ram

Shvu, if a scripture contradicts the vedanta, then it can be said to be an interpolation. But just because an acharya does not comment on an upanishad does not bring into question its authenticity. If that logic were to be applied, then all the unavailable Vedas can be called dubious.

Haribol. Nice to see your sweet thought. Why should I care to disagree with some one who can hold such a nice thought ?

Hari Hari Bol!!! Thanks for helping me do a personal service to Srimati Radharani. By the way, one lasting shot on this issue : There are double sided dresses which have zari on both sides. But you may be right. These poor vrajavasis may not be able to afford that.

Stonehearted, I have respect for Raga and would not insult anyone unnecessarily. For records, Raga and I are running a 108 post thread without silly mudslinging even though we disagree on issues. You may see for yourself, "niyamas of bhakti yoga". If Raga were to say that she is lifting the saree and try to defend it, I will react differently. But like a gentleman he says that it does not seem like that to him and I see no reason why I should fight. But I am pointing out what in my opinion is wrong in the picture. No one says it is a veil including Raga himself and this picture is therefore wrong as per gaudiya vaishnava literature. It has to be redone. I beg that you see that point atleast. I am not an artist and am not asking for a job - After Raga gave his explanation, I again looked at the picture. But I could not see it his way. I had others look at it and got multiple answers like this group - but no one said it is a veil. Karthik sees it as lifting of bottoms much like I do. I am sure there will be 100 other people who would do that. This gives a chance to talk ill of GVV and sanatana dharma at large.

See, if you see clearly, it is the same colour as the saree. And the effect shown in the picture is the same as lifting one's saree and frock ( the petticoat that is worn inside ).

This is with reference tgo Raga's response (the third post above this). So why is the picture showing the frock instead of using the veil ? http://raganuga.com/image_raghunatha.htm I am glad that this atleast is not gaudiya vaishnavism. [This message has been edited by ram (edited 06-02-2002).]

Raga, as if I declined to accept Srimad Bhagavatham as an authority. Any theology that claims to be based on the Vedas should 1. be based on available smrti 2. be consistent with Vedanta Sutras which are available in full 3. not contradict the available shruti I see nothing that Jiva Gosvami said contradicting these three points. Do you ? [This message has been edited by ram (edited 06-02-2002).]

First, let us see if there is there any gaudiya vaishnava literature which allows this depiction.

When Krishna and His eternal consorts are offended in the name of devotion, one has to point out it is not in line with sastras. There is no denying the fact every thing is under the Supreme Control - that includes my legitimate criticism also.

Vedas are apoureshya and anaadi. For this reason they are accepted as an authority. But in modern times, the authority of Vedas is going down - this place being taken by modern science, politics, non-vedic religions etc. This is perhaps because of the rigour involved in the practice of true vedic life. Even among faiths that claim to have a basis in the Vedas there is a decline in faith in the Vedas. Very few of the vaishnava sampradayas give importance to the Vedas themselves. Of all Gaudiya Vaishnavism is very explicit in the rejection of Vedas as the highest pramana. In the different schools of gaudiya vaishnavism, the works of gosvamis and later day saints are given more importance than shruti itself. On one of the websites promoting a form of gaudiya vaishnavism I saw a picture which will be considered offensive by any traditional person familiar with agama sastras. It is a picture of a gopi lifting her frock and there is a sadhaka sitting under her loins. There are very ugly forms of gaudiya vaishnavism. When questions are raised about gaudiya vaishnavism, then they quote as authority the writings of gosvamis and writings of later day saints combined with modern interpretation . They dont even feel obliged to establish it all based on sastras. This leads one to believe that it is a form of cheating religion exploiting the saintly nature of Caitanya. Any counters ?