vedas or avathars-who was first?

[sampath 0]

Hi guys,

 

I have a doubt.In vedas Rama is mentions.Krishna is mentioned.Varaha and Vamana are mentioned.But Krishna and Ram both talk about vedas.So which was the first book?If its vedas then how did it mention Ram and Krishna.If its ramayana and bharatha how did they talk about vedas then?

 

Its highly confusing.

[Guest guest]

The Vedas are the first books. The Ramayana, Mahabharata and srimad Bhagvatam came later. The Avatars are dealt with in these later books.

 

No, Sri Rama and Sri Krishna are NOT mentioned in the Vedas. They were later incarnations long after the Vedas were revealed.

 

If you want to see something even more confusing, in the Ramayana I heard that there is a part during the wedding of Rama and Sita where the Ramayana is recited to the wedding guests! Now how can the Ramayana be recited in the Book 'Ramayana' when it hadn't even finish? The events still to come like sita being kidnapped didn't even happen yet! Plus Lava and Kush had known the Ramayana by heart, even before they met their father Sri Rama! Before the book had even finished!

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

Whats this mean:

No, Sri Rama and Sri Krishna are NOT mentioned in the Vedas. They were later incarnations long after the Vedas were revealed.

 

This is from Garuda Purana {oldest section of Vedas}

 

 

yo reme saha-ballavi ramayate vrndavane

'har-nisam yah kamsam nijaghana kaurava-

rane yah pandavanam sakha so 'yam vainava-

danda-mandita-bhutah sannyasa-vesah sva-

yam nihsandedham upagatah ksiti-tale

caitanya-rupah prabhuh

 

 

Translation

The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Who enjoyed pastimes with the gopis, Who day and night filled the people of Vrndavana with happiness, Who killed Kamsa, and

Who in the war between the Kauravas made friendship with the Pandavas, will come again to the earth. Of this there is no doubt. His arm decorated with a bamboo danda,

He will be a sannyasi and his name will be Caitanya.

--

 

Mention of appearance of Lord Krishna Chaitanya 500 years ago. Combined incarnation of Sri RadhaKrishna. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

HARIBOL!

[Guest guest]

[This is from Garuda Purana {oldest section of Vedas}]

 

Garuda Purana is a Purana and NOT part of the Vedas! The Puranas came after the Vedas. The Vedas are sruti, the puranas are smriti.

 

The Vedas contain 4 sections - the Samhitas, the Brahmanas, Aranyakas and the Upanishads. The oldest section is the Samhita (Mantra) section. The Garuda Purana is not a part of this.

[sampath 0]

so which book was first?are avathars mentioned in vedas or not?

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

<center>

 

Sruti: <font color="red"> Atharva Veda, third khanda, Brahma-vibhaga </font color>

 

ito 'ham krta-sannyaso 'vatarisyami sa-guno nirvedo

niskamo bhu-girbanas

tira-stho 'lakanandayah kalau catuh-sahasrabdhopari

panca-sahasrabhyantare gaura-varno dirghangah

sarva-laksana-yukta

isvara-prarthito nija-rasasvado bhakta-rupo

misrakhyo vidita-yogah syam

 

<font color="green"> Translation </font color> <font color="blue">

"Towards the end of the period between four-thousand to five thousand years in Kali-yuga, I will descend on the earth as Gauranga, a golden-complexioned saintly

brahmana in a place by the Ganges' shore and later become the crest-jewel of all sannyasis, exhibiting all My transcendental qualities including supreme renunciation and complete detachment from material desires.

 

In the form of Lord Gauranga, I will display all the thirty-two bodily symptoms of a great personality with my arms extending to my knees. I will become my own devotee, very advanced in bhakti-yoga and teach the worship of Lord Krsna (Myself) by the chanting of My own holy names and relishing the mellows of My own devotional service. At that time only My most confidential devotees will be able to understand Me."

</font color>

</center>

[barney 0]

All religious scriptures be it the Torah, Bible, Koran or Vedas, they all have contradiction. No one can deny this fact. The crux of the matter here is as civilized human beings we only accept what is applicable and useful to society in order to have peace and harmony among the living. It will only complicate matters if we start digging deeper. Various sages had taken the task of writing the surtis and written according to the period of understanding. For us in this age would find certain puranas ridicules but we did not live in that period and so would would not undersatand them. Now in our time we had great souls like Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Ramana Maha Rishi and a few others who have explained the Santhana Dharma to our understanding. Let us not dwell in the past too much. We have more important and useful things to do at hand such as how to protect Hindus from transgression and better understanding among various Hndu sects.

[Guest guest]

"In vedas Rama is mentions.Krishna is mentioned.Varaha and Vamana are mentioned.But Krishna and Ram both talk about vedas.So which was the first book?If its vedas then how did it mention Ram and Krishna.If its ramayana and bharatha how did they talk about vedas then?"

 

god is eternal, his manifestations are eternal, veda is also a god's manifestation

 

the lilas of the supreme lord and his avataras are eternally performing in all planetary systems

 

and the sages wo write vedic literature know past, present and future and they see the transcendental lilas all over the universes

 

(in ramayana there's a story when ramachandra listens ramayana and some lilas that he has'nt yet performed.... wonderful!!!)

[Guest guest]

For us in this age would find certain puranas ridicules but we did not live in that period and so would would not undersatand them.

 

demons

 

Now in our time we had great souls like Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Ramana Maha Rishi and a few others who have explained the Santhana Dharma to our understanding. Let us not dwell in the past too much. We have more important and useful things to do at hand such as how to protect Hindus from transgression and better understanding among various Hndu sects.

 

of course if you and your rascal cheater masters destroy hinduism, it will be very easy to be all agree on it

 

you wipe all away and there will be nothing more to quarrel of

 

very good

[barney 0]

From The Mundaka Upanishad

Translations and explanations by Swami Nikhilananda

Sri Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, New York

 

Saunaka, the great householder, approached Angirasa in the proper manner and said: Revered Sir, What is that by the knowing of which all this becomes known? (I.i.3)

 

Angirasa answered to Saunaka:

 

To him he said: Two kinds of knowledge must be known – that is what the knowers of Brahman tell us. They are the Higher Knowledge and the lower knowledge.

-Mundaka Upanishad (I.i.4)

 

[Note: The Hindu philosophers observed that by knowing the nature of clay one knows the nature of everything made of clay, by knowing the nature of iron or gold one knows the nature of everything made of iron or gold. Is there not likewise, they asked, something that is the basic material of the universe, by the knowing of which everything in the universe will be known? Similarly, there should be one cause of the multiple objects of the world, by the knowing of which its effects could be known.

 

According to Non-dualistic Vedanta an effect has no real

existence apart from its cause. Therefore when a man knows the cause, he also should know that the effect has no reality independent of it. Brahman is the ultimate cause of the universe. When one knows Brahman, one also knows that the universe has no reality independent of Brahman.

 

"Higher Knowledge": The Knowledge of the Supreme Self, which is beyond duality.

 

"lower knowledge": The lower knowledge is the knowledge of the phenomenal world. In reality it is ignorance, for it does not lead to the Highest Good. The seer of the Upanishad asks the aspirant to acquire both the knowledge of the relative world and the Knowledge of Ultimate Reality. When by the pursuit of the former he fails to attain true freedom and immortality, he cultivates the latter. The lower knowledge includes the knowledge of righteous actions (dharma) and unrighteous action (adharma) and their results.]

 

The two kinds of knowledge:

 

Of these two, the lower knowledge is the Rig-Veda, the Yajur-Veda, the Sama-Veda, the Atharva-Veda, siksha (phonetics), kalpa (rituals), vyakaranam (grammar), nirukta (etymology), chhandas (metre) and jyotis (astronomy); and the Higher Knowledge is that by which the Imperishable Brahman is attained.

-Mundaka Upanishad (I.i.5)

 

[Note: Sri Shankaracharya explains that the Higher Knowledge refers to the actual realisation of the subject matter taught in the Sruti (Vedas). It primarily means the experience of the Imperishable Brahman taught in the Upanishads, and not the mere words contained in them.

 

"Siksha, kalpa…." : These six, known as the Vedangas, are ancillary to the Vedas. Without the knowledge of them a proper understanding of the Vedas is impossible.

 

"Is attained": In the case of the Higher Truth, attainment and knowledge are identical. This attainment is the same as the destruction of ignorance. The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman.]

 

[barney 0]

Abusive Speech

Mahabharata

Santi Parva, Section CXIV

Translated by Sri Kisari Mohan Ganguli

 

Yudhishthira said: How, O Bharata, should a learned man adorned with modesty behave, O chastiser of foes, when assailed with harsh speeches in the midst of assemblies by an ignorant person swelling with conceit?

 

Bhishma said: Listen, O lord of earth, how the subject has been treated of (in the scriptures), how a person of good soul should endure in this world the abusive speeches of persons of little intelligence. If a person, when abused by another, do not yield to wrath, he is then sure to take away (the merit of) all the good deeds that have been done by the abuser. The endurer, in such a case, communicates the demerit of all his own bad acts to the person who under the influence of wrath indulges in abuse. An intelligent man should disregard an abusive language who resembles, after all, only a Tittibha (a bird, Parra Jacana) uttering dissonant cries. One who yields to hate is said to live in vain. A fool may often be heard to say, ‘Such a respectable man was addressed by me in such words amid such an assembly of men,’ and to even boast of that wicked act. He would add, ‘Abused by me, the man remained silent as if dead with shame.’ Even thus does a shameless man boast of an act about which no one should boast.

 

Such a man among men should carefully be disregarded. The man of wisdom should endure everything that such a person of little intelligence may say. What can a vulgar fellow do by either his praise or his blame? He is even like a crow that caws uselessly in the woods. If those who accuse others by only their words could establish those accusations by such means, then, perhaps, their words would have been regarded to be of some value. As a fact, however, these words are as effective as those uttered by fools invoking death upon them with whom they quarrel.

 

[Note: In India, the commonest form of verbal abuse among ignorant men and women is ‘Do thou meet with death,’ or ‘Go thou to Yama’s house.’ (Yama is the god of death). What Bhishma says is that as these words are uttered in vain, even so the verbal accusations of wicked men prove perfectly abortive.]

 

That man simply proclaims his bastardy who indulges in such conduct with words. Indeed, he is even like a peacock that dances while showing such a part of his body as should be ever concealed from the view. A person of pure conduct should never even speak with that wight of sinful conduct who does not scruple to utter anything or do anything. That man who speaks of one’s merits when one’s eye is upon him and who speaks ill of one when one’s eye in withdrawn from him, is really like a dog. Such a person loses all his regions in heaven and the fruits of any knowledge and virtue that he may have.

 

[Note: A dog is an unclean animal in Hindu estimation.]

 

The man who speaks ill of one when one’s eye is not upon him, loses without delay the fruits of all his libations on fire and of the gifts he may make unto even a hundred persons. A man of wisdom, therefore, should unhesitatingly avoid a person of such sinful heart who deserves to be avoided by all honest men, as he would avoid the flesh of the dog. That wicked-souled wretch, who proclaims the faults of a high-souled person, really publishes (by that act) his own evil nature even as a snake displays his hood (when interfered with by others). The man of sense who seeks to counteract such a backbiter ever engaged in an occupation congenial to himself, finds himself in the painful condition of a stupid ass sunk in a heap of ashes. A man who is ever engaged in speaking ill of others should be avoided like a furious wolf, or an infuriated elephant roaring in madness, or a fierce dog.

 

Fie on that sinful wretch who has betaken himself to the path of the foolish and has fallen away from all wholesome restraints and modesty, who is always engaged in doing what is injurious to others, and who is regardless of his own prosperity. If an honest man wishes to exchange words with such wretches when they seek to humiliate him, he should be counselled in these words: Do not suffer thyself to be afflicted. A wordy encounter between a high and a low person is always disapproved by persons of tranquil intelligence. A slanderous wretch, when engaged, may strike another with his palms, or throw dust or chaff at another, or frighten another by showing or grinding his teeth. All this is well known. That man who endures the reproaches and slanders of wicked-souled wights uttered in assemblies, or who read frequently these instructions, never suffers any pain occasioned by speeches.

 

 

 

[cdrbvn 0]

The Lord says in the Gita: "It is I who am known by all the Vedas "(Vedaisca sarvair aham eva vedyah). " Instead of describing himself as "Vedakrd" (creator of the Vedas), he calls himself "Vedantakrd" (creator of philosophical system that is the crown of the Vedas). He also refers to himself as "Vedavid" (he who knows the Vedas). Before Vedanta that enshrines great philosophical truths had been made know to mankind, the Vedas had existed in the form of sound, as the very breath of Isvara -- they were (and are) indeed Isvara dwelling in Isvara.

The Bhagavata too, like the Gita, does not state that the Lord created the Vedas. It declares that they occurred in a flash in his heart, that they came to him in a blaze of light. The word used on this context is "Sphuranam", occurring in the mind in a flash. Now we cannot apply this word to any thing that is created a new, any thing that did not exist before. Bramha is the premordial sage who saw all the mantras. But it was the Parmatman who revealed them to him. Did he transmit them orally? No, says the Bhagavatha. The paramatman imparted the Vedas to Bramha through his heart: " Tene Bramha hrdaya Adikavaye" says the very first verse of that Purana. The Vedas were not created by the Parmatman. The truth is that they are always present in his heart. When he mearly resolved to pass on the Vedas to Bramha the latter instantly received them. And with their sound he began the work of creation.

 

[Guest guest]

thanks barney to have brought other demonstrations of your behaviour

 

do not abuse of hindu culture

[bubri 0]

the question of who came first avatharas or vedas is like asking which came first...the hen or the egg? when time is a cycle and there are innumerable cycles of creation its illogical for comprehension as to which came first regarding things of epoch proportons like the vedas and avatharas. our perceptions living as it is in the limits of time during this creation cycle cannot comprehend the beginning of time or what was before it.

 

when avathara purushas and vedas are truths of eternal presence , questions like the one above only stimulate discussions and never point towards the truth.

 

krishna himself declares in the bhagvad gita that there never was a time when he nor arjuna were not present.

 

"of course if you and your rascal cheater masters destroy hinduism, it will be very easy to be all agree on it"

 

guest u r immature but lucky....for even those who harbour hatred towards avatharas like ramakrishna and ramana marshi are blessed due to their subconcious meditation on them.

 

"you wipe all away and there will be nothing more to quarrel of"

 

no there will be a lot to quarrel about and set right...like ur immaturity.

 

" hold not hold not the chariot wheels...

is it the wheels that make the chariot move?...

the mover of wheels is Krishna....

by whose will the worlds are moved....."

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"for even those who harbour hatred towards avatharas like ramakrishna and ramana marshi are blessed due to their subconcious meditation on them"

 

that nihilist mayavadis avataras? of what? kali.. maya..?

 

[maadhav 0]

god is for ever, was for ever and will be for ever.

gad has many names, krishna e.g.

 

his incarnations on a planet are many

and at different times.

 

he gave the knowledge of the vedas to brahma in the beginning of creation.

 

hope it helps.

 

[Guest guest]

Be careful with what you speak of and about whm you speak of.

If you are not aware of how much penance Ramana Maharishi has made, and how his body was covered with insects in the virupaksha caves, and how he faced his cancer and how he has faced death and realised the self..... you morons will not speaks like that. So have some respect for the great soul..... and behave like an even minded human being.

[Guest guest]

Be careful with what you speak of

+i was very sweet

If you are not aware of how much penance Ramana Maharishi has made, and how his body was covered with insects in the virupaksha caves, and how he faced his cancer and how he has faced death and realised the self

+everything useless, he's teaching atheism

So have some respect for the great soul

+which great soul?

 

[Guest guest]

you are not respecting them not telling the truth that they live in illusion to be masters and cheating and plagiarizing people

 

 

[adityavpratap 0]

"In vedas Rama is mentions"

Dear friend,

In which Veda do you find mention of Lord Rama?

[Guest guest]

 

Caitanya Upanishad, Atharva Veda

 

Text Eleven

sa eva mula-mantram japati harir iti krsna iti rama iti |

 

 

Translation

He chants the original mantra consisting of Hari, Krishna and Rama, in other words, the Hare Krishna Maha Mantra.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Caitanya Upanisad is a fraud. It's only accepted in hare krishna lineage. No one else accepts it not even other Gaudiyas.

[Guest guest]

nIlakaNTha compiled a collection of mantras from the R^ig Veda that correspond to the story of rAma. This collection is called the "mantra- rAmAyaNa." I will present a few of these mantras from the R^ig Veda, with notes from nIlakaNTha's commentary, "mantra-rahasya-prakAshikA."

 

nIlakaNTha is well known as the commentator par excellence of the mahAbhArata. He hailed from what is modern day Kopargaon in the state of Maharashtra but he is said to have settled down in Varanasi, where he wrote his commentary on the 'bhArata called the "bhAratabhAvapradIpa." This commentary is also known as the "nIlakaNThI." This famous commentary on the bhArata is said to have been written towards the end of the 17th century C.E.

 

Since rAmAyaNa is based on the Vedas, there must be mantras in the Vedas that correspond to the immortal story of rAma. It is with this objective that nIlakaNTha, the great commentator on the mahAbhArata, has presented, with his own wonderful commentary, the mantra-rAmAyaNa. The mantra-rAmAyaNa is a compilation of Riks from the R^ig Veda that narrate the story of rAma or the rAmAyaNa.

 

Now, why is it said that the supremely sacred gAyatrI mantra is the seed (bIja) of the rAmayaNa tree? nIlakaNTha says:

 

ata eva rAmAyaNe chaturvimshatisAhasrAyaM chaturvimshatigAyatryaxarANi

vAlmIkinA saMgR^ihItAni

 

For this reason, vAlmIki bases the twenty-four thousand verses of the rAmAyaNa on the twenty-four akshhara's (syllables) of the gAyatrI mantra (of the Vedas).

 

nIlakaNTha quotes from the agastya-saMhitA to further support the fact that the rAmAyaNa story is drawn from the Vedas:

 

vedavedaye pare puMsi jAte dasharathAtmaje |

vedaH prAchetasAdAsIt.h sAxAdrAmAyaNAtmanA |

tasmAdrAmAyaNaM devi veda eva na saMshayaH ||

 

When the Supreme Being, known through the Vedas, was born as the son of dasharatha (rAma), the Veda (manifested itself) through the (mouth) of the sage prAchetasa directly as the rAmAyaNa. Therefore, O devi, the rAmAyaNa is the Veda itself, without a doubt.

 

 

Bottom of page - Rig Vedic Ramayana

 

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/articles/

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

Caitanya Upanisad is a fraud. It's only accepted in hare krishna lineage. No one else accepts it not even other Gaudiyas.

-

 

So Gaudiya Matha is false yes ok. We understand. You don't know anything beyond what you do know. Narrow-minded.

 

There are 4 Sampradaya's of Which Iskcon is part of Gaudiya Matha. And even Vraja-vasis except Chaitanya Upanishad. Your not a Krishna devotee. I don't know what you are. In fact.

[Guest guest]

You're dreaming.