Comments Posted By Shyamasundara Dasa
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 140 Comments
Many people have difficulty understanding why Rama exiled Sita to the forest. In 2003-4 I was looking through the Padma Purana and came across an explanation of this lila. I donât have Padma Purana with me at this time so what I am now saying is from memory and subject to error in the details, nor can I give you the exact citation. Having said that the Padma purana says that once when she was a young girl Sita and Urmila and other playmates heard some parrots singing songs and chanting mantras about someone called Rama and His adventures. Sita heard her own name being mentioned. She became extremely curious to find out what this was all about. So she and her friends caught the parrots and asked them who this Rama they were singing about was? The parrots said “We don’t don’t know anything, we just sit in the trees near the ashrama of Valmiki muni and all day they are chanting these songs and we as parrots just repeat what we hear.” This didn’t exactly satisfy Sita who said “I am going to put you in a cage and wait and see if this Rama fellow Who you describe actually comes.” The parrots become very agitated at the thought of being caged and protested “we have always lived free in the sky please don’t cage us.” Sita partially relented and grabbed the female parrot and put her in the cage saying “ok I will only put one of you in the cage not both.” The female parrot became highly aggrieved at being separated from her mate and cursed Sita thusly “You have separated me from my mate while I am pregnant. You too will also be separated from your husband when you become pregnant.” Then the female parrot died. The male parrot on seeing his wife caged and then dying swooned and fell down into a pool of water and drowned and was reborn as the dhobi in the city of Ayodhya whose wife was unchaste.
Of course Mother Sita doesnât have to accept a curse especially of a parrot, but just like Citraketu Maharaja and other great personalities have done in the past She accepted it to further a greater plan.
Comment Posted By Shyamasundara Dasa On 07.10.2013 @ 14:48
Dear Pustakrsna Prabhu,
Hare Krsna. Since 1980 there has been a huge amount of work done that seriously undermines the work of Western Indologists — a group who continue the goals of European Imperialists, that being, to suppress Indian culture so that they could continue to rationalize their exploitation of India.
Several books have come out that demonstrate Western Academes intent to distort history and the Vedic worldview for less than savory reasons.
âIndia, once a major civilizational and economic power that suffered centuries of decline, is now newly resurgent in business, geopolitics and culture. However, a powerful counterforce within the American Academy is systematically undermining core icons and ideals of Indic Culture and thought. For instance, scholars of this counterforce have disparaged the Bhagavad Gita as âa dishonest book âŠ â
âInvading the Sacredâ http://www.invadingthesacred.com
As for the dating of the Vedas and the division of literary composition and language into neat cycles of 200 years such that, tracing back, Max Muller concluded that the Vedas were composed in 1200 BC; has also been shown to be nonsense (by Winternitz and others) and that even Muller when questioned said was not true. He eventually admitted that it was impossible to know the date of origin of the Vedas it could be 3000 BC or 6000 BC there was no way of knowing. But, for political reasons his date of 1200 BC became popular. In this way the Western Eurocentric scholars did everything they could possible to do to make Vedic civilization as recent as possible.
Here is a university lecture by Hrdayananda Goswami in which he demonstrates the political and religious bias of the Indologists who created the untruths that are taught in school as knowledge.
Much of this lecture is based on âThe Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debateâ
Another good source http://gosai.com/writings/the-myth-of-the-aryan-invasion
The current teaching of Indic subjects is heavily fraught with Western centric political and religious bias and would be akin but not as extreme as trying to learn Judaism from the Nazis.
dasa dasa nu dasa
Comment Posted By Shyamasundara Dasa On 07.10.2013 @ 14:57
Vaisnava Prabhu presents the standard well documented hypothesis for how Zoroastrianism, a Vedic heterodoxy, strongly influenced all three Abrahamic religions (Judasm, Christianity and Islam) with its concept of radical dualism (God vs Satan).
Damodar Prasada Prabhu asks whether or not an argument can be made for paramount Egyptian influence on the Abrahamic religions and Hellenic beliefs.
Of course people do argue about any and all topics but in this case there is very little if any influence of Egyptian religious beliefs on the Abrahamic religions. For one thing it is self evident that Egyptian religion was polytheistic which is anathema to the Abrahamic religions.
There was more sharing between the Egyptians and the Greeks. Herodotus tells us that the Greeks learned the names of the theoi (gods) from the Egyptians. And Philostratus tells us that the Greeks learned philosophy from the Egyptians, and the Egyptians learned it from the Ethiopians, and that the Ethiopians originally came from India! Strabo wrote in his Indika that “if you want to know what Indians look like, they look like Ethiopians.”
So according to them there is a connection between India and Egypt and Greece via Ethiopia. Ethiopia is directly across the Arabian sea from South India and there has always been a flourishing maritime trade between India and the Mediterranean throughout ancient history with only a few short periods of hiatus.
If we take this at face value then India influenced the Abrahamic religions via Zoroastrianism, and the Greeks and Romans via the Egyptian-Ethiopian nexus.
If we want to go even further then we consider that at the age of 12 Jesus and family moved to Alexandria and was not of heard of again till age 30. What did he do for 18 years? It so happened that Alexandria was the western terminus of the Rome-India trade route. Every year Roman gold was shipped down the Nile to a point where it got close to the Red sea and it was then transported overland to the port of Berenice and then scores of ships would then sail down the Red sea and follow the monsoon winds and reach the coast of S India. There are some who claim that Jesus took that trade route and lived in India for a long time. This can not be proven.
But it is an incontestable fact that his disciple St Thomas took this very same route and established Christianity in Kerala and later died near Chennai. Who inspired him to make the trip?
Comment Posted By Shyamasundara Dasa On 21.09.2013 @ 11:09
I have to agree with Akruranatha. There is already so much obvious evidence of British mischief in India that there is no need to invent and fabricate evidence. To do so is a combination of intellectual dishonesty and tactical stupidity. To present false statements as truth simply gives your opponents ammunition to use against you and divert attention from actual facts. Just stick to known facts especially in this case when there are truckloads of facts to substantiate the British strategy to subvert India. As Benjamin Franklin would say “Honesty is the best policy.”
Comment Posted By Shyamasundara Dasa On 19.07.2013 @ 06:12
I have absolutely no doubts that, as Srila Prabhupada says, the British used psychological warfare to subvert Indian culture. There is abundant proof of this if one does proper research.
However, this article is prefaced by a spurious quote by Lord Macaulay. I say spurious because it never happened, it is a hoax that has been floating around the internet for years. For example he was not in Britain but in India during that time, and India was already a subjugated nation not one needing to be conquered.
For more details see http://historydetox.com/the-macaulay-fraud/
You could also search for the string “”I have travelled across the length and breadth of India” on your favorite search engine and see what comes up in the SERPs.
dasa dasa anu dasa
Shyamasundara Dasa (ACBSP)
Comment Posted By Shyamasundara Dasa On 12.07.2013 @ 20:15
11. What is the difference between Sat-kriya-sara-dipika and the smrti composed by the karmis?
To protect the constitutional duties of the devotees, Srimad Gopala Bhatta Gosvami composed the book Sat-kriya-sara-dipika. According to Vedic injunctions, Aniruddha Bhatta, Bhima Bhatta, and Srimad Govindananda Bhatta wrote separate smrtis for the karmis. Sri Narayana Bhatta also wrote a book about the injunctions of the smrtis for the karmis, and Sri Bhavadeva Bhatta wrote a similar book for persons who are fond of Vedic rituals. The Sat-kriya-sara-dipika was composed from authentic statements of the Vedas, Puranas, and dharma-sastras, headed by the Manu-samhita. After carefully considering the subject of nama-aparadha, and rejecting the process of worshiping the forefathers and the demigods, Srimad Gopala Bhatta Gosvami wrote Sat-kriya-sara-dipika for the benefit of the devotees of Govinda who are either outcastes or situated on the platform of varnasrama. (Bhaktivinode Vani Vaibhava 36)
Jiva Gosvami in his Tattva Sandharba 12.2 quotes Manu and Mahabharata as major authorities.
âThis is why the Mahabharata (Adi-parva 1.267) and Manusamhita state, “One should complement one’s understanding of the Vedas with the help of the ltihasas and Puranas.” And elsewhere it is stated, “The Puranasa are called by that name because they complete.” It is not possible to “complete” or explain the meaning of the Vedas with something that is not Vedic in nature, just as it is improper to finish an incomplete gold bracelet with lead.â
In conclusion is clear that we are supposed to apply Manu Samhita to our life. To get a good understanding of Manu Samhita and how it applies to Daiva Varnashrama Dharma HH Bhakti Vidyapurna Swami has given many seminars and courses on it and you can download and listen to them at this location
If one is concerned that some texts in Manu regarding caste by birth have been interpolated then as Vallabhacarya has suggested one should resort to the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad Bhagavatam and if there is a contradiction then the later texts should be accepted.
Comment Posted By Shyamasundara Dasa On 06.08.2013 @ 17:25
Regarding Bhaktivinodeâs Krsna Samhita, if any text needs to be approached with great caution it is not Manu Samhita but Krsna Samhita. This text was written for a very specific audience, the Bhadraloka of late 19th century Bengal. It was an experiment by BVT in his earliest preaching days and he never repeated it. So to take a quote from this text without seeing what else BVT wrote on the subject is a formal for disaster
â”The Manu-samhita and other dharma-sastras written down by other great sages are smrti-sastras, corollaries written in pursuance of the original sruti-sastras known as the Vedas, which are eternal transcendental sound directly manifested from the Supreme Lord, Sri Krsna, and are thus absolutely self-perfected and free of mundane defect. Being corollaries in pursuance of the directions of the Vedas, the dharma-sastras are held in high esteem, just as the law books defining authorized and unauthorized actions in human society are similarly highly regarded throughout civilized society.â Jaiva Dharma chapter 3
`The sattvika-vaisnava-puranas, the religious laws of Manu, the six schools of Vedic philosophy, and the entire literature and medical science of the Vedas are the four perfected subjects directly spoken by the Supreme Lord. In an attempt to distort their clear and primary purport no one must challenge or debate upon these topics.’ Jaiva Dharma chapter 18
â5. Are the conclusions of a bona fide acarya and an unauthorized acarya the same?
After carefully discussing the Vedas and the Vedanta-sutras, the acaryas have drawn two kinds of conclusions. Srimat Sankaracarya preached the philosophy of monism based on the conclusions put forth by the sages like Dattatreya, Astavakra, and Durvasa. This is one kind of conclusion. The Vaisnava acaryas preach the science of pure devotional service based on the conclusion put forth by the great souls like Narada, Prahlada, Dhruva, and Manu. This is other kind of conclusion.
(Sri Manah-siksa Chapter 9)
Comment Posted By Shyamasundara Dasa On 06.08.2013 @ 17:16
Baladeva Vidya Bhusana says:
â”If matter were accepted as the original cause of creation, all the authorized scriptures in the world would be useless, for in every scripture, especially the Vedic scriptures like the Manu-smrti, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is said to be the ultimate creator. The Manu-smrti is considered the highest Vedic direction to humanity. Manu is the giver of law to mankind, and in the Manu-smrti it is clearly stated that before the creation the entire universal space was darkness, without information and without variety, and was in a state of complete suspension, like a dream. Everything was darkness. The Supreme Personality of Godhead then entered the universal space, and although He is invisible, He created the visible cosmic manifestation. In the material world the Supreme Personality of Godhead is not manifested by His personal presence, but the presence of the cosmic manifestation in different varieties is the proof that everything has been created under His direction. He entered the universe with all creative potencies, and thus He removed the darkness of the unlimited space. âŠ If one tries to nullify the conclusions of the Vedas by accepting an unauthorized scripture or so-called scripture, it will be very hard for him to come to the right conclusion about the Absolute Truth. The system for adjusting two contradictory scriptures is to refer to the Vedas, for references from the Vedas are accepted as final judgments. When we refer to a particular scripture, it must be authorized, and for this authority it must strictly follow the Vedic injunctions. If someone presents an alternative doctrine he himself has manufactured, that doctrine will prove itself useless, for any doctrine that tries to prove that Vedic evidence is meaningless immediately proves itself meaningless. The followers of the Vedas unanimously accept the authority of Manu and Parasara in the disciplic succession.â CC1.6.14-15 purport
Comment Posted By Shyamasundara Dasa On 06.08.2013 @ 17:13
Sri Sukadeva was an ideal personality and spiritual master of the entire world. As soon as he completed his study with Vyasadeva, he set out to bestow mercy on all living entities. From the external point of view the return of paramahamsa Sri Sukadeva to the royal assembly of Pariksit and his association with Suuta Gosvami may create apparent contradictions, but according to the considerations of paramahamsas, these were pure standards of behavior. One who does not accept this commits an offence at the feet of the spiritual master.â
And when we read the whole of the Brahmana Vaisnava debate BSST is not condemning dharma sastras like Manu nor is he advocating that we not follow dharma. BSST himself was a very moral and upright person who strictly followed dharma and was the one who pushed the principle that âpurity is the force.â
There is actually a concordance that shows verses from Manu that are found in the Srimad Bhagavatam for example MS 2.215 and SB 9.19.17.
Comment Posted By Shyamasundara Dasa On 06.08.2013 @ 17:12
There are numerous similar statements that are in direct contradiction to what Hari Parshad.
Regarding other acarya like Srila Bhakti Siddhanta and Bhaktivine Thakura we understand through Srila Prabhupada if we want to get the right understanding. And since it clear that Srila Prabhupada often quoted Manu Samhita as the Law Books for mankind that his stand is the same as the previous acaryas.
Still we would like to point that Hari Parshad has taken the quote of BSST from the appendix of the Brahmana and Vaisnava debate out of context. First we should note that BSST quotes or mentions Manu 24 times in that text mostly as supporting evidence to substantiate his position. If Manu is wrong why would BSST use it as supporting evidence? When we read the text surrounding the small snippet provided by Hari Parshad the true meaning manifests itself. This text is in regards to Sukadeva Gosvami who was a paramahamsa and not obliged to follow Manu Samhita and Varnashrama dharma. Others who are bewildered by the material energy, that means us, do have to follow it.
âAccording to the injunction na prakatatvam iha bhakta janasya paĂ§yetââa devotee should not be seen from a materialistic point of view,â the disciplic succession from Vyasadeva does not consider that spiritual masters are burnt in the blazing fire of material existence. The nature of the material world is that whether one’s son is honest or dishonest, everyone should give up the worship of Hari, cry out âO my son!â and forget Krsna. But the similar expression displayed by Vyasa is simply to increase the ignorance of the mundane fruitive workers and bewilder them. Actually Sukadeva was a great Vaisnava and a renounced paramahamsa. Remaining aloof from his association is not acceptable to Vyasa and his descendants. In order to convince the materialists of this fact, such a pastime was enacted by Sri Vyasadeva. The pastimes of Sri Sanatana Gosvami suffering pain from boils and Sri Krsnacandra being hit by the arrow of a hunter named Uddhava were both enacted to increase the illusion of ignorant people. It is to be understood that the propagation of Mayavada philosophy by Sri Mahadeva and the propagation through Manu of social religious scriptures by Lord BrahmĂ€ were both meant for bewildering unqualified people.
Comment Posted By Shyamasundara Dasa On 06.08.2013 @ 17:10