Gaea

That is a good question. Fortunately we have a transcript in the SB to work with. Now what will we give of ourselves to be allowed to enter in to the meaning of what is said remains to be seen by all of us.

 

What will we give? I think Krsna wants everything.

The meanings of the SB are often way beyond me... in fact all the time! All i know is - i gotta love and serve more

SB 11.20.6: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: My dear Uddhava, because I desire that human beings may achieve perfection, I have presented three paths of advancement -- the path of knowledge, the path of work and the path of devotion. Besides these three there is absolutely no other means of elevation.

 

SB 11.20.7: Among these three paths, jnana-yoga, the path of philosophical speculation, is recommended for those who are disgusted with material life and are thus detached from ordinary, fruitive activities. Those who are not disgusted with material life, having many desires yet to fulfill, should seek perfection through the path of karma-yoga.

 

SB 11.20.8: If somehow or other by good fortune one develops faith in hearing and chanting My glories, such a person, being neither very disgusted with nor attached to material life, should achieve perfection through the path of loving devotion to Me.

 

 

 

Click on verse # for commentary by Srila Prabhupada's students and disiples

what would you give to have been a fly on the wall during that conversation???

I don't remember anywhere in shastra that such a description has been given.

 

The Supreme Personality is the origin of Brahma, Vishnu, Siva and all the other demigods and all other living entities.

 

All the gods and all the living entities come originally from the energy of the Supreme Personality if Godhead.

i'm not learned in these things so much, but can you explain - if Krsna is the source of Visnu and Visnu tattva is eternal woudn;t that mean that Visnu is bornless? Therefore how can Krsna be the origin of the Visnu-tattva forms?

...having typed that i just thought to myself, what the hell does it matter anyway???? LOVE LOVE LOVE.

Are the demigods of non Indian pantheons corrupted versions of the Vedic deities, or are they different sons of Brahma than the Vedas recorded?

You'll find there are many similarities with european and other asian dieties when compared to the Vedic ones - what probably happened was that the Vedic religion spread, but perhaps got a little skewed. So, for eg, relatively recently you see Helios (Greek God of Sun) who has very similar aspects to Surya Narayana (Vedic Sun God) and Zeus who has some similar aspects to Indra (e.g. the vajra weapon). Other than that, there are numerous examples of how the Vedic people came in contact with so-called Yakshas - these seem to be "local gods" - gods that the local people of the time were worshipping. These were not the same demigods as that of the Vedas.

It has to be black and white to make sense.

 

Otherwise this is similar to Christian fundamentalism. Statement: "there is nothing in the bible that contradicts science". How? Define everything in the bible as correct, everything in science that contradicts the bible as false and there is nothing in the bible contradicting science.

 

How to define everything in the bible as correct? Anything that can be explained is real and practical. Anything that cannot be explained in practical terms should be treated figuratively. The same approach appears to be taken with the bhagavatam on this thread. When it comes to the moon and history the bhagavatam should be interpreted literally. But when it comes to eclipses, it is not so. How do we know how to interpret?

 

We have already decided the bible or the bhagavatam is wholly correct. Then we proceed to explain all questions away with any type of logic that comes to mind at that moment.

 

If you say you do not fully understand the text by saying it is not black and white how then you do decide everything in the text is correct? What is the degree of confidence? You can take the essence and still admit there is a chance that some portions of the book may be wrong as you do not understand everything in it. as in the case of the rahu question or the distance to the moon. These topics have nothing to do with religion.

When a novelist writes his piece, there are bits that are factual and bits that are artistic so why is it so difficult to accept?

OK, so we have accepted that SB is 100% correct. Does that mean Vyas did no have the right to write allegorically?

Your q regarding how to know which bits are "wrong" and "right" - well that's why we need an expert to walk us thru it and even if there are bits that are wrong, or "nothing to do with religion" - what does it matter? Vyas does not waste words - it is there for a purpose, for which we might not ever understand - maybe someone somewhere at some point achieved some enlightenment just because of this word here or that word there - yes, Krsna CAN be that merciful.

my view is not to be the man that is over-awed by the delicate wooden chest when it is packed with nice shiny diamonds.

do you then agree that iskcon should not use the bhagavatam as a source to disagree with history like stpehen knapp and others do? because you say it is not meant to provide material facts like distance of the moon and lunar eclipses.

it's not as black or white as that - there may be some things that are allegorical and others that are indeed fact. But again, the essence as Theist pointed out is the important thing.

I think it is qute clear, at least in this case, what the scriptures are talking about. They talk of the head of Rahu being cut after he steals the nectar from the Devtas and so i dont think there could be any other meaning to this. As a child, this is what my grand parents used to tell me (about eclipses caused by Rahu's head).

 

I don't know. I think you are lucky that you have firm faith and that trivial things such as this does not shake your your faith at all.

When a great poet or playwrite like Shakespeare writes a sentence, we humans make so much of big deal about what the meaning is, what the metaphore is about, etc. etc.... so when GOD speaks the scriptures, how many layers of meaning are there? So it is quite possible that these things are not meant literally but have hidden meanings - thats why you need a spiritual master to guide you thru it.

Still not convinced? OK i've seen this Rahu story before but the thought that popped into my head was that if the people of the time (thousands of years ago?) were told by a learned Sage that there is a gigantic hunk of rock circling the Earth and that it gets in the way of an enormous ball of fire that continues to burn for billions of years - what do you think those people would have done? The story would have been so unbelievable! So the explanantion was for the time, place and circumstance. And yet there can still be hidden meanings.

And even you are still not convinced... like JNDas says, it's your sadhana that really counts here. For me, i don't care whther its allegorical, literal, old, young or written by little green men - the main thing is that one should develop Love and Devotion for God. Everything else will come naturally. So don't worry & don't doubt, Guestji, just keep smilin

Initially, I was curious to know its significance. But now I treat it quite normally thinking that it may be because of some physiochemical effects. It does not cause me any problem at all.

i hope you don't mind, but i work at a hospital so asked a doc about it and she said it would be very strange if this lasted for up to year (even tho to be sure she would have to see it for real) - so in my opinion it certainly wouldnt be a physiochemical effect because by now it would have changed. Anyway, if you think it is important then persue it. Otherwise just keep smilin

Hi again,

 

I have spoken to many learned scholars (Vedanta Acharayas) and different acharyas give different answers to the following question.

 

Is VIshnu (the preserver) in the trimurti Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva the same as VIshnu known also as Narayan. Some scholars say they are one and the same and others say they are different.

 

The ones who say they are NOT the same say that the VIshnu in the trimurti is a devta and is equal in status to Brahma and Shiva. Lord Vishnu, also known in the Vedas as Krsna, Narayan, is the causes of all causes, 'neti neti' as described by the Vedas.

 

The ones who say they are the same say that there is only one Vishnu, whos consort is Lakshmi and that Vishnu is the preserver in the trimurti, and that Brahma was born from the navel of this Vishnu.

 

Has anyone delved deep into the our Vedas, Shastras where this is clarified? My personal belief is the first one, i.e they are different.

 

Any comments?

Ragudas,

I haven't delved that deeply into scripture but I know the answers to these questions can be found succintly in the Srimad Bhagvatham. Prabhupada's commentries explain these things - perhaps someone can direct you to the right verses here? As far as i know, all forms of Visnu are Visnu-tattva, which means they are not on the same level as Brahma - they are eternal.

Different people have different opinions, even with the same translations of the verses. I am also confused with this stuff but i've put it to rest for now - just gonna try to develope love first, understanding of intracacies later.

you're right about the doubts some people might express if you post a pic... i understand... but boy am i curious !!!

good luck to you, Avinash... i hope you find someone who can explain its significance (perhaps yourself?)

Hi,

I was the one who posted this link. Please add http: as it would not allow me to post a link.

 

And as for GAEA please read the link and dont jump to conclusions. Why did Krishna allow the disgraceful statue in the first place? As though the love of the Vaishnavas visiting the temple is not enough though and the devotion of Ramanuja is not enough thoug.

 

I think god has to listen to his devotees. If he does not come to the aid of his devotees in the times of distress who will?

I don't see anything in that article that discredits my previous comment. In fact it only reinforces it.

that's a superficially very simple question to answer but in actuality is very difficult there are so many layers to this that i can think of, none of which matter really coz Love is the key, but anyway i suppose we should make a start somewhere......

means that Krsna is Bhagavan:

Supreme: no one is above Him

Personality: He is a personal being - i.e. He has form and name.

why is krishna silent still?

very easy to blame God in times of distress... the fact is that it is He who is CONSTANTLY there waiting for us to listen to Him and see Him and love Him. We just refuse to do it tho...

funny tho - i wonder if the people of the time accepted Him as an incarnation? If He was here right now in today's world He would definately be outcast be the general public, press and modern clergy of all faiths just as Christ was... and then suddenly in retrospect we repent for not having seen the truth. Anyway, that's off the point of thread - just stray thoughts. Thanks for the verse

You guys are taking it too far. The Lord is the substratum of the universe, so going by that logic, He is present in everything. But that doesn't mean He is everything. A bug is a bug is a bug, utterly distinct from Lord Vishnu.

 

The body of the bug is jada vastu and the entity occupying it is a jiva, both of them distinct from the Lord. So why feel guilty about squashing a bug?

i hear you on the philosophical issue, but regardless of that it is the good naturedness of the devotee here that stops him/her - compassion and ahimsa are lovely things.

We don't have mosquitoes in USA. my problem is 'german cockroaches'.

 

They invaded my house last spring, I didn't have problem with them before.

 

But now, things are different. Its a contradiction if I kill roaches when I claim my house is God's house.

I don't see 'Paramatma' in them, they are disgusting to me.

-BUT-

the house is not mine, Yes?

it's a difficult decision for the spiritually inclined. But practicality has to win... do the cockroaches pose a health threat to you? most of the time they do so the answer to me is grim but necessary...

fasting in general is just giving something up - it is usually grains but various belief systems have different variations.

Yes, you're missing BG 17.2. Swabhava has been discussed there. In BG, it's wise to read and connect every chapter, rather than focus exclusively on one verse.

 

I'm trying. BG 17.2:

The Supreme Lord said, according to the modes of nature acquired by the embodied soul, one's faith can be of three kinds--goodness, passion or ignorance. Now hear about these.

Hence the guna is ACQUIRED - not part of the soul. Of course the soul is eternal - if it aquires something it means that it got it at some point in time. Therefore it is not eternal, i.e. part of the material creation.

Not if you have some knowledge of sanskrit. mudha janmani janmani means fools birth after birth. tato means afterwards. You cannot 'easily' say krishna means this or that without understanding what each sanskrit word means. My argument is based on the sanskrit word as it is, whereas your arguments don't take into account the meaning of these words at all.

 

I think they do but hey, you know more sanskrit than me. Just bacause tato means afterwards, taking the sentence as a whole along with Prabhupada's commentary i cannot see how one can conclude that a soul is eternally damned to hell or eternall tagged with a guna. Surely if this was the case, Krsna would have said so explcitly? Actually I can apply your advice of connecting the chapters of BG up see: BG 14,5:Material nature consists of the three modes--goodness, passion and ignorance. When the living entity comes in contact with nature, he becomes conditioned by these modes. And so, by simple logic, when he is outside of nature he is not conditioned by the gunas.

If you know the difference between swarupamsa and bhinnamsa, then you'll understand this better. If you can't, that's hardly my problem.

 

No i don't know what the words mean - but there's no need to have an attitude about it. I think you will find you have made it your problem by arguing your point on this thread - that's the whole point of the forum. So please, enlighten me.

We are not talking gunas but swabhava, which is the SOUL itself. They are not distinct. It's like mango and mangoness.

And you get this from the one or two verses you pointed out? I don't buy it yet. Convince me. When has swabhava been equated to the quality of the soul?

This is an effect, and the cause is swabhava, which is different for every jiva, or we'll be thinking, acting in the exact same manner. Swabhava doesn't change, ever. If it does, it's tantamount to saying the soul is changing, which contradicts the Lord's statement that the soul is anadi nitya.

 

Again i have to say - prove it. Krsna is not saying anything about swabhava here so i cannot accept your argument readily - apologies, i may be missing something.

The placing of the asuras, the demons, in the lowest status of life is simply another feature of His mercy.***

 

Etc. etc. All this is sentimental stuff with little meaning. Asuras are asuras by nature, and NOT due to actions. Asuric actions follow asuric nature, or asuric actions will have no base to exist at all. And the Lord punishes such asuras birth after birth, finally sending them to andha tamas.

 

That's why in BG 16.18, we find "tato yAnty adhamAm gatim." tato, meaning afterwards, which is extremely significant, because it refers to the state AFTER "mudha janmani janmani" (fools birth after birth). So it's got to be permanent, NOT temporary. Or, the word 'tato' would be superfluous.

Firstly, we cannot deride Prabhupada's commentary as just sentimental - even though I have not accepted Him or His mission personally I have to say that He has not ever wasted a single word in these commentaries. We have to take each word seriously.

Secondly, your argument of tato is weak - I can just as easily say that Krsna is talking about persons who, birth after birth, do not accept Him - that does not mean eternity - it means a long time (birth after birth). Where is there any concept of eternal hell or Tamasic souls? Again, there are many verses we can point to say that the soul is part and parcel of Krsna - so are parts of Krsna Tamasic also (even though He says He is absolutely beyond the Gunas, which are part of NATURE)

And that is another point - the Gunas are translated as modes of material nature - how then does this extend to the soul, which is beyond material creation?

Please check BG 16.20 "Asuriim yOnim...."

 

The Lord clearly states that some souls are demonic, and they'll forever take birth amongst lower species for the purpose of sadhana. Once the sadhana is over, they will reach what He calls "adhamAm gatim", LOWEST DESTINATION.

 

There is no question of Vaikuntha for demonic souls, because it's their very swabhava to be haters of Lord, His devotees, and Dharma. Swabhava determines sadhana and sadhana determines your eventual destination.

Attaining repeated birth amongst the species of demoniac life, such persons can never approach Me. Gradually they sink down to the most abominable type of existence.

That just means that so long as a person revels in demoniac activity he/she can never reach Godhead and they continue to shrink down. That does not mean eternal hell, as Prabhpada alludes to in his purport for this verse:

The placing of the asuras, the demons, in the lowest status of life is simply another feature of His mercy. Sometimes the asuras are killed by the Supreme Lord, but this killing is also good for them, for in Vedic literature we find that anyone who is killed by the Supreme Lord becomes liberated. There are instances in history of many asuras--Ravana, Kamsa, Hiranyakasipu--to whom the Lord appeared in various incarnations just to kill them. Therefore God's mercy is shown to the asuras if they are fortunate enough to be killed by Him.

There is evolution of the soul but only laterally. The Sattvic become more satvvic with every birth.The Rajasic become more Rajasic and the Tamasic become more Tamasic. This is thr truth as stated in the Vedas.

 

I don't want to contradict you without knowing all the facts so i'm gonna ask... prove it. Where in the Vedas or in the writings of learned souls has this been confirmed?

Hindus have come to believe that they will be saved (given Moksha) simply by doing Japas etc. They have lost fear of bad karma.

Hindus, or i think you're more specifically talking about Vaishanavas believe they will be saved by loving God and having faith. I truly hope they don't think its simply 16 rounds a day. Also, losing fear of bad karma is a good thing but only if you're placing it all at the feet of God. Basically the lesson is this: Love God with all your heart and soul. Do your duty and leave the result to Him. If Prabhupada has managed to teach this to at least one person, be he in the west or india, then some civislisation has been brought to the world.

Demons are souls filled with Tamasa.

i thought the three modes of material nature cannot touch the soul. and i thought there was no such thing as an eternal hell?? what happened to everyone coming back to Krsna?

My point is that Vaikuntha is the sole province of Krsna and Vaisnava's to engage in their variegated loving pastimes. When I say Vaisnava I do not refer to someone with vaisnava garb on his body, who considers himself part of a religion called vaisnavism etc. I mean the fully self realized soul established in his eternal dharma in relationship to Krsna as His loving servant and friend.....

From this angle we can see the dormany Vaisnavism arising within people as they practice their various religious duties. I see it awakening within the sincere Muslim as he/she bows in prayer 5 times a day. Or in the Christian who prays and lifts his eyes to God while praising the Lord and petitons the Lord to clean his heart so he might love the Lord in Spirit and in Truth as they say. I am not meaning to sound sectarian when I say only Vaisnavas in Vaikuntha.

That is actually a lovely way of seeing it - thank you.

The whole point of the Spiritual Sky is whole hearted love for the Supreme Lord. So how can anyone be expected to attain a place anywhere in Vaikuntha (the Spiritual Sky) if they don't even believe in the personal existence of the Supreme Lord in the first place, like the Buddhists and Advaitins?

 

it's true that bhakti is the end-goal. But i think the operative words in the previous post was "finally reach" - meaning even if one is an atheist, Advaitin etc. that person will just move up the rung of the ladder until eventually he/she gets there from a future life of bhakti. These labels are just labels of the body in my opinion - in one body you may well be an Advaitin, in the next a Vaishnava. What really counts isn;t the nitty gritty of your beleif system but your Love for God.