sumedh

Pranams Please provide evidence for this statement. This categarization is given in the Puranas themselves. Also note that any puranic statement that is opposed to Vedas is not accepted. The upanishads (those that are authentic) are, of course, sruti and there is no categorization among them. Srila Vedavyasa composed the Mahabharata (including Gita) for all the persons with lesser understanding who would be unable to understand the Vedas, which would including almost all the people in the current age. It is certainly not a norm for the Lord. These instances are cases of the Lord granting the wishes of his devotee The varaha purana (rudra-gita portion) and others (like kurma) describe that Shiva obtained the boon from Vishnu of being worshipped by Him in His incarnations. The vedas praise other devatas (Indra, Vayu, Agni ...) in as highly exalted terms as Shiva but their worship is meant for satisfaction of Vishnu (Yajna refers to Vishnu); in other words the devataas are to be worshipped in proper understanding and not considering them to be independent supremes. Realization of anyone is not accepted as an evidence in any of the vedanta schools, otherwise there would be no end to unverifiable claims. And exactly how do you venture to determine whether someone has realized the Supreme Truth given that there are numerous instances in our scriptures where even the greatest rishis have been deluded (and Krishna says that only a very, very rare soul knows the Supreme Truth). Well, it is not wrong but that it gives different results. See Bhagavad-Gita 9.23 Also refer to BG 7.23, 8.16, 10.2, 14.14-14.18 etc. Hare Krishna

Pranams First off there is no need to get angry. No one here said that Lord Shiva is tamasic, rather he is foremost vaishnava (Bhagavatam's "vaishnavam yatha shambhu"). Well, ignorance of our scriptures cannot be held as an excuse for criticizing gaudiyas. This division of Puranas is well known -- it is established in Madhavacharya's dvaita school well before gaudiyas. Sri Vijayindra Tirtha referred to it in his historic debate with Lingaraja. It could have been an objection if this classification was given in Sattvic puranas, but this classification is given in Matsya and other puranas also. So the puranas (all of whom have been written by Srila Vyasadeva) classify themselves as sattvic/rajasic/tamasic. The meaning of this classification is simply that persons who are in predominantly sattvic mode should follow sattvic puranas etc. Padma Purana (Uttara Khanda 236.18-21): Matsya Purana (53.65, 68-69) Even the sattvic puranas sometimes have rajasic and tamasic portions (and conversely tamasic puranas have sattvic portions). In essence when the puranas follow the conclusions of sruti they are known to be sattvic and not otherwise. Hare Krishna

Pranams Not meaning to obstruct the flow of discussion, i shall just add something... There is another sense in which the soul is the non-doer. The soul (as well as the material energy) eternally depend on God and have no independent existence. In BG 3.27 Lord Krsna says that the actions are actually carried out by the material nature (which in turn depends on God) though the desire to do an action arises from the soul, but a conditioned soul mistakenly thinks that he is performing that action.

Pranams Jndas prabhuji, is there a reference to this incidence in Valmiki Ramayana? I have not seen any quote from Valmiki Ramayana mentioning this incidence rather elsewhere it is mentioned that this incidence does not appear in Valmiki Ramayana. To the original poster: This incidence is mentioned in Linga purana (and maybe others) and is explained in other puranas like varaha and kurma. In varaha purana (rudra-gita) Shiva seeks a boon from Lord Vishnu to be worshipped by Him in His incarnations. So this incidence should be seen as granting of the wish of His devotee similar to those of Devaki/Vasudeva, Arjuna etc.

Idolatary means worshipping an imagination, an untrue thing or anything that is not God. In this respect all those who do not have perfect knowledge of God are idolaters to one degree or other. The "Sri Murti" of the Lord is an authorized representation of the Lord in accordance with the scriptures and so the omnipresent Lord accepts any service offered to the "Sri Murti". In fact, the Sri Murti is an incarnation -- just like shabd incarnation, of the Lord for this purpose only. A jiva bound by maya has to perform Deity worship to learn how to serve, and to clear oneself of the dust of material life (in addition to chanting, following regulative principles etc.). This is the conclusion of Vedic scriptures and all vaishnava acharyas. It seems that Christians, Muslims etc. are just touchy about this without any logic whatsoever, since in reality every type of worship of Lord can be shown to be idolatory -- i mean without the theory of avataara-vaada. Serving the Sri Murti is very powerful form of worship, but one has to be very careful in the service. Some argue that among the people Jesus, Mohammad etc. preached, no one was qualified to perform Deity worship and so they forbade it -- this is debatable. Also see the other thread where Srila BhaktiVinoda Thakur replies to this question here: http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/spiritual-discussions/32570-diety-worship-idolatry.html

Hare Krishna Dvaita and dualism mean quite different things: in fact dvaita is not the proper word for Sripad Madhva's school -- it is properly called tattvavada. Going by the normal definition of dualism, Gaudiya Vaishnavism is dualistist since it holds that God and jivas are individuals and are different from one another (i.e. there is an eternal bheda between jivas and God, between jivas themselves, between God and material nature etc.). The gaudiyas also hold abheda (non-difference) between God and jivas in the sense of parts of whole (but does not mean that whole is broken ...) but as separate individuals -- thus the achintya-bheda-abheda. If you mean tattvavada (the normal meaning of Dvaita) then they worship Krishna as Supreme (in fact they worship bala-gopala) because in tattvavada Krishna and Vishnu, as also all the avataars of Vishnu are completely identical (this is also what gaudiyas believe). One of their famous gurus Sripad Vadiraja Tirtha worshipped the Hayagriva incarnation. Difference in gaudiyas on this point is that gaudiyas also consider rasa-bheda in different incarnations of Krishna, meaning the kind of spiritual relationships that jivas can have with an incarnation, and in that the relationship with Krishna as the most intimate and most desirable. Also, gaudiyas consider Krishna in Vrindavana as the original Form of the Lord and source of all other Forms even though all the Forms of the Lord are Eternal (so the source is not in the sense of having come into existence rather using eternal Sun analogy, that all Forms can be eternal still have source) -- the madhvas strongly disagree with this.

There is no mention of meat-eating by those in that age in the scriptures.

to be able to follow these it is essential to follow the other principles viz. chanting, associating with devotees etc. Haribol

Hare Krishna please accept my pranams To this the most beautiful answer i ever read is by Srila Ramakrishnananda:

Hare Krishna please accept my pranams The verse is spoken by Brahman Himself, not by anyone else -- see the context in 1.4: so applying this to jivas would be arbitrary.

Hare Krishna These verses are about the vibhuti (opulences) of the Lord. So the Lord also says that He is the concluding vak in a debate and so on, which does not mean that Krishna is just a material vak etc.

Hare Krishna Very true, so apply the same to yourself and recognize God but not from the imaginations of lekhraj.

Dear roohani sevadhari Hare Krishna you said: This world is "dukhalayam" and not suitable for the spirit soul. That one can make a heaven in this world is only self-deception. you said: Which is not completely correct. For example the Rg Veda says the following about the churning of the ocean:keshi-sukta in Rgveda (10.136...) vAyurasmA upAmanthat.h pinashhTismA kunannamA keshI vishhasya pAtreNa yad.hrudreNApibat.hsaha It says that Vayu actually drank the most of it, crushed and reduced the vigour of the remaining portions and gave it to Shiva. There is more to it that after drinking it Lord Shiva became unconscious and regained consciousness by the touch of Lord Hari. This is not to diminish the greatness of Lord Shiva in anyway (for the poison is described as being so strong that even the sight of it was deadly), who is called the greatest vaishnava (vaishnavam yatha shambhu -- Srimad Bhagavatam).

Hare Krishna roohani sevadhari said: Even though this is a foolish argument, it is not even correct. Sada-Shiva is originally one of the Names of Lord Vishnu. Read the shruti which says that Lord Vishnu gives His Names to the devas including shiva et all. This signifies that all the powers etc. that reside in the devas are actually the attributes of the Supreme Lord Narayana and belong to Him. For example: "nAmAni vishvA.abhi na santi loke yadAvirAsIdanR^itasya sarvam.h nAmAni sarvAni yamAvishanti taM vai viShNuM paramamudAharanti" says that only Vishnu is the primary referrent of all Names. The ambhrani sukta also rules out the theory that Vishnu and Shiva are different forms of the same Being because there is stated that She (viz. Lakshmi) can make anyone as Shiva, Brahma etc. as She chooses and that the source of Her power is Lord Vishnu. (the skanda purana gives an idea of the difference using drop/deluge etc. and says that as Lord Vishnu is infinite the difference which separates Him from all the rest including Shiva/Brahma is infinite) So the problem is that you do not have the fundamentals right. All the Vedas, Upanishads (and of course Gita) say that the Lord Vishnu is the Supreme Lord. So far you have not produced a single evidence (from pramanas) that your god even exists, what to say of being God.

Dear roohani sevadhari Hare Krishna you said: This only shows that your teacher has made you handicapped as regards the brain. Since your god does not exist except in your imaginations it is aptly called "your god".

Dear roohani sevadhari Hare Krishna you said: As for the acharyas there is no doubt in anyone's (anyone sensible) mind. But this doubt is appropriate for lekhraj and followers. Furthermore, dont try to impose your lack of knowledge upon others; you do not know does not mean that others also do not know. roohani sevadhari said: Because animal and human souls are not different according to scriptures, but your irrational beliefs make you think otherwise.

Dear roohani sevadhari Hare Krishna you said: This proves that not many people have been following the acharyas which is a simple fact, rather bogus persons and philosophies. This phenomenon has expanded more and more in this century with everyone coming up with his/her own version of truth. Also is the fact that in such a chaotic situation the only succour was provided by the bhakti movement. The Katha Upanishad compares walking on the path of Truth to a razor's edge so it does not seem that many will actually travel that path. Ask yourself as to why even after reading so many things about Sri Krishna you think Him to be ordinary. Actually Lord Krishna calls such persons "mudhah" or fools not just ordinary persons. As for recognizing the Lord goes the Srimad-Bhagavatam is very unambiguous about the yuga-avataara of Kali-yuga where Karbhajana Muni describes the Yuga avataaras of each of the yugas to King Nimi. From Srimad-Bhagavatam So now you should know that the yuga-dharma of Kali-yuga according to the scriptures is the congregational chanting of the Holy Names of Krishna.

Hare Krishna and dandavats I do not know how would you apply this to Srila BhaktiSiddhanta Saraswati.

Hare Krishna More speculations. These terms mean a specific thing which are only present in their pure form in the vishuddha-sattva (i.e. pure goodness), not in the sattva-rajas-tamas of the material world. In fact the material world being a perverted reflection of the spiritual world, these are found in a distorted manner in this world and their opposite duals are more prominent viz. asat, achid and nirananda because this world is not sat (things are created/destroyed), lack of knowledge (a jiva in this world is due to lack of knowledge of its true nature) and nirananda (there is no happiness here and the jiva mistakes sensual happiness for happiness which is actually opposed to the nature of the soul). There are different levels of answer to this question. Normally one would say after leaving the body. good so now we agree that you do not consider Gita as a scripture. Amazing that the said human being in question not only put the name of Krishna (instead of Shiva) in Bhagavad-Gita in your opinion, but did so with each and every vedic scripture. By the way, what was your god doing in that period when someone replaced all instances of his name with that of Krishna. It may just be that your supposed god does not exist and lekhraj was a cheater. Anyway, as i said your repititions of the speculations of lekhraj are of no interest to us.

Hare Krishna and dandavats We glorify the acharyas in various ways, but comparing them is really not proper. No acharya would agree to this, saying one acharya surpassed others even if we can see that he had had the greatest impact. This is what i feel. haribol

There are pramanas (from vedic scriptures) for each and every statement i wrote. But there is no point in presenting them to you.

Hare Krishna These are your speculations. This is what the Lord says:Bhagavad-Gita 8.15 This world is "dukhalayam". Why? Because the four stages of birth, disease, old age and death are everywhere which are a source of misery. In addition the three kinds of material afflictions (adhyAtmika, Adibhautika, Adidaivika) are always troubling the jivas. The material world is a mismatch for the spiritual self. The origin of the jiva souls is in the tatastha region i.e. the marginal region between the spiritual and material worlds, which is not a stable position and the jivas go to either the material world or to the spiritual world. So there are indeed three abodes: spiritual, material and marginal. But the marginal one is not a resting place. The way you categorize it, there are 14 levels of material and subtle lokas in the material worlds while in the spiritual world there are unlimited spiritual "planets" each of which is infinite. In the spiritual world there is also the siddha-loka which is the effulgence of the Lord outside of the spiritual "planets". There are no dual qualities in the spiritual realm; only bliss and its infinite variegatedness. The nature of Lord and His abode is sat-cid-ananda which incidently does not mean nothing or zero or "nirakaar". Why is this so difficult to understand? Are you always so dense. roohani sevadhari said: Read the previous quotes regarding the nature of the Lord's abode e.g. it is Eternal etc. which is not the case with the material world. This is the version of the scriptures accepted by all authorities whose words have been tested by millions of humans. Many, many devotees have seen the abode of the Lord which is still manifest to the pure devotees in this life itself. There are many accounts of this but of no relevance to you for you would not be interested. The heaven mentioned in christians/muslims is not beyond the seven skies, but from the descriptions seems to be one of bhuvah/svah lokas; the kingdom of God mentioned in Bible could be same as vaikuntha but it is not possible that normal christians/muslims would go to heavens or vaikuntha because of the animal killing they indulge in. And i do not sing the song you mentioned which is from a movie, so the rest of post has no relevance to me. So the abode of Lord (tad vishnoh paramam padam: Rg Veda) is the ultimate destination for a jiva which is eternal. Of course, in the gaudiya theology the ultimate is unadulterated causeless devotional service to the Lord independent of where the devotee is. Take it or leave it; do not bore us with your speculations.

Hare Krishna Ambiguity is because you have been following bogus teachers. Anyway, i will not carry on this any further than for it is clear that you have an agenda rather than trying to understand scriptures. Simply because His birth is for show only. If you would have read previous quotes then it would have been obvious.From Srimad Bhagavatam 11.31.11

whatever you want to. But if you make noise that you are following the scriptures, or that the historical evidence or logic supports the theory then the brahmakumars should be ready to be exposed as frauds. So be honest and just say "we have our own philosophy which is not from the scriptures nor supported by historical evidence". The interesting thing is that not even one tenet of your philosophy finds support in the scriptures -- really quite an achievement.

Hare Krishna guest said: which is the Eternal abode of the Lord. Why is there any confusion in this regard? You think that Lord's abode is devoid of "beauty" or varigedness while the exact opposite is true; there are so many descriptions of the Lord's abode which describe how the most beautiful things of material world are insignificant in comparison to it. then you said: It is your misconception that the soul rests or needs any rest. The Eternal abode of the Lord is completely transcendental sat-cid-ananda where the jiva souls eternally engage with the Lord in Transcendental bliss in their original svarupa; the tiring of the body etc. are only in the material world while the soul itself never gets tired nor needs rest nor is inactive for even a moment in the spiritual realm. The resting and coming back is only goes on as long as the soul is enclosed in the subtle body in this material world. More quotes in this regard will not be useful at this point. Suffice to say that the material worlds are only a faint perverted reflections of the spiritual realm which is the region of true beauty.