The Essence of the Vedas. The Srimad Bhagavatam Part 2

[NFah43Bk]

its so unfortunate.. that people do know anything.. about the vedic literature and samskrit grammar.. start saying that bhagvat puran is the essece of veda.. god help us that is the kali yug actually.. where ignorant fools start giving lectures " on Sun God" and all no sense.. any translation "sun god takes form of horse " give me a break...

Ignorant fools just check aryasamajjamnagar com for the actual translation of veda and do visit agnivar com

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk It is unfortunate indeed. Yes. When those who do not want to educate themselves and prefer to be in tama guna without understanding the hierarchy of the vedas and then claim others are in ignorant. Thats unfortunate. Kaliyuga is indeed prevalent where without understanding the vedas with the help of a bonafide guru, sadhu and sastra via a bonafide parampara and sampradaya one concludes that the bhagavatam is not the essence of the vedas. Focus on your Sadhana and Krsna will guide you.

[NFah43Bk]

@haridham yes indeed i will focus on my sadhna.. and eshwar will guide all those who are on the right path.. and those who claim that they know him are actually the ones.. who are really lost..

well sure he(whatever name you call him even krsna) will guide you..

but fore sure Krishna was Not the GOD; as is described in the Veda.and if you claim that Krishna Is GOD.. then for sure you are Ved Virudh and you need not claim that bahgwat "Puran" which is not apurushaya is the essence of veda.

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk Yes when you focus on your sadhana through the medium of Guru,Sadhu Sastra then Iswar will guide you to him. Without proper guidence one can be lost. This is mentioned in the following. yasya deve para bhaktir yatha deve tatha gurau tasyaite kathita hy artha prakasante mahatmanah

"The real import of the scriptures is revealed to one who has unflinching faith in both the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the spiritual master." (Svetasvatara Upanisad 6.23)

[haridham]

@haridham The vedas are a hierarchy and interconnected. That is something that is stated in the vedas themselves. The vedas talk about Krsna but in an indirect way. The Bhagavad Purana is the uttama siddhanta as mentioned by all the acharyas, rishis, munis and even other vedas. Vyasadev composed all the vedas, ithihasas, aranyakyas etc then concluded with the bhagavatam. Thus I am Veda anusar(according to the vedas) Infact the Puranas are considered the 5th veda.

[NFah43Bk]

@haridham : dont know who gave you that translation but what it means is below(being the closing statement of the upnisahad) "If these truths have been told to a high−minded person who feels the highest devotion for

God and for his guru as for God, then they will surely shine forth as inner

experiences−then, indeed, they will shine forth" i may be wrong; could you tell me how veda "indirectly" talk of krsna being "EQUAL" to Brahma as described in the Veda.

p.s: i never claimed that i know God

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk There are various translations. You have Vivekananda's translation. Here is another one.

"If one has supreme devotion to God,and for one's teacher as much as for God,to this one these teachings which have been declared may become manifest in a great soul,yes, may become manifest in a great soul"

Sanderson Beck

I don't see any significant difference. The focus is on para bhakti to

Deva(deva) and Guru then you can know.

[NFah43Bk]

@haridham the difference is clearly visible, anyways i would not argue on that. for the claim that i put across that krsna and vedic God are not the Same is based on the below Yajurveda 40.8 Yajurveda 32.11 Atharvaveda 10.7.38 Atharvaveda 13.4.16-21 Yajurveda 13.4 Rigveda 10.49.1 Rigveda 10.48.5 Rigveda 10.48.1 Yajurveda 40.1 Rigveda 1.164.39

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk continuing from before there is more evidence.

sa brhatim disam anu vyacalat tam itihasas ca puranam ca gathas ca itihasasya ca sa vai puranasya ca gathanam ca narasamsinam ca priyam dhama bhavati ya evam veda

"He approached the brhati meter, and thus the Itihasas, Puranas, Gathas and Narasamsis became favorable to him. One who knows this verily becomes the beloved abode of the Itihasas, Puranas, Gathas and Narasamsis." (Atharva Veda 15.6.10–12)

There is more evidence

[NFah43Bk]

@haridham and i would not debate with you further, dont know how purans which are purahsay(u claim they are eternal) are the 5th veda even thought they are ved virudh eg. krisha =God is directly against the veda yajurved 40.8

no one is going to stop you from what you believe in but at least stop associating with Veda as whatever you do is against them.

I would suggest you read "satya prakash" by Rishi Dayanand saraswati (on scribd) and then come back.

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk You first have to understand who composed the Vedas. It was Srila Vyasa dev . The proof that the puranas are the fifth veda are in the following sastras

.rcah samani chandamsi puranam yajusa saha

ucchistaj-jajnire sarve divi deva divi-sritah

"The Rg, Sama, Yajur and Atharva became manifest from the Lord, along with the Puranas and all the Devas residing in the heavens." (Atharva Veda 11.7.24)

The above is a struti sastra which you claim are authoritative vedic literature.

[NFah43Bk]

@haridham Ithihaasa, Puraana, Kalpa, Gaathaa and Naaraashansi are five names given to Braahmanaas . The Bhaagvat and the like books ar not the real Puraanaas

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk Ithihaasa, Puraana, Kalpa, Gaathaa and Naaraashansi are five names given to Braahmanaas . The Bhaagvat and the like books ar not the real Puraanaas

The above is your opinion and not based on sastric evidence which I have already given.

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk in the Mahabharata (Adi Parva 1.267) and Manu Samhita –

itihasa puranabhyam vedam samupabrmhayet

" One must complement one’s study of the Vedas with the Itihasas and the Puranas."

[NFah43Bk]

@haridham Should anything be found even in their writings contrary to the teachings of the Vedaas, it is to be rejected, for the Vedaas alone, being of Divine in Origin, are free from error and axiomatic (Swataah Pramaana), in other words the Vedaas are their own authority; whilst other books such as the Braahmanaas are Prartaahpramaana, i.e., dependent upon the Vedaas for their authority. They stand or fall according to their conformity or conflict with the Vedaas;

U did not respond to AV 40.8

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk U did not respond to AV 40.8

i did respond to the above. I already mentioned based on sastric evidence, you are stating based on non sastric evidence

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk Each division has 4 minor divisions, namely the Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanisads. Thus altogether the 4 Vedas contain 1,130 Samhitas, 1,130 Brahmanas, 1,130 Aranyakas, and 1,130 Upanisads. This makes a total of 4,520 divisions.

At present, most of these texts have disappeared due to the influence of time. We can only find 11 Samhitas, 18 Brahmanas, 7 Aranyakas and 220 Upanisads which constitutes a mere 6% of the entire Vedic canon!

[NFah43Bk]

@haridham and Vyasa dev only put what already existed on a writable medium(did not compose veda) every mantra in the Veda has it own rishi to who it was revealed.

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk "and Vyasa dev only put what already existed on a writable medium(did not compose veda)"

The above again is a misunderstanding. It is vyasadev who in every kalpa comes and composes the vedas. He also gives it to other rishis so they can act according to his instructions.

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk

Kurma Purana (52.19-20):

eka-vimsati-bhedena rg-vedam krtavan pura

sakhanam satenaiva yajur-vedam athakarot

sama-vedam sahasrena sakhanam prabibheda sah

atharvanam atho vedam bibedha navakena tu

‘Previously the Rg Veda was divided into 21 sections, the Yajur Veda into 100 sections, the Sama Veda into 1,000 sections and the Atharva Veda into 9 divisions.’

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham Bhagavad gita 14.27 where Lord Krsna states I am the basis of Brahman. Arjuna explains in the gita 10.10-12 arjuna uvāca

paraḿ brahma paraḿ dhāma That Krsna is the supreme Brahman(Param Brahma)

and All the great sages such as Nārada, Asita, Devala and Vyāsa confirm this truth about You. This is what Arjuna states in the gita. Also check out gita 7.24 where Krsna states that intelligent people think he didnt have a form before. 4 more evidence look below.

[NFah43Bk]

@haridham for your convenience

He is One and only One, Sustains entire universe, Omnipresent, Formless, All-Powerful, Perfect, Omniscient, Unborn, Eternal and supports us always.

He alone is worthy of being worshiped. (Yajurveda 40.8)

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk for your convenience as well, let me give the following from various vedic scriptures. GargaSamhita 1.16.26 tvam brahma ceyam prakrtis tatastha kalo yademam ca viduh pradhanam mahan yada tvam jagad-ankuro 'si radha tadeyam sa-guna ca maya When You are Brahman, She is Prakrti. When You are Time, the wise know She is Pradhana. When You are the Mahat-tattva, from which the universes have sprouted, Radha is the potency Maya, filled with the three modes. So Krsna becomes brahman

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk vadanti tat tattva-vidastattvaḿ yaj jñānam advayambrahmeti

paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate

Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān.

The Absolute Truth is both subject and object, and there is no qualitative difference there. Therefore, Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān are qualitatively one and the same.

Srimad Bhagavatam 1.2.11

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk As I have mentioned there is a hierarchy of the vedas. The 4 vedas primarily deal with the 3 gunas and apara vidya as they are based on the karma kanda section of the vedas. The purpose of the vedas is to direct the individual to God but doesnt give the whole picture thats why one needs the upanishads and then the puranas which deal with Para vidya and upasana viddhi. God in vedic siddhanta is realized in 3 ways. Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan. Bhagavan is the source of the other 2.

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk So when the vedas talk about Brahman they are talking about the same God but in a different manner. So Krsna and Brahman are non different. The 4 vedas primarily with the 3 gunas but the puranas go beyond. God(Krsna, Brahman, Bhagavan etc) is presented in limited(yet its still quite vast) fashion in many of the 4 vedas and some of the upanishads but later in the upanishads they also present the paramatma feature and then also explain about Lord Krsna with ending with the Puranas.

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk "p.s: i never claimed that i know God" When u make statements such as "and those who claim that they know him are actually the ones.. who are really lost.." U r certainly making the claim or atleast implying. Along with implying that I do know. 1 actually has 2 know God in order to understand if someone else knows God or not. So by the above statement u r implying.

&"but fore sure Krishna was Not the GOD; as is described in the Veda"

The above is a clear indication.

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk There is more immense evidence that the puranas are the 5th veda and apurushaya. They were composed by Sri Vyasa Dev. evam ime sarva veda nirmitah sa-kalpah sa-rahasyah sa-brahmanah sopanisatkah setihasah sanvakhyatah sa-puranan

"In this way, all the Vedas were manifested along with the Kalpas, Rahasyas, Brahmanas, Upanisads, Itihasas, Anvakhyatas and the Puranas." (Gopatha Brahmana, purva 2.10)

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk Evidence that the puranas are the 5th veda and are considered Apurushaya are below.

nama va rg-vedo yajur-vedah sama-veda atharvanas caturtha itihasa-puranah pancamo vedanam vedah

"Indeed, Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva are the names of the four Vedas. The Itihasas and Puranas are the fifth Veda." (Kauthumiya Chandogya Upanisad 7.1.4)

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk Below is evidence from Sruti Sastras that the Puranas r very much apurushaya. 1 must study the vedas through a bonafide guru coming from a bonafide parampara & sampradaya 2 understand.

asya mahato bhutasya nihsvasitam etad yad rg-vedo yajur-vedah sama

vedo’tharvangirasa itihasah puranam ityadina

"O Maitreya, the Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva Vedas as well as the Itihasas and the Puranas all manifest from the breathing of the Lord." (Madhyandina-sruti, Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 2.4.10)

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk from the sruti statements below it is clear that the puranas r part of the Vedas & originate from the same source as the Vedas, namely the Supreme Lord Himself. The vedas are all apurushaya and they have a hierarchy and they conclude with the Puranas.

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk Another point is that in the chanting of the Brahma-yajna (formal study of the Vedas), the Puranas are included. If they were not Vedic in nature they would not be included. Therefore the Taittiriya Aranyaka (2.9) states yad brahmananitihasa-puranani: "The Itihasas and Puranas are Vedas

[NFah43Bk]

@haridham Do you sincerely believe that before Krsna , the people were devoid of the GOD knowledge or his tatva? and the text that were compiled in Kali (after krsna left)are the essence of eternal veda ? just because bhagwat claims krsna to be god so he is..? based on your logic then muslims are also right when they say that quran says allah is the god and muhammad is hit messenger and rest all are bound for hell.

may iswar give your intellect the strength to face the most difficult questions..

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk "Do you sincerely believe that before Krsna , the people were devoid of the GOD knowledge or his tatva?" No that is merely your misunderstanding. Krsna is eternelly residing in Goloka as mentioned in various vedic literatures. The vedas are apurushaya and sanatan and were handed down through the parampara of Sabhda Brahman(Oral recitation) because of Kaliyuga Srila Vyasa dev put them in written form. So the Bhagavatam although written later still existed eternally.

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk Your argument stating that something comes later is not authoritative is illogical. That's like me stating that because I saw you first before your parents then that means you must be superior or you came into existence before ur parents. It doesn't work that way. The puranas are the fifth veda and one's knowledge of the vedas is considered incomplete unless one learns about the puranas. The vedas deal with 3 gunas and the bhagavad purana is suddha sattva.

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk "based on your logic then muslims are also right when they say that quran says allah is the god and muhammad is hit messenger and rest all are bound for hell"

Again the above is your misunderstanding. Allah and Krsna are non different. God has unlimited names. Through my experience with educated muslims they dont think they are the best and all are going to hell, those are fanatics that are in every religious group.

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk "and those who claim that they know him are actually the ones.. who are really lost.."

So here you are doing exactly what you dont want others to do. Basically you are stating you know him and the vedas thus admitting that you are lost. It makes your entire point invalid.

"but fore sure Krishna was Not the GOD; as is described in the Veda"

ur opinion ofcourse. Now the vedas as I mentioned r a hierarchy & r interconnected. The vedas talk about Krsna but through an indirect way.

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk You have to understand that the 4 vedas mainly deal with Karma Kanda and they present the Lord in an impersonal fashion. The Lord in the various vedic texts that you gave me evidence of is the same Lord as Lord Sri Krsna. The yajur, atharva veda etc talk about the Brahman aspect of Lord Krsna. This is addressed in various vedic literatures including the gita.

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk Below I have given ample evidence that Brahman and Krsna are non different. Infact Krsna is the source of Brahman. I have also given ample evidence that the bhagavad Purana is Apurushaya through evidence from Sruti sastras which you have quoted. Please consider these. The 4 vedas although apurushaya are apara vidya according to Mundaka Upanisad 1.1.4–5. The upanishads and the Puranas complete the vedas. Thank you for having this discussion with me.

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk So far you havent given anything from the vedas to support your claims where I have given you ample evidences from Struti sastras to establish the puranas as the fifth veda. You cannot make claims without substantiating with sastric evidence which I have done.

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk It is understood that certain parts of the Vedas are named after certain rsis, not because they composed them, but because they were the main exponents of those portions. Ultimatley it is vyasadev who gives them this instruction

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk One may argue that since the Puranas have names such as Skanda, Agni, Markandeya etc. they must have been composed by those personalities, therefore they are not eternal and thus cannot be apauruseya. However, if that is the case, then certain sections of the Vedas must also be considered to be pauruseya-vakya since they have names like Katha Upanisad, Aitareya Upanisad (Katha and Aitareya being names of sages)

[NFah43Bk]

@haridham well i give up, i thought that you had some idea about the antiquity of veda and how they came into being "vyasadev who gives them this instruction" !!??

Think you should carry on with what you have been doing till now and i would suggest you not to refer veda coz it would only confuse you..(with the kind of understanding of the scriptures you have)

Om Tat Sat Brahma Arpanastu.

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk "well i give up, i thought that you had some idea about the antiquity of veda and how they came into being"

Yes,& I presented vedic evidence with how I came 2 my conclusion. The antiquity of the vedas is preserved through guru, sadhu sastra through a bonafide parampara from a bonafide sampradaya. I have given u ample proof from even the vedas u claim are only true yet u havent been able give any proof yet u claim that I dont understand. Where is ur proof for anything u say?

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk Think you should carry on with what you have been doing till now and i would suggest you not to refer veda coz it would only confuse you..(with the kind of understanding of the scriptures you have)

My understanding of the vedas are based on the vedas themselves. You havent given any evidence from the vedas to support your claims. The vedas are preserved in various paramparas and sampradayas. I have taken diksha in the Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradayas in the line of Vyasa Dev

[NFah43Bk]

@haridham : had you taken diksha from the lineage of shankrachaya rather than mahdavacharya, you would be talking different words.(now don't tell me he had writtern bhaj govindam) i asked you how come bhagvat is not in line with yu.ved 40.8, instead you told me that word "puran" is mentioned in veda?you are using a circular logic to prove bahgvat is ved even though it does not conform to ved.My point is simple:whatever cannot be fully backed by 4 veda is to b rejected.

OM TAT SAT BRAHMARPANSTU

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk had you taken diksha from the lineage of shankrachaya rather than mahdavacharya, you would be talking different words.(now don't tell me he had writtern bhaj govindam)

Well I wont tell you bhaja govindam as its not necessary, however Sankaracarya came to reintroduce the vedas and Madhvacarya came to reintroduce Vishnu/Krsna in the vedas. Advaita Siddhanta and Dvaita Siddhanta is part of the vedic siddhanta however the uttama siddhanta concludes that the puranas r part of the vedas.

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk "i asked you how come bhagvat is not in line with yu.ved 40.8, instead you told me that word "puran" is mentioned in veda?"

I gave you proof from the vedas that the Puranas are part of the vedas.

"you are using a circular logic to prove bahgvat is ved even though it does not conform to ved"

I disagree with the above. I have given u ample evidence yet u have yet 2refute what I have given u & make the same statements over & over again. No evidence from sastra means circular logic

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk "My point is simple:whatever cannot be fully backed by 4 veda is to b rejected"

The above is not the vedic siddhanta presented by Vyas Dev(who's parampara I come from) & it is confirmed in the vedas. Here is the same vedic evidence.

rcah samani chandamsi puranam yajusa saha

ucchistaj-jajnire sarve divi deva divi-sritah

"The Rg, Sama, Yajur and Atharva became manifest from the Lord, along with the Puranas and all the Devas residing in the heavens." (Atharva Veda 11.7.24)

[NFah43Bk]

@haridham Sir, this is my last respond to you .. This mantra has the singular "Puranam" and you have translated it to "puranas" plural and you have cited this mantra earlier also and i have responded to it.

Om Tat Sat Brahmarpan Astu.

[haridham]

@NFah43Bk "Sir, this is my last respond to you"

Well this is not the first time you have stated this. I doubt it will be the last.

Puranam can also mean 'old, original' or even "ancient"

Sing. 'Purana' can be understood as a generic term or a specific work. SB, is considered the most perfect of all Puranas, the essence of Vedanta, as per SB 12.13.12,15and similar verses from other Puranas.

[thegift108]

great video. Haridham we missed you.