bhasa sarvam idam vibhati" "There Sun does not shine, nor do the moon and stars; neither do these lighting bolts shine, much less this fire. Everything shines in persuance of His brilliance. This whole world is lit up by His effulgence." Again in this transcendental effulgent brahman is mentioned. Similar verse appears in Gita in 15th chapter. So believe me the form ascribed to Supreme in Vedas is immaterial and effulgent. So if you want to point out that God has no form according to Vedas then you are certainly wrong. Your Servant Always OM TAT SAT Sumeet.

Like i have more to share on Sri Aurobindos commentary but i don't want to discuss something which most of us won't focus on right now. Like i can see that the majority of focus in this thread is on two things: 1) Gita 14.27 --- " brahmano hi prathishtAham " 2) On the conception of God as per Vaishnava theology and Advaitic philosophy. All memebers please decide which of the two you would like to discuss first. Once this point is fully discussed we can move to other points. Please lets keep things systematic. In my opinion we should discuss the second point which is the conception of God, according to the two philosophy since "brahmanohi ......." verse seems to me a mere subset of the second point. So lets take up the concept of God in Vaishnava and Advaita philosophy. So what we can do is that we can start pointing out the Advaitic tenets that describe God according to their philosophy backed by Adi shankaras commentary. Other non-vaishnava commentaries are welcome too. And then we can counter them with Vaishnava standpoint. For example lets say the point number 1 is that following is conception of God according to Advaita and substantiate with adequate scriptural information from bonafide advaitic and neo-vedantic sources. Then the vaishnavas can raise their objection and refute the proposition of the Advaitins. And advaitins in turn can defend their position. this is somewhat similar to the pattern followed in Brahma sutra bhashya by various authors. I think so lets start with this. I am 100% sure it will be very enriching for both sides. Kindly let me know what do you all think about this. If most of the people agree I shall personally make an effort to initiate the discussion on the above pattern. Howabout having one thread for each tenet. That it will make more easier. I am sure with all the learned members present here the discourse on each tenet will be exhaustive. Your Servant Always OM TAT SAT Sumeet.

Hare Krishna Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet. Yeah i agree with Shvu. Generally what happens in long threads is that participants often digress from the main point. Friends, topic here is, Is Advaita a genuine vedic tradition or not ? To answer this, in my opinion we have to follow the following strategy ----> 1) One by one take on the tenets of Advaita and first of all impartially hear to what advaitins have to say for it and not immediately jump to judge them by Vaishnava standards. Please provide tenets with sufficient backing from a bonafide advaitic Guru and just don't throw in personal opinions. We have to discuss validity of advaita as developed by Adi Shankara and not our own fancy interpretation of his philosophy. 2) After that those who wish to disagree with those tenets can offer constructive criticsm of those tenets/explanations based on Vaishnava understanding of vedanta. And those who want to support Advaita can defend it against the Vaishnavas. In this way we can have a scripture based, polite debate on the same. Whoevers' explanation makes most sense in terms of Scriptural text and is in overall harmony with different texts from the vast ocean of vedic literature shall prevail over the other. Lets see if we can reach some conclusion or make any progress towards the same. Your Servant Always OM TAT SAT Sumeet.

Hare krishna Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet Krishna prabhu my dandavat pranams to you. i hope you haven't forgotten me. For some personal reasons i have been unable to post at achintya website. But now by grace of Sri Krsna i am back. Please give me your blessings respected sir. I am very very impressed by your postings here. Sir all glory to Sri Guru and Gauranga for your success. May they and you bless me in the same way. Dear Karthik Its nice to see a Vaishnava versus advaitin discussion. I hope we will be able to to satisfactorily answer your queries regarding whether vaishnavas have proven advaita to be non-vedic or not by grace of our Vaishnava acaryas and Sri Krsna. Lets begin with Sri Aurbindos commentary you presented here: " In the inner sense of the Veda Surya, the Sun-God, represents the divine Illumination of the Kavi which exceeds mind and forms the pure self-luminous Truth of things. " The inner sense of Vedas is given by Holy Gita since it is the essence of Vedic knowledge. But in that shastra it is said - Gita 10:11 "Out of compassion for them, I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance." This I is not surya devata but I here stands for Lord Krishna. Also in the same Shastra it is said - Gita 10:21 " of lights I am the radiant sun " But here Lord Krishna doesn't means that he is Sun God becoz Sri Krsna is describing his manifested opulences. And also according to Gita 10:2 " Neither the hosts of demigods nor the great sages know My origin, for, in every respect, I am the source of the demigods and the sages. " Here also Sri Krsna's difference from Sun God is stated. Also from where does the Sun gets its illumination - Gita 15:12 " The splendor of the sun, which dissipates the darkness of this whole world, comes from Me. " Again here "me" means Sri Krsna and not Surya-devata. Also from the antaryami brahamana in Briharyanka Upanisad 111.7.9 "He who dwells in the Sun and within the sun, whom the sun does not know, whose body the sun is and who pulls(rules) the sun from within......" He is Sri Krsna. " His principal power is self-revelatory knowledge, termed in the Veda Sight. " Again the Self revealed in Vedas is Sri Krsna Gita 15:15 " By all the Vedas I am to be known; indeed I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas. " And Sri krsna is certainly different from Sun God. " His realm is described as the Truth, the Law, the Vast. " Who will say the realm of Sun-God is Truth. Sun is destroyed at the end of creation. But if we understand this realm to be of Sri Krsna then one can understand it as truth and vast. " He is the Fosterer or Increaser, for he enlarges and opens man's dark and limited being into a luminous and infinite consciousness. " Again this is the role of Sri krsna and not Sun-God. " He is the sole Seer, Seer of Oneness and Knower of the Self, and leads him to the highest Sight. He is Yama, Controller or Ordainer, for he governs man's action and manifested being by the direct Law of the Truth, satyadharma, and therefore by the right principle of our nature, yath atathyatah, " Friend this is not function of Sun God it is function os Sri Krsna. Gita 13:23 " Yet in this body there is another, a transcendental enjoyer who is the Lord, the supreme proprietor, who exists as the overseer and permitter, and who is known as the Supersoul. " Gita 18:61 " The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy. " " a luminous power proceeding from the Father of all existence, he reveals in himself the divine Purusha of whom all beings are the manifestations. " The person seen within the Sun is not anyone else but Sriman Narayana Vedanta sutra 1.1.20 " The being inside the sun and the eye is paratman and not any jiva,because the attributes of the Supreme Brahman are taught therein. " " The Seer prays to Surya to cast them into right order and relation and then draw them together into the unity of revealed truth. The result of this inner process is the perception of the oneness of all beings in the divine Soul of the Universe. " Only those who don't understand the purport of Vedas pray to Surya. But those who know it well pray to lotus feet of Sri Krsna present within and outside the Solar orb. To such Lord we all shall offer our respectful obesiances. Srila Saraswati Prabhupada writes in commentary to Brahma Samhita verse 1 " His eternal beautiful heavenly blue-tinged body glowing with the intensity of ever-existing knowledge has a nude in both His hands. " My friend Sri Krsnas' body is shining with presence of ever existant knowledge and hence the face of Truth[sri Krsna] is hidden by glowing rays of His own transcendental person. So the devotee prays to Him to remove this powerfull glow of ever existing knowledge so that the devotee can see the face of truth. Which means face of Lord himself. Dear friend in Gita 8:9 " sarvasya dhataram acintya-rupam aditya-varnam tamasah parastat" or "sarvasya--of everything; dhataram--the maintainer; acintya--inconceivable; rupam--form aditya-varnam--illuminated like the sun; tamasah--of the darkness; parastat--transcendental." Also in mundaka upanisad 3.1.7 " brhac ca tad divyam acintya-rupam " " He is immense, transcendental and possesses an inconcievable form " The form of Lord is inconcievable and ever shining with the presence of knoweledge. So the purport given by Srila Prabhupada is perfect. The devotee wants to see the face of truth but who is this truth ???? Gita 7.7 " mattah parataram nanyat kincid asti dhananjaya " " O conqueror of wealth [Arjuna], there is no Truth superior to Me. " Sri Krsnas' form is effulgent and He is the Supreme truth.

Dear Shvu Also to further support my rather Gaudiya position that Sripada Sankracarya is an incarnation of Lord Shiva I found the following support: The above verses salute the Gods and the Guru. The last verse is taken from the mAdhavIya Sankaravijayam, and praises SankarAcArya, as an incarnation of Siva-dakshiNAmUrti, who abandoned his silent meditation at the foot of the banyan tree, and incarnated on earth in order to teach advaita. Check out- http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/Slokas.html And please note that mAdhavIya Sankaravijayam in which this sloka appears is probably the oldest available, and also the most authentic and widely known among the different Sankaravijayas today. It is certainly the most popular such text in the advaita tradition, and is also known as the sam.kshepa Sankarajaya. Please review your belief of Sankracarya not being an incarnation of Lord Shiva. And if you still say that Gaudiyas are lying then kindly how you are going to disprove this fact when even the Advaitins themselves speak the same. Also ealrier you made a reference that Sankracarya being incarnation of Lord shiva was something that creeped in later but if it is a later addition then why is that the oldest and most authentic advaitin literature says the same. Your Servant Always In Service of Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga Sumeet.

Dear Shvu Also to further support my rather Gaudiya position that Sripada Sankracarya is an incarnation of Lord Shiva I found the following support: The above verses salute the Gods and the Guru. The last verse is taken from the mAdhavIya Sankaravijayam, and praises SankarAcArya, as an incarnation of Siva-dakshiNAmUrti, who abandoned his silent meditation at the foot of the banyan tree, and incarnated on earth in order to teach advaita. Check out- http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/Slokas.html And please note that mAdhavIya Sankaravijayam in which this sloka appears is probably the oldest available, and also the most authentic and widely known among the different Sankaravijayas today. It is certainly the most popular such text in the advaita tradition, and is also known as the sam.kshepa Sankarajaya. Please review your belief of Sankracarya not being an incarnation of Lord Shiva. And if you still say that Gaudiyas are lying then kindly how you are going to disprove this fact when even the Advaitins themselves speak the same. Also ealrier you made a reference that Sankracarya being incarnation of Lord shiva was something that creeped in later but if it is a later addition then why is that the oldest and most authentic advaitin literature says the same. Your Servant Always In Service of Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga Sumeet.

Dear Shvu I forgot to ask one question: You say that Sankracarya is not lord Shiva's incarnation. This is only Gaudiya opinion based on the false verses in "their" puranas. So I would like to ask you on what basis the advaitins say: Just as SankarAcArya is considered to be an incarnation of Siva, govinda is popularly regarded as an incarnation of AdiSesha. Check this out for yourself- http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/sankara.html And also the Chinmaya Mission holds this opinion: The prodigious amount of vedic knowledge he extolled often leads one to see him as an incarnation of Lord Siva. Check out for yourself- http://www.chinmaya.org/html/adi_sankaracharya.php3 Your Servant Always OM TAT SAT Sumeet.

Dear Shvu I forgot to ask one question: You say that Sankracarya is not lord Shiva's incarnation. This is only Gaudiya opinion based on the false verses in "their" puranas. So I would like to ask you on what basis the advaitins say: Just as SankarAcArya is considered to be an incarnation of Siva, govinda is popularly regarded as an incarnation of AdiSesha. Check this out for yourself- http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/sankara.html And also the Chinmaya Mission holds this opinion: The prodigious amount of vedic knowledge he extolled often leads one to see him as an incarnation of Lord Siva. Check out for yourself- http://www.chinmaya.org/html/adi_sankaracharya.php3 Your Servant Always OM TAT SAT Sumeet.

Hare Krishna Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet: Thanks Shvu for bringing up this topic. Let's make this discussion more learned by focussing on the doctrines of Advaita as based on Vedanta-[upanisads and Brahma sutra, Gita] rather than critisizng Sripada Sankracarya or Gaudiya Vaishnavas. I think that discussion on that line will serve the purpose better. To begin with I want to ask Shvu one question doesn't Advaita insists on Absolute equality of Lord and jivatma or does it talks about identity of Supreme and jivatma due to both being of same nature-sat chit ananda ? By identity I mean sharing of common nature. Your Servant Always OM TAT SAT Sumeet.

Hare Krishna Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet: Thanks Shvu for bringing up this topic. Let's make this discussion more learned by focussing on the doctrines of Advaita as based on Vedanta-[upanisads and Brahma sutra, Gita] rather than critisizng Sripada Sankracarya or Gaudiya Vaishnavas. I think that discussion on that line will serve the purpose better. To begin with I want to ask Shvu one question doesn't Advaita insists on Absolute equality of Lord and jivatma or does it talks about identity of Supreme and jivatma due to both being of same nature-sat chit ananda ? By identity I mean sharing of common nature. Your Servant Always OM TAT SAT Sumeet.

Hare Krishna Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet. Thanks for your reply dear shvu. I will find out the answers to your questions from whatever limited resources I have access to. give me some time. With Love Your Servant Always In service of Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga Sumeet.

Hare Krishna Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet. First of all thanks Shvu for responding to my question. I was having exams and was busy. So I couldn't follow up my posting. It was clear to me since the beginning of the topic that Mr. Shirsha Rao was not aware of the fact that 'WHY' Gaudiya's put Madhva's name in their succession. So when he came across Srimad Madhvacarya's name and saw that Srila Prabhupada had preached something other than dvaita, he came up with the review of this sort. But to me it didn't make a difference. Why? because- Gaudiyas are very clear that Madhva's philosophy is Dvaita and Gaudiya philosophy is acitya-bedhabheda. This difference in siddhanta is enough for anyone to understand that Srila Prabhupada's book or for that matter any Gaudiya literature can never be 100% exactly same to any of Madhva's work. Furthermore it is clear from Srila Prabhupada's life that while preaching he taught his followers that Madhva's sampradya is called Tattvavada and they follow Madhva's dualistic vedanta. So what is our relationship with Madhva- We gaudiyas descend in line from Madhva as proved below- Go through the following links- http://www.vnn.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000492.html http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/indexh.html Also on the above web page scroll down to footnotes section and read both articles provided in the number 8th point. All this shall hopefully make the point clear as to why Sripada Madhvacarya is included in Gaudiya disciplic succession. Furthermore you must note that we call ourselves a genuine branch off Madhva's sampradya, but still admit that it is tattvavadis who follow Madhva's dualistic vedanta. So if Mr. Rao's claim has to be taken seriously he has to prove in his review refutation of what Gaudiyas says[in the above link]. If he wants to show difference in Srila Prabhupada's and Madhvacaryas books based on the verses[as he has just done], then considering that way, I can show up the difference by just showing that both differ in siddhanta or the conclusion of the vedic literature. There is no need of quoting one or two or three or more verses to show the difference. The difference can be shown just by acknowledging that the siddhanta of both are different. So I repeat that review can be taken serioulsy only when he refutes the points made by Gaudiyas, rather than just showing how the interpretation of few verses is different.[which would be since the siddhanta differs]. And no where in any Gaudiya literature it is said that Madhva preached acintya-bedhadheda. It is clear enough for any reader to notice that Gaudiyas have always said that Madhva preached dvaita and we preach acintya-bedhaabheda. So the entire review by Mr. Rao is baseless and shows his own ignorance of Gaudiya-Madhva connection. If he has to call Srila Prabhupada liar he has to do more than just showing the difference in the verses. I again point out that difference shall definately exists since the siddhanta of both are different. So just showing difference in few verses doesn't makes Srila Prabhupada a liar. Because what makes him put Madhva in Gaudiya disciplic succession is already stated in the links provided above. If he[Mr.Rao] can show that there is no connection between Gaudiyas and Madhvites as claimed by the Gaudiyas only then he has right to call Srila Prabhupada a liar. And if this is the case then entire Gaudiya lineage shall become a liar, since not only Srila Prabhupada but all Gaudiyas since day ONE have traced their lineage to Madhvacarya through Sri Madhavendra Puri. Although in his review he has described Srila Prabhupada with so many adjectives yet he misses the point which he should have definately adressed for the learned to take his review seriously. Towards the end I would call the review useless, born out of author's own ignorance. More to come..................... With Love Your Servant Always In service of Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga Sumeet.

Hare Krishna Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet. I'm busy with exams so i cannot follow up with the posting. Till then kindly give me, your own thoughts on Shirsha Rao's review and also on that verse where the word Original form is mentioned. With Love Your Servant Always In service of Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga Sumeet.

Hare Krishna Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet. I forgot to mention in my previous post that- Note that Srimad acarya never says that Srila Prabhupada has concoted his own message, or has preached his own message; but the way he uses the words bhakti message clearly indicates that he[srimad acarya] is clearly pointing to the genuine bhakti that is the message of Vedas. AFTER THIS WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN MY PREVIOUS POST I FORGOT TO INCLUDE that bhakti which is lauded by dvaitin acarya is genuine bhakti according to vedas. Otherwise what's the need of lauding bhakti, if it is not according to Vedas. And if the Bhakti preached by Srila Prabhupada is according to Vedas then why is it that Madhva acarya wouldn't have given it a yes nod. But according to Shrisha Rao last line of the web page- " It is indeed a travesty that it is often taken seriously by those believing it to have the sanction of Madhva." So if this bhakti has no sanction of Madhva acarya as Shirsha Rao suggests then why has a revered dvaitin acarya lauded it. Certainly no one would laud and praise something that is wrong. Now here is the big question SHOULD WE FOLLOW SHIRSHA RAO- AN EDUCATED AND LEARNED DVAITIN SCHOLAR OR A REVERED DVAITIN ACARYA- A PURE DEVOTEE OF LORD, A PERSON WHO UNDERSTANDS DVAITA SIDDHANTA & VEDAS BETTER ESPECIALLY BETTER THAN SHIRSHA RAO???????????????? With Love Your Servant Always In service of Sri Sri Guru And Gauranga Sumeet.

Hare Krishna Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet. I was going over the review written by the dvaitin scholar Shrisha Rao carefully. Some more thoughts came to my mind, which I would like to share with everyone. " In the Upanishads, the sacred Vedanta texts of yore, one finds in more than one place the well known metaphor of a blind person leading other blind people astray, to illustrate what happens when an incompetent, styling himself a learned man, attempts to teach others what he knows not himself." Look at the ending words " when an incompetent, styling himself a learned man, attempts to teach others what he knows not himself ". Here is the a comment from a great educated dvaiti scholar. Now also look at this: http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_38/msg00041.html " Though sometimes we praised Sri Prabhupada's achievements in spreading the Bhakti message widely,........." Saprema Narayana Smaranas. Sri Vishveshateertha Swamiji. Pejavara Matha. UDUPI. Here a dvaitin acarya has lauded Srila Prabhupada for his achivements, but wait a minute is " an incompetent, styling himself a learned man, attempts to teach others what he knows not himself " supposed to be praised by a revered acarya of the sampradya, which calls him incompetent, leading people astray. If Srila Prabhupada is blind acarya who himself knows nothing & is leading people astray. Kindly note here that acording to Shirsha Rao, Srila Prabhupada is leading people astray, which means that he is cheating people; then why is his achievements being lauded. Does Shirsha Rao means to say that revered dvaitin acarya is praising Srila Prabhupada for misleading people and cheating them ? Also look at another difference according to Shrisha Rao, Srila Prabhupada is a cheater who is misleading people but according to the opinion of the revered dvaitin acarya Srila Prabhupada is a preacher who is spreading bhakti. Or is it to understand that today misleaders who are cheating people are preaching bhakti. If Srila Prabhupada is cheating and is not preaching genuine vaishnava dharama then why is it that the dvaitin acarya has praised it[bhakti spread by Srila Prabhupada]. And this bhakti which is being spread is not by reading Shirsha Rao's BG or opinions but is by reading Srila Prabhupada's translations & commentary. So the bhakti being spread is based on Srila Prabhupada's knwoledge of Vedanta according to Gaudiya Siddhanta. And then the revered dvaitin acarya has lauded Srila Prabhupada's achivements in spreading bhakti. So should we understand that the work which according to Shirsha Rao is " In all, a very poor work, which is to be read and understood only for what it most certainly is not -- a qualified, balanced representation of the meaning of the Bhagavad Gita."[see the last line on the web page] is effective in spreading genuine Bhakti which is being praised by dvaitin acarya. Another thing to note is that " Though sometimes " used by Srimad acarya[dvaitin see on the web link provided] means that he has not praised Srila Prabhupada once but he has done it more than once. Next thing to note is that Srimad acraya says: "Bhakti message"; now certainly the message that Srila Prabhupada has spread is the genuine bhakti presented in Bg otherwise what's the need to mention bhakti message. Note that Srimad acarya never says that Srila Prabhupada has concoted his own message, or has preached his own message; but the way he uses the words bhakti message clearly indicates that he[srimad acarya] is clearly pointing to the genuine bhakti that is the message of Vedas. Certainly the dvaitin acarya mentioned must have read Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad gita before saying something like that, but has he ever said something like this about it. One more thing before I end, one must note that both the review document and post on the links provided are from Shirsha Rao. This clearly shows that although Shirsha Rao has blamed Srila Prabhupada of lying through his teeth, he himself how reverentially follows the foosteps of his own sampradya acarya is shown in this present post by me. Now coming to what is the point of his review, that Srila Prabhupada has lied that the Gaudiyas succeeds from Madhvaacrya one must note one point clearly that Gaudiyas are an genuine branch of the Madhva sampradya. For that one must go through the folowing links- http://www.vnn.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000492.html http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/indexh.html and then click on the Validity of Gaudiya Parampara. This would make one understand that what is the difference and unity between Madhva and Gaudiyas. And the reason why Gaudiyas call themselves a genuine branch of Madhva's sampradya. Furthermore my dear Shvu you had the problem that with Srila Prabhupada's translation and were saying that he has wrongly translated bg from the original sanskrit, so you tell me onething: " Therefore, Madhva's reading of `tvadanyena na dR^ishhTapUrvaM' is to say, "they, the people less than you in worth, did not see as you did". This is a line from the same review by Shirsha Rao. Here Madhva acarya reads the original sanshrit words "tvadanyena na dR^ishhTapUrvaM" as "the, the people less than you in worth, did not see as you did" in this translation by Madhva acarya, the sanskrit word for the words- "worthpeopleless" does not appear. And also as you said for Srila Prabhupada that his translation changes the meaning of the verse totally here also in Madhva acarya's translaton the meaning of the word according to actual sanskrit text and the meaning according to Madhva becomes clearly different. So would you also say that Madhva acarya's commentary is flawed. With Love Your Servant Always In service of Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga Sumeet.

Hare Krishna Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet. Also kindly note this- http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_38/msg00041.html Kindly read- Though sometimes we praised Sri Prabhupada's achievements in spreading the Bhakti message widely, such opinion has been never expressed by us. Saprema Narayana Smaranas. Sri Vishveshateertha Swamiji. Pejavara Matha. UDUPI. Your Servant Always In service of Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga Sumeet.

Hare Krsna Please accept my obesiances at your lotus feet. Great work Sri Gauracandra ji. Also check this out- http://www.webcom.com/ara/col/founder/sp-s/ do find here some support for u. Once again I repeat we are not being fanatical about the review but we r goin to prove our own viewpoint & defending our sampradya. Your servant Always In service of Sri Sri Guru & Gauranga. Sumeet.

Hare Krishna Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet. ananda tirtha-nama sukha-maya-dhama yatir jiyatsamsararnava-taranim yam iha janah kirtayanti budhah "May that great sannyasi, Srila Ananda Tirtha (Madhvacarya) be ever victorious. He is like a boat to cross the ocean of the material world, and the wise men in this world praise him." (Prameya Ratnavali by Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana) I have opened by writing a verse in praise of Sripada Madhvacarya. Gaudiyas will always respect their sampradya acarya. Coming to why exactly that is there on the web page: The reason is a group of young men claiming to be the followers of Sri Madhvacarya have recently challenged the siddhanta of the Gaudiya sampradaya. Many of their points simply stem from lack of knowledge of the Gaudiya siddhanta, whilst other arguments appear to stem more from the fundamental defects of conditioned souls, such as malice and envy. Gaudiyas have given them befitting reply. For that you would like to check: http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/index.html Actually to tell you these scholars speak so boastfully of themselves cannot realize that Srila Prabhupada in his old age when he was personally suffering medically preached the Vaishnava Dharma throughout the world. Do you know what comments the Dvaitins pass about the Gaudiyas: " Our young tattvavadi friends seem very keen to malign the gaudiya vaisnavas in so many ways, calling their philosophy a "hotchpotch presentationfit to be thrown in a dustbin.far fetched", "rubbishhogwash" and a "perverted Kali-yuga philosophy to please every Tom, Dick and Harry". They have insulted prominent gaudiya acaryas calling them "deluded", "Pseudo-vaisnavas", who "lack any understanding of real philosophy" whose purports are "a travesty", "ludicrous", "very stupidvery poor" and "cannot be taken seriously" which are something that "should be given up" because they represent "something which is definitely not a Vaishnava tradition." Although they have none who can preach the Vaishnava dharma all over the world, still they say such things about the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Please read how we have refuted them on the page provided above. Neither they have wit of disproving the divinity of Lord Chaitanya, although they will stubbornly sit aside and not accept it as a fact. The fact is that Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is the Supreme Lord. These tattva-vadis although cannot disprove this, but cannot accept it either. Thereofre some people are misguided about the fact that Lord Krishna comes in Kaliyuga. The plain fact is that although there are very big big names[scholars] sitting out there who will not accept Lord Chaitnaya yet none of them[who calls themselves great stalwarts of vedanta]have even bothered to challenge the Gaudiyas even when they consider our siddhanta non-vedic. We have been preaching since the time of Lord Chaitanya, and the mission has been growing since then, yet never any vedic scholar has formally challenged the Gaudiyas on this. Yet they will stubbornly sit aside and not accept it. Only once in Galta the Sri Vaishnavas challenged the Gaudiya authority, and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana gave them a reply in form of Govinda Bhasya which left them speechless. You can see more detail on that on my post Govinda Bhasya.After that until now Sri vaishnavas have never openly challenged the Gaudiyas, I think so now is the tattva-vadis are due for the same result. I will not go further than that. Also read the following: http://www.vnn.org/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000492.html Yours Servant Always In service of Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga Sumeet.

Hare Krishna Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet. Hare Krishna Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet. Have you read the chandogya entirely? if you haven't, I suggest that you do so. >>>I haven't read the Chandogya. I don't have it. The chandogya at regular intervals talks about worshipping that Brahman which is without beginning and end. >>>Even Lord Krishna is without a beginning and end. [bG 10.3 and many other verses] Whenever upanisads talks about brahman they are actually trying to give the description of the Supreme Personality of Godhead only, however indirectly. At some places this is directly stated. Here I shall reproduce the following verses from major upanisads and the essence of upanisads[bG]. Kindly note that personality of Godhead is beyond the Brahman effulgence as confirmed by sruti mantras. He is the foundation of this impersonal effulgence. So it is understood that when the upanisads talk about impersonal brahman they are only indirectly gloryfing the Supreme Person whom they themselves state to be not only beyond it but also as the foundation of it as confirmed in BG. A sudden verse in between to refer to Krishna is highly unlikely, as you will agree yourself. >>>Brahman of upanisads is non different from Lord Krishna. Brahman in vedas at places indicates jivaatma, Supreme Personality of Godhead, impersonal Absolute. It is used for all of them. It takes certainly more than just mere scholarship and grammatical knowledge to know what is meant when. Furthermore in BG 14.27 Lord Krishna himself testifies that Brahman is resting on him by saying- brahmano hi parthisthanam. Verily I'm the foundation of brahman. The formless brahman is just a dazzle of Lord's own personality. Mundaka upanisad describes this effulgence as brahmajyoti or Brahman effulgence Mundaka Upanisad (2.2.10-12): hiranmaye pare kose virajam brahma niskalam tac chubhram jyotisam jyotis tad yad atma-vido viduh na tatra suryo bhati na candra-tarakam nema vidyuto bhanti kuto 'yam agnih tam eva bhantam anu bhati sarvam tasya bhasa sarvam idam vibhati brahmaivedam amrtam purastad brahma pascad brahma daksinatas cottarena adhas cordhvam ca prasrtam brahmai- vedam visvam idam varistham "In the spiritual realm, beyond the material covering, is the unlimited Brahman effulgence, which is free from material contamination. That effulgent white light is understood by transcendentalists to be the light of all lights. In that realm there is no need of sunshine, moonshine, fire for illumination. Indeed, whatever illumination appears in the material world is only a reflection of that supreme illumination. That Brahman is in front and in back, in the north, south, east and west, and also overhead and below. In other words, that supreme Brahman effulgence spreads throughout both the material and spiritual skies." Isa upanisad furthermore states that hiranmayena patrena satyasyapihitam mukham tat tvam pusann apavrnu satya-dharmaya drstaye "O my Lord, sustainer of all that lives, Your real face is covered by Your dazzling effulgence. Kindly remove that covering and exhibit Yourself to Your pure devotee." (Isopanisad 15) Kindly note the word " mukham " meaning face used in the above Sruti mantra. This clearly shows that form of Supreme is hidden by His effulgence. Furthermore Svetastavatra Upanisad states: yasmat param naparam asti kincid yasman naniyo no jyayo 'sti kincit vrksa iva stabdho divi tisthaty ekas tenedam purnam purusena sarvam " There is no truth superior to that Supreme Person because He is the supermost. He is smaller than the smallest, and He is greater than the greatest. He is situated as a silent tree, and He illumines the transcendental sky, and as a tree spreads its roots, He spreads His extensive energies." Svetasvatara Upanisad(3.9) This is the reason why the Gitopanisad which is the essence of entire upanisads says: BG 15.6 " That abode of Mine is not illumined by the sun or moon, nor by fire. One who reaches it never returns to this material world. " This is furthermore confirmed in the same Gitopanisad in " aditya-varnam tamasah parastat ".(BG 8.9) aditya-varnam: Resplendent like Sun. This indicates a dazzling effulgence emanates out of His form or personality. It is this very effulgence which is known as the nirankara brahman or impersonal absolute. Therefore Lord Krishna states that brahman is resting on Him. Narayana upanisad of Atharva Veda in which Lord Narayana is glorified clearly states that " brahmanyo devaki putra. brahmanyo madhusudhno ". So the Thou there refers to Brahman. >>> In this verse thou means you, and you refers to the person to whom the speaker addresses. This is simple english. And imparting a view will mean teaching, >>> No imparting a view doesn't means teaching. If there is some discussion then one can impart a view. When you ask a person the question that may I have your views on that , this certainly doesn't means that you are asking him to teach you. Had Ghora Angiras being instructing Krishna then correct way of stating that would be to say that instructed or taught. But my point was that as you said that all basic truths were taught to Krishna by Ghora angiras, i just wanted to state that nowhere this verse of chandogya refers to this fact. It is only knowledge about a certain sacrifice that is being communicated to Lord Krishna. So by just imparting a view of a certain sacrifice one doesn't becomes one's Guru. I learn so many things from so many different people yet all of them are not my Guru. Because had Ghora was this person's Guru then correct words like taught or instructed would have been used. And like you earlier said that this verse of chandogya would have been actually saying that Ghora imparted all basic truths to Krishna or atleast Ghora Angiras taught Krishna…….. Furthermore Narada Muni himself confirms about Lord Krishna being eternal. See the chapter 5 of 1st canto of SB. There Narada Muni describes that in previous millennium How in association of munis He heard krsna-katah. See the text 26. It is specifically mentioned Krsna-katah. Lord Krishna’s glory was even being sung in previous millennium. The entire Srimad Bhagavatam is Krsna-katah. Lord Krishna is eternal. His glory is sung eternally. See how Narada muni got self realized just by giving aural reception to Krsna-katah. So He inspired the troubled Vyasadeva to glorify the eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead Lord Krishna in Srimad Bhagavatam. Also go through the 6th chapter and see the verse 27, where Narada muni after describing His encounter with Lord says that then He became “ evam krsna-mater ”. or absorbed in thinking of Lord Krishna. Narada who is mentioned in Chandogya how did he come to know Lord Krishna, that too in His previous life? Now you know that SB was written after departure of Lord Krishna, still when Vyasa Deva sat in trance to see the puruna purusa described in Vedanta [see verse 4 of chapter 7th] He didn’t see Narayana or any one else, but saw Lord Krishna.[ krsne parama-puruse, verse 7th]. after hearing which, this Krishna's thirst for any other knowledge was quenched. Which means Ghora Angirasa plays the role of a Guru here. >>> This doesn't means that Krishna's GURU was Ghora Angiras. As explained above. And if this indeed meant Lord Krishna, then why wasn't Ghora Angirasa mentioned anyhwere else? >>> Explained above. Having a Guru is ok for an avatar. But hearing something that quenched his thirst to know more is unacceptable. >>> There is nothing unacceptable here. The pastime of Lord are of bewildering nature. Like Bhagavatam states that although Lord Krishna is all-pervading, He is sitting on lap of His mother, Yasoda. Verily this in itself is not only bewildering but also contradictory. Although there is nothing contradictory about it. Because as Krishna says in BG His form is acintya, inconceivable, therefore he can do such things. Anyway this specifically is not the point here so I won’t address this here. Although Lord Rama was Supreme yet throughout His life He took knowledge from Vasistha Muni, took weapons from Vishwamitra, although omniscient took help from vibhisana to know even the most simplest details as if knowing totally nothing. To defeat Ravana he took help of vanars, and did many other things that were simple and common. So first of all the fact is that Lord Krishna has nothing to do or know, yet he does action and takes knowledge. So this very action of Lord taking knowledge from anyone is a part of His pastime that He performs. So even His thirst is only a display of His pastime, and has no real existence otherwise[it’s not an eternal attribute of His person]. So to speak that Lord’s thirst has been quenched should be understood from that point of view, it is yet another bewildering pastime of Supreme Lord. See this also: “ Of course it is bewildering, O soul of the universe, that You work, though You are inactive, and that You take birth, though You are the vital force and the unborn. You Yourself descend amongst animals, men, sages and aquatics. Verily, this is bewildering. ” SB 1.8.30 Except for the mayavadis no one else would say that. (About Sruti being revealed) >>> Actually I didn’t stated clearly what I wanted to convey. The mayavadis accept that when Lord incarnates He is born like a simple human being and assumes a material body. But the Vaishnava schools set up by Sri Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Nimbarkacarya, Vishnuswami ji goes against it arguing that Lord is eternal and doesn’t assumes a material body as the conditioned soul does. There is no vaishnava who will support the Mayavadi view. Furthermore Lord Krishna says that He Himself is the compiler of Vedanta. BG 15.15. Lord Krishna is known by many names in Vedas- Narayana who is He Himself. Brahman and the purusa mentioned in svetastvatara upanisad and other upanisads. We will talk about the transcendental person of Narayana, Krishna, Rama etc. later on. That’s not the focus right now. itihasah puranam ca pancamo veda ucyate vedan adhyapayam asa mahabhrata-pancaman "The histories and Puranas are said to be the fifth Veda. Vyasadeva instructed this literature known as Veda, which has the Mahabharata as its fifth part." (from the Moksa-dharma) Actually they are manifested at the time of Vedic revelation as also indicated in Bhagavatam. [Look for 1.4.20] which also calls it fifth veda. I don’t have tattva sandarbha of Srila Jiva Goswami so that I can explain you about the truth. There is a beautiful explanation given by Him over there. You know even if you see the upanisads they are in a form of dialog between sages although they are said to be eternal and unauthored. Then why are they like that. Srila Jiva Goswami with full scriptural reference explains that. I don’t remember the correct explanantion as I had read it long time ago. Perhaps if JN Das or some one else can get a hand on tattva sandarbha then he might explain the issue. But believe me all the puranas are eternal just like veda. I believe when you hear that explanation you shall be extremely pleased to know it. With Love Your Servant Always In service of Sri Sri Guru & Gauranga Sumeet.

Hare Krishna Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet. Hare Krishna Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet. Have you read the chandogya entirely? if you haven't, I suggest that you do so. >>>I haven't read the Chandogya. I don't have it. The chandogya at regular intervals talks about worshipping that Brahman which is without beginning and end. >>>Even Lord Krishna is without a beginning and end. [bG 10.3 and many other verses] Whenever upanisads talks about brahman they are actually trying to give the description of the Supreme Personality of Godhead only, however indirectly. At some places this is directly stated. Here I shall reproduce the following verses from major upanisads and the essence of upanisads[bG]. Kindly note that personality of Godhead is beyond the Brahman effulgence as confirmed by sruti mantras. He is the foundation of this impersonal effulgence. So it is understood that when the upanisads talk about impersonal brahman they are only indirectly gloryfing the Supreme Person whom they themselves state to be not only beyond it but also as the foundation of it as confirmed in BG. A sudden verse in between to refer to Krishna is highly unlikely, as you will agree yourself. >>>Brahman of upanisads is non different from Lord Krishna. Brahman in vedas at places indicates jivaatma, Supreme Personality of Godhead, impersonal Absolute. It is used for all of them. It takes certainly more than just mere scholarship and grammatical knowledge to know what is meant when. Furthermore in BG 14.27 Lord Krishna himself testifies that Brahman is resting on him by saying- brahmano hi parthisthanam. Verily I'm the foundation of brahman. The formless brahman is just a dazzle of Lord's own personality. Mundaka upanisad describes this effulgence as brahmajyoti or Brahman effulgence Mundaka Upanisad (2.2.10-12): hiranmaye pare kose virajam brahma niskalam tac chubhram jyotisam jyotis tad yad atma-vido viduh na tatra suryo bhati na candra-tarakam nema vidyuto bhanti kuto 'yam agnih tam eva bhantam anu bhati sarvam tasya bhasa sarvam idam vibhati brahmaivedam amrtam purastad brahma pascad brahma daksinatas cottarena adhas cordhvam ca prasrtam brahmai- vedam visvam idam varistham "In the spiritual realm, beyond the material covering, is the unlimited Brahman effulgence, which is free from material contamination. That effulgent white light is understood by transcendentalists to be the light of all lights. In that realm there is no need of sunshine, moonshine, fire for illumination. Indeed, whatever illumination appears in the material world is only a reflection of that supreme illumination. That Brahman is in front and in back, in the north, south, east and west, and also overhead and below. In other words, that supreme Brahman effulgence spreads throughout both the material and spiritual skies." Isa upanisad furthermore states that hiranmayena patrena satyasyapihitam mukham tat tvam pusann apavrnu satya-dharmaya drstaye "O my Lord, sustainer of all that lives, Your real face is covered by Your dazzling effulgence. Kindly remove that covering and exhibit Yourself to Your pure devotee." (Isopanisad 15) Kindly note the word " mukham " meaning face used in the above Sruti mantra. This clearly shows that form of Supreme is hidden by His effulgence. Furthermore Svetastavatra Upanisad states: yasmat param naparam asti kincid yasman naniyo no jyayo 'sti kincit vrksa iva stabdho divi tisthaty ekas tenedam purnam purusena sarvam " There is no truth superior to that Supreme Person because He is the supermost. He is smaller than the smallest, and He is greater than the greatest. He is situated as a silent tree, and He illumines the transcendental sky, and as a tree spreads its roots, He spreads His extensive energies." Svetasvatara Upanisad(3.9) This is the reason why the Gitopanisad which is the essence of entire upanisads says: BG 15.6 " That abode of Mine is not illumined by the sun or moon, nor by fire. One who reaches it never returns to this material world. " This is furthermore confirmed in the same Gitopanisad in " aditya-varnam tamasah parastat ".(BG 8.9) aditya-varnam: Resplendent like Sun. This indicates a dazzling effulgence emanates out of His form or personality. It is this very effulgence which is known as the nirankara brahman or impersonal absolute. Therefore Lord Krishna states that brahman is resting on Him. Narayana upanisad of Atharva Veda in which Lord Narayana is glorified clearly states that " brahmanyo devaki putra. brahmanyo madhusudhno ". So the Thou there refers to Brahman. >>> In this verse thou means you, and you refers to the person to whom the speaker addresses. This is simple english. And imparting a view will mean teaching, >>> No imparting a view doesn't means teaching. If there is some discussion then one can impart a view. When you ask a person the question that may I have your views on that , this certainly doesn't means that you are asking him to teach you. Had Ghora Angiras being instructing Krishna then correct way of stating that would be to say that instructed or taught. But my point was that as you said that all basic truths were taught to Krishna by Ghora angiras, i just wanted to state that nowhere this verse of chandogya refers to this fact. It is only knowledge about a certain sacrifice that is being communicated to Lord Krishna. So by just imparting a view of a certain sacrifice one doesn't becomes one's Guru. I learn so many things from so many different people yet all of them are not my Guru. Because had Ghora was this person's Guru then correct words like taught or instructed would have been used. And like you earlier said that this verse of chandogya would have been actually saying that Ghora imparted all basic truths to Krishna or atleast Ghora Angiras taught Krishna…….. Furthermore Narada Muni himself confirms about Lord Krishna being eternal. See the chapter 5 of 1st canto of SB. There Narada Muni describes that in previous millennium How in association of munis He heard krsna-katah. See the text 26. It is specifically mentioned Krsna-katah. Lord Krishna’s glory was even being sung in previous millennium. The entire Srimad Bhagavatam is Krsna-katah. Lord Krishna is eternal. His glory is sung eternally. See how Narada muni got self realized just by giving aural reception to Krsna-katah. So He inspired the troubled Vyasadeva to glorify the eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead Lord Krishna in Srimad Bhagavatam. Also go through the 6th chapter and see the verse 27, where Narada muni after describing His encounter with Lord says that then He became “ evam krsna-mater ”. or absorbed in thinking of Lord Krishna. Narada who is mentioned in Chandogya how did he come to know Lord Krishna, that too in His previous life? Now you know that SB was written after departure of Lord Krishna, still when Vyasa Deva sat in trance to see the puruna purusa described in Vedanta [see verse 4 of chapter 7th] He didn’t see Narayana or any one else, but saw Lord Krishna.[ krsne parama-puruse, verse 7th]. after hearing which, this Krishna's thirst for any other knowledge was quenched. Which means Ghora Angirasa plays the role of a Guru here. >>> This doesn't means that Krishna's GURU was Ghora Angiras. As explained above. And if this indeed meant Lord Krishna, then why wasn't Ghora Angirasa mentioned anyhwere else? >>> Explained above. Having a Guru is ok for an avatar. But hearing something that quenched his thirst to know more is unacceptable. >>> There is nothing unacceptable here. The pastime of Lord are of bewildering nature. Like Bhagavatam states that although Lord Krishna is all-pervading, He is sitting on lap of His mother, Yasoda. Verily this in itself is not only bewildering but also contradictory. Although there is nothing contradictory about it. Because as Krishna says in BG His form is acintya, inconceivable, therefore he can do such things. Anyway this specifically is not the point here so I won’t address this here. Although Lord Rama was Supreme yet throughout His life He took knowledge from Vasistha Muni, took weapons from Vishwamitra, although omniscient took help from vibhisana to know even the most simplest details as if knowing totally nothing. To defeat Ravana he took help of vanars, and did many other things that were simple and common. So first of all the fact is that Lord Krishna has nothing to do or know, yet he does action and takes knowledge. So this very action of Lord taking knowledge from anyone is a part of His pastime that He performs. So even His thirst is only a display of His pastime, and has no real existence otherwise[it’s not an eternal attribute of His person]. So to speak that Lord’s thirst has been quenched should be understood from that point of view, it is yet another bewildering pastime of Supreme Lord. See this also: “ Of course it is bewildering, O soul of the universe, that You work, though You are inactive, and that You take birth, though You are the vital force and the unborn. You Yourself descend amongst animals, men, sages and aquatics. Verily, this is bewildering. ” SB 1.8.30 Except for the mayavadis no one else would say that. (About Sruti being revealed) >>> Actually I didn’t stated clearly what I wanted to convey. The mayavadis accept that when Lord incarnates He is born like a simple human being and assumes a material body. But the Vaishnava schools set up by Sri Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Nimbarkacarya, Vishnuswami ji goes against it arguing that Lord is eternal and doesn’t assumes a material body as the conditioned soul does. There is no vaishnava who will support the Mayavadi view. Furthermore Lord Krishna says that He Himself is the compiler of Vedanta. BG 15.15. Lord Krishna is known by many names in Vedas- Narayana who is He Himself. Brahman and the purusa mentioned in svetastvatara upanisad and other upanisads. We will talk about the transcendental person of Narayana, Krishna, Rama etc. later on. That’s not the focus right now. itihasah puranam ca pancamo veda ucyate vedan adhyapayam asa mahabhrata-pancaman "The histories and Puranas are said to be the fifth Veda. Vyasadeva instructed this literature known as Veda, which has the Mahabharata as its fifth part." (from the Moksa-dharma) Actually they are manifested at the time of Vedic revelation as also indicated in Bhagavatam. [Look for 1.4.20] which also calls it fifth veda. I don’t have tattva sandarbha of Srila Jiva Goswami so that I can explain you about the truth. There is a beautiful explanation given by Him over there. You know even if you see the upanisads they are in a form of dialog between sages although they are said to be eternal and unauthored. Then why are they like that. Srila Jiva Goswami with full scriptural reference explains that. I don’t remember the correct explanantion as I had read it long time ago. Perhaps if JN Das or some one else can get a hand on tattva sandarbha then he might explain the issue. But believe me all the puranas are eternal just like veda. I believe when you hear that explanation you shall be extremely pleased to know it. With Love Your Servant Always In service of Sri Sri Guru & Gauranga Sumeet.

Hare Krishna Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet. Dear Shvu Coming to the point that Krishna in Chandogya not being Lord Krishna, The Chandoya says that Ghora Angirasa taught Krishna the son of Devaki, all the truths which quenched his thirst for any other knowledge. I must also mention here that I checked this up with other Vaishnava Scholars [not GVs] and they all say this Krishna cannot be the one. The reasons given by them follow, 1. Because Krishna's Guru was Sanidipini and this Ghora Angirasa is not mentioned in any of the stories of Krishna. Which is unlikely because a person who taught Krishna all the basic truths, would surely be worth mentioning. >>> Read your own translation: " Ghora Angirasa, communicated this teaching to Krishna, the son of Devaki and it quenched Krishna’s thirst for any other knowledge and said: "When a man approaches death he should take refuge in these three thoughts: 'Thou art indestructible' , 'Thou art unchanging' and 'Thou art the subtle prana.' On this subject there are two Rik—verses:" - Chandogya 3.17.6 However I found translation of this verse by Dr. Radhakrishnan- " Ghora Angirasa, after having communicated this (view of the sacrifice) to Krishna, the son of Devaki -and he never thirsted again (after other knowledge)-said: 'Let a man, when his end approaches, take refuge with this Triad: "You are the imperishable,You are the unchangeable,You are the edge of Prana."' On this subject there are two Rik verses This verse clearly refers to Lord Krishna. See how- First point to be noted is that Ghora Angiras didn't tell all the basic truth to Lord Krishna. He was just mentioning a view of sacrifice to Lord Krishna. So it is wrong to say that Angiras told Lord all the basic spiritual truth. There is difference in between telling all the truths and imparting a view of sacrifice. Your own translation and that by Dr. Radhakrishnan gives support to this. 2. According to the stories of krishna, he was a know-all. So there is no question of him hearing any truths which would quench his thirst to learn anything else. >>>Whoever has said this is not aware that when Lord Ramacandra, Lord Narayana's Vyasa incarnation all had Gurus. They accept a Guru just to show the importance of having a guru in order to develop in the spiritual life. It is not that they are ignorant and are wanting self realization. It is just to show to the normal public the importance of a bonafied guru for spiritual progress and nothing more. 3. The point that Sruti is believed to have been in existence long before the time of Krishna. >>>Except for the mayavadis no one else would say that. Dear Krishna, Rama,Narayana and other forms of God are eternally existing in the spiritual world. They just appear and disappear. Krishna is the compiler of Vedanta according to BG15.15. Therefore he has been sometimes indirectly refered to or sometimes refered to by His other names and other time by His own name[Krishna]. It is silly to think that Krishna or Rama or Narayana comes into existence and then dies. Analyse this very verse of Chandogya: Ghora Angiras speaks to Lord Krishna- 'Let a man, when his end approaches, take refuge with this Triad: "You are the imperishable,You are the unchangeable,You are the edge of Prana."' Now analyse Ghora Angiras is the speaker and Lord Krishna is receptor. Now see what Angiras speaks: 'Let a man, when his end approaches" If you analyse these words then they clearly indicate that Angiras is refering to man in general. He is not refering to some specific man or Lord Krishna neither to himself. So he is speaking this for a common man. What he asks the common man to do is: " take refuge with this Triad " What is that triad: 1)You[Krishna]are the imperishable. 2)You[Krishna]are theunchangeable 3)You[Krishna]are the subtle prana. Now you know for certain that this part of the verse is being spoken to Krishna who is the son of Devaki as mentioned in the verse itself. Then next thing to note is that it is being said as an instruction to common man. What is that instruction: it is that he must take refuge in three thoughts- Krishna is indestructible, unchanging and subtle pran. Critic may object by saying that no in this verse man is being asked to take shelter of Atman and hence putting forward an advaitist viewpoint. Reply to that: No, that is totally wrong understanding of the verse because Angiras says that for a common man , he specifically mentions the word "man"[Let the man.....] so he is refering to man in general and asks man to take refuge in Krishna the son of devaki whom he describes to be indestructible, unchanging and subtle prana. Had he been refering to Atman or self he would have clearly spoken that the Man should take refuge in three thoughts- Atman is indestructible Atman is unchanging Atman is the subtle prana. Or Angiras would have said that Man should approach the following three thoughts- the he is Indestructible, unchanging and subtle prana. But instead of both of this he says "You" which clearly refers to Lord Krishna. Now which Krishna the son of Devaki, other than one in Bhagavatam, and Krishna of Gita can possess these qualities: Eternity,Unchanging,subtle prana. At time of death every Man is asked by Vedas to take refuge in God, so why would chandogya ask man to take refuge in some ordinary Krishna. Furthermore more topic for research: Chandogya 3.4.1-2 refers to Itihas and purana Also Chandogya 7.1.12 ca rg-vedam bhagavo'dhyemi yajur-vedam sama-vedam atharvanam caturtham itihasam puranam pancamam vedanam vedam "O lord, I have studied the Rg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, the fourth Veda, known as the Atharva veda, and the fifth Veda, known as the histories and Puranas." Hope that this helps With Love Your Servant Always In Service of Sri Sri Guru & Gauranga Sumeet.

Hare Krishna Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet. Dear Shvu Coming to the point that Krishna in Chandogya not being Lord Krishna, The Chandoya says that Ghora Angirasa taught Krishna the son of Devaki, all the truths which quenched his thirst for any other knowledge. I must also mention here that I checked this up with other Vaishnava Scholars [not GVs] and they all say this Krishna cannot be the one. The reasons given by them follow, 1. Because Krishna's Guru was Sanidipini and this Ghora Angirasa is not mentioned in any of the stories of Krishna. Which is unlikely because a person who taught Krishna all the basic truths, would surely be worth mentioning. >>> Read your own translation: " Ghora Angirasa, communicated this teaching to Krishna, the son of Devaki and it quenched Krishna’s thirst for any other knowledge and said: "When a man approaches death he should take refuge in these three thoughts: 'Thou art indestructible' , 'Thou art unchanging' and 'Thou art the subtle prana.' On this subject there are two Rik—verses:" - Chandogya 3.17.6 However I found translation of this verse by Dr. Radhakrishnan- " Ghora Angirasa, after having communicated this (view of the sacrifice) to Krishna, the son of Devaki -and he never thirsted again (after other knowledge)-said: 'Let a man, when his end approaches, take refuge with this Triad: "You are the imperishable,You are the unchangeable,You are the edge of Prana."' On this subject there are two Rik verses This verse clearly refers to Lord Krishna. See how- First point to be noted is that Ghora Angiras didn't tell all the basic truth to Lord Krishna. He was just mentioning a view of sacrifice to Lord Krishna. So it is wrong to say that Angiras told Lord all the basic spiritual truth. There is difference in between telling all the truths and imparting a view of sacrifice. Your own translation and that by Dr. Radhakrishnan gives support to this. 2. According to the stories of krishna, he was a know-all. So there is no question of him hearing any truths which would quench his thirst to learn anything else. >>>Whoever has said this is not aware that when Lord Ramacandra, Lord Narayana's Vyasa incarnation all had Gurus. They accept a Guru just to show the importance of having a guru in order to develop in the spiritual life. It is not that they are ignorant and are wanting self realization. It is just to show to the normal public the importance of a bonafied guru for spiritual progress and nothing more. 3. The point that Sruti is believed to have been in existence long before the time of Krishna. >>>Except for the mayavadis no one else would say that. Dear Krishna, Rama,Narayana and other forms of God are eternally existing in the spiritual world. They just appear and disappear. Krishna is the compiler of Vedanta according to BG15.15. Therefore he has been sometimes indirectly refered to or sometimes refered to by His other names and other time by His own name[Krishna]. It is silly to think that Krishna or Rama or Narayana comes into existence and then dies. Analyse this very verse of Chandogya: Ghora Angiras speaks to Lord Krishna- 'Let a man, when his end approaches, take refuge with this Triad: "You are the imperishable,You are the unchangeable,You are the edge of Prana."' Now analyse Ghora Angiras is the speaker and Lord Krishna is receptor. Now see what Angiras speaks: 'Let a man, when his end approaches" If you analyse these words then they clearly indicate that Angiras is refering to man in general. He is not refering to some specific man or Lord Krishna neither to himself. So he is speaking this for a common man. What he asks the common man to do is: " take refuge with this Triad " What is that triad: 1)You[Krishna]are the imperishable. 2)You[Krishna]are theunchangeable 3)You[Krishna]are the subtle prana. Now you know for certain that this part of the verse is being spoken to Krishna who is the son of Devaki as mentioned in the verse itself. Then next thing to note is that it is being said as an instruction to common man. What is that instruction: it is that he must take refuge in three thoughts- Krishna is indestructible, unchanging and subtle pran. Critic may object by saying that no in this verse man is being asked to take shelter of Atman and hence putting forward an advaitist viewpoint. Reply to that: No, that is totally wrong understanding of the verse because Angiras says that for a common man , he specifically mentions the word "man"[Let the man.....] so he is refering to man in general and asks man to take refuge in Krishna the son of devaki whom he describes to be indestructible, unchanging and subtle prana. Had he been refering to Atman or self he would have clearly spoken that the Man should take refuge in three thoughts- Atman is indestructible Atman is unchanging Atman is the subtle prana. Or Angiras would have said that Man should approach the following three thoughts- the he is Indestructible, unchanging and subtle prana. But instead of both of this he says "You" which clearly refers to Lord Krishna. Now which Krishna the son of Devaki, other than one in Bhagavatam, and Krishna of Gita can possess these qualities: Eternity,Unchanging,subtle prana. At time of death every Man is asked by Vedas to take refuge in God, so why would chandogya ask man to take refuge in some ordinary Krishna. Furthermore more topic for research: Chandogya 3.4.1-2 refers to Itihas and purana Also Chandogya 7.1.12 ca rg-vedam bhagavo'dhyemi yajur-vedam sama-vedam atharvanam caturtham itihasam puranam pancamam vedanam vedam "O lord, I have studied the Rg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, the fourth Veda, known as the Atharva veda, and the fifth Veda, known as the histories and Puranas." Hope that this helps With Love Your Servant Always In Service of Sri Sri Guru & Gauranga Sumeet.

Please accept my respectful obesiances unto your lotus feet. Mr.gtam here is Govinda bhasya http://www.philosophy.ru/library/asiatica/indica/authors/baladeva/gb/ Before that let me give a little bit of introduction as to how Govinda bhasya developed: " One day, in Jaipur, in the royal court, the Ramanuja sampradaya began arguing a case in connection with the Gaudiya sampradaya. They informed the king that the Gaudiya sampradaya had no commentary on the most important revealed scripture of Vedic religionÑVedanta; therefore they had no siddhanta and no real sampradaya, or school. As a consequence they should give up their service of the deities of Govinda and Gopinatha, and entrust with those who were bona fide members of a genuine sampradaya. At that time, the king of Jaipura was a follower of the Gaudiya sampradaya. He immediately sent word of the controversy by messenger to Vishvanatha Cakravarti Thakur in Vrindavan, wanting to know if the Gaudiya sampradaya actually did have any commentary on theVedanta. If there was, the king wanted that the commentary be sent immediately to Jaipur to satisfy the scrutiny of the pandits from the Ramanuja Sampradaya. At this time, Sri Vishvanatha Chakravarti was very old and infirm. It was impossible for him to make the arduous journey to Jaipur. He sent his student and disciple, Sri Baladeva, in his place. Baladeva Vidyabhusana was an expert scholar in all the important scriptures. In the midst of a huge assembly of pandits from the Ramanuja sampradaya, Baladeva challenged them all to argue with him in scholarly debate. A long, and hard-fought debate took place, with tumultuous arguing from the Ramanuja school. Still, none of them could stand before his conclusive statements, keen scholarship, and penetrating intellect. Baladeva argued that the founder of the Gaudiya Sampradaya, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu established the Srimad-Bhagavatam as the topmost commentary on Vedanta. The Bhagavatam itself claims that it is bhashyanam brahma-sutranam, the natural commentary on Vedanta. This is confirmed on the basis of evidence given by Jiva Goswami in his Sat Sandarbha. Therefore, the Gaudiya sampradaya has chosen to accept Srimad-Bhagavatam as the original commentary on Vedanta, and sees no need for a separate commentary. At that point, the pandits from the Ramanuja sampradaya shouted: "He admits that there is no commentary! They have no commentary!" Having no other recourse, Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana promised to show them the Gaudiya commentary on Vedanta within a few days. The pandits were astonished to think that such a thing existed. They were suspicious that this might be some kind of trick, but were silenced for the time being. Very troubled within his mind, Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana went to the temple of Sri Govinda, the deity of Rupa Goswami. After offering his eightfold obeisances before the deity, he related everything that had taken place. That night in a dream, Sri Govinda told him, "You must compose the commentary. That commentary will be personally sanctioned by me. No one will be able to find any fault in it." Seeing this in his dream, Baladeva became very happy, and his heart was full of strength, ready for the task at hand. After this, he meditated on the lotus feet of Govinda and began writing his commentary. Within a few days it was completed. This commentary became known as the Govinda Bhashya commentary on Vedanta. In an addendum appended to the Govinda Bhashya, after it was published, Sri Baladeva has written, ³vidyarupam bhushanam ye pradaya, khatim nitye teno yo mamudarah, Sri govinda-svapna-nirdishtha bhashye, radhabandhurangah sa jiyat.² "May Sri Govinda be all glorious. By his mercy, he revealed this commentary to me in a dream. The commentary revealed by him is especially appreciated by the highly learned, and as a result of this I have been given the name Vidyabhushana, but it is Sri Govinda who deserves all credit. May that Sri Govinda who is the most dear life and soul of Sri Radhika, be all-victorious." With the Govinda Bhashya commentary in hand, Baladeva Vidyabhushana arrived at the assembly hall of the king, where the pandits were waiting for him. When he showed them his commentary, they were speechless. The Gaudiya sampradaya was proclaimed victorious. The king and all the Gaudiya Vaishnavas were supremely happy. At that time the pandits gave Sri Baladeva the name ³Vidyabhushana,² or one whose ornament is knowledge, in honor of his great scholarship. The year was 1628, Shaka era. From the day forward, the king of Jaipur decreed, everyone would attend the aroti of Sri Govinda, the deity beloved by the Gaudiya Vaishnavas, who was ultimately responsible for such a wonderful commentary on Vedanta. The Ramanuja pandits, falling under the influence of Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana, accepted him as their acharya and wanted to become his disciples. With great humility, Baladeva Vidyabhushana refused, explaining that there are four sampradayas, among which the Sri Sampradaya is a genuine school that preaches servitude to God as the best religious process. By advancing the views of the Gaudiya sampradaya, he meant no disrespect to the Sri sampradaya. To insult the Sri sampradaya would be a great offense, he said. Sripad Baladeva Vidyabhushana returned from Jaipur to Vrindavana carrying the message of his victory. Upon returning, he submitted to the lotus feet of Sri Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura and told him the news. All the visiting Vaishnavas and the residents of Vrindavan were delighted and Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura bestowed his blessings upon Baladeva Vidyabhusana. After this, Baladeva Vidyabhusana began writing a commentary on the Sat Sandarbha. Soon Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura passed away, and the Vaishnava community felt as if a great beacon of divine light had been extinguished. At that time, Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana became regarded among the Vaishnava community as the keeper of the flame, the leader among those who understood the teachings of Sri Chaitanya. " Hope that everyone enjoyed reading it. With Love Your Servant Always OM TAT SAT Sumeet.