Jahnava Nitai Das

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>This verse is spurious for the following reasons, 2. Shankara never debated with the Buddhists. Kumarila Bhatta was the one, and he was not a Mayavadi. He was a Purva-mimamsaka. This again shows that the info in the verse is false. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The verse from Padma Purana never mentions anything about Shankara debating buddhists. So I think this point doesn't refute the authenticity of the verse. Some other things off the top of my head, maybe not so connected with this discussion. The Vedic conception is that buddhism is eternal. Just as vidya is eternal, avidya also exists eternally. In various Kali yugas Vishnu incarnates as buddha and repropogates this philosophy. The Bhagavatam mentions two particular buddhas. One that has appeared in the prior Kali-yuga, and one that "will appear". What to speak of buddhism, even other cultures such as yavana, etc., existed in previous kali-yugas. The worlds religipons come and go in cycles just like everyting else. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Amazing fact : Your Prema Bhakti has no basis in the Sruti and there is nothing eternal about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Some would consider the Taittiriya Upanishad to be refering to prema bhakti in the following verse: raso vai sah, rasam hy evayam labdhvanandi bhavati But that is a matter of interpretation. And the Purusha-bhodini Upanishad (though it may not be as well known a text): eko devo nitya-lilanurakto bhakta-vyapi hrdy antar-atma As far as duality in the shrutis, the katha upanishad states: nityo nityananm chetanash chetananam eko bahunam yo vidadhati kaman It is clear here. The one among the many, the one eternal among all eternals, the one conscious among all the conscious, that one is the fulfiller of desires.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>This verse is spurious for the following reasons, 2. Shankara never debated with the Buddhists. Kumarila Bhatta was the one, and he was not a Mayavadi. He was a Purva-mimamsaka. This again shows that the info in the verse is false. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The verse from Padma Purana never mentions anything about Shankara debating buddhists. So I think this point doesn't refute the authenticity of the verse. Some other things off the top of my head, maybe not so connected with this discussion. The Vedic conception is that buddhism is eternal. Just as vidya is eternal, avidya also exists eternally. In various Kali yugas Vishnu incarnates as buddha and repropogates this philosophy. The Bhagavatam mentions two particular buddhas. One that has appeared in the prior Kali-yuga, and one that "will appear". What to speak of buddhism, even other cultures such as yavana, etc., existed in previous kali-yugas. The worlds religipons come and go in cycles just like everyting else. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Amazing fact : Your Prema Bhakti has no basis in the Sruti and there is nothing eternal about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Some would consider the Taittiriya Upanishad to be refering to prema bhakti in the following verse: raso vai sah, rasam hy evayam labdhvanandi bhavati But that is a matter of interpretation. And the Purusha-bhodini Upanishad (though it may not be as well known a text): eko devo nitya-lilanurakto bhakta-vyapi hrdy antar-atma As far as duality in the shrutis, the katha upanishad states: nityo nityananm chetanash chetananam eko bahunam yo vidadhati kaman It is clear here. The one among the many, the one eternal among all eternals, the one conscious among all the conscious, that one is the fulfiller of desires.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> I cannot come up with some incidents in the life of Chaitanya from an unknown source which do not conform to the Chaitanya Charitamrita and say it is my opinion, can I? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There are plenty of people who do just that, and it becomes a matter of their faith. Of course, when they do that, not many people listen. And that is what should be expected. My opinion is that the authorized (traditional) biographies of any acharya (shankara, madhva, ramanuja, chaitanya, etc.) should be accepted as primary evidence. But this does not rule out some other source of biographical information that may exist or manifest. But then in general, secondary evidence relies heavily on faith. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Regarding the navadwipa-Dham, you had earlier said that it was based on the Bhavisya Purana.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The meeting of Chaitanya with the acharyas is described in Bhavishya Purana, but the particular narration of Navadvipa-mahatmya (and its details) are, according to the tradition, revelation. This is a matter of faith based generally on one's spiritual experience and relationship with Thakur Bhaktivinoda, the author of the text. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> But now if you say it was revealed, then I have no comments about that. That is a matter of personal opinion. But one can understand that this puts down Madhva, Ramanuja and Mimbarka. Especially unacceptable to their respective followers, because they do not accept Chaitanya as an avatar. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Since most followers of the mentioned acharyas consider Chaitanya to be a living entity, the entire occurence would be dismissed as false. It then becomes a question not about whether Chaitanya appeared to these personalities, but whether Chaitanya is in fact an avatara. Based on one's conclusion to that point, the other conclusions would follow.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> I cannot come up with some incidents in the life of Chaitanya from an unknown source which do not conform to the Chaitanya Charitamrita and say it is my opinion, can I? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There are plenty of people who do just that, and it becomes a matter of their faith. Of course, when they do that, not many people listen. And that is what should be expected. My opinion is that the authorized (traditional) biographies of any acharya (shankara, madhva, ramanuja, chaitanya, etc.) should be accepted as primary evidence. But this does not rule out some other source of biographical information that may exist or manifest. But then in general, secondary evidence relies heavily on faith. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Regarding the navadwipa-Dham, you had earlier said that it was based on the Bhavisya Purana.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The meeting of Chaitanya with the acharyas is described in Bhavishya Purana, but the particular narration of Navadvipa-mahatmya (and its details) are, according to the tradition, revelation. This is a matter of faith based generally on one's spiritual experience and relationship with Thakur Bhaktivinoda, the author of the text. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> But now if you say it was revealed, then I have no comments about that. That is a matter of personal opinion. But one can understand that this puts down Madhva, Ramanuja and Mimbarka. Especially unacceptable to their respective followers, because they do not accept Chaitanya as an avatar. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Since most followers of the mentioned acharyas consider Chaitanya to be a living entity, the entire occurence would be dismissed as false. It then becomes a question not about whether Chaitanya appeared to these personalities, but whether Chaitanya is in fact an avatara. Based on one's conclusion to that point, the other conclusions would follow.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>To repeatedly quote from false sources, especially after I have pointed out a couple of times that the only valid source for the life-story of Shankara is the Madhaviya Shankara Vijayam, qualifies as foolishness.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What is determined as authentic and what is false is a matter mostly based on opinion. Though there are "more accepted" opinions and "less accepted" opinions. I'm not arguing for or against either stance. My point is just on what is accepted as standard authority. It will naturally differ according to individuals. I never heard the story about the boiling oil before. Perhaps more information on the source would be helpful. I would generally agree that those texts written immediately after the departure of the acharya would be more authentic in a general sense. But then there is the point of revelation, which Shvu is probably unable to accept as an atheist. The text Navadvipa-mahatmya is not claimed to be based on other texts. It's claim is that it is revelation from a liberated soul. Every tradition has such texts that are divinely authored or inspired. There is no way to prove or disprove such texts. Belief in them will ultimately rely on the faith on has in the source. Just as an example, Ramakrishna claimed Chaitanya manifested to him. Personally, as a follower of Chaitanya, I do not believe the claim for various reasons that are not important to bring up at present. But there is no way for me to prove or disprove Ramakrishna's statements. I could present a logical argument as to why I don't believe the claim. But it is ultimately based on logic, and logic is ultimately fallable. That's why such a belief or disbelief must be based on faith. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> History is not a matter of opinion that everyone can have his own version of it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unfortunatley everyone does have their own opinion. And even more unfortunate is that accepted "history" is just the opinion of the powerful nations and societies. It would be nice if there actually were a "history" as it really was. But conditioned living entities have various defects, such as cheating propensities, etc., which invariably make it impossible to have an objective history of the world.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>To repeatedly quote from false sources, especially after I have pointed out a couple of times that the only valid source for the life-story of Shankara is the Madhaviya Shankara Vijayam, qualifies as foolishness.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What is determined as authentic and what is false is a matter mostly based on opinion. Though there are "more accepted" opinions and "less accepted" opinions. I'm not arguing for or against either stance. My point is just on what is accepted as standard authority. It will naturally differ according to individuals. I never heard the story about the boiling oil before. Perhaps more information on the source would be helpful. I would generally agree that those texts written immediately after the departure of the acharya would be more authentic in a general sense. But then there is the point of revelation, which Shvu is probably unable to accept as an atheist. The text Navadvipa-mahatmya is not claimed to be based on other texts. It's claim is that it is revelation from a liberated soul. Every tradition has such texts that are divinely authored or inspired. There is no way to prove or disprove such texts. Belief in them will ultimately rely on the faith on has in the source. Just as an example, Ramakrishna claimed Chaitanya manifested to him. Personally, as a follower of Chaitanya, I do not believe the claim for various reasons that are not important to bring up at present. But there is no way for me to prove or disprove Ramakrishna's statements. I could present a logical argument as to why I don't believe the claim. But it is ultimately based on logic, and logic is ultimately fallable. That's why such a belief or disbelief must be based on faith. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> History is not a matter of opinion that everyone can have his own version of it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unfortunatley everyone does have their own opinion. And even more unfortunate is that accepted "history" is just the opinion of the powerful nations and societies. It would be nice if there actually were a "history" as it really was. But conditioned living entities have various defects, such as cheating propensities, etc., which invariably make it impossible to have an objective history of the world.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I have already told you that your sources for information on Shankara and advaita are all false. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is, of course, your opinion. You are entitled to it. But it isn't very logical to think everyone will agree with you on the basis that you say so.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I have already told you that your sources for information on Shankara and advaita are all false. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is, of course, your opinion. You are entitled to it. But it isn't very logical to think everyone will agree with you on the basis that you say so.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If Shankara is held so high in the Gaudiya Vaishnav community then why..pray tell... is it recommended that one jump into a river and bathe immediately upon seeing such an offender?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps we can see a reference to this, then we can see which school the quote belongs to, and whether it mentions "Shankara". Otherwise the logic just doesn't work. To say, "If shankara is held so high..." and then refer a verse that does not mention shankara, just doesn't seem to fit together properly. Of course, maybe upon seeing the verse your point may become clear. Better we wait and see.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If Shankara is held so high in the Gaudiya Vaishnav community then why..pray tell... is it recommended that one jump into a river and bathe immediately upon seeing such an offender?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps we can see a reference to this, then we can see which school the quote belongs to, and whether it mentions "Shankara". Otherwise the logic just doesn't work. To say, "If shankara is held so high..." and then refer a verse that does not mention shankara, just doesn't seem to fit together properly. Of course, maybe upon seeing the verse your point may become clear. Better we wait and see.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Similarly a non-advaitin cannot talk about the tenets of Advaita, without studying them from authentic sources. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think everyone will agree with this. The only disagreement would be on how we define authentic sources.

That font seems to work ok. But why are there little lines like this '|' above all the words. Or am I the only one who sees that?

If the font is public domain, tell us where we can download it, then we will all install it. Also I will keep it in the downloads section.

I just noticed why some messages get cut off. If you post a double '|' as some people do to indicate the end of a sanskrit verse, the UBB forums somehow interpret that as the end of the message.

A second try: saa saa.nkhyaanaa.m gatiH paartha yoginaa.m cha tapasvinaam | tat pada.m parama.m brahma sarva.m vibhajate jagat (HV 2.114.11) maameva tad ghana.m tejo j~naatum arhasi bhaarata (HV 2.114.12) "It is the supreme goal of the followers of Saa.nkhya, O Paartha, as well as that of the yogiis and ascetics. It is the Supreme Absolute Truth, manifesting the varieties of the entire created cosmos. You should understand this brahma-jyoti, O Bhaarata, to be My concentrated personal effulgence" (Sri Harivamsha, Vishnuparva 114.11-12).

saa saa.nkhyaanaa.m gatiH paartha yoginaa.m cha tapasvinaam | tat pada.m parama.m brahma sarva.m vibhajate jagat

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>btw I notice that you still say 'Vedic lore'. To clarify, there is no Buddha mentioned in any of the Vedas.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No one has claimed buddha is mentioned in the Vedas, there was a mention that buddha is mentioned in "Vedic lore". Get a dictionary and look it up. To sumarize it: "Lore refers to traditional stories of a particular culture." Like I said in the past, "Vedic" refers to a culture, and those texts belonging to this culture are known as "vedic lore" or vedic literature. Others may define their terms diferently, but only a foolish person would think he has a monopoly on language usage.

For some reason on my system only half the characaters are devanagari. It looked fine when I typed it the baraha wordprocessor, but when I pasted the html code, it became wierd. Even your writing looks messed up, half devanagari, half some other characters. Maybe its just my system.

<FONT SIZE=+0 COLOR=000000 FACE="Baraha Devanagari Simple" >UµTy Im¶°Pd UµTy Im¶°Pd Im¶°Pd Im¶°Pd UµTy UµTy | UµTy Td«d UµTy Td«d Td«d Td«d UµTy UµTy

This chapter of Srimad Bhagavatam is the same description as found in the purusha-sukta prayers.

Narayana is aguna or nirguna, indicating that he is free from the influence of the three modes of nature (Sattva, Rajas and Tamas). Ramanuja comments on the word nirguna, that Narayana is actually the reservoir of unlimited auspicious qualities, each free from the influence of sattva, rajas and tamas. For the purpose of creation, maintenance and destruction, Narayana accepts the qualities of sattva, rajas and tamas in the personalities of Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva. Though these personalities control the respective gunas, they themselves are not under the influence of these qualities. The word 'svatah' indicates Sri Narayana's omnipotence. He is completely self-sufficient. That the universes rest on the Lord has been confirmed by Lord Krishna in the Gita: mattah parataram nanyat kincid asti dhananjaya mayi sarvam idam protam sutre mani gana iva "There is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me as pearls are strung on a thread." Thus the Lord is the foundation of all existence, including the material manifestation. By His avyakta-murti, the Lord pervades the entire existence.

I hate to bring up an old topic, but the verse at the begining of this thread was just a plain out false translation. The sanskrit did not contain anything about the stories "only being literary devices", nor that "they had no significance", nor that they "are not to be taken literally". In other words, the entire translation is a fabrication. I don't think I need to repost that old thread to remind everyone. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Although the translation above was not literal, the meaning remains unchanged. This was clarified on that thread too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The meaning given above has no connection with the sanskrit verse. It was the opinion of the author interpolated into the translation. Anyway, better to talk about the most recent verse posted by Animesh. Lets see if we can have some positive discusion.

I do think new people may be confused if we write texts in a font that is not installed universally. Maybe we could have a separate forum for posting sanskrit texts, with devanagari and english translations? There the poster could use the html commands to post the devanagari. Also it would be best if we could also post the roman transliteration as well, as Shvu suggested. This way everyone is covered. These are just some ideaas. Any suggestions?

I will look into the possibility of using different fonts with the forums.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>In one place, Bhagwatam mentions that Matsya incarnation took place during the time of sixth (Chakshush) Manu and somewhere else it mentions that it took place in previous kalpa. Are these two different incarnations?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes. These are two different matsya avataras. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>...it must have been a little before Brahma's afternoon during the time of Matsya incarnation. So, how come there was a universal dissolution?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There are different categories of pralaya. At the end of every manvantara there is a minor pralaya, at the end of every kalpa (day of Brahma) there is a greater pralaya, and at the end of the life of Brahma there is the maha-pralaya.