talasiga

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Sorry if my posts may cause you some pain.

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).

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

[1].....In that case the word [shraddhavan] may be employed in the sense of fervor, a feeling of love and affection, that is different than belief.

 

 

[2].....First jñana and thereafter fervor (bhakti).

[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).]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

(Quote from Pushti-margi respected by Satyaraja): Also, if the Lord is everything - and totally everything - like the Gold in the ornament - than He is the Pushti soul, He is the Prvahi soul and He is the soul that is demonic too ! He lives in heaven, He lives in Hell (if there is one !) - as He is one and all !!! This is the uniqueness of Shri Vallabh's theory - there is only God and nothing but God in the entire universe !

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.

Originally posted by jndas:

[a bevy of Sanskrit quotes transliterated in a "misleading" way]

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.

Originally posted by mahak:

.....Krsna....Krsna.....Krsna.....Krsna...... Krsna

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).]

Originally posted by kailasa:

Being experimental in all on definition devoted is successful having avoided paradise temptations, has returned on earth.

 

SHROOTING STAR

the devoted Being

successfully having avoided

all the temptations

of paradise and definition

is on an experimental return

to earth.

Originally posted by jndas:

Here is the [colophon] to the Bhagavad Gita that occurs at the end of each chapter. This is the 18th chapter in particular, but it is nearly identical for the other chapters as well. It states the Bhagavad Gita to be an Upanishad, to be Yoga-shastra, and to be Brahma-vidya.

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.

.

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

.....sruti.....Upanisads .......Prasna ...

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.....

Originally posted by shvu:

In fact, if I can manage to collect a set of gullible people as my followers and convince them that I am enlightened [a very easy task because I know most of the tricks in the bag], then according to your logic, my teaching will be Sruti too.

 

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

Originally posted by Bhaktavasya:

........each gopi seemed to (at some point during the Rasa Dance) experience dancing alone with Krishna...

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.

Originally posted by shvu:

 

Where is the BG referred to as an upanishad and by whom? upanishads are veda-anta which form the concluding part of one of the four vedas. Which veda is this part of?

 

 

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.

Originally posted by shvu:

Talasiga,

 

we have gone thru this earlier. By tradition, Sruti is what is part of the 4 vedAs [revealed and eternal]. Everything else is composed by man and is Smriti. The prasthana-trayi is Sruti, BS and BG. Notice that the latter 2 are not Sruti.

 

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).

Originally posted by shvu:

Smriti including the BG is valid for vedAntins only when it does not contradict Sruti. That also includes the mahabhAratha.

 

Bhagavad Geeta itself is the song of God

directly from Lord Krishna

It is shrooti

That is why its colophonic name: bhagavadgeeta upanishad

Originally posted by Maitreya:

Those who worship the demigods will take birth among the demigods; those who worship the ancestors go to the ancestors; those who worship ghosts and spirits will take birth among such beings; and those who worship Me will live with Me.

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.

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Jndas is correct in his [assertion]. In the Portuguese translation we had noticed this fact and we had employed the term 'delicious dishes,' never directely saying that Rama eats meat, as only some inferences on that issue can be [made] (or not).

 

Maybe next kartika I will be in India and I want to meet Sri Rambhadra Mj at Citrakut, who probably is the utmost authority in Ramacaritamanasa. I will ask him about this and them I will report his words. His personal blessings were the only cause of the Portuguese translation of Sri Ramacaritamanasa.

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?

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

.....Ramayana ......

In the Ramayan

Some do find whatever they desire

Even Bhakti

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Hari is to be remembered by sruti statements that are absolute statements. Then it follows the inferences to these statements that are called smrti

From insight springs shrooti

through remembrance only

shrooti is smirti

Satyaraj: Badarayana Rsi has clearly established in Brahma-sutras that the way that Hari operates is beyond the reasoning faculty

No amount of reasoning

May render the All

Less than Everything

Originally posted by kailasa:

Main in the sermon - line to bend, in time to speak I "do not "know" and at first to do(make), and to think it is possible and then.

 

I do not know the mainline sermon

to bend at first

to speak in time

and then to think

It is possible

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Talasiga:

The ferry of devotion

finds Radha waiting

at every shore

 

Satyaraj:

Actually we find a great difficulty to accept that Hari's soul (Radha) is something different than Hari Himself. This seems to deny sruti's assertive that there is not a second Hari. We cannot find any evidence in sruti mantras that Hari's saktis may have an independent will, or any independent activities, or that they are apart form Hari at any circumstance.......

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