Narasingh

কৃষ্ণ

I know that both onion (Pyaaj) and garlic (leheson) are used in Indian cuisine in domestic rural India. As for the influence of western dishes, I am not aware of it. There are many Indians who won't use them, and usually (at least rurally speaking) these are the Indians who are shakahari (vegetarian). The mashaharis (meat eaters) tend to use them freely.

repeat my point

 

 

but i want to say that god is only impersonal brahman according to shakt and shaiv texts EXAMPLE:

shivling is attributeless and nirguna form of god as written in shiva puraan.

he is known as shiv/sadahshiv and is not rudradev

rudra dev is only a part of him as according to the puraan

 

even devi bhagwat says about god being formless atrribute less they just call her shakti AND MAA

kali is a small form of that shakti just like lakshmi

 

and vaishnav philosophy says that krishna is basis of that brahman aint i right?

 

 

krishna is not subservient to that brahman

so their is a big difference

only 3 r there

Finished Files are the result of years of scientific study combined with the experience of Years.

I’m looking for a tool that converts long texts with Sanskrit characters into MS word text. Example: praśāntātmā - it should instead look like this, prasantatma. Thanks for any help.

Sonic, there is a conundrum in your proposition? The shaivite literatures will say the same thing regarding Krsna and Govardhana etc...

Why not? I am not aware of Shiva Tattva as it pertains to Shaivite literatures, but since He is eternal and has parshads, why wouldn't His parshads have an eternal associative residence?

"It is beyond imagination how much Radha Krishn have Graced us. They descended only 5,227 years ago. They revealed such loving leelas that fascinated even God Shiv and Goddess Parvati and Maha Lakchmi. All of this They did only for us so that the eternally miserable souls could also receive the same Bliss of maharas which is beyond the reach of Brahma and which is earnestly desired by God Shiv. But see the people of this world whose kaliyug-affected minds still criticize and allegorize the leelas of Krishn. You must know that such doings are extreme transgressions, and as such, a lover of Sanatan Dharm should discard such diabolical publications, which, even in the least, criticize, allegorize and degrade the absolute Divinity of Bhagwan Ram and Sita or Radha and Krishn and Their Divine leelas, or dispute the Divine eternity of the Vedas, Upnishads and the Puranas, and the eternal Sages and Saints. You should remember that the Divine dignity of Bhagwan Ram and Krishn and Their loving leelas are the soul of Sanatan Dharm."

Bhagavan is The Form of Divinity full of ananda, sat and chit combined to the unlimited degree.

you can link to a picture from here.

The Bhagavatam and Bhagavad Gita are both supportive of each other. The Bhagavad Gita and the Vishvarupa Lila experienced by Arjuna indicate that while no one can claim one as being more supreme than the other (they are contained within each other) the beautiful human-like form is more relishable by Bhagavan's devotees. The Vishvarupa form is appreciated along with the element of awe and fear, but is encouraging because of It's enlightening features of pure consciousness. Krsna's manush rupa is praised by Krsna, Himself as very rare. Arjuna realized how he had been intimate with the Person who accommodates Vishvarupa within Him. He felt that he must have committed some offense to such a powerful Person. Krsna revealed that He likes this intimate interaction with Arjuna, because Arjuna is His dear devotee.

So you are right in that one may be subjectively attracted to one form over another, but, objectively, Krsna's manush rupa is more intimate and He actually enjoys the intimacy of His devotees through this form. This is the gist of the Bhagavatam, and is pointed towards in the Gita. Rasa lila is Krsna's pleasure. The devotees who approach Him in such an intimate way cause Krsna's Heart to melt. He becomes their servant and drives their chariot or massages their feet, out of love for them, because of their love for Him.

shraddhavan bhajate yo mam, sa me yuktatamo matah

Also Chapter 7 is indicative of this.

thnks,smiley.

 

 

i don't get the relation,narasingh.

The relation is; there are different manifestations of the supreme. When one is commenting on antaranga and bahiranga, they are speaking of shakti. Para Shakti has manifestations of different gradations. In much the same way, Bhagavan is also Brahman and Paramatma. Bhagavan is Bhagavan though. Brahman is non-dual (sat), Paramatma is dual (chit), Bhagavan is ananda.

Keep reading a little further in the Bhagavad Gita and you will find the entrance to the Bhagavatam. When Arjuna was perplexed and discouraged by seeing the Vishvarupa form, he was subsequently shown the four-armed form of Bhagavan, and lastly the two-armed form which is also deemed Supreme, albeit most accessible and endearing.

This two armed is the all-attractive form.

I just posted this elsewhere but it seems to fit here better.

Sat (existence) is there with or without consciousness of itself. Chit (consciousness) is there with or without bliss, but presupposes sat. Ananda (bliss) is all-encompassing and is the most inclusive form of existence. Krsna's two-armed form is the form of ananda.

The Bhagavatam suggests:

vadanti tat tattva-vidas

tattvaḿ yaj jñānam advayam

brahmeti paramātmeti

bhagavān iti śabdyate

Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān.

ranjeetmore,

Durgadevi must be defined first.

There is a saying...

Existence (sat) can be had without being conscious (chit) of it, but if something was conscious (chit) it automatically assumes existence. Consciousness (chit) can be had without Bliss (ananda) but if there is bliss (ananda) then there is an automatic assumption of all three... sat, chit, and ananda.

i was just wondering exactly how much relevence does truthfulness carry in the course of one's spiritual sadhana . ancient texts have glorified truthfulness as the highest virtue . we have the legends of people like yudishtira and raja harishchandra etc . but in todays context is it really that easy ?

 

some people are inclined to belief that any negative act , when done for god conciousness or propagating his divine name does'nt amount to lie or misdeed . this is so because the ultimate motive was good . but such a belief raises more problems than it solves . for we find people turning inclined to commit some small misdeeds and pass it off in name of god .

 

for example if one preaches false glories of his faith just to turn someone god conscious , wouldnt that amount to falsehood ?

 

and is falsehood really a big obstacle in progressing spiritually ?

 

 

what do you think ?

Thanks for the reply.

I'm gonna blame my girlfriend for naming our son alex.

I was hoping to get a tattoo

Sorry for that

thats better

 

 

 

on second thought you shall find most deities having two class of devotees . the first group consists of pure devotees who wants para-bhakti and nothing else , while the second group misinterprets and misuses the faith . just like some tantrics who devote their entire life to learn occult practices instead of brahmagyan . similarly one group of vaishnavas strive for prema bhakti while the corrupted ones pass off sahajiya sense gratification in name of krishna . obviously in this situation krishna is not to blame , is he ?!!!

 

 

 

great !!

 

 

 

really nice . this is what is called as ishta nishta -- dedication to ones own deity with full respect for that of others .

 

ramakrishna had a parable for this......

 

" when a newly married wife comes to stay in a big joint family she attends to the needs of all her family members including father in law , mother in law , husband's brother etc . she does it flawlessly and with equal love . but at the end of the day when she goes back to her room where her own beloved is waiting she hands over to him the choicest paan leaves that she has specially prepared for him.

 

similarly we should respect all but love only our ishta . "

Hi, you guys are doing an amazing job here.

I was hoping you could translate ALEX.

pronounced...

A as in At

E as in Let

 

Thanks

I would write it like this...

ऐलिक्स or ऐलेक्स giving preference to the former.

I will try that. Thank you.

actually i meant that there might have been a misinterpretation of the original text . for example some texts might have been overlooked or omitted that have twisted its meaning .

 

i know who raya ramananda was and never intended to show any disrespect for such a high parshad of mahaprabhu .....

The words of Raya Ramananda as transcribed by Kaviraj Krsna Das are:

raya kahe, -- krishna haya 'dhira-lalita'

nirantara kama-krida -- yanhara carita

The point of being born in this world is relative to the value one sees in this world. Many persons are joyous to wake up and sleep, brush their teeth, meet new people etc. This world can be viewed in 2 ways. Real and Unreal. And there is validity to both.

In my search for Truth chanting, Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare, by itself is the religion. " That all vedic mantras, rituals and conclusions are all compressed in just 8 words, Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare( Narada pancaratra).

Good

The Vishwarupa is simply a representation of kala (time), the ultimate devourer/destroyer of men. (The Bhagavatam actually views the form as illusory.) Therefore when Arjuna, after seeing that terrible form asked the Lord what it meant, He replied, "I am Time, the Destroyer ..." However Sri Vishnu never requested people to make morbid sacrifices, going to great lengths to explain in Bhagavad Gita the differences between sacrifices made under the influence of the different gunas. Those who due to ignorance make morbid sacrifices, do so under the influence of tamas guna. Such sacrifices are never recommended. Unlike the evolving morals of Theists, Sri Vishnu does not change. Therefore we are left with the conclusion that any deities who requested morbid sacrifices are not Him - even though He hears the prayers of all. If a child in distress calls for his father but his father is not, any caring adult may answer that call. This does not mean that that adult is the actual parent - it is simply an act of compassion.

Narasingh,

I really appreciate the time and efforts of you and everyone else who has contributed to this thread -

even those who I do not agree with. We will never completely agree on all of these issues but I do

respect your scholarly presentation and realize that your views are an important part of our Dharma.

I look forward to reading your blog or website.