Jahnava Nitai Das

1. Cows that are left free to roam in India live by eating remnants from the trash. It would be much better for the cow to be maintained and protected by a loving and caring person. 2. Scientifically it has been shown that cows, if given the chance, will graze endlessly until they literally die from over eating. Thus it is required that someone take care of the cow to monitor their eating and restrict them from over eating. 3. A cow produces more milk than its calf can drink, and there is no way for the cow to remove the excess milk. Thus it is necessary for the cow to be milked by a human to remove this excess milk and avoid health problems. Though your sentiments may seem noble, they are based on ignorance.

I tried looking around for his email address, and the closest thing I could get was his projects email contact: info@rvc.edu Their website is: http://www.rvc.edu/ And their news (& essays) page is: http://www.rvc.edu/news/

Rather than betting, why not ask him and get back to the readers here with factual information? Rather than talking about downloading a file from the internet and emailing it to maharaja (as if he doesn't have a copy of the book in his library), why not go through the commentary of Vishwanatha and show us how many places he brings out the vraja bhakti meaning of verses. That would be meaningful and relevant rather than implying that Maharaja has never read the book and has never even seen a copy of it (and thus we need to help him by emailing him a file from the internet). Can anyone show where Srila Prabhupada cites these higher meanings of Gita? I'm not saying he doesn't, but I would like to see some evidence rather than just accusing the author of using Vedabase with an attitude. If the Vedabase has been misused in this regards then I'm sure others will be able to find plenty of quotes about these higher Vraja interpretations of the Gita in Srila Prabhupada's writings. Perhaps you can write to him and ask him what he finds specifically objectionable by verse number. I think he made it clear he objects to the overall presentation of the book. In a short review there aren't many details you can get into. Regardless, this is his opinion and I have no problem with him having his own view.

This is a comment based on ignorance. Simply because someone quotes from their spiritual master it is labeled as a "Vedabase Siddhanta"? People who say this want to imply that the author has given no thought or effort in reaching his conclusion. But if the author chose not to quote from Srila Prabhupada, then the same critics will say that he is not speaking as per Srila Prabhupada's view. In otherwords, these critics just want to find fault with the author and will criticize either way. That's fine, but better to address the actual topics of disagreement philosophically.

ekasminnapyatikrAnte muhUrte Dhyanavarjite dasyuBhirmuShiteneva yuktamAkrAnditum Bhrusham If one muhUrta is allowed to pass by without meditation [on Hari], one must weep aloud as if one were robbed by thieves. Vishnu Purana - 6.7.73

He caused many people to think badly of the Lord's sincere devotees. Offenses to the vaishnavas are very severe and not forgiven by Lord Krishna.

It got started with the movie this thread is about. From that time people started thinking this way (because it depicted Hippies chanting Hare Krishna, but acting as Rajneesh does). Otherwise there is nothing that would even remotely link Hare Krishna with Rajneesh.

Actually the number of ISKCON devotees within India (and Bangladesh) is many, many times greater than all the foreign ISKCON devotees throughout the world combined.

The movie originally began with a clip of the Guru Puja in the Bombay ISKCON temple. I believe this was later cut out at the request of ISKCON (though not having seen the movie I'm not sure if parts of it may have been left in). For months after this movie ISKCON devotees in India had to deal with people throwing stones and all sorts of other things. Even today many people think Hare Krishna has something to do with using drugs, and this is directly because of this movie. In South India this movie has had no lingering effect because the people don't like Hindi. But in other parts of India it still has brought a negative effect even today.

In Vaikuntha you assist the guru in his service to the Lord.

It has been shifted to the Hinduism forums: http://www.hindu-religion.net

This thread has gone on for 250 posts and all participants have presented their views. It has come to the point that the discussion just repeats itself in various ways, as two previous threads on this subject had done in the past. It is clear this thread was not started by an innocent follower of Srila Prabhupada with sincere doubts. While posing in this manner, Gaurasundar clearly and firmly believes Prabhupada's parampara was fabricated and that Prabhupada was incorrect in what he taught about the parampara. In reality, while pretending to be someone with sincere doubts, it is an agenda post to propagate the idea that Bhaktisiddhanta's line is fabricated. On September 19th Gaurasundar made the claim that no line in Vedic tradition had a Siksha link, that all lines were based only on diksha: It took 17 days before Gaurasundar would finally admit he was wrong on such a simple point, despite extensive evidence being provided daily. And when he finally admitted he was wrong (after defending the absurd statement for 17 days), he tried to pretend he didn't mean what he said, that he just didn't phrase his statement properly: So for 17 days Gaurasundar's criticism that Bhaktisiddhanta's judgment was against the entire Vedic tradition was adamantly professed by him. Newcomers who may not be informed on these matters will be mislead by such ignorant statements, especially since these attacks were hidden under the veil of a "sincere follower of Prabhupada with doubts". As a guest above pointed out, why should someone be allowed to post topics as fact when one is just starting to research the topics and really has no clear conception of the matter? Innocent people will read such emphatic statements and be mislead. At least now, after 17 days of this false charge against Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati everyone can agree that Bhaktisiddhanta's judgment was not against the Vedic tradition. If such a simple point requires 17 days of argument to "remove the doubt" of Gaurasundar (which he still claims was just a matter of him miswording his statement) then how can anyone seriously think his "sincere doubts" that Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati fabricated his parampara could ever be answered in a hundred years? Again, these are not sincere doubts. Gaurasundar firmly believes these statements to be undisputable facts, and that no one can give him a proper answer. Gaurasundar should stop following a guru he thinks is dishonest. If he thinks Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati fabricated his parampara, then he should find a guru whom he can put faith in and faithfully follow that mahatma. Sri Rupa Goswami's instruction is "adau gurvashraya". The first step is to surrender to a guru, then one's spiritual journey will begin. That surrender involves taking the spiritual master's teachings and instructions as one's heart and soul: guru-mukha-padma-vakya, cittete koriya aikya, ar na koriho mane asa If one does not have faith in the teachings and instructions of Bhaktisiddhanta or Bhaktivedanta Swami, then by all means find another mahatma one has faith in and surrender to their teachings. Don't try to pose as an inquisitive follower with doubts when the fact is you are adamant that the Sarasvata line is fabricated. It took 17 days for Gaurasundara to admit he was incorrect on such a basic and absurd point. What then of trying to remove his adamant charge that Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati fabricated his parampara. You cannot remove the doubt of someone who thinks he knows all the answers. It is not fair to the innocent readers of these forums that they should have to read his unsubstantiated allegations as fact when he himself is just starting to study this subject. As such this thread will be closed and no more time will be wasted here on the topic. Everyone can feel free to continue this discussion in some more appropriate forum if it is a matter close to their heart.

ekasminnapyatikrAnte muhUrte Dhyanavarjite dasyuBhirmuShiteneva yuktamAkrAnditum Bhrusham If one muhUrta is allowed to pass by without meditation [on Hari], one must weep aloud as if one were robbed by thieves. Vishnu Purana - 6.7.73

There is no special drink of the Hindus that is considered sacred, but practically speaking milk is the most highly regarded, especially in rural areas. The cow is considered sacred in Hinduism because it maintains us as a mother through its milk. For this reason utmost respect is shown to the cow. Other than this, the sacred water from the Ganges river could be considered, but it isn't drunk like a beverage. A few drops of this sacred water are usually sipped before religious rituals to purify our body internally, and a few drops of this water are sprinkled on our head to purify our body externally. It is believed that this river (the Ganges) originated from the spiritual realm. Scientifically the Ganges water has been found to possess very unusual antibacterial properties. Ganges water can be stored for more than seven years without spoiling, whereas ordinary water will spoil very quickly.

To get the best results one should keep the water in a pure copper pot next to one's head while one sleeps (with a lide covering it). In the morning one should immedaitely drink this water. If done in this manner the water will absorb energies lost during sleep.

The excess water will pass through your system and help cleanse many impurities out of it. It is not that you will die if you don't drink this extra water, but it is beneficial for the bodies functioning.

Yamunacharya prior to departing gave instructions for Ramanuja to be trained by five acharyas (pancha-purna), and for Ramanuja to be installed as his successor. This is prior to Ramanuja having ever seen Yamunacharya. While the disciples went to bring Ramanuja, Yamunacharya went into Samadhi and never regained consciousness. Please go and read Guru Parampara Prabhavam and this will be clear to you. Read Guru Parampara Prabhavam and you will know. You know all about the Sri Vaishnava line, but you don't have a clue as to what tapa is? You think it is something you learn? Tapa is one of the pancha-samskaras, branding with fire the symbols of Vishnu on one's body. Gaudiya's should be familiar with it, as it is mentioned in prameya-ratnavali, along with the reason we do not apply it. You don't even know the meaning of these words, yet you want to argue about them? This is the problem with discussing with you. You don't know these topics and can't understand what is being written. Tapa is a ceremony of branding the symbols of the Lord on the devotee. Sri Vaishnava's will trace their tapa lineage through the guru who performed the tapa ceremony. When refering to the mantra lineage Sri Vaishnava's will trace their guru through the line of mantra-diksha. Thus Ramanuja's mantra-diksha guru is Goshti Purna, and his tapa guru is Maha Purna. Yet he himself was appointed the successor of Yamunacharya by Yamunacharya himself, this is clearly stated in Guru Parampara Prabhavam. In Vedic tradition there are different categories of guru. There is the guru who gives mantra, the guru who gives sannyasa, the guru who performs tapa, etc. Lineages can be traced through all of these ceremonies. Yes, case proved. You don't even know the meaning of the word you are debating about, and you are posing as though you know everything. You think tapa refers to something a guru teaches, like Vedanta or the Gita; when in reality it refers to branding the disciple with fire. Again, please read Guru Parampara Prabhavam before commenting. Ramanuja was sent to receive mantra diksha from Gosthi Purna 18 times, and each time he was refused the mantra, until the final visit. Yes, if you had studied Ramanuja's life you would know these things. Yamunacharya appointed Ramanuja as successor without Ramanuja being present.

I wrote: Gaurasundar replied: Please show where I refered to Baladeva Vidyabhushana as a fool.

Yes, he was tracing his parampara from before Nityananda's time, because Nityananda also comes in this parampara

Being a neo-advaitin is not the same as being a member of the Shankara sampradaya. Every Tom, Dick and Harry is a neo-advaitin. It means nothing. Simply because you were one as well means nothing of your knowledge pertaining to Shankara bhashya and tradition. Your method is to try to claim credibility from every corner simply because you read a book or two.

Reagrding Shankara parampara: Study vedic tradition and you will learn that the majority of Vedic philosophies originate in parampara from the Lord and come down through Vyasa. The founders of the Shad darshanas are all disciples of Vyasa, yet this does not make Vyasa a follower of the Shad darshanas. Vyasa instructs people according to their position, and their understanding of his teachings is according to their position and natures. Thus the countless Vedic paramparas are formed. The fact that Vyasa and Shuka have inaugurated the advaita parampara does not make them advaitis any more than it makes Vyasa a Nyayi, Vaisheshiki or Yogi for being the preceptor of these lines. Vyasa himself has later refuted the teachings of the Shad-darshana in Vedanta Sutra despite the fact that he is the origin of those teachings in parampara.

Display your greater learning and I will shut up. Till now you have displayed ignorance, and I have called you on it. You claimed you have studied the paramparas of all traditions, and that no Vedic tradition had a siksha parampara. You were proved wrong. You claimed the Madhva parampara was based only on diksha. You were proved wrong. You claimed the Sri Vaishnava line was based only on diksha. You were proved wrong. You claimed the Shankara line was based only on Diksha. You were proved wrong. You claimed the Gaudiya line was based only on Diksha. You were proved wrong. You claimed there were various vaishnava dharma shastras that instructed us to "publicly reject" a guru if we see anything "iffy". Your bluff was called and you were proven wrong, you couldn't cite a single reference from the many "vaishnava dharma shastras". Now you want everyone to respect your vast learning and knowledge? No, thanks. I will continue to call your bluff. You have not undergone any systematic study of Vedic traditions, yet you want to pose as though you know them in depth. And based on your "knowledge" you want to question the Sarasvata Parampara and claim it is fabricated by Bhaktisiddhanta? Yes, I will continue to call your bluff.

I have hardly participated in these forums, even to read them, for the last five months. Only when foolish people pop up and make fanciful claims that Bhaktisiddhanta fabricated his parampara and that Bhaktisiddhanta's judgement is against the entire Vedic tradition then I will speak up. When people make such ignorant comments its time to call these people's bluff and expose them for people with little learning beyond copying and pasting things from other sites. Last person to make these claims was Premananda. His raganuga bhakti didn't seem to have helped him much. After offending the line of Bhaktisiddhanta, he later went on to offend the line of his raganuga guru, and then the entire line of Mahaprabhu.

You want to charge Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati with fabricating his guru parampara. You are suggesting he is a cheater and a liar, yet you are the innocent one who has not insulted him? He are some of your words: Perhaps the next step will be to suggest one needs an authorized guru-pranali to attain Krishna, and thus Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivedanta Swami, coming from a fabricated parampara, are unrealized and bogus gurus. I put this on record so we can see after three or four months what is your opinion. Of course your opinions change faster than the phases of the moon, so its hard to gauge. One minute its Sai Baba, then ISKCON, then Srila Gaurangapada, then Diksha-paramparas. Who can keep track?

My argument has remained unchanged, yet your position keeps changing as you begin to learn about the traditions of other paramparas. Why did you pretend to know these subjects and post emphatically that everyone was wrong and they could go look it up if they liked to? If you haven't studied a subject, then why pretend you have? And if you will pretend to have studied this topic, people may doubt that you are prentending you studied the Gaudiya tradition as well. If one has doubts, he should research and inquire in a manner relevant to his knowledge, not boldly declare that everything is how I think it is and no one can prove me wrong. Before your position was that no parampara in Vedic history contained a siksha link, now you have adjusted this to "There may be siksha links, but only before the founder, not after." Yet the four acharyas cited after Madhva in the Gaudiya parampara come after the founder. Thus your view that there are no siksha links after the founder of the parampara is wrong. The parampara extending from Vyasa to Shuka, to Parikshit and onwards (bhagavata parampara) is only a Siksha parampara. It has nothing to do with the founder, and yet this is considered a branch of the Brahma sampradaya. I hate to have to call you bluff on this again, but what research did you do to verify the mantra-diksha ceremonies of each acharya in the line of Shankara, Madhva and Ramanuja? The fact is you do not know whether or not each acharya has received mantra-diksha from the parampara-acharya or not. The fact that today (the last 100 years) the parampara is carried on through diksha is meaningless when these lines are traced back millions of years. You post absurd statements like you have researched the lines form Shankara onwards and they are all diksha lines. Stop pretending again. What historical or archealogical evidence have you analized to conclude the mantra-diksha gurus for each acharya in the line? Can you even name the acharyas coming from shankara down to today? Can you even name how many branches of the Shankara sampradaya exist today? When you make such absurd claims, then people will laugh at you even when you make a good point in the future. You are not someone with sincere doubts. You are someone who wants to pretend he knows something he does not know. If you had sincere doubts, then you wouldn't be making such fanciful claims. No thanks. My study of Madhva's line is deeper than going to a website to find out answers. I have lived in Udupi for several years and learned from Acharya's of the Ashta Mathas and other respectable scholars. Believe what you like about the Madhva line, I have no interest to convince you. But for other innocent readers I will point out your bluffs.