sumedh

 

Anyway, Jambavan heard the story of the jewel from Lord Krishna and gave it to him as well as his daughter in marriage.

 

Now, let me get this right.

Jambavan was a gorilla.

He gave his daughter to Krishna for his wife.

 

Krishna had a gorilla girl for a wife?(Jambavati)

 

somebody help me here...................

 

I mean, it sounds like one of Krishna's wives was a gorilla girl.

 

That is all I can figure.

 

In the Uma-Maheshwara samvada in Padma Purana Uttara-Khanda it is stated that the various wives of Krishna/Vishnu (excluding the 16000 released from Narakasura) are various manifestations of Goddess Lakshmi with Rukmini, Satyabhama being the complete manifestations in Krishna avatara e.g. Jambavati has an avesha of Lakshmi, Tulasi is Jambavati with special presence of Lakshmi etc.

 

virbhadra is a manifestation from shiva. In the linga purana, it says that after narsimha avatar killed hiranyakashyapu, he was more enraged and decided to destroy the universe. paniced, everyone went to shiva and shiva manifested virbhadra. virbhadra confronts narsimha and makes him understand but narsimha gets enraged and attacks virbhadra. as a result, virbhadra cuts off narasimha's head and kills him. in the purana, it says though that it only killed the avatar, and not vishnu himself. Do you think this really happened, that shiv manifestation killed vishnu avatar? ( i don't know because avatar is when god himself descends to do some task, this would mean vishnu himself descended as narasimha and that narsimha got slain.)

 

Sri Vijayindra Tirtha has answered this by pointing out contradictions among the tamasic puranas themselves, as well as conflict with the sattvic puranas and the sruti. The skandha purana, on the other hand, says that after Lord Narasimha had drunk Hiranyakashyapu's blood and was creating havoc, virbhadra on being ordered by Shiva took the form of sharabha caught Lord Narasimha, swirled him so that He regained composure and thus virbhadra controlled vishnu and went back (no mention of killing). The Shiva purana, as ykji wrote, says that it was shiva who took the form of sharabha and killed Lord Narasimha.

 

In the sattvic puranas there is no mention of Lord drinking Hiranyakashyapu's blood. On the other hand they mention Lord Narasimha killing sharabha. For example, Padma purana "jaghana nishitaistiksnaiHh nakhairnakhavarayudhah" or Vamana purana "meruprishthe nrisimhena sharabhashchatha soapatatah" compare the killing of sharabha by Lord Narasimha (by nails) to his killing of Hiranyakashyapu. Similarly other puranas such as Kurma purana, Agni purana etc. concur with this version.

 

The sruti (e.g. Mahanarayana upanishad, or Narasimha-tapani upanishad) rules out Vishnu ever getting deluded. Similarly sruti such as Narasimha-tapani upanishad, state that Lord Narasimha is param-brahman without beginning and end located in moksha dhama, so there is no question of Him being killed. Moreover, the sruti "harim harantamanuyanti devah | vishvasyeshanam" says that Ishana (Lord Shiva) is killed by Hari, the name Hari itself is to be known as meaning the destroyer which is also conveyed in Taittariya aranyaka where Indra kills Rudra with Sri Hari's chakra when the latter tries to spoil the former's yajna of Lord Narayana.

 

Since the statements from linga/skanda/shiva puranas contradict themselves and are also in contradiction with the sruti, these should be rejected. The sattvic puranas, on the other hand, concur on the event of Lord Narasimha killing sharabha and are also in consonance with the sruti, so that their version is the one that should be accepted.

 

Yes Sumedh. This is what is to be understood. And it doesn't come simply from "reading" and re-quoting endlessly shrutis, smritis, etc and "discussing and arguing Vedanta!

 

Actually it comes from bearing honesty, and sincerity of spiritual pursuit -- aparently simple basic things but profound.

 

 

Just like the the sun is one, but its reflection in different objects make it look many.

 

Do you mean that the differences (only aparent in your opinion) in various gods is due to that. Or do you mean that the differences in material things are due to that. Or you mean differences in jivas is that. Or you mean something else. In either case the bimba-pratibimba analogy does little to these ends since it is seen that the pratibimba has very little of the properties of the bimba, and no sort of equality can be made between bimba and pratibimba or different pratibimba's of the bimba. The differences that have been told between various entities (brahman, prakriti, jivas) in the scriptures are real and eternal.

 

 

Shiva says he is the weilder of prakriti and maya, but he is not affected by any of these. Even though he is the weilder of all this, He, the Maheshwara is beyond it. And the differences seen in the world is the nature of maya and prakriti.

...

But i doubt too that you have the depth, patience or understanding to understrand this Sumedh Unless and until, strict sampradaya flag bearers go beyond their petty attachments of one or the other aspect of this divinity, they can't have the vision to look beyond maya and prakriti that keeps them bound to their respective limited ideologies.

 

Which brings out the point that you do not believe in vaishnava philosophies for these ideas are opposed to that. Of course, your ideas are all very fine with yourself but be prepared to base them on some pramanas when you challenge others. As such resorting to "experiences" and the stuff is not useful for it is seen that different persons claiming self-realization etc. express different (and contradictory) views as being the Truth; we also find in our shastras that even the greatest rishis were subject to periods of ignorance, so that there is no basis to claim immunity for "experiences". We also see that every human experiences the material world yet expresses different opinions for material facts, and there is no reason to believe that opinions drawn out of experience of other realms, even if they be genuine, are any less error prone.

 

 

I don't talk for record.

 

Well Ykji your hiding under "Guest3" is testimony of that.

 

 

Madhusudan diverged on his personal experience. The problem is that you are trying to discuss Vedanta with a tantrik yogi!!

 

Madhusudan Saraswati is no "tantrik yogi"; please read "advaita siddhi" (or his other books) or get at least some basic information about him and his beliefs before trying to go on about him.

 

 

Tantra is a practical science. And the yogis you quote sometimes were yogis first and proved the quotations written in scriptures to themselves first on the basis of their personal sadhna. In other words, these quotes were realized knowledge by the writers. You don't realize this knowledge. You simply cram it and preach it without realizing it first! So you can't understand the intricacies of these experiences.

 

Shankracharya was a staunch Shaiva himself. He did dismiss a few practices. He did not dismiss All the Shaiva schools of his time! This is an inaffective jab! Practical knowledge had to come from Tantras. Because the tantras show the path to sadhna. Shankaracharya was a sadhka first, then a Vedantist. He spoke with knowledge realized!! And that's why he is worship-able. Without the tantras, the practical sadhna paths would have been lost.

 

Which answers the question as saying that you have not read either Shankaracharya, or Madhusudan Saraswati or works of any of the other advaita acharyas.

 

 

I've read enough of your tradition. Now its time for you to read my tradition. Ready?

 

This is interesting. You have no knowledge of your own advaita tradition, but you claim to have knowledge of vaishnava traditions -- a little unbelievable don't you think. To be fair, you seem to be a follower of tantras though I doubt you have read any of the trantra texts.

 

 

Similarly, you preach why read Vedas when we have Bhagwatam and Gita.

 

More interesting comments from your side. You are invited to present quotes where the gaudiya acharyas have said that vedas should not be read when they have themselves written commentries on some parts of them.

 

 

But when you have to argue, you would quote everything from everywhere and not even accept words said by Krsna himself, if they are not turfing along your sampradaya line of philosophy. Pretty opportunistic and double standard.

 

Even the words of Lord are not considered final (e.g. Lord Buddha's words who is considered an avataara by all sampradayas including advaita) all the time for they can be aimed at some purpose other than imparting true knowledge. Of course, if you present specific instances where Lord Krishna's words are rejected then it can be explained without resorting to some over-generalizations.

 

 

You have to understand the concept of "vayu" here. But since you are not a yogi and don't give importance to prana, apana, it is hard to tell this to you. But Shiva is the controller of prana. He is not only Bhole Nath, but Prana Nath. Vayu here is refered to as Prana Vayu. And Vayu is also the vayu devta. Shiva had complete control over vayu and Prana vayu while drinking the halahala. You just got hold of one vayu verse and are now ready to minimise Shiva's drinking of halahala.

 

The "vayu" here refers to the personality also referred to as "mukhya prana" while "pravaha vayu" is his partial understanding, and he is the highest among abhimani devatas as told in Chandogya upanishad. Read the full keshi sukta (also called as vayu sukta) for reference and the episode of samudra manthan where Shiva is told to be the secondary consumer of halahala and the subsequent verses of this sukta. There are also many other smriti pramanas where it is told that Shiva was protected from the effects of halahala due to the namatraya (om achyutAnantagovinda om) e.g. Garuda Purana where Lord Shiva tells Parvati that before cosuming the poison he meditated on Sri Hari and so was able to consume the poison, or Brahmanda purana, or in mantra shastras etc.

 

 

Yes we all do err... don't we sumedh? You do belong to the HK cult. Don't you? I used cult, cuz we all worship Krsna. But the HKs are a special lot. Who have perched themselves above everybody else. Doesn't this make you feel so special? It does sorts of...

 

The point being that imagining the beliefs of other person and then attacking that is a straw-man argument. At any rate a sensible argument is based on the statements of the other person and not on your own notions of what he/she might or might not be believing.

 

What you are writing is your own imagination and imagination of a crowd that u interact with Sumedh babu! And this is the arrogance that I'm against that a number of HKs exhibit.

 

 

This serves no purpose except caressing ur own inflated ego! You have put down all other sampradayas in one sentence! This is sheer arrogance on your part!!

 

Firstly, learn to keep sentimentalism away from a discussion especially personal remarks to be taken in any sense of seriousness.

 

 

You take a certain figmant of a philosophy and twist it and show it in your own twisted interpretation's shadow. What do you know about imagination. Learn to meditate first. Understand and accept advaita first. You may have read it to understand a few general points so that you can put it down in your 'preaching'.

 

For the record, tell me which branch of advaita you are talking about. Even Madhusudan saraswati diverges from that preached by Shankaracharya in many places. Then tell us which books on advaita written by the advaita acharyas have you ever read (lets take any of those by Shankaracharya, Vacaspati Mishra and Madhusudan Saraswati for a start).

 

 

And now you claim that all the other branches of Vedic knowledge have "never established" their beliefs "using" Vedas!! What rubbish! Where did the Shaiva beliefs come from? or the Shakta beliefs come from?

 

You ought to answer your own question. After Shankaracharya dismissed the Shaiva schools of his time as unvedic, many took to advaita mixed with their own philosophy over a period of time. Most of the practises of current Shaiva/Shaktas come from tantras and other books rather than the vedic ones.

 

 

So what you are saying is motivated by envy and will to put down all other sampradaya which clearly is simply religious politics and has nothing to do with pure spiritual life. Unfortunately such "preaching" is taken up by newbies and accepted as final truth. This is a sad trend that some relious political flag holders pursue and they should be debunked.

 

Such "newbies" include stalwarts like Shankara/Madhva/Ramanuja/... and others. Read vedanta sutra bhashyas of any of them; read Madhusudan saraswati's advaita siddhi where he even resorts to name calling for tattvavadis; read MBTN and other books by Madhva etc. Don't try to hide your own ignorance of our tradition under the cloak of political correctness.

 

The sad truth is that persons ignorant of even the basics of vedanta are nowadays posing as "gurus", and preach all kinds of contradictions and imaginations in the name of hinduism and vedanta.

 

 

And if you are so smart in quoting and interpreting etc. Why don't you comment on Brahma worhipping Shiva as the Supreme controller? Why did he need to do that? Obviously he didn't consult the HKs otherwise he wouldn't have behaved so. Right? Cuz you would've told him oh no Shiva is ok but he's just a demi-God!

 

Since this comes from a smriti and says something that contradicts the vedas, it does not require much interpretation (though such are indeed possible and provided). Suffice to say that other shastras (including Rig Veda, Mahabharata and other smrits shastras) mention of no such thing for samudra manthan. Elsewhere the Bhagavata itself says that Lord Shiva attained auspicousness (the meaning of word Shiva) on accepting the water of ganges on his head. For instance Rig Veda has to say about the consumption of halahala by Lord Shiva:

 

Rg Veda, 10.136.*

 

vAyurasmA upAmanthat.h pinashhTismA kunannamA |

keshI vishhasya pAtreNa yad.hrudreNApibat.hsaha ||

 

which says that Vayu squeezed, kneaded and crushed a small portion of the poison for Shiva and drank the poison along with Shiva.

 

 

What is there to be established by the Shaivas and Shaktas here? They are busy worshipping, not bringing up a village panchayat (village small governing body in India made of five elders) and book quoting.

 

So why are you here and indulging in the same?

 

 

You guys debunk Advaitas but Vishwambar Mishra's Gurus were advaitas from whom he received the mercy, knowledge and initiation that made him the Sri Chaitanya later on. And now you guys redicule and debunk advaita. oh .. Only if you could ask Chaitanya himself! Instead of talking on his behalf as him!!

 

His guru Sripad Ishwara Puri was not a follower of advaita, though one may say that Keshava Bharati from whom he accepted sanyasa belonged to advaita but that does not count for much.

 

Seriously though please do some reading of Chaitanya Bhagavata/Charitamrta before trying to increase our knowledge of that subject.

 

 

But again, as far as "establishing their beliefs" are concerned, you being from Gaudiya school and Iskcon (I suppose) should not be even getting into this conflict

 

All these words on some supposition, which itself may be in serious error !!

 

 

You have put down all other sampradayas in one sentence!

 

No the issue is much deeper, but i doubt you have the patience to try and understand it. Any person with any degree of intellectual honesty will not accept two contradictory statements as both being true. Vaishnava philosophy, Shaiva philosophy as well as Shakta philosophy contradict each other in description sambandha jnana, abhideya as well as prayojana. If one accepts Shaiva philosophy, it automatically rejects the vaishnava philosophy since it directly contradicts the shaiva one. So be honest and say that you do not accept Vaishnava philosophies as valid.

 

Same way advaita and dvaita/vishishtadvaita philosophies are completely at odds with one another (even dvaita and vishishtadvaita are at odds but one finds that their abhideya is more or less similar). If someone says that he/she accepts all three it simply means that either he/she is ignorant of all the three, or he/she is simply fickle minded trying to be politically correct (or whatever term you want to use here).

 

The Shaivas and Shaktas which are equally bonafide Vedic branches (and this is acknowledged by the HKs too) consider Lord Shiva as Supreme. So you cannot put down their belief.

 

Except that Shaivas/Pashupatas/Shaktas/... have never established their beliefs using Vedas; most Shaivas have taken to advaita (which at least tries to establish its beliefs) severely compromising their own philosophy since advaita says that Lord Shiva (among others) is a figmant of imagination.

Pranams

 

 

But I will relate one particular game or play, the payers of Bhaktivedanta players regularly enacted, for the pleasure of us Hindus on MAHA SHIVRATRI DAY (which I believe is next Friday) the drama of lord Shiva running in fright from a demon, Is this how we honur Lord Shiva on the maha Sivratri day?

And you call him greatest of Vishnu Bhakta.

I shall not comment on this for the time being, since i am not conversant with the details of this.

You are missing the point I am trying to make here. Devas worship is not condemned at all nor the Devas are at fault for being worship, even Lord Krishna is worshiped to enter in to heavenly planet it is this effort that is being condemned. Check 9.20/21

...

Well thanks, you see my point is not what the result of Deva worship brings, the fact that it is a legitimate Vedic practice and not to be laughed at or dismissed just because you have no use of it.

I see your point, but think you have missed what was said before. It has already been stated that worship of other devataas is accepted knowing that it is actually meant for Krishna. See post #80 (quoting it partially here):

In comparison, in the vaishnava philosophy worship of Deities is considered essential and worship of deities other than Vishnu is also accepted but not considering them as Supreme, and that worship of other deities considering them as Supreme would not lead to the ultimate goal.

 

This is the point being made, that there is a proper method of worshipping devas and improper method as verse 9.23 clearly says.

This is your sweet opinion only which a brahman worshiper would not accept.

No opinion from my side, only quotes from Bhagavad-Gita. Objections to translations, or alternative translations which bring better samanvaya are welcome.

Before giving up this present body, if one is able to tolerate the urges of the material senses and check the force of desire and anger, he is a yogi and is happy in this world. (5.23)

One who finds happiness with the Self, who rejoices the Self within, and who is illuminated by the Self-knowledge; such a yogi becomes one with Brahman and attains supreme nirvana. (5.24)

Seers whose sins (or imperfections) are destroyed, whose doubts have been dispelled by knowledge, whose disciplined minds are attached with the Self, and who are engaged in the welfare of all beings attain Supreme Brahman. (5.25)

A Self-realized person who is free from lust and anger, and who has subdued the mind and senses easily attains nirvana. (5.26)

Firstly Brahman refers to Krishna as known from many verses in Bhagavad-Gita like 14.26-27 as also from numerous other sruti/smriti statements, which is also confirmed by Arjuna in 10.12-15 also expressing the affirmation of Vyasadeva, Narada etc. Hence 5.10, 5.17 etc. are talking about attaining devotion unto Him. Indeed in 18.54 the Lord says that those who reach the brahma-bhutam stage attain pure transcendental devotion unto Him and that should be understood as the goal of various endevours of yogis given in 18.51-53. In other words the jnana, yoga and others given should be understood as different limbs of bhakti or means to achieve pure devotion.

The main difference is that you consider the different activities recommended as different paths, while my opinion is that these different activities are aimed at fixing the mind on the Supreme Lord and thus attain devotion (this is also the opinion of acharyas like Madhvacharya, Sripad Ramanuja ...) and hence constitute the one path (as the Lord says in 5.4-6).

Well I beg to differ not because yogi can not be referred us Bhakta just as devotion is not a property of a Bhakta, because no path can be chosen without devotion to it.

Having said this, I accept the verse 8.5-8.9 refers to Bhakti but you fail to see verse 8.10-8.13 refers to yogic practice unless you think controlling prana, raising it in between the eye brows or studying Vedas, remaining celibate, to attain imperishable Brahman are practices common to followers of Bhakti.

The point of this is to fix the mind on Supreme Lord (which i guess is devotion for Krishna), since a jiva will attain the state of being as in the mind at death without fail as 8.6 says.

Not so fast these are your opinions only, Bhakti is one way and perhaps easy means to liberation where else Krishna does not discount other paths, all be it they may be more trouble some.

Well, references for the same have been given.

Bhakti is definitely not easy for it means constant uninterrupted and complete fixation on Krishna (as given in chapter 9 and others); gaining knowledge of Him, meditating on Him etc. are all meant to bring us to that state and conversely in that state one has pure knowledge of Him and devotion unto Him. In other words the various chapters of Gita should be seen as one continuum culminating in chapter 18 and not as describing different things in a discrete manner.

Other then that he also in no uncertain terms answers Arjuns question in what other way can I worship you? Amongst many other thing he says he is Shankra amongst Rudra,

That is about the opulences of the Lord where Arjuna wants to know of His various opulences so that he may be able to fix the mind on the Lord constantly. The various vibhutis then described should be taken to mean what they are (i.e. all as opulences of the Lord) else one may draw many other conclusions like ashvatthah tree is Krishna or gambling of cheats or winning vak in an argument etc. are Krishna. It only means that the basis of all that exists is Krishna as given in 10.39 and is clarified in 10.41-42 as also given before in 7.7

I have no problem accepting that as in face value and if that was not enough this is what Bhagvat puran says

23. O lord, you are self-effulgent and supreme. You create this material world by your personal energy, and you assume the names Brahma, Visnu and Mahesvara when you act in creation, maintenance and annihilation.

SB 4.6/45 O most auspicious lord, you have ordained the heavenly planets, the spiritual Vaikuntha planets and the impersonal Brahman sphere as the respective destinations of the performers of auspicious activities. Similarly, for others, who are miscreants, you have destined different kinds of hells which are horrible and ghastly. Yet sometimes it is found that their destinations are just the opposite. It is very difficult to ascertain the cause of this.

4.7/50-54 The lord said: The supreme cause of the universe, I am also Brahma (the creator) and Lord Shiva (the destroyer of the universe). I am the self, the lord and the witness, self effulgent and unqualified. Embracing my own Maya, consisting of the three gunas, it is I who create, protect and destroy the universe have assumed names appropriate to my functions, O Brahmana! It is in such a Brahman, the supreme sprit, who is one without a second, that the ignorant fool views Brahma, Rudra and other beings as distinct entities.

SB 4.6.42: Lord Brahma said: My dear Lord Shiva, I know that you are the controller of the entire material manifestation, the combination father and mother of the cosmic manifestation, and the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation as well. I know you in that way.

SB 8.7.20: The devas observed Lord Śiva sitting on the summit of Kailāsa Hill with his wife, Bhavānī, for the auspicious development of the three worlds. He was being worshiped by great saintly persons desiring liberation. The devas offered him their obeisances and prayers with great respect.

Therefore when a devotee of Lord Shiva worship him as supreme and thus gain libretion in Mahesh dham

Let us not turn this into another Vishnu, Shiva discussion which was not really the point here. There are many other threads for that -- please add to those if required or in a new thread. With respect to samudra manthan episode, suffice to say that Rg Veda's version of the same is in different terms.

 

 

haribol

Namaskar

 

 

But the mentality is not something one can legislate or prove it is something that some do perceive which obviously you do not see or want to acknowledge. Hindus can be abused, called names, simply non existence, hotch potch or they are on material platform and yes easy target for our next project so let us be nice to them for the time being. The holier then thou attitude can not be proven but the undercurrent are felt right down the spine.

 

Not done. You have made a lot of noise about HKs shoving and forcing their way particularly on Hindus or abusing them but not provided a single instance of the same, which is a completely unacceptable methodology in a discussion. As for mentality and undercurrent, such accusations are easy to make since apparently no evidence is required for the same and the other person is guilty as charged, is that not so.

 

 

They, whose wisdom has been carried away by various desires impelled by their own Sanskaara, resort to other devas and practice various religious rites.

 

This applies to those who worship them for material desires.

 

On the contrary even in your translation it says that those who worship other devatas are those who are carried away by material desires (which is borne from one's own nature as 3.33, 17.2-4 etc. say) and they think that the fruits are given by the respective devataas when they are given by Vishnu alone as 7.22 says).

 

 

Otherwise why would he recommend the worship of Devas in chapter three, which you conveniently omitted.

 

Nourish the Devas with Yajna, and the Devas will nourish you. Thus nourishing one another you shall attain the Supreme goal. (3.11)

 

I have not omitted them, just that these do not seem to be so direct ways of worshipping Krishna though actually they are. The worship of devas is recommended in sruti as well, but that is to be done as a sacrifice to Vishnu. There are many sruti/smriti references that yajna refers to Vishnu (e.g. shatpatha brahmana) as well as stated in Bhagavad-Gita e.g. 9.16, and as 9.24 says that those who do not recognize this fact fall down. Thus the verses 3.9-13 refer to offering the yajna refer to knowing Vishnu to be the actual receiver and deliverer of fruits of these.

 

 

As to 9.23-25

Of course if I worship a particular deity I expect to go their stands to reason, what is wrong in that.

 

which are temporary places of birth and death and not liberated platforms (8.16) while only attaining to Vishnu's abode means liberation (8.20-21).

 

 

At the time of death with steadfast mind and devotion; making the flow of Pranic impulse rise up (to the middle of two eye brows) by the power of yoga and holding there; attains the Supreme divine spirit. (See also 4.29, 5.27, and 6.13) (8.10)

 

I shall briefly explain to you (the process to attain) that goal which the knowers of the Vedas call the imperishable; into which the ascetics, freed from attachment, enter; and desiring which people lead a life of celibacy. (8.11)

 

Controlling all the (nine) doors of the body, the abode of consciousness; focusing the mind on the heart and Prana in the cerebrum, and engaged in yogic practice; (8.12)

 

One who leaves the body while meditating on Brahman and uttering OM, the sacred monosyllable sound of Brahman, attains the Supreme goal. (8.13)

 

Quite true, yogi refers to a devotee of Lord as mentioned in various places. This is the procedure by which the pure devotees leave their bodies. Please see the context of these verses from 8.5-8.9. I think that you go by the currently circulating meaning of yogi thinking that the scriptures' meaning is the same which is actually quite different.

 

 

anta-kale--at the end of life; ca--also; mam--unto Me; eva--certainly; smaran--remembering; muktva--quitting; kalevaram--the body; yah--he who; prayati--goes; sah--he; mat-bhavam--My nature; yati--achieves; na--not; asti--there is; atra--here; samsayah--doubt.

 

yam yam--whatever; va--either; api--also; smaran--remembering; bhavam--nature; tyajati--give up; ante--at the end; kalevaram--this body; tam tam--similar; eva--certainly; eti--gets; kaunteya--O son of Kunti; sada--always; tat--that; bhava--state of being; bhavitah--remembering.

 

tasmat--therefore; sarvesu--always; kalesu--time; mam--unto Me; anusmara--go on remembering; yudhya--fight; ca--also; mayi--unto Me; arpita--surrender; manah--mind; buddhih--intellect; mam--unto Me; eva--surely; esyasi--will attain; asamsayah--beyond a doubt.

 

abhyasa--practice; yoga-yuktena--being engaged in meditation; cetasa--by the mind and intelligence; na anya-gamina--without their being deviated; paramam--the Supreme; purusam--Personality of Godhead; divyam--transcendental; yati--achieves; partha--O son of Prtha; anucintayan--constantly thinking of.

 

 

 

It would be justified if that was true but we know there are other valid paths and I am going to leave at that for I have no ax to grind I am not going to bring any specific because it would be futile on my part, we will always find a valid excuse to justify our position that is the nature of this world.

 

Nope. It is clearly stated in Bhagavad-Gita (verses 9.24, 8.15-21, 9.3, 7.15, 7.29-30, 14.26, 12.6-7) as well as sruti that only devotion to Vishnu knowing Him to be the Supreme can lead to liberation. The worship of Vishnu Himself can be done in various ways (the nine ways given in Srimad-Bhagavatam or Bhagavad-Gita 9.15 as you pointed out etc.).

 

 

haribol

We are just rehashing same things.

 

 

That said then hks assertion of this is the only path can be ignored, and I don’t mean the path itself but the mentality that this is the only way.

Which is incorrect as has been stated before. Nowhere does the literature that HKs follow say so. Since you are intent on repeating an incorrect thing over and over, there is no point continuing this unless you produce evidence of the same.

There are many that do follow various other paths, yet there those who try and ridicule that. it helps no one.

You call asking for evidence of validity of one's position in context of liberation as ridiculing. Well then we have completely different notions in this regard.

Men in the mode of goodness worship the devas; those in the mode of passion worship the demons; and those in the mode of ignorance worship ghosts and spirits. (17.4)

Of course, also see 7.20-23, 9.23-24, 9.25 etc. which clearly say that only His devotees attain liberation. Not all in the mode of goodness acheive liberation.

Knowing these two paths, O Arjuna, a yogi is not bewildered at all. Therefore, O Arjuna, be steadfast in yoga (of meditation) at all times. (8.27)

Oh, the two paths mentioned are those of light and darkness not two paths to acheive liberation. Please see the previous verse 8.26 which makes it clear that only passing from this world through the path of light leads to liberation.

 

The yogi who knows all this goes beyond getting the benefits of the study of the Vedas, performance of sacrifices, austerities, and charities, and attains the Supreme eternal abode. (8.28)

Please see the context in 8.22 where the Lord is referring to devotees, or in other words yogi here actually means a devotee.

If HKs sticks to the correct path that they follow no one would have any difficulty but when you try and shove that in someone’s face you will find a reaction.

I don’t think so; I have absolute no problem to agree to disagree, problem will only manifest if we go on a crusade, mine is the only way.

Even if someone claimed that his/her is the only path to liberation, it is very much justified if there is evidence for the same and not a problem as long as he/she does not force it on others.

 

Nowhere do i see the anyone shoving or forcing. Calling something lacking evidence as such is not shoving. Except for claims in this regard you have not given any instance of this (in any case if such exist then they should be condemned). If there are any specifics please bring them to light.

haribol

 

Some worship Me by knowledge sacrifice. Others worship the infinite as the one in all (or non-dual), as the master of all (or dual), and in various other ways. (9.15)

We obviously have a different take on this verse. For one, the verse never mentions infinite, rather says "mam". A more acceptable translation would be: Yet others sacrifice with the yagna of Knowledge and worship Me in various ways as the One, as the distinct and as the all-faced (or universal Form). In any case the context is that this refers to persons other than the great souls mentioned in 9.13-14 who are always chanting and devotion to Krishna while this verse gives the endevours done by others.

I may choose to go to a particular place, so the choices could be many how to get there, e.g. flight, by train, by road or rely on the most trusted the walk, depending on where one is, path is chosen. There are pitfalls on whatever one chooses but the choice is our to make, what is the need to ridicule any?

Which is fine and worship of Krishna can be done in various ways (as 9.15 says), though of course there are also an infinite number of other paths (which are infinitely more than the correct paths) which do not lead to the destination. Thus this distinction of right and wrong paths is always there as is also given in numerous places in Bhagavad-Gita (e.g. 2.41, 9.11-12, Chapter 16).

Well thank you even with blah blah, I welcome your observation on the shortcomings of the said religion, which is precisely the point, I am trying to make, when hk says ours is the only way.

This needs to corrected: "the HKs say that there are correct paths and incorrect paths" and what those have already been given before. Besides, the point being made was that accepting anyone's philosophy for fear of discord is not an acceptable position.

Given those interpretations who is to say one is more right then the other and yearning for peace is no new phenomena nor stupid or unVedic.

You seem to confuse peace with (intellectual) disagreement.

No one has asked for sruti pramana.

YKji engaged in criticism of all the HK devotees (some of whom gave their sincere experience) and gaudiya vaishnava practise. Naturally if one criticise others' practise he/she would be asked for evidence particularly when his/her own practise is not found in scriptures, while the ones being criticised derive from accepted scriptures.

The context of sruti was your invitation for a discussion of the same. If you desire some other topic please start a new thread for the same, while discussion of sruti in this thread should be related to the topic of this thread.

and at times rude.

Which should be criticised.

 

What does the knowledge of yoga comes from? It is the same as to what u refered above. If the agenda is only to discuss and debate, umm yes shastra, but not only that. Yoga has a more practical aspect to it. Again, the friction in this debate is because you come from a strictly Vedanta school that does not emphasize the importance of practical experience based gyan over scriptural knowledge.

 

You have no idea about the "practical experience" of myself or other devotees to talk about it in any capacity.

 

 

This is what the pandas in Mathura, Vrindavan, Haridwar have done since the past few hundred of years. And you are not able to either grasp or accept the importance of sadhna over scriptural debate.

 

Get over this. This shooting of general statements with respect to "pandas" and others is unacceptable (not to mention besides the point).

 

 

Everything moves with Brahmn's will in the universe. That's a generalizing concept. But in the world sadhnas one has to earn the mercy. And not wait for it to fall in your lap as the HK believe. I have explained Bhagwad Gita's devotion before. The pramanas I gave are not acceptable for you.

 

The acceptable pramanas are:

a) The four Vedas (samhitas, brahmanas, arayankas), the dashopanishads, and some other upanishads

b) Brahma sutra

c) Bhagavad-Gita

d) Mahabharata, mula-ramayana

e) Puranas (particularly sattvic ones) when they follow the above pramanas

There are other smriti shastras which are acceptable, but many are controvertial so we can leave them.

 

 

I ask you to learn the way of sadhna. Do what Krishna instructs Arjuna in BG. Sit errect and meditate on your Agya chakra on Krishna. How about that? Would you learn? It's easy to instruct others though, and that's what HKs do.

 

I have done this for many years.

 

The problem is that you find it hard to accept that there are other more experienced devotees that have been through this before but have different conclusions than yourself.

 

 

According to that you should altogether reject Bhagwad Gita which is considered a God given scripture. That is another duality.

 

That is why it was my sincere suggestion to read about pramanas. The Bhagavad-Gita is part of Mahabharata which is mentioned in sruti (thus breaking the cirularity) and in other sadagamas given in sruti.

 

 

the link to downloading ur pramana does not work. There is no file on that link.

 

Sorry about that, somehow the link does not work from this site. Please go here, and then select the third paper in the list.

 

 

WOW! I didn't expect you to stoop so low in order to just push your point. Well, if that is the attitude, that you need to put down great worshippable sages like Vishwamitra, Vashishtha, Pulastya, Agastya Gorakhnath, simply to prove your point right,

 

Learn to read carefully. My response was to other personalities mentioned before that (babaji, lahiri mahashaya etc.) and not to the vedic sages.

 

 

then I would like you to provide evidence that Prabhupada or BhaktiSiddhanta were liberated!!! What's the evidence for that Sumedh??? Can you show me an evidence for that?

 

There is no evidence for this. Of course, internally we believe this to be the case but this should never be claimed in a discussion with others.

 

 

And really I don't care if their writings are in conflict with your scriptures. If Lord Rama decided to sit in Shri Vishwamitra's and Vashishtha's and Agastya's feet and receive blessings, initiations, mantras and sadhnas, then these personalities are worth worshipping!!! Their accomplishments, sadhnatmak levels are unparalled by today's pigmy like devotees.

 

Again, read my post carefully.

 

 

What is Vedic evidence? The Vedic word has been thoroughly exploited by HKs everywhere. Its a support gaining tool for one. How do you know Agastya and Vishwamitra were not adept in the science of Kundalini?

 

See above for the primary vedic evidences. By your argument one can imagine any method and then ask "how do you know that ... were not adept in xyz?".

 

 

I asked you about the sabar mantra sadhnas practiced by Guru Gorakhnath. They are not Vedic. But they work.

 

You never asked me. Please do ask, but be ready to provide evidence for:

a) that Gorakhnath indeed practised the said sadhana

b) that Gorakhnath achieved liberation as a result of that sadhana

Please do not waste words in the absence of these.

 

 

Besides the HKs do not read the Vedas. Only in a some parts. Do they read Rigveda? What about SamVeda?

 

Few devotees read the vedas due to time and other constraints we all have. The Bhagavad-Gita is considered the cream of all upanishads (as Lord Shiva says in Gita-mahatmya), and so is Brahma Sutra whose natural commentry is Srimad-Bhagavatam by Vyasadeva Himself.

 

 

My friend, This question explains the lack of understanding of the science of mantras. Reciting a mantra in one way or the right way makes it work, otherwise the effect is wasted. The energy is wasted. You will understand if you do A laghu anushthan of 1.25,000 mantras in 11 days.

 

Actually every word of the veda has an associated meter should be recited in a proper manner.

 

With regards to the hare-krsna mahamantra it is specifically stated that there are no rules and regulations in chanting it. If you do not agree, please let us know what you believe would be the correct way to recite it with relevant references.

 

There is evidence that the hare-krsna mantra is the way as practised by gaudiya vaishnavas. Some of the older editions of Kali-santarana upanishad still exist which have the mantra in that order -- this is also confirmed by Brahmanda purana and some other smriti shastras which give the mantra in that order.

 

 

Okay. if all the VEDIC sadhna methods do involve DHYANA, knowledge (gained through perception), and devotion and if only sankirtana works for this age, then how come you advertise yourselves as "VEDIC"? This is the catch! If you don't follow the Vedic sadhna methods and most scriptures you read are based on and colored by a 500 year tradition, then how are you Vedic??

 

Gaudiya vaishnavas practise japa which is dhyana; sankirtana, worship of Deities etc. which is devotion and sambandha jnana which is essential. Sankirtana and all these activities are vedic and are specifically recommended. I fail to see your point.

 

 

But where is it written that it is the ONLY method and that you cannot practice anything else or that Vedic sadhnas and mantras have become futile?

 

What vedic sadhanas are you talking about?

 

 

This Padma Purana quoting has always been double standard thing by HKs. How come you accept Padma Purana but do not accept Shiv Gita within the same Padma Purana?

 

One is that it is not in some of the versions of Padma purana. Other is that the quotes are corroborated by many other evidences some of which were quoted before.

 

 

Yes. Everything is ruled out. Just like in Islam all other religions are ruled out. Just like Catholics believe no one comes to God except through Jesus!

And the same is the HK position! That's it.

 

Lower the melodrama.

 

The quote in question repeats "no other way" three times. When giving an interpretation to such vedic statements one needs to show that the repetitions refer to different things/attributes/... Keeping the context of the quote in mind, the proper interpretation is that the three "no other way"s refer to the methods recommended in other yugas. Also refer to the quotes given by gHariji from Srimad Bhagavatam which corroborate this.

 

 

Can I come to the Lord Chanting Om Namah Shivaya and meditating on the image of Lord Shiva? Krishna says smth like - in whichever form you worship me I come to you in that form!!

 

Actually He says something quite different.

 

Bhagavad-Gita 7.20-23:

 

kamaih--by desires; taih--by those; taih--by those; hrta--distorted; jnanah--knowledge; prapadyante--surrender; anya--other; devatah--devatas; tam--that; tam--that; niyamam--rules; asthaya--following; prakrtya--by nature; niyatah--controlled; svaya--by their own.

 

yah--that; yah--that; yam--which; yam--which; tanum--form of the devatas; bhaktah--devotee; sraddhaya--with faith; arcitum--to worship; icchati--desires; tasya--of that; tasya--of that; acalam--steady; sraddham--faith; tam--him; eva--surely; vidadhami--give; aham--I.

 

sah--he; taya--with that; sraddhaya--with faith; yuktah--endowed; tasya--his; aradhanam--worship; ihate--seeks; labhate--obtains; ca--and; tatah--from which; kaman--desires; maya--by Me; eva--alone; vihitan--regulated; hi--for; tan--those.

 

anta-vat tu--limited and temporary; phalam--fruits; tesam--their; tat--that; bhavati--becomes; alpa-medhasam--of those of small intelligence; devan--to devatas; deva-yajah--worshipers of devatas; yanti--achieve; mat--My; bhaktah--devotees; yanti--attain; mam--to Me; api--surely.

 

which says the faith of those who worship other devatas is steadied by Him in the respective devatas and that they attain temporary fruits as a result of that, while only His devotees attain liberation.

 

 

Bhagavad-Gita 9.23

 

ye--those; api--also; anya--other; devata--devatas; bhaktah--devotees; yajante--worship; sraddhaya anvitah--with faith; te--they; api--also; mam--Me; eva--even; kaunteya--O son of Kunti; yajanti--sacrifice; avidhi-purvakam--in a wrong way.

 

which specifically says that the worship of other devatas also reaches Him though it is in an incorrect manner.

 

 

No none of these are "ACCEPTED" by the HKs.

 

They are not accepted by any of the vedanta schools including advaita. Compound this with the fact that you have not provided the relevant quotes as of yet.

 

 

You really think yoga's giving understanding of body, energy and using it properly for God communion is wild claim? How silly can you get? What can I do if you are blind to the evidence I refered to?

 

The wild claims that you made were:

a) yoga refers to kundalini/kriya/... methods

b) these methods lead to an understanding of the body

c) they elevate the consciousness of jiva and lead it to liberation

d) it is hard to achieve the same without these (implicitly and explicitly you have said elsewhere that the gaudiya vaishnava practices cannot lead to liberation)

 

Many more such claims have been made elsewhere. They are wild since:

a) they lack any evidence

b) there is explicit contrary evidence to many of these claims

 

 

The person who spoke on this was never an authority on branches like Dhyan, kundalini, kriya yoga. All he did was claim that the ultimate aim of yoga is to go into service of krishna.

 

Actually Srila Prabhupada describes ashtanga yoga in some detail in some of his commentaries, and explains that these are useful to some extent but also says that they do not lead to the ultimate goal.

 

 

So why did Krishna give Arjuna yoga and devotion? Arjuna was right there with Krishna already!! In his service. His best friend! No penance required!

 

Right. There are evidences that the state of Arjuna was a temporary manifestation by the will of Hari to enable dissemination of Bhagavad-Gita to the jivas.

 

 

But if you really want to understand yoga, I suggest you at least buy two books -Autobiography of a Yoga by Paramhansa Yogananda and Kundalini Yoga by Sivananda Swami. You will get some more insight. And you will find the verses by Krishna in BG too

 

Read those long time back.

 

 

I referred to the verse in Dhyana yoga chapter. Find them!

 

I fail to make out any connection of those verses with kundalini etc.

 

 

You have half the picture. Is there another method he gave in BG? Did he say book distribution? Did he say Namahata? Did he say the word sankirtana ONLY? Did he ask Arjuna to grab a mridanga and kharatala?

 

I find that HK devotees follow most of what Krishna tells Arjuna in Bhagavad-Gita (japa, remembering Him always, worshipping Him, book distribution etc.), while most of the others hardly do so.

 

 

Arjuna's final convincing adn acceptance came AFTER Krishna's yogic Kriya of activating his Agya chakra and showing his universal form. And it was NOT one form.

 

There is no mention of agnya chakra, only about divine vision.

 

 

This discussion has digressed too far. Please expect further replies from my side only when you have some evidence for your claims like "HK chanting is unvedic/unscientific", "Bhakti is the first step while kundalini/kriya methods are higher steps" etc. The meaning of an evidence has been given before.

 

 

haribol

 

What part is incorrect, is it the highlighted in bold only, do you agree with the rest?

In a broad sense, yes.

Search for invalidity of incorrect path could never lead us on the path of enlightenment.

Knowledge of right path automatically means knowledge of incorrect paths also. This is what means by "tamaso maa jyotir gamaya".

sorry to say the narrow view of mine is better than yours attitude only brings discord.

blah, blah... The problem of discord is primarily that of abrahamic religions who have no culture of civil, rational discussion nor any frameworks for such. Please don't try to bring in these kind of arguments here.

 

 

Apaurusheya that may be but it still remains subject of interpertation, or else vedas as establised by sankracharya would be accepted by all, and thus we would be all be his deciples.

Yes, people are free to give their own interpretations and vedanta provides the framework to show correct and incorrect interpretations which many acharyas have done. Agreeing with any interpretation, however incorrect/absurd, for fear of an imagined "discord" is stupid and not vedantic way (and not even appropriate in modern scientific way).

Goswami belonged to no sect he did not open any samprdaya, yet his work and his sadhna inspires million over the years.

 

This is not quite right, since Tulsidasji is said to belong to Ramanandi sect coming from Sripad Ramanuja.

So be my guest; win an argument based on sruti, which is not even a subject of this discussion.

You are welcome to start by presenting quotes about kundalini yoga from sruti which is the topic of this thread.

 

So true!! There is no mention of Radha in any Vedic scriptures!!! Again, it comes to the question - how Vedic are the HKs.

 

Please do not pose as if you know the vedic scriptures when you do not. Sri Radha is mentioned in multiple places in accepted sadagamas including Padma Purana (4.2, 4.7, 4.20, 4.23, 5.70-83, 6.93), Brahma vaivarta Purana (2.49, 9.34 etc.), Narada Purana (2.80-81), Brahma Purana (Chapter 7) and others. These also clarify that the special gopi mentioned in Srimad Bhagavatam is Sri Radha so that those quotes also apply to Her. It is also clearly stated that Sri Radha is Lakshmi in these evidences, so that whatever the Sruti says about Lakshmi is applicable to Her. Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushan also quotes many sruti pramanas for this (e.g. Purusha-bodhini upanishad, Gopala-tapani upanishad) but since these have not been quoted by previous acharyas and people question the authenticity of these texts, we do not quote them in a discussion.

Namaskar

 

 

 

The fact is that true bhakti is not really possible without proper knowledge of the object of desire! Knowledge is knowning. When you truly know Krishna, you will be able to have true bhakti for him. God cannot be known by reading books alone. And since God cannot be perceived by mere limited sense based experience, one should endeavor to enhance his super conscious ability.

 

Knowledge comes from guru, sadhu and shastra where guru refers to both chaitya guru (paramatma) and sad-guru. Endevours using only one of these will only frustrate our attempts. However, in a discussion only shastra can be referred.

 

Regarding perception of God, sruti says that only by Brahmn's will, devotion to Vishnu etc. is pure knowledge, moksha is attained. Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita that only by devotion can He be known, attained. When will you learn to give pramanas for your assertions?

 

 

Scriptures are the result of and are based on experience /anubhuti and not vice-versa.

 

They are not (those that are considered as scriptures in vedanta). See previous reply to Ganesh prasadji above.

 

 

As far as "evidence" on the Kundalini / Kriyas yoga path is concerned, then there have been hundreds of yogis who have achieved God realization through this path. Babaji, Lahiri Mahasaya, Yukteswar Giri, Sadguru Bawa Lal dayal Maharaj (a bhakti yogi who lived for 300 years during Shajahan's reign and had direct darshan of Lord Ramachandra many times and brought back a few people from dead, had many high siddhis, but never cared for them and didn't like self advertisement), Trailanga Swami of Benaras (who lived around the same time as Bhaktivinod Thakur, Paramhansa Swami Nikhileshwarananda, Paramhansa Yogananda (who came to the U.S. much before SP and after he took mahasamadhi, his body was kept at the local morgue. According to the letter issued by the morgue director his body showed absolutely no signs of decay even after keeping there for 15 days!) and many other such yogis are the proof and evidence of achieving remarkable achievements through the practice of Kundalini / Kriya yoga. Their lives have been living scriptures and living examples of the science of yoga and God communion. If you want to deny all this, then its your sweet wish.

 

There is no evidence that these personalities achieved liberation. Regarding denial of these, i had been following these for quite some time in the past so fortunately acquainted with most of whom you mention. If you see their writings etc. they are found to be in direct conflict with scriptures in places.

 

 

 

If we go much earlier in time, then the list of sages is endless - Vishwamitra, Atri, Kanad, Pulatsya, Vashishtha Gorakhnath ... I mentioned these names at a few number of occassions to which I never really got any replies from the humble HK community. I guess you don't have any purport for this either? You may consider all this too as simply "silly points" if you desire so.

 

There a much larger number of Vedic sages, and as far as vedic evidence goes none of them practised Kundalini/Kriya yoga. As for "silly points", go back to that email and read it with sincerity to see its silliness.

 

 

 

As far as unscientific chanting is concerned, yes it is not very scientific and if is being done mechanically, simply believing that the name reciting is enough, then is un-Vedic too. Here it is important to clarify, that "chanting mantras is not un-Vedic in itself as such. But chanting the way most HKs do possibly is. Sorry for this not so positive for HK sounding note, but there is more to mantra japa than what is being told in the HK temple and CD discourses.

 

You need to explain as to how reciting in one way or other makes it scientific or un-scientific, or what has material science got to do with this -- mere asserting something does not make it true.

 

 

Instead of me explaining you the difference, I would like to ask you, whether you see any difference between the sadhna methods undertaken by Vedic sages as compared to the HKs? Are you aware of any Vedic sadhna methods apart from HK system? What was the difference between their sadhna paddhati and what you do. If what you do is best and superior, then were the rishis and sages who divised these methods, were fools?

 

No, you raised the objection so the onus is on yourself to explain the difference and not me. All the accepted Vedic sadhana methods involve dhyana, knowledge and devotion to Supreme. For this age scriptures say that only sankirtana works.

 

Srimad Bhagavatam 11.5.36

 

kalim sabhajayanty arya

guna jnah sara-bhaginah

yatra sankirtanenaiva

sarva-svartho bhilabhyate

 

Those who are actually advanced in knowledge are able to appreciate the essential value of this age of Kali. Such enlightened persons worship Kali-yuga because in this fallen age all perfection of life can easily be achieved by the performance of sankirtana.

 

 

Padma purana (Uttara Khanda, chapter 42)

 

dhyayan krte yajan yajnais

tretayam dvapare rcayan

yad apnoti tad apnoti

kalau sankirtya kesavam

 

Whatever is achieved in Satya-yuga by meditation, in Treta by offering ritual sacrifices and in Dvapara by temple worship is achieved in Kali-yuga by chanting the Names of Lord Kesava congregationally.

 

Visnu purana

dhyayan krte yajan yajnais-

tretayam dvapare rcayan

yadapnoti tadapnoti

kalau samkirtaya kesavam

 

The supreme goal which was attained in Satya-yuga by years of prolonged meditation; in Treta-yuga by performing extensive yajnas; in Dvapara-yuga by opulent and scrupulous Deity worship; in Kali-yuga the same results are easily had simply by the chanting of the Names of Lord Kesava.

Brahan-Naradiya purana

 

harer nama harer nama

harer namaiva kevalam

kalau nasty eva nasty eva

nasty eva gatir anyatha

 

In this age of quarrel and hypocrisy the only means of deliverance is chanting of the holy name of the Lord. There is no other way. There is no other way. There is no other way.

 

(The methods of other three yugas are specifically ruled out by emphasizing that "there is no other way" three times.)

 

There are many others. Also see the quotes provided by gHariji.

 

 

There are many granths on yoga starting from patanjali yoga to Goraksh and Shiv samhita and so on..

 

None of these are accepted scriptures (learn about what are pramanas using above links and elsewhere).

 

 

Further more yoga gives a thorough understanding of the tool called body that has been assigned to the soul to achieve this self realization. HK system does not deal with it. Yoga does. It deals with not only the body, but the various metaphysical energy centres (chakras) and how to elevate an ordinary consciousness into higher "Krishna consciousness", a process that is hard to achieve without the participation and proper knowledge of the important tool given to you.

 

Be prepared to provide evidence when you make wild claims like these.

 

 

Lord Krishna himself give the method of Kriya yoga to Arjuna where he explains how a yogi who wants to self realize and realize God, should do his sadhna. I once mentioned to you a couple of years back (I guess it was you), that Krishna explained this Kriya yog to Arjuna in Bhagwad Gita and it evoked your laughter, saying it to be untrue.

 

It was not me. It will be interesting to see the verses which you interpret as referring to Kriya yoga. Also then make an unbiased comparison with the verses referring to bhakti (which specifically rule out any other means to know Krishna) some of which have been quoted before.

 

 

haribol

 

Sure and I can appreciate were you are coming from, and perhaps his remark were knee jerk response to some of the comments made in response to this thread but he did mend his way and thus those quotes.

 

I do not think that he "mended his way". Anyway he is entitled to his opinion but that would be questioned when expressed on a forum.

 

Vedic Dharma has always been based on inquiry unlike abharmic religion whose aim is to convert the world to their way of thinking, danger is if we go down that route the discussion goes out of window. Just as the sun dispel the darkness Dharma based on truthfulness, purity, nonviolence and austerity lead us to the love of god. Inquiry is to seek the truth; invalidity of incorrect path has never been the object of discussion.

 

This is incorrect. Read commentries (on vedanta sutra or otherwise) of any of the acharyas.

 

 

Vedas are given to us based on realizations of several rishis, so I am never surprised by the differences.

 

No, they are apaurusheya and shabd pramana. The position of experience based scriptures, or God given scriptures is rejected (as being "chakraka" or circularity) in Vedanta. Read this for an introduction on vedas (chapter 17 is available for download here ). That is why sruti is considered as primary evidence and smriti as secondary (which is paurusheya), while the experience based scriptures are not considered at all.

 

 

I think whatever needed to be said has been said.

 

haribol

 

You have made a lot of points here; a classic case of fudging the issue, no sidhanta has been discussed here is it?

I believe we left siddhanta discussion long time back, rather this discussion with yourself was limited to accusations against HKs in particular. I do not see any "fudging the issue" in my reply, rather i tried to deal with each of your points.

The problem only arise when there are factions with their own agenda to push and perhaps this is what Ykji was eluding and I quote

Yk

But I repect your bhakti movement. I find nothing wrong with it. Except for the God positioning agenda and puting my sampradaya philosophy over others agenda! I wish you were a simple bhakta lots zealing for the benevolence of the almighty! After all all that is what matters.

Love,

The only conflicting factor with Gaudiyas is putting my way over your way.

Rest is fine. Bhakti is fine. But the uncontrollable urge to prove bhakti and especially Gaudiya line of bhakti over every other line of belief is wrong! Dead wrong!

There is strong bhakti amongst yogis. There is very strong bhakti amongst tantriks. If they are real tantriks. Nothing wrong. In fact tantra requires complete surrender to the Guru first to progress. What's wrong with that? Guru is the bridge between the Lord and the disciple.

There is very strong bhakti amongst Shiv bhaktas and those who worship Lord Ramachandra. There is bhakti amongst worshipers of Lord Ganesha.

And I repect all these bhaktas :)Other systems are not devoid of bhakti. It is the basic element. But you can't put down everyone else and every other school of thought just because u r into some high notch bhakti fling. Un quote.

Selective quoting is not proper and you have missed the context. Here are other quotes by YKji previously in this thread and i have been responding mostly to those:

There is a certain way a person evloves spiritually or materialistically.

The Hare Krishnas do not have the know-how to siddhis or sadhnas. Period.

The mantra chanting is unsientific not to mention un-Vedic!!

 

...

 

But even in simple bhakti and unsientific chanting, there are stages that one has to gradually pass.

 

...

 

I'm amazed how so far the Gaudiyas haven't claimed that Krishna was Bengali and born in Mayapur?! In the whole wide Bhagwad Gita that Krishna discourced to Arjuna everything is ignorable to you except one one chapter on Bhakti Yoga.

 

...

 

Bhakti is the first step without which you don't become qualified for any higher knowledge. Then you get the higher knowledge, and get direct perception and experience and gain Gyana. SUCH a person is the dearest to the Lord.

 

Not mentioning other silly points like in http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/1039067-post46.html , my responses were mostly to deal with these prevalent misnomers which lack any scriptural support.

 

Regarding "putting my way over your way", this has been adequately answered in the previous email. To summarize:

* There is nothing wrong with showing evidence for one's own philosophy and lack of evidence for others' (particularly when points like "chanting is unvedic", "bhakti is first step" etc. are raised).

* HKs do not reject everything else -- the vaishnava sampradayas are accepted as valid while worship of other deities is favoured considering them as exalted vaishnavas.

* The vedantic approach consists of showing validity of one's path and demonstrating invalidity of incorrect paths. This has been done by all schools and should be done otherwise there is no intellectual honesty (e.g. why doesn't a school adopt others philosophy if that is correct and superior, like YKji says that Kundalini yoga is higher form of yoga) and there would be no end to unverifiable claims. The strength and beauty of Vedanta is its comprehensiveness, preciseness and i believe that only Vedanta can stand in any rational discussion above and over other philosophies including material science.

haribol

 

No problem here on my part, but then I don’t see a yogi or gyani going out shouting from roof top asking people to give up their Bhakti and take up their yoga prctice, and this is not what is under discussion is it?

Hk consistently denigrate others modes of worship always maintain we are better then you attitude. This thread is about awaking Kundli yet we are told by some, what use is it just chant. Have you or anyone else addressed this objection?

I have seen no evidence of HKs going to the roof-tops and shouting to give up xyz and take up Bhakti either. I assume that this is not your point.

Coming to the point that HKs denigrate others modes of worship then it would not be the correct way to put it, rather worship of other deities (other that Vishnu) as Supreme is not accepted and considered to be ignorance. Worship of Vishnu knowing Him to be the Supreme Brahman is accepted (and so all the vaishnava sampradayas) while others are not accepted. As already mentioned this position is not unique to HKs and all the vedanta schools have a similar position. Others like shaiva sampradayas also have a similar position (i.e. worship of Shiva as Supreme is accepted while other deities like Vishnu are considered normal jivas) -- their position is complicated by the fact that most of them have taken to adopting Advaita which considers even Lord Shiva as a product of Maya, so they have taken Shiva to refer to self and so on...

Regarding this particular thread. We were informed by some devotees who have had experience of this, that it is dangerous when not done under expert guidance which itself is hard to find, and that chanting is the better and recommended way anyway -- so what's your problem here? This is the frank opinion of the members here, many of whom are vaishnavas.

Of course, YKji made a set of progressive claims including "chanting is unvedic and unscientific", "HKs have no sadhana", "bhakti is just a little step while kundalini etc. are higher forms of yoga" etc. You should not expect these to be accepted by others here, or do you?

It is a matter of opinion making a general statement saying there is no scriptural support but if we look hard enough we could justify almost anything but would it be Dharma? There is no agenda to put down anyone, just making observation on reality that prevails within the hk movement, the need to preach in the name of Bhakti has reached such a stage that even a dreamer feels the need to go out and preach.

 

No we cannot justify anything, and you can disprove me by providing references for the same which i would be obliged to accept. The usual practise in vedanta is to establish a theory and also show how alternative theories are incorrect and would not hold. For instance, there are a number of objections to Advaita particularly by Madhva sampradaya which have not been addressed as yet. Even Shankaracharya rejected the other philosophies of his time like shakta, pashupata, buddhism, charvaka etc. giving precise reasons for the same.

 

 

In my opinion you have made rather loose general statements, such as HKs indulge in Hindu "bashing" without providing any instance, that one can justify anything etc. Frankly i have seen a large number of "respected" advaita and arya samaj gurus who actually resort to "bashing" like Swami Agnivesh who ridicules hindus worshipping in temples, neo-advaita gurus who mock service to Deities as being stupid etc. In comparison, in the vaishnava philosophy worship of Deities is considered essential and worship of deities other than Vishnu is also accepted but not considering them as Supreme, and that worship of other deities considering them as Supreme would not lead to the ultimate goal. Anyway, it would do good to stick to the point of this thread and raise any "bashing" you see here.

 

It is my method is better then yours attitude that and constant bashing of Hindus, whenever possible (on whose charity the organization is widely supported) irks most of us. I see everyone else answering to YK ignoring this point.

To be consistent, you must also say the same to those who claim that Bhakti is just the first step (and thus inferior) and that yoga etc. are higher forms -- which includes YKji.

 

Apart from the problem that this is inconsistent, the claims themselves have no scriptural support. It is quite surprising to find people favour claims without any firm basis, and put down the "HKs" and other vaishnavas whose methods are directly given in the scriptures.

 

Yes there are references of Bhakti in the Bhagwad Gita.

 

The problem is that you made claims without evidence and then not accepting the fault even when they are shown to be incorrect. In this instance, you claimed that Bhagavad Gita talks about bhakti in only one chapter (and that i ignore the rest of Gita). If you read it carefully you shall see that most of Bhagavad Gita talks about Bhakti and Bhakti alone as was demonstrated in the quotes. In fact a yogi is defined as one who is a bhakta.

 

 

In Shiv Samhita, for example, Lord Shiva says the system of yoga (Kundalini, Kriya yoga) is the highest and it should only be given to a bhakta. So are there references of bhakti in other scriptures including Shiva Gita and Shiv Mahapurana.

 

Firstly, quotes from the relevant scriptures would do good here.

 

Secondly, i have not heard of Shiv samhita before. It would be interesting to find if there is any vedanta school that considers this scripture as a sadagama. The accepted scriptures which are accepted as a whole in all the major schools are: 1) Sruti (vedas including upanishads), 2) Bhagavad Gita, 3) Brahma Sutra. Sattvic portions (meaning when they follow the vedas) from other sadagamas like Mahabharata, Mula Ramayana, Puranas are also accepted.

 

Normally any conclusion should be based on sruti and supporting evidence is provided from smriti. With this background, the issue is that the practice of kundalini etc. is not found in any of sruti or puranas. The point is that these practices may exist and may lead the practitioner to some "experiences" but are not considered useful for attainment of moksha, particularly when the vedas declare unequivocally that apart from devotion/worship of Vishnu there does not exist any path to moksha (e.g. in Uttaranuvaka).

 

 

In Shiv Samhita, for example, Lord Shiva says the system of yoga (Kundalini, Kriya yoga) is the highest and it should only be given to a bhakta. Bhakti is the first step without which you don't become qualified for any higher knowledge. Then you get the higher knowledge, and get direct perception and experience and gain Gyana. SUCH a person is the dearest to the Lord.

 

Another of those claims without basis. If you would have read the quotes from Bhagavad Gita carefully, then the Lord clearly says that those who reach brahma-bhutam stage worship him with devotion (6.40), that the great souls always render devotional service unto Him (9.13-14), that various endevours of a yogi are to attain pure devotional service unto Him (18.51-54). Then He says in multiple places that He can be only known by Bhakti (7.29, 11.54-55, 18.55). So you are saying exact opposite of what Krishna says in Gita that the various endevours (of knowledge, meditation, action without attachment etc.) are intended to attain bhakti or in other words these are various limbs or stages of bhakti.

 

If you want to show your point then you will have to provide direct references which say otherwise, and those that would be considered "stronger" than Bhagavad Gita which means the sruti. So unless you provide direct sruti statements stating otherwise your claims would be termed as baseless.

 

 

This is what Krishna meant in the verse you quoted. Krishna is not not refering here to knowledge as plain ability to quote someone from a book. This is no knowledge. Real knowledge is realized knowledge my friend. And realized knowledge is not simply what you believe in. Its not so easy to attain. And after you gain this experienced knowledge, you become more of a 'bhakta' and this is realized bhakti that Krishna talked about.

There is no realized knowledge without direct perception. It is all bookish theory. You may believe in it or you may not.

 

And what makes you conclude that all that i said was only bookish knowledge and was not based direct experience? And what makes you certain that the said experience (of anyone claiming so) is not just illusion, particularly when the Lord clearly says in Bhagavad Gita that no one (including devatas, all the jnanis etc.) knows Him completely? It is easy to bluff others claiming experience for whatever one may write, but cannot be accepted in a discussion which should be based on mutually accepted pramanas -- don't you think so?

 

 

The only diference between you and someone who is not religious minded and away from HK philosophy is that you firmly believe in theories propounded and preached by your sampradaya acharyas. Other don't. Your belief leads to working further on these theories. But when this work finally leads to direct perception and anubhuti, the resulting knowledge from that is real knowledge and such a bhakta is the dearest to Krishna.

 

Any theory which has no evidence should be discarded. What would you say if someone applies the same approach to material sciences? (i.e. making claims based on some "experience" without any evidence). Direct experience is a personal thing between the practitioner and possibly his/her Guru, but that is never referred to in such discussion.

 

You seem to think that chanting, devotion etc. do not lead to any experience while the exact opposite is true in that only these when performed correctly can lead to experience rooted in Truth.

 

 

The only conflicting factor with Gaudiyas is putting my way over your way.

Rest is fine. Bhakti is fine. But the uncontrollable urge to prove bhakti and especially Gaudiya line of bhakti over every other line of belief is wrong! Dead wrong!

 

No, the issue is your claims without basis about "unscientific and unvedic chanting", that "bhakti is first step to ..." etc.The fact is that you have not backed any of your claims with evidence.

 

 

And in fact I can quote and bring forward as many references from the shastra, shrutis and scriptures on yoga as many as you can on bhakti. But what's the use?

 

Please do so. You would be surprised and hard pressed to find even a few verses from sruti for this (and invariably they will lead to devotion as the aim).

 

 

I do not appreciate the policies and political side of the sect like aggressive preaching putting others down and trying to prove my form of God or my name of God or my way of worship above all others. Comparing other schools of thoughts and putting them down and then saying our is superior is what is a put off.

 

There was no intention in this discussion to put down, rather to clear up some of the stuff. Anyway, this itself is not surprising -- consider that Shakaracharya defeated all the other philosophies of his time, and the same with Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya etc. So this is part of Vedantic approach, i.e. sticking to Truth which is like walking on the edge of sword as the Katha Upanishad says.

 

But wouldn't you say that the brahmajyoti is also nitya? If so then are you saying the soul left nitya and entered material time and then leaves material time and enetrs nitya? That being absent for some "time" from nitya is what I object to. I believe it goes against the very nature of eternity.

 

I think it would be easier if we use separate references for time in spiritual and material worlds. Let us refer to the time in spiritual world as spiritual time and material world as material time.

 

Brahmajyoti is, of course, all pervasive in nature, in the material world, in the spiritual world as well as in tatastha region. The Brahmajyoti would be in spiritual time in spiritual world and material time in material world, which means that it is not necessary that the soul comes from "nitya" unless one assumes that it originates in spiritual world. This is not the case in our siddhanta where the jiva is said to come from tatastha region, and so it is not subject to spiritual time. Only when the soul attains moksha does it enter the spiritual time.

 

 

Curious as to what makes you say so. I see a clear distinction between the dreamer and the dream. Dreams come and go but the dreamer is eternally present.

 

You are right, my statement is slightly inaccurate. What i wanted to say that the analogy of dream/dreamer breaks down in the context of spiritual world/material world. The reason is that in a dream the dreamer can imagine oneself to be somewhere while he is actually present somewhere else (and in that sense he is simultaneously present). However, since the material world is as much real as the spiritual world, the presence of soul in material world means that it is actually present here and so the analogy does not hold where dreamer is actually present elsewhere (in this case the analogy was to show that the "dreamer" is actually present in spiritual world which does not hold).

 

 

I don't disagree with that but I hear it differently. the soul is never subjected to maya as in an outside force preying upon him. The soul places itself in contact with maya by being envious of krsna position as the enjoyer. The very instant this arises from within the soul the soul is no longer cognizant of Krsna or in other words he is no longer in Vaikuntha...his dream has begun.

 

The way you see it makes things kind of "symmetric" in the sense that the jiva can leave/enter vaikuntha multiple times. However, the description in shastra clearly holds an "asymmetric" view where the jiva never leaves once it enters vaikuntha and that it was never in vaikuntha before.

 

Sadly everything is ignorable to you, except the Bengali Gaudiya philosphy.

 

In the whole wide Bhagwad Gita that Krishna discourced to Arjuna everything is ignorable to you except one one chapter on Bhakti Yoga.

 

This is incorrect. Here are a few of direct references to bhakti in Bhagavad-Gita:

 

4.3

 

sah--the same ancient; eva--certainly; ayam--this; maya--by Me; te--unto you; adya--today; yogah--the yoga; proktah--spoken; puratanah--very old; bhaktah--devotee; asi--you are; me--My; sakha--friend; ca--also; iti--therefore; rahasyam--mystery; hi--certainly; etat--this; uttamam--transcendental.

 

Here Krishna says that this knowledge is being revealed to Arjuna since he is a devotee and friend of Lord.

 

6.30

 

yah--whoever; mam--Me; pasyati--sees; sarvatra--everywhere; sarvam--everything; ca--and; mayi--in Me; pasyati--he sees; tasya--his; aham--I; na--not; pranasyami--am lost; sah--he; ca--also; me--to Me; na--nor; pranasyati--is lost.

 

Where the Lord describes the "brahma-bhutam" state.

 

6.31

 

sarva-bhuta-sthitam--situated in everyone's heart; yah--he who; mam--unto Me; bhajati--serves in devotional service; ekatvam--oneness; asthitah--thus situated; sarvatha--in all respects; varta-manah--being situated; api--in spite of; sah--he; yogi--transcendentalist; mayi--unto Me; vartate--remains.

 

Where the meaning of a yogi is given as one who does bhajan of Lord.

 

6.47

 

yoginam--of all yogis; api--also; sarvesam--all types of; mat-gatena--abiding in Me; antah-atmana--always thinking of Me within; sraddha-van--in full faith; bhajate--renders transcendental loving service; yah--one who; mam--Me (the Supreme Lord); sah--he; me--Mine; yukta-tamah--the greatest yogi; matah--is considered.

 

Where a devotee is described as the highest of all yogis.

 

In 7.15 Sri Krishna says that only the "nara-adhamah" do not surrender to Him. In 7.17-18 Krishna says that out of all those who approach Him the devotee who is in knowledge is dear to Him.

 

7.19

 

bahunam--many; janmanam--births; ante--after; jnana-van--he possessing knowledge; mam--unto Me; prapadyate--surrenders; vasudevah--cause of all causes; sarvam--all; iti--thus; sah--such; maha-atma--great soul; su-durlabhah--very rare.

 

Where surrendering to Krishna is described as being very rare even among jnanis.

 

In 7.29 Krishna says that those who want to attain liberation take refuge in Him and only they know Brahman.

 

In 8.7-8.8 Krishna tells Arjuna that the practice of yoga is to always remember Him while doing his duty.

 

In 8.22 He says that the Supreme is attained only by bhakti and asks Arjuna in 8.27 to be fixed in devotion.

 

In chapter 9 the Lord gives raja-vidya, the most confidential knowledge (guhyatamam) to Arjuna which leads to moksha. In 9.4-9.10 the all-pervasive, controller of all aspects of Krishna are given. Then 9.13-14:

 

 

maha-atmanah--the great souls; tu--but; mam--unto Me; partha--O son of Prtha; daivim--divine; prakrtim--nature; asritah--taken shelter of; bhajanti--render service; ananya-manasah--without deviation of the mind; jnatva--knowing; bhuta--creation; adim--original; avyayam--inexhaustible.

 

satatam--always; kirtayantah--chanting; mam--Me; yatantah ca--fully endeavoring also; drdha-vratah--with determination; namasyantah ca--offering obeisances; mam--unto Me; bhaktya--in devotion; nitya-yuktah--perpetually engaged; upasate--worship

 

Where the position of the great souls is described as always devoted to Krishna and chanting His Names. In 9.26-34 the devotional process is further described.

 

In 10.9-10.11 Krishna says how the devotees always engage in His service and He, the SuperSoul, destroys their ignorance with knowledge.

 

In 11.54-55 the Lord says that He can be known only by ananya-bhakti.

 

Chapter 12 talks about devotional service in more details. In 12.2 the Lord says that those who fix their minds on Him and worship Him are to be considered the most perfect. In 12.6-7 the Lord says that He is a swift deliverer of those who constantly engage in His service.

 

In 13.8-12 the Lord gives the various qualities to be developed in ananya-bhakti. In 13.17 Krishna says that this knowledge (of kshetra-kshetrajna) is understood by His devotees who then attain Him. In 13.26 Krishna says that even those who are not in knowledge about Him but start worshipping Him attain liberation since they are eager to hear about Him.

 

In chapter 14 Krishna says that He shall again impart the highest knowledge to Arjuna.

14.26

 

mam--unto Me; ca--also; yah--person; avyabhicarena--without fail; bhakti-yogena--by devotional service; sevate--renders service; sah--he; gunan--all the modes of material nature; samatitya--transcending; etan--all this; brahma-bhuyaya--to be elevated to the Brahman platform; kalpate--is considered.

 

Here the situation of a devotee is described (and in 14.22-25 a devotee's qualities are given).

 

In 15.19 Krishna says that knowing Him as the Supreme Person a jiva engages in devotional service to Him, and in 15.20 He says that this is the most confidential portion of the scriptures.

 

In 18.51-53 the various endevours of yogi are given and then in 18.54 the Lord says that one who attains the "brahma-bhutah" attains pure devotion unto Him. Then 18.55

 

bhaktya--by pure devotional service; mam--Me; abhijanati--one can know; yavan--as much as; yah ca asmi--as I am; tattvatah--in truth; tatah--thereafter; mam--Me; tattvatah--by truth; jnatva--knowing; visate--enters; tat-anantaram--thereafter.

 

where Sri Bhagavan says that the Truth can only be known by bhakti

 

In 18.56-63 the glories of bhakti are described. Then in 18.64-66 the most confidential of all the knowledge (sarva-guhya-tamam) is given as follows:

 

sarva-guhya-tamam--the most confidential of all; bhuyah--again; srnu--just hear; me--from Me; paramam--the supreme; vacah--instruction; istah asi--you are very dear to Me; me--of Me; drdham--very; iti--thus; tatah--therefore; vaksyami--I am speaking; te--for your; hitam--benefit.

 

mat-manah--thinking of Me; bhava--just become; mat-bhaktah--My devotee; mat-yaji--My worshiper; mam--unto Me; namaskuru--offer your obeisances; mam--unto Me; eva--certainly; esyasi--come; satyam--truly; te--to you; pratijane--I promise; priyah--dear; asi--you are; me--Mine.

 

sarva-dharman--all varieties of religion; parityajya--abandoning; mam--unto Me; ekam--only; saranam--surrender; vraja--go; aham--I; tvam--you; sarva--all; papebhyah--from sinful reactions; moksayisyami--deliver; ma--not; sucah--worry.

 

 

There is nothing you can do except get annoyed and retaliate.

 

What makes you think that i would be annoyed?

 

See this is what I was trying to say about sequential thought. That is a product of being influenced by past present future and has no meaning to a resident of eternity. You are saying that a jiva has fallen into the material world for some time which implies that for some time he is no longer present in the spiritual world as in bramanjyoti or Vaikuntha.

 

No, i am saying that thinking of simultaneous events in spiritual and material worlds as in falling from brahmajyoti/vaikuntha and then entering material world is not correct, or leaving the material world and then entering the spiritual world. When the description is provided with respect to the material world then the terms anAdi and anant are used, and with respect to the spiritual world the soul enters the eternal time.

 

 

From the liberated platform however the soul understands that he never left. What we call a fall is actually forgetfullness of our real position. We dream our entrance into the material world which itself is just an amalgamate dream of countless souls. If I am sleeping in a bed and I dream I am walking on venus with lovely venitian woman does that mean that I am really on Venus? No I am still in the bed.

 

The material world is unlike the dream. The jiva does not simultaneously exist in both spiritual and material worlds, unlike in a dream experience.

 

 

The soul is in Vaikuntha in form and then from within himself he desires Krsna's position. His spiritual form is nondifferent from his mood of service. One desiring serving as a cowherd boy is formed as a cowherd boy. When he desires krsna's position he loses that form of a cowherd boy.But he doesn't desire anything material because he has no conception of anything material. So he is now formless, in other words simply brahmajyoti and in suspended animation. That simply means his animation as cowherd boy has been suspended. At some point he again from within himself feels the desire to be an individual, just the raw desire to be an individual. No material or spiritual desires yet. This would be what many call the the soul emerging in the tatasva region. From there his marginality is exposed and he can choose to be the enjoyer or be the servant of the Enjoyer. I believe BR Sridhar Maharaja says he gets a glimpse of both dimensions. If he chooses to serve then he moves into vaikuntha and if chooses to be served his attention goes to the variety of material enjoyments offered in the material world. This is an excercise of the soul's marginal nature.

 

Now from this scenario we can see that the soul originally was in Vaikuntha and fell to the bramajyoti and then some again fell further into material entanglment.

 

From our present perspective then it would be correct to say the soul fell from vaikuntha and the soul originated in the brahmajyoti prior to popping (bloop :-) ) into the material dream. So both positions are correct IF this is true.

 

Of course by speaking this I have also had to employ the fault of sequential thinking because that is how we communicate and all I presently know.

 

This could have been an acceptable alternative (though there are some problems with this) if there is an evidence for this. The shastra unequivocally says that jiva is never subject to material world on attainment of vaikuntha.

 

What happened to your pumpkin head picture, you used to use as your avatara beginning last year?

 

You probably mistake me for someone else. I never used any picture as the avatara.

 

Rest of your reply is ... well ignorable.

 

If we first petition the Lord in the heart to please reveal the truth to us and in that spirit approach the scriptures I believe the result will be fruitfull.

 

I believe this would be one of the requirements to approach all the scriptures.

 

 

Sanskrit rules have long been in place I believe and yet some those using those rules hear the Bhagavad-gita as an Advaita scripture and the others hear it as a Vaisnava scripture. So I see a limitation in placing my faith in my intellectual understanding of sanskrit and applying those rules properly.

 

Almost all of the advaita interpretations have been shown to be flawed. The starting point of Advaita interpretations of mahavakya and non-mahavakya categorization itself is unacceptable and something for which they have not been able to provide any evidence. There is still a long list of pending objections to Advaita which have not been addressed as yet (apart from "explanations" like "Maya is inexplicable" ...) so let us not get into that. Still one can object saying that there are different interpretations even among Vaishnava acharyas, but we follow Lord Chaitanya and consider them as valid explanations.

 

 

This has nothing to do with being able to hear the Supersoul directly. It has everything to do with the Supersoul hearing us and kindly responding.

 

This should be the manner in which we approach things. But it would not be useful in a discussion. For instance, a claim can be made that i have been lead to this conclusion by Paramatma. Such statements, however, are to be discounted in any vedantic discussion.

 

 

You have not addressed my point about the origin of the soul in relationship to living in the eternal present where past and future have no meaning. Afterall the soul is of that eternal nature.

 

I have tried to. Rephrasing: when one talks about the eternal present of the spiritual world then it should not be confused with the eternal past, future of material world. So a jiva entering the eternal present of spiritual world is perfectly compatible with the notion that jiva was bound since anAdi in material world and is now in moksha for endless time in material world.

 

 

The reason this is important is that everyone is trying to understand this subject in a way that is dependent upon sequential events i.e.In brahman then falling then becoming Krsna conscious and then going back to Godhead.

 

Falling from brahmajyoti would not be the correct way to describe it. It would be accepted that the jivas are part of brahmajyoti, but the traditional way to describe it would be that jiva and matter are anadi and their association is also anAdi. I believe Srila Sridhar Maharaj, however, describes it the way you have put it.

 

 

Don't discount approaching Supersoul. There is no success without Him.

 

I never said so.

 

I would humbly suggest that not you or any of us here at this forum are qualified to make such a statement. You may say apparently contradictory statements and that would be more honest but to state empatheically that "it is a fact..." means that you have full understanding of the meaning of both the statements in question . I doubt that you do since the understanding of this subject is visible ONLY to one who thinking is free from the influence of the illusory concept of past prsent and future. That is my contention.

 

Well any reading of the statements would lead one to that conclusion. Since no reconciliation has been provided yet of those statements (and the limitations of English where there are no defined notions of mukhyartha/gaunartha/... for translations/commentaries yet) without resorting to motives or impossible new meanings to the words, hence the statement. But you are right. Please modify the statement to read "It seems that there are contradictory statements made by Srila Prabhupada on this subject."

 

 

There is another way of approaching this subject. And that is by NOT directly attempting to resolve it and instead let the Lord reveal it to us in the time that He deems best. This requires patience and the willingness to admit that we do not know the answer at present.

 

Which is fine apart from the problem that this approach is useless in a discussion and that there is hardly anyone who can distinguish between genuine "revelation" from Paramatma and illusion.

 

 

To think that we shall approach the Gosvami's is not as clear cut as you make it seem. The works of the Gosvamis are made known to us by the translations of others who may slant the translations in favor of their pre-conceptions . So you may think you are consulting directly with the Gosvami's when in fact you are a least one degree removed from them.

 

For one, there are well defined rules for giving primary/secondary/... meanings to Sanskrit translations making our job easier. Another is that consulting the sadagamas (sruti, sattavic puranas ...) for these rules out "motive" and other such theories. In this particular issue the problem is that the jiva fall theory is unheard of before in Vedantic circles, and one that would be impossible to hold using the commonly (common as in accepted by all schools) accepted scriptures.

 

This issue is just an example. My point, however, is that we should not hesitate to consult the original scriptures when such issues arise particularly in view of contradictory positions of other devotees and our inability to hear the Paramatma (at least speaking for myself, when in the past i would easily believe "intuitive" knowledge as coming from Paramatma which was incorrect).

 

Riddle us this:

 

Since there is no past present and future in the spiritual world there can be no fall.

But yet can we deny that we are presently fallen?

 

There are a couple of points here:

* There can be no fall in the spiritual world alright, but that does not apply to the material world. In particular the notion of eternity itself has different meanings in spiritual and material worlds.

* Although in english we loosely use the word eternity, it actually is used to denote different things in different contexts. In Sanskrit we find different words e.g. anadi for beginless time (but not necessarily without end), anant for endless time (but not necessarily without beginning), nitya for eternity. So the entanglement of jiva in matter is termed anadi, and the disentanglement as anant but both w.r.t. the material world.

 

 

Once we have entered eternity we will learn that we never left. How could it be otherwise and our actually being in eternity?

 

It is not really true that we shall learn that we never left, rather that we shall be there for endless material time.