sambya

did you feel bad ? sorry for that !!!!!!! actually whenever i criticise iskcon thats done with the intention of making them realise how others might feel when iskconites abuse their faiths. good that you're begining to realise. sorry !!!!!!!!!

why argue constantly with such a poor fund of knowledge ? whenever the word vaishnavi is used to describe durga it is used in the sense of vishnu shakti. you will also come across terms like idrani maaheshwari, kaumari , brahmani , varaahi, naarasinghi , narayani etc. indrani stands for idndra shakti , kumari for kumara(kartika or skanda)shakti , maaheswari for maheswar shakti and so forth. so when all the words mean respective shaktis one word coulnt possibly mean 'servant'. vaishnavi is used as vishnu shakti. almost all sanskrit words in shastras carry many meanings. vaishnavi also means vishnu shakti. you such an illeterate individual that you interpreted vaishnavi as maidservant.even in its literall sense it means vishnu bhakta. also what explanation could you provide for the word ' narayani ' ? there is no doubt that she is the only vishnu shakti before radha came into existence(historcal existence). although no one is forcing you to believe or accept history !!!!!!!!!!!! a bunch of confused souls !! you have gretest respect for her and call her maid servant. another paradox !!! why cant you guys have some basic reasoning ? dont continue to argue , i can provide with innumerable shastric quotations for you to see that durga is higher to krishna( i dont mean that although). a religion that preaches or creates narrow sectarianship is harmfull for society in long term.your faith (along with the illustrious iskcon) is exactly doing that.and i see( most people would agree with me) nothing positive in a religion nurturing sectarian views. what is harmfull for the society can never be usefull for an individual.

of course you can .thats your freedom of thought. but it does have many wrong interpretations. consult with a learned sanskrit scholar to verify.

not gita , its 'bhagavad gita as it is'. good that they didnt .........theres nothing spiritual in that.

text please. and bhagavatam is not the only shastra. its acceptable only if it is specifically mentioned (with perfect clarity) in majority of shashtras. yes sure , krishna bhakti , durga bhakti, shiva bhakti . and remember , all with equal sincerity !!! did you read niravanstakam, soundaryalahari or bhvavanyastakam ?? i guess not , otherwise you wouldnt have commented so foolishly.

excellent

shastric proof required. if i say maa durga is there( remember thousand of shastric proofs are available for that) ??

thanks !!! good do you mean jada bharat muni ?? his mind had fallen into a strong bondage with the deer . he started of the sadhana beautifully but got entangled accidentaly without ever realising it. that is why he had to take birth again. it is the sum total of the conciousness that matters. if your level of conciousness is at the highest level (prema bhakti for example) you are bound to get liberation even if you dont quit body thinking of god(say , in sleep). should you have any doubt , ask ur guru.

you dont have to go so far for that !!!!! why planets ?? our own moon is teeming with highly advanced living creatures. iskcon maintains( bahgavad gita as it is) that there are fascinating creatures all roaming about the moon which is perpetually invisible to naked eyes. imagine their degree of evolutional perfection , which even animals upon earth could not attain inspite of it(earth) being a more hospitable place to live in than moon !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!........

Q : what do you think .......ramakrishna got liberated or not ? Q : if a highly elevated spiritual man who has been practising devotion all through his life dies without thinking of god..............what happens to him? does he get mukti or not ? answer in yes or no .

YES !! i believe in the war of mahabharata and its legends.as regaurd to the figures of dead and missing i cant comment. for historically its not prooved wrong as yet. one might say that such a vast population at that time is highly unlikely , but thats mere speculation. but whenever i beleive in any mythogy , folklore , epics and such i always take in to account history , sociology and science. i dont like to say that just beacuse scriptures say this , science ( or even history) must be wrong or vice versa. correct synthesis between science and spirituality is utmost important for preservance of both. the 'scientists' who deride god are as much in fault as the religious fanatics who disregaurd science. in this context think of what condition christianity has degraded itself to just by constant persecution and denial of science. like for example i would accept that puranas were written till18th century but that would not decrease my faith towrds them.beacuse all of them contains some truth and relizations made by saintly persons through ages. if a belief can accept all theories prevailing in earth then that can be truly called a universal religion. accepting history ,science etc doesnt devalue my religion as many in hinduism think. for example shalagram shilas are fossilized ammonites from tethis ocean in pre jurrassic age, thats found in gandaki river. religious fanatics would never accept that it is a fossill and stick to their idiotic mytholgies. but i dont shirk away from accepting this. why ?........ see....... we worship the supreme in jada vastu or material objects like vigraha( remember vighraha is chinmay or concious only after pran pratistha) and also in chit vastu like kumari puja in tantra etc. in slagram we find this most beautifull manifestation of jadavastu and chidvastu. perhaps for this salagram was held to be the highest vigraha. in scriptures there are stories of vajrakita( an insect) causing the whorls and chakra marks of a salagram. now doesnt this show the intelectual brilliance of our rishis ,who thousands of years ago understood them as fossils of vajrakita(thunderous insect) and still accepted its supremacy ? like this i can have utmost respect for a salagram inspite of accepting it to be a fossil. my devotion is not so fragile that i shall shirk away from agreeing to science. why cant anyone see the conciouseness in a fossil? god is everywhere ,right ? i believe in harmonising and synthesising as one of the greatest of virtues.

again !!! if you dont believe that you would get the same guru over next birth that would mean denial of samskars. what kind of logic is this ? how can i remember that ? but that doesnt mean that it was not so. just beacuse i dont remember my past birth doesnt seem to suggest that past birth didint exist , does it ? i see .... im still blind you know ..............agyanatimirandashya ....... remember ? maybe you have seen the light . i was asking for definti historical references like authors , scriptures , names of books , inscriptions etc , not merely suggestions. you shall get it along with words like 'mleccha' in later day scriptures. ill get you the exact one in some time. sorry but that shows you have not yet made a deep study. gandhi doesnt conform to the characteristics of mahatma mentioned in any scriptures [ like ashta bikars ---swed(sweating) kampan(shivering) ashru(ecstatic tears) pulak(bliss) murccha(unconciousness) etc ] the sanskrit text says "phalena parichiyate " which means a tree is identified by its fruits.i have not read experiments with truth because beacuse ive more spiritual books with me. and thats not necessary to understand that gandhi was not a mahatma. carry out a survey with all spiritual seekers(irrespective of their beliefs) and you will get the results. or else start a new thread---WAS GANDHI A self REALIZED MAHATMA? tell me something ........... you said that you stand for only truth . who is this truth ? only ramachandra ? can krishna be also truth ? or kali perhaps ?

gandhi is a typical neo vedantist of 20th century. this school of thought accepts and practises bhakti in real life but believes in doctrine of advaita. a typical vaishnav never accepts the equality of other deities. an neo advaitin sticks to his ishta but believes in equality of all gods. gandhi didnt mention anywhere that only ram is the supreme god. he believed in advaita as he was heavily influenced by ramakrishna -vivekananda thought that was sweeping through india at that time. he said , "after reading the works of vivekananada the love that i had for my country increased a thousand times." when he used to come to calcutta a ramakrishna mission monk would go over to read ramakrishna kathamrita tto him. vivekananda was a typicall neo vedantist believing in equality of all gods and following both the paths of bhakti and advaita. if gandhi would have been a typical vaishnav( orthodox type) he could have never heard kathamrita and respected vivekananda , as all their teachings deal with advaita bhakti synthesis. secondly it is absolutely incorrect to say that it was a bhakti movement that was present at the time of indian national movement. the spirituality that most of our freedom fighters had was of this neo vedantic type. they practised bhakti and respected advaita. thats why you can never find any person disrepecting any god. the inner mood was always advaita, read indian history and anandamath and youll get the answer. in anandamath the santans worship both shakti and vishnu as simultaneously highest tattwa. i hope everyone remembers the crucial role of anandamath in spreading nationalism.

merely having ram in mind wont help at all. the end thing is 1- degree of realization 2-level of purity 3-continous dedication to lord like unbroken flow of oil. if all of these were present in him he could have never resorted to politics. yes , not even the noble politics of british era !!!!! from a veiwpoint of politicians and diplomats he was an mahatma undoubtedly, but not when judged from spiritual points. goodnite for today

one doesnt find numerous gurus over his next life. you are overlooking the process known as samskars. when you finally come under the guidance of a genuine guru you start a bond that never perishes.it gets merged in the supreme at the end. say , you are initiated in ram mantra by a real spiritually high competent guru and you continue its chanting all through your life. now what happens after you die ? do you get a completely new guru? NO !!!!!!!! here your samskars from your previous life redirect you to the same soul or in some rare cases to a soul with same teachings. the bhav of your sadhana never changes . if i assume that you were to change gurus at every birth then it would amount to changing paths continuously. as krishna says in gita that if a yogi dies in middle of sadhana he gets the chance to start exactly from the same point in the following birth. now would that have been possible without the same guru ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!! secondly guru is god himself. the mercy of god takes the form of guru to help you across the bhavasagar.guru being god is always changeless. and percieving guru as human (which you are doing) is one of the greatest aparadhs.

i think there's a huge point of difference between gandhi and dalai lama. dalai lama is primarily a spiritual leader who has resorted to politics due to unavoidable circumstances. gandhi was primarily a politician who accepted a deep spiritual life . also i would object to the word mahatma. its true that he was indeed a noble man and a real high morals. but using that word for him would amount to degrading other illustrious persons who were solely spiritual. it was rabindranath who gave him this title. now in those days there was a sudden hindu revival and spiritual resurgance and people were awarded such titles easily, especially in bengal. thus just by writing anandamath and vande mataram bankim chandra became rishi bankim in bengal. merely by being a great socio religious reformer and a man of some spiritual insights did devendranath tagore(rabindranath's father) became maharshi. now this is a serious insult to the vedic maharshis and rishis who devoted their entire lives in painstaking pursuit of spiritual truth. 'mahatma' is also a similar title. he was not a mahatma beacuse he was realized and perfected individual. if he would have been as such the ugly feud between him and subhas chandra bose wouldnt have appeared in the congress session. he was a politician with a deep spirituality.

O GOD !! thats ridiculous .you are speaking about the gurus of material knowledge like veda adhyayan, ashtra vidya etc ec. spiritual gurus never leave anyone. although you do provide gurudakhshina the relation doesnt end. infact day by day it increases untill you realize god. and once you do that you feel that guru and ishta are same. in a spiritual guru the learning or relation is never over.

like ?!! any references?!! i guess it would be wrong to say it didnt exist when so many nations used that word. it was a misterpratation and wrong way of reffering to the followers of vedas. again thats true !! but only philosophically speaking, not through historical evidence !!!!!!!!!! thats a problem not just with greek but with all cultures.just as we have deformed 'ALEXANDER' to 'SIKANDAR' or 'ISKANDER'. just as there are so many regional adaptaions of ramayan. just as radha krishna is presently seen evolving under iskcon paintings. one can clearly see the unusually high levels of western physical traits( face structures and well toned roman bodies etc) and western landscape etc in many of these pictures. this is also a process of adpatation that has just started. these are expected regional adaptations and alterations that occur as a result of cultural interchange. as much i can remember nalanda was not destroyed by greeks but by muslim invaders.

how can schooling end before god realization ???????? until you are god realized you are not an perfected individual. and your guru is always guiding you (whether he is in this body or not ) till you actually see god. being under guru also amounts to schooling !!!!!!!!! till we reach the perfect knowledge(god) we are lacking in knowledge.this means we still have many things to learn. learning is merely the other name of schooling. and assertaining independence from guru amounts to a falldown.

chandu , you have proven yourself worse than the most dogmatic religious fundamentalists. if you call a saint a psycological patient then you must provide valid reasons why you think so. that should include details from psycology , spiritual history and mystical experiences . without that its baseless. would it please you if i say that im a muslim ???? if it would then please understand as such and keep shut. dont bring up the same old topic again and again in your every post. instead provide us with some other valuable information by starting a new thread with something substantial in it (perhaps). without following a partiular path or belief a person cannot be spiritual at all. you are just a mere intellectual (psuedo , i mean) speculator of contemporary religions. hereafter you wont get my replies in this matter.

now calling satvik bhavas as emotional exopression disorders clearly doesnt seem to suggest a respect towrds her. once again you said , "She immediately began to recite portions of the Quran, and to perform the Namaj ritual (Muslim prayers).." WHATS WRONG IN THAT ?!!!!!!!!!!! you are showing the muslim hatered again. sanatana dharma is indeed broad enough to incorporate in itself all facets of other religions. thats why the concept of satyanarayan puja in form of a muslim sufi pir originated in puranas (refer to skanda purana). that was also aimed at harmonising these two faiths. was that wrong ? its nothing new for hindu sadhaks and philosophers to include muslim mannerisms within their fold. im sory to say that you are not at all spiritual,but a mere speculator of hinduism and other faiths. once more , i would like to know techings of which saint do you abide by , if at all.

SO WHAT ???????????? does it really matter what faith i belong here. the forum is called spiritual discussions. i dont think any particular faith has the exclusive right to spirituality. you are only foolishly showing your deep hatred for muslims repeatedly. not by faith , by the style of understanding and arguing .

thats correct . only bhaktas can know. bhagavat prapti is actually not anything material . all this happens in the mental and emotional aspect. a sadhak sees god its with his divya eyes.its something that no one can comprehend. sri ramakrishna used to say............................ "how would you describe to someone how does ghee tastes ? its imposiible !! only one who have tasted it knowshow does it taste." but that doesnt mean he can know god totally. thats a paradoxical statement. bhagatprapti happens only after you see hear and feel bhagavan. its not that you begin to see hear and feel him after bhagavatprapti , as your suggesting.

i guess that's much better than the other branches. but obvious !! thats the path you follow !! everyone would love their own path. thats very good. nice i see !!!!!! as for me , my schooling would end the day i meet him face to face. theres no end to knowledge , you know.

the foklore of the beautiful gopi radha continued in ancient india among general masses but was given a final shastric touch about a thousand years ago . studying history one can easily see the way radha evolved from a cowherd girl to the main gopi and ultimately supreme shakti itself. the major credit perhaps goes to the bengali sadhaks ( although nibarka sampradya also glorified radha around the same time) . bengal has always been the land of mother cults. personifying god as benevolent mother has aqquired the most important shape in this region of earth. perhaps this instinct of bengalis triggered them to elevate radha to the highest platform of divinity. so much so that in gaudiya sampradays she even excels krishna in some respects. thus the first concrete identity of radha was codified in gaudiya vaishnavism. gradually the sites of vraja and mathura were revived by the gaudiya saints. naturally the dominence of gaudiya cults and bengali style of worship is still easily noticable here. in this way it took no time for radha to become established alll over the north india. the first direct refence to radha as krishna's shakti is in the famous geet govinda of jayadeva of bengal . even in this text we can easily understand that the bengali mother goddess cults helped jayadev to elevate radha to this level. another thing to be noted is in its initial stages of evolution radha was nondifferent from durga. durga is the primary vishnu shakti . krishnna being the avatar of vishnu it was but obvious for radha to be incarnation of durga. thats why we find in two places krishna reffering to radha as chandi --- a name typical to the ugra aspect of devi cults................. "mugdhe videhi mayi nirddaya dantadamsha dorbballivandha nivida stanapidnani . chandi twameva mudamancha na panchavana chandalakanda dalnadasavaah prayantu ." [ o mesmeriser !!! you are torturing me with your lilas. but o chandi take care so that i dont die from cupid's arrows. ] *** "vandhukadyuti vandhavohayam adharah snighdho madhukachhabir gande chandi chakasti neelnalina srimochanam lochanam . nasavyeti tila prasunapadavim kundabhadanti priye prayas tanmukha sevayaa vijayate vishwam sa pushpayudhah." [ he chandi !!! your lips are as red as vandhuka flowers,cheeks are as soft as madhuka flowers , eyes put blue lotuses to shame,nose as beautiful as til flowers and teeths as glowing as kunda flowers. your face is like the arrow holder of panchavan . i think madana deva has conquered the world by grace of your face. ] dasham swarga , sloka 12 and 15 , mughdha madhava , geeta govinda . *** i didnt transalate the lilas as they are unnecessary in this context and too erotic. this verse clearly depicts the evolutionary proces of srimati radharani. perhaps in later ages as gaudiya vaishnavism matured under sri sri chaitanya and his followers , did radha get seperated from durga or chandi. however the shakta traditions still see no difference between the two. slowly over a long time span these two dominant faiths -- shaktism and vaishnavism interchanged each other's ideas without ever realising the fact. raseshwari radha--------the beloved of krishna.