LoveroftheBhagavata

In Vedantic thought, nature/prakriti is in fact a manifestation of the energy of the Absolute (Brahman/Parabrahman). Vaishnava theology equates Parabrahman with Narayana, whereas the Shaiva tradition holds that Sadashiva is the Supreme Truth in anthropomorphic representation. Vaishnavas believe that the trimurti is then expanded from Narayana, while in Saivism Lord Shiva is assigned that primeval position. However, in either event, Brahma is the presiding deity of rajas, Vishnu of sattva, and Rudra/Mahesha of tamas. These three gunas are the very basis of material nature, and as such, Mother Nature cannot be called God in a direct sense, but rather, is derived from the energy of God. In Shaktism, the Mother Goddess represents the shakti of Brahman in the highest sense; for Shaktas, She creates the trimurti, and the rest is in many ways similar to what I've described above. And you're certainly familiar with strict Advaitism, which has a whole multitude of forms.

One of the points I made earlier. Many of the world's secular humanists are either atheistic or agnostic, and are as moral and as compassionate as one can be. They are to be respected, that's for sure.

From what I've read so far, it appears that what she means is that calling the staunch Rama-bhakta Tulsidas, whom many consider to be Valmiki-incarnate, a mayavadi, is constructive criticism. Labelling Ramakrishna Paramhamsa, who had the personal darshana of the universal Mother Goddess Jagadamba, a fool and a rascal, is constructive criticism. For your own good, you better give up, my friend Aditya. Anyone who's not a "Vaishnava" according to ISKCONian definitions deserves to be slammed in her books.

As I said, JustRish, spirituality cannot be forced. Take to the route where your heart derives the most peace, fulfillment and satisfaction. There is no one prescribed path for all of humanity. Each soul has a specific nature unique to itself, and for this reason a multitude of traditions, both Vedantic and non-Vedantic, exist. Take your time to study the options that are available to you at length, and only take the dive after due and careful deliberation. The landscape of Indic traditions is vast, and eventually you are sure to find the cause that you're meant to serve, whether that is Jainism, Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism or Tantra Yoga. Some people even do some kind of blending of these philosophies, and it works well for them. The inescapable fact is that the complete truth is multifaceted, and as such there are countless valid ways of realising one's own self. Pray to Providence with sincerity and study teachings which make sense to you. Such an approach is sure to yield its fruits.

Just keep progressing along the path that your heart feels comfortable with and that should take you safely where you're destined to go. The Buddha and Mahavira are enlightened gurus, no doubt about that.

It is only restricted to the Gir reserve now, Sunds. In the past, the Asiatic lion was far more geographically widespread than it is in our own times. And like I said, Maa's vahana is a higher dimensional, subtle being, not an earthly feline.

Thanks Sunds, this is an excellent thread. Aum Namah Shivaya

This said, I am myself a strong, deep believer in a God (personal-cum-impersonal) who pulls the karmic strings and in that, I am widely at variance with what was taught by the Buddha. However, I'm not prevented by this from acknowledging and appreciating the greatness and validity of much of Buddhism, and I'd much rather see people take to the wonderful road that it is than spend their lives hopelessly entangled in mundane affairs. Om tat sat

The theory that Buddha is a Vishnu avatar was a ploy by Vaishnavas to prevent people from converting to Buddhism. Otherwise, Buddhist philosophy is essentially atheism, and as far as I can see, is one of the most developed and convincing schools of thought in existence. The Buddha was an extremely perceptive individual, and I reiterate my respect of atheists, agnostics, theists and impersonalists alike.

Then the Buddha was an idiot, right? Is that what you mean?

Some of the most moral and compassionate people on earth are atheists. I for one certainly don't judge them.

Wow, very compelling indeed. If it is true, then there is no reason to think that the individual would lie about his identity. At 12 ft, the man would stand 3.66 metres and would be way taller than 8 ft 11 (2.72 m), the height of the tallest recorded human being, who was an American (as per the Guinness book of records). Please update yourself on this story and fill me in. I definitely wanna know more. Regards

This has to be a printing mistake, or the like. We are currently in the 7th manvantara, not the 8th one.

Not just Rupa Goswami, but the Brahmanda Purana, Devi Bhagavata Purana as well as Vayu Purana state this. And JN Prabhu's take on the differences between the Bhagavatam and Mahabharata is that they describe events occurring in two different kalpas. In fact, some opine that the Bhagavata occurrences pertain to a prior kalpa, the Sarasvata kalpa, whereas the Mahabharata depicts the history of what happened in this day of Brahma, the Shveta Varaha kalpa. Chakravarti does not necessarily refer to Sri Rama, and I would need much more limpid statements than this one to propose that Rama-lila is played out so frequently on earth. As for Vyasa, each time a different person gets empowered by God to split the Veda and make it more accessible to the dull folks of Kali-yuga. "Vyasa" in fact means "divider." In the current chatur-yuga, it was Krishna Dvaipayana, and in the next, it will be Ashvatthama, the son of Dronacharya, who is at present engaged in severe tapasya (probably in the Himalayas) in higher dimensions of space. He will be one of the rishis to impart Dharma to humankind in the next Satya-yuga and also be the Vedavyasa at the end of the following Dwapara. In the next period of Manu, he shall act as one of the sapta-rishis, as will his maternal uncle, Kripacharya.

Indulekhaji, I have very serious doubts about the Rama Setu connection with reports of what was "discovered" a couple of years back between India and Sri Lanka. Bhagavan Rama appeared in the late Treta age of the 24th chatur-yuga of the present manvantara. That would place His timeline some 18 to 19 million years back. It is extremely unlikely that Sri Lanka was Ravana's Lanka. Indeed, the Ramayana and Puranas give a much longer distance between the southern tip of Bharata and the kingdom of the Rakshasas, so much so that it took Hanumanji and the army of Vanaras days to complete the task of building the Setu. Any trace of that would've vanished since then. For this reason, I don't attach much credence to these claims. And take a look at this extract from a Bhagavatam purport (SB 4.22.36) by Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami: By the grace of Lord Çiva, a devotee gets the opportunity to be blessed by the goddess Durgä. Rävaëa, for example, was a great worshiper and devotee of Lord Çiva, and in return he got all the blessings of goddess Durgä, so much so that his whole kingdom was constructed of golden buildings. In Brazil, in this present age, huge quantities of gold have been found, and from historical references in the Puräëas, we can guess safely that this was Rävaëa’s kingdom. This kingdom was, however, destroyed by Lord Rämacandra.

Yeah, you take a dubious translation of a text, twist it out of context and we should all submit to it as gospel, eh? No verse stands on its own, deprived of overall meaning and context. I'd accept the version espoused by knowledgeable pandits and swamis proficient in both Sanskrit and sadhana as the true word of shastra any day, rather than seriously consider the disingenuous distortions of a casual unenlightened dabbler such as you. Sat Sanatana Dharma Ki Jaya! And I repeat that we need Smriti in order to understand Shruti. And Smriti-shastra definitely contains elaborate descriptions of how murti-puja should be done. End of discussion!!!

So now you're a Sanskrit scholar, right? Puhleeeze!

Yes, but a truly evolved individual will not blast all and sundry just because of some disagreement on the minutest details, rather such a person will exhibit truly saintly behaviour. God is infinite and unfathomable, and is not the property of Vaishnavism solely, but is present in the heart of every sincere seeker, whether that person is a Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, Christian, Muslim or animist. A thoughtful individual sees wisdom wherever it is available and takes advantage of it. Look up to Krishna as your guide. When speaking the Gita, he encourages Arjuna to fight, but there is no demonizing of the enemy, and the only mentions of Duryodhana are right at the beginning when Dhritarashtra is enquiring from Sanjaya, and again briefly in the chapter where the virat-rupa is being displayed. However, any unwarranted criticism of the man, who was evidently quite dishonourable in many ways, is conspicuous by its absence from the entire discourse. If only certain so-called spiritualists of the modern age could learn from that and refrain from putting down anyone who's not from their own camp, the whole world would be immensely benefited.

This is beautiful, Shivaduta. Regards

Krishna as well as Mahaprabhu appear only once in a kalpa, and this information is given to us by Srila Kavirajapada in his Sri Caitanya-caritamrta. There is no scriptural evidence that I am aware of for the Krishna in every Dvapara-yuga or Rama in every Treta-yuga theory. Several Puranas as well as Srila Rupa Gosvamipada in his Laghu-bhagavatamrta place the timeframe of Sri Rama in the late Treta of the 24th chatur-yuga of Vaivasvata Manvantara, which would make the appearance of Bhagavan Ramachandra about 19 million years before present. As for Sri Krishna, he appears at the end of Dvapara in the 28th divya-yuga of the 7th Patriarchate, or reign of Manu. And this is the verdict of shastra. In other Dvaparas, a different dark-hued avatara descends to the material universe. Likewise, as per traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava siddhanta, Shri Chaitanya advents Himself in the early Kali era immediately following the yuga of Sri Krishna's descent.

Way to go, Kulapavana Prabhu. Nitai Gaura Haribol!

It was never my contention that you worship Kaaba to start with. But you do utilise it, in all evidence without a clear comprehension of its purpose in your religion, and this is plain from the reasons that you note above. I repeat that, by parity of reasoning, you should afford other religions the right to their symbolisms in the same way that you have yours. And trust me buddy, the explanations that knowledgeable Hindus would propose as means of justifying praying to statues are way deeper that what you've typed on this thread. What I wrote was an analogy which, I maintain, is not dissimilar or totally unconnected to your defence of why you turn towards the Kaaba, for whatever reason that may be. As I said, it's a pity that you lack the intellectual integrity required to make this association. Anyways, to each his own, and NO Hindu of any denomination whatsoever shall cease the performance of murti-puja because of what Islam makes of it.

Fine, but I reiterate my point that God alone can judge our merits or demerits, because one person's Vaishnava is another one's bogus pasandi. So where do you draw the line?

I was not asking you anything by the way, just putting forward an argument.