Jahnava Nitai Das

--- ...and have verified the translation. You left out that part. --- Actually I didn't leave that out... you just added it in fresh, and that was the point of my post. Again let me refresh your memory on what it is you actually said, which started this discussion: -- Two kinds of people will favor the BG as it is. 1. People who belong to Prabhupada's system and think along his lines. 2. People who have not read other translations of the Gita. No matter how learned they may be, they are not in a position to know about the distortions which exist in this translation. -- You see, this is what we are and were discussing, but you keep bringing in other topics to side step this issue. Reread those two points you made, read them four or five times to get it clear... and then see if your latest statement is included in them: -- "...and have verified the translation. You left out that part." -- Ooops. Thats a new topic altogether, isn't it? Back to the ORIGINAL 2 points you made, which Gauracandra was addressing by citing the sanskrit professor. You say there are only two kinds of people who will favour Prabhupada's Gita, one is his followers (which the profesor is not), and the other is: -- 2. People who have not read other translations of the Gita. No matter how learned they may be, they are not in a position to know about the distortions which exist in this translation. -- So we come back to the point as to whether this professor of sanskrit had or had not read other Gita translations in his life, or maybe he was just a very foolish person who "was not in a position to know about the distortions which exist in this translation." Funny he would recommend it to his students then. But of course this conversations is really a waste of time, because we all know, including yourself, that this professor of Sanskrit has certainly read many translations of Gita, and was certainly in a position to notice any distortions within the translation. In addition to that we know that he is not a follower of Prabhupada. Thus both points one and two that you had made are false. But in order to avoid admitting this, you chose to add a third criteria... that this professor must have verified the translation and proven to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the translation is a literal word for word conversion of the Gita. I think this is why there was mention of a "Shvu Slide". You refuse to stick to your two points which you stated, and instead dilute the discussion to the point of absurdity. I have no problems with people disliking Prabhupada's translation, or thinking that a more literal translation is better. Everyone has their opinion. But that has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. The topic was in regards to your two points. I will remind you of them again: -- Two kinds of people will favor the BG as it is. 1. People who belong to Prabhupada's system and think along his lines. 2. People who have not read other translations of the Gita. No matter how learned they may be, they are not in a position to know about the distortions which exist in this translation. -- Now we can also say that the professor of sanskrit that was cited should first travel to the moon and prove that it isn't made of blue cheese before we accept that he likes Prabhupada's Gita. But that is just stupid. He likes what he likes. And there is no limitation we can put on what someone likes. He may even agree with you for all we know, but the point is he likes Prabhupada's Gita, and he even recommends it to his students - people whom he is trying to deliver knowledge to. So your statement that learned and independent individuals will not favour Prabhupada's Gita is false. Why is it false? Because their own words are there to prove it. Why should we determine what the professor likes or doesn't like based on your whim. His own words are there, and they should be given precedence over any of our ideas as to what he likes or doesn't like. The topic is not on the correctness or literalness of Prabhupada's translation... It is on who "favors" Prabhupada's translation. That is the exact word you used. You stated that two kinds of people will favour Prabhupada's translation: 1) his followers, and 2) those who have not read other translations. The sanskrit professor quoted is not a follower of Prabhupada, and he has read many translations of Bhagavad Gita. Furthermore he is qualified to see errors in translation, as he is a sanskrit professor. Yet he still favours Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita. Thus points one and two are false. It has nothing to do with proving whether Prabhupada's translation is correct or not.

Just to clarify what is "point 2" I will repost it below. --- “2) People who have not read other translations of the Gita. No matter how learned they may be, they are not in a position to know about the distortions which exist in this translation.” --- Your stance is that this sanskrit professor being discussed fits into this category. Either he hasn't read other translations of Bhagavad Gita, or he is basically a fool who isn't aware of all the things which you are privy to in regards to Bhagavad Gita. According to some, the world's leading universities generally employ professors who don't know anything about the topic they teach... In a follow up point you created two new "points" also called point 1 and point 2. So just to make it clear that we are not discussing the new two points, but are discussing the original two points, I thought it would be helpful to repost original point 2 above. We wouldn't want the discussion to slide of in another direction.

I don't want to intrude into this topic, but you seem to have changed the question in mid argument. There is a technical word to describe this type of argument, but being not too educated I can't tell you what it is. Maybe Shirsha Rao can help us out by telling what the technical word for this would be. Anyway, to the point. The original argument that was being debated was whether there were people who accepted Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita as authoritative, who themselves were not followers of Prabhupada. It waas a pretty straight forward question, and the answer was pretty straight forward as well. But then you changed the rules: --- "So let us have Dr Atkins or someone else, show that there is indeed no such distortion as mentioned in 1, and I will accept that you have 'conclusively' proven me wrong." --- You seem to have mixed up things. There was no debate as to whether people could convince YOU about Prabhupada's translation. No one needs to "conclusively" prove to YOU whether the translation is right or wrong. That is another topic altogether. The topic was simple: Are there scholars who accept Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita as authoritative, who themselves do not follow Prabhupada? No question of proving to you anything other than that. If you disagree with the scholars opinions, you can feel free to call them up and debate with them. But that would pretty much prove that your two points were false.

It is kind of strange that for 2,000 years none of the Muslim rulers of the area thought they needed to destroy these statues. I guess suddenly some genious leader has come along who understands things that no one else understood for 2,000 years... Or maybe he is just a fanatic.

There are such people presently living, but I prefer not to mention them by name. It is likely to just become a matter of theoretical debate, and quite meaningless.

Someone asked a similar question a while back through email. Since I am a little busy, I will post that answer now, and later follow up when I get time. But just as a quick note, the word sannyasa comes from the words sat-nyasa, which literally means "to touch the absolute truth". Sannyasa is the state in which one is in complete contact with the Lord. It refers neither to renouncing nor to enjoying, but to following the order of Lord Krishna. Arjuna, for example, was a true sannyasi because he carried out the order of Lord Krishna. After Lord Krishna spoke the Gita to Arjuna, Arjuna replied to Lord Krishna, karishye vacanam tava, "I will act according to your words." He did not reply that "I will renounce my duty", neither he said "I will perform my duty." For in actuality the Gita has nothing to do with duty. Duryodhana also performed his duty as a Kshatriya and fought on the battlefield - and for this he went to heaven. Ravana would also perfectly carry out his duty as a king. He personally made sure no one was without food in his kingdom. Duty is neither good nor bad,it is just a product of one's identitification. According to who we think we are, we conceive of various duties. Arjuna did not give the importance to doing his duty. His answer to Lord Krishna was, "I will act according to your instructions." This is the ultimate conclusion of the Gita, to act according to the instructions of the Lord. If in the process of following the Lord's order we transgress our duties it is not a flaw. This is evident from the Lord's words, "sarva dharman parityajya", "Abandon all varieties of religion." Lord Krishna, who comes to re-establish religion (dharma) is telling to Arjuna, "Abandon all varieties of religion." Then why does He say dharma-samsthapanarthaya sambhavami yuge yuge, "I descend in every age to reestablish religion (dharma)." This question we will discuss later when there is time. But in the meantime, we should understand as to what is sannyasa, for it has nothing to do with duties. Sannyasa refers to the state of being in constant touch with the supreme Lord, sat-nyasa. The simplest way to attain this state is by chanting the Lord's holy names, such as "Hare Krishna", "Sri Rama Jayam", "Om Namo Narayanaya", etc. When we chant the names of Lord Hari we are in personal contact with the Lord. There is no difference between the Lord and His name. This is the great gift of the Lord. Sri Chaitanya says: namnam akari bahudha nija-sarva-shaktih "O Lord, in Your holy names exist all of Your unlimited potencies." Thus when we chant the names of the Lord, we are able to touch him and attain the state of sannyasa. Below is the question I had referred to in the beginning along with my answer: --- "Is it necessary to become a monk and leave job/family to realize god?" -- Dear Sri ..., Thank you for writing with your question. According to the great saint Sri Chaitanya, it is not necessary for one to leave one's home to attain God realization. He has said: grihe thako, vane thako, sada 'hari' bole' dako sukhe duhkhe bhulo na'ko, vadane hari-nam koro re "Whether you are a householder or a sannyasi living in the forest, it does not matter. Constantly chant the holy name of Sri Hari. Do not forget this chanting, whether you are in a happy condition or a distressful one. Just fill your lips with nama-kirtana." Those who follow the path of devotion, the bhakti-marga, achieve God realization by the strength of their devotion. They act in such a way that the Lord becomes eager to reveal Himself to them. Others who follow mechanical processes of study and meditation must leave their homes and renounce the world to advance. In the Kali yuga it is advised that one should not leave one's home, but rather one should be situated in one's place and cultivate the path of bhakti. The Srimad Bhagavatam instructs us as follows: sthane sthitah shruti gatam tanu-van-manobhih "Be situated in your place and hear about the destination of life from the scriptures." Sri Arjuna wanted to leave the battlefield of Kurukshetra, but Lord Krishna told him to remain strong and stand up to fight. Our problems are with us in our unstable minds. If we run away from our circumstances, our mind still follows us where ever we go. If we go to a peaceful forest, we will only be bringing a disturbance to that place. Therefore the scriptures advise us to be in our place and learn the process of making our minds peaceful. In such a state of pure consciousness even a busy city is a place of peace. This is the great power of the path of Krishna bhakti. By cultivating pure devotion, anyone in any situation can attain God realization. In this age of Kali there is no other way. Take shelter in the names of Sri Hari. Take up the sadhana of nama-japam. This is the great gift of this age of Kali. Though it is the most sinful of all the yugas, it is also provides us with the simplest process of God realization - Hari nama-kirtana. Yours in service,

--- "I have been wanting to ask you this for sometime. You say 'Sat-Guru'. How does one identify a Sat-Guru out of several Gurus that we have? Is there a a method for this, because if I do come across one sometime, I would like to be in a position to identify him. It will also be useful to other people who read it." --- The lakshanas of the sat-guru are revealed in the second chapter of the Bhagavad Gita in a coded conversation between Arjuna and Lord Krishna. Arjuna begins by asking five questions to Lord Krishna as follows (2.54): sthita-prajnasya ka bhasa samadhi-sthasya kesava sthita-dhih kim prabhaseta kim asita vrajeta kim "Arjuna said: O Krsna, what are the symptoms of one whose consciousness is thus merged in transcendence? How does he speak, and what is his language? How does he sit, and how does he walk?" Of course these questions are a code which we must analyze internally. There is no particular language of a self-realized soul, nor is there a particular sitting posture or walking style. These words refer to something deeper, yet observable. Arjuna's desire is to identify the characteristics of the self-realized soul (sthita-prajna), and thus his questions focus on those things a neophyte sadhaka can observe. He does not ask Krishna what is the inner thought of the self-realized soul, or what is his mystic vision. Why? Because these things are only observable to the sthita-prajna himself. They cannot be identified by external vision. Arjuna's questions, though coded, are for the purpose of practical observation. He is teaching us how to find the sat-guru. In verses 55 to 72 of the second chapter of the Gita, Lord Krishna systematically answers these five questions of Arjuna. In each verse Lord Krishna hints to us that it is an answer to Arjuna's question by using a synonym of "sthita-prajna", such as sthita-dhih, prajna-pratishthita, buddhih paryavatishthate, brahmi sthitih, etc. If we seriously desire to find the shelter of a sat-guru, we should carefully study these 19 verses of the second chapter of Bhagavad Gita with devotion. Sri A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada possessed all of these divine qualities of the sthita-prajna. Those who have found shelter at his lotus feet are very fortunate souls. In recent times the great rasika bhakta, Sri Gaur Govinda Swami also possessed these lakshanas of the sthita prajna. I would advise those interested in spiritual advancement to associate with these great souls through their divine instructions. Though everyone may not have the great fortune to serve these mahatmas personally, we can all serve them by following their instructions.

-- "No food and water for 72 hours and there will be no feelings, not even a feeling of hunger. Because the hormone production would have stopped." -- If emotions are included in the word "feelings", then this statement is not true. Even practically this is applied in medical procedures. For example, when there is some traumatic accident. If someone is burried under the rubble of a collapsed house for five days without food or water, when the rescue workers dig the person out, they do not inform him that his wife and children were found dead. They know the emotional response will affect his ability to recover, and therefore they avoid such information until the person is in a more stable condition.

-- "No food and water for 72 hours and there will be no feelings, not even a feeling of hunger. Because the hormone production would have stopped." -- If emotions are included in the word "feelings", then this statement is not true. Even practically this is applied in medical procedures. For example, when there is some traumatic accident. If someone is burried under the rubble of a collapsed house for five days without food or water, when the rescue workers dig the person out, they do not inform him that his wife and children were found dead. They know the emotional response will affect his ability to recover, and therefore they avoid such information until the person is in a more stable condition.

The Vedas contain all aspects of knowledge, including material knowledge. Those sections of Vedic knowledge which deal with spiritual life are known as Vedanta, or the "end of the Vedas". This category of knowledge refers to the Upanishads. All Vedic knowledge is meant to ultimately push one towards this spiritual knowledge in a slow and gradual process. The ultimate purpose of all Vedic knowledge is to attain spiritual realization, or to know Krishna. In Krishna's own words He says: vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyah "By all the Vedas I am the one to be know." Those who come to give direct spiritual knowledge, avoid presenting the lower material knowledge. Instead they present the ultimate goal of everything. By their spiritual potency they are able to elevate even the lowest people and make them qualified to receive the end of the Vedas. If one does not have the guidance of such a sat-guru, one will dabble in Vedic knowledge, but end up on the slow and gradual path. After many millions of lives, after understanding that Krishna is everything, that person may also attain self-realization. As Krishna says: bahunam janmanam ante jnanavan mam pradadyate vasudeva sarvam iti sa mahatma su-durlabhah "After many, many lives, one who comes to the point of knowledge, surrenders unto Me. Knowing that I [Krishna] am everything. Such a great soul is very, very rare." With the mercy of the pure devotee of the Lord it is possible to come to this position in this very life. Everyone can become a mahatma by the blessings of the sat-guru.

The word Hindu is a modern word, not found in any ancient Sanskrit text. Perhaps the first written occurence of the word Hindu in a sacred text can be traced back around 500 years. Thus it would be interesting to ask what were our forefathers prior to the invention of this word. If someone believes one is "born a Hindu" and "dies a hindu", then what about those born before the concept existed. Maybe they belonged to a different religion? Actually in the ancient times the Vedic beliefs were classified into different categories based on worship, philosophy and sadhana. For example in the category of worship (upasana), there were five classifications based on the scriptures (Agamas) they followed. Those who worshiped Shakti and who followed the shakta agamas were known as Shaktas. Those who worshipped Vishnu and followed the Vaikhanasa Agamas were known as Vaishnavas. Those who followed the Ganapatya Agamas and who worshipped various controllers such as Ganesha were called as Ganapatyas; those who followed the Saurya agamas and who worshipped Surya (the Sun) were called as Sauryas; and those who followed the shaiva agamas and who worshipped Shiva were called as Shaivas. Thus there were Shaivas, Shaktas, Sauryas, Vaishnavas, and Ganapatyas, but no Hindus. Now the question becomes easier, "Is someone born a Shaiva?Is someone born a Vaishnava?" The answer is clearly no. If one disagrees, then it would be impossible for a Shakta to become a Vaishnava, or a Shaiva to become a Saurya. It no longer is just a question of Indians and Foreignors. Besides the classification according to worship (or the deity one worships), there was also a bifurcating classification of philosophy. Thus you had those who followed six different systems of philosophy: Nyaya Vaiseshika, Sankhya, Yoga, Karma-Mimamsa, and Brahma Mimamsa. This would have been another major way to identify one's beliefs in the ancient times. A third method of discrimination was based on one's sadhana or spiritual practice. There were those who followed karma-yoga, jnana-yoga, ashtanga-yoga, and bhakti-yoga. According to Bhagavad Gita anyone who worships Lord Krishna with love and devotion is the topmost yogi. It does not depend on birth or other external designations.

-- "I would like to point out that Shrisha Rao, the reviewer is a an educated person and is a Dvaiti Scholar. He maintains the dvaita.org site and is extremely qualified. As one can see, he has not just made a blunt statement . He has also provided all the sources by which he arrived for that conclusion. And can anyone refute that?" -- Well lets have a look at some of his precise arguments which you alude to: -- "In the Upanishads, the sacred Vedanta texts of yore, one finds in more than one place the well known metaphor of a blind person leading other blind people astray, to illustrate what happens when an incompetent, styling himself a learned man, attempts to teach others what he knows not himself. This metaphor is very apt to describe Prabhupada's translation and purport for the Bhagavad Gita." -- Some may judge this as more of a personal attack then a precise argument. Lets see something more direct in regards to the philosophical differences: -- "For while he claims that his translation and purports follow a "disciplic succession" of traditional commentaries and understanding of the work deriving from the dualistic school of Vedanta of Madhva, they in fact show a great divergence and opposition to the traditional understanding found in the latter's works." -- This seems to be a baseless allegation. There is not a single philosophical analysis in the reviewers article. If the difference was so obvious, as is claimed, it should be easy to show to us common folks. -- "In fact, given the evidence, it is far more correct to say that Prabhupada's interpretations derive from Shankara's than from Madhva's." -- Again this is an unsupported claim by the reviewer. He even avoids discussing the philosophical conclusions of either madhva or shankara in favour of some faulty gramatical argument. Later we find this statement by the reviewer which is quite revealing: -- "...Therefore, Madhva says, as clarified by his commentator..." -- Just out of curiosity does Madhva's statement need to be clarified by a later commentator? And if Madhva's statement isn't crystal clear, then how can we compare it to Prabhupada's translation. I hope you understand my logic here. Is the reviewer comparing Prabhupada's translation to Madhva's direct statement or to a later conclusion which was "clarified" by a future "commentator." I am sure you understand what I am saying and probably agree with me on this point. According to the reviewers own words, he is comparing Prabhupada's statements to a later comentator in the line of Madhva. Then the reviewer sets up a straw man to blow down: -- "While followers of Prabhupada may have any number of objections against this interpretation..." -- The fact is the followers of Prabhupada do not object to the mentioned interpretation. Thus to write an article based on such a point is a waste of time. And then the reviewer explains his purpose of writing this: -- "...our purpose here is only to establish an irreconcilable difference in this matter between Madhva and Prabhupada..." -- Did he establish an "irreconcilable difference"? I failed to see it. It took me all of 3 seconds to see the harmony between the various descriptions in regards to seeing the Vishvarupa. This is the problem when we study a book academically without the guidance of a sat-guru. We fail to see beyond the text. Yet the reviewer again shows his true position as follows: -- "Egregious as Prabhupada's error in this instance is, it is not the only one..." -- Is he saying that Prabhupada's statement is an error (which he claims is also made by shankaracharya), or is he saying Prabhupada's statement disagrees with that of Madhva's. From his words he is saying Prabhupada's translation is an error. So now his paper is proving beyond any doubt, that both Prabhupada and Shankaracharya made grave errors in their interpretation of the sanskrit language (as these alleged errors are purely gramatical). Unfortunately he stops his paper at the point of making the allegations, and fails to offer any support what so ever to his claims. Zero, as in non. Is it a mere coincidence that he repeatedly follows this pattern or argument? What other arguments does this highly qualified individual offer? Lets see: -- "It is clear that the Prabhupada lied through his teeth..." -- Ooops. Thats not an argument, thats just a personal insult. It is interesting that he uses the words "the Prabhupada". Maybe English isn't his first language. We wont get into that here. Here is some more: -- "In addition, Prabhupada's lack of understanding of even the most basic facts of science and astronomy is manifest, so much so that one wonders if he ever passed high school." -- This statement is quite childish and imature. The reviewer would like us to believe that anytime we disagree with something, it is because we don't understand the topic. The reviewer concludes that because Prabhupada disagreed with some modern concepts, he therefore must not have understood those concepts properly. This is a stupid argument, though we find variations of it very popular in these forums. Lets see what else the reviewer has to say: -- Consider for instance what he says under X-21: "There are fifty varieties of winds blowing in space,"... -- Here the reviewer foolishly thinks the word space, which is a translation for "akasha" refers to the modern conception of space, as in outer-space. Does this deserve a comment? I think not. Once again I can only stress the importance of accepting the shelter of a sat-guru. Without such spiritual guidance, the scriptures such as Bhagavad Gita remain locked like a treasure chest. Those who accept a kula-guru to fulfill their caste-based need for a family priest fail to receive the divya-jnanam revealed by the sat-guru. Thinking spiritual knowledge is the property of a particular caste, such people fall deeper and deeper into material conceptions and fail to understand the soul, which is situated beyond all duality and material designation.

-- "Millions of people follow Mohammad's teachings. Scores of people were impressed by Hitlers' ideas. Rajneesh at one time had a very impressive following too. The number and size of the following hardly indicates anything." -- It seems you failed to understand my statement. Please read it once again. The reviewer makes an assertion that because Prabhupada does not accept some modern conceptions of the universe, it is therefore doubtful as to whether or not he had completed high school. In response I noted that many highly educated (in the material sense of the word) people had dedicated their lives to the teachings propounded by Prabhupada. Thus the faulty premise that one who has completed highschool will accept everything taught in highschool is dismissed. Unfortunately you interpreted my statement as judging the correctness of a teaching based on the number of followers. I see very little connection with my statement and your understanding of it. If you read it a second time perhaps the subtleties of it will become clearer. My statement is one of fact - Many people who have finished high school follow the teachings of Prabhupada. Thus the conclusions and doubts of the reviewer are nothing more than personal animosity, rather than genuine bewilderment. -- "As one can see, he [the reviewer] has not just made a blunt statement . He has also provided all the sources by which he arrived for that conclusion. And can anyone refute that?" -- Perhaps you read a different article then what I read, because in the entire article I read there were only two vague references to very minor differences in the explanation of two particular phrases. And the reviewer fails to mention or realize that the two meanings do not contradict each other. In other words there can be simultaneously multiple meanings for a set of words. If one had a sat-guru such things would be clear and easy to understand. For example the reviewer fails to understand that there were different universal forms shown by the Lord to different people. He is under the misconception that there is only one category of vishva-rupa. Because of his misconception, he is unable to reconcile the apparent difference between shankara's statement and madhva's statement. And we should note the apparent disagreement has nothing to do with the actual philosophical position of either acharya, as I am sure you understand. Regardless, this is why the scriptures advise us to study under the guidance of a sat-guru, and not just a kula-guru, or ritualistic family priest. And it is very interesting to note that this "reviewer" has written a review for a book which he has never actually read! This is evident from the fact that in the purports to the 11th chapter of Gita, Prabhupada explains the same conclusions as found in Madhva's and Raghavendra's commentaries to this topic. It is like judging the taste of something by its looks, or judging the smell of something by its shape. This would be considered quite unethical by some. -- "Two kinds of people will favor the BG as it is." "1. People who belong to Prabhupada's system and think along his lines." "2. People who have not read other translations of the Gita. No matter how learned they may be, they are not in a position to know about the distortions which exist in this translation." -- It is interesting (not really) that you choose to use these two reasons why someone would favour Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita As It Is. Especially since you seem to be concluding that it is not possible to have read many translations and still appreciate Prabhupada's version while not being his follow. This is of course false, as we can prove by citing many scholars of Hindu philosophy who consider Prabhupada's Gita as the best english translation in the world. And of course you imply that other "learned people" some how are not in the special position which you are in, which allows you to see things which they cannot. Could you remind us exactly what that special position you are in is?

Yet hundreds of thousands of highly educated devotees have dedicated themselves to his teachings. Perhaps we should wonder whether or not they also passed high school. Just a thought to ponder. And as for the academic qualification of the "reviewer", we can deduce them from his own statements: "In fact, given the evidence, it is far more correct to say that Prabhupada's interpretations derive from Shankara's than from Madhva's." What can we say?

There are two spelling mistakes above. The word poors should be pores, and "form whom" should read "from whom".

There are two spelling mistakes above. The word poors should be pores, and "form whom" should read "from whom".

The only problem with trying to specify a name such as Maha Vishnu or Hari is that each name has a technical definition that refers to a particular activity or form. Maha Vishnu refers to the Karanadakashayi Vishnu, the first of the Purusha Avataras, form whom the universes emanate, like bubbles, from his poors. He glances over the prakriti pradhana and infuses it with the time factor, putting into motion cause and effect. Hari refers to one who takes away (either karmic reactions, material desires, etc., based on the particular context). Thus it is a name that refers to numerous forms of the Lord, including Krishna (or perhaps primarily Krishna).

The only problem with trying to specify a name such as Maha Vishnu or Hari is that each name has a technical definition that refers to a particular activity or form. Maha Vishnu refers to the Karanadakashayi Vishnu, the first of the Purusha Avataras, form whom the universes emanate, like bubbles, from his poors. He glances over the prakriti pradhana and infuses it with the time factor, putting into motion cause and effect. Hari refers to one who takes away (either karmic reactions, material desires, etc., based on the particular context). Thus it is a name that refers to numerous forms of the Lord, including Krishna (or perhaps primarily Krishna).

A sat-guru must be a liberated soul. And thus by definition it is impossible for him to be wrong. If someone mistakes a conditioned soul for a sat-guru, he will certainly be mislead. This is due to his lack of sincerity. The paramatma in the heart arranges for the sincere soul to meet a sat-guru. If the guru is truly liberated (which is actually a redundant statement, for the word guru implies liberated), then it would be foolish for one to reject his instructions in favour of those of one's mind. The idea that one cannot question a guru is a faulty conception, as throughout the Bhagavad Gita Arjuna raises his doubts to the guru and they are cleared by divya-jnanam. But such doubts should be raised humbly and respectfully for the purpose of acquiring knowledge. Foolish challenges would not help one's spiritual advancement at all. The acceptance of a spiritual master is acknowledging that we are in ignorance. One who understands that he doesn't know is fit to receive transcendental knowledge. In summary, if one has the guidance of an omniscient liberated soul, what need is there for text book academic knowledge? One is given the opportunity to acquire vijnana, or realization. Your statement that one is not allowed to reject the guru's statement is kind of silly. For the definition of a true guru includes perfect understanding. I hope no one would reject perfect understanding just for the sake of being free to think under the influence of illusion. Of course, the majority of people do not find the shelter of a sat-guru. They mistake a long beard to be a sign of spiritual advancement, and look for an easy path to God realization that involves little sacrifice. Such people actually do not have a guru, though they may have one by name. It is like calling a piece of stone as gold. No matter how much you call it as gold, factually you do not possess gold.

Perhaps you have not had the great fortune of coming in contact with a muktatma guru, and thus you are not able to properly understand the relationship between guru and disciple. It is a very rare occurence for one to find shelter at the lotus feet of such a great soul. Most people struggle to comprehend the textual message of books, but the muktatma has directly perceived the absolute reality and therefore does not need to rely on speculative interpretations of written books. When one has the proper guidance of such a liberated soul there is no question of doubt, for all doubts will be removed by the effulgence of transcendental knowledge. Where there is light there canbe no darkness. Thus the Upanishads advise us to move from darkness to light. That light is the feet of the liberated soul, the sad-guru.

Unfortunately there are cheaters in every field of treatment and knowledge. We must be very careful in who we approach. In India there are too many cheaters in regards to this field of Reiki natural healing. I would suggest for people who are interested in this system that they should learn it themselves, first by studying many books. This will help them to identify whether other practitioners and teachers are authentic.

"O Great King ! I have narrated to you the stories of many who lived to make their names famous in their life time and then to pass away and become a memory soon after. These narratives are only the literary device I have used with a view to instil into you the importance of renunciation and realisation. They have no significance in themselves and are not to be taken as literal facts. - SB 12.3.14" "What do you say to this? However our people will conveniently avoid such statements." -------- This translation is incorrect, as I am sure you will agree, since you are very particular on the correctness of translations. The verse runs as follows: katha imas te kathita mahiyasam vitaya lokeshu yasah pareyusham vijnana-vairagya-vivakshaya vibho vaco-vibhutir na tu paramarthyam "O great one, I have related to you the narrations of all these great kings, who spread their fame throughout the world and then departed. My real purpose was to teach transcendental knowledge and renunciation. The stories of kings lend power and oppulence to these narrations but do not in themselves constitute the ultimate aspect of knowledge." Please review the two translations and honestly conclude which one is the correct translation. Take very careful notice of the words "na tu parama-arthyam", which mean "but this is not the ultimate purpose." It certainly does not, as your translation seems to clame, mean "these are not to be taken as literal facts". The distortion is so obvious that there is probably no need for further clarification. But just to be certain, let us observe some more points. Let us look at the second sentence of your translation: "These narratives are only the literary device I have used with a view to..." Please note that none of these words appear in the sanskrit even indirectly. The literal sanskrit that corresponds to this section would be: vijnana-vairagya-vivakshaya "Desiring to teach (or describe) renunciation (vairagya) and realization (vijnana)." Since this is a compound sentence, it naturally refers to the subject "kathah", or the narrations of various kings, in regards to the word "kathitah" which means "having spoken". Or in other words: "I have spoken these narrations desiring to teach you renunciation and realization." Now let us compare this accurate translation with what you have presented: "These narratives are only the literary device I have used with a view to instil into you the importance of renunciation and realisation." I think the distortion is self-evident. I hope you feel the same. The worst part is that this translator, whoever he may be, inserts the nonexistant phrase "these are not to be taken as literal facts", at the end. But to make things even clearer, we should take notice of the previous verse which belongs to the Bhumi Gita: mamatam mayy avartanta kritvocair martya-dharminah kathaveshashah kalena hy akritarthah krita vibho "O great one, although they [the various kings] lived their lives intensely trying to possess me, these kings were subject to the passage of time, which reduced them all to mere historical accounts. None of them could permanently establish their rule." This is a verse being spoken by Bhumi, the goddess earth. I hope this has cleared up any confusion. And I would hope people of all schools would double check things prior to making emphatic assertions. --- "However our people will conveniently avoid such statements." --- I think most people will naturally avoid such non-existent statements in the scriptures.

"1. Vyasa records the death of Parikshit in the Mahabharata. Which means the Mahabharata was completed after Parikshit's death. Now Parikshit is dead, the Mahabharatha is complete and Vyasa is sitting dejected when Narada approaches him with the idea of composing the Bhagavata. How can this Bhagavata be naratted to Parikshit later?" These are good questions that should naturally come up when we read Srimad Bhagavatam in a "conscious" state. The description of Parikshit's death as found in the Mahabharata is from the previous Kali yuga. The Srimad Bhagavatam describes Parikshit's activities as they occurred in the present Kali yuga. The narrations have very little in common, if you were to read them each and compare them. For example in Mahabharata (as it occurred in the previous Kali Yuga) Parikshit Maharaja took refuge in a tower, located on an island in the Ganga, in order to protect himself from the Takshaka snake. The Srimad Bhagavatam records an entirely different event. The Puranas record events based not on chronology, but based on subject. For example the Srimad Bhagavatam describes how Varaha appeared, fought with Hiranyaksha, and then lifted the earth from the universal waters. In reality there were two Varaha avataras, one that fought with Hiranyaksha and one that lifted the earth. And these two incarnations took place in different ages. But since the purpose of the Puranas is to discuss the glorious pastimes of the Lord, the activities of both avataras are described as one. Those who have studied the Puranas under proper guidance understand this principle, as well as the principle of yuga-bheda, or the differences in pastimes that occur in various ages. For example the Vishnu Purana descriptions are often different from other Puranas because it was authored by Parashara Muni in the previous dvapara yuga. Vyasa chose not to re-write the Vishnu Purana, and instead kept the same text from the previous divya-yuga. A somewhat unrelated point is that there are cases of texts being composed prior to the activity occurring. For example Valmiki composed Ramayana before Lord Rama performed his pastimes. By the power of his mystic vision he was able to see what would occur. Ramayana's composition is another topic which can be discussed later. "Suka heard the Bhagavata from Vyasa. Suta heard it from Suka. The Rishis of Naimika Aranya heard it from Suta. Now all this recorded in the Bhgavatam text. So WHO wrote the final form of the Bhagavatam?" We must understand the difference between Srimad Bhagavatam the book and Srimad Bhagavatam the narration. In the previous ages all texts (including the smritis) where taught orally. There were no written books. The rishis had a power of comprehension that allowed them to record vast amounts of information mentally. Vyasa chose to have the Vedic texts put in written form for the benefit of the people of Kali yuga, who did not have the ability to remember things by hearing. For this he narrated, and his disciples wrote them. The texts were not physically written by Vyasa Muni - they were spoken by him. The Srimad Bhagavatam spoken by Shuka Muni to Parikshit is obviously slightly different from that which was spoken by Suta to Shaunaka Rishi. The obvious difference is that Suta includes the conversations between Parikshit and Shuka Muni. This does not change the substance at all. In the Bhagavatam there is reference to another line of Bhagavata Purana that came from Ananta-shesha, who narrated it to the four Kumaras. Later the four Kumaras narrated this Srimad Bhagavatam to Maitreya Rishi, the great liberated soul. What to speak of this, there are different versions of each text for different levels of humans. The Bhagavatam read in Indra-loka is much larger than the one we have. The Bhagavatam in Yama-loka is described as the bigest of all. In it there are descriptions of the Lord's incarnation in all 8,400,000 species of life. For the earthly humans, Vyasa chose to use the Suta to Shaunaka recital as the written form of Srimad Bhagavatam. This is after Bhagavatam has been composed. Bhagavatam was composed at a particular time and written at a completely different time. When it came time to put the composition in written form there would have been many narrations of it that had occurred among the rishis. Vyasa chose the conversation between Suta and Shaunaka. And once it was put in written form, it was simply read from then on - there was no longer the spontaneous recital of Srimad Bhagavatam, at least not for much longer, as the ability to do this gradually disappeared in Kali yuga. As people lost their recollective powers, they took increasing shelter of the written form of Bhagavatam. Srimad Bhagavatam the composition is unlimited, for it entails the descriptions of the Lord's pastimes. Srimad Bhagavatam the book, in written form, is limited to 18,000 verses in the earthly version. "Itihasa - History, Purana - Old, Ancient. Why two separate categories in the Shastras to describe the same thing?" We need to see the technical definition of these words, then it will be clear that they do not describe the same things. Purana is defined by five lakshanas. Itihasa on the other hand is the narration of the activities of a particular hero or family lineage. For example Ramayana describes the activities of Lord Rama. The Amara-kosha dictionary defines the word Purana as follows: sargas ca pratisarga ca vamsa manvantarani ca vamsanu caritam capi puranam panca laksanam "A Purana possesses five characteristics, namely it describes 1) sarga (creation) 2) pratisarga (recreation) 3) vamsa (history of the sages) 4) manvantara (periods of Manu) 5) vamsanucarita (geneology of kings)." The Srimad Bhagavatam is unique in that it is defined as that which explains 10 subjects. That topic has been dealt with in one of our past news letters, and can be seen for reference. In summary, the words Purana and Itihasa, when refering to categories of books, have technical definitions distinct from the general meaning of the word. One needs to refer to the Amara-kosha dictionary for the complete technical meaning of each word.

"There is no memory in sleep as in deep sleep. In deep sleep there are no dreams. The same neurologists who can verify the process of dreaming, can attest this too." Actually they cannot attest to this. It is easy for them to identify a certain condition as being with a dream, but the opposite is impossible for them to verify. Regardless, the brain remains active at all times, as do other organs of the body.

The timing can be ascertained by a number of methods, one being the alignment of constellations mentioned in the Puranas at the time.