Raguraman

Hare Krishna, Lord Krishna is Bhagavan Visnu HIMSELF. They are IDENTICAL. So your question is illegitimate. Bhagavan cannot die and so Lord Krishna cannot die. It is advaitists who think that Lord Krishna is a man. The ignorant ones, not knowing My supreme natures as the great Lord of all beings, disregard Me when I assume human form. (9.11)

Hare Krishna, When Lord Krishna says that HE is the Brahman and Lord to Arjuna in Bhagavad Gita, how can HE(Lord Krishna) die. May be the verse in Mahabharatha is added to delude people like you.

Hare Krishna, Lord Krishna does not die. HE is the BRAHMAN. Oneneeds to read Bhagavad Gita to see it. Advaita is a wrong philosophy.

Hare Krishna, I don't think I had any wrong perception here. An advaiti wants to prove that Lord Rudra is supreme to prove his advaitic point of view. As for Abheda Srutis, it does not point to Jiva, but those words like Aham, Tvam etc. point to Brahman(Lord Vishnu) and we Vaishnavas want to make it clear that Advaita is wrong period and that advaita is nothing but Buddhism. So what about Vaishnava sects ? They also teach that advaita is mayavada.

Hare Krishna, Omniscience and free will of Bhagavan: The classic atheist attack on theism. Omniscience means Bhagavan knows everything that is to happen. It implies therefore that Bhagavan does not choose among different things. Now one has to also understand that Bhagavan is PERFECT or Purnam. It means HE has no needs or desires to be fulfilled. So HE does not need to choose. But Bhagavan is Omnipotent. Everything happens as per HIS WILL. Is it not ? So the WILL is back again. Here WILL means not a choice but Bhagavan's own NATURE and not HIS needs.

Hare Krishna, Just an example of blinded advaitists. Hear again My supreme word, the most secret of all. You are very dear to Me, therefore, I shall tell this for your benefit. (18.64) Fix your mind on Me, be devoted to Me, offer service to Me, bow down to Me, and you shall certainly reach Me. I promise you because you are very dear to Me. (18.65) The above two verses are direced to Arjuna. Note the use of words Lord Krishna uses like "my friend" etc. It is clearly the reference to the PERSON KRISHNA. According to advaita. Brahman is the only reality. Since Lord Krishna is realized, whom is HE talking to. Advaita is self-contradictory here.

Hare Krishna, You are wrong. Vedas themselves say that Vedas are necessary to understand TRUTH. Vedas are unauthored and that is why it is called Sruti and Veda(source of Knowledge). The point Lord krishna makes is that it is not necessary for a Self(GOD)-Realized person. That is why Vedas are necessary for you and me. Vedas truly show WHO is GOD, that it is LORD VISNU and not Lord Rudra. To a Self-realized person the Vedas are as useful as a reservoir of water when there is flood water available everywhere. (2.46) The same can be told about Shiva puranas and the quote of Lord Rama praying to Lord Shiva. That all these were created by advaitists and Shivites to confuse simple people. That is why we take Vedas as Sruti. Vedas are unauthored and apaursheya. They confirm Lord Visnu's superiority.

Hare Krishna, Oh. So Sruti was altered. So how do you know what is the actual teaching of Vedas. The verse is clear about Lord Rudr's position. http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_50/msg00078.html The hArItasmR^iti (See P.S 2) says: yatra rudrArchanaM bhasmadhAraNaM prochyate budhaiH | tadabrahmaNyaviShayaM viprANAM tu na karhichit.h || where Shivalingarchana and bhasmadhAraNA is prohibited for non-brahmin castes. Also, the following smR^iti vAkya clarifies that Shiva is a kshatriya: yAnyetAni devatrAkshAtrANi indro varuNassomo rudraH parjanyo yamo mR^ityorIshAna'. But the statement 'yo vai svAM devatAmatiyajete' enjoins that one worship a deity befitting one's nature; so can the Purushottama Rama worship anybody? It cannot be said that shivArchana and shivalingArchana are allowed for Kshatriyas, just because Sri Rama worshipped Shiva. Such an argument would have been worthy only if it is not obstructed by other pramANAs. On the contrary, the Padma purana says: ahamapyavatAreShu tvAM cha rudra mahAbala | tAmasAnAM mohanArthaM pUjayAmi yuge yuge || in the 'tAraka-brahma-rAja-samhitA', Vishnu says that he would, for the sake of deluding the tAmasAs, worship Rudra in his avatArAs and people will be deluded by such an adhArmic act. Moreover, the following statements: Shiva seeks: anyadevaM varaM dehi prasiddhaM sarvajantuShu | martyo bhUtvA bhavAneva mama sAdhaya keshava || mAM bhajasva cha devesha varaM matto gR^ihANa cha | yenA.ahaM sarvabhUtAnAM pUjyAtpUjyataro.abhavam.h || Vishnu says: devakAryAvatAreShu mAnuShatvamupeyivAn.h | tvAmevArAdhayiShyAmi mama tvaM varado bhava || in the Rudra-gItA section of the varAha purANa (and a similar incident in the kUrma purANa) narrate Shiva's obtaining the boon of being worshipped by the Lord in his incarnations. Thus, just like the Lord granted the boon of being the charioteer to Arjuna, here too, his bestowing such a boon should be seen as an indication of His easy accessibility to his devotees (Ashrita-saulabhya-pradarshAnarthatvena) and not as a hindrance to his being the parameshvara. Thus the linga purANa's statements on Rama worshipping Shiva should be seen in the light of the boon granted to the latter by Vishnu. Also, just like Rama bowed to Vishvamitra, Bharadvaja, Agastya, so too, does Rama bowed to Shiva (with the above background kept in mind). Thus there is no obstruction to Lord Rama being the para-brahma!

Hare Krishna, I don't know, but I think since HE gained all HIS powers after worshipping Lord Vishnu as per the following Sruti. Rig Veda 7:40:5 asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viSNoreSasya prabhRthe havirbhiH vide hi rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiSTaM vartirashvinAvirAvat With offerings I propitiate the branches of this swift-moving God, the bounteous Visnu. Hence Rudra gained his Rudra-strength: O Asvins, ye sought the house that hath celestial viands. or may be Buddhists were non-existent during Sri Adi Shankara's time. Infact this is what is taught by advaitists themselves. You can check the teachings of Sri Chandrasekarendra Saraswati.

Hare Krishna, His comment was on advaita and not on sri Adi Sankara. Infact Gaudiyas and ISKCON believe that Sri Adi Sankara is Lord Shiva HIMSELF, the greatest Vaishnava. So I don't think Srila Prabhupada ever disrespected Sri Adi Sankara. You guys are imagining things. There is almost no literature of Sri Adi Sankara on Buddhism. Why ? Because Buddhism was already dead. Go to Kanchi mutt website. You will find details.

Hare Krishna, I do not disrespect any saint. I know Swami Chinmayananda and surely Sri Adi Sankara are great saints eventhough I do not think their philosophies are right. As for refering a Swami by name is disprespect. You agree with that. Then why did you refer Srila Prabhupada with his name irreverently ? I know somebody else referred to Swami Chinmayananda irreverently ? The question is why did you follow that ? and even tried to defend that point while in case of Swami Chinamayananda I saw many advaitists jumping on Gokul.

Hare Krishna, Perhaps you think Vedas were written in 16th century. What is Hinduism. It is a word coined by some foreigners. and most of the practises within this religion are not Vedic. Should I start, 1. Damned caste system 2. Tantric sex 3. So called saints puffing ganja If this site is about Hinduism, how come you are discussing about ISKCON ?

Hare Krishna, The quote talks about truth. Are there not sanyasis(posing like sanyasis) puffing ganja in many holy places. Are there not the so called sanyasis making a living out of religion. Srila Prabhpada is talking about these fake people and why did you think he is insulting perhaps your guru ? As for refering a saint irreverently with his name is disrespect. Srila Prabhupada's life itself proves he is a saint. As for HIS comments on Hinduism, Srila Prabhupada has every right to comment on sects mis-interpreting Vedas.

Hare Krishna, It is not just Srila Prabhpada who called Adi Shankara's teaching as Mayavadha. So did Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, Raghavendraswamy and every other Vaishnava saint. Their accusation is based on accurate knowledge of advaitam and not based on emotional rantings like you make.

Hare Krishna, Srila Prabhupada is a great saint. Learn to show some respect here. Is this what your Gurus teach ? Learn to be a good student first.

Hare Krishna, I think advaitists are greatly confused. If the above is true, then how come "Brahman=God=Man - False EGO" is subject to birth and death. How come Brahman is subject to maya ? How come the ONE BRAHMAN is in all of us, both liberated and unliberated, and yet the ONE BRAHMAN is bound my maya in unliberated beings like me but the SAME ONE BRAHMAN is liberated in liberated beings(I understand as per advaitam liberated persons become ONE BRAHMAN) ?

Hare Krishna, Since every verse is found in Sruti except one, I am not going to claim anything like that. I do not think anybody made this claim and definitely I did not see any Vaishnava make such a claim. This yes. I agree and also think so. Tamasic puranas go against Sruti. Lord Shiva is the Lord of Tamas. No doubt in it. It is HE(Lord Shiva) who releases a soul from avidya. Again no doubt. Lord Shiva afflicts Jivas with avidya and the only way to escape this is worship Lord Shiva. Again there is no doubt in this. But Lord Shiva is definitely not Bhagavan. This is confirmed in Sruti and there is no doubt in this as well.

Hare Krishna, Note 1: Aditi, mother of Vishnu, is invoked to obtain Rudra’s grace. Note 2: Rudra is the Lord of sacrifice and hymns

Hare Krishna, 6.049.10 Exalt Rudra, the parent of the world, with these hmns by day; (exalt) Rudra (with them) by night; animated by the far-seeing, we invoke him, mighty, of pleasing aspect, undecaying, endowed with felicity, (the source of) prosperity. I do not know how the above verse proves anything of the claims made by advaitists or shivites. Again this verse talks about position of Rudras and does not imply that Lord Shiva is God. This verse is not found in Yajur Veda Samhita. Did you forget Rig Veda 7:40:5 and Devi Sukta. Lord Rudra's lordship is not over Lord Visnu or MahaLakshmi or even Lord Vayu.

Hare Krishna, Last time you made this claim, I showed there is no Sruti verse to support this. Each letter in Gayatri Mantra refers to a deity at one level and to Bhagavan at another level. http://www.geocities.com/gayatrisiddhpeeth/gayatri/mantra.htm http://www.urday.com/padma_shk3.htm#ideal As for Lord Visnu, it is clearly stated in Vedas that HE always existed and even before Lord Rudra took birth from Lord Brahma's Head. 1.156.02 He who presents (offerings) to Vis.n.u, the ancient, the creator, the recent, the self-born; he who celebrates the great birth of that mighty one; he verily possessed of abundance, attains (the station) that is to be sought (by all). [s'ravobhir yujyam cidabhyasat, by food, or by fame, he attains whatsoever is to be joined with; to complete the ellipse: annairyuktah san sarvair gantavyam tat padam gacchati].

Hare Krishna, Nobody(much less a Vaishnava) refutes that Bhagavan is one. The question is what Vedas teach. It is of no consequence to us Hindus if moses and jews ever saw Bhagavan or not. We Hindus should depend on Vedas and nothing else. Gaining knowledge is ok, but to depend on some other scripture(that goes against Vedas) to validate Vedas is a mark of weakness. Again the verse refers to Lord Agni. The actual translation of the verse is 5.003.03 tava shriye maruto marjayanta rudra yat te janima cAru citram | padaM yad viSNor upamaM nidhAyi tena pAsi guhyaM nAma gonAm For your glory the Maruts sweep (the firmament), when your birth, Rudra, is beautiful and wonderful; the middle step of Vis.n.u has been placed, so you cherish the mysterious name of the waters. [Your birth is beautiful and wonderful: Agni as the lightning; cherish the mysterious name of the waters: pa_si guhyam na_ma gona_m = udaka_na_m guhyam na_ma_ni ra_ks.asi]. Now the advaitists and people who propound that Lord Shiva is Bhagavan have to first prove that Lord Shiva is Bhagavan and the soul of all beings through Sruti. Unless they do that one cannot take the above claim seriously. Well, this is according to Padma Purana itself. It is not any individuals imagination. Besides we can also see that the claim of advaitists opposes sruti and so it is called Tamasic. Hmmm... I do not know who made this claim and hae not seen anyone believing in Vedas do so. In Vedanta, surely it is stated "Brahman is all". I don't think that anything about Lord Rudra being the Brahman is stated. There are lot of verses explicitly stating Lord Visnu is Bhagavan and source of everything. You can refer my previous post. http://www.hindu-religion.net/showflat/cat/hinduism/64280/16/collapsed/5/o/1 Hmmm...I did not surely talk about horlicks and I do find the comparison of Lord Vayu to horlicks rational(although it amuses me a bit). Prana(Lord Vayu) here refers to life force that drives everything in prakriti including great Deities like Lord Rudra. and one thing, surely your daughter's soul is a Jiva and not Bhagavan.

Hare krishna, If any one can translate the verses from Chhandogya Upanishad. Paragraph: 6 Sentence: 1 tad dhaitad ghora angirasah krsnAya devakI-putrAyoktvovAca \ tad+ + dha+ etad+ ghora+ Angirasah krsnAya devakI-putrAya+ uktvA + uvAca \ Sentence: 2 apipAsa eva sa babhUva \ a-pipAsa+ eva sa+ babhUva \ Sentence: 3 so ntavelAyAm etat trayam pratipadyetAksitam asya acyutam asi prAnasamSitam asIti \ so+ + anta-velAyAm etat trayam+ pratipadyeta+ a-ksitam asya a-cyutam asi prAna-samSitam asi+ iti \ Sentence: 4 tatraite dve rcau bhavatah\\317.6\ tatra+ ete dve rcau bhvatah\\317.6\ Paragraph: 7 Sentence: 1 Adit pratnasya retasah\ Ad-it pratnasya retasah\ Sentence: 2 ud vayam tamasas pari \ ud+ vayam+ tamasas+ pari \ Sentence: 3 jyotih paSyanta uttaram \ jyotih paSyanta+ uttaram \ Sentence: 4 svah paSyanta uttaram \ svah paSyanta+ uttaram \ Sentence: 5 devah devatrA sUryam aganma jyotir uttamam iti jyotir uttamam iti \\317.7\ devah+ devatrA sUryam aganma jyotir+ uttamam iti jyotir+ uttamam iti \\317.7\

Hare Krishna, Hmmm.. I have seen many mudaliyars, vanniyars etc. caste members treating scheduled caste like garbage. So by your logic, then these Tamilians should have also invaded. Perhaps the scheduled castes look upon certain tribes among themselves as lower. So we can conclude ad-infinitum that all peoples invaded each other. This is all nonsense. Foolish people keep insisting on Aryan Invasion Theory and fighting for language etc. I mean both sides(Hindi and Tamil) are at fault here. I am a Tamilian myself. Tell me, in Tolkappiyam the borders of Tamil country is clearly given as Vada Venkatam(Tirupati) and "Then Kumari"(Kanyakumari). There is no mention in our literature of any invasion by foreign people. Recently archaeologists have unearthed poompuhar mentioned in our literature as having been submerged by Indra. The date of the city was found to be 5000 B.C. while the supposed AIT took place in 1500 B.C. Please do some actual research before coming to conclusion based on emotions. The only basis for AIT is linguistics. But linguistics can never prove which direcion migration or invasion took place. On the other hand there is every proof for out of Inia migration of people, religion and culture. Even in Tirukkural we have mention of Vamana avatar(three steps). If you can see it is also mentioned in Vedas. Our alwars and Nayanmars all have praised Vedas. It is a sad event that stupid people belonging to dravida kalagam are spreading a lot of hatred through false propaganda.

Hare Krishna, One can also ask what is so special about Svetaketu to mention him in a certain Upanishad ? My question was assuming that this is the same Lord Krishna will be a mistake, unless further proof is offered to verify this claim. That is what indologists claim, just like they formulated AIT. I do not know about this seal being discovered. Jarasandha was to be killed by Bhima. So Lord Krishna did not finish him off. It is Lord Krishna's OWN WILL and not due to HIS inability.

Hare Krishna, It is mentioned in Chhandogya Upanishad that a sage named Ghora belonging to Angirasa clan or gotra was the teacher of Krishna, son of Devaki. In Mahabharatha it is mentioned that SAndipani was Lord Krishn's Guru. There is no mention of any ghora in Mahabharatha to my knowledge. May be this Krishna(son of Devaki) is different from Lord Krishna who is also son of Devaki. Just a thought. I am not sure The other point is, mention of Gopis, cannot be equated with other things. In our own millenium we see Mira Bai who accpted Lord rishna as her HUSBAND. This has nothing to do with this wordly things. This realization came on Mira Bai, that Lord Krishna is GOD and so she surrendered.