Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by jijaji

  1. Originally posted by gHari:

    I revealed the reasons earlier in a short post.


    Why was it arranged for me to work for the Presbyterian Church head office, surrounded by the twenty most influential theologians in the church, chanting and offering incense in my office as I remembered Krsna all day with my Spiritual Sky Syamasundara on my computer monitor, innocently preaching nonsectarian truth in their prayer meetings? They had fallen from the path.

    Was this meant for another thread perhaps..?



    Posted Image



  2. Recent from Indian Civilization group,

    Horses used for war in India



    In the MahAbhAratham, bhagavadgItA parvan, Chapter 20 describes the armies of both sides.


    In verses 16 and 17 of Chapter 20, sanjaya says that the Kaurava army had 100 thousand elephants and for every elephant there were hundred chariots and for every chariot a hundred horsemen.


    For every horseman ten archers and for every archer ten infantry men with shields ( based on bhagavad gItA by J.A.B. Van Buitenen.)


    This would put the number of horses in battle to be several fold greater than that of elephants.


    This would be:


    100,000 elephants

    10,000,000 chariots

    1000,000,000 horses

    10,000,000,000 archers

    100,000,000,000 infantrymen.


    I have not been able to factor in the number of aditional horses that needed by the chariots, 1,2, 4, 6 per chariot...


    How big was the battlefield ?


    Posted Image




    [This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-07-2002).]

  3. Who is arguing?


    I am asking questions about Sri Chaitanyas Sannyass and trust me, these questions have been going on for hundreds of years in more learned circles than these.


    Some believe without questioning...


    Others question before they believe...


    Still others try to KNOW what the truth is beyond any belief at all and that takes some investigative research and analysis which often times is condemned by some believers because it can challenge long-held beliefs which if exposed as inaccurate would hurt those associated with those beliefs.


    My intention here is not at all to 'HURT BELIEVERS' but to arrive at the truth of the matter.



  4. Originally posted by Tarun:

    JagannAth Jalebi Jijaji ki jaya!

    Although Ji has posted this, he can't be labelled anti-semitic.

    He's just pointed out historical facts, rather rare these days.

    Chances r Ji's plan for a better, safer Israel far surpasses in a practical way Sharon's, Dayan's or anyone else's.

    How? Very simple.

    Ji knows Torah As It Is. Tenach As It Is. Everything.

    The Jews need to go back and find their mystical roots in the kabbalah and zohar etc. The arabs can turn inward with dervish whirling and other mystical sufi practices.


    And forget all this mind-chatter about whos owns what land etc etc...


    But also the world needs to learn the lesson of how BAD FUNDADMENTALISM is




    that is part of why this happening!


    (hope we live to tell the story)






    WAR WAR WAR!!!!!










    JagannAth Jalebi Jijaji ki jaya!



    Posted Image





    [This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-06-2002).]

  5. Again...


    If Isvara Puri, Advaita Acarya and Nityananda did indeed belong to Madhva Sampradaya, why oh why did Nimai Pandit go over to the Advaita line and abandon his Madhva Sampradaya origins?


    Remember: Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya is the line intoduced by Bhaktisiddhanta right...so I think these questions are relevent.


    Certainly Gaurangadev could have taken Sannyass in Madhvas line who's school had gained some acceptance by that time, enough at least for Sri Chaitanyas associates to take diksha into.


    One thing to consider is that Madhvas school would NEVER accept Sridhar Svamins commentary on Bhagavat Purana, which Sri Chaitanya held so dear, as they are strictly adverse to non-dualism, advaita and the like.




    [This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-06-2002).]


    [This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-06-2002).]



    (From Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita, conversations of Sri Ramakrishna recorded by Sri M.)


    March 11, 1883.


    MASTER: "With sincerity and earnestness one can realize God through all religions. The Vaishnava will realize God, and so will the Saktas, the Vedantists, and the Brahmos. The Mussalmans and Christians will realize Him too. All will certainly realize God if they are earnest and sincere.


    "Some people indulge in quarrels, saying, 'One cannot attain anything unless one worships our Krishna', or, 'Nothing can be gained without the worship of Kali, our Divine Mother', or, 'One cannot be saved without accepting the Christian religion.' This is pure dogmatism. The dogmatist says, 'My religion alone is true, and the religions of others are false.' This is a bad attitude. God can be reached by different paths.


    "Further, some say that God has form and is not formless. Thus they start quarrelling. A Vaishnava quarrels with a Vedantist.


    "One can rightly speak of God only after one has seen Him. He who has seen God knows really and truly that God has form and that He is formless as well. He has many other aspects that cannot be described.


    "Once some blind men chanced to come near an animal that someone told them was an elephant. They were asked what the elephant was like. The blind men began to feel its body. One of them said the elephant was like a pillar; he had touched only its leg. Another said it was like a winnowing-fan; he had touched only its ear. In this way the others, having touched its tail or belly, gave their different versions of the elephant. Just so, a man who has seen only one aspect of God limits God to that alone. It is his conviction that God cannot be anything else.


    "How can you say that the only truth about God is that He has form? It is undoubtedly true that God comes down to earth in a human form, as in the case of Krishna. And it is true as well that God reveals Himself to His devotees in various forms. But it is also true that God is formless; He is the Indivisible Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute. He has been described in the Vedas both as formless and as endowed with form. He is also described there both as attributeless and as endowed with attributes.


    "Do you know what I mean? Satchidananda is like an infinite ocean. Intense cold freezes the water into ice, which floats on the ocean in blocks of various forms. Likewise, through the cooling influence of bhakti, one sees forms of God in the ocean of the Absolute. These forms are meant for the bhaktas, the lovers of God. But when the Sun of Knowledge rises, the ice melts; it becomes the same water it was before. Water above and water below, everywhere nothing but water. Therefore a prayer in the Bhagavata says: 'O Lord, Thou hast form, and Thou art also formless. Thou walkest before us, O Lord, in the shape of a man; again, Thou hast been described in the Vedas as beyond words and thought.'


    "But you may say that for certain devotees God assumes eternal forms. There are places in the ocean where the ice doesn't melt at all. It assumes the form of quartz."


    KEDAR: "It is said in the Bhagavata that Vyasa asked God's forgiveness for his three transgressions. He said: 'O Lord, Thou art formless, but I have thought of Thee in my meditation as endowed with form; Thou art beyond speech, but I have sung Thee hymns; Thou art the All-pervading Spirit, but I have made pilgrimages to sacred places. Be gracious, O Lord, and forgive these three transgressions of mine.' "


    MASTER: "Yes, God has form and He is formless too. Further, He is beyond both form and formlessness. No one can limit Him."


    Posted Image

  7. Originally posted by shvu:


    Also, there is no record of Chaitanya meeting with and talking to, much less influencing any prominent Advaitin of his time.


    Why does the persistent mis-information continue that Sri Chaitanya converted large masses of people (advaitavins, buddhists, common folk etc.) from other sects in India during the middle ages?

    It most certainly seems to be an embellishment of the facts later exaggerated by his biographers.


    This is not an attack or blasphemy towards Sri Chaitanya, in fact it is more respectful of who he was as far as I am concerned.


    Exaggerating events to win converts or to out do other sects is a common thing in India. Please don't think for a minute that the Gaudiya school has been completely free from this tendency.


    This tendency to exaggerate was just part of the way the INDIAN MIND thought at THAT TIME in HISTORY!


    But alas...we live in different times now don't we?


    Posted Image




    [This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-06-2002).]

  8. gHari:

    Of course, it could well be that the Advaita school has changed over the past five hundred years after Sri Caitanya spoke with their leaders.



    Sri Chaitanya did not have much influence at all on the advaita school. There are a few references to him meeting some advaitavadins by his biographers but those meetings are imbellished to show him defeating them and then converting masses of people into Gaudiya Vaishnavism, which is a total exaggeration.


    As I have stated I do not think Sri Chaitanya was as oppossed to 'MAYAVAD'as his LATER biographers made him out to be.


    His Sanyass came from Keshava Bharati...now why would Sri Chaitanya forbid people from reading shankaras brahma sutra bhasya, while he himself takes diksha from an Advaitavadin Sannyassin...doesn't jive at all.


    Does anyone here have the guts to look at this history objectivly or are they satisfied to just quote what they have heard on the matter and do no other research and not question...








    [This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-05-2002).]

  9. It is interesting to note that Nimai Pandit accepted the name Chaitanya from Keshava Bharati. Now Chaitanya is the name given to bramacharis at the famous Sringiri Math of Adi-Shankara, which Sri Chaitanya headed for shortly after his Sanyass (if he ever took Sanyass at all). It must be noted because of his acceptance of the name Chaitanya from Keshava Bharati, there is controversy in regards to him having received Sannyass at all. Some are of the opinion that he essentially accepted bramachari, thus the name Chaitanya.

    The point is he accepted a Shankarite Mahavakya at the time of diksha and it has been construed to be something else. His Gaudiya Biographers have said many things that don't seen to make sense. Certainly The Sringriri Math gives the names of Chaitanya to it's bramacharis AND Bharati/Puri to it's Sannyasins.

    Why was Sri Chaitanya so intent to go to Sringriri Math after his diksha? And why did he visit there at all if he was so opposed to the Advaitin doctrine and forbade his followers to not as much LOOK at a Mayavadin Sannyasin.

    Some Gaudiya scholars say Keshava Bharati was a Madhva ascetic which is obviously a blunder.

    Understood..however it must be noted that each Matha that was established by Adi-Shankara has it's own Mahavakya associated with it..

    The Gaudiya's even go as far to say that Sri Chaitanya wispered a mantra that he received in a dream to Keshava Bharati before diksha asking him to initiate with the dream mantra.

    But then later we see some of his other Gaudiya biographers saying that he in fact accepted a Shankarite Mahavakya....





    [This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-04-2002).]

  10. quote:

    Often times I am alarmed that speakers of ISKCON cannot go through one lecture without an attack on Mayavadis or without making a sweeping generalization about Advaita



    It is the norm because all the books are filled with this same mentality!



    Posted Image

  11. Originally posted by Rati:

    The question one is impelled to ask regarding those allegations that some gurus have given out siddha pranali cheaply and without consideration of any qualifications on the part of the disciple: Is there any foundation to such rumors? If so, has anyone actually shown proof or documentation of such activity, or is it just some kind of political mud-slinging in an effort to establish the supremacy of one group (those who eschew the practice) over others?


    Good points...


    Being objective is important!



  12. From jijaji some time back...


    Chaitanya & Sridhar Svami...

    Sri Krishna Chaitanya, the famous Saint of Nadia, Bengal, India, accepted only one commentary on Bhagavata Purana as being valid. That commentary was written by the famous Sridhar Svami years before Sri Chaitanya had settled in the great city of Puri on the Western coast of India.

    Sridhar Svami had been the 10th Shankaracarya of the Shankara Govardhan Math of Puri. Interestingly enough, despite his background, Sridhar Svami also saw the Bhagavata Purana as the shining sound incarnation of Krishna for Kali Yuga as did Sri Chaitanya.

    Sridhar Swami, reached his intellectual peak at a hill top shrine known as Kapilash in Orissa which served as his abode in the 14th Century A.D. The treatises on "Srimad Bhagavat Geeta", "Vishnu Purana" & "Sripadyabali" were written here by Sridhar Swami during his long stay.

    That Sri Chaitanya accepted Sridhars Svami’s commentary above all others, including Madhvas, whom Gaudiyas claim lineage from, is a puzzle in itself.

    Was it because Sridhar Svamin belonged to Shankaras sampradaya, which Sri Chaitanya took Sannyass Diksha into?

    Does it have anything to do with the influence Sridhar Svamis commentary had on the region where Sri Chaitanya had moved immediately after he took Sanyass? Because at the time of Sri Chaitanya’s arrival in Orrisa the whole atmosphere was steeped in the Holy memory of Sridhar Svami.

    Sri Chaitanyas acceptance of Sridhar Svamins Bhagavatam (a known advaitin) over and above the then available Vaishnava commentaries is worthy of our investigation.

    Sri Chaitanya came to settle in Puri after he had taken sanyass from the Advaitin Keshava Bharati. It is contended by his followers that Sri Chaitanyas reason for taking initiation from Keshava Bharati was because it was the then accepted and most known form of Sannyass at that time. They also say that Sri Chaitanya had devised a plan to save the fallen souls of Kali Yuga by taking this Sannyass, thus giving people the chance to bow to him and be saved by that very act.

    But we ask why did Sri Chaitanyas Gurus Isvara Puri and Madhavendra Puri accept Sanyass into the Madhva Sampradaya or did they?

    In Sri Chaitanys biographies he is described as having the ability to convert one into a devotee of Krishna, by one having a mere glance of him dancing in Kirtan. In fact whole villages were converted in this way. Why then the need to accept Sanyass from a school of thought that was opposed to his dualistic teachings of Krishna Bhakti?


    Posted Image


    ¸..· ´¨¨)) -:¦:-

    ¸.·´ .·´¨¨))

    ((¸¸.·´ ..·´ -:¦:- jijaji

    -:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*


    [This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-04-2002).]

  13. Sushil Kumar De in his 'Vaishnava Faith and Movement' states that it appears probable that Madhvendra Puri and his disciple Isvara Puri were Sankarite Samnyasins of the same type as Sridhara Svamin.

    Sridhara Svamin in his commentary on the Srimad Bhagavatam attempted to COMBINE the Advaita teachings of Sankara with the Devotionalism of the Bhagavatas.

    Devotion to Krishna or Narayan has never been considered inconsistent with one's belonging to the Sankara Sampradaya, many taught that Advaita realization could be attained through worship of a particular diety as a person or a symbol.

    The tutelary deity of Sankara himself was Krishna, although his chief disciple, (like Sridhar) worshipped Nrsimha.

    Around the time of Sridhar Svaimin there seems to have developed a type of 'Tempering' (in S.K.De's words) of the severe monistic idealism of Advaita Vedanta with the 'Devotional Worship' of a personal GOD.

    Sridhar Svamin reveals this tendency in his well known commentary on the Vishnu Purana, Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam, in which he acknowledges Samkara's teachings as authoritative AND considers Bhakti as the BEST means of Advaita Mukti.

    Sridhara Svamin in his commentary on the Srimad Bhagavatam attempted to COMBINE the Advaita teachings of Sankara with the Devotionalism of the Bhagavatas.


    Posted Image

  14. People who think that advaitavadins walk around thinking themselves as 'GOD' or wanting to be 'GOD' are very misinformed.

    It comes from a lack of understanding of the system of advaita and perhaps taking at face value others statements about advaita who were uninformed themselves.

    Equating the atman to brahman is not claiming oneself to be the 'Almighty GOD' but doing away with dualism altogether.

    I agree with shvu..most Gaudiyas have a very uninformed/elementary understanding of shankaras advaita.

    And I for one do not accept that Sri Chaitanya was all that against advaita, but that the Gaudiya School 'DEVELOPED' its stance towards advaita over time after Sri Chaitanya passed away.


    Posted Image


  15. Again..!


    Why didn't Sri Chaitanya accept Sannyasa diksha from one of his fellow Madhvas, if in fact his sampradaya had any connection to Madhva.


    And know for sure no follower of Madhva would accept Sannyasa from an Advaitavadin.


    This controversy has been going on way before Gaudiya Math /Iskcon and the questions continue.


    Also Sri Chaitanya never really converted masses in the way it is described in Chaitanya Charitamrta, these descriptions were exaggerated and embellished upon by biographers after his passing away.






    [This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-04-2002).]

  16. Even still Nimai Pandit received the name 'Chaitanya' from Keshava Bharati the mayavadin sannyasin.


    What's worse..? Reading shankaras brahma sutra bhasya or taking sannyasa diksha from a mayavadin?


    If Isvara Puri, Nityananda, Advaita were coming from Madhvas school, why didn't Sri Chaitanya take sannyasa in Madhvas line??




    Posted Image


    [This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-04-2002).]

  17. I believe he was referring to Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bhashya

    (his commentary on Brahma Sutra).

    Some scholars believe that Sri Chaitanya himself was not as condemnatory towards the advaitavad schools as his later biographers made him out to be.

    They point to the fact that he took sannyass diksha from Keshava Bharati and during several notable introductions afterwards he is introduced as a mayavadi sannyasin...

    The arguments for why he would take diksha from an advaitavadin, when his mantra-guru Isvara Puri was supposedly in Madhvas line has no doubt stirred controversy.




  18. When Hindu teachings 1st came west in the late 1800's - early 1900's it seems various schools left out more esoteric practices. In the Kriya community today there is much controversy over Yogananda not teaching to his western audience 'complete Kriya', he is alleged to have left out the 'Kechari Mudra' which more orthodox Kriya schools in India claim is essential to the authentic practice of Kriya Yoga. Also Vivekananda stressed more of a 'Vedanta for the West' teaching... a bit packaged for his audience as well, certainly in contrast to Ramakrishna's extreme 'Kali Bhakti' with ecstatic devotional eruptions similar to Sri Chaitanyas divine madness.

    And who can forget The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi with his 'don't tell anyone' keep em silent 'Bija Mantras' coming to introduce his newly interpreted version of Shankaras teachings (complete without Mahavakyas and all!!)

    Many of these missionary movements were spurred by the 'Hindu Reinassance' which was a rivialistic mood that swept India in the 1800's. Many of them were severly stricken with hyper-maslucline disorder and had primitive attitudes towards women as many of their ancestors in the "MIDDLE AGES" did.

    So it does not suprise me at all that 'Certain Gaudiyas' chose not to mention the fact that their esoteric Meditation praction consisted of imagining oneself as a 'FEMALE' wearing a 'SARI' with nice hair etc etc. They left that out because all the other 'Sanyassins' from the other 'Missionary Schools' were all Male-Dominated.

    Part of the reason me thinks...




    [This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-01-2002).]

  • Create New...