Appearance of narayana,siva from krishna with pramanas(proofs) from tantra,puranas.

[Krsna Das]

.....................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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Very valuable information is given

[ScottMalaysia]

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]

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 .