Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tackleberry

  1. I've quoted the Lord's words reg. his apraakrta deha, which subsequently proves your cremation theories wrong. Instead of accepting it, you're referring us to some Ganguli...are you for real? Are we to believe the Lord's words or yours or ganguli's? You're a joker, keep posting, you give us great entertainment with your moronic ideas that Krishna, the Creator and the Lord, was cremated.
  2. You can cremate a body made of prakrti, but how can anyone cremate Krishna's body which is made of jnaana, ananda, and such kalyaana guna-s? So it's to be concluded that the Lord can never be cremated, for he never takes birth and certainly doesn't die. For those who think otherwise, here's the Gita verse. Gita 9.11 avajānanti māḿ mūḍhā mānuṣīḿ tanum āśritam paraḿ bhāvam ajānanto mama bhūta-maheśvaram SYNONYMS avajānanti — deride; mām — Me; mūḍhāḥ — foolish men; mānuṣīm — in a human form; tanum — a body; āśritam — assuming; param — transcendental; bhāvam — nature; ajānantaḥ — not knowing; mama — My; bhūta — of everything that be; mahā-īśvaram — the supreme proprietor. TRANSLATION Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be. ------ It clearly shows that the Lord is ever 'divya,' regardless of the forms he manifests whilst taking avatar. Only asura-s think otherwise, and allege that the Lord is also subject to prakrti, as other jiiva-s. Such asura-s go so far as to believe that the apraakrta Lord can be cremated. What ignorance!
  3. Both Krishna and Rukmini have apraakrta deha-s, so your point makes little sense.
  4. Many people are offended by the word 'demigod.' But surely, except Vishnu, no one can be Supreme. There cannot be 'two' supreme entities. So Shiva is NOT supreme, even though the word demigod may not be palatable to some. So a better choice would be 'devata.' Anyway, here is the episode which clearly shows that even Shiva is under Narayana's control. Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 8.12.27tām anvagacchad bhagavān bhavaḥ pramuṣitendriyaḥ kāmasya ca vaśaḿ nītaḥ kareṇum iva yūthapaḥ SYNONYMS tām — Her; anvagacchat — followed; bhagavān — Lord Śiva; bhavaḥ — known as Bhava; pramuṣita-indriyaḥ — whose senses were agitated; kāmasya — of lusty desires; ca — and; vaśam — victimized; nītaḥ — having become; kareṇum — a female elephant; iva — just as; yūthapaḥ — a male elephant. TRANSLATION His senses being agitated, Lord Śiva, victimized by lusty desires, began to follow Her, just as a lusty elephant follows a she-elephant. -- All this doesn't mean Shiva isn't worthy of worship. On the contrary, one must worship Shiva to bless us with a pure mind, a mind that can focus on Vishnu with perfect attention. But to worship him as supreme is certainly an offense, at least sheer stupidity, according to Vishnu Himself. Here's the relevant verse: ------ Bhagavad-gītā 7.23 antavat tu phalaḿ teṣāḿ tad bhavaty alpa-medhasām devān deva-yajo yānti mad-bhaktā yānti mām api SYNONYMS anta-vat — perishable; tu — but; phalam — fruit; teṣām — their; tat — that; bhavati — becomes; alpa-medhasām — of those of small intelligence; devān — to the demigods; deva-yajaḥ — the worshipers of the demigods; yānti — go; mat — My; bhaktāḥ — devotees; yānti — go; mām — to Me; api — also. TRANSLATION Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet. -- Hopefully, people can see the light.
  5. You've fallen into my trap, and revealed your filthy christian upbringing. Thank you!
  6. Veda is apoureshya, so what it says has to be accepted. Other books like bible are not, so their accounts of jeeesus etc. are mere fabrications. Therefore, your comparision with bogus faiths like C or Jeeesus is ridiculous.
  7. you've posted without pramaana, so I'll just give pramaana from Taitiriya Upanishad. SaptamaH AnuvaakaH (in T. Up) shows the gradation of bliss amongst souls, starting from manushyas to devata-s. If foolish VAs reason that this is in samsara, the question will arise as to whether the passages were referring to the bodies of the jiva-s mentioned? If so, VA point goes against vedanta itself, because the body is insentient and incapable of joy. Therefore, VA is forced to admit that it's the soul which experiences joy, and it's the bliss of the soul which is described in varying degrees. And because the soul is considered eternal according to all schools of vedanta, so is the bliss and consequently the gradations that have been described in the upanishad. This clearly proves dvaita view of taaratamya. Now Darth Vader, come up with your VA fairy tales.
  8. Gita press edition!:rofl: OMG, are you trying to be funny. Cuz it's working...
  9. No pramaana again, simply your farfetched views. You're not even quoting R's view, which is surprising. But knowing you, this is understandable. But do me a favor and quote R or VD, I want to know their views on ananda taaratamya, NOT yours. You and that rat (aka jeeesus freak) cbrahma make a good couple, though.
  10. Worthless post with personal attacks, and no pramaana to back it up. Reg. atat tvam asi, the word tat is NOT present in the said upanishad, it's 'atmaatat' which is split as atmaa atat, according to rules of sanskrit grammar. Even advaitins have not disputed this to this day. But you keep repeating like a moron that tat has been changed to atat, when tat is NOT even present in the upanishad in isolation, so how can you change something that doesn't even exist? Learn to read properly, before you post fairy tales, moron. And examine not only your head, but R's. You may find nothing inside, but that's another matter.
  11. Where's the pramaana for these fairy tales? None! So we just have to take your word, and that isn't good enough. And the fact that you're becoming angry indicates that you're not really convinced of the VA position. In one thread itself, you seem to have contradicted yourself a dozen times. First, you talk of identity, then you retract and say you meant something else, spoke of difference between Ishwara and Brahman, then retract and say you meant subtle diff., not real difference....well, well, seems like you're really confused, as confused as R.
  12. Then you're accepting the dvaita view, joker. Thank you! Because, moron, no shruti supports distinction between Ishwara and Brahman. Therefore, your other points on identity have no substance at all. And funny while defending VA, you're coming closer and closer to dvaita.
  13. No shruti statement supports this nonsense. So it has to be discarded. Give some pramaana before writing fairy tales, you moron. It simply refers to the antaryamitva of Brahman. It's not about jiva at all. So there's no q of identity, which your puny brain doesn't comprehend. Again, no evidence from shruti for this distinction between ishwara and brahman, that even the insentient jagat is considered as a mode of Brahman etc. Your fairy tales.
  14. An object and its attributes are one. So if jiva were an attribute of Brahman, you'll have to ascribe dukha, ajnana to Brahman. This is what VA position leads to. Therefore, jiva cannot be considered an attribute of Brahman. There's no evidence that same substance implies oneness. It proves your lack of integrity. If we consider the woodenness of the table and the woodenness of the chair as one, as VA does, one should be destroyed when the other is. This is how ridiculous the VA position is. That's because you're confusing sadrshya with abheda. You've already distinguished them by referring to them, treating them differently, and also admitting that when one isn't there, the other is. All this proves distinction.
  15. Retard, you (and VAs) accept saadrshya as abheda, when common sense suggests otherwise. The base is Ishwara, which means that which it supports (namely the jagat, jiva-s) MUST BE DISTINCT from Ishvara. Therefore, there's absolute bheda. But VAs are busy aping the advaita line, which is why you're talking of mahavaakhyas, when even Sankara hasn't mentioned such a thing. WHat a joker you're!
  16. This is explained by dvaita through sa-vivesha-abheda, so dvaita doesn't fall flat. On the contrary, the same q cannot be answered by VA. It's grammtically incorrect. And every objection of yours has been refuted, and you yourself accepted the stupidity of your arguments reg. identity. Moron, if there's distinction, there's distinction. It cannot be one and distinct, because logical opposites cannot co-exist. Like a moron, you keep talking about mahavaakhyas, when even Sankara hasn't used that word to describe so-called abheda shruti-s. And again and again, you're confusing similarity with identity. You're a conscious entity, and so is your neighbor. That doesn't mean identity at all. Likewise, God and jiva-s are conscious entities, which shows similarity and no identity whatsoever. Unity (the word that you've used) is NOT identity either, because if A and B are united, it means A and B are distinct which is why unity becomes possible. If they're one and there's identity, there's no question of underlying unity, to use your word.
  17. Unless A and B are distinct objects, one cannot be located in the other. So your idea that one can be an attribute of another defies logic. Similarity is NOT identity, there's no way around it, period. Funny you use the word 'mahavakya.' Even Sankara hasn't used that term to describe so-called abheda struti-s. The essential substance of a wooden chair and wooden table is wood, but that doesn't mean they're one and the same. They're different objects. Likewise, though both jiva-s and Brahman are conscious entities (due to bimba-pratibimba-vada), this only shows similarity and NOT identity. Which your thick head isn't perceiving. Take for instance, Moksha, where the Jiva enjoys all the qualities of Brahman, but for the acts of creation, preservation and destruction.
  18. Reg. scriptures denying plurality of souls....the scriptures are taught by guru to the disciple, that itself establishes plurality of souls. So how can scriptures deny that which is established by pratyaksha, which is a valid pramaana? Therefore, it's concluded that scriptures do NOT deny plurality. It's just a VA misinterpretation.
  19. This is NOT identity, but similarity. Maybe, you need some lessons in English and basic logic. Your interpretation is wrong, even according to VA. Nyayamrta was written AFTER vedanta desika's time. No VA has refuted Nyamrta, which means VA has been refuted by dvaita and NOT the other way around. Reg. grammar and all that, Ramanuja apparently didn't know that a transitive verb needs an object;) Like an ignorant schoolboy, he treated the noun as an adjective, even my nephew can offer better interpretations.
  20. He speaks of similarity, NOT identity. Since Krishna being the bimba is made of jnana, ananda etc., the jiva-s being pratibimba-s are similar, nothing more. There's no statement of identity at all, only similarity.
  21. Brahman within jiva, you say. So how can Brahman be within jiva, if Brahman and jiva are one. So your statement itself proves dvaita, namely that Brahman and jiva are distinct, which is why Brahman is within jiva. Dvaita believes in bima-pratibimba-vada, which explains why there are similarities between jiva and Brahman. And similarity is NOT oneness, it implies distinction. Second, if jiva did have all these qualities like jnana in full measure, it wouldn't be in samsara at all. So the VA view is silly. VA is illogical, because it's tantamount to saying you're and you're not a six-footer. Two logical opposites cannot co-exist, which is what VA foolishly advocates. Again, you're proving the dvaita view. If the supreme soul is immanent in the individual, it only implies that the two are distinct. If they're one, it's tantamount to saying A is immanent in A, which is absurd.
  22. Brahman in jivatma (note the locative) implies distinction between Brahman and Jiva. No identity here. So one should believe Uddhalaka was giving all those brilliant analogies to tell Shvetaketu, "You are and you are not that????" Great Sri Vaishnava logic. Hey dark warrior, you're and you're not a six-footer. If it makes sense, you're certainly a sri vaishanava. There's only distinction, as proved by Madhvacharya. Ramanuja has an illogical view that the jiva is and is not brahman. This is not only contradicted by shruti, but by common sense as well. Ramanuja's view is as ridiculous as saying you're and you're not a six-footer. You're actually proving the dvaita view by saying all this. It considers bhakti as the body, and karma and jnana as the various limbs. So bhakti in the dvaita sense includes karma and jnana as well. It's not mutually exclusive, as held by other schools. Nyayamrtha has refuted VA completely.
  23. Illogical, in fact, totally ludicrous. Uddhalaka painstakingly gives many, many analogies just to tell Swetaketu, 'You are not that, my son, and you're also that, my son.' So according to Ramanuja and co., Uddalaka wasted an entire upanishad to tell his son that he IS and he IS NOT brahman. Wow, great sri vaishnava logic.
  24. If you claim to be vaishnava, belief in Vishnu will suffice. You don't have to believe in jesus, mickey mouse, popeye and the rest.
  • Create New...