dhaa

CC Madhya 9.115: veGkaTa bhaTTa then said, "Lord kRSNa and Lord nArAyaNa are one and the same, but the pastimes of kRSNa are more relishable due to their sportive nature see also cc madhya 9.111-162 http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/9/

plus, gita 14.26 mam ca yo 'vyabhicarena bhakti-yogena sevate sa gunan samatityaitan brahma-bhuyaya kalpate One who engages in full devotional service, who does not fall down in any circumstance, at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes to the level of Brahman zaunaka uvAcasa vai nivRtti-nirataH sarvatropekSako muniH kasya vA bRhatIm etAm AtmArAmaH samabhyasat sb 1.7.9: zrI zaunaka asked sUta gosvAmI: zrI zukadeva gosvAmI was already on the path of self-realization, and thus he was pleased with his own self. So why did he take the trouble to undergo the study of such a vast literature? sUta uvAca AtmArAmAz ca munayo nirgranthA apy urukrame kurvanty ahaitukIM bhaktim ittham-bhUta-guNo hariH sb 1.7.10: All different varieties of AtmArAmas [those who take pleasure in AtmA, or spirit self], especially those established on the path of self-realization, though freed from all kinds of material bondage, desire to render unalloyed devotional service unto the Personality of Godhead. This means that the Lord possesses transcendental qualities and therefore can attract everyone, including liberated souls http://gitapress.org/books/ramayan/1318/uttar949_1022.pdf tulsi ramayan: One day, zrI rAma and his brothers, accompanied by His most favourite hanumAn, went to see a beautiful grove, where the trees were all blossoming and had put on fresh leaves. Finding it a good opportunity the sage sanaka and his three brothers (sanandana, sanAtana and sanatkumAra) arrived there. They were all embodiments of spiritual glow, adorned with amiability and other noble qualities and constantly absorbed in the ecstasy of union with brahma; though infants to all appearance, they are aeons old. The sages looked upon all with the same eye and were above all diversity; it seemed as if the four Vedas had each assumed a bodily form. They had no covering on their body except the quarters; and their only hobby was to hear the recital of zrI rAma's exploits wherever it was carried on. Sanaka and his brothers, O bhavAnI, (continues Lord ziva,) had stayed in the hermitage of the enlightened sage Agastya and the noble sage had narrated to them many a story relating to zrI rAma, which are productive of wisdom in the same way as the friction of two pieces of wood produces fire ....The sages were beside themselves with rapture on beholding the incomparable beauty of zrI rAma (the Lord of the Raghus). They remained gazing with unwinking eyes on the Lord, who is the abode of comeliness and brings about release from worldly existence and has a swarthy form and lotus-eyes.... The four sages were all rejoiced to hear the Lord's words and with every hair on their body standing erect they proceeded to hymn His praises : "Glory to the Almighty Lord, who is infinite, immutable and sinless, who is one as well as many and allgracious ! Glory to the Lord who is beyond the modes of prakRti ! Glory, glory to the Ocean of goodness, the Abode of bliss, handsome and most urbane in manners....You are supreme bliss personified and the abode of mercy and fulfil the desire of Your devotees' heart. Pray, grant me the boon of unceasing love and devotion (to Your feet), O graceful rAma. Bestow on us, O Lord of the raghus, that most sanctifying devotion which destroys the threefold agony and the turmoils of transmigration. A celestial cow and a wish- yielding tree to satisfy the desires of the suppliant, be propitious, my lord, and grant this boon. tasyAravinda-nayanasya padAravinda- kiJjalka-mizra-tulasI-makaranda-vAyuH antar-gataH sva-vivareNa cakAra teSAM saGkSobham akSara-juSAm api citta-tanvoH sb 3.15.43: When the breeze carrying the aroma of tulasI leaves from the toes of the lotus feet of the Personality of Godhead entered the nostrils of those sages, they [the kumAras] experienced a change both in body and in mind, even though they were attached to the impersonal brahman understanding kAmaM bhavaH sva-vRjinair nirayeSu naH stAc ceto 'livad yadi nu te padayo rameta vAcaz ca nas tulasivad yadi te 'Gghri-zobhAH pUryeta te guNa-gaNair yadi karNa-randhraH sb 3.15.49: The kumAras said: O Lord, we pray that You let us be born in any hellish condition of life, just as long as our hearts and minds are always engaged in the service of Your lotus feet, our words are made beautiful [by speaking of Your activities] just as tulasI leaves are beautified when offered unto Your lotus feet, and as long as our ears are always filled with the chanting of Your transcendental qualities

http://www.glimpseofkrishna.com/art.htm

http://www.nitaipadakamala.com/tattva/jiva.htm The siddhanta of the acarya of suddhadvaita-vada (Visnuswami, represented by Sridhara Swami) 10. 36 hladinya samvidaslistham sac-cidnananda isvaram sva-vidya-samvrto jivam samklesani-karakam The nature of the Supreme Lord is sat-citnananda: He is the ultimate embodiment of eternity, knowledge and bliss, and is richly endowed with the hladini and samvit saktis. But the jivas, the souls of this world are covered by ignorance, which is the cause of their suffering the threefold miseries. (Bhagavat-Sandarbha, Sarvajna-sukta-vakya commentary of Sridhara Swami on Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.7.5-6) 10. 37 vastuno'mso jivam vastunam saktirmaya ca vastunam karyam jagac-ca tat sarvam vastveva The Supreme Lord alone is the Substance of all reality; a particle of his substance is the jiva; the energy of that substance is maya and the effect of that substance is this material world. Therefore everything having emanated from that supreme substance, all things may be said to be "nondifferent" from it. In this way the conclusion of nonduality may be applied to the Absolute Substance. (Sridhara Swami's Bhavartha-dipika 1.1.1) A liberated soul attains a spiritually perfect body in the service of Krsna 10. 38 mukta api lilaya vigraham krtva bhagavantam bhajante The liberated souls have divine forms with which they worship the Supreme Lord by taking part in his transcendental pastimes. (Sridhara Swami's sarvajna-bhasya commentary on Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.87.21) The opinion of suddhadvaita-vada on the distinct position of the eternally liberated souls. 10. 39 parsada-tanu-nama-karmarabdam nityatvam suddhatvams ca The eternal associates of the Lord are free from the cycle of karma. They are eternally pure, transcendental, and free from all material qualities. They never suffer birth and death within this material world. (Bhavartha-Dipika 1.6.21)

ki jai /images/graemlins/smile.gif

i posted it to show even 'advaitins' admit kaival advaita disagrees with vyas & brahm sutra & cant take the direct meaning of brahm sutra

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1986/05/1986-05-03.shtml shyamdas of the vallabh school: Shankaracharya's theory of maya is not supported in the Upanishads. It's not supported in the Brahma Sutras and it's not supported in the Vedas - as the world being false, that this world is an illusion, a dream with no substance and in some way separate from God. This is not a Vedantic thought. Even Western scholars who are impartial who have studied the Brahma Sutras and have studied the teachings of Shankara and, let's say one of the Vaishnav teachers, Ramanuja or Madhva - they would have to side with Ramanuja as being more true to the spirit of the Brahma Sutras... Shankara accepted from the Vedas and the Upanishads only things that agreed with his teaching. This is Shankara's style. He has taken only those passages. And the passages which didn't agree he wouldn't comment on. He had a system, and he said "My interpretation is this, and I will only accept those Upanishads or slokas which fit into it." ...I think that the concept of Sanatana Dharma is so great that it allows for these things to occur...I may have said something about Shankaracharya, how I don't personally agree with his interpretation, but I respect Shankaracharya...Contradictions can exist within truth, and no one has a turnkey formula. That is one of the most important concepts of Vedantic thought, that the person who says he knows, doesn't know. And the person who says he doesn't know knows. Hinduism is perhaps the only religion in the world that has allowed an incarnation to establish a religion which is anti-Vedic in its actual teachings. What other religion would accept a teacher who taught against their own school?

bhagavan vyas has given the meaning of all vedas in his vedanta sutra. i dont believe in the kaival advait theory that brahma sutra gives lower teachings. i personally dont believe in a system that disagrees with vyas & vedas, then 'reconciles' its unvedik philosophy by using vedas in support of its disagreement

from my previous post: "Sankara reconciled himself to the feeling that here the Brahma Sutra is not concerned with Nirguna Brahman.." im my opinoin, i dont see kaival adaviat doing any real reconciliation based on vedas siddhanta, just inventing new unvedik concepts to reconcile its philosophy like 'x&y verses apply to sagun brahm' while 'p&q verses apply to nirgun brahm'. sometimes kaival advait is 'reconciling', sometimes disagrees with vedas sometimes agrees, i dont see it as a valid system wherein brahma sutras says that? or is it brahma sutra accordin to kaival advait interpretation says that?

i think isaiha described him as an old bearded man

www.swami-krishnananda.org/brahma/brahma_08a.html according to the Brahma Sutra -- Jagat vyaparavarjam.....Sri Sankaracharya particularly, who comments on the Brahma Sutra elaborately, is, as I could understand, caught in the net of this kind of statement, because Acharya Sankara, whose commentary is the best, cannot agree that some limitation continues even in liberation! But he cannot say that the Sutra is wrong. Sankaracharya finds himself often in a difficulty of this kind. There are some places where he is between the accepting of the Brahma-Loka Attainment as the meaning of the Sutra and the insisting on the utter absorption in Brahman as true Moksha. If the Sutra is correct, the Identity doctrine of Sankara is not correct; if the Identity doctrine of Sankara is correct, the Brahma Sutra is not correct. But we must consider both as correct. We cannot reject Sankara's idea or reject the Brahma Sutra. Sankara reconciled himself to the feeling that here the Brahma Sutra is not concerned with Nirguna Brahman even when it says in the end, Anavrittih shabdat, Anavrittih shabdat (no return); and that it just means attaining the Cosmic Creator, but not the Absolute A great difficulty arises here in understanding the Sutra's intention. Ramanuja and the Vaishnava Acharyas have no difficulty! They say 'Yes! It is like that only!', because you cannot become God. But Acharya Sankara cannot accommodate himself to it www.swami-krishnananda.org/brahma/brahma_12.html But Acharya Sankara is at pains to tell us that the God who is described in the Brahma Sutra is a God with many attributes, Saguna Brahman, because it is mentioned that God is He who creates, preserves, and destroys. But it does not say who God is by Himself independent of the activity of creation, preservation, destruction; The essential God is missed, but nobody can dare to say that the Brahma Sutra is not giving the correct information... According to Sankara, the God described in the Brahma Sutra is the Creator God, not the Absolute, -- a position that he maintains which is opposed to every other Acharya's interpretation -- the Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, Vallabha, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, the Sakta and Saiva philosophers. All these have almost a uniform view; against all which Sankara stands www.swami-krishnananda.org/brahma/brahma_13.html The Sutra makes out that the liberated soul is free only in so far as it can enjoy the bliss of perfection equally as Brahman, but it cannot have the power of creation, preservation, destruction etc. of the universe...Here the Sutra seems to be landing itself on the qualified monism of Acharya Ramanuja, according to whom the soul is an organic part of Brahman but not identical with Brahman. If we persuade ourselves to believe that the Sutra is sympathetic with the Vaishnava theology of Ramanuja, we can easily understand why the soul in liberation cannot have the power of God Himself. Acharya Sankara here has practically nothing to tell us except to interate that if the soul is given the power of creation, etc., there would be a clash of purposes among the liberated souls. Here again arises the question: are there many liberated souls in the state of Brahman? Acharya Ramanuja would not disagree with this proposition, but Acharya Sankara would find here a hard nut to crack A very pertinent issue arising in the Brahma Sutra is when it defines Anandamaya Brahman, stating that Anandamaya is Brahman...Commentators generally bypass this issue and would not like to enter into any controversy for fear of contradicting the obvious intention of the text and the reasoned conclusions spontaneously coming out of the issue. It was Acharya Sankara alone who had the courage to <font color="brown">disagree</font color> with the Sutra and declare that the Anandamaya cannot be Brahman. ...what doctrine is the Brahma Sutra preaching, since Ramanuja would certainly be happy to fully agree with the statement that Anandamaya is Brahman itself. Would a commentator stand against the obvious meaning of the Sutra and contradict it by insisting on a non-dualistic interpretation? </font color>

how the vedas sometimes declare difference & nondifference between atma and brahma http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext05/8sutr10.txt vedanta sutra, sripada ramanujas sri bhasya 2.3. Amso nanavyapadesad anyatha chapi dasakitavaditvamadhiyata eke 42. (The soul is) a part, on account of the declarations of difference and otherwise; some also record (that Brahman is of) the nature of slaves(dasa), fishermen, and so on. The Sûtras have declared that the individual soul is an agent, and as such dependent on the highest Person. The following question now arises--Is the individual soul absolutely different from Brahman? or is it nothing else than Brahman itself in so far as under the influence of error? or is it Brahman in so far as determined by a limiting adjunct (upâdhi)? or is it a part (amsa) of Brahman?--The doubt on this point is due to the disagreement of the scriptural texts.--But this whole matter has already been decided under Sû. II, 1, 22.--True. But as a difficulty presents itself on the ground of the conflicting nature of the texts--some asserting the difference and some the unity of the individual soul and Brahman--the matter is here more specially decided by its being proved that the soul is a part of Brahman... Against all these views the Sûtra declares that the soul is a part of Brahman; since there are declarations of difference and also 'otherwise,' i.e. declarations of unity. To the former class belong all those texts which dwell on the distinction of the creator and the creature, the ruler and the ruled, the all-knowing and the ignorant, the independent and the dependent, the pure and the impure, that which is endowed with holy qualities and that which possesses qualities of an opposite kind, the lord and the dependent. To the latter class belong such texts as 'Thou art that' and 'this Self is Brahman.' Some persons even record that Brahman is of the nature of slaves(dasa), fishermen, and so on. The Âtharvanikas, that is to say, have the following text,' Brahman are the slaves(dasa). Brahman are these fishers,' and so on; and as Brahman there is said to comprise within itself all individual souls, the passage teaches general non-difference of the Self. In order, then, that texts of both these classes may be taken in their primary, literal sense, we must admit that the individual soul is a part of Brahman 44. Moreover it is so stated in Smriti. Smriti moreover declares the individual soul to be a part of the highest Person, 'An eternal part of myself becomes the individual soul (jîva) in the world of life' (Bha. Gî. XV, 7). For this reason also the soul must be held to be a part of Brahman

b.a.g says jews & christians 'rasa lila' is with baladeva (who he arbitrarily says is jesus). wile sridhar maharaj & bhaktisiddhanta sarasvati say christians consort relationship is with gods son, devotee: gods son/devotee jesus who is jiva tattva isnt visnu tattva, saying so is mayavad

exactly, case closed

would you happen to have his commentary on bhagvat 4.6.42

can you explain more please

the following to me seems to say that siva is also parabrahma: http://sanskrit.gde.to/doc_upanishhat/rudrahridaya.itx vaamapaarshve umaa devii vishhNuH somo.api te trayaH . yaa umaa saa svaya.n vishhNuryo vishhNuH sa hi chandramaaH .. 5.. ye namasyanti govinda.n te namasyanti sha~Nkaram.h . ye.archayanti hariM bhaktyaa te.archayanti vR^ishhadhvajam.h .. 6.. ye dvishhanti viruupaaksha.n te dvishhanti janaardanam.h . ye rudra.n naabhijaananti te na jaananti keshavam.h .. 7.. translation from http://www.celextel.org/ebooks/upanishads/rudra_hridaya_upanishad.htm Uma Herself is the form of Vishnu. Vishnu Himself is the form of the moon. Therefore, those who worship Lord Vishnu, worship Siva Himself. And those who worship Siva, worship Lord Vishnu in reality. Those who envy and hate Sri Rudra, are actually hating Sri Vishnu. Those who decry Lord Siva, decry Vishnu Himself http://sanskrit.gde.to/doc_upanishhat/kaivalya.itx umaasahaayaM parameshvaraM prabhuM trilochanaM niilakaNThaM prashaantam.h . dhyaatvaa munirgachchhati bhuutayoniM samastasaakshiM tamasaH parastaat.h .. 7.. sa brahmaa sa shivaH sendraH so.aksharaH paramaH svaraaT.h . sa eva vishhNuH sa praaNaH sa kaalo.agniH sa chandramaaH .. 8.. sa eva sarvaM yadbhuutaM yachcha bhavyaM sanaatanam.h . GYaatvaa taM mR^ityumatyeti naanyaH panthaa vimuktaye .. 9.. translation from http://www.celextel.org/ebooks/upanishads/kaivalya_upanishad.htm 7. Brahmaji said: Meditating on the highest Lord, allied to Uma, powerful, three-eyed, blue-necked, and tranquil, the holy man reaches Him who is the source of all, the witness of all and is beyond darkness (i.e. Avidya). 8. He is Brahma, He is Shiva, He is Indra, He is the Immutable, the Supreme, the Self-luminous, He alone is Vishnu, He is Prana, He is Time and Fire, He is the Moon. 9. He alone is all that was, and all that will be, the Eternal; knowing Him, one transcends death; there is no other way to freedom http://bhagavatam.net/4/6/42 brahmovAca jAne tvAm IzaM vizvasya jagato yoni-bIjayoH zakteH zivasya ca paraM yat tad brahma nirantaram Lord Brahma said: My dear Lord Siva, I know that you are the controller of the entire material manifestation, the combination father and mother of the cosmic manifestation, and the <font color="brown">Supreme Brahman</font color> beyond the cosmic manifestation as well. I know you in that way

sadasivas position has always been confusing to me. does any1 have a clear understanding of his tattva and can explain it?

to my unlearned understanding, bhagavat can be considered as sruti http://bhagavatam.net/1/4/7 katham va pandaveyasya rajarser munina saha samvadah samabhut tata yatraisa satvati srutih "How did it so happen that King Pariksit met this great sage, making it possible for this great transcendental essence of the Vedas [bhagavatam] to be sung to him?" http://bhagavatam.net/12/4/42 sa vai mahyam maha-raja bhagavan badarayanah imam bhagavatim pritah samhitam veda-sammitam "My dear Maharaja Pariksit, that great personality Srila Vyasadeva taught me this same scripture, Srimad-Bhagavatam, which is equal in stature to the four Vedas" and i vaguely recall reading somewhere (forgot where) that bhagavat is the most authoritative of all sastra, or something to that effect. is something like that said in a sastra?

Who is the Vaishnava, what sampradaya is he in, what were his exact words?

my parents & grandparents are from trinidad & they said bible school was mandatory for them

http://www.geocities.com/nayanmars/ "This site contains selected thEvAram, thiruvAsagam, etc. songs and some vedics texts such as Rudram, sandhya vandanam, as well as some stotras / shlokas such as lalita sahasranamam, lingashtakam, etc. in Tamil, English, Telugu, Kannada and Sanskrit / Hindi. <font color="brown">A detailed word by word translation in English is also available for several pdhigams and a number of other songs from saiva thirumuRais</font color>"

http://www.geocities.com/nayanmars/ "This site contains selected thEvAram, thiruvAsagam, etc. songs and some vedics texts such as Rudram, sandhya vandanam, as well as some stotras / shlokas such as lalita sahasranamam, lingashtakam, etc. in Tamil, English, Telugu, Kannada and Sanskrit / Hindi.<font color="brown"> A detailed word by word translation in English is also available for several pdhigams and a number of other songs from saiva thirumuRais. </font color>"

woops, krsna sandarbha post was by me

woops, krsna sandarbha post was by me