PDA

View Full Version : Appearance of narayana,siva from krishna with pramanas(proofs) from tantra,puranas.



khari
06 January 2010, 01:41 PM
Namaste,

This is from the brahma vaivarta purana which states that before lord krishna
created the entire vishva ,there was darkness everywhere and there was no living beings.
At first from him came the 3 gunas,then narayana appeared from him.

Avirbabhuuva tatpaschaat narayana svayam
shrikrishnapurataha sthitvaa tushtaava tam putaanjalih
(brahma vaivarta ,1.3.6)

After that, Narayana appeared from Krishna,then standing with folded hands he glorified the lord.

Avirbabhuuva tatpaschadaatmano vaama paarsvatah
shuddha sphatika sankaasha panchavaktro digambarah

trishuulapattisha Dharo japamaalakarah parah
shrikrishnapurataha sthitvaa tushtaava tam putaanjalih


Then from the left side of krishna , siva appeared with five heads holding japamala
and trishul and he too glorified the lord similarly

Similarly lord brahma and other devataas and lakshmi,sarasvati appeared .


Trikoti devataa avirbhavah :

trikoti sura suraahstrikoti sankhyaataa
divya muurti dharaa varah avirbabhuuvuh sahasaah
pumso vai prushtadeshatah
(brahma vaivarta purana)

Then 3crore devatas and devii's appeared from the prushta(back side) of krishna.

Now the pramanas(proofs) ---

e te caamsha kalaa pumsah krishnastu bhagavan swayam (bhaagavat)

All these avataras are krishna's sixteenth part of the part(amsh) of
krishna but krishna is svayam bhagavan.

Note : Before shukdev rshi spoke this shloka ,he described all the 21 avatars
and after that he says krishna is svayam bhagavan.
There is avataari and avatar,avataari means one who takes those avatars
and avatar means one has appeared from him. So krishna is avataari.


Bramha vishnu sivadeenam iishvarah prakruteh parah
sarveshvarascha sarvaadyah sarvavit sarvaroopadhruk.
(brahma vaivarta)

He is the ishvara of brahma ,vishnu and siva and the origin of them. He is
sarvaroopadhruk (one who takes all these avatars) and cause of all .


Mahavishnuh sa vijneyo shrikrishna shodashaamshakah (brahma vaivarta)

Even maha vishnuh is krishna's 16'th part (amsh).


Bhrubhanga leelamaatrena vishnu kotim srujettu yaha (brahma vaivarta)

durga says -- With the frown(raising up) of eye-brow,krishna can create karodo vishnus.


Sarveshaam avataaraanam pradhanam bijamavyayam
sarveshvaro'asi tvam tatvarah naasti vishvatah (brahma vaivarta)

In the same puraan sanatkumara says --- you are the cause of all avatars
and ishvara of all and there is no one greater above you.


paripoornatamah sakshaacreekrishno naanya eva hi (garga samhita)

Only krishna is paripoorna avatar and no one(naanya) else.


atah sarvaavataaranam kaaranam krishna ucyate (saatvata tantram)

Therefore krishna is the cause of all avatars.


sadaashiva mahavishnu brahmaaadi karakaha (krishna yaamal, a tantra)

krishna said - I am the cause of brahma,vishu and siva


Ishvarah paramaha krishnah sacchidaananda vighraha
anaadiraadirgovindah sarvakaranakaaranam
( Brahma samhita)

Brahma says - you having a divine form of ananda for you there is no cause .
note - No cause means for his existence there is no cause,he being the cause of all causes

-------------------

I have written a book on telugu naming krishna mahima stating even
many things like how krishna removed the ahankaar of vishu,siva
when they felt they are the ishvara's of universe.
my ph - 9676847784

There are misconceptions ---
1. that krishna is just a cowherd(gopal) boy.
2. he is an avatar of vishnu
3. he is not the supreme lord.

I being a pandit i have read more than 12 puraanas,7-8 smritis ..etc and
no where in the puranas,upanishads or smritis exist a sloka stating that
Vishnu or siva is the ishvar of krishna (or) krishna appearing from siva/vishnu.

So,from the pramanas of shastras it is clearly understood.

harekrishna....
-----------------------------

Eastern Mind
06 January 2010, 08:21 PM
Vannakam khari: Welcome. I hope you enjoy your stay here within these forums. I'm sure you'll find us a diverse group.

Aum namasivaya

Krsna Das
07 January 2010, 02:01 AM
Dandavat Pranamas !

Really a very good post. It is a jewel !

ranjeetmore
30 January 2010, 03:31 PM
very correct !

The appearance of Sri Shankara RIGHT AFTER the appearance of Sri Narayana is significant to note.This is also confirmed in the Devi Bhagavatam.
Thus Sri Sadashiva is actually indifferent from Sri Krsna just as Narayana is indifferent from Sri Krsna.

Thus Narayana,Sadashiva and Durga are depicted in Their puranas as the Supreme Controllers and the origin of Brahma,Visnu and Mahesa-the three guna-avataras.

Ramachandra and Sri Krsna are Themselves Leela-purushottamam and thus appear as worshippers of any of these three eternal Forms when They appear as Humans on earth,but in their respective abodes,They are worshipable by these three forms of God- Naryana,Durga and Shankara.

saidevo
31 January 2010, 02:09 AM
Hare KRShNA!

Here is a brief about life and legend of shrI KRShNA from the compilation 'PurANic Encyclopedia' by VeTTam MaNi:

Birth
Born in the YAdava dynasty as the son of Vasudeva and DevakI, shrI KRShNA was the ninth of the ten incarnations of MahAviShNu.

Genealogy
Descended from ViShNu thus:
BrahmA--Atri--Chandra--Budha--PurUravas--Ayus--Nahusha--YayAti--Yadu--Sahasrajit--Satajit--Hehaya--Dharma--Kunti--Bhadrasena--Dhanaka--KrtavIrya--KartavIryArjuna--Jayadhvaja--TAlajangha--VItihotra--Ananta--Durjaya--YudhAjit--Sini--Satyaka--SAtyaki (YuyudhAna)--Jaya--KuNi--Anamitra--PRShni--Chitraratha--VidUratha--SUra--Sinibhoja--HrdIka--SUrasena--Vasudeva--shrI KRShNA.

Ten sons called Vasudeva, DevabhAga, Devashravas, Anaka, Srnjaya, KAkAnIka, SyAmaka, Vatsa, KAvUka and Vasu were born to King SUrasena by his wife MArishA. Of those ten sons Vasudeva married DevakI, the sister of KaMsa. He had also a second wife called RohinI and she was the mother of BalabhadrarAma.

shrI KRShNA's former births

Owing to a curse of VaruNa, KashyapaprajApati was born on earth as Vasudeva and Kashyapa's wives Aditi and Surasa were born as DevakI and RohinI.

Like this shrI KRShNA also had previous births. Once upon a time from the heart of BrahmA was born the PrajApati called Dharma, who was very truthful and wedded to righteous living according to the injunctions of the Vedas. He wedded the ten daughters of DakShaprajApati, and four sons called Hari, KRShNA, Nara and NArAyaNa were born to him. Hari and KRShNA turned out to be great Yogins, and Nara and NArAyaNa ascetics.

NaraNArAyaNas performed penance to please BrahmA for a thousand years at BadarikAshrama in the valley of the HimAlayas. Celestial women, whom Indra had deputed to break their penance, approached them and requested the men to take them as their wives.

Ascetic NArAyaNa who got angry at the celestial women's request was about to curse them when sage Nara intervened and pacified him.

Then sage NArAyaNa told them thus: "You must protect my Vrata (penance) in this life. In that case, in the next birth I shall satisfy your desire. In the 28th DvAparayuga I will be incarnating on earth on behalf of the Devas. Then you also may be born as princesses. I shall incarnate as KRShNA in the Yadu dynasty and marry all of you.(BhAgavata, 4th Skandha).

Accordingly sage NArAyaNa was born as shrI KRShNA in the Yadu dynasty, and sage Nara was born as Arjuna to be his companion.

The curse of Bhrgu the great sage also contributed to MahAviShNu's incarnating himself as shrI KRShNA. Once in a war which lasted for 100 years between the Devas and the Asuras most of the latter were killed. Then Sukra, preceptor of the Asuras went to Mount KailAsa to secure exceptional weapons, and the Asuras took refuge under KAvyamAtA, the mother of Sukra. Devendra sought MahAviShNu's aid, and he cut off KAvyamAtA's head with his Chakra (discus). Bhrgu was enraged at this killing of a woman. He cursed that MahAviShNu should be born as man. Owing to various reasons like the above MahAviShNu happened to be born as man in the YAdava dynasty, as the son of Vasudeva. (DevI BhAgavata, 5th Skandha).

Birth of shrI KRShNA

The Asuras killed in the old Devasura war were later born as cruel and evil Kings on earth. The burden of such Kings having become too much for her, goddess Earth, in the guise of a cow complained about it to BrahmA who took her to Shiva who too could not find a solution to the problem posed by BhUmidevI. So, all of them accompanied by the Devas approached MahAviShNu and prayed for the redress of their grievance. MahAviShNu sent them back comforted by the assurance that he would be born as the son of Vasudeva and DevakI to solve the problem. He also arranged the Devas to be born as Gopas and the ApsarA women as GopikAs on earth for his assistance.

KRShNA's marriages
KRShNA--RukmiNI

King BhIshmaka of Vidarbha had five sons the eldest of whom was RukmI. His sixth child was a daughter and she was named RukmiNI. Stories about KRShNA kindled in RukmiNI love for him. RukmI, who hated KRShNA, wanted to give his sister in marriage to SishupAla. RukmiNI sent through a brahmin a message about the affair to DvArakA. On the day of RukmiNI's SvayaMvara Rama and KRShNA also went to KuNDinapurI, capital of Vidarbha, and KRShNA, in the presence of all Kings, carried RukmiNI away in his chariot. The Kings who, under the leadership of RukmI, attacked KRShNA were routed. A son called Pradyumna was born to KRShNA by RukmiNI.

KRShNA--JAmbavatI

Prasena, brother of the YAdava King SatrAjit, went for hunting wearing on him the gem called Syamantaka presented to the latter by the Sun-god. JAmbavAn saw a lion carrying off the gem after killing Prasena. He killed the lion, recovered the gem from it and gave it to his children to play with. A rumour was spread that it was KRShNA who had killed and stolen the gem. KRShNA searched for the gem in the forest and found it out in the cave of JAmbavAn. In the duel that ensued between JAmbavAn and KRShNA the former was defeated. He recognised KRShNA to be the Lord, and presented Syamantaka and also his daughter JAmbavatI to KRShNA and JAmbavatI thus became KRShNA's wife.

KRShNA--SatyabhAmA

shrI KRShNA returned Syamantaka to SatrAjit and he, in return, gave his daughter SatyabhAmA in marriage to KRShNA. Though Syamantaka was given to KRShNA by way of dowry he did not accept it. (BhAgavata, 1Oth Skandha).

KRShNA--KAlindI

The happy news that the PANdavas had escaped from the lac palace and were living at KhANDavaprastha took sometime to reach KRShNA, who had been pained to know that they were burned to death in the palace. As soon as KRShNA knew that the PANdavas were safe at Khandavaprastha he went to them along with YAdava chiefs like SAtyaki and others.

It was then that the fire-god Vahni, requested Arjuna for the KhANDava forest for his food and Arjuna consented to it. It was KRShNA who drove Arjuna's chariot in his fight with Indra at the burning of the forest by Agnideva. Arjuna saved Maya from the KhANDava fire and Maya, in return for the kindness, built a palace for the PANdavas at Indraprastha. KRShNA also lived there for a few days. One day while KRShNA was strolling on the banks of the KAlindI in the company of Arjuna they saw a woman, who told them that her name was KAlindI and that she would marry none but KRShNA. KRShNA then took her as his wife. After staying at Indraprastha for three or four months KRShNA returned to DvArakA with KAlindI. (BhAgavata, 10th Skandha).

KRShNA--SatyA

King Nagnajit of Kosala, father of SatyA, had seven oxen like elephants in strength. The King proclaimed that his daughter would be married to the person who would tie down the oxen. Various Kings attempted the task but failed. Ultimately Arjuna and KRShNA went to Kosala and KRShNA assumed seven forms and tied down the oxen with cords. The seven oxen at once fell down. KRShNA took SatyA for his wife.

KRShNA-KaikeyI (BhadrA)

KRShNA married Kaikeyi, the daughter of SrutakIrti, sister of KRShNA's father.

[b]KRShNA-LakShMaNA. LakShMaNA, daughter of King of Madra chose KRShNA at her SvayaMvara and she became KRShNA's wife.

[b]KRShNA-i6000 women

BrahmA had given the boon to the 16000 daughters of NarakAsura in their previous birth that VishNu would marry them in their next birth. While even the Devas were suffering on account of NarakAsura, shrI KRShNA along with SatyabhAmA mounted GaruDa, went to PrAgjyotisha, the kingdom of NarakAsura, defeated him in fight and released his 16000 daughters from captivity. He returned with them to DvArakA, assumed the guise of 16000 men and married those 16000 girls. He built a palace for each of his 16000 wives.

KRShNA's 16008 wives

The eight women, i.e. RukmiNI, JAmbAvatI, SatyabhAmA, KAlindI, MitravindA, SatyA, KaikeyI (Bhadra), LakShmaNA and the 16000 daughters of NarakAsura constituted KRShNA's wives. (The 16000 daughters of NarakAsura are not mentioned by name in the PurANas).

KRShNA's progeny

Ten sons were born to each of the eight chief wives from RukmiNI to LakShmaNA of KRShNA. Names of the chief among those eighty sons are given below.

1. Of RukmiNI--Pradyumna, ChArudekshNa, SudekshNa, ChArudeha, SuchAru, ChArugupta, BhadrachAru, ChAruchandra, AtichAru, ChAru.

2. Of JAmbavatI--SAmba, Sumitra.

3. Of SatyabhAmA--BhAnu, SubhAnu, SvarbhAnu, PrabhAnu, BhAnumAn, ChandrabhAnu, BrhadbhAnu,
HavirbhAnu, SrIbhAnu, PratibhAnu.

4. Of KAlindI--Sruta.

5. Of MitravindA--VrkahaMsa.

6. Of SatyA--BhAnuchandra.

7. Of BhadrA--SangrAmachitta.

8. Of LakShmaNA--Praghosha.

A daughter called RukmAvatI was born to RukmI, brother of RukmiNI. Pradyumna married RukmAvatI and Aniruddha was their son. It was this Aniruddha, who wedded Usha. ChArumatI, the daughter of RukmiNI, was married by the son of Krtavarman. (BhAgavata, 10th Skandha).

NArada tests KRShNA

NArada wanted to know how KRShNA managed to live with all his 16008 wives. For this purpose he visited their houses and NArada was wonder-struck to find KRShNA engaged in conversation with his wives in all the houses he visited. (BhAgavata, 10th Skandha).

GAndhArI curses KRShNA

Most of the heroes and distinguished archers like Duryodhana had been killed in the great war, and GAndhArI overwhelmed with grief and anger at the death of her sons lamented over them loudly. She realised that KRShNA was the cause of all the destruction and cursed him as follows: "If I have gained any powers by my loyal and devout service to my husband, O! KRShNA I curse you on the strength of that power. Since you forsook relations like the Kauravas and the PANDavas who quarrelled with each other, you also will have to witness the killing of relations. Thirty-six years from today your relations, ministers and sons will be killed, and you too will be killed by a hunter in the forest. Your women-folk also will cry as we women cry now." (Stri Parva, Chapter 25).

The curse of GAndhArI that the YAdava dynasty would be annihilated after thirty-six years was fulfilled. In the thirty-sixth year another curse also befell the dynasty which contributed further to its annihilation.

Death of BalabhadrarAma aad KRShNA

During this period Balabhadra went and seated himself under a tree in deep meditation. KRShNA stood near him. DAruka and Babhru also arrived there. KRShNA deputed DAruka to HastinApura to inform Arjuna about the annihilation of the YAdava race. Then KRShNA went to the palace and consoled the women-folk there. When he told them that Arjuna would come and take care of them, his wives shed tears. KRShNA then took leave of VAsudeva and returned to Balabhadra. KRShNA saw even at a distance a white serpent coming out of Balabhadra's mouth and moving away to PAtAla through the sea. The serpent which was the soul of Balabhadra was duly received by the prominent NAgas in PAtAla. KRShNA roamed about the forest for some time and then lay down on the ground immersed in Yoga with his feet raised up. An Asura called Jara, who saw KRShNA's raised feet from a distance mistook the same for a deer and shot it with his arrows. KRShNA expired at once and rose up in the guise of ViShNu to VaikuNTha. (Mausala Parva) .

After KRShNA's death

• Arjuna came to DvArakA and cremated KRShNA. (Mausala Parva, Chapter 7, Verse 31) .

• After his death KRShNA, lives in the guise of NArAyaNa in the divine sphere. (Svargarohana Parva, Chapter 5, Verses 24-26).

• Anointed queens like RukmiNI and JAmbavatI and some other wives of KRShNA entered his funeral pyre and ended their lives. (Mausala Parva, Chapter 7, Verses 73 and 74).

• While Arjuna was leading the remaining wives of KRShNA away from DvArakA forest-dwellers attacked them on the way. But the women, to escape from their clutches, ran off and jumped into the river SarasvatI and died in its waters. Their souls entered heaven (Svargarohaiia Parva, Chapters, Verse 25).

**********

Asto the Vedic references about KRShNa, check this post:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=35871&postcount=1

smaranam
31 January 2010, 08:17 PM
Namaste Saidevoji

Trying to connect the historicity in the puranas is always interesting.



Owing to a curse of VaruNa, KashyapaprajApati was born on earth as Vasudeva and Kashyapa's wives Aditi and Surasa were born as DevakI and RohinI.

I thought Kashyap was a rshi/muni, a sage, but did not know he was a Prajapati. Does that make him a Manvantara avatAr ? (One appointed Prajapati,Indra , Vyasa , .... official positions for each Manvantara cycle)

Also, Devaki was Prshni and Vasudeva was ? (I forget). They performed penance so that Bhagvan Sri Vishnu will be born to them as a son. Hence He (Vishnu) is known as Prsnhi-garbha (born from the womb - garbha of Prshni)

Vishnu was born to Aditi, hence "among [the 12] Adityas, I am Vishnu" says Krshna in Vibhuti Yoga Gita Ch 10.



Then sage NArAyaNa told them thus: "You must protect my Vrata (penance) in this life. In that case, in the next birth I shall satisfy your desire. In the 28th DvAparayuga I will be incarnating on earth on behalf of the Devas. Then you also may be born as princesses. I shall incarnate as KRShNA in the Yadu dynasty and marry all of you.(BhAgavata, 4th Skandha).


This is interesting I did not know. That explains the births of the Queens (mahisis). The sages of DandakAranya wanted to be Sri RAma's consorts just like Devi SitA . Since He had eka-patnivrata, He promised them that they will be born as gopis when He incarnates in DvApar Yuga as Sri KrshNa.

Some of the other gopis were deva kanyAs. Which are also celestial damsels in a way, but with some difference.

Another story says Radha was really IndrA's wife Sachi whom Vishnu promised the same - be a gopi when I take birth as Sri KrshNa is DvApar Yuga. I do not know what to make of this.
Yet, Radha being none other than KrshNa , His pleasure potency, HlAdini Shakti does not get negated by this story if we view everything as sourced from the same Brahman/AtmA. Indra is non-different from Vishnu then.
Honestly, when the jiva bird casts its jivaness, sky is the limit, then what jiva and what Shakti ?


All this tells me that its the same Supreme who multiplies into many beings, Indra , Varuna, Agni, all PrajApatis, all VyAsas, all Chiranjivis, all Manvantara AvatArs, all amshas, all shaktyavesha avataars, all vibhutis, and so on upto all sentient beings. The Supreme is the Gold that makes them sentient.



The curse of Bhrgu the great sage also contributed to MahAviShNu's incarnating himself as shrI KRShNA. ........ Owing to various reasons like the above MahAviShNu happened to be born as man in the YAdava dynasty, as the son of Vasudeva. (DevI BhAgavata, 5th Skandha).



Asto the Vedic references about KRShNa, check this post:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=35871&postcount=1

I read this post some days ago, and its very good to read Rg Veda references to Sri KrshNa. Do these references refer to the historical KrshNa
of DvApara Yuga or are they meant to be a reference to the Eternal ParamAtmA ? Perhaps such questions should not be asked or entertained , I don't know, but are natural consequence.

As long as Sri KrshNa is ParamAtmA , and Vedic Hymns are written for Him,
with chhanda (meter), keelakam (key), devtA (presiding Deity) , nyAsa etc.
it is probably outside the realm of time and chronology.

But then VishnuSahasranAma , DurgAkavacha etc. are part of MahabhArat , which is ItihAs, which is within time.

Also very interesting to note are the Bhagavad GIta DhyAna (Jaya/Mahabharat) and Bhagavad GIta MahAtmya (VArAha PurAna) which say some beautiful things -

Like : wherever the Gita is recited with faith and dedication, all the devAs, gopas , gopis, Uddhav, Arjun are all present along with the ParamAtmA , to assist.


praNAm

ScottMalaysia
05 February 2010, 09:03 AM
Namaste khari,

One point I'd like to make: In a debate, only Shruti is admissable. Shruti consists of the Vedas and Upanishads.

Krsna Das
05 February 2010, 10:22 AM
Namaste khari,

One point I'd like to make: In a debate, only Shruti is admissable. Shruti consists of the Vedas and Upanishads.

Smriti is the summary of Vedas and Upanishads, and are therefore considered as a sabda-praman, just like vedas.

Infact, if there is any contradiction between the meaning of verses in different vedic literature, SriMad Bhagwatam is considered as an authority, which is the essense of whole vedic literature. Srimad Bhagwatam is considered Smriti.

Otherwise, Srila Vyasadeva had already divided vedas into 4 parts and then compiled each veda, and then again compiled the 108 upanishads, but he never felt satisfaction in his heart. Only when he composed Bhagwatam, he felt satisfaction. Why?

saidevo
05 February 2010, 11:21 AM
pramANam vedAshcha
Vedas are the proof.
--Apasthambha Sutra

vedokhilo dharma mUlam
Vedas are the roots of all dharma.
--Manu Smriti

vEdaischa sarvairahamEvavEdyo:
I am known through the Vedas.
--Bhagavad GItA

From "The teachings of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu" by Bhaktivinode Thakura
http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/siksa/index.html

shrI PrabhupAda, whose masterpiece is his exhaustive translation of shrImad BhAgavatam, himself has on many occasions highlighted the authority of the Vedas as the final word, as the above links indicate.

svatah pramana veda- pramana-siromani
laksana haite svatah pramanata hani

The self-evident Vedic literatures are the highest evidence of all, but if these literatures are interpreted, their self-evident nature is lost.
--C.C. Adi 7,139

pramanera madhye sruti pramana pradhana
sruti ye mukhyartha kahe sei se pramana svatah pramana veda yei satya kahe
laksana karile svatah pramanya hani haye

Although there is other evidence, the evidence given in the Vedic version must be taken as foremost. Vedic versions understood directly are first-class evidence. The Vedic statements are self-evident. Whatever is stated there must be accepted. If we interpret according to our own imagination, the authority of the Vedas is immediately lost.
--C.C.Madhya 6,135,137


Smriti is the summary of Vedas and Upanishads, and are therefore considered as a sabda-praman, just like vedas.

Infact, if there is any contradiction between the meaning of verses in different vedic literature, SriMad Bhagwatam is considered as an authority, which is the essense of whole vedic literature. Srimad Bhagwatam is considered Smriti.

Otherwise, Srila Vyasadeva had already divided vedas into 4 parts and then compiled each veda, and then again compiled the 108 upanishads, but he never felt satisfaction in his heart. Only when he composed Bhagwatam, he felt satisfaction. Why?

Krsna Das
05 February 2010, 01:12 PM
Very good post indeed, sai devo ji, with proper pramanas from Shastra.

None of the pramana mentioned above establish that puranas should not be considered as an authority.

Puranas shouldn't be considered a seperate authority from vedic literature; when we say "vedic literature" - we mean to say Sruti and Smriti - both, because both propound same truth, not a "different truth".

For example, - "ete cans kala punsah krsnastu bhagwan sawayam - Krsna is the Supreme personality of Godhead" - Bhagwatam

Isvaraha paramah Krsnah - Brahma Samhita.

Krsno vai paramam daivatam - atharva veda (gopal tapini upanishad 1.3)

There are so many other pramanas:

Skanda Purana (2.6.4.3)
"The nature of the Srimad Bhagavatam and the Personality of Godhead is always the same - full knowledge, bliss, and eternal existence."

Padma Purana, Uttara khanda (190.3):
"Among all the Puranas, the Srimad Bhagavatam, in which Lord Krsna is glorified at every step by various great sages, is supreme."

Therefore, we do not accept this statement that Puranas is not considered the authority or pramana. Sruti and Smriti, both are considered as pramana.

saidevo
05 February 2010, 09:49 PM
namaste Krsna Das ji.

Although this thread is about shrI KRShNa as Brahman and the origin of the TrimUrti from him, the quotes I have given in my last post regarding pramANas apply in general and to all cases.



Smriti is the summary of Vedas and Upanishads, and are therefore considered as a sabda-praman, just like vedas.


There is no doubt that smRti is the summary of sruti, and hence can be a shabda-pramANa. But then it is not "just like vedas". The very term smRti--remembered, indicates that it comes only after sruti--heard. Where is the question of remembering something which is not heard? So sruti ranks as a higher authority in pramANas, and when there is something as sruti--heard, then it is preceded by vAc--speech, which in the case of sruti is BhagavAn himself. Therefore, sruti IS the highest authority, and this is agreed to and implemented by all the sects of Hinduism.



Infact, if there is any contradiction between the meaning of verses in different vedic literature, SriMad Bhagwatam is considered as an authority, which is the essense of whole vedic literature. Srimad Bhagwatam is considered Smriti.


The 'In fact' in your above statement is only your personal perception; it is not a fact, in fact! The consensus among all the sects of Hinduism is that if there is any contradiction between smRti and sruti, ONLY sruti is to be taken as the authority. Only sruti are the pramANa-shiromaNi--crest jewel of proof, as BhagavAn Chaitanya has said in the quote I have given above, which he has also elaborated.

The readers may also check the appendix 'pramANa tattva' here:
http://bvml.org/SGK/pt.html

There is no doubt that purANas are given their due place in pramANas, but only after the Vedas and the itihAsas, as this verse from the BRuhadAranyaka upaniShad 4.5.11 indicates:

asya mahato bhUtasya niHshvasitam etad
yad R^igvedo yajurvedaH sAmavedo.atharv AN^girasa itihAsaH purANaM
vidyA upanishhadaH shlokAH sUtrANy-anuvyAkhyAnAni vyAkhyAnaany
eva vai are asya mahatas.h bhUtasya nishvasitam

asya mahato bhutasya nihsvasitam etad rgvedo
yajur vedah sama vedatharvangirasa itihasah
puranam vidya upanisadah slokah sutrany
anuvyakhyanani sarvani nihsvasitani

From the Supreme Person's breath came the four Vedas, the histories, the Puranas, the Upanisads, the verses and Sutras and all the anuvyakhyas (commentaries). The word "histories" refers to Ramayana and Mahabharat and other similar works. The word "puranas" refers to the eighteen major Puranas of which Srimad Bhagavatam is supreme, and eighteen secondary puranas (upapuranas). Upanisads refers to the eleven Upanisads such as Isa, Kena, Katha, and Prasna. "Verses" refers to the collection of verses in meters such as anustup composed by rsis. "Sutra" refers to the concise statements which explain the meaning of the Vedas, written by major teachers. Anuvyakhya refers to commentaries on the sutras written by great teachers. All of these are called amnaya. The primary meaning of amnaya is Veda.--http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/siksa/siksa-2.html

Although it is argued (and not without rationale) in this link
http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/srimad-bhagavatam.html

that shrImad BhAgavadam constitutes the highest authority, even over the Vedas, the perception is only sectorial, not sanAtana--universal, among the Hindu sects, so there is no dispute over Vedas being the hightest authority in pramANa.

I have a question: why is shrImad BhAgavatam that deals with shrI KRShNa charitam--life, on earth, classified as a purANa instead of an itihAsa--history, like the RAmAyaNa? Like shrI RAmA, shrI KRShNa led his life in human form on the earth, as an avatAra of MahAViShNu, and yet BhAgavatam is assigned the rank of purANas, why?

devotee
06 February 2010, 09:33 PM
Namaste Saidevo ji,

Sometimes I envy your so deep knowledge of scriptures ! :)


OM

saidevo
06 February 2010, 11:08 PM
namaste Devotee ji.

My 'deep knowledge of scriptures?' Hey BhagavAn, what an impression for what is nothing more than a mirage!

On the contrary, Devotee, all the content of my post is due to some serious and in-depth looking-up the references patiently, from the Net as well as the physical and electronic library I have, although it consumes time and transgresses the time for my svAdhyAya. Instead of posting the findings just as such, I try to add my POV, with perhaps some personal insight and lateral thinking and the willingness to empathize with alternate POVs.

In fact, I find your knowledge is getting deeper and wider, with some systematic svAdhyAya, as observed from the contents of your posts. Since you are interested in study and research, I recommend that you to obtain the HTML interface and the directory structure of the Personal Library I have sent to Satay, set it up in your system and start downloading what you need and organize what you already have. This Library comes in as a handy reference, specially the reference books in it, such as the 'Vedic Concordance', 'PurANic Encyclopedia' and so on. Supplement this with rigorous searching in the Net and the books you have in your shelves, and voila! you obtain the supposed deep knowledge or at least give an impression of it!

devotee
07 February 2010, 07:08 AM
Namaste Saidevo ji,


My 'deep knowledge of scriptures?' Hey BhagavAn, what an impression for what is nothing more than a mirage!


Your humility is worth emulating,, Saidevo ji ! And your sense of humour did bring a broad smile on my face ! :)

BTW, I want to clarify one thing from you. There is no confusion on what scriptures come within the definition of Sruti. However, there appears to be some problem with what scriptures should be counted as Smriti.

To my understanding, Puranas are not counted as Smriti (though certain sects won't accept it). They are clubbed with "Itihasas".

What do you say ?

OM

saidevo
07 February 2010, 09:20 AM
namaste Devotee ji.

I have sufficiently cautioned you and other members of HDF that I am not responsible if anyone (mis)takes my denial of my apparent knowledge of Hindu scriptures as my humility!!!



There is no confusion on what scriptures come within the definition of Sruti. However, there appears to be some problem with what scriptures should be counted as Smriti.


There is no confusion as to the classification of sruti and smRti in the Hindu scriptures:

KAnchi ParamAchArya explains in his book "Hindu Dharma: The Universal Way of Life" published by the BhAratIya VidyA Bhavan thus (this book can be downloaded from http://www.scribd.com/doc/8591806/Hindu-Dharma-Kanchi):

• The sruti comprises only:
The Four Vedas with their UpaniShads, and the six vedAngas--limbs of the Vedas.

Four vedas: Rig, Yajur, SAma, AtharvaNa.
Six Vedangas: shikShA, vyAkaraNa, kalpa, nirukta, Chandas and jyotiSha.

• The smRti comprises only:
The Dharma ShAstra that in turn comprises
the eighteen smRtis and the eighteen upasmRtis.

ParamAchArya further explains in the book that if the Vedas are personified as PuruSha, then:

• the UpaniShads will be his head, which is why they are known as the 'shruti-shiras'.

• Among the vedAngas--which are six in number and hence are called the ShaDanga,--shikShA will be his nose, vyAkaraNa his face, that is mouth; kalpa his hands, nirukta his ears, Chandas his feet, and jyotiSha his eyes.

Apart from the four Vedas and six vedAngas, Vedas have four upAngas--supporting limbs. They are: mImAMsA, nyAya, purANa and Dharma ShAstras. Thus the basic shAstra or canonical texts of SanAtata Dharma are fourteen in number: the four vedas, six vedAngas and the four upAngas. They tell us about the doctrines and practices of our dharma.

ParamAcharya quotes two verses as evidence of these fourteen basic shAstras:

Angani Vedascatvaro mimamsa-nyayavistharah
Puranam dharmasastram ca vidya hyetascaturdas
--Manusmrti

Purana-nyaya-mimamsa-dharmasastrangamisritah
Vedah sthanani vidyanam dharmasya ca caturdasa
--Yagnavalkyasmrti

The term "caturdasa" occurs in both verses. It means "fourteen". We learn from these two stanzas that we have fourteen authoritative works on dharma embracing all aspects of our religion.

The Vedas are fundamental importance; the Angas and Upangas derive their importance from them. Ayurveda, Dhanurveda, Arthasasthra and Gandharvaveda are called Upavedas, subsidiary Vedas. Their connection with the prime scripture is thus obvious.

itihAsas and purANas as pramANa

In his exposition on 'shrI Shankara Charitam', (which I am currently reading) ParamAchArya has clearly stated that one should interpret the Vedas only through the itihAsas and purANas as done by our ancestors. He quotes the following shloka in support of it:

itihAsa purANAbhyAM vedaM samupabR^i.nhayet |
bibhet-yalpashrutAd-vedo mAm-ayaM pratariShyati ||204||
--MahAbhArata, Adi parva (book 1)

He explains: the meaning of the first line is that the itihAsa purANas are detailed explanations of the Vedas and are known as upabrRhmaNam. Thus, the meaning of the Vedas should be learned only from one who is not only a scholar in the sruti, but also the upAngas which include the itihAsas and purANas. Only such a scholar is known as the 'bahushruta'.

The one who is not a scholar in the upAngas and seeks to explain the meaning of the Vedas (as almost all Westerners did--sd) is only an 'alpashruta', so the second line explains that the Vedas are scary of him as he would rely on the caprices of his mind to explain the Vedas!

That said, ParamAchArya also explains at the beginning of the chapter 'The Root of our Religion' (page 182) that the Vedas are the first four of the pramANas. (So there is no question of anyone rating any itihAsa or purANa as higher in authority to the Vedas!--sd)

devotee
07 February 2010, 11:21 AM
That is very well explained, Saidevo ji ! Thank you. I have downloaded the book for further study. :)


OM

ScottMalaysia
07 February 2010, 03:50 PM
When ISKCON devotees use the term "Vedic literature" they're not just referring to the Vedas, but to other Smriti scriptures as well, in most cases to Bhagavad-Gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. Some may even go so far as to classify Caitanya Caritamrita as part of the Vedic literature, even though it's barely 500 years old.

The claim made by ISKCON is that the Vedas are not relevant for our age and that the most important scriptures for Kali Yuga are Bhagavad-Gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. Yet I've seen no Vedic proof for this. Yes, Bhagavad-Gita contains the essence of the Upanishads, but I don't consider it above the Vedas, only shorter and easier to understand. Srimad-Bhagavatam (or Bhagavata Purana) is one of eighteen Puranas and many of its claims are contradicted by the other seventeen Puranas. For example, the Shiva Purana states that Lord Vishnu worships Lord Shiva. The Linga Purana recounts the story where Lord Brahma and Lord Vishnu were arguing as to who was the greatest and Lord Shiva appeared as a linga of fire to show them that He was the greatest.

saidevo
07 February 2010, 09:06 PM
Even the most belligerent and fanatic KRShNa devotee--from ISKCON or other sects--gets merged with the 'demonic and dark' advaita tamas of Shiva in deep sleep every night!

Shiva, the most altruistic God that he is, effectively shuts up his abusive mouth and clears his mind of all hatred in this state and gives him the peace of sat-chit-Ananda, although he is scarcely, if ever, aware of it.

Mohini Shakti Devi
07 February 2010, 11:59 PM
Confidential Information:

Shiva is Balarama.
Balarama is Krishna's Brother.

Mohini Shakti Devi
08 February 2010, 12:10 AM
Skath-mal-asya said,


Some may even go so far as to classify Caitanya Caritamrita as part of the Vedic literature, even though it's barely 500 years old.

The claim made by ISKCON is that the Vedas are not relevant for our age and that the most important scriptures for Kali Yuga are Bhagavad-Gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. Yet I've seen no Vedic proof for this. Yes, Bhagavad-Gita contains the essence of the Upanishads, but I don't consider it

Scott, there is only one consideration to be concerned with: Lord Caitanya was the scheduled avatara of Kali Yuga [yuga avatara] that revealed the easiest yoga discipline: Hari-nama as the Kali-Yuga-Dharma tapasya.

That is what those Blessed and most belligerent and fanatic KRShNa devotees--from ISKCON do best. That's all they are good for. They ain't good for nuthin else, man.

Bolo Hari nama!

Krsna Das
08 February 2010, 02:05 AM
.....................All of these are called amnaya. The primary meaning of amnaya is Veda.......


Please read your post, and understand what you have posted.

"All of these" - what does this "all" include? It is mentioned in your post itself - Sruti and Smriti - both.

When we say pramana from "vedic literature or vedas", we mean both Shruti and Smriti, unless otherwise stated.

Caitanya Caritamrita is sastra - there is no tinch of doubt about this. why? - because it propounds the highest principle in clear words, which is otherwise hidden in vedas.

Even today, when we try to preach the essense of Bhagwatam and Caitanya Caritamrita, the non devotees simply cannot accept these as pramana. Why? because Lord does not manifest himself (or the knowledge of his real self) to non-devotees -

(naham prakasah sarvasya yoga maya samaavritah - I do not manifest my real spiritual form to everybody, for I hide it by my Yoga-maya [so they are never able to comprehend it , even though they may be scholars in sastra] - Geeta)

(Lord does not want non-devotees to handle Vedas :) )

=====

Amnaya-sutra is the first principle of the ten principles given by Mahaprabhu to us:

Amnaya prah tattvam harim ih paramam...... (Dasa-Mula)

Sri Hari is the Supreme Personality of Godhead himself - how do we know? - amnaya prah tattvam - this tattva has been established by amnaya (vedic literature)

What does amnaya specify? - all sastras - Shruti and Smriti (see your post).

So saidevo ji and all others, Sruti and Smriti - both are equally considered as pramana - atleast in our sampradaya.

BTW, Why are you so much disturbed by this sidhhanta of ours?

Radhe !

saidevo
08 February 2010, 12:46 PM
namaste Krsna Das.

Here is the significance and comprehensive definition of the term 'AmnAya':

"The word AmnAya refers to the various aspects of God. The words of Veda are given many names and have also told us in many ways this aspect of the divine. The word AmnAya has got a special meaning in the context of the Veda. AmnAya is comprehensive and signifies that there is a continuous and uninterrupted practice consisting of shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana, that is to listen, to think over and then to digest or absorb. These three aspects are together called by one comprehensive word AmnAya. If one does not involve oneself in AmnAya or in the uninterrupted practice of listening and digesting, then it will not be possible for him to recognise the identity of that with this because he is usually immersed in family matters and other domestic problems." --BhagavAn shrI Sathya Sai Baba, Summer Showers in Brindavan 1974, part 2

It should thus be obvious to everyone, even to an ISKCONite, that although the word 'AmnAya' refers to all texts derived from the Vedas, there is a hierarchical order for obtaining pramANa from them and that order can only be 'shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana', in other words, 'sruti, smRti and the itihAsa-purANAdi'.

Chaitanya and PrabhupAda have accepted the Vedas as the first among the pramANas as I have quoted in my post #9.



Even today, when we try to preach the essense of Bhagwatam and Caitanya Caritamrita, the non devotees simply cannot accept these as pramana. Why? because Lord does not manifest himself (or the knowledge of his real self) to non-devotees -

(naham prakasah sarvasya yoga maya samaavritah - I do not manifest my real spiritual form to everybody, for I hide it by my Yoga-maya [so they are never able to comprehend it , even though they may be scholars in sastra] - Geeta)

(Lord does not want non-devotees to handle Vedas )


shrI KRShNa and his GItA are common to all Hindus; they are not the inherited or acquired property of the ISKCONites alone. A Hindu need not be a VaiShNava or a Gaudiya or an ISKCONite or of any other related sampradAya to be a KRShNa-bhakta.

That said, the interpretation of the GItA verse 7.25 as 'KRShNa would not manifest to non-devotees' is mischevous, which is typical of the ISKCONites.

KRShNa does not talk about his devotee or other devotees in that verse; only about 'mUDha'--deluded people. This means that he would not become manifest even to all of his devotees, as seen during the time he lived as an avatAra of MahAviShNu, and it also seems to be the case presently!



BTW, Why are you so much disturbed by this sidhhanta of ours?


Any siddhAnta that seeks to revile another is unacceptable to the majority Hindus. So long as it is within the four walls of the ashram it might be alright, but if someone seeks to preach it as a mission reviling other sampradAyas, gods and devotees, it would certainly be debated.

shrI KRShNa being a God common to all Hindus, most Hindus would naturally be interested in the interpretations of 'Bhagavad GItA as it was' not in the GItA as it is made out to be today!

devotee
08 February 2010, 09:24 PM
Namaste Saidevo ji,



shrI KRShNa and his GItA are common to all Hindus; they are not the inherited or acquired property of the ISKCONites alone. A Hindu need not be a VaiShNava or a Gaudiya or an ISKCONite or of any other related sampradAya to be a KRShNa-bhakta.


This is certainly a master stroke ! :)

OM Shri KrishNAya Namah !

Krsna Das
09 February 2010, 02:17 AM
Dandavat Pranamas !

I think you are refering to these:



The self-evident Vedic literatures are the highest evidence of all, but if these literatures are interpreted, their self-evident nature is lost.--C.C. Adi 7,139
Although there is other evidence, the evidence given in the Vedic version must be taken as foremost. Vedic versions understood directly are first-class evidence. The Vedic statements are self-evident. Whatever is stated there must be accepted. If we interpret according to our own imagination, the authority of the Vedas is immediately lost. --C.C.Madhya 6,135,137


Here the "vedic literatures are highest evidence of all" - means to say we disregard pratyaksa praman as compared to sabda-praman, because highest praman is sabda-praman. (Doesen't mean we disregard puranas as vedic literature or give first priority to vedas as praman and puranas as second ). In past 8-9 years in this sampradaya, I have never heard any such statement that you are making. We give highest priority to sabda- pramana and this sabda- praman is shruti and smriti - both -> This is atleast my understanding of our sidhhanta on this matter.
===========
Surely, Geeta, and not only Geeta, infact all other scriptures also, are not the property of ISKCON. BTW - Who said this to you? But they are not the individual property of hindues either. They are for all those who consider themselves to be a Jiva (living soul).
=====
naham prakashah sarvasya - mudhah means the ones who are under illusion or simply those who are non devotees. There are so many (so called) "devotees" out there, who do not believe in shudhha-bhakti sidhhanta of Mahaprabhu, who is Krsna himself. A person who disregards Mahaprabhu and still establishes himself to be a Krsna devotee can be at best an updrava (disturbance) in society, nothing else. It's much better for such a person to become an athiest, or even a demon, than to disguise as a devotee when he is averse to the teachings of Mahaprabhu.
=====
Regarding my opinions about sidhhanta on Mayavad, I have quoted mahaprabhu as authority and his words. When mahaprabhu was in varanasi, prakashananda saraswati, one of the great scholars of advaita vedanta was invited to somebody's house. Mahaprabhu was also invited to same house. But mahaprabhu did not even sit near that sanyasi, and he instead chose to sit in a place full of filth and dust, for he thought that sitting near such a person would be worse than sitting in a place full of filth and dust. But yes, you will accuse me of spreading hatred here, without understanding that I am quoting the highest authority, Krsna himself, in the form of Mahaprabhu. You cannot understand this simple sidhhanta.
=========
As far as your understanding is concerned, you can keep on thinking whatever you want to, that does not bother me in any way. the Supreme Lord has propagated different philosophies for different kinds of people (see padma purana); and Mahaprabhu has given the philosophy for Shudhha-bhaktas or to those who desire to be. And I haven't surrendered to any pseudo-transcendentalist. I have surrendered to Mahaprabhu and My guru maharaj and therefore, they alone have adhikar for correcting me, if I am wrong anywhere.
=========
It's wastage of time to discuss shudhha-bhakti with somebody for whome Lord has provided different sidhhanta as per padma purana. This all is not for you, child.
I personally feel that this discussion, and your pramanas, is never going to change my mentality. My brain is thoroughly washed by the mercy of mahaprabhu, and I am happy with this. (You can call this brainwashing) If you still want to put effort, it's up to you. Good Luck.
My last post in this thread.
=========

devotee
09 February 2010, 04:39 AM
If Gauranga Mahaprabhu was Lord Krishna then these two things are not simultaneously possible :

a) Lord Krishna teaching "Uttar Gita" to Arjuna after the MahAbhArat war
b) Gaurang Mahaprabhu refusing to even sit near a saint following the path of Jnaan yoga

But both things happened, if what KD says is true. So, what is wrong here ?

OM

grames
09 February 2010, 05:42 AM
Dear Saidevo,

Are you arguing about Praamana or Lord Krshna and His avatara? What is this thread is all about?

This what you presented earlier..



He explains: the meaning of the first line is that the itihAsa purANas are detailed explanations of the Vedas and are known as upabrRhmaNam. Thus, the meaning of the Vedas should be learned only from one who is not only a scholar in the sruti, but also the upAngas which include the itihAsas and purANas. Only such a scholar is known as the 'bahushruta'.

The one who is not a scholar in the upAngas and seeks to explain the meaning of the Vedas (as almost all Westerners did--sd) is only an 'alpashruta', so the second line explains that the Vedas are scary of him as he would rely on the caprices of his mind to explain the Vedas.


Does it say anything to you? ( the Quoted statements in bold). It is only few people or kind of people's ahankara that they do not need a Guru to learn and promoted the idea of Self-Guru though a revered acharya like Shri Periyavaal denounce such notion. (alpaShruta can also mean demonic.)

None of the GV or ISKCONites say Veda are not Praamana and if anyone say such things, they are not aware of GV or ISKCON. Does that mean they depend deeply on Four Veda and Upanishad texts? Yes as in Adikarana but their dependency of Adikari is most important than Adikrana and it is same in all vedantic schools traditionally. (What the Guru teaches is FINAL though it may sound unhealthy, with the perfect rigorous system of learning is in place it is the BEST). So, for all Vedantic schools Adikari's Bhasyas carry much more weight than Adikranaas itself and no one is an exception in this. ( Few learners, practitioners assume that you need to extensively talk about Veda Vaks to discuss about your own philosophy but in general it is not necessary unless you are going to argue/debate with another school where you require common grounds as references to promote your view of Truth as in Siddanta. So, your Acharya bashyas are more or even ultimately important than Veda Vaks. Hope i tried my best not to alleviate the position of Vedas here but to point out the exalted status of Acharays with respect to their philosophical schools. So, it is pointless to argue about ranks and degrees of praamana unless you are doing some Vada. As part of the Vada, you then will agree what is your common Praamana and then proceed the arguments)

All our literature works are for human kind and do not belong to anyone or any organization in particular and i guess your statement is very emotional one. Now i believe you don't just read something and take it as conclusion and with that belief, i am raising few question or points to ponder...

1. Why does so many things exists? Shruti, Smriti etc? What is the purpose of them?
2. Looks like they aren't good enough or sufficient enough to impart their "goals" to the reader/practitioner isn't? If this is not the case, why then Upanishad's and then various branches of them come in to picture? Another set of numerous compositions.
3. Looks like even these thosands of Upanishad's though not all available, do not seem to do justice in terms of teaching the pupil about the truth? Isn't? If not, why then Puranas, Ithihasas etc are composed?
4. Above all, there seems some or lot of confusion in Upanishad's texts and if not why did Shri Badarayana composed Brahma Sutra and also attempted to give a unified (though not reconciled) view on all the topics? Samanadikarana is one full chapter for just this. So, do you think it is very much possible to have different conclusion by just reading Veda, Upanishad etc. but require some texts like BS to have the actual view? How does this justify the position of BS with respect to Veda itself? which one will be given highest ranks as in Praamana when we as mortal with imperfect mind and intellect try to understand something which is not possible with our imperfections? Does it convey anything to you in good strength?
5. And last one is, after such Sutras the guy is not complete and satisfied and still hard working and composing another Purana to let out his heart completely. Why does he do that? Why the Sage composed or manifests another SB and focus his entirety on just one subject/object as Goal? Does it look like there are various confusing options yet the most learnt or divine personalities themselves lay down the right path to pick as you elevate yourself? If and only if we sense such subtle ideals that are found all over the "vedic" texts ( which include all veda, upanishad, BS , BG and Ithihasas and Puranas) and take it up as the clues or aids in understanding the "actual" path leading to the final destination that all these texts are mystically advocating (though numerous paths are available leading to different destinations and may or may not put you in to the path that will take u to the final destination).
6. Lastly, if so much is said, heard, composed, manifested about "Aspects" of God and also we need to learn though not all as it is not possible, and understand all these for some spiritual achievements, do you think it is finally unreal instructions which has no real existence which will then help you to attain such final destination?

Notes:

1. There are two very interesting verses in BG...

yadhi hyAham na varthEyam jAthu karmaNatandhritha:
mama varthmAnuvartanthE manushyA : Paartha sarvasa ( BG 3.23)

O ArjunA ! for Me, there is nothing in all the three worlds that ought to be accomplished , nor is there anything unacquired that ought to be acquired . YET I GO ON WORKING

yE yathA maam PRAPADHYANTHE taamstathaiva bhajAmyaham
mama varthmAnuvarthanthE manushyA: Paartha sarvasa: BG 4.11

whoever desirous of resorting to me , in whatever manner they think of Me according to their inclinations and take refuge in Me,i.e., resort to Me --I favour them in the same manner as desired by them.

2. Jnana Yoga does not mean Advaita! Advaita does not mean just Jnana Yoga!

saidevo
09 February 2010, 07:45 AM
namaste Grames.



Are you arguing about Praamana or Lord Krshna and His avatara? What is this thread is all about?


In a thread of such sensitive topic as this one has, specially in a forum like HDF which is devoted to all sampradAyas, it is but natural that the discussions digress less or more, and focus on a subtopic that is related to the main. Majority Hindus have no scruples about knowing shrI KRShNa to be the paramAtmA, and they usually refer to him as KRShNa ParamAtmA. Although most Hindus know about the life and legend of shrI KRShNa, and know him as an avatAra of MahAViShNu, they would still consider him KRShNa ParamAtmA because of his GItA.

• In the Hindu sanAtana--universal, view, shrI KRShNa is one of the Gods considered on par with Brahman, the other popular Gods being Shiva Maheshvara, MahAViShNu and AmbAL. When this balance is sought to be upset by a sampradAya--tradition, like the ISKCON, and KRShNa is projected as the exclusive God only who is Brahman and every other God is said to have originated from him, certainly it is a question for debate, which is why I presented a compilation of the life and legend of shrI KRShNa in post #5. Although, ISKCONites won't agree, every other Hindu will, that shri KRShNa is an avatAra of MahAViShNu.

• For these Gods themselves, the Vedas have their pramANa--evidence, where they are all treated equally, as KAnchi ParamAchArya indicates in his 'shrI Shankara Charitam', which I am currently translating and posting here. In the same way, Vedas have pramANa for all the schools of Hindu philosophy. It would thus be absurd for one God to deny the paramAtvam of another, or one philosophy denying the spiritual efficacy of another in a fanatical rather than factual manner.

When the discussion turned to pramANa in general, Krsna Das said, "we do not accept this statement that Puranas is not considered the authority or pramana. Sruti and Smriti, both are considered as pramana." (post #10) to which my reply is in post #11. As Krsna Das persisted on the use of AmnAya, I replied to him in post #22.

As to the status of Vedas being the chiefmost authority--pramANa pradhAna, let us not try to overlook the words of shrI KRShNa and Chaitanya I have quoted in post #9. It is worth reproducing them here, as they sound as final even to the ISKCONites:

vEdaischa sarvairahamEvavEdyo:
I am known through the Vedas.
--Bhagavad GItA

pramanera madhye sruti pramana pradhana
sruti ye mukhyartha kahe sei se pramana svatah pramana veda yei satya kahe
laksana karile svatah pramanya hani haye

Although there is other evidence, the evidence given in the Vedic version must be taken as foremost. Vedic versions understood directly are first-class evidence. The Vedic statements are self-evident. Whatever is stated there must be accepted. If we interpret according to our own imagination, the authority of the Vedas is immediately lost.
--C.C.Madhya 6,135,137

**********

I agree in general with your elaboration on the composition, necessity and usefullness of the multitude of Hindu texts other than the four Vedas, and their use as immediate pramANas to the common man, devotee, disciple and the guru. But there is still a hierarchy existing, which every true guru will know and not transgress, specially when he knows that the guru's words are considered on par with those of the Vedas.

Thank you for the points you have given for me to ponder, and I appreciate their usefulness.

tsuresh
06 March 2010, 11:23 AM
Very valuable information is given

ScottMalaysia
07 March 2010, 05:12 AM
Scott, there is only one consideration to be concerned with: Lord Caitanya was the scheduled avatara of Kali Yuga [yuga avatara] that revealed the easiest yoga discipline: Hari-nama as the Kali-Yuga-Dharma tapasya.

Not all Hindus consider Chaitanya to be an avatar. Yes, Ramakrishna referred to him as such, but Ramakrishna doesn't speak for all Hindus. To many Chaitanya was simply a saint and social reformer.

Back on the topic of Shruti vs. Smriti - I was talking to an ISKCON devotee the other day, and I asked him if he'd read the Vedas. He said yes. Later it turned out that he hadn't read the Vedas but had read Srimad-Bhagavatam. So they count Srimad-Bhagavatam as being equivalent to the Vedas (only Prabhupada's version, however).

kd gupta
07 March 2010, 11:47 PM
Not all Hindus consider Chaitanya to be an avatar. Yes, Ramakrishna referred to him as such, but Ramakrishna doesn't speak for all Hindus. To many Chaitanya was simply a saint and social reformer.

Back on the topic of Shruti vs. Smriti - I was talking to an ISKCON devotee the other day, and I asked him if he'd read the Vedas. He said yes. Later it turned out that he hadn't read the Vedas but had read Srimad-Bhagavatam. So they count Srimad-Bhagavatam as being equivalent to the Vedas (only Prabhupada's version, however).
No problem , if I have not gone through Vedas , I know that Vedas talk of Advaita….Kasmai devay havisha vidhem…Who is except that Almighty .
Gita tells the samething…Adweshtaa sarvabhootaanaam…it also means …Advaita .
Follow gita not the fake guru . Ravna went to sita as guru and sita followed , but what happened at last , ravna’s wife mandodari says….
rama bimukha asa hala tumhara., raha na kou kula rovanihara..
Hostility with Rama has, however, reduced you to
such a plight : not one of your stock is left to lament over your death.
…From ramcharitmanas and translation by sri sri swamiji Prabhupad .

Krsna Das
08 March 2010, 03:08 AM
Not all Hindus consider Chaitanya to be an avatar. Yes, Ramakrishna referred to him as such, but Ramakrishna doesn't speak for all Hindus. To many Chaitanya was simply a saint and social reformer.


Have you distributed this form to each and every hindu of this world, and asked them to tick YES if they accept Chaitanya as avtar and tick NO if not, and then analysed the data to check what majority speaks? Have you done this? No, you haven't. So how can you so surely say what majority of hindues beleive?

Also, IF rama krsihna does not speak of majority of hindues, on what basis do you think YOU can speak for majority of hindues? How many hindues know you? What is your authority?

How do you know what majority of hindues think? How many of them are even aware of Mahaprabhu, leave alone accepting/rejecting him as an avtar?

ARE you even aware what does a channa-avtar means? Are you more learned than Srila Vyasa Dev?

Also, do you just accept what majority of people say (even if they speak bullshit) OR you accept what Srila Vyasa dev says in his puranas? WHO is the authority?

STOP giving your expert comments on something which you have NIL information.

A verse came to my mind while reading your post, this is mentioned by Srila Vyasa Dev in padma purana:

kalimAshritya jayantE rAkshasAH brahma-yonishu

STOP giving your expert comments on Lord Chaitanya when you yourself are living in such an ignorance.

BY THE WAY, when ISKCON or GV IS NOT FOR YOU, what is the need of giving your comments on Lord Chaitanya, ISKCON or GV for that matter?

Are you even remotely spiritual?

It's better for you to become an athiest.

ScottMalaysia
08 March 2010, 06:02 AM
Have you distributed this form to each and every hindu of this world, and asked them to tick YES if they accept Chaitanya as avtar and tick NO if not, and then analysed the data to check what majority speaks? Have you done this? No, you haven't. So how can you so surely say what majority of hindues beleive?

How do you know what majority of hindues think? How many of them are even aware of Mahaprabhu, leave alone accepting/rejecting him as an avtar?

This is my point. Many Hindus will have never heard of Chaitanya, so they are not able to consider him an Avatar. Other Hindus consider all avatar claimants to be avatars, such as Shirdi Sai Baba, Sathya Sai Baba and Mata Amritanandamayi (Amma). Therefore they wouldn't have a problem with adding Chaitanya to the list.

I don't think most of my wife's family (Malaysian Hindus of South Indian descent) have even heard of Mahaprabhu.


Also, do you just accept what majority of people say (even if they speak bullshit) OR you accept what Srila Vyasa dev says in his puranas? WHO is the authority?


What do Vyasadeva and the Puranas have to do with Chaitanya? He wrote the Puranas 4,500 years before Chaitanya came to earth.

Krsna Das
08 March 2010, 06:23 AM
Srila Ved Vyasa has everything to do with Lord Chaitanya.

There are so many references Srila Ved Vyasa has given of him, in Sruti as well as Smriti. Some of them are here : http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=5234

You cannot read hindi, but that does not mean that references do not exist. I have mentioned only a few in my thread.

Vyasa Dev has referred Mahaprabhu several times while compiling Sruti and Smriti, both.

There is one link given in this thread [ http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=5234 ], it is in english. Read it.

Mahaprabhu is Mahavadanya Avtar, the most compassionate of all the incarnations of Krsna. NO ! I am wrong, he IS Krsna.

When you say your prayers in the morning, pray to Lord Visnu, so that he bestows "Budhhi-yogam", by which you are able to realize the glories of Mahaprabhu in your heart.

One more request, Lord has said that one who eats without offering the foodstuffs to me, verily eats only sin. (BG). It is impossible to understand the glory of Bhagwan and his incarnations, until and unless this basic principle is be followed. How can you post comments on Geeta, when you deride the order of the one who has spoken it?

If you are really sincere in your quest for knowledge, I can refer some books to you.

Are you sincere?