sumeet

Hare Krishna Accept my Obesiances unto your lotus feet. My dear Viji You wrote: " Manu a typical male chuvanist wrote his sastras. " "So some male chuvanist like Manu even today exist and talk about Manu sastras. Just because Manu wrote some foolish sastras it does not mean that women are not entaitled for certain things. I do not care a damn for it." I don't want to say something about the issue of woman discussed over here but I'm surprised by your comments about Manu in this way. Because: http://www.bhagavadgita.org/Gita/verse-10-05.html Manu is not some simple human being. He comes under the category of Saktyavesa avtar of Supreme Lord. (Bhag 1.3.27) "rsayo manavo deva manu-putra mahaujasah kalah sarve harer eva saprajapatayah smrtah" All the rsis, Manus, demigods and descendants of Manu, who are especially powerful, are plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord. This also includes the Prajapatis. Furthermore Lord Krishna Himself Recognises Manu: http://www.bhagavadgita.org/Gita/verse-04-01.html Manu is the progenitor of Mankind and a great devotee of Lord Narayana. How have you offended Him calling Him a fool. I'm most surprised to see such a behavior. The entire Vedic society follows the Law book of Manu since he is not just some simple human being. All the authorities of the past have followed His laws and they are specially made for the civilized society. Even Krishna respects it. And I don't think so that any women has had trouble with him or his laws. How could you ever argue that Manu wrote some foolish Sastras. And if I can recall properly Manu is even a mahabhagavat recognised amogst 12 great devotees of Lord Vishnu. How come you use such an offensive language aginst him. Kindly don't consider that I'm personally against you but this kind of behavior towards Manu is never acceptable. Kindly forgive this fool if I have offended you in some or the other way. I ask for forgiveness at your feet. With Love Yours Servant Always OM TAT SAT Sumeet.

Hare Krishna Accept Obesiances unto your lotus feet. My point is not that whether Naryana has a fomr or not. Whether He is formless or with a form or not. My point is that Narayana's body is transcendental to materail nature and is without a tinge of Material contamination. I fully know that Narayana being unlimited can be both formless and with a form simultaneously. But my question I'm slowly coming towards it is Narayana's form is not made up of materila elements His form is transcendental. And neither Krishna or Ramacandra or any one from Vishnu-tattva has a material form. My whole point of discussion is that God is ultimately a Supreme Person and He possesses a superexcelently beautiful form which is not material. No one can deny it. I wish to discuss this transcendental nature of God's form with all of us here. One should never think that God posseses material form. I'm convinced that Narayana is God so kindly don't think that I'm arguing against His Supremacy. My point is that Narayana's form is not material He is transcendental to material manifestation. With Love Your Servant Always OM TAT SAT Sumeet.

Dear Shivji Hare Krishna Accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet. "shvu : A fool is someone who is incapable of knowing." Sumeet: Who is capable of knowing the infinite by His own efforts. Who Himsef posseses the capability to do this. If the Infinite, Krishna doesn't wish to tell one anything about Himself then one won't be able to know anything about Him irrespective of one's capability. Dear to know the infinite none has that capability. No one has. If someone you know then let me know. So actually this capability to understand the infinite is only bestowed upon us. It is bestowed upon he who can please the infinite. And it is bestowed by the Infinite itself. It's not our own capability. Therefore one should think himself always a fool because he by himself lacks the capability of knowing the infinite. Only because infinite gave us the capability we can know Him. So this capability is certainly not ours. It has been granted to us in the form of the unalloyed devotional service which proves the causeless mercy of the Supreme Being. So one must always think himself to be a fool because this capability to know the Supreme has been bestowed on us by Him only. And in this way we should avoid thinking with pride that Oh I'm capable of renedering devotional service unto the Supreme and I possess the capability to understand Him. About the Advaitic concept I shall let you know it a little later since I have to get the books from the library and write from their and also give some websites you might be interested to look into. You said that Narayana's form is not Transcendental ? Then is it material. Is it made up of material elements. Do you consider Narayana Saguna Brahman ie Nirguna Brahman with attributes and hence one of the five deities or Personal God or Ishta Devta as considered by the Advaita school. My dear friend you wrote: " A beautiful four-handed form is something that can be imagined by you and me. So it is not transcendental. Transcendental is something that is beyond the mind and senses." Kindly refer to this verse of Holy Gita: " But another unmanifest which is eternal of a Superior nature than the unmanifest of Brahma that is never destroyed when the all the living entities perish."(BG 8.20) "That unmanifest is described as imperishable and proclaimed to be Supreme goal having reached, one never returns to this material existence; that is my Supreme abode."(BG 8.21) Also see: " That abode of Mine is not illumined by the sun or moon, nor by fire. One who reaches it never returns to this material world. " (BG 15.6) Seeing this description of Narayana's abode it seems to be transcendental and impersihable. It is certainly beyond matter as indicated by the word avyakta as Sri Krishna says. So if this abode of such a transcendental nature exist then why cannot Narayana who inhabits this abode have a Transcendental form ? Do think that Narayana existing in such a abode will be having a material body covering ? And if He doesn't have a Transcendental form and also doesn;'t ahev a material body then what is His form composed of ? Kindly enlighten this fool. With Love Your Servant Always OM TAT SAT Sumeet.

Hare krishna My dear friend Shivji thanks a lot. I always consider myself a fool because I being a simple human being is always in ignorance but by unlimited mercy of Sri Sri Radha-Krishna I have some knowledge about God. So although some knowledge has been imparted to me by their causeless mercy still I in myself is a ignorant person who if at all can exhibit any illumination it's due to their grace only. i was a fool and i shall remain the same always. it's out of causeless mercy of Sri Sri Radha-Krishna that i have some idea about God but in myself i'm only a fool. I have heard that many great sages of recent times saying that God as presented in Vedas is formless, unmanifested absolute imperceptible to material senses. But if Narayana is that self same ultimate God then Narayana possesses a beautiful four-hand form which is transcendental to material modes. So how can these sages call God ultimately formless. In many commentaries(based on Advaita Vedanta) I have seen that vishnu or narayana is considered to be but one aspect of Supreme which is unmanifest formless absolute. So how can this Narayana be source of everything when it is only an aspect of the great supreme formless God. Shoudn't that Supreme formless entity be the eternal principle. Kindly explain all this to me. With Love Your Servant Always OM TAT SAT Sumeet.

Hare Krishna Everyone. Kindly accept the company of this most fallen soul so that I can recieve blessings from the sublime presence of the devotees of God. Accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet and kindly provide me with some place at your lotus feet so that I can relish the nectar of God's glory along with the other great devotees. I'm a follower of Lord Chaitanya and Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Vaishnava Parampara so naturally my knowledge will be from the unlimited knowledge present in the Vedic literature based on acintya bhedha-abheda. As a Gaudiya Vaishnava or follower of Lord Chaitanya I simply follow His teachings in Siksastaka where it is explicitly mentioned: " One should chant the holy name of the Lord in a humble state of mind, thinking oneself lower than the straw in the street; one should be more tolerant than a tree, devoid of all sense of false prestige, and should be ready to offer all respect to others. In such a state of mind one can chant the holy name of the Lord constantly. " (Siksastaka 3) I would urge that all devotees here should also make this line a principle of their life irrespective of their religious affiliations. In one of my friends post I came across the statement--- " shvu - The tranlsation should be "I am the foundation of Brahman". There is no sanskrit word there for impersonal. Krishna was a human being who was born and who died, just like everybody else. Krishna was one of the avatars, through whom the eternal Principle gave a message to Humankind. So Brahman and Krishna, Rama, Jesus, etc ALL emerge from that Principle. " My dear friend shivji this fool wants to know from you what is the "eternal principle" what is it's description as per great vedic sages and the Vedic literature. What is the Vedic conception of eternal principle ? With Love Your Servant Always OM TAT SAT Sumeet.