shiva
-
Content Count
208 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by shiva
-
-
No, actually the hottest chili in the world is native to India.check out the story:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071026162420.htm
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.
-
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
-
-
Prove it.Here are the core reasons why Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami claimed succession from Sri Madhva's expansive additions to Sri Brahma's sampradaya.
He claimed to follow in the footsteps of Sri Madhvacarya in the following manner. from Purport to SB 1.4: The Appearance of Sri Narada : SB 1.4.17, SB 1.4.18, SB 1.4.17-18
<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Quote:
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> The greatest philanthropists are those transcendentalists who represent the mission of Vyāsa, Nārada, Madhva, Caitanya, Rūpa, Sarasvatī, etc. They are all one and the same. The personalities may be different, but the aim of the mission is one and the same, namely, to deliver the fallen souls back home, back to Godhead. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->
And he did not "disagree" with his teachings.
As each Acarya is wont to do when a particular audience is receptively prepared, he added a more confidential aspect from the treasurehouse of Love of God. Sri Madhvacarya promulgated personalism, but Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu expanded on this to enhance it and Srila Prabhupada followed in these footsteps.
Bhaktivinoda Thakur writes: “Madhavendra Puri was a well-known sannyasi of the Madhva-sampradaya. His grand-disciple was Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Prior to his appearance, there was no evidence of prema-bhakti in the Madhva line. In his verse, ayi dina-dayardra-natha (CC Madhya 4.197), the seed of the religious doctrines of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu can be found.” Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati similarly states,
“Madhavendra Puri was the first shoot of the desire tree of divine love that came out of the Madhva lineage. Prior to his appearance, there was no sign of the conjugal mood of devotion in the Madhva line.
This is not to say that Srila Madvhacaraya had no inkling of the deepest mysteries of Sri Sri Radha-Krsna's pastimes, yet the Lord did not inspire him to divulge these things directly due to the lack of need/desire in the hearts of the audience at that time.
This is similar by indirect analogy to the actions of Sankaracarya, considered and incarnation of Lord SaduSiva, and Buddha, another incarnation of the Lord, who respectively preached Impersonalism and return to Vedas, and Voidism and rejection of Vedas. Yet Sankaracarya is on record claiming that the impersonal brahman is sourced as Sri Krsna the Supreme ParaBrahman. Once, and in an obscure instance. And Buddha was in the same way doing triage upon an audience who was using the authority of the Vedas to aggrandize and degrade themselves and the world.
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
guṇa-vyaktir iyaḿ devīvyañjako guṇa-bhug bhavān
tvaḿ hi sarva-śarīry ātmā
śrīḥ śarīrendriyāśayāḥ
nāma-rūpe bhagavatī
pratyayas tvam apāśrayaḥ
SYNONYMS
guṇa-vyaktiḥ — the reservoir of qualities; iyam — this; devī — goddess; vyañjakaḥ — manifester; guṇa-bhuk — the enjoyer of the qualities; bhavān — You; tvam — You; hi — indeed; sarva-śarīrī ātmā — the Supersoul of all living entities; śrīḥ — the goddess of fortune; śarīra — the body; indriya — senses; āśayāḥ — and the mind; nāma — name; rūpe — and form; bhagavatī — Lakṣmī; pratyayaḥ — the cause of manifestation; tvam — You; apāśrayaḥ — the support.
TRANSLATION
Mother Lakṣmī, who is here, is the reservoir of all spiritual qualities, whereas You manifest and enjoy all these qualities. Indeed, You are actually the enjoyer of everything. You live as the Supersoul of all living entities, aid the goddess of fortune is the form of their bodies, senses and minds. She also has a holy name and form, whereas You are the support of all such names and forms and the cause for their manifestation.
PURPORT
Madhvācārya, the ācārya of the Tattvavādīs, has described this verse in the following way: “Viṣṇu is described as yajña personified, and mother Lakṣmī is described as spiritual activities and the original form of worship. In fact, they represent spiritual activities and the Supersoul of all yajña. Lord Viṣṇu is the Supersoul even of Lakṣmīdevī, but no one can be the Supersoul of Lord Viṣṇu, for Lord Viṣṇu Himself is the spiritual Supersoul of everyone.”
According to Madhvācārya, there are two tattvas, or factors. One is independent, and the other is dependent. The first tattva is the Supreme Lord, Viṣṇu, and the second is the jīva-tattva. Lakṣmīdevī, being dependent on Lord Viṣṇu, is sometimes counted among the jīvas. The Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, however, describe Lakṣmīdevī in accordance with the following two verses from the Prameya-ratnāvalī of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. The first verse is a quotation from the Viṣṇu Purāṇa.
nityaiva sā jagan-mātā
viṣṇoḥ śrīr anapāyinī
yathā sarva-gato viṣṇus
tathaiveyaḿ dvijottama
viṣṇoḥ syuḥ śaktayas tisras
tāsu yā kīrtitā parā
saiva śrīs tad-abhinneti
prāha śiṣyān prabhur mahān
“O best of the brāhmaṇas, Lakṣmījī is the constant companion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Viṣṇu, and therefore she is called anapāyinī. She is the mother of all creation. As Lord Viṣṇu is all-pervading, His spiritual potency, mother Lakṣmī, is also all-pervading.”
“Lord Viṣṇu has three principal potencies — internal, external and marginal. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu has accepted parā-śakti, the spiritual energy of the Lord, as being identical with the Lord. Thus she is also included in the independent viṣṇu-tattva.”
In the Kānti-mālā commentary on the Prameya-ratnāvalī there is this statement:
nanu kvacit nitya-mukta jīvatvaḿ lakṣmyāḥ svīkṛtaḿ, tatrāha — prāheti. nityaiveti padye sarva-vyāpti-kathanena kalākāṣṭhety ādi-padya-dvaye, śuddho ‘pīty uktā ca mahāprabhunā svaśiṣyān prati lakṣmyā bhagavad-advaitam upadiṣṭam. kvacid yat tasyās tu dvaitam uktaḿ, tat tu tad-āviṣṭa-nitya-mukta jīvam ādāya sańgatamas tu.
“Although some authoritative Vaiṣṇava disciplic successions count the goddess of fortune among the ever-liberated living entities (jīvas) in Vaikuṇṭha, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, in accordance with the statement in the Viṣṇu Purāṇa, has described Lakṣmī as being identical with the viṣṇu-tattva. The correct conclusion is that the descriptions of Lakṣmī as being different from Viṣṇu are stated when an eternally liberated living entity is imbued with the quality of Lakṣmī; they do not pertain to mother Lakṣmī, the eternal consort of Lord Viṣṇu.”
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:
We are rather perturbed to come across an article said to contain a statemant issued by Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha about Madhwa and Gaudiya Sampradayas.We have been emphasizing time and again that even though there are certain difference in a few aspects of the two Sampradayas, there are many more common grounds and Gaudiya Sampradaya is a part of Madhwa Sampradaya. We have great regard for Prabhupada who has spread Vaisnava Bhakti Siddhanta throughout the world.
We have been admiring him on various occasions also. We are pained to find that the article denigrates Prabhupada and is against our opinion and philosophy.
The whole issue will be reviewed and in our capacity as the chancellor of Poornaprajna Vidyapeeta, a message will be shortly published to strengthen the mutual harmonious relationship between the Sampradayas.
Sri Sri Vishwesa Tirtha Swamiji
Sri H. H. Sri Vidyadisa Tirtha SwamijiCar Street, Udupi
Sri Prabhupada has accepted Sri Madhwacharya as his "Acarya."
He has put manure and water to the seed sowed by Sri Madhwacharya. Sri Prabhupada is responsible for the spread of the branches of the tree of "Bhakti cult" all over India. It is the duty of all Madhwas to recognize the sadhana of Vaishnavite Sri Prabhupada.
It is true that there is a difference between "Chaitanya school" and "Madhwa school." In spite of the difference between the two schools of thought, one has to look into the similar thoughts that exist between the two. Therefore, the followers of these two cults should never blame each other nor envy each other.
One should not use bad words on the other. One should respect the other and vice-versa. All Madhwas should unite themselves.
Sri H. H. Sri Vidyadisa Tirtha Swamiji
Sri Shiroor Mutt, Udupi
Jadadguru Sri Sri Madhwacharya Peethan
Udupi, South Candra
Friend of our Samsthanam Poojya
Sri Narasingha Swamy Sri Narasingha Chaitanya Mutt,
Sri Rangapatna, Mysore
Ref: Re: Mispropoganda in www.Dvaita.org between "Sri Madhwacharya and Chaitanya Pantha."
Sri Chaitanya Sampradaya is a branch of Madhwa philosophy. there are historic proofs to substantiate this fact. The sadhana achieved by Sri A. C. Prabhupada, Acharya of "Chaitanya Sampradaya" is to be welcomed by all Vaishnavites. It is due to him people all over the world have learned about Lord Krishna. This work should have been accomplished by Madhwa followers. But Prabhupada has served the world in propagating this cult. Even in the western world he has attracted a large number of devotees of Lord Krishna, through his discourse on "Bhagavat Geeta." The book on "Bhagavat Geeta" of Sri Prabhupada is allowed to be sold in front of Krishna Mandira at Udupi. This fact is known to all eight mutts of Udupi. As well as all devotees of Udupi Kshetra.
Therefore, the blame cast on Sri Prabhupada is to be deemed as the blame on Sri Hari, Vayu and Guru. This type of behavior is not to be found in a brahmin. As such, it is a bad affair to note that a Vaishnava has exhibited such a behavior. Such contradictory statements do create split in the Vaishnava Society and do not promote any good on the Society.
Therefore we oppose the points relayed through the website.
Sri Laksmivara Tirtha Swami
Sri Vidyavallaba Tirtha SwamijiSri Kaniyoor Mutt
Car Street, Udupi 576101
Some argue that there is no relationship between "Chaitanya prabhu parampara" and "Sri Madhwacharya parampara." We wish to put forth our opinion on the matter.
According to our views, Sri Chaitanya prabhu having embraced "virakti," approached Sri Vysatheertha, who belongs to the Madhwacharya's traditional Vyasaraya Mutt. Sri Vyasatheertha graced him offering "deeksha" to him and commanded him to spread the philosophic ideals fo Sri Madhwacharya.
As a result of his propaganda, Mutts with "Gaudiya Tradition" emerged and this is an historic event. While glancing through the aforesaid historic event, it is evident that there exists a deep relationship between "Chaitanya parampara" and "Madhwa parampara."
Therefore it is necessary that no one should wound the feelings of Chaitanya Prabhupada, making comments on him.
We humbly appeal to one and all to encourage the philosophic ideals of Sri Chaitanya Prabhupada and see this propaganda grows further without obstacles.
Sri Vidyavallaba Tirtha Swamiji
Sri Sri Vidyaprasanna Tirtha SwamijiSubramanya Matha
Subramanya 574238
Philosophic world is very broad and wide. Each philosopher has toiled to seek the truth. The aim of all philosophers is to see that man is relieved of his temporary material happiness and attain the permanent eternal happiness. Acharyas and Mutts have strived hard to see that man is relieved of his bondage in this world.
Among the Acharyas, the famous Sri Madhwacharya has preached "Dvaita" philosophy for the world. Some other philosophers have accepted ideals that are very close to Madhwa philosophy.
Though there are minor differences among the two schools, deep study of these two schools show there are similiar ideals. People in these days are eager to grow in the field of philosophy, and should not try to develop misconception among people. It is not correct for Madhwa followers to envy "Prabhupada" followers. Many facts that are in tune with Madhwa philosophy, are hidden in the works of Sri Prabhupada.
Therefore it is our desire to see that misconception among people in this regard is not created.
Sri Sri Vidyaprasanna Tirtha Swamiji
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.
-
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.
-
Several quick points:1) The vajra-sucika upanishad is probably not a true Upanishad. It is thought by many to be a later smriti text that got passed off as an Upanishad. For something to be an Upanishad it should be passed down in the oral tradition and accepted across different Vedanta traditions as such.
2) The Chandogya Upanishad only states that Satyakama was accepted for initiation because of his truth-telling. It does not say that Satyakama was born a non-brahmin; on the contrary, it indicates that Satyakama did not know his father nor his lineage. If it were clearly indicated that Satyakama was a non-brahmin by birth, then and only then does this prove your point.
3) The multiple references alleged to be from the Mahabharata are provided without specific verse numbers and without Sanskrit. This makes them difficult to cross reference, which I suppose was intentional. However, one specific reference caught my eye:
This indicates that iskcon "brahmins" are not brahmanas because they do not study the Vedas. If you are going to take these English translations alleged to be from the Mahabharata as evidence, then you must be prepared to accept them even when they say things that you do not like.
4) The reference you provided from the Bhagavata says only that the individuals with the right qualities should be thought of or respected as a brahmana. It does NOT say that the person thus becomes a brahmana and then gets the duty of chanting the Vedas. This is a statement explaining the ideals of how a brahmana should behave, what he should do, etc. It does not give practical information saying who exactly gets designated as a brahmana. Ashvatthama was still regarded as a brahmana even though he did not have these qualities - the same Bhagavata says this in the first skandha. Again, this indicates that practically speaking people were regarded as belonging to the varna of their birth. Anyone can say that they have the qualities of a brahmana, and some people may recognize the qualities of a brahmana in a specific individual. But without some objective criterion that everyone in society can accept, it is meaningless to classify people merely according to qualities that one can only subjectively appreciate. Hence, birth is used by convention to determine varna, and people were raised within their varna to have the qualities as described here.
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.
-
Whether it is an iskcon invention or not, it is still incorrect.By the way, I am still waiting for answers to the following questions:
1) Scriptural evidence that Vyasa is the "disciple" of Narada
http://vedabase.net/sb/1/4/en1
http://vedabase.net/sb/1/5/en1
3) Explanation as to why examples like Arjuna, Drona, AshvatthAma, et. al. do not support the obvious conclusion that people were conventionally known by the varna of their birth, and that they were expected to act/behave according to expectations of that varna.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?
4) Explanation as to why it is wrong for me to say that gaudiya Vaishnavas did NOT receive their philosophy *unchanged* in disciplic succession from Sri Madhva, even though andy108 basically admitted that the two philosophies are different.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.
5) Explanation as to how anyone can claim their paramparA is descended from someone when they don't agree with that particular someone on various philosophical points.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.
6) Explanation as to why iskcon claims its "Bhagavad-Gita As It Is" is handed down in a disciplic succession from acharyas who do not agree with many of the explanations/interpretations in it.
See above.
8) Explanation as to why a system of "assigning" varnas based on subjective perception of one's spiritual qualification is better than raising one as a member of the varna of his birth, especially when the former system has led to so many iskcon gurus who repeatedly propagate false ideas (i.e. gay marriages) or just become degraded and/or commit all sorts of criminal behavior.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.
9) Proof for the wild claim made by Sonic Yogi that mAdhva "caste brahmins" are the "greatest evil" and responsible for acts of bigotry and prejudice. Specifically, historical evidence showing a trend towards clear-cut examples of bigotry and prejudice that anyone would accept as such.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.
-
Mahabharata - Vana Parva:Markandeya-Samasya Parva
SECTION CCXIMarkandeya continued, "O Bharata, the fowler having expounded these abstruse points, the Brahmana with great attention again enquired of him about these subtle topics. The Brahmana said, 'Do thou truly describe to me, who now duly ask thee, the respective virtues of the qualities of sattwa, rajas, and tamas.' The fowler replied, 'Very well, I shall tell thee what thou hast asked. I shall describe separately their respective virtues, do thou listen. Of them tamas is characterised by illusion (spiritual), rajas incites (men to action), sattwa is of great grandeur, and on that account, it is said to be the greatest of them. He who is greatly under the influence of spiritual ignorance, who is foolish, senseless and given to dreaming, who is idle, unenergetic and swayed by anger and haughtiness, is said to be under the influence of tamas. And, O Brahmana rishi, that excellent man who is agreeable in speech, thoughtful, free from envy, industrious in action from an eager desire to reap its fruits, and of warm temperament, is said to be under the influence of rajas. And he who is resolute, patient, not subject to anger, free from malice, and is not skilful in action from want of a selfish desire to reap its fruits, wise and forbearing, is said to be under the influence of sattwa. When a man endowed with the sattwa quality, is influenced by worldliness, he suffers misery; but he hates worldliness, when he realises its full significance. And then a feeling of indifference to worldly affairs begins to influence him. And then his pride decreases, and uprightness becomes more prominent, and his conflicting moral sentiments are reconciled. And then self-restraint in any matter becomes unnecessary. A man, O Brahmana, may be born in the Sudra caste, but if he is possessed of good qualities, he may attain the state of Vaisya and similarly that of a Kshatriya, and if he is steadfast in rectitude, he may even become a Brahmana. I have described to thee these virtues, what else dost thou wish to learn?'"
Mahabharata - Vana Parva:Markandeya-Samasya Parva
SECTION CCXIVThe fowler said, 'O Brahmana, as thou practisest with assiduousness those divine, ancient, and eternal virtues which are so difficult of attainment even by pure-minded persons, thou appearest (to me) like a divine being. Return to the side of thy father and mother and be quick and diligent in honouring thy parents; for, I do not know if there is any virtue higher than this.' The Brahmana replied, 'By a piece of singular good luck have I arrived here, and by a piece of similar good luck have I thus been associated with thee. It is very difficult to find out, in our midst, a person who can so well expound the mysteries of religion; there is scarcely one man among thousands, who is well versed in the science of religion. I am very glad, O great man, to have secured thy friendship; mayst thou be prosperous. I was on the point of falling into hell, but was extricated by thee. It was destined to be so, for thou didst (unexpectedly) come in my way. And, O great man, as the fallen King Yayati was saved by his virtuous grandsons (daughter's sons), so, have I know been saved by thee. According to thy advice, I shall honour my father and my mother; for a man with an impure heart can never expound the mysteries of sin and righteousness. As it is very difficult for a person born in the Sudra class to learn the mysteries of the eternal religion, I do not consider thee to be a Sudra. There must surely be some mystery in connection with this matter. Thou must have attained the Sudra's estate by reason of the fruition of thine own past karma. O magnanimous man, I long to know the truth about this matter. Do thou tell it to me with attention and according to thy own inclination.'
"The fowler replied, 'O good Brahmana, Brahmanas are worthy of all respect from me. Listen, O sinless one, to this story of a previous existence of mine. O son of an excellent Brahmana, I was formerly a Brahmana, well-read in the Vedas, and an accomplished student of the Vedangas. Through my own fault I have been degraded to my present state. A certain king, accomplished in the science of dhanurveda (science of archery), was my friend; and from his companionship, O Brahmana, I, too became skilled in archery; and one day the king, in company with his ministers and followed by his best warriors, went out on a hunting expedition. He killed a large number of deer near a hermitage. I, too, O good Brahmana, discharged a terrible arrow. And a rishi was wounded by that arrow with its head bent out. He fell down upon the ground, and screaming loudly said, 'I have harmed no one, what sinful man has done this?' And, my lord, taking him for a deer, I went up to him and found that he was pierced through the body by my arrow. On account of my wicked deed I was sorely grieved (in mind). And then I said to that rishi of severe ascetic merit, who was loudly crying, lying upon the ground, 'I have done this unwittingly, O rishi.' And also this I said to the muni: 'Do thou think it proper to pardon all this transgression.' But, O Brahmana, the rishi, lashing himself into a fury, said to me, 'Thou shalt be born as a cruel fowler in the Sudra class."
SECTION CCXV
"The fowler continued, 'Thus cursed by that rishi, I sought to propitiate him with these words: 'Pardon me, O muni, I have done this wicked deed unwittingly. It behooves thee to pardon all that. Do thou, worshipful sir, soothe yourself.' The rishi replied, 'The curse that I have pronounced can never be falsified, this is certain. But from kindness towards thee, I shall do thee a favour. Though born in the Sudra class thou shalt remain a pious man and thou shalt undoubtedly honour thy parents; and by honouring them thou shalt attain great spiritual perfection; thou shalt also remember the events of thy past life and shalt go to heaven; and on the expiation of this curse, thou shalt again become a Brahmana. O best of men, thus, of old was I cursed by that rishi of severe power, and thus was he propitiated by me. Then, O good Brahmana, I extricated the arrow from his body, and took him into the hermitage, but he was not deprived of his life (recovered). O good Brahmana, I have thus described to thee what happened to me of old, and also how I can go to heaven hereafter.' The Brahmana said, 'O thou of great intelligence, all men are thus subject to happiness or misery, thou shouldst not therefore grieve for that. In obedience to the customs of thy (present) race, thou hast pursued these wicked ways, but thou art always devoted to virtue and versed in the ways and mysteries of the world. And, O learned man, these being the duties of thy profession, the stain of evil karma will not attach to thee. And after dwelling here for some little time, thou shalt again become a Brahmana; and even now, I consider thee to be a Brahmana, there is no doubt about this. For the Brahmana who is vain and haughty, who is addicted to vices and wedded to evil and degrading practices, is like a Sudra. On the other hand, I consider a Sudra who is always adorned with these virtues,--righteousness, self-restraint, and truthfulness,--as a Brahmana. A man becomes a Brahmana by his character; by his own evil karma a man attains an evil and terrible doom.
Mahabharata - Santi-Parva: Mokshadharma Parva
SECTION CCCXIXObtaining knowledge from a Brahmana or a Kshatriya or Vaisya or even a Sudra who is of low birth, one endued with faith should always show reverence for such knowledge. Birth and death cannot assail one that is endued with faith. All orders of men are Brahmanas. All are sprung from Brahma. All men utter Brahma. 1 Aided by an understanding that is derived from and directed to Brahma. I inculcated this science treating of Prakriti and Purusha. Indeed, this whole universe is Brahma. From the mouth of Brahma sprung the Brahmanas; from his arms, sprung the Kshatriyas; from his navel, the Vaisya; and from his feet, the Sudras. All the orders, (having sprung in this way) should not be regarded as pilfering from one another. Impelled by Ignorance, all men meet with death and attain, O king, to birth that is the cause of acts. 2 Divested of Knowledge, all orders of men, dragged by terrible Ignorance, fall into varied orders of being due to the principles that flow from Prakriti. For this reason, all should, by every means, seek to acquire Knowledge. I have told thee that every person is entitled to strive for its acquisition. One that is possessed of Knowledge is a Brahmana. Others, (viz., Kshatriyas and Vaisyas and Sudras) are possessed of knowledge. Hence, this science of Emancipation is always open to them all. This, O king has been said by the Wise. The questions thou hadst asked me have all been answered by me agreeably to the truth. Do thou, therefore, cast off all grief. Go thou to the other end of this enquiry. Thy questions were good. Blessings on thy head for ever!
Srimad Bhagavatam 7.11.35
yasya yal lakshanam proktampumso varnabhivyanjakam
yad anyatrapi drisyeta
tat tenaiva vinirdiset
SYNONYMS
yasya -- of whom; yat -- which; lakshanam -- symptom; proktam -- described (above); pumsah -- of a person; varna-abhivyanjakam -- indicating the classification (brahmana, kshatriya, vaisya, sudra, etc.); yat -- if; anyatra -- elsewhere; api -- also; drisyeta -- is seen; tat -- that; tena -- by that symptom; eva -- certainly; vinirdiset -- one should designate.
TRANSLATION
If one shows the symptoms of being a brahmana, kshatriya, vaisya or sudra, as described above, even if he has appeared in a different class, he should be accepted according to those symptoms of classification.
PURPORT
Herein it is clearly stated by Narada Muni that one should not be accepted as a brahmana, kshatriya, vaisya or sudra according to birth, for although this is going on now, it is not accepted by the sastras. As stated in Bhagavad-gita (4.13), catur-varnyam maya srishtam guna-karma-vibhagasah. Thus the four divisions of society -- brahmana, kshatriya, vaisya and sudra -- are to be ascertained according to qualities and activities. If one was born in a brahmana family and has acquired the brahminical qualifications, he is to be accepted as a brahmana; otherwise, he should be considered a brahma-bandhu. Similarly, if a sudra acquires the qualities of a brahmana, although he was born in a sudra family, he is not a sudra; because he has developed the qualities of a brahmana, he should be accepted as a brahmana. The Krishna consciousness movement is meant to develop these brahminical qualities. Regardless of the community in which one was born, if one develops the qualities of a brahmana he should be accepted as a brahmana, and he then may be offered the order of sannyasa. Unless one is qualified in terms of the brahminical symptoms, one cannot take sannyasa. In designating a person a brahmana, kshatriya, vaisya or sudra, birth is not the essential symptom. This understanding is very important. Herein Narada Muni distinctly says that one may be accepted according to the caste of his birth if he has the corresponding qualifications, but otherwise he should not. One who has attained the qualifications of a brahmana, regardless of where he was born, should be accepted as a brahmana. Similarly, if one has developed the qualities of a sudra or a candala, regardless of where he was born, he should be accepted in terms of those symptoms.
-
Vajrasuchika Upanishad
I Shall set for Vajrasuchi (the diamond needle) which pierces ignorance, rebukes the ignorant and ornaments those who have wisdom as eye.The Smritis affirm, following the Vedas that the Brahmana is the most important of the four castes. It must be asked, ‘Who is a Brahmana’ – the self, body, class, knowledge, action or virtue ?
The soul is not a Brahmana because the soul is the same in all bodies past and future. The same person takes many bodies according to karma, nor is the body Brahmana – the body is the same from the Chandala (to the highest caste) being made of the five elements and is seen to have old age, death etc., alike. There is no fixity (of colour) such as Brahmana is white, Kshatriya is red, Vaishya is yellow and Sudra is black; also when the father’s body is cremated, the son etc., may be guilty of killing a Brahmana.
Nor is the class a Brahmana. Then there would be many classes within the classes. Many are the great sages: Rishyasringa born of a deer, Kausika of reed, Jambuka of a jackal, Valmiki of an ant-hill, Vyasa of a fisher-girl, Gautama of a hare’s back, Vasistha of Urvasi, Agastya of a pot according to tradition. These are not Brahmanas by birth but by their knowledge.
Nor is knowledge Brahmana: Kshatriyas and others also have knowledge. Nor is karma: all creatures are seen to have similar karma of Prarabdha etc., and all creatures act being impelled by karma. Nor is a man of virtue: There are many givers of gold – Kshatriyas etc.
One who has directly realized, like the berry in the palm, the Atman without a second, devoid of class, quality and action and of defects like the six waves (like hunger), the states (like birth and death), of the nature of truth, knowledge and bliss, free from adjuncts, the basis of all thoughts, immanent in all creatures, present inside and outside like space. Bliss impartite, beyond (ordinary) knowledge, to be realized by experience alone – and having become successful, free from lust etc., rich in mental control, without greed etc., mind untouched by hypocrisy etc.
This is the intention of Veda etc. Otherwise the nature of Brahmana cannot be achieved.
One should contemplate one’s self as the spirit without a second, truth, knowledge and bliss.
This is the Upanishad.
Chandogya Upanishad
IV-iv-1: Once upon a time Satyakama Jabala addressed his mother Jabala, ‘Mother, I desire to live the life of a celibate student of sacred knowledge in the teacher’s house. Of what lineage am I ?’IV-iv-2: She said to him, ‘My child, I do not know of what lineage you are. I, who was engaged in many works and in attending on others, got you in my youth. Having been such I could not know of what lineage you are. However, I am Jabala by name and you are named Satyakama. So you speak of yourself only as Satyakama Jabala.’
IV-iv-3: He went to Haridrumata Gautama and said, ‘I desire to live under you, revered sir, as a Brahmacharin; may I approach your venerable self (for the same) ?’
IV-iv-4: Gautama asked him, ‘Dear boy, of what lineage are you ?’ He replied, ‘Sir, I do not know of what lineage I am. I asked my mother; she replied, "I, who was engaged in many works and in attending on others, got you in my youth. Having been such, I could not know of what lineage you are. However, I am Jabala by name and you are named Satyakama". So, sir, I am Satyakama Jabala.’
IV-iv-5: The teacher said to him, ‘No one who is not a Brahmana can speak thus. Dear boy, bring the sacrificial fuel, I shall initiate you as a Brahmacharin, for you have not deviated from truth’.
Mahabharata - Vana Parva:Tirtha-yatra Parva
SECTION CLXXIXAt this Yudhishthira said, 'O serpent, ask whatever thou listest! I shall, if I can, answer thy questions with the view of gratifying thee, O snake! Thou knowest fully what should be known by Brahmanas. Therefore, O king of snakes, hearing (thee) I shall answer thy queries!'
The serpent said, 'O Yudhishthira, say--Who is a Brahmana and what should be known? By thy speech I infer thee to be highly intelligent.'
"Yudhishthira said, 'O foremost of serpents, he, it is asserted by the wise, in whom are seen truth, charity, forgiveness, good conduct, benevolence, observance of the rites of his order and mercy is a Brahmana. And, O serpent, that which should be known is even the supreme Brahma, in which is neither happiness nor misery--and attaining which beings are not affected with misery; what is thy opinion?'
"The serpent said, 'O Yudhishthira, truth, charity, forgiveness, benevolence, benignity, kindness and the Veda 1 which worketh the benefit of the four orders, which is the authority in matters of religion and which is true, are seen even in the Sudra. As regards the object to be known and which thou allegest is without both happiness and misery, I do not see any such that is devoid of these.'
"Yudhishthira said, Those characteristics that are present in a Sudra, do not exist in a Brahmana; nor do those that are in a Brahmana exist in a Sudra. And a Sudra is not a Sudra by birth alone--nor a Brahmana is Brahmana by birth alone. He, it is said by the wise, in whom are seen those virtues is a Brahmana. And people term him a Sudra in whom those qualities do not exist, even though he be a Brahmana by birth. And again, as for thy assertion that the object to be known (as asserted by me) doth not exist, because nothing exists that is devoid of both (happiness and misery), such indeed is the opinion, O serpent, that nothing exists that is without (them) both. But as in cold, heat doth not exist, nor in heat, cold, so there cannot exist an object in which both (happiness and misery) cannot exist?"
"The serpent said, 'O king, if thou recognise him as a Brahmana by characteristics, then, O long-lived one, the distinction of caste becometh futile as long as conduct doth not come into play.'
"Yudhishthira said, 'In human society, O mighty and highly intelligent serpent, it is difficult to ascertain one's caste, because of promiscuous intercourse among the four orders. This is my opinion. Men belonging to all orders (promiscuously) beget offspring upon women of all the orders. And of men, speech, sexual intercourse, birth and death are common. And to this the Rishis have borne testimony by using as the beginning of a sacrifice such expressions as--of what caste so ever we may be, we celebrate the sacrifice. Therefore, those that are wise have asserted that character is the chief essential requisite. The natal ceremony of a person is performed before division of the umbilical cord. His mother then acts as its Savitri and his father officiates as priest. He is considered as a Sudra as long as he is not initiated in the Vedas. Doubts having arisen on this point, O prince; of serpents, Swayambhuba Manu has declared, that the mixed castes are to be regarded as better than the (other) classes, if having gone through the ceremonies of purification, the latter do not conform to the rules of good conduct, O excellent snake! Whosoever now conforms to the rules of pure and virtuous conduct, him have I, ere now, designated as a Brahmana.'
Mahabharata - Anusasana Parva:Anusasanika Parva
SECTION CXLIII[Mahadeva speaking to Uma]
O goddess, that a person who has sprung from a degraded order, viz., a Sudra, may become a Brahmana refined of all stains and possessed of Vedic lore, One that is a Brahmana, when he becomes wicked in conduct and observes no distinction in respect of food, falls away from the status of Brahmanahood and becomes a Sudra. Even a Sudra, O goddess, that has purified his soul by pure deeds and that has subjugated all his senses, deserves to be waited upon and served with reverence as a Brahmana. This has been said by the Self-born Brahmana himself. When a pious nature and pious deeds are noticeable in even a Sudra, he should, according to my opinion, be held superior to a person of the three regenerate classes. Neither birth, nor the purificatory rites, nor learning, nor offspring, can be regarded as grounds for conferring upon one the regenerate status. Verily, conduct is the only ground. All Brahmanas in this world are Brahmanas in consequence of conduct. A Sudra, if he is established on good conduct, is regarded as possessed of the status of a Brahmana. The status of Brahma, O auspicious lady, is equal wherever it exists. Even this is my opinion. He, indeed, is a Brahmana in whom the status of Brahma exists,--that condition which is bereft of attributes and which has no stain attached to it. The boon-giving Brahma, while he created all creatures, himself said that the distribution of human beings into the four orders dependent on birth is only for purposes of classification. The Brahmana is a great field in this world,--a field equipped with feet for it moves from place to place. He who plants seeds in that field, O beautiful lady, reaps the crop in the next world. That Brahmana who wishes to achieve his own good should always live upon the remains of the food that may be there in his house after gratifying the needs of all others. He should always adhere to the path of righteousness. Indeed, he should tread along the path that belongs to Brahma. He should live engaged in the study of the Samhitas and remaining at home he should discharge all the duties of a householder. He should always be devoted to the study of the Vedas, but he should never derive the means of subsistence from such study. That Brahmana who always conducts himself thus, adhering to the path of righteousness, worshipping his sacred fire, and engaged in the study of the Vedas, comes to be regarded as Brahma. The status of a Brahmana once gained, it should always be protected with care, O thou of sweet smiles, by avoiding the stain of contact with persons born in inferior orders, and by abstaining from the acceptance of gifts. I have thus told thee a mystery, viz., the manner in which a Sudra may become a Brahmana, or that by which a Brahmana falls away from his own pure status and becomes a Sudra."
Mahabharata - Santi-Parva: Mokshadharma Parva
SECTION CLXXXVIII"Bhrigu said, 'Brahman first created a few Brahmanas who came to be called Prajapatis (lords of creation). Possessed of splendour equal to that of the fire or the Sun, they were created out of the energy of that First-born Being. The puissant Lord then created Truth, Duty, Penance, the eternal Vedas, all kinds of pious acts, and Purity, for enabling creatures to attain to heaven (by practising them). After this, the Deities and the Danavas, the Gandharvas, the Daityas, the Asuras, the great snakes, the Yakshas, the Rakshasas, the Serpents, the Pisachas, and human beings with their four divisions, viz., Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras, O best of regenerate ones, and all the other orders of creatures that exist, were created. The complexion the Brahmanas obtained was white; that which the Kshatriyas obtained was red; that which the Vaisyas got was yellow; and that which was given to the Sudras was black.'
"Bharadwaja said, 'If the distinction between the four orders (of human beings) be made by means only of colour (attribute), then it seems that all the four orders have been mingled together. 2 Lust, wrath, fear, cupidity, grief, anxiety, hunger, toil, possess and prevail over all men. How can men be distinguished by the possession of attributes? The bodies of all men emit sweat, urine, faeces, phlegm, bile, and blood. How then can men be distributed into classes? Of mobile objects the number is infinite; the species also of immobile objects are innumerable. How, then, can objects of such very great diversity be distributed into classes?'
"Bhrigu said, 'There is really no distinction between the different orders. The whole world at first consisted of Brahmanas. Created (equal) by Brahman, men have, in consequence of their acts, become distributed into different orders. They that became fond of indulging in desire and enjoying pleasures, possessed of the attributes of severity and wrath, endued with courage, and unmindful of the duties of piety and worship,--these Brahmanas possessing the attribute of Passion,--became Kshatriyas. Those Brahmanas again who, without attending to the duties laid down for them, became possessed of both the attributes of Goodness and Passion, and took to the professions of cattle-rearing and agriculture, became Vaisyas. Those Brahmanas again that became fond of untruth and injuring other creatures, possessed of cupidity,--engaged in all kinds of acts for a living, and fallen away from purity of behaviour, and thus wedded to the attribute of Darkness, became Sudras. Separated by these occupations, Brahmanas, falling away from their own order, became members of the other three orders. All the four orders, therefore, have always the right to the performance of all pious duties and of sacrifices. Even thus were the four orders at first created equal by Brahman who ordained for all of them (the observances disclosed in) the words of Brahma (in the Vedas). Through cupidity alone, many fell away, and became possessed by ignorance. The Brahmanas are always devoted to the scriptures on Brahma; and mindful of vows and restraints, are capable of grasping the conception of Brahma. Their penances therefore, never go for nothing. They amongst them are not Brahmanas that are incapable of understanding that every created thing is Supreme Brahma. These, falling away, became members of diverse (inferior) orders. Losing the light of knowledge, and betaking themselves to an unrestrained course of conduct, they take birth as Pisachas and Rakshasas and Pretas and as individuals of diverse Mleccha species. The great Rishis who at the beginning sprang into life (through Brahman's Will) subsequently created, by means of their penances, men devoted to the duties ordained for them and attached to the rites laid down in the Eternal Vedas. That other Creation, however, which is eternal and undecaying, which is based upon Brahma and has sprung from the Primeval God, and which has its refuge upon yoga, is a mental one."
SECTION CLXXXIX
"Bharadwaja said, 'By what acts does one become a Brahmana? By what, a Kshatriya? O best of regenerate ones, by what acts again does one become a Vaisya or a Sudra? Tell me this, O foremost of speakers.'
"Bhrigu said, 'That person is called a Brahmana who has been sanctified by such rites as those called jata and others; who is pure in behaviour; who is engaged in studying the Vedas; who is devoted to the six well-known acts (of ablutions every morning and evening, silent recitation of mantras, pouring libations on the sacrificial fire, worshipping the deities, doing the duties of hospitality to guests, and offering food to the Viswedevas); who is properly observant of all pious acts; who never takes food without having offered it duly to gods and guests; who is filled with reverence for his preceptor; and who is always devoted to vows and truth. He is called a Brahmana in whom are truth, gifts, abstention from injury to others, compassion, shame, benevolence, 1 and penance. He who is engaged in the profession of battle, who studies the Vedas, who makes gifts (to Brahmanas) and takes wealth (from those he protects) is called a Kshatriya. He who earns fame from keep of cattle, who is employed in agriculture and the means of acquiring wealth, who is pure in behaviour and attends to the study of the Vedas, is called a Vaisya. 2 He who takes pleasure in eating every kind of food, who is engaged in doing every kind of work, who is impure in behaviour, who does not study the Vedas, and whose conduct is unclean, is said to be a Sudra. If these characteristics be observable in a Sudra, and if they be not found in a Brahmana, then such a Sudra is no Sudra, and, such a Brahmana is no Brahmana. By every means should cupidity and wrath be restrained. This as also self-restraint, are the highest results of Knowledge. Those two passions (viz., cupidity and wrath), should, with one's whole heart, be resisted. They make their appearance for destroying one's highest good. One should always protect one's prosperity from one's wrath, one's penances from pride; one's knowledge from honour and disgrace; and one's soul from error. That intelligent person, O regenerate one, who does all acts without desire of fruit, whose whole wealth exists for charity, and who performs the daily Homa, is a real Renouncer. 3 One should conduct oneself as a friend to all creatures, abstaining from all acts of injury. Rejecting the acceptance of all gifts, one should, by the aid of one's own intelligence, be a complete master of one's passions. One should live in one's soul where there can be no grief. One would then have no fear here and attain to a fearless region hereafter. One should live always devoted to penances, and with all passions completely restrained; observing the vow of taciturnity, and with soul concentrated on itself; desirous of conquering the unconquered senses, and unattached in the midst of attachments. All things that can be perceived by the senses are called Manifest. All, however, that is Unmanifest, that is beyond the ken of the senses, that can be ascertained only by the subtile senses, should be sought to be known. 1 If there be no faith, one will never succeed in attaining to that subtile sense. Therefore, one should hold oneself in faith. The mind should be united with Prana, and Prana should then be held within Brahma. By dissociating oneself from all attachments, one may obtain absorption into Brahma. There is no need of attending to any other thing. A Brahmana can easily attain to Brahma by the path of Renunciation. The indications of a Brahmana are purity, good behaviour and compassion unto all creatures.'"
-
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.
-
See bro that is your problem.You want Siva-tattva to fit nicely into the corner of the box of your mind all nice and simple like a bag of weed in your pocket.
Siva-tattva is beyond your mind, your joint and your LSD.
Here is Srila Prabhupada's version..
CC Adi 7.69 purport,
So, Gaurahari my old pal, Srila Prabhupada says that Siva-tattva is simultaneously Vishnu and jiva.
But, that is not acceptable to you because you insist to reduce Siva down to a jiva like yourself rolling up joints and smoking them.
In fact, you even call yourself Shiva because you smoke weed and imitate Lord Siva in drinking poison.
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.
-
Here is the most comprehensive explanation of Siva tattva that I have found.It is for the most part the most definitive exposition on Siva tattva.
(argument over?)
Special thanks to Narayana Maharaja for his excellent exposition of Siva-tattva.
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:
Who is Maha-Visnu? Sri Advaita Acarya. He is the amsa (part) of the amsa of the amsa of the amsa of the kala of Krsna Himself. He is a part of the part of the part of the part of Krsna. Being so far away, He can preach with kirtana, but He cannot give Vraja-bhakti. He is not qualified for this. Only Krsna can do this. When He came, therefore, He preached through sankirtana that highest love and affection, as well as the process to achieve it.That is his own invention, this is what is seen in Caitanya Caritamrta:
Caitanya-Caritamrta Adi 6.33advaita-acarya -- isvarera amsa-varya
tanra tattva-nama-guna, sakali ascarya
Sri Advaita Acarya is the principal limb of the Supreme Lord. His truths, names and attributes are all wonderful.
Caitanya-Caritamrta Adi 6.6
advaita-acarya gosani saksat Isvara
yanhara mahima nahe jivera gocara
Sri Advaita Acarya is indeed directly the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself. His glory is beyond the conception of ordinary living beings.
Caitanya-Caritamrta Adi 6.28
jiva nistarila krsna-bhakti kari' dana
gita-bhagavate kaila bhaktira vyakhyana
He delivered all living beings by offering the gift of krsna-bhakti. He explained the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam in the light of devotional service.
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
eka-i svarūpa dońhe, bhinna-mātra kāyaādya kāya-vyūha, kṛṣṇa-līlāra sahāya
These two are one and the same identity. They differ only in form. Lord Balarāma is the first bodily expansion of Kṛṣṇa, and He assists in Lord Kṛṣṇa’s transcendental pastimes.
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:
Prajapati Brahma and Sambhu are Maha-Visnu's separated parts (vibhinamsa), and thus they are gods of delegated offices.And he rightly states that the other Shiva is Vishnu-tattva:
This means that Sri Krishna's amsa, plenary portion, is Sadasiva, and Lord Siva is His fractional part."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.
-
I do understand what you are trying to say.But, my point is that the Lord Siva of the material world is an amsha or a fractional portion of the Sadasiva.
He is not a different Siva.
He is a partial manifestation of Sadasiva.
Lord Siva is not a second Godhead from Sadasiva.
He is a fractional portion of Sadasiva.
Its just like the many avatars of Krishna.
There are some avatars with absolute Vishnu-tattva potency and some manifesting only partial power of Vishnu.
Still, these partial manifestation of Vishnu are also referred to as avatars of Vishnu, even though they might only represent a partial portion of the complete powers of Vishnu.
Sure, I concede that Sadasiva in Vaikuntha is the complete and total form and power of Shiva, but I don't agree that the Lord Sivas in the material world derive their "Shivahood" from any other source than Sadasiva.
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.
-
That's not it bro.I just reject your psychedelic version of what you think in all your confusion that they are saying.
They don't say there are two Shivas.
You are the only person that ever said that.
Put down the joint and read a little deeper.
Read all the stuff I posted already and you might get over your delusions of their being two different Shiva-tattvas.
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...
-
Oh yeah?
I thought everyone knew? I don't know why he creates new accounts, what happened to guruvani?
-
If it's ok with you I will just stick to the siddhanta the way Prabhupada teaches it in his books and he never taught that there are TWO different Shivas.Show me where Prabhupada teaches there are two different Shivas that are unrelated in Shiva-tattva.
There is one Shiva-tattva with various manifestations, some greater some lesser. There aren't two Shiva-tattvas. There aren't two Vishnu-tattvas.
There is one Shiva tattva.
So, you are telling me the Lord of oneness has two different types?
You make me laugh.
Example:
Vyasadeva is an empowered jiva - shaktyavesha avatar.
Is he still not referred to in shastra as a powerful incarnation of Narayan?
When Shiva-tattva becomes manifest in a jiva that jiva ceases to be a jiva and is functionally Shiva.
It is Shiva-tattva being manifest in the jiva.
But, that doesn't mean that there are two different kinds of Shiva-tattva.
Vyasadeva is jiva tattva who became empowered as Vishnu tattva - an incarnation of Narayana.
As Sridhar Maharaja explained, shaktyavesha means that Krishna comes down and works through a particular living being.
If Shiva tattva becomes manifest in a jiva that doesn't mean that there are two different Shivas.
If Shiva manifests his powers through a jiva that doesn't make two different Shivas.
One Shiva manifesting in different ways and different forms.
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.
-
There are not two Shivas.You made up that up behind a joint.
There is one Shiva with numerous forms.
You can't show anywhere in shastra that says there are two different Shivas.
That's just something you made up on the spur of the moment.
You don't know diddly about Shiva tattva.
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.
-
Several years ago one ex-Iskcon Prabhupada disciple who is now a Sri Vaisnava came to the Badger Festival, headed up by Srila Narayana Maharaja. I cannot remember his name, he is a handsome fellow with a full head of hair, no discernible hair loss. At the time he was about 50 but looked younger. He got into a discussion with Prema Prayojana Prabhu who was a sanyassi at the time. Prema Prayojana really is like walking encyclopedia of Gaudiya Vaisnavism but evidently is not so expert at controlling his senses. He told Prema that he always wanted to know more about diety worship and the GBC in turn was looking for someone to do research on the subject. The GBC at the time, as now was suspicious of "The Gaudiya Math" so he said that since Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu had traveled South India the GBC sent him to South Indian Temples which just happened to be Sri Vaisnava. He then proceeded to bring up so many arguments to try to show the superiority of Sri Vaisnavism. Prema Prayojana was able to quote directly from what he had heard from Srila Narayana Maharaja, tapes of Srila Sridhar Maharaja and directly from texts like Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur's Jaiva Dharma. This fellow just kept saying, "Oh, I didn't know those answers were in Gaudiya Vaisnava literature!" and then later admitted that it was absurd for the so-called Gaudiyas of the Iskcon GBC to send him out of the sampradaya for information on diety worship and ultimately siddhanta. But is was a done deal and too late, he had been captured by Sri Vaisnavism and had fully given his heart to that side.That was Gaura Keshava
-
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?
-
Krishna includes Lord Shiva.Shiva is not a second Godhead.
He is an expansion of Govinda.
Shiva actually has a spiritual planet in the spiritual world - Maheshdham.
It is the first strata of Vaikuntha above the material world on the other side of the Viraja.
So, Siva is basically Krishna.
When Vishnu (Krishna) comes in contact with the material energy he transforms into Shiva.
So, originally the jivas come not actually from Krishna but from his energy.
Not even Krishna directly, but his energy.
Shiva becomes the medium for that energy to become injected into prakriti.
The Gaudiyas somewhat mask the glories of Siva.
They are not out to make Shiva bhaktas.
But, Shiva is greater than Brahma.
Shiva is an eternal Godhead like Vishnu.
Shiva is a form of Maha-Sankarshan in Vaikuntha.
Shiva is also God.
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:
By the action of the mode of goodness, the Master of the milk ocean, Shri Vishnu, maintains the universe. By the action of the mode of passion, the universe is created by Lord Brahma, who is generated from the lotus flower arisen from Garbhodasayi Vishnu's navel. In some kalpas, a jiva who has amassed profuse piety takes the position of Lord Brahma and creates the universe. In this instance, due to the infusion of the Lord's potency in that jiva, he is referred to as an avesavatar. Because in that Brahma there is a connection with the mode of passion, he cannot be compared on a equal footing with Lord Vishnu. In those kalpas when there is an absence of any qualified jiva to take up the position of Lord Brahma, then Lord Vishnu Himself becomes Lord Brahma. Similarly, during some manvantaras, the incarnation of the Lord as Yagya has to take up the position of Lord Indra. During that manvantara when Yagya becomes Indra and during that kalpa when Vishnu becomes Brahma, then it can be said that they attain equality with Lord Vishnu.
The gross body of Brahma, consisting of the total material substance, is also known as Brahma. Hiranyagarbha, Who is manifested within that gross body as subtle living entities, is also known as Brahma. The indwelling soul therein, the second purusha, Garbhodasayi, is Iswar, the Supreme Controller. He Who is the destroyer, by the action of the mode of ignorance is Lord Siva. The indwelling purusha within the Universal Form as well as the subtle form of the Creator, Hiranyagarbha, Who is the super excellent controller born of the lotus flower, have both been referred to as Brahma. This Brahma also accepts the form of Siva for the purpose of destruction.
During some kalpas very pious jivas attain this position whereas in others, Lord Vishnu Himself accepts the position of Lord Siva. However, the personality of Sadasiva, is a plenary portion of the self-same form of the Supreme Lord, Shri Krishna, and He is transcendental to the three modes of material nature. It is from Him that the gunavatar of Siva is expanded. Therefore He should be understood to be superior to Brahma, equal to Lord Vishnu, and entirely separate from jivas, who are influenced by the material modes of nature.
Jiva goswami explains the difference between the demigod Shiva and Sadashiva in his Paramatma Sandarbha -- Anuccheda 17
Text 45tad etad uktanusarena sada-civecvara-tri-devi-rupa-vyuho ‘pi nirastah. tasmad eva ca sri-bhagavat-purusayor eva caivagame sadaSivadi-samjYe tan-mahima-khyapanaya dhrte iti gamyate. sarva-sastra-ciromanau sri-bhagavate tu tri-devyam eva tat-taratamya-jijYasa. purusa-bhagavatos tu tat- prasagga eva nasti.
tat - this; etat - that; ukta - said; anusarena - following; sada- civecvara - of Lord SadaSiva; tri-devi-rupa-vyuhah - the forms of the three goddesses; api - also; nirastah - rejected; tasmat - therefgore; eva - indeed; ca - also; sri-bhagavat-purusayoh - of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the purusa-avatara; eva - indeed; caivagame - in the Siava ssriptures; sadaSiva - with Lord SadaSiva; adi - beginning; samjYe - names; tan-mahima- khyapanaya - for dessribing His glories; dhrte - held; iti - thus; gamyate - is attained; sarva-sastra-ciromanau - in the crest jewel of all ssriptures; sri-bhagavate - in Srimad-Bhagavatam; tu - but; tri-devyam - in the three goddesses; eva - indeed; tat-taratamya - of the gradations of higher and lower; jijYasa - the desire to understand; purusa-bhagavatoh - of the purusa-avatara and the Supreme Personality of Godhead; tu - but; tat-prasagga - in association with Him; eva - indeed; na - not; asti - is.
In may also be noted in the context of these words that Lord SadaSiva is not the same as the demigod Siva of the three guna- avataras. In the Siva ssriptures it is clearly said that Lord SadaSiva is an expansion of the purusa-avatara and the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In Srimad-Bhagavatam (in Canto Ten. Chapter Eighty-nine), the crest jewel of all scriptures, the question “Who is the most exalted of the three guna- avataras?” is raised. In the answer given there it is clear that the demigod Siva is not an expansion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the purusa-avatara.
Text 46
brahmadayo yat krta-setu-pala
yat karanam vicvam idam ca maya ajna-kari yasya picaca-carya
aho vibhumnac caritam vidambanam
brahmadayah - demigods like Brahma; yat - whose; krta - activities; setu - religious rites; palah - observers; yat - one who is; karanam - the origin of; vicvam - the universe; idam - this; ca - also; maya - material energy; ajYa-kari - order carrier; yasya - whose; picaca - devilish; carya - activity; ahah - O my Lord; vibhumnah - of the great; caritam - character; vidambanam - simply imitation.
The demigod Lord Siva is dessribed in the following words of Srimad-Bhagavatam (3.14.29):
“Demigods like Brahma also follow the religious rites observed by him (Siva). He (Siva) is the controller of the material energy, which causes the creation of the material world. he is great, and therefore his devilish activities are simply imitation.”*
Text 47
ity asya trtiye gunavataratvena paramecvarabheda-drstya tathatvam uktam iti jneyam.
iti - thus; asya - of this; trtiye - in the Third Canto; gunavataratvena - as a guna-avatar; paramecvarabheda-drstya - by the explanation that he is different from the Supreme Personality of Godhead; tathatvam - the state of being like that; uktam - said; iti - thus; jneyam - to be known.
From these words of Srimad-Bhagavatam it should be understood that the demigod Siva is one of the guna-avataras. He is different from the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Text 48
nanu
na te giritrakhila-loka-pala-
virinca-vaikuntha-surendra-gamyam
jyotih param yatra rajas tamac ca
sattvam na yad brahma nirasta-bhedam
ity asya tasya paratvam sruyate evastame.
nanu - is it not said?; na - not; te - of your Lordship; giritra - O king of the mountains; akhila-loka-pala - all the directors of departments of material activities; viriYca - Lord Brahma; vaikuntha - Lord Visnu; surendra - the king of heaven; gamyam - they cann understand; jyotih - effulgence; param - transcendental; yatra - wherein; rajah - the mode of passion; tamac ca - and the mode of ignorance; sattvam - the mode of goodness; na - not; yad brahma - which is impersonal Brahma; nirasta-bhedam - without distinction between demigods and human beings; iti - thus; asya - of Him; tasya - of Him; paratvam - supremacy; sruyate - is heard; eva - indeed; astame - in the Eighth Canto.
Here someone may protest: Is it not so that the following words are found in the Eighth Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam (8.7.31):
“O Lord Girica, since the impersonal Brahman effulgence is transcendental to the material modes of goodness, passion, and ignorance, the various directors of the material world certainly cannot appreciate it or even know where it is. It is not understandable even to Lord Brahma, Lord Visnu, or the King of heaven, Mahendra.”*
These words of Srimad-Bhagavatam’s Eighth Canto clearly show that Lord Siva is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Text 49
maivam. mahimna stuyamana hi deva viryena vardhate iti vaidika-nyayena tad-ayukteh. sa hi stavah kalakuta-nacartham eva.
ma - not; evam - like that; mahimna - glory; stuyamana - praising; hi - indeed; deva - demigods; viryena - with power; vardhate - increase; iti - thus; vaidika - of the Vedas; nyayena - by the example; tad- ayukteh - not logical for that; sa - that; hi - indeed; stavah - prayer; kalakuta-nacartham - to destroy the kalakuta poison; eva - indeed.
To this protest I reply: It is not so. The idea that Lord Siva is the Supreme Personality of Godhead is disproved by the following words of the Vedas:
“By glorifying Lord Visnu, the demigods become powerful.”
The Srimad-Bhagavatam verse you quoted was an appeal to Lord Siva begging him to destroy the ocean of Kalakuta poison.
Text 50
tatraiva prite harau bhagavati priye ‘ham sa-caracarah iti.
tatra - there; eva - indeed; prite harau bhagavati priye ‘ham sa-caracarah iti - Srimad-Bhagavatam 8.7.40.
In that same chapter of Srimad-Bhagavatam (8.7.40) Lord Siva himself affirms the supremacy of Lord Visnu. Siva says:
“My dear gentle wife Bhavani, when one performs benevolent activities for others, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Hari, is very pleased. And when the Lord is pleased, I am also pleased, along with all other living creatures.”*
Text 51
tatha navame
vayam na tata prabhavama bhumni.
yasmin pare ‘nye ‘py aja-jiva-kosah
bhavanti kale na bhavanti hidrcah
sahasraco yatra vayam bhramamah. iti.
tatha - so; navame - in the Ninth Canto; vayam - we; na - not; tata - O my dear son; prabhavama - sufficiently able; bhumni - unto the great Supreme Personality of Godhead; yasmin - in whom; pare - in the Transcendence; anye - others; api - even; aja - Lord Brahma; jiva - the living entities; kosah - the universes; bhavanti - can become; kale - in due course of time; na - not; bhavanti - can become; hi - indeed; idrcah - like this; sahasracah - many thousands and millions; yatra - wherein; vayam - all of us; bhramamah - are rotating; iti - thus.
That Lord Siva is not the Supreme Personality of Godhead is also confirmed by these words of Srimad-Bhagavatam (9.4.56) where Lord Siva himself explains:
“My dear son, I, Lord Brahma, and the other demigods, who rotate within this universe under the misconception of our greatness, cannot exhibit any power to compete with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, for innumerable universes and their inhabitants come into existence and are annihilated by the simple direction of the Lord.”*
Text 52
ete vayam yasya vace mahatmanah sthitah cakuntha iva sutra-yantritah iti ca tad-vakya-virodhat.
ete - vayam yasya vace mahatmanah sthitah cakuntha iva sutra-yantritah iti - Srimad-Bhagavatam 5.17.23; ca - also; tad- vakya-virodhat - because of refuting those words.
In Srimad-Bhagavatam (5.17.23) Lord Siva himself affirms:
“Therefore, I worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is greater than any of us and under whose control are situated all the demigods, material elements, and senses, and even Lord Brahma and I myself, like birds bound by a rope.”*
These two verses of Srimad-Bhagavatam clearly refute the idea that Lord Siva is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Text 53
athava yat Sivasya jyotis tatra sthitam paramatmakhyam caitanyam tat-samyag-jnane tasyapy aksamata yuktaiva.
athava - or; yat - which; Sivasya - of Lord Siva; jyotih - effulgence; tatra - there; sthitam - situated; paramatmakhyam - called the Supersoul; caitanyam - coscious; tat- samyag-jnane - in right knowledge; tasya - of Him; api - also; aksamata - inability; yukta - proper; eva - indeed.
Or, considering this from another point of view, it may be said that Lord Siva’s effulgence, which is dessribed in the verse (Srimad-Bhagavatam 8.7.31, quoted here in text 48) previously quoted by you, is the home of all-knowing Lord Visnu, who is known as the Paramatma, or Supersoul. Understood in this way, it is quite proper that Lord Siva’s effulgence is beyond the living entities’ understanding. Text 54
yad uktam dyu-pataya eva te na yayur antam anantataya tvam api yad antaranda-nicaya nanu savaranah iti.
yat - what; uktam - said; dyu-pataya eva te na yayur antam anantataya tvam api yad antaranda-nicaya nanu savaranah iti - Srimad- Bhagavatam 10.87.41.
That Lord Visnu is the Supreme Personality of Godhead is also confirmed by the following words of Srimad-Bhagavatam (10.87.41), where the Personified Vedas pray to Lord Visnu:
“Our dear Lord, although Lord Brahma, the predominating deity of the highest planet, Brahmaloka, and King Indra, the predominating demigod of the heavenly planet, as well as the predominating deities of the sun planet, the moon planet, etc. are all very confidential directors of this material world, they have very little knowledge about You. And what to speak of ordinary human beings and mental speculators? It is not possible for anyone to enumerate the unlimited transcendental qualities of Your Lordship. No one, including the mental speculators and the demigods in the higher planetary systems is actually able to estimate the length and breadth of Your form and characteristics.”*
Text 55
brahma-samhita-mate tu bhagavad-agga-vicesa
eva sadasivah. na tv anyah. yatha tatraiva
sarvadi-karana-govinda-kathane
brahma-samhita-mate - in the opinion of Brahma-samhita; tu - indeed; bhagavad-agga-vicesa - as a limb of Lord Krsna’s body; eva - indeed; sadaSivah - Lord SadaSiva; na - not; tv - but; anyah - another; yatha - as; tatra - there; eva - indeed; sarvadi-karana - the original cause of all causes; govinda - of Lord Krsna; kathane - in the dessription.
In the words of Brahma-samhita it is said that Lord SadaSiva is a direct expansion of Lord Visnu. However, the other Siva, the demigod Siva, is not a direct expansion of Lord Visnu. This is dessribed in the following words of Brahma- samhita (5.8 and 5.10) where Lord Krsna’s status as the original cause of all causes is dessribed in these words:
Text 56
niyatih sa rama devi
tat-priya tad-vacamvada
niyatih - regulatrix; sa - she; rama - goddess Rama; devi - goddess; tat-priya - dear to him; tad-vacamvada - under cotnrol.
“Ramadevi, the spiritual (cit) potency, beloved consort of the Supreme Lord, is the regulatrix of all entities.”**
Text 57
tal-liggam bhagavan Sambhur
jyoti-rupah sanatanah ya yonih sa para saktih ity adi.
tal-liggam - the emblem of Him; bhagavan - Lord; Sambhuh - Sambhu; jyoti-rupah - the form of light; sanatanah - eternal; ya - which; yonih - place of birth; sa - she; para - divine; saktih - potency; iti - thus; adi - beginning.
“The divine plenary portion of Krsna creates the mundane world. at creation there appears a divine halo of the nature of His own subjective portion (svamca). This halo is divine Sambhu, the masculine symbol or manifested emblem of the Supreme Lord. This halo is the dim twilight reflection of the supreme eternal effulgence . This masculine symbol is the subjective portion of divinity who functions as progenitor of the mundane world, subject to the supreme regulatrix (niyati). The conceiving potency in regard to mundane creation makes her appearance out of the supreme regulatrix. She is Maya, the limited non-absolute (apara) potency, the symbol of mundane feminine productivity.”*
Text 58
tasminn avirabhul ligge
maha-visnuh ity ady-antam.
tasmin - in that; avirabhut - maniefsted; ligge - emblem; maha- visnuh - - Lord Maha-Visnu; iti - thus; adi - beginning; antam - end.
“the Lord of the world Maha-Visnu is manifest in him (Siva) by His subjective portion in the form of His glance.”**
Text 59
tad etad abhipretya sadasivatvadi-prasiddhim apy aksipyaha
tat - this; etat - that; abhipretya - underdtanding; sadasivatva - the status of Lord sadaSival adi - beginning; prasiddhim - proof; api - also; aksipya - throwing away; aha - said.
Lord SadaSiva is thus a direct expansion of Lord Visnu. Therefore the words of the following verse (Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.18.21) refer not to Him, but to the demigod Siva:
Text 60
athapi yat-pada-nakhavasrstam
jagad-viriYcopahrtarhanambhah secam punaty anyatamo mukundat
ko nama loke bhagavat-padarthah
atha - therefore; api - certainly; yat - whose; pada-nakha - nails of the feet; avasrstam - emanating; jagat - the whole universe; viriYca - Brahmaji; upahrta - collected; arhana - worship; ambhah - water; sa - along with; icam - Lord Siva; punati - purifies; anyatamah - who else; mukundat - besides the Personality of Godhead, Sri Krsna; kah - who?; nama - name; loke - within the world; bhagavat - Supreme Lord; pada - position; arthah - worth.
“Who can be worthy of the name of the Supreme Lord but the Personality of Godhead, Sri Krsna? Brahmaji collected the water emanating from the nails of His feet in order to award it to Lord Siva as a worshipful welcome. This very water (the Ganges) is purifying the whole universe, including Lord Siva.”*
Text 61
spastam. sri-sutah.
spastam - clear; sri-sutah - Sri Suta Gosvami.
The meaning of this verse is clear. The verse quoted in the beginning of this anuccheda was spoken by Srila Suta Gosvami.
-
I haven't seen that anywhere.I think your imagination is just running wild.
The personal associates of Radha and Krishna are not marginal energy.
You are just imagining that they are.
when the jiva gets imbued with hladini shakti he is not "marginal" anymore, but has been taken into the internal energy.
There is nothing marginal in the whole of Goloka.
It is all internal energy.
No marginal energy there.
You may want to get some reading glasses:
From Mahaprabhura Siksa: The Teachings of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu by Bhaktivinoda Thakura:Quote:Sri Jiva says:
tad evam ananta eva jivakhyas tatasthah saktayah
tatra tasam varga-dvayam eko vargo’ nadita
eva bhagavad-unmukhah anyas tv anadita eva bhagavat-paranmukhah svabhavatas tadiya-jnana-bhavat tadiya-jnanabhavat ca tatra prathamo’ ntaranga- sakti vilasanu
grhito nitya-bhagavat-parikara rupo garudadikah asya
ca tatasthatvam jivatva-prasiddher isvaratva-kotav
apravesat aparam tu tat paranmukhatva-
dosena labdha-chidraya mayaya paribhutah samsari
The number of jivas is unlimited. They are divided into two classes. One class is favorable to the Lord without beginning. The other class is averse to the Lord without beginning. The first class is favorable to the Lord because of knowledge of relationship with the Lord. The second class is averse to the Lord because of lack of that knowledge. The favorable jivas are all recipients of the Lords splendid internal energy. They are the eternal associates of the Lord, such as Garuda. They are not in the category of the Lord, as in shown by the scriptures. They are still tatastha or jiva. The second class of jivas is devoid of the help of the internal energy as they are averse to the Lord. Because of this lack, they are overwhelmed by maya and take repeated birth in the material world.
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.
-
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/
Before I proceed, I should share with the readers of this document some information about who I am. Briefly: My initiated name is Pranakrsna dasa Adhikari. I have been a practicing Vaisnava for the last twenty years. I was associated with the International Society for Krsna Consciousness from approximately 1978 till 1985. At that time, I made the decision to take initiation from Srila B.R. Sridhara Gosvami Maharaja. I received first initiation in 1985, and brahmana initiation in 1986, both times in Navadvipa Dhama. Presently, I am a Advanced Opportunity Fellow working on my Ph.D. in South Asian Languages and Literature at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. My fields of specialization include Sanskrit, History of South Asian Religion and Philosophy of Religion. I am, first and foremost, a practicing and believing Vaisnava. I am not, however, affiliated with, or a member of, any current Vaisnava institution. I am neither pro nor anti-ISKCON, neither pro nor anti-Gaudiya Matha, neither pro nor anti-Rtvik. Actually, I dislike politics in any and all forms. What will hopefully constitute the greatest strength of this position paper is the very fact that it is being presented, not by one of the many antagonists of the continuing political crisis in the Krsna Consciousness Movement, but by an objective, neutral and trained scholar who has studied this movement for the past twenty years, and for whom its survival and ultimate success is of the utmost importance.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
Frank Morales, M.A., was born in Brooklyn, New York in August, 1963. Despite being an American by birth, Frank has been both studying and practicing the ancient spiritual tradition of Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) for the past 23 years. His interest in Hinduism began when he first read the Bhagavad Gita, the most important scripture of Hinduism, at the tender age of ten. A very philosophically inquisitive child, Frank began collecting and reading a vast number of books relating to the Hindu religion. He also proceeded to practice various forms of yoga, pranayama (breathing exercises) and meditation soon after this first encounter with the Gita. At the young age of 14, Frank visited a Hindu temple for the first time. So awed was he with the beauty and power of Hinduism that he encountered in this temple that, on the spot, he decided to devote his life to the path of Hinduism. After living the life of a celibate Hindu monk for six years, Frank was initiated as a brahmana (a Hindu priest) in 1986 and given the name Pranakrishnan Adhikari.At his present age of 36, Frank remains a committed Hindu to this day. Frank is a follower of the ancient Shri Vaishnava tradition of Ramanuja, which is found predominantly in South India. This tradition stresses complete self-surrender to the loving grace of God, the achievement of self-realization through the practice of yoga, and love and service towards all living beings.
With a Philosophy major and a Theology minor, Frank earned a Bachelor of Arts degree, magna cum laude, from Loyola University Chicago in 1994. In May of 1999, Frank earned a Master of Arts degree in South Asian Languages and Literature. At present, Frank is a Fellow working on his Ph.D. in Languages and Cultures of Asia at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He specializes in Sanskrit, Hindu Studies, Philosophy of Religion and History of Religion. Frank is currently working on his first book entitled "Bhagavata-sabda-pramana: The Epistemology of Jiva Gosvamin in the Interpretation of Vedanta".
This is a funny bit from his myspace page http://www.myspace.com/DharmaPravartaka
Dharma Pravartaka's Interests
Movies 300, The Mission, Dragon, The Crow, Bram Stoker's Dracula, Signs, They Were Soldiers, The Lord of the Rings (Trilogy), Hero, United 93, The Ring, Chronicles of Narnia, Deep Impact, Cinema Paradiso, Dune, Kundun, On Deadly Ground, Braveheart, The Lion King, Red Dawn, Lost Horizon, Ong Bak: The Thai Warrior, The Last Samurai, Excalibur, The Matrix (only the first one), Fearless.
Television Television is the antithesis of Truth.
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.
-
Duh, there are unlimited marginal jivas in the spiritual sky.They are make up what is known as the brahmajyoti.
But, the personal associates of Krishna are not "marginal" anything.
Can the professor please show us where the associates of Radha and Krishna are "marginal" living entities?
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...
-
The Viraja river or causal ocean is also referred to as "the marginal plane".So, the "tatastha" jiva is the jiva that is manifested by Maha-Vishnu as he rests in the Viraja river or the "marginal" plane between the spiritual and material worlds.
Not all jivas are "tatastha" jivas.
There are also jivas that are integrated into the internal potency. (svarupa-shakti)
Marginal jivas are the jivas that are bereft of hladini-shakti (love of Krishna).
To think that the gopi jivas in Krsnaloka are marginal is just wrong.
In fact all the gopis are expanded via the hladini-shakti and are not "jivas" anymore.
I quoted shastra above to show that all the gopis are expansions of Radha.
They are NOT tatastha-jivas manifested by Paramatma.
From Mahaprabhura Siksa: The Teachings of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu by Bhaktivinoda Thakura:
Sri Jiva says:tad evam ananta eva jivakhyas tatasthah saktayah
tatra tasam varga-dvayam eko vargo’ nadita
eva bhagavad-unmukhah anyas tv anadita eva bhagavat-paranmukhah svabhavatas tadiya-jnana-bhavat tadiya-jnanabhavat ca tatra prathamo’ ntaranga- sakti vilasanu
grhito nitya-bhagavat-parikara rupo garudadikah asya
ca tatasthatvam jivatva-prasiddher isvaratva-kotav
apravesat aparam tu tat paranmukhatva-
dosena labdha-chidraya mayaya paribhutah samsari
The number of jivas is unlimited. They are divided into two classes. One class is favorable to the Lord without beginning. The other class is averse to the Lord without beginning. The first class is favorable to the Lord because of knowledge of relationship with the Lord. The second class is averse to the Lord because of lack of that knowledge. The favorable jivas are all recipients of the Lords splendid internal energy. They are the eternal associates of the Lord, such as Garuda. They are not in the category of the Lord, as in shown by the scriptures. They are still tatastha or jiva. The second class of jivas is devoid of the help of the internal energy as they are averse to the Lord. Because of this lack, they are overwhelmed by maya and take repeated birth in the material world.
From Bhaktivinoda’s Jaiva Dharma
Vrajanatha: What is the Vedantic meaning of the word tatastha?Babaji: The space between the ocean and the land is called the tata (shore), but the place that touches the ocean is actually nothing but land, so where is the shore? The tata is the line of distinction separating the ocean and the land, and it is so fine that it cannot be seen with the gross eyes. If we compare the transcendental realm to the ocean, and the material world to the land, then tata is the subtle line that divides the two, and the jiva-sakti is situated at the place where the two meet. The jivas are like the countless atomic particles of light within the sunrays. Being situated in the middle place, the jivas see the spiritual world on one side and the material universe created by maya on the other. Just as Bhagavan’s spiritual sakti on one side is unlimited, maya-sakti on the other side is also very powerful. The innumerable subtle (suksma) jivas are situated between these two. The jivas are marginal by nature because they have manifested from Krsna’s tatasthasakti (marginal potency).
Vrajanatha: What is the tatastha-svabhava (marginal nature)?
Babaji: It is the nature that enables one to be situated between both worlds, and to see both sides. Tatastha-svabhava is the eligibility to come under the control of either of the saktis. Sometimes the shore is submerged in the river because of erosion, and then again it becomes one with the land because the river changes its course. If the jiva looks in the direction of Krsna – that is, towards the spiritual world – he is influenced by Krsna sakti. He then enters the spiritual world, and serves Bhagavan in his pure, conscious, spiritual form. However, if he looks towards maya, he becomes opposed to Krsna and is incarcerated by maya. This dual-faceted nature is called the tatastha-svabhava (marginal nature)…
…Vrajanatha: So maya has nothing whatever to do with creating the svarupa of the jivas – this has to be accepted. At the same time, I have also clearly understood that the jiva is by nature subject to the influence of maya. Now I want to know, did the cit-sakti create the jivas and give them their tatastha-svabhava (marginal nature)?
Babaji: No, the cit-sakti is paripurna-sakti, the complete potency of Krsna, and its manifestations are all eternally perfect substances.The jiva is not nitya-siddha, although when he performs sadhana, he can become sadhana-siddha and enjoy transcendental happiness like the nitya-siddhas, eternally perfect beings. All the four types of Srimati Radhika’s sakhis are nitya-siddha, and they are direct expansions (kaya-vyuha) of the cit-sakti, Srimati Radhika Herself. All the jivas, on the other hand, have manifested from Sri Krsna’s jiva-sakti. The cit-sakti is Sri Krsna’s complete sakti, whereas the jiva-sakti is His incomplete sakti. Just as the complete tattvas are all transformations of the complete potency, similarly innumerable atomic, conscious jivas are transformations of the incomplete sakti.
(...)
Vrajanatha: Will you please explain who are the nitya-siddha gopis and who are the sadhana-siddha gopis?
Babaji: Srimati Radharani is Sri Krsna’s svarupa-sakti, and the eight principal sakhis are Her first kaya-vyuha (bodily expansions). The other sakhis follow behind as Her further kaya-vyuha. All these sakhis are nitya-siddha; they are svarupa-sakti-tattva, not jiva-tattva. The general sakhis of Vraja – who attained perfection by performing sadhana – follow Srimati Radharani’s eternal associates (parikara), and they are known as sadhana-siddha jivas. Having been imbued with the potency of hladini-sakti, they attained salokya (residence in vraja-aprakrta-lila) with the nityasiddha sakhis of Vraja. Jivas who attain perfection by the path of raganuga-sadhana in srngara-rasa are included amongst the sadhana-siddha sakhis.
CC Ādi 4.81:
Among them are various groups of consorts in Vraja who have varieties of sentiments and mellows. They help Lord Kṛṣṇa taste all the sweetness of the rāsa dance and other pastimes.PURPORT
As already explained, Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā are one in two. They are identical. Kṛṣṇa expands Himself in multi-incarnations and plenary portions like the puruṣas. Similarly, Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī expands Herself in multiforms as the goddesses of fortune, the queens and the damsels of Vraja. Such expansions from Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī are all Her plenary portions. All these womanly forms of Kṛṣṇa are expansions corresponding to His plenary expansions of Viṣṇu forms. These expansions have been compared to reflected forms of the original form. There is no difference between the original form and the reflected forms. The female reflections of Kṛṣṇa’s pleasure potency are as good as Kṛṣṇa Himself.
The plenary expansions of Kṛṣṇa’s personality are called vaibhava-vilāsa and vaibhava-prakāśa, and Rādhā’s expansions are similarly described. The goddesses of fortune are Her vaibhava-vilāsa forms, and the queens are Her vaibhava-prakāśa forms. The personal associates of Rādhārāṇī, the damsels of Vraja, are direct expansions of Her body. As expansions of Her personal form and transcendental disposition, they are agents of different reciprocations of love in the pastimes of Lord Kṛṣṇa, under the supreme direction of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī. In the transcendental realm, enjoyment is fully relished in variety. The exuberance of transcendental mellows is increased by the association of a large number of personalities similar to Rādhārāṇī, who are also known as gopīs or sakhīs. The variety of innumerable mistresses is a source of relish for Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and therefore these expansions from Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī are necessary for enhancing the pleasure potency of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Their transcendental exchanges of love are the superexcellent affairs of the pastimes in Vṛndāvana. By these expansions of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī’s personal body, She helps Lord Kṛṣṇa taste the rāsa dance and other, similar activities. Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, being the central petal of the rāsa-līlā flower, is also known by the names found in the following verses.
Brahman – The absolute God of Hindus ? Confused?
in Spiritual Discussions
Posted · Report reply
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.