the hare rama challenge - dont evade

[Guest guest]

> therefore, i

> > put forth the hare rama challenge :

> >

> > 1) prove that hare krishna version exists in the shruti or smrti

> with

> > evidence that the original manuscript is at least 500 years old.

>

 

> > 2) prove that the shruti or smrti talks about krishna prema as the

> > result of chanting hare krishna mantra based on a manuscript

older

> > than 500 years.

>

> Again, why should anyone here answer your "sectarian challenges"

when

> you refuse to answer our questions to you? It is rather

presumptuous,

> don't you think, that you feel you need answers to your questions

> while you don't feel compelled to offer them when others question

> you.

 

i have already said that if any one quotes sankara verbatim and

refutes it saying it is incorrect translation or word jugglery, i

will discuss it though unqualified. the ball is in gerald's court to

take up the points. he has the audacity to use the venerable

acharya's works as an example of faulty interpretation and now has

become silent.

 

now, even assuming you have exposed that sankara is not vedic, why

are you running away from proving that hare krishna is vedic ? take

up the hare rama challenge or learn to respect sankara.

 

 

 

(having said that gaudiyas' glory is your dedication of your life for

krishna. does the lord care about whether you chant hare krishna or

hare rama firs ? he cares about your earnest love for him when you

chant, which you have in plenty and i stand begging or that. i am

forced to say wht i have to prevent careless abuse of sankara, which

is becoming common place in iskcon and which no one is qualified to. )

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/21/2004 2:16:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "v_raja_ram"

<v_raja_ram writes:

 

>i have already said that if any one quotes sankara verbatim and

>refutes it saying it is incorrect translation or word jugglery, i

>will discuss it though unqualified. the ball is in gerald's court to

>take up the points. he has the audacity to use the venerable

>acharya's works as an example of faulty interpretation and now has

>become silent.

 

Caitanya caritamrta Adi 7.121

Lord Caitanya said, "Sankaracarya, however, has misled the world by commenting

that VyÄsadeva was mistaken (brantha). Thus he has raised great opposition to

theism throughout the entire world."

 

This is Lord Chaitanya's assessment of Shankara's work.

 

Regards

Gerald S

[Guest guest]

achintya, Mrgerald@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 9/21/2004 2:16:38 PM Eastern Daylight

Time, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> writes:

>

> >i have already said that if any one quotes sankara verbatim and

> >refutes it saying it is incorrect translation or word jugglery, i

> >will discuss it though unqualified. the ball is in gerald's court

to

> >take up the points. he has the audacity to use the venerable

> >acharya's works as an example of faulty interpretation and now has

> >become silent.

>

> Caitanya caritamrta Adi 7.121

> Lord Caitanya said, "Sankaracarya, however, has misled the world by

commenting that VyÄsadeva was mistaken (brantha). Thus he has raised

great opposition to theism throughout the entire world."

>

> This is Lord Chaitanya's assessment of Shankara's work.

>

> Regards

> Gerald S

 

This is what you say is Lord Caitanya's assessment of Caitanya's

work. Read the original verses of your own granthas before you say

Sankara twists the original meaning of the vedas. There is no mention

of sankara in this verse. If you dont even know your granthas, why

you dare to critcize an acharya such as Sankara as faulty ?

[Guest guest]

>

> This is what you say is Lord Caitanya's assessment of Caitanya's

> work. Read the original verses of your own granthas before you

say

> Sankara twists the original meaning of the vedas. There is no

mention

> of sankara in this verse. If you dont even know your granthas, why

> you dare to critcize an acharya such as Sankara as faulty ?

 

It is clear from context, that Sankaracarya is mentioned, though

there is no explicit naming of Sankara in the verse.

 

Here is another one: (Adi 7.109)

gauna-vrttye yeba bhasya karila acarya

tahara sravane nasa haya sarva karya

SYNONYMS

gauna-vrttye—by indirect meanings; yeba—which; bhasya—commentary;

karila—prepared; acarya—Sankaracarya; tahara—its; sravane—hearing;

nasa—destruction; haya—becomes; sarva—all; karya—business.

TRANSLATION

"Sripada Sankaracarya has described all the Vedic literatures in

terms of indirect meanings. One who hears such explanations is

ruined.

 

Of course here acarya is mentioned and hope Rajaram does not say it

does not refer to Sankara.

 

Raghuram

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

RajaRam will say that it is not sankara. Is there any

defense?

 

dasa

Narasimhan

 

Raghu_sury <jndeere1170 wrote:

It is clear from context, that Sankaracarya is mentioned, though

there is no explicit naming of Sankara in the verse.

 

Here is another one: (Adi 7.109)

gauna-vrttye yeba bhasya karila acarya

tahara sravane nasa haya sarva karya

SYNONYMS

gauna-vrttye—by indirect meanings; yeba—which; bhasya—commentary;

karila—prepared; acarya—Sankaracarya; tahara—its; sravane—hearing;

nasa—destruction; haya—becomes; sarva—all; karya—business.

TRANSLATION

"Sripada Sankaracarya has described all the Vedic literatures in

terms of indirect meanings. One who hears such explanations is

ruined.

 

Of course here acarya is mentioned and hope Rajaram does not say it

does not refer to Sankara.

 

Raghuram

 

 

 

 

vote. - Register online to vote today!

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote:

 

> This is what you say is Lord Caitanya's assessment of Caitanya's

> work.

 

Kindly inform us what does this means ?

 

 

> Read the original verses of your own granthas before you say

> Sankara twists the original meaning of the vedas. There is no

> mention of sankara in this verse.

 

This is rather a childish objection. I will advise you to read that

entire chapter before accusing others of being unaware of their own

sastra.

 

Lets see why this objection has no force -

 

1) You should note that here Chaitanya is talking to mayavadi

philosophers.

 

2) Now note: CC adi 7.109: "Sankarcarya has described all

the Vedic literatures in terms of indirect meanings. One who hears

such explanations is ruined."

 

3) But you will reply again - where is sankara mentioned in the

verse ?

 

To which I reply: Kindly read this verse in light of those preceding

and following it as right rules of interpretation recommend.

 

Preceding verse:

CC adi 7.108: " The Absolute Truth is described in the Upanisads and

Brahma-sutra, but one must understand the verses as they are. That is

the supreme glory in understanding."

 

In this verse Mahaprabhu says Absolute is decribed in vedanta and

adds to it that they should be understood as they are. According to

him direct meaning of Vedanta is glorious.

 

In the next verse quoted above 7.109 it is clearly said one acarya

ruined the direct meanings by indirectly describing them in order to

cover their direct meaning which is real and glorious.

 

Following verse:

CC Adi 7.110: "Sankaracrya is not at fault, for it is under the

order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead that he has covered the

real purpose of the Vedas."

 

So now chaitanya provides us with a clue as to who that acarya is -

It is one who was ordered by Supreme to cover the real meaning. Now

this is an unmistakable reference to Sankara. Who else was ordered by

Supreme to cover the meaning according to Chaitanya ?

 

Hence it is proven beyond mistake that Sri Chaitanya is refering to

Sankara only. Just because the name Sankara it doesn't means Sankara

is not referred to here in. There are two ways to identify an entity

or a person.

 

a) You identify him by his name.

b) You identify him by his peculiar trait or some act attributed to

him.

 

Chaitanya is using second way here. Now if you raise question of

legitimacy of this way.

 

I reply even Lord himself in infallible Srutis has used it:

 

"brahmanyo devaki putra" [Narayana Upanisad 4]

 

Here Brahman is identified with Sri Krishna on basis of a quality

unique to krishna which is being son of mother devaki - devaki putra.

 

Now according to gaudiyas chaitanya is Supreme. So if Supreme used

this indirect way of reference in Sruti for himself there is no

reason why he cannot use it here in CC verses being quoted for

Sankaracarya.

 

 

> If you dont even know your

> granthas, why you dare to critcize an acharya such as Sankara as

> faulty ?

 

Sorry Sir, he knew his sastra well. Its you who didn't understand.

 

For you, let me quote Jayatirtha a great acarya in line of madhva:

 

"All upanisadic texts, without exception speak of glory of brahman as

the abode of infinite perfections and attributes and free from all

imperfections. Of these some 1) represent It as endowed with

attributes like omniscience , lordhsip, inner rulership,

munificence.... 2) Others represent It as free from all such

limitation as sin, suffering, liability to physical embodiment and so

on 3)Yet others describe brahman as lying beyond reach of mind and

speech, in order to bring home to us Its comparative inaccessibility.

4)Others depict it as the only one that exists - in order we may seek

It, to the exclusion of everything else. 5)Others represent It as

the self of all so that it may be understood to be source of all

existence, knowledge and activity in the finite world. **** But

confused heads, missing the central unity of Vedic teachings in and

through a multiplicity of inter connected approaches, mar the unity

of their teaching by introducing artificial distinctions of

standpoint of Saguna and Nirguna, Vyavahara and Parmartha and so

forth in interpreting the message of upanisad. ****" [Nyaya Sudha

p.123]

 

This is just to confirm what Sri chaitanya said about direct meaning

of vedas being glorious.

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

In the Bengali movie Nilacale Mahaprabhu" Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu sits quietly

and listens to Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya's vedanta classes for 7 days in which SB

concludes saying that what he had just spoken was the understanding of Vedanta

according to Sripad Sankaracharya. And, mahaprabhu strikes him down saying "you

are a mayavadi" and proves why he (meaning Sri Sankaracharya) is wrong after

quoting the shrutis, which attribute qualities to Brahman. This is another proof

that mahaprabhu was against Sri Sankaracharya's commentary of the Brahma Sutra.

 

iys

 

v_raja_ram <v_raja_ram wrote:

achintya, Mrgerald@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 9/21/2004 2:16:38 PM Eastern Daylight

Time, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> writes:

>

> >i have already said that if any one quotes sankara verbatim and

> >refutes it saying it is incorrect translation or word jugglery, i

> >will discuss it though unqualified. the ball is in gerald's court

to

> >take up the points. he has the audacity to use the venerable

> >acharya's works as an example of faulty interpretation and now has

> >become silent.

>

> Caitanya caritamrta Adi 7.121

> Lord Caitanya said, "Sankaracarya, however, has misled the world by

commenting that VyÄsadeva was mistaken (brantha). Thus he has raised

great opposition to theism throughout the entire world."

>

> This is Lord Chaitanya's assessment of Shankara's work.

>

> Regards

> Gerald S

 

This is what you say is Lord Caitanya's assessment of Caitanya's

work. If the word Sankara occurs in the original verses of CC, I will

give you myself as a slave. Read the original verses of your own

granthas before you say Sankara twists the original. If you dont even

know your granthas, why you dare to critcize an acharya such as

Sankara as faulty ?

 

 

 

 

 

Achintya Homepage: achintya

 

DISCLAIMER: All postings appearing on Achintya are the property of their

authors, and they may not be cross-posted to other forums without prior approval

by said authors. Views expressed in Achintya postings are those of their authors

only, and are not necessarily endorsed by the moderator or spiritual leaders of

the Gaudiiya school.

 

 

achintya/

 

achintya

 

 

 

 

Aravind Mohanram

Ph.D. Candidate

Dept. of Mat Sci and Engg.,

Penn State University,

University Park, PA 16801

www.personal.psu.edu/aum105

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Raghu_sury" <jndeere1170@h...>

wrote:

 

> Here is another one: (Adi 7.109)

> gauna-vrttye yeba bhasya karila acarya

> tahara sravane nasa haya sarva karya

> SYNONYMS

> gauna-vrttye—by indirect meanings; yeba—which; bhasya—commentary;

> karila—prepared; acarya—Sankaracarya; tahara—its; sravane—hearing;

> nasa—destruction; haya—becomes; sarva—all; karya—business.

> TRANSLATION

> "Sripada Sankaracarya has described all the Vedic literatures in

> terms of indirect meanings. One who hears such explanations is

> ruined.

>

> Of course here acarya is mentioned and hope Rajaram does not say it

> does not refer to Sankara.

>

> Raghuram

 

Actually, that's exactly what he says. He claims that this refers to

someone other than Shankaraachaarya. His theory is absurd, given the

historical context.

 

But just to be charitable, I have given Raja Ram several months now

to come up with the name of the Mayavadi Vedaanta commentator to

which this statement and others like it refer.

 

His answer?

 

He had none. Yet he expects us to believe that this refers to someone

other than Shankaraachaarya.

 

In fact, all of my questions to him regarding the integrity of

Advaita philosophy and its alleged compatibility with Vaishnavism

have gone totally unanswered. Now, when I do not provide him with

answers to his questions, I am suddenly evasive. I am rather

unconvinced of the need for me to answer any further challenges on

his part when he ignores everything I pose to him. Let him declare

victory if he chooses; he is only convincing himself.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna. The gaudiyas quote this verse very often:

 

Nama Cintamani krishnaCaitanya rasa vigraha

 

1. All the acharyas including Madhva have said that the name of Krishna is

Cintamani and there is no difference between Nama and Nami. Hence, whatever one

asks from the nama, one will get, because it is Cintamani. As Mahaprabhu and the

acharyas in His disciplic succession have identified Prema to be the topmost

goal to achieve, the gaudiyas chant in order to attain Prema and they have got

it and will get it, because it is Cintamani.Even if one were to ask for US

presidency, he will also get that.So there need not be any explicit evidence

that Maha Mantra will give Krishna Prema. The vedas do not themselves know the

greatness of krishna Prema and hence, they came as Gopis in Vrindavan to

experience that.(Brhad vaman Purana), hence it is not reasonable to expect such

a quote out of srutis.

 

2. Srila Prabhupada does not say that the name is interpolated. The Context is

Q& A session after SB lecture in Hyderabad on April 13, 1975. The interaction is

as follows:

 

Acyutananda: (Reading Question) :In the vedas the maha mantra is repeated Hare

Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare/ hare krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna

Hare Hare. What is the significance of changing the order?

Prabhupada: There is no change of order. If you like you can begin with Hare

Rama. there is no harm.

 

Period. There is no more discussion in this regard anywhere else.

 

Is there any place where Sankara Himself is called a Mayavadi? As far as I know,

Mayavadis are the followers of Sankara and not Sankara.they are given that name

because they acll Iswara a product of maya. That Sankara is a great devotee and

one of the greatest acarya is well endorsed in SP's books. The problem are his

followers. The question arises, as to why ther are called mayavadis. Infact, the

Gaudiyas accept that he spoke veiled personalism. Anyone who reads Sankara is

immediately bewildered.When a Vaishnava reads it, he makes out that sankara is a

devotee.But that does not mean others are not bewildered.

If Sankara says what Rajaram says he did, is Rajaram ready to get an 'aye' from

leading advaiti vedantists that the supreme Lord is indeed a person who is

beyond Nirguna also and he is Vasudeva? Else, will he accept them as Mayavadis

because, they very much fall within our definition and he mus concur with us

calling them Mayavadis?

 

I'm not sure how successful this will be and it will be futile to attempt that.

As, sankara, true to his merciful nature has already born the blame of heading a

disciplic succession who twist his statements to the extreme and this is also

supported by sastras.If, as per Padma purana, he can even bewilder stalwarts

like Jaimni, Kanada, Brhaspati etc, who are these mundane scholars! Most enter

sankar's words expecting Him to speak impersonalism and nothing else and are

waiting to be bewildered.

 

dasa

Narasimhan

 

 

v_raja_ram <v_raja_ram wrote:

1) the hare rama challenge is about the vedic basis of hare krishna

mantra. this is not as important as the mood of devotion. i had

mentioned a couple of days back that 100 years down the line, people

will say that hare rama mantra is bogus introduction by mayavadi

sannyasis. for your information, already one prabhu has written to me

saying this though it contradicts SP's opinion on what is in

kalisantarana upanishad. i have asked him to show one original

manuscript older than 500 years where the hare krishna mantra is

written. this challenge along with the challenge to show that sruti /

smrti evidence for krishna prema as the phala of hare krishna mantra

has gone unanswered by people who say sankara is not vedic. i am

ready to spend my time, money and effort to locate and date the

manuscripts unlike the arm-chair philosophers here who will no risk

their source of security such as their jobs etc. can some one provide

evidence that hare krishna mantra is vedic ? or please dont say

sankara is not vedic.

 

2) please take time to read sarvabhuama incidence in CB. sarvabhuama

clearly talks about how sankara's original purport is devotional

albeit advaitic and he also mentions how some followers of sankara

have twisted the original meaning. caitanya also agrees with this

100% and reveals him his true nature as the lord, which sarvabhauma

did not understand before hand. if CC refers to sankara as a

mayavadi, it contradicts the opinion of CB and CB, where sankara is

never criticized as a mayavadi. it is with this clear evidence from

your own granthas that your position on adi sankara as a mayavadi is

not tenable. it is clear that as per sankara parabrahman, the isvara

is purna not sunya as most mayavadis say. krishna_susarla wants me to

show who is the mayavdi referred to in these verses. i am not a

trikala jna nor do i have CBI, CIA, FBI, RAW, KGB etc., at my

disposal to discover the culprit -

 

 

 

 

Achintya Homepage: achintya

 

DISCLAIMER: All postings appearing on Achintya are the property of their

authors, and they may not be cross-posted to other forums without prior approval

by said authors. Views expressed in Achintya postings are those of their authors

only, and are not necessarily endorsed by the moderator or spiritual leaders of

the Gaudiiya school.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, ranganathan narasimhan

<simhan74> wrote:

> Hare Krishna. The gaudiyas quote this verse very often:

>

 

Hare Krishna. I request as a member of this list that everyone here

stop answering Raja_Ram's challenges until he starts answering mine.

Let's not give him what he wants until he agrees to shed this double

standard and start playing by the rules.

 

No more challenges from people who don't want to be challenged.