« first day    last day (20 days later) » 

user131058
12:01 AM
@Keshav - Rudra sampradaya, i have some info. But, i got confused between the commentators of Vishnu purana and Bhagavatham, as they seem to have same name
 
user131058
@Keshav - Chenchu Lakshmi is more of folk lore or at the most sthala puranam of some shrine, i suppose. I could be wrong.
 
user131058
@Keshav - It is the will of Lord whether to make it eternal or non eternal. You and i cannot speculate. At the most we need to check all the bonafide commentaries of bonafide acharyas and then conclude on the Krushna issue. Till then thise texts which say Krishna died and his body was found etc should viewed skeptically rather considered as interpolations. Innocent until proven guilty :-)
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
12:47 AM
@Krishna Well, you choose to assume Krishna's body is eternal until proven otherwise. I choose to assume that the verses of the Mausala Parva and the Vishnu Purana are genuine until proven otherwise. We'll have to wait until we find what the Acharyas have said before we know which one of us is right :-)
@Krishna By the way, have you seen my question on Alavandar's Stotra Ratna? hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/7826/36
@Krishna And have you seen my question on Krishna's lover Nappinnai who's mentioned by the Alwars? hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/7800/36
@brahmajijnasa I've now checked the commentaries of Adi Shankaracharya (Advaita), Madhvacharya (Dvaita), Parashara Bhattar (Sri Vaishnava), and Baladeva Vidyabhushana (Gaudiya Vaishnava), and they all say that the word in that Sahasranamam verse is amritasah. Yet the BORI critical edition at sacred-texts.com says that it's amritamsa. So what's going on? Did all the commentators rely on defective manuscripts, or what?
@Krishna I think the Sridhara Swamis who were commentators for the Vishnu Purana and the Srimad Bhagavatam are the same person.
 
 
2 hours later…
user131058
2:50 AM
@Keshav - Well, Brahmajignyasa has already provided the proof from sridhara swamis commentary and it is saying Lord Krishna left along with his trancendental body to his abode. i for sure think, madhva in mhbt tatparya nirnaya will also would agree that lord krishna went along with divine body. So, it seems 2-0 against your view. All the best. :-)
 
user131058
@Keshav - i have seen your but dont have any answers for them.
 
Vishu
Vishu
1:31 PM
@Krishna: Thank you very much for the reply!!
@ brahma jijnasa: Thank you very much for the reply!!
 
 
3 hours later…
brahma jijnasa
brahma jijnasa
4:24 PM
@Keshav
*Does Prabhupada explicitly state in any of his commentaries that a material body was created at the moment of departure and was left behind on Earth?*

see purport on Bhagavatam 11.6.35, http://vedabase.net/sb/11/6/35/en quoting Madhvacarya and gives an explanation of the Lord's departure from this world, also about hunter Jarā, actually the whole story is described there
 
brahma jijnasa
brahma jijnasa
4:51 PM
@Krishna
*The truth is very evident that the three tamasic puranas wherein Shiva tries to pacify Narasimha are mere interpolations.*

In fact, to my knowledge, Acaryas did not say that these are interpolations in the scriptures, but the author, Vyasadeva, deliberately introduced in the scriptures such tamasic descriptions or teachings. Every time we find in the scriptures the tamasic descriptions, these are not interpolations but it is the author who introduced these deliberately.
 
user131058
5:41 PM
@brahmajijnasa - Narasimha cannot be subduef by anyone, whether it is siva kali or anyone. Why these interpolations is these sections from tamasa puranas were never quoted by bonafide acharyas includind Adi Shankara or his immediate Shisyas too. There are hardly any references to these sections before 15 century. So, these are interpolations for sure. Vyasa is not a fool like us to introduce these things even in tamasic puranas.
 
brahma jijnasa
brahma jijnasa
6:28 PM
@Krishna
Just because some parts of the text were not cited in the past by Acaryas in itself is not proof of anything. --- hahaha :) In fact, I would even say that just because Acaryas knew very well that these parts of the text are tamasic, precisely because for this reason they did not quote these parts of the text!!!
By the way, Vyasa was not a fool, but he was an acharya who had the task to deliberately entered in the scriptures such tamasic teachings, to fulfill a specific purpose. This is the explanation given by the Vaishnava acaryas.
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
7:01 PM
@brahmajijnasa OK thanks, I wasn't aware that Madhvacharya said that in the end of his Tatpara Nirnaya. I wonder whether Madhvacharya cited any scriptures to back up his claim. By the way, why do you think that neither the Mausala Parva of the Mahabharata, nor the Vishnu Purana, nor the Srimad Bhagavatam would mention Krishna creating this material body, but instead merely say that Jara hit Krishna with the arrow?
@brahmajijnasa I can understand Vyasa putting false information in Tamasa Puranas, but surely in the Sattvika Purana he would put accurate information about such an important fact.
 
brahma jijnasa
brahma jijnasa
8:00 PM
@Keshav
I do not know why. Perhaps because it was considered that we alone will be able to figure it out. I've already given you a bunch of evidence to suggest that Krishna's body for his time on earth was a spiritual rather than material, probably the author thought it was something obvious to everyone.
One possible reason may be to fool the demons so that they can develop aversion towards Krishna, thinking that he is not the supreme God. I've seen that Madhvacarya thus interpreted some verses where Krishna is described as born (as if it were an ordinary human being), and the like. He says…
 
Keshav Srinivasan
Keshav Srinivasan
8:30 PM
@brahmajijnasa Yeah, I'm aware of that; it's discussed in the Uttara Kanda of the Padma Purana. So I'm asking, isn't the inclusion of deceptive information limited to the Tamasa Puranas? I'm not aware of any scriptures that say that Vyasa put misleading information in the Sattvika Puranas as well. As far as I know, in the Sattvika Purana Vyasa states the truth as clearly as possible.
 

« first day    last day (20 days later) »