talasiga

I was in pain before your post. You are a good doctor for you can sense the pain. Forgive me. All I am saying is that if you dont have the diacritical marks it is better to render an "s" that is pronounced as "sh" as in fact "sh". Thank you for your information about your Portuguese, but I must say these discussions are in English and we should be cognisant of the implications of the Roman script in English (albeit the inconsistency of its application at times).

[1] Perhaps someone is confusing faith with belief. [2] Try to practise jñana without enthusiasm and devotion (bhakti), even for a moment - is it possible? [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 07-21-2001).]

Even so, Satyaraja rejected Talasiga when Talasiga said, The ferry of devotion finds Radha waiting at every shore and If Satyaraja accepts that Hari is All It follows that Hari is the ferry the devotion the waiting of Radha and every shore And also that Hari is the Difference between them All Perhaps Satyaraja might put me in touch with these Pushti (yes "Pushti" not "Pusti") preceptors directly. Thank You very much.

In fairness, you too are presenting the shabda in a way not consonant with its sounds (as far as can be EASILY possible within the Roman script) Please see my previous comments. If you leave the phonetic accents out in the cut and paste you should make the necessary adjustment with Roman characters to render the quotation more phonetic in accordance with accepted practices. Otherwise the amputated quotation just becomes an exercise in tokenism or showdown of scriptural blanks. If the sounds of the original quotation arent that important why try to PARROT them at all in this inadequate manner? Just give us the quote in English with a citation reference where we can find the original ourselves.

see my above message regarding accent markings. Why write "Krsna" without the accents - it is pretentious ersatz half baked scholarship - either one writes "Krsna" with the accents under "rs" and "n" or, if not available, write as "Krishna" which is more reflective of the phonetics (within the constraints of Roman script) than is "Krsna" without the accents. Thank You very much. [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 07-21-2001).]

SHROOTING STAR the devoted Being successfully having avoided all the temptations of paradise and definition is on an experimental return to earth.

1. These do not seem to be there in my Radhakrishnan translation of the Bhagavad Geeta but I do note that it ends after 18:78 with "iti shreemad bhagavad geetaa upanishadaha samaaptaaha" meaning here ends the Bhagavad Geeta Upanishad. 2. Certain persons would probably dispute with Vyaasadeva about his description of Bhagavad Geeta as Upanishad because those certain persons probably consider the Rishis who "heard" and recorded the other Upanishads as more authoritative and credible than Vyaasadeva. They probably have not bothered to examine the basis of such beliefs. 3. The broad meaning of "shrooti" in Sanskrit and languages derived from same is "sound vibration". We use the term in music theory and so on. The epistemological meaning is something like the sound vibration of revelation or that which is heard on realisation. In discussion we may say that "shrooti says" etc, but epistemologically shrooti is HEARD in realisation and when uttered in a state of Realisation it may heard by others as shrooti. When someone utters the text of shrooti without divine understanding, it is just a recitation, a memorable utterance which may eventually assist in Realisation - smirti. Therefore when God utters the Divine Song it is shrooti and when the Perfect Disciple realises it, He or She hears shrooti. When Buddha speaks the Dhamma springing from Enlightenment and the Disciples realise that which he speaks, that utterance is shrooti. Ditto for Jesus. 4. But how does one know whether someone who claims to be divine or enlightened is indeed in a state of Revelation, a Revelant truly conveying shrooti? Some say that they are known by the fruits but isn't that just another saying to be questioned? Talasiga says that if such a one leads one to the Divine it will be self evident. A Revelant who does not reveal the Divine for you is not relevant to you. Some may say that none can lead you to the Divine for the Divine presents by Divine Grace alone - Divine whim. Talasiga says that the Revelant who leads one to the Divine is the Divine Grace presenting by Divine whim. 5. .

This is a very unintelligent way to transcribe these words. It would mislead any reader not familiar with the shrooti (sounds) of Sanskrit. If you don't have accents on your keyboard (which I dont have either) and are unable to qualify these "s" properly with the commonly accepted accent markings, it is better to render them as "sh" where appropriate. This may not be perfect but at least it is better than an "s" without the accent to show its proper phonetics. (Incidentally, I continue to be amazed by many devotees who even after nearly 30 years of Association are still pronouncing "Chaitanya" as "Shaytanya" which becomes, by such pronunciation, north indian vernacular for "Satan" ! ) If this is too much trouble for you, then leave the language alone and honour your ideas in English or whatever rather than promoting your position by dishonouring our mother tongue or the antecedent Sanskrit. [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 07-21-2001).]

Where is my haiku for Jagat? My 108th posting It was impromptu and beyond recovery! Must I cut and paste also? The cut and paste, cut and paste What a big waste of devotional taste.....

you cannot bag me you know not my logic your beliefs have no magic

mera gaudiya when I was a little boy I was given a dolly my cousin sisters stole it and told me a dog ate it And then I was given a gun but being a boy I would not shoot them over just a dolly

not "seemed" but "do" otherwise you will have raas bhaas and not Raas Leela

shvu said I had nothing more to say and so I kept silent rather than repeating the same thing all over again. talasiga says the indigestible is repeated the truth is not repetitive at every round it is ever new ________________ shvu said I am saying that traditionally Sruti is the 4 Vedas, period and nothing else. talasiga says The Vedas do not say what shvu said. ________________ shvu said Of course, for none of the Smriti in the Trayi contradict Sruti anywhere. That is the idea. talasiga says 1. Yes, this is an idea that shvu believes. It is a reality known by the realized. 2. As only the Upanishad portion of the Vedas is included in the prasthaan-traya, shvu's position is open to the inference that (i)the shrooti in the balance of the Veda would raise contradictions and that is why they are not included in the traya. This is corollary to the inference that those smirti not included in the traya would be contradictory to the shrooti; or (ii)just as the prasthaan-traya does not include amy smirti that would contradict the shrooti included in it, so it does not include any shrooti (Vedas minus Upanishads) that would contradict any smirti included in it. 3. For the Enlightened there is no contradiction in what they remember (smirti) of what they hear(shruti). [This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 07-19-2001).]

talasiga says that: The Gopis are more Bhakti than Shakti Bhakti is Pure Love and therefore needs no contract (such as marriage) for its subsistence. Not much can be learnt from them except that following in their footsteps can lead to the greatest Separation. Further, Bhakti transcends the three Gunas and is beyond the Law and cannot be ratified or invalidated by concerns of legitimacy or illegitamacy.

JN Das has already just responded quite well to these humble questions of Shvu. Talasiga also refers Shvu to the final line of Bhagavad Geeta.

1. We have NOT gone "THRU" it at all. Your response is still pending to my my post of 26 June 12:38AM on the thread "Bhakti is the ultimate goal beyond mukti". 2.The vedaanta prasthaana-trayi do not include shrooti per se (this would mean all the Vedas) but the vedaanta shrootis of the Upanishads, the Geetopanishad (Bhagavad Geeta) and the smirti of Brahma Sootra-s. 3. The prasthaans are literally the foundational pillars for vedaanta exegesis and therefore are equal primacy regardless of whether one is shrooti or smirti. (Jijaji Peacenow has done a wonderful posting on the shrooti-smirti relationship on a recent thread and the equality between them is particularly the case with the scriptural cluster of the Prasthaana-traya).

Bhagavad Geeta itself is the song of God directly from Lord Krishna It is shrooti That is why its colophonic name: bhagavadgeeta upanishad

Demigods means halfgods. Where does Bhagavad Gita 9.25 mention half gods? "Yaanti devrataa devaan pitreen yaanti pitrivrataaha bhootaani yaanti bhootejyaa yaanti madyaajino 'pi maam" devaan means gods.

This is a very gentle answer which informs strongly and humbly

agreed with JN Das. I wonder the how the portuguese translation would have handled such an english translation?

In the Ramayan Some do find whatever they desire Even Bhakti

From insight springs shrooti through remembrance only shrooti is smirti

No amount of reasoning May render the All Less than Everything

I do not know the mainline sermon to bend at first to speak in time and then to think It is possible

If Satyaraja accepts that Hari is All It follows that Hari is the ferry the devotion the waiting of Radha and every shore And also that Hari is the Difference between them All