sumedh

At this point, as a rational living being, it is your duty to quote the appropriate authorities to substantiate your point. There is not a single sruti statement in existence that talks about kundalini. On the other hand the vedas/upanishads talk about devotion etc. all over the place. If you are sincerely interested in those then i would be able to provide a long list of those quotes. As regards chanting being unscientific (as if these subjects fall in the realm of current material science), it is not clear what you mean; and that it is unvedic is a false statement because the mantras themselves come from sruti and smriti. All vedic vidhis involve chanting of the Vedic mantras. Or see Bhagavad Gita 9.13-14, 11.36 etc. It will also be pertinent for you to quote the meaning of siddhis/sadhanas. The vedic siddhis all involve chanting of Vedic mantras. Indeed siddhi in vedas means siddhi of a vedic mantra. It is true that Lord Krishna talks about dhyana in one place and thus it is accepted. However, unless you choose to ignore the rest of Bhagavad Gita, any unbiased reading will show that it is actually a Bhaki shastra. In fact Lord Krishna defines a yogi as one who is devoted to Him in multiple places. In other words dhyana, karma etc. are different limbs of Bhakti. It would have been natural for me to provide quotations to show this but for the fact that so far you have only shown insincerity and so those will be a real waste.

As a matter of general principle, when faced with contradictory statements the original sources should be consulted. When there are contridictions in smriti then arbitration is made in sruti etc. It is a fact that there are directly contradictory statements made by Srila Prabhupada on this subject. Thus for any useful discussion the works of Goswamis, smritis and sruti should be consulted and quoted. As pointed out by others, speculating about the motives of Srila Prabhupada is not useful but accepting contradictory statements would not show well either.

The advantages/disadvantages are...? Those earlier periods and those masters are... ? So discussion on scriptures is useless and by implication scriptures are useless. What remains? The authority of guru, sadhu and shastra has to be accepted. You have changed the account to suit your flow of statements. Neverthless, their lack of knowledge was apparent in their laughter for they would not have done so if they had known the scriptures. A false conclusion contradicted by the lives of all our past great acharyas. When you came to this conclusion, you had an internal analysis of why this conclusion seems correct. We make right and wrong judgements in every action we perform. Every field of study has a notion of right and wrong, for there is no study otherwise. Truth can be known only by means of right knowledge. What do want to say?

It is very sad to see that any kind of shastric discussion is nowadays considered by some to be useless and counter-productive. Has vedanta come to this? One of the strengths of Vedanta is its preciseness, completeness and verifiability based on the "shabd pramana" and others, quite unlike other philosophies which are more or less just belief systems. You people dare to call the endevours of our past great acharyas as useless. Kumarila Bhatta and Shankaracharya reject and defeat the Buddhist philosophy by use of logic, Shankara rejects pashupata/shakta and others giving reasons for the same, Ramanujacharya/Madhvacharya and so many other saints/scholars debate with advaitins exposing the many flaws in it and so on. Vedanta is not a free for all arena where anyone can pass off his/her speculations as Truth and remain unchallanged -- actually such an approach would be laughed out in any other academic field, but somehow some people (sometimes even academicians of other fields) think that when it comes to "spiritual" then there is no need for authorities and start believing in whatever is pleasing to them. This may have been the approach of some other systems which have no tradition of logic, dialectics, polemics etc. but certainly not Vedanta which has a rich tradition of debates. And what exactly spiritual means?

Haribol Srila Prabhupada is refererring to the fact that the concept of God in western theologies is quite different from Brahman of Vedic scriptures. In essence, the concept of God as in the western theology would not be adequate to be qualified as Param-Brahman as described in the Vedas. These conceptions arise due to being exposed to (mostly) western prophet born theologies and the like. Imagining Vedanta to be likewise is a grave error. Vedanta study starts by examining what constitutes an evidence (pramana), what evidences should be accepted in which spheres and what should not be etc. It accepts mainly three evidences, pratyaksha (direct perception), shabd, anumana while the others found in Nyaya and other systems of logic can be reduced to them. While pratyaksha is accepted as a pramana for indriya vishaya (those that fall in the realm of sense perception), shabd is the only pramana for atindriya vishaya (those beyond senses). The need for establishing that there exist subjects beyond the sense perception arises, and is satisfied first in Vedanta (thus ruling out Charvaka and the like theories). Admittedly, the concept of shabd pramana is hard to understand but should not be surprising given the experience that even many worldly subjects are not simple. The Vedas are accepted because they constitute the shabd pramana, and thus also those vedic scriptures that follow the vedas. Modern day science would qualify as a pratyaksha evidence, though it is likely that most of it would not be accepted for being unable to meet the standards as normally required in Vedanta.

Hare Krishna Not meaning to offend or unsult, this is outright intellectually dishonest. If Pandit Sriram Sharma has written them, then he does not know what means by an upanishad -- does he think that somehow "pragya upanishad" becomes an unauthored apaurusheya text and flawless!! Many irresponsible persons (particularly advaitins) have been known to manufacture upanishads and then later quote them as authority. Similarly for the purana, does he want the people to believe that it has been composed by Ved Vyasa? So as Avinashji said, calling these texts as upanishad and purana is very irresponsible.

And this is relevant to discussion of "Atman" or advaita how?

Since you are repeating things over and over without going to the points raised about your interpretations it makes no sense to continue this. Also you have inserted phrases like "Turiya is the Self" etc. without caring about what Mandukya actually says. It says "so.ayamAtmA chatushhpAt.h" i.e. this Atman is of four forms and then terms them as vishva or vaishvAnara, taijasa, etc. which are names of Vishnu. That Atman primarily refers to Brahman is stated clearly in numerous statements of Sruti and is accepted by all Vedanta traditions including advaita. If that were not so then the Chandogya statement on which advaita is based "saAtmAtattvamasi" would mean you are the individual, an obvious statement and hardly anything to do with advaita. You need to understand first that someone does not become Brahman just because his parents have named him Brahman or another one of His names. So are the names of devatas actually names of Brahman but does not mean that they are Brahman. Whether the name is referring to Brahman or to a deva is to be known from context.

The Rudra Sampradaya is from Sripad Visnuswami. Sripad Vallabha and his followers claim to be in line from Vishnuswami and he has the Anu Bhasya commentary on Brahma Sutra. Regarding the Nath sampradaya, their practise of Kundalini etc. are not to be found in the sadagamas. Some (portions) of the tantras, agamas and pancharatra are accepted -- those that follow the vedas. Others like the left-handed tantra are not accepted (even a casual reading of these will show why this is so). Yes, i know about all of those you have listed. As per Balitha sukta from Rig-Veda (1.141.1-5), Lord Hanuman is told to be an incarnation of Lord Vayu whose second and third incarnations are told to be Bhimasena and Sripad Madhva (yadImanupradivO madhva AdhavE guhasantham.h maatarishvaa mathaayatI) in the same sukta. Incidently Shankara himself dismisses pashupata, shakta and others (apart from Pancharatra) which were prevelant as being non-vedic. He is said to belong to the Ramanandi sect coming from Sripad Ramanuja. This: was in response to the allegation that the division of Puranas is a creation of gaudiyas (implying that it is a fabrication by them). As such the verses from Puranas that talk about this division are to be found in all kinds of Puranas (Padma, Matsya, Garuda, ) some of which have been quoted before. Turiya has multiple meanings. In the context of Mandukya it means fourth (which is its literal meaning) and refers to the fourth of the chatur-vyuh manifestation of Lord Narayana. It does not refer to a "state" at all, at least in the Mandukya. See my response earlier. As for my own experiences, i do not think they ought to be a subject of a public forum.

Seriously, your way of dealing simply shows your eagerness to get some kind of imaginary upper hand. In other words such words from your side only sound quite silly and "immature". Anyway, this is the last time i am asking you not show "pity" on myself or any other "misguided" people. Just that your definition of "ONE" Brahman is quite different from ours. BTW i can say something like "Oh, i used to think precisely like you when i was immature and realized my folly and so blah blah..." (which is actually true), but is stupid in a discussion. Haribol

Is this the way you deal with objections to your (or whoever else's) interpretations? Anyway, as already explained turiya in mandukya refers to the fourth "pada" of Brahman. You know, repitition hardly qualifies as clarification. Indeed the way you deal is quite strange, in that you do not try to address as to why something is a "mis-translation" rather pick out another verse. This: and this: are devoid of substance and thus ignorable. Yes UttaraAnuvaka of Purusha sUkta appears in Taittreya Arayanka of Yajur Veda. And no, it does not refer to Hiranyagarbha. The 2nd verse says: Who knows Him in this manner becomes immortal in this very birth. To moksha, liberation I know not of other paths. And then the third: Unborn, he appears in many ways. </pre> That Rudra is a devata is known from various srutis like Rig Veda 7.46.1: So your contention that the verse cannot be applied to Rudra is incorrect. Are you being plain dishonest or what? The already quoted Maha-Narayana upanishad says that "yamantaH samudre kavayo vayanti"and that nothing is beyond Him "ataH paraM nAnyad" that He is Param Brahman etc. Then the mention of "hrIshcha te lakshmIshcha patnyau" shows that He is indeed Vishnu as known from the sruti "dEvIm VishNupatnIm ajUryAm" (Bhoo sUkta) and "MahIm asyEsAnA jagatO VishNu patnI" (Sri sUkta). That Rudra is the same as Narayana is ruled out on account of various srutis like Shatapatha Brahmana, "na yasyendro varuNo na mitro vratamaryamA na minanti rudraH" (that Rudra does not fully understand savitR), already quoted Rig Veda 7.40.5 which says that Rudra gets his powers from Vishnu, the ambhraNi sUkta which says that Lakshmi makes anyone a Brahma, Rudra as She pleases and the source of her powers is Lord Narayana, the Mahopanishad which talks of birth of Rudra from Narayana and that he did not exist in the beginning etc. It has been already established that all the Names primarily refer to Narayana, that Narayana gives His Names to all the devatas and so the srutis that extol Rudra as the Param Parastad should be known to be referring Narayana (as He is indeed referred to by many other Names in the sruti). If you do not want to understand this verse or just try to mislead others then it is your problem not mine. This verse is referring to the Soma used in yajnas as sacrificial offering, and through yajna it brings the devatas to us. That Vishnu is unborn has already been shown using various srutis, which simply shows that you do not care for sruti rather are just trying to search support for your position. Do you know the meaning of "sumajjAnaye"? Anyway if you want to keep discussing this then rewind a bit and establish your concept of "shivoadvaitam" from Mandukya first, or in other words address the questions above that have been put forward to the silly interpretation of Mandukya.

Namaskar Yes, these concepts should be known through the great acharyas. There are three well-known vedantic traditions (kevala-advaita, vishishtadvaita and tattvavada or dvaita) and none of them consider Rudra as Supreme including Shankaracharya -- though if one takes to a self-defined concept of Rudra as referring to Brahman then the case is different. Thank you for your concern. However, i do not think you are familiar with what i think etc. As for the classification of puranas, it is already replied in this thread before: http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/krishna-talk/34478-shiva-krsna-5.html#82 Other than that whatever was written about Rudra was from the sruti itself and there was no speculation (either positive or negative) from my side. Hare Krishna

Hare Krishna I never said that consciousness is imagination; the reference was to the interpretation that Narayana and Rudra are not Beings but refer to "infinite consciousness"; that the "Puranic concepts" of Narayana/Rudra refer to "shivoadvaitam" etc.

Haribol Note that you tried to clear the "Puranic" concepts with something in the sruti only to land up with the same "concepts". Why do you feel compelled to insert your own imaginations like consciousness etc. in the interpretation of sruti which are not there and thereby twist the sruti. Since so far you have not provided a pramana to support your conjecture of "Vedic names", any further discussion down this line is discardable -- being dramatic does not help, and keep personal attacks out of here. On the other hand direct quotations from sruti have been already provided to substantiate that all names primarily refer to Narayana which you have conveniently ignored (or maybe substituted with your own imaginations). The supposed reference from Mandukya Upanishad has already been elaborately dealt with by the acharyas. In this context the following points may be noted: * That the primary meaning of Atma actually is Brahman. This is supported by Shankaracharya himself in Brahma sutra 1.1.3 quoting from Mundaka Upanishad. * Mandukya says that Atma has four quarters (chatuShpAt) thus referring to the chatur-vyuh manifestation of Lord Narayana, and not to four states of existence. * If the latter is contended then the whole description in the upanishad becomes absurd. It would mean that waking "state" has 19 heads, dreaming "state" again has 19 heads. Then the dreamless "state" is the the Lord of all, sarveshvaraH and inner controller of all, sarvAntaryAmi -- so a really simple way to become Lord of all is to go to sleep... Then the turiya "state" is called as the vibhuH (creator) and devaH. Which apart from dramatism does nothing to address the verse at hand in which the sage asks Rudra to praise the Deity seated in the heart. You are right that the translation is due to Griffith. A more accurate translation would be: I get my desires granted by offering in sacrifices to that Visnu, the ishwara who is present in all these devatas. Knowing this (vide hi), Rudra gained his Rudra strength. The Ashvini brothers have come to our abode with abundant sacrifical food. Again your interpretation out of the blue of "Vishnu being Rudra's arrow" (apparently from tripurasura episode) is incorrect on account of "vide hi" which says that "knowing this" i.e. only knowing that Vishnu is the ishwara does Rudra gain his rudratva. The quote is not relevant to the point being discussed, nor does anything to further your assertion that "Shiva and Vishnu are not two beings" even with your interpretation. <o:p></o:p> Interesting theory, however the sruti says "NArAyaNAya vidmahE VAsudEvAya dheemahi. TannO VishNuH prachOdayAt". That Vishnu is unborn is known on the strength of several pramanas like TaittirIya Arayaka(3.13.1): "ajAyamAno bahudhA vijAyate" i.e. He is unborn yet He takes several avatars. Rig Veda 1.156.2 calls Vishnu as sumajjAnaye or self-born. Then Rig Veda 1.154.1 says: "Visnornukam vIryAni pravocham yah pArthhivAni vimame rajAMsi yo aska bhAyadhuttharaM sadhastham vichakramAnas tredhhorugAyah" <o:p></o:p>Let me say to you the brave deeds of Visnu who created the seven worlds below - belonging to earth and who created the seven worlds above occupied and crowded with persons of good deeds and he who is greatly praised measured these worlds in three steps. So it says that Vishnu is the creator of all the worlds, and the Brahma Sutra (4.4.17) "jagadvyApAravarjam.h" holds that only Brahman creates, ruling out any jiva doing it. Of course the famous "tad viShNoH paramaM padaM" and similarly Taittreya Aranyaka 1.8.3-4 says: "kim tad visnor balamAhuh kA dhIpthi kim parAyanam eko yadhdhhAra yadhdhevah rejathI rodhasI ubhhe vAthAdhvisnorbalamAhuh aksharAdhdhIpthiruchyate tripadhAdh dhhArayadhdhevah yad visnor ekam utthamam agnayo vAyavashchaiva etadasya parAyanam" What is said about Visnu's strength, His brightness and His Supreme abode. Divine Visnu Himself all alone bears the heaven and earth with that strength.Visnu's strength is said to greater than that of Vayu, His brightness is said to be greater than that of Agni. Residing in Moksha Loka, Visnu who is the one supreme "ekam utthamam" bears the world(heaven and earth), Agnis and Vayus and that Moksha Loka is His Supreme Abode. The purusha sUkta also talks of the Supreme Being who has Hri and Sri as the wives and who are known to be wives of Vishnu from sruti: "dEvIm VishNupatnIm ajUryAm" and "MahIm asyEsAnA jagatO VishNu patnI". The already cited Aitareya Brahmana (1.1.1) "agnirvai devaanamavamo viShNuH paramaH" says the same thing as also "te viSNo jAyamAno na jAto deva mahimnaH param antam Apa" (Rg Veda 7.99.2). Of course, there are innumerable smriti pramanas for this. Useless comparison, since the Shatapatha Brahmana also says that the boy (Rudra) cried at the time of birth saying that he is not cleansed of sins -- hardly a sign of Param Brahman. The Mahopanishad also says that Rudra is born from Narayana and specifically says that Rudra did not exist in the beginning; same with Narayanopanishad. Indeed it shall be better if you stop posting among those with "ego", as you yourself would enjoy that more. Remember the same can be said about yourself, so no need to dramatise things.

No, with the aprori view that you take the Vedas become a bunch of contradictory verses. For instance (aitareya brahmana 1.1.1) "agnirvai devaanamavamo viShNuH paramaH" Agni is the lowest of all deities and Vishnu is the highest. The first chapter of Brahma-sutra deals with the apparent contradictions in the scriptures. What you term as contradictions are not really so, and have been dealt by the Acharyas in their works e.g. Sripad Ramanujacharya in his Vedarthasangraha deals with the pUrvapaksha that apaurusheya vedas have contradictions like different deities being extolled in different hymns, and then explains that all these actually refer to Vishnu alone. Similarly Sripad Madhva deals with this Brahma-sutra-bhasya and all his other works where he establishes that Vishnu alone is sarva-shabda-vachya. Indeed the vishvakarma sUkta says that Vishnu gives His Names to all the deities, and the bhallaveya sruti says that Vishnu is the primary referrent of all the words. The point is that all the gunas that are extolled of various deities in the Vedas are those of Vishnu, and thus He is sarva-shabda-vachya. Thus they show the meaning of Bhagavad-Gita 15.15 "vedaishcha sarvaiH ahaM eva vedyo" (by all the Vedas I am to be known) and Hari-vamsha "vede rAmAyaNe chaiva purANe bhArate tathA | AdAvante cha madhye cha viShNuH sarvatra gIyate".

Haribol The tenth anuvaka "Stuhi shrutam garta sadam yuvanam mrugannabhima mupahat numugram, mruda jaritre rudra satvano anyante asmanniva pantu senaha": the previous verses (as also subsequent verses) address Rudra, and thus here the speaker asks Rudra to praise one who is "seated in the heart", "terrible like a lion" etc. Then Nrsimha-tapani upanishad clarifies that "ugram" above refers to Lord Nrsimha. You should be sorry for presenting an incorrect translation by which you will have us believe that Vishnu is created by Soma contradicting quotations you provided from Mahanarayana upanishad, Nrismha tapani and host of other srutis (in addition to contradicting yourself). Shatapata Brahmana and other srutis say that yajna is also referred to as Vishnu, and so the above verse is actually referring to yajna. The Shatpatha Brahmana, Mahopanishad and host of other srutis talk about the birth of Rudra from the antaryami of Brahma i.e. Lord Narayana. Then Rg-Veda 7.40.5: "asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viSNoreSasya prabhRthe havirbhiH | vide hi rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiSTaM vartirashvinAvirAvat" With offerings I propitiate the branches of this swift-moving God, the bounteous Visnu. Hence Rudra gained his Rudra-strength: O Asvins, ye sought the house that hath celestial viands. makes it clear that Rudra attains his powers from Lord Vishnu.

Haribol Well, i do not like to play these games where you change the context to somewhere else. The original context was from Mahabharata which is already answered in the scripture as quoted before. As for your quotes from Sri Rudram, it is to be noted that in the tenth anuvaka the sage asks Rudra to pray to the Deity who resides in the cave of heart (who is Lord Nrsimha as given in Nrsimha-tapaniya-upanishad). Then Rg-Veda 7.40.5 says that Rudra gets his Rudratva from Sri Hari, birth of Rudra in numerous sruti statements, that Sri Hari is the inner controller of all etc. btw in reply to your statement one can say: so its best to avoid making them.

Hare Krishna Yogkriyaji: The translation, to which you have an objection, is such because of context. Here Brahma and Shiva are mentioned as agents of Lord Narayana who carry out these tasks. Thus the interpretation given later where it refers to Brahma and other gods is consistent (since Shiva is one of the gods). Such interpretations are common and accepted because scriptures do not contain repititions like in usual literature. It is to be noted that unlike yourself we do not consider one part of Mahabharata as overriding the others (and resort to silly interpretations like guru, shishya, bhavas which only you seem to know about and what not). When Lord Krishna prays to Mahadeva, He has already explained it to be: The varaha purana says that Shiva obtained the boon from Narayana of being worshipped in His incarnations. This and the already given quote that: ... provides a consistent interpretation. If you have chosen to ignore the given quotes (because it is in guru bhava or something) then there is no more discussion that we can have on this. Haribol

See http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/showthread.php?p=994731&posted=1#post994731 Haribol

Hare Krishna This may be somewhat misleading. I could not locate this exact reference, can you provide the verse numbers so that we may check the translation -- thanks. Anyway, one should read Mahabharata as a whole. This and other instances where Lord Krishna prays to Mahadeva is explained by the Lord Himself in Shanti Parva verses 12.328.5 onwards. I have highlighted the important verses. Also relevant in this context are Bhagavad-Gita verses 7.23, 8.16, 9.23, 10.2, 14.14-14.18 etc. Haribol

Yogkriyaji wrote: I am sorry, but i could not find that in this or other threads. If you could reproduce that it shall be convenient. However, because such a statement is contradicted by many sruti statements it would not be accepted unless it some other consistent interpretation of the sruti and other vedic scriptures is provided. Actually we have to be very careful here because of hidden meanings of vedic scriptures, and also because there have been many interpolations in the puranas. Additionally in many places the puranas contradict themselves (such as the well known episode of Lord Nrsimha and Hiranyakashyapu) and only the version given in the sattvic puranas is accepted and ultimately the version of sruti is accepted. For instance different versions are offered in puranas of the episode of drinking of poison by Lord Shiva during samudra-manthan, but only the versions consistent with the version of Rig Veda are accepted. One clarification: Srila Prabhupada has stated that Lord Sadashiva refers to one of the incarnations of Vishnu and Lord Shiva is different from Him. Caitanya-Charitamrta Adi Lila 6.79:

Gokulrji wrote: Anyone who has read Chaitanya Charitamrta even a little would know that it clearly denounces Shankaracharyas kevala-advaita in multiple places. For instance (Madhaya-Lila 6.166-183): The purport of Adi-Lila 7.101 quoted by Puru dasji derives directly from Chaitanya Charitamrta itself and calling it a "personal interpretation" is insincere unless one shows that Chaitanya Charitamrta states otherwise. As mentioned later by Puru dasji, mayavada is condemned by Lord Shiva himself in multiple places in Padma purana and Shiva purana, so there is direct scriptural evidence for such statements. Hare Krishna

Many "Hindu" temples in india dedicated to a god or other have only one deity, so your point about a "regular" Hindu temple is incorrect. Moreover, it seems that your definition of Hinduism would leave out (among others) the two biggest Vedanta schools viz. Vishishtadvaita and Tattvavada out of Hinduism. In that perspective i do not think that the general populace of hindus would agree with you. Srila Prabhupada said that his movement has got to do nothing with Hinduism rather only with Vedic religion, because the former does not represent anything specific. Hare Krsna

Pranams Thanks, you are correct to some extent. Actually Upanishads are (part of) Vedas, and prasthana-traya refers to the scriptures themselves and not to their bhasyas. Some schools give importance to only the Upanishads in Vedas so only commentries to those were written (in fact they did not write commentries to all of them e.g. Sripad Ramanuja). However, the whole of sruti is flawless and are cited as evidence in their works. Madhva school considers the whole of Veda as part of prasthana-traya and Sripad Madhva also wrote commentry on portions of Vedic samhitas. Hare Krishna

Pranams This was stated elsewhere also without any evidence. Please provide evidence of this story. Note that the vishwaroop darshan of Krishna in Gita is accepted by all the vedantic schools and Gita is considered on par with the sruti as being flawless (the prasthana trayi accepted by all vedanta schools includes Vedas, Gita and Brahma Sutra), so this acceptance is universal and not unique to Srila Prabhupada. Hare Krishna