sumedh

In the Uma-Maheshwara samvada in Padma Purana Uttara-Khanda it is stated that the various wives of Krishna/Vishnu (excluding the 16000 released from Narakasura) are various manifestations of Goddess Lakshmi with Rukmini, Satyabhama being the complete manifestations in Krishna avatara e.g. Jambavati has an avesha of Lakshmi, Tulasi is Jambavati with special presence of Lakshmi etc.

Sri Vijayindra Tirtha has answered this by pointing out contradictions among the tamasic puranas themselves, as well as conflict with the sattvic puranas and the sruti. The skandha purana, on the other hand, says that after Lord Narasimha had drunk Hiranyakashyapu's blood and was creating havoc, virbhadra on being ordered by Shiva took the form of sharabha caught Lord Narasimha, swirled him so that He regained composure and thus virbhadra controlled vishnu and went back (no mention of killing). The Shiva purana, as ykji wrote, says that it was shiva who took the form of sharabha and killed Lord Narasimha. In the sattvic puranas there is no mention of Lord drinking Hiranyakashyapu's blood. On the other hand they mention Lord Narasimha killing sharabha. For example, Padma purana "jaghana nishitaistiksnaiHh nakhairnakhavarayudhah" or Vamana purana "meruprishthe nrisimhena sharabhashchatha soapatatah" compare the killing of sharabha by Lord Narasimha (by nails) to his killing of Hiranyakashyapu. Similarly other puranas such as Kurma purana, Agni purana etc. concur with this version. The sruti (e.g. Mahanarayana upanishad, or Narasimha-tapani upanishad) rules out Vishnu ever getting deluded. Similarly sruti such as Narasimha-tapani upanishad, state that Lord Narasimha is param-brahman without beginning and end located in moksha dhama, so there is no question of Him being killed. Moreover, the sruti "harim harantamanuyanti devah | vishvasyeshanam" says that Ishana (Lord Shiva) is killed by Hari, the name Hari itself is to be known as meaning the destroyer which is also conveyed in Taittariya aranyaka where Indra kills Rudra with Sri Hari's chakra when the latter tries to spoil the former's yajna of Lord Narayana. Since the statements from linga/skanda/shiva puranas contradict themselves and are also in contradiction with the sruti, these should be rejected. The sattvic puranas, on the other hand, concur on the event of Lord Narasimha killing sharabha and are also in consonance with the sruti, so that their version is the one that should be accepted.

Actually it comes from bearing honesty, and sincerity of spiritual pursuit -- aparently simple basic things but profound. Do you mean that the differences (only aparent in your opinion) in various gods is due to that. Or do you mean that the differences in material things are due to that. Or you mean differences in jivas is that. Or you mean something else. In either case the bimba-pratibimba analogy does little to these ends since it is seen that the pratibimba has very little of the properties of the bimba, and no sort of equality can be made between bimba and pratibimba or different pratibimba's of the bimba. The differences that have been told between various entities (brahman, prakriti, jivas) in the scriptures are real and eternal. Which brings out the point that you do not believe in vaishnava philosophies for these ideas are opposed to that. Of course, your ideas are all very fine with yourself but be prepared to base them on some pramanas when you challenge others. As such resorting to "experiences" and the stuff is not useful for it is seen that different persons claiming self-realization etc. express different (and contradictory) views as being the Truth; we also find in our shastras that even the greatest rishis were subject to periods of ignorance, so that there is no basis to claim immunity for "experiences". We also see that every human experiences the material world yet expresses different opinions for material facts, and there is no reason to believe that opinions drawn out of experience of other realms, even if they be genuine, are any less error prone. Well Ykji your hiding under "Guest3" is testimony of that. Madhusudan Saraswati is no "tantrik yogi"; please read "advaita siddhi" (or his other books) or get at least some basic information about him and his beliefs before trying to go on about him. Which answers the question as saying that you have not read either Shankaracharya, or Madhusudan Saraswati or works of any of the other advaita acharyas. This is interesting. You have no knowledge of your own advaita tradition, but you claim to have knowledge of vaishnava traditions -- a little unbelievable don't you think. To be fair, you seem to be a follower of tantras though I doubt you have read any of the trantra texts. More interesting comments from your side. You are invited to present quotes where the gaudiya acharyas have said that vedas should not be read when they have themselves written commentries on some parts of them. Even the words of Lord are not considered final (e.g. Lord Buddha's words who is considered an avataara by all sampradayas including advaita) all the time for they can be aimed at some purpose other than imparting true knowledge. Of course, if you present specific instances where Lord Krishna's words are rejected then it can be explained without resorting to some over-generalizations. The "vayu" here refers to the personality also referred to as "mukhya prana" while "pravaha vayu" is his partial understanding, and he is the highest among abhimani devatas as told in Chandogya upanishad. Read the full keshi sukta (also called as vayu sukta) for reference and the episode of samudra manthan where Shiva is told to be the secondary consumer of halahala and the subsequent verses of this sukta. There are also many other smriti pramanas where it is told that Shiva was protected from the effects of halahala due to the namatraya (om achyutAnantagovinda om) e.g. Garuda Purana where Lord Shiva tells Parvati that before cosuming the poison he meditated on Sri Hari and so was able to consume the poison, or Brahmanda purana, or in mantra shastras etc. The point being that imagining the beliefs of other person and then attacking that is a straw-man argument. At any rate a sensible argument is based on the statements of the other person and not on your own notions of what he/she might or might not be believing.

Firstly, learn to keep sentimentalism away from a discussion especially personal remarks to be taken in any sense of seriousness. For the record, tell me which branch of advaita you are talking about. Even Madhusudan saraswati diverges from that preached by Shankaracharya in many places. Then tell us which books on advaita written by the advaita acharyas have you ever read (lets take any of those by Shankaracharya, Vacaspati Mishra and Madhusudan Saraswati for a start). You ought to answer your own question. After Shankaracharya dismissed the Shaiva schools of his time as unvedic, many took to advaita mixed with their own philosophy over a period of time. Most of the practises of current Shaiva/Shaktas come from tantras and other books rather than the vedic ones. Such "newbies" include stalwarts like Shankara/Madhva/Ramanuja/... and others. Read vedanta sutra bhashyas of any of them; read Madhusudan saraswati's advaita siddhi where he even resorts to name calling for tattvavadis; read MBTN and other books by Madhva etc. Don't try to hide your own ignorance of our tradition under the cloak of political correctness. The sad truth is that persons ignorant of even the basics of vedanta are nowadays posing as "gurus", and preach all kinds of contradictions and imaginations in the name of hinduism and vedanta. Since this comes from a smriti and says something that contradicts the vedas, it does not require much interpretation (though such are indeed possible and provided). Suffice to say that other shastras (including Rig Veda, Mahabharata and other smrits shastras) mention of no such thing for samudra manthan. Elsewhere the Bhagavata itself says that Lord Shiva attained auspicousness (the meaning of word Shiva) on accepting the water of ganges on his head. For instance Rig Veda has to say about the consumption of halahala by Lord Shiva: Rg Veda, 10.136.* which says that Vayu squeezed, kneaded and crushed a small portion of the poison for Shiva and drank the poison along with Shiva. So why are you here and indulging in the same? His guru Sripad Ishwara Puri was not a follower of advaita, though one may say that Keshava Bharati from whom he accepted sanyasa belonged to advaita but that does not count for much. Seriously though please do some reading of Chaitanya Bhagavata/Charitamrta before trying to increase our knowledge of that subject. All these words on some supposition, which itself may be in serious error !! No the issue is much deeper, but i doubt you have the patience to try and understand it. Any person with any degree of intellectual honesty will not accept two contradictory statements as both being true. Vaishnava philosophy, Shaiva philosophy as well as Shakta philosophy contradict each other in description sambandha jnana, abhideya as well as prayojana. If one accepts Shaiva philosophy, it automatically rejects the vaishnava philosophy since it directly contradicts the shaiva one. So be honest and say that you do not accept Vaishnava philosophies as valid. Same way advaita and dvaita/vishishtadvaita philosophies are completely at odds with one another (even dvaita and vishishtadvaita are at odds but one finds that their abhideya is more or less similar). If someone says that he/she accepts all three it simply means that either he/she is ignorant of all the three, or he/she is simply fickle minded trying to be politically correct (or whatever term you want to use here).

Except that Shaivas/Pashupatas/Shaktas/... have never established their beliefs using Vedas; most Shaivas have taken to advaita (which at least tries to establish its beliefs) severely compromising their own philosophy since advaita says that Lord Shiva (among others) is a figmant of imagination.

Pranams I shall not comment on this for the time being, since i am not conversant with the details of this. I see your point, but think you have missed what was said before. It has already been stated that worship of other devataas is accepted knowing that it is actually meant for Krishna. See post #80 (quoting it partially here): This is the point being made, that there is a proper method of worshipping devas and improper method as verse 9.23 clearly says. No opinion from my side, only quotes from Bhagavad-Gita. Objections to translations, or alternative translations which bring better samanvaya are welcome. Firstly Brahman refers to Krishna as known from many verses in Bhagavad-Gita like 14.26-27 as also from numerous other sruti/smriti statements, which is also confirmed by Arjuna in 10.12-15 also expressing the affirmation of Vyasadeva, Narada etc. Hence 5.10, 5.17 etc. are talking about attaining devotion unto Him. Indeed in 18.54 the Lord says that those who reach the brahma-bhutam stage attain pure transcendental devotion unto Him and that should be understood as the goal of various endevours of yogis given in 18.51-53. In other words the jnana, yoga and others given should be understood as different limbs of bhakti or means to achieve pure devotion. The main difference is that you consider the different activities recommended as different paths, while my opinion is that these different activities are aimed at fixing the mind on the Supreme Lord and thus attain devotion (this is also the opinion of acharyas like Madhvacharya, Sripad Ramanuja ...) and hence constitute the one path (as the Lord says in 5.4-6). The point of this is to fix the mind on Supreme Lord (which i guess is devotion for Krishna), since a jiva will attain the state of being as in the mind at death without fail as 8.6 says. Well, references for the same have been given. Bhakti is definitely not easy for it means constant uninterrupted and complete fixation on Krishna (as given in chapter 9 and others); gaining knowledge of Him, meditating on Him etc. are all meant to bring us to that state and conversely in that state one has pure knowledge of Him and devotion unto Him. In other words the various chapters of Gita should be seen as one continuum culminating in chapter 18 and not as describing different things in a discrete manner. That is about the opulences of the Lord where Arjuna wants to know of His various opulences so that he may be able to fix the mind on the Lord constantly. The various vibhutis then described should be taken to mean what they are (i.e. all as opulences of the Lord) else one may draw many other conclusions like ashvatthah tree is Krishna or gambling of cheats or winning vak in an argument etc. are Krishna. It only means that the basis of all that exists is Krishna as given in 10.39 and is clarified in 10.41-42 as also given before in 7.7 Let us not turn this into another Vishnu, Shiva discussion which was not really the point here. There are many other threads for that -- please add to those if required or in a new thread. With respect to samudra manthan episode, suffice to say that Rg Veda's version of the same is in different terms. haribol

Namaskar Not done. You have made a lot of noise about HKs shoving and forcing their way particularly on Hindus or abusing them but not provided a single instance of the same, which is a completely unacceptable methodology in a discussion. As for mentality and undercurrent, such accusations are easy to make since apparently no evidence is required for the same and the other person is guilty as charged, is that not so. On the contrary even in your translation it says that those who worship other devatas are those who are carried away by material desires (which is borne from one's own nature as 3.33, 17.2-4 etc. say) and they think that the fruits are given by the respective devataas when they are given by Vishnu alone as 7.22 says). I have not omitted them, just that these do not seem to be so direct ways of worshipping Krishna though actually they are. The worship of devas is recommended in sruti as well, but that is to be done as a sacrifice to Vishnu. There are many sruti/smriti references that yajna refers to Vishnu (e.g. shatpatha brahmana) as well as stated in Bhagavad-Gita e.g. 9.16, and as 9.24 says that those who do not recognize this fact fall down. Thus the verses 3.9-13 refer to offering the yajna refer to knowing Vishnu to be the actual receiver and deliverer of fruits of these. which are temporary places of birth and death and not liberated platforms (8.16) while only attaining to Vishnu's abode means liberation (8.20-21). Quite true, yogi refers to a devotee of Lord as mentioned in various places. This is the procedure by which the pure devotees leave their bodies. Please see the context of these verses from 8.5-8.9. I think that you go by the currently circulating meaning of yogi thinking that the scriptures' meaning is the same which is actually quite different. Nope. It is clearly stated in Bhagavad-Gita (verses 9.24, 8.15-21, 9.3, 7.15, 7.29-30, 14.26, 12.6-7) as well as sruti that only devotion to Vishnu knowing Him to be the Supreme can lead to liberation. The worship of Vishnu Himself can be done in various ways (the nine ways given in Srimad-Bhagavatam or Bhagavad-Gita 9.15 as you pointed out etc.). haribol

We are just rehashing same things. Which is incorrect as has been stated before. Nowhere does the literature that HKs follow say so. Since you are intent on repeating an incorrect thing over and over, there is no point continuing this unless you produce evidence of the same. You call asking for evidence of validity of one's position in context of liberation as ridiculing. Well then we have completely different notions in this regard. Of course, also see 7.20-23, 9.23-24, 9.25 etc. which clearly say that only His devotees attain liberation. Not all in the mode of goodness acheive liberation. Oh, the two paths mentioned are those of light and darkness not two paths to acheive liberation. Please see the previous verse 8.26 which makes it clear that only passing from this world through the path of light leads to liberation. Please see the context in 8.22 where the Lord is referring to devotees, or in other words yogi here actually means a devotee. Even if someone claimed that his/her is the only path to liberation, it is very much justified if there is evidence for the same and not a problem as long as he/she does not force it on others. Nowhere do i see the anyone shoving or forcing. Calling something lacking evidence as such is not shoving. Except for claims in this regard you have not given any instance of this (in any case if such exist then they should be condemned). If there are any specifics please bring them to light. haribol

We obviously have a different take on this verse. For one, the verse never mentions infinite, rather says "mam". A more acceptable translation would be: Yet others sacrifice with the yagna of Knowledge and worship Me in various ways as the One, as the distinct and as the all-faced (or universal Form). In any case the context is that this refers to persons other than the great souls mentioned in 9.13-14 who are always chanting and devotion to Krishna while this verse gives the endevours done by others. Which is fine and worship of Krishna can be done in various ways (as 9.15 says), though of course there are also an infinite number of other paths (which are infinitely more than the correct paths) which do not lead to the destination. Thus this distinction of right and wrong paths is always there as is also given in numerous places in Bhagavad-Gita (e.g. 2.41, 9.11-12, Chapter 16). This needs to corrected: "the HKs say that there are correct paths and incorrect paths" and what those have already been given before. Besides, the point being made was that accepting anyone's philosophy for fear of discord is not an acceptable position. You seem to confuse peace with (intellectual) disagreement. YKji engaged in criticism of all the HK devotees (some of whom gave their sincere experience) and gaudiya vaishnava practise. Naturally if one criticise others' practise he/she would be asked for evidence particularly when his/her own practise is not found in scriptures, while the ones being criticised derive from accepted scriptures. The context of sruti was your invitation for a discussion of the same. If you desire some other topic please start a new thread for the same, while discussion of sruti in this thread should be related to the topic of this thread. Which should be criticised.

You have no idea about the "practical experience" of myself or other devotees to talk about it in any capacity. Get over this. This shooting of general statements with respect to "pandas" and others is unacceptable (not to mention besides the point). The acceptable pramanas are: a) The four Vedas (samhitas, brahmanas, arayankas), the dashopanishads, and some other upanishads b) Brahma sutra c) Bhagavad-Gita d) Mahabharata, mula-ramayana e) Puranas (particularly sattvic ones) when they follow the above pramanas There are other smriti shastras which are acceptable, but many are controvertial so we can leave them. I have done this for many years. The problem is that you find it hard to accept that there are other more experienced devotees that have been through this before but have different conclusions than yourself. That is why it was my sincere suggestion to read about pramanas. The Bhagavad-Gita is part of Mahabharata which is mentioned in sruti (thus breaking the cirularity) and in other sadagamas given in sruti. Sorry about that, somehow the link does not work from this site. Please go here, and then select the third paper in the list. Learn to read carefully. My response was to other personalities mentioned before that (babaji, lahiri mahashaya etc.) and not to the vedic sages. There is no evidence for this. Of course, internally we believe this to be the case but this should never be claimed in a discussion with others. Again, read my post carefully. See above for the primary vedic evidences. By your argument one can imagine any method and then ask "how do you know that ... were not adept in xyz?". You never asked me. Please do ask, but be ready to provide evidence for: a) that Gorakhnath indeed practised the said sadhana b) that Gorakhnath achieved liberation as a result of that sadhana Please do not waste words in the absence of these. Few devotees read the vedas due to time and other constraints we all have. The Bhagavad-Gita is considered the cream of all upanishads (as Lord Shiva says in Gita-mahatmya), and so is Brahma Sutra whose natural commentry is Srimad-Bhagavatam by Vyasadeva Himself. Actually every word of the veda has an associated meter should be recited in a proper manner. With regards to the hare-krsna mahamantra it is specifically stated that there are no rules and regulations in chanting it. If you do not agree, please let us know what you believe would be the correct way to recite it with relevant references. There is evidence that the hare-krsna mantra is the way as practised by gaudiya vaishnavas. Some of the older editions of Kali-santarana upanishad still exist which have the mantra in that order -- this is also confirmed by Brahmanda purana and some other smriti shastras which give the mantra in that order. Gaudiya vaishnavas practise japa which is dhyana; sankirtana, worship of Deities etc. which is devotion and sambandha jnana which is essential. Sankirtana and all these activities are vedic and are specifically recommended. I fail to see your point. What vedic sadhanas are you talking about? One is that it is not in some of the versions of Padma purana. Other is that the quotes are corroborated by many other evidences some of which were quoted before. Lower the melodrama. The quote in question repeats "no other way" three times. When giving an interpretation to such vedic statements one needs to show that the repetitions refer to different things/attributes/... Keeping the context of the quote in mind, the proper interpretation is that the three "no other way"s refer to the methods recommended in other yugas. Also refer to the quotes given by gHariji from Srimad Bhagavatam which corroborate this. Actually He says something quite different. Bhagavad-Gita 7.20-23: which says the faith of those who worship other devatas is steadied by Him in the respective devatas and that they attain temporary fruits as a result of that, while only His devotees attain liberation. Bhagavad-Gita 9.23 which specifically says that the worship of other devatas also reaches Him though it is in an incorrect manner. They are not accepted by any of the vedanta schools including advaita. Compound this with the fact that you have not provided the relevant quotes as of yet. The wild claims that you made were: a) yoga refers to kundalini/kriya/... methods b) these methods lead to an understanding of the body c) they elevate the consciousness of jiva and lead it to liberation d) it is hard to achieve the same without these (implicitly and explicitly you have said elsewhere that the gaudiya vaishnava practices cannot lead to liberation) Many more such claims have been made elsewhere. They are wild since: a) they lack any evidence b) there is explicit contrary evidence to many of these claims Actually Srila Prabhupada describes ashtanga yoga in some detail in some of his commentaries, and explains that these are useful to some extent but also says that they do not lead to the ultimate goal. Right. There are evidences that the state of Arjuna was a temporary manifestation by the will of Hari to enable dissemination of Bhagavad-Gita to the jivas. Read those long time back. I fail to make out any connection of those verses with kundalini etc. I find that HK devotees follow most of what Krishna tells Arjuna in Bhagavad-Gita (japa, remembering Him always, worshipping Him, book distribution etc.), while most of the others hardly do so. There is no mention of agnya chakra, only about divine vision. This discussion has digressed too far. Please expect further replies from my side only when you have some evidence for your claims like "HK chanting is unvedic/unscientific", "Bhakti is the first step while kundalini/kriya methods are higher steps" etc. The meaning of an evidence has been given before. haribol

In a broad sense, yes. Knowledge of right path automatically means knowledge of incorrect paths also. This is what means by "tamaso maa jyotir gamaya". blah, blah... The problem of discord is primarily that of abrahamic religions who have no culture of civil, rational discussion nor any frameworks for such. Please don't try to bring in these kind of arguments here. Yes, people are free to give their own interpretations and vedanta provides the framework to show correct and incorrect interpretations which many acharyas have done. Agreeing with any interpretation, however incorrect/absurd, for fear of an imagined "discord" is stupid and not vedantic way (and not even appropriate in modern scientific way). This is not quite right, since Tulsidasji is said to belong to Ramanandi sect coming from Sripad Ramanuja. You are welcome to start by presenting quotes about kundalini yoga from sruti which is the topic of this thread.

Please do not pose as if you know the vedic scriptures when you do not. Sri Radha is mentioned in multiple places in accepted sadagamas including Padma Purana (4.2, 4.7, 4.20, 4.23, 5.70-83, 6.93), Brahma vaivarta Purana (2.49, 9.34 etc.), Narada Purana (2.80-81), Brahma Purana (Chapter 7) and others. These also clarify that the special gopi mentioned in Srimad Bhagavatam is Sri Radha so that those quotes also apply to Her. It is also clearly stated that Sri Radha is Lakshmi in these evidences, so that whatever the Sruti says about Lakshmi is applicable to Her. Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushan also quotes many sruti pramanas for this (e.g. Purusha-bodhini upanishad, Gopala-tapani upanishad) but since these have not been quoted by previous acharyas and people question the authenticity of these texts, we do not quote them in a discussion.

Namaskar Knowledge comes from guru, sadhu and shastra where guru refers to both chaitya guru (paramatma) and sad-guru. Endevours using only one of these will only frustrate our attempts. However, in a discussion only shastra can be referred. Regarding perception of God, sruti says that only by Brahmn's will, devotion to Vishnu etc. is pure knowledge, moksha is attained. Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita that only by devotion can He be known, attained. When will you learn to give pramanas for your assertions? They are not (those that are considered as scriptures in vedanta). See previous reply to Ganesh prasadji above. There is no evidence that these personalities achieved liberation. Regarding denial of these, i had been following these for quite some time in the past so fortunately acquainted with most of whom you mention. If you see their writings etc. they are found to be in direct conflict with scriptures in places. There a much larger number of Vedic sages, and as far as vedic evidence goes none of them practised Kundalini/Kriya yoga. As for "silly points", go back to that email and read it with sincerity to see its silliness. You need to explain as to how reciting in one way or other makes it scientific or un-scientific, or what has material science got to do with this -- mere asserting something does not make it true. No, you raised the objection so the onus is on yourself to explain the difference and not me. All the accepted Vedic sadhana methods involve dhyana, knowledge and devotion to Supreme. For this age scriptures say that only sankirtana works. Srimad Bhagavatam 11.5.36 Padma purana (Uttara Khanda, chapter 42) Visnu purana Brahan-Naradiya purana There are many others. Also see the quotes provided by gHariji. None of these are accepted scriptures (learn about what are pramanas using above links and elsewhere). Be prepared to provide evidence when you make wild claims like these. It was not me. It will be interesting to see the verses which you interpret as referring to Kriya yoga. Also then make an unbiased comparison with the verses referring to bhakti (which specifically rule out any other means to know Krishna) some of which have been quoted before. haribol

I do not think that he "mended his way". Anyway he is entitled to his opinion but that would be questioned when expressed on a forum. This is incorrect. Read commentries (on vedanta sutra or otherwise) of any of the acharyas. No, they are apaurusheya and shabd pramana. The position of experience based scriptures, or God given scriptures is rejected (as being "chakraka" or circularity) in Vedanta. Read this for an introduction on vedas (chapter 17 is available for download here ). That is why sruti is considered as primary evidence and smriti as secondary (which is paurusheya), while the experience based scriptures are not considered at all. I think whatever needed to be said has been said. haribol

I believe we left siddhanta discussion long time back, rather this discussion with yourself was limited to accusations against HKs in particular. I do not see any "fudging the issue" in my reply, rather i tried to deal with each of your points. Selective quoting is not proper and you have missed the context. Here are other quotes by YKji previously in this thread and i have been responding mostly to those: Not mentioning other silly points like in http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/1039067-post46.html , my responses were mostly to deal with these prevalent misnomers which lack any scriptural support. Regarding "putting my way over your way", this has been adequately answered in the previous email. To summarize: * There is nothing wrong with showing evidence for one's own philosophy and lack of evidence for others' (particularly when points like "chanting is unvedic", "bhakti is first step" etc. are raised). * HKs do not reject everything else -- the vaishnava sampradayas are accepted as valid while worship of other deities is favoured considering them as exalted vaishnavas. * The vedantic approach consists of showing validity of one's path and demonstrating invalidity of incorrect paths. This has been done by all schools and should be done otherwise there is no intellectual honesty (e.g. why doesn't a school adopt others philosophy if that is correct and superior, like YKji says that Kundalini yoga is higher form of yoga) and there would be no end to unverifiable claims. The strength and beauty of Vedanta is its comprehensiveness, preciseness and i believe that only Vedanta can stand in any rational discussion above and over other philosophies including material science. haribol