talasiga

Originally posted by Maitreya:

You are taking this little game too seriously Talasiga.

 

But our safe place is not found in opposition to the previous saints.

 

 

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.

Originally posted by Maitreya:

Or just the exact opposite Satyaraja.

 

American Heritage Dictionary says:

Simultaneous 1.Happening,existing, or done at the same time.

 

 

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

Originally posted by Maitreya:

you're Kabir.

 

Talasiga, remember Haridas counted.

 

 

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).]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Even maya is part of Hari, while

Sankar's opinion of monism places maya as something different from Hari.

 

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).]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

In a timeless circumstance, (an absolute time where the concept of 'simultaneous' is meaningless) this theory is meaningless.

 

If the simultaneity is meaningless,

what about "timeless circumstance" which is an oxymoron?

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Sri Vallabha's doctrine is that of suddha-advaita-vada. Pure monism. Wherever one sees difference actually he is seeing only Hari's absoluteness, as no dualism is present in that doctrine. Even maya is part of Hari, while

Sankar's opinion of monism places maya as something different from Hari.

 

This doctrine would reject Sri Caitanya's doctrine of simultaneous acintya bedha-abheda because the later can be related only to the three phases of time. In a timeless circumstance, (an absolute time where the concept of 'simultaneous' is meaningless) this theory is meaningless.

 

 

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).]

Originally posted by Maitreya:

Well that certainly puts things back in the proper perspective.

I'm in trouble.

 

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).]

the story:

"Once Sriman Mahaprabhu announced to His devotees that He would only accept invitations from those who were lakh pati. In Bengal someone who owns a lakh (100,000) of Rupees is called a lakh pati, so many devotees told the Lord: "We are sorry, but we don't have so much money. We cannot invite You. Why are we thus deprived of Your mercy?" To this Sriman Mahaprabhu smilingly replied: "No, no My dear. With a lakh pati I mean someone who daily chants one lakh of holy names of KrishNa (64 rounds of rosary)."

 

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).]

Originally posted by jndas:

"The Name should be chanted keeping a careful count and one should try to increase this to one lakh of holy Names daily. In not being able to do so means one is simply 'fallen'. One should try to rise up from that state by chanting seriously."

 

- Sri Bhakti Pramode Puri Maharaj

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.

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

But this diversity is also a weakness in that it prevents a focused and united populace that moves towards common goals together.

As Ants we were

Many moving as one;

As Humans we are

One moving as many

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

In suddha-advaita-vada philosophy Hari is one without a second.

Many try

But no philosophy can constrain the Lord

Like Radha !

Originally posted by Maitreya:

Not so bizarre talasiga.I believe the story illusrtates a type of namabhasa called sanketa, of which there are two kinds.

 

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).]

Originally posted by jndas:

There is a story in the Puranas of a man who was passing stool in a field when a boar started chasing him with his sharp tusks. The man came to a cliff and had no where to go, so he jumped off and yelled 'haraam' which is a bad word in some non-sanskrit languages. The man fell to his death. But there was a rishi meditating in a cave of that cliff, who by his mystic vision saw the man attain a four armed form and go to Vaikuntha. He was very angry and met with Brahma to complain. He said, "I have been doing tapas and meditation for thousands of years, and I am still in this cave, but this unholy man has yelled some obscentity while falling to his death and he has attained Vaikuntha! This is injustice."

 

At that time Narada arrived and explained how the syllable 'raam' was spiritual sound, and it is heard by Sri Ramachandra, whereas the syllable 'ha' was material sound vibration, and was ignored by the Lord. Thus to the Lord's ears he only heard the man calling 'raam' at the time of death. Ramachandra had taken a vow that whoever calls His name at the time of death, He will come and deliver that person from the material existence. Thus to uphold his vow he came to deliver this man who had unknowingly called his name in an indirect manner.

 

 

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 !

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

So, by inference, I had became a brahmanin and now I am mastered in Vedas and even can teach the Vedas to the twice-born. That's the miracle made by some missionaries.

In Kali Yuga even the cows have gone mad!

Originally posted by Maitreya:

I have found it interesting how this nit- picking has interupted the flow of the topic which was Faith and Intelligence.

 

Is there a lesson here?

 

 

Yes,

Faith in Guru

must be coupled with the Intelligence

that you can only choose a Guru

who has chosen you.

Talasiga alias Nitwit

Originally posted by shvu:

Yeah, I had missed it.

But can you explain how oo is better than u ?

 

Thanx

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.

Originally posted by animesh:

I never said that "Krsna" is preferable.

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

Originally posted by shvu:

Since you are particular about spellings, can you explain why write Sruti as Srooti? Why the double o's?

 

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.

Originally posted by jndas:

Since 1992 I've seen at least 15 different transliteration schemes come and go on the internet. As such I don't really make a big deal about it.....

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.

Originally posted by animesh:

May I ask why? When one writes "Krishna", then it is quite possible for one to think that the pronunciation "ee" here is as in "muni", but in reality, it is as in "rishi". The two are different. Also, I consider usgae of "s" better than "sh" when mentioning "Krsna".

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.

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

Personally I find this whole discussion of anglicized sanskrit to be rather silly. I like to type Krsna, but sometimes type out Krishna.

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.

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Yes, it is possible. It is called dry jñana and it is a kind of duty, not different than a mandatory labor. It may cause brahmavit or not. We also have the dry bhakti, or vaidhi-bhakti. It may cause love and affection towards Hari or not.

Some make the driest altar

hoping the Invisible

will raise dust!

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 07-21-2001).]