Srimad Bhagavatam is Spotless

[sumeet]

Hare Krsna!!!

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

I would like to state something about the authenticity of Srimad Bhagavatam.

The very word " Srimad Bhagavatam " means the "Divine Revelation".

 

What is Bhagavatam ?

 

idam bhagavatam nama puranam brahma-sammitam uttama-sloka-caritam cakara bhagavan rsih nihsreyasaya lokasya dhanyam svasty-ayanam mahat

 

" This Srimad-Bhagavatam is the literary incarnation of God, and it is compiled by Srila Vyasadeva, the incarnation of God. It is meant for the ultimate good of all people, and it is all-successful, all-blissful and all-perfect. "(SB 1.3.40)

 

FOCUS ON: " brahma-sammitam " meaning " literary incarnation of God ".

 

dharmah projjhita-kaitavo 'tra paramo nirmatsaranam satam vedyam vastavam atra vastu sivadam tapa-trayonmulanam srimad-bhagavate maha-muni-krte kim va parair isvarah sadyo hrdy avarudhyate 'tra krtibhih susrusubhis tat-ksanat

 

" Completely rejecting all religious activities which are materially motivated, this Bhagavata Purana propounds the highest truth, which is understandable by those devotees who are fully pure in heart. The highest truth is reality distinguished from illusion for the welfare of all. Such truth uproots the threefold miseries. This beautiful Bhagavatam, compiled by the great sage Vyasadeva [in his maturity], is sufficient in itself for God realization. What is the need of any other scripture? As soon as one attentively and submissively hears the message of Bhagavatam, by this culture of knowledge the Supreme Lord is established within his heart. "(SB 1.1.2)

 

 

nigama-kalpa-taror galitam phalam suka-mukhad amrta-drava-samyutam pibata bhagavatam rasam alayam muhur aho rasika bhuvi bhavukah

 

" O expert and thoughtful men, relish Srimad-Bhagavatam, the mature fruit of the desire tree of Vedic literatures. It emanated from the lips of Sri Sukadeva Gosvami. Therefore this fruit has become even more tasteful, although its nectarean juice was already relishable for all, including liberated souls. " (SB 1.1.3)

 

krsne sva-dhamopagate dharma-jnanadibhih saha kalau nasta-drsam esa puranarko 'dhunoditah

 

" This Bhagavata Purana is as brilliant as the sun, and it has arisen just after the departure of Lord Krsna to His own abode, accompanied by religion, knowledge, etc. Persons who have lost their vision due to the dense darkness of ignorance in the age of Kali shall get light from this Purana." (SB 1.3.43)

 

tad idam grahayam asa sutam atmavatam varam sama-vedetihasanam saram saram samuddhrtam

 

" Sri Vyasadeva delivered it to his son, who is the most respected among the self-realized, after extracting the cream of all Vedic literatures and histories of the universe. "(SB 1.3.41)

 

sa tu samsravayam asa maharajam pariksitam prayopavistam gangayam paritam paramarsibhih

 

" Sukadeva Gosvami, the son of Vyasadeva, in his turn delivered the Bhagavatam to the great Emperor Pariksit, who sat surrounded by sages on the bank of the Ganges, awaiting death without taking food or drink. "(SB 1.3.42)

So Bhagavatam is doubtlessly existing from time of Maharaj Pariksit[5000 B.C.]

 

 

Origin of Bhagavatam ?

 

tasma idam bhagavatam puranam dasa-laksanam proktam bhagavata praha pritah putraya bhuta-krt

 

" Thereupon the supplementary Vedic literature, Srimad-Bhagavatam, which was described by the Personality of Godhead and which contains ten characteristics, was told with satisfaction by the father [brahma] to his son Narada. "(SB 2.9.44)

 

naradah praha munaye sarasvatyas tate nrpa dhyayate brahma paramam vyasayamita-tejase

 

" In succession, O King, the great sage Narada instructed Srimad-Bhagavatam unto the unlimitedly powerful Vyasadeva, who meditated in devotional service upon the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Absolute Truth, on the bank of the River Sarasvati. "( SB 2.9.45)

 

Those who say Bhagavatam has recent origin must check that there is reference to this Puran in the oldest Puran Matsya Puran as well in Garuda Puran :

 

Garuda Puran says:

artho yam brahma-sutranam bharatartha-vinirnayah gayatribhasya-rupo sau vedartha-paribrmhitah grantho stadasa-sahasrah srimad-bhagavatabhidhah

 

" The Srimad Bhagavatam is the authorised explanation of Brahma Sutra(Vedanta Sutra), and it is a further explanation of Mahabharata. It is the expansion of the Gayatri mantra and the essence of all Vedic knowledge. This Srimad Bhagavatam containing eighteen thousand verses, is known as the explanation of all Vedic literature. "

 

Matsya Puran says

"That which contains many narration of spiritual instructions, begins with the gayatri mantra and also conatins the history of Vrtrasura is known as Srimad Bhagavatam.Whoever makes a gift of this great work on a full moon day attains the highest perfection of life and goes back to Godhead."

 

Padma Puran conatins reference to Srimad Bhagavatam during a conversation between Maharaj Ambarisa and Gautama.

 

Furthermore Lord Krishna Himself as Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has personally verified this through living what Bhagavatam says. He told that this scripture is the natural explanation of Vedanta-Sutra written by the author[srila Vyasdeva] Himself. Hence Bhagavatam is considered a spotless authority on Vedic knowledge. I didn't want to make this long so I excluded other verses which could be presented here substantiating the above conclusion.

 

Hope that this meets well.

 

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

[shvu]

 

I had always taken it for granted that the Bhagavata was wholly composed by Vyasa and was 5000 years old...until recently.

 

Interestingly it appears that none of the Puranas, especially the Bhagavata exist today in their original form. They all have taken their final shape sometime during 700 -800 AD.

 

The original Bhagavata is supposed to have been edited significantly and modified by the tamil Alvar saints, to the version what we have today. A number of reasons are given to support this theory, the basic one being the way the Bhagavata is organised. The structure appears like there have been later insertions at certain places. The earliest known reference to the Bhagavatam is not older than 1000 years.

 

The Bhagavata talks about Krishna in the past-tense and the Buddha in future-tense. It says Vyasa composed it after the death of Krishna, to aid the people of Kali-yuga. And in another place it says that during creation, the Puranas came out of one of the heads of Brahma. Clear contradiction.

 

More later...

[animesh]

I think it is not a good practice to do so much of editing in our sacred texts or any other ancient books. It is perfectly OK to translate them into different languages so that many people can benefit from it, but the meaning should not be changed. If people start changing the contents, then different people will write different things. So, there is bound to be contradictions.

 

I also felt that there are some contradictions. But I may be wrong. May be that if I read everything properly, then I will not find any contradictions. But if changes have really been made, it is not good.

[animesh]

I need help of all you people. I have read various shlokas of puranas and vedas, but at different places. I want them together. Let me start with Srimad Bhagwatam. Could you suggest me where I can get the complete text of Bhagwatam? Web site will also do, but I would prefer a book form, because I do not find it easy to read a huge amount on things on computer screen. But I bet I can read and understand huge amount of things related to software development :-)

 

Even though it is not necessary, I would prefer if I can also get proper translations of the verses into Hindi or English.

[sumeet]

Hare Krishna

Kindly accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

Bhagavatam is a Spotless Vedic authority.

You may not be aware of the fact that Vedic knowledge comes in Disciplic successions. There are four Bonafide disciplic successions which disseminates the vedic knowledge.

 

"Visnuswami, Madhvacarya, Ramanuja and Nimbaditya will appear respectively as a portion of Vamana, Brahma, Ananta Sesha and Sanaka Kumara."

Garga Samhita, Canto 10, chapter 61, verse 24

It is verified in Garga Samhita:

 

vamanas vidih sesah sanako visnu vakyatah

dharmartha hetave caite bhavisyanti dvijah kalau

 

" Vamana, Brahma, Ananta Sesha and Sanaka Kumara will appear as brahmanas by the order of Visnu, for the preservation of eternal righteousness in kali yuga. "

 

visnuswami vamanangsastatha madhvastu brahmanah ramanujastu sesangsa nimbaditya sanakasya ca

 

" Visnuswami, Madhvacarya, Ramanuja and Nimbaditya will appear respectively as a portion of Vamana, Brahma, Ananta Sesha and Sanaka Kumara. "

 

ete kalau yuge bhavyah sampradaya pravartakah

samvatsare vikrama catvarah ksiti pavanah

 

" These four saviours will be the establishers of the four authorised and empowered spiritual channels of disciplic succession in the period calculated from the reign of King Vikrama in 54 B.C. subsequently through the 432,000 year cycle of kali yuga. "

 

sampradaya vihina ye mantraste nisphalah smritah tasmacca gamanang hyasti sampradaya narairapi

 

" These four authorised and empowered spiritual channels of disciplic succession are to be fully accepted by all beings; as any word, combination of words or formulation of sound frequencies, invoked or addressed, audible or inaudible, secret or revealed, ancient or contemporary outside their auspices prove to have absolutely no efficacy."

 

Garga Samhita, Canto 10, chapter 61, verses 23, 24, 25, 26

Furthermore In Padam Puran it is verified that:

 

" Unless you are initiated by a bona-fide spiritual master in the disciplic succession, the mantra that you might have received is without any effect. The four Vaishnava disciplic successions, beginning from Laksmi-devi, Brahma, Shiva and Sanaka Kumara, have purified the entire world. "

 

Furthermore in Nawadwipa Dham Mahatmaya it is stated that:

 

" With a sweet smile on his face Sanat Kumara then said, "The all-merciful Supreme Personality of Godhead, knowing that Kali-yuga will be extremely troublesome for the living entities, resolved to proagate devotional service to Himself. With this goal in mind, He has empowered four personalities with devotion and sent them into this world to preach. Ramanuja, Madhva, and Vishnuswami are three and you are the fourth of these great souls. Lakshmi accepted Ramanuja as a disciple, Brahma accepted Madhva, Rudra a ccepted Vishnuswami and meeting you today we have the good fortune of being able to instruct you. This is our intention. "

 

So Vedic truths are preserved in the Disciplic Succession. Bhagavatam is a heart beat of Gaudiyas and all the vaishnava sampradyas. To tell you about our Brahma Sampradya:

You might be aware of that Madhavacarya took initiation from VedaVyasa the incarnation of Supreme Personality of Godhead Narayana Himself. This incident occured in 13th century A.D. Vyasa Deva the original writer of Srimad Bhagavatam initiated Madhvacarya. Below is Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya

 

LORD KRISHNA[supreme Personality of Godhead]

Brahma

Narada Muni

Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa[supreme Personality of Godhead]

Madhvacarya[Vyas Deva initiated him]

Padmanabha

Narahari

Madhava

Aksobhya

Jayatirtha

Jnanasindhu

Dayanidhi

Vidyanidhi

Rajendra

Jayadharma

Purusottama

Brahmanyatirtha

Vyasatirtha

Laksmipati

Nityananda Prabhu[supreme Personality of Godhead], Madhavendra Puri

Advaita Acarya[supreme Personality of Godhead], Isvara Puri

SRI KRISHNA CAITANYA MAHAPRABHU[supreme Personality of Godhead]

Svarupa Damodara, Sanatana Goswami

Rupa Goswami

Jiva Goswami, Ragunatha Goswami

Krishna das Kaviraj

Narottama

Visvanatha Cakravarti

Baladeva Vidyabhusana

Uddharan Dasa

Madhusudana Dasa

Jagannatha das Babaji

Bhaktivinode Thakura

Gaura Kishore das Babaji

Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati Prabhupada

Bhakti Prajnana Keshava, Bhaktivedanta Swami

Bhaktivedanta Vamana, Bhaktivedanta Narayana

 

To tell you the truth this sampradya is 155 trillion years old. Since Lord VyasDeva's spiritual master was Narada Muni himself who got knowlegde from his father Brahma who inturn got Knoweledge from Lord Krishna Supreme Personality of Godhead, we mention our Guru acaryas from Brahma to Narada to Vyasdeva to Madhavacarya. Efforts are to include all prominent acaryas in the sampradya.

Lord Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is none but that self same eternal Supreme Lord Krishna in mood and complexion of Srimati Radhika. Lord Nityananada Prabhu is self same Supreme Lord Balarama and Advaita Acarya is none but Supreme Personality of Godhead, Maha Vishnu. They all are Parmesvara or Absolute Truth belonging to the Vishnu-tattva. IT IS THE WORD OF LORD KRISHNA CHAITANYA THAT SRIMAD BHAGAVATAM IS A SPOTLESS AUTHORITY ON VEDANTA. Lord Krishna Himself has verified this just some 500 years ago. May be Bhagavatam with all the unauthorised people outside the four sampradyas may be edited, interpolated but the real Bhagavatam is preserved only within the Disciplic succession.

Then why did Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu accept only the doctrine of Sri Madhvacarya?

 

A. The special characteristic of Madhvacarya's doctrine is that it very clearly defeats the faulty mistakes of the advaita philosophy. By maintaining this forceful position, the distress caused by the impersonal philosophy is cast very far away. Therefore, in order to bring about safe and sure benefit for the unfortunate conditioned souls who are weakened from the onslaughts of Kali-Yuga, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu accepted the doctrine of Sri Madhvacarya. But by doing so He did not minimize the importance of the other three vaishnava doctrines whatsoever. Whichever type of savisesa-vada (philosophy of eternal distinction) one accepts is just fine, for it will certainly bring eternal auspiciousness.

 

Sri Gaurahari took two important aspects from the teachings of each of the four sampradayas to explain, through the Dharma of the Sankirtana movement, His ultimate panacea of acintya bhedabheda philosophy. It is very clear that all the preceptors who preached the various aspects of the Absolute Truth before Sri Chaitanya are all subordinate to Him and their teachings and conclusions are incorporated, illuminated and brought to a completed state in Sri Gaurahari's teaching of Prema Dharma. (Sri Gaurahari's own words as quoted by Sri Jiva Goswami)

 

"From Madhva I will take two essential teachings; his complete rejection and defeat of the Mayavadi philosophy and his service to the deity of Krishna accepting Him as an eternal spiritual personality. From Ramanuja I will accept two teachings; the concept of devotional service, unpolluted by karma and jnana, and service to the devotees. From Vishnuswami]s teachings I will accept two elements; the sentiment of exclusive dependence on Krishna and the path of raga-marga or spontaneous devotion. From Nimbarka, I will take two very important principles; the necessity of taking shelter of Srimati Radharani and the high esteem of the gopi's love for Krishna."

 

It was He[Lord Chaitanya] only who predicted that this Krishna Sankirtan of Him will spread to each and every part of the globe. At present we have seen that through hard work of Pure devotees of Supreme Person the sankirtan is spreading to all parts of the globe. I would like to present what Lord Krishna had talked with mother ganges just before departing for His own abode Goloka.

http://www.indiadivine.com/brahma-vaivarta-purana1.htm

This very same Sri Krishna preached Hari bhakti as Lord Chaitanya.

Dear until there remains the disciplic succession unbroken the Vedic texts cannot be changed. The Vedas, Vedangas, Vedanta, and other scriptures have been passed down unchanged from an ancient time, carefully preserved by the disciplic succession. Nothing has been changed or added to the scripture under the care of the disciplic succession. Therefore no one should doubt that the Vedas and other scriptures that are accepted by the bona-fide disciplic succession are authentic. There is a great need for a bona-fide disciplic succession. Therefore from the earliest time the great saints have followed the bona-fide disciplic succession.

Dear with Lord Krishn Himself blessing the earth with His lotus feet just 450 years ago how could such interpolation have taken place. YA! outside the sampradyas people could have done anything but the genuine Vedic knowledge is passed down in the unbroken disciplic succession. If there is problem then Lord Himself takes care of the Sampradya.

 

 

Hope that this meets you well

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

 

[shvu]

 

Dear Sumeet,

 

All the Acharyas mentioned by you came into existence after 1000 AD. The Bhagavatam was already in existence by that time. So it is not surprising that they all refer to the Bhagavatam, as it talks about Bhakti the glory of Krishna, which in essence was their mission. However remember that the earliest Acharyas Shankara and Ramanuja have not referred to the Bhagavatam at all.

 

Quotes from the Bhagavatam talking about it's own greatness is to be expected. Most books are that way. As for refernces to the Bhagavatam in other Puranas, these Puranas are more recent than the Bhagavata.

 

The Bhagavata does not talk about worshipping Radha as divine. The earlier Puranas like Vishnu Purana and Hari-Vamsha do not mention devotion to Radha either. However by the time the other Puranas began to develop, some sects of Krishna worshippers started worshipping Radha [after 800 AD] and so these Puranas contain devotion to Radha as well. The Brahma Vaivarta Purana is the most recent one of them all, with a distinctly different style from the other Puranas.

 

Brahma only tells the creation part to Narda and tells him to develop the Bhagavata. Then Vyasa added to it, and then it has constantly been revised by others to arrive at the present form. So while the origin or the core of the Puranas may be ancient the final form is not.

 

Chaitanya wold most naturally have referred to the Bhagavatam as it contains all that his mission stood for. If he could place importance to a text like the Brahma Samhita, which was unknown, why would he not refer to the Bhagavatam which was already popular? He was not concerned about the authorship and date of the text. The content was what he was focussing on. His mission was to spread Bhakti to Krishna.

 

Also I must add that Chaitanya is an Avatar only to the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. To others he is a Saint like several others. Just like Jesus is the only true God, son of God, etc to the Christians, but not to the others.

 

It is natural that people like to think that their own idol is the real, original and the best one.

 

Animesh,

 

The Puranas can be edited and modified according to changing times. They come under the Smriti. The Vedas are the Shruti, which remain constant for all times and so are not to be changed.

 

You can try reading Tapsyananda's translation which comes in 4 volumes [Ramakrishna Math]. Prabhupada's translation comes in 30 volumes and is good except for the 'Original form', 'Personality of godhead', etc. If you can get around all the sectarian stuff, then that is a very good translation. It is expensive, though.

 

There are several other abridged translations that you can find.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

Dear Ggohil,

 

-------

One must give one’s unconditional and unreserved submission, to experience the Glory.

-------

 

If the intent is to experience the glory, then the submission is not unconditonal. We are being submissive only to get something in return.

 

------

If one’s scrutiny or focus is only on the finger then one will miss the glory of the Moon.

------

 

Good one. I remember this line from Enter the Dragon. Bruce Lee tells this to his student.

 

Cheers

[ggohil]

Hare Krsna

 

Dear Shvu

 

Yes, the saying is a good one. I never did understand it until recently.

-------

 

If the intent is to experience the glory, then the submission is not unconditonal. We are being

submissive only to get something in return.

 

------

 

No, Shvu I thing you have missed the point. Submission is unconditional and is without any expectation. The Glory is the “By Product” of this process.

 

The whole formula breaks down completely as soon as one expect anything in devotion. What

ever you receive must be by product of the devotion without any expectation.

 

I guess this is the difference between the this world and the spiritul world.

 

By the way I received the BG by Swami Vireswaranda.

 

[ggohil]

Jai Sri Krsna

 

Sorry one more line to make the above point clear.

 

The process of Devotion does not stop in the light of not receive anything back in return, hence "unconditional".

 

The process of Devotion is rendered out of Love and Love alone without any obligation or expectation.

 

If one expects anything back in this kind of Love then the relations becomes a material one.

 

[shvu]

 

Yes, that is right.

 

btw I have got hold of my copy of the Bhagavatam. If you need any info from it, let me know.

 

Happy reading,

[sumeet]

Hare Krishna

All glories to Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga

" However remember that the earliest Acharyas Shankara ....."

 

>>>Shankara could not have refered to bhagavat because his advait philosophy is not actually supported by Srimad bhagavatam neither does the Sruti supports it.

 

" As for refernces to the Bhagavatam in other Puranas, these Puranas are more recent than the Bhagavata. "

 

>>> I fully respect your personal claim but it still has to be substantiated by words of Sastra's or bonafide acaryas. Also if some book calls itself great that doesn't means that it is wrong or false. However it is an irrefutable fact that Bhagavat is great so it talks like that.

 

" The Bhagavata does not talk about worshipping Radha as divine. The earlier Puranas like Vishnu Purana and Hari-Vamsha do not mention devotion to Radha either. However by the time the other Puranas began to develop, some sects of Krishna worshippers started worshipping Radha [after 800 AD] and so these Puranas contain devotion to Radha as well."

 

>>> This is wrong because:

In the Chandogya Upanisad (8.13.1) it is said:

"To attain Sri Radha I surrender to Lord Krishna. To attain Lord Krishna I surrender to Sri Radha."

Furthermore why her[srimati Radhika]worship is bonafide because she is:

The goddess of fortune here is Srimati Radharani, who is described in the Purusa-bodhini Upanisad.

" Candravali and Radhika always remain at Lord Krishna's side. Laksmi, Durga, and the Lord's other potencies are expansions of Sri Radhika."

 

The Gautamiya Tantra also explains:

"The transcendental goddess Srimati Radharani is the direct counterpart of Lord Sri Krishna. She is the central figure for the goddess of fortune. She possesses all the attractiveness to attract the all-attractive Personality of Godhead. She is the primeval internal potency of the Lord."

Also,

Brihad-Gautamiya Tantra,which states, "Sri Radhika is the Supreme Goddess. Her very nature is Krishna, for her very existence is permeated by Krishna. Therefore she is known as Krishnamayi or one who is full of Krishna. She is known as Paradevata, for she is the Supreme Goddess. All other goddesses are subordinate to her. She is the Supreme Lakshmi and her transcendental effulgence surpasses all conceptions of brilliance. She is the supreme enchantress, for she enchants Krishna Himself, who is capable of charming millions of cupids."

 

The Brahma Vaivarta Purana is the most recent one of them all, with a distinctly different style from the other Puranas.

 

>>> It is atleast more than 500-600 years old since Lord Chaitanya quoted from it.

It is one of the Upa Purans.

 

" Brahma only tells the creation part to Narda and tells him to develop the Bhagavata. Then Vyasa added to it,"

>>> Supreme Personality of Godhead Narayana told Brahma Srimad Bhagavatam in fourslokas.

Then Brahma explained the Bhagavata based on the Vedic knowledge he acquired from Lord Himself. This vedic texts are apurseya not composed by humans. So he never whimsically eplained Srimad Bhagavat. Narada learned all the Vedic knowledge from Brahma and he told the same to Lord Vyasa, Supreme Personality of Godhead. Then Veda Vyasa ji expanded it into 18000 verses based on Vedanta and not whimsically. Since then Bhagavatam remains as it is. Madhvacarya after taking initiation from Lord Vyasa himself wrote commentary on Bhagavatam. If the Bhagavata on which he wrote commentary was changed or edited then Vyas deva his spiritual master would have never askjed to comment on Bhagavat. Madhvaacarya never said that Bhagavtam has been changing since Srila Vyasa ji wrote it. Neither did Madhvacarya edited Bhagavatam. The sound Vibration coming out of Lord is non-different from Lord Himself since Lord is Absolute. We know from the Sastras that Lord is simultaneously greater than the greatest and yet smaller than the smallest. In the Svetasvatara Upanisad (3.9) it is said:

"There is no truth superior to that Supreme Person because He is the supermost. He is smaller than the smallest and He is greater than the greatest. He is situated as a silent tree, and He illumines the transcendental sky, and as a tree spreads its roots, He spreads His extensive energies."

In the same way the non-different words of Lord can be explained in four verses and also simultaneously in four billion verses, without changing them. This is due to inconcievable nature of the Absolute Person which constitutes His glory. And we know this glory of Him to be unlimited. So Srimad Bhagavat remains as such passed safely in disciplic succession although bhagavat outside the protection of Disciplic succession might had gone changes or editions.

 

" and then it has constantly been revised by others to arrive at the present form."

>>> No one added or subtracted from Bhagavat.

Atleast in the disciplic succession.

 

" Chaitanya wold most naturally have referred to the Bhagavatam as it contains all that his mission stood for. If he could place importance to a text like the Brahma Samhita, "

>>> You wait for that I will prove the authenticity of Brahma Samhita based on infallible sruti sastra.and i will show you the beautiful harmony between Vedanta commentary , Bhagavat, Sruti-Upanisad and Brahma Samhita.

 

"which was unknown, why would he not refer to the Bhagavatam which was already popular? He was not concerned about the authorship and date of the text. The content was what he was focussing on. His mission was to spread Bhakti to Krishna."

>>> This is very absurd comment and under wrong impression you are offending the Supreme Personality of godhead[Lord Chaitanya] Himself.

 

" Also I must add that Chaitanya is an Avatar only to the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. To others he is a Saint like several others. Just like Jesus is the only true God, son of God, etc to the Christians, but not to the others. "

 

>>> All the incarnations of Lord has been decribed in Vedas itself. There is no scope for an impostor to come and claim. You have already gone through Mr. JN Das ji's posting. And also seen the link I provided still can you disbelief. It is the word of Sruti and Supplemenatry Vedic literature. Still you would disbelieve. Dear in a seperate posting I will talk about that matter. Not now since that is off-topic.

 

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

 

 

[sumeet]

Hare Krishna

Kindly Accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet

There is one mistake that I made:

 

"The Brahma Vaivarta Purana is the most recent one of them all, with a distinctly different style from the other Puranas.

 

>>> It is atleast more than 500-600 years old since Lord Chaitanya quoted from it.

It is one of the Upa Purans. "

 

I wrongly called Brahma Vaivarta Puran an Upa puran. It's one of the 18 recognised Purans.

 

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

 

[ggohil]

Hare Krsna

 

Vedic knowledge is like a finger pointing towards the Moon. If one’s scrutiny or focus is only on the finger then one will miss the glory of the Moon.

 

At some point in life, after taking direction from Vedas, one must give one’s unconditional and unreserved submission, to experience the Glory.

[shvu]

 

Dear Sumeet,

 

-------

Shankara could not have refered to bhagavat because his advait philosophy is not actually supported by Srimad bhagavatam neither does the Sruti supports it.

--------

 

Really ? Before proceeding further on this, I would just like to make sure, if you even know what Advaita philosophy is. If you do happen know something about that, we will talk further. The reason being, I have encountered some Gaudiyua Vaishnavas who are 'partial scholars' and have a lot of negative comments on 'Mayavada' without even knowing what it is. They have heard their Gurus talk so, and just go on repeating it.

 

About the Puranas describing the Bhagavata -

If a book describes the Quality of some other book, obviously the referred book is older. Hope that is clear.

 

------

This is wrong because:

In the Chandogya Upanisad (8.13.1) it is said:

"To attain Sri Radha I surrender to Lord Krishna. To attain Lord Krishna I surrender to Sri Radha."

---------

 

The Chandogya Upanishad is part of the Sama Veda and there is no way it can talk about Krishna and Radha. I will confirm that soon.

 

--------

Furthermore why her[srimati Radhika]worship is bonafide because she is:

The goddess of fortune here is Srimati Radharani, who is described in the Purusa-bodhini Upanisad.

" Candravali and Radhika always remain at Lord Krishna's side. Laksmi, Durga, and the Lord's other potencies are expansions of Sri Radhika."

-------

 

The PurushaBodhini Upanishad is not a major Upanishad and came up much later. So I wouldn't consider that as an authority. As for Laxmi being an expansion of Radha, it sounds ridiculous at the least. No offense here, but this is what is meant by Sectarian distortion. Like Prabhupada says elsewhere that Vishnu is an extension of Krishna. It will work well, with people of his own group, but unfortunately will fall flat outside.

 

As for all the other references to the divine aspect of Radha, they are all later than 800 AD. Like I said before that is when the concept of worshipping Radha came up. May I repeat that Hari Vamsha, Vishnu Purana and the Bhagavata have no material on Radha'a divinity ?

 

------

It is atleast more than 500-600 years old since Lord Chaitanya quoted from it.

------

 

That is right. That is the most recent Purana of all the Puranas. When we are discussing time in thousands of years, 500 years old is considered as recent.

 

-------

Then Veda Vyasa ji expanded it into 18000 verses based on Vedanta and not whimsically. Since then Bhagavatam remains as it is. Neither did Madhvacarya edited Bhagavatam.

---------

 

How do you know that Vyasa composed all the 18000 verses ? There is no reference to the Bhagavatam before 800 AD. That does not mean that it is not older than that. But it is a debatable issue.

 

As for Madhva not editing it, the Bhagavata had reached it's final form before Madhva who came later.

 

-------

This is very absurd comment and under wrong impression you are offending the Supreme Personality of godhead[Lord Chaitanya] Himself.

---------

 

Makes me a real rascal. doesn't it ?

I guess I am destined to rot in hell for that.

 

Anyway when you begin to abuse, I would expect you to give reasons. Do that and we will talk further.

 

------

All the incarnations of Lord has been decribed in Vedas itself.

-------

 

I would like to see that for myself. I am always open to new information and have absolutely no hassles in changing my stand, in the light of proper evidence.

 

If Chaitanya was indeed an Avatara as clearly pointed out in the Vedas, then what is stopping the other Vaishnavas from accepting him as Bhagavan ? Think that over.

Just for the record, there are several scholars there too, and they are neither foolish nor arrogant to discard plain straightforward evidence.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

Dear Sumeet,

 

I have a translation of the Chandogya and here is the actual verse. Perhaps you made a mistake ?

 

-----

From the dark (the Brahman of the heart) I come to the nebulous (the world of Brahman), from the nebulous to the dark, shaking off all evil, as a horse shakes his hairs, and as the moon frees herself from the mouth of Rahu. Having shaken off the body, I obtain, self made and satisfied, the uncreated world of Brahman, yea, I obtain it.

 

- Chandogya Upanishad 8.13.1

 

---------

 

The Chandogya is a Principle Upanishad and is part of the Sama Veda. Which by the way was in existence long before the time of Krishna and Radha. How can they talk about them ?

 

Cheers

[sumeet]

Hare Krishna

Accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet

Kindly don't think that I'm abusing you.

Please don't think that way. If you would still think then I fall prostate at your feet and beg for mercy. Please forgive me. I don't give any sort of trouble to any person.

Dear you must see that I'm totally absorbed in the thought that Lord Chaitanya is Supreme Person. And I fully know that Brahma Samhita is a fully bonafide scripture since it is in full accordance with Bhagavata, Upanisads.

So that sort of a comment looks to me absurd from my point of view. You must realize my view as well. If it at all my view is wrong then I shall correct myself. See right now you haven't proven my view to be wrong. Still since I have unknowingly pinched you by some way and I'm now itself begging for mercy then why not if you win I shall accept your view and ask for more mercy. Kindly don't think like that.

 

About Advaita that I will discuss in detail:

For now just tell me if I'm correct or not:

 

Advaita is wholly based on:

1)Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 1.4.10:

"I am Brahman".

 

2)Chandogya Upanisad 6.8.7:

"You are that."

 

3)Aitareya Upanisad 1.5.3:

"Brahman is consciousness."

 

4)ayamAtmA brahma" (muNDaka)

 

And about Bhagavata please listen again:

Veda Vyasa ji's direct disciple is Madhva.

Madhva was initiated by Vyasa. Vyasa ji instructed Him. So Madhva truly would know which is that Bhagavat written by Vyasadeva his own spiritual master from whom he has taken initiation. You must be knowing that Madhva on disappearnce got transfered to Badrika asram where he still lives with Veda Vyasa. Dear Madhva was initiated by Vyasa and instructed by Vyasa to do things. Vyasa is Madhva's spiritual master. Madhva has that real Bhagavat with him because of this only. He personally met Vyasa and took initiation from him and then would go comment on the bhagavat not by His spiritual master. Vyasa being the the incarnation of Narayana know what Madhva is doing? So Vyasa won't allow Him to do that. Especially when after disappearing from material sight Madhva continues to live with Vyasadeva.You know Vyasa would have told him if Bhagavat would have been changed and asked him to comment on the correct one or hand him the correct version if he didn't have one. Again Vyasa is his spiritual master. So how could Madhva didn't have the original Bhagavat of Vyasadeva. Therefore I say although Bhagavat outside the disciplic succession would have changed but within the discplic succession it was always preserved and the Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradya passess from Vyasa to Madhva. And Vyasa being the writer of Bhagavat would have ensured that Madhva His disciple has the correct bhagavta the one which is SPOTLESS. Otherwise Vyasa will become responsible for breaking the disciplic succession. That is UNIMAGINABLE.

 

About that Chandogya reference you could be correct because I cut paste that one from a site where it could have been printed.

No problem with that.

 

And lastly:

" Makes me a real rascal. doesn't it ?

I guess I am destined to rot in hell for that."

 

You were wrong to think like that. I don't think that way. Because I know all of us lack perfection. So all of us are prone to commiting mistakes at lotus feet of Supreme Lord. But as long as one is a devotee like you and me and others here then it would not be a problem since Lord kindly forgives any offenses his devotee commits unknowingly. That is my way of thinking. I know Krishna to be all - merciful. You being a devotee can never go to hell. I will put myself in that condition if I began to think like that.

 

Hope that this meets you well. When I said that all incarnations I meant to say the prominent ones. Which is Lord Himself. Not the Saktyavesa incarnations which flow infinitely from him. For this I have to also ask the higher authorities so after some time I will let you know.

 

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

 

[shvu]

 

Dear Sumeet,

 

I understand what it means to nurture a belief. It is natural to get upset with people who do not see things our way. I am fine with that. And I am sorry if my statements seem Blasphemous [Aparadha].

 

It is my view and I am taking exceptional care not to belittle any Person or System. I am trying to point out certain things based on whatever I know.

 

And frankly the ISKCON statements like 'Forgive this fool', 'Your humble servant', etc make me uncomfortable. They are not required. A person can be labelled a fool, if there are others who can be labeled as intelligent. Since by your earlier definition of fool, everyone is a fool, there is no point in usiing that label. And also, I don't understand the servant concept here.

 

--------

Dear you must see that I'm totally absorbed in the thought that Lord Chaitanya is Supreme Person. And I fully know that Brahma Samhita is a fully bonafide scripture since it is in full accordance with Bhagavata, Upanisads.

--------

 

To each his own belief and I am absolutely ok with that. I never tell anyone to stop looking at their Idol as divine.

 

As for the Advaita part, you have come up with quotes directly from the Shruti. So that clarifies things that Shruti does support Advaita.

 

About Madhva and Vyasa, it is more a question of faith and I will not argue with that. My approach was from an analytical point of view based on time periods, content of the Bhagavata and the existing beliefs and traditions during those times. It is just that I am the skeptical type and tend to question and probe. Otherwise, in my opinion the Bhagavata is a wonderful book and I have always enjoyed reading it.

 

I would still like to see references to Avatars in Shruti. That would be interesting because I always thought that the Avatar concept came from Vyasa's works.

 

Cheers

[ggohil]

Hare Krsna

 

Excuse my ignorance:

 

I would like to know what Advaita means.

 

[shvu]

 

Hello Ggohil,

 

Advaita is the name given to the philosophy where, the soul [Jiva] becomes one with Brahman during enlightenment. Basically there is no difference between Jivatma and Paramatma. It is all Brahman. This is the monistic system, also called as Mayavada by some people.

 

As opposed to this, we have the Dvaita system where the Jivatma is distinct from the Paramatma and always remains so. This is the dualistic system.

 

Shankara established Advaita in India by overthrowing Buddhism. Later Madhva came out with the Dvaita system and he overthrew the Advaita system.

 

I have heard that even to this day, whenever Dvaitis and Advaitis engage in debates, the Dvaitis win 95% of the time. Madhva's Dual system is very robust that way.

 

Vayasa composed the Vedanta Sutras or Brahma Sutras. Interestingly Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva [in that order] all wrote Bhashyas [Commentaries] on the Vedanta Sutras, each different to explain his view-point. That is a spectacular feat and demonstrates that they were people of exceptional intelligence.

 

It is also explained this way,

 

1. The Brahmin priests had become corrupt and sacrificial rites were rampant. The Buddha came in and introduced Non-violence. He also rejected the authority of the Vedas.

 

2. Now Buddhism on account of their missionary activities became popular and Hinduism was taking second place. Shankara came in and interpreted Hinduism the Advaitic way, which came quite close to Buddhism. That way he cleverly bought back the authority of the Vedas. Today if India still remains a Hindu country without turning Buddhist, the credit goes to Shankara.

 

3. But Advaita is clearly not for the masses and the idea of 'I am Brahman' doesn't work well in general. Then Madhva came in and established the Dvaita tradition, which works well for the masses.

 

This pattern is in keeping with Krishna's 'Whenever Dharma declines, I take Birth to restore Dharma'.

 

You can find a lot of Info about these systems on the net.

 

Cheers

[ggohil]

Hare Krsna

 

Thanks Shvu

 

How did Advaita differ from the Buddhism?

 

[shvu]

 

Hello Ggohil,

 

The Buddhists have no concept of a Brahman or Paramatma. There is the soul and depending on it's past Karma, it keeps reincarnating. When a person gives up desire, then Karma stops adding on, and eventually the soul is liberated into Niravana after which it is not born again. Niravana to the Buddhists is a void. The path is controlling desire, practising non-violence, etc.

 

Advaita has the concept of Brahman, which is also the paramatman and the Atman [soul]. Everthing is explained in accordance with Shruti and the final point is the Atman giving up the illuions of Maya and becoming the Universal Brahman, which is considered as immortality. The path is discrimination and Bhakti.

 

Bascally Shankara interpreted Scriptures to explain things the Buddha way, to bring back the Buddhists to hinduism. You should be able to find people to explain the differences and similarities in detail

in some of the Advaita web sites.

 

The Buddha did not encourage questions on creation, how the whole thing came about, etc. His answer was "If your house is on fire, will you focus on putting out the fire or instead, will you start analysing the cause of the fire ? "

 

Cheers

[sumeet]

Hare Krishna

Please Accept my obesiances unto you lotus feet.

 

Dear Shivji

Don't worry I didn't find your statements blasphenmous. Dear a vaishnava never expects any personal honor yet is ready to give all respect to all other creatures. A vaishnava only speaks when Supreme Lord's or His pure devotee is being blasphemous. Still he must show tolerance, respect and mercy.

 

" About Madhva and Vyasa, it is more a question of faith and I will not argue with that.."

>>> Again my point was not clear I guess. Dear it is not at all a "question of faith ". Srila Madhva is Srila Vyasadeva's

disciple. If you have a disciple and you have written a book, won't you provide your disciple with your own book ? So why not Vyasa will provide Madhva with Bhagavata that He composed rather than leaving Madhva write a commentary on a bogus version. This is disciplic succession. It is as simple as that. It is very reasonable and perfectly logical but I don't uunderstand that why you call it a question of faith. Also if you have some doubts regarding Bhagavta's style then kindly contact some bonafide highly advanced Gaudiya acarya for clarification of your doubts.

 

About avatars you must wait. Since I have to consult higher authorities for that matter.

 

" And frankly the ISKCON statements like 'Forgive this fool', 'Your humble servant', etc make me uncomfortable. They are not required. A person can be labelled a fool, if there are others who can be labeled as intelligent. Since by your earlier definition of fool, everyone is a fool, there is no point in usiing that label. And also, I don't understand the servant concept here. "

>>> About those things we shall discuss later. They are of secondary imporatnce when compared to:

Discussion on

1)Advaita Vedanta.

2)Lord Krishna

3)And Transcendental form of God.

4)Authorization of Brahma Samhita.

which we are presently having.

 

" As for the Advaita part, you have come up with quotes directly from the Shruti. So that clarifies things that Shruti does support Advaita. "

>>> I just wrote them so that you could tell me if I have any knowledge about Advaita or not. Since you know Advaita I just wanted to confirm whether the knowledge I possessed was correct or not. Also this knowledge I got from Gaudiya Acaryas. They very well know what Advaita is. Also since you arE LIBERAL MINDED PERSON i WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS adviata with you based on knowledge from Gaudiya acaryas, Swami Vivekanda and general advaitic tenets. Do you agree ?

Dear I would put what my knowledge about what Advaita is and what personal problem I have encountered in understanding it. Since you know advaita I think your company might be good enough for me to clarify my doubts at least to some extent.

As for now I have a question for you-

" Advaita is the name given to the philosophy where, the soul [Jiva] becomes one with Brahman during enlightenment."

>>> Yes. As far as I have heard it Advaitins say that considering atman different from God is our illusion. The ignorance is that we consider ourselves different from God. When we are fixed in realization of oneness[at time enlightenment] then all illusion disappears and we merge back into God the Absolute. That is we become God. Am I correct ?

 

" Basically there is no difference between Jivatma and Paramatma. It is all Brahman. This is the monistic system, also called as Mayavada by some people. "

>>> So is that we[i , you, Mr. Goghil and others] all are God the Brahman the Greatest The Absolute. There is no " REAL " difference between me and God. I"M ATMAN. ATMAN IS BRAHMAN. SO I'M BRAHMAN OR GOD HIMSELF. Isn't that the basis of Advaitic philosophy ?

 

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

 

 

 

[shvu]

 

Dear Sumeet,

 

>I don't understand why you call it a >question of faith.

 

Let me explain.

 

Madhva's Guru was AchyutaPrakashacharya and not Vyasa. Madhva according to the biography, travelled to Badarikashrama and met Vyasa, who instructed him to write the Bhashyas on the Gita.

 

I personally don't believe these things. Apparently Vyasa also met Shankara. Shankara's initial life-span was only 16 years. Then Vyasa and some other Rishis met him and doubled his life-span to 32 years, because he had to fulfil a mission.

 

Going by this, Vyasa was around during the time of Krishna [atleast 5000 years back], then during the time of Shankara [700 Ad], then again during the time of Madhva [1200 Ad]. The biography also says that Madhva disappeared and is now in Badarikashrama serving Vyasa in person.

 

I am not the believing type, so I refuse to accept such information as true. It sounds like cooked up information to promote their Acharyas. It may be true or false. But the fact remains that it cannot be proved and I am very skeptical about it.

 

Do you believe that Jesus was the only true son of God, as the Bible says ? Do you believe that he walked on water and came back from the dead ? If not, why ? The Bible happens to be an older authority than Shankara, Madhva and Chaitanya. Would you believe it, if some Guru now suddenly claims that he met Vyasa yesterday evening ? Again if not, why ?

 

So now you see why I call it a question of faith.

 

About Advaita Vedanta, my knowledge is very limited and I am not the person to clarify doubts. I recommend www.advaita-vedanta.org Vivekananda's philosophy is not actually Adviata although it may appear so. It is termed as Neo-Vedanta, and is his own and appears to be liked by several people.

 

Transcendental form of God:

Like I said before, Transcendental cannot be conceived and so Acintya Rupam is contradicting itself. We cannot talk about or imagine aything that is Transcendental, so let us not talk about it. Anything that we have to imagine or say about it, will invariably be false.

 

4)Authorization of Brahma Samhita.

Yes, I am looking forward to that.

 

>They very well know what Advaita is.

 

I am sure that there are lots of Acharyas who know what Advaita is. Unfortunately there are some who know nothing about it, and just ridicule Advaita, because they think that is what they should be doing. It would be futile to talk to them, and that is why I was checking that.

 

> we become God. Am I correct ?

 

Not quite. Advaita says that everything is Brahman and all division is Maya, which is right.

 

The sanskrit word Maya means 'to measure'. That means that for the universe to exist a reference point is required, from which the Universe is seen. Absence of Maya, is absence of a reference point and then there is no division. Then there is no Universe, no concept of a God and so 'Becoming God' is not right.

 

I"M ATMAN. [Yes, according to all systems]

ATMAN IS BRAHMAN. [Yes according to all systems]

So I'M BRAHMAN [Yes again, and this where all the confusion begins. It is to be understood correctly as explained above]

I AM GOD HIMSELF [No, as explained above]

 

Again I am no authority on Advaita . So I am not competent enough to talk in depth, about it.

 

Cheers

 

 

[sumeet]

Hare Krsna!!!

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet.

" Madhva's Guru was AchyutaPrakashacharya and not Vyasa. Madhva according to the biography, travelled to Badarikashrama and met Vyasa, who instructed him to write the Bhashyas on the Gita."

>>> I guess you don't know that Achyuta Prakash ji was a mayavadi. Soon afterward, when his guru attempted to educate him, he astounded the former by his knowledge. It is said that when his guru tried to teach him the noted Advaita text IshhTa-Siddhi, he pointed out, to Achyutapreksha Tîrtha's amazement, that there were 30 errors in the very first line of that work, where its author Vimuktâtman pays obeisance to himself by saying something like: "The only truth is the soul's empirical knowledge. In the presence of this truth the world appears to be an illusory play. The essential soul manifests itself as I, you and everything..." It was this profound knowledge of all subjects that earned him the title of "PûrNa-pragnya," for "the one of complete wisdom." The initially discomfited but finally greatly pleased Achyutapreksha Tîrtha soon gave up trying to educate the master, and himself made a full conversion to Tattvavâda, under the name Purushottama Tîrtha.

 

So Achutya ji was not able to instruct Madhva. And on the other hand Vyasa Deva instructed Madhva. So Although Madhva was given initiation by Acyuta ji, the Gaudiya Vaisnavas place more stress on the relationship between Madhva and Vyasadeva. This is because the siksa he acquired from Vyasa was of more importance from the transcendental perspective than that which he accepted from Acyuta Praksacarya.

 

Furthermore there was no contemparary of Madhvacarya who debated this or not accepted this. It was accepted as fact then. Madhva is not "some" Guru. In our times his place is regarded as one of the greatest acaryas of Vedanta. And also no scholar has ever debated this issue. There is no doubt about that. All acharyas since the time of Madhva, although greatly learned in Vedanta accepted this. No one ever gave any evidence refuting this. So it is undebatle despite your non-believing which you are free to do and I fully respect. For anything there are two possibilities that either they are wrong or right. But why an acarya of status of Madhva would lie. To consider this as lie. One is offending a Pure Vaishnava. And the other option is that either we beleive it or simply reamian indifferent. Try to analyse:

in 13th Century. Madhva made trip to Badrikaasram. No one then denied that he hadn't. No contemparary says that Madhva lied. All accepted it as a fact. This is the proof. Had it been debatable then the debate would have been mentioned in the history. But we find no such debate regarding Madhva.

No acarya or scholar debated this. Neither do the authentic sources - historian point out that at some time any such debate occured. Neither were you there nor was I there. But those who were there never debated. Those after them never debated. No one ever came up with any evidence refuting it. Hence it is truth. Because had there been any thing wrong ? there were many scholars and acaryas who came after Madhva and there were many others who were present at the time of Madhva. But they nerve debated. They never said that Madhva you are lieing. This is the proof.

 

 

And about Advaita. We shall discuss it under a seperat topic so that other interested may contribute.

 

 

With Love

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

 

[viji_53]

No where in Bhagavat you can see Radha as incarnation of Goddess Lakshmi. Radha is an extrordinary jivatma who attained Lord Krishna out of pure love & devotion. Radha is a typical example for us to attain God through simple & pure love. Krishna cares for our pure love & devotion & not for anything else.The union of jivatma with Paramatma can be attained by devotion is represented by RadhaKrishna.