Ganeshprasad

Jai Ganesh

Atanu your presence is greatly appreciated; your style of debate is breath of fresh air.

Why go away for six months, having just return.

I am not satisfied by the guestji answer on, as to who is suffering perhaps you can shed some light, if I the soul who is sat chit and anand then why suffering at all, if it is avidhya who is responsible for that and why?

Your statement ''Lord is my self'' please explain

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Re

(then you reckon that God has this 'absolute, undivided, single form consisting of Shiva, Krishna, the letter A, a lion, Vishnu, the moon, a banyan tree, wind, shark, dual compound word, Marici etc'.)

Brahman is indevisable

Re

(in other words they are not original, they are manifestations of the supreme.)

Original, to me suggest beginning, supreme is eternal indivisible

Re

(In order to maintain your opinion, you reject the views of Lord Brahma, and Lord Shiva - two of those you claim are God...how can God be wrong?!? )

You see I do not reject their view because I worship Lord Krishna as supreme, but I do not limit supreme brahmans. The vedas proclaim "Ekam Sata Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti" or "Truth is One but the wise see it in Different Ways".

But to maintain your position you reject what lord Vishnu says

Vishnu puran 5.33.46

Yo hariH sa ZivaH sakSad yaH zivaH sa svayamM hariH

Ye tayor bhedamAti stahan narakAya bhave nnaraH

Whoever is Lord Hari, He Himself is Lord Shiva indeed.

Any human being mistake both the lord to be different, he/she surely go to hell

And also reject your own words I think.

It was you if I can assume correctly stated that Bhagvatam is perfect it is amala, what you are, it seem that you are doing, is trying to reject what prajapati are saying in relation to lord shiva.

Or rejecting what Lord Vishnu saying, or Brahma saying

4.6/42-46 Brahma said to Shiva: I know you to be the Ruler of the universe; for you are the same as the undifferentiated Brahma, etc

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.

Please note, the supreme sprit, who is one without a second----.

Who can, but the supreme lord be the perfect devotee, so when he meditate on Krishna that is all auspicious.

Brahma vaivarta puran-prakriti khanda II.56.61

Sleeping or awake, shiva is constantly absorbed in meditation on Krishna.

As I Krishna, so is Shambhu, ther is no difference between Madhava and Isa.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

What could be more simple then this

rudranam sankaras casmi.

Do i beleive you or Krishna.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

((what would be your advise?))

Re

(--they act for receiving again their rights... and this has nothing to do with persecuting the ones who belongs to the religion of the criminal)

So you agree, we are within our right to claim back the eye shores(Mosque dome on our temple) that exists in our holy dham.the land they falsely claim to be theirs.

Re

(--projecting criminal acts is criminal.... so if there's some one who is planning like that he has to be stopped. So do no waste time and energy in persecuting the ones who belongs to the religion of the old criminal, and investigate directly on who is making or planning crimes)

good we are getting some where, here we have a religion who thinks us Hindus are kafirs, therefore fair game to convert us or to kill us for that they incur no sin, they came to covert us and nothing has changed in this regard what is your advise?

You are right we should not persecute anyone that is not our job, but would you trust the criminals and their associates whose aim has not changed and how do you investigate those criminals? Any suggestion.

Re

(---socially these demons belongs to the same "religion" of arjuna, krsna, hanuman and so on. They have pujas, they wear tilaks, they attend to ceremonies, samskaras and so on... so if you make differences between you and them, you have also to make differences between your honest muslim neighborhood and bin laden or aurangzeb)

You are right we have to make choice between right and wrong, so let us hear from all the muslims that Muhammad was wrong using force.

((let us hear the followers denounce the crime perpetuated in the name of Islam otherwise they are as guilty of following criminals.))

Re

--that's not required by any law.... someone stolen my shoes in jaipur outside of govindaji, i do not require that all hindus come to me apologizing...)

That may be so, but if you ask anyone if that act was right or wrong you will have your answer. Now go and ask any muslim, posing as one of them, and ask if their act against the kafirs was justified or not then you might have different opinion.

Re

(nothing adharmic is justified even for the purpose of defending dharma... punish who is personally guilty, i do not find in any scripture that one has to pay the karma of some criminal who is following his religion..... if you recognize that the hindu leader kamsa has nothing to do with you, you have also to think that the muslim leader arafat has nothing to do with millions of muslims)

I agree adharma can not be justify, therefore you will agree that Muhammad who spread Islam by force was adharmi and therefore the religion which is based on the foundation of force is adharma.

By the way we are not talking about mr Arafat you have a knack of changing the point of discussion.

Re

(so act properly individually, that's dharmic )

Quite right that is why a Hindu aware of consequence of karma is very passive.

Jai Shree Krishna

Gai Ganesh

Re

(My Reply:

Simply by serving husband, a women does not get moksha. Even Jnana is required. So she should also study the scriptures)

Pativrata sati who can stop the sun rise, a sati who can bring a person back to life,

or make the divine mother to come and test her pativrata is no mean feat.

Or the gods unable to defeat the husband of vrinda why? Was it because of her jnana?

This guest does not know the glories of such exalted women other wise he/she would not make such stupid statements.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

(--honest life is compatible with any land, crime has to be punished..)

Very nice point

let me ask you suppose a criminal gets in your house, takes over it, subject you to horrible acts and after a due course of time your grand children, who are now enjoying less right then the criminals suddenly wakes up, what should they do?

even if they accept the fact that what is done is done,let us live in peace, but the others(criminal)thinking i have to finish the job my grandsire come to do and are just waiting for a right moment.

what would be your advise?

Re

(No one is boring hindus because ravana, kamsa or hiaranyakashipu were coming from the society of sanatana dharma.. kauravas caused a 600million deaths war, much more than bin laden, gheddafi, hitler, stalin or arafat.. and they were indians and socially following the dharma)

no this were demons, they were adharmis, we do not follow them, we do not glorify them.

(--why? aren't you separate from kamsa?)

because we do not follow kamsa.

Islam follows muhamad who did not convince any one with logic, he used force to convert and even today if you so much as question the koran you get Fatva against you.

let us hear the followers denounce the crime perpetuated in the name of Islam otherwise they are as guilty of following criminals.

Just as barney says and read his post again.

We are not Asking too much.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

((Question is, is Islam compatable in Vedic land?))

Re

(all the world is vedic land...)

let me repharse this from Kanyakumari to Badrinath, from Somnath to Jaganath is islam compatable in this Holy dham?

Re

("they" do not exist... we are single individuals.. punish personally the singles who bring misery and violence.... religion means nothing in this context)

punishment awaits us all, we are all responsible for our karma.that is not the point.

Islam was spread on the strength of sword, was the cause of our misery in the past and look around now what they do in the name of Islam, so you can not seperate the religion and its violent followers.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Re

(Krsna and Rudra are both the Supreme Lord? When they are undivided? Can you please logically explain that statement?)

Nothing to explain really, one supreme Brahman going by different names

Bg 13.17 read it again it says undivided, yet appears as if divided in being; he, the object of knowledge, is the creator, sustainer and destroyer of (all) beings.

Read the above in cojonction with below

SB 8.7.21: The prajāpatis said: O deva deva, Mahādeva, Supersoul of all living entities and cause of their happiness and prosperity, we have come to the shelter of your lotus feet. Now please save us from this fiery poison, which is spreading all over the three worlds.

Do we have more then one supersoul?

And the next verse says assumes these forms not divided

SB 8.7.23: O lord, you are self-effulgent and supreme. You create this material world by your personal energy, and you assume the names Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Maheśvara when you act in creation, maintenance and annihilation.mes read again

Re

(Rudra beholds Krsna with wonder in the Bhagavad Gita. Can you explain how that can be if Krsna and Rudra are undivided?)

All the forms of the lord are transcendental therefore it is not difficult for them to behold and see the universal form of the lord, I may ask you the same question why are Adityas also looking in wonder is Vishnu divided?

Re

(If the Srimad Bhagavatam says that the Lord divides himself when entering into the material manifestation, that clearly shows that the consequential representations (Brahma-Vishnu-Rudra) are the products of that division, not the cause.)

That apparent division actually declares their oneness, do you want me to quote those verses?

Re

(Shiva says so. All the religions except those coming from the Vedas are described as mleccha dharma, or not even qualified for mode of ignorance. Yet God sends those religions down also, so even they serve some purpose according to time, place and circumstance. The next stage from mleccha dharma is destroying ignorance, that is where Shiva, the all-merciful Lord of the material world serves his purpose. Those who are intelligent worship Shiva in order to get his mercy so that they may receive the favour of the Supreme Lord who also created Shiva i.e Krsna.

Shiva, who is the subject of discussion in these so called tamsic purans, have a look who is reciting this and who is the author? And this mleccha god are names of Krishna but Shiva is not?

Re

(That is why Shiva pulls all the stops and convinces Yogamaya to give him access into the gopi pastimes.)

He is Gopishvara say no more.

Re

(If this is from Bhagavad Gita, please see the proper translation. Please do not mix two different quotes from the Bhagavad Gita together. You mix the Rudra quote from Chapter 10 and mention the Chapter 13 quote as if it is a direct purport.)

That is a subjective view of yours, if you are able to tell me where the translation that I provided differs we may compare the two.

Re

(Although the Supersoul appears to be divided among all beings, He is never divided. He is situated as one. Although He is the maintainer of every living entity, it is to be understood that He devours and develops all.)

So the one who creates maintains and destroys appears to be divided yet is only one supersoul

SB 8.7.21: The prajāpatis said: O deva deva, Mahādeva, Supersoul of all living entities and cause of their happiness and prosperity, we have come to the shelter of your lotus feet. Now please save us from this fiery poison, which is spreading all over the three worlds.

Krishna says he is the supersoul, prajapati says Shiva is the supersoul

Can we have two? So when Krishna says I am Shankra does this make sense? Am I mixing the two verse or am my making my point that the two are but one.

Re

(The Lord is situated in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. Does this mean that He has become divided? No. Actually, He is one. The example is given of the sun: The sun, at the meridian, is situated in its place. But if one goes for five thousand miles in all directions and asks, "Where is the sun?" everyone will say that it is shining on his head. In the Vedic literature this example is given to show that although He is undivided, He is situated as if divided. Also it is said in Vedic literature that one Vishnu is present everywhere by His omnipotence, just as the sun appears in many places to many persons.)

You need not explain this to me, it is you who is having problem understanding the undividable nature of the supreme lord who creates maintains and destroys.

Re

(The real meaning behind this is wonderfully explained by Lrod Brahma in the Brahma Samhita. (Sambhu = Shiva)

And the other guest who is quite learned in Vedas has explained the nature of Sambhu nicely. I have no excess to Brahma Samhita therefore I can not comment.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Re

(yes, Krsna is that undivided Supreme Lord, though he appears divided as Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra.)

If you read the chapter thirteen you would at least not make a one sided view that you have. Krishna is describing the eternal Brahman which is preceived in all and outside of all,it that principal that creats maintain and destroys, which appears divided.

Yes Krishna is that undivided supreme lord, but he is also Rudra who appears as divided.

Re

(Shiva explains that they are 'in the mode of ignorance' not that they are governing the mode of ignorance. Therefore those puranas in the mode of ignorance should be taken to be preliminary stages of the knowledge of God, increasing to the full realisation of Krishna in the Sattvic Bhagavata Purana.)

Your logic is astounding, if the purans are in mode of ignorance there is no need of them at all. Some thing that is in ignorance can not give any knowledge, preliminary stage of knowledge is the most important, it is the bases on which the whole foundation is resting. So your statement make no sense.

Re

(That is without basis. If Parabrahman is undivided then how can Brahma-Shiva-Vishnu be Parabrahman?)

Only way you can understand is by accepting what Krishna says Rudranam Shankar chAsmi

Undivided, yet appears as if divided in beings; He, the object of knowledge, is the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of (all) beings. (13.17)

SB 8.7.23: O lord, you are self-effulgent and supreme. You create this material world by your personal energy, and you assume the names Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Maheśvara when you act in creation, maintenance and annihilation.

Re

(True, just like there is no mention of Krishna's oneness with Shiva in the Srimad Bhagavatam. Supreme can mean many different things - supreme in what sense? materially? spiritual world? But source of all that is manifest and unmanifest, source of spiritual and material worlds - that is clear cut. )

SB 8.7.21: The prajāpatis said: O deva deva, Mahādeva, Supersoul of all living entities and cause of their happiness and prosperity, we have come to the shelter of your lotus feet. Now please save us from this fiery poison, which is spreading all over the three worlds.

SB 8.7.22: O lord, you are the cause of bondage and liberation of the entire universe because you are its ruler. Those who are advanced in spiritual consciousness surrender unto you, and therefore you are the cause of mitigating their distresses, and you are also the cause of their liberation. We therefore worship Your Lordship.

SB 8.7.23: O lord, you are self-effulgent and supreme. You create this material world by your personal energy, and you assume the names Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Maheśvara when you act in creation, maintenance and annihilation.

SB 8.7.24: You are the cause of all causes, the self-effulgent, inconceivable, impersonal Brahman, which is originally Parabrahman. You manifest various potencies in this cosmic manifestation.

SB 8.7.25: O lord, you are the original source of Vedic literature. You are the original cause of material creation, the life force, the senses, the five elements, the three modes and the mahat-tattva. You are eternal time, determination and the two religious systems called truth [satya] and truthfulness [ṛta]. You are the shelter of the syllable oḿ, which consists of three letters a-u-m.

Let us read this verses again, you are super soul all living entity.(21) those advanced in spiritual consciousness surrender on to you(22) does this sound like lord of material world only?

Self effulgent and supreme, your personal energy(23)

(24) read again and again cause of all causes

the source of vedic literature the eternal time, the shelter of the syllable om.(25)

whose description but parabrahman can this be, prajapati’s prayer to lord Shiva.

Sridhar maharaj who wrote commentary on Bhagvad puran said those who think Krishna and Shiva to be different are only engage in useless discourse.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Re

(Parabrahman is not divisible in its form as parabrahman. If there is more than one (Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra), then the personalities are expansions of Parabrahman. Krishna is parabrahman, he expands himself as Brahma Vishnu Rudra in order to administer the material world.)

The vedas proclaim "Ekam Sata Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti" or "Truth is One but the wise see it in Different Ways".

Since as you accept there is no division but expansion even then there is no argument

Aum purnamidam.

Or, Krishna saying this.

Undivided, yet appears as if divided in beings; He, the object of knowledge, is the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of (all) beings. (13.17)

Re

(Srimad Bhagavatam is described as ripened fruit of the trees of the Vedas, and i don't think it mentions Mahesh Dham as a spiritual abode.)

You are right he resides in cremation ground.

Still he enters the rasa lila, he is gopisvara. I wonder where his Mahesh abode is situated.

Re

(The divisions of the eighteen Puranas is defined by Lord Siva to Uma

in the Padma Purana (Uttara Khanda 236.18-21))

" O beautiful lady, one should know that the Visnu, Naradiya,

Bhagavata, Garuda, Padma and Varaha are all in the mode of goodness.

The Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta, Markandeya, Bhavisya, Vamana and

Brahma are in the mode of passion. The Matsya, Kurma, Linga, Siva,

Skanda and Agni are in the mode of ignorance.")

These purans are describing and glorifying three expect of the nature of the supreme lord who is in full control of this gunas, therefore it is easy to understand that in that context.

Re

(As for Maheshwara - greatest controller - that I have no dispute. Since Shiva is responsible for the dissolution of the entire material manifestation, he is the greatest controller.)

Undivided, yet appears as if divided in beings; He, the object of knowledge, is the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of (all) beings. (13.17)

He is the same parabraham undivided.

Re

(Krishna is specifically described as source of the spiritual worlds - is there any shastra in the mode of goodness describing Shiva as source of spiritual world?)

Purans are glorifying in essence, the deity that possesses and controls the said gunas. Each purans extol the predominate deity that is the subject of discussion, what you will find in each one of them somewhere or other the oneness of the supreme Brahman.

Re

(According to Krishna, seeking liberation is still not the purest devotion. Prahlada Maharaja describes how a devotee will seek the welfare of the Supreme Lord - even if it means the devotee having to stay in the material world. The gopis would commit apparent sins like apply dust to Krishna or leave their husbands just to please Krishna.)

We are not talking of pure love, since the gopis are liberated great souls there is no question of liberation, I was making a point that great saintly people were worshiping the lord for liberation.

Re

(The Lord is always looking to glorify his devotee. Therefore Vishnu and the demigods glorify Shiva for saving the universe.)

Glorifying as supreme by prajapati and Vishnu saying we are but one. There is no mention of my devotee any where.

Re

(Lord Shiva is for the auspicious development of the three worlds. The three worlds are all part of the material universe.)

Where else do you need the auspicious development if not in the material world and who else to grant that but the all auspicious one.

Re

(Still there is no mention of him being the Spiritual World's highest personality.)

How can he be mentioned as highest personality in Bhagvad puran, Lord Krishna is being extolled hear. He can only be same, since there is only one lord. Other purans do extol him. But that is not the subject of our discussion.

Re

("O Lord you are self-effulgent and supreme")

How clear statement do you want, self-effulgent how can this mean empowered?

I have no illusion for the meaning of supreme, however you might want to twist it.

Re

(One has to understand clearly the three features of Vishnu. Mahavishnu sleeps on the causal ocean. He is the cause of all creation. It is specifically Ksirodaksayi Vishnu (or the maintainer) who declares his oneness with Lord Shiva. Mahavishnu is however, to my knowledge, never described as one with Shiva according to the Shastra.)

Krishna in Bg.

Undivided, yet appears as if divided in beings; He, the object of knowledge, is the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of (all) beings. (13.17)

Vishnu puran 5.33.46

Yo hariH sa ZivaH sakSad yaH zivaH sa svayamM hariH

Ye tayor bhedamAti stahan narakAya bhave nnaraH

Whoever is Lord Hari, He Himself is Lord Shiva indeed.

Any human being mistake both the lord to be different, he/she surely go to hell

Brahma vaivarta puran-prakriti khanda II.56.61

Sleeping or awake, shiva is constantly absorbed in meditation on Krishna.

As I Krishna, so is Shambhu, ther is no difference between Madhava and Isa.

Re

( In fact Krishna specifically says that his ORIGINAL form is the one he possesses in Bhagavad Gita (i.e. two handed form). Now, if the original form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is th two-handed Krishna)

Chapter 11.50

Sanjaya said to Dhrtarastra: The maha-atma Krsna, while speaking thus to Arjuna, displayed His real four-armed form, and at last He showed him His two-armed form, thus encouraging the fearful Arjuna.

I think it is this verse you are referring to, please note Krishna displayed his real four armed form. What do you understand by this? And then he showed him his two armed form that is the one that Arjun and rest of the world is familiar with in this avatar.

Arjuna said: O Krishna, seeing this gentle human form of Yours, I have now become composed and I am normal again. (11.51)

What you are doing is misleading us here, the original form of parabraham is eternal there is no beginning, since we all accept the lord has unlimited form and names, there is no question of original at least all the forms must be original if I can use your word..

Re

(BG says those who worship others are worshipping me, but in a WRONG WAY. If you want to follow the wrong way, go ahead.)

Thank you, but we are not discussing the devas worship, but the worship of Krishna as inquired by Arjun.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Re

not persecuting innocent people because they belong to a religion "practiced(who really practices cannot be a bad person)" by criminals )

That is true no one here sugest for one minute to persecute the innocent.

Question is, is Islam compatable in Vedic land?

all they have offered is misery and violence?

Jai Shree Krishna.

Jai Ganesh

Re

(Again, I reiterate, Brahma, Rudra and Vishnu should not be seen as 'distinct entities' according to this verse. I am not disputing that.)

That is very nice but I see a but coming, therefore you do not believe it.

Re

(However, it is also stated that the Lord 'divides himself' into the three 'according to the modes of nature in the MATERIAL WORLD'. )

Is the lord divisible?

Re

(So this begs the question, what is the lord's form in the spiritual world? That is answered by the Srimad Bhagavatam quite clearly. He is the lord who resides in Goloka Vrindavan enjoying prema bhava with the gopis.)

There are innumerable spiritual planets and one of them is Mahesh Dham and according to markand puran his abode is above vainkutha.

8.7 21-23:

Re

('deva-deva' means greatest of the demigods.)

your opinion. I find when ever Vishnu or Krishna is mention as deva they are supreme lord, but when Siva is mention as deva deva Mahadeva he is demigod! Krishna says he is Maheshvra he is supreme lord, lord siva is known as maheshsvara suddenly you change meaning of that to mean greatest of the devas.

In this instance I ask you who can be greater then all the devas, but the supreme lord?

Who can grant liberation but the lord.

SB 8.7.19: O King, when that uncontrollable poison was forcefully spreading up and down in all directions, all the Devas, along with the Lord Himself, approached Lord Śiva. Feeling unsheltered and very much afraid, they sought shelter of him.

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 demigods offered him their obeisances and prayers with great respect.

Note all the Devas are here, lord siva is not a demigod he would be there churning the ocean otherwise. Also note he is worshiped by saintly person for liberation, so people in ignorance as stated by you earlier or worshiped for boon only, that theory of yours goes out of window. Devas do not offer liberation.

Re

(Shiva is addressed as the supersoul since he is 'not distinct (4.7)' from Ksirodaksayi Vishnu, who is the source of Garbhadaksayi Vishnu (Supersoul). The key phrase in verse 23 is 'when you undertake through your own energy consisting of the three gunas'. This is compatible with the fact that Mahavishnu expands himself as Shiva when dealing with affairs of the external energy (material world).

You are loosing me here, SB 8.7.23: O lord, you are self-effulgent and supreme. You create this material world by your personal energy, and you assume the names Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Maheśvara when you act in creation, maintenance and annihilation.

To me the key phrase is you are self effulgent and supreme. To me it makes no different if you say Vishnu expands himself as Shiva or Shiva expands himself as Vishnu. Since both of them have declared their oneness.

Re

(It's up to you to decide. My point is, you are arguing on the basis that Krishna is non-different from Shiva when he says 'Of Rudra I am Shankar'.)

No I am not arguing I am stating what Krishna has said in relation to Arjuns question How may I worship you in different forms. As it is well established from vedic times the worship of lord Shiva it is not difficult at least for me to take what Lord Krishna says at face value.i have provided few verses from Srimad Bhgvat to further back up what Krishna is saying but when we are in denial we will ignore the evidence. I have provided verses where the lord are saying we are one, you have not given one verse from anywhere saying they are not.

Re

(In that sense then you could argue that the lion is god, that the moon is god, that Indra is God, the letter A is god. But I think I am correct in assuming that what you are trying to prove is that Brahma Shiva and Vishnu are collectively god, not Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu, moon, letter A etc. You must use a different verse to prove your judgement if that is what you are trying to prove.)

I am not trying to prove, at least not the way you put it, the lord is one, he create, he maintains and he destroys and he goes by many names that is all.

As to the lion, the moon,Indra or Letter A(without which there is no speech) as I say before if you are able to worship them why not, why doubt him even if we do not fully understand.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Welcome Jigyasu

You have posed some very nice questions here and i hope the guestji will be able to do justice and give you some answers, but i noticed you did not seek clerification to one of his answer, which i would like to know.

re(••is your material body who suffers, not your self. And this suffering helps you when some religion offers to you the possibilty to go back home to god. If you were happy you'd remain in the material world)

I thought the material body is inert which can not experince suffering.

there is a cotradiction here which need clerification

Thank you.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Re

(you know the dharma, you have more responsibility)

Of course those who know it deserve our respect.

Dharmanu raksit rasitha.

In the land of Gopal Krishna, the cows are crying out for our protection.

So "bhaja Govinda is nice" but how do we do this?

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

"but if you want to preach bhaja govinda (which is very nice) go preach to islam and see how far you can go."

Re

(many are doing it )

what like you preach to us bluntly that we are wrong?

do they say to them that they are mudhas that they are sinful for killing the cows?

do they tell them atleast on this vedic land there is no place for other barberic ideology?

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

sri Sankracharys said a lot more beside bhaja govinda, but this is not the point of discussion.

We are talking about protecting the dharma.A lot of Hindus were killed simply because they wanted to chant these names,but islam called them kafirs and punished them.

but if you want to preach bhaja govinda (which is very nice) go preach to islam and see how far you can go.

yes i want to worship govinda without any hindrence, and you know what govinda means one who protects cow.

so help save cows on vedic land that will also be a step in right direction, bhaja govinda.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Re

(probability.. so high that if we say impossible we surely win)

Sorry you lost me here

Re

(so do not speak if you do not want answer to objections... care and thats enough)

Sorry I did not know I needed your permission.

Re

(i simply read that you assume that indians are protecting bhagavad gita since 5000 years.. and it is wrong.)

Not just 5000 years but the people of this land has done so since the beginning, the soul is identified by the body it is residing in there is no other way to praise them and praise them we must.

Re

( Because there's not an entity "indians", this is simply a material identification.)

Material or otherwise it is not a nonentity, anyone born has some sort of identity, the real identity is to be searched for, and this land we call India has all the available facility to do that, we salute those who preserved it against all the odds.

Re

(You are eternal and only in the last birth you're indian. If you sustain and promote some material identification, you are not defending gita)

Tell me about it, I am fortunate to be associated with it, it is my good karma some how or other this gave me opportunity to inquire in to the supreme, for that I am thankful to my ancestors, should I disown them simply because I know in theory I am not this body but the eternal soul. Should I forsake the duty towards my forefathers?

and what are we doing, simply saying protect the dharma, it under threat from Xian and Islam their aim is to over run us, convert us heathens and kafirs.

We invoke the age old saying dharmanu rakshina raksitha what is material about this?

Re

(wrong, it is not patriotism, if you destroy the religious principles,)

Who is propagating to destroy religious principles?

Re

( at the end of your war, maybe you will obtain india but not bharata varsa, land but not tradition)

We already have India, what war are you talking about?

We are striving to keep the tradition going it is under threat as mentioned above, if they have their way you either be killed for being kafir, or condemned to eternal hell for being heathen.

re

(you are not died.. and indians are not died. If they were died they were died..not indians or pakistani. The matter does not requires a big pandita to recognise if you are preaching dharma or not)

You have no concept of preserving the tradition or protecting the dharma, and those who died doing it you have no respect for them, dharma to you is simply the eternal nature of the soul and its relation to the supreme, but this is not some thing you just read in the books, like Sankracharya said no amount of grammar will help at the time of death.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Thank you for your kind words.

i dont know if i deserve your praise or not but i certainly accept your blessings.

Serve bhavantu sukhinah sarve santu niramayah

sarve bhadrani pashyantu makashchid dukha- mapnuyat

God bless us all

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Re

(In other words, Krsna is the lord who divides himself into Brahma Shiva and Vishnu. It is pretty clear.)

Since the supreme Brahman is indivisible, it is pretty clear he assume this forms

read this again

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.

Or prajapati praying to lord Shiva 8.7 21-23

o god of gods, o supreme deity, the protector, nay the very self of (all) created beings, save us, that has sought refuge in you, from this poison, which is burning the three worlds(21) You are the one lord competent to enthrall and liberate the whole world. Such as you are the wise worship you, the Preceptor , capable of relieving the agony of those who have sought refuge in you.(22)when you undertake through your own energy, consisting of three gunas, the creation, maintenance and dissolution of the universe, O self seeing lord, You assume the title of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva O perfect one!(23)

So my friend when Krishna declares I am Shankar I do not doubt that in any way.

Re

(BG 10.18: O Janardana, again please describe in detail the mystic power of Your opulences. I am never satiated in hearing about You, for the more I hear the more I want to taste the nectar of Your words.)

Are power and opulence’s of the lord separate from him?

Have you heard of energy and energetic.

And in the verse previous to this he is clearly asking

How may I know You, O Lord, by constant contemplation? In what form (of manifestation) are You to be thought of by me, O Lord? (10.17)

Re

(Therefore Krsna is merely describing the 'power of his opulences' not that Shiva or Lions or the Moon is equal to him.)

Or Ram or Vishnu or Anantsesh!

Re

(BG 18.66: Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear)

This is very nice.

Re

( While praying to demigods one is still in material suffering. By abandoning that and praying to Krsna, one loses all good and bad reactions and goes back to Krsna. He is delivered. Simple as that. )

you are great at assuming that those who pray to other devas are because they are in material suffering, you cant understand that there are those who love their Istdeva.

Bg.9.15

Others, who are engaged in the cultivation of knowledge, worship the Supreme Lord as the one without a second, diverse in many, and in the universal form.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Re

(When Atri asked for a son, he did not ask for it in the mood of a pure devotee, so the personalities that appeared were Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu, who deal with boons - not devotion.)

Asking for a son equal to supreme lord is not in the mood of pure devotee! This we are talking about, the son of Brahma, the foremost of the knower of Brahman.

Re

(This is not to say that Atri Muni was not a pure devotee, rather that in that particular instance he was asking for something not purely out of devotion.)

now you know the mood of Atri Rishi wow.

Him the knower of Brahman, obeying his father, asking for a son equal to the supreme lord is deemed by you to be material requirement.

Re

(I am not ignoring. Brahma Shiva Vishnu are equal - Krsna is however superior to them all. 4.7 is in regard to the supreme cause of 'the universe' - not all the universes. Krsna is stated as the source of 'all the universes, the material, spiritual worlds, all that is manifest AND UNMANIFEST' - so it is a much higher position.)

These are statements of any devotee who would rightly think his worship able istdev is the highest; a Shiva devotee would think the same.

Re

(Again 10.23 in bg is Krsna explaining his ultimate position in relation to all things. In order to give an idea to Arjuna of how powerful and opulent he is. He therefore says of Rudra I am Shankar, Of this i am that...if anything 10.23 just confirms that Krsna is also the source of Shankar.)

Again your opinion, twisting and turning to suit your position.

First Krishna is responding to Arjuns question how may I worship you in different forms?

These are not the answers of a diplomat but from supreme Lord, he also says I am Vishnu or I am Ram.

Re

(Atri Muni prayed for a son - so that is asking for something in return. Therefore Krsna did not manifest in front of him.)

He prayed for a son equal to supreme Brahman, this is not any some thing in return, therefore when all three appeared he was surprised but he was assured thus

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.

There is a lila happening here, while Atri Rishi is Meditating Sati Ansuya was being tested By three Devine mothers if you cared to read you might understand Atri Rishi is not just asking for something in return.

Re

(People in the mode of ignorance pray to Shiva as Supreme Cuase of all causes. Atri Muni, Rama, Arjuna prayed to Shiva as the Lord of this Universe - i.e. this particular Universe. Therefore they were not in ignorance since they were not praying to him as cause of all the universes.)

there you go again changing the goal post, first you stated people in ignorance pray to Lord Shiva, when I point out to you that likes of Ram, Arjun also prayed to Lord Shiva, you change your statement, only those who pray to lord Shiva as cause of all causes are in ignorance.

Sarvalok Maheshishvar Ki jai.

Re

(Shiva takes refuge in Krsna when attacked by Vrikasura. If they are equal, why take shelter of Krsna?)

Who can fathom the lilas of the lord, don’t think for one minute the lord who can destroy the universe could not destroy the demon, only had to open his eye and destroy the demon.

Re

(Krsna states 'no-one is equal to me'. How can Shiva be equal?)

There is no question of equal, but when one player playing different role is the same person ie two side of the same coin.

Re

(Truth is one but the wise see it in different ways. In other words this refers to the Bhagavad Gita quote, where it says that a pure devotee can see all living beings as part and parcel of God. They can in that respect see that we are all divine souls. Not that many different Gods are absolute.)

This is your sweet interpretation not what Vedas say "Ekam Sata Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti"

Re

(If a purana is sattvic, it is meant for those who have elevated to the mode of goodness - i.e those who want to know the truth sincerely. If a purana is tamasik, it is meant for those in the mode of ignorance, those who want to learn about God but are not at a sufficient level of consciousness to accept the conclusions of the sattvic puranas. This is confirmed in Bhagavad Gita - those in the mode of ignorance worship the demigods. Those in the mode of goodness worship Vishnu-tattva.)

Others and I will take you seriously if you quote the Gita correctly, you are simply blinded by your one track mind here is the verse in Bg.17.4

The Saattvika persons worship Devas, the Raajasika people worship demigods and demons, and the Taamasika persons worship ghosts and spirits. (17.04)

Also note he does not say people in ignorance worship Lord Shiva please take note before you ever quote that again.

in relation to rest of your post which is nothing more then personal views I like to reiterate that the purans are divided in three categories satvik, rajsik and tamsik are glorification of the personality controlling and possessing in full the said gunas prove me wrong if you can.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Re

(you personally and every indian citizen are not 5000 years old...maybe 100... but not surely 5000..)

I must give credit to your intelligence or lack of it, I had understood your original posting, if you paid a bit of attention to my answer to it you would not again suggest that we think we are physically 5000 year old, no one here are in any illusion like that.

Therefore I post my answer underneath again, if you need any clarification I will be happy to oblige.

((If you knew anything about sanatan dharma you would not ask if we Indians are 5000 years old. Since we are born of this land and love this dev bhumi it must be due to our good karma, this is the land where we worship the forefathers, and we would be failing in our duty if we failed to preserve what they sacrificed their precious life for.))

Simplified, the soul eternal, our karma, our duty to our parents our forefathers and matrubhumi. Bhumi in which the lord himself incarnates, the sadhus and sant roam the land barefoot to give their mercy where maa Ganga flows, forgive me if I feel attach to this pavitra bhumi, if I can not appreciate this tangible things how can I appreciate the supreme ?

Re

(so bhagavad gita was protected not by you but by innumerable people that now is in vaikunta, in saturn, in the moon, in france, in palestine, in hell, in africa and so on...)

How do you know I was not there (not that I am saying I was) are you trikal darsi?

All the same I still feel duty bound to my ancestors, if they are in hell it is my duty to pray for them and if they are in vaikunta it is my good fortune also.

But how can I forget their sacrifice that is the point

Re

( and you maybe, in the previous life were making war to india...)

I care for the holy Dham and that is important to me.

Re

(so you identify yourself with a nation that's your nation only since a few years ...

this is maybe hinduism.. but not sanatanadharma )

You are simply stating your opinion on Hinduism and shows your prejudices for us Hindus, you assume our patriotism for the holy dham some how lacks our understanding of the sanatan dharma, as if to say you know sanatan dharma more then those who fought for it and died to preserve it, were some how just materialistic and on bodily concept.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

RE

(I have been there. They do not have the traditional Ram Darbar. They have Ram and Sitaji on their own. The Darbar is represented by Ramji, Sita, Laxman and hanumanji.)

My profound apologies and for that there is no excuse, I guess in marveling the architecture splendor I overlooked the obvious omission.

RE

(See the Hare Krsna Mandir for how the arrangement should be. )

Yes Hare Krishna mandir has beautiful deities of lord Shree Ram and his darbar,

I was actually fortunate enough to witness the actual installation ceremony.

I could ask the same question why there is no lord Shiva worship in Hare Krishna mandir.

I know their answer but it still hurts.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

"however, only we follow it and we preserved it for milleniums for the world."

Re

(you???? are you or the indians 5000 years old?? were you sanatana dharmi (hindu means nothing) in all these lifes??

Who are you? Hindu may not mean anything to you but to us it is synonym of sanatan dharma, so stop insulting us.

If you knew anything about sanatan dharma you would not ask if we Indians are 5000 years old. Since we are born of this land and love this dev bhumi it must be due to our good karma, this is the land where we worship the forefathers, and we would be failing in our duty if we failed to preserve what they sacrificed their precious life for.

Re

(bhagavad gita is protected by krsna.. also against your will to distort it for political materialistic purpose )

Sure Krishna protects, but god helps those who help themselves.

From very little I know of maadhav, his agenda is not political, he cares for Hindu Dharma and for that I salute him.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Hare Krishna!

Re

(Designation of Hindu is only to the body and not to the soul.This is the basic tenet of Hindu religion.

Aham Brahmasmi)

You have contradicted your self, basic tenets you mention is well understood by any practicing Hindu, no hindu is thinking I am this body.(actual realization is another thing)

Re

(Then why you are so HINDU oriented. You have to defeat the Muslim concept and not be against people as people are in ingnorance.)

It is hard not to have an identity, no matter what you call it, is still a designation.

How do you propose to defeat the Muslim concept without involving the people?

Re

(If you think the Muslims are so fanatical and will kill any Hindu, then one has to defend him/herself)

yes this is the fact in Bharat and the silent muslims are supporting them by default.

Re

(But at the same time, we should also follow Vedic scriptures and treat everyone equally and only fight against people who causes harm not because he is just a Christian or Muslim.)

Quite right and we do it all the time, but this ideology of theirs which is purely based on bodily concept are exploiting our good nature. Their sole aim is to turn this Vedic land in their camp. To them we are Kafirs or heathens and they are using all the dirty trick in the book to achieve their aim.

Haribol!

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai Ganesh

Re

(I'm not questioning Atri Rishi's qualification)

Yes you did by implication, suggested he is not pure devotee.

Re

(In other scriptures it is explicitly stated that Narayana was there before Shiva or Brahma came into existence. (See three posts above). There is difference since shiva himself states in the Bhagavatam that he prays to Lord Krsna. Similarly, Krsna states that those who worship others are worshipping in the wrong way.)

But why do you insist on ignoring what lord himself said in Bhagavat 4.7/50-54

Or what Krishna saying in bg.10.23

Re

(When Rama or Arjuna are praying to Shiva, they are praying for a boon. That is what Shiva provides. Arjuna prayed for weapons. Atri Muni prayed for protection.)

Correction Atri muni prayed for son equal to supreme Lord

Again you have changed the point of discussion, you stated people in mode of ignorance worship Lord Shiva. Ram, Arjun, Atri are not that is my point.

Re

(When they are actually requesting to serve the Supreme Lord, that is when Krsna shows Himself, since he is the original person (Brahma Samhita)

How can u say they are equal when Krsna says 'there is no one equal to me. Noone is higher than me')

I have not argued against Krishna, point is, is Lord Shiva the same? Since Lord Krishna himself declares the fact who am I to argue.

After all, the vedas proclaim "Ekam Sata Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti" or "Truth is One but the wise see it in Different Ways".

Re

(Shiva Purana makes conclusions about Shiva being supreme. I admit that. But the Matsya Purana states that Shiva Purana is one of the puranas there for basic knowledge, as one starts to destroy ignorance. The cream of the Vedas, the spotless Purana, Bhagavt Purana, however is firmly situated in the mode of goodness (according to Matsya Purana) - and the conlcusion there is God is a cowherd boy who plays a flute. Vasudevah (Krsna).)

Basic is equally important otherwise complex subject become difficult to understand.

There is also a misconception thinking purans are satvik or tamsik, fact of the matter is the supreme controller of three gunas are discussed here.

I have no problem with the conclusion in the puranas, you will find in every one of them at some point all three are glorified as same.

Jai Shree Krishna