Jahnava Nitai Das

Doesn't that belong in the jokes forum?

But interestingly enough, Shankara is one of the eight commentators mentioned by Madhva. Today there is no commentary available by Shankara, but it is possible it may have existed at one time.

But interestingly enough, Shankara is one of the eight commentators mentioned by Madhva. Today there is no commentary available by Shankara, but it is possible it may have existed at one time.

I don't know much about Quran, but this verse seems to rule out "inventing" an image, making something up. I would consider that different from a "revealed" image shown by God. I see this as saying God is incomparable, or asamaurdhva - no one equal and no one above. It doesn't seem tp refer to his form. I dont know much about Quran, but there are statements like "the good will be at his right hand..." etc. which could imply a conception of form.

Some people believe the Srimad Bhagavatam, or Bhagavata Purana, was authored in the 13th century by Bopadeva. Some early indologists held this view, but later scholars have found it to be false for a number of reasons. I will briefly mention the points offered by various scholars in this regards. 1) Bopadeva is dated to have lived in the 13th century. Ramachandra, the Yadava king of Devagiri reigned from 1271 to 1309 AD. His prime minister wes Hemadri. It was to please Hemadri that Bopadeva's other books on the bhagavata (summaries, indexes, etc.) were written: srimadbhagavata-skandhadhyayarthadi nirupyate vidusha bopadevena mantrihemadritushtaye Thus the date of Bopadeva is well established and accepted. Bopadeva wrote three books on the Bhagavata, namely "Harililamrita", "Mukta-phala" and "Paramahamsa-priya". Hemadri has written a commentary on Mukta-phala. In Hemadri's commentary on Mukta-phala, a list of Bopadeva's writings is given. A total of 26 books authored by Bopadeva are named and described. If Bopadeva had authored the Bhagavatam, it would have been mentioned by Hemadri. And it is impossible for the Bhagavatam to have been written after this text, as this text was a commentary on a text about the Bhagavatam. 2) Furthermore, Hemadri quotes from the Bhagavata as evidence to establish many of his points. If the Bhagavata had just been composed by Bopadeva, it would not have been used as a source of authority. Only standardly accepted scriptural texts would be used to establish one's points. 3) Also, Hemadri incorporated the Vrata-khanda and Dana-khanda of the Bhagavatam in his own text. If the Bhagavatam had just been written by Bopadeva, it would not have been proper to plagarize his writings in this manner. 4) In his writings, Hemadri quotes from Sridhara Swami's commentary on the Bhagavata. Sridhara Swami's commentary was much older than Hemadri's own writings, thus the Bhagavatam must have predated Hemadri by many years. 5) Madhva, who lived at least 50 years prior to Bopadeva, considered the Bhagavata to be fully inspired ('traditional') and wrote a commentary on it. Thus it was already accepted as an authoritative work prior to the time of Madhva. 6) In Madhva's 'Bhagavata Tatparya Nirnaya', Madhva mentions eight other commentaries on the Bhagavatam prior to his own. Thus not only did the Bhagavatam predate Madhva, it had already become popular by that time.

Some people believe the Srimad Bhagavatam, or Bhagavata Purana, was authored in the 13th century by Bopadeva. Some early indologists held this view, but later scholars have found it to be false for a number of reasons. I will briefly mention the points offered by various scholars in this regards. 1) Bopadeva is dated to have lived in the 13th century. Ramachandra, the Yadava king of Devagiri reigned from 1271 to 1309 AD. His prime minister wes Hemadri. It was to please Hemadri that Bopadeva's other books on the bhagavata (summaries, indexes, etc.) were written: srimadbhagavata-skandhadhyayarthadi nirupyate vidusha bopadevena mantrihemadritushtaye Thus the date of Bopadeva is well established and accepted. Bopadeva wrote three books on the Bhagavata, namely "Harililamrita", "Mukta-phala" and "Paramahamsa-priya". Hemadri has written a commentary on Mukta-phala. In Hemadri's commentary on Mukta-phala, a list of Bopadeva's writings is given. A total of 26 books authored by Bopadeva are named and described. If Bopadeva had authored the Bhagavatam, it would have been mentioned by Hemadri. And it is impossible for the Bhagavatam to have been written after this text, as this text was a commentary on a text about the Bhagavatam. 2) Furthermore, Hemadri quotes from the Bhagavata as evidence to establish many of his points. If the Bhagavata had just been composed by Bopadeva, it would not have been used as a source of authority. Only standardly accepted scriptural texts would be used to establish one's points. 3) Also, Hemadri incorporated the Vrata-khanda and Dana-khanda of the Bhagavatam in his own text. If the Bhagavatam had just been written by Bopadeva, it would not have been proper to plagarize his writings in this manner. 4) In his writings, Hemadri quotes from Sridhara Swami's commentary on the Bhagavata. Sridhara Swami's commentary was much older than Hemadri's own writings, thus the Bhagavatam must have predated Hemadri by many years. 5) Madhva, who lived at least 50 years prior to Bopadeva, considered the Bhagavata to be fully inspired ('traditional') and wrote a commentary on it. Thus it was already accepted as an authoritative work prior to the time of Madhva. 6) In Madhva's 'Bhagavata Tatparya Nirnaya', Madhva mentions eight other commentaries on the Bhagavatam prior to his own. Thus not only did the Bhagavatam predate Madhva, it had already become popular by that time.

My Gosh! We're all here at the same time.

My Gosh! We're all here at the same time.

And the process of descending knowledge involves to varying degrees the revelation of knowledge by God. Through the process of bhakti, Krishna within purifies the contaminations in one's heart and creates a suitable situation to receive transcendental knowledge. Otherwise it is equally possible to use one's mundane senses to try to understand spiritual knowledge. But the scriptures advise against it, as it is an external process of comprehension. It is likened to an ant licking the outside of a jar of honey. They will be no transcendental realization.

And the process of descending knowledge involves to varying degrees the revelation of knowledge by God. Through the process of bhakti, Krishna within purifies the contaminations in one's heart and creates a suitable situation to receive transcendental knowledge. Otherwise it is equally possible to use one's mundane senses to try to understand spiritual knowledge. But the scriptures advise against it, as it is an external process of comprehension. It is likened to an ant licking the outside of a jar of honey. They will be no transcendental realization.

Its odd that you don't hear of any serious injuries caused by this "monkey man", but people are willing to jump off of buildings to escape it - risking death. It appears from what is written, that these people who jumped off of buildings did it based on rumors - they never even saw the creature. Of course I am just judging from what I read here.

I think their point is that one can either receive knowledge by an ascending process or a descending process. An ascending process of knowledge is flawed because it is based on one's faulty sense perception (or imnperfect senses). The descending process of knowledge, theoretically speaking, is coming from God (it is apaurusheya), and thus free from the defects of human sense imperfections. Of course this presupposes that the knowledge has been trasnmitted without alteration, thus the need for a disciplic succession.

I think their point is that one can either receive knowledge by an ascending process or a descending process. An ascending process of knowledge is flawed because it is based on one's faulty sense perception (or imnperfect senses). The descending process of knowledge, theoretically speaking, is coming from God (it is apaurusheya), and thus free from the defects of human sense imperfections. Of course this presupposes that the knowledge has been trasnmitted without alteration, thus the need for a disciplic succession.

The texts do not refer to them as Aryan kings, but as devas or gods. It was the indologists who claimed they referred to aryan kings.

Here is something on UFOs: http://www.indiadivine.com/vedas-ufos1.htm

Here is something on UFOs: http://www.indiadivine.com/vedas-ufos1.htm

But how can they make such a statement if they haven't located the particualr genes and encoding process involved. There is no evidence that such a gene exists. No geneticist has discovered such a gene. But we should blindly accept that this is how it happens? No thanks. Scientists are expert at making an "I don't have a clue..." into a seemingly complex scientific statement. The above quote is a good example of this. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-20-2001).]

But how can they make such a statement if they haven't located the particualr genes and encoding process involved. There is no evidence that such a gene exists. No geneticist has discovered such a gene. But we should blindly accept that this is how it happens? No thanks. Scientists are expert at making an "I don't have a clue..." into a seemingly complex scientific statement. The above quote is a good example of this. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-20-2001).]

How about 'Djabouti'? Does it still even exist? It used to be a country in Africa, but last time I checked that was 10 years ago. You could have a jaguar from djabouti that is yellow and spotted black.

Do you really expect us to believe this?

Do you really expect us to believe this?

I remember a long time ago seeing a similar documentary on Kangaroos. They were explaining how as soon as the kangaroo is born, it immediately looks for the mother's nipple to drink milk.

I remember a long time ago seeing a similar documentary on Kangaroos. They were explaining how as soon as the kangaroo is born, it immediately looks for the mother's nipple to drink milk.

I was speaking in regards to medieval times, not to the present. Many things have happened in the last 500 years to change to situation in these states; just like 500 years ago there were no Gaudiya Vaishnavas in America or Brazil.

No Religious Status For Mathura, Vrindavan FROM THE TIMES OF INDIA NEWS SERVICE INDIA, May 20 (VNN) — No religious status to Mathura, Vrindavan: Govt LUCKNOW: The BJP-led government which swears by the name of Lord Rama has said a firm no to Lord Krishna. The government on Friday clarified in state assembly that Mathura and Vrindavan would not be given a status of religious city. "The government cannot do it as it would be against the secular character of our constitution," said the minister of state for Urban Development Satish Mahana. The government also refused to ban sale of liquor and mutton in the municipal limit if this twin city. The issue was raised through a resolution by Ajay Kumar Pohia (BJP). He said Mathura and Vrindavan are religious city and the government should officially declare it so. He cited history to elaborate the religious importance of the city. Ram Swaroop Sharma (BJP) said that presence of liquor shops demean the religious importance of the city. Cutting across the party lines Ram Tej (Samajwadi Party) said that all the religious places from Kashi to Paryag and from Neemsaar to Ayodhya should be officially get the religious city status. Laxmi Kant Vajpayee (BJP) said that Mathura and Vrindavan should get status akin to Hardwar. The minister said that government is bound by law and it cannot declare any place religious as this may affect the religious sentiments of the people of other community. Moreover, the constitution too does not allow this, he added. The resolution, however, was rejected by voice vote.