sant

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Ādi 3.67

āńgopāńga astra kare sva-kārya-sādhana

'ańga'-śabdera artha āra śuna diyā mana

SYNONYMS

āńga-upāńga — plenary parts and associates; astra — weapons; kare — do; sva-kārya — of their own business; sādhana — as the accomplishment; ańga-śabdera — of the word ańga; artha — the meaning; āra — another; śuna — please hear; diyā — giving; mana — the mind.

TRANSLATION

His plenary parts and associates perform the work of weapons as their own specific duties. Please hear from me another meaning of the word "ańga."

See the word here.

Quote:

Certainly not no hare krishan has attacked this thread.Tell me one place where he has. It is actually the others.

 

 

Let us reverse the rolls and see if it would be appropriate for shaivites to do the same in a Vaishnava thread:

 

1) A person asks a question on the Srimad Bhagavatam as to which version is best.

 

2) A shaivite replies "all versions are wrong. that book is in the mode of ignorance so its useless.

 

3) Next shaivite posts "there has never been a more gory book, its full of stories of Vishnu beheading people."

 

4) Another shaivite then posts 20 pages of copy pasted commentary from the Shiva Gita to convert the original poster to Shaivism.

 

5) Next a Shaivite posts "Vishnu is a useless person because he has never explained yoga, karma, jiva, which foods to eat, dharma or moksha."

 

6) The same shaivite comes and says "Oh great, looks like we have some Vishnu afficinados on board here" and then challenges all others to show him where the useless Vishnu spoke any of these spiritual topics.

 

7) Finally another shaivite comes and says "Certainly no shaivite has attacked this thread."

 

 

 

Ok there was a change of topic but qouting from bhagwat is no attack.Shiv purana is tamsic and it is recognised as vayu purana as kaiserose says.

If you ever read the shiv purana youl realise why ranjeetmore said it though i do think that was not that should have been answer to the poster question.

ANd dear bhaktjan's answers are relating to jaswants question.

And by the way i said hare krishna meaning an isckonite which ranjeetmore isnt nor i am i.

I do get your point but such things do happen but rarely.

The wikipedia article called sadhana a Hindi term. But the reference was to Sanskrit Dictionary by V.S. Apte. No one seems to have noticed it so far. It has since been corrected.

 

As I posted in another thread there are many Hindi zealots in India for whom anything written in Devanagari script is Hindi.

 

Did you find the word in your verification.

I will post the entomology of the word and its occurrence in Tantrik and other scriptures tomorrow after verification

can anyone tell me the word sadhana as written in sanskrit with proper pronounciation and show me is it same as the word in sadhana panchakam.

Can any one tell the meaning of panchakam and its pronunciation.

Quote:

The mistake was that I thought Vaishnavas and Hindus could co-exist and discuss religion and philosophy in close proximity. This has obviously proven to be a false assumption.

 

 

 

Certainly this is not a hindu site either. The website always says it.No barriers for religion.

is unfortunate that someone asks a sincere question about shiva purana, and some members want to immediately come out with their sectarian attacks. It is for this reason that I feel a religious forum is pointless.

 

Is it justified to attack someone because they like Lord Shiva? Suppose we replace Shiva with some other religion. Would the same attack be appropriate?

 

For example, would it be appropriate to mock other religious people as follows:

 

Oh great, we have two Christ Afficinados on board here!

 

Oh great, we have two Buddha Afficinados on board here!

 

Oh great, we have two Islam Afficinados on board here!

 

Oh great, we have two Yahwey Afficinados on board here!

 

It is sad to see some people's hatred for Hinduism while they themselves follow a subset of it. Sectarian hatred is what makes religion useless. Whether it is Christian sectarianism, Islamic sectarianism, or Hindu sectarianism (under the brand Vaishnava).

 

If a thread doesn't interest you or tally with your belief system, then please don't read it. If there is someone asking about Shiva, Shakti or Ganesh, and if you hate those devas, then please don't read the thread. Try to control your speech. Only speak on those topics which you hold dear.

 

As has been mentioned many times, this is not a vaishnava forum. Have the courtesy to respect all vedic religions here even if you disagree with them. It is a fact that basically all Vaishnavas here have never even read Shiva Purana, so they should just keep quiet. If you don't know a topic, please resist the uncontrollable urge to speak.

 

I used to participate regularly in these forums, but because of so many meaningless posts I lost interest in even reading the forums. Now I don't even have much interest to keep the forums open, as 50% of what is posted here is basically rubbish, with the other 50% being actually valuable information. If we count the number of innocent posters like the starter of this thread who have visited and posted sincere questions on Hinduism, only to be smashed with the vaishnava know it all hammer, it will be thousands and thousands of people. Is it worth it, offending thousands of sincere seekers, just to have a place for religious people to argue?

 

The mistake was that I thought Vaishnavas and Hindus could co-exist and discuss religion and philosophy in close proximity. This has obviously proven to be a false assumption.

 

 

Certainly not no hare krishan has attacked this thread.Tell me one place where he has.

It is actually the others.

deleted

clearly wrote:

 

"One should begin the worship of the demigod Gaṇapati, who drives away all impediments in the execution of devotional service. In the Brahma-saḿhitā it is stated that Gaṇapati worships the lotus feet of Lord Nṛsiḿhadeva and in that way has become auspicious for the devotees in clearing out all impediments. Therefore, all devotees should worship Gaṇapati

Again you started off with your nonsense.Shri ganpatis pooja is done in ritualistic poojas as a ritual and by not considering him as equal to krishna.You certainly talk of vedas but dont have much knowledge about them.

Several points:

 

1) The definition of "sectarianism" seems to mean different things to different people. There is nothing wrong with believing in the correctness of one's views and the incorrectness of contradictory views, so long as one can discuss them in an informed and cultured manner.

 

2) If by "sectarianism" you are referring to loud, brash, and rude bickering characteristic of Audarya, then I beg to differ with your assumption that it is a problem with "Vaishnavas." On the contrary, it is primarily a problem with one specific group of "Vaishnavas." You and I both know who they are, but i do not want to name them for fear that this posting will be deleted.

 

3) Shaivism and Shaktaism is no more all-accepting in their assumptions than Vaishnavism is. For that matter, even Neo-Vedantins are not so all-accepting. In his Complete Works, Swami Vivekananda blames all of the religious conflicts in the world on Dvaita. Similar attitudes are found in many Neo-Hindu leaders who essentially argue that the God-jiva dichotomy is inherently intolerant, racist, bigoted, etc. This attitude is itself prejudice, so no holier-than-thou conclusions can be extrapolated about non-Vaishnavas.

 

Ha ha ha ulta chor kotwal ko daante

Why do you say no one? Are you saying Madhva was not qualified? Are you saying Ramanuja was not qualified? Are you saying that their disciples were not qualified? Are you saying that their disciples cannot determine who is qualified?

 

This is nothing more than arrogant presumption. You may be not be qualified, but do not make assumptions about others based on your own limitations.

 

certainly you yourself are confused when i say vedic knowledge.

What do you mean by vedik knowledge?

What i meant was the vedik rituals,yajnas etc.Which are to be performed.Now tell me did madhwa actualy perform or promote this.And When you talk about puraans srimad bhagwatam not everybody will consider it vedik knowledge.

certain individuals on this very thread have a repeated tendency to proclaim that they know the real essence of the Vedas and yet go around using their so-called knowledge to club everyone else over the head, calling them "mundane,hodge podge," etc.

 

 

Ofcourse they do because it is mahprabhus philososphy.You speak of ramanuja and madhwa but where their philosophies same and so is it that one of them didnt know vedas.You dont know anything about your own philosophy and you talk about others.

I realize you do not know what I am talking about. In the past, subtlety has generally been wasted on you. The people who do know what I am talking about conceal their guilt by silence, and by threatening placement in ignore lists, etc. So I will just say to them, here is what your own guru has to say on the subject (BG 17.15):

 

 

This is the biggest joke ive heard from you.Certainly irony is your favourite emotion.Its like a thief telling teaching and ordering me not to rob others.

im not speaking of which caste can be allowed into krishna consciousness . i know that even a chandala with suddha prema is dwijottama . but for a chandala to receieve 'krishna consciousness' he has to be adhikari first . this goes for every caste including brahmins . plants gan be grown in different variety of soils . but if there is no water in it , the entire thing turns useless . im speaking of this moisture or adhikar . and you are wrongfully uderstanding it to be the 'types of soil' !!!

 

hope things are clear to you now !!!!!

Of course sambya but this will only be clear by whaT your definiton of kc is.

You say one has to be adhikari but how does one become an adhikari,the lords grace falls upon whom only he becomes krishna consciousness.Its not a technique, or is it?Krishna prem is very rare and it is given to the rarest of rarest by the grace of god.By your way you mean to say that krishna prema is some diksha or something.A non adhikari cannot get krishna consciouness aka love yoga state with krishna.Hes only going to get when hes adhikari.

nice story !!

 

Quote:

Vedic knowledge must be learned in the traditional way accompanied by sensual restraint, wisdom, and humility. There is a danger in taking short cuts and thinking one's self to be very learned.

 

so true.......

 

 

First of all vedic knowledge and i hope you mean the mantra chanting,no one is such an adhikari in this age leaving a few.That is why gautam buddha came on this earth ,this was also one of his reasons.Vedic mantra chanting was opposed and there is a reason why such things dont work now in that amount because the adhikaris are less and the enviroment is such.

As for your story,

Still, the man persisted and his austerities became so severe that Indra reluctantly gave him the knowledge of the Vedas

You yourself have said in this he performesd austerities.

So your mentioning this moral below, though true does not fit here.

Vedic knowledge must be learned in the traditional way accompanied by sensual restraint, wisdom, and humility. There is a danger in taking short cuts and thinking one's self to be very learned.

 

go and get some suitable stories and morals which you yourself follow.Tell me do you have vedik knowledge.are you a brahman.Certainly your two sided aims dont show youre one.In kali yuga it is said that brahmans are also like shudras.

theist , im sorry to say , but you are a prime example of what happens when you give krishna conciousness to non adikaris .

 

Lord krishna is for everybody even the chandal can be krishna consciosness,but such a person who is krishna consciousness is truly rare.

Nice experience.

thank you for sharing.

your Devotion to rudraksh is good.

The avtara issue is a very subtle thing.even not all buddhists see buddha as god.buddha is a saktyvesha avtar or not i cant say but i think he is vishnu but still he himself also never declared such a thing and there must be something that srila prabhupada meant when he said buddha is shaktya vesha avtar.anyway he is an important avtar.Even krishna is considered as an avtara of vishnu in the dasavtaar so why are you not arguing on that sambya.In that case even krishna is a avtar of vishnu.So such things are difficult to know.So i unlike you dont jump without thinking and start defaming his divine grace.

Besides -However, it is also likely that the buddha referenced in the Puranas is another buddha, different from the Buddha.As stated in the Lankavatara sutra, the demon Jina's son was also a buddha and was prayed to by the demon Ravana, the king of Lanka, whose death at the hands of Rama predated the birth of the Buddha. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_as_an_Avatar_of_Vishnu

ayadeva was one the first persons who summarized the ten incarnation of vishnu and he happily included buddha in the list .

Sambya you want scriptural basis so is shri jaydev also scripture according to you if yes then why not prabhupada by your logic.

Text 18 The Smrti-shästra explains that the pürna incarnations are 1. Nrsimha, 2. Räma, 3. Lord Hari, the ruler of Shvetadvépa, 4. Vaikuntha, 5. Yajna, and 6. Nara-Näräyana.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaktyavesha_Avatar

by the same logic i can labell ram or nrisimha as shaktavesa avatar

i want scriptural basis

The following description of the various types of avatars is given in the ancient Garga Samhita.

Text 16 Sri Närada said: In the Smrti-çästra the great sages who have Vyäsa as their leader explain that the Lord descends in six kinds of forms: 1. amsamsa (a part of a part), 2. amsa (a part), 3. ävesha (entrance into a jiva), 4. kalä (a full part), 5. pürna (full), and 6. paripürnatama (most full).

It is stated in the Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 20.246

guṇāvatāra, āra manvantarāvatāra yugāvatāra, āra śaktyāveśāvatāra

"There are incarnations that control the material qualities [guṇa-avatāras], incarnations who appear during the reign of each Manu [manvantara-avatāras], incarnations in different millenniums [yuga-avatāras] and incarnations of empowered living entities [śaktyāveśa-avatāras]."

Kaiser, I find your last posting offensive. I am just informing you that you are in my ignore list. Actually, you've been in my ignore list for the last three years, and I'm only reminding you of this fact. In case you need any reminders, I will be certain to again let you know that I am ignoring you. By the way, did I mention that I am ignoring you?

 

 

However, should you wish to be forgiven for your offenses, I am now accepting initiation into my new sampradaya that is a branch off of the Chaitanya sampradaya. You will have to learn "achintya theism atheism vada," but the good news is that despite being an atheist, you should find that this philosophy neatly reconciles the conflicting viewpoints of God-centered ideology and atheism. You don't have to actually read anything, but it is important that you purchase a full set of my books and put them up on the mantle while glorifying them as they gather dust due to non-use. Initiation comes with certain perks, such as: (1) I will smite anyone who disagrees with you as an Offender at your lotus feet, and (2) you can now claim to be preaching "pure religion, free of all mundane designations" even while you preoccupy yourself with telling everyone else that their religion is hodge podge.

 

Why do you keep an ignore list? Do you think of yourself as some kind of alien that you keep on ignoring human beings.

Originally Posted by sambya

by what authority do you claim this ? give us examples from anywhere you please .......... even prabhupada would do !!!

also , if it is neither completely right nor completely wrong , which parts of it are right and which parts of it are wrong ?

 

Personal experience and approval of great saints should be an authority.

Are we hindu or not whether we were born hindu or not. That is the question, but don't you think to answer this question, we should first wonder what hinduism is ?

Somebody said it is a way of life. Someone else said it is rituals.

Once answer to this qustion will be found, I am sure you all will be able to answer the second one of this thread.

But I am sure that on this fundamental and basic question, there will still be discreapancies.

Some people will give answer accordingly to their scriptural readings. Other people may answer accordingly to their sense and feelings.

 

To be honnest with you, I don't have any knowledge on scriptural writtens.

In my opinion, hinduism like other religion is a way to love, help each other and make people become and feel better, bring them faith and hope when needed. Bring them good habbits to remain in good health...

But people are unfortunately not able to understand it and want to make sure that God will be happy of their acts. Actually, you don't do good things for God... You do it for you, for your family, your neibourgh, your society for your satisfaction of good making.

You, your society get benefits of it.

But it seems people cannot understand or see this.

So maybe they need to be affraid (by the reaction of God) to do good thinks. I don't know ?

 

Anyway, being hindu or not, this is not the matter. Well acting with people, helping them, loving each other, giving, sharing... These are universal values shared by all whatever your religion is, and this make of you a good hindu, catholic, buddist or whatever you want.. This will make you satisfied and happy.

And I am sure that God will be happy his children react like this.

One should do one should do but why should one do can you tell that.

Why should one only love his family or neighbours why not everybody.You are only loving them out of moh, attachment.Everybody loves his family, society is that enough.Dont you think this love is little selfish.And if god is our father like you said then everybody should be our family.

And why should we not do anything for god.He is our father according to you so shouldnt we serve our father.

There is Advaita and then there is "HK Advaita", which of course, has nothing in common with Advaita.

 

Actually there are at least 3 different versions of "HK Advaita", all different from each other and also different from the Advaita doctrine. They are,

 

1) Advaitins think they are God

2) Advaitins merge in an impersonal Brahman

3) Advaita is bogus - that is, Advaitins are neither God nor will they merge in Brahman.*

 

I wonder which of these three versions was reconciled by Chaitanya in his new doctrine?

 

* This is a paradox because when they say Advaita is bogus, they mean Advaita as they know it is bogus, which is actually true!

 

Kaiserose for you advait is an easy way to say that there is no god and still not be called a fool, atheist.

I have just reconciled Atheism and Theism using Theist-Sant logic:

 

Both ideologies consider the world to be real. I have ignored all other points of difference, but since I found that similarity, I have by expert use of Theist-Sant reasoning reconciled these two ideologies.

 

My new philosophy is called "achintya atheism-theism vada." My parampara goes back to Sri Caitanya himself, who is simultaneously God and not God. Don't disagree with me lest you be deemed Offensive. Worse, you may end up in my ignore list, a fact which I will constantly remind you when I respond to the postings of yours which I am ignoring.

 

 

Ha ha ha.you made me laugh.

You can slyly change the topic.

Anyway tell me more of this new philosophy.

Sant, please learn English before trying to get into a discussion on philosophy using the English medium. No one here has time to teach you basic reading comprehension, and your "Yes it is/No it isn't" style of argument is just decreasing the signal to noise ratio on this thread

Stop your excuses my post is quite clear.I used punctuation marks also.

reconciling. Look up the word in a standard dictionary. To "reconcile" two points of view means to bring them into accord. He did not show how Advaita and Dvaita were actually compatible. They are not. Saying that "qualitiative oneness" is compatible with "quantitiative difference" is not the same as saying that Advaita and Dvaita are reconciled.

Why not. Ofcourse it is.

By the way, we have yet to see any attempt on your part to reconcile your chauvinistic remarks about Hinduism with "pure Vaishnavism, free of all mundane designations

Which one.And i thought chauvinastic means being against women /to think of them as lower.

Nor have you been able to reconcile your views on the use of the term "Hinduism" with the fact that your own guru used the term repeatedly according to its standard meaning in his writings

Again where?tell me one place.