sumeet

Hare Krishna

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

Dear Shvu

On the net I found the following verse from Chandogya Upanisad 7.6

" Ghora Angirasa has explained it to Krishna, the son of Devaki" ... he was free from thirst [commonly understood as desire]" - Chandogya Upanishad 7.6

Since you have the upanisad kindly let me know whether it is authentic or not.

With Love

OM TAT SAT

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

Hare Krishna

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

My dear friend Shvu you are not correct in saying that Krishna is not pre-buddhistic.

& that there is no evidence confirming His presence Because:

1) According to the Aihole inscription of Pulakesin II, the Battle of Kuruksetra took place in 3102 B.C.

2) Also it has been well noted by sanskrit scholars that in terms of grammatical construction many sentences and the archaic forms of many words do not follow the strict rules of grammar which all sanskrit scholars follow as expounded given by Panini, who lived in the 6th century B.C. So BG is before 6th century BC.

3) That the Bhagavad-Gita is pre-Buddhistic can be determined by the fact that no where is there any reference to Buddhism.[Had BG would have been after Buddha, Lord Krishna would have thoroughly refuted Buddhism by mentioning it.] Whereas in the Buddhist scripture Niddesa written in 4 B.C. in the Pali Canon is found reference to the worship of Vasudeva and Baladeva, who are Krishna and Balarama respectively.

4) I would also request every one to go through the following Webpage very carefully.

http://www.orientalthane.com/speeches/srrao/1.htm

And lastly about the europeans against the dating of Vedic civilization- we can clearly see how Max Muller played around with the Vedic scripture to call them imaginary, myth because what they said and recorded something that challenged the history accepted by the Europeans. Also in one of the earlier posts you talked about no european civilization took a note of Krishna. You also said that if they could love and respect a person who walked on water then how much they could have loved one who lifted mountains. In reply I would like to state that Bhagavatam calls those Yavanas and melechha sinful. We know from history that earliest organized religion known in the west is Judaisim. And before the Jewish religion these people had no concept of a religion that was proper and and well organized based on any scripture. There are only three scriptures that belong to West: Old Testament, New Testament and the Holy Quran. And people without any scriptural injunctions to follow and with no concept of God[religion] are called sinful as Bhagavata calls them. So if there were people at time of Krishna why would have they preserved a record of Him, who is only adored by the hearts of saintly people. And if you don't agree with this then tell me one more thing; BG was first translated into English in 1785 by Charles Wilkins. It was translated into Latin in 1823 by Schlegel, into German in 1826 by Von Humbolt, into French in 1846 by Lassens and into Greek in 1848 by Galanos. So only in 19th Century did the Europe came to know about BG the very glory of Lord Krishna. Does that means that BG was not in existence before that. What europeans have recorded and what they have not has nothing to do with the validity of Vedic culture.

With Love

OM TAT SAT

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

Hare Krishna

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

A merry christmas and a very happy new year to all of you.

I have got some interesting sites for all of you to read:

http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-age_fs.html

Read sections on Vedic Archaeology & Vedic Chronology[Vedic Discoveries is only presently available].

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Hare Krsna

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

Here is the eigth verse from Siksastaka:

" I know no one but Krsna as my Lord, and He shall remain so even if He handles me roughly in His embrace or makes me brokenhearted by not being present before me. He is completely free to do anything and everything, for He is always my worshipful Lord unconditionally. "

With Love

OM TAT SAT

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

Hare Krsna

I realized later on[after posting] that the links doesn't directly takes one to the page I intend you all to see. So when you visit the page please look at the left frame and scroll down to the links saying:

1) Find Truth

2) Seeing God.

Sorry for my mistake.

With Love

Sumeet.

Hare Krsna

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

Here are some links that would be of great interest for all of us:

http://www.gokul.org/contents/contents.html

http://www.gokul.org/contents/contents.html

I hope they are interesting.

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Hare Krishna

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet

Faith is something we exhibit in our daily or routine activities. Every individual's mind reflects his heart's condition which is full of some sort of desire. Thus one's nature reflected in the mind produces a particular quality of faith. For eg. although there is a possibility that we may encounter an accident yet we drive the car to office because our desire is to earn money to support our life. While doing this we have the faith that nothing bad would happen. Similarly a theif, although knows if he get caught he would be punished severely still he commits crime under the impulse of the deisre, hoping that he will be off with the act of theft without getting arrested. So his faith is directed in that way. So we go to the office under the impulse of desire to earn money to support us, a theive commits crime under some desire in his heart. And our faith is always directed towards the successfulness of our desire irrespective of what it is. If asked, the person going to office has no proof that he will be safe. Neither can he prove that he will be unsafe. There is a 50-50 possibility. Same applies to the theive. In the same way only those souls who want to know & reach God places there faith in the scriptures no matter whether they can be proved or not or whether God's existence can be proved or not. Actually scriptures are the recorded examples of those highly advanced souls and great thinkers who have gone before us in the search to know the Absolute Truth. What they have recorded in their notes, in their doctoral dissertations, that is known as scripture. The experience of what is good and what is to be avoided on the path leading to God consciousness is recorded in the scripture. The words of the scripture are like so many lighthouses showing us the way through the fog or darkness of material conception. Therefore the theists places his faith in the writings of the scriptures and pursues his path toward God. Irrespective of any possibility that can be assigned to his search result he always wants that his desire be fullfilled and hence places the faith in what appears to be a positive result. The theist is not to be blamed because as explained earlier the person going to office, the theif all places their faith positively. They all want the desire in the heart to be fullfilled. This is general human nature that what we desire we wish it should be fullfiled some or the other way. Isn't that ? So our faith is naturally inclined positively. Hence in the same way the theist also places his faith positively to go ahead and attain God, the object of his veneration without any other trouble.

However if an atheist still doesn't realizes the sense of a theists choice then he must consider the following:

Let us consider for a moment. There are two men. One is a theist and the other an atheist. Each lives out his life according to his creed, and in the end both men have to die. Let us say for the sake of argument that when the theist dies there is no God. Then what does it matter? He believed in God, but in the end there was no God. So what does it matter? Death comes and life is over, finished, the end. No loss, no gain, it’s simply over.

On the other hand the atheist dies and he was wrong. There is a God! Then what, what does he do now? It’s too late. He again takes birth in the material world and suffers and enjoys according to the deeds of his past life or is put into hellish condition of life if he has been too sinful. So to be an atheist, one has to admit, is quite a risky proposition. The position of a theist is always safer and more desirable than that of an atheist.

Towards the end I would like to conclude that to be a theist is the best way to live.

Many people even don't like the idea of God what to say ponder about his existence because God is declared by all scriptures as Supreme, to whose our will is subordinate, on whom our existence is dependent; but those men are not humble enough to live with digesting these truths or for others who may consider them as possibilities.

Theism is safest amongst athiesm and theism, and so one should intelligently choose to be theist. There is no meaning to the word theist if he denies existence of God and His word the scriptures; so one should also place faith in scriptures. But to those who think that faith is acceptance without questioning must understand that in the foremost scripture of Vedic cannon -BG is all in question and answer format. Only the fact to be seen is that Arjuna is putting submissive enquiry before Lord Krishna the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He's not arguing, because it is commonsense that if one wants to know something then he must question respectably & submissively rather than puting forward fruitless arguements.

The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Narayana says to Brahma in Srimad Bhagavatam-

" The Personality of Godhead said: Knowledge about Me as described in the scriptures is very confidential, and it has to be realized in conjunction with devotional service. The necessary paraphernalia for that process is being explained by Me. You may take it up carefully."

Dear just as with the material eye one can percieve anything that is material. Similarly Lord's existence is purely spiritual, beyond material nature; His transcendental form can only be percieved by eye of devotion which is nothing but the eye of the pure unalloyed spiritual self of the Jiva. The form of Krishna is visible to that eye in proportion to its purification by the practice of devotion. When the devotion of the neophyte reaches the stage of bhava-bhakti the pure eye of that devotee is tinged with the salve of love by the grace of Krishna, which enables him to see Krishna face to face. The phrase "in their hearts" means Krishna is visible in proportion as their hearts are purified by the practice of devotion. This is beautifully describe below:

" I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who is Syamasundara, Krishna Himself with inconceivable innumerable attributes, whom the pure devotees see in their heart with the eye of devotion tinged with the salve of love. "(BS text 38)

Although in the beginning one cannot see God face to face immediately but if the seeker has genuine desire and a bonafide spiritual master, then one can begin to feel God's presence. But this also is a profoundly personal experience, not something for the sightseers of the mundane world. "Show me God!" and He simply dances before your eyes. It is not like that. Many things are required if we want to see God. As we gradually progress we can come to the point of seeing Him today or sometime tommorow. As many others have said that faith is independent of reason, this is true- Divine faith is independent of reason. It is a result of God's grace and it involves experience, as opposed to belief, which exists in the intellectual realm. This faith although is independent of reason but still involves personal experience on which it is entirely based on which it becomes stronger.

God's form is not a mental concoction but is transcendental, and is visible with the eye of the soul of the devotee under trance.

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Hare Krishna

Please accept obesiances unto your lotus feet.

Mr. JN Das ji I fully agree with your posting.

With Love

Your servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Hare Krsna!!!

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

My dear friend Sri Ghoghil I agree with you when you say:

" Seek not Krsna in the “books” or in the “universe” for you will not find him.

Rather, live with endless love for Krsna, and let Krsna seek you out. "

Yes my dear friend. Love Him so much that He Himself becomes pleases and then He will try to accompany us through out our life. Love Him so much that He is impelled to seek you out. Don't forget BG 6.31.

Dear friend the entire essence or goal of Vedic knowledge is that Supreme Lord is ONE.

We all is His servants. To live with Him associating with Him rendering loving devotional service unto Him is the goal of life." Dear friend studying Vedas gives us peace which is unending. Whenever a person is in difficulty a person seeks shelter in scriptures and he finds that peace which his dear ones cannot even give. Also the joy derived from studying scriptures with a devotional heart brings a enjoyment that is different from the pleasures of material world. This enjoyment or rather trasncendental bliss knows no end. It keeps on increasing. Also each time you go across the scriptures you find something new. You will never get bored reading Bhagavad Gita or any other Vedic literature. It remains as fresh as it ever was. Furthermore you can chant the Hare Krishna Maha Mantra throughout your life with out getting bored. Your joy will increase manifold. But you cannot keep on chanting some material name throughout you life. But Man made things like television or Videos don't provide such an entertainment. Dear here I would like to cite a verse: In 10.18 Arjuna admits that hearing to Krishna's glories, there is no satiation. His desire only increases manifold. So how can the Vedic literature be man made. Also there is a big difference in Mundane sound and transcendental sound vibration. Just try to understand:

When you are feeling thirsty then you may shout water water but your thirst will not disappear. But on the other hand if you are troubled and you chant Krishna's holy name or God's name you immediately get peace and happiness. God is full of bliss and peace so when you chant his name you get the result immediately. Dear a transcendental sound vibration embodies what it represents. Like the word Krishna embodies the Person Krishna or God who is full of bliss and abode of peace. On the other hand the material sound like water is different from the substance water. So chanting water, water we cannot quench our thirst yet chanting Krishna's holy name we can get all benefit we can have from Krishna's personal presence. By chanting when one's heart gets pured then with the seed of devotional service is sowed in the heart and thereafter in proportion to ones purification and devotion one can see the Transcendental Pesonality of Godhead either as Ramacandra, Narayana or Krishna. Vedanta is compiled by Lord, as indicated by BG 15.15 so if we are to keep a mentality opposing Vedic scriptures and disbieliving them then we cannot develop love for Krishna. Dear this has been beautifully explained by Lord Himself:

BG 4.40 & BG 16.23 where Lord explains the result of following Vedic scriptures with proper understanding and also the result of whimsically acting under the impulse of one's own desire transgressing the scriptures. Also dear you said that don't find Him in the books this is not exactly correct since in BG 18.70 says that hearing to Gita with reverence is equivalent to worshipping Krishna. Because Lord is absolute the words that come out of His lotus like mouth are non different from He himself. Hence even hearing them carefully is sort of worshipping Krishna only. His words are non-different from His Person.

NEVER FORGET THISTHING:

KRISHNA DOESN'T WANT SOMEONE'S PERSONAL SERVICE UNTO HIM, HE IS COMPLETE IN HIMSELF. DON'T THINK THAT SERVICE TO KRISHNA MEANS ONLY LOVING SERVICE DONE THROUGH BHAKTI. THOSE WHO DON'T WANT TO DO THIS ALSO SERVES KRISHNA, BUT THROUGH HIS ILLUSORY ENERGY AS BG 7.14 STATES. THEY CANNOT OVERCOME IT. SO WHETHER WILLINGLY OR UNWILLINGLY ONE SERVES KRISHNA ALWAYS. SO SRIMAN MAHAPRABHU SAYS THAT JIVA'S CONSTITUIONAL POSITION IS TO SERVE KRISHNA ETERNALLY. IT COULD BE FAVORABLE SERVICE THROUGH BHAKTI OR UNFAVORABLE SERVICE THROUGH MAYA. IN EITHER CASE KRISHNA IS SUPREME ENJOYER AND THE ONLY MASTER. KRISHNA KNOWS THAT SERVICE TO HIM FAVAORABLY IS GOOD AND BRINGS HAPPINESS TO SOUL BUT SERVICE TO HIM THROUGH HIS MAYA BRINGS A LOT OF SORROWS AND TROUBLE WHICH WE ALL ARE EXPERIENCING IN THIS WORLD. BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANTS US TO BE IN DIFFICULTY HE GIVES US SCRIPTURES COMPLYING WHICH WE CAN DEVELOP OUR SERVICE TO GOD IN MOOD OF BHAKTI.

SO WE SHOULD NOT WHIMSICALLY GIVE UP INJUNCTIONS OF SCRIPTURES. KRISHNA HAS LEFT IT TO US FOR EACH ONE OF US TO DECIDE FOR HIMSELF. THIS IS CONFIRMED BY BG 18.63.

Hope that this meets well

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Hare Krsna!!!

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

Likewise there is always this chance that there was no Krishna at all."

>>> Do you mean to say that Krishna could be imaginary character. NO my dear friend you are grossly mistaken. If you take to devotional service or the process of self realization you can find Him. As such the proof of Krishna's existence is the love so many people have had from Him and had for Him. If you claim that Krishna could noty have existed at all then tell me that so many people for past thousands of years have devoted their life to serving and loving a imaginary character. This statement doesn't appears correct. Since no one can serve and love a character created in some one's imagination. No one can actually devote one's life and love to something that is imaginable that is not real. If someone comes up with a imaginary character, would you think that the entire world would start worshipping Him. Some one who is not existing will become reverential for the entire billions of people who exist now. With what rational logic did you conclude that poeple have spend their life devoting to some illusory character and an object of their fanatasies. No actual devotee of Lord Krishna will actually say like that. It's not that I'm critisizing you or annoyed with you. Rather I'm surpirsed that despite you being a devotee of Lord Narayana hasn't he ever responded to your loving sentiments for Him. Narayana whose Vow according to BG is that He incarnates to protect His devotees will not even care to respond to the love of His devotees. This looks very insensible. The very love people cherished for Lord Krishna and Lord Rama and Lord Narayan is enough a proof of their existence. It is insane to even think that human beings who are top most intelligent species will devote their minds and thoughts in love to an illusory character who has no substance, who only exists in their dreams and imagination or fantasies. I want to know with what logic did you say:

" Some poet with a great imagination may have come with this character. But that sounds terrifying to the devotees, "

>>> It doesn't sound terrifying but sounds ridiculous to the devotees and especially to those who have realized His presence partially or completely.

" and they will quickly turn away from such a possibility."

>>> Therefore they will turn away. Because it appears nonsense to them.

"Having invested so much of time and thought to Krishna, this seems unimaginable."

>>> Krishna responds to all of his devotess love call. He is present in their heart and guides them to the proper destiny.(BG 10-9-11) His presence is felt within their heart. To tell you the truth God is present in everyone's heart and all those who rendered devotional service know it. They have realized his presence. They have not dreamt about him.

"So they favor the other possibility that it must all be true. A question of faith. "

>>> They never favor any other possibility.

When we love Krishna he reciporcates. At this point I would humbly request people like SRi Jaysriradhey, Sri Jn Das , Sri Goghil and Sri Animesh and Sri Viji and others to give their views about this. Tell me that God does or doesn't responds to our love for him. What more than that can be proof of his presence ? With the feelings of one’s heart one can confirm that God exists. God is on the deepest side of our existence. In the deepest plane of our consciousness, in the core of our heart, His existence can be felt. Indeed it is a profoundly personal experience, not something for the sightseers of the mundane world. "Show me God!" and He simply dances before your eyes. It is not like that. Many things are required if we want to see God. Dear It is not unreasonable. One should first qualify Himself and then desire. "First deserve, then desire." Is there any valuable thing in this world that one can have simply upon demand? Simply saying, "I want to be rich!" Does one becomes rich? No, many things are required before that. Simply saying, "I want to be a doctor!" Does one become a doctor immediately? No. Then why should one think that the demand to see God should be met immediately? First, deserve, then desire. It is such. No human being can devote his love to some one fanciful or imaginary being. Yes a Person can continue to love some one who has been in the past. But still that person has to be existing in the past. Have you seen any sane man who has loved someone who neither has existence in past or present. Yet people all over the world continue to love God. Dear GOD RESPONDS. This proves beyond doubt that HIS existence is eternal.

But still I would like to know what did you actually mean by that. Even when God's existence can be proved in that way and you know Krishna is God himself then what do you actually mean by that statement. Do you mean that Kirshna is not God ?

That proposal that Krishna is some poet's imagination doesn't appears to be sensible because just see that suppose today I write peoms describing illusory character, who is great and very glorious nonetheless he is not real either in the past or present. But still he is object of my imagination. Then according to what you say: many people all around the world existing in my time would become so much charmed by this imaginary charater that all of them would simply devote their toime and loving sentiments to him. And this in form of a tradition they are going to pass on to the furture generations. Does this seems plausible. That many people get attached to my imagination and rather than calling my self an idiot starts worshipping the object of my imagination as God Himself. What made you think that Lord Krishna could be some poet's imagination which the whole millions of hindus would continue to accpet as the aim of their life.

Krishna as you know is not part of history as we know today.

>>> The history today as we know is mostly western dominated. You must be knowing what Max Muller and other western scholars did to Vedic scriptures by misguiding us about our own heritage & calling vedic scriptures myth etc....

There is no proof of existence of a person named Krishna during 3200 bc in India, according to archaeology and Indology.

>>> This I have already shown you. And furthermore Krishna can be seen even now only if one deserves that. This is the verdict of BG & Vedic literature.

" Even if they did uncover proof that a person like Krishna was around during that time, they cannot prove that he lifted mountains,"

>>> If at all you through personal devotion have realized him as God himself then you can very well reason out if HE can do that or not.

" or had a Sudarshana Chakra with him. I hope you see the role of faith and belief here. "

>>> If you have read BG then you would have definately come accross the verse 11.54 where he says that by devotional service you can see him as he is. So develop devotional service unto him and then desire to see him and his glory. He should Arjuna His four handed form so he shall show you also. Also what proof can you give to me that Napoleon is the person as photographs shows him?

"Not really. Alexander invaded India during the BC ages. India was very much known to Europeans by then. The Yavanas mentioned in the Puranas are supposed to be Greek kings. The Bhagavatam talks about Mlechcha [Foreign]Kings, and a Mlechcha king named Kalayavana who fights Krishna."

>>> Yes. But Bhagavatam describes them as sinful lot of people. Certainly such people will care nothing to preserve the glory of God.

" The Bhagavatam also says, during his lifetime. (??) There is absolutely no evidence of that.If a person who apparently walked on water can be so revered by the people, then how much so for a person who lifted mountains ? And he came 3000+ years before Jesus. Imagine how much his glory must have spread in all these years. "

>>> You know the first time europeans came in contact with BG was in 1785. BG was first translated into English in 1785 by Charles Wilkins. It was translated into Latin in 1823 by Schlegel, into German in 1826 by Von Humbolt, into French in 1846 by Lassens and into Greek in 1848 by Galanos. This doesn't means that BG came into existence in 17 or the 18 century. See they[europeans] didn't have knowledge of BG until very recently what knowledge they can have about Lord Krishna when Lord Krishna Himself was the speaker of BG.

"But you will not find a single line about him anywhere, in any historical record. "

>>> So now you can figure out that Europeans and others not recording Lord Krishna doesn't means that Lord Krishna was not there when BG itself was first introduced in Europe in the 18 th century.

So we have these options,

1. The date that we have about Krishna [5000 bc] is wrong. He must have lived earlier, before the other civilizations began.

>>> So as argued above Krishna's presence or absence has nothing to do with others knowing about him and keeping their record.

2. The date is correct, but he was not as famous and extra-ordinary as these books are making him out to be. They are exaggerating.

>>> If at all by means of spiritual advancement you have realized or seen Krishna in any of His form- Impersonal Brahman or all pervading Parmatma or Bhagavan His Personal feature then it wouldn't take time to know His glory. In short Krishna's glory is eternally existing. It's only we who needs to know it through proper channels. Only His devotees can know something about Him. But kindly understand that I'm not saying that you are not his devotee.

3. There was no Krishna at all.

>>> This option is totally incorrect because Krishna Himself says in BG 4.34 that Krishna can be seen by grace of those who have already seen Him.

" Coming to exaggerations, you would be surprised at how the Authors can create a whole lot out of nothing. And over time, it takes hold and gathers a lot of momentum. Radha is a good example. Some sects developed the idea of worshipping Radha, and since then there has been so much literature on Radha and her divine nature. She was elevated from the postion of a Gopika to the mother of the Universe."

>>> About this I have to ask the Gaudiya authorities. Actually the devotion to Lord Krishna in Madhurya Rasa or conjugal love has spread only recently with the advent of Lord Chaitanya. Because Lord Krishna never openly bestowed this Rasa to everyone neither did Lord Ramacandra did so we have no literature on that. Instead the dasya Rasa or sakhya rasa which was bestowed by Lord Krishna and Lord Rama we have literature about that. Become servant of God which is the greneral theme of all sacred literatures and Bhagavad Gita informing us about Krishna's friendship. But it was Lord Chaitanya who only bestowed that rasa which is only enjoyed by Laxmi devi the goddess of fortune. And He so openly did that. Krishna demanded when you surrender only then I shall according to your surrender reciprocate. But Lord chaitanya asked his disciples to go home to home and preach them about Lord Krishna's love. Without considering who is who, he distributed Love of Lord freely. Hence one of the Goswami prayed to Him calling the most munificient incarnation of God. Certainly only God Himself can bestow the kind of love that Lord chaitanya bestowed especially the one which only Laxmi devi can possess only. Radhika is the topmost amongst Gopis who knew the art of Madhurya rasa. When this rasa is being preached openly then naturally she becomes the object of utmost reverence for her having Lord Krishna captured in Her love, the way he reciprocates only with goddess of fortune. And towards the end it is very offensive to even think that glory of God is an exxageration of Human mind.

" The same may have happened to Krishna more earlier. He may have been a king with exceptional charm like Chaitanya, and over the years people may have added color to his character and glorified it. "

>>> No devotee of Lord Narayana who has actually realized Lord would say that because he very well understands Lord by the process of devotional service. If you are at all self realized or progressing on the path of self realization then you can yourself percieve the glory of Narayana or Vishnu or Krishna or Rama with the eye of Devotion.

" Another example is the American impression about India. You would be surprised to know how many Americans still think that India is full of Villages with starving people, and Snake-Charmers everywhere. That is the record they have."

>>> I'm studying in US only so I know that. Once a person[American boy] approached me and said that in India do you people go to school on elephants or by walking covering long distances. I said yes we do that but once we need to come to US we board the airplanes like Lufthansa, KLM and others. I intended that by hearing this apparently contradictory answer he would understand that things are different in India. Although I don't know what conclusion he reached.

Also although the great acaryas also cast off this material body but as a matter of respect it is said that they disappear rather than saying they died. So the word disappear doesn't means that their body disappeared but rather implies that they have disappeared from the mortal scene and gained immortality. And I see no problem with the use of the word in this way.

" The same with Jesus, Buddha, Shankara, Madhva and Chaitanya.I don't believe half the stories that we hear about them. "

>>> But as I told you that Madhva's meeting with Vyasa deva has not been questioned. Also as you pointed out that Shankara's has not been questioned and actually to tell you that also is accepted as truth. You will not find that although in India Dvaitins and Advaitins together fight on the Vedic conclusions but they never fight on the claim that either Madhva or Shankara met Vyasdeva. Certainly both were great intellects of extraordinary charm and except them there have been many people so greatly revered as authorities on Vedanta; They also accepted it. Jesus might not have been questioned by his disciples but in India if things happen say just like a commentary on Vedanta Sutra then immediately that needs to be defended against other authorities and bonafide schools of Vedanta. So if something like meeting Vyasdeva happens and if it is doubtful then there is no reason the different schools and different authorities question them. These schools of India who know to argue agianst each other on small differences and other large differences would let something of that importance like meeting with Vyasa deva go untouched. No dear friend. Dvaita and Advaita are in complete opposition to each other and yet they don't argue over this point. No vedic authrotity like Ramanuja, Lord Chaitanya, and others argued or opposed it. Rather all reverentially accepted this. Both Sankra and Madhva were people of extraordinary charm and many people find the light of vedanta in their ways. They have been great influence in the Vedic culture in our times. If they have met Vyas deva then it is not a topic of disbelief. People of their calibers can do that. And only of their caliber can do that. Also note that Ramanuja or Lord Chaitanya and others never claimed to have met Vyas deva. Yet they very reverently accepted the fact that Madhva and shankara met Vyas deva.

It's not a custom or ritual in Indian tradition that every great authority claims to have met Vyas Deva. Only two people met Him and while there have been many other great authorities on Vedanta and they never claimed like that. I repeat that they accepted that both shankara and Madhva met Vyasa although they were authorities themselves. This matter as such is not at all debatable. Everyone[all five schools of Vedanta & their followers] accepts it as such.

" We are not willing to believe the miracles of a Sathya Sai Baba who is living in our time. For all we know, 500 years later, he may be revered as an Acharya who performed miracles, who was an Avatar and who finally 'disappeared'."

>>> Sathya Sai baba's miracle is doubtful in itself. He is as such surrounded by controversy and many such things. He doesn't at all come into category of Madhva and others. And until any sane man is there on earth He[sai baba] won't be pictured as you have proposed.

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Hare Krishna

Please accept obesiances unto your lotus feet.

My dear Shivji and other dear friends

I'm very heartily pleased to announce the following:

The Scientific proof of Vedic Civilization & Krishna's Dvaraka

http://www.probys.com/sarasvati/

Krishna's Dwaraka:

An excerpt from the article on the site:

" The evidence from Dvaraka excavation is compatible with that of Krishna's Dvaraka described in MBH and Harivamsa in regard to physiographical features, location, town plan, and high level of civilization. "

Just I did this for increasing the curiosity.

Kindly visit this site for more detail:

http://www.orientalthane.com/speeches/srrao/1.htm

http://www.vina.org/articles/lost_city_of_dvaraka.html

http://www.vedamsbooks.com/no14243.htm

http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Dwarka.htm

I hope this is interesting to everyone.

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare.

Chant and be happy.

All glories to Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga.

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Hare Krsna!!!

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

First I would like to mention about Jesus Questions you put to me.

" Do you believe that Jesus was the only true son of God, as the Bible says ?"

>>> Understanding that God is unlimited God must possess unlimited number of Sons.

So I do beleive that Jesus is one of them.

Do you believe that he walked on water

>>> Yes there is a mystic siddhi mentioned in the Bhagavat which talks about the Mystic yogi becoming lighter than the lightest. Jesus being a mystic could have done that.

and came back from the dead ?

>>> Yes. God the Lord of death and life could have done that if he so willed.

About Krishna:

Dear whether other civilizations knew it or not depends on the connectivity between them. See when the europeans started to visit India then these people came in contact with the indian culture and belief system. Then only they came to know about Lord Krishna and things related. You must be knowing from history that only after the period of Renaisance the when the Europeans dared to undergo Voyages then only they discovered other continents and and soon the world came to know each other and their belief. About Krishna being a poet's imagination. Let me say what proof you had of Napoleon's or for that any other medivial famous personality existence ?

Today this topic is being discussed between me and you. I know that you exist and I exist. And you record your existence in an biography. Suppose men 500 years from now got the book written by you. A person like you, revealed to them by the book: There is two possibilities. Either book is wrong or that book is right ie is either you existed or you didn't exist. Either of the two answers that the people 500 years from now can accept to be true. Look from this perspective. That it is an irrefutable fact in space and time that a person by your name existed around 2000 AD. It is a fact. You know that you are there. It is not that your existence is not a fact. That would be silly to think of. So the reality is that you exist in 2000 AD. Now make yourself a man of 2500 AD. And just imagine yourself to be the person who found your biography. Now for Him if he uses statistical laws, then they won't give accurate picture of the reality. Because what they say that you existed or not existed. Now see for that man if He applies the statistics or probability then either he will deny your existence or he will accept it. But in the year 2000 AD you exist. This is reality. This is the truth. It's not fantasy.

So the reality is that you existed. Despite the fact you existed the statistical laws when applied in the year 2500 AD for year 2000 AD allow the possibility that you never existed. But this is absolutely wrong. You exist in year 2000 AD. Therefore they fail to give the real picture of the reality in 2000 AD. Hence they are imperfect and wrong. They are misguiding also. They can never give a picture of reality. So I cannot accept them. So now in such a circumstance that future person should either accept the fact that you existed in the year 2000 AD or He should become totally indiffirent to that. But if under the impression of statistics He denies your existence then, you can see yourselve whether he is wroong or right. So it is not at all intelligent to deny someone's existence who existed in the previous times.

One more thing that your sayings didn't appear outrageous to me.

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Hare Krsna!!!

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

" 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 guess you don't know that Achyuta Prakash ji was a mayavadi. Soon afterward, when his guru attempted to educate him, he astounded the former by his knowledge. It is said that when his guru tried to teach him the noted Advaita text IshhTa-Siddhi, he pointed out, to Achyutapreksha Tîrtha's amazement, that there were 30 errors in the very first line of that work, where its author Vimuktâtman pays obeisance to himself by saying something like: "The only truth is the soul's empirical knowledge. In the presence of this truth the world appears to be an illusory play. The essential soul manifests itself as I, you and everything..." It was this profound knowledge of all subjects that earned him the title of "PûrNa-pragnya," for "the one of complete wisdom." The initially discomfited but finally greatly pleased Achyutapreksha Tîrtha soon gave up trying to educate the master, and himself made a full conversion to Tattvavâda, under the name Purushottama Tîrtha.

So Achutya ji was not able to instruct Madhva. And on the other hand Vyasa Deva instructed Madhva. So Although Madhva was given initiation by Acyuta ji, the Gaudiya Vaisnavas place more stress on the relationship between Madhva and Vyasadeva. This is because the siksa he acquired from Vyasa was of more importance from the transcendental perspective than that which he accepted from Acyuta Praksacarya.

Furthermore there was no contemparary of Madhvacarya who debated this or not accepted this. It was accepted as fact then. Madhva is not "some" Guru. In our times his place is regarded as one of the greatest acaryas of Vedanta. And also no scholar has ever debated this issue. There is no doubt about that. All acharyas since the time of Madhva, although greatly learned in Vedanta accepted this. No one ever gave any evidence refuting this. So it is undebatle despite your non-believing which you are free to do and I fully respect. For anything there are two possibilities that either they are wrong or right. But why an acarya of status of Madhva would lie. To consider this as lie. One is offending a Pure Vaishnava. And the other option is that either we beleive it or simply reamian indifferent. Try to analyse:

in 13th Century. Madhva made trip to Badrikaasram. No one then denied that he hadn't. No contemparary says that Madhva lied. All accepted it as a fact. This is the proof. Had it been debatable then the debate would have been mentioned in the history. But we find no such debate regarding Madhva.

No acarya or scholar debated this. Neither do the authentic sources - historian point out that at some time any such debate occured. Neither were you there nor was I there. But those who were there never debated. Those after them never debated. No one ever came up with any evidence refuting it. Hence it is truth. Because had there been any thing wrong ? there were many scholars and acaryas who came after Madhva and there were many others who were present at the time of Madhva. But they nerve debated. They never said that Madhva you are lieing. This is the proof.

And about Advaita. We shall discuss it under a seperat topic so that other interested may contribute.

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Hare Krishna

Please Accept my obesiances unto you lotus feet.

Dear Shivji

Don't worry I didn't find your statements blasphenmous. Dear a vaishnava never expects any personal honor yet is ready to give all respect to all other creatures. A vaishnava only speaks when Supreme Lord's or His pure devotee is being blasphemous. Still he must show tolerance, respect and mercy.

" About Madhva and Vyasa, it is more a question of faith and I will not argue with that.."

>>> Again my point was not clear I guess. Dear it is not at all a "question of faith ". Srila Madhva is Srila Vyasadeva's

disciple. If you have a disciple and you have written a book, won't you provide your disciple with your own book ? So why not Vyasa will provide Madhva with Bhagavata that He composed rather than leaving Madhva write a commentary on a bogus version. This is disciplic succession. It is as simple as that. It is very reasonable and perfectly logical but I don't uunderstand that why you call it a question of faith. Also if you have some doubts regarding Bhagavta's style then kindly contact some bonafide highly advanced Gaudiya acarya for clarification of your doubts.

About avatars you must wait. Since I have to consult higher authorities for that matter.

" 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. "

>>> About those things we shall discuss later. They are of secondary imporatnce when compared to:

Discussion on

1)Advaita Vedanta.

2)Lord Krishna

3)And Transcendental form of God.

4)Authorization of Brahma Samhita.

which we are presently having.

" As for the Advaita part, you have come up with quotes directly from the Shruti. So that clarifies things that Shruti does support Advaita. "

>>> I just wrote them so that you could tell me if I have any knowledge about Advaita or not. Since you know Advaita I just wanted to confirm whether the knowledge I possessed was correct or not. Also this knowledge I got from Gaudiya Acaryas. They very well know what Advaita is. Also since you arE LIBERAL MINDED PERSON i WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS adviata with you based on knowledge from Gaudiya acaryas, Swami Vivekanda and general advaitic tenets. Do you agree ?

Dear I would put what my knowledge about what Advaita is and what personal problem I have encountered in understanding it. Since you know advaita I think your company might be good enough for me to clarify my doubts at least to some extent.

As for now I have a question for you-

" Advaita is the name given to the philosophy where, the soul [Jiva] becomes one with Brahman during enlightenment."

>>> Yes. As far as I have heard it Advaitins say that considering atman different from God is our illusion. The ignorance is that we consider ourselves different from God. When we are fixed in realization of oneness[at time enlightenment] then all illusion disappears and we merge back into God the Absolute. That is we become God. Am I correct ?

" 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. "

>>> So is that we[i , you, Mr. Goghil and others] all are God the Brahman the Greatest The Absolute. There is no " REAL " difference between me and God. I"M ATMAN. ATMAN IS BRAHMAN. SO I'M BRAHMAN OR GOD HIMSELF. Isn't that the basis of Advaitic philosophy ?

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Hare Krishna

Accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet

Kindly don't think that I'm abusing you.

Please don't think that way. If you would still think then I fall prostate at your feet and beg for mercy. Please forgive me. I don't give any sort of trouble to any person.

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.

So that sort of a comment looks to me absurd from my point of view. You must realize my view as well. If it at all my view is wrong then I shall correct myself. See right now you haven't proven my view to be wrong. Still since I have unknowingly pinched you by some way and I'm now itself begging for mercy then why not if you win I shall accept your view and ask for more mercy. Kindly don't think like that.

About Advaita that I will discuss in detail:

For now just tell me if I'm correct or not:

Advaita is wholly based on:

1)Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 1.4.10:

"I am Brahman".

2)Chandogya Upanisad 6.8.7:

"You are that."

3)Aitareya Upanisad 1.5.3:

"Brahman is consciousness."

4)ayamAtmA brahma" (muNDaka)

And about Bhagavata please listen again:

Veda Vyasa ji's direct disciple is Madhva.

Madhva was initiated by Vyasa. Vyasa ji instructed Him. So Madhva truly would know which is that Bhagavat written by Vyasadeva his own spiritual master from whom he has taken initiation. You must be knowing that Madhva on disappearnce got transfered to Badrika asram where he still lives with Veda Vyasa. Dear Madhva was initiated by Vyasa and instructed by Vyasa to do things. Vyasa is Madhva's spiritual master. Madhva has that real Bhagavat with him because of this only. He personally met Vyasa and took initiation from him and then would go comment on the bhagavat not by His spiritual master. Vyasa being the the incarnation of Narayana know what Madhva is doing? So Vyasa won't allow Him to do that. Especially when after disappearing from material sight Madhva continues to live with Vyasadeva.You know Vyasa would have told him if Bhagavat would have been changed and asked him to comment on the correct one or hand him the correct version if he didn't have one. Again Vyasa is his spiritual master. So how could Madhva didn't have the original Bhagavat of Vyasadeva. Therefore I say although Bhagavat outside the disciplic succession would have changed but within the discplic succession it was always preserved and the Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradya passess from Vyasa to Madhva. And Vyasa being the writer of Bhagavat would have ensured that Madhva His disciple has the correct bhagavta the one which is SPOTLESS. Otherwise Vyasa will become responsible for breaking the disciplic succession. That is UNIMAGINABLE.

About that Chandogya reference you could be correct because I cut paste that one from a site where it could have been printed.

No problem with that.

And lastly:

" Makes me a real rascal. doesn't it ?

I guess I am destined to rot in hell for that."

You were wrong to think like that. I don't think that way. Because I know all of us lack perfection. So all of us are prone to commiting mistakes at lotus feet of Supreme Lord. But as long as one is a devotee like you and me and others here then it would not be a problem since Lord kindly forgives any offenses his devotee commits unknowingly. That is my way of thinking. I know Krishna to be all - merciful. You being a devotee can never go to hell. I will put myself in that condition if I began to think like that.

Hope that this meets you well. When I said that all incarnations I meant to say the prominent ones. Which is Lord Himself. Not the Saktyavesa incarnations which flow infinitely from him. For this I have to also ask the higher authorities so after some time I will let you know.

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Hare Krishna

Please accept obesiances unto your lotus feet.

The intent of this post is to further enlighten about Brahma sampradya specifically.

Kindly follow the following link:

http://members.nbci.com/hknetworks/guru-paramp-1page.htm

Also in addition to the list please note that Brahma was the person who taught everyone he created since at that time only Brahma possesed the Vedic knowledge in fullness due to grace of Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna. So if any sage produced of Brahma needed knowledge they got it from Brahma only . Again I repeat there was only Brahma in the starting who possessed Vedic knowldege. The four Kumars, Sri Narada,Parvat Muni, Atharva and other great sages and others got knowledge from Him only. Then these sages after being enlightened by Brahma spread the same knowledge to other sages. So even the Sapta Rishis like Angira, Vasishta and others, the prajapatis and Manus are part of our sampradya. Remember from Bhagavad Gita 4.1-2 tells us about Manu, and saintly knigs to be in our sampradya. Also Vasistha was SUpreme Personality of godhead Lord Rama's Guru so he couldn't tell Ramacandra anything different from what Ramacandra had earlier[at creation] explained. Also Rishi Muni Parashar father of Vyasdeva was our sampradya. So my saying is only this that IF THERE WAS ANY VEDIC KNOWLEDGE IN STARTING THEN IT WAS WITH BRAHMA WHICH HE TOKD TO MANY OF HIS SONS AND ANY KNOWLEDGE THAT SPREAD OUT FROM BRAHMA's DISCIPLE WAS AGAIN BELONGING TO THE SAME SAMPRADYA.What vedic scriptures say:

so 'ham samamnayamayas tapomayah prajapatinam abhivanditah patih asthaya yogam nipunam samahitas tam nadhyagaccham yata atma-sambhavah

sah aham--myself (the great Brahma); samamnaya-mayah--in the chain of disciplic succession of Vedic wisdom; tapah-mayah--successfully having undergone all austerities; prajapatinam--of all the forefathers of living entities; abhivanditah--worshipable; patih--master; asthaya--successfully practiced; yogam--mystic powers; nipunam--very expert; samahitah--self-realized; tam--the Supreme Lord; na--did not; adhyagaccham--properly understood; yatah--from whom; atma--self; sambhavah--generated.

" Although I am known as the great Brahma, perfect in the disciplic succession of Vedic wisdom, and although I have undergone all austerities and am an expert in mystic powers and self-realization, and although I am recognized as such by the great forefathers of the living entities, who offer me respectful obeisances, still I cannot understand Him, the Lord, the very source of my birth. "(SB 2.6.35)

Furthermore is there any evidence in the Vedas that Brahma taught disciples?

Yes. There is. In the Mundaka Upanisad (1.1.1) it is said:

"Brahma, who is the first demigod, the creator of the universe, the protector of the worlds, spoke knowledge of the Supreme, the first of all kinds of knowledge, to his eldest son, Artharva."

There it is also said (Mundaka Upanisad 1.2.13):

"Brahma taught him the science of the eternal Supreme Person."

Also in the Gopal Tapani Upanisad(1.2):

" Om. Some sages said to the demigod Brahma: "Who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead? Whom does death fear? By knowing whom does everything else become known? Who created this world. "

Hope that this meets you well

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Hare Krishna

Kindly Accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet

There is one mistake that I made:

"The Brahma Vaivarta Purana is the most recent one of them all, with a distinctly different style from the other Puranas.

>>> It is atleast more than 500-600 years old since Lord Chaitanya quoted from it.

It is one of the Upa Purans. "

I wrongly called Brahma Vaivarta Puran an Upa puran. It's one of the 18 recognised Purans.

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Hare Krishna

All glories to Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga

" However remember that the earliest Acharyas Shankara ....."

>>>Shankara could not have refered to bhagavat because his advait philosophy is not actually supported by Srimad bhagavatam neither does the Sruti supports it.

" As for refernces to the Bhagavatam in other Puranas, these Puranas are more recent than the Bhagavata. "

>>> I fully respect your personal claim but it still has to be substantiated by words of Sastra's or bonafide acaryas. Also if some book calls itself great that doesn't means that it is wrong or false. However it is an irrefutable fact that Bhagavat is great so it talks like that.

" 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."

>>> 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."

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 Gautamiya Tantra also explains:

"The transcendental goddess Srimati Radharani is the direct counterpart of Lord Sri Krishna. She is the central figure for the goddess of fortune. She possesses all the attractiveness to attract the all-attractive Personality of Godhead. She is the primeval internal potency of the Lord."

Also,

Brihad-Gautamiya Tantra,which states, "Sri Radhika is the Supreme Goddess. Her very nature is Krishna, for her very existence is permeated by Krishna. Therefore she is known as Krishnamayi or one who is full of Krishna. She is known as Paradevata, for she is the Supreme Goddess. All other goddesses are subordinate to her. She is the Supreme Lakshmi and her transcendental effulgence surpasses all conceptions of brilliance. She is the supreme enchantress, for she enchants Krishna Himself, who is capable of charming millions of cupids."

The Brahma Vaivarta Purana is the most recent one of them all, with a distinctly different style from the other Puranas.

>>> It is atleast more than 500-600 years old since Lord Chaitanya quoted from it.

It is one of the Upa Purans.

" Brahma only tells the creation part to Narda and tells him to develop the Bhagavata. Then Vyasa added to it,"

>>> Supreme Personality of Godhead Narayana told Brahma Srimad Bhagavatam in fourslokas.

Then Brahma explained the Bhagavata based on the Vedic knowledge he acquired from Lord Himself. This vedic texts are apurseya not composed by humans. So he never whimsically eplained Srimad Bhagavat. Narada learned all the Vedic knowledge from Brahma and he told the same to Lord Vyasa, Supreme Personality of Godhead. Then Veda Vyasa ji expanded it into 18000 verses based on Vedanta and not whimsically. Since then Bhagavatam remains as it is. Madhvacarya after taking initiation from Lord Vyasa himself wrote commentary on Bhagavatam. If the Bhagavata on which he wrote commentary was changed or edited then Vyas deva his spiritual master would have never askjed to comment on Bhagavat. Madhvaacarya never said that Bhagavtam has been changing since Srila Vyasa ji wrote it. Neither did Madhvacarya edited Bhagavatam. The sound Vibration coming out of Lord is non-different from Lord Himself since Lord is Absolute. We know from the Sastras that Lord is simultaneously greater than the greatest and yet smaller than the smallest. In the Svetasvatara Upanisad (3.9) it is said:

"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."

In the same way the non-different words of Lord can be explained in four verses and also simultaneously in four billion verses, without changing them. This is due to inconcievable nature of the Absolute Person which constitutes His glory. And we know this glory of Him to be unlimited. So Srimad Bhagavat remains as such passed safely in disciplic succession although bhagavat outside the protection of Disciplic succession might had gone changes or editions.

" and then it has constantly been revised by others to arrive at the present form."

>>> No one added or subtracted from Bhagavat.

Atleast in the disciplic succession.

" 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, "

>>> You wait for that I will prove the authenticity of Brahma Samhita based on infallible sruti sastra.and i will show you the beautiful harmony between Vedanta commentary , Bhagavat, Sruti-Upanisad and 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."

>>> This is very absurd comment and under wrong impression you are offending the Supreme Personality of godhead[Lord Chaitanya] Himself.

" 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. "

>>> All the incarnations of Lord has been decribed in Vedas itself. There is no scope for an impostor to come and claim. You have already gone through Mr. JN Das ji's posting. And also seen the link I provided still can you disbelief. It is the word of Sruti and Supplemenatry Vedic literature. Still you would disbelieve. Dear in a seperate posting I will talk about that matter. Not now since that is off-topic.

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Hare Krishna

Kindly accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

Bhagavatam is a Spotless Vedic authority.

You may not be aware of the fact that Vedic knowledge comes in Disciplic successions. There are four Bonafide disciplic successions which disseminates the vedic knowledge.

"Visnuswami, Madhvacarya, Ramanuja and Nimbaditya will appear respectively as a portion of Vamana, Brahma, Ananta Sesha and Sanaka Kumara."

Garga Samhita, Canto 10, chapter 61, verse 24

It is verified in Garga Samhita:

vamanas vidih sesah sanako visnu vakyatah

dharmartha hetave caite bhavisyanti dvijah kalau

" Vamana, Brahma, Ananta Sesha and Sanaka Kumara will appear as brahmanas by the order of Visnu, for the preservation of eternal righteousness in kali yuga. "

visnuswami vamanangsastatha madhvastu brahmanah ramanujastu sesangsa nimbaditya sanakasya ca

" Visnuswami, Madhvacarya, Ramanuja and Nimbaditya will appear respectively as a portion of Vamana, Brahma, Ananta Sesha and Sanaka Kumara. "

ete kalau yuge bhavyah sampradaya pravartakah

samvatsare vikrama catvarah ksiti pavanah

" These four saviours will be the establishers of the four authorised and empowered spiritual channels of disciplic succession in the period calculated from the reign of King Vikrama in 54 B.C. subsequently through the 432,000 year cycle of kali yuga. "

sampradaya vihina ye mantraste nisphalah smritah tasmacca gamanang hyasti sampradaya narairapi

" These four authorised and empowered spiritual channels of disciplic succession are to be fully accepted by all beings; as any word, combination of words or formulation of sound frequencies, invoked or addressed, audible or inaudible, secret or revealed, ancient or contemporary outside their auspices prove to have absolutely no efficacy."

Garga Samhita, Canto 10, chapter 61, verses 23, 24, 25, 26

Furthermore In Padam Puran it is verified that:

" Unless you are initiated by a bona-fide spiritual master in the disciplic succession, the mantra that you might have received is without any effect. The four Vaishnava disciplic successions, beginning from Laksmi-devi, Brahma, Shiva and Sanaka Kumara, have purified the entire world. "

Furthermore in Nawadwipa Dham Mahatmaya it is stated that:

" With a sweet smile on his face Sanat Kumara then said, "The all-merciful Supreme Personality of Godhead, knowing that Kali-yuga will be extremely troublesome for the living entities, resolved to proagate devotional service to Himself. With this goal in mind, He has empowered four personalities with devotion and sent them into this world to preach. Ramanuja, Madhva, and Vishnuswami are three and you are the fourth of these great souls. Lakshmi accepted Ramanuja as a disciple, Brahma accepted Madhva, Rudra a ccepted Vishnuswami and meeting you today we have the good fortune of being able to instruct you. This is our intention. "

So Vedic truths are preserved in the Disciplic Succession. Bhagavatam is a heart beat of Gaudiyas and all the vaishnava sampradyas. To tell you about our Brahma Sampradya:

You might be aware of that Madhavacarya took initiation from VedaVyasa the incarnation of Supreme Personality of Godhead Narayana Himself. This incident occured in 13th century A.D. Vyasa Deva the original writer of Srimad Bhagavatam initiated Madhvacarya. Below is Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya

LORD KRISHNA[supreme Personality of Godhead]

Brahma

Narada Muni

Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa[supreme Personality of Godhead]

Madhvacarya[Vyas Deva initiated him]

Padmanabha

Narahari

Madhava

Aksobhya

Jayatirtha

Jnanasindhu

Dayanidhi

Vidyanidhi

Rajendra

Jayadharma

Purusottama

Brahmanyatirtha

Vyasatirtha

Laksmipati

Nityananda Prabhu[supreme Personality of Godhead], Madhavendra Puri

Advaita Acarya[supreme Personality of Godhead], Isvara Puri

SRI KRISHNA CAITANYA MAHAPRABHU[supreme Personality of Godhead]

Svarupa Damodara, Sanatana Goswami

Rupa Goswami

Jiva Goswami, Ragunatha Goswami

Krishna das Kaviraj

Narottama

Visvanatha Cakravarti

Baladeva Vidyabhusana

Uddharan Dasa

Madhusudana Dasa

Jagannatha das Babaji

Bhaktivinode Thakura

Gaura Kishore das Babaji

Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Prabhupada

Bhakti Prajnana Keshava, Bhaktivedanta Swami

Bhaktivedanta Vamana, Bhaktivedanta Narayana

To tell you the truth this sampradya is 155 trillion years old. Since Lord VyasDeva's spiritual master was Narada Muni himself who got knowlegde from his father Brahma who inturn got Knoweledge from Lord Krishna Supreme Personality of Godhead, we mention our Guru acaryas from Brahma to Narada to Vyasdeva to Madhavacarya. Efforts are to include all prominent acaryas in the sampradya.

Lord Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is none but that self same eternal Supreme Lord Krishna in mood and complexion of Srimati Radhika. Lord Nityananada Prabhu is self same Supreme Lord Balarama and Advaita Acarya is none but Supreme Personality of Godhead, Maha Vishnu. They all are Parmesvara or Absolute Truth belonging to the Vishnu-tattva. IT IS THE WORD OF LORD KRISHNA CHAITANYA THAT SRIMAD BHAGAVATAM IS A SPOTLESS AUTHORITY ON VEDANTA. Lord Krishna Himself has verified this just some 500 years ago. May be Bhagavatam with all the unauthorised people outside the four sampradyas may be edited, interpolated but the real Bhagavatam is preserved only within the Disciplic succession.

Then why did Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu accept only the doctrine of Sri Madhvacarya?

A. The special characteristic of Madhvacarya's doctrine is that it very clearly defeats the faulty mistakes of the advaita philosophy. By maintaining this forceful position, the distress caused by the impersonal philosophy is cast very far away. Therefore, in order to bring about safe and sure benefit for the unfortunate conditioned souls who are weakened from the onslaughts of Kali-Yuga, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu accepted the doctrine of Sri Madhvacarya. But by doing so He did not minimize the importance of the other three vaishnava doctrines whatsoever. Whichever type of savisesa-vada (philosophy of eternal distinction) one accepts is just fine, for it will certainly bring eternal auspiciousness.

Sri Gaurahari took two important aspects from the teachings of each of the four sampradayas to explain, through the Dharma of the Sankirtana movement, His ultimate panacea of acintya bhedabheda philosophy. It is very clear that all the preceptors who preached the various aspects of the Absolute Truth before Sri Chaitanya are all subordinate to Him and their teachings and conclusions are incorporated, illuminated and brought to a completed state in Sri Gaurahari's teaching of Prema Dharma. (Sri Gaurahari's own words as quoted by Sri Jiva Goswami)

"From Madhva I will take two essential teachings; his complete rejection and defeat of the Mayavadi philosophy and his service to the deity of Krishna accepting Him as an eternal spiritual personality. From Ramanuja I will accept two teachings; the concept of devotional service, unpolluted by karma and jnana, and service to the devotees. From Vishnuswami]s teachings I will accept two elements; the sentiment of exclusive dependence on Krishna and the path of raga-marga or spontaneous devotion. From Nimbarka, I will take two very important principles; the necessity of taking shelter of Srimati Radharani and the high esteem of the gopi's love for Krishna."

It was He[Lord Chaitanya] only who predicted that this Krishna Sankirtan of Him will spread to each and every part of the globe. At present we have seen that through hard work of Pure devotees of Supreme Person the sankirtan is spreading to all parts of the globe. I would like to present what Lord Krishna had talked with mother ganges just before departing for His own abode Goloka.

http://www.indiadivine.com/brahma-vaivarta-purana1.htm

This very same Sri Krishna preached Hari bhakti as Lord Chaitanya.

Dear until there remains the disciplic succession unbroken the Vedic texts cannot be changed. The Vedas, Vedangas, Vedanta, and other scriptures have been passed down unchanged from an ancient time, carefully preserved by the disciplic succession. Nothing has been changed or added to the scripture under the care of the disciplic succession. Therefore no one should doubt that the Vedas and other scriptures that are accepted by the bona-fide disciplic succession are authentic. There is a great need for a bona-fide disciplic succession. Therefore from the earliest time the great saints have followed the bona-fide disciplic succession.

Dear with Lord Krishn Himself blessing the earth with His lotus feet just 450 years ago how could such interpolation have taken place. YA! outside the sampradyas people could have done anything but the genuine Vedic knowledge is passed down in the unbroken disciplic succession. If there is problem then Lord Himself takes care of the Sampradya.

Hope that this meets you well

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Hare Krsna!!!

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

I would like to state something about the authenticity of Srimad Bhagavatam.

The very word " Srimad Bhagavatam " means the "Divine Revelation".

What is Bhagavatam ?

idam bhagavatam nama puranam brahma-sammitam uttama-sloka-caritam cakara bhagavan rsih nihsreyasaya lokasya dhanyam svasty-ayanam mahat

" This Srimad-Bhagavatam is the literary incarnation of God, and it is compiled by Srila Vyasadeva, the incarnation of God. It is meant for the ultimate good of all people, and it is all-successful, all-blissful and all-perfect. "(SB 1.3.40)

FOCUS ON: " brahma-sammitam " meaning " literary incarnation of God ".

dharmah projjhita-kaitavo 'tra paramo nirmatsaranam satam vedyam vastavam atra vastu sivadam tapa-trayonmulanam srimad-bhagavate maha-muni-krte kim va parair isvarah sadyo hrdy avarudhyate 'tra krtibhih susrusubhis tat-ksanat

" Completely rejecting all religious activities which are materially motivated, this Bhagavata Purana propounds the highest truth, which is understandable by those devotees who are fully pure in heart. The highest truth is reality distinguished from illusion for the welfare of all. Such truth uproots the threefold miseries. This beautiful Bhagavatam, compiled by the great sage Vyasadeva [in his maturity], is sufficient in itself for God realization. What is the need of any other scripture? As soon as one attentively and submissively hears the message of Bhagavatam, by this culture of knowledge the Supreme Lord is established within his heart. "(SB 1.1.2)

nigama-kalpa-taror galitam phalam suka-mukhad amrta-drava-samyutam pibata bhagavatam rasam alayam muhur aho rasika bhuvi bhavukah

" O expert and thoughtful men, relish Srimad-Bhagavatam, the mature fruit of the desire tree of Vedic literatures. It emanated from the lips of Sri Sukadeva Gosvami. Therefore this fruit has become even more tasteful, although its nectarean juice was already relishable for all, including liberated souls. " (SB 1.1.3)

krsne sva-dhamopagate dharma-jnanadibhih saha kalau nasta-drsam esa puranarko 'dhunoditah

" This Bhagavata Purana is as brilliant as the sun, and it has arisen just after the departure of Lord Krsna to His own abode, accompanied by religion, knowledge, etc. Persons who have lost their vision due to the dense darkness of ignorance in the age of Kali shall get light from this Purana." (SB 1.3.43)

tad idam grahayam asa sutam atmavatam varam sama-vedetihasanam saram saram samuddhrtam

" Sri Vyasadeva delivered it to his son, who is the most respected among the self-realized, after extracting the cream of all Vedic literatures and histories of the universe. "(SB 1.3.41)

sa tu samsravayam asa maharajam pariksitam prayopavistam gangayam paritam paramarsibhih

" Sukadeva Gosvami, the son of Vyasadeva, in his turn delivered the Bhagavatam to the great Emperor Pariksit, who sat surrounded by sages on the bank of the Ganges, awaiting death without taking food or drink. "(SB 1.3.42)

So Bhagavatam is doubtlessly existing from time of Maharaj Pariksit[5000 B.C.]

Origin of Bhagavatam ?

tasma idam bhagavatam puranam dasa-laksanam proktam bhagavata praha pritah putraya bhuta-krt

" Thereupon the supplementary Vedic literature, Srimad-Bhagavatam, which was described by the Personality of Godhead and which contains ten characteristics, was told with satisfaction by the father [brahma] to his son Narada. "(SB 2.9.44)

naradah praha munaye sarasvatyas tate nrpa dhyayate brahma paramam vyasayamita-tejase

" In succession, O King, the great sage Narada instructed Srimad-Bhagavatam unto the unlimitedly powerful Vyasadeva, who meditated in devotional service upon the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Absolute Truth, on the bank of the River Sarasvati. "( SB 2.9.45)

Those who say Bhagavatam has recent origin must check that there is reference to this Puran in the oldest Puran Matsya Puran as well in Garuda Puran :

Garuda Puran says:

artho yam brahma-sutranam bharatartha-vinirnayah gayatribhasya-rupo sau vedartha-paribrmhitah grantho stadasa-sahasrah srimad-bhagavatabhidhah

" The Srimad Bhagavatam is the authorised explanation of Brahma Sutra(Vedanta Sutra), and it is a further explanation of Mahabharata. It is the expansion of the Gayatri mantra and the essence of all Vedic knowledge. This Srimad Bhagavatam containing eighteen thousand verses, is known as the explanation of all Vedic literature. "

Matsya Puran says

"That which contains many narration of spiritual instructions, begins with the gayatri mantra and also conatins the history of Vrtrasura is known as Srimad Bhagavatam.Whoever makes a gift of this great work on a full moon day attains the highest perfection of life and goes back to Godhead."

Padma Puran conatins reference to Srimad Bhagavatam during a conversation between Maharaj Ambarisa and Gautama.

Furthermore Lord Krishna Himself as Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has personally verified this through living what Bhagavatam says. He told that this scripture is the natural explanation of Vedanta-Sutra written by the author[srila Vyasdeva] Himself. Hence Bhagavatam is considered a spotless authority on Vedic knowledge. I didn't want to make this long so I excluded other verses which could be presented here substantiating the above conclusion.

Hope that this meets well.

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Hare Krishna

Accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

Since people are talking about the Vedic links with modern science I would reccomend that you all go refer to this site for very interesting information on this topic:

http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ghi/books.html

ESPECIALLY check out the Mysteries of Sacred Universe.

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

All Glories to Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga!!!

Jai Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu

In addition to that kindly check this also:

http://www.islandnet.com/krsna/pancha/caitanya/simhera.htm

JNDas ji well done. Nothing is more heartening than what you have posted.

Accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

sri-krsna-caitanya prabhu-nityananda

sri-advaita gadadhara srivasadi-gaura-bhakta-vrnda

" I offer my obeisances to Sri Krsna Caitanya, Prabhu Nityananda, Sri Advaita, Gadadhara, Srivasa and all others in the line of devotion. "

hare krsna hare krsna, krsna krsna hare hare

hare rama hare rama, rama rama hare hare.

With Love

Your Servant always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

Hare Krishna!!

Dear goghil

Vishnu-Tattva actually means the status or category of God. Vishnu is Personality of God and any one whose PERSONALITY in principal or by nature is similar to God (Vishnu) actually belongs to the vishnu-tattva or status or category of being God. This is how the meaning of Vishnu-tattva is understood. As described in the verse BG 8.9 and BG 10.12-13 that is the nature of the Supreme Person(Vishnu, Krishna, Rama......) and He whose PERSONALITY is like this is actually belonging to Vishnu-tattva or Supreme Reality. For eg Lord Ramacandra is Supreme Personality of godhead so is Lord Krishna and so is any vishnu-murti. They all are parmesvara or Supreme Controller.

Hope that this meets you well.

With love

Your Servant always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Hare Krishna

Also please note the following from the same Manu-Samhita:

Chapter 3 verse (55-60)

" Women must be honoured and adorned by their fathers, brothers, husbands, and brothers-in-law, who desire (their own) welfare. Where women are honoured, there the gods are pleased; but where they are not honoured, no sacred rite yields rewards.

Where the female relations live in grief, the family soon wholly perishes; but that family where they are not unhappy ever prospers. The houses on which female relations, not being duly honoured, pronounce a curse, perish completely, as if destroyed by magic. Hence men who seek (their own) welfare, should always honour women on holidays and festivals with (gifts of) ornaments, clothes, and (dainty) food.

In that family, where the husband is pleased with his wife and the wife with her husband, happiness will assuredly be lasting. "

So see there are outright commands that those who seek their own welfare should always honor woman with ornaments and clothes and alos if your want any grace of god to come upon you better honor woman and see that they are happy. It is said above that that house in which woman renmains unhappy certainly perishes as if destroyed by magic. So happiness of woamn is the key to the household according to Manu. They must be honored. Although Manu asks the woman to remain faithful and chaste and loyal to their husbands he also warns the man that if at all he wants his welfare he must be careful to avoid giving misery to woman. He clearly speaks that no God is pleased with him who displeases woman. No sacred rite yield fruit where woman is in greif. Certainly Manu respects woman very much. So it would be wrong if we offend the progenitor of the entire Mankind in this way. He is our forefather and we all must have respect for Him. We are like his sons and daughter and none should entertain any offensive or abusive remarks for such a person. Again I'm not against anyone specifically but Manu being a learned sage, progenitor of Mankind and empowered manifestation of Lord Himself has to respected by every person in the society.

With Love

Your servant always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Dear Shivji

Accept my obeisances unto your lotus feet.

shvu : There is no mention of a Transcendental form here. I would like to see some reference to some verse where Krishna or Narayana talks about him possessing a transcendetal form. Please note that nature does not mean form.

True although there is no mention of Transcendental form here but my point was that since living beings in this material world or under control of material nature have material forms so why not Narayana or Krishna living in transcendental nature would have a transcendental form and not a material one. After all this material world is composed of five gross elements and so on... and it is they that makes our form. Our materila body is made up of these material elements existing in the material nature. Juist like the material world exist and is full of material forms why cannot when a transcendental world exist it can be full of transcendental forms ?

However for your reference there is a specific verse in Holy Gita:

" One who meditates on the omniscient, primordial, the controller, smaller than the smallest, yet the maintainer of everything, whose form is inconcievable, resplendent like the sun and totally transcendental to material nature." (BG 8.9)

You see this verse:

acintya-rupam aditya-varnam tamasah parastat

Focus on the word "rupam" used there. Here Sri Krishna is explicitly refering to the form of God the Supreme Person. And what he says the most appropriate word that one could ever use "acintya". This word means:

Acintya means that which is beyond this material world, that which our argument, logic and philosophical speculation cannot touch, that which is "inconceivable".

So form of God is like that. Lord Krishna continues and tells us that "aditya-varnam" meaning resplendent like sun and then continues " tamasah parastat " meaning beyond the darkness of material world or simply transcendental to material conception. Hence although it is difficult for us to imagine as indicated by the word "acintya" yet still God possesses a Transcendental form as confirmed in the verse above.

Hope that this meets you well.

With Love

Your servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.