shvu

Well, Vamana and Buddha did not kill anyone. So we cannot say that the dasha avatars are the ones where evil doers where killed. In the Bhagvatam, krishna says 'To count the number of times I have taken birth on the earth would be like counting the grains of sand on a beach' Actually my question was, has it explicitly been mentioned in the Ramayana that Rama is an avatar ?

I have a doubt here. Does it say in the Ramayana that Rama is an avatar ? Because from what I know, it is the puranas which were written later by Vyasa that mention Rama as an avatar, alongwith a few more. Also the Bhagavatam says that Kapila, Pritu etc were avatars of Vishnu. But why do we have a secific 'Dasha Avatara' to which they don't belong ?

No, there is absolutely no reason. Everyone is inclined to think that his/her religion is good or superior. If one begins to feel that there is a better religion, which is rare, he would get converetd on his own accord.

There is no universal purpose of life. Any purpose that a person has is something that one has put for oneself, based on one's background and experiences.

Hello npram, 'Trying to realize is a confusing state until we realize that there is nothing to realize about truth' Maybe so, but even this has to be realized as true. And how does one go about doing this ? That is why we have all the paths.

Yes tintin, But there is no way of communication without words. So there has to be this compromise. However once this compromise is done, one can see that they have given a very excellent and inspiring description.

That is a good summary. 13.Everything happens for the best. Can you let me know which verse says this ? Thank you

The question of Brahmajnana came up and Brahmachariji, an erudite Sanskrit scholar quoted a few verses to support his arguments, while UG just brushed aside the very concept of Brahmajnana. UG said, "There is no such thing as `Brahmajnana.' If at all there is `Jnana' then `Brahman' is out!" Brahmachariji did not give up easily. He said, "Brahman and Jnanam are the same thing." And UG came out with, "If they are the same, why use two separate words for it?" And there was nothing else to be said on the matter.

The question of Brahmajnana came up and Brahmachariji, an erudite Sanskrit scholar quoted a few verses to support his arguments, while UG just brushed aside the very concept of Brahmajnana. UG said, "There is no such thing as `Brahmajnana.' If at all there is `Jnana' then `Brahman' is out!" Brahmachariji did not give up easily. He said, "Brahman and Jnanam are the same thing." And UG came out with, "If they are the same, why use two separate words for it?" And there was nothing else to be said on the matter.

Just out of curiosity..... How is the non-dual Brahman mentioned in the Upanishads and the Gita, explained by the Personalists ?

My understanding of Mukthi, Moksha , Liberation is the permanent disapperance of the ego. Once there is no I, there is no experiencer, and so nothing to experience. A feeling of existence is there only when the mind is there. When there is no I, there is no mind, and consequently there is no universe. Knowledge, what is to be known, and the knower - these three do not exist in reality. - Ashtavakra Gita 2.15 As I discovered today, this is called as the impersonalist view. And I should add that, I am not providing this for argument. It is just to clarify things.

Hi All, Sorry, I was not aware of the "impersonalism" issue. I had never heard that term before. Melvin and most other people here, like the idea of the dual system, where there will always be a separate experiencer to experience God, ecstasy and so on. Now I know what you people meant by "Bhakti not mukthi..."

Hello JayaShriRadheyji, You have said "When Bhakti is not fully matured and purified..." the person will still retain selfish desires or aspirations, which is true. "but in "parA bhakti", inpure transcendental state of Bhakti-Divine Love, all the selfish desires are destroyed...". Selfish desires are destroyed when the self is destroyed. As long as the self is there, all actions are selfish. That is how all life is made. I am sure, you agree with me, here. So when there is no self, there is nothing, including the Lord, love and everything. The person is liberated. "The total surrender of oneself with unconditional Love to Lord is Bhakti." As long as the self is there, unconditional love is not possible. And when the self is gone, there is nothing. So unconditional love can never be there. Who is there to love and to be loved? You are perfectly right, that there has to be some existence to enjoy happiness. "pure devotees are already liberated,since they are ever in Divine Ecstasy." That is contradicting again, because if the devotee is liberated, then there is no ecstasy. The Upanishads declare liberation as the highest and the only goal to be achieved by man. That is what will free him from the cycle of Karma. If I am ecstatic over worshipping forms, how permanent is it ? The person is still subject to pain, and rebirth and so on. As long as there is an experiencer, however joyous, it is only a pleasure movement. One person feels great when he sees a girl, another feels happy when he sees an image of Krishna. What is the difference ? They are exactly the same. Krishna has advised on worshipping forms, because it is diffcult for the mind to focus on a formless power. S worshipping forms is only a means to an end, which is Mukthi. My point is, the whole objective of Bhakti, is to attain Mukthi. "But those renouncing in me all actions, intent on me with undistracted union, who meditate upon, and worship me, I soon become their deliverer from the ocean of the death cycle, Partha, whose consciousness has entered into me." - The Gita Since Melvin quoted some guy who has said "Bhakti, not Mukthi...", I felt compelled to point it out.

People would do good, if they do not accept statements made by scholars as gospel. " Mukti or liberation from the il- lusory effects of maya is not the answer, but Bhakti," - Sarbabhauma Bhattacarya I think this is an absurd statement. And how is Bhakti supposed to be the answer ? He would not have explained that You see, it is all marketing. " My system, my ideas, my philosophy is the right one. That is the only way out...".

Hi, There can be no Bhakti without having a goal in mind. That goal is Mukthi. The statement "Bhakti, not Mukthi...." does not hold good. People are attracted to Bhakti, only because of all the promises offered at the end of it. Sorry Melvin, but even you or for that matter, anone else, would never bother about Bhakti or Chaitanya, if there was not a promise at the end of it all.

Hello Srisan, It interests me to see you branding the Puranas as garbage.Can you explain further ?

Q: What are the features of a Jivanmukta or a Jnani or a Yogi? UG : I wish I knew. If a Jivanmukta is sitting right in front of you, you will never know that he is one. You have no way of knowing whether a man is a Jivanmukta. You have a definition, a behavior pattern. If he fits into that framework, you call him a Jivanmukta. If there is anyone like that, he will never know that he is a self-realized man or a Jivanmukta. You have been told by somebody that I am a Jivanmukta. I may be a phony, a clever chap. I have picked up the art of elocution and all that. I have travelled around the world. Any actor could do that. How would you know?

Q: What are the features of a Jivanmukta or a Jnani or a Yogi? UG : I wish I knew. If a Jivanmukta is sitting right in front of you, you will never know that he is one. You have no way of knowing whether a man is a Jivanmukta. You have a definition, a behavior pattern. If he fits into that framework, you call him a Jivanmukta. If there is anyone like that, he will never know that he is a self-realized man or a Jivanmukta. You have been told by somebody that I am a Jivanmukta. I may be a phony, a clever chap. I have picked up the art of elocution and all that. I have travelled around the world. Any actor could do that. How would you know?

Viveka Chudamani is a work of the Great Shankara. Here are a few extracts. When the supreme reality is not understood, the study of the scriptures is useless, and study of the scriptures is useless when the supreme reality has been understood. How can one reach liberation by just pronouncing the word God without achieving the elimination of the visible universe and realising the truth about one's own nature? It will just be a waste of speech. Action is for the purification of the mind, not for the understanding of reality. The recognition of reality is through discrimination, and not by even tens of millions of actions. It is the wise and learned man, skilled in sorting out the pros and cons of an argument who is really endowed with the qualities necessary for self-realisation. Sons and suchlike are able free their father from debts, but no-one can free some-one else from bondage. The pain of something like a weight on the head can be removed by others, but the pain of things like hunger can be put an end to by no-one but oneself. Among the contributory factors of liberation, devotion stands supreme, and it is the search for one's own true nature that is meant by devotion. For the whole set, goto www.realization.org

Hello Jndas, "Whenever there is instability in the world, I will incarnate to restore stability" - Gita The Puranas mention one set of avatars. But no Purana ever said that these 10, will be the only avatars. The Lord can come down in any form anytime to restore Dharma. What about Christ ? Wasn't he like any of the avatars ? He is not mentioned in the Puranans.

Hello Jndas, "Whenever there is instability in the world, I will incarnate to restore stability" - Gita The Puranas mention one set of avatars. But no Purana ever said that these 10, will be the only avatars. The Lord can come down in any form anytime to restore Dharma. What about Christ ? Wasn't he like any of the avatars ? He is not mentioned in the Puranans.

The actual avatars themselves never evcer claimed that they were avatars. It has always been the people around them. Every enlightened person is tried to be fit into the avatar system. They call Shankara as an avatar of Shiva, Chaitanya as an avatar, Shirdi Sai Baba as Datatreya's avatar, and Ramana as Subramnya's Avatar. Anyway if people claim that x is y's avatar, how are we in a position to either prove or disprove them ?

The actual avatars themselves never evcer claimed that they were avatars. It has always been the people around them. Every enlightened person is tried to be fit into the avatar system. They call Shankara as an avatar of Shiva, Chaitanya as an avatar, Shirdi Sai Baba as Datatreya's avatar, and Ramana as Subramnya's Avatar. Anyway if people claim that x is y's avatar, how are we in a position to either prove or disprove them ?

Hello All, Just to clarify, UG and JK are different people. UG is at www.ugkrishnamurti.org put up by some friends and admirers.

Hello All, Just to clarify, UG and JK are different people. UG is at www.ugkrishnamurti.org put up by some friends and admirers.