Bhava dasa

 

...to its form.

 

Hare Krsna,

 

I addressed this reference of yours in post #27. I'm curious as to why you use it? Usually a personalist doesn't refer to his worshipful Lord as "it".

 

In the case of one who is in "awe and reverence", or vaidhi, this reference would not have been used for fear of disrespect. And in the case of one who has developed a more intimate relationship, he also would most likely not have used it, out of a sense of "objectifying" the subject of his emotional repose.

 

If it is not one of the two above mentioned cases, then we're left with the impression that either you don't accept the Absolute as a person, or it was simply an oversight.

Hare Krsna vrajavasi,

 

Thank you for your reply (#29). If I understand correctly, you are not necessarily promoting any one of the philosophies in particular, but rather, from an academic perspective, stating their similarities.

 

I'm curious...which do you maintain? Also, who do you accept as the topmost Supreme Person--Visnu, Krsna, or? Or, do you accept the impersonal Brahman as the highest truth from which the incarnations spring?

 

Hare Krsna

 

Even among many Devathas, whose status you are raising to that of god by referring them as demigods, there are nishkamya bhakthas.

 

But to totally brand devathanthara bhakthaas as kamya bhakthas is either arrogance or ignorance. There are lots of devathanthara bhakthaas who do nishkamyabhakthi of their devatha.

 

Looking at the post again, I should rephrase.

 

Instead of, "such as the demigods", it should be, "including demigods".

 

...all the three basic philosophies teach that God is one and only one although there are differences as to its form.

 

I've been trying to follow what you mean through your various posts, but it's still unclear to me.

 

Are you saying that God is "oneness" appearing differently like clay pots ("its form") containing air, or are are you saying that God (the Supreme Person) is the same in each case appearing differently for His various pastimes, or...what?

 

I may be wrong, but is sounds like Mayavada philosophy to me.

Devotees, such as the demigods, who are desirous of material prosperity and enjoyment are called, "sakama" devotees. Though we should honor and not disrespect them in any way, we do not worship them. Instead, we should honor and worship the "niskama" devotees, or the pure devotees who have no self interest, who are raganuga bhaktas.

Hare Krsna mahakala,

 

Before I reply to your questions above, it would be helpful to know if you are a member of ISKCON, or another branch of the Gaudiya tree? It is question regarding the authority of guru and his statements.

 

As for myself, I am a member of ISKCON.

 

That's very interesting indeed! I thought they were mostly buddhist.

Thanks for all the information.

 

mohankrishna

I lived in Thailand for three years and saw many remnants of the Vedic culture there, including the depiction of the Ramayana on the inner walls of the kings temple. In fact, in 1976 I personally donated a set of Srimad Bhagavatam to the "Raj-kru", or kings guru.

 

Anyway, thank you for starting this nice thread.

 

Brahma is the founder / head of the Brahma - Gaudiya sampradaya, as such. I would expect Brahma to be honoured by the sampradaya as their founding guru.

In my first post, I glorified Lord Brahma in this context, as a great Vaisnava Acarya.

In my next post, I mentioned the three categories of jivas who are qualified to occupy the administrative post of Brahma. In this regard, we have no business as Vaisnavas worshipping him as others do through deva-yajna to obtain some higher material position. This does not mean that we disrespect Brahma, or not honor him as he rightfully deserves.

In terms of their destinations. A Brahma who is a karmi, after living out his life, has to stay in the material atmosphere. The jnani Brahma may go on to merge into the impersonal Brahman. But, a great devotee Brahma such as ours enters into the abode of the Lord at the end.

The original question appeared to me to be one about worship of Brahma as a demigod in general, and not specifically as the head of our sampradaya.

I hope this has clarified my position.

 

my question was more general. i wasn't talking about worship by vaishnavas. i mean by people in general. you see some worshipping devis and devas...but not brahma.

 

mohankrishna

Thank you for the clearification.

 

I know from my own personal experience in Thailand that Brahma is being worshipped by the people in general there.

 

On one of the street corners, there is a golden Brahma sitting on a beautifully decorated throne being offered incense, garlands and prayers daily.

 

A link to a picture of this Brahma is in the "Title" of this post. /\

 

shuvo

 

 

 

 

Shuvo

 

Roy.........

No, that's not what I meant. I didn't mean it is our fate to do bad karma. I meant fate is the outcome of the action, which in this regard (fire burning) is bad karma.

 

It has nothing to do with deva- yajna.

 

Isn't Lord Brahma the head of the Gaudiya Brahma sampradaya ? If so shouldn't Brahma be accorded the respect and worship befitting a founder of the great sampradaya ?

I think I made the point fairly clear in terms of worshiping him in the proper context, that is in relation to his devotion to the Lord.

 

Brahma is an administrative post. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura has stated that a qualified candidate can come from one of three categories, namely karmis, jnanis, and bhaktas. If there is no one qualified to take the post, the Lord Himself will assume it.

 

So, which one was mohankrishna referring to in his original question--the karmi Brahma, the jnani Brahma, or the bhakta Brahma? Was he referring to the present Brahma of this universe, or Brahma in general (as a demigod)?

 

Hare Krishna!

I have noticed that no one as far as I know worships Brahma. Why is that?

 

The devotees of Krsna are not willing to waste their time with deva-yajna, knowing well that the results are only temporary.

 

Furthermore, such worship is specifically not recommended for this age. The worship most recommended is hari-nama-sankirtana. By so doing one actually worships the Lord who Lord Brahma worships, thus following in Brahmas footsteps.

 

SB 11.5.32:

 

 

 

 

"In the age of Kali, intelligent persons perform congregational chanting to worship the incarnation of Godhead who constantly sings the names of Krsna." [sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu]

 

Lord Brahma incarnated as Haridasa Thakura, and assisited the Lord in His pastime of Harinama sankirtana. One excellent example of this is when Lord Nityananda and Haridasa attempted to preach to Jagai and Madhai to deliver them. He was always engaged in kirtana of the Lord, even since the beginning of time.

 

Even in Krsna-lila, Lord Brahma was engaged in nama-sankirtana when he prayed (SB 10.14.40):

 

 

 

 

 

"My dear Sri Krsna, You bestow happiness upon the lotuslike Vrsni dynasty and expand the great oceans consisting of the earth, the demigods, the brahmanas and the cows. You dispel the dense darkness of irreligion and oppose the demons who have appeared on this earth. O Supreme Personality of Godhead, as long as this universe exists and as long as the sun shines, I will offer my obeisances unto You."

 

This is the very important pastime that sets the scene for the cause of Brahmas future life as Thakura Haridasa.

 

If we are to worship Brahmaji, let us worship him in that way, as the Acarya of the Holy Name.

 

Hare Krsna

 

This verse says Krsna is the source of creation nothing to claim he is Superior to Vishnu .

 

All that I am asking - show where Krishna claims that he superior or greater than Vishnu

Krsna states in Bg. 7.7: “Mattah parataram nanyat” ("There is no truth superior to Me.")

 

In the end it is up to our our own personal Will and Intention. Do we want to be happy for now and sad later, or forego the pleasures of the flesh and seek out permanent and lasting happiness?

 

Nicely said.

 

what are your thoughts and experiences on mixed marriages/relationships. do they work? would you consider it yourself? do you have a more traditionalist view and think you should only go out/marry with people of your own race/creed? or do you feel it's ok to go out/marry with anyone?

The more compatible the two are, the better. If they share similar interests and goals, are both willing to compromise at times, and assist each other in their Krsna consciousness, then there is a better chance for a successful marriage.

 

As far as being "mixed", they don't take the difference as very significant. At least this has been my experience, after nearly 30 years of being married to a devotee outside of my culture. She is oriental, and I am not. Of course this is speaking on the material platform...

 

Hare Krsna,

 

HARE KRISHNA

 

pls can u tell me who is avatar of whom?

is krishna vishnu's avatar?

or vishnu krishna's avatar?

pls explain n do let me know any sites

thank u

 

Visnu is an avatar of Krsna; Krsna is the original Visnu

Perhaps you could submit a post briefly defining each of the choices.