[Hindus Only] Question for Hindus

[kalyan]

@kalyan, what is your problem? Do you sincerely think that Ramanuja would be pleased by your tone? Vedanta Desika and Vidyaranya had opposing philosophies, but they were great friends. It is one thing to have a fruitful discussion to learn and compare siddhantas, and another thing to outright attack each other. And attacking a maha-bhagavata like Chaitanya?

ADDRESSED TO CHAKRA
--------------------------------------
bhagavata ? my f**t...I think you are probably hurt for my ignoring of your posted radha verse attributed to Vedanta deskika.
First I would like to start with, have you read my earlier post ?

1. How many of you heard of the FAKE ChandiDAS, who went around singing the songs of the FAKE and back dated Jayadeva who wrote Gita Govinda, which describes the love affair of Lord Krishna with his mistress the FAKE Radha?
2. Nobody in India heard of Gita Govinda and poet Jayadeva , till an Englishman and R stooge SIR William Jones translatedit in 1792..
3. Sir William Jones was used by Rothschild to create the theory of the Aryan invasion of India
4. And later Rothschild used our Lok Manya Bal Ganghadara Tilak to write a book ARCTIC HOME OF THE VEDAS, where a respected Indian ( Chitpavan Jew) told Indians that the priceless Vedas is indeed written by the white man .
5. The Gita Govinda consist of twelve chapter, further divided into twenty-four songs. Each song consists of eight couplets, it is called Ashtapadi. Chapter one and chapter two, four five and twelve contain two ashtapadi each; chapters three, six, eight, nine and ten contain only one ashtapadi each
6. In the fourth song, of Gita Govinda , the FAKE back dated Jaydeva the poet describes “ the delightful dance of love of Krishna with all gopis in the dark forest of Vrindavana. All the gopis surround him, embracing him with joy and caress him passionately and he praises them hugging one, kissing another passionately, glancing at another and smiling with other maiden in love”.
7. Sri Jayadeva introduced the cult of Radha and Krishna through his Gitagovinda . In Gitagovinda Krishna tells Radha that formerly she as Laxmi chose Him as her consort on the sea shore on the occasion of Samudra Manthana.
8. Chaitanya whom ISKON propagates is Lord Krishna and the FAKE Radha , rolled into one

2nd, there are ZERO mentions of a character Radha in any of the poorva vaishnava acharyas. You quoted a feeble ONE from vedanta desika works, I cannot comment on it until and unless you dissect the verse and post word by word meaning, I cannot depend on an internet translation, get an authentic commentary of that work by any poorva acharya and post it, till then we have to park this item. Don't get offended, I have nothing against you but you have not contributed or involved in the discussion much of value in this thread, so you may not have read all the posts to see why I was calling radha or chaitanya as fake injections.

ADDRESSED TO RATIKALA
---------------------------------------

asan varnas trayo hy asya
grhnato 'nuyugam tanuh
suklo raktas tatha pita
idanim krsnatam gatah


This boy [Krsna] has three other colors - white, red and yellow - as He appears in different ages. Now He has appeared in a transcendental blackish color. (Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.8.13, Gargamuni speaks to Nanda Maharaja)


krsna-varnam tvisakrsnam
sangopangastra-parsadam
yajnaih sankirtana-prayair
yajanti hi su-medhasah

Ratikala madam, thave you any idea as to what it says. Ok I will post the meaning of this along with its previous verses


It says, "Maha Vishnu is worshipped as Sukla varnam in Krita Yuga(the starting Yuga) as a Chaturbuja (4 hands) , In Treta Yuga, he is worshipped in a color 'Rakta varnam' in form of chaturbuja, In dwapara, he is worshipped in a color 'Syama Varnam' as Pitambara with Sri vatsam and Kaustuba mani (and other attributes mentioned but would not go into it) and in Kali Yuga, he is worshipped in 'Grushna varnam' or worshipped in the form of Sri Krushna who has Grushna varnam(black) and ones with buddhi (Mathi manthas) worship Blackish colored Krushna it goes on to say"...........

So, The quote never mentions any 'Suvarna varnam(gold color)' or anything remotely close to it. Any doubts you can feel free to quote, I think you should first dissect and post word by word meaning for yourself to get a grasp on it and also @shivsomashekhar mentioned If everyone is gold which is not mentioned in first place can be treated as avatar, the chinese have the right claimhood to it as each chinese is in golden color which is absurd!

Please stop vandalizing bhagawatham in the name of iskcon, the isckon cult should be stopped and these idiots should be thrown in jail for purposefully vandalizing authentic scriptures.

Also I would have to agree @Aupmanyav, he believes the traditional scriptures and is void of fake swamis, and also he is right in his opinion about the avataras he posted earlier like:

1. Varaha, 2. Yajna, 3. Kapila, 4. Dattatreya, 5. The Kumaras, 6. Nara and Narayana, 7. Dhruva, 8. Prithu, 9. Rishabha, 10. Hayagriva, 11. Matsya, 12. Kurma, 13. Narasimha, 14. Hari, 15. Vamana, 16. Hamsa, 17. Manvantara purusha, 18. Dhanvantari, 19. Mohini, 20. Parasurama, 21. Sri Rama, 22. Balarama and Krishna, 23. Vyasa, 24. Buddha, 25. Kalki,

Avatar- from avataranam should not be actually referred to the ones who are born , like Sri Krushna and Sri Rama but we loosely call them , for example Varaha, Vamana, are actual avataras in the sense Maha Vishnu directly came down with out being born (Jai Shree Hari) So it Sri Venkateswara as mentioned by Veda Vyasa Bhagawan in his scripture 'Venkatachala mahatyam' the main reason you would not find Venkateswara in the list of avataras generally is because Venkateswara is not born, Maha Vishnu when came down after Bhrigu episode was called as Sri Venkateswara, Sri Venkateswara or Maha Vishnu used to come to Tirumala in various episodes and the entire thing is recorded in Venkatachala mahatyam, Kumara swamy also did tapas in Tirumala and his father Maha Siva gave a superior mantram(rAma mantram) to chant on this holy hills and it is said that he is chanting it till today.......I may be digressing but Anyway the point is avatar is not a normal term to attribute to fake babas and swamis......

 

[निताइ dasa]

So, The quote never mentions any 'Suvarna varnam(gold color)' or anything remotely close to it.

Okay you have just proved our point. If Lord appears as as Shukla (white) in Krita, Rakta (red) in Treta, and Syama (Black) in Dwapara then the only one left is Pita (yellow) which is Kaliyuga. I don't know where you are geting "grushna" varna from.

 

[kalyan]

Okay you have just proved our point. If Lord appear as as Shukla in Krita, Rakta in Treta, and Syama in Dwapara then the only one left is Pita (yellow) which is Kaliyuga. I don't know where you are geting "grushna" varna from.

where does ratikala quote say Peeta? grushna is Krushna varnam opposite to Sukla varnam(just as Sukla gati and Krushna gati) , Just after Sri Krushna ended his timeframe, immediately KalI yuga begun, so it is saying, those who are not weak in Buddhi worship Blackish Sri Krushna in Kali yuga............Also post the word to word meaning and you can understand yourself..
Thanks

 

[निताइ dasa]

where does ratikala quote say Peeta? grushna is Krushna varnam opposite to Sukla varnam(just as Sukla gati and Krushna gati) , Just after Sri Krushna ended his timeframe, immediately KalI yuga begun, so it is saying, those who are not weak in Buddhi worship Blackish Sri Krushna in Kali yuga............

QUOTE]

Pita comes from the first verse Ratikala ji posted from Bhagavatam:

"asan varnas trayo hy asya
grhnato 'nuyugam tanuh
suklo raktas tatha pita
idanim krsnatam gatah"

Because the Lord appears as Krishna varna in Dwapara, He appears as Sukla, Rakta and Pita in the other ages. Since you have established that Sukla and Rakta refer to Satya and Treta Yuga, then Pita must refer to the remaining Kali Yuga. That is the direct meaning.

Also in the second verse, translating "krishna varnam" to mean "blackish color" is incorrect, because very next line says tvisa-akrsnam (He is not black, but pita in accordance with the previous verse) and hence contradicts your meaning by the rules of sanskrit grammar. Therefore we must take the secondary meaning of Krsna-varnam to mean "one who speaks the name of Krishna" as varna can also mean 'to speak'. "varna" can also mean "class" and so krsna varnam can also mean "one who is in the same varna as Krsna (i.e Bhagavan Himself)'. The meaning makes sense as the verse talks about Sankirtan prayair.

 

[kalyan]

QUOTE]

Pita comes from the first verse Ratikala ji posted from Bhagavatam:

"asan varnas trayo hy asya
grhnato 'nuyugam tanuh
suklo raktas tatha pita
idanim krsnatam gatah"

Because the Lord appears as Krishna varna in Dwapara, He appears as Sukla, Rakta and Pita in the other ages. Since you have established that Sukla and Rakta refer to Satya and Treta Yuga, then Pita must refer to the remaining Kali Yuga. That is the direct meaning.

Also in the second verse, translating "krishna varnam" to mean "blackish color" is incorrect, because very next line says tvisa-akrsnam (He is not black) and hence contradicts your meaning by the rules of sanskrit grammar. Therefore we must take the secondary meaning of Krsna-varnam to mean "one who speaks the name of Krishna" as varna can also mean 'to speak'. "varna" can also mean "class" and so krsna varnam can also mean "one who is in the same varna as Krsna (i.e Bhagavan Himself)'. The meaning makes sense as the verse talks about Sankirtan prayair.

You are completely mistaken........Krushna varnam always refers black color only, Krushna means black, also the verse talks about attributes, Vishnu is pitambara daari, he wears yellow colored cloth.....Also Kali yuga started in 3102 BC, so are you claiming till 12th century or se (if episode exists) people are worshipping or dreaming of a character chaitanya (which came to prominence after birtish invasion) ?

edit: i have to go now, feel free to post, any doubts, i will check them later....the verse says to worship blackish (color mention for you ) Krushna in Kali straight as that, you should have already called the bluff in the iskcon niteiveda link which I posted earlier where it tampered Ramanujaacharya's ( Adi Sesha) history with vandalized posts. I should sue that author first.

 

[निताइ dasa]

You are completely mistaken........Krushna varnam always refers black color only, Krushna means black, also the verse talks about attributes, Vishnu is pitambara daari, he wears yellow colored cloth.....Also Kali yuga started in 3102 BC, so are you claiming till 12th century or se (if episode exists) people are worshipping or dreaming of a character chaitanya (which came to prominence after birtish invasion) ?

So you have no refutation to why tviaskrsnam is also there in the verse? Varna has many meaning, you know this, therefore Krsna varnam can also have up to three meanings (black colored, speaking krsna, and same category with krsna). Of them the first must be rejected because it contradicts the whole verse (tvisakrsnam). The pitambhara argument is weaker than the direct translation, because this verse is talking about the bodily varna of the Yuga Avatars. If this verse is describing only the devotees (according to your translation), when why does the very next verse then go on to glorify the Yuga Avatar? I am happy to respect your translation, but you must also respect ours.

Yes Lord Chaitanya appeared later, but the manuscripts which describe him are dated before the british invasion (when the Mughals rules India).

 

[kalyan]

tvisakrsnam

psot the root of it

Yes Lord Chaitanya appeared later, but the manuscripts which describe him are dated before the british invasion (when the Mughals rules India).

lord chaitanya ? lol .
2nd you failed in understandin the logic i posted, i was mentioning If people worship chaitanya which was in 12 th century , what are people worshipping from start of kali yuga to 12th century ? got it ? the verse says people worship in this form , this form , in kali people worship Krushna form which existed prior to kali yuga, your post says that people from 3102 bc to 12th century are worshipping a future character which according to you was in 12th century?

 

[निताइ dasa]

psot the root of it

lord chaitanya ? lol .
2nd you failed in understandin the logic i posted, i was mentioning If people worship chaitanya which was in 12 th century , what are people worshipping from start of kali yuga to 12th century ? got it ? the verse says people worship in this form , this form , in kali people worship Krushna form which existed prior to kali yuga, your post says that people from 3102 bc to 12th century are worshipping a future character which according to you was in 12th century?

So you are saying a Yuga Avatar must appear directly at the beginning of an Yuga? This does not make sense because even Sri Krsna appeared in the latter half of Dwapara Yuga. According to other Vaishnav Sampradayas, the Yuga Avatar is Kalki, and even He only appears at the end of Kaliyuga. Furthermore the verse does not mention Kaliyuga (or rather the beginning of Kaliyua) at all, only that Sankirtan prayair, yajanti su medhsah, "He will establish sankirtan, and those who are intelligent will worship the Lord through this process"

Anyway Kalyanji, I think we have gotten to this point in the debate where you will not give in to my side, and I will not give in to yours. We have both presented our respective sides, and it is up to people to judge what they deem as true. I cannot tolerate this accusation again Sri Gauranga any longer, so you will not see me reply anymore to these claims.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Kalyan ji , ....

[QUOTE="kalyan, post: 4592729, member: 47528"

ADDRESSED TO RATIKALA
--------------------------------------

Ratikala madam, thave you any idea as to what it says. Ok I will post the meaning of this along with its previous verses[/quote]

I think Prabhu ji , .....it is unwise to post in an angry frame of mind , ....if you continue to post like this I will have no option but to post a favored non Iskcon Bhajan , .....of Narsinh Mehta, .....

so nice this is correct attitude , ....

A Vaisnava is one who is pure in mind and actions ,

''He does not speak ill of others'' , ..

''he sees every woman as a mother'' , ...

so from now you will please kindly adress me Mataji and you will please kindly adress Chakra ji Nitai dasa ji and all as Brothers , .....oh how nice this world will be , ....no more expletives , no insults , no ''my f**t..''
''A Vaisnava renounces lust and anger '',

''the name of Ram is allways on his lips'' , ..

so should we care if it is the Name of Ram the name of Krsna , ..No, ... we are all worshipers of Visnu

''all places of pilgrimage are within them'', ...

this is why we should address each other with Ji

''the poet Narsinh would like to meet such a person '', ...

one who helps others without letting pride get in the way , ....

Yes , ..I too would like to meet such a person in Kalyan ji

​

It says, "Maha Vishnu is worshipped as Sukla varnam in Krita Yuga(the starting Yuga) as a Chaturbuja (4 hands) , In Treta Yuga, he is worshipped in a color 'Rakta varnam' in form of chaturbuja, In dwapara, he is worshipped in a color 'Syama Varnam' as Pitambara with Sri vatsam and Kaustuba mani (and other attributes mentioned but would not go into it) and in Kali Yuga, he is worshipped in 'Grushna varnam' or worshipped in the form of Sri Krushna who has Grushna varnam(black) and ones with buddhi (Mathi manthas) worship Blackish colored Krushna it goes on to say"...........

So, The quote never mentions any 'Suvarna varnam(gold color)' or anything remotely close to it. Any doubts you can feel free to quote, I think you should first dissect and post word by word meaning for yourself to get a grasp on it.

Ok , ....when you calm down and quote text with your source we can discuss nicely about the translations , this l am not against , ....who knows we may all reach a point of common understanding ????

Please stop vandalizing bhagawatham in the name of iskcon, the isckon cult should be stopped and these idiots should be thrown in jail for purposefully vandalizing authentic scriptures.

Please , if you want to be taken seriously, and you want us to discuss what you see as the ''authentic scripture'' you will have to , ...

1, ...provide source preferably with a link so that we may study it .
2, ...stop calling people by derogatory names , ..''stooges '' ''idiots'' etc, ....
3, ...stop insulting other peoples Gurus and caling bonafide traditions ''cults''

Ok that is enough for one day , .....let us please start behaving like Vaisnavas , ....

 

[निताइ dasa]

Also I contacted one of my superiors (who studies the puranic Manuscripts) regarding the exact scriptural references to Lord Chaitanya and he gave me a reference to a verse in the Bhavishya Purana, Pratisarga, 4th section, Ch.10 verse 34 which states:

"anarpita-carim cirat karunayavatirnah kalau
samarpayitum unnatojjvala-rasam sva-bhakti-sriyam
harih purata-sundara-dyuti-kadamba-sandipitah
sada hrdaya-kandare sphuratu vah saci-nandanah"

"May that Lord, who is known as the son of Srimati Saci-devi , be transcendentally situated in the innermost chambers of your heart. Resplendent with the radiance of molten gold, He has appeared in the age of Kali by His causeless mercy to bestow what no incarnation ever offered before: the most sublime and radiant spiritual knowledge of the mellow taste of His service." (quoted in CC 1.1.4, Prema-pattanam 1.1 and Vidagdha-madhav-natakam 1.1)

 

[Aupmanyav]

but if you would like verses , many have been suplied I am probably now repeating both my self and Nitai Dasa , ..but here are two confirming what has been said , ....or do you not accept Bhagavatam

Ratiben, the first verse is about Ghanashyam Krishna in Dwapar yuga. It has no mention of Kali yuga.

Translation of SrimadBhagawatham 11.5.32 at http://bhagavata.org/canto11/chapter5.html
"[in Kali-yuga] people of proper understanding worship, through sacrifices mostly consisting of congregational chanting, the Lord with a dark complexion and a bright luster complete with His limbs, devotees, weapons and companions as follows."
There is no mention of 'pita' color. It is talking of a bright luster which can be even in a dark complexion. And please note, this is a translation from an associate site of Hare-Krishna movement.

 

[kalyan]

It says, "Maha Vishnu is worshipped as Sukla varnam in Krita Yuga(the starting Yuga) as a Chaturbuja (4 hands) , In Treta Yuga, he is worshipped in a color 'Rakta varnam' in form of chaturbuja, In dwapara, he is worshipped in a color 'Syama Varnam' as Pitambara with Sri vatsam and Kaustuba mani (and other attributes mentioned but would not go into it) and in Kali Yuga, he is worshipped in 'Grushna varnam' or worshipped in the form of Sri Krushna who has Grushna varnam(black) and ones with buddhi (Mathi manthas) worship Blackish colored Krushna it goes on to say"...........

Ok , ....when you calm down and quote text with your source we can discuss nicely about the translations , this l am not against , ....who knows we may all reach a point of common understanding ????

I think you have not posted anything expanding on the original verse translation you posted, you blindly copy-pasted through the stuff. The verse meaning also does not cover previous verses to establish the context and blindly posted junk for the most part. May be you can try expanding your explanation of the verse a little ? The isckon translated verse does not take any context into consideration too on top of posting wrong translation.

I do not depend on internet basically for translations, heard of something called books? I depend on them, so I could not cite the source from INTERNET! capiche ?

1, ...provide source preferably with a link so that we may study it .
2, ...stop calling people by derogatory names , ..''stooges '' ''idiots'' etc, ....
3, ...stop insulting other peoples Gurus and caling bonafide traditions ''cults''

I think you have to stop being self-righteous and over sensitive and call spade a spade.........There are worse posts in various threads using poop,****, **** and all that, may be you should police that stuff?

Also I contacted one of my superiors (who studies the puranic Manuscripts) regarding the exact scriptural references to Lord Chaitanya and he gave me a reference to a verse in the Bhavishya Purana, Pratisarga, 4th section, Ch.10 verse 34 which states:

"anarpita-carim cirat karunayavatirnah kalau
samarpayitum unnatojjvala-rasam sva-bhakti-sriyam
harih purata-sundara-dyuti-kadamba-sandipitah
sada hrdaya-kandare sphuratu vah saci-nandanah"

"May that Lord, who is known as the son of Srimati Saci-devi , be transcendentally situated in the innermost chambers of your heart. Resplendent with the radiance of molten gold, He has appeared in the age of Kali by His causeless mercy to bestow what no incarnation ever offered before: the most sublime and radiant spiritual knowledge of the mellow taste of His service." (quoted in CC 1.1.4, Prema-pattanam 1.1 and Vidagdha-madhav-natakam 1.1)

So you are now retracting FROM the vandalized translations of Bhagawatham and rerouted to Bhavisya purana? I take it you ignore now the bhagavatham verses and agree of wrong translation?

You could quote a 1000 things from Bhavisya purana, I would not be offended 1 bit

 

[निताइ dasa]

Ratiben, the first verse is about Ghanashyam Krishna in Dwapar yuga. It has no mention of Kali yuga.?

Translation of SrimadBhagawatham 11.5.32 at http://bhagavata.org/canto11/chapter5.html
"[in Kali-yuga] people of proper understanding worship, through sacrifices mostly consisting of congregational chanting, the Lord with a dark complexion and a bright luster complete with His limbs, devotees, weapons and companions as follows.".

I like how you have left out bits of the verse to suit your purpose. The full translation from the site:

"[in Kali-yuga] people of proper understanding worship, through sacrifices mostly consisting of congregational chanting, the Lord with a dark complexion and a bright luster [Krishna and Krishna-Caitanya], complete with His limbs, devotees, weapons and companions [see also Pañca-tattva] as follows."

here krsna-varnam has been translated to refer to Syama. and tvisakrsna (not black) refers to Lord Gauranga.

 

[kalyan]

Lord with a dark complexion

LOL, black or yellow ? get a grip will ya?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Bhavishya Purana, Pratisarga, 4th section, Ch.10 verse 34 which states:

"May that Lord, who is known as the son of Srimati Saci-devi, be transcendentally situated in the innermost chambers of your heart. Resplendent with the radiance of molten gold, He has appeared in the age of Kali by His causeless mercy to bestow what no incarnation ever offered before: the most sublime and radiant spiritual knowledge of the mellow taste of His service."

Bhavishya Purana (Wikipedia): "The text as it exists today is a composite of material ranging from very old to very recent.

Pratisargaparvan
The Pratisarga parvan deals with the genealogy of the kings and sages. It is written as a universal history with the first and the second parts (called Khandas) deal with old time, the third part with the medieval, while the fourth deals with the new age. Alf Hiltebeitel (2009) considers that 1739 marks the terminus a quo for the text's history of the Mughals and the same terminus a quo would apply to Pratisargaparvan's first khanda Genesis-Exodus sequence, and the diptych in the section concerning "Isha Putra" (Jesus Christ) and Muhammad in its third khanda - the Krsnamsacarita. Mention of Queen Victoria's Calcutta places the terminus ad quem at mid to late 19th Century."

Even the verse that you quote does not mention Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Does it? Bhavishya Purana (Pratisargaparvan in particular) is a heavily interpolated scripture. Every one knows that.

The description of Pratisargaparvan has changed in Wikipedia. I quote the older version which I posted in about.com on 24.11.2012 at http://en.allexperts.com/q/Hindus-946/2012/11/hinduism-28.htm:

"Hazra has the following to say regarding the Pratisargaparvan:
The Pratisargaparvan, though nominally mentioned in the Bhaviṣya (I.1.2–3), contains stories about Adam, Noah, Yākuta, Taimurlong, Nadir Shah, Akbar (the emperor of Delhi), Jayacandra, ... and many others. It even knows the British rule in India and names Calcutta and the Parliament.
A. K. Ramanujan mentions finding references to Christ (as Isha Putra), Moses, and Queen Victoria in the "appropriately up-to-date Bhaviṣya Purāṇa"and cites this as an example of the fact that:
"In spite of repeated efforts to impose schemes and canons on them from time to time, Purāṇas are open systems." With regards,

Kindly note that I have nothing against Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. He was an Acharya of Hinduism. He had his own way and his way and his phiosophy is a valid part of Hinduism. I have always maintained that.

 

[kalyan]

Bhavishya Purana (Wikipedia): "The text as it exists today is a composite of material ranging from very old to very recent.

Pratisargaparvan
The Pratisarga parvan deals with the genealogy of the kings and sages. It is written as a universal history with the first and the second parts (called Khandas) deal with old time, the third part with the medieval, while the fourth deals with the new age. Alf Hiltebeitel (2009) considers that 1739 marks the terminus a quo for the text's history of the Mughals and the same terminus a quo would apply to Pratisargaparvan's first khanda Genesis-Exodus sequence, and the diptych in the section concerning "Isha Putra" (Jesus Christ) and Muhammad in its third khanda - the Krsnamsacarita. Mention of Queen Victoria's Calcutta places the terminus ad quem at mid to late 19th Century."

Even the verse that you quote does not mention Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Does it? Bhavishya Purana (Pratisargaparvan in particular) is a heavily interpolated scripture. Every one knows that.

The description of Pratisargaparvan has changed in Wikipedia. I quote the older version which I posted in about.com on 24.11.2012 at http://en.allexperts.com/q/Hindus-946/2012/11/hinduism-28.htm:

"Hazra has the following to say regarding the Pratisargaparvan:
The Pratisargaparvan, though nominally mentioned in the Bhaviṣya (I.1.2–3), contains stories about Adam, Noah, Yākuta, Taimurlong, Nadir Shah, Akbar (the emperor of Delhi), Jayacandra, ... and many others. It even knows the British rule in India and names Calcutta and the Parliament.
A. K. Ramanujan mentions finding references to Christ (as Isha Putra), Moses, and Queen Victoria in the "appropriately up-to-date Bhaviṣya Purāṇa"and cites this as an example of the fact that:
"In spite of repeated efforts to impose schemes and canons on them from time to time, Purāṇas are open systems." With regards,

Kindly note that I have nothing against Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. He was an Acharya of Hinduism. He had his own way and his way and his phiosophy is a valid part of Hinduism. I have always maintained that.

the main question, is why did iskcon go into all these troubles to establish this joke until and unless if it is false to begin with?

 

[निताइ dasa]

Even the verse that you quote does not mention Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

Saci-Suta (son of saci) refers to Lord Chaitanya as well the description of His varna (sandipita). Anyway, simply quoting that a Purana is interpolated is really not an argument against the whole purana (from this line of reasoning we might discredit the whole of Padma Purana). I agree some verses (like mention of Jesus Christ) are later written by the British, but since the verse I quote both appear in the Vidagha-Madhava-Nataka of Rupa Goswami and Chaitanya Charitarmta of Krsna das Kaviraj (both manuscripts dated before the British rule) it a a huge sign that these verses are authentic. Please provide evidence against the verse I have provided. In-fact this verse supports Bhagavatams claim of a Pita incarnation in Kaliyuga.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I like how you have left out bits of the verse to suit your purpose. The full translation from the site:

"[in Kali-yuga] people of proper understanding worship, through sacrifices mostly consisting of congregational chanting, the Lord with a dark complexion and a bright luster [Krishna and Krishna-Caitanya], complete with His limbs, devotees, weapons and companions [see also Pañca-tattva] as follows."

here krsna-varnam has been translated to refer to Syama. and tvisakrsna (not black) refers to Lord Gauranga.

How does 'not black' refer to Golden? There are various shades of dark and brown color skins in India. The portions that I have removed are additions by Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada & Co. They do not appear in the original verse. Prabhupada has a habit to do this. His "BhagawadGita As It Is" also is replete with such additions. And I do not blame him. As Hare-Krishna founder, it is natural that he will have a bias towards Lord Chaitanya just like you and Ratiben have. Now, all hail Lord Chaitanya (and I join you at the top of my voice).

 

[निताइ dasa]

How does 'not black' refer to Golden? There are various shades of dark and brown color skins in India. That is an addition by Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada & Co. It does not appear in the original verse. Prabhupada has a habit to do this. His "BhagawadGita As It Is" also is replete with such additions.

Because the Yuga Avatar of Kaliyuga is golden (not red, or dark brown). We haven taken into consideration the former verses quoted by Ratikala mataji, in this translation. When the verse is translated as such, only then does it make sense, otherwise it contradicts.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. but since the verse I quote both appear in the Vidagha-Madhava-Nataka of Rupa Goswami and Chaitanya Charitarmta of Krsna das Kaviraj (both manuscripts dated before the British rule) it a a huge sign that these verses are authentic.

Nitai Dasaji, kindly note that this is known as 'Circular reasoning". Who wrote the verse? Sri Rupa Goswami or Sri Krishna Dasa Kaviraj?

Because the Yuga Avatar of Kaliyuga is golden (not red, or dark brown). We haven taken into consideration the former verses quoted by Ratikala mataji, in this translation. When the verse is translated as such, only then does it make sense, otherwise it contradicts.

I do not know. Lord Kalki is always shown as having a dark color. Now, what is true? Golden or Dark?