Becoming a Hindu

[mahanila]

 

The fact is, the Bhagavad Gita is not an authority for the majority of Hindus (including Vaishnavas) and Krishna is not THE God, but a God among several Gods. I guess it is hard for foreigners who have not spent time in India to understand this. They have to rely on what they are told by the people around them and hence the misconceptions.

 

ok, putting bhagavad gita aside, lets look at what others sastra's say...

 

In the Atharva Veda (Gopala-tapani Upanishad 1.24) it is said, yo brahmanam vidadhati purvam yo vai vedams ca gapayati sma krishnah: “It was Krishna who in the beginning instructed Brahma in Vedic knowledge and who disseminated Vedic knowledge in the past.” Then again the Narayana Upanishad (1) says, atha purusho ha vai narayano ’kamayata prajah srjeyeti: “Then the Supreme Personality Narayana desired to create living entities.” The Upanishad continues, narayanad brahma jayate, narayanad prajapatih prajayate, narayanad indro jayate, narayanad astau vasavo jayante, narayanad ekadasa rudra jayante, narayanad dvadasadityah: “From Narayana, Brahma is born, and from Narayana the patriarchs are also born. From Narayana, Indra is born, from Narayana the eight Vasus are born, from Narayana the eleven Rudras are born, from Narayana the twelve Adityas are born.” This Narayana is an expansion of Krishna.

It is said in the same Vedas, brahmanyo devaki-putrah: “The son of Devaki, Krishna, is the Supreme Personality.”

(Narayana Upanishad 4) Then it is said, eko vai narayana asin na brahma na isano napo nagni-samau neme dyav-aprithivi na nakshatrani na suryah: “In the beginning of the creation there was only the Supreme Personality Narayana. There was no Brahma, no Shiva, no water, no fire, no moon, no stars in the sky, no sun.” (Maha Upanishad 1) In the Maha Upanishad it is also said that Lord Shiva was born from the forehead of the Supreme Lord. Thus the Vedas say that it is the Supreme Lord, the creator of Brahma and Shiva, who is to be worshiped.

 

 

 

narayanah paro devas

tasmaj jatas caturmukhah

tasmad rudro ’bhavad devah

sa ca sarva-jnatam gatah

 

“Narayana is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and from Him Brahma was born, from whom Shiva was born.”

 

 

 

ISVARAH PARAMAH KRSNA

SAC-CID-ANANDA-VIGRAHAH

ANADIR ADIR GOVINDAH

SARVAH-KARANAH-KARANAM

 

Krsna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes.-Brahma Samhita

[chandu_69]

mahanila,

 

Well said.

[kaisersose]

 

ok, putting bhagavad gita aside, lets look at what others sastra's say...

 

In the Atharva Veda (Gopala-tapani Upanishad 1.24) it is said, yo brahmanam vidadhati purvam yo vai vedams ca gapayati sma krishnah: “It was Krishna who in the beginning instructed Brahma in Vedic knowledge and who disseminated Vedic knowledge in the past.” Then again the Narayana Upanishad (1) says, atha purusho ha vai narayano ’kamayata prajah srjeyeti: “Then the Supreme Personality Narayana desired to create living entities.” The Upanishad continues, narayanad brahma jayate, narayanad prajapatih prajayate, narayanad indro jayate, narayanad astau vasavo jayante, narayanad ekadasa rudra jayante, narayanad dvadasadityah: “From Narayana, Brahma is born, and from Narayana the patriarchs are also born. From Narayana, Indra is born, from Narayana the eight Vasus are born, from Narayana the eleven Rudras are born, from Narayana the twelve Adityas are born.” This Narayana is an expansion of Krishna.

It is said in the same Vedas, brahmanyo devaki-putrah: “The son of Devaki, Krishna, is the Supreme Personality.”

(Narayana Upanishad 4) Then it is said, eko vai narayana asin na brahma na isano napo nagni-samau neme dyav-aprithivi na nakshatrani na suryah: “In the beginning of the creation there was only the Supreme Personality Narayana. There was no Brahma, no Shiva, no water, no fire, no moon, no stars in the sky, no sun.” (Maha Upanishad 1) In the Maha Upanishad it is also said that Lord Shiva was born from the forehead of the Supreme Lord. Thus the Vedas say that it is the Supreme Lord, the creator of Brahma and Shiva, who is to be worshiped.

 

 

 

narayanah paro devas

tasmaj jatas caturmukhah

tasmad rudro ’bhavad devah

sa ca sarva-jnatam gatah

 

“Narayana is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and from Him Brahma was born, from whom Shiva was born.”

 

 

 

ISVARAH PARAMAH KRSNA

SAC-CID-ANANDA-VIGRAHAH

ANADIR ADIR GOVINDAH

SARVAH-KARANAH-KARANAM

 

Krsna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes.-Brahma Samhita

 

The same fundamental problem persists...

 

The Gopala Tapani Upanishad is not considered an authentic Upanishad. It falls in the same category as Ganapathi Upanishad or even Allah Upanishad. You may just as well argue for the merits of the Chaitanya Upanishad or a Sai Baba Upanishad!

 

The Brahma Samhita is a Gaudiya Vaishnava Text. If it were not for the internet, non-Gaudiya Vaishnavas would never even have heard of the text.

 

Just FYI, Krishna and Rama are not mentioned in any Veda. And more important - the Veda is not a common scripture for all Hindus. And finally the most important piece of info of all of this - There exists *no* single common scripture or Bible for all Hindus.

 

If anyone disagrees, bring it on.

 

Cheers

[chandu_69]

 

The Gopala Tapani Upanishad is not considered an authentic Upanishad.

 

Considered by whom???? by Kaiserose?

 

 

 

The Brahma Samhita is a Gaudiya Vaishnava Text. If it were not for the internet, non-Gaudiya Vaishnavas would never even have heard of the text.

 

Terrific argument..Wow

 

 

Just FYI, Krishna and Rama are not mentioned in any Veda.

 

Ofcourse many things are not mentioned in vedas. So?

 

 

And more important - the Veda is not a common scripture for all Hindus.

 

Ohhhh ...

 

 

And finally the most important piece of info of all of this - There exists *no* single common scripture or Bible for all Hindus.

 

Every body knows this Important piece of information.The gita talks about Vedas and upanishads.

 

Thanks for bringing that anyway

[kaisersose]

 

Originally Posted by kaisersose

The Gopala Tapani Upanishad is not considered an authentic Upanishad.

 

 

Here are the ABCs of Upanishads for your education.

 

There are 11 Upanishads whose antiquity is undisputed*. In other words, their claim to being associated with a Veda is accepted as legitimate. For your convenience, here they are,

 

Aitareya

Brihadaranyaka

Taittiriya

Chandogya

Kena

Ishavasya

Shwetashvatara

Katha

Mundaka

Mandukya

Prasna

 

No Upanishad outside this set of eleven, has universal acceptance. They are usually accepted as authentic by small communities or in most cases, they are defunct and not in use.

 

The Tapani Upanishads are dated as 14th Century AD or later. Their names never appear anywhere before that time. If people want to believe that 14th century upanishads can be part of the Atharvana Veda and 19th century Bengali Upanishads are part of the Rig-Veda, they are welcome to. It is a democratic world we live in after all, with freedom of thought, however ridiculous the thoughts may be.

 

*undisputed by whom, one may ask. The answer is, by traditional schools of Vedic thought (those who take the Upanishads seriously, i.e., Advaita, Dvaita and V-Dvaita) and modern scholarship as well. Obviously, opinions of people outside this group matter little, as they usually come with no evidence.

 

Cheers

[chandu_69]

 

Here are the ABCs of Upanishads for your education.

 

There are 11 Upanishads whose antiquity is undisputed*. In other words, their claim to being associated with a Veda is accepted as legitimate. For your convenience, here they are,

 

Aitareya

Brihadaranyaka

Taittiriya

Chandogya

Kena

Ishavasya

Shwetashvatara

Katha

Mundaka

Mandukya

Prasna

 

No Upanishad outside this set of eleven, has universal acceptance. They are usually accepted as authentic by small communities or in most cases, they are defunct and not in use.

 

gopala-Tapani is in agreement with Bhagavatam.

 

 

The Tapani Upanishads are dated as 14th Century AD or later. Their names never appear anywhere before that time. If people want to believe that 14th century upanishads can be part of the Atharvana Veda

 

People can have a reason to beleive in gopala tapani because it is in agreement with Bhagavatham.

 

 

*undisputed by whom, one may ask. The answer is, by traditional schools of Vedic thought (those who take the Upanishads seriously, i.e., Advaita, Dvaita and V-Dvaita) and modern scholarship as well. Obviously, opinions of people outside this group matter little, as they usually come with no evidence.

 

 

May be or may be not.

[kaisersose]

 

People can have a reason to beleive in gopala tapani because it is in agreement with Bhagavatham.

 

In which case, people should really be quoting the Bhagavatam, do you agree? If the Tapani's sole claim to validity is conformance with the Bhagavatam, the Bhagavatam being alive and well, considerably more popular and much more easily accessible, there is no reason to be quoting a 14th century Tapani Upanishad instead.

 

And so now, the question is, do all Hindus consider/use the Bhagavatam as an authority? The answer is no for the majority as is the case with any scripture. And as that is the case, does it make sense to be quoting sectarian texts like the Gita and the SB to prove Vaishnava supremacy to all Hindus in general? No. Scripture quotes are meaningful only when both parties accept the authority of the scripture. Specifically to the point, this is precisely why people object when a Hare Krishna quotes Vaishnava texts to a Shaiva to prove his own superiority and/or to label Shiva as a demiGod. Really no different than a muslim quoting the Quran to a Vaishnava to prove Allah's supremacy over Vishnu/Krishna.

 

Perhaps now you see the point.

 

Cheers

[chandu_69]

 

In which case, people should really be quoting the Bhagavatam, do you agree?

 

Yes offcourse.Bhagavata Purana the work of Vyasa who compiled vedas.

 

 

If the Tapani's sole claim to validity is conformance with the Bhagavatam, the Bhagavatam being alive and well, considerably more popular and much more easily accessible, there is no reason to be quoting a 14th century Tapani Upanishad instead.

 

I agree with you on this.But since u asked for upanishads he might have quoted it

 

 

And so now, the question is, do all Hindus consider/use the Bhagavatam as an authority? The answer is no for the majority as is the case with any scripture.

 

Wrong.All the great acharyas-Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva including Sri Caitanya(obviously) agree that Bhagavatha is sruti.Unless u are referring to 1800 century arya samaj.

And as that is the case, does it make sense to be quoting sectarian texts like the Gita and the SB

 

Sectarian texts? what nonsense.

 

 

to prove Vaishnava supremacy to all Hindus in general? No.

 

Perhaps now you see the point.

 

Please refer to my earlier posts.I objected vehemently to this long time ago(in this forum).I dont have to read your posts to learn this.

 

 

The vaishnavas may say vaishnavism is superior, but that is not going to shed any blood or cause loss of faith in hindus.

 

You are making much ado about nothing.

[sambyahere]

 

mahanila,

 

Well said.

 

aha !! now i see it . so ur an iskconite too.

 

sambya

[chandu_69]

 

 

aha !! now i see it . so ur an iskconite too.

 

sambya

 

I am not as u can see my posts on saivism.But i clearly shown that you are a sleeper muslim.

[sambya]

 

..........................you are a sleeper muslim.

 

SO WHAT ????????????

 

does it really matter what faith i belong here. the forum is called spiritual discussions. i dont think any particular faith has the exclusive right to spirituality.

 

you are only foolishly showing your deep hatred for muslims repeatedly.

 

 

I am not as u can see my posts on saivism

 

not by faith , by the style of understanding and arguing .

[chandu_69]

 

SO WHAT ????????????

 

does it really matter what faith i belong here. the forum is called spiritual discussions. i dont think any particular faith has the exclusive right to spirituality.

 

No it doesnt matter which faith,but honesty matters.Thanks for admitting it finally.There was a honest muslim with id paarsurrey who gave his opinions openly in this forum.

 

Ofcourse i dont mind exposing dishonest people like you.

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by kaisersose:

1)

In the Kaöha Upaniñad as well as in the Çvetäçvatara Upaniñad, it is said that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the maintainer of innumerable living entities, in terms of their different situations according to individual work and reaction of work. That Supreme Personality of Godhead is also, by His plenary portions, alive in the heart of every living entity. Only saintly persons who can see, within and without, the same Supreme Lord can actually attain to perfect and eternal peace.

 

 

 

nityo nityänäà cetanaç cetanänäm

 

 

 

eko bahünäà yo vidadhäti kämän

 

 

 

tam ätma-sthaà ye ’nupaçyanti dhéräs

 

 

 

teñäà çäntiù çäçvaté netareñäm

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

 

 

BG 5.10

 

 

 

brahmaëy ädhäya karmäëi

 

 

 

saìgaà tyaktvä karoti yaù

 

 

 

lipyate na sa päpena

 

 

 

padma-patram ivämbhasä

 

"One who performs his duty without attachment, surrendering the results unto the Supreme Lord, is unaffected by sinful action, as the lotus leaf is untouched by water."

Here brahmaëi means in Kåñëa consciousness. The material world is a sum total manifestation of the three modes of material nature, technically called the pradhäna. The Vedic hymns sarvaà hy etad brahma (Mäëòükya Upaniñad 2), tasmäd etad brahma näma-rüpam annaà ca jäyate (Muëòaka Upaniñad 1.2.10), and, in the Bhagavad-gétä (14.3), mama yonir mahad brahma indicate that everything in the material world is a manifestation of Brahman; and although the effects are differently manifested, they are nondifferent from the cause.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

 

 

 

BG15.17

 

 

 

uttamaù puruñas tv anyaù

 

 

 

paramätmety udähåtaù

 

 

 

yo loka-trayam äviçya

 

 

 

bibharty avyaya éçvaraù

 

"Besides these two, there is the greatest living personality, the Supreme Soul, the imperishable Lord Himself, who has entered the three worlds and is maintaining them."

The idea of this verse is very nicely expressed in the Kaöha Upaniñad (2.2.13) and Çvetäçvatara Upaniñad (6.13). It is clearly stated there that above the innumerable living entities, some of whom are conditioned and some of whom are liberated, there is the Supreme Personality, who is Paramätmä. The Upaniñadic verse runs as follows: nityo nityänäà cetanaç cetanänäm. The purport is that amongst all the living entities, both conditioned and liberated, there is one supreme living personality, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who maintains them and gives them all the facility of enjoyment according to different work. That Supreme Personality of Godhead is situated in everyone’s heart as Paramätmä. A wise man who can understand Him is eligible to at in perfect peace, not others.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

“The four Vedas—namely the Åg Veda, Yajur Veda, Säma Veda, and Atharva Veda—are all emanations from the breathing of the great Personality of Godhead.” (Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad 4.5.11)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The Supreme Personality of Godhead is described in the Vedic literatures as follows:

 

 

 

tam éçvaräëäà paramaà maheçvaraà

 

 

 

taà devatänäà paramaà ca daivatam

 

 

 

patià paténäà paramaà parastäd

 

 

 

vidäma devaà bhuvaneçam éòyam

 

 

 

na tasya käryaà karaëaà ca vidyate

 

 

 

na tat-samaç cäbhyadhikaç ca dåçyate

 

 

 

paräsya çaktir vividhaiva çrüyate

 

 

 

sväbhäviké jïäna-bala-kriyä ca

 

“The Supreme Lord is the controller of all other controllers, and He is the greatest of all the diverse planetary leaders. Everyone is under His control. All entities are delegated with particular power only by the Supreme Lord; they are not supreme themselves. He is also worshipable by all demigods and is the supreme director of all directors. Therefore, He is transcendental to all kinds of material leaders and controllers and is worshipable by all. There is no one greater than Him, and He is the supreme cause of all causes.

“He does not possess bodily form like that of an ordinary living entity. There is no difference between His body and His soul. He is absolute. All His senses are transcendental. Any one of His senses can perform the action of any other sense. Therefore, no one is greater than Him or equal to Him. His potencies are multifarious, and thus His deeds are automatically performed as a natural sequence.” (Çvetäçvatara Upaniñad 6.7–8)

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

2) Really no different than a muslim quoting the Quran to a Vaishnava to prove Allah's supremacy over Vishnu/Krishna.

 

This is "terrible" Logic. Really bad logic!

You're close to being universally ignored!

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

3) Bhaktajan's statement to Kaisersose:

 

So YOU do not give any regards to the Mahabharata & Gita?

 

So YOU do not give any regards to this statement? YES or NO?:

 

" . . . It is said in the Mahabharata, Adi-parva (20) that 640,000,000 men were killed in the eighteen days of the Battle of Kuruksetra, and some hundreds of thousands were missing. Practically this was the greatest battle in the world within five thousand years. . . . "

 

 

YES or NO --do you give any regards to this statement??

 

If you give no regards to this statement, and think it FALSE??

 

No war? No Krishna's discussion with Arjuna? No Bharata-vamsa?

[chandu_69]

 

Really no different than a muslim quoting the Quran to a Vaishnava to prove Allah's supremacy over Vishnu/Krishna.

 

Cheers

 

As pointed out by Bhaktajan this comparison is TERRIBLE.

This is the reason why.Krishna doesnt make a person not beleiving in him go to hell.

 

<!--[if gte mso 10]> .......> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} ........> <![endif]-->BG 7.21: I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship some demigod(deva), I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to that particular deity. BG 7.22: Endowed with such a faith, he endeavors to worship a particular demigod(deva) and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me alone.

<st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> saying that he benefits people who worship demigods(devas).

But who aspires to reach godhead(of vishnu) will worship him alone.

BG 5.29: A person in full consciousness of Me, knowing Me to be the ultimate beneficiary of all sacrifices and austerities, the Supreme Lord of all planets and demigods(devas), and the benefactor and well-wisher of all living entities, attains peace from the pangs of material miseries.

See, no jealousy, no vengeance .No threats of torture in hell.

 

 

Now coming to the other one:

 

 

Quran: 004.056 Pikthal Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to theFire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty,

Wise.

009.073

: O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be

harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.

009.029

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as

believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah

hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth,

until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

009.030 And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say:

The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their

mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah

(Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kaisersose]

 

I agree with you on this.But since u asked for upanishads he might have quoted it

 

I did not ask for Upanishads. If you see such a request from me somewhere on this thread, please correct me.

 

 

Wrong.All the great acharyas-Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva including Sri Caitanya(obviously) agree that Bhagavatha is sruti.Unless u are referring to 1800 century arya samaj.

 

Wrong. Shankara and Rananuja never quoted from the Bhagavatam. They only quoted the Vishnu Purana. Madhva wrote a summary on the Bhagavatam, but it is common knowledge that he we was ver clear about the distinction between Shruti and Smriti - and a work authored by Vyasa does not pass as Shruti in his doctrine. If you do not believe me, I can produce Madhva's exact quotes on this distinction.

 

That rules out the Big 3 & leaves only the Hare Krishnas to believe the Bhagavatam as Shruti. You may also want to get some basics on what Shruti means both literally and in common parlance as well.

 

Sectarian texts? what nonsense.

 

Hardly. Any text that ranks Gods and singles one out as the highest is sectarian. All Puranas are sectarian. So is the Mahabharata. Again, these are simple basics.

 

 

Please refer to my earlier posts.I objected vehemently to this long time ago(in this forum).I dont have to read your posts to learn this.

 

And yet, you patted Mahanila for the same post with a "well said". So you vehemently object to and appreciate this - both at the same time.

 

Cheers

[chandu_69]

 

I did not ask for Upanishads. If you see such a request from me somewhere on this thread, please correct me.

Oh yes u didnt ask for it it is actually mahanila who felt compelled to post scriptures other than BG and sb.

 

 

 

 

Wrong. Shankara and Rananuja never quoted from the Bhagavatam. They only quoted the Vishnu Purana. Madhva wrote a summary on the Bhagavatam, but it is common knowledge that he we was ver clear about the distinction between Shruti and Smriti - and a work authored by Vyasa does not pass as Shruti in his doctrine. If you do not believe me, I can produce Madhva's exact quotes on this distinction.

 

Bhagavatam(SB) is shruti( i Misspelled) ofcourse and

 

quote

The Bhagavata Purana is held in the highest esteem by Vedic tradition, Vaishnavism, and Hinduism in general. Within Vaishnavism (and many other Hindu traditions), no other Hindu text surpasses the Bhagavata Purana in significance or importance. Hindu tradition maintains that the author of the Bhagavata Purana (Veda Vyasa), wrote the Bhagavatam with the intent that it be the summation point of all Vedic literature and philosophy.

 

unquote.

And Shankara and Ramanuja didnt dare to disown Bhagavatham either.

 

 

That rules out the Big 3 & leaves only the Hare Krishnas to believe the Bhagavatam as Shruti. You may also want to get some basics on what Shruti means both literally and in common parlance as well.

It may rule out for critiques like you but for the vast majority of hindus and acaryas there is no dispute whatsover about Bhagavatam.

 

 

 

Any text that ranks Gods and singles one out as the highest is sectarian. All Puranas are sectarian. So is the Mahabharata. Again, these are simple basics.

Surely Rigveda makes it clear that vishnu is at the topmost.

 

 

 

 

And yet, you patted Mahanila for the same post with a "well said". So you vehemently object to and appreciate this - both at the same time.

 

Cheers

Yes i patted him for his stand on what he beleives.But i criticized Iskcons and vaishnavites who declare Siva as a demigod .

 

Really, you are making much ado about nothing.

 

Now would you care to explain on your ridiculous comparison you made above .I responded to you one post above.

[chandu_69]

Edit:Text Mixed up and hence removed.

[kaisersose]

 

Bhagavatam(SB) is shruti( i Misspelled) ofcourse and

quote

The Bhagavata Purana is held in the highest esteem by Vedic tradition, Vaishnavism, and Hinduism in general. Within Vaishnavism (and many other Hindu traditions), no other Hindu text surpasses the Bhagavata Purana in significance or importance. Hindu tradition maintains that the author of the Bhagavata Purana (Veda Vyasa), wrote the Bhagavatam with the intent that it be the summation point of all Vedic literature and philosophy.

The above quote (from an unnamed source?) says nothing about SB accepted as Sruti. Popular does not equate to Sruti, in case that is your argument. Vyasa's good intentions are completely irrelevant in classifying a text as Sruti/Smriti.

And Shankara and Ramanuja didnt dare to disown Bhagavatham either.

They did not disown the Bible, the Quran and Jeffrey Richter's novels either. What is the point?

It may rule out for critiques like you but for the vast majority of hindus and acaryas there is no dispute whatsover about Bhagavatam.

Sruti - un-authored

Smirit - authored.

Since you make the claim - that Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhva - bucked the common trend and classified SB (an authored text) as Sruti, the burden of proof is on you to show some evidence.

To repeat myself, Shankara and Ramnuja never mention the text, Madhva classified it as Smriti and clearly favored the Mahabharata over the Bhagavatam, among his sources. So aside from Hare Krishnas, no one else holds the Bhagavatam as the best. If they are assigning Sruti status to authored texts, then they are going against common ground rules too.

Surely Rigveda makes it clear that vishnu is at the topmost.

To Vaishnavas, Yes. To the rest of the world, No. There are multiple different interpretations, accepted by different groups.

Yes i patted him for his stand on what he beleives.But i criticized Iskcons and vaishnavites who declare Siva as a demigod .

And hence the contradiction. He is part of the same group you criticized - for his post and quotes (that you appreciated) were to relegate Shiva to demigod status.

Really, you are making much ado about nothing.

Really? HKs jump at the slightest opportunity to quote their English translations marking Shiva as a demigod. But if we point out the flaw in the logic, then we are making much ado about nothing. If it is really nothing, then why the persistent enthusiasm among HKs to thump out their "Krishna > Shiva" hypothesis?

Now would you care to explain on your ridiculous comparison you made above .I responded to you one post above.

You completely missed the point. Anyway, replace Muslim/Quran with Buddhist/Sutras and it should be clear. Surely, I do not have to write a detailed commentary to explain something that simple.

 

Cheers

 

[chandu_69]

 

The above quote (from an unnamed source?) says nothing about SB accepted as Sruti. Popular does not equate to Sruti, in case that is your argument. Vyasa's good intentions are completely irrelevant in classifying a text as Sruti/Smriti.

 

SB is shruti and a commentary on vedas accepted by acharyas worth their name.If you differ show your sources.

 

[kaisersose]

 

Well any argument from your side consists of stating your position without any references.

 

We cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is always on the one who make the claim. You made the claim that Bhagavatam is Sruti -so back it up with evidence.

 

 

Your comparison to islam and vaishnavism is pure nonsense....

 

Show me where I compared Islam and Vaishnavism.

 

If you cannot grasp simple analogies, then there is little point in discussing anything in depth with you. Go back and read my posts again and try to understand the point I am making.

 

Cheers

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by kaisersose:

"Vyasa's good intentions are completely irrelevant in classifying a text as Sruti/Smriti." Post 43

 

"What is the point?<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->"

 

"The burden of proof is always on the one who make the claim."

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Bhaktajan to kaisersose:

 

It's called the Vedic Literatures, not the Vedic Books.

 

The Vedic Literatures are more voluminous than the books lost in the great Library of Alexandria.

 

Your posting(s) are for those intellects who are beyond most all Vaishnavas.

 

There is little point in discussing anything in depth with you!

 

You are a representative of your own knowledge --which is beyond most all Vaishnavas --so, kaisersose, with great reserve I say that you should know that we recognize that you are speaking tripe.

 

"kaisersose: Try to understand the point I am making." --for what will it profit me?

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Bhaktajan's advise:

 

When death comes and Dharma asks, 'What is it you seek for your next birth?' --Answer with specificity, lest even one loop-hole in your grammer & choice of words may result in something unintended.

 

IOW, be carefull for what you ask for--you may not be too lucid nor clearheaded in clarifying your requests.

 

Whereas, A Vaishnava is single-pointed in his request at the time of the ultimate examination --A Vaishnava requests a singular thing with pin-point accuracy.

[chandu_69]

 

Show me where I compared Islam and Vaishnavism.

 

Page-2

 

 

 

Dishonesty and hair splitting.As pointed out by bhaktajan there is no point in any discussion worthwhile with you.

[sambya]

 

Your posting(s) are for those intellects who are beyond most all Vaishnavas.

 

There is little point in discussing anything in depth with you!

 

You are a representative of your own knowledge --which is beyond most all Vaishnavas -

 

CORRECT !!!!! these discussions are beyond the intellectual capacity of modern gaudiya vaishnavas.

 

in the olden days the most intellectual of all people including kings , philosophers etc got into gaudiya vaishnavism. god knows when did it all change and for what reason......

[chandu_69]

 

CORRECT !!!!! these discussions are beyond the intellectual capacity of modern gaudiya vaishnavas.

 

in the olden days the most intellectual of all people including kings , philosophers etc got into gaudiya vaishnavism. god knows when did it all change and for what reason......

 

Hahaha says who?. A sleeper who quotes rigveda interpretations from muslim sites.I have'nt seen a cheat who is as shameless as you.

[kaisersose]

 

CORRECT !!!!! these discussions are beyond the intellectual capacity of modern gaudiya vaishnavas.

 

in the olden days the most intellectual of all people including kings , philosophers etc got into gaudiya vaishnavism. god knows when did it all change and for what reason......

 

Save your breath. I think the point has been driven home. Ad hominic attacks are always a sign that the person has no more arguments to make, but is unwilling to accept the fact.

 

He was unable to backup his "well done", his claim of majority of India assigning Sruti status to the Bhagavatam and a couple more of these. Hence, now the escapist route - calling the opponents liars and cheats and shameless people. That is his exit plan.

 

In any event, like I said earlier, the point has been made for everyone to see. So there is nothing more to say on this topic.

 

Cheers