Ganeshprasad

Jai Ganesh Namaste sampath Re (In Hinduism grashastha life is given importance.People who dont marry and have children will fall into a hell called as 'puth'.Everyone has to cross grahastha and bhramacharya stage.Without lusting how will you have children or be a grahastha?) All stages of life is important non more so than the Brahmachari, it is here you learn the art of living, a guru advises according to the nature of student weather to take up grashastha or not that was in olden days. Never heard about the hell for one without a child, which could be for any number of reason. Did Bhismadev or sukhdev goswami or better still Hanuman go to hell? Re (Even when we attain vanaparastha stage i.e very old age we need not leave lust.It will leave us by itself.So be happy and enjoy life.) Vanaparastha comes on fifty one, then Sanyasa i tell you time does not stop it comes very quickly. Yes enjoy and be Happy, but do not forget nothing in life comes for free. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (you are not so wise yo understand that your friend Ganeshprasad does not want to be in discussions because he considers that this verse of bhagavad gita speaks about people like yourself ("the true Brahman.." etc. etc) Pleas stop your misrepresentation, you know my views are clear on various paths in Hindu dharma. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh (You must be really foolish. I do not know wwhat else to say. Read the whole text in context. Travelling with Rudras here means supporting them. ) Do not say anything, if all you can do is absue, you will only bring direpute to, what ever that you may follow. Your bullying tactic is not working. Before we can progress any further explain to all of us that charami and bibharmi means support? Bullies are never honest in their behaviour, you have given two different meaning to a verse. 1. devi bends the bow for Rudra. 2. Devi hurls aerrow at Rudra to kill him. You are using both to suit your position, so tell me which one should I consider? Re (My points are very clear. It is your understanding that has many holes. ) can you see how clear are your points? Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re Mr.Ganeshpradas understand that empty vesels make more noise....so just ignore these kind of people....many people who go through this forum have such kind of foolish close minded post but they dont want to waste their energy trying to make these people clear for they know that it is impossible....iam only posting this post for i sincerely feel sorry for u....i like ur posts and have some respect for u....that is why i tell dont waste ur time discussing with closed minded persons....u can have wonderful conversations with broad minded people even though ur opinions may vary widly...try "beliefnet.com" u can see many people talking about many useful topics and they talk more civil...even other religious people come and discuss... the only thing that bothers me is that if a amature reads mr.guest's posts there are chances of him/her beeing mislead.....but this cant be helped......what can i say but to call it fate......) Thank you I do appreciate your concern, I can not ignore the bully, if we leave it to fate then the bully boys thinks they have won, my faith is stronger than his abuses. I shell try and visit the site you have given. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (I have no idea what you are saying here. I only hope that you are not claiming here to be BrahmA. Advaitis can make such ridiculous claims and I won't be surprised. ) i most definately not claiming to be Brahma, some one here as guest posted saying "Brahma does not know" if you still cant figure it out let me know. i do not wish to futher argue with you since you do not have the common courtsey, i would not like come down to your standard. you have contrdicted your self enough time, ther are holes in your arguments. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (This is a sign of dullness of intellect. Why is Devi travelling with Rudras, when SHE says that SHE supports certain other Devatas ? What is meant by that verse ? By that verse DEVI clearly says that SHE supports Rudras too. What is so great in telling that SHE, Devi, travels with Rudras? When SHE says so, it implies only one thing. That Devi is responsible for their every victory in wars as well as every wealth RUDRAS POSSESS. Is it so difficult to understand that SHE, Devi, is establishing supremacy over other Devatas from the context. Foolish people who blind themselves cannot see. Read the whole context) You are making a very good example of your intelligence, the verse does not say support it says Charami if that means support then we are reading completely different dictionary. By trying to show your contempt for Rudra you are actually forgetting your self that she also travels with vashus adityas and visvadevas. If the Shakti does not travel with their respective partners I do not know if any one else would. Vishnu is part of this adityas you so conveniently like to hide. No where does Devi says I support Rudra or aditya Shakti and shaktiman travels to gather if you fail to see this simple logic the truth will escape you even if that stare in your face because you are governed by your envy. If you can not be civil please do not bother to answer Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (Read the whole explanation. Any person with iota of intelligence can understand from context that Devi is establishing supremacy over all Devatas. Ridiculously foolish arguments like the above have no explanation.) What can I expect from people like you, by forcefully expressing an opinion, thinks will win an argument. If you were honest you would have given all of the verse aháM rudrébhir vásubhish caraamy ahám aadityaír utá vishvádevaiH ahám mitraáváruNobhaá bibharmy ahám indraagnií ahám ashvínobhaá 10.125.01 I proceed with the Rudras, with the Vasus, with the A_dityas, and with the Vis'vedeva_s; I support both Mitra and Varun.a, Agni and Indra, and the two As'vins. If you are honest you could see very clearly whom she travels with and who she support. You conveniently gave half the sloka so that you could fool everyone. If you are able to prove to me that traveling with particular Devas and supporting the others means supporting all Devas then you have earned your right to call me a fool You can not be taken seriously one moment you say Rudra got his strength by devi bending his bow and then you have gone completely bonkers and killed off Rudra deva (whom no one can concur) you can not have both, neither is correct because you are basing your whole argument to prove Rudra deva as inferior. Vac is speech adhistatri Devi of speech is Sharasvati nothing you say has any strength but only envy. You alleged no one else can give Moksa but Gita proves you wrong Srimadbhagvad proves you wrong Vedas prove you wrong, I tell you why I can not take you seriously you alleged Brahma does not know. Tell me if the giver of the Vedas does not know how would you studying them know the truth? Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (••so ask respect to the people who are not respectiful) I do not consider having a different view from mine being disrespectful Re (••translate with aparadha and you'll be satisfied.) Yes apradh is an act, blaspheme is a general term generally associated with follower who can not tolerate even a slightest bit of criticism. Fanatics use this to suppress the masses. Re (You can also stop to explaining that god never gets affected by offence, because it is useless, no one believes it) The Self is present equally in all beings. There is no one hateful or dear to me. But, those who worship Me with devotion, they are with Me and I am also with them. (9.29) So Krishna says this it is useless is it? Careful if you apply your standard it might be perceived as apradh. Re . (The reasons why blaspheming is to be avoided are others and already explained) Back it up do not apply your standard. The one by whom others are not agitated, and who is not agitated by others; who is free from joy, envy, fear, and anxiety; is also dear to Me. (12.15) Re (••so let us say to the "agitators" who are uselessly criticizing lord, gods, and saints to stop... in this way everyone will practice in peace) Try to understand what Krishna is saying, is he asking us to tell others? Thoughts are endless unity is in one supreme Brahman ••everyone gives his interpretation of the meaning of your very vague statement Why don’t you read your own statement you said religion is matter of thoughts, so what you are saying your thoughts are supreme? (--Demonstrate that everyone who says, "I follow the shastra" is really following such shastra.) Impossible for me •••so there's no reasons to delegitimate discussions and opinion's differences I am sorry I just can not understand this. Re (••to realize the lord means also to learn, to teach and to share knowledge... a forum like this is meant to share knowledge. To share means to discuss and to use our opinion's difference in a creative way, not to repress it..) Wonderful no one can argue with this. Re (••that's not an offence... offence is to state that the personal aspect is maya and only omnipervasive aspect is reality. An offence is also the opposite) Offence by whose standard? One who see only Brahman can be excused for seeing Brahman in every aspect of the creation, if such a realization given in the Vedas how can then it becomes an offence. And if according to some Sankracharya deliberately mislead re (••also according to me.. it is a sign of the greatness of the lord and of sri shankara acharya) Such a greatness that they give you a path to follow and when you do, it becomes an apradh. Please give me a break. God does not need defense against his own philosophy. Re (••no, it is us who need to hear philosophy without misinterpretation and it is us who should have desire that everyone know the real philosophy) Here lies the real problem we think we have the real philosophy therefor every one else is an apradhi now where have I heard this o yes Islam, Christians they things like this, consider what Krishna says This (knowledge) should never be spoken by you to one who is devoid of austerity, who is without devotion, who does not desire to listen, or who speaks ill of Me. (18.67) Even if you think you have more mercy then the lord so you will tell everyone, fine do it in such a way that you do not agitate them or else the result will be opposite. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh namaste! Re (but He also does say that only those who worship Him attain Moksha while those praying to other devatas will attain them and then have to take birth again. ) O yes so what is this devan bhavayatanena te deva bhavayantu vah parasparam bhavayantah sreyah param avapsyatha sreyah--benediction; param--the supreme; avapsyatha--do you achieve. Nourish the Devas with Yajna, and the Devas will nourish you. Thus nourishing one another you shall attain the Supreme goal. (3.11) The thing is if we are honest we would understand the meaning that when Krishna says those who worship others devas impelled by desires. (7.20) Such (material) gains of these less intelligent human beings are temporary. The worshipers of Devas go to Devas, but My devotees come to Me. (7.23) So it is the desires of the individual the lord is making possible nothing to do with Moksha. Read this may be you might change your mind, note saintly person desiring libration. SB 8.7.20: The devas observed Lord Śiva sitting on the summit of Kailāsa Hill with his wife, Bhavānī, for the auspicious development of the three worlds. He was being worshiped by great saintly persons desiring liberation. The devas offered him their obeisances and prayers with great respect. SB 4.6/45 O most auspicious lord, you have ordained the heavenly planets, the spiritual Vaikuntha planets and the impersonal Brahman sphere as the respective destinations of the performers of auspicious activities. Similarly, for others, who are miscreants, you have destined different kinds of hells which are horrible and ghastly. Yet sometimes it is found that their destinations are just the opposite. It is very difficult to ascertain the cause of this. Rig Veda 7.59.12 Maha Mrituyonjaya Mantra We Worship Tryambaka, Who spreads Fragrance and Increases nourishment, May He release me, like the cucumber from its stem, from Mortal life, and give me Immorality. Lord Shiva is very mercyful he accepts all. SB 4.6.42: Lord Brahma said: My dear Lord Shiva, I know that you are the controller of the entire material manifestation, the combination father and mother of the cosmic manifestation, and the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation as well. I know you in that way. Re (also he says "sarvadharman parityajya mam ekam sharanam vraja aham tva sarva papebyo moksha ishyami ma shucha" Resigning all duties unto me, surrender to 'Me Alone'. I will clean u of all ur sins and offer u Moksha, worry not.) Please also read why Krishna spoke Gita to Arjun, He was confused about his Dharma (dharma sankat). It is only natural he reassure him to do his duty surrendering on to him. Or else why should he say I come to re establish dharma. sreyan sva-dharmo vigunah para-dharmat svanusthitat svabhava-niyatam karma kurvan napnoti kilbisam saha-jam karma kaunteya sa-dosam api na tyajet sarvarambha hi dosena dhumenagnir ivavrtah One's inferior natural work is better than superior unnatural work. One who does the work ordained by one's inherent nature (without selfish motives) incurs no sin (or Karmic reaction). (See also 3.35) (18.47) One's natural work, even though defective, should not be abandoned; because all undertakings are enveloped by defects as fire is covered by smoke, O Arjuna. (18.48) Therefore, let the scripture be your authority in determining what should be done and what should not be done. You should perform your duty following the scriptural injunction. (16.24) Re (If every deity can be called Supreme, then there is no need for Him to say 'Me Alone'. he will offer Moksha only if u surrender to Him alone. it is a condition specified in this sloka. if Moksha can be attained by worshipping any of His so called 'forms'(as u told) there is no need to add this condition.) what you brush aside so calusly as so called forms are his manifetation let us examin what he says again aham atma gudakesa sarva-bhutasaya-sthitah aham adis ca madhyam ca bhutanam anta eva ca He says I am beginning middle and the end Then he says I am Vishnu in the next verse And the next verse he says Veda (Brahma the creator who gave Veda) And the next verse He says I am Shankra. Now consider this from Bhagvat (4.7/50-54 The lord said: The supreme cause of the universe, I am also Brahma (the creator) and Lord Shiva (the destroyer of the universe). 23. O lord, you are self-effulgent and supreme. You create this material world by your personal energy, and you assume the names Brahma, Visnu and Mahesvara when you act in creation, maintenance and annihilation. 24. You are the cause of all causes, the self-effulgent, inconceivable, Supreme Brahman. You manifest various potencies in this cosmic manifestation. These are prayers offered to Lord shiva by prajapati Re (It is in such a Brahman, the supreme sprit, who is one without a second, that the ignorant fool views Brahma, Rudra and other beings as distinct entities.) note the word other entities.here He means eveyone - even me and u. but Narayana sukta says 'Atma Ishvaram'- Lord of all Souls.Let me explain it.) What you fail to apreciate is the lord is saying I am brahma and shiva it is I who create, protect and destroy the universe have assumed names appropriate to my functions. If you cosider this in conjuction you might where I am coming from SB 4.6.42: Lord Brahma said: My dear Lord Shiva, I know that you are the controller of the entire material manifestation, the combination father and mother of the cosmic manifestation, and the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation as well. I know you in that way. (4.7/50-54 The lord said: The supreme cause of the universe, I am also Brahma (the creator) and Lord Shiva (the destroyer of the universe). 23. O lord, you are self-effulgent and supreme. You create this material world by your personal energy, and you assume the names Brahma, Visnu and Mahesvara when you act in creation, maintenance and annihilation. Re (VishNu PurAnam ( 1.9.59 ) YannAyam BhagavAn BrahmA jAnAthi Paramam padham tannathA: sma JagaddhAma Tava sarvagathAchyutha ) Oh Achyutha! Oh all pervasive Sarva VyApi ! We salute Your Svaroopa that is the supreme abode of the Universe and its entities and which is not known even by BrahmmA as the most lofty PrApya.) Consider this from Vishnu puran Vishupuran say this 5.33-46 yo harih sa siva saksad yah sivah sa svayam harih ye tayor bhedam ati sthan narak aya bhave narah. Whoever is lord hari, he himself is lord shiva indeed any human being mistake both the lords to be different,he/she surely goes to hell yatha siva mayo vishnuh Sivasya hrdyam Visnur Visnoz ca hrdayam Sivah(Skanda puran) Just as Lord Vishnu is pervaded by Lord Shiva, Similarly, in Shivas heart Vishnu resides and Vishnus heart is abode of Shiva. Re (note this : "BrahmA jAnAthi" - Brahma does not know.if He is the Supreme just like Narayana(as u took it in the verse u quoted) how can it be that Brahma does not know.) Brahma who gave us the vedas if he does not know as you state, then we have no chance after all we are guided by his words. Such is the nature of our understanding we learn the vedas given by the creator then doubt if he knows. I rest my case. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (--our being dharmic or adharmic depends on us) So why are you arguing this point? did I say any different, here is what I said, Fortunately Dharma is not depanded on our likes and dislike. ((Please do not twist my words I have never said all opinions are right.)) Re (--so what you want?) a bit of respect, opinion vary according to what one reads and understands. Re (--your sadness turns in happiness if who blasphemes is never disturbed by someone's opinion?) First the word blasphemes is alien to Vedic people, the Lord is beyond the gunas he never gets effected. And rhis is what the lord wants us to be amongst many other thing. yasman nodvijate loko lokan nodvijate ca yah harsamarsa-bhayodvegair mukto yah sa ca me priyah The one by whom others are not agitated, and who is not agitated by others; who is free from joy, envy, fear, and anxiety; is also dear to Me. (12.15) One who is free from desires; who is pure, wise, impartial, and free from anxiety; who has renounced (the doership in) all undertakings; and who is devoted to Me, is dear to Me. (12.16) One who neither rejoices nor grieves, neither likes nor dislikes, who has renounced both the good and the evil, and who is full of devotion, such a person is dear to Me. (12.17) The one who remains the same towards friend or foe, in honor or disgrace, in heat or cold, in pleasure or pain; who is free from attachment; and (12.18) Re (--religion is a matter of thoughts.. if there's different thought there's already division.) Everyone is an individual, thoughts are endless unity is in one supream brahman.Vedic thought. ((although in practice of dharma they practically follow the same shastra)) Re (--demonstrate that everyone who says "i follow the shastra" is really following such shastra. ) Imposible for me, everyone is responsible for their own Karma Re (--so why are you discussing?) Take the sentence out of context we get different meaning all together. Discussion is healthy. ((I see a lot of people doing a fine job here defending God using abusive language)) Re (--so your position is to not defend but to defend the offenders.. everyone has to be defended but to defend our lord(s) is fanaticism) The whole idea of spiritual life is to realize the lord, he does not need our defending, and what is the offence? He has spoken of different paths, he has spoken of Ayakta realization, he is all pervasive so some wants to see him in every thing, why do you make that an offence, and if according to some Sankracharya deliberately mislead then blame the one who mislead. God does not need defense against his own philosophy. By all means defend your position, if anyone wants to stop your worship defend that, if anyone wants to destroy you mandir or your practice defend that. We did that very successfully at Bhaktimanor Dham every one joined in no one asked what denomination you came from. Re (--in a forum the only behaviour possible is to write... so who writes nice things about the lord sets an example) What we write makes a big impact. ` ((Krishna also says one who is free from desires and hate come to me)) Re (--so let us speak against the desire to hate krsna) That is not what Krishna saying above. Re (set an example) I am trying, forgive me if I do not meet you’re standard. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh ((Fortunately Dharma is not depanded on our likes and dislike.)) Re (••no .. it depends on us if we are dharmis or adharmis) Make sure self clear is dharma depended on us?it does not matter if we are dharmi or Adharmi it is independent not dependent on your likes or dislike. ((You are defeating your argument.)) Re (••that's not a defeat... if i say "you are defeated" it does not means that you are.. or not?) If you keep contradicting your self you defeat your self that was the point. ((I respect your unfortunately you dispises others.....Such was the style of people like Hitler.)) Re (••again you are unable to answer) Unfortunately you are unable to see your intransigent. ((I say all different paths are in search of the supreme,)) Re (••i say that it is to be examined.. not accepted because they say it.. Everyone has the right to worship in the way he likes, everyone has the right to consider him vedic, unvedic, dharmic, adharmic and so on... and to express his opinion. And someone like you can express his opinion that all opinions are right minus mine. If you like pluralism, i am also inside pluralism, where's the problem?) Please do not twist my words I have never said all opinions are right. Respect all, follow yours, were is the problem? Re (••so there's no possibility to say anything if something wrong on shiva and krsna is said, because who said it can become sad by it..) Yes it makes me sad, a lot of things makes me sad, people are killing each other senselessly, poor animals are being slaughtered to fill the belly for taste and others are going hungry when there is enough. You want to further divide people on religious ground just because they think different from you although in practice of dharma they practically follow the same shastra. For one who understand the concept of karma there is nothing to tell, for he understands that he is making his on destiny. Re (please say something creative... all this waste of energy to say that who hear something wrong about krsna and shiva has to be silent because krsna has said that all paths lead to him why you respect krsna only when he says this? defend krsna's image, and do something when he's blasphemed... give your opinion to give a good image of the lord to newcomers and visitors of this site and discuss with criticizers for the same reason) I see a lot of people doing a fine job here defending God using abusive language just because they differ in their concept, a fine example one sets in a open forum. A Dharma that can not withstand the criticism of other can not be dharma, I like to think Hindu (Vedic ) dharma is above that or else we would be issuing fatva and I would not want to do any thing with it. Gods image is nicely pressented by one who follows and sets an example by his behaviour for other to emulate. samo 'ham sarva-bhutesu na me dvesyo 'sti na priyah ye bhajanti tu mam bhaktya mayi te tesu capy aham The Self is present equally in all beings. There is no one hateful or dear to Me. But, those who worship Me with devotion, they are with Me and I am also with them.(9.29) If there is no one hateful to krishna why are you getting worked up, if you follow someone you also have to become like them. Krishna also says one who is free from desires and hate come to me. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Namaste Saranathan ji RE (well i am a follower of Vishistadvaita. but that need not stop me from quoting Sankara, because it can be safely said that he was a Vaishnava as he too has accepted only Narayana as the Saguna Brahman in his Prasthanatraya Bhashyas.) That is nice Sankara is a Vaishnava as well as advaita. Re (Krishna also says that He is Skanda, He is Arjuna etc. then can we take that even Skanda and Arjuna are the Supreme Purusha.) I know Skanda is worshiped as supreme in some places and if you take Arjun as Amsha of Indra it is not very difficult to make connection. Vedas speak of Indra but we will just ignore that. Re (actually what Krishna says is that there is His Amsha in everything that is great. it does not mean that the persons mentioned are verily avatars of the Supreme Purusha.) Yes we can always twist a verse and apply to others, when the reality is Lord Krishna is answering to Arjuns Queries as to in which various forms may I Worship you. Re (try to grasp the difference between Shaivism and the worship of Shiva. Worship of Shiva is absolutely Vedic just as the worship of Indra,Agni,Vayu etc. But Shaivism as a philosophy is non-vedic as it claims Rudra Paratva. try to understand what i try to say.) I understand what you are trying to say weather I agree with you or not is another story. Re (it is true that the goal is to attain the Spreme but who is the Supreme is the question and (Narayana says I am Rudra) does not mean that Rudra is an avatar of Narayana. ) I do not need to search for another meaning when Narayana says I am Rudra. When Atri Muni formost among the knower of Brahman approached the supreme was surprised I can understand why others are, or do not wish to understand. Sri Bhagvat 4.1-28Atri Muni desiring a son like him called upon the Bhagvan thinking of him only. But although he is far beyond the mental speculation of man, all three of you have come here. Kindly let me know how you have come, I am greatly bewildered about this. 4.1/30 –31 AS you willed, precisely so it must happen; it could not otherwise. For it was your will, O Bahmana- you, who are so true of resolve. We three (taken together) represent the truth on which you cotemplated. Now there will be born to you, may you be blessed, three sons embodying our rays, who will themselves be celebrated throughout the world; O dear sage, and shall spread your fame too. Or when Lord Vishnu says this 4.7/50-54 The lord said: The supreme cause of the universe, I am also Brahma (the creator) and Lord Shiva (the destroyer of the universe). I am the self, the lord and the witness, self effulgent and unqualified. Embracing my own Maya, consisting of the three gunas, it is I who create, protect and destroy the universe have assumed names appropriate to my functions, O Brahmana! It is in such a Brahman, the supreme sprit, who is one without a second, that the ignorant fool views Brahma, Rudra and other beings as distinct entities. Just as a man never conceives his own head, hands and other limbs as belonging to anyone else, even so he who is devoted to me does not regard his fellow creatures as distant from himself. He who sees no difference between Us three (Brahma, Rudra and Myself)-who are identical in essence and the very selves of all living beings-attains peace, O Daksa. narayanat param nasti. Yes there is noting beyond Narayan or else he is not God. Re (a small note: (To try and delibratly mislead is very unvedic. ) I understand that the above sentence is meant for Atanu. as i misunderstood a line from ur previous post, please clarify if the above sentence is meant for Atanu or not.) I am sorry I mislead you again though not deliberately. I meant for Atanu to defend his statements. You for changing the word. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (--only if you are not able to disagree and simultaneously to remain peaceful) Simply going round in circle (••if the supreme is worshiped differently i appreciate, i like it... if the supreme is not worshiped i do not... ) Fortunately Dharma is not depanded on our likes and dislike. RE ( ••i have already explained that you can be impersonalist because you simply prefere such aspect, and that you can be impersonalist justifying your position by saying that deities are maya. I can go in a big restaurant, i can go to the little restaurant but appreciating also the big one, i can go in the little one saying that the big one is bad.. It is not difficult.) You are defeating your argument. Re (••yes fighting is childish... do not fight me because i have an opinion) I respect your unfortunately you dispises others. Re (••but with their mouth closed if possible to avoid to misguide people) Such was the style of people like Hitler. Re (••you're actually discussing with me about the opportunity to stop discussions trying to demonstrate that all approaches are the same... i see differences, i am not against discussing, so i have my place in a forum. If you believe that all is the same.. there's no need for you to discuss) Now who is playing with words. I say all different paths are in search of the the supreme, they are all valid in their on right, now where did I say they are all the same? But Krishna does confirm they all lead to me, just like streams on the mountain taking different route all end up in the ocean. Re ( ••wich weapons are in a forum if not the possibility to convince? have you seen guns and bombs somewhere?) Weapons in the form of abuse, what we say spills over on the ground reality. Have you heard of pen being mightier than the sword? ((No, tolerance for all.)) Re (•• we tolerate if they tolerate krsna stopping their blaspheming.. otherwise we answer.. where's the problem? someone gets hurted?) Tolerance is a virtue no condition. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (••different opinions also on who's in a path of self realization or who is not) Such an opinion leads only to war. accept what Krishna Says bg4.11 ye yatha mam prapadyante tams tathaiva bhajamy aham mama vartmanuvartante manusyah partha sarvasah All of them--as they surrender unto Me--I reward accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Prtha. Re (I like to bring back my point of your honesty, you said no problem is someone mistake the boss as sectary yes. Now read your above statement no spiritual position is dharmic if the supremacy of Krishna is criticized. ••i don't kow if i said "no problems"... but it does not matter.. i can simply explain my idea. Krsna is Supreme... ) Your ideas keep changing Krashna is supreme for that there is no problem, but you fail to apreciate the same supreme is worshiped by others differently, do not make them your enemy. Re (so there's a big problem that is to think that supreme is not a person, this is most offensive because krsna (and shiva, devatas, spiritual masters, devotees and so on) are considered fake images, illusions..) For those who worship the unmanifest espect of the supreme see eveything as one such a concept is not denied by the lord so why make enemy, he sees no enemy, Re (there's a big problem if someone thinks that absolute is a persons, he thinks that this person is shiva and he fights against krsna to declare the supremacy of shiva..) Children fighting in the play ground, all are fighting about the father they have not seen, one call him by one name other by some thing else. One says he is creating and loving and the other says he is destructive and strong and some one else says he is neither he is beyond all that or may be not at all cause I can not see him. So don’t fight explore and find out. Re (there's no problem if someone likes shiva, and he simply worships him with love and devotion.. i can live peacefully with everyone but i have my preferences) Your preferences are honoured, but you seem to cotradict your self one minute you say you can live peacefully and the next he is an enemy. Re (••a-bhaktas and mayavadis see the personality of godhead as an enemy for attaining ultimate consciousness because they want to say that the ultimate reality is that no one exist. So they declare that divine personality are helps for ignorants and obstacles for serious practitioneers) So let them live in their paradise. Re (••you are playing with words... the concept of aparadha is well known in all vedic paths. No one says that deities or devotees suffer for the offences... but the offenders are there and they disturb their own spiritual understanding, and they disturb non yet liberated spiritualists..) So now I am playing with words, such is the nature of this world we get disturbed all the time, one who remains tranquil cross over. Re (why are you bothering me examinating my way to express my opinions if for you offensive and not offensive is the same?) If you like we stop discussing, your opinion are welcome your alegation are baseless. Re (what's your point? that one can say anything about vishnu, shiva, krsna and so on, and that other have to be silent if they see something wrong and bad in what the first one has said?) Dharma that can not withstand chalange from all angle can not be eternal, vedic dharma is voletary we do not issue fatva, if you are able to convince others fine but do not fight because he sees different from you. Re (tolerance only for blasphemers?) No, tolerance for all. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh namaste sri Saranathan Re (well i know the difference. but in the last post of page3 a shaivite had said (shivam,achyutham,the rudra,the maheswara - one and same) in order to clarify it i took the word achyutam as achyuta. either way it does not make much difference. achyuta - person who never deteriorates achyutham - never deteriorating (an attribute) To try and delibratly mislead is very unvedic. I let Atanu defend his statement, I think he is out on business until next week. ((We interpret many things to suit our philosophy even if we do not follow Sankra.)) Re (so the shaivites have accepted that they don't follow Sankara too. good to hear for Sankara has escaped. then what is ur philosophy. what do u say about the Brahma sutras. there should be a commentary on it by one of u shaivites in order to prove shiva paratva.) I think you have misunderstood me on my statement in double bracket, it was meant for you I could safely assume you are a Vaishnava but do not mind using Shankara even though you do not agree with him. You are assuming too much I have never said I am shaiva or Vaishnava. Re (if shaivism is just about worshipping of lord Shiva, i am not going to argue with u. but essentially shaivism says that Rudra is the Supreme Person. when u say that and chant mantras from the vedas to worship Rudra then u have to prove beyond doubt that u are right.) Beyond whose doubt yours or mine? I have no doubt because apart from other source I accept what Krishna says off Rudra I am Shankra. Re (Narayana Sukta says 'Narayana param brahmah') show me such a clear cut quotation from the vedas to prove that Rudra is the Supreme.) I have no problem accepting above but some seem to have a problem accepting when Narayana says I am Rudra. Instead of accepting that, one goes all the length and trouble to prove that Rudra is subordinate, and in the process forget the real goal of life to actually attain the supreme. Without Shivam what value is achyutam? ((......the oldest temple found is dedicated to him.)) Re this does not mean or prove anything. first of all no one can say that a particular temple is the most ancient. even if it happens to be a shiva temple it need not prove Rudra Paratva. for the most ancient worship must have been made to the nature gods(agni,vayu,indra etc.) but it will not prove that these demigods are the Supreme. try to argue on facts.) Look at the facts and in which context I had said the above, you contended that Shaivism is not vedic. Well the vedic people of past must have had funny idea of worshiping Lord Shiva. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (-yes... different ideas, different concept of what is wrong and what is right.. where's the problem?) No problem for me, so remain true to your statement, different concept, different ideas, extend the same curtsey to all, one who is on the path of self realization there is no loss. Re (-of course i think i have understood.. otherwise i were not discussing) Discussion is nice; it brings harmony to understand each other not animosity. Re (--when bismadeva asks to krsna to see mahavishnu instead of Him before leaving the body in kuruksetra, he was not asking because he believe that krsna is not the supreme..) This does not make sense please explain. -the sense is that no spiritual position is dharmic if the supremacy of sri krsna is criticized. ) I still do not see the connection of Bhismadev, mahavishnu and Krishna but never mind. I like to bring back my point of your honesty, you said no problem is someone mistake the boss as sectary yes. Now read your above statement no spiritual position is dharmic if the supremacy of Krishna is criticized. You like to contradict your self. ((--but a-bhaktas dressed as shaivites and mayavadis see the first enemy in the personality if god and his associates..)) ((This is your view or has some one told you this?)) Re (-have you a better objection?) You have to defend your statement, do you see them as enemy or do they regard you as enemy? Re (-a true shiva bakta does not think that shiva is an "appearance" of the brahman and a true advaitist recognizes that there's no dualism between transcendental oneness and transcendental variety.. and recognizes that the higher level of absolute is simultaneously brahman, bhagavan, paramatma... not only brahman.. otherwise he's offensive to brahman himself) You are gauging everything through your yard stick, you are objecting without any foundation, you create offence where there is none, as I said before brahman can never be offended, it is sat chit anand. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Pranam Saranathan Re (Sri Ganesh Prasadji, can u now see for urself where the word 'achyutham' is.) I did not doubt for a minute the word achyutham to be there, I only commented because you substituted achyutham to “achyuta” with my limited knowledge of Sanskrit I know the word takes a different meaning all to gather. Re (Sankara has accepted that Shiva is one among the 1000 names of Visnu and has given the meaning of that name in his Bhashya on Visnu Sahasranama.) We interpret many things to suit our philosophy even if we do not follow Sankra. Re (shaivaites, first of all, read the prasthanatraya bhashyas of Sankara. there is no philosophical basis for Shaivism.) I don’t think shaivism or any other ism needs approval, and I am not qualified to speak on their behalf but if shaivism is anything to do with worship of Lord Shiva than there is no basis for your statement, simply because his worship is known throughout the world, infect the oldest temple found is dedicated to him. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh (the line in Narayana Sukta 'shivam achyutam' does not mean Shiva and Achyuta are same but it means that Achyuta is shivam where in 'Shivam' means 'Mangalam'.(refer a Sanskrit dictionary)) Be honest where does it says achyuta? you could twist the same meaning other way round. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (---i am not mayavadi, i do not think that all is relative.. i accept the fact that if i hear someone offending something that i consider valuable, i have (intellectual) antagonism agains him and i desire that he stops to blaspheme. It is love... love for the offended and for the offender) I respect you for what you are, your love for the lord should not be clouded by the worship of some one else in what ever form or formless it may be. ((In other words your statement of mistaken identity was not very honest.)) Re (--please explain...) For example if I were to say the boss is Shiva and the secretary is Krishna in your eyes it would be a mistake on my part, but it would not be a mistake on your part, if you were to think Krishna is the boss and Shiva is the secretary Re (---maybe he does not realize what he's saying.. but actually he's considering all deities as illusory. So he is funny when he is unhappy with vaishnavas who think that shiva is yes subordinated to vishnu, but he's also a real satcitananda supreme entity and individual.) May be you do not understand what they are saying. Re (That's a case of followers who actually despise the one who they are following. Human make mistakes, there's no problem, but it is our duty to say it to make them think about it) Our duty is first to understand dharma and perfect it and explain it to someone who wants to know, meantime we may talk about it but to despise some one who has opposite view is not a good quality of a bhakta. ((Where does Krishna say that brahman realisation is making war or an offence?)) Re (--when bismadeva asks to krsna to see mahavishnu instead of Him before leaving the body in kuruksetra, he was not asking because he believe that krsna is not the supreme..) This does not make sense please explain. ((A Bhakta never see an enemy in any soul)) Re (--but a-bhaktas dressed as shaivites and mayavadis see the first enemy in the personality if god and his associates..) This is your view or has some one told you this? A true Shiva Bhakta would never speak ill of other Devas and an Advaita would want to see Brahman in every thing where is the question of being an enemy. You see if you call someone an enemy that some one can not do anything about it. He can not defend your allegation. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (Shishupal and Dantavkra ?) Thank you A lot of people automaticaly assume Kansa, i guess he was most demonic and the other two although very powerful took a second stage. There is not much known about Dantavkra, do you or any one else have any story about him? Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (••that's kali yuga.. the age of conflicts) We should not hide behind this and compound the problem Re (••i agree completely... our duty is to help people making them avoiding offences or stopping to say offences) However good our intentions are, we only succeed further antagonizing some one who think different then you. They might hold the view that you are offending them. Re (So if i say (but I have no intention to actually say it) your worship-able deity is sub ordinate to mine you would have no problem? ••i am a neophite.. i do not see if absolute reality is vishnu, shiva, manitu or jesus.. but i have found real shelter in real saints (among them my revered and pure Guru Maharaja) who explain to me that krsna is supreme. Sincerely i have real faith that such persons are truthful.. but that's not my point now. I do not want to discuss if Shiva, Krsna, Indra , Varuna etc are subordinate or supreme,) In other words your statement of mistaken identity was not very honest. Re ( i only noticed that who are act as pacifiers, actually are the ones who make war to every devata saying that they're relative and not absolute..) If some one honestly believe in the supreme Brahman as the only reality he is not making war with the other devtas he is reconciling every thing within that one supreme reality. Where does Krishna say that brahman realisation is making war or an offence? He gives all three darsan in the Gita Re (So.. real Shivaites, have to discuss with such impersonalist mayavadis, before quarrelling with vaishnavas.) A real Bhakta does not quarrel. Re (Vaishnavas do not want to say that the individuality if Sri Shiva is maya, Vaishnavas say that Sri Shiva is absolute... they're not the real enemies of Shivaites.. the (philosophical) "enemies" are the impersonalists) A Bhakta never see an enemy in any soul, philosophical discussion is healthy but a mine is better then your attitude is a disturbance to peace. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh (i read the verses you have posted and i do not see in them the conclusion that Sri Shiva is supreme) I read the verses and see that the one supreme goes by those names. If you can conclude the supreme, then he can not be the supreme. Are you envious of Lord Shiva? Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Just a small correction Kamsa wan never either Jai or Vijay One was Sisupal and the other was i give you a clue, the name start with da-------. Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (--if someone search for something different , what's the problem?) Problem is not mine a lot people here seems to think they have divine right to condemn others who have different goals, if we can not progress without pointing the deficiencies of others then there is seriously something wrong with what we want to follow. I am not immune to this but I am trying to adjust. ((Does Shiva need defending?)) RE (--why are you asking it?... my message was clear. Apparently they are shiva's advocates, actually they're attempting to kill both krsna and shiva) I am sorry your message is not very clear here I quote again --so i do not antagonize. The average mood of such discussions is that impersonalists/mayavadis in order to defend shiva from being called demigod. Unquote. You are implying that the impersonal concept is in defense of Shiva being called a demigod. Re (--are you suggesting blasphemy ad a dharma of spiritual realization? we say the biggest offences we are able to, so krsna comes and saves us killing us?) No I am only trying to prove that the lord does not get offended. It is us who create the offence, and what offence? Of holding a concept which is not strange to Vedas or even Bhagvat Gita where Krishna confirms Brahman realization. (Brahma buta prasan Atma na sochti na Kanksti) So let us prefect our respective sadhna without stepping on each other’s toes. If you want to blame someone blame Krishna for saying this Some worship Me by knowledge sacrifice. Others worship the infinite as the one in all (or non-dual), as the master of all (or dual), and in various other ways. (9.15) Re (yaso: yes, i do not need to justify... subordination gives no problem to me..) So if i say (but I have no intention to actually say it) your worship-able deity is sub ordinate to mine you would have no problem? Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh Re (--i am not sure if everyone is searching for the same truth.. but it does not matter.) Well if you are not sure why even bother? Re (We have not to repress the differences, because differences are there also in the absolute realm.. we simply have to learn to be peacefully different) Well this is the Hindu way. Peacefully different, respect. Re (--if we belittle it is not helping. If we respectfully express our different opinion this is sanga, spiritualists' association) Jaya. Re. (--so i do not antagonize. The average mood of such discussions is that impersonalists/mayavadis in order to defend shiva from being called demigod,) Does Shiva need defending? Are you saying impersonal realization is in defense of Shiva being called a deva? These are all called deva in the Vedas and Shiva is called mahadeva question does not arise. Impersonal realization is not a new concept thought by shankrarcharya. Lord Shree Krishna explains this in the Gita in many places. Re (actually they offend both shiva and vishnu sayng that they are not absolute reality but beyond them there's brahman.) As I said before in my opinion the Lord can not be offended, the extreme offence of sishupal or Kansa resulted in their getting liberated, such is the mercy of the lord. As I said before depending from which angle you are looking at the reality that is what one would perceive as reality, since Brahman and personality is non-different. Re (This is much worse than saying that one is subordinated to another. if you are my boss and i am the secretary, it is better to mistake you as the secretary than that both us are practically not exixtent, illusory, fake, imagination, relative and so on ) We can not justify subordination from above view point. Jai Shree Krishna