Amlesh

What's the difference? What one has the other don't? Any superiority complex?

No worry, it's an understandable confusion. He no longer post here that's why. He once wrote to clarify that issue.

There is an update that you've missed. Lover of the Bhagavata is more than ever a real Lover of the Bhagavata.

That's why I don't like the Group Thinking ideas.

ONE in a Threaded way. The necklace is the perfect example. Krishna gave the description of the soul in the Gita.. Chapter 2, verse 24 acchedyo'yam adahyo'yam akledya'sosya eva ca nityah sarva-gatah sthanur acalo'yam sanatanah Translation The soul is indestructible, the soul is incombustible, insoluble and unwitherable. The soul is eternal, all pervasive, unmodifiable, immovable and primordial. Notice the word insoluble.... We are one when interconnected not merged the way you think, since the basic property of the soul, i.e. Insoluble will be not be taken into account.

That was not the issue. And why drag Hare Krishnas in all that.. you are always on the prowl to sprout your feelings.

We cannot really categorize Bhagwatam.

some glimpse of common grounds.. Encouraging.

Reading your posts Ranjeet is always a pleasure.

Tera Tujko Arpan. Nice....

The same applied to Sri Tulsidadasa. How the only place you erred is.... You've really confused with the word Bhakti. Just try to find the origin of that term and to whom it is applied. How we term the worshiping to Devas? AND why we give a different name to the worshiping of Hari.

and continued.... Knowledge leads to Bhakti.. that's why in his later years Sri Sankara develop devotional hymns to inculcate Bhakti in the heart of man. Bhaja Govindam. Well friends, Guest is right... It is really bad to say something wrong against Sri Sankara.

Exactly, they come to serve Hari.

mention not. Maharaja Bharata took birth again as Jada Bharata My Guru will tell, "Still asking me question about liberation you fool." Prema for Krishna is higher than liberation itself. Have you never heard that a Vaishvana does not endeavor of Mukti.

Sri Ramakrishna did not come to gain liberation.. he came to give liberation. He was already a liberated soul even before his birth. That happened to Sri Bharat Maharaj. He took birth again.. but to complete that process... God does not forget his past good endeavors. However, thinking about God.. that is left to him only. Krishna says that he devise the ways for one to think of him at the time death. But for that Kripa one need to be really genuine in his Duty for Dharma.

Me too I believe so. i know and I appreciate I'm too with oneness but in Threaded Way, this is Advaita to me. If ever I'm going to an Arya Samaj sanghatan... of course I'll appreciate the much they are doing.. though I know it is not complete. Something is better than nothing. The last word which counts... while leaving his body.

I believe in the Supreme alloting that, it can be that or not that. What guarantees you? The only thing that matters to Krishna is the binding of an individual to him. hahahaha.. why you question so much then? Maybe to give me light. anyways.. granted. Text: The Gita. The Author: Krishna Hey by the way, I guess Arjuna was not wise enough to ask Krishna References about his words. For what you can see with your naked eyes.. no need to ask references for those who are already blind. We have a lot of Drishtrasht these days... sanjayas have become rare. When you asked your Mataji about what has been cooked.. and after answering you, do you ask for reference? I guess, a glance in the Kitchen is enough. Read the Gita and glance at this world.. you'll see everything. hahahahaha.. you are learning the lesson buddy... Jai Sri Sita Ram. Jai Sri Hanuman. He was a Ksatriya... He knew when and where to express his feelings. Me also, if someone will meet me.. he'll never know that I'm influenced by Vaishnavism.. I know when and where to express my feelings. I guess, showing sweat and other feelings while negociating freedom with the British would have I guess, created some other thought in the head of the British. That's why independence of India was written in the Hand of a kshatriya rather than Brahmana. you mixing and confusion the natures of different people and different jobs. Yep, you are blinkered then, by your writting in those issues I could understand that you knew nothing about MG. What's the difference between Rama and Krishna. And of course if I say Rama or Krishna obviously that will mean Kali Maata as well. You know, Ramachandra/Krishna is the Universal set which englobes everything... Brahman dude, Brahman.

Read the Story of my experments with Truth.. Then you conclude. Bhakti can never be part of the concept of Advaita. Bhakti means abiding to the direction of a Superior Force. True... He accepted Ram as the all in all. Allah Tero Naam Ishwar Tero Naam. It is that version of the Raghu Pati Raghav Raja Ram that he made popular. He accepted Ram as the all in all. Allah Tero Naam Ishwar Tero Naam. It is that version of the Raghu Pati Raghav Raja Ram that he made popular. Even I'm inspired by Swami Vivekananda... I read in one of the Book by Swami vivekananda... If someone hits you once.. you hit him back with some additional force. When MG believed in something like.. show the other unhit side of ur face. He explicitly said that... my influence is "Vaishnavism" and Exlicitly said that according to him, "Tulsidasas Ramyana is the greatest modern work." No, you are getting all wrong in the concept of Vaishnavism.. you are somewhat comparing Vaishnavism with Iskconism or something else. I myself I read other doctrines and inspire myself if that shows some truth. This called real Vaishnavism. But Gandhiji would have never accepted to slap anyone of his personal basis. The weapon to fight the British for independence was the Gita. The Gita was the very companion of MG... He only inspired Jawaharlal Nehru to read the Gita. The Gita teached Bhakti and he said the inspiration of Bhakti in Him came by reading Tulsi Ramayana. The Advaita concept of in his very beginning of his life but he came to very first love that of Sri Ram. He was initiated with the Ram Naam mantra at a very tiny age by his lady cook. The Bhakti was well present in the fight for independence. Eve I respect Advaita It is part of the Gita. But not the Final Word. The final word is Bhakti. I'll try to do so... but you read the Story of my experiments with Truth. When I went to visit Delhi, I thought I'll spend 30 mins in the Gandhi museum but it started in that mood... but I finally spent 4 hours there. I read all this speech and writings that were displayed there. And I can say... such a Mahatma is surely very rare. They are contributors for sure and I respect that. The Gita says... depending on the Degree of surender, I reward accordingly. The reward is service itself. Though the anandamath does not know who is the sanctioner of such endeavors but the Mahatma knows. The degree of involvement in Bhakti or such Divine arrangements for works depends on the degree of surrender to Krishna. Where did find in any Sruti the Total Explanation of the Term Bhakti. It is only in the Gita. So I guess, employment of Bhakti starts when Ram is known. Advaitins don't accept the Supremacy of Hari so why use the Term Bhakti. Always I give explanation of Vaishnavism... and you question. Now I would like to know what do you understand by the term spirituality and your conception of this world?

That was not my question. True but only after knowing the Supreme. You've guessed it right... only after knowing Ram. But there is the element of FORGETFULNESS, REMEMBRANCE AND KNOWLEDGE. The one who is the controller of that is SRI HARI no.. Different Gurus Teaching the same REAL conclusion.. that is Bhakti to Sri Ram. But who says that we might get ditto the same Guru in the next Birth. Do you still remember who was your Guru in your Previous birth. If I 'll ask you what you ate 3 weeks back, you'll say ehhhhh ehhhhh. True... but that was not the issue of our debate... It was about the Eternal Relationship et al. hahahahahahaha......I'm not doing so...... I accept My Guru to be Greater than My LORD Himself but when it concerns RAM Kaaj... then there is no concession. My priority goes to TRUTH and nopthing else. Kaaj to Krishna is what really matters.

The Gita spoke about the Atheist.. you can see them in China. The Gita spoke about the Karma Mimamsic... you see them in Japan. The Gita spoke about impersonalism.. see the mirror. The Gita spoke about whimsical ruler.. see Hitler The Gita spoke about Nirvana.... Buddism Find that term in any Sanskrit Text. Open your eyes.. you are blind... Too much of spoon feeding is not Good. But one day maybe I might reveal it to you. But I guess it is not worth trying... I once spoke about Swadharma and I guess you did not understand 1 single statement I said.

Really..... He took the name the Ram while dying. Gita was his life and soul. Sri Ram was dearer to him than his own life. Tulsidasa's Ramcharitra Manasa was considered by him to be the Greatest work. His influence was Vaishnavism. He was a born Sri Hari Bhakta.. he was born in such a family. He was somewhat initially contemplating and ventured in knowing the Arya Samaj and its doctrine... but who can resist Sri Ram. He returned to the Bhagvata doctrine. When He was asked who will accompany him to the 1st and 2nd conference table... He replied, "Sri Madana Mohan Malaviya"... The Great Vaishnava Brahmana who created the Banaras Hindu University. The appreciated the work of the Advaitins but to become a Mahatma the only solution is the lotus feet of Sri Krishna. The Advaitins had some role in the Independence Era but the Major Protagonist were Sri Hari Followers. He does not give major roles to the whimsical who think themselves the doer, but to those who know that HE is basis in all the understanding. Dude, read the story of my experiment with truth before coming to any conclusion. AS HE HIMSELF SAID, "TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE SUPREME ALL PERVADING ABSOLUTE TRUTH FACE TO FACE ONE NEED TO LOVE EVEN THE MEANEST OF CRAP."

True and He had. The difference again is the degree in which you Trust God. A Mahatma is the final word in completeness in the surrender to God. hahahahahahaha........ Ok....... Karya dude... Karya. Sorry, I went to sleep before you...

True one was a mahatma the other no. He did not learn the lesson then.... One should continue to do his Duty that is of one's nature even if one has to meet destruction rather than to do another's duty and attain success. Gandhiji would not have erred on that. In such a case when an unworthy person is assigned to specific job.. instead of coming to a solution... things get complicated since it is not his job. so whatever.. what I meant is being fearless and go in the battle fearlessly. He had Ram in his mind.. that's the qualification for a mahatma. without Rama?.. it is fine but incomplete. The only definition of Mahatma that we have is given in the Gita. too loose. With our mind and intellect...might be good. wih Krishna's mind.... it becomes perfect

If you take another birth.. Are you sure to have the same Guru? No relation is eternal except that of God. I hold terrific respect to My Guru and of course it is a very subtle matter. The vidya given to Arjuna by Drona were not only material. However, when Krishna speaks to an Individual, then only it becomes complete. And not before that.

True. From a learned perception, we can see or formulate that. But we can't expect someone to write a thesis on that as well. People are more to prowl on the difference but rarely would like to see that unity. Time holds this degenerating Factor. Maybe externally yes... but if the rudimentary principles of a philosophy is kept in its pristine form then no need to worry about other secondary changes. Just like many fight over Tulsi Ramayana being not a replica et al... that makes me laugh... the only important thing that is needed to derived from both version of Ramayana is ditto same and Tulsi never deviated from that. AND that is Bhakti to Sri Ram. But who would see that? Yeah I know.. I felt no need to mention that. I know you will know that. the thing I would like to point out is "Today we are left with that much of books and tomorrow with none." And surely, no sacred books from the Vedic culture is the most detrimental thing that the world can face. 10 millions atomic bombs on earth is puny compared to that.