talasiga

Actually I was enjoying your doggerels even though they are a bit catty. Mature singers do not prefer the groupie's consonance but the discriminating fan is valued greatly even if he or she does not love every song.

Maitreya's dictionary tends to support Satyaraja's point because it provides a definition using time as the primary reference or criterion. Satyaraja's point is that the timeless cannot be defined in terms of time. One must play Satyaraja at his own game to beat him.....

My ears are hearing insults But my heart cannot count them

Kabir was a greay Indian saint whose followers fought over his dead body because they hadnt grasped his Living Message. Haridas counts not because he counted. [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 07-25-2001).]

One needs to be careful to distinguish Shankara's exposition on advaita vedaanta from Prakaashaananda's exposition which was clearly maayaavaadi. [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 07-25-2001).]

If the simultaneity is meaningless, what about "timeless circumstance" which is an oxymoron?

Yes ! This is fantastic stuff ! According to this God who is All cannot include achintya bhed abhed Therefore achintya bhed abhed must be beyond God It is higher It is the True God. [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 07-25-2001).]

That is a proper Medieval perspective. Is the sound of Krishna a thousand snickers? Talasiga says: Better to drown in One Utterance Holy than to surf the Many. [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 07-25-2001).]

Jijaji's purport: In this way Sriman Mahaprabhu taught the devotees that they must daily chant (if no more) one lakh of holy names of Krishna. talasiga's purport: Perhaps in this way the Lord sifted out the truly loving devotees. Those who were strict counters may have been too busy to invite him and those who invited him may have ignored the strict counting ..... [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 07-25-2001).]

Unqualified Love does not count obligations The Ocean may not be measured by the waves

Defending Satyaraja Satyaraja's postings have prompted me to write some of my best haiku and other devotional poems. What is wrong with that? But if you dont like my poems Please dont be angry with him I take full responsibility.

As Ants we were Many moving as one; As Humans we are One moving as many

Many try But no philosophy can constrain the Lord Like Radha !

Agreed ! The story is not bizarre if its supporting the power of the Holy Name per se because it illustrates the power of even an incidental (or accidental) correct pronunciation of a Divine Name. But it is bizarre for jndas to use the story to support the proposition that faith and devotion has primacy over pronunciation. The story OBVIOUSLY doesnt do that and THAT is the point I am making. Thank you very much. (additional/editional note for Satyaraja: Yes agreed with you too. I didnt say the story in itself was wrong but, rather it is bizarre as a "supporting story" for the the proposition that faith has primacy over pronunciation. Any way I have already e-mailed shvu. Satyaraja also come with us to the movie ) [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 07-25-2001).]

Talasiga fully agrees with the proposition that "the faith in one's heart is primary over the pronunciation". Unfortunately the story posted by jndas, which is supposed to demonstrate this, does the CONTRARY ! The story implies that, at the time of death, if you accidentally or incidentally make any sound which happens to reflect the correct pronunciation of a Divine Name, then you will be delivered EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY LOVE, FAITH, DEVOTION OR THOUGHT OF GOD ! This is BIZARRE. With supporting stories like this who needs atheists? I think I'll e-mail shvu - maybe we can go to a movie or something......

perhaps you should visit Braj again and learn Brij Bhaasha and by that mercy your approach to Sanskrit may be more fruitful. In Indian lingusitics Sanskrit is the Purusha and the the vernaculars derived from it are Prakrit. This is analogous to Shaktiman and Shakti or the Lord and His Devotees. The most prominent devotee of Sanskrit is Brij Bhaasha. It is commonly spoken, relatively untouched by arabic and persian vocabularic intrusions as is KhariBoli Hindi for example and it is the language between Radha and Krishna. So by taking to the Feet of this Devotee you may be guided in your approach to Sanskrit which is otherwise very remote and austere. Bon Voyaji !

In Kali Yuga even the cows have gone mad!

Yes, Faith in Guru must be coupled with the Intelligence that you can only choose a Guru who has chosen you. Talasiga alias Nitwit

Ji whiz. You are quick! Only because of the phonetic variability of "u" in english viz between cut and put. For instance I have been eating mung (pronounced moong) for nearly 50 yrs. I go into health food store and say, "Hiya mate, did you get my 10 kilo bag of moong" "the whatta?" "moong" "mooo?oo oh.... you mean mung [as in "sung"]. Why didnt you f#$%^ say so in the first place?" This is what happens when somebody first wrote mung like this meaning it to be pronounced moong. It has derogated into mung as in sung. But this only is a small matter because mung is not a holy name although Hari is there too. Then I put the idiot box on and there is this american doco about world religions and it goes to India and we are told about Ram (as in "ham") and I go "baa baa baaladi hell, turn the damn thing off " but my wife says "cam down!" So I must be going to bad now. It is two thirty in the morning in Oz.

8 hours ago on this thread Animesh said "Also, I consider usgae of "s" better than "sh" when mentioning "Krsna".

1. Particularity is in the eye of the beholder. I spell english according to Queen's English BUT i would never go around trying to "correct" the spelling of American English. As long as we try to be consistent (give or take a few slips or slides and typos)in whatever scheme we follow. 2. Talasiga does not write "srooti". Shvu is wrong again. 3. Talasiga had already given brief explanation for double "o" in his last post. Did shvu miss it? Actually, Satyaraja, I hope you see that I have not really strayed too much from the subject of your thread: "Faith and Intelligence". This whole diversion is ILLUSTRATIVE of the dichotomy between the two that does exist for many (although it need not)for here we have a picture of the split between the yearning for the Vigraha and a disregard for its Particularity. I am not suggesting that I am 100% right but the salient opposition to me is on the basis of "who cares, what does it matter". This is analogous to those who disregard jnana or those who dress the Dieties in torn bandages because they prefer it and it doesnt matter. It is lazy bhakti and its excellence is something Talasiga has not yet realised.

I am not making a big deal about what scheme one chooses but more about being consistent (within reason)about the scheme one chooses. I am not aware of any scheme that uses Krsna without diacritical marks. If the diacritical marks are not available, and there are many readers who will not be familiar with the correct pronounciation of the words so marked, then it is better to revert to a scheme that manages this problem without the use of diacritical marks by saying "Krishna". On a personal note, as a person of Hindi-speaking background who has been interacting with English-speaking people and English books on the subject within the scope of this Audariya fellowship since 1960, I have consistently experienced that writing Krishna is more likely to obtain a more accurate rendering of the Name. As another example, in my experience, writing "shrooti" with a double "o" is also better because the phonetics of the English "u" is so variable. But, if the most important thing on this forum is scoring dialectical points in discussion in which the sound of the Holy Name is only incidental, then my little comments (imperfect as they may be) may best be ignored.

Yes you are showing your inconsistency. You prefer to write Krsna (without the diacritical marks) but you have written "rishi". If you have written 'rishi", why not "Krishna" or "Krshna"? According to your preference it should be "risi" or "rsi" I think that the only useful comment so far has been from Satyaraja who has pointed out the anglo-centricity of my (and the conventional) approach to the use of Roman script. Indeed this approach may still be confusing for many readers from other backgrounds who do not take the same meaning (sound) for Roman letters as applies to them in English. So I found Satyaraja's comment helpful to increasing my tolerance. Nevertheless this does not exempt Animesh from the criticism of inconsistency when he or she insists that "Krsna" is preferable and then goes on to write rishi instead of risi or rsi. Anyway I am getting RSI so I must stop now.

Its no sillier than wondering when the soul (which is not an object in space and time) "enters the body". I dont care Gauracandra, I said what I had to and have moved on. Call Him "snicker snicker" or whatever you wish. I must go, I must catch my fairy.

Some make the driest altar hoping the Invisible will raise dust! [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 07-21-2001).]