talasiga

Satyaraja dasa:

Vedanta-acaryas are proposers of philosophy's Absolute Truth. They are not explaining a religious process. There is a great difference between philosophy's Absolute and religion's God. The God aspect is not vividly described in these Upanishad, but because there is an Absolute present as ' a priori ' it is decided that He must be the God .

 

Shrooti is not the exclusive reference of the Vedantins. For their unified exegesis, all three major Vedanta schools refer, as their primary scriptural authority, to the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Vedanta Sutras. As you will see these are a mix of shrooti AND smirti.

 

On the various threads I have noticed a predisposition to viewing the shrootis and other sacred texts as some sort of sole authority. However, there are several core means of valid knowledge (pramaana-s)accepted by the Vedantins. These are

1. perception (pratyaksha)

2. comparison (upamaana)

3. non-cognition (anupalabdhi)

4. inference (anumaana)

5. postulation (arthaapatti) and

6. testimony (shabda) - scriptural authority

 

When Satyaraja suggests that the shrootis provide an abstract treatment of the Divine and that the theistic conclusion is a "decision", it does not mean that the conclusion (decision) is fanciful, arbitrary and un-vedantic. If the theistic conclusion from the shrooti is the result of correct inferences, logical comparisons and so on (i.e. VALID means of non scriptural knowledge), then these conlusions are authoritatively vedantic.

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 06-22-2001).]

Originally posted by kailasa:

, this insult, to preach ýçîòåðè÷åñêèå of a thing, especially it is not valid, you see. Õàðè áîë, Êàèëàñà.

Dear Kailasa

Mountain of this Forum

What is it that you are rendering in Russian

and why?

Yours below

Talasiga

 

 

Originally posted by amanpeter:

If only we could live up to the above, even amongst ourselves, perhaps Shvu prabhu and others might take us a lot more seriously when they're being preached to...

 

 

Dear Amanpeter

 

Thanks for your overview

of the condition amongst us

Although

Only those that have reached

can truly preach

Surely

We are all friends

Boisterously pushing each other

Closer to the Jamuna

 

Talasiga

Dear Drummeraga

actually my name IS pronounced talasiNGa.

It is a Fijian name and in Fijian one does not write the N which goes with the G because in that language N is alays there with the G.

As Satyaraja Dasa is in another part of the world and Fiji is such a small place, I wondered how he knew to pronounce this name.

He must be a clever fox I thought.

Talasiga

 

PS For more about sacred Fiji see my poem in Travelogue section......

Originally posted by animesh:

I like a book called "First Lessons in Sanskrit Grammar and Reading".

 

Why the word First? Is it because the book is very elementary?

Perhaps, Animesh, because it is the first lessons that the author has written:>)

 

 

I wished someone would answer my question too. Earlier I asked, "Pardon my ignorance, but what language did Krishna speak in the historical Vindiraban?"

 

 

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

This seems to follow the same logic on how to attain the moon; "If one is faithful on the premise that the moon is made of blue cheese, to taste blue cheese should be the same as to be at the moon. So, the moon is attainable by tasting blue cheese."

I do believe you have

capped your thread with blue cheese.

How could anyone possibly respond

if they are falling around laughing?

 

 

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

There is absolutely no implication in my statement that the relationship between Rukmini and Krishna is not loving. In the circumstances, I fail to see any relevant contrast by the following utterance of Satyaraja Das.(Talasinga)

 

No intended to argue

only to expand your sutra

with love and affection to Hari

says Satyaraj, a proud idiot.

me thinks

you are just

a fantailed fox

disguised as "a proud idiot"

 

and why have you written my name

as "talasinga"?

Originally posted by Talasiga:

Rukmini may serve the Lord as Rukmini in relationship to Krishna but should she perceive Radha's Devotion as higher and desire that service she may only acquire it by Radha's Grace.

There is absolutely no implication in my statement that the relationship between Rukmini and Krishna is not loving. In the circumstances, I fail to see any relevant contrast by the following utterance of Satyaraja Das.

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

'Hari is comprised of nectar,

His bhava supports the conjugal exchange.'

 

Hari is Love's personified form. The Svaminis (like Radha) nourish that love and inspire it to arise. Shri Krishna is the basis of their lila-mood and the Svaminis' bhava for Krishna is Krishna Himself.

 

For those elevated bhaktas, Hari is blissful. His form is comprised of Brahman's intimate gesture. All portions of His body, including every hair and even the slightest movement, express the perfection of His own bliss.

 

So, devotion to Hari is given by Hari Himself, not by a second Hari or by His sakti (Radha). The sakti should obey saktiman's command. One should not wait for sakti's direct mercy, disdaining Hari's free will and exclusive competence to distribute mercy or anything else.

 

Originally posted by Bhaktavasya:

Here's a couple of verses from the Bhagavad Gita that are relevant to the topic of Liberation;

 

B.G. chapter 5 verse 18

 

'When one's intelligence, mind, faith and refuge are all fixed in the Supreme, one becomes cleansed of misgivings through complete knowledge and thus proceeds straight on the path of liberation.'

SHVU already accepts that Bhakti Marga is a path (marga) of liberation.

 

Originally posted by Bhaktavasya:

B.G. chapter 5 verse 25

 

'One who is beyond duality and doubt, whose mind is engaged within, who is always working for the welfare of all sentient beings, and who is freed from sins, achieves liberation in the Supreme'.

SHVU's understanding of "liberation in the Supreme" would appear to be fettered by a focus on the the word "liberation" without taking into account "in the Supreme". From all the writings of Shvu, it appears that his interpretation of Moksha and Mukti are based on an understanding of these in the context of the material world, the known (ie freedom from the world).

However the above passage would tend to show that the goal of freedom from material consciousness is freedom in the Supreme.

That freedom in the Supreme must have Infinite range and scope including the Freedom to surrender to Pure Desire and the Freedom to lovingly serve the Supreme Being.

Shvu's position would deny this free Capacity and seeks to constrain divine liberation within a mundane construct, and, by this very position undermines his own promotion of the superiority of Moksha.

 

 

Gauracandra:

I can't speak for Talasiga, but I think most often discussions fail due to semantics. What you say is mukti, others may have a different view. What you say is bhakti, others may have a different view. So when discussing what is mukti in relation to bhakti, if we do not use common terms, then we will fail to make any progress in discussion. So if you have a definition of bhakti, I'd be interested in that as well, just so as to understand your statements clearer.

 

Gauracandra

Thank You Gauracandra for this.

How could I have answered Shvu when I am not an iskconite?

Shvu had said:

" may I ask why thou an iskconite who art..... "

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 06-20-2001).]

Originally posted by Amanpeter:

Only Radha serves Krsna since She ALONE is qualified and wholly acceptable to Him. He wants ONLY Her.

originally posted by Satyaraja Das re. above Amanpeter utterance:

So, by following this thesis, devotional service is impossible to everyone else but Radha.

(You must have followed the thesis with the lighted torch pointed to your eyes :>)

Following the thesis, if one aspires to the loving devotion between Radha and Krishna, one's service must be conveyed through Radha's Grace for in that relationship between Radha and Krishna, the only one besides Krishna is Radha alone.

 

Satyaraja Das contines:

Not even Rukmini, Laksmi, and all the other bhaktas may ever serve Krsna.

Rukmini may serve the Lord as Rukmini in relationship to Krishna but should she perceive Radha's Devotion as higher and desire that service she may only acquire it by Radha's Grace.

And the presentation of argument regarding Lakshmi and the other Bhaktas is of the same order.

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 06-20-2001).]

Dear Shvu

Friend of leyh

Fearless lone husky

on a sliding sleigh

may we have your definition

of bhakti and nirvana too?

 

Best wishes

Talasiga

Originally posted by JRdd:

Where is Kaliya Serpent?

in a cave in the mountains

circa 178deg 10min East, 17deg 30min South

He resides

Still intoxicated

by the Lord's dancing footsteps

 

Originally posted by JRdd:

Why Fiji, please?

 

The Lord Graces as He chooses

Please

How can Talasiga explain?

 

Amanpeter

You have probably offended

Lakshmi already

Take care.....

 

I have bathed my heart in the Ganga

and quenched it by the Jamuna

But surely

it is the Rivers of Fiji

which will carry me to the Divine

Originally posted by leyh:

I wasn't really trying to antagonize anyone.

 

Just as being a protagonist does not require someone to be protagonised

So being an antoganist does not infer you have antagonised anyone.

 

Please relax -

You are greatly appreciated

 

Originally posted by leyh:

[long message]

 

Dear leyh

Such a very long response

to such a short sighted view!

But

With antagonists like you

Who needs friends?

Lucky Shvu!

Kindest Regards

Talasiga

 

 

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

'If Mohamed does not go to the mountain, the mountain goes to Mahamed.'

............................

So, what is the path?

1. By the time the Mountain reached Mohammed

Alas! It was all Rubble.

 

2. Why do you search a path across the River?

Can you walk on water?

Please take the Ferry of Devotion

It is steered by One who is so enlightened

that whichever shore he goes to

He reaches the destination

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 06-18-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 06-18-2001).]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

One may argue; "Is this Ultimate Reality attained by this Tantra?" The answer is no. Never.

 

All these Tantras, and Margas, and Darsanas, and Yogas are just different invitations.

The invitation itself does not guarantee that Krishna will come to the Party. It is up to Him. His Grace.

He may even came without ANY invitation. Gatecrashing. Typical!

 

 

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

There is a great difference between philosophy's Absolute and religion's God. The God aspect is not vividly described in sruti, but because there is an Absolute Truth present as ' a priori ' it is decided that He must be the God, or the Supreme

 

Yes, of course there is - one is theory and the other is Real. The philosophers' Absolute is the discursive conclusion that invites the Grace of God.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

All darsanas agree that these sruti mantras are not employed in rituals, hence taken as philosophic treatises.

 

For their unified exegesis, all three Darsanas refer, as their primary scriptural authority, to the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Vedanta Sutras.

 

Here is a "sruti mantra" from Isha Upanishad, often used in the Agni Hotra RITUAL when offering hawan samagri:

 

Aum agne naye supathaa raaye

asmaan vishvaani deva vayunaani vidvaan

yuyodhi asmaj juhu raana meno

bhooyish tthaante

nama ukteem vidhema

Svaahaa

 

 

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

According the traditional concept these "darsanas" have been brought into limelight by the three Acaryas who are called "Tri-mata-acaryas"; Adi Sankara ---Advaita --- Non-Dualism; Ramanuja ----Visista Advaita -- qualified Non-dualism; Madhva ----- Dvaita --- Dualism.

 

They are brought together

under the Moonlight

as Footprints by the Jamuna

 

 

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Seers who had realized this Ultimate Reality described It as threefold: Brahma, Paramatma and Bhagavan according the unique and individual aspects of the realization attained by the seer himself.

 

1. Seers acknowledge that "Ultimate Reality" is beyond description. It may be more precise and HELPFUL to say that Seers described their EXPERIENCE of It as xyz etc

(eg Sat Chid Ananda or Sat Chid Ananda Vigraha).

 

2. Your typo in rendering Brahman as "Brahma" will confuse many.

Yes Satyaraja, back to the thread.

Forgive the humourous interludes

 

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

It is foolish to imagine that a single darsana or a sect can give one the perfect and full realization of the Absolute Truth.

All roads lead to Rome

but one need not travel them all to reach there!

 

Roma Now!