kaisersose

I viewed your post this time and I am glad I did even though you are on my ignore list. You mocked Christ and therefore I want nothing to do with you period. No making such a stand does not cut me off from God's grace. Ignoring your offensive talk against Krishna's devotee would have however.

 

 

Now back to ignoring you.

And yet, there should be personal forgiveness, dont you think - for the concept to be truly meaningful?

If you will pick and choose candidates who you think are qualified for forgiveness, then I don't see the point. I also do not see how this is in line with Jesus's message of *unconditional* forgiveness.

In my opinion, we should not preach if we cannot practice. If I myself cannot follow what I say, then how can I expect others to be following it?

Cheers

1. Why does it need to be any of those? Could the form of Brahman not be unique to Brahman? Why must the form of Brahman conform to a specific, known, racial type?

Very good. It does not have to. Hence the question, to to know exactly what Ranjeet is talking about. He has been posting a lot on the topic with almost nothing about the form itself.

2. Brahman is ageless. As far as what age Brahman *appears* to be, I'm not aware of any source specifically quantifying this.

The age is a factor if Ranjeet says Brahman has a human form ( Krishna of the Yadavas). Krishna was an infant, a todder, an adolescent & an adult at different points of time. Naturally then, we have to pick one for the Eternal Brahman. Or else, one has to take the position that Brahman appears differently to different people - rejecting the concept of an original, authentic form - which is very Advaitic.

Or one can say the Krishna of the Yadavas was an avatar and his form is not the original form of Brahman.

3. Why not? Why should a personal God be devoid of senses? Why should the experience of senses and sense objects be absent in the spiritual realm?

Senses as we know them are limited in their capacities run orthogonal to the concept of an all-knowing, all-pervasive, eternal Brahman. For instance, human eyes cannot see everything around them at the same time. They have eyelids for protection, etc., which make no sense when attributed to a Supreme Brahman. This is putting limits to a limitless entity. And then there is a nose for breathing, etc., which implies the existence of a respiratory system with all the auxillaries.

Again, I have to repeat that all this is relevant only if a human form is assigned to Brahman (as should be clear from my earlier post).

4. Perhaps, but how many blue, four-armed people do you see walking around in India? Or anywhere else, for that matter? If the form of Brahman was invented by human imagination, wouldn't it be logical to presuppose that Brahman was given the form of a two-armed, brown-skinned, Indian male (i.e. the form of the people who supposedly invented Brahman's form)?

The blue color, multiple arms and eyes are merely extensions to the standard human form. It is easy and natural for a poet to extend/improve on the template to illustrate a difference.

The basic question remains. We have arms, eyes, skin - all for specific functions. Why does the Supreme Brahman have/need any of these? I do not have an alternate theory supporting a formless Brahman. It is just a natural line of questioning when you hear the Gaudiya claim that Krishna came down in his original form thus implying that the eternal form of Brahman is a South Asian human male - or the general claim the Supreme Brahman has an "all-attractive" form with human like arms and eyes.

The interesting point is, if I were tasked to create a convincing form for a God (or THE God), the human form is the best template I can think of. Start with the human form and then make extensions, which is what most cultures have done (except when they picked other forms like monkeys, elephants, etc). Make the eyes bigger, add extra eyes, extra arms, vary the body size, adjust skin color, draw a halo, etc.

Cheers

Now barring some confusing texts of Sri Shankaracharya,all the elements in above list ACCEPT Sri Krsna/Sri Vishnu tattva as the eternal Saguna Form of Brahm.

The question was, what is this form? Is it a human form or some other known shape or is it unknown?

Can you please answer that?

Thanks

So what is "Brahm's" form exactly?

Since you are copy-pasting volumes on the topic, a simple description of this form would be of help.

If you say it is a human form, then there are a number of natural followup questions.

1) What kind of human - Asian, South Asian, Caucasian etc.

2) Since a human looks different at different ages, what age is the human form of Brahm?

3) Why does he have a human form with eyes and nose? We have them because we need them. Why does Brahm need a nose?

4) Would it not be more logical to assume that man gave a human form to God, instead?

If it is any other form - like a square block, a round ball or an indescribable shape, then please explain how this form is better than formless.

Thanks & Cheers

Greetings to all!

 

I am the youngest (just registered) member of the group. I am a worshipper of science but I believe that it is far from being able to explain all the questions of the nature. There comes the significance of Philosophers and Religious beliefs. I have few humble questions which I hope learned people in this forum can answer for me.

 

1. If all jivatmas take incarnation and they can only become humans if they did a good work in their previous material life, how can the number of human on this planet is growing where I have reasons to believe that the number of honest and good people in this world is decreasing, at least, not increasing in the same proportion to the growth of general population (Human).

 

2. Why is the GOD so interested about making all human faithful to him/her, where we do not represent the highest number in terms of different species of living beings on this earth?

 

3. If GOD is the sole creator of the WHOLE universe, why he c/she choose to allow so many religions to exist on this single small planet? Imagine if there was too many other planets with intelligent being, with too many other religion!

 

4. What is the purpose of all this creation?

 

 

I am just a beginner, so like to ask questions as a young child.

 

Best wishes and heartiest regards.\

 

Subhasish

Good questions.

But what are the answers that you are expecting? And on basis will you accept or reject an answer to any of these questions?

This may not be very clear initially, but if you think about it for a few minutes, you may understand what I am getting at.

If the basis for acceptance or rejection of an answer is purely sentiment (as it is for most people), then it is of little use from an objective perspective.

Cheers

Yep. He expressed questions on his duty for the benefit of the listeners. A philisophical treatise* isn't it. Bhagavad-gita.

 

Good, then you agree that when Krishna delivered 18.66 to Arjuna, he did not mean that Arjuna should give up all varieties of religion.

Now, why are we interpreting the verse that way, then? What is the basis?

Cheers

This is talking about an internal process isn't it? A very personal experience with a Personal God. What do you think...

That verse has to be interpreted correctly.

...Now, in summarizing Bhagavad-gītā, the Lord says that Arjuna should give up all the processes that have been explained to him;

Does not make any sense. Why would I take the trouble of talking about over one dozen chapters if all that has to be "given up"? One would simply have started from 18.66 straight.

Dharma also includes Arjuna's Kshatriya Dharma. If Krishna is telling Arjuna to give up "all varieties of Dharma", then he is in effect, telling him not to fight. And let us face it. Arjuna was not in confusion over multiple religions for Krishna to tell him to give them all up. Arjuna had no such problem at all.

Cheers

I think Prabhupada's mistake was the inappropriate translation of Dharma as Religion in this context.

Obviously that is not what he had in mind, as he was not creating a radically new system with no elements borrowed from existing religions (which would also require not using the Gita).

Hence, the problem I see is some of his followers using his translation of that verse out of context to mean something else - to make a factional statement.

Cheers

soul never takes birth and never dies at any time nor does it come into being again when the body is created - bhagavat gita 2/20

When the soul never takes birth how can the soul be born again ?

 

Thank you

The answer is in your question.

The soul is not born again. It transitions through different bodies - one at a time.

Cheers

dude,

 

i dont know what u are saying by telling "Sri vaishnavas" wont accept the statements. Are u telling "Sri Vaishnavas" wont accept "Narasimha" as source or u telling they wont accept "Krishna" as source. Anyway All are narayana only. i think lets end the fuss.

You dont know what I am saying because you are making the same mistake again - not reading posts that I make or even the posts that you made.

If the writer of your original post truly believed all avatars are Narayana with no difference in stature, then he would not have written that piece at all.

Anyway, I think I have made my point. What you posted is not acceptable to Sri Vaishnavas - that Krishna is the source of Vishnu or that the Hare Krishna mantra is the best approach in 2008.

Cheers

Our thought process, imaginations and perceptions are only possible through our mind and senses which requires physical organs like the brain and sense organs.

If there is a such a realm beyond the world we know, a realm where we exist without these essential physical organs - then that existence is inconceivable by the mind. This is where the word transcendental truly applies.

Anything you can imagine, cannot be it.

Cheers

what does that mean ??!! no !!! none of us are !! a liberated soul wound'nt roam about internet at all !!!!!!!!

There is no set model of a "Liberated man" defining his behavior and actions. It does not come from any mainstream scripture that I know of. Tattavada actually denies the concept of Jivanmukti.

Though Advaita admits the concept, the problem is it is next to impossible for us to correctly identify one - if such a one exists. In all the cases I have observed, the Liberated man was designated as such for purely sentimental reasons - Sai Baba, Ramakrishna, Ramana, UG, etc. Their followers have accepted them solely on sentiments and faith and nothing else.

I cannot claim to have special skills to be able to identify a liberated man or woman when I see one and I dont think anyone can.

From a logical perspective, what is the person liberated from? I can't think of anything! The same applies to liberation from rebirth. Rebirth can only be a problem to be afraid of if there is some memory of past pain. Since that is never the case, the whole concept of freedom from rebirth is moot.

Cheers

After starting this thread only i read about tattparya of venkateswara and narasimha. So i come to know that and i pasted in this thread. Wats wrong in that ? Moreover everyone in this forum somewhere or somehow are copying the sayings of acharyas or scriptures. No one can write their own scripture or philosophy or article as no one is Veda vyasa or Sri Ramanujacharya here.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya

This is what you posted. Check the underlined portions. No Sri Vaishnava would agree with these statements, which implies you did not read it before posting. That is my point.

Although Lord Krishna is often considered the 8th Avatar of Lord Vishnu He(Lord Krishna) is actually the Supreme personality of Godhead. He is actually the source of all avatars and is the cause of all causes. This is confirmed in various vedic sastras and is the conclusion of vedic uttama siddhanta which is the Srimad Bhagavatam.

The main objective of Gita is to help people struggling in the darkness of ignorance cross the ocean of transmigration and reach the spiritual shore of liberation while living and working in the society. The central understanding of the Bhagavad Gita is to not only do your duty but ultimatly surrender unto the Supreme personality of Godhead. Sri Krishna. By doing your duty in the thought of Lord Krishna and ultimatly offering everything unto him.

The congregational chanting of the maha-mantra, Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare, is accepted by the Vedas as the most effective means of self-purification in this age.

Cheers

Some interesting points there, but I don't think it is as quite as clear as Hazra suggests. The fact that 2,000 verses quoted are not to be found in the present version of a text could merely suggest that these passages have been lost. This is not uncommon. The Narada Purana describes four sections of the Kurma Purana but today only one of these still exists.

The 2000 verse argument is just one. He has devoted a few pages to his justification for why the present Brahma Vaivarta has practically been rewritten. The same position has been taken by HH Wilson and Winternitz before him. Unforunately I do not have Hazra's book with me now to produce more detail.

And I am not convinced about the argument for the Vayu rather than the Shiva Purana. In most lists, at least four that I am aware of, the Purana is described as the Shaiva and not the Vayaviya as one would expect (one list includes both Shaiva and Vayaviya). All the other Puranas are listed by name rather than subject so it would be anomalous to refer to the Vayu Purana as Shaiva. I would not be dogmatic on either of these points but on the latter in particular, I think the evidence is towards the Shiva Purana.

Again, there is a lot going for the Vayu Purana = Shaiva Purana argument in Hazra's research. He also has researched the Shiva Purana, tried to identify its author and presented his case for why it is an Upa-Purana.

Note that the Bhagavatam does not name the 4th Purana as Shiva Purana, but as "Shaiva" Purana, which is more an allusion to the nature of its content than a name. The Matysa specifically names the 4th Purana as the Vayu Purana. Wilson concurs with Hazra on this too. He adds that Balambhatta ( who lived before the time of all these guys) specifically noted that the Vayu is called the Shaiva Purana.

Do you know where both Shaiva and Vayu are listed together? I have not seen that before. Unless such a list exists, we can safely assume that the two are not found together in any list because they are one.

Cheers

is there any textual reference to this ?

That is easy. Most of it comes from the Gita as is usually the case with rebirth logic.

Soul:

There was never a time Arjuna, when you did not exist, nor a time when you will cease to exist. [2.12]

Bondage:

The concept of beginningless ignorance/bondage is derived from the above as follows.

1) The soul is beginningless and has been moving from one body to another [2.20, etc]

2) Release from bondage = liberation = no more rebirth. [8.15, etc]

From 1,2 it follows rebirth occurs due to bondage. It follows bondage is also beginningless along with the soul.

There is no dispute here among the 3 traditions. The dispute comes in how bondage ends and what happens next.

Cheers

Some of the personal stuff is a bit of distraction but thank you for all these posts, many of which have been most enlightening. Just a couple of points to add, which occurred whilst I was reading.

1. The threefold classification of Puranas does seem to be a part of the Vaishnava view and is found in the Padma Purana, as cited above. There is also a threefold division based on gunas to be found in the Garuda Purana (Brahma Khanda, 1.45-53) but there the three lists are rather different to those given by the Padma. Having read quite a bit of Puranic literature I would say that the guna classification is not sustainable as there is so little difference between works that are said to be tamasic and those judged to be sattvic--apart perhaps from the Deity they revere.

In other words, no Purana that is not Vaishnava in nature, labels itself Rajasic or Tamasic. Nor does it accord Sattva status to any other Purana.

2. Radha is not a late invention of the Geeta Govinda. Her name is not mentioned in the Bhagavata Purana but she is mentioned in the Mahashiva Purana and in the Brahmavaivarta Purana.

The Mahashiva Purana is really a Upa-Purana and is dated by Hazra to the 12th century AD - very close to the date of the Gita Govinda. The Vayu is the actual Maha Shiva Purana. And it is specifically mentioned by name in some Purana lists (Matsya, etc) and as the "Shaiva" Purana in some other Purana lists (Bhagavata, etc). The Matsya clearly describes the Vayu as "describing the Mahatmya of Rudra".

The Brahma vaivarta is dated to the 16th century - just 400 years ago. There was an earlier Brahma vaivarta which has been quoted by Smriti scholars from earlier than the 12th century. But out of ~2000 verses quoted, almost none of them are traceable in the present version, which further proves we have a completely bogus text. Again, this is from Hazra backed up by a lot of research.

HH Wilson did not go into depth, but he had the exact same opinion. He was certain that the older Matysa could not have talked about a Purana which mentions Radha who is of modern origin. He says about the present Brahma Vaivarta - "It has not the slightest title to be regarded as a Purana".

In short, Radha is a late inclusion. She is completely absent in any text that can be dated earlier than the 10th century.

Cheers

Hi

 

I was reading this thread, what I don't understand is why the infinite consciousness first creates the individuality in us & then expects us to realise we are not diferent from it. If the ego creates this individuality, who creates the ego ?

Thank you.

This question applies to all traditions of Vedanta. The soul is beginningless as is ignorance. This is the common position of all three schools of Vedanta.

So if you disagree with this fundamental foundation, then keep in mind that you are disagreeing with Advaita, Dvaita and V-Dvaita on something that the three have no disagreement about. Hence, you have to to ask your question differently - if you still have it.

Cheers

What's the difference?

What one has the other don't?

Any superiority complex?

Dear Reader,

Thanks for the question.

The difference is in the subject matter. The two (Vedas & Puranas) have different origins and different levels of credibility - not just now, but since at least 1000+ years ago.

The Vedas do not talk about billions of years of human history, do not try to teach us special versions of astronomy where the moon is further from the earth than the sun or that the earth is set of concentric circles - for starters. To put it diferently, the Vedas contain lesser content that "conflicts" with science as we know it than the Bhagavatam. There is more, but this should suffice.

The Vedas have not (to my knowledge) created a special brand of experts who after reading an english translation concluded they know more about science and astronomy than scientists and astronomers.

That is why.

Cheers

Rama and Krishna are so sweet avatars. I dont deny that. But these avatars have their base in Lord Narasimha. It is same Narasimha sitting in third eye of Rudra. Since Krishna acted as trinity he is considered as Fully-complete avatar whereas Rama acted as Dual(hari and hara), he is considered as Complete Avatar. But still Narasimha is the source of all yuga avatars.

But Adi-avatar is Lord Hyagreeva. He is considered as form of "Para-vasudeva" (Adi narayana) himself. Para-Vasudeva or Narayana is none other than Venkateswara who is giving seva in archa-rupa in Thirumala. So Venkateswara is source of all avatars, thats why Venkateswara is considered as Complete Brahman irrespective of all sects.

But Last-avatar will be Lord Kala-Narasimha. He is none other than supreme form of Lord Narasimha himself. He may also considered be otherside of Para-vasudeva. It is said that Venkateswara's kula devata is Sri Narasimha himself. At end of kalpa everything will end in Lord Kala-Narasimha. He is the Sadashiva.

 

So Venkateswara is the Aadi and Kala-Narasimha is the Anthaa.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya

Dude,

you are the one who started this thread by copy-pasting a Hare Krishna piece on how Krishna is the source of all avatars and Vishnu as well, triggering off an argument.

Now seeing this post, it would appear, you simply copy-paste internet articles without even reading them.

Cheers

Yes it is I that attacked advaita. I disagree with them on almost everything including the definition of person. Without the 'I' consciousness has no meaning. Consciousness indeed is integral to the 'I'.

A valid argument. Consciousness as we know it, makes little sense without an I.

But a similar argument applies to all religious positions. Consciousness and memory make little sense without a physical brain/body. The argument is dealt with by saying it is beyond what we can know [transcendental] and so our material knowledge and experience fall short of understanding this.

However, if we are willing to take this position, then we should be honest enough to accept that similar logic applies to the Advaita position too. Consciousness may exist without an I, but our limited abilities cannot comprehend the concept.

The point is, we should apply scrutiny uniformly across the board. Selective criticism does not help.

Cheers

Modern scientists don't know how the universe looks, and considering the direction civilization seems to be heading we may never (lets face it, people just want sex nowadays, they don't care about science, let alone astronomy.)

You mean unlike people from the past, who were not interested in sex and were totally into science and astronomy? Hmm...I need to recheck my history as I am not aware when that was ever the case. If you are aware of specific time periods, when people were savvy about science and astronomy than modern man, please mention them.

I'm more likely to put my faith in the Vedas than I will on modern astronomers, especially considering the method they use to determine distance between planets...

You mean the Bhagavatam, not the Vedas - there is a world of difference.

Since you appear to know more about astronomy than fulltime astronomers, why don't you educate them about the correct method of determining these distances? Unless, you are already in touch with them and correcting their mistakes.

Cheers

The Brahma Samhita and Garga Samhita are acceptable by everybody.

If by everybody, you mean everyone who is a Gauidya Vaishnava, then you are right.

The story I have heard is Chaitanya "discovered" this lost text somewhere in Kerala, bought it home and since then his followers have known it. As a remarkable coincidence, this Kerala Text had striking evidence for the far away Bengali doctrine of Gaudiya Vaishnavism which was independently developed by Chaitanya. Consider this: I develop a brand new doctrine all by myself, travel to a far off place and there exists a lost scriptural text which has full support for my new doctrine! How often does this happen?

Apparently it's convenient for non-believers to reject those scriptures and say only Gaudiyas accept those.

Considering that these "non-Gaudiyas" are exponentially higher in number than the Gaudiyas and also considering the simple fact that no non-Gaudiya reference to the Brahma Samhita exists, it follows the non-believers are right.

Krishna says he's the source of everything, and he further expands that in the same chapter where he mentions stuff like "of the Vedas I am the Sama Veda,of the demigods I am Indra,of the Adityas I am Visnu."

This is what happens when simple concepts are misinterpreted and twisted. What about the 2 dozen or more Avatar lists in the Puranas (including the Bhagavatam) that Krishna is the eight avatar of Vishnu? What about the simple fact that Krishna is absent in any extant Veda? What about the simple fact that Krishna was born on the earth while Vishnu never has?

If you will ignore all of this and hold on to the misterpretation of a single verse from the Bhagavatam, you will have a hard time convincing anyone, most of all, yourself! Incidentally, the Bhagavatam itself lists avatars in two locations and both times, Krishna is the avatar of Vishnu and not the other way around.

Might I add that it doesn't really matter if Krishna is the source or not.

You sure had me fooled.

Cheers

This is grossly incorrect. The Matsya Purana also has the same classification of puranas into sattva, rajas, and tamas. And by the way, Matsya Purana happens to be in the latter category. So no help for you there.

The Matsya does not have such a classificaton. The exact classification of Sattva Puranas comes from Padma (which classifies itself as Sattva, of course).

The Matysa says Puranas with Vishnu as the main theme are Sattva Puranas, but does not name the Puranas that qualify as Sattva. So the Matysa does not classify itself as Tamasic - and as is evident by its name, it is a Vaishnava Purana with emphasis on the Matsya avatar and Vishnu in general.

In short, the Padma and Matsya say Puranas with Vishnu as the main theme are Vaishnava Puranas and not surprisingly, both these Puranas have Vishnu as the main theme. No non-Vaishnava Purana contains such a concept. The only inconsistency in this whole story is the Padma classifying the Matsya as Tamasic. This inconsistency does not support the Vaishnava=Sattva theory, but actually repudiates it.

Cheers

when i try to learn about Sri Krsna im bombarded with alot of sectarianism and this brings me alot of confusion.

 

Sri Devi seems so much closer and approachable.

Then clearly, you are trying to learn about Krishna from the wrong sources. Try a different source.

You can find a lot of stories of people who saw/experienced the divine mother's form.

Cheers

Bhagavatam is considered smrti by HK's.

 

 

The rest of the article also explains a littlle about Sri Caitanya's recommendation of Bhagavatam. The article also says a little why the Goswami's rasa literature is held in highest esteem.

 

These ideas are not a new concept originating in the modern Gaudiya groups. They orginate from its founder...Sri Gauranga (who is considered to be Sri Krsna).

 

If that doesn't sit well....then the vedic tradition is very broad with other perspectives to satisfy...

 

...now that is surely a grace and gift! Most followers of vedanta accept that there is something on offer to uplift various people and their dispositions.

Bija,

There have been HKs right on this forum who have disagreed with the original classification. As a matter of fact, there was a poster named Chandu who was just recently arguing that the entire country (India) accords Sruti status to the Bhagavatam.

Else, I would have no reason to make that statement.

Cheers