shvu

Hi Dasha, btw - By the way kit - Keep in touch jam - Just a moment btw I had to find out what they meant the same way as you did now :-) Cheers

In my personal opinion, based on whatever I have read, the teaching of the Guru depends on the Spiritual maturity of the Student. The texts indicate that this a gradual process, which means that different people are at different levels. Obviously one teaching will not serve the purpose of all. Which explains people like Ramana, Ramakrishna, and several others as advanced, ripe souls who were liberated without a Guru. They are described as Yoga-brashtas, people who came within inches of liberation in their past life. The majority of the people in the world are not even remotely interested in Spirituality or Liberation and such stuff. I don't see them suddenly getting interested in a formless Brahman and throwing away everything else. The gradual way for them is a personal diety, chanting, mediation and the like. And even for something like this to begin will be a remarkable thing. To get a person interested in Krishna, chanting, etc, I don't think a person has to be liberated. I can talk for hours on Krishna and Brahman. While that does not mean that I am liberated, it may still benefit someone else. Another point is that the Guru does not necessarily have to be a physical person. Cheers Cheers

--- Your statement that one is not allowed to reject the guru's statement is kind of silly. --- If a person doubts the Guru, is that not considered bad? --- For the definition of a true guru includes perfect understanding. --- So now we have Guru and True Guru. So first of all one has to dfferentiate between the two. And how is one to do that? By testing him out? Is that a permissible thing? btw if Madhvacharya had not rejected his Guru's words; If he had simply choosen to faithfully follow whatever his Guru had told him, accepting it all as true, then there would have been no new System coming up. If a Gurus compulsorily has to be a realized person, then that would mean that all the GV Gurus are realized people, because they claim that their lineage is unbroken. As also the Shankara line and the Madhva line. And I find that hard to believe. The way I see it is, a Guru is one who can teach knowledge to a student. Beyond that a student is on his own. Again, how does one test a realized person to check if he is genuine? If I prick him with a pin, he is likely to get angry and will shout at me. Even if he smiles and says "I am indifferent to such things", is that proof? He may simply be pretending. There is no way of determining if someone is genuine or not. One simply has to go by faith. It is a gamble. Cheers

Hi Jndas, That is exactly what I have written too. The Guru has the final word. What I am saying is when a person belongs to a belief system, he can only follow this rule during discussion, --- Does the argument conform to my beliefs? if Yes, Ok if not, then simply ignore. --- Note that the person is not at liberty to doubt anything. That by itself would be a big Aparadha. Howver when a person does not belong to a any set belief,then he has a chance of reviewing his position and always changing it, if he finds it wrong. Which is impossible in the former case. That was the point. Cheers

Hi Sumeet, Some thoughts. Do you realize that you are only allowed to discuss, with the intention of changing the other persons's view, but never yours? As you belong to a System, what you should think and how you should think has already been defined by other people before you. You cannot step out of the boundary that they have set. Which means, even if there is arises a situation to show that some of your beliefs may be wrong, you dare not accept it because that will mean going against your Gurus. Therefore all discussions coming from a person who belongs to a belief system will be one-way. To change the other person's views only. It means that if you ever get any doubts, you can only ask a person who beongs to your system. And you have to accept whatever they tell you, however illogical it may appear to be. You cannot accept a different answer from an outsider. Even if it sounds logical to you, you are not allowed to accept that. Cheers

Hi Ajay, Not knowing is not foolish. It is just that one is ignorant of something. Thomas Alva Edison would not have known about Krishna. That does not mean that he was a foolish person. He simply did not have the means and the inclination to know. So he was ignorant of Krishna. A devotee doesn't necessarily have to discuss spiritual things. All he needs to know is Krishna [in your case], a means of worship and he is set for life ! Cheers

Hi Animesh, Actually there were 2 brothers named Nara and Narayana who were considered as Avatars. The Bhagavatam in one place says that Arjuna and Krishna are Avatars of Nara and Narayana respectively. But this Narayana is relatively unkown and so Narayana seems to be the right name to use to describe the Supreme while discussing history. However while discussing from a devotional perspective, Krishna is fine too. That will avoid confusion and misunderstanding. btw do you know that there is a Krishna in the Rig-Veda who is considered a villain? Indra[the main God of the Rig-veda] finally kills this guy. I sometimes wonder if this character was the origin of the later Krishna who became a hero post-Buddhism. I will get more details soon. Cheers

Hi Animesh, Actually there were 2 brothers named Nara and Narayana who were considered as Avatars. The Bhagavatam in one place says that Arjuna and Krishna are Avatars of Nara and Narayana respectively. But this Narayana is relatively unkown and so Narayana seems to be the right name to use to describe the Supreme while discussing history. However while discussing from a devotional perspective, Krishna is fine too. That will avoid confusion and misunderstanding. btw do you know that there is a Krishna in the Rig-Veda who is considered a villain? Indra[the main God of the Rig-veda] finally kills this guy. I sometimes wonder if this character was the origin of the later Krishna who became a hero post-Buddhism. I will get more details soon. Cheers

Hi Sumeet, We are actually going out of the topic here. I have already explained before, and will do so again. If you want to discuss the existence of Krishna as a historic person who lived during 3000 bc, then you must understand that you cannot bring in the Transcendental Krishna into the discussion. I am not denying the existence of a Transcendental Krishna. You must also note that Krishna was NOT a name for the Supreme in the Sruti. Let me repeat that. Krishna was NOT a name for the Supreme in the Sruti. The names were Narayana, Vishnu sometimes and Vaasudeva. Krishna was the name given to the person by his parents. He was recognized as an Avatar AND THEN his name came to be associated with the Supreme. The same goes for Rama too. If I understand correctly, I think your perception of history is something like this. Krishna was always the name for the Supreme. Then he was born, and his parents coincidentally named his as Krishna. I am sorry to say that is incorrect, as anyone else will. btw there is another view that the Supreme Personality of Godhead indirectly refers to the Brahman, which is the opposite of your view. Cheers

Hi Sumeet, We are actually going out of the topic here. I have already explained before, and will do so again. If you want to discuss the existence of Krishna as a historic person who lived during 3000 bc, then you must understand that you cannot bring in the Transcendental Krishna into the discussion. I am not denying the existence of a Transcendental Krishna. You must also note that Krishna was NOT a name for the Supreme in the Sruti. Let me repeat that. Krishna was NOT a name for the Supreme in the Sruti. The names were Narayana, Vishnu sometimes and Vaasudeva. Krishna was the name given to the person by his parents. He was recognized as an Avatar AND THEN his name came to be associated with the Supreme. The same goes for Rama too. If I understand correctly, I think your perception of history is something like this. Krishna was always the name for the Supreme. Then he was born, and his parents coincidentally named his as Krishna. I am sorry to say that is incorrect, as anyone else will. btw there is another view that the Supreme Personality of Godhead indirectly refers to the Brahman, which is the opposite of your view. Cheers

The fact that the Mahabharata and the Bhagavatam have different versions of Parikshit's last days is an interesting point. if the Bhagavatam was written later, and was made to seem like it was written by Vyasa, then the author would have been careful not to disagree with an already existing text such as the Mahabharata. Something to consider. Cheers

Hi Sumeet, ---- This verse clearly refers to Lord Krishna. See how- First point to be noted is that Ghora Angiras didn't tell all the basic truth to Lord Krishna. He was just mentioning a view of sacrifice to Lord Krishna. So it is wrong to say that Angiras told Lord all the basic spiritual truth. There is difference in between telling all the truths and imparting a view of sacrifice. Your own translation and that by Dr. Radhakrishnan gives support to this. ---- Have you read the chandogya entirely? if you haven't, I suggest that you do so. The chandogya at regular intervals talks about worshipping that Brahman which is without beginning and end. The chandogya is a real long one. A sudden verse in between to refer to Krishna is highly unlikely, as you will agree yourself. So the Thou there refers to Brahman. And imparting a view will mean teaching, after hearing which, this Krishna's thirst for any other knowledge was quenched. Which means Ghora Angirasa plays the role of a Guru here. And if this indeed meant Lord Krishna, then why wasn't Ghora Angirasa mentioned anyhwere else? Nowhere does the Sruti talk about worshipping a human, and if x is the son of y, then obviously x and y are humans. --- Whoever has said this is not aware that when Lord Ramacandra, Lord Narayana's Vyasa incarnation all had Gurus. They accept a Guru just to show the importance of having a guru in order to develop in the spiritual life. It is not that they are ignorant and are wanting self realization. It is just to show to the normal public the importance of a bonafied guru for spiritual progress and nothing more. --- Having a Guru is ok for an avatar. But hearing something that quenched his thirst to know more is unacceptable. Especially in the case of Krishna who could not have had a thirst for knowledge, as he already knew everything. --- Except for the mayavadis no one else would say that. (About Sruti being revealed) --- Let me correct that. In case you are not aware of this, it is the basic foundation of the Sanatana Dharma, making it a timeless truth. All Vaishnavas are clear that the Sruti was revealed at the time of creation. If you know of any Vaishnava Scholar who claims that the Sruti was not revealed, then I would be interested to know why he says that. ---- Dear Krishna, Rama,Narayana and other forms of God are eternally existing in the spiritual world. They just appear and disappear. Krishna is the compiler of Vedanta according to BG15.15.Therefore he has been sometimes indirectly refered to or sometimes refered to by His other names and other time by His own name[Krishna]. It is silly to think that Krishna or Rama or Narayana comes into existence and then dies. ---- First of all let me differentiate between Krishna, Rama and Narayana. Narayana is the Supreme being mentioned in the Sruti. Rama was a kshatriya who was born like a regular human being and who passed on. The same with Krishna too. Now let us be clear about what you mean by Krishna. If you want to discuss dates and history then obviously you have to talk about the person Krishna who lived and died. The transcendental Krishna and Narayana cannot figure in here. And Krishna, the son of Devaki has definitely got to be a a human being. Otherwise according to you Devaki was always existent and Krishna was not [since he was born to her at some point] and that sounds silly. That would make Devaki transcendental, her husband and their whole family tree as transcendental. ---- Ghora Angiras speaks to Lord Krishna- 'Let a man, when his end approaches, take refuge with this Triad: "You are the imperishable,You are the unchangeable,You are the edge of Prana."' Now analyse Ghora Angiras is the speaker and Lord Krishna is receptor. Now see what Angiras speaks: 'Let a man, when his end approaches" If you analyse these words then they clearly indicate that Angiras is refering to man in general. He is not refering to some specific man or Lord Krishna neither to himself. So he is speaking this for a common man. ---- Yes, he is speaking this for a common man. --- O lord, I have studied the Rg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, the fourth Veda, known as the Atharva veda, and the fifth Veda, known as the histories and Puranas. --- Ok, let me ask you something here. Since the Shastras claim that the Sruti was revealed to man at the beginning of creation, how can it talk about Itihaasa and Purana? If you say that the Itihaasa is ramayana and Mahabharata, then do you admit that the Sruti was edited at a later time by/after Vyasa to accomodate new additions? In which case the Chandogya was after the Mahabharatha dating it to a time after the Buddha. btw all the Sad-Vaishnava [Madhva sampradaya] scholars, believe that this is not Lord Krishna and also the Advaitis. I however have a different angle, which I will present later. Cheers

Hi Sumeet, ---- This verse clearly refers to Lord Krishna. See how- First point to be noted is that Ghora Angiras didn't tell all the basic truth to Lord Krishna. He was just mentioning a view of sacrifice to Lord Krishna. So it is wrong to say that Angiras told Lord all the basic spiritual truth. There is difference in between telling all the truths and imparting a view of sacrifice. Your own translation and that by Dr. Radhakrishnan gives support to this. ---- Have you read the chandogya entirely? if you haven't, I suggest that you do so. The chandogya at regular intervals talks about worshipping that Brahman which is without beginning and end. The chandogya is a real long one. A sudden verse in between to refer to Krishna is highly unlikely, as you will agree yourself. So the Thou there refers to Brahman. And imparting a view will mean teaching, after hearing which, this Krishna's thirst for any other knowledge was quenched. Which means Ghora Angirasa plays the role of a Guru here. And if this indeed meant Lord Krishna, then why wasn't Ghora Angirasa mentioned anyhwere else? Nowhere does the Sruti talk about worshipping a human, and if x is the son of y, then obviously x and y are humans. --- Whoever has said this is not aware that when Lord Ramacandra, Lord Narayana's Vyasa incarnation all had Gurus. They accept a Guru just to show the importance of having a guru in order to develop in the spiritual life. It is not that they are ignorant and are wanting self realization. It is just to show to the normal public the importance of a bonafied guru for spiritual progress and nothing more. --- Having a Guru is ok for an avatar. But hearing something that quenched his thirst to know more is unacceptable. Especially in the case of Krishna who could not have had a thirst for knowledge, as he already knew everything. --- Except for the mayavadis no one else would say that. (About Sruti being revealed) --- Let me correct that. In case you are not aware of this, it is the basic foundation of the Sanatana Dharma, making it a timeless truth. All Vaishnavas are clear that the Sruti was revealed at the time of creation. If you know of any Vaishnava Scholar who claims that the Sruti was not revealed, then I would be interested to know why he says that. ---- Dear Krishna, Rama,Narayana and other forms of God are eternally existing in the spiritual world. They just appear and disappear. Krishna is the compiler of Vedanta according to BG15.15.Therefore he has been sometimes indirectly refered to or sometimes refered to by His other names and other time by His own name[Krishna]. It is silly to think that Krishna or Rama or Narayana comes into existence and then dies. ---- First of all let me differentiate between Krishna, Rama and Narayana. Narayana is the Supreme being mentioned in the Sruti. Rama was a kshatriya who was born like a regular human being and who passed on. The same with Krishna too. Now let us be clear about what you mean by Krishna. If you want to discuss dates and history then obviously you have to talk about the person Krishna who lived and died. The transcendental Krishna and Narayana cannot figure in here. And Krishna, the son of Devaki has definitely got to be a a human being. Otherwise according to you Devaki was always existent and Krishna was not [since he was born to her at some point] and that sounds silly. That would make Devaki transcendental, her husband and their whole family tree as transcendental. ---- Ghora Angiras speaks to Lord Krishna- 'Let a man, when his end approaches, take refuge with this Triad: "You are the imperishable,You are the unchangeable,You are the edge of Prana."' Now analyse Ghora Angiras is the speaker and Lord Krishna is receptor. Now see what Angiras speaks: 'Let a man, when his end approaches" If you analyse these words then they clearly indicate that Angiras is refering to man in general. He is not refering to some specific man or Lord Krishna neither to himself. So he is speaking this for a common man. ---- Yes, he is speaking this for a common man. --- O lord, I have studied the Rg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, the fourth Veda, known as the Atharva veda, and the fifth Veda, known as the histories and Puranas. --- Ok, let me ask you something here. Since the Shastras claim that the Sruti was revealed to man at the beginning of creation, how can it talk about Itihaasa and Purana? If you say that the Itihaasa is ramayana and Mahabharata, then do you admit that the Sruti was edited at a later time by/after Vyasa to accomodate new additions? In which case the Chandogya was after the Mahabharatha dating it to a time after the Buddha. btw all the Sad-Vaishnava [Madhva sampradaya] scholars, believe that this is not Lord Krishna and also the Advaitis. I however have a different angle, which I will present later. Cheers

Not necessarily. Pralaya occurs only during the end of the rule of a Manu, called as a Manvantara. I don't remember the exact figures of how many Maha-yugas make one Manvantara. 1000/14 or something like that. Mahapralaya will occur during the end of a Kalpa [1000 yugas?]. Kali Yuga is supposed to end with the destruction of evil and the revival of the Vedas by Kalki, an avatar. We still have 427,000 years to go. Cheers

Not necessarily. Pralaya occurs only during the end of the rule of a Manu, called as a Manvantara. I don't remember the exact figures of how many Maha-yugas make one Manvantara. 1000/14 or something like that. Mahapralaya will occur during the end of a Kalpa [1000 yugas?]. Kali Yuga is supposed to end with the destruction of evil and the revival of the Vedas by Kalki, an avatar. We still have 427,000 years to go. Cheers

Hi Jndas, That Translation is by Swami Tapsyananda of Ramakrishna Math. I checked the translation and found that it was my mistake. I reproduced it incorrectly. The translation reads as, They have no ultimate significance in themselves (or are not to be taken as literal facts) The last part is in brackets. Of course, I agree that that is not exactly an alternate meaning and I don't know why he has added that. But I think I can understand why he may have felt that way. I did some translation [not literal] myself and here it is, --- Vijnaana Vairaagya Vivakshaya Vibho Vacho Vibhuutir na tu paaram aarthyam These stories were chosen to adorn this narration which is actually to teach the sicence of renunciation. That is what is ultimately meant here and not greatness, glory [of the kings] --- The author says that he chose these stories with the intention of teaching the science of renunciation. Everthing else is decor to make it lively. But yes, that does not say that these stories are real or fiction. Perhaps Tapsyananda felt it appropriate to consider it that way. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers

Hi Jndas, Thanks for the Info. I always used to wonder about how the Bhagavatam was written by Vyasa and yet talk about Suka and Suta. So it is accepted that Vyasa composed and narrated it, while it was written down by someone else. The Itihaasa and Purana difference was something that had me confused too. The Parikshit part is interesting. The scholars who reasoned that it was a different Parikshit were not far off the mark. Thanks

Hi Animesh and Ajay, As far as I know, this site is about Indian Spirituality. And it does talk about diverse topics which come under under the cloak of Hinduism; Mayavada or Advaita being one of them. The people who write articles here belong to the GV system. The GV system is founded on the idea that Mayavada is poison. So naturally their articles on Shankara and Mayavada will be inclined to have negative shades. It is part and parcel of being a Vaishnava. So it is not suprising. The interesting part is, Vaishnavas acknowledge Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, yet they think his philosophy is wrong. Again they believe that Shankara is a revered Acharya who was an avatar of Shiva, yet they denounce the philosophy as wrong. But in my opinion irrespective of personal opinions, I think when writing an article on a subject, it should contain information on the subject, written with an unbiased attitude. The author can perhaps add his opinion later. That way the description on Mayavada on this site is inadequate. As also the biography of Shankara. They are more focussed on repeating over and over that it is false. And it never really says anywhere as to what it actually is. WHen I find time, I will put together an article on Advaita, it's essence, it's role in hinduism, it's pitfalls and finally the arguments used by Madhvacharya to refute this system. And a biography on Shankara. Cheers

Yeah...terrific question ! Cheers

Yeah...terrific question ! Cheers

Hi Gauracandra, I was aware that Jesus did not write anything, and I have read the Bible history. How the and when the NT came about. About no records existing about Jesus, I am surprised. It sounds interesting and I will see if I can pull out more details about this. Cheers

Hi Ajay, --- I can conclude that you do have got some justification for Mayavad being either good or bad ( from your point of view ). if you could clearify further as to what your stand is and why... --- Basically I dislike people talking bad about something, without actually knowing why. If I am going to complain about Prabhupada, I must have a proper reason. Likewise if someone complains to me about ISKCON, the I expect the person to justify his position. Similarly the problem with condemning Mayavada. I have come across people doing so without knowing what is bad about it. They do it, simple because they have seen others do it, and think they should be doing it too. It is based on some kind of insecurity within themselves. A learned scholar rejecting Mayavada is not a simple act of calling Mayavadis as fools and rascals. He will clearly give points, references and arguments to support his view. btw, I am not a Mayavada supporter. I personally don't see any differences between the different Vaishnava sects, except a desire for Gurus to become Acharyas and Founder Acharyas. It is like an employee who after sufficient experience breaks away from his company to start off on his own. The desire for authority and power. But then, that is India! We like to form groups and feel that we are better than the others. Cheers

Hi Animesh, I included a portion of your posting in mine, to say that I agree with you. Cheers

Hi Animesh, I included a portion of your posting in mine, to say that I agree with you. Cheers

Hi Dasha, My thoughts. Have you observed these points, anytime? The holy books say that, 1. You should not be satisified with material life. There is more than this. [This is the introduction of the problem by targetting man's natural greed] 2. There is an after-life, there is a God. 3. Pray to this God and you will in-turn get everlasting happiness and immortality.[barter with God] Then follows all the various methods of praying. These promises of permanent happiness are enough for people to get all excited and you know the rest. Basically the books create a problem and then offer a solution which follows a long path. Unfortunately this solution will happen only after death. Thereby preventing all possiblities of disproving it as false. They were clever people. Hats off to them! Meanwhile the person with great enthusiasm takes to devotion and worship and keeps hoping that he is fast progressing 'Spiritually'. One day he is dead and his body is carted away. End of story. No one will know if he indeed went to Goloka or simply died alongwith the body. A person who is not greedy for permanent bliss and immortal life will never bother with God and enlightenment. He will simply focus on living life to it's fullest, instead of waiting for something to happen after death. Cheers