tackleberry

Thanks a lot. What's the full translation, then?

You are 100% correct, and it is a perfect quote in this context. Abstaining from malicious talk is very important. Throwing mud on monists or calling them demons is a clear example of malicious talk, unbecoming any truly godly person.

 

In the name of their religion and their god demonic people even kill innocent human beings. It happens everey day.

To call a spade a spade isn't malicious talk. As a self-proclaimed Kshatriya, you ought to know that. Recently, there was a muslim on this board, did you and Ganes Prasad pat him on the back? consider him holy? rationalize that islam is also as good as H'ism? Etc. etc.? Didn't you attack him-rightly-for his beliefs? So why a different treatment for advaita and H'ism in general?

Basic question ... who created us?

I mean both the body ... AND the soul. Through soul I understand the divine ray encased in the shell of the mind.

No one created the soul, it's anaadi-nitya, meaning 'without beginning and eternal.' Body (and pretty much all of the created world) is created by Lord Krishna, so that the soul can do its sadhana with it.

Very imaginative.

I'd say it's wrong, because Arjuna was a Kshatriya and it's Kshatriya Dharma to fight evil. OTOH, had Arjuna been a brahmin or a sanyasi, his decision would've been correct. Because, from my PoV, a brahmin/sanyasi must practice ahimsa at all costs.

Pranam

 

 

 

Please where does Shree Krishna say Asura-s follow advaita?

 

You have brought your own defination of advaita and frankly it is way off line.

 

 

This verse does not describe Advaita as you are trying to imply.

I don’t have to spell out what Asuras are but I can safely say a follower of Advaita philosophy adhere to Yama and niyam as prescribed by Vedas.

 

Shree Krishna clearly says

 

Some worship Me by knowledge sacrifice. Others worship the infinite as the one in all (or non-dual), as the master of all (or dual), and in various other ways. (9.15)

 

Upanishad if you care to read are full off Advaita statements and they are in no way Asuric.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This clearly is an outrageous statement, regarding followers of advaita philosophy, does nothing but bring disrepute to what ever you are purporting to follow.

 

It behoves vaishnav to be tolerant and compensate but it is sad to note the lack off.

 

To put a wedge between followers of Vedas, simply because one has a different understanding, is wrong and an insult to what Krishna is saying in Gita (9.15)

 

Jai Shree Krishna

Lord Krishna's description of asuras (18.6) applies to advaitins, no one else. The world is unreal, without foundation or Ishwara....all these concepts are held by advaitins. So you just have to put two and two together.

Also, tolerance doesn't mean nodding your head at everything. Tolerance of evil isn't tolerance, it's stupidity. Ishavaasya Upanishad encourages people NOT to tolerate but to attack false knowledge.

And quite foolishly, you quote Krishna who, btw, didn't ask Arjuna to tolerate the kauravas. So tolerance is just a bogus hindu concept which Indians often follow, because they have neither the knowledge nor the guts to fight back.

Let's understand this objectively, then. The Lord has described the following about asuric behavior:

#1 Austerities not recommended by scriptures - Gandhi's satyagraha and several of his idiosyncratic habits (starving, wearing loin cloth, practicing tantric sex with his neice etc. etc.) fit this category.

#2 Driven by lust and power - Gandhi used satyagraha to blackmail members of his own party.

#3 Torture of body - Gandhi went to an extreme in this matter.

#4 Deluded mentality - Gandhi with no training as a spiritual man claimed he knew the truth better than anyone else, including the acharyas.

All this is established on an objective basis, comparing Gandhi's life with the gita verses. Nobody is inventing these things about Gandhi, it's there in the books, and therefore, these are not mere accusations.

I don't think it's our place to judge people, because while Lord Krishna says that all asura-s follow advaita, it doesn't necessarily follow that all advaitins are asura-s. Certain good people may also follow advaita, mistaking it to be a valid path.

The verse in question, chapter 16.8

asatyam apratiṣṭhaḿ te

jagad āhur anīśvaram

aparaspara-sambhūtaḿ

kim anyat kāma-haitukam

They say that this world is unreal, with no foundation, no God in control. They say it is produced of sex desire and has no cause other than lust.

-------------------------------

As one can see, asura-s are clearly advaitins, but the reverse isn't necessarily true. So let's be more compassionate.

It was an interesting connection in his life... Seems like SP adopted some things from Gandhi's practical teachings in his movement (back to basics, rural economy, etc.) and at the same time he deeply resented Gandhi as a person, as this reference in Gita shows.

 

"A demoniac person may think that he can force his enemy or other parties to comply with his desire by this method, but sometimes one dies by such fasting. These acts are not approved by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and He says that those who engage in them are demons. Such demonstrations are insults to the Supreme Personality of Godhead because they are enacted in disobedience to the Vedic scriptural injunctions. "

 

Calling Gandhi (however covertly) a demoniac person seems inapropriate and uncalled for to me, as his tapas was motivated by a desire to help the opressed and was part of his non-violence campaign.

 

Prabhupada gives more credit and none of the criticism to Subhas Chandra Bose for example, who very actively collaborated with the Nazis and engaged in other types of potentially questionable activities in order to further his political ambitions.

Chanakya Niti says enemy's enemy could be an ally. So Bose's actions must be viewed in this connection, and NOT as a sympathiser of the nazis. To call this a 'furthering of political ambition' would be unfair, especially because unlike Ghandi, Bose was willing to fight for freedom, rather than beg for it.

Is there an online dic., where one can type a word in sanskrit so it can give an equivalent English word? Also, in other dictionaries, how to find the word we're looking for, when there are so many?

Can some Sanskrit scholar explain this?

A no bhadrAH kratavo yantu vishvataH | (Rg Veda I-89-1)

I know it's usually interpreted as 'Let noble thoughts come from all sides."

But I need a word to word meaning, where is the word 'thoughts' in this verse?

And what does "A no" stand for? I'd appreciate some clear idea on this.

Thanks in advance.

</pre>

Strange how certain 'devotees' feel the Gajendra story is illogical and absurd, even as they believe in resurrection and the rest, which also go against perception, logic, and virtually every other pramaana. Scriptures mention the 4-armed form of Vishnu, as well as the Gajendra story. Neither can be established by pratyaksha, yet some 'devotees' believe in the former, whilst ridiculing those who believe in the latter. Hypocrisy? Ignorance?

Every word in these verses describes the man they call Mahatma Gandhi. It's unbelievable!! http://vedabase.net/bg/17/5-6/en

The word 'avyakta' has nothing to do with impersonal at all. It simply means 'unmanifest.' Even the Lord, if unmanifest, can be referred to as avyakta, it doesn't mean he's impersonal. Any sentient being is, by default, personal, couldn't possibly be impersonal.

So if one translates avyakta as impersonal, it comes down to: worship of jada prakriti. Evidently, nobody, least of all an exalted soul like Arjuna, is going to ask a question like that. Hence, avyakta upasana couldn't possibly refer to the worship of the impersonal.

Can someone tell me whether some, if not all, of the upanishads are available online with Roman transliteration and if possible, word to word meaning? Anything will do, but it's got to be from the ten principal upanishads.

TIA

Swami praphupada's translation is superb.... in fact i would say it is better than the original as it has many angles and insights... it must be remembered that the original was Narrated by KRSHNA to ARJUN and both the narator and the listener were great souls... unfortunately us common people arent great souls and so a translation with comments of a great soul does help

I have great respect for SP, but I cannot say his translations are the best. In some places, he's changed the meaning completely to prove his point. I'll just give one example, there are many, many more. Take a look at the following BG 12.9 given in vedabase:

atha cittaḿ samādhātuḿ

na śaknoṣi mayi sthiram

abhyāsa-yogena tato

mām icchāptuḿ dhanañjaya

TRANSLATION

My dear Arjuna, O winner of wealth, if you cannot fix your mind upon Me without deviation, then follow the regulative principles of bhakti-yoga. In this way develop a desire to attain Me.

This is not a very honest translation, is it? He's translated abhyaasa-yogena to mean 'regulative principles of bhakti yoga,' when it means nothing more than 'through the practice of yoga,' which is why yogena is in the instrumental case. No mention of regulative principles at all. There are multiple places where he comes with words of his own, instead of offering a simple translation. This, to me, isn't very honest.

By His grace, I've successfully given up meat, ciggies, alcohol, illicit sex, gambling in just a few weeks. The only thing I haven't yet given up is tea. So in a way, it's good progress, I think. But my efforts to learn sanskrit have been a failure, because I've got no access to teachers, guide etc. Krishna, unfortunately, doesn't favor me on this one.

And I believe without knowing sanskrit, all spirituality is useless. How can anyone appreciate the beauty of the Gita by reading some superficial English translation? The nectar tastes better with sanskrit.

People who don't like the concept of god can always follow Buddhism, and develop a lot of compassion to fellow human beings. That is more than enough, no need to force oneself to believe in god and become fanatical.

I don't understand why people complicate simple matters. One shouldn't kill cows, period. If others do, it's not our fault, nor are we responsible in any way. The argument that one is indirectly responsible is quite silly and illogoical, because it can be extended to practically any situation.

Someone mentioned Vietnam war in this connection, not realizing that they're responsible for the slaughter simply by paying taxes. So the argument could work both ways, so it's better not to over analyze this. Surrender to Krishna, that's all we can do. Sarva-Dharmaan Parityajya, maamekam sharanam-vraja....

A kind-hearted atheist is far superior to 'religious' people who kill and abuse fellow men in the name of god. Just see the thread started by one Muslim gentleman to get a better idea as to why most people fear religion and religious people.

Once HINDU is linked, we dont attract favorable hindus, we rebuff favorable christians, jews, muslims.

Instead of the word hindu, one may call it sanatana dharma, but christians/muslims will still continue to link sanatana dharma to hinduism, it's inevitable. For them, krishna is a hindu god, and vaishnavism a hindu religion, so regardless of whether you distance yourself from hinduism, muslims/christians will continue to treat you as a hindu.

JN DAS,

Is that you in the picture?

Anybody who is disappointed we are not yet ruling the world should have his or her head examined by a licensed physician.

But as a Kshatriya, what do you think? Is it right to have such views, such as conquering the world and eliminating false religion? Prabhupada definitely wanted that. In one of his talks, he went so far as to say we have to have gita in one hand and a gun in the other, or something to that effect. The failure is due to the lack of qualified brahmanas and kshatriyas, not because the idea itself is impractical.

thanks for keeping it real-cancer does that hey ?

It's so easy to be a devotee when you have a fit strong body . I used too also when young,i was as fit as a bull , never really experiencing any real body/mind stress.

I have had excruitating headaches for decades , no matter what i try to aleviate the suffering. I simply just accept it as my karma now.If Krsna wants to change my condition , then thats o.k.also ...lol.

Perhaps compassion , as in my case ,has to be taught with a very blunt instrument .I do 'get it 'now !

No-one is a true disciple until truely tested .When it comes ...?

I have witnessed so many disciples full of bhakti for a time , often in the early days ,running around and telling all and sundry with authority how to find Krsna , until the first real test comes , that is.Then so many leave or become 'strange'...

 

Maya clouds our vision and dictates to us that we know so much and thus can pass judgement so blithely on others.Only Krsna can really ever know a jiva's innner struggle.

 

 

 

Walk a mile in my shoes , before you critise and choose............

 

So to answer the question ,

Yes i do feel that 'strange kind of happiness ' from time to time ,(i get lifted out of myself ),AND ALSO trying my best at the same time to be strong in that whatever Krsna deems fit for me , i.e. more than half my life with debilitating migranes , is HIS will and i bow my head to it.

Can't believe Krishna could be so cruel, giving too many sorrows to devotees. Maybe this is why the so-called demons hate Him, it's because they find this to be a fallacy in the Lord. So it may not be blind hatred. Funnily, I rarely come across devotees who're blessed with wealth, health etc. OTOH, Krishna often rewards his haters with all these things. What sort of game is this?

Im happy in worshipping Bhagvan. Real pure hapiness in relaising that my Bhagvan is happy. Its a different exoperience.

 

Jay Swaminarayan

Makes little sense, no offense. Why is it important to realize bhagvan is happy, or how is it going to help us in any way? Seeking happiness for oneself is natural, why would anyone care whether bhagvan is happy? It's like saying, I worry more about my neighbor's happiness than I do of my own....

If you think about it it is really just a relief because the happiness is temporary.

I am not sure how that is on two counts. It cannot be relief in this case, because relief means relief *from* something. So that doesn't apply in this case of eating chocolates. Second, whether temporary or not, it's real. Our toothache is real, even if it lasts only a minute. So material happiness must also be real, temporary or not.

Anyway, to come back to the subject, do you experience spiritual happiness due to your sadhana?