shiva

Another thing for sarva gattah: You didn't copy this correctly Because you didn't include the proper formatting for quotes it appears that the entire bit above is from “Sri Caitanya’s Teachings” by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura. In fact the third paragraph is my commentary, with my typo "locatice" which should have been "locative" (c and v are right next to each other on the keyboard), and also the typo for "Either was the constitutional": "was" should have been "way".

That is not accurate. The search capability for words used by the vedabase only searches for words in verses, it doesn't search for words in the purports.

Hi sarva, you are now the third person I have seen plagiarizing my writing on this forum. I don't visit here very much anymore so there may be more. The first two I confronted: Krsna (who copy and pasted numerous writings of mine from other forums and tried to pass them off as his here, still there are many available here without his citing who actually wrote them), and suchandra who I caught plagiarizing me once. In both cases when confronted, their response was somewhat similar, they wouldn't admit they did anything wrong, suchandra was insulting to me for daring to expose his plagiarism. So what are you going to do? What is it with you people? You guys are some of the most prolific writers on this forum, why is it you feel the need to plagiarize? It's perfectly alright to copy and paste if you cite the source, but copy and pasting without doing that says something about you guys (girls?) and your desire to gain adoration.

From the Kali Santarana Upanishad

I think Madhava is trying to say that the raganuga sadhana path needs a specific type of emotional input e.g. imitating or trying to cultivate the emotions of a manjari If that is what he meant, then I can say that I warned against getting involved in what he was doing, that the higher levels of bhakti cannot be rushed into otherwise it becomes imitationism of a reality that you don't understand. It simply won't work, and it may seem like the problem is that you don't have the emotional proclivity to do what a bunch of babajis tell you that you should do, but that is because they are not really qualified. Madhava admits that in the end he felt let down by all the babajis he met, not surprising since they are not really on the level they claim and are not qualified to teach about the higher level of bhakti if they teach what Madhava taught.

If you guys are unaware, our good friend here at Audarya, Raga, also known as Madhavananda Das, who has spent the last few years in India, mostly in Braj, has converted to Theravada Buddhism. Over the years Raga gained quite a large following for himself over the internet for his preaching of his interpretation of "Raganuga Bhakti" aka what he liked to call "traditional" Gaudiya vaisnavism. Now he is starting to preach why he rejected Gaudiya vaisnavism and the superiority of his new chosen path. My new blog http://vraja-journal.blogspot.com/ will be an analysis and commentary on Raga's (now calling himself Ananda) preaching to the Gaudiya community. Madhava has given us a number of reasons for rejecting gaudiya vaisnavism. One of the reasons is that he claimed that the gaudiya path needs a certain level of "emotional cultivation" and that he was lacking in the emotional arena for a number of possible reasons. In a recent blog he wrote: "The emotional cultivation practiced in many bhakti-traditions, and particularly so in the raganuga-method, is a means of employing one's existing emotional patterns in conjunction with a specific god-relationship — hence verses such as kamad dvesad bhayad snehat — and as such particularly suitable for people with powerful latent emotional bases ready to be dovetailed, fueling the intensity of god-absorption. An obvious problem arises if people don't possess the adequate latent mental formations on which to build these god-redirected feelings. Even Sri Rupa recognizes the need for the appropriate previous samskara as a prerequisite for attaining prema in his Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu. Then, engagement in raganuga-cultivation would in effect entail a backtracking to redevelop the eradicated or absent areas of human emotional nature to be redirected on towards god; in my view, a rather steep and unnecessary curve." In a previous blog he told us that another reason for rejecting the gaudiya path was because the raganuga path wasn't elaborated comprehensively enough to enable a practitioner such as himself to make progress. I remember some years back on either his forum or some other forum, where I was telling him that his vision of Gaudiya vaisnavism would eventually likely cause him to give up on the Gaudiya path. I remember explaining that the cause would be due to a lack of progress in his path, specifically I recall saying that he would get bored of doing what he was doing. I told him that the path he was following was erroneous, that he was prematurely getting involved with subject matter that was beyond his capability to understand, and that because of that he would not receive the result he desired and would simply get bored and move on to something else. I don't wanna be that guy who says "I told you so", but I guess I am. For years I told him that the higher path would only be understandable for someone who had become completely educated on Bhagavat ontology, that if people weren't educated enough and then attempted to immerse themselves in the higher path in the way that he was promoting, that you would not understand any of it, that you would only see the literal meanings of the words of the acaryas, and that you would therefore be unable to enter into the higher path. For years I told him that the works of the acaryas on rasa were deeply and almost totally symbolic and metaphoric in nature. The very first time I directed my comments to him on Kshamabuddhi's old forum (long gone), before I got active on his forum, I made a long comment where I said that it was obvious from reading him that he was completely clueless as to what he was talking about. I told him that his taking of it all literally (rasa sastra) was proof to me that he was completely clueless as to what the higher path was about. I told him that due to his vision of seeing Radha and Krishna as totally distinct individuals (instead of one soul in two forms) that I knew he didn't have a clue as to what the higher path is really all about. I told him that the higher path was called "confidential" because the truth of that path wasn't spelled out literally in any sastra, yet he was simply literally parroting that sastra and thinking he was engaged in the highest and most profound aspect of gaudiya vaisnavism. I knew he didn't get it because if he did "get it" he wouldn't be immersed in what he was doing. It was like children playing in the sand box thinking they were living the most sophisticated lives, and I told him just that. After that I would come to tell him time and time again that his failure in not accepting certain ontological realities concerning the nature of Radha Krishna and rasa lila would keep him from entering into the higher reality. Yet he fought me tooth and nail, he insisted that the rasa sastra should be literally interpreted, that he knew what he was doing, that everyone else who saw things differently then him was wrong. I have to reject his reasons for giving up on gaudiya vaisnavism. I told him from day one that his vision would end up nowhere. The problem isn't his lack of an "emotional component". Also his problem isn't a lack of a comprehensive account for the higher path in the gaudiya school. His problem is that he wouldn't accept the truth when it was made available to him by older more experienced bhaktas. He was sure, and it seems like he still is from what I can tell of his recent blogs, that he still thinks gaudiya vaisnavism is all about what he taught for years it was about. Yet his vision led where? He gave it up because there was no taste, he wanted the sweetness and all he ended up with was a bunch of romantic stories to read over and over. At the end of the day he wanted rasa with Radha Krishna, but couldn't achieve it quickly and lost faith. His long time friend and co-leader of the so called "traditionalists" who preached on the internet for so many years, Jagadananda Das aka Jagat, also publicly came out and revealed that the so called "traditional" path they liked to present as the "authentic" path of gaudiya vaisnavism, was given up by him in pursuit of a neo-sahajiya path. So yeah, I'm the guy who told them so. Over and over for years I said that their approach to raganuga was wrong and would lead nowhere. The same goes for anyone who took what Madhava taught as the bonafide higher path of gaudiya vaisnavism. The end result will always be the same. You won't get the promised result and you will end up bored and frustrated. If you are egotistic enough you will end up thinking there is no God because if there is he would show himself to you because you will think you are so advanced. So yes Madhava, there is a necessary emotional component to the higher path of bhakti, that emotion is humility. That is the only "emotional cultivation" needed.

Atheists and all people believe what their karma forces them to believe. Whether you believe in God or not is under the control of God. Your belief in reincarnation is an example of how your beliefs are not under your control. In order for reincarnation to take place there would need to be an intelligent overseer with the ability to make reincarnation happen. Yet you believe that there is no such intelligent overseer yet still believe in reincarnation. This shows how people will believe illogical things to be logical and logical things to be illogical. Even when proven to them that their beliefs are without rationality people will believe what their karma dictates, which is controlled by God. The evolutionists are another example of this principle. Evolutionary theory is based upon a huge number of mathematically impossible (so improbable as to be impossible) events taking place one and after another (origin of life for starters), yet even though it can be easily proven that life as we know it cannot exist by chance, still because it is their karma, they cannot see the obvious illogical position they hold to be true, as lacking a rational basis. God controls what you believe regardless of the evidence before your eyes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4vDDRlATeI

Bhagavad Gita As It Is 4.7

Mormons have always been friendly to devotees and easy to talk to about Krishna consciousness. Back in the late 1970's I was in the Salt Lake City temple for a few months (Narasingha Swami's co-leader of his ashram - B.B. Vishnu Swami, was a book distributor there, back then he was known as Bhavananda Raya Dasa), the temple was a big house not far from downtown. We had I think 3 or 4 devotees, it was a satellite temple and never developed due to Ramesvara Swami thinking that Salt Lake City wasn't worth putting manpower into. It was well known that the airport there was a great place to sell books to young mormons flying out to their missions. Mormons were known to be easy to preach to, and easy to sell books to, they have always been very receptive to devotees. I think it is for a few reasons. They have similar views about sex, drugs, and mundane society that most devotees have. They have a feeling of being outsiders in american society and they see a kinship with devotees in that regard. And they seem to have a genuine interest in Indian religion and culture. I also worked with Caru Dasa back in the 70's when he was running the festival of India programs, along with Maduha Dasa, who did most of the actual physical work.

Jahnava Nitai is and has been doing exemplary service for many years. He could easily remove his operation from where it is and go to some well off area and "preach" to well off people. He could easily avoid the disease ridden people, their misery, their lack of ability to aid him in his mission, and set his sights on gaining a reputation in Bangalore or Mumbai or New Delhi as a great bhakta, he could spend his time eating luxurious prasad and being worshipped for nothing more then speaking flowery words and affecting an expected pose towards fat greedy businessmen and their families who look for "sadhus" to worship in hope of some pratistha and sukriti. If Jahnava Nitai really wanted to stroke his ego he could do like so many other supposed gurus and guru wannabes. Murali has shown in the past that often his words are coming from a place of pratistha. He often just wants to be honored as an advanced spiritualist, so he will often say things that he thinks will get him that honor. If his words provoke people to criticize him, then in order to defend his pratistha he oftentimes will say things trying to convince others that he is right, even if he knows he is wrong. In this current flare-up we see what I believe has been a problem with the way many devotees think children need to be treated, especially seen manifest in the way gurukulas were run in the past, and also some in the present. What I mean is that people project their own views of what they think adults should be doing to achieve "Krishna Consciousness", and then force that onto children. The adults get to choose to follow a renunciative life, the children are forced to live like hard core brahmacaris, all day long they are either studying, chanting, or working, without any time to be children. The result we have seen for years, most of the children raised like that develop the vision that vaisnavism equals unhappiness due to being unhappy children, most of them end up wanting nothing to do with vaisnavism. But does ISKCON learn? Some of the devotees have learned, they won't send their kids to those schools which are run like prisons, they won't force their children into being hard care renunciative "sadhus". But we still see that ISKCON is operating schools which do that, of course in the name of those programs being "authorized" in some way or another. Yet the people who run these schools of course would not like to have had their own childhood turned into a forced prison camp, but they are eager to convince others that they should turn their children over to them in the name of their childrens salvation (in reality it is money they really want). So I see Murali as a person with that same type of vision that has been and is all too common amongst gaudiya vaisnavas, that children are better off living a life of the full time sadhaka brahmacari. With that vision Murali has a hard time seeing how toys will help those children, after all aren't they better off learning that the material world is a place of misery, aren't they better off hearing someone say "Hare Krishsna" then playing? Isn't all they really need is a mat to sleep on, enough food to keep body and soul together, and to be free from all influences of non spiritual society? Isn't the life of a brahmacari sadhaka really what those kids are living? Why should their life of renunciation be contaminated? All they need to perfect their life now is to chant, they have the rest down pat. If they are educated they will simply get caught in the rat race of material society, better they stay how they are for their own good. Murali may not have those exact thoughts, but it is that mentality which he has displayed, which he has been indoctrinated into by others with the same mentality. As Jahnava Nitai pointed out, it is usually a belief held by hypocrits, usually held by people who weren't forced into an unhappy deprived childhood like that which they see as good, although I am sure you can find ex-gurukulis who were subjected to such unhappy childhoods but have still fallen to the indoctrination of belief that for the welfare of their souls, children should be deprived of a happy childhood.

The gaudiya viewpoint on Shiva as articulated by Jiva Goswami (Jiva goswami was deputed by Sri Caitaya to write the philosophical basis for the gaudiya sampradaya) Jiva Goswami explains (in I think his Paramatma Sandarbha) that there are 2 types of Shivas. He says that when the sastras describe Shiva as being like Vishnu, then that is Sadasiva, who is a svamsa expansion of Krishna and is therefore Visnu tattva, and when Shiva is described as being less then Vishnu then that is the demigod Shiva, who is not a svamsa expansion, not Visnu Tattva. Visnu tattva means an avatar of Visnu, like Krishna, Ramachandra, Narayana, Sri Radha, Lakshmi devi, Sita etc. They are all the all pervading (Visnu) supreme lord. There are many threads on this forum where the details of this topic have been gone over in depth.

A liberated soul knows that everthing is being done under the control of paramatma. Therefore he takes no offense at anything because he sees the action of paramatma in everyone's actions. So what to make of the conception of aparadha? We must understand that in the conditioned state people cannot see the control of paramatma in their lives, neither in the actions of others, nor in their own actions. They see people in control of what they do. Just like on this forum, even though we can show countless verses from sastra which tell us that we are not in control of anything, still due to being conditioned souls almost everyone on this forum believes that they are controlling what they write, and that the other writers are also controlling what they write. This is seen to be true by how people relate to each other i.e. people are either constantly taking offense for being criticized, or are criticizing others as if they are controlling what they write. This is all the sign of being conditioned by the illusion of control. People think they control what is going on in their mind, so they think they control what they write. They think others control what is going on in their minds, and so believe that those others control what they write as well. Even though many people on this forum have heard and believe in the teaching that we are not in control of anything, including the mind, still due to conditioning they cannot stop identifying with being controllers and believing others to be controllers. From this delusion people then take offense. A person who is free from conditioned consciousness is not under the illusion of being a controller, nor does he believe any other jiva is a controller. Therefore he takes no offense for himself nor is he offended on other people's behalf. He knows that everything going on is outside of the control of the jiva. So how can he take offense at that which has the sanction of and being guided by the Lord? He doesn't. Neither does the Lord. How can the Lord take offense at something he is controlling? He doesn't. So what is the deal with aparadha? We must understand that the conditioned soul is constantly bewildered and cannot properly discern reality from unreality from moment to moment. Sometimes he may have a clarity of vision and see the Lord in control of everything , the next moment he is totally deluded and sees himself or so many different controllers of what he experiences. In this way the conditioned soul exists in a reality that is unreal. The path of bhakti is designed to elevate the conditioned soul to the transcendental plane, to take the jiva from constant unreality to permanent reality. Along the way the bhakta will go through stages where sometimes he will have clarity of vision, and other times deluded vision. When he is deluded he will take offense for himself or for others due to not seeing the true nature of reality ( i.e. that God is always in control of and has planned out what you will experience). One method Krishna has created in which to use the deluded vision of the bhakta for his own good, is the concept of vaisnava aparadha, or other types of spiritual aparadha. Bhaktas laboring under the delusion of control can be aided in their bhakti development by emotional attachments to devotional ethics. For example, when Mahaprabhu showed anger due to Nityananda being attacked, or any other display of anger by Krishna, or that of any other avatar in their lilas, the reality is that God is not really angry. God is controlling what everyone does, so there is no question of God ever being angry at what people do. In the material realm people are controlled by paramatma to fulfill their karmic destiny, everything they do is their destiny, planned out and guided by paramatma. In the liberated realm also people are controlled, but instead of being led by paramatma to fulfill karmic destiny, they are controlled by yogamaya, which performs the role of paramatma in the spiritual world i.e. plans out everything and guides everyone to enhance rasa. Either way God is always 100% in full control of everything at all times. So God cannot be angry. But there are displays of anger which serve the purpose of aiding in devotional sentiment, to enhance rasa. But the anger is not real, it is an illusion designed to create a particular devotional mood in order to enhance rasa with the devotees in those lilas. The devotees in those lilas where anger is shown (or fear, or other delusional sentiments) due to the influence of yogamaya, are led to believe that Krishna or some other avatar or devotee can be hurt in some way. Therefore that fear of their beloved coming to harm adds something to the rasa in those lilas. So in the same way for the bhaktas who are not in lila, but who are on the progressive path, the path of bhakti, the concept of aparadha is used to create emotional development of the bhakta. Devotees can and do get angry when they see their beloved guru or devotee friend "offended" in some way, they can and do get angry if they see Krishna or the sastra or bhakti "offended" in some way. While these are all delusions due to not being steady in their vision of seeing the control of the Lord in all circumstances in all actions, still these concepts of aparadha serve the purpose of developing a certain devotional mood of the bhakta, not totally unlike the anger of the liberated associates of the Lord in lila under the control of yogamaya. So even though the concept of aparadha is based on a delusional understanding of reality, still it has been designed to aid those under delusion in the development of devotional sentiments. Still we are advised to rise above the delusional platform, to come to the vision of reality which is free from all illusions: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.13.24 manasā vacasā dṛṣṭyā gṛhyate 'nyair apīndriyaih aham eva na matto 'nyad iti budhyadhvam añjasā SYNONYMS manasā — by the mind; vacasā — by speech; dṛṣṭyā — by sight; gṛhyate — is perceived and thus accepted; anyaiḥ — by others; api — even; indriyaiḥ — senses; aham — I; eva — indeed; na — not; mattaḥ — besides Me; anyat — anything else; iti — thus; budhyadhvam — you should all understand; añjasā — by straightforward analysis of the facts. TRANSLATION Within this world, whatever is perceived by the mind, speech, eyes or other senses is Me alone and nothing besides Me. All of you please understand this by a straightforward analysis of the facts.

Well, I don't know if you are using the translation of Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.6.16 that appears in the actual Srimad-Bhagavatam which is published by ISKCON, or if you are refering to some other source of translation. But one thing you shold know is that Prabhupada didn't translate most of the 10th canto nor the entire 11th and 12th cantos of the Bhagavatam. He left his body before finishing the Bhagavatam translation. I think he finished upto Canto 10 chapter 13. That being said, one of the main verses from the Bhagavatam for gaudiya vaisnavas is Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.28 ete camsa-kalah pumsah krsnas tu bhagavan svayam indrari-vyakulam lokam mrdayanti yuge yuge ete -- all these; ca -- and; amsa -- plenary portions; kalah -- portions of the plenary portions; pumsah -- of the Supreme; krsnah -- Lord Krsna; tu -- but; bhagavan -- the Personality of Godhead; svayam -- in person; indra-ari -- the enemies of Indra; vyakulam -- disturbed; lokam -- all the planets; mrdayanti -- gives protection; yuge yuge -- in different ages. TRANSLATION All of the above-mentioned incarnations [all the visnu avatars] are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Sri Krsna is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to protect the theists. You should also understand that the verse you object to is part of the glorification where the devas are praising Krishna. To properly understand that verse it should be seen in the context of the other verses in that glorification. Your objection seems to be that the Bhagavatam doesn't really consider Krishna to be the source of all incarnations, if I am wrong on your theory, tell me so. Prabhupada did not invent this theological outlook, nor did his disciples. It is the teaching of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu according to the chroniclers of his life and teachings. It is also indisputably the teaching of the Bhagavatam. The basic teachings of the gaudiya sampradaya is that Krishna is the full embodiment of the personality of godhead (along with Sri Radha). We should not think that gaudiya vaisnavism teaches that Vishnu and Krishna, Rama and Narasingha, etc, are in any way different from each other. Mahaprabhu himself discovered the Brahma Samhita, this is chapter 5 text 46 The conception of Vishnu in gaudiya vaisnavism is different then in some other vaisnava sampradayas. The gaudiya theological conception is that the Lord in his full complete manifestation is Sri Krishna (And Sri Radha as his female counterpart). Sri Radha Krishna manifests all of the personality of Godhead, whereas other manifestations of God do not. Therefore in this conception all the incarnations of God, while all being one and the same entity viz. like the fire of one candle being the same fire in other candles, the manifestation of God who is displaying all of God's personality is considered to be the original and source of all other incarnations and expansions. Just like if your personality is fully displayed when you are amongst close friends and a different lesser manifestation of your personality is displayed for other people you relate with, it can be said that the original and source of your various personalties is the one which is manifesting your personality in full with your close friends. This is the conception of the gaudiya sampradaya and the teaching of he Bhagavatam. Radha Krishna is the full manifestation of God's personality, therefore other manifestations of God can be considered to be expansions from Radha Krishna. Lakshmi Narayana display a less intimate manifestation of God's personality then Radha Krishsna, therefore although they are one and the same, Lakshmi Narayana are considered to have their origin in Radha Krishna. This is not the teaching of Prabhupada, this is the teaching of gaudiya vaisnavism. You also said The same teaching is found in the Gita What Krishna is trying to tell us is that ultimately everything is his manifestation, He is everywhere manifesting everything. Not just the devas. In the above he mentions all sorts of prominent and poetic manifestations to try to get you to understand how all pervasive is His presence and influence. The things you quote from the Rig Veda can be understood in different ways. Because God is the actual controller of everything, therefore whatever the devas supposedly have control over, is actually under the control of God. The devas have no independence, even though many people may worship the devas as if they do in fact have the power to grant their wishes. But in fact Krishna says Therefore the Rig Veda teaches: Similarly today outside of India they call him Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, Brahman, etc.

What Krishna is saying in 2.45 needs to be understood within the context of the previous verses: The context of these teachings are the 4 purusharthas which are taught in the Vedas - Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha. These 4 aims of life are what the Vedas teach. The Vedas are a vast body of literature which teach on all subject matters having to do with human society, both material and spiritual. What Krishna is saying is that the Vedas mostly are about subjects that have to do with goals for people who are heavily influenced by the 3 gunas i.e dharma, artha, and kama. The Vedas teach different paths of action which will be attractive to people influenced in different ways by the 3 gunas. For those who are mostly influenced by tamo guna they will be mostly attracted to the sections of the Vedas which promise kama, material enjoyment. For those mostly influenced by rajo guna they will be mostly attracted by the teachings on artha, material prosperity. For those most influenced by sattva guna they will be mostly attracted to the teachings on dharma, material duty. All of these teachings in the vedas are arranged for the gradual upliftment of people and society to higher levels of consciousness. Krishna is telling Arjuna that these goals are inferior to the true purpose of the Vedas, which is moksha, liberation. BG 2.46: All purposes served by a small well can at once be served by a great reservoir of water. Similarly, all the purposes of the Vedas can be served to one who knows the purpose behind them. What Krishna is saying is that even though the Vedas give so many different instructions on how to live your life, the real purpose of the Vedas is to liberate people from material consciousness, to elevate people to God consciousness. So Krishna is saying give up all the lesser teachings of the Vedas ,which are seen as worthy goals by those under the influence of the 3 modes of nature, rise to the plane of of God consciousness, act solely for Krishna's purpose. All the purposes of the Vedas are served by that purpose because the Vedas really only serve a single purpose, moksha. By following Krishna's instructions you have attained the purpose of the Vedas, you are liberated. Moksha is not some abstract substanceless reality, it is realization of the true nature of reality and our relationship with it. Understanding that reality the liberated person acts free from the influence of the 3 modes, under the divine guidance and protection of Krishna. Bhagavad Gita 18.64-66 sarva-guhyatamaḿ bhūyah śṛṇu me paramaḿ vacah iṣṭo 'si me dṛḍham iti tato vakṣyāmi te hitam SYNONYMS sarva-guhya-tamam — the most confidential of all; bhūyaḥ — again; śṛṇu — just hear; me — from Me; paramam — the supreme; vacaḥ — instruction; iṣṭaḥ asi — you are dear; me — to Me; dṛḍham — very; iti — thus; tataḥ — therefore; vakṣyāmi — I am speaking; te — for your; hitam — benefit. TRANSLATION Because you are My very dear friend, I am speaking to you My supreme instruction, the most confidential knowledge of all. Hear this from Me, for it is for your benefit. man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māḿ namaskuru mām evaiṣyasi satyaḿ te pratijāne priyo 'si me SYNONYMS mat-manāḥ — thinking of Me; bhava — just become; mat-bhaktaḥ — My devotee; mat-yājī — My worshiper; mām — unto Me; namaskuru — offer your obeisances; mām — unto Me; eva — certainly; eṣyasi — you will come; satyam — truly; te — to you; pratijāne — I promise; priyaḥ — dear; asi — you are; me — to Me. TRANSLATION Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend. sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaḿ śaraṇaḿ vraja ahaḿ tvāḿ sarva-pāpebhyo mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucah SYNONYMS sarva-dharmān — all varieties of religion; parityajya — abandoning; mām — unto Me; ekam — only; śaraṇam — for surrender; vraja — go; aham — I; tvām — you; sarva — all; pāpebhyaḥ — from sinful reactions; mokṣayiṣyāmi — will deliver; mā — do not; śucaḥ — worry. TRANSLATION Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.

Well, no. What is being described is theism, where Buddha and others such as Vajradhara and Vairochana are the personal manifestations (avatars) of the "awakened mind" of the dharmadhatu (brahman). What about the rest of what I provided? They are all a part of single belief system, which is clearly theistic. If you think those verses from those sutras are advaitin and not theistic, then you are not understanding what they are saying, or you do not know what qualifies as theism and what qualifies as advaita. Advaita does not believe in a God who is different then the jiva, Mahayana clearly believes in permanence of the soul. In the above is a refutation of advaitin doctrine. For the advaitins the self is extinguished when it attains moksa, it merges back into brahman, but the above is saying the self is not extinguished, the mental afflictions of the self are extinguished while the self is permanent.

In another thread a person was asking about the cause of a person pursuing a certain path even when that person had heard many arguments against following that path. What is the "pyschology" of someone who has had faith in and practiced sadhana bhakti for many years and then loses faith in bhakti? or vedanta? or become christians or wiccans or muslims or moonies or atheists? What you are really asking is, why do people accept any type of philosophy as true or false, or even, why do people do what they do? People believe according to what their destiny dictates. It's in God's hands. If you want to get into the details of how every person rationalizes what they believe, you first need to understand that no one is independent of the guidance and control of paramatma. Regardless of what a person may think is his motive or rationale for accepting one path over another, for doing one thing or another, the reality is that everyone is being controlled at all times and all are forced to act in a way so that they can experience what their karma dictates. That is until the time of their attaining to the stage of jivan-mukta, until they are completely free from maya and can relate with the Lord as a liberated person. Even at that stage where karma and the path of purification is not the cause of one's destiny, there is still no independence. There is never independence for the jiva because the jiva's inherent nature is dependence. To try and make this easily understood, consider how we function as intelligent people. We are consciousness. We are the consciousness which experiences the world through our senses, and we listen to and interact with the mind. We are consciousness and we are different from the mind, we "hear" the mind i.e. you are hearing the inner voice which is speaking these words to you as you read these words. As you read these words you can "hear" these words being spoken, that voice is the mind, that which hears the voice is you. Those who are under the influece of maya identify this voice they hear while they read this, as under their control, or even as themself. But in fact this voice they hear is not under their control. To prove this point, while you read these words, try to read them and also try to stop the voice which is speaking these words in your mind. You will see that it is not possible. In reality the voice you hear while reading these words, is not under your control. Instead this voice is what controls you. This voice is paramatma, God. In the Bhagavatam Kapiladev states When the jiva is free from ahankara/maya then he finds the Lord existing at the heart of the mind. Therefore Kapila says So the point I am making is that because the mind, the voice you hear while reading these words, or at anytime, is really not you nor under your control, therefore you are not independent in your actions. When the jiva is conditioned he is unaware of the true nature of the mind, he is intent on being the controller of his world, so the Lord provides the jiva with ahankara, the false ego, which convinces the jiva that the mind is under his control, causing the jiva to identify with the mind in order for the jiva to be convinced that he is in control. Therefore Kapiladev says Here we are told that ahankara is essentially creating our material existence. When one is under the influence of ahankara one misidentifies reality, thus creating the material world, material senses, and material mind. But in reality ahankara is the Lord. The Lord provides us with the illusion of being in control, which causes our material existence. Therefore the material existence we experience is really only tentative for the jiva, it is contingent upon our perception of ourselves and of our environment. The mind, the senses and the world are seen in one way when you are conditioned, but in a different way when you are liberated. Srila Prabhupada wrote the following in a purport to the Bhagavatam (verse 4.9.7 ) which may illuminate what Kapiladev is trying to convey: The basic idea which Kapiladev is trying to impart is that the “material” world exists for those whose consciousness is affected by ahankara. What he is saying is what Srila Prabhupada mentions in the above i.e. that the “material world” exists as a condition of the conditioned soul. For the person who is free from illusion, or the enlightened devotee, for them, the external energy of the Lord, or the “material” world, no longer exists. They exist in the spiritual world no matter where they are. An example would be the concept of prasadam. If we take an item which may seem to be comprised of material energy, like an apple, then offer that apple to the Lord, it becomes spiritual energy. The apple does not change it’s actual composition, it is still comprised of the same substance, what changes is the consciousness of those who see the apple as transcendental after it is offered to the Lord. So what Kapila and Prabhupada are saying is that the material world is “caused” by ahankara, or the material world exists as such by the perception of those under the influence of ahankara. Those who are free from ahankara understand that because everything is the energy of the Lord, and that the energy and the energetic are one, that they are “one and the same”, therefore the “material energy” no longer exists for them. If your life is not lived as an offering in service to the Lord then you exist in the “material world”, like food not offered to the Lord remains “material”, but when offered becomes “spiritual”. From Caitanya Caritamrta So what does this have to do with understanding how we function and have no independence? We are not the mind, we do not control the mind, the mind determines what we know or think we know, and determines what we do. We act according to the dictate of the mind. Krishna tells us sarvasya caham hrdi sannivisto mattah smrtir jnanam apohanam ca I am seated in everyone’s heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness The heart in this context means "the seat of the mind". Because we are not the mind and have no control over the mind, all knowledge we think we possess, which is supplied by the mind, is being supplied by Krishna as paramatma. Everything we think we know, where we are, who we are, what day it is, what year it is, how to speak a language, how to do or understand anything, is being supplied by the Lord as "memory" or knowledge. Everything the mind is doing is actually the action of paramatma. Knowing this at all times is what is experienced by the liberated soul. For him, paramatma, which you are listening to right now as it speaks these words in your mind, reveals it's true nature as the Lord. For the conditioned soul who desires to be the controller, the mind is seen through the influence of ahankara, and the mind is seen as under the control of the conditioned soul. But that is just an illusion the Lord creates for those souls who desire to be in control. But in reality no jiva is free from control, the mind controls the jiva. The conditioned jiva identifies with and thinks he controls the mind, whereas the liberated jiva develops his relationship with the Lord through the mind. The conditioned jiva hears these words spoken in his mind, but he does not see the Lord as the one speaking these words in his mind, whereas the liberated jiva is always aware of the truth of the voice which is speaking as his mind, he never identifies with this voice, and he understands that he does not control it. With this understanding the devotee develops a personal realtionship with the Lord, directly, and free from all speculations. So to answer your question, the people who take up some type of sahajiya practice, do so because that is their karma. They do what they are forced to do. From Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita, here are two relevant verses and purports.

From Wikipedia From Banglapedia

I guess you have or had the view of buddhism which most people in the west and most devotees have i.e. they think buddhism is essentially monolithic in it's beliefs i.e atheistic and similar to mayavada. In reality there are 2 major basic different types of buddhism (although there is a lot of mixing of the two creating a 3rd type, tantrayana buddhism) in the same way that there are 2 major basic types of vedic religion. In the vedic world there are personalists and impersonalists. The personalists are the vaishnavas and some shaivite sects, some shaktas and some smartas. The impersonalists are the sankarites who are mostly the majority of shaivites, smartas and shaktas. In the buddhist world there are 2 major basic categories, the Mahayana and Hinayana, the Mahayana are based upon personalist and theistic teachings and the Hinayana are based upon impersonalist and atheistic teachings. Probably the most important Mahayana scripture is the Nirvana or Mahaparinirvana Sutra which is where Siddhartha Gautama ("the buddha") purports to give his final and highest teaching. In it he teaches that the impersonal atheistic teachings are false, here is a bit from Wikipedia on the Mahaparinirvana Sutra: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahaparinirvana_Sutra Another important scripture for the Mahayana school is the Lotus Sutra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Buddha Most people outside of Asia think buddhism is strictly atheistic and impersonal, this is caused by a similar history which has caused mayavada teachings to be seen as representing vedic thought for many people outside of india i.e. the atheistic impersonal buddhist schools have been the ones who have spread their teachings worldwide, (Vivekananda and the vedanta society spread mayavada teachings around the world before bhakti) they are mostly made up of so-called intellectuals, while the common mass of buddhists in asia are more personlist and theistic in their beliefs. The Dalai Lama doesn't help the situation by claiming that buddhists are atheistic. The tibetan schools are tantric schools which are a mixture of mahayana and hinayana, but mostly mahayana.

As soon as you go above the earth's atmosphere everything is black unless you look into the sun. The reason the earth is bright during daytime is because light reflects off of the gases and dust in our atmosphere, giving a single light source the ability to light up a large area. Just like if you turn on a light in a room the whole room becomes diffused with light. In space there isn't enough matter to reflect light so that doesn't occur, light just continues to move until it reflects off of something. So it's not that the darkness is caused by not enough light sources, like the other poster said, at night it is dark because the light from the sun needs to directly hit the atmosphere of the earh in order for that light to relect all around and cause daylight conditions, that's why at night it is dark. Even though the sun is still close by, the sunlight in space on the dark side of the earth isn't able to light up the earth because it is not reflecting off of anything, it is just being shot out into space. As for the claim that you can only see 2,500 stars with the unaided eye, that is simply false. In reality it depends where you are which determines how many stars you can see. If you are in a secluded place very high up, which is why there are so many telescopes atop Mauna Kea in Hawaii, you can see close to 10, 000 stars with the unaided eye in the right place on earth. The closer you are to large light sources the less stars you can see. That is why astronomers want space telescopes. The claim that anything but what you can see with the unaided eye is a computer simulation and therefore fake, is also false. Modern telescopes work using similar principles to digital cameras. Are the videos and pictures you watch on a computer or digital telesvision not showing reality? These are real pictures, no different then if you took a picture with a camera with a super powerful lens http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/solar_system_collection/

A Brahmanda would have to be equivalent to a solar system if we take the descriptions of sastra literally. Why? 1 - There is one sun in a brahmanda. 2 - According to the Vishnu Purana our "universe" or brahmanda, is limited to 260,000,000 yojanas (2,080,000,000 miles) from the sun and is in total around 4,000,000,000 miles in diameter. Which lines up fairly well with the 2,798,842,261 miles average distance from the sun of the last recognized planet (pluto no longer seen as large enough to be a planet) in our solar system i.e. Neptune. But all this really has to be taken into account within the context of ancient vedic (non technological) society. According to the accounts in the Puranas, Vaikuntha begins at the end of our brahmanda ( http://vedabase.net/sb/5/23/9/en2 ). But also we are told that there are countless brahmandas which exist within the Mahat Tattva, and that the Mahat Tattva exists as a separate section, away from Vaikuntha. But if Vaikuntha begins at the end of our brahmanda, then that implies that either our brahmanda is on the edge of the Mahat Tattva, or that the countless brahmandas exist as the Mahat Tattva and are surrounded by Vaikuntha. How can Vaikuntha begin 2 billion miles from our sun when we can see using the Hubble telescope literally thousands of galaxies (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/07/image/a/format/large_web/ they say there are 10,000 galaxies in this picture alone), each of which is vastly larger then our solar system, surrounding our solar system on all sides? What to speak of the stars and planets surrounding our solar system within our own galaxy! So these descriptions of our universe found in sastra are not meant to be factually totally accurate, there was no need for that, they are meant to create a transcendental version of reality for a society without the ability to know what the reality of our material universe actually is or is not. In order to determine that the vedic version is wrong you would need modern technology, which ancient vedic society did not posses. So there is no real way to somehow show that the vedic version is actually correct, nor is there a need to do so. I wrote this article in Chakra a few years back explaining this in more detail http://chakra.org/discussions/ODiscNov11_04.html

I guess in one sense Balarama or Narayana might be subordinate to Krishna, I just don't like the implication of that word if it is not qualified to mean within in the context of lila. Krishna, Balarama, Narayana, are all the same, they are the same all pervading supreme lord. If it can be said that there is some type of subordinate relationship between them, it is only relative to the lila they act within e.g. Balarama serves Krishna in lila, Narayana manifests less personality characteristics then Krishna, other then that they are all one and same person. That is all I meant, and I am sure that is all Prabhupada meant.

Well, no. Lot's of people are always to some degree or another "always conscious of God" and yet have no understanding of Krishna or vedic philosophy. There are countless people who follow various religions, even vedic religions, and are fully immersed in constant thinking about God. Krishna consciousness is specifically about vedanta according to the gaudiya vaishnava understanding as taught by Sri Caitanya, at least that is how the person who coined the term "Krishna consciousness" used it. So Krishna consciousness is the consciousness one develops if he has faith in gaudiya vaishnavism and reaches the understanding which is espoused by gaudiya vaishnavism. And to Babhru, Baladeva is not subordinate to Krishna, nor is Narayana. They are Krishna in different forms, therefore they cannot be subordinate to themself. They display less personal characteristics then Krishna, but they still possess all the characteristics of Krishna because they are Krishna. dīpārcir eva hi daśāntaram abhyupetya dīpāyate vivṛta-hetu-samāna-dharmā yas tādṛg eva hi ca viṣṇutayā vibhāti govindam ādi-puruṣaḿ tam ahaḿ bhajāmi The light of one candle being communicated to other candles, although it burns separately in them, is the same in its quality. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda who exhibits Himself equally in the same mobile manner in His various manifestations. PURPORT The presiding Deities of Hari-dhāma, viz., Hari, Nārāyaṇa, Viṣṇu, etc., the subjective portions of Kṛṣṇa, are being described. The majestic manifestation of Kṛṣṇa is Nārāyaṇa, Lord of Vaikuṇṭha, whose subjective portion is Kāraṇodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, the prime cause, whose portion is Garbhodakaśāyī. Kṣīrodakaśāyī is again the subjective portion of Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu. The word "Viṣṇu" indicates all-pervading, omnipresent and omniscient personality. In this śloka the activities of the subjective portions of the Divinity are enunciated by the specification of the nature of Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu. The personality of Viṣṇu, the embodied form of the manifestive quality (sattva-guṇa) is quite distinct from that of Śambhu who is adulterated with mundane qualities. Viṣṇu's subjective personality is on a level with that of Govinda. Both consist of the unadulterated substantive principle. Viṣṇu in the form of the manifest causal principle is identical with Govinda as regards quality. The manifestive quality (sattva-guṇa) that is found to exist in the triple mundane quality, is an adulterated entity. being alloyed with the qualities of mundane activity and inertia. Brahmā is the dislocated portion of the Divinity. manifested in the principle of mundane action, endowed with the functional nature of His subjective portion; and Śambhu is the dislocated portion of the Divinity manifested in the principle of mundane inertia possessing similarly the functional nature of His subjective portion. The reason for their being dislocated portions is that the two principles of mundane action and inertia being altogether wanting in the spiritual essence any entities, that are manifested in them, are located at a great distance from the Divinity Himself or His facsimiles. Although the mundane manifestive quality is of the adulterated kind, Viṣṇu, the manifestation of the Divinity in the mundane manifestive quality. makes His appearance in the unadulterated manifestive principle which is a constituent of the mundane manifestive quality. Hence Viṣṇu is the full subjective portion and belongs to the category of the superior īśvaras. He is the Lord of the deluding potency and not alloyed with her. Viṣṇu is the agent of Govinda's own subjective nature in the form of the prime cause. All the majestic attributes of Govinda, aggregating sixty in number, are fully present in His majestic manifestation, Nārāyaṇa. Brahmā and Śiva are entities adulterated with mundane qualities. Though Viṣṇu is also divine appearance in mundane quality (guṇa-avatāra), still He is not adulterated. The appearance of Nārāyaṇa in the form of Mahā-Viṣṇu, the appearance of Mahā-Viṣṇu in the form of Garbhodakaśāyī and the appearance of Viṣṇu in the form of Kṣīrodakaśāyī, are examples of the ubiquitous function of the Divinity. Viṣṇu is Godhead Himself, and the two other guṇa-avatāras and all the other gods are entities possessing authority in subordination to Him. From the subjective majestic manifestation of the supreme self-luminous Govinda emanate Kāraṇodakaśāyī, Garbhodakaśāyī, Kṣīrodakaśāyī and all other derivative subjective divine descents (avatāras) such as Rāma, etc., analogous to communicated light appearing in different candles, shining by the operation of the spiritual potency of Govinda

The quote from the Brahma Samhita is usually attributed to Bhaktisiddhanta (or some say that the attribution to Bhaktisiddhanta was a mistake and that it is actually the words of Bhaktivinoda), but nevertheless those words do not support the current conception of an expanding universe. Those words are talking about the birth of a brahmanda from a potential state into an actual state, like a sperm is the potential of a body, then when it is born it becomes "enlarged" into an actual body. I wouldn't read into those words the idea that they support an expanding universe. The vedic conception is that each brahmanda is first a potential within Maha Visnu, and are then formed or enlarged from that potential (this is all metaphoric), then creation of life forms begins, not that the brahmanda keeps on growing after it is formed.

Suchandra you wrote Your assertion that "modern science" has "found out that the Universe is constantly expanding" - is a faulty premise. There is a big debate amongst cosmologists and physicists over whether the big bang theory (which postulates an expanding universe as one of it's central tenets) is correct or not. The majority accept the big bang theory and it's corollary of an expanding universe, but there is a large minority who reject those ideas. The idea of an expanding universe is predicated upon the accurate assumption of redshift ( for redshift see http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm ) being analogous to distance alone. From that error (see previous link) of believing that redshift correlates with distance, the theory of an expanding universe was developed. In fact as Halton Arp has shown, redshift is not analogous with distance, therefore the expanding universe theory falls apart. Of course modern cosmology is built upon the labor of tens of thousands of professionals whose jobs depend upon maintaining the status quo. If the big bang theory and it's corollary of an expanding universe were to be rejected tomorrow, tens of thousands of academics would become redundant due to the fact that the entire academic world has been dedicated to big bang cosmology as revealed truth for 40 years. Knowing this, people like Arp have been attacked in order to preserve the orthodoxy. http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051102arp-galileo.htm As for wikipedia, it is a terrible source for anything which is controversial in science. It is invariably controlled by mainstream ideologues who consistently lie and mischaracterize. For example if you go to Halton Arp's wikipedia page you will see a bunch of nonsense like this None of what that says in any way discredits what Arp discovered, nor is it even close to being accurate. The reverse is in fact true i.e. as technology has increased, Arp's findings have been confirmed. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/halton-arp-seeing-red-errors-big-bang.htm The current idea of an expanding universe is really quite mad. In order to determine if the universe is expanding it would first be necessary to establish which direction is outward. How do you know if what you think is matter expanding outwards, into new territory, really is matter moving outward, instead of just moving around in different directions? You first need to establish a place where things are expanding away from, otherwise how can you tell which direction matter is moving in? But according to big bang cosmology, there is no center, everything is moving all at the same time outwards. But without a center it is impossible to determine which way is outwards. In reality what is observed is different then what is theorized. The theory states that all matter is expanding outwards, the observations show matter clumping together into stars and planets, then those solar systems clumping into galaxies, then those galaxies clumping into clusters of galaxies, then those clusters clumping into superclusters. Our universe looks like long strands (superclusters) of galaxies, surrounded by immense voids. There is no way to tell that these superclusters are all moving away from a central point, "expanding" out. All we know is that there is a clumping effect caused by gravity (which is a mystery as well). The idea of an expanding universe is based upon the faulty premise of the big bang theory being correct (which is demonstrably false http://bigbangneverhappened.org/ http://holoscience.com http://www.thunderbolts.info/ ) and of redshift being analogous to distance (which has been disproven but not accepted as such by mainstream orthodoxy) Also there is no such thing as "dark matter", nor is there "dark energy", both of which have been latched onto by the orthodoxy in order to patch up problems with the big bang theory when contrasted with newer discoveries i.e. without dark energy and dark matter the big bang theory is impossible to be true. see http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/ghosts_of_dark_matter.htm And also