Dark Warrior

Raghu, good points you make. But not all Hare Krishnas are bad. Many of them are very sattvik individuals, despite some quirky beliefs. I tend to ignore their eccentricities, in those cases.

In any event, Srila Prabhupada is certainly 'bonafide', as ISKCON folk would put it.

Nope. What makes you think Lakshmi is His only wife?

The Lord is hailed as 'Parama Purusha' and 'Purushottama' for one reason. He is the only male in existence. Technically, we are all females, and since He protects us, we become His wives.

Nammalvar says, 'He is not male, He is not female, He is not eunuch'. However, even though Nammalvar makes this point, the Lord is still referred to as 'He'. It is a spiritual masculinity.

While Lakshmi is our mother, we enjoy a different relationship with the Lord, although He is her husband. He can be anything you want.

On a personal note, I do not however, enjoy 'Madhurya Rasa'. I prefer the type of relationship Arjuna had with the Lord - a friendship sort of thing.

I thought Hindu is actually a vedic term for a faith that has ahimsa as its central tenet. The term, I believe, finds mention in some ancient text. If I find the exact reference, I will post it here.

If that is the case, it would be logical to call Buddhists and Jains as Hindus as well. However, I don't mind being 'Hindu', its got a nice ring to it.

What an intelligent retort. But what more can you expect from a baboon?

Ah well.

DEAR PROF OF LA LA LAND,

 

I AM SORRY BUT I TAKE LEAVE NOW, I DO HAVE A LIFE, GUESS U DONT AS U HAVE A MEDICAL PROBLEM, SEE A GOOD DOCTOR, MAYBE A FEW PILLS WILL BRIGHTEN UP YOUR SORRY LIFE......

 

AND I DONT CHANT VISHNUS 1000 NAMES EVERDAY, THEY ARE IN MY BREATHE ALL THE TIME.....EVEN WHEN I AM SLEEPING...GUESS U WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND THAT....

 

SO LONG LOOSER

 

ADIOS

 

 

Haha...I doubt that a person like you, who can't even understand how to control his senses, can actually talk about Vishnu Bhakti. You are an insult to the likes of mahatmas like Prahlada and Dhruva who actually did it.

Now, you have been crying a lot, so go and get a diaper change.

EDIT: By the way, your 'life' consists of eating, sleeping and mating, which to me isn't really a 'life'. I have to go to the temple, so I take leave as well.

REALLY SO I AM A SINNER NOW...AND OH AND WHO HAS PASSED THAT JUDGEMENT....MY MY THAT IS FROM A FICTIONAL PROFESSOR FROM SOME IMIGINARY UNIVERSITY...WHO IS VERY VERY FRUSTRATED AND WHEN THE PROF CANNOT GET HIS POINT ACROSS THE PROF STARTS TO RAVE AND RANT LIKE A CHILD.....AND THAT PROF THEN TRIES TO PULL AN IMAGINARY RANK OVER THE OTHERS...

 

U R A ZERO....A BIG ONE....AND THAT ZERO IS NOT EMPTY...IT IS JUST FULL OF NONESENSE......GO BACK TO YOUR TEACHER AND TELL HIM ALL WHAT U SAID AND READ TODAY...THEN COME BACK TO TALKE SOME SENSE....

 

Yep, I can certainly say you are starting to lose it.

SO AS PER YOU I AM A CLOWN, A BABOON, IDIOT ........IS THAT ALL....I AM SO HAPPY THAT U SEE ME IN SO MANY DIFFERENT FORMS.....AND U STILL THINK THAT U KNOW IT ALL...MY DEAR PROFESSOR IN MICROBIOLOGY...OH FROM WHERE IS THAT FROM....HMM...MUST BE FROM UNIVERSITY OF LA LA LAND.....

 

U KNOW NOTHING ABOUT VEDAS...U R ZERO......

 

U HAVE NOT PROVED ONE POINT...ALL U DO IS CUT AND PASTE......NOT ONE SENSIBLE EXPLANATION WITHOUT CALLING ME DIFFERENT NAMES....THAT CANNOT BE VEDAS.....U KNOW NOTHING...GO BACK TO YOUR TEACHER AND TELL HIM THAT U FAILED HIM......

 

I FEEL SO GOOD THAT U FIND ALL THE 3 ELEMENTS IN ME - A MONKEY - SHIVA, A CLOWN - BAL GOPAL AND AN IDIOT - SUDAMA.......I AM SO BLESSED.......

What a very striking post. It seems like with every post you make, your ability to write coherently sinks to a lower level.

Judging by your posts, I can see that your idea of spirituality is rightly defined by Sri Veda Vyasa as 'Tamo Guna'. However, that is not for me to say.

So, I suggest, you get back to your kundalini and stop bringing the Vedas down to your abysmal levels of mundane sexuality. It is a great sin to torture the Vedas like you have. The Mahabharata itself vouches for it.

Are you kidding me? I chant Sri Vishnu Sahasranama daily, and I feel absolutely no 'sexual urges'. Of course, you will think this is an abnormal behaviour, but no. A true human being is one who is able to control the senses, and not act like a sex crazed gorilla.

Good Lord, do you not even understand this? I will show you what true 'spirituality' is, according to the Vedic tradition:

1) Knowledge of Sriman Narayana, Para Brahman (And no other Deva).

2) Knowledge of the Self.

3) Knowledge of the means to the Goal (Bhakti, Jnana, etc.)

4) Knowledge of the obstacles to the Goal (Lust, desire, materialism, all these stupid 'yogas').

5) Acharya bhakti.

Therefore, true 'spirituality' is miles away from where you are now. Sadly, I had been arguing with you thinkng that you actually had enough sense to understand this simple fact, but the heck with it, you don't.

U R U Know What For Calling Me Ashok Baby....r U That Frustrated.....and Did U Read What I Wrote......that Although I Do Not Follow That Belief But It Is A Very Interesting Concept Of Abhinav Gupta Who Wrote All This About A 1000 Years Ago........i Like To Listen ,respect All And What Is Written On That Website Was Was Much Before Your Time Dw........i Am Open And Not Closed Like An Empty Box Like U Who Just Makes A Lot Of Noise....and When U Cannot Convince Anyone U Say ...people I Am Professor In Microbiology.....i Know More.....so Listen To Me ....and I Dark Warrior Have No Sexual Urges.....but By The Way I Dark Warrior Am A Very Angry Person...and Sure We All Know What Is The Root Casue Of Anger......unsatisfied Lust And Loads Of Ingnorance:)..

Well, still appears as though you will keep typing like an incompetent clown.

The idea of true spiritual practice to control your lust for a woman and develop a lust for the Lord. By repeatedly engaging in thinking about His beauty, reading His lilas, etc. you lose all attraction for the mundane world.

Of course, all this is beyond you. After all, animals are obsessed with eating, sleeping, mating , etc. You are also obsessed with eating, sleeping, mating. So, I guess there is no need to tell you all this.

However, its your life, so do with it whatever you want. Just don't say all this is in the Vedas. This is an insult to the great tradition of Vedanta, reducing it to a bunch of yogas on mundane lust.

EDIT what, by the way? I missed that one.

EDIT: Oh yeah, that one. Quite funny. Ashok apparently likes 'Yogas' that cater to lust and materialism, but on the other hand, Lord Krishna clearly says Lust is your greatest enemy, and that Bhakti Yoga is the most perfect path.

So basically, its clear that Ashok lacks not only a working knowledge of Vedas, but also about what real 'spirituality' is about. Control of material desire is a rudimentary teaching of Vedanta. Tantra and other things encouraging sexual practices have been condemned as 'tamo guna', ie, in the mode of ignorance by all knowledgeable Vedantins.

FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN OTHER ASPECTS OF SPRITUALITY PLEASE READ THIS SITE : http://www.yogaesoteric.net

 

PLS NOTE THAT I DO NOT FOLLOW THIS SITE BUT DID FIND THEIR BELIEF SYSTEM VERY HELPFUL.....

 

AND DW, PLEASE SEE A DOCTOR, JOKES APART....

 

Now, according to Vedanta, the only valid Yogas are Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga, Saranagati Yoga.

Other 'esoteric' Yogas do nothing to further spiritual practice. Ashtanga Yoga is part of the process of Bhakti Yoga, but Kundalini and others are quite irrelevant to Vedanta. Any experiences gained by it is completely useless and deluding.

Hence, it is clear that Ashok baby does not understand the nuances of Vedic Tradition.

Now you are talking like Jagatguru,well no one in real ask for any pramana from you,our little brain is inuf powerful to get pramana of what is wrong and what is right.

Well, by saying that your beliefs are correct, you are putting yourself above the Veda, which simply posits a heirarchy of Devas, with Lord Vishnu as Supreme.

Whereas, I have been, quite rationally, provided sufficient proof for my points from sastra. This is because I am a follower of Vedanta, and hence follow it completely to the core.

Keep ranting.

Topic?Well what you write are your ideas and not a topic!I dont welcome any advises from you because to get advises from a person who is BLIND in his thoughts is against shashtras,you may check Vedas on last line of mine and post it here to save our time.

Care to explain exactly HOW my thoughts are against sastras?

All you and Ashok have been doing, is to ramble about how I am wrong. Then, if you represent the Vedas, I suggest you get your brains working for once and provide me with Vedic Pramanas to show that your views are correct.

And no, Tulasidas' Ramayana is not pramana. I have encountered it earlier.

EDIT: In your avatar, you have a pic of Krishna worshipping Shiva. Ever read the Santi Parva where Krishna explains to Arjuna how His act of worshipping Shiva does not mean Shiva is Supreme?

I figured as much.

Above is your line right?When you feel all are bad with you,it is a time to do a perfect and full "self analysis".

Haha...But then, that thread was certainly about me. That is why I posted there.

You are just as bad as me, in that sense. You insist that I need to stop following the Vedas and simply say, 'All Gods are Equal'.

Sorry, that itself, is your belief. Its not mine. I respect your belief, but don't claim that you follow the Vedantic tradition perfectly.

Hindustani, I have nothing against you as a person. I am explaining the Vedantic position. Have you not yourself seen Ashok ramble on about materialism aimlessly? When you say 'You MUST respect all Gods', you are simply going against the most fundamental teachings of Vedanta.

So, if you profess it to be a personal belief, then go ahead. Stop pushing it on me.

SO WHAT DO U DO WHEN IN THIS PRACTICAL WORLDOF GOD U COME ACROSS A POOR BEGGAR WITHOUT ANY LEGS....DO U SIT AND JUST LECTURE HIM ON WHAT VEDA SAYS AND WHY HE IS THE WAY HE IS OR U MY FRIEND DO SOMETHING TO RELIEVE HIM OF HIS MISERY.....PTACTICAL MISERY...NOT SOME NONSESNE......WHAT THOUGHTS CROSS YOUR MIND WHEN U SEE A NAKED MAN OR WOMAN...CAUS I DONT KNOW WHAT GENDER UR R IN THIS MISERABLE LIFE.....MAN, WOMAN OR BOTH......WHAT DO U DO WHEN U SEE A OLD PERSON BEGGING FOR FOOD AND U JUST STAND AND WATCH THAT PERSON THERE...WHAT DO U DO WHEN U SEE A YUNG WOMAN TAKE A BATHE ON THE ROAD SIDE NEARLY NAKED...OR THE SAME WHEN A HANDSOME MAN IS TAKING A BATH IN THE OPEN SPACES....WHAT DO U DO WHEN U HAVE A SMALL HUNGRY, BEGGAR, A CHILD WHO LOOKS AT YOU WHILE U R ENJOYING YOUR FOOD....

I must say, these posts have certainly exposed you of your gross ignorance.

Materialism is all you want? Go ahead, dude, but then, don't claim to know the Vedas. Its laughable, your posts.

Now you are crossing limits here,is this your forum?Are you a mod here?Are you an admin?Just shut up and use your upper part of head while advising like what you have written in your post.We are using the most polite way so don't treat it as our weakness,you are nothing but an example of sick person who spend his most of time on internet and try to let down others,first time I am using words in your style,try to improve your style of advising other members else get ready for the worst than this type of replies from my side and that too in your style of writing.

Then, I suggest you stop pushing your beliefs on everybody. Every thread has a topic, so stick to it.

u just contradicted your own very very confused self ....on one post u said that u believe that by following any of the gods one can acheive moksha and here u say the opposite...very very confused person u r ....but sure ignorance is nothing but confusion....

You nitwit, I never said that. I said, if YOU feel all gods are equal, go ahead.

According to Vedanta, only Sriman Narayana can give moksha. But if some losers like you feel that other gods give moksha without validating it by Vedic Pramanas, go ahead. That's all I meant.

As far as u being the judge and jury on my understanding of the veads is nothing short of being outright stupid and hollow....your passing judgement on my understanding of a subject matter without fully grasping what i am saying is testimony to the fact that only the darkness shrouds u ......

The evidence points that you lack complete knowledge of our tradition and is simply another brain washed one.

So u enjoy the passtimes of Sri Narayan and can do nothig else in the material world...hmm what a looser.......and u seem to have all the time in this materaial world to just argue...is that all u have........and then u think u are enjoying HIS pastime.....sit in front of your computer and try to tell the whole world that u have figured it out all by yourself......

Haha...this clearly reveals your ignorance of sastra and of Brahma Jnana.

No true seeker of Brahman ever considers Materialism as important. Only hari Bhakti is important and mundane materialism is shunned.

No wonder you are unable to comprehend facts. You lack the knowledge of this very basic fact - that the Vedas discourage the pursuit of material interests.

For the record, I am a professional scientist. A Microbiologist.

However, I would give up whatever I have for Hari Bhakti, because that is the most important thing.

And so far as your conclusion that Vishnu gave a postion to Shiva and others is something that i can only laugh u have just beaten the depths of darkenss and stupidity.....

You do not even know the basic knowledge of the Vedas and think materialism is something to achieve. Truly pathetic.

Go look at the Shiva is a demigod thread again. Acharya Ramanuja and madhva have both demonstrated that Shiva is a Jivatma and I doubt ignoramuses like you can refute them.

Tell me me very very learned, large headed friend, who by the way knows it all by some magic book that u have read and think u understand all.......how do u spend yur day in the wordly life......do u eat, drink water.......or do u follows the great sages who dont eat and dont drink anything and just drink the nector from the reverse lotus that sits in each human...are u married...if u r then have u every enjoyed sex...if u r not married even then have u enjoyed sex.....or maybe u never felt any sexual urges....

Ha Ha...how pathetic. You have clearly revealed your complete ignorance.

Karma yoga is action without attachment. In order to cultivate knowledge of Brahman, the Vedas advise us to never get caught in the trap of materialism.

To attract yourself to the Lord, you dis-attract yourself from everything else.

In short, you eat, drink, do whatever you want without attachment. And yes, I have no sexual urges, trust me. By simply chanting the name of Hari, such desires fade away.

Bhagavatam gives an interesting example of materialism. A man, is dangling from a pit. The pit is filled with snakes. A tiger on the other side, is waiting to pounce on him. Yet, he savors a drop of honey that falls down from a nearby tree and enjoys it, forgetting his predicament.

Pathetic. You do not even know this basic fact, and yet you claim to know the Vedas.

have u ever thought if a person is born deaf, dumb and blind how can he acheive God...or maybe by your so very confusing logic he has no right....and therefore will never acheive god....hav u ever experienced anahant nad in your own self...have u heard that.......have experienced that.........

 

i am sure u will come out only quoting some more from the vedas......nothing your own...everything from someone else......

Judging from your posts, you do not even know the basic conduct of a knowledge seeker - to shun all materialistic desires, to be completely devoted to Hari and to stop exulting in your achievements. Therefore, your posts are irrelevant.

I suggest you stop harping about things now. Any person who looks at your posts will size you up.

First of all I respect all without any exceptions....i also respect your acharaya despite the fact that I have never met him.....he has a student in you who follows to the "T" and that should make him proud....

Hmm...OK.

u r very confused and in your zeal to answer my question u have totally overlooked what i had asked u, i had said that based on all what you know and understand....share one practical element in your wordly life that stems from your understanding of the vedas......or whetever u follow.......one practical rule that u have in your life that follows the ESSENCE of what is written in vedas.......and if all u have ever done is just read books over books and nothing else then please just zip up .........

Once again, you fail miserably to get the point.

The goal of life is to further our understanding of God. Hence, by doing what the Vedas say, we understand more about God.

I have demonstrated, by simple bhakti to Narayana alone, one can realise His lilas. This gives us a great realisation and a great form of bhakti.

That is all this is about. What could be more important or practical in life, other than enjoying the pastimes of Sriman Narayana?

Of course, if you think materialism is more important, go ahead.

And yes all enamates from that one source .......everything ....u could call it anything.......and even different Gods stems from that same one source...it is not unification of all gods or singular god....it is about that one source...now that could be any source according to your belief and experiences....that could be vishnu, narayan, shiv, ram, krishna....

Wrong-o, my dear ignoramus. Narayana, Vishnu and Krishna are one and the same person. Shiva is a Jivatma, who was given this position by Narayana.

Shiva has an atma just like us. Narayana is Paramatma, who dwells within the atma of everybody, including Shiva.

There is only one god, and He has a beautiful form of 4 hands, dark hued color, with weapons and attractive garlands. He is Narayana.

Other 'gods' are simply jivatmas. Worshipping them will not give you moksha, according to Vedas.

the story of the blind men and what they each felt and interpreted when they touched an elephant is classic....

 

And so far as what u r left with is nothing ...that is what your post shows.... empty.....

The story of the blind men is irrelevant to Vedanta. And lastly, my post, which contained such a wonderful lila of the Lord, is construed by you as empty. You fail at understanding anything, you fail at realising what the Vedas convey...in short, you fail at being a Vedantin.

IF I WANT TO THEN I CAN QUOTE FROM TEXTS THAT YOU THINK THAT YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD.....I AM NOT AS STUPID AS U AS YET......AND I HOPE THAT I NEVER GO THERE......SURE I CAN QUOTE AND SUPPORT THOSE QUOTES AND INTERPRETATIONS WITH SO MANY OF OTHER AUTHORS ......

However, such statements are not valid in a debate because your quote 'I hope to never go there' clearly shows that you have no regard for what these texts say, nor do you actually know how to interpret them.

Furthermore, your idea that there are some people who have interpreted these texts in your views is also historically incorrect. There are only 2 Shaivites who have written Bhashyas on Vedanta Sutras, and these two have been defeated. The likes of Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, etc. are not regarded as Vedantins, but free thinkers who base their views loosely on Hinduism.

In another thread, you also revealed your ignorance when you said 'Rama is Shiva's isht and Shiva is Rama's isht'. That is a fallacy, because Rama never worshipped Shiva. The original Valmiki Ramayana, shows that Rama worshipped Narayana and never worshipped Shiva.

So, this reveals your ignorance of the real deal. In another example, you have a pic of Ganesha being cradled by Shiva in your avatar. This may come as a shock to you, but are you aware that Ganesha himself is an invented God? According to Shruti, the son of Shiva is Skanda only. Even in Gita, Skanda is mentioned. Ganesha being the son of Shiva is a fabrication that arose in the 16th century, based on some interpolations.

What I am saying is historically true, and can be verified. Since you do not even know these basic puranic things, which is the basic knowledge of anyone who follows the Vedas, I can safely assume that you know nothing about Veda.

Hence, if you say, 'I know a lot but I won't tell', it simply sounds childish and an immature attempt to hide your ignorance.

YOU MY FRIEND ARE STILL NOT READY FOR THAT DICSUSSION AS YOUR INTERPRETATIONS ARE BASED ON SOMEONE'S THOUGHTS...AND JUST TO HELP YOUR FEEBLE BRAIN UNDERTSTAND THAT I DO NOT MEAN WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IN GITA OR THE VEDAS....IT IS WHAT YOU QUOTE AND HOW U UNDERSTAND....U AS THE DARK WARRIOR.....

The fact is, I have completely demonstrated how Gita and Vedanta explain the concept of one minded devotion to Narayana. All you have been saying is, 'I know more than you'.

AND YOU PROFESS TO FOLLOW VEDAS......PLEASE JUST ONE EXAMPLE....JUST ONE EXAMPLE TO PROVE YOUR OWN BELIEF ....THAT U HAVE READ BUT FOLLOW PRACTICALLY IN LIFE.....GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE OUT OF ANY TEXT THAT YOU HAVE READ OR YOUR AMAZING BIG HEAD HAS UNDERSTOOD AND U HAVE APPLIED THAT AS A PRINCIPLE IN YOUR LIFE......

Eka Bhakti to Lord Narayana is clearly mentioned with many pramanas, in the Shiva thread.

Once you have eka bhakti, it develops into an understanding of the Lord's pastimes more, and makes you enjoy.

I will give you an example of my realisation (No ego here, just my acharya's blessings). Lord Krishna loved to help the gopis churn the butter. But in the Kurma Avatara, Vishnu told the devas that he needed no help to churn the Ocean of Milk.

Now, what could be the reason for this? the Lord needs help to churn butter, but not the ocean. The reason is, the Gopis are Bhagavatas, devoted to the Lord ALONE. Hence, he loves to be close to them and touch them.

However, the Devas are not always devoted to Him and sometimes have false ego. Devas like Brahma, Shiva, Indra, etc. sometimes forget that He is the Lord. Hence, He helps them as His duty, and asks them to stay away from churning the Ocean.

This beautiful example of eka bhakti can be realised from sastras by only those who maintain single minded devotion to Hari alone. Credit for this realisation goes to Acharya Ramanuja, the greatest of Vaishnavas.

AS FOR CORECTING MY SPELLING...THANK YOU FOR THAT...IS THAT ALL WHAT U R LEFT WITH ANYWAYS......

I am left with a lot more, and I have revealed all of that.

So As Per Your Weak Mind U Think That Lord Krishna Delivered This Meesage And He Was The First One To Deliver The Message As Is In Gita......and So Far As My Gibbersih Utterances They Will Be Gibbersih For Someone Like U Who Only Understands "cling On - As In Star Wars"

Hmm...quite a mash of thoughts here.

As per Vedanta, Krishna is the avatara of Sriman Narayana, who is Brahman. The Vedas are apaurusheya, and the Gita is a paurusheya text, spoken by the Lord, in the hope that people will follow it and abide by its rules. There, the worship of anya-devata is clearly discouraged.

The path to true knowledge is like walking a razor's edge, accoring to the Upanishads. Just because there is one god, it doesn't make every invented or existing being equal to God. The importance of Acharya Bhakti is emphasised on Vedanta because personal experiences are often, devised by the maya of the Lord, to delude karmic individuals.

Your posting makes no sense.

And I Do Think That U R Ruffled....

 

Very Very Ruffled My Friend And Your Own Conivctions Are Not Standing Your Own Stupid Logic.....and U R Trying O Justify Your Own Belief Thru This Medium.....

Trust me, my convictions are entirely supported by Vedanta. However, your beliefs are simply a product of your own assumptions.

A theory that makes many assumptions is discarded, according to Occam's razor. I have only ONE assumption - ie, the Vedas speak the truth and following it properly is instructed.

You assume that the Vedas are inferior to your own brain, assume that all gods are equal by default, assume that your position is logical without Shruti's support, etc.

Hence, by Occam's Razor, you are wrong.

Now, on one hand, you are unable to write coherently, keep ranting about 'personal experience' and 'all gods are same', are devoid of the basic knowledge of our great tradition and insist that the Vedas are to be discarded in place of your beliefs.

And you call me ruffled?

And What Makes U Think That I Have Not Read Vedas....or Maybe Even More Than Your Little Brain Can Phatom....

Well, could it be the inconsistency of your views with Vedanta, or that so far, none of your beliefs tally with Vedantic beliefs? I hazard a guess.

Furthermore, that's 'Fathom' not 'Phatom'. Now, Pratyaksha shows that you cannot write a single post coherently. Do you then, know what an esoteric text like the Vedas say? I doubt it.

Then, I suggest, you support your position with appropriate quotes from the Vedas to prove your point.

If you are going to say that your brain is superior to the Vedas, then good luck. I have no intention to argue with anyone who doesn't profess to follow Vedanta.

THANK YOU FOR UNDERSTANDING THAT I LACK IN SO MANY AREAS.....I THINK I TOUCED A RAW NEVER IN YOU .....

On the contrary, I am never affected by anyone who argues with me. All my points stand the test of logic.

That's 'nerve'. And trust me, I am quite unruffled. It wuld take more than mindless ranting and raving about 'all gods are one' to ruffle me.

I AM ATLEAST NOT LIKE YOU WHO HAS TO QUOTE THIS TEXT AND THAT TEXT.....SOMEONE ELSE THOUGHTS ...ANOTHER PERSONS EXPERINECES.....WHEN U DO THAT U R NOTHING BUT A PARROT ) ON THE OTHERHAND I HAVE MY OWN EXPERIENCES...NOT WHAT SOMEONE ESLE WROTE OR SAID....

Vedanta solely relies on the Prasthna Trayam, ie, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahma Sutras. One who accepts the validity of the texts and abides by its rules is a Vedantin.

The main reason our acharyas wrote bhashyas for these texts is for us to read, understand and follow them. Simply blabbering about being a 'parrot' is quite contradictory to pratyaksha, which shows that Lord Krishna Himself delivered a book named Bhagavad Gita, to make us understand its essence.

If you do not follow the Vedas, you are not part of the Vedic Culture. Simple as that.

ON NOT BEING ABLE TO WRITE COHERENTLY I HAVE TO SAY AGAIN THAT I WRITE FROM MY MIND NOT FROM SOME OTHER PERSONS MIND...

 

MAYBE A LITTLE STRETCH FOR A FEEBLE BRAINED PERSON LIKE YOU...MY APOLOGIES SIR........

You write from your mind? That explains the gibberish in your posts then.

Your mind, then, appears to be completely incapable of transmitting neurons at the correct times.

I suggest you first understand what is meant by the term 'Vedic'. It means, one who follows the Vedas. And as seen in the Shiva thread, I have shown that Vaishnavas are Vedantins.

If you reject the Vedas, go ahead and follow your own 'personal experience'.

What makes you think that I believe in one and not the other......my point was more on your approach.....u seem to be a very closed person to anything and everything around u...open yourself up ....experience other elements of sprituality....whenone is closed in sprituality then u can never achieve total experience....i do appreciate that u are very strong in your conviction....but all convictions are always not right or complete....so open u....experience different aspects of sprituality.....I believe in Hanumanji, pray to Sri Ram and listen to Bhajans for Krishana as sung by Vinod Agarwal....i also do not believe that one has to run away in the jungle to experince God.....he and his enery is everywhere and that energy will manifest and touch u in different ways.......how he touches u is dependant on your own energies....

Simply put, Vaishnavism and Vedanta do not believe all gods are one, or all experiences are genuine, or that worship of any god may lead to moksha. Vaishnavism places emphasis on correct interpretation of Vedanta, which leads to the obvious conclusion that Sriman Narayana is the Supreme Lord, and that other devas are merely jivatmas.

Now, my intention is definitely not to hurt your feelings, or to say that you won't get moksha, etc. My intention is to solely follow Vedanta.

If you both have any arguments, I suggest that, instead of harping about how closed I am, read Sri Ramanuja's Sri Bhashya, where he gives 60 different points from the Vedas to drive home Hari Sarvottama. Or read Sri Madhva's vigorous proofs of Hari Sarvottama. If you find any faults in their philosophy, then you can open a thread and argue with Vaishnavas.

Simply put, Vaishnavas do not accept the endearing philosophy of worshipping everything under the sun.

I hope I have made myself perfectly clear to you two. You are free to your beliefs, but similarly, stop pushing your beliefs on Vedantins. Vishnu=Shiva=all gods is a position that has been rejected by even Sri Sankaracharya in his Bhashya.

And by the way all your childsih bantering is nothing less that a person who has been reading a book for a very long time that has been written both symbolically and scientifically and thinks that he understands all....the confidence that u excude is nothing but foolish outburst......even if u truly understood one element of what the essence was on the writings u wud not have tried to argue one sided nonesense

You lack the ability to write coherently, you lack the ability to understand a proper argument, you lack the ability to provide sufficient support of your argument.

God is supreme,if you worship Vishnu he is supreme,if I worship shiva he is supreme for me.If you learnt vedas in real you would never write who is supreme!!For me Vishnu or Shiva is ONE.

Whatever is the case,always respect the GOD lives in other heart,if I fail to do this nothing worst than this.It is good to teach someone(when he demands) but its deadly wrong to tell someone that you know nothing and I am supreme,if he does not know or miss something his inner god one day will tell him who am I or you to preach him?Are we gurus?NO.

I am surprised that one thread is closed and ofcourse Dark Warrior opens another one.....if yur determination was as strong in pursuit of God as is in proving that you or what u believe in is right then ot would be a different story......as I had said in the last thread that your screen name defines you aptly....you are a very dark person in your thoughts ...and very closed.....

I suggest that both of you take your 'All Gods are One' theology to another thread, or stick to this thread's discussion, which is simply about monism or dualism in the Vedas. Much as I would like to argue, at the moment, I can only address one person's stupidity at a time.

Is it?Does not look like because the way you were writing in that old thread which closed recently,man it is damn easy to copy paste for anyone quoting Vedas BUT I saw some posts of yours and I can deffinately say that you miss a LOT in real.I wish you all the best.IN simple term learn vedas and read vedas(from webs)are different.I see most of time you are busy showing your gyan and in most case example here you are again busy in discussing the color of skin...haha.Brother color of skin does not matter,its mine or your karmas which will count in the end.

Of Course, I am copying and pasting the relevant slokas from the Vedas. Do you think I can invent Vedic Slokas by myself? However, the explanation I am giving for it is certainly in my own words, based on my reading of Sri Ramanuja's Vedanta Sangraha and Sri U.Ve. Narasimharangachari's work on Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita Vedanta. Whereas, all you have been doing is arguing about being 'secular' and how 'all gods are equal'.

In any case, my argument isn't with you. Ravindran, first of all, needs to grasp the subject matter of the debate - 'Do the Vedas preach Monism or Dualism'?

He claimed that the Vedas are monistic. I have proven that the Vedas are dualistic. Now, I accept the Vedas as the ultimate reality and hence, I can say Vishnu is supreme. However, if he does not accept the Vedas, he is free to accept whatever he thinks is the ultimate reality. The idiocy of all this is that, he thinks its my job to convince him that the Vedas are the ultimate authority. However, that's not my problem - I am merely telling him the subject matter of the Vedas.

My goal was solely to prove that the Vedas do not preach monism. Instead, he has completely gone wayward.

Now it is your turn to provide proof for your claim - that Bhraman is A blue skined man, as per my terms. ( no quotting books)

Here itself, the utter idiocy of this is revealed.

You quote from some book to express your view. That means, I need to prove you are wrong by quoting from the SAME book. When you quote from the Veda, I need to quote from the Veda only. That is the rule of debate.

If you do not want me to quote from books, then why did you quote those books in the first place?

One can only have one common ground for debate. If you quote from a book, I quote from the same book. If you reject these books and use some other source, I too will use that other source, etc.

If you quote an Upanishad, it means by default, you accept the scriptural validity of the Upanishad. Hence, if I use the same Upanishad to prove that you are wrong, then you have to either remain consistent with your position that the Upanishad is valid, or you can change your opinion and say that you no longer believe in the Vedas.

I did not ask you where you got the Mahavakyas. I know that the Mahavakyas are in Vedas, and I have explained that they do not say Brahman is Jivatma. All I am saying is, if you are quoting from book 'x', it means I have to quote from the same book to refute you.

If there is someone intelligent reading this thread, please explain it to this hopeless person. he seems to be completely clueless.

EDIT: I didn't address this properly:

An example of this is your complete neglet of the mahavakyas which I have reffered. You even dint know its existence as vedic pramanas - you were arguing that I have picked them up from "some where". So much for your claim of your Vadic knowledge.

If you have eyes, check the FIRST POST of this thread. I clearly explained every Mahavakya. Where did I neglect them? I explained how these Vakyas do not convey identity. Check my posts.

Then, you say, I was unaware of their existence. Everyone knows those Vakyas are on Vedas. I said, 'Ravindran picked up those Vakyas from somewhere' meaning, 'Ravindran has no knowledge of Vedas and simply is quoting Vakyas without understanding their meaning'.

Its basic english. When I said you picked it up from somewhere, I meant, you never read the Vedas and is simply quoting these Vakyas from hearsay.

Ravindran, I have learnt the Vedas. Whereas, all you know is how to quibble without arguing. I apologise to the Moderators for my language, but seriously, its annoying to see someone with so little common sense.