Baobabtree

Namaste Tulasi Devi.

 

I've always been a big fan of Acharyaji ever since I listened to some of his discourses on Youtube, and visited his website. I know Acharyaji teaches Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, but is he strictly a Vaishnava? How is Shiva viewed by your acharya's sampradaya? Is Shiva considered a demigod or the Supreme deity non-different from Vishnu?

 

First they murder sheep. Now they murder Prabhupada. Jagannatha has clearly divorced Himself from them.

How can they murder Prabhupada? Even if they had indeed killed Srila Prabhupada's physical body, he would just end up where he is now, in the hoyl dham of Goloka, and they could never destroy the teachings and legacy of such a great acharya. I myself had once been very critical, and spiteful towards Prabhupada, however I realize my foolishness, to even think of criticizing a great scholar, devotee, and renunciate like Srila Prabhupada.

 

Jaya Srila Prabhupada

Jaya Shri Krishna

Jaya Jagannatha Swami

Om Namah Shivaya

Namaste all.

 

I can't help but laugh when I hear these kind of things. Do these priests think that some how they have a monopoly on God? How sad. I pray these people come to their senses soon, and repent for such acts of bigotry and foolishness.

 

Aum Namah Shivaya

Jai Jagannath Swami

Jai Shri Krishna

Namaste Yagna Narayana.

 

I was also a big devotee of Shirdi Sai Baba for awhile. Though, lately I began to doubt him being an avatara, my faith in him has slowly been restored. I remember been told by my Guru that it would be auspicious for me to read Sri Sai Satcharita, in a week. By the grace of Sainath, I was able to do such in exactly seven days. Jai Sai Ram!

Oh geeze sorry about that. I can't believe I forgot to put that in my original post http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/maha.html

Namaste Avinash.

 

I've found an online translation of the Maha Upanishad (which if I am not mistaken is just a spelling variation of Mahopanishad, yes?), in which the opening first four verses state

I-1-4. Then we shall expound the Mahopanishad. They say Narayana was alone. There were not Brahma, Shiva, Waters, Fire and Soma, Heaven and Earth, Stars, Sun and Moon. He could not be happy.

 

Originally Posted by Dark Warrior

Fools like you keep coming, so I can't keep writing the same things again and again.

 

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

MUSIC INTRO: Fade-in Heavy Metal Music Drum & Base build up to crescendo . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

Dark Warrior! You rule.

 

 

 

And it's just the tip of the Ice-burg.

 

 

 

~

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling nearer.

I can hear the Jaggerunaut Rolling nearer.

I can hear the Jaggerunaut Rolling nearer.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling nearer.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

I can hear the Jaggernaut Rolling.

 

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

~

 

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

MUSIC: Fade-out . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

 

 

What is the point of filling your posts with irrelevant cultural references and phrases? I'm going to be honest and say almost none of your posts have any actualy substance behind them.

 

Now, on to the subject at hand, I really have to congratulate and give my respects to Dark Warrior for his superior debating schools. As a Shaiva, I can't say I can ever be fully convinced without a doubt that the Vedas promote Vaishnavism, but at the moment it sure seems like they do.

Namaste Darkwarrior.

 

 

It is to prove that there are NO contradictions that such interpretations are needed. One verse says Rudra is Supreme and another says Rudra gets his powers by meditating on Vishnu. By studying etymology, one can resolve contradictions.

Skanda Upanishad solves this dilemma for us when in verses 8 and 9 it states

śivāya viṣṇurūpāya śivarūpāya viṣṇave |

śivasya hṛdayaṁ viṣṇuḥ viṣṇośca hṛdayaṁ śivaḥ || 8 ||

yathā śivamayo viṣṇurevaṁ viṣṇumayaḥ śivaḥ |

yathāntaraṁ na paśyāmi tathā me svastirāyuṣi || 9 ||

 

 

(I bow) to Shiva in the form of Vishnu, and Vishnu in the form of Shiva;

Vishnu is Shiva’s heart and Shiva is Vishnu’s heart.

Just as Vishnu is full of Shiva, so is Shiva full of Vishnu.

As I see no difference, I am well all my life.

However I understand Sri Vaishnavas don't consider this Upanishad to be authentic, yes?

 

Regardless, these arguments about what the Vedas mean, the authenticity of certain Upanishads, whether Shankaracharya was a Vaishnava etc. have been done to death already, and I agree with you that we should not hijack this thread and turn it into another one of those endless debates.

 

In my opinion, a sincere 'mayavadi' > Theist. One should think, Theist misinterprets things more than the average advaitin.

 

One needs to understand the difference between mordern day Neovedantins and true Advaitins. A true advaitin would be one who believes that the world is unreal, that the Self is Brahman, etc. Now, technically, Nirguna Brahman is devoid of names, attributes, and anything else, but according to Sankaracharya (who translates 'Akshara' in Gita as Nirguna Brahman), in order to attain Moksha, one should first surrender to Saguna Brahman, who is technically unreal as well, but as real as the illusory state goes anyway (correct me if I am wrong). So, Sankara advocates surrender to Narayana ALONE (and no Devas).

 

Vishnu is the highest Saguna Brahman, and surrendering to Him in bhakti would cleanse a person of his false ego and ignorance and help him to attain the Ikyapathi Moksha (ie, identity).

 

Hence, at the Vyavaharika level, a follower of Sankaracharya is a Vaishnava. Just like there are Shaiva Dvaitins or Vishishtadvaitins, there are Vaishnava Advaitins.

 

So, a true advaitin, would agree that Vishnu is Supreme as far as the Vyavaharika level is concerned, and he would genuinely believe that Self alone exists, WITHOUT EGO. He would be humble, sincere and full of renunciation despite considering himself as Brahman. Therefore, while this path is totally wrong and the philosophy totally unattractive, the individual isn't 'sinful' or 'deadly'. Sure, the advaitin would be considered to have tamo guna, as the philosophy is wrong, but he will be humble, and generally devoid of ego.

 

It is the mordern advaitins who have completely veered off the path and become bloated with ego, thinking themselves as Brahman, and posing as intellectuals. An Advaitic Vedantin is, by the very term, a Vedantin. He simply disagrees with other Vedantins on the nature of Moksha. He may also not obtain moksha due to false knowledge of identity, but he should be given respect. He does NOT get egotistical. In summary,

 

True advaita - Self being Brahman is a natural thing, so no ego is ever nurtured. Nothing to be proud about.

 

Neovedanta - We are Brahman, so let us just act supercilious and make a big fuss about how spiritual we are. Oh, and say that every religion is true, but at the end, only advaita is correct. Courtesy of Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, etc.

 

Bhaja Govindam and Govindashtakam by Sri Adi Sankaracharya are classics. His philosophy is another matter, but on the whole, I certainly have no problem listening to nama sankirtanam by sincere advaitins. Adi Sankara was most definitely a Vaishnava.

What is with this term Neo-Advaita? Even if you are correct and Shankaracharya was a Vaishnava, his followers have been worshiping Shiva and Devi for years. This isn't a new development.

I recall hearing variations of the story, where instead of Parvati being the one who saves Shiva from halahal, it is her wrathful form Tara Maa. So, I'm assuming it is this Tara who arises from the ocean, in some variants of the story.

I'd rather have the darshan of bhakta Joe who was on LSD yesterday and today is on his first day of chanting japa in line with siddhanta as given by AC Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada myself.

Get off your high horse. This woman has done a lot more for the world then you ever have, so I suggest you keep the usual ignorant "shun the impersonalistic atheist" junk to yourself.

Do you believe the events that occured in the Gita and the Ramayan actually took place?

Yes, whether or not there is any major archeological evidence is of little relevance to me, but I have heard that off the coast of Gujarat, there was a recently discovered sunken city, that many think was Dwarka. Likewise, many think Ram Sethu was indeed the bridge Rama built to Lanka.

I read the comments made by Swami Ram a number of years ago. It was in many ways a faith killer at first, but as exprience has shown his words were not true, at least to me. I think that Pujari 5-O's assessment is the most correct.

How does one even get away with making ludicrous comments like this? Kal Bhairava is mentioned in the Shiva Purana, and I think even the Bhagavad Purana (Srimad Bhagavatam), so how can this swami say he is a voodoo demon of African origin? Don't let this so-called "swami" kill your faith, he clearly doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

i beg to differ with you Baobabtree ! Yes Siddhidatree maa is the mother of siddhis but she is not whom tou refer to as Kateri Maa. i understand that you mean to say is that Kateri ma is the littlest sister of Kali Maa but in referance to the Nav Durga Form she is the sixth and not the last. for Kaatyaayanee is the nurse the remover of sickness, the healer, the bestower of children, the liberator of sickness due to lenghtly menses if you get my drift. if one was to read the Kali Purana one would see that when Bhoo devi was pregnant due to Narak she went to Vishnu Bhagwan and asked for relief and in so doing was granted liberation but so unsure of his future and safety she manifested her self through earth and took form as Kaatyaayanee Maa the head nurse, baby sitter of Narak but just in disguise and so forth she was elevated to that of the sixth form of Nav Durga as that of what was mentioned earlier.

 

Siddhidatree Maa:

OM SIDDH GANDHARVA YAKSHA

DVAIR SURAI RAMRAIRAPEE

SEVYAMAANAA SADAA BHUYAAT

SIDDHIDAA SIDDHIDAYINEE

 

the ninth form of Mother durga is names Siddhidaatree Maa. she is the bestower of all siddhis . According to the Markandaye puraan there are eight.

 

Namaste Pujari.

 

My mistake, thank you for clarifying.

Namaste and Jai Maa, HST108.

 

One of the Nav Durga (nine forms of Durga); Maa Siddhidatri is traditionally worshiped to gain siddhis (occult or mystical powers). I'm unfamiliar with her mantra, but perhaps someone else here knows it?

 

Edit: I should also note she is very popular in Trinidad where she is usually called Kateri Maa.

California's Secretary of State says an initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in the state has qualified for the November ballot.

I see hate once again fills people's minds....

 

Homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle. Pedophila is also a deviant lifestyle. No I am not equating the two except they are both deviations. Should we not consider pedophilia deviant because it might hurt someones feeling?

There have been studies that prove sex is psychologically damaging for children. So, we know pedophilia is wrong. Such is not the case for homosexuality.

 

I am not arguing for or against this ongoing discussion ....... but I think, to judge the presence or absence of divinity based on the outer form is somewhat contrary to teachings of Krishna. When we become seduced by form we are only getting lost in the play of Maya all the more.....was it not in the Bagavad Gita that it is stated "when you see divinity in all then only you see trully?"

 

Indeed, we should not judge who is and isn't the lord based upon physical appearance alone.

 

 

But, honestly Indulekha Ji, which one does Vasantha Sai look more like the Swarupa of?

Whether my mother appears old, and wrinkly, or with the face of a moon she is still beautiful to me, and still my mother.

 

I am certainly no fan of Sathya Sai Baba, and certainly not a fan of anyone who promotes him either, but to judge an avatar based upon physical appearance is very shallow.

 

This is fine, but this is for Kamis only.

Vaishnavas would not engage in this practice.

 

So now Shruti is for Kamis?

 

I am just an immature 14 year old, but this is my input.

I had said the purpose of marriage and sex life was to produce Krishna conscious children and since homosexuals do not do this, it goes under illicit sex.

Radhe Radhe pointed out that this is an imperfect world and they should not be discriminated against for fulfilling their desires. After all many heteroexuals also participate in sex life and not always is it for producing Krishna conscious children. More often than not, it is simply for self gratification. And the heterosexuals never get discriminated against.

My opinion is a little harsh about this matter. I think ANYONE whether they are homosexual or heterosexual should be stopped from sex life if their object isn't to produce Krishna conscious (or God conscious depending on the case) children.

Indulekhadasi, I mean no disrespect to you when I say this (or other Vaishnavas, and Vaishnava gurus who hold this point of view), but this view point of yours is contradicted by Shruti. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says in VI.4.9 and VI.4.10

 

 

9

If a man desires his wife with the thought: "May she enjoy love with me," then, after inserting the member in her, joining mouth to mouth and stroking her organ, he should utter the following mantra:

"O semen, you have been produced from my every limb, especially from my heart through the essence of food you are the essence of the limbs. Bring this woman under my control, like a deer pierced by a poisoned arrow."

10

Now, the wife whom he desires with the thought: "May she not conceive"—after inserting the member in her and joining mouth to mouth, he should inhale and then exhale, repeating the following mantra:

"With power, with semen, I reclaim the semen from you."

Thus she comes to be without semen.

I know this is perhaps a bit explicit, but it is Shruti, and when we debate concepts like this, it is important that we use Shruti, to determine what is and isn't Vedic.

 

And there is a huge footprint of Krsna one can see at Radha Damodhara temple in Vrndavan. If you have ten rupees they will bring it out and let you look at it. Looks like Krishna must have stepped in some plaster 5,000 years ago.

Actually a large stone some 400 years ago.

 

Come on now, isn't Bhagwan capable of anything?

Jai Sita Ram!

Jai Hanuman!

Einstein, considered the idea of God found in Christianity and Judaism to be childish, however he actually believed in a pantheistic and deistic God.

 

Similarly, Shathapatha Brahmana shows that Rudra was the son of Brahma and that Brahma NAMED him Rudra. Hence, it follows that the vedic verses extolling Rudra are not talking about this Rudra.

 

'Rudra' means, 'He who destroys', 'Howler', etc. All these names are applicable to the Supreme Lord.'

 

Veda says the Supreme Lord is Vishnu/Narayana at various points. No birth or depiction of Vishnu as having faults can be seen in Veda. Hence, it is only Vishnu who is being praised here.

Can't one then just argue that Whenever Narayan or Vishnu is talked about in the Vedas, it is a reference to Shiva being all pervasive, or the eternal-being?

 

There's a BAPS Sri Swaminarayan mandir VERY close to my place, but I have no idea what the beliefs are...I wouldn't mind visiting though. It's absolutely beautiful and there's a museum inside.

Oh and also...As I understand it, you're supposed to have your legs and shoulders covered, correct?

I'm rather unsure of them. I understand they segregate male and female devotees while they're in the mandir.

 

As for the proper atire to wear, I don't think your legs need to be completely covered, just avoid wearing anything too low-cut. I would however make sure the top you wear in the mandir covers your shoulders.

 

Pranams to you!