karthik_v

I am not suggesting that SP held the pope in awe. But, it is a well established fact that Vatican was responsible for burning the teachings of Jesus and compiling the current Bible. Vatican is avowedly anti-Hindu. If you argur that SP met the pope in the hope of changing him, can't the same apply to Ramakrishna mutt? After all, RKM has quite an influence on many Indians. Or Chinmaya mission or Sai Baba?

Dear Theist Prabhuji, Sorry if what I wrote hurt you. I shouldn't have used harsh words. I don't think that Muslims are evil, but it is Islam that makes them evil. If you and I become Muslims today, we too would end up as fanatical. I think the real enemy to be tackled is Islam and not Muslims.

I thought of forwarding this to my Kashmiri Pandit friend, who as a 14 year old boy witnessed the beheading of his parents and the rape and murder of his 12 year old sister in Srinagar years ago. As the Muslim terrorists raped his sister and as he tried saving her only to be beaten unconscious, the entire village (95% Muslim) stood there watching silently. Many even rejoiced. Moments later, as he stood weeping over his sister's body, his neighbours told him that his family should have paid heed to sane advice..i.e., asking them to get out of the valley. Then I thought that any justification of Muslims will make him mad. Next time you sympathise with the so-called innocent Muslims, please let me know as to how many Muslims protested when Muslim terrorists bombed Bombay and later Coimbatore. It is easy to pretend that Muslims are sweet as honey, so long as you live light years away from them. May I send you a return ticket to Kashmir? I have travelled extensively in J&K and I can promise that virtually all Muslims are fanatical. All is fine so long as you don't criticize Islam or silently put up with insults to Hinduism. US channels are playing to the gallery for the sake of oil. There is no compulsion on our part to buy into that propaganda. Let me end with a quote from Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel: There seems to be only one tolerant and secular Muslim in India. That is Jawahar Lal Nehru.

Dear Shiva prabhuji, I hope you are referring to this thread: http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001210-2.html I read through that. Here is the summary: As per Brahma Samhita, Shiva and Krishna are like curd and milk. As per Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Shiva is from the left half of Krishna. Does it mean that They are equal? Later on SB goes on to declare that Shiva is the greatest devotee of Krishna and hence a Vaishnava. Now, none of them seem to say that Shiva is a demi-god. Even if they do, we should not forget that we are only relying on Puranas. For example, I have heard that Shiva purana also written by Vyasa Deva, declares that Shiva is Supreme. I have heard the same w.r.t. Skanda purana too. I haven't read either. My point is that these puranas give often contradictory pictures. So, on what basis do you say that Shiva is a demi god? I have read the English translation of Svetasvatara Upanisad and it says that Shiva is the ultimate. Please note that Svetasvatara Upanisad is one of the 13 principal upanishads accepted by all schools. If you want I can look up to the exact verses. So, are we not directly contradicting the upanishads when we claim that Shiva is a demi god? You haven't answered me as to why Allah or Christ become Gods but Shiva only a demi god? Also why is that an advaitin who preaches the same worship of Narayana is to be abhorred while a Muslim whose Quran advocates destroying the temples is welcome. To be very honest, I have always wondered as to why Srila Prabhupad spent so much time attacking Advaitins, even though great advaitin sannyasis like Swami Chandrasekharendra Saraswati were his contemporaries, but at the same time visited Vatican (which considers sanatana dharma as heathen) and waited on the Pope. When the Pope gave some excuse for not meeting him, he still met a secretary. I have always wondered as to why the Praramacarya didn't deserve this courtesy a beef-eating Pope did. That too a Pope who justified the beatification of Hitler's Pope. Please don't get me wrong. I am not anti-ISKCON. In fact, this is the only stream I try to follow. I have a lot of reverence for SP. But some of my questions have not been answered by anyone.

Perhaps, that is what lends credence to the claim of interpolation. This episode figures in uttara kanda, which is not to be found in Kamba Ramayana [9th or 10th century AD], original Tulsidass' Ramcaritamanas [he died in 1623]. It is unthinkable that 2 great devotees will leave out an entire canto in their translation. Hence there is reason to believe that this canto was either written after 1623 CE or it was written before by some interpolator but never became mainstrean till much after 1623 CE. Interestingly, in Tamil this canto starts appearing only in 1807 CE. One shouldn't forget that there was a flurry of activity in Auragazeb's court interpolating our texts. So, even that mention in SB could have had its origins during those times and then crept into Ramayana. Interestingly, even Sri Vaishnavas consider SB only as a secondary text and accept it only if it is in line with shrutis.

I don't know about the extent of interpolation in Mahabharata, but there is a lot of interpolation in Ramayana. Atleast one canto, uttara kanda was entirely interpolated. All those stories about Rama banishing Sita to forest, Luv and Kush etc., were never written by Valmiki. Also, I have read that the available recensions of VR have verses varying in number anywhere between 24,000 to 48,000. That means there is a lot of interpolation.

When I accidentally ran into J N Das prabhu in Tamilnadu 4 years ago, he was still a vibrant 22 year old American. Perhaps, in just 4 years he has become an old man Who knows what pastimes Krishna can enact?

Shiva prabhuji, What is the source of your information, especially on different types of Shiva and that Shiva is an incarnation and that we all can become Shiva? When you say that Shiva is an incarnation, do you mean that He is an incarnation of Krishna?

I think Ram's question has not been answered. His question is simple and straight. Let me paraphrase it again: Were the great Shaivite saints of the past like the Nayanmars not bonafide? I would like to add my own question to this. Some of you get very touchy if Islam is criticized. Doesn't the same rule apply when Advaita or Shaivism is criticized? Is it not strange that we accept Allah as same as Krsna but without batting an eye-lid claim that Shiva is just a demi god?

I have sent a mail to an erudite Sri Vaishnava devotee asking for information on whether great acaryas like Manavala Mamuni or Vedanta Desikar have quoted Kambar and the references. When he responds, I will share that information with you all. I just recalled that another Sri Vaishnava writer by the name Mukkur Narasimhacharyar has also written a lot on the importance of Kambar's Ramayana in Sri Vaishnava tradition. Further, Kamba Ramayana is recited regularly in all Sri Vaishnava temples. So, on that basis I would say it is authentic. Anyway, let me get the input from that scholarly devotee, as he is very thorough in Tamil devotional works. Not much is known about Kambar. all we know is that he was born into a low caste. This is known because of his own verse, when confronted by Brahmins for mentioning Hiranyakasipu. He has not written on anyone else other than Rama. He has not written any other book either to the best of my knowledge. Not much is known about his lineage or what sampradaya he followed. Since he was a Vaishnava poet and since only Sri Vaishnavism existed then, I would think that he followed Sri Vaishnava sampradaya. It is worth noting that in those days, Sri Vaishnavism included not only Brahmins but also other lower castes. In fact, 10 out 0f 12 Azhwars were lower caste people, often Harijans.

J N Das Prabhuji, Is it not true that there have been interpolations in both Ramayana and Mahabharat? If you look at Gita press edition of VR, they do mention that some verses are interpolated. Similarly, Uttara kanda didn't exist even till the days of Tulasidass. So, these are the indications that there are interpolations. The same with Mahabharat too. There are many recensions with varying number of verses. All cannot be original. What do you think?

Shvu, I am aware of Anu Gita and I was planning to cover Basham's views on that too. But I wanted to take one point at a time and analyze. I will wait a day for readers to respond then post my second point. Please wait till then. I do agree with you that itihasas were essentially vedic concepts presented in a form understandable to the masses, but that is not the point of discussion here.

My rebuttal: During Kurukshetra war, there was a distinct code of ethics to be followed. The war didn't commence unless the commanders of the 2 armies blew their conch shells. On day 1, Pandavas were lead by Dristadyumna and the Kauravas by Dronacarya. If I recall correctly, even though Dronacarya had blown the conch, Dristadyumna had not, as he awaited the nod from Yudhistra. So, even if the discourse had taken longer, the armies would still have waited. We can see this code being followed in 2 more places in Kurukshetra war. First, when Krishna blocks the sun with His wheel, the armies stopped fighting. Likewise, when Karna was injured and struggled to get his chariot out of the mud, Krishna ceased firing. So, it is no wonder that the 2 armies waited until Krishna finished addressing Arjuna. Please correct if I have made factual errors. I am quoting the incidences out of memory.

Who wrote Bhagavad Gita? For those of us, who are theists, the answer is simple: Bhagavad Gita is a set of instructions given by Lord Krishna to Arjuna during the Kurukshetra war. They were subsequently compiled by Ved Vyas. Is there another point of view? Yes. I am putting forth the one held out by the distinguished historian Late A L Basham. He argues that BG was written by atleast 3 different persons. He has given his arguments. I will produce them one at a time and we can go over them. I don't agree with A L Basham and I have refutals for every point he puts forth. There are some areas where I need more information and I will appreciate if you can contribute. We should remember that A L Basham was not anti-Hindu and that views are taken seriously. So, a systematic deconstruction is a must. A L Basham's argument # 1: The homily given by Krishna to Arjuna takes place right when the battle was about to commence and when the 2 armies were arrayed. Assuming each verse took 12 seconds to deliver and that Krishna spoke non-stop, it should have taken atleast 2 hours for the sermon. This not including the lengthy theophany in chapter 11. So, one can conclude that the entire Gita wasn't spoken on the battlefield.

Nice points. The poorest states in India are Orissa and Rajasthan. Both are Hindu states. They lose thousands every year to starvation death, cyclones and draught. When was it last that these Hindus ever became terrorists. One of the wealthiest and most subsidised states is Kashmir. Also, the one that produces most terrorists. The problem is Islam, not poverty.

Hari Hari Bol! A beautiful and succint post. In fact, I can foresee the day when the world will find an alternative to oil and all the bearded Muslims will go back to their parched desert riding on camel back and back to eating dates and abducting each other's wife [and of course dreaming of 72 heuris in the heaven]

Hari Bol J N Das Prabhuji, Thanks for spinning off this thread. Let me give a brief overview of Kamba Ramayana. Kambar was born into a low caste. His exact date is doubtful, but he lived either just before Sri Ramanuja or right after him. Historically he is dated around 9th or 10th century CE. His Ramayana doesn't vary from Valmiki's in message or ideals. The differences are in nuances. A few come to my mind. In Valmiki's when Ravana abducted Sita, he grabs her and seats her in his lap. Kambar finds this offensive. So, in his Ramayana, Ravana lifts the entire piece of earth on which Sita is standing and flies away in his Vimana. He doesn't even touch her. Another subtle difference is Kambar states that Rama was a great scholar in both Sanskrit and Tamil. In fact, he even states that Valmiki was one of the great scholars in the first Tamil Sangam. This is not found in Valmiki Ramayana. Kambar mentions about Hiranyakashipu's slaying, which is not there in Valmiki Ramayana. Otherwise, there is hardly any difference between Valmiki Ramayana and Kamba Ramayana. In fact, one can argue that Kamba Ramayana is a more faithful reproduction as there are no conflicting recenssions. It doesn't even contain the nonsensical Uttara Kanda, which of course, the original Valmiki Ramayana didn't contain either. But, Valmiki Ramayana has been mercilessly interpolated and the verses vary anywhere between 24000 and 48000. The most common recenssion of Valmiki Ramayana is the eastern recenssion from the Gaudiya desh. May be that explains why the sensuous verses from Valmiki Ramayana have been removed over the past few centuries. Interestingly, in Tamil, way before Kamba Ramayanam, 3 other Ramayanams existed. One of them has survived in parts. It is called Pazhaiya Ramayanam. It contains erotic verses as well. I cannot believe that Kambar would have written those erotic verses, if they didn't exist in Valmiki Ramayanam. In any case, Andal's songs are full of erotic verses. She is also revered by Sri Vaishnavas. This again shows that in ancient Tamilnadu (before 10th century CE), eroticism was never abhorred. That is why I consider Kambar's renderings natural. As I told, Kamba Ramayanam is recited in all Sri Vaishnava temples. Recitation of his Sundara Kanda is considered very auspicious. This Kanda too contains very sensuous verses where Rama pines in memory of Sita and recollects the passionate moments He shared with her in the Aranyakas.

A very valid point. I must admit that the same ISKCON also produced wonderful devotess by scores, despite the fact that many of them were former hippies. I stand corrected. None. But none has also condemned depictions of erotic sculptures in virtually all ancient temples. Would they have not condemned that if they had thought that sex for pleasure within marriage was evil? So, my understanding is that sex within marriage marriage in itself is restricted. There is no need to restrict it further. I think that I may disagree quite strongly. It is fully accepted by Sri Vaisnavas. There is a statue of Kamba in Sri Rangam temple. Kamba Ramayana is recited in many Sri Vaishnava temples. Great Sri Vaishnava acaryas like Vedanta Desikar have quoted from it. In fact, there is an established tradition for reading Kamba Ramayana among Sri Vaishnavas. They start with Sundara Kanda then go to the Bala Kanda and read sequentially. As a result, they read Sundara Kanda twice. There is also a legend that Lord Rama himself authorized the version of Kamba. There is another legend which narrates the reaction of the scholars at Sri Rangam when Kamba included the annihilation of Hiranya Kasipu in his version, as it was not in Valmiki's. Kambar didn't know what to do. So, he stood in front of Sri Ranganatha and wept. The Lord (deity) Himself raised His hands in approval. That is how the Brahmins accepted the writings of Kambar who was born in a low caste. It is no less bona fide than Valmiki's. And it has very erotic descriptions. Since Rama and Sita served as role models for all of us, does this not prove that sex within marriage need not be restricted?

Rati Prabhuji, nice points. I am certainly not advanced spiritually, but then why should I see myself to be more fallen than the ones who are just exploiting? Is that not mere sentimentalism or even worse did not this mentality lead to all perversions that happened in ISKCON? Instead of glorifying those criminals as Maharaj, had those kids just treated them the way they deserved to be, don't you think that ISKCON wouldn't have got dragged to the courts? Thinking logically, why should I foolishly rever a person and consider myself worse, when in reality I can see that he is more materialistic than I am? Just because of the robes he wears? I am really not convinced that such false veneration will diminish sexual desires. I am again not convinced that sannyasa is something that one can attempt. He should be advanced enough so that it happens naturally. Can anyone become a sannyasi at Kanchi Sankara mutt or Srirangam Jeeyar mutt? I am not pointing fingers here. I was looking at some fundamental problems and discussing them. Don't our scriptures teach us to be critical? Did not Madhvacarya criticize Advaita? I am not equating myself with those. Yet, the point is why should I not criticize someone who is wrong? I think the word Vaisnava aparadh was effectively misused by those gurus who molested children in ISKCON. I would rather commit some aparadh and speak the truth. This requires that we first establish that sex within marriage, like smoking, is evil. That is why I repeatedly ask as to why previous non-GV acaryas never criticized that. Also, why do we have erotic art in the temples? Why do we have such erotic portrayal of Rama and Sita, who served as examples for common men? Is it because sex within marriage was never considered evil? I will be convinced even if someone can quote references from scriptures (accepted by all major schools like advaita, vishistadvaita, dvaita) that proscribes sex for pleasure in marriage. In the absence of such an evidence, such proscription is on very shaky foundation. Profound. I agree. I am not defending attachment nor idealizing it. I am only against artificial renunciation. Please understand.

I am a little curious about one thing. Srila Prabhupad was meticulous and paid attention to details in virtually all instances. Then why is that he did not leave any detailed instructions about disciplic succession or who can initiate? Does any one have information?

Allah O' Akbar! Insha Allah, let me try to give my understanding. In the post vedic times, anukramanis or vedic indices were compiled. They give a nice cross tabulation of the mandalas, hymns and the authors and their families. Basically, they refer to several hymns which we don't find anymore. Paramacarya, based his argument on this and other references found in upanisads. He also partly retrieved one shaka from Gujarat. Even if the vedas are available in full, you cannot make any sense out of them. As the verse I posted from Rk veda shows, the words themselves don't convey a thing. They are at best a medium for transporting you to the other world. Kind of a worm hole. Acaryas have written that just by repeating the panca akshara or the pranava mantra one can get the real experience alluded to by the vedas. Jijaji recommends soma Vedas were orally transmitted. Each family practised a shaka. Nobody learnt everything in the vedas. so, if a family perished, due to war or floods, then the tradition they preserved was lost. The vedas we have now are supposed to a recenssion by Shakalya. I am speculating that he compiled whatever was left during his time. Someone can correct me. Does a realized sould express his realization? Assuming he does, then I guess that he has to be content expressing through what is extant of the vedas

Shvu and Raga, Thanks for the information regarding Madhvacarya. Talking of much portion of vedas having been lost, Paramacarya of Kanchi Sankara mutt also holds a similar view. He feels that only a fraction of (5 or 6 %) of the original srutis have been preserved. He also gave many arguments in support of that. Of course, none of this means that the vedas, because much has been ost, are irrelevant today.

If you don't fight the evils of Islam, of which Muslims are one, they will finish you off through many a riot. Then you lose any oppurtunity to be at war with oneself, one's family, one's business associates So, if you want to preserve that freedom, you still need to fight Islam.

Sorry to sound like an iconoclaust once again. Why is that even great Vaisnava acaryas like Sri Ramanuja never quoted from SB even once? For sure he quoted occasionally from Visnu Purana. Mostly he debated using Brahma Sutra. I have not heard of either Madhvacarya or Sankaracarya ever quoting from SB. Why so? Is it because, they considered SB to be less reliable than srutis? Is it because of the many interpolations and recensions?

LOL. That is easy to explain. Advaitins like the followers of Kanchi Sankara mutt are deeply religious people, often well versed in shastras and not given to quarelling. And they are a minority. We can be sure that they will not retaliate, if we call them rascals. It is a different story with Muslims and to some extent Christians. Also, if you are preaching in a Christian nation, does it make sense to criticize Christianity? For that reason Islam, if you are in a Moslem nation? But it makes "great sense" to abuse the "evil" advatins, whom no one has seen, heard of or read about. Why am I getting reminded of the missionary and Dravidian parties' tactics of abusing the Brahmins in Tamilnadu, India so that they could gain a foothold? Must be the ill effect of occasionally reading mayavadis