Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

RadheyRadhey108

Members
  • Content Count

    545
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by RadheyRadhey108


  1. 1- Thx, I was more asking for a verse pertaining to Her birth, though. Which, that wouldn't prove anything anyways, since Krishna has incarnated multiple times... including in His own original form... and appeared to be 'born' and 'die', but that doesn't prove that Krishna is a demigod. Similarly, Saraswati could have incarnated in a body like Her spiritual from.

     

    2-Where do the verses say that Saraswati will die? It doesn't even mention Her birth, let alone Her death.

     

    3-Where?

     

    4-So, do you think Saraswati is one of these eternal 'servants'? And, if so, then how do you know that She's a demigoddess based on Her (supposed) 'servitude'? Lakshmi serves Vishnu, does that make Her a demigoddess?

     

    5-There is no difference between a Goddess and a Devi (since Devi is just the Sanskrit word for Goddess), but there is certainly a difference between a demi-goddess and a goddess: a demi-goddess (e.g.- Urvashi, Menaka, etc...) isn't purely divine and is susceptible tp Karma, while a goddess (e.g.- Saraswati, Lakshmi, Parvati) is entirely divine and isn't susceptible to Karma because all of Her activities are in play, or Lila.

     

    6-Uh, I'm pretty sure that's what I just said.


  2. Well, you pasted it on this thread, too. Here, I'll paste my refutation of your shastric 'proof' of Saraswati being a demigoddess here as well:

     

    How does this:

    Lord Brahma presented King Prithu with a protective garment made of spiritual knowledge. Bharati, the wife of Brahma, gave him a transcendental necklace. Lord Vishnu presented him with a Sudarshan chakra, and Lord Vishnu's wife, the goddess of fortune, gave him imperishable opulences.

    --Bhagavata Purana 4.15.16

     

    So, does this include Radha and Krishna?:

    Sage Kardama, husband of the great Devahuti, was manifested from the shadow of Brahma. Thus all became manifested from either the body or the mind of Brahma.

    --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.27

    If not, then how can you prove it is also not talking about Saraswati?

     

    Again, how is this proving that Saraswati Ma is a demigoddess?:

    Thereafter Brahma accepted another body, in which sex life was not forbidden, and thus he engaged himself in the matter of further creation.

    --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.49

     

    And, how exactly does this prove that Saraswati is a demigoddess?:

    While he was thus absorbed in contemplation and was observing the supernatural power, two other forms were generated from his body. They are still celebrated as the body of Brahma.

    --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.52

    Prabhupada, who is your teacher, just says they are the bodies of the first man and first woman... he doesn't even name them, and neither does the scripture.

     

    Where does this verse even mention Saraswati?:

    The father, Manu, handed over his first daughter, Akuti, to the sage Ruci, the middle daughter, Devahuti, to the sage Kardama, and the youngest, Prashuti, to Daksha. From them, all the world filled with population.

    --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.57

    Saraswati doesn't even live on earth. She lives in Brahma-Loka.

     

    Once again, no mention of Saraswati/Bharati:

    In the beginning of creation, Lord Brahma, the father of the living entities of the universe, saw that all the living entities were unattached. To increase population, he then created woman from the better half of man's body, for woman's behavior carries away a man's mind.

    --Bhagavata Purana 6.18.30


  3. I'll post this again, since you put this on (at least) two threads:

     

    1. How does this...:

    Lord Brahma presented King Prithu with a protective garment made of spiritual knowledge. Bharati, the wife of Brahma, gave him a transcendental necklace. Lord Vishnu presented him with a Sudarshan chakra, and Lord Vishnu's wife, the goddess of fortune, gave him imperishable opulences.

    --Bhagavata Purana 4.15.16

    ...prove that Saraswati is a demigoddess? Sri Lakshmi Devi Ma and Sri Narayana are also mentioned in this verse, so are they demigods, too?

     

    So, does this include Radha and Krishna?:

    Sage Kardama, husband of the great Devahuti, was manifested from the shadow of Brahma. Thus all became manifested from either the body or the mind of Brahma.

    --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.27

    If not, then how can you prove it is also not talking about Saraswati?

     

    Again, how is this proving that Saraswati Ma is a demigoddess?:

    Thereafter Brahma accepted another body, in which sex life was not forbidden, and thus he engaged himself in the matter of further creation.

    --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.49

     

    And, how exactly does this prove that Saraswati is a demigoddess?:

    While he was thus absorbed in contemplation and was observing the supernatural power, two other forms were generated from his body. They are still celebrated as the body of Brahma.

    --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.52

    Prabhupada, who is your teacher, just says they are the bodies of the first man and first woman... he doesn't even name them, and neither does the scripture.

     

    Where does this verse even mention Saraswati?:

    The father, Manu, handed over his first daughter, Akuti, to the sage Ruci, the middle daughter, Devahuti, to the sage Kardama, and the youngest, Prashuti, to Daksha. From them, all the world filled with population.

    --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.57

    Saraswati doesn't even live on earth. She lives in Brahma-Loka.

     

    Once again, no mention of Saraswati/Bharati:

    In the beginning of creation, Lord Brahma, the father of the living entities of the universe, saw that all the living entities were unattached. To increase population, he then created woman from the better half of man's body, for woman's behavior carries away a man's mind.

    --Bhagavata Purana 6.18.30

     

    2. Bhakti means [religious] devotion. Religious devotion (bhakti) can be expressed to any deity. Someone who chooses devotion as their way of unification with God is a Bhakta, regardless of whether they are Shakta, Shaiva, or Vaishnava.


  4. I don't believe in Prabhupada's philosophy, so he isn't shastra for me. Your quote from Prabhupada isn't cutting it. Sorry.

     

    1. So, now you think that Radha is less than God? Less than the Ultimate Reality? Even your teacher stresses devotion to Her!

     

    2. How does this...:

    Lord Brahma presented King Prithu with a protective garment made of spiritual knowledge. Bharati, the wife of Brahma, gave him a transcendental necklace. Lord Vishnu presented him with a Sudarshan chakra, and Lord Vishnu's wife, the goddess of fortune, gave him imperishable opulences.

    --Bhagavata Purana 4.15.16

    ...prove that Saraswati is a demigoddess? Sri Lakshmi Devi Ma and Sri Narayana are also mentioned in this verse, so are they demigods, too?

     

    So, does this include Radha and Krishna?:

    Sage Kardama, husband of the great Devahuti, was manifested from the shadow of Brahma. Thus all became manifested from either the body or the mind of Brahma.

    --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.27

    If not, then how can you prove it is also not talking about Saraswati?

     

    Again, how is this proving that Saraswati Ma is a demigoddess?:

    Thereafter Brahma accepted another body, in which sex life was not forbidden, and thus he engaged himself in the matter of further creation.

    --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.49

     

    And, how exactly does this prove that Saraswati is a demigoddess?:

    While he was thus absorbed in contemplation and was observing the supernatural power, two other forms were generated from his body. They are still celebrated as the body of Brahma.

    --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.52

    Prabhupada, who is your teacher, just says they are the bodies of the first man and first woman... he doesn't even name them, and neither does the scripture.

     

    Where does this verse even mention Saraswati?:

    The father, Manu, handed over his first daughter, Akuti, to the sage Ruci, the middle daughter, Devahuti, to the sage Kardama, and the youngest, Prashuti, to Daksha. From them, all the world filled with population.

    --Bhagavata Purana 3.12.57

    Saraswati doesn't even live on earth. She lives in Brahma-Loka.

     

    Once again, no mention of Saraswati/Bharati:

    In the beginning of creation, Lord Brahma, the father of the living entities of the universe, saw that all the living entities were unattached. To increase population, he then created woman from the better half of man's body, for woman's behavior carries away a man's mind.

    --Bhagavata Purana 6.18.30

     

    3. Bhakti means [religious] devotion. Religious devotion (bhakti) can be expressed to any deity. Someone who chooses devotion as their way of unification with God is a Bhakta, regardless of whether they are Shakta, Shaiva, or Vaishnava.


  5.  

    I googled on "definition of Alzheimer's" and when it comes to what the karmis say, you're right. The karmis seem to say the same thing what you say. What astonishes the karmis is however, why those parts of the brain who keep the bodily functions running are not affected. People live for years with loss of memory but the bodily functions are perfectly kept functioning by the brain.

     

    Definition: A progressive, degenerative disease of the brain that leads to dementia. Many think that Alzheimer's disease and dementia are the same thing, but Alzheimer's is actually the most common cause of dementia. While everyone who has Alzheimer's develops dementia, not everyone who develops dementia has Alzheimer's disease.

     

    source: http://alzheimers.about.com/od/glossary/g/Alzheimers.htm

    It certainly does affect bodily functions! One of the first things Alzheimer's usually affects is the urinary tract and the bowels. People with Alzheimer's often lose all control of their urinary tract and bowels because the part of the brain that controls that is (for some reason) usually one of the first parts affected. Later, short-term memory is affected, which leads to confusion. Over time (which can be anywhere from a few months to several years), they start losing even long-term memory and basic reasoning skills. If Alzheimer's is able to progress in it's fullness, it is fatal (organs start shutting down as the parts of the brain that control them die).


  6.  

    the three posts was an accident!

    I acidently reposted twice but now I see it was three.

    By my use of the word "Busted" --I fained to say that you are among those Devatas; and thus, you are being incognito "and un-assuming". But alas, while saying one thing all meaning is mis-construed.

    I wish you made as much sense to the rest of the world as you do to yourself L

     

    Once again the family tree proves the adage that, "you can bring a horse to water but you can't make them drink".

    It doesn’t prove that they didn’t exist spiritually before-hand.

    The family tree above has small numbers next to them.

    Those numbers are the Shloka Chapter & verse as found in the Bhagavata-purana. The Family tree has 3,500 names up to the 11th Century.

    I cut and pasted just the Chapter & verses shown to show you what the Vedas say in black and white replete with 'pictures'--I know a good thing when I see it --I can see the relationships and where each of the puranas are placed on this tree -- maybe I can see it because I have been practicing for so long.

    There is a purpose to the inclusion of 563 shlokas [at my count] enumerating 'Who's who' in the family that started with Brahma, in this material cosmos.

    I tried to look at the ones for Saraswati, but I couldn’t seem to find one reference to Her in the verses that appeared to be cited. Can you name the verses that mention Her?

     

    Did She not exist in spirit before-hand? --no one existed as spirit before-hand: All are etenal persons or plenary expansions of persons--albeit Transcendental persons replete with Transcendental personalty.

    So, you don’t think we existed before our bodies came into existence? Glad you claim to follow the Gita, LOL :D

    "As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death."

    --Bhagavad Gita 2.13

    "For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain."

    --Bhagavad Gita 2.20

    "As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, the soul similarly accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones."

    --Bhagavad Gita 2.22

     

    And there is no difference between a Devi, a demigod/demigoddess, and a goddess. Apsaras, Kinaras, Gardharvas are not Deva(i)s.

    Devi, a demigod/demigoddess, and a goddess are by birth or specially "commisioned" by higher authority, namely Brahma & his mantris.

    So, Lakshmi Devi is now under the authority of Brahma?


  7.  

    Your 'family tree' proves nothing.

     

    Prove What?

     

    What is there to prove?

     

    You see who's who--that's all!

     

    I give you nectar and beauty--and you say "proves nothing".

     

    I don't see what point your making.

     

    And you ain't helping understand what you want me to infer from you.

     

    There is a family tree and Grandpa is in charge.

     

    PSSSSSS: Grandpa is Brahmaji. Plaese don't conflate your, maybe, disfunctional family up-bringing with the Hiarchy of the 'First family'.

    Your family tree proves nothing because it doesn't prove that Shivaji didn't exist as a purely spiritual entity before His incarnation as Rudra through Brahma (uh... duh? That's what I said...). I guess you didn't read my original post at all?

  8. Although I personally believe that dementia is not a disease but the natural shut down of the human brain after misusing the human form of life, still it seems there's light at the end of the tunnel of this epidemically spreading phenomenon, also known as Alzheimer's.

     

    Dementia most certainly is a disease. It is the precursor to Alzheimer's which is the physical destruction of the brain (neurons get tangled up with brain-cells, the part of the brain they get tangled up with die, and that part of the brain can no longer be used). It's a real disease, it's not just forgetfulness. It's the slow and gradual destruction of the brain's tissue.

    I think you need to learn more about what the causes are and what it does before you decide that it's just some 'natural process caused by a misuse of human existence', and not an organic mental disease.


  9.  

    HA CHA!

    Busted!

    Exposed as a nunzio to the Devas?

    How did you 'bust' me or 'expose' me? It's not like I hide that I accept various paths in Hinduism. So what if I honor the Devas and Devis (which, the name translates as 'Shining One', not 'demigod' or 'demigoddess').

    Oh, BTW, you misspelled 'nuncio'. ;)

     

    How unassuming and casual.

    What do you mean? You make it like I'm doing something horribly wrong for honoring the Devas and Devis.

     

    Sarasvati is the Wife of Brahmaji.

    Could Sarasvari be a name for Brahma?

    As in Controllre of Sara?

    [sara-isvari? or similar to Sarasvati-Pati?]

    Just When ya need a sanskrit scholar ya can't find one.

    Her name means She of the Pools, or, alternatively, She who Flows. She is a river goddess... duh.

     

    #######################################

     

    Below is a portion of the family tree of the personalities enumerated in the Bhagavata-Purana.

    I zeros-in on Sri Sarasvati & her husband Sarasvati-pati, aka Lord Brahma.

    Now that's High Society!

     

    attachment.php?attachmentid=1763&d=1216393421

    Once again, your family tree proves nothing. Saraswati as goddess of learning is the incarnation of Maha Saraswati, who is the incarnation of the Maha Devi.

    Lakshmi Devi, the Bride of Lord Vishnu Himself, emerged from the Ocean of Milk. Did She not exist in spirit before-hand? Radhika, Lord Krishna's Beloved and an aspect of Himself, was born from the corolla of a lotus flower and became Vrishabhanu's daughter. Is She not supreme and did She not exist prior to Her incarnation?

    Your family tree proves nothing other than that the Devas and Devis have taken form.


  10. Bhaktajan, Rudra is an incarnation of Lord Shiva. He is Lord Shiva in His wrathful form, as son of Brahma.

    It's like how Lord Narayana took the form of Lord Rama and was the son of Kausalya. That doesn't mean that Lord Narayana didn't exist before His birth to Kausalya, it just means He took the form of Ram, son of Kausalya. Similarly, Lord Shiva took the form of Rudra, son of Brahma.

    Your 'family tree' proves nothing.


  11.  

    Do I realize that the Bhakti movement exists independent of Vaishnavism and Krishna Consciousness/ISKCON? Yeah, i guess so.

     

    Similarly Hindus exists independent of Hinduism too, yes?

    How? Do Catholics exist independent of Catholicism? Do Buddhists exist independent of Buddhism? Do Jews exist independent of Judaism? Well, I suppose there are aspects of their lives that don't require their faith, but they wouldn't be Hindus, Catholics, Buddhists, and Jews without Hinduism, Catholicism, Buddhism, and Judaism.

    HOWEVER, Bhakti can easily exist completely independent of Vaishnavism. Bhakti can be expressed in Shaktism, Shaivism, etc...

    Not to mention that Bhakti has existed for thousands of years before ISKCON. So, they are definitely seperate entities. ISKCON relies on Bhakti. She doesn't rely on ISKCON. ;)

     

    or

    Capitalism exists independent of America, the Euro, the Mafisos, the Yen and world revolutions, no?

    Does Bhakti exist independently of Shaivism, Shaktism, and Vaishnavism?

     

    But it is thanks to the spirit of those who went before us, that we'd best to follow, and so, up-hold the greater good.

    Ha cha?

    The Nayanars are just as old as the Alvars... so we don't know who 'took' the bhakti movement from who.

     

    PS: waddaya mean? is that what you mean? I mean what do you mean? Well, you know what I mean. Maybe. Ah, what was the question?

    I was pointing out that there are bhaktas that aren't Vaishnavas. There are Shaiva Bhaktas and Shakta Bhaktas as well.

    In your list you put "Bhakti/Krishna Consciousness". But, Bhakti can also be Shakti Consciousness or Shiva Consciousness.

    So, the point of all this is that Bhakti IS. She exists independent of every religion, yet She is in every religion.


  12.  

    Shvu's sources are accepted as authentic by all schools of Vaishnavism, and even by others such as advaitins. Whereas, other sources that you/others mention are not. That should explain it.

    Why are Garga Samhita and Brahma Vaivarta Purana not accepted? They aren't that well known, but that doesn't mean they aren't accepted. Brahma Vaivarta Purana is a legitimate Purana. Why wouldn't it be accepted?


  13.  

    Hare krishna

     

    All glories to Srila prabhupad

    All glories to Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga

    All glories to Sri Nama Prabhu

     

    Dear Vaishnavas and vaishnavis,

     

    I came to know one type of mushroom named "Ganoderma" contains lot of medicinal values. but according to my knowledge Srila Prabhupad never recommends this mushroom in our regular food.

     

    I want to know what is the view of "srila prabhupad" over this mushroom and what is the reason we should not take it in our regular food?

     

    please :pray: i request everybody here to comment over this and add reasons on why should not we take this in our food.

     

    yours servant

    It's something about how mushrooms are tamasic or rajasic or something like that. I think the rule is silly, and I don't follow it. Then again, though, I'm not a follower of Prabhupada. ;)


  14.  

    We are discussing the four main legitimate sources for knowledge of Krishna's life. Any information not found here, but found somewhere else is not authentic, unless a strong case is provided for why this information is not found in mainstream sources.

     

    Sukha would faint on hearing her name was an excuse thrown above. This excuse to even merit some discussion should itself come from a legitimate source. Besides, Sukha figures only in the Bhagavatam. What about the Mahabharata, the Harvamsa (wholly dedicated to Krishna's life events) and the Vishnu Purana? Sukha is not the narrator here and there was no problem in mentioning her name. And yet, there is no mention at all.

     

    I never heard of the Garga Samhita and you would have a hard time convincing anyone on why this obscure and unknown text would contain some genuine information on Krishna's life which is missing in texts like the Mahabharata and Harivamsa.

     

    Just as an FYI, the Brahma Vaivarta Purana was composed during the 16th AD, just 400 years ago. How do we know this? Smriti writers from early as 900 AD have quoted the Brahmavaivarta and of 1800 such quotes, not even 100 quotes have made it into the newer version. But even assuming it is old and genuine, all the problems listed above override this reference.

     

    Don't take my word for it. All this information can be obtained through authorized sources - if you have the interest to know.

     

    Cheers

    How do you know what is 'authentic' and what is not? Were you present for the writing of either the Garga Samhita (which is held to be written by the Devarishi Garga) or for the Brahma Vaivarta Purana (which is held to be written by Brahma Deva Himself)? If not, then how can you determine if it's legit or not? Are you God? Are you Krishna? If not, then how can you be certain who Krishna was lover to and who He wasn't? How can you be certain He didn't love Radhika as Himself? There are scriptures that say that He did, so the cult of Radhika is legit, whether you admit it or not. And, they are legitimate sources. They're as legitimate as any other Purana or Samhita in Hinduism.

    Or, do you not believe in the Puranas and Samhitas? Because, if you reject all of them, then I can understand why you wouldn't accept them as legitimate sources. But, if you believe in even one of them, then it's hypocritical to proclaim, for example, Srimad Bhagavata Purana as truth, but then throw away Srimad Brahma Vaivarta Purana.

×
×
  • Create New...