Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

shiva

Members
  • Content Count

    208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by shiva

  1. Using Chaos Theory to describe Brahman doesn't work because Chaos Theory is based upon determinism and physical or material or illusory causality, whereas Brahman is not subject to determinism or physical or material causality due to it's being the primeval underlying causal agent of all causes aka the cause of all causes, and possessing absolute and total free will Brahman is not subject to determinism. Chaos theory can possibly have some similarities to the relationship between a jiva and Brahman, but not in the usual understanding of Chaos Theory where actions and reactions do not have an omniscient omnipresent omnipotent controlling agent overseeing and controlling everything in existence.
  2. That article is not saying that those chilis are native to Assam, just that they "originate" there. No chili is native to India, chilis are cultivated and bred in India and Assam, those are a new subspecies of chili cultivated from breeding different types of chilis, therefore they can be said to "originate" in Assam. Chilis were brought to India in the early 16th century by Portuguese traders, they quickly became popular all over India. Potatoes, tomatoes, and some other vegies were also imported from the Americas and quickly became popular in India.
  3. Garlic and onions are not imported from the west. Garlic and onions are said to increase rajas, passion, because of pungency, and therefore they are considered to be bad for people seeking to practice celibacy. They also cause bad body odor. But they are very valuable medicinally, especially garlic, which can kill practically any virus or bacteria and has a host of other medicinal benefits and is spoken of highly in traditional ayurvedic writings. For devotees in India who tend to get sick from bacteria and viruses, they could avoid getting sick or quickly cure their infections and sickness by taking garlic. See http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/medizin_gesundheit/bericht-24405.html What is ironic is that garlic and onions are considered rajasic because of their pungency, and therefore excluded from strictly sattvic diets among some followers of Vedic paths, but chilis are commonly eaten in large quantities by the same people, and they are much more pungent and rajasic than onions or garlic. People get very passionate after eating food with a lot of chili pepper, much more so than garlic or onions. The reason chili peppers are allowed is because there is nothing in any sastra about chilis, why? Because chilis were imported into India from the Americas. There were no chilis in Indian cuisine prior to the discovery of America by Colombus. See http://www.chillies-down-under.com/chilli-history-world.html
  4. Andy, Gaudiya teachings do disagree with Madhva's teachings on some aspects of siddhanta that have nothing to do with rasa, e.g. Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 6.19.13 In his commentary on Jiva Goswamis Tattva-sandarbha, Baladeva Vidyabhusana, has pointed out four differences with the followers of Madhvacarya: bhaktanam virpanam eva moksah, devah bhaktesu mukhyah, virincasyaiva sayujyam, laksmya jiva-kotitvam ity evam mata-visesah daksinadi-deseti tena gaude 'pi madhavendradayas tad upasisyah katacid bahuvur ity arthah Baladeva Vidyabhusana has found these teachings to be unacceptable to Gaudiya Vaishnavas: Only a brahmana is eligible for liberation, the demigods are the foremost devotees, Lord Brahma attains sayujya-mukti, and Lakshmi Devi is a jiva. Nevertheless Madhavendra Puri and some others in Bengal were initiated into Madhvacarya's line. There are also other differences with the Tattvavadis, e.g. they teach that there are different types of jivas some of which are inherently evil and are damned for eternity. They teach a strict dualism between jiva and Vishnu, and between Vishnu and maya-shakti. And there are some other minor differences having to do with bhava and rasa. Look, don't waste your time anymore with these simpletons, they are clearly offensive in mood and mission and are obviously going to reject any rational or spiritual truth, be it from shastra or from sadhu. They even reject what leaders of the Madhva sampradaya have said on these issues: And here is some more stuff: http://gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/Madhvacarya-Gaudiya.html But, lets face it, these guys have heard it all before and they simply don't care because they are not in the business of sadhu sanga here, they are in the business of Jagai and Madhai, i.e. being envious rascals. So, best to ignore them.
  5. Raghu I will only answer one of your questions since you clearly are a mudha and a sudra, not a brahmana as you probably think, and are therefore only interested in promoting yourself as some type of enlightened seer by insulting a widely respected Vaishnava tradition as beneath your insignificant life, and you are also clearly incapable of rational or spiritual understanding. Speaking to you is clearly a waste of time, people should ignore you from now on. Don't quit your day job... In Jaipur some members of the Sri Sampradaya tried to gain the royal patronage for themselves because the King of Jaipur was a Gaudiya Vaishnava, and Gaudiya Vaishnavas were specially favored by him.The Sri Vaishnavas were envious and wanted the Gaudiya Vaishnavas to be given the boot so that they could gain royal patronage, hardly an ethical motivation for questioning the authenticity of the Gaudiya parampara. They claimed that because the Gaudiya's didn't have a commentary to the Brahma Sutra that they shouldn't be accepted as authentic. Baladeva Vidyabhusana informed them that the Gaudiya's accepted the Bhagavat Purana as the natural commentary on the Brahma Sutra. The Sri Vaishnavas did not accept, so Baladeva composed the Govinda Bhasya.pdf as a Gaudiya commentary on the Brahma Sutra. The Sri Vaishnavas were astounded (Baladeva was a former leading scholar and teacher in the Madhva sampradaya before becoming a follower of Sri Chaitanya) and the Gaudiyas kept their royal patronage. Clearly you could care less and are only interested in trying to establish yourself as superior to all Gaudiya Vaishnavas in history.
  6. Well, clearly you are a sudra...and a mudha. The Mahabharata quotes are from the famous Ganguli translation and I give the chapter number of each quote, you can check them here http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/maha/index.htm Of course since these quotes demolish your bogus philosophy, since you are a mudha all you can do is claim they are bogus, instead of accepting the obvious truth of your ideas being so.
  7. http://vedabase.net/sb/1/4/en1 http://vedabase.net/sb/1/5/en1 People usually acted within their varna, but social mobility was possible if people were qualified, i.e. if you were born into a brahmana family but had all of the qualities of a different varna and not the qualities of a brahmana then you could live according to your nature instead of your birth situation. See Who is a brahmana? It isn't wrong. Gaudiya Vaishnava doctrine is different then Tattvavadi doctrine, no one claims they are the same. There is a connection through diksha between Sri Chaitanya and the Brahma Sampradaya. This was established hundreds of years ago because some people were questioning the authenticity of the new Gaudiya parampara. They claimed that there are only 4 bona fide Vaishnava sampradayas, citing the Padma Purana, and therefore they claimed that if your guru parampara isn't directly connected through diksha to one of those 4 sampradayas (Lakshmi Sampradaya, Rudra Samprdaya, Kumara Sampradaya, Brahma Sampradaya) that your mantras etc, aren't empowered and therefore your tradition cannot be accepted as an authentic Vedic tradition. Various famous Gaudiya acharyas from hundreds of years ago showed that there was a diksha connection between Sri Chaitanya and the Brahma Sampradaya. Whether or not you accept that is up to you. It is a fact that the claim for a diksha connection was established very shortly after Sri Chaitanya's lila ended and was widely accepted at that time. So it seems likely that the connection was real because there was no objection from the Madhva community back then. It's really impossible to prove it one way or another because what few records do exist of diksha connections from that long ago from all the sampadayas are sketchy at best. Different lists giving different names is common to all traditions, and incomplete or non-existent lists would only be natural because bookeeping and disciple databases were definitely not seen as a priority by wandering sadhus. It's not about claiming descent based upon strict adherence to any particular guru's teaching in the parampara. It's about a supposed requirement that there be a diksha connection in order that your mantras will be effective. It could easily be argued that Madhva's teachings are different in some ways from what is taught by Vyasa. Where does Vyasa teach about concepts like mukty-ayogya or Tamo-yogya or Dvaita doctrine? The followers of Madhva are the only Vaishnavas who reject some type of bhedabheda doctrine as being the true ontological nature of the jiva and Vishnu. Yet all sampradayas claim to be teaching the real interpretation of Krishna's teachings and Vyasadeva's writings. See above. That's a really bad argument. I am sure we can find Indian jails filled with criminals of all types from all varnas, does that mean that all people from all varnas are nothing but criminals? Your use of ISKCON's foibles as an example of how bogus Gaudiya Vaishnavism is in general is a logical fallacy (genetic fallacy). It's not a question of "assigning" varnas being propagated by Gaudiya teachings, that is a weird concept you have come up with. Some Gaudiya paramparas give upanayana-samskara (sacred thread) with Gayatri mantras when they give mantra diksha to a disciple. Traditionally in Hindu society that is done by all varnas except sudras, not that they are not allowed, it's just that they weren't required. Gaudiya Vaishnavism doesn't accept the bogus teaching that only someone born into a Vedic varna is eligible to go through pancha-samskaras or other samskaras and be able to act as a brahmana priest in yagnas and in pujas. We accept the authentic teachings of shastra that teaches that people are eligible based only upon their personal qualities, not their birth situation. That is why Gaudiya Vaishnavas reject many family lineage gurus in India as being authentic gurus, it's because they have those positions based solely through birth and can be any type of low class person. I don't know what he is talking about, but clearly there is a lot of caste discrimination in India which is based upon bogus interpretations of shastra to validate their mistreatment and abuse and exploitation of others.
  8. Mahabharata - Vana Parva:Markandeya-Samasya Parva Mahabharata - Vana Parva:Markandeya-Samasya Parva Mahabharata - Santi-Parva: Mokshadharma Parva Srimad Bhagavatam 7.11.35
  9. Vajrasuchika Upanishad Chandogya Upanishad Mahabharata - Vana Parva:Tirtha-yatra Parva Mahabharata - Anusasana Parva:Anusasanika Parva Mahabharata - Santi-Parva: Mokshadharma Parva
  10. Anyways, Kshama, you are a hopeless case. You only want to get worshiped at any cost, no matter who or what gets in your way. I'm done with you. Debating you is like arguing with a 4 year old boy who will just start screaming if he doesn't get his way. What is the point? I've said all I care to say on these topics. I know you are incapable of understanding any of it because you think whatever you believe must be the 'truth' because you believe you are inherently superior to everyone. Therefore no new information is capable of being understood by you if it conflicts with what you believe to be 'truth'. How sad to live like that.
  11. No one can be both Vishnu and a jiva, that purport is obviously miswritten by editors, and obviously misunderstood by you. Vishnu means all pervading Godhead, a person cannot be the all pervading Godhead and not all pervading at the same time. You are either everywhere or you're not. This is what is written (however wrongly): "Lord Śiva is therefore simultaneously an expansion of Lord Viṣṇu and, in his capacity for annihilating the creation, one of the living entities." A jiva as Shiva, or Vishnu as Shiva, or me and you, all living entities, we are all expansions of Vishnu. That doesn't mean we are all the same type of being, that doesn't mean that I am Vishnu and a jiva, anymore than Shiva is Vishnu and a jiva. I don't smoke ganja, but your pathetic poseur attitude has know degenerated into ad hominem lies.
  12. Narayana Maharaja says some wacky things in that lecture, as he usually does, e.g. he and Prabhupada are omniscient. Or when he said this: That is his own invention, this is what is seen in Caitanya Caritamrta: In the lecture you link to he claims that Baladeva can be bewildered by Krishna. Baladeva is Krishna, he's not a different person than Krishna, so how can he be bewildered by Krishna? It's just nonsense. In Lila Baladeva may act bewildered because he is playing the role of a jiva, but it is foolish to consider that he is actually bewildered by Krishna since they are one and the same person: Caitanya Caritamrta Adi 5.4 What he spoke about Shiva though is really no different than what I said, except he uses concepts like "fractional parts", which make no sense to an average person or even 99.999% of devotees because they don't really understand what that terminology means when it comes to Shiva because they usually don't understand the purpose and ontology of Shiva-tattva. He does state that one type of Shiva is jiva-tattva: And he rightly states that the other Shiva is Vishnu-tattva: "Separated part" and "fractional part" or vibhinamsa - means jiva, whereas "plenary portion" means God. Kshama on the other hand doesn't seem to think or appears to want to argue that there is no difference between those two types of Shiva. He doesn't understand that all jivas are amsas or fractional parts or separated expansions of Vishnu, but that doesn't mean that we are Vishnu anymore than when it is said that Shiva is a separated fractional part of Sadashiva (who is Vishnu) that they are of the same nature. In both cases there is jiva-tattva and Vishnu-tattva. Two distinct beings. So, Kshama, maybe you should read carefully what you think backs up your speculations before citing them.
  13. You obviously don't know what you are talking about, you're just using terms and concepts that you can read and repeat but don't understand, just like your bogus tatastha theories. In both cases you reject and ignore what past acharyas have said in favor of your own useless speculations. Now all of a sudden Narayana Maharaja's opinion is first class to you after rejecting Jiva Goswami and Visvanath because "they aren't Prabhupada?". How pathetic, you will say anything to win an argument, since that is your only purpose in arguing. One Shiva is a jiva, the other isn't. The End. If you don't see any diference between them, what can be done for that craziness? You use terms and concepts you don't understand and come up with a philosophy where a jiva as Shiva is the same as Vishnu as Shiva -- total madness. It's the same as when you claimed that jivas can lose their tatastha-sakti nature and become cit-sakti personal expansions of Radha. Insanity. You should stick to what you know from experience instead of speculating about things you have no clue about as if you are THE acharya.
  14. You are going to fight to the bitter end? One Shiva is usually a jiva who fills a role, like the jivas who fill the role as Brahma, the other Shiva is Vishnu Tattva, i.e. Sadashiva, i.e. God. That is what they say, that is what is taught. That is the difference between the two Shivas. If there is no qualified jiva to fill the role of Shiva or Brahma or Indra, then Vishnu fills that role. That is what is taught. If you think there is no difference between a jiva in a role as Shiva and God, well...
  15. I thought everyone knew? I don't know why he creates new accounts, what happened to guruvani?
  16. You now reject Jiva Goswmi and Visvanath Chakravarti Thakura as beneath you because you simply cannot accept that you may be wrong? For some reason you have come back here and started up with your worn out tatastha arguments all over again, and now make the weakest of all copouts with your "If Prabhupada didn't say it, it isn't Gaudiya theology?" Kshama. You've. Officially. Jumped. The. Shark.
  17. I quoted Jiva Goswami and Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura, both quotes are about there being two different Shivas. But you would know that if you would read what you comment on before commenting. Look Kshama, I don't know what has gotten into you where you all of a sudden reject common sense and make wild accusations based solely upon your sense of superiority to everyone. Check yo self before you rickety wreck yo self holmes.
  18. So, you just copy a bunch of stuff you didn't read from a website ( http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/siva.htm ) to make some point? Which is? Can't you ever just admit any mistake?
  19. There are two different Shivas. There is Sadashiva who is Vishnu Tattva and therefore non-different from Krishna, an example is Advaita Acharya being called an incarnation of Sadashiva. The other Shiva is the demigod Shiva who is different than Vishnu or Krishna. That is the Shiva who is married to Parvati and who was bewildered by the Mohini incarnation of Vishnu. That Shiva is a position which is usually held by a jiva (like Brahma), with a different demigod Shiva (and Brahma) in every Brahmanda. When there is no qualified jiva to fill those roles then Vishnu fills those roles. This is explained here by Sri Visvanath Cakravarti Thakur in his Sri Bhagavatamrita Kanika: Jiva goswami explains the difference between the demigod Shiva and Sadashiva in his Paramatma Sandarbha -- Anuccheda 17
  20. You may want to get some reading glasses: Debating you is pointless. That's why I stopped participating here, so many people whose only goal is to "win" arguments instead of being honest, makes this forum a place of endless nonsensical arguments and offensiveness.
  21. Dr. Frank was a member of ISKCON and then took diksa from Sridhar Maharaja according to this article he wrote for VNN at http://www.vnn.org/world/9808/04-1961/ He also claimed to be a Sri Vaishnava on this website of his http://www.hinduweb.org/home/dharma_and_philosophy/dharma/main.htm and http://www.hinduweb.org/home/dharma_and_philosophy/vvh/vvh.htm This is a funny bit from his myspace page http://www.myspace.com/DharmaPravartaka I don't get it, maybe it's just me, but, how is teevee any different than movies, especially since most all movies end up on teevee eventually (especially on pay channels) I mean really, how is Dracula or 300 or Deep Impact more in line with the "Truth", than whats on teevee? I think you find a lot of good stuff on teevee these days, especially better than what you find in movies when it comes to comedies.
  22. In the above quote from Bhaktivinoda quoting Jiva Goswami where he states that the eternal jiva associates of the lord are still tatastha. Maybe you should read what someone writes before responding to it. You do know that marginal is an English translation for tatastha, that marginal means: on the margin or border between two things? This topic has been gone through more than enough, for some reason some people reject what the acharyas have said on this topic and yet claim they are not rejecting what they say. I think some people need to move on and let it go...
  23. From Mahaprabhura Siksa: The Teachings of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu by Bhaktivinoda Thakura: From Bhaktivinoda’s Jaiva Dharma CC Ādi 4.81:
×
×
  • Create New...