Jahnava Nitai Das

I agree with you here. I don't know as well as you.

It looks like Narayana maharaja has saved Prabhupada from Satya's criticism. But being a disciple of Narayana Maharaja, I would have thought Satya should have first read what his own guru said before insulting Prabhupada. Then there would have been no need for Narayana Maharaja to correct his wayward disciple.

I remember once near the Yamuna I was ambushed by some monkeys. They came out of nowhere, swung down from a tree, grabbed my glasses, and disappeared, never to be seen again. Its very common in Vrindavan.The monkeys like to steal glasses.

One of the most endearing figures in the epic Mahabharata is Vidura, the strong but often helpless uncle of the Pandavas who tries to protect them from all the intrigue perpetrated by the evil minded Duryodhana and at the same time striving to serve King Dhrtarastra, the doting and ambitious father of the Duryodhana. Vidura occupies a unique position in Mahabharata, being constantly tossed between his duty as a minister to the king, his loyalty to the throne, his affection for his family and his adherence to religious principles. Vidura is none other than Yamaraja (or Dharmaraja), the demigod responsible for punishing or rewarding people based on their actions. Yamaraja, as the lord of death, is one of the most powerful demigod and as the dispenser of justice one of the wisest. Yamaraja is one of the twelve Mahajans, and has complete understanding of the Vedic scriptures and their conclusions, and is on the level of such exalted personalities as Brahma, Narada, Siva, Kapila, Bhisma, Prahlada, etc. Yamaraja cursed ************** Once there was a great ascetic named Manduka Muni who lived in the forests performing austerities. On a particular day, while the sage was deep in meditation, a band of robbers being pursued by the soldiers, hid their loot in his hut and also tried to hide in there. Eventually the soldiers tracked the thieves and arrested them. Since the loot and the thieves were found in the hut of Manduka Muni, they arrested him also. As was the law at the time, the thieves as well as Manduka Muni were sentenced to die, by being pierced by lances. However just as the sentence was about to be executed, the king heard of this and immediately stopped the execution. Then on behalf of his soldiers, who were ignorant of the position of Manduka Muni, the king humbly apologized and begged for forgiveness. Manduka Muni, enlightened after long austerities, understood that all that is happening to him was a result of his own past karma, and thus readily forgave the king and his subjects. However, curious about what sins he had done for which he was to be punished in this way, Manduka Muni went to the abode of Yamaraja and inquired about this. At this time Yamaraja revealed that when Manduka Muni was a child he had once killed an ant by piercing it with a thorn, thus he was to be punished in this way. However Manduka Muni considered the punishment not commensurate to the activities of an innocent young child. Considering that Yamaraja had acted in a way befitting one who has no knowledge, Manduka Muni cursed him to take birth as a sudra. As per the curse, Yamaraja fell from his position and took birth as Vidura, a sudra. In his absence, Aryama, one of the twelve Adityas (sons of Kasyapa Muni and Aditi) officiated at the post of Yamaraja. One may wonder that how is it possible for Yamaraja, the Lord of justice, a Mahajana, to make such an error of judgment? The acaryas reveal the hidden reason for this pastime. As the Lord of justice, Yamaraja is always busy dealing with the sinners and does not get an opportunity to associate with the Lord and His devotees. However as Vidura, he got the personal association of Krishna and His pure devotees. He also got an opportunity to witness and preach the glories of the Lord and to purify himself. After living his life as Vidura he returned to his planet, Pitraloka and resumed his duties as Yamaraja. Thus the curse by Manduka Muni was really a benediction arranged by the Lord as a special favor to His devotee. Birth of Vidura ************ Emperor Santanu, the king of the Kuru dynasty, was once very much taken by the beauty of Satyavati, the daughter of a chief of fishermen. The ambitious father of Satyavati placed the condition that the son of Satyavati would be future king. Since Santanu had already crowned the eminently qualified Bhisma (born from the union of Santanu with Ganga devi, the presiding deity of the holy river Ganages), as the prince regent, he refused to accept this condition. However, driven by the love for his father, Bhisma voluntarily gave up all claims to the throne and vowed to forever serve the throne. Since one of the requirements of becoming a king is to marry and produce an heir, Bhishma effectively relinquished all claims to the throne by taking the vow of celibacy. From Satyavati, Santanu had two sons, Citrangada and Vicitravirya. Citrangada was killed in a fight by the Gandharva king also bearing the same name. Vicitravirya later married Ambika and Ambalika, the two daughter of King Kasiraja. However he also died in an untimely manner, without producing any heirs. Satyavati requested Bhisma to produce heirs from the womb of Ambika and Ambalika, since at the time the Vedic scriptures permitted a man to produce offsprings from the widow of his brother (this is however forbidden in the present age). However Bhisma declined because of his vows. Satyavati then summoned Vyasa deva, who was also her son, produced by a previous mystical union with Parasara Muni. Vyasa deva, was a perfected, completely self-realized brahman and an empowered incarnation of Lord Krishna. He agreed to his mother's request and approached the wives of his deceased brother. Shocked by the austere appearance of Vyasadeva, Ambika refused to open her eyes during the union and thus Dhrtarastra was born blind. Similarly Ambalika was trembling with fear at the approach of Vyasa deva, and thus her son Pandu was born very pale. When Satyavati requested Ambalika to try again, the terrified queen instead send a maid servant, a sudra woman. Vyasadeva was very respectfully served by this woman. Pleased by her, Vyasa deva gave her the benediction that the very personality of religion would take birth in her womb, and thus from their union was born Vidura. Since at the time, the child took the caste of his mother, Vidura was considered to be a sudra. He was maintained by the royal family and because of his keen intellect he became on of the closest minister of King Dhrtarastra. He later married a woman with a similar lineage. Vidura's role in Mahabharata ************************ Vidura was the personification of religion and treated every one fairly. He always spoke out strongly against his evil minded nephew Duryodhana and he always criticized Dhrtarastra for allowing his attachment for the throne and his son to override his duties as a king and protector. In other words he treated every one equitably. He saw that Pandavas as pious and without a protector, so he sheltered them. In Duryodhana he saw greed and evilness, so with equal compassion, he chastised him. In his brother the king, he saw weakness, so he strongly advised him on what is right and what is not. In all situations, he was calm and detached. At the time Krishna came as a messenger for the Pandavas, requesting some land for them to rule, Duryodhana bluntly refused. Vidura at this time strongly criticized Duryodhana and advised Dhrtarastra to cast away his irreligious son. Stung by this criticism, Duryodhana openly insulted Vidura in the court, calling him an ungrateful sudra. Vidura accepted this insult with his usual equanimity and used it as an opportunity to separate himself from the intrigue. He calmly got up from the court, placing his weapons on the door and walked away. Being a pure devotee of the Lord, Vidura used this opportunity to visit places of pilgrimages and associate with saintly men. In this way he carried on for close to thirty years, traveling widely and taking the association of highly elevated sages and devotees. Purification of Vidura ****************** During his travels, Vidura met and inquired from the great sage Maitreya, who was a close associate of Vyasa Muni, the father of Vidura. The conversation between Vidura and Maitreya forms the foundation of the Srimad Bhagavatam, and spans three cantos of the scripture. Since Maitreya had been previously purified by the association of Uddhava, a pure devotee of the Lord, and by none other that Sri Krishna Himself, he was eminently qualified to answer the intelligent questions of Vidura. In this way, Vidura who was eminently qualified to begin with, became a pure devotee by the association of other pure devotees. In his concluding pastimes, Vidura returned to Hastinapura to visit his elder brother Dhrtarastra once again. Out of compassion for his brother, Vidura instructed him strongly about the matters of life and death, sin and punishment and finally convinced him to leave the comforts of his palace. Deep in the jungle, under the expert guidance of Vidura, Dhrtarastra perfected the astanga yoga and gave up his body in a burst of flames generated by the fire of his yoga. His chaste wife Gandhari entered the fire, meditating on her husband. Vidura, a sadhu exemplified *********************** Vidura exemplifies the qualities and behavior of a sadhu. He was always calm and self controlled, even in the face of adversity and personal insult. He was the well wisher of every one, irrespective of their friendship or animosity towards him and his instructions were for the ultimate material liberation. He was detached from both praise and insult and completely absorbed in increasing his association with the Lord.

This is by Mukunda Datta Das, and was posted to another list: It's well known that Krishna is quite fond of butter, milk, yogurt, etc. He is even willing to dance for it, at the beck and call of simple village women, just like an ordinary child. This has been described in an old Braj poem as follows: sesa ganesa dinesa mahesa suresa hu jAhi nirantara gAvai jAhi anAdi ananta akhaNDa acheda abheda subeda batAvai | nArada se suka vyAsa raTai paci hAre ta-U puni pAra na pAvai tAhi ahIra kI chauhariyA chachiyA-bhari chAcha pai nAca nacAvai || "He whom Shesha-naga, Ganapati, Shiva, Surya, and Indra constantly glorify, He whom the best of the Vedas describe as 'beginningless,' 'unlimited,' 'unbroken,' 'impenetrable,' and 'nondual,' He whose glories are sung by Narada, Shukadeva, and Vyasa, but whose furthest extent remains beyond even them--that very Personality of Godhead, these daughters of the cowherds can force to dance in hopes of a spoonful of buttermilk!" Perhaps this song was composed on the basis on the following verse from the Shrimad Bhagavatam (10.11.7): gopIbhiH stobhito 'nRtyad bhagavAn bAlavat kvacit | udgAyati kvacin mugdhas tad-vazo dAru-yantravat || 7 || "The gopis would say, 'If You dance, my dear Krsna, then I shall give You half a sweetmeat.' By saying these words or by clapping their hands, all the gopis encouraged Krsna in different ways. At such times, although He was the supremely powerful Personality of Godhead, He would smile and dance according to their desire, as if He were a wooden doll in their hands. Sometimes He would sing very loudly, at their bidding. In this way, Krsna came completely under the control of the gopis." It is pure love that Krishna is so attached to, though of course buttermilk (like other auspicious offerings) may be the tangible manifestation of such love. He becomes completely controlled by it (tad-vazaH), and even forgets His own identity. There are many places throughout Shrila Prabhupada's books in which this principle is reiterated in various ways (cf. Bhagavatam, 1.8.31). Similarly, in Shrila Rupa Gosvami's anthology Padyavali (133), the same idea is found in the following beautiful verse: kvAnanaM kva nayanaM kva nAsikA kva zrutiH kva ca zikheti dezitaH | tatra tatra nihitAGguli-dalo ballavI-kulam anandayat prabhuH || 133 || "'Where's your face? Where are your eyes? Where's your nose? Where are your ears? Where is your shikha?' Instructed in this way by the cowherd ladies, the Lord put His lotus finger wherever they told Him to, and He thus delighted them." Krishna is unlimitedly greedy for this pure love; we all know from the Shvetashvataropanishad (6.8) and other sources that He factually has nothing to do except revel in it perpetually. The Mundaka (3.2.3) and Kathopanishad (1.2.23) repeatedly remind us that we cannot enter into these truths except through His Divine grace. But even if just we try to consider just what such love means to Krishna, and how much He is both attracted and attached to the diverse manifestations of His inexhaustible pleasure potency, we can benefit so much!

I agree with that, as do most who accept him as an avatara. His teachings were for a particular time a place and for a particular reason. I don't think there are many Hindus who would say we should follow Buddhas instructions and reject the vedas.

I agree with that, as do most who accept him as an avatara. His teachings were for a particular time a place and for a particular reason. I don't think there are many Hindus who would say we should follow Buddhas instructions and reject the vedas.

I was really excited when I saw the title. I thought, "Finally here it is! The proof!" But I was a little disappointed when I read it. This is your opinion. The Gita says Krishna is the cheat of the cheats. If one accepts there is a God, then it is pointless to try to limit him according to one's opinion of what he should be like. As Mohini Avatara he cheated the Asuras. As Krishna he told Yudhisthira to tell a lie. As Vamana He cheated Bali out of his land. And as Buddha he tricked the fallen brahmanas so that they would stop killing animals. One would also have to take into considerations what category of avatara buddha belonged to. He was of the shakti-avesha category, or a jiva who is empowered by Narayana's potency. He was not Narayana himself. The same is the case with Parashurama. He was empowered by Narayana, but was not Narayana himself. When Ramachandra met Parashurama, He told Parashurama that his mission was over and that He would withdraw His potency from Parashurama. Saying 'vedantins' is like saying 'Hindus'. 'Hindus agree that Krishna is God.' There are a variety of opinions that should not be lumped under one category. And technically your statement is false, for different vedantic schools accept shruti as authority for different reasons - not all because it is the word of God. Buddha established an upa-dharma, or temporary subsidiary religious principle based on time, place and circumstance. This is your opinion. Some others say these texts were written by Vyasa Muni aproximately 5,000 years ago. You use the same logic to conclude Radha didn't exist. Because she isn't mentioned in the Bhagavatam by name, therefore she never existed. I would like to see the list of 62 philosophies, as well as the text that it is written in. Sridhara Swami in his Bhagavatam commentary never refers to a number of philosophies and religions, but you don't use this to claim he is from 3000 years ago. It is a circumstancial evidence at most. Many Buddhist texts do refer to Puranic stories, including passages from the Bhagavatam. I will try to give some examples. I was just reading a book on this topic a couple days ago. Anyway, I expect your answer will be that those buddhist texts are obviously only 500 years old because they cite Puranas. It again comes back to the same opinion one holds. I would be interested in seeing the actual verses of these books you refer to from Jaina and Buddhist manuscripts. I would like to judge them on their own merit, rather than on your words. You keep going back in circles. You say the texts are from date XYZ because another text is dated ABC. I'm not convinced.

I was really excited when I saw the title. I thought, "Finally here it is! The proof!" But I was a little disappointed when I read it. This is your opinion. The Gita says Krishna is the cheat of the cheats. If one accepts there is a God, then it is pointless to try to limit him according to one's opinion of what he should be like. As Mohini Avatara he cheated the Asuras. As Krishna he told Yudhisthira to tell a lie. As Vamana He cheated Bali out of his land. And as Buddha he tricked the fallen brahmanas so that they would stop killing animals. One would also have to take into considerations what category of avatara buddha belonged to. He was of the shakti-avesha category, or a jiva who is empowered by Narayana's potency. He was not Narayana himself. The same is the case with Parashurama. He was empowered by Narayana, but was not Narayana himself. When Ramachandra met Parashurama, He told Parashurama that his mission was over and that He would withdraw His potency from Parashurama. Saying 'vedantins' is like saying 'Hindus'. 'Hindus agree that Krishna is God.' There are a variety of opinions that should not be lumped under one category. And technically your statement is false, for different vedantic schools accept shruti as authority for different reasons - not all because it is the word of God. Buddha established an upa-dharma, or temporary subsidiary religious principle based on time, place and circumstance. This is your opinion. Some others say these texts were written by Vyasa Muni aproximately 5,000 years ago. You use the same logic to conclude Radha didn't exist. Because she isn't mentioned in the Bhagavatam by name, therefore she never existed. I would like to see the list of 62 philosophies, as well as the text that it is written in. Sridhara Swami in his Bhagavatam commentary never refers to a number of philosophies and religions, but you don't use this to claim he is from 3000 years ago. It is a circumstancial evidence at most. Many Buddhist texts do refer to Puranic stories, including passages from the Bhagavatam. I will try to give some examples. I was just reading a book on this topic a couple days ago. Anyway, I expect your answer will be that those buddhist texts are obviously only 500 years old because they cite Puranas. It again comes back to the same opinion one holds. I would be interested in seeing the actual verses of these books you refer to from Jaina and Buddhist manuscripts. I would like to judge them on their own merit, rather than on your words. You keep going back in circles. You say the texts are from date XYZ because another text is dated ABC. I'm not convinced.

Here is the "reply" I posted that accidentally erased your message. I hit edit, wrote everything, and then was surprised I couldn't find my message... until I looked up at yours. There it was. Your opinion is the texts are post-buddha, my opinion is the texts are pre-buddha. There is no "proof" for either claim. You are basing your claims on what you have studied. I am basing my claims on what I have studied. What you call as facts, I call as opinions. What I call as facts, you call as opinions. Thats why I said it is impossible to prove anything to you.

Shvu, if you remember could you try to repost what you said in the deleted message above?

Many of Mirabhai's bhajans were written by others after she left, and attributed to her. It is possible the verses where she acknowledges Chaitanya's avatara may be such a case, it also may not be. There's no easy way of knowing.

I don't think this can be logically discussed with you, since to you any mention of a person in a text is proof the text was written after the persons birth. No matter how many texts one would show which provide predictions, you will say, "No, the fact that his name is mentioned shows it was written later." After a few hundred thousand years you will probably tell me (in a later birth) that the references to Kalki were written after he appeared and chopped our heads off. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-30-2001).]

t

test

Maybe in YOUR version. In Satyaraja's version, the official UNESCO one, translated by a board of scholars, like Munishwar whats his name, Narada told him to keep killing animals because bhakti does not depend on any regulations.

You know that my usage of "Vedic scriptures" includes shruti, smriti and nyaya texts. The above text being referenced is a puranic text. I hope we don't have to go back to this topic again.

Satya, before providing the quotes from smriti that potatos are pure like the ganga even if they touch beef, could you first explain how Shankaracharya was born in Chidambaram? And why no one else in the world has ever made this statement? You may want to defend that Shankaracharya was born in Chidambaram, but the fact is it isn't true. Its about as true as Madhvacharya being born in Brazil. One more thing about this book. I have doubts about the quality of the translation and editing. It was originally written in Bengali. I noticed in some places the editors have used the english word "gnostic", when the author had actually used the sanskrit word "nastik" (nastika). The two words have absolutely opposite meanings. But no one involved in the publication noticed this mistake. Its very funny to read the sentence that is supposed to be speaking against atheists (nastikas), but instead is condemning "gnostics".

I certainly hope he doesn't actually represent Narayana Maharaja. He is certainly giving his guru a bad name. But maybe this is actually what his guru has taught him. That certainly would explain why certain temples don't allow him to preach there. It is quite deceptive to claim to be a siksha disciple of someone, like Srila Prabhupada, but to disagree with every thing he states. Perhaps the meaning of disciple is different in Brazil and India. And regarding the original topic, Satyaraj, you continue with your strawmen arguments. You claim we are stating something we never said, and then you try to defeat it. Where was it said, and by whom, that vegetarianism leads to bhakti? But you post a long repsonse against a non-existent argument. You did the same with the other thread. When I asked you to show me references from the smriti texts, you couldn't do it, and instead you posted three long messages about how bhakti is independent of everything. Who was talking about bhakti in that thread? Your habit is, when you can't substantiate a point with vedic evidence, you change the topic to bhakti, prema, and the such. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-29-2001).]

Below are 30 verses from the Damar Tantra, an ancient sanskrit text on Shivambu practice (urine therapy). The Damar Tantra contains a total of 107 verses. It is a conversation between Shiva and Parvati. Later I will post some known people's experiences with this practice. O Parvati! I shall expound to you the recommended actions and rituals of Shivambu Kalpa that confers numerous benefits. Those well versed in the scriptures have carefully specified certain vessels for the purpose. (1) Utensils made from the following materials are recommended: Gold, Silver, Copper, Bronze, Brass, Iron, Clay, Ivory, Glass, Wood from sacred trees, Bones, Leather and Leaves. (2, 3) The Shivambu (one's own urine) should be collected in a utensil made of any of these materials. Among them, clay utensils are better, copper are by far the best. (4) The intending practitioner of the therapy should abjure salty or bitter foods, should not over-exert himself, should take a light meal in the evening, should sleep on the ground, and should control and master his senses. (5) The sagacious practitioner should get up when three quarters of the night have elapsed, and should pass urine while facing the east. (6) The wise one should leave out the first and the last portions of the urine, and collect only the middle portion. This is considered the best procedure. (7) Just as there is poison in the mouth and the tail of the serpent, O Parvati, it is even so in the case of the flow of Shivambu. (8) Shivambu (auto- urine) is heavenly nectar, which is capable of destroying senility and diseases. The practitioner of Yoga should take it before proceeding with his other rituals. (9) After cleansing the mouth, and performing the other essential morning functions, one should drink one's own clear urine, which is the annihilator of senility and diseases. (10) One who drinks Shivambu for the duration of a month will be purified internally. Drinking it for two months stimulates and energizes the senses. (11) Drinking it for three months destroys all diseases and frees one from all troubles. By drinking it for five months, one acquires divine vision and freedom from all diseases. (12) Continuation of the practice for six months makes the practitioner highly intelligent and proficient in the scriptures, and if the duration is seven months, the practitioner acquires extraordinary strength. (13) If the practice is continued for eight months, one acquires a permanent glow like that of gold, and if it is continued for nine months, one is freed from tuberculosis and leprosy. (14) Ten months of this practice makes one a veritable treasury of luster. Eleven months of it would purify all the organs of the body. (15) A man who has continued the practice for a year becomes the equal of the sun in radiance. He who has continued for two years conquers the element Earth. (16) If the practice is continued for three years, one conquers the element of Water, and if it is continued for four years, the element Light is also conquered. (17) He who continues the practice for five years conquers the element Air, and he who continues it for seven years conquers pride. (18) Continuation of the practice for eight years enables one to conquer all the important elements of Nature, and continuation of it for nine years frees one from the cycle of birth and death. (19) One who has continued the practice for ten years can fly through the air without effort. One who has continued it for eleven years is able to hear the voice of his sour (inner self). (20) He who has continued the practice for twelve years will live so long as the moon and the stars last. He is not troubled by dangerous animals such as snakes, and no poisons can kill him. He cannot be consumed by fire, and can float on water just like wood. (21) O Goddess! I shall tell you now about other variants of the therapy. Please listen attentively. He who takes powdered amrita (gaduchi, Tinospora Condifolia) mixed with Auto-Urine habitually for six months, is freed from all disorders, and acquires happiness. (22, 23 cont...) Powdered haritaki (harade, Terminalia Chebula) should be assiduously taken with Shivambu. This combination destroys senile degeneration and all diseases. If this practice is continued for a year, it makes one exceptionally strong. (...23, 24) One masha (about one gramme) of sulpher be taken along with Shivambu every morning. He who continues the practice for three years will live as long as the moon and the stars last. His urine and feces will whiten gold. (25) The powder of the Koshtha fruit should be mixed properly with Shivambu and taken in the prescribed manner. If this practice is continued for twelve years, one's body will be free from the ravages of old age such as wrinkles on the skin, and whitening of the hair. One acquires the strength of a thousand elephants, and lives as long as the moon and the stars continue to exist. (26) If powdered pepper and Triphala Choorna (mixed powder of Terminalia Belavica, Terminalia Chebul and Phylonthus Embica) mixed with Shivambu are taken regularly, one acquired a radiance like that of the gods. (27) The essence (bhasma) of mica and sulpher should be taken with Shivambu along with a little water. This cures al disorders caused by malfunctioning of the digestive system and all disorders caused by the Vata humour. He who takes such a mixture regularly become strong, acquires a divine radiance, and can cheat time (escape the ravages of time). (28, 29) He who takes Shivambu daily and excluded salty, sour and bitter food from his diet acquires divine accomplishments quickly. Freed from all ailments, and possessing a body comparable to that of Shiva Himself, he disports himself like the gods in the Universe for an eternity. (30). [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-29-2001).]

The book you have mentioned, also referred to as "Vaishnava Vijaya", is quite questionable due to the huge number of historical errors found in it. The title itself suggests it is a one sided topic. I don't know why the respected swamiji chose to include many dubious claims in this work. It was obviously meant for a particular time, place and circumstance (as you like to say), and not as a factual account of ancient history. Throughout the book he misquotes countless people and books, even going as far as attributing a statement to a particular verse of the torah, which in fact does not say what he claims. As far as his opinion of Shankara, he chooses to go by the statements of one Shivanath Shiromani, a completely unknown personality who did not live any time near that of Shankara. In the book "Vaishnava Vijaya", the swamiji states: Unique, as in not in line with any traditional biography. Further more, he chooses to mainly quote from recent bengali scholars. When citing from works, he chooses to cite page numbers rather than verse numbers! This clearly shows his book was meant for that particular time, when those books were available. Just to give one example of an error in this book: This is absolutely wrong on a number of points. It is interestng to note that this year happens to be the one accepted by the same Shivanatha Shiromani, and in fits with the alleged boiling in oil in 818 A.D. going by Shankara's age when he left. In which book does it say Shankara was born in Chidambaram?! Maybe some Bengali scholars had written such things, and it had been accepted. Who knows. But I wouldn't go around quoting this to anyone else. We should also note that this book was originally a series of articles published in a newsletter. It was not meant to be a book. He says Shankara's date was 786 A.D., but he also quotes the Dwaraka Matha's manuscripts that Chitsukacharya of Dwaraka Math was from 2757 Kali era, or roughly 300 B.C. How did Shankara's later disciple appear 1000 years before Shankara? His answer is simple, he accepts Shivanatha Shiromani's date for shankara and rewrites everyone elses date to come after him. There are countless other errors in this book, such as dates, histories, and books attributed to different acharyas. All I can say is no one would accept the statements as fact, neither scholars nor traditionalists. The essence of the book may be what should be seen and not the actual exact statements. They are clearly and undisputably wrong.

I will certainly post some information for you. But it may take a little while. I have to go into "the trunks". We have a lot of old trunks here full of old books, manuscripts and documents. It is a time consuming process because there is no order to it. There is a story something like that, where Shankaracharya enters the body of a king in order to win a debate. But any name you pick out of ancient Indian history will be subjected to the same re-dating by the western indologists. To them everything happened after Christ; it must have, because their religion is the one true faith. Anything that appears to be older actually isn't.

This logic is faulty. If one of the date of Shankara was manipulated and made recent, the same can be the case for all the other people identified by the indologists. And this just so happens to be the case if we accept the traditional biographies of these personalities. For example, the Alvars have their dates of birth recorded in detail, and some are from up to five thousand years ago. yet the indologists want to put them all 1000 years ago. The same is the case for almost any historical personality form ancient India. The indologists make all of them as being after Christ. Why? Because otherwise it wouldn't fit in with their world view. What is the evidence that a person like Shankara lived in 800 A.D.? Is there a single ancient book or writing that points to a corresponding date? The answer is no. So this date was just scooped out of the air by indologists, as are the other dates for occurrences in Indian history.

Satyaraja, Just as a hypothetical question. If that buddhist monk you mentioned (the one who you claimed killed Shankaracharya by boiling him in oil) had put french fries into the oil along with Shankaracharya, would those french fries be pure or impure? I'm just trying to sort out the interconnections between all the anugatya you follow. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-29-2001).]