Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by hinduism♥krishna

  1. Gaudiyas view of Shiva & bhagavata puranas view is much much different.


    Shri Krishna himself says in Bhagavata Purana " only those who see oneness between shiva & me, can attain peace. Others can't"


    Bhagavata Purana view on shiva is that both krishna and shiva are one ie they're parabramhan themselves.


    Read Bhagavata Purana 8.7 wherein Shuka declares shiva as supreme God, Paramatma, origin of all, who is none other than vishnu..


    Hare krishna

  2. You have just ignored all things what bhagavata says about atma and bramhan.


    Besides You have so much ignorance about advaita. Bhagawata Purana many times say that Krishna is Nirakara, Arupa, NirguNa. This is where your small intellect fails. When bhagavata purana praises krishna as Brahman, it is for his real nature which is Arupa and nirguna, infinite nature. Moreover bhagavata purana supports also lord shiva as Brahman or supreme God. Read bhagavata purana 8.7. So bramhan is really a form, why bhagavata purana says both krishna and shiva as bramhan..


    And another thing bhakti is not opposed to Advaita. It is ladder through which jiva realises himself as a bramhan.


    My thread is entirely based on final teachings of Shuka deva, which is essence of vedanta. I don't have interest in distorted translations of Iskcon.


    Shuka declared that jiva becomes bramhan. In fact, further he said that jiva was already bramhan. He further says how to meditate. One should see himself as supreme bramhan, Supreme abode of all, non-different from bramhan.


    Ram couldnt have prayed to krishna, because rama avatar was before krishnas avatar :)

    If this is your logic, then it means krishna isn't eternal as he didn't get worshipped during ram's time.


    For your information, Lord Rama and krishna were topmost devotees of Lord shiva. They declared shiva, the supreme God, source of all, one eternal Consiousness, bramhan. They say " I and Shiva are one. Those who ignore this don't attain me"

  4. Because worshiping multiple gods is a vedic tradition of Hindus. Arjuna and krishna both were ideal hindus. They knew what is Dharma. They weren't sectarians who call other gods as demigods.


    " Ekam sat vipro bahudha vadanti " ( Truth is one. Sages call it by different names)


    Whether it is Shiva, vishnu or Ganesha, they are one, manifestations of one bramha. This is the spirit of true hindus.


    Hari Krishna

  5. Ohh ! Really, I don't think you have defeated Advaita . Because you even don't know the basic concepts of Advaita. According to bhagavata purana Jiva and Atman are two different things. Jiva constitutes three bodies - Mind, intellect and Prana, while Atma is our real nature free from Maya. Upanishadas say " I'm bramhan" "There's nothing other than self" " All this is Atma" "you are that" "this soul is bramhan" ( Mandukya Upanishada) So do you have any gut to refute this ?


    I can defeat all paths like achintya bheda abheda and dvaita in just few seconds by quoting from Bhagavata purana :D


    Shuka says to parikshita :


    ghate bhinne ghatakash.....jivo bramha sampadyate punah"(12.5.5)


    { When a pot is broken, the portion of sky within the pot remains as the entire sky, just as before.But because of disappearance of portion of sky within pot one thinks that it has been connected to entire sky -but in reality, it was already connected to entire sky, In the same way, when the gross and subtle bodies die, it is just like jiva has become bramhan.(In reality jiva was already bramhan .His abramhata is just a false appearance.)


    chodito vipravakyen na twam dhakshyati takshakah, mrutyavo nopadhakshyanti mrutyunam mrutyum ishwaram." (10)


    { Look, you are death of death itself. You are god himself . The snake-bird Takshaka, sent by the curse of the brahmana, will not burn your true self.what about that snake? even death itself and agents of death can not come near you }


    "aham bramha param dham bramhaham paramam padam,evam samikshya chatmanamatmanyadhaya nishkale " (11)


    { you should meditate like this :'I am all pervading bramhan ,I am all pervading parabramhan only .In this way,you should do your self steady in ever-lasting,endless Atma . }


    "dashantam takshakam pade lelihanam vishananaihi,na drakshyasi shariram cha vishvam cha pruthagatmanah " (12)


    { At that time he will approch you with his poison-filled fangs and bites your foot. Nothing matters .By risigning yourself in atmaroopa, you will not see your self different not only from this body ,even from this entire universe. }


    In this way, bhagavata purana which is krishna himself, defeats all dvaitians philosophy including iskcon's.



    yes , indeed aham bramhasmi .

    Atma is bramhan is the conclusion of All scriptures. It is your impure mind who's not comprehending it.


    Hari Krishna Hari Hari

  6. How are Bramhanas bad ?


    It is the impression given by britishers to low castes so that they can divide hindus. In fact before British rule, all Hindus were living with varna dharma without any hesitation. varna dharma has nothing to do with inferiority. There's divineness in Varna or caste and it is an important aspect of Hindu vedic culture.


    It's the mleccha's mind who see inferiority in caste and they used this dirt to alter social balance and culture of Hindus.


    When we consider the ten avataars of Vishnu we do not consider Mohammed. But other than that there are different types of avataar or incarnations. While explaining types of incarnations Mohammed, Jesus and Buddha are treated as types of Vishnu avataar.

    What are you referring for we ? Hindus ( Vaishnawas ) don't consider muhammad or Jesus as gods. In fact vedic scriptures explicitly states that muhammad was an incarnation of evil ( tripurasura). And there is no mention of Jesus anywhere in Hindu scriptures. yes You'll see something about Jesus in bhavishya purana. But vedic scholors proved that it was just the interpolation of britishers. This has been proved by logical reasoning.


    See this link to know the truth :



    So we vaishnawas don't accept so called man made gods like Jesus or muhammad. If we say according to puranas, they are verily evils and were born to spread Adharma in this kaliyug. That's why you will see Jesus or Mohammed teachings filled with anti-vedic views.

    In kalki purana, kalki is mentioned as destroyer of mlecchas ( non-hindus) and predicts that bhagavan kalki will kill Christians and Muslims who will invade india .


    However today we hindus are here to protect our sacred vedic dharma and we are enough for these mlecchas ( followers of Christianity and Islam ).


    aryans entered in india ,3500years back.(PROVED BY INDIAN HISTORY)).


    Lol, where did you get the proof ? Aryan invasion theory had been debunked by scientists thousand times. There are many proofs of archaeological and genetical which totally debunks this stupid cheap theory made by Max muller to divide India. So today's research tells Hindus are those aryans who used to recite Veda. Nowadays too we see many Hindus reciting it. Another thing there's no mention of invasion anywhere in Veda . In fact veda explicitly defines India as Aryavarta ( Land of aryans ). Manusmriti, written by Manu, says the same. In veda, There's no mention of any region outside of india. Veda clearly glorifies India and its sacred region Sapta-Sindhu. So what're you saying is total absurd.



    that means ramayana(10000BC) and mahabharata(5000BC) happened outside of india.(IF AT ALL ITS HAPPENED)

    There's no aryans invasion. So this is again absurd. Besides, In Puranas and Mahabharata, we get references about Ashram near saraswati river where vedavyasa used to live and there he wrote puranas and itihasas. And you know Saraswati river is present in India. So your stupid logics are irrelevant as far as scriptures references are concerned.



    jainism and buddhism born 650 BC, talked against vedas(means vedas were already written)but they didnot uttered a word about ramayana mahabharata, purans, smritis, aranyaka or bramhane, Geeta.that means these books were not written that time.there are lots of proof that these books written after murder of Brihratha maurya(last emporer of magadha 187BC)by pusyamitra shunga.this was first time aryans started rulling india and proper indians (anarayans) lost the battle.they finished jainism and buddhism by writting these books.(THAT MEANS 1500-2000YEARS BACK FROM TODAY)

    the new word Hindu has born, now known as religion, and these books became holybooks.

    Nice fairy tale :D This is the typical history made by western historians ( many of them are paid agents) to demolish supremacy of Hindu vedic dharma. It's just weird that you call your assumptions as proofs. Your stupid claims are just entertaining us. Your claims are entirely based on myth of aryan invasion. Moreover People like you are creating another myths based on this myth just to alter Hindu's richest history and call that as proof .

    You even don't know what is aranyaka and bramhana. They are the final parts of veda. They are the concluding chapters of veda. They are called as vedanta talking about knowledge of bramhan . They are the most important parts. Without them veda is nothing. Besides veda itself mentions Purana and itihasas as fifth veda. Refer Chandongya upanishada. So who the hell are you to say Puranas are creations of so called aryans. LOL. I really feel pity about your intelligence and what you know about purana and veda.

    One more thing , as stated in veda, we clearly know that all non-hindus are non-aryans. In Puranas non-aryans are called as mlecchas who lives outside of india and whose religion is not based on Veda. veda mentions land of aryans - sapta-sindhu-(India). Here Hindu is in the form of hindus. So it's obvious that who live in Sapta-Sindhu are sindhus ie they are Hindus ie they're aryans. Manu Smriti 2.22 clearly declares land of aryans or hindus as the tract between south himalayas and vindhya ranges from Indian eastern sea to western sea, which is none other than India.


    So nothing is authentic from you. In fact your views clearly shows your Anti-hindu mindset. So spread this garbage anywhere in the non-aryans countries. This is aryavarta ( india) and we hindus are the sons of aryavarta. We can't tolerate anything blemish to our sacred culture. We follow veda, we know what we are and we know what is our history. There's no need to know history of India from mlecchas (non-hindus) who even don't know what's veda and even can't pronounce single word of veda . Lol

  9. Disagreed ! There is no any meaning to Hare krishna mantra . In fact this is not a mantra . It is just the naam-japa . Because The hare krishna mantra is stated in Hindu scripture ' Kali sanatarana Upanishad ' . There there is no any mention of mantra word . It is just 16 words that should be repeated . Mantra is the one which has many regulations while Hare krishna doesn't have any rules .It is the Nam-japa . Anyone can recite names of Bhagavan while other mantras like Gayatri Mantra are not allowed for Hindu Dvijas .

  10. Funny!


    That verse is not referring to Europeans. Puranas mention Europeans as mlecchas who are followers of Non-vedic religion.


    In Hindu society, white complexion's people are generally higher castes ie they are born in Bramhana , kshatriya varnas. Veda glorifies them as they are born in higher castes/Varna , not the outcastes ( Europeans ) .


    Hare Krishna ...

  11. Pranam , Hare Krishna......


    It's that peace of mind that we get only through mediation or doing Sankirtana and Nama-Japa . One gets the real satisfaction only through Spiritual practices , not through material well-being.


    For experiencing peace of mind , I suggest you to chant " Om " Mantra. It gives us too much concentration and self Bliss. When we chant Om mantra , the mind without much effort gets concentrated. Besides , Benefits of chanting of Om is proven scientifically.



    Best luck for your spiritual progress.


    Hare Krushna.....

  12. Pranam ,





    This is the site where you will get your kundali and predictions . General predictions are free and almost accurate . You will get various charts and planet calculations . Try it .



    Thank You .

  13. My dear friend , princegoutham.. First thing , Vaishnawism or shaivism are not religions . They are sampradays within Hindu Dharma .


    See the truth ! Why you are dividing shiva and vishnu ? My dear , duality is itself not real , so talking about them is the game of Maya ! Wake up ! Neither you nor I know what's the real nature of vishnu or shiva . So why you are so interesting to bother on this issue ? Meditate on your self . Your Shiva is hidden there in your Heart . Unless you don't give up duality , you won't realise shiva or vishnu . Because both Shiva and vishnu are beyond dualities . So be satisfied in your self alone  , Then you will see your atma in all jivas and all jivas in you . Indeed you are that Bramhan . The knower of bramhan becomes bramhan himself . So forget about your assumed self ( jiva ) and know yourself as that bramhan .


    So I cant see any duality anywhere ! So how can I see duality between krishna and vishnu ? How can I see shaivism different vaishnawism ? How can I see my self different from that bramhan ? No doubt , Only bramhan exists and while searching my I , I stop at the Bramhan . Now I am established in my own glory having no duality or even non-duality !


    The philosophy of Advaita Vedanta says that Brahman is indescribable (neti neti). Bhagavad gita describes the abode of Krishna as non-dual but purely spiritual (Spiritual world/ Goloka). But by the very definition of "neti neti" shouldn't non duality be considered as neither material nor spiritual?


    Pranams ,

    It seems that you are totally unaware of Bhagavad Gita's teachings . In Bhagavad Gita , krishna never used Goloka word . Check this with Sanskrit verses .


    In BG 8.21 , Krishna confirms that his the real abode is unmanifested . ( Nirakara )


    " It is called the eternal Unmanifest; they speak of it as the highest goal. "  ( Bhagavad Gita 8.21 )


    While Goloka/Vaikuntha is a manifested spiritual world having form . Vedanta declares that everything along with vaikuntha gets annihilated after the final dissolution of All spiritual and Material worlds . After total destruction , residents of vaikuntha gets united with Bramhan . They get their real nature , which is indeed Bramhan .


    Vedanta says " Goal is Bramhan and Anatma is Bow . One should hit this bow to the target and should get united with it .


    Vedanta uses " Neti Neti " to negate anatma ( Jiva made up of  mind , intellect and prana ) and to hit that target which is Bramhan . In short , Neti Neti logic is used to realise the self as that target-Bramhan .


    Hari krishna hari hari




    Let me answer these objections


    I. The nature of Avidya. Avidya must be either real or unreal; there

    is no other possibility. But neither of these is possible. If Avidya

    is real, non-dualism collapses into dualism. If it is unreal, we are

    driven to self-contradiction or infinite regress.


    Ans:The answer to this is the definition of what is reality and what is mithya and what is unreal.

    Over here in brief reality is some thing which exists in the past,preset and future, world does not stand that test. Also a counter question may be made "is illusion existent or not", for example the blueness of sky is it existent or not or does the horizon exist, do dreams exist and so on.


    II. The incomprehensibility of Avidya. Advaitins claim that Avidya is

    neither real nor unreal but incomprehensible, {anirvacaniya.} All

    cognition is either of the real or the unreal: the Advaitin claim

    flies in the face of experience, and accepting it would call into

    question all cognition and render it unsafe.


    Ans:To this objection all perception must be real or unreal which in this case is existent or non-existent, so a counter question may be asked, "Is the perception of a snake on a rope ?" existent or non-existent. Another question may be raised, "when a mud pot is perceived, do we perceive the pot or the mud ?", it you say pot another question may be asked "Does the pot have existence apart from the mud ?" answer is obviously no, "well then when the pot is broken has it gone into non-existence ? " no, "Then where is the pot there is no pot" Ans is that mud is in the form of the pot, pot is just an attribute superimposed on the mud. So is pot as real as the mud, the answer is no since the pot's existence is not with out mud, but the pot is not non-existent and at the same time not real as the mud, hence both the pot and mud are perceived, where the mud is real and the pot is not in this case, hence real and not real are perceived by us.Not with regards to incomprehensible, reason being that all concepts are within Maya and hence Maya is itself inconceivable and hence anirvachaniya.


    III. The grounds of knowledge of Avidya. No pramana can establish

    Avidya in the sense the Advaitin requires. Advaita philosophy presents

    Avidya not as a mere lack of knowledge, as something purely negative,

    but as an obscuring layer which covers Brahman and is removed by true

    Brahma-vidya. Avidya is positive nescience not mere ignorance.

    Ramanuja argues that positive nescience is established neither by

    perception, nor by inference, nor by scriptural testimony. On the

    contrary, Ramanuja argues, all cognition is of the real.


    Ans:Here the general argument given by them is that instead of Advaita or Dvaita shruti they use some thing called "Ghataka" shruti, but this is not justifiable mainly due to 2 reason


    1.The ten upanishads accepted as part of the Prasthanatraya do not talk about a god with qualities, if that was the case such a GOD would not be omnipresent


    2.The Ramanuja's system only holds Vishnu to be supreme but there are actually enough mantras in the vedas that even describes the supremacy of Indra to all other gods and also there is a mantra which says "ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti"


    Now if Tatwamasi is justified by Ramanuja what about Aham Brahmasmi where Vamadeva says that he was the Sun and the moon and the devas ?.Now on one part we describe Brahman to be without qualities and on the other side we see Vamadeva making such statements, hence this automatically justifies Maya, if Brahman changed into the world, then Brahman would be perishable and this is not acceptable hence Maya is the explanation


    Verse from the Brihadaranyaka


    manasaiva anudrastavyam

    neha nana sti kincana,

    mftyoh sa mrtyum apnoti

    ya iha naneva pasyati."



    It is to be perceived by the mind alone,

    there is here no multiplicity whatever ;

    who sees here as it were " many "

    passes from death to death.


    note multiplicity appears as it were.


    IV. The locus of Avidya. Where is the Avidya that gives rise to the

    (false) impression of the reality of the perceived world? There are

    two possibilities; it could be Brahman's Avidya or the individual

    soul's {jiva.} Neither is possible. Brahman is knowledge; Avidya

    cannot co-exist as an attribute with a nature utterly incompatible

    with it. Nor can the individual soul be the locus of Avidya: the

    existence of the individual soul is due to Avidya; this would lead to

    a vicious circle.


    Ans:Again the question is Avidya is existent or non-existent,it could be argued that when there is no avidya jeeva is absent and when there is avidya jiva is present so avidya's locus could be in jiva as jiva and avidya are beginingless equally, also it may be argued by them that even though jiva absent in deep sleep why do we see avidya still present, the answer would be that the jiva is only suppressed in deep sleep and not completely absent. OK can Brahman be the locus of avidya yes he can be as in the case of the snake and rope snake analogy, the location of the snake is on the rope but the rope is not hurt by it hence the location of Avidya on brahman has no objection.


    V. Avidya's obscuration of the nature of Brahman. Sankara would have

    us believe that the true nature of Brahman is somehow covered-over or

    obscured by Avidya. Ramanuja regards this as an absurdity: given that

    Advaita claims that Brahman is pure self-luminous consciousness,

    obscuration must mean either preventing the origination of this

    (impossible since Brahman is eternal) or the destruction of it -

    equally absurd.


    Ans:My previous ans answers this question, also there are matters for the existence of Avidya or can you call Avidya an existence, when such a question is raised this question it self seems absurd.


    VI. The removal of Avidya by Brahma-vidya. Advaita claims that Avidya

    has no beginning, but it is terminated and removed by Brahma-vidya,

    the intuition of the reality of Brahman as pure, undifferentiated

    consciousness. But Ramanuja denies the existence of undifferentiated

    {nirguna} Brahman, arguing that whatever exists has attributes:

    Brahman has infinite auspicious attributes. Liberation is a matter of

    Divine Grace: no amount of learning or wisdom will deliver us.


    Ans:This is not the case, in a dream we see that the dream world is without a beginning, but lets say we see a lion in the dream we immediately wake up, the Brahma-Vidya is like that lion, the lion of the dream when compared to the dream has a beginning and an end but definitely get us out of the dream. This is the same case with Brahma vidya.


    VII. The removal of Avidya. For the Advaitin, the bondage in which we

    dwell before the attainment of Moksa is caused by Maya and Avidya;

    knowledge of reality (Brahma-vidya) releases us. Ramanuja, however,

    asserts that bondage is real. No kind of knowledge can remove what is

    real. On the contrary, knowledge discloses the real; it does not

    destroy it. And what exactly is the saving knowledge that delivers us

    from bondage to Maya? If it is real then non-duality collapses into

    duality; if it is unreal, then we face an utter absurdity.



    Ans:Take the case of the snake and rope is the snake real ?, so what we get is the knowledge of the rope, with it's knowledge the snake disappears, the same case here the world though it does not have a substantial existence is appearing to us like the snake on the rope once the knowledge of Brahman is known the world also disappears, you may wake up and go back to the same dream that you dreamt but that does not make the dream in any way real just because it continues, similar case with the world, even if it is perceived after samadhi it will not be made real.



    It is funny that the followers of Ramanuja state that these objections have not been answered but if I can myself answer this what about the present Acharyas and scholars, they can answer it even better


    Mater stroke ! Nicely explained !


    No one can offend advaita . Because it has very strong proofs from shastras .


    Instead Dvaitian get silent when advaitians quote evidences from scriptures .


    I challenge dvaitians to defeat my proofs from Bhagavata Purana . I have proved there that krishna was Advaitian .


    Here is a link : 


    Vaisnavas do not disrespect demigods. Spot on.


    Yes , Vaishnawas don't disrespect Devatas . But Gaudiyas do . Gaudiyas are not the only vaishnawas . They are  parts of mainstream Vaishnawism of Hindu Sanatana Dharma and mainstream vaishnawism don't call devatas as demi-gods . They don't use demi-god word .


    What is the reason for using demigod word . Demi-god means Half God . Veda doesn't mention such half god concepts . So why don't they use Devata word instead of Demigod ? Now you will say Half god means the jiva who acquired the divine state . This is also not acceptable . Because Vedas don't glorify them in such manner .


    Vedas give very high salutations and great esteem to devatas . So calling them Demigods is certainly disrespecting them .


    Now my question , Why should devata worship be considered different from worshiping Paramatma ?


    Because , In Bhagavata Purana , Shri Krishna himself says that Devatas , Bramhanas and cows are the most sacred places to worship him . He resides there . Note that worshiping devatas for material gains is a different thing and I don't think worshiping krishna for material gains would be a different thing from this .

  • Create New...