isn't Buddhism just a form Vedanta ?

RadheyRadhey108 · May 26, 2008

Idiots like you should know that what is practised at Kalighat temple is Tantric in nature & not necessarily Vedic in nature. Kalighat is a Tantric pilgrimage center.

Here's some information for a dumbo like you:

Kalighat temple in Kolkata is famed for its tantric rituals and blood sacrifices. This ancient temple reverberates with extraordinary stories of tantriks and their devotion to the goddess.

The Kalighat Kali temple in Kolkata is one of the 51 pithosthans (centers of pilgrimage where Goddess Sati’s body parts fell) in India. As the mythological tale goes, when Vishnu cut Sati’s corpse with his chakra, four toes of her right foot fell in Kalighat. This Puranic tale bestows an antiquity to Kalighat. Indeed, we get the legendary reference about the creation of pithosthans in ancient texts Kalika Purana and Mahabhagat Purana, though the name of Kalighat has been omitted from these accounts. The Puranas have mentioned a place called Samotat referring to the forested region of south Bengal where present-day Kalighat is situated.

Geologists confirm that in the ancient past, this region of Bengal was under water and gradually with alluvial deposition, the area developed to firm earth. In the present day the Kalighat Kali Temple premises house a large number of small temples of different allied deities. The main temple housing the deity of the goddess Kali follows the atchala (eight-roof) hut-pattern, which is the traditional thatched roof construction pattern of Bengal.

It is believed that the legendary mutilated fragment of the Goddess (called Soti-ango in Bengali) is preserved within the temple room, which is bathed once a year on the auspicious day of Snanjatra. It is a secret where the Soti-ango is exactly kept—it may be placed just beneath the image, within a small iron chest.

Only a few worshippers of the temple are entitled to know where it is actually kept. The face and four hands of the deity are exposed. The face is most probably made of touchstone. Myth says that it was engraved by the god Vishwakarma and was originally found floating in the Ganga.

As far as the practice of Tantra in Kalighat is concerned, the texts Pithmala Tantra and Nigam Tantra refer to a place named ‘Kalikshetra’—an area that is bow-shaped and extends for about 16 miles from Bahula to Dakhineshwar. It was believed that a part of the mangled corpse of Sati had fallen centrally within that arched area. The Tantra Chudamani acknowledges Kalighat as a ‘Kali pith’ (centre dedicated to the worship of Kali). In the Mahanil Tantra the presiding deity at Kalighat has been named as the Guhya Kali, the Kali who is not revealed.

References in ancient texts say that in the past, Kalighat was inhabited by the kapalikas who would worship the Goddess with human sacrifices. On new moon nights, they would chant Kali’s name, which would reverberate in the dense forests of the area. Boatmen would warn travelers not to stop over at Kalighat else their lives would be in danger. Once when the kapalikas decided to sacrifice a little boy to the Goddess, his widowed mother pleaded with the Goddess to save her son’s life. As the story goes, the Goddess did answer her prayer. She brewed up a storm. The boy sought shelter under a cactus bush when it started to rain heavily. The kapalikas were unable to find the boy and dispersed in the storm. The cactus bush under which the boy hid got the name sosthi tala; it’s well known that Kali is also known as Sosthi—goddess of child welfare.

The benign Goddess wished human sacrifices to stop. It is said she wanted householders only to worship her. It was upon her wish that a girl child was born by the union of a Brahmachari and a Vairavi. She got married to a Brahmin named Bhagwandas Chakraborty of Jessore district. Bhagwandas felt that since his wife Uma was an illegitimate child, her descendants should not be allowed to worship the Goddess. He realized that it was a better idea to appoint specialized persons from outside to take care of Kalighat. Thereafter the Haldars started worshiping the Goddess at Kalighat.

There have been heated debates in recent times about the sacrifice of animals before the altar of the Goddess. Santi Pada Bhattacharya, chief ritual and scriptural advisor and head priest of Mahapith Kali Mandir, says, “Non-vegetarians do eat meat. When goats are killed in butchers’ shops, it is often done mercilessly and those who buy the meat usually don’t feel any gratefulness to the Goddess for the food they are eating. Goats are killed in the temple with minimal pain, by just one stroke of the sword. Vegetarians can offer coconuts, pumpkin and sugarcane to the Goddess. Sacrificing a vegetable has the same symbolic significance and value as sacrificing an animal.” The tradition of animal sacrifices that prevails in Kalighat is on the lines of Tantric scriptures.

Kalighat has always been an important center of Tantric pilgrimage. Tantra is open to men and women of all castes. Prevailing misconceptions often associate Tantra with black magic and sex. Tantric practices in Kalighat cannot be categorized so myopically. Also, when genuine Tantriks imbibe meat and alcohol, it is not for hedonistic pleasure but with faith that that they are tasting the Divine Goddess through the consumption of these.

Says Santi Pada Bhattacharya, "Brahmananda Giri, a renowned Tantrik of India, practised in Kalighat. He underwent penance to reach out to Goddess Kali. In the scorching heat of summer, he would be deeply immersed in prayer after having lit fires around him. On bitterly cold winter nights, he would immerse himself neck deep in the water of the Ganga and pray to the Goddess. Finally, he was blessed with the divine form of the Goddess. Kali promised Brahmananda that she would be there for him whenever he asked for her. The Goddess put herself in a stone which still exists and can be seen below the altar of the Goddess in the temple." Adds Santi Pada’s brother Mukti Bhattacharya, "A true sadhak can be called a true Tantrik. Lokhnath Brahmachari, Ramakrishna Paramahansa and Vivekananda would come to Kalighat to worship the Goddess." Tantra is the path to realise and make optimum use of one’s innate shakti (power) through the worship of Goddess Shakti.

Tantriks still come to Kalighat to take vows of self-discipline. But how can one identify a true Tantrik? Not everyone who is dressed in red robes is a Tantrik. "Unfortunately there are many fraud Tantriks in Kalighat, making brisk money in the name of Tantra. A true Tantrik will not want to reveal his identity and the secret of Tantra," explains Santi Pada. After all, the ultimate aim of Tantra sadhana is to merge individual consciousness with the Cosmic Force.

And here’s some evidence from shastra for a dumbo like you (why does everyone keep ignoring this? Maybe you just can't read it in your blindness...)!:

"Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist." --Srimad Bhagavata Purana 1.3.28

You are really rather foolish, you know it?

Now please answer this question why does the Kalachakra-Tantra which supposedly is a “ritual for world peace” prophesy and glorify a holy war (Shambhala war) by Buddhists against non-Buddhists ?

Well, since the Buddha abhorred violence, I’d say it was probably written for political power…as many wars ‘in the name of God’ have really just been wars for their political agendas hiding behind something powerful:

"Abandoning the taking of life, the ascetic Gautama dwells refraining from taking life, without stick or sword."

--Digha Nikaya 1.18

"Hatreds do not ever cease in this world by hating, but by love. This is an eternal truth... Overcome anger by love, overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth."

--Dhammapada 1.5, 17.3

"If one should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a dagger, you should abandon all desires and utter nothing evil."

--Majjhima Nikaya 21.6

Also, idiots like you should know that it is a Tantric Buddhist book, and not all Buddhists necessarily follow it's instructions (especially since Buddhists aren't bound by a specific scripture to follow). :rolleyes: Kind of like how not every Hindu in the world follows the Tantras.

ARJ · May 28, 2008

Well, the difference is that the names 'Jesus' or 'Muhammad' aren't specifically mentioned in shastra. The city of Nazareth or the country of Saudi Arabia aren't mentioned in shastra. The missions of Jesus and Muhammad aren't mentioned in shastra. On the other hand, the name of the Buddha is, His mission is described, and it is stated when and where He would be born... all in shastra. You're really thick, you know that?

lol....than you haven't heard about guys like Zakir Naik & Dr.Vedavyas (not Maharishi Vyas muni). These guys have claimed that not only Virgin Mary or the mission of Jesus Christ has been predicted but also Prophet Muhammed's parents names (leave alone his own name) have been mentioned (in Sanskrit) in Puranas. You should do some more research on this.

You are not any different from these guys & lots of others who keep claiming that how their 'Gurus' have been predicted in this & that Puranas. There's no dearth of fools like you. If we believe in each one of you than there would be 'Shata Avatars' & not just 'Dasha Avatars'

And in many western countries Hindus eat meat every day of their lives... even cow meat.

You are forgetting that Hindus were under the influence of meat eating Muslims & Christians since past 1000 years & were forcefully made to eat meat & beef in order to convert them, on top of that there were people like Buddha who preached that anything that is offered as Bhiksha (including meat) should be accepted without hesitation & the Pali canon scriptures, well lets not even talk about them

Today there are hardly any Hindus who live by the Vedas or know whats written in Vedas regarding Ahimsa & animal Killing & moreover the way the Mcdonalds & KfC's entice people, through advertisements, to eat meat, what else can you expect ?

Many Hindus believe that Lord Rama wasn't a vegetarian w/o basis. Does that mean that Lord Rama isn't an avatar either? And that we should hold it against Him when His 'followers' say, "Lord Rama wasn't a vegetarian so it's okay to eat meat."?.

Well the purpose of Ram Avatar was not to keep the savages & voracious meat eating Hindus (as the elite historians have portrayed Hindus) from killing animals so a discussion on His diet is immaterial

The contention is that how could someone who preached Ahimsa & Vegetarianism (the purpose cited for this Avatar) himself never practised them. :rolleyes:

Now please answer this question why does the Kalachakra-Tantra which supposedly is a “ritual for world peace” prophesy and glorify a holy war (Shambhala war) by Buddhists against non-Buddhists ?

That was some info on Kalighat, muchas gracias by the way do you think this 'Shambhala War' is the hidden link between Buddhism & Martial Arts ?

RadheyRadhey108 · May 28, 2008

lol....than you haven't heard about guys like Zakir Naik & Dr.Vedavyas (not Maharishi Vyas muni). These guys have claimed that not only Virgin Mary or the mission of Jesus Christ has been predicted but also Prophet Muhammed's parents names (leave alone his own name) have been mentioned (in Sanskrit) in Puranas. You should do some more research on this.

Oh please. What were Mohammad's parents named? From what I know, his parents both died in his childhood. And, where in shastra is it mentioned that an avatar of Vishnu named Jesus would be born to a lady named Mary in th provence of Nazareth in Israel at the beginning of the Kali Yuga? Same goes for Mohammed. Where are they specifically listed by time, location, pedigree, and name? None of these things are mentioned about Jesus or Mohammed in shastra. However, the Buddha is mentioned specifically by name, it is described where He would be born, when He would be born, to whom He would be born, and why He would be born. And, no, I'm just taking what if obviously written in Shastra and incorporating it into my life (unlike you, who thinks you can just pick and choose which of the Lord's Dasha Avatara to believe in).

You are not any different from these guys & lots of others who keep claiming that how their 'Gurus' have been predicted in this & that Puranas. There's no dearth of fools like you. If we believe in each one of you than there would be 'Shata Avatars' & not just 'Dasha Avatars'

Lord Buddha is one of the Dasha Avatara! Where is your mind? Dasha means Ten... if Lord Buddha weren't an avatar, there'd only be nine and it would be called "Nava Avatara".

You are forgetting that Hindus were under the influence of meat eating Muslims & Christians since past 1000 years & were forcefully made to eat meat & beef in order to convert them, on top of that there were people like Buddha who preached that anything that is offered as Bhiksha (including meat) should be accepted without hesitation & the Pali canon scriptures, well lets not even talk about them

Oh, boo-hoo. Stop making excuses for Hindus who don't follow their scriptures. I mean, you can criticize SOME Buddhists all day long for eating meat, and then go around painting all of them as meat-eating, war-hungry mongols, but when I tell you of my experience with several Hindus who even go to the extent of eating their own Mother (Go-Mata), you make excuses for them. You are so hypocritical, it's ridiculous.

Today there are hardly any Hindus who live by the Vedas or know whats written in Vedas regarding Ahimsa & animal Killing & moreover the way the Mcdonalds & KfC's entice people, through advertisements, to eat meat, what else can you expect ?

I live in America. I'm not tempted by McDonald's or KFC. Face it, the Hindus that eat meat have no excuse for murdering their own Mother, especially when they're told over and over again that it's a sin.

Well the purpose of Ram Avatar was not to keep the savages & voracious meat eating Hindus (as the elite historians have portrayed Hindus) from killing animals so a discussion on His diet is immaterial

Well, if you're going to change it from Dasha Avatara to Nava Avatara (by leaving out the Buddha b/c of your ridiculous and unfounded doubts about His ahimsa) then why not make it Ashta-Avatara and leave out Lord Rama (since so many doubt His practice of vegetarianism) or how about Sapta-Avatara and leave out Lord Krishna (b/c you doubt His practice of Brahmacharya) or how about Pancha Avatara, and leave out Lord Narasimha Deva and Kurma Avatara b/c you doubt Their historical existence? Why, if you refuse to believe in an avatar of the Lord who is specifically mentioned BY NAME, LOCATION, TIME, AND PEDIGREE IN SHASTRA, do you believe in ANY avatar of the Lord? You're full of doubts. You are the most hypocritical mleccha I've ever met in my life and you criticize people of other belief systems. It's honestly nothing but a joke.

The contention is that how could someone who preached Ahimsa & Vegetarianism (the purpose cited for this Avatar) himself never practised them.

Honestly, how thick are you? How many times do I need to show you evidence from Buddhist scripture (including the Buddha's own words!) showing that He clearly practiced Ahimsa?!:

"Abandoning the taking of life, the ascetic Gautama dwells refraining from taking life, without stick or sword."

--Digha Nikaya 1.18

"Hatreds do not ever cease in this world by hating, but by love. This is an eternal truth... Overcome anger by love, overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth."

--Dhammapada 1.5, 17.3

"If one should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a dagger, you should abandon all desires and utter nothing evil."

--Majjhima Nikaya 21.6

bhaktajan · May 28, 2008

RadheyRadhey relax!

Thinkness requires heavy duty machinery to demolish--so step back behind the barricade please.

ARJ, listen up! Avataras represent GOD. [unless you differ, thinking that the lowest bidder gets the plum job.]

In Heaven [i'm not referring to your anutie Mable's rump] God does not hunt for food. God does not kill living entities so as to consume them for lunch.

Maybe you differ.

RadheyRadhey108 · May 29, 2008

RadheyRadhey relax!

Hahahaha... sorry

Kingdecember · May 29, 2008

Well, since the Buddha abhorred violence, I’d say it was probably written for political power…as many wars ‘in the name of God’ have really just been wars for their political agendas hiding behind something powerful

According to the Kalachakra Tantra, King Suchandra (Tib. Dawa Sangpo) of the Kingdom of Shambhala requested teaching from the Buddha that would allow him to practice the Dharma without renouncing his worldly enjoyments and responsibilities.

In response to his request, the Buddha taught the first Kālachakra root tantra in Dhanyakataka (Palden Drepung in Tibetan)(near present day Amaravati), a small town in Andhra Pradesh in southeastern India, supposedly bilocating (appearing in two places at once) at the same time as he was also delivering the Prajnaparamita sutras at Vulture Peak Mountain in Bihar.

- Wikipedia

That was some info on Kalighat, muchas gracias by the way do you think this 'Shambhala War' is the hidden link between Buddhism & Martial Arts ?

Quite a possibility.

And here’s some evidence from shastra for a dumbo like you (why does everyone keep ignoring this? Maybe you just can't read it in your blindness...)!:
"Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist." --Srimad Bhagavata Purana 1.3.28

You are really rather foolish, you know it?

According to the Hindu religio-philosophy of Mimamsa (1), a genuine Hindu religious text needs to be compatible with the Srutis (Veda). In other words, the edicts and practices mentioned in it should conform to the Srutis. Srutis, which are also mentioned in the Gita (or the Bhagavad Gita), include the Vedas (Rig, Yajur and Sam) and the Vedantic Upanisads. Note, the Gita is considered an Upanisad (even called as the Gitoapanisad) because the spiritual and philosophical contents of Gita are Upanisidic in nature.

There are many literary texts in Hinduism and these are classified as Srutis, Smritis, Puranas (Itihasas) and Epics etc. The Srutis or Vedas (meaning, literally, the acquired or compiled knowledge) belong to the earliest times when information used to be recorded and stored on papyrus and parchment etc. and transmitted from one person to other mainly through oral process (as sruti, by hearing). Since the Vedas, the most ancient Hindu texts, have stood the test of time, they are considered eternal or Sanatana. Needless to say, the most important texts in Hinduism, representing the foundation of Hindu religion and philosophy, belong to the category of Srutis or Vedas. Smritis, Puranas (Itihasas) and Epics, on the other hand (unlike the Sruti or Vedas), belong to the ancillary or secondary category. They sometimes can be used to support the Srutis on various moral issues, social traditions, and historical events etc. but only if they remain realistic and are compatible with the Srutis (1).

Although there are many texts that form the Srutis, there is a definite hierarchy or precedence related to their order. Rig Veda stands at the top in significance as a Sruti because it is recognized as the oldest or the most ancient Hindu scripture. Next in the Sruti hierarchy is Yajur Veda, followed by Sam Veda and then the Upanisads. The reason to also include Upanisads in the Srutis is that they are considered as the Vedanta or Vedas’ finale, which indicates that the Upanisads were directly tied to the Vedas. Note that, in some cases, Upanisads even form an integral part of the Vedas, e.g. the Isha Upanisad in the Yajur Veda.

The logic for establishing the importance and authenticity of various texts, i.e. assigning a certain hierarchical order to the Srutis and considering the compatibility of a given text (e.g. a smriti) with the Sruti or Vedas, is simple and straightforward. This basically helps in deciding that a genuine scriptural text meets the religio-philosophical requirements of the Srutis without violating their scriptural hierarchy or precedence. It is similar in logic and importance to the lineage principle - father coming before the son, grandfather coming before the father, and so on .

Since Rig Veda is the first among Srutis, any other text (another Veda or a smriti), needing a religious acceptance or validation, should be in agreement with the Rig Veda or, at least, it should not be in direct opposition to the essential themes of the Rig Veda. The philosophical rules on enquiry and investigation of a text with respect to the Vedas (especially the Rig Veda) are indicated below.

The rules on enquiry according to Purva Mimamsa philosophy or the Mimamsa (1) require that "The smriti and other texts (documents on traditions or customs etc.) are supposed to have corresponding sruti texts (Vedas). If certain smriti is known to have no matching sruti, it indicates that either the corresponding sruti was lost over time or the particular smriti is not authentic. Moreover, if the smritis are in conflict with the sruti, the formers are to be disregarded. When it is found out that the smritis are laid down with a selfish interest, they must be thrown out."

Thus, since Yajur Veda and Sam Veda agree quite well with the Rig Veda, they are considered as legitimate Srutis. Similarly, Upanisads also can be shown conforming to Vedic standards and as part of the Shrutis. Note, as indicated earlier, a number of Upanisads (philosophical Vedanta texts) form an integral part of the legitimate Vedas (e.g. Isha Upanisad in the Yajur Veda). Since Yajur Veda is recognized as a legitimate Sruti, because of its compatibility with the Rig Veda, the Isha Upanisad (a part of the Yajur Veda - a Sruti) is also considered belonging to the Srutis and in agreement with the Rig Veda. Needless to say, other Vedantic Upanisads (e.g. Katha, Kena, Prasna, Mundaka, Mandukya, Taittiriya, Aitareya, Chandogya, Brihadaranyaka, Kaivalya, Svetasvatara, and Bhagavad Gita), being religio-philosophically similar to Isha Upanisad (a Sruti), are also considered Srutis and ultimately compatible with the Rig Veda.

Note, while there is a scriptural compatibility involving Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sam Veda and Upanisads, same cannot be said of many other texts. For example, in spite of Atharva Veda being called a Veda, it fails to meet the Mimamsa criterion (1) because of its contradiction of Rig Veda on several key issues, such as in its lending a support to magic and sorcery etc. which are strongly condemned in the Rig Veda. Thus the Atharva Veda, due to its violation of Rig Veda, cannot be considered a genuine Veda or Sruti. Note also that even though Atharva Veda is named after the famous ancient Vedic sage Atharvan, it might not be really his creation. Its author most likely, not Atharvan, was someone else, perhaps a lesser known person, who seems to have used the famous name (Atharvan) to make Atharva Veda popular among public. In addition, there are no references to Atharva Veda in the Srutis. For example, even though Gita mentions the names of Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sam Veda and the Vedanta (Upanisads), it does not refer to the Atharva Veda anywhere. This indicates that Atharva Veda might not be known to ancient sages, or at least they did not consider it as a genuine Veda or Sruti. Thus it seems that Atharva Veda most likely is a recent compilation by some unknown author and has little scriptural value.

The same thing, as in the case of Atharva Veda, applies to the Manusmriti as not being a genuine Hindu text. It also appears to misuse the famous name Manu (ancient sage Manu) by someone else and contradicts Rig Veda on several key issues (2).

Regarding the Puranas (including the Itihasas) and Epics, these basically represent the ancillary (secondary) texts and are not considered as part of Vedas (Srutis). They do not adhere strictly to the rules of Mimamsa. Various Puranas generally describe the same story of creation and evolution, while changing emphases on different deities, characters and places from one text (version) to other. The Epics (different versions of Ramayana and Mahabharata) on the other hand narrate stories and folklores on people and places from the past and even provide lessons in morality. In addition, Puranas and Smritis etc. are also used to convey the message of Srutis and philosophies (including the lessons on morality etc.) to people by using easy to understand examples, parables and metaphoric tales. They may even make use of animals and fictional characters for conveying the message. In general, the nature and scriptural quality of Puranas, Smritis and Epics is not at the same level as in the case of Vedas or Srutis (listed in Ref. 3).

Sometimes the Puranas and Smritis might also include totally ridiculous explanations and unbelievable tales on deities, worship practices and social customs etc. These types of flawed narrations usually are not found in the Srutis and therefore have little support from the Vedas. Needless to say, such misleading tales and texts (in Puranas etc.) fail to qualify according to Mimamsa (1) in their acceptance as genuine and reliable scriptural sources (Srutis). Moreover, the reason for such flawed information in a Purana could be that it probably was put together rather recently by an individual or individuals who were unable to correctly explain things related to certain natural phenomenon or pre-existing customs and practices. It is thus up to a reader of these texts (Puranas, Smritis and Epics etc.) to use discretion and not believe everything written in them blindly. For example, there is no reason to take things literally if they indicate a lack of common sense and seem unrealistic (fictitious) and ridiculous. They most likely are the result of author’s misunderstanding and misinterpretation etc. and therefore totally unacceptable according to Mimamsa (1).

bhaktajan · May 29, 2008

. . . Sometimes the Puranas and Smritis might also include totally ridiculous explanations
and unbelievable tales on deities,

worship practices and social customs etc.

These types of flawed narrations usually are not found in the Srutis and therefore have little support from the Vedas.

Your knowledge of sanskrit must be first-rate!

You could help so many poor people looking for tatoos --[see the Samskrit Thread].

Rather than posting Mr Max Muller's acolytes' writtings entoto--condense them to the important points [just like the Rg veda does] or else no one will be able to verify, and respond, your points until they read through them all thoroughly.

The Rg veda is written crypticly so how is it that YOU are able to assume we should follow your assessment of the other 3 vedas?

Unlike in India, in america there are many many self-proclaimed tax payment advisers.

Your advise on how to understand the Rg veda et al., only serves to create false hope that the scriptures false and thus we should find solace in paying our taxes alone.

RadheyRadhey108 · May 29, 2008

According to the Kalachakra Tantra, King Suchandra (Tib. Dawa Sangpo) of the Kingdom of Shambhala requested teaching from the Buddha that would allow him to practice the Dharma without renouncing his worldly enjoyments and responsibilities.

In response to his request, the Buddha taught the first Kālachakra root tantra in Dhanyakataka (Palden Drepung in Tibetan)(near present day Amaravati), a small town in Andhra Pradesh in southeastern India, supposedly bilocating (appearing in two places at once) at the same time as he was also delivering the Prajnaparamita sutras at Vulture Peak Mountain in Bihar.

- Wikipedia

It's a Tantric book. There are Tantras in Hinduism where Lord Shiva says that it's okay to practice necrophilia and incest as long as you're doing it for self-realization. Do you believe that? Well, just as you (I'm hoping) don't believe that, similarly many Buddhists don't believe in the Buddhist Tantras.

According to the Hindu religio-philosophy of Mimamsa (1), a genuine Hindu religious text needs to be compatible with the Srutis (Veda). In other words, the edicts and practices mentioned in it should conform to the Srutis. Srutis, which are also mentioned in the Gita (or the Bhagavad Gita), include the Vedas (Rig, Yajur and Sam) and the Vedantic Upanisads. Note, the Gita is considered an Upanisad (even called as the Gitoapanisad) because the spiritual and philosophical contents of Gita are Upanisidic in nature.

There are many literary texts in Hinduism and these are classified as Srutis, Smritis, Puranas (Itihasas) and Epics etc. The Srutis or Vedas (meaning, literally, the acquired or compiled knowledge) belong to the earliest times when information used to be recorded and stored on papyrus and parchment etc. and transmitted from one person to other mainly through oral process (as sruti, by hearing). Since the Vedas, the most ancient Hindu texts, have stood the test of time, they are considered eternal or Sanatana. Needless to say, the most important texts in Hinduism, representing the foundation of Hindu religion and philosophy, belong to the category of Srutis or Vedas. Smritis, Puranas (Itihasas) and Epics, on the other hand (unlike the Sruti or Vedas), belong to the ancillary or secondary category. They sometimes can be used to support the Srutis on various moral issues, social traditions, and historical events etc. but only if they remain realistic and are compatible with the Srutis (1).

Although there are many texts that form the Srutis, there is a definite hierarchy or precedence related to their order. Rig Veda stands at the top in significance as a Sruti because it is recognized as the oldest or the most ancient Hindu scripture. Next in the Sruti hierarchy is Yajur Veda, followed by Sam Veda and then the Upanisads. The reason to also include Upanisads in the Srutis is that they are considered as the Vedanta or Vedas’ finale, which indicates that the Upanisads were directly tied to the Vedas. Note that, in some cases, Upanisads even form an integral part of the Vedas, e.g. the Isha Upanisad in the Yajur Veda.

The logic for establishing the importance and authenticity of various texts, i.e. assigning a certain hierarchical order to the Srutis and considering the compatibility of a given text (e.g. a smriti) with the Sruti or Vedas, is simple and straightforward. This basically helps in deciding that a genuine scriptural text meets the religio-philosophical requirements of the Srutis without violating their scriptural hierarchy or precedence. It is similar in logic and importance to the lineage principle - father coming before the son, grandfather coming before the father, and so on .

Since Rig Veda is the first among Srutis, any other text (another Veda or a smriti), needing a religious acceptance or validation, should be in agreement with the Rig Veda or, at least, it should not be in direct opposition to the essential themes of the Rig Veda. The philosophical rules on enquiry and investigation of a text with respect to the Vedas (especially the Rig Veda) are indicated below.

The rules on enquiry according to Purva Mimamsa philosophy or the Mimamsa (1) require that "The smriti and other texts (documents on traditions or customs etc.) are supposed to have corresponding sruti texts (Vedas). If certain smriti is known to have no matching sruti, it indicates that either the corresponding sruti was lost over time or the particular smriti is not authentic. Moreover, if the smritis are in conflict with the sruti, the formers are to be disregarded. When it is found out that the smritis are laid down with a selfish interest, they must be thrown out."

Thus, since Yajur Veda and Sam Veda agree quite well with the Rig Veda, they are considered as legitimate Srutis. Similarly, Upanisads also can be shown conforming to Vedic standards and as part of the Shrutis. Note, as indicated earlier, a number of Upanisads (philosophical Vedanta texts) form an integral part of the legitimate Vedas (e.g. Isha Upanisad in the Yajur Veda). Since Yajur Veda is recognized as a legitimate Sruti, because of its compatibility with the Rig Veda, the Isha Upanisad (a part of the Yajur Veda - a Sruti) is also considered belonging to the Srutis and in agreement with the Rig Veda. Needless to say, other Vedantic Upanisads (e.g. Katha, Kena, Prasna, Mundaka, Mandukya, Taittiriya, Aitareya, Chandogya, Brihadaranyaka, Kaivalya, Svetasvatara, and Bhagavad Gita), being religio-philosophically similar to Isha Upanisad (a Sruti), are also considered Srutis and ultimately compatible with the Rig Veda.

Note, while there is a scriptural compatibility involving Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sam Veda and Upanisads, same cannot be said of many other texts. For example, in spite of Atharva Veda being called a Veda, it fails to meet the Mimamsa criterion (1) because of its contradiction of Rig Veda on several key issues, such as in its lending a support to magic and sorcery etc. which are strongly condemned in the Rig Veda. Thus the Atharva Veda, due to its violation of Rig Veda, cannot be considered a genuine Veda or Sruti. Note also that even though Atharva Veda is named after the famous ancient Vedic sage Atharvan, it might not be really his creation. Its author most likely, not Atharvan, was someone else, perhaps a lesser known person, who seems to have used the famous name (Atharvan) to make Atharva Veda popular among public. In addition, there are no references to Atharva Veda in the Srutis. For example, even though Gita mentions the names of Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sam Veda and the Vedanta (Upanisads), it does not refer to the Atharva Veda anywhere. This indicates that Atharva Veda might not be known to ancient sages, or at least they did not consider it as a genuine Veda or Sruti. Thus it seems that Atharva Veda most likely is a recent compilation by some unknown author and has little scriptural value.

The same thing, as in the case of Atharva Veda, applies to the Manusmriti as not being a genuine Hindu text. It also appears to misuse the famous name Manu (ancient sage Manu) by someone else and contradicts Rig Veda on several key issues (2).

Regarding the Puranas (including the Itihasas) and Epics, these basically represent the ancillary (secondary) texts and are not considered as part of Vedas (Srutis). They do not adhere strictly to the rules of Mimamsa. Various Puranas generally describe the same story of creation and evolution, while changing emphases on different deities, characters and places from one text (version) to other. The Epics (different versions of Ramayana and Mahabharata) on the other hand narrate stories and folklores on people and places from the past and even provide lessons in morality. In addition, Puranas and Smritis etc. are also used to convey the message of Srutis and philosophies (including the lessons on morality etc.) to people by using easy to understand examples, parables and metaphoric tales. They may even make use of animals and fictional characters for conveying the message. In general, the nature and scriptural quality of Puranas, Smritis and Epics is not at the same level as in the case of Vedas or Srutis (listed in Ref. 3).

Sometimes the Puranas and Smritis might also include totally ridiculous explanations and unbelievable tales on deities, worship practices and social customs etc. These types of flawed narrations usually are not found in the Srutis and therefore have little support from the Vedas. Needless to say, such misleading tales and texts (in Puranas etc.) fail to qualify according to Mimamsa (1) in their acceptance as genuine and reliable scriptural sources (Srutis). Moreover, the reason for such flawed information in a Purana could be that it probably was put together rather recently by an individual or individuals who were unable to correctly explain things related to certain natural phenomenon or pre-existing customs and practices. It is thus up to a reader of these texts (Puranas, Smritis and Epics etc.) to use discretion and not believe everything written in them blindly. For example, there is no reason to take things literally if they indicate a lack of common sense and seem unrealistic (fictitious) and ridiculous. They most likely are the result of author’s misunderstanding and misinterpretation etc. and therefore totally unacceptable according to Mimamsa (1).

So, I take it you don't believe in most of Krishna Lila, since most of it is detailed within Puranas? And, you don't believe in Puranas, so you must not believe in most of the avatars, like Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Narasimha, Parashuram, (Rama is mentioned in Ramayana and Bhagavata Purana, and as I'm not sure how you feel about Ramayana, I won't mention Him), most of Krishna Lila, or Kalki. Hmmm. Well, after all of that, all I have to say is:

Always nice to have another mleccha at Audarya.

RadheyRadhey108 · May 29, 2008

And he's a scholar too!

Your knowledge of sanskrit must be first-rate!

He's not only a scholar, he's a divine representative sent to tell us that Krishna Lila as detailed in the Puranas never happened, because all the Puranas are totally worthless and only for idiots! Oh, thank God someone has been sent to take us away from Him!

Kingdecember · May 30, 2008

It's a Tantric book. There are Tantras in Hinduism where Lord Shiva says that it's okay to practice necrophilia and incest as long as you're doing it for self-realization. Do you believe that? Well, just as you (I'm hoping) don't believe that, similarly many Buddhists don't believe in the Buddhist Tantras.

So buddha himself was preaching tantra ?

Your knowledge of sanskrit must be first-rate!
You could help so many poor people looking for tatoos --[see the Samskrit Thread].

Rather than posting Mr Max Muller's acolytes' writtings entoto--condense them to the important points [just like the Rg veda does] or else no one will be able to verify, and respond, your points until they read through them all thoroughly.

The Rg veda is written crypticly so how is it that YOU are able to assume we should follow your assessment of the other 3 vedas?

Unlike in India, in america there are many many self-proclaimed tax payment advisers.

Your advise on how to understand the Rg veda et al., only serves to create false hope that the scriptures false and thus we should find solace in paying our taxes alone.

tell me why Puranas were scripted, what was the need ?

He's not only a scholar, he's a divine representative sent to tell us that Krishna Lila as detailed in the Puranas never happened, because all the Puranas are totally worthless and only for idiots! Oh, thank God someone has been sent to take us away from Him!

Not all but some of the Puranas have been tampered with by missionaries from other faiths (including buddhism) to make their respective founders acceptable to the Hindus & convert them, for instance the British tried to monopolize the publishing of all Sanskrit literature during the British Raj. They bought or confiscated any Sanskrit literature they could locate. And that is why you practically cannot find any Vedic literature that is published before 200 years ago. It is further known that they liked to publish their own translations, as if India could not produce its own Sanskrit scholars to translate the Sanskrit themselves. Plus, they would also try to interpolate various verses here and there to have the reader draw a different conclusion of the personality or traits of the characters described in the texts. Most were quite noble, but by slipping in verses that said certain persons had less than admirable qualities, or that questionable practices were used, it would change the reader’s disposition and attitude toward the Vedic culture, even if they were Indian born followers of it.

bhaktajan · May 30, 2008

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by Kingdecember

tell me why Puranas were scripted, what was the need ?

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Oh, I was ready to attempt to respond--but, "scripted"?

What do you mean scripted? Written in the first place?

I respect you ability to stay on task.

Kingdecember · May 30, 2008

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by Kingdecember
tell me why Puranas were scripted, what was the need ?

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Oh, I was ready to attempt to respond--but, "scripted"?

What do you mean scripted? Written in the first place?

I respect you ability to stay on task.

The puranic stories are nothing less than scripts for characters like buddha, jesus, mohammad, aurangzeb & even queen victoria.

well, they all were just characters before they were born.

now tell me what was the need for Puranas ?

bhaktajan · May 30, 2008

now tell me what was the need for Puranas ?

Ma priya Bhai anga Kingdecember,

I have gleaned A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's translations & commentaries, to answer your question:

"now tell me what was the need for Puranas?"

['Puranas' translated into English is 'Histories']

———————————————————————————-

Galitaà phalam: the ripened fruit of the Vedas is Çrémad-Bhägavatam.

Before Vyäsadeva’s writing, the Vedic literature was simply heard, and the disciples would learn the mantras quickly by hearing and not by reading. Later on, Vyäsadeva thought it wise to write down the Vedas, because in this age people are short-memoried and unable to remember all the instructions given by the spiritual master. Therefore, he left all the Vedic knowledge in the form of books, such as the Puräëas, Vedänta, Mahäbhärata and Çrémad-Bhägavatam.

Çréla Vyäsadeva compiled the Mahäbhärata for the less intelligent class of men, who take more interest in mundane topics than in the philosophy of life. The Vedänta-sütra was compiled for persons already above the mundane topics, who might already have tasted the bitterness of the so-called happiness of mundane affairs.

The first aphorism of Vedänta-sütra is athäto brahma jijïäsä, i.e., only when one has finished the business of mundane inquiries in the marketplace of sense gratification can one make relevant inquiries regarding Brahman, the Transcendence.

Those persons who are busy with the mundane inquiries which fill the newspapers and other such literatures are classified as stré-çüdra-dvija-bandhus, or women, the laborer class and unworthy sons of the higher classes (brähmaëa, kñatriya and vaiçya). Such less intelligent men cannot understand the purpose of Vedänta-sütra, although they may make a show of studying the sütras in a perverted way.

The real purpose of Vedänta-sütra is explained by the author himself in the Çrémad-Bhägavatam, and anyone trying to understand Vedänta-sütra without reference to Çrémad-Bhägavatam is certainly misguided. Such misguided persons, who are interested in the mundane affairs of philanthropic and altruistic work under the misconception of the body as the self, could better take advantage of the Mahäbhärata, which was specifically compiled by Çréla Vyäsadeva for their benefit.

The great author has compiled the Mahäbhärata in such a way that the less intelligent class of men, who are more interested in mundane topics, may read the Mahäbhärata with great relish and in the course of such mundane happiness can also take advantage of Bhagavad-gétä, the preliminary study of Çrémad-Bhägavatam or the Vedänta-sütra.

Çréla Vyäsadeva had no interest in writing a history of mundane activities other than to give less intelligent persons a chance for transcendental realization through Bhagavad-gétä.

Vedänta-sütra is spoken by the Supreme Lord Himself. The Supreme Lord, in His incarnation as Vyäsadeva, has compiled this great philosophical treatise. Since Vyäsadeva is an incarnation of the Supreme Lord, he cannot be likened to an ordinary person, who has the four defects which arise due to contact with material existence.

Thus whatever has been spoken and written by Vyäsadeva is considered to be perfect. The Upaniñads and Vedänta-sütra aim at the same goal: the Supreme Absolute Truth. When we accept the import of Vedänta-sütra and the Upaniñads directly as they are stated, we become glorified. The commentaries made by Çaìkaräcärya, however, are indirect and are very dangerous for the common man to read, for by understanding the import of the Upaniñads in such an indirect, disruptive way, one practically bars himself from spiritual realization.

According to the Skanda and Väyu Puräëas, the word sütra refers to a condensed work which carries meaning and import of immeasurable strength without mistake or fault. The word vedänta means “the end of Vedic knowledge.” In other words, any book which deals with the subject matter indicated by all the Vedas is called Vedänta.

For example, Bhagavad-gétä is Vedänta because in Bhagavad-gétä the Lord says that the ultimate goal of all Vedic research is Kåñëa. Thus Bhagavad-gétä and Çrémad-Bhägavatam, which aim only at Kåñëa, are to be understood to be Vedänta.

In transcendental realization there are three divisions of knowledge called prasthäna-traya. That department of knowledge which is proved by Vedic instruction (like the Upaniñads) is called çruti-prasthäna. Authoritative books indicating the ultimate goal and written by liberated souls like Vyäsadeva (for example, Bhagavad-gétä, Mahäbhärata and the Puräëas, especially Çrémad-Bhägavatam, the Mahä-Puräëa) are called småti-prasthäna.

From Vedic literatures we understand that the Vedas originated from the breathing of Näräyaëa. Vyäsadeva, who is an incarnation of the power of Näräyaëa, has compiled the Vedänta-sütra (nyäya-prasthäna), but according to Çaìkara’s commentaries, Apäntaratamä Åñi is also accredited with having compiled the codes of Vedänta-sütra. According to Lord Caitanya, the codes of the Païcarätra and the codes of Vedänta are one and the same.

——————————————————————————————————————————-

Since the Vedänta-sütra is compiled by Vyäsadeva, it should be understood to be spoken by Näräyaëa Himself. From all descriptive literatures dealing with Vedänta-sütra, it appears that there were many other åñis contemporary with Vyäsadeva who also discussed Vedänta-sütra. These sages were Ätreya, Äçmarathya, Auòulomi, Kärñëäjini, Käçakåtsna, Jaimini, Bädaré and other sages such as Päräçaré and Karmandé.

Actually in the first two chapters of Vedänta-sütra the relationship between the living entities and the Supreme Lord is explained, and in the Third Chapter the discharge of devotional service is explained. The Fourth Chapter deals with the relationship which results from discharging devotional service.

The natural commentary on Vedänta-sütra is Çrémad-Bhägavatam. The great äcäryas of the four Vaiñëava communities (sampradäyas)—namely, Rämänujäcärya, Madhväcärya, Viñëusvämé and Nimbärka—have also written commentaries on Vedänta-sütra by following the principles of Çrémad-Bhägavatam.

At present the followers of all the äcäryas have written many books following the principles of Çrémad-Bhägavatam as the commentary on the Vedänta. Çaìkara’s commentary on Vedänta-sütra, known as Çäréraka-bhäñya, is very much adored by the impersonalist scholars, but commentaries written on the Vedänta written from the materialistic point of view are completely adverse to the transcendental service of the Lord.

Consequently Lord Caitanya said that direct commentaries on the Upaniñads and Vedänta-sütra are glorious, but that anyone who follows the indirect path of Çaìkaräcärya’s Çäréraka-bhäñya is certainly doomed.

Lord Caitanya admitted that Çaìkaräcärya was an incarnation of Lord Çiva, and it is known that Lord Çiva is one of the greatest devotees (a mahäjana) of the Bhägavata school. There are twelve great authorities on devotional service, and Lord Çiva is one of them. Why, then, did he adopt the process of Mäyävädé philosophy? The answer is given in Padma Puräëa, where Lord Çiva states:

“The Mäyävädé philosophy is veiled Buddhism.” In other words, the voidist philosophy of Buddha is more or less repeated in the Mäyävädé philosophy of impersonalism, although the Mäyävädé philosophy claims to be directed by the Vedic conclusions. Lord Çiva, however, admits that this philosophy is manufactured by him in the age of Kali in order to mislead the atheists. “Actually the Supreme Personality of Godhead has His transcendental body,” Lord Çiva states. “But I describe the Supreme as impersonal. I also explain the Vedänta-sütra according to the same principles of Mäyävädé philosophy.”

In the Çiva Puräëa the Supreme Lord says:

“In the beginning of the Dväpara-yuga, directed by My orders, many sages will bewilder the people in general by Mäyävädé philosophy.”

In the Padma Puräëa Lord Çiva personally tells Bhägavatédevé:

“My dear Devé, sometimes I teach Mäyävädé philosophy for those who are engrossed in the mode of ignorance. But if a person in the mode of goodness happens to hear this Mäyävädé philosophy, he falls down, for when teaching Mäyävädé philosophy, I say that the living entity and the Supreme Lord are one and the same.”

According to the Skanda and Väyu Puräëas, the word sütra refers to a condensed work which carries meaning and import of immeasurable strength without mistake or fault. The word vedänta means “the end of Vedic knowledge.”

In other words, any book which deals with the subject matter indicated by all the Vedas is called Vedänta.

That knowledge of the field of activities and of the knower of activities is described by various sages in various Vedic writings. It is especially presented in Vedänta-sütra with all reasoning as to cause and effect.

————————————————————————————————————-

Çrémad-Bhägavatam is a natural commentation on the Brahma-sütra, or the Bädaräyaëi Vedänta-sütras. It is called natural because Vyäsadeva is author of both the Vedänta-sütras and Çrémad-Bhägavatam, or the essence of all Vedic literatures. Besides Vyäsadeva, there are other sages who are the authors of six different philosophical systems, namely Gautama, Kaëäda, Kapila, Pataïjali, Jaimini and Añöävakra.

Theism is explained completely in the Vedänta-sütra, whereas in other systems of philosophical speculations, practically no mention is given to the ultimate cause of all causes. One can sit on the vyäsäsana only after being conversant in all systems of philosophy so that one can present fully the theistic views of the Bhägavatam in defiance of all other systems.

Bädaräyaëa (Vyäsadeva): He is known as Kåñëa, Kåñëa-dvaipäyana, Dvaipäyana, Satyavaté-suta, Päräçarya, Paräçarätmaja, Bädaräyaëa, Vedavyäsa, etc. He was the son of Mahämuni Paräçara in the womb of Satyavaté prior to her betrothal with Mahäräja Çantanu, the father of the great general Grandfather Bhéñmadeva. He is a powerful incarnation of Näräyaëa, and he broadcasts the Vedic wisdom to the world.

As such, Vyäsadeva is offered respects before one chants the Vedic literature, especially the Puräëas. Çukadeva Gosvämé was his son, and åñis like Vaiçampäyana were his disciples for different branches of the Vedas.

He is the author of the great epic Mahäbhärata and the great transcendental literature Bhägavatam. The Brahma-sütras—the Vedänta-sütras, or Bädaräyaëa-sütras—were compiled by him. Amongst sages he is the most respected author by dint of severe penances.

When he wanted to record the great epic Mahäbhärata for the welfare of all people in the age of Kali, he was feeling the necessity of a powerful writer who could take up his dictation. By the order of Brahmäjé, Çré Gaëeçajé took up the charge of noting down the dictation on the condition that Vyäsadeva would not stop dictation for a moment. The Mahäbhärata was thus compiled by the joint endeavor of Vyäsa and Gaëeça.

By the order of his mother, Satyavaté, who was later married to Mahäräja Çantanu, and by the request of Bhéñmadeva, the eldest son of Mahäräja Çantanu by his first wife, the ffice:smarttags" />

The Mahäbhärata was compiled by Vyäsadeva after the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com ><st1:place w:st= Ganges</st1:place>, he begot three brilliant sons, whose names are Dhåtaräñöra, Päëòu and Vidura.

<font face=" /><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Battle</st1:place></st1:City> of Kurukñetra and after the death of all the heroes of Mahäbhärata. It was first spoken in the royal assembly of Mahäräja Janamejaya, the son of Mahäräja Parékñit.

The great sage Maitreya, therefore, recommends that to enlighten people about the Absolute Truth (tattva), devotees should preach the teachings of Çrémad-Bhägavatam throughout the entire world. Çréla Vyäsadeva especially compiled this great literature of scientific knowledge because people are completely unaware of the Absolute Truth.

In the beginning of Çrémad-Bhägavatam, First Canto, it is said that Vyäsadeva, the learned sage, compiled this great Bhägavata Puräëa just to stop the ignorance of the mass of people. Because people do not know the Absolute Truth, this Çrémad-Bhägavatam was specifically compiled by Vyäsadeva under the instruction of Närada. Generally, even though people are interested in understanding the truth, they take to speculation and reach at most the conception of impersonal Brahman.

But very few men actually know the Personality of Godhead. Recitation of Çrémad-Bhägavatam is specifically meant to enlighten people about the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Although there is no fundamental difference between impersonal Brahman, localized Paramätmä and the Supreme Person, factual immortality cannot be obtained unless and until one attains the stage of associating with the Supreme Person. Devotional service, which leads to the association of the Supreme Lord, is actual immortality.

</B>

RadheyRadhey108 · May 31, 2008

So buddha himself was preaching tantra ?

The Buddha was preaching warfare in the Buddhist Tantras as much as Lord Shiva was preaching incest, abandoning all worship for worship of the yoni, prostitution, and necrophilia as a means of self-realization in the Hindu Tantras.

Not all but some of the Puranas have been tampered with by missionaries from other faiths (including buddhism) to make their respective founders acceptable to the Hindus & convert them, for instance the British tried to monopolize the publishing of all Sanskrit literature during the British Raj. They bought or confiscated any Sanskrit literature they could locate. And that is why you practically cannot find any Vedic literature that is published before 200 years ago. It is further known that they liked to publish their own translations, as if India could not produce its own Sanskrit scholars to translate the Sanskrit themselves. Plus, they would also try to interpolate various verses here and there to have the reader draw a different conclusion of the personality or traits of the characters described in the texts. Most were quite noble, but by slipping in verses that said certain persons had less than admirable qualities, or that questionable practices were used, it would change the reader’s disposition and attitude toward the Vedic culture, even if they were Indian born followers of it.

Oh, wow. Which Indologist concocted this theory? Or did you just make it up all on your own?

tackleberry · May 31, 2008

Too much digression here... :rolleyes:

To answer the original question, though, we can consider (advaita) vedanta to be a form of Buddhism. That would be more appropriate.

Kingdecember · May 31, 2008

To answer the original question, though, we can consider (advaita) vedanta to be a form of Buddhism. That would be more appropriate.

Than your ignorant of either Advaita or Buddhism.

Therefore, he left all the Vedic knowledge in the form of books, such as the Puräëas, Vedänta, Mahäbhärata and Çrémad-Bhägavatam.

So where is Buddha mentioned in Vedas ?

Vyasdeva wanted people to reject Vedas since he was aware of the fact that, that's what buddha avatara would be preaching, than why would he even bother to divide the Shruti into 3 Vedas and take the trouble of making them more accessible for the commoners ?

tackleberry · May 31, 2008

Than your ignorant of either Advaita or Buddhism.

How so? Advaita came AFTER Buddhism, FYI.

ARJ · June 2, 2008

Too much digression here...

Yes

To answer the original question, though, we can consider (advaita) vedanta to be a form of Buddhism. That would be more appropriate.

The concepts of anatman, Shunyata, Vegetarianism, Ahimsa all can be traced back to Vedas

tackleberry · June 2, 2008

Yes

The concepts of anatman, Shunyata, Vegetarianism, Ahimsa all can be traced back to Vedas

Then please show some vedic verses, where these words occur.

bhaktajan · June 2, 2008

1)Than your ignorant of either Advaita or Buddhism.

2) So where is Buddha mentioned in Vedas ?

3) Vyasdeva wanted people to reject Vedas since he was aware of the fact that, that's what buddha avatara would be preaching, than why would he even bother to divide the Shruti into 3 Vedas and take the trouble of making them more accessible for the commoners ?

1) She's not ignorant--you are ignoring the rules of coherent discussion.

2) In the Bhagavata-Purana, [and others?].

3) You are a commoner--you are counted among the women, laboring classes, and dvija-bandhus, therefore with out the simplification of topics you'd rather ignore that you've been tricked into understanding the manefest pastimes of Godhead and his Historical avataras. So, PAY ATTENTION to your duties under your nose rather than prance around with it in the air--try, try hard, it will take you time to un-do what some childhood Guru taught you.

Let us stay on topic and give this guy a rest already, let the seasons pass less laconqcally and more fruitfully.

bhaktajan · June 3, 2008

kingdecember asks:

1) tell me why Puranas were scripted, what was the need ?

Your question is ironic. Why? Because in my own opinion the "scripted format" of the puranas are an example of superior writting skills, especially in regards to communication of ideas, concepts and [as the word 'sanskrit' it self self-defines the sanskrit langauge], conciseness, and, crisp succinctness.

The opposite of the "scripted format" [ie: dialogue beginning with the name of the speaker]--is classified as "exposition" or, "expositional text".

"Exposition" is that writting found between spoken words [ie: refer to fiction novels].

In literature "Exposition" is the voice of the omniscient 3rd person narrator describing the event, settings, moods, etc.

Aside of "exposition" there is 1st person speaking, usually we find people talking 'person to person' a in 'dialouge'.

Which brings me to the next question.

2) now tell me what was the need for Puranas ?

One of the five topics of the Gita is, "jiva, aka atma or soul". The personalities in the puranas are all cousins sharing a common family tree back to maha-pita-ma Lord Brahma.

These personalities in the puranas are the same jivas in a temporal material body living in celestial opulence are known as the devata superintendents of cosmic affairs.

In the puranas, we are made privy to the lives of those in the royal court of the demigods and similarly we are made privy to the lives of saints who advised and inspired great personalities of antiquity--only made known to us mortal readers herein by way of contemporary saints emerging from out of Bharata-varsa.

The living being is perpetually suffering in different types of bodies from the material miseries of birth, old age, disease and death.

The human form of life offers one a chance to get out of this entanglement simply by reestablishing the lost relationship between the living entity and the Supreme Lord.

The Lord comes personally to teach this philosophy of surrender unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Real service to humanity is rendered when one teaches surrender to and worship of the Supreme Lord with full love and energy. That is the instruction of the Vedas.

................................

Thank you, you're welcomed, send cash, or at least a post-card,

Bhaktajan

Kingdecember · June 5, 2008

Real service to humanity is rendered when one teaches surrender to and worship of the Supreme Lord with full love and energy. That is the instruction of the Vedas.

So where does someone who rejected the authority of Vedas fit here ?

How so? Advaita came AFTER Buddhism, FYI.

Read the 'Prastana Traya' bhashya of Adi Shanakara, all your doubts would be cleared.

bhaktajan · June 5, 2008

1) So where does someone who rejected the authority of Vedas fit here ? 2) Read the 'Prastana Traya' bhashya of Adi Shanakara, all your doubts would be cleared.

In our Kåñëa consciousness movement we are accepting knowledge from the highest authority, Kåñëa. Kåñëa is accepted as the highest authority by all classes of men. I am speaking first of the two classes of transcendentalists.

One class of transcendentalists is called impersonalistic, Mäyävädé. They are generally known as Vedäntists, led by Çaìkaräcärya. And there is another class of transcendentalists, called Vaiñëavas, like Rämänujäcärya, Madhväcärya, Viñëu-svämé.

Both the Çaìkara-sampradäya and the Vaiñëava-sampradäya have accepted Kåñëa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Çaìkaräcärya is supposed to be an impersonalist who preached impersonalism, impersonal Brahman, but it is a fact that he is a covered personalist.

In his commentary on the Bhagavad-gétä he wrote, “Näräyaëa, the Su-preme Personality of Godhead, is beyond this cosmic manifestation.” And then again he confirmed, “That Supreme Personality of Godhead, Näräyaëa, is Kåñëa. He has come as the son of Devaké and Vasudeva.” He particularly mentioned the names of His father and mother.

So Kåñëa is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead by all transcendentalists. There is no doubt about it. Our source of knowledge in Kåñëa consciousness is the Bhagavad-gétä, which comes directly from Kåñëa. We have published the Bhagavad-gétä As It Is because we accept Kåñëa as He is speaking, without any interpretation. That is Vedic knowledge.

Since the Vedic knowledge is pure, we accept it. Whatever Kåñëa says, we accept. This is Kåñëa consciousness. That saves much time. If you accept the right authority, or source of knowledge, then you save much time.

In the Atharva Veda (Gopäla-täpané Upaniñad 1.24) it is similarly said, “He who existed before the creation of Brahmä and who enlightened Brahmä with Vedic knowledge is Lord Çré Kåñëa.”

Similarly, the Näräyaëa Upaniñad (1) states, “Then the Supreme Person, Näräyaëa, desired to create all living beings. Thus from Näräyaëa, Brahmä was born. Näräyaëa created all the Prajäpatis. Näräyaëa created Indra. Näräyaëa created the eight Vasus. Näräyaëa created the eleven Rudras. Näräyaëa created the twelve Ädityas.” Since Näräyaëa is a plenary manifestation of Lord Kåñëa, Näräyaëa and Kåñëa are one and the same.

The Näräyaëa Upaniñad (4) also states, “Devaké’s son [Kåñëa] is the Supreme Lord.” The identity of Näräyaëa with the supreme cause has also been accepted and confirmed by Çrépäda Çaìkaräcärya, even though Çaìkara does not belong to the Vaiñëava, or personalist, cult.

The Atharva Veda (Mahä Upaniñad 1) also states, “Only Näräyaëa existed in the beginning, when neither Brahmä, nor Çiva, nor fire, nor water, nor stars, nor sun, nor moon existed. The Lord does not remain alone but creates as He desires.” Kåñëa Himself states in the Mokña-dharma, “I created the Prajäpatis and the Rudras.

They do not have complete knowledge of Me because they are covered by My illusory energy.” It is also stated in the Varäha Puräëa: “Näräyaëa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and from Him the four-headed Brahmä was manifested, as well as Rudra, who later became omniscient.”

Kåñëa says, “I am the compiler of the Vedänta-sütra, and I am the knower of the Vedas.” Therefore the ultimate objective is Kåñëa. That is explained in all the Vaiñëava commentaries on Vedänta philosophy. We Gauòéya Vaiñëavas have our commentary on Vedänta philosophy, called Govinda-bhäñya, by Baladeva Vidyäbhüñaëa.

Similarly, Rämänujäcärya has a commentary, and Madhväcärya has one. The version of Çaìkaräcärya is not the only commentary. There are many Vedänta commentaries, but because the Vaiñëavas did not present the first Vedänta commentary, people are under the wrong impression that Çaìkaräcärya’s is the only Vedänta commentary.

Besides that, Vyäsadeva himself wrote the perfect Vedänta commentary, Çrémad-Bhägavatam. Çrémad-Bhägavatam begins with the first words of the Vedänta-sütra: janmädy asya yataù [sB 1.1.1]. And that janmädy asya yataù is fully explained in Çrémad-Bhägavatam.

The Vedänta-sütra simply hints at what is Brahman, the Absolute Truth: “The Absolute Truth is that from whom everything emanates.” This is a summary, but it is explained in detail in Çrémad-Bhägavatam.

If everything is emanating from the Absolute Truth, then what is the nature of the Absolute Truth? That is explained in Çrémad-Bhägavatam. The Absolute Truth must be consciousness. He is self-effulgent (sva-räö).

Çrépäda Çaìkaräcärya preached the Mäyäväda philosophy for a particular purpose. Such a philosophy was necessary to defeat the Buddhist philosophy of the nonexistence of the spirit soul, but it was never meant for perpetual acceptance. It was an emergency.

Thus Lord Kåñëa was accepted by Çaìkaräcärya as the Supreme Personality of Godhead in his commentation on Bhagavad-gétä. Since he was a great devotee of Lord Kåñëa, he did not dare write any commentary on Çrémad-Bhägavatam because that would have been a direct offense at the lotus feet of the Lord.

But later speculators, in the name of Mäyäväda philosophy, unnecessarily make their commentary on the catuù-çloké Bhägavatam without any bona fide intent.

The monistic dry speculators have no business in the Çrémad-Bhägavatam because this particular Vedic literature is forbidden for them by the great author himself.

Çréla Vyäsadeva has definitely forbidden persons engaged in religiosity, economic development, sense gratification and, finally, salvation, from trying to understand Çrémad-Bhägavatam, which is not meant for them (Bhäg. 1.1.2). — Yet such unauthorized persons perversely try to understand Çrémad-Bhägavatam, and thus they commit offenses at the feet of the Lord, which even Çrépäda Çaìkaräcärya dared not do.

Thus they prepare for their continuation of miserable life. It should be particularly noted herein that Uddhava studied the catuù-çloké Bhägavatam directly from the Lord, who spoke them first to Brahmäjé, and this time the Lord explained more confidentially the self-knowledge mentioned as the paramäà sthitim. Upon learning such self-knowledge of love, Uddhava felt very much aggrieved by feelings of separation from the Lord.

Unless one is awakened to the stage of Uddhava—everlastingly feeling the separation of the Lord in transcendental love, as exhibited by Lord Caitanya also—one cannot understand the real import of the four essential verses of Çrémad-Bhägavatam. One should not indulge in the unauthorized act of twisting the meaning and thereby putting himself on the dangerous path of offense.

SB 3.14.24

Lord Çiva, the king of the ghosts, sitting on the back of his bull carrier, travels at this time, accompanied by ghosts who follow him for their welfare.

PURPORT

Lord Çiva, or Rudra, is the king of the ghosts. Ghostly characters worship Lord Çiva to be gradually guided toward a path of self-realization. Mäyävädé philosophers are mostly worshipers of Lord Çiva, and Çrépäda Çaìkaräcärya is considered to be the incarnation of Lord Çiva for preaching godlessness to the Mäyävädé philosophers.

Ghosts are bereft of a physical body because of their grievously sinful acts, such as suicide. The last resort of the ghostly characters in human society is to take shelter of suicide, either material or spiritual. Material suicide causes loss of the physical body, and spiritual suicide causes loss of the individual identity.

Mäyävädé philosophers desire to lose their individuality and merge into the impersonal spiritual brahmajyoti existence. Lord Çiva, being very kind to the ghosts, sees that although they are condemned, they get physical bodies.

He places them into the wombs of women who indulge in sexual intercourse regardless of the restrictions on time and circumstance. Kaçyapa wanted to impress this fact upon Diti so that she might wait for a while.

bhaktajan · June 5, 2008

SB 3.21.9-11:

Kardama Muni saw the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is free from material contamination, in His eternal form, effulgent like the sun, wearing a garland of white lotuses and water lilies. The Lord was clad in spotless yellow silk, and His lotus face was fringed with slick dark locks of curly hair.

Adorned with a crown and earrings, He held His characteristic conch, disc and mace in three of His hands and a white lily in the fourth. He glanced about in a happy, smiling mood whose sight captivates the hearts of all devotees.

A golden streak on His chest, the famous Kaustubha gem suspended from His neck, He stood in the air with His lotus feet placed on the shoulders of Garuòa.

PURPORT

The descriptions in verses 9–11 of the Lord in His transcendental, eternal form are understood to be descriptions from the authoritative Vedic version. These descriptions are certainly not the imagination of Kardama Muni. The decorations of the Lord are beyond material conception, as admitted even by impersonalists like Çaìkaräcärya: Näräyaëa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, has nothing to do with the material creation.

The varieties of the transcendental Lord—His body, His form, His dress, His instruction, His words—are not manufactured by the material energy, but are all confirmed in the Vedic literature. By performance of yoga Kardama Muni actually saw the Supreme Lord as He is.

There was no point in seeing an imagined form of God after practicing yoga for ten thousand years. The perfection of yoga, therefore, does not terminate in voidness or impersonalism; on the contrary, the perfection of yoga is attained when one actually sees the Personality of Godhead in His eternal form.

The process of Kåñëa consciousness is to deliver the form of Kåñëa directly. The form of Kåñëa is described in the authoritative Vedic literature Brahma-saàhitä: His abode is made of cintämaëi stone, and the Lord plays there as a cowherd boy and is served by many thousands of gopés.

These descriptions are authoritative, and a Kåñëa conscious person takes them directly, acts on them, preaches them and practices devotional service as enjoined in the authoritative scriptures.

SB 3.21.9-12

When Kardama Muni actually realized the Supreme Personality of Godhead in person, he was greatly satisfied because his transcendental desire was fulfilled. He fell on the ground with his head bowed to offer obeisances unto the lotus feet of the Lord. His heart naturally full of love of God, with folded hands he satisfied the Lord with prayers.

SB 4.2.30

Bhågu Muni continued: Since you blaspheme the Vedas and the brähmaëas, who are followers of the Vedic principles, it is understood that you have already taken shelter of the doctrine of atheism.

PURPORT

Bhågu Muni, in cursing Nandéçvara, said that not only would they be degraded as atheists because of this curse, but they had already fallen to the standard of atheism because they had blasphemed the Vedas, which are the source of human civilization. Human civilization is based on the qualitative divisions of social order, namely the intelligent class, the martial class, the productive class and the laborer class.

The Vedas provide the right direction for advancing in spiritual cultivation and economic development and regulating the principle of sense gratification, so that ultimately one may be liberated from material contamination to his real state of spiritual identification (ahaà brahmäsmi).

As long as one is in the contamination of material existence, one changes bodies from the aquatics up to the position of Brahmä, but the human form of life is the highest perfectional life in the material world. The Vedas give directions by which to elevate oneself in the next life.

The Vedas are the mother for such instructions, and the brähmaëas, or persons who are in knowledge of the Vedas, are the father. Thus if one blasphemes the Vedas and brähmaëas, naturally one goes down to the status of atheism. The exact word used in Sanskrit is nästika, which refers to one who does not believe in the Vedas but manufactures some concocted system of religion.

Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu has said that the followers of the Buddhist system of religion are nästikas. ln order to establish his doctrine of nonviolence, Lord Buddha flatly refused to believe in the Vedas, and thus, later on, Çaìkaräcärya stopped this system of religion in ffice:smarttags" /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comIndia</st1:country-region> and forced it to go outside <st1:place w:st=" /><st1:country-region w:st="on">India</st1:country-region>.

Here it is stated, brahma ca brähmaëän. Brahma means the Vedas. Ahaà brahmäsmi means “I am in full knowledge.” The Vedic assertion is that one should think that he is Brahman, for actually he is Brahman.

If brahma, or the Vedic spiritual science, is condemned, and the masters of the spiritual science, the brähmaëas, are condemned, then where does human civilization stand? Bhågu Muni said, “It is not due to my cursing that you shall become atheists; you are already situated in the principle of atheism. Therefore you are condemned.”

SB 4.7.31:

Lord Brahmä said: My dear Lord, Your personality and eternal form cannot be understood by any person who is trying to know You through the different processes of acquiring knowledge. Your position is always transcendental to the material creation, whereas the empiric attempt to understand You is material, as are its objectives and instruments.

PURPORT

It is said that the transcendental name, qualities, activities, paraphernalia, etc., of the Supreme Personality of Godhead cannot be understood with our material senses. The attempt of the empiric philosophers to understand the Absolute Truth by speculation is always futile because their process of understanding, their objective and the instruments by which they try to understand the Absolute Truth are all material.

The Lord is apräkåta, beyond the creation of the material world. This fact is also accepted by the great impersonalist Çaìkaräcärya: näräyaëaù paro ’vyaktäd aëòam avyakta-sambhavam. Avyakta, or the original material cause, is beyond this material manifestation and is the cause of the material world. Because Näräyaëa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is beyond the material world, one cannot speculate upon Him by any material method.

One has to understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead simply by the transcendental method of Kåñëa consciousness. This is confirmed in Bhagavad-gétä (18.55). Bhaktyä mäm abhijänäti: only by devotional service can one understand the transcendental form of the Lord. The difference between the impersonalists and the personalists is that the impersonalists, limited by their speculative processes, cannot even approach the Supreme Personality of Godhead, whereas the devotees please the Supreme Personality of Godhead through His transcendental loving service.

Sevonmukhe hi: due to the service attitude of the devotee, the Lord is revealed to him. The Supreme Lord cannot be understood by materialistic persons even though He is present before them. In Bhagavad-gétä, Lord Kåñëa therefore condemns such materialists as müòhas. Müòha means “rascal.” It is said in the Gétä, “Only rascals think of Lord Kåñëa as an ordinary person.

They do not know what Lord Kåñëa’s position is or what His transcendental potencies are.” Unaware of His transcendental potencies, the impersonalists deride the person of Lord Kåñëa, whereas the devotees, by dint of their service attitude, can understand Him as the Personality of Godhead. In the Tenth Chapter of Bhagavad-gétä, Arjuna also confirmed that it is very difficult to understand the personality of the Lord.

bhaktajan · June 5, 2008

The dangerous Mäyäväda theory set forth by Çaìkaräcärya—that God is impersonal—does not tally with the injunctions of the Vedas. Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu therefore described the Mäyävädé philosophers as the greatest offenders against the Personality of Godhead. According to the Vedic system, one who does not abide by the orders of the Vedas is called a nästika, or atheist.

When Lord Buddha preached his theory of nonviolence, he was obliged to deny the authority of the Vedas, and for this reason he was considered by the followers of the Vedas to be a nästika.

But although Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu very clearly enunciated that the followers of Lord Buddha’s philosophy are nästikas, or atheists, because of their denial of the authority of the Vedas, He considered the Çaìkarites, who wanted to establish Vedic authority by trickery and who actually followed the Mäyäväda philosophy of Buddha’s school, to be more dangerous than the Buddhists themselves.

The Çaìkarite philosophers’ theory that we have to imagine a shape of God is more dangerous than denial of the existence of God. Notwithstanding all the philosophical theorizing by atheists or Mäyävädés, the followers of Kåñëa consciousness rigidly live according to the injunctions given in Bhagavad-gétä, which is accepted as the essence of all Vedic scripture.

Many mantras of the Upaniñads and other çrutis openly declare devotional service to be superior to liberation itself. In the words of the Nåsiàha-pürva-täpané Upaniñad, yaà sarve vedä namanti mumukñavo brahma-vädinaç ca: “To Him all the Vedas, all seekers of liberation and all students of the Absolute Truth offer their obeisances.”

Commenting on this mantra, Çré Çaìkaräcärya admits, muktä api lélayä vigrahaà kåtvä bhajanti: “Even liberated souls take pleasure in establishing the Supreme Lord’s Deity and worshiping Him.”

The great rival of Äcärya Çaìkara, Çréla Madhväcärya Änandatértha, cites his own favorite çruti-mantras in this regard, such as muktä hy etam upäsate, muktänäm api bhaktir hi paramänanda-rüpiëé: “Even those who are liberated worship Him, and even for them devotional service is the embodiment of supreme bliss”; and amåtasya dhärä bahudhä dohamänaà/ caraëaà no loke su-dhitäà dadhätu/ oà tat sat: “May His feet, which bountifully pour forth floods of nectar, bestow wisdom upon us who are living in this world.”

In summary, Çréla Çrédhara Svämé prays,

tvat-kathämåta-päthodhau

viharanto mahä-mudaù

kurvanti kåtinaù kecic

catur-vargaà tåëopamam

“Those rare, fortunate souls who derive great delight by sporting in the nectar ocean of topics about You consider the four great goals of life [religiosity, economic development, sense gratification and liberation] to be no more important than a blade of grass.”

“Praëava [oà], or the oàkära in the Vedas, is the primeval hymn. This transcendental sound is identical with the form of the Lord. All the Vedic hymns are based on this praëava oàkära. Tat tvam asi is but a side word in the Vedic literatures, and therefore this word cannot be the primeval hymn of the Vedas.

Çrépäda Çaìkaräcärya has given more stress on the side word tat tvam asi than on the primeval principle oàkära.”

The Lord thus spoke on the Vedänta-sütra and defied all the propaganda of the Mäyäväda school.* The Bhaööäcärya tried to defend himself and his Mäyäväda school by jugglery of logic and grammar, but the Lord defeated him by His forceful arguments.

He affirmed that we are all related with the Personality of Godhead eternally and that devotional service is our eternal function in exchanging the dealings of our relations. The result of such exchanges is to attain premä, or love of Godhead.

When love of Godhead is attained, love for all other beings automatically follows because the Lord is the sum total of all living beings.

The Lord said that but for these three items—namely, eternal relation with God, exchange of dealings with Him and the attainment of love for Him—all that is instructed in the Vedas is superfluous and concocted.

The Lord further added that the Mäyäväda philosophy taught by Çrépäda Çaìkaräcärya is an imaginary explanation of the Vedas, but it had to be taught by him (Çaìkaräcärya) because he was ordered to teach it by the Personality of Godhead. In the Padma Puräëa it is stated that the Personality of Godhead ordered His Lordship Çiva to deviate the human race from Him (the Personality of Godhead).

The Personality of Godhead was to be so covered so that people would be encouraged to generate more and more population. His Lordship Çiva said to Devé: “In the Kali-yuga, I shall preach the Mäyäväda philosophy, which is nothing but clouded Buddhism, in the garb of a brähmaëa.”

Çrépäda Çaìkaräcärya, who preached Mäyäväda philosophy and stressed the impersonal feature of the Absolute, also recommended that one must take shelter at the lotus feet of Lord Çré Kåñëa, for there is no hope of gain from debating.

Indirectly Çrépäda Çaìkaräcärya admitted that what he had preached in the flowery grammatical interpretations of the Vedänta-sütra cannot help one at the time of death. At the critical hour of death one must recite the name of Govinda. This is the recommendation of all great transcendentalists.

Lord Çiva, speaking to Pärvaté-devé, foretold that he would spread the Mäyäväda philosophy in the guise of a sannyäsé brähmaëa just to eradicate Buddhist philosophy. This sannyäsé was Çrépäda Çaìkaräcärya. In order to overcome the effects of Buddhist philosophy and spread Vedänta philosophy, Çrépäda Çaìkaräcärya had to make some compromise with the Buddhist philosophy, and as such he preached the philosophy of monism, for it was required at that time.

Otherwise there was no need for his preaching Mäyäväda philosophy. At the present moment there is no need for Mäyäväda philosophy or Buddhist philosophy, and Lord Caitanya rejected both of them. This Kåñëa consciousness movement is spreading the philosophy of Lord Caitanya and rejecting the philosophy of both classes of Mäyävädé. Strictly speaking, both Buddhist philosophy and Çaìkara’s philosophy are but different types of Mäyäväda dealing on the platform of material existence.

Neither of these philosophies has spiritual significance. There is spiritual significance only after one accepts the philosophy of Bhagavad-gétä, which culminates in surrendering unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Generally people worship Lord Çiva for some material benefit, and although they cannot see him personally, they derive great material profit by worshiping him.

isn't Buddhism just a form Vedanta ?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads