skp

Apologies...Didn't even know that it was offline for some time!

Hare Krishna!!!

And he uses the example of Narada Muni coming to Vedavyasa and their relationship was one of siksa. Narada Muni was personally there but in his spiritual form.

Theist ji, Narada Muni has only one form and that is his spiritual form. Because he is a pure unalloyed devotee of Krishna, he is spiritual.

Hare Krishna!

The fall can be conceptualised by the fact that the eternally conditioned living-entities did not realize that they were with Krishna between the destruction and creation of the material world.

Of course, because they did not realize they are said to be in the tatastha-region as the realisation is sometimes present and sometimes not.

For a purely Krishna-conscious person regardless of whether s/he is physically present either in the material or spiritual world, s/he is always established in pure Krishna-consciousness and hence no "falldown" as such.

Hope I have'nt confused..

Hare Krishna!

Hare Krishna!

You have given the example of Rainbow. But, I guess you do know that the rainbow is formed when the light is refracted from the drop of water which has one colour ;-)

so, when we understand the person behind the cosmic creation we know that He is singular!

Hare Krishna!

Pranam

 

God can not be captured in our finite mind, he is, one without a second.

He is infinite with un numerable forms and quality, to capture in our own box is a folly.

Rainbow is beautiful but to insist my choice of colour above everyone else is --- well think what you like.

But I stick to rainbow that is Hindu it is colourful.

Jai Shree Krishna

As you mentioned in the earlier era the memory and spiritual consciousness was so much that the books were not required.

In this era, people have to use books etc. as memory is very bad.

Hare Krishna!

They're not required.

 

Its not to say they won't provide some lubrication for learning and conditioning of the mind.

 

You have to remember that there were spiritual paths long before there was reading and writing.

 

Consider books a modern luxury. Just don't allow them to become a modern trap.

 

 

x

I thought you said that no books are required

The Path of the Masters, by Dr. Julian Johnson.

 

Autobiography of a Yogi, by Swami Yogananda.

 

The Mustard Seed, by Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh.

 

 

x

Hello Kimflex,

If you feel that there is not even 0.1 % of Srimad-Bhagavatam that you cannot believe then probably you require more time to come to the path of bhakti.

But, if you have at least that 0.1% of faith, then you should continue reading and slowly everything will be revealed to you...

Of course, associating with senior devotees will also help a lot!

Good luck!

Hello to you all. I am new to this forum but I have read a number of Swami Prabhupada's books and other Sanskrit scriptures. The problem I have is that I don't really believe the Srimad Bhagavatam is true and this seems to be a prerequisite. Without this first principle no other point of the philosophy seems to fall into place. Can anyone explain to me why I should believe that the Srimad Bhagavatam is an absolute authority? Sorry if this is a ridiculous request but I can't seem to get myself past this point.

Xexon,

Try to understand that God is unlimited and He knows about everything. Can we claim to know that we know what is happening in each and every nook and corner of the universe?

Hare Krishna!

It is a difficult matter to explain a beautiful sunset to someone who has been blind from birth. No matter how eloquent the tongue, the idea will never quite carry because there in no common frame of reference. So it is with me.

 

I can never prove any of what I say here, but I will invite you to prove it to yourself by having the same experience. Is that not fair?

 

Its the ONLY way you will ever know.

 

A God act? Believe it or not, I have a regular life. I don't sit around all day thinking about God. But at the same time, it is a presence in my life that never leaves me. It permeates who or what I am. When I move, God moves as my shadow. When a question comes my way, the God part of me already has the answer waiting. It just a matter of how fast I, the human, can offer the translation through my keyboard. I never learned to type. I hunt and peck to this day. But I can hardly keep up with what comes out of me sometimes.

 

Don't confuse the one who types the keys with the one who dictates the message. One and the same, but measured out differently. I am aware of both, in the same way a flute is aware of the wind that blows through it to produce a sound.

 

I can't speak for Sai Baba, but I understand the difficulties in his life better than most.

 

 

x

Xexon,

I appreciate that you are going on the spiritual path. But, spiritual path does not end at the realisation of all inclusive Brahman realisation. It also has to offer the localised Paramaatma realisation (presence of Krishna in the heart of all the living entities) and the Bhagavan realisation (understanding that Krishna is indeed the Supreme Person).

Even the person who first made the Impersonal philosophy popular, Adi Shankaraacharya, admits that "Narayana Parah Avyaktaat" that Naarayana is transcendental and cannot be known by the blunt material senses.

So, please be open to Personalism!

Hare Krishna!

God is the clay of creation as well as the hand that sculpts it. There is no worship of the fact, only observation of it.

 

I don't want your money, or visibility, or anyone falling at my feet. I have no use for any of that.

 

Call me a fool on the hill if you like. It changes nothing in me, but it locks you into an opinion you will have to escape from before you move forward.

 

 

 

x

Very well said Beggar Ji. How can a drop of ocean claim that it is the whole ocean?

Illusion really comes from within by looking without. The soul, deep in his heart knows, feels the pang of his own self-betrayal. Betrayal of others is only a symptom, after all in this world everyone is a thief. It is said that what man hasn't "stole" a glance at a beautiful woman? Self deception is the basis of our illusion and the sympton of the greatest illusion is to claim that one is God.

Dark Warrior,

Very well said. Krishna Himself confirms this when Krishna says that the people whose minds are attached to the path of impersonalism (Avyakta-aasakta chetasah) tread an exceedingly difficult path (Klesho Adhikaras Teshaam).

Hare Krishna!

Advaita is semi-theism. It is not atheistic.

 

There are some Vaishnavas who are of the opinion that anyone who considers the truth to be Nirguna Brahman is an atheist and has no value. This is however, quite far from the truth.

 

Being a Sri Vaishnava, I am aware that the Vedas talk of the Supreme Being, Lord Narayana, as one who possesses infinite attributes. Advaitins, on the other hand, assert that Brahman is formless, incorporeal and has no attributes at all. I find Advaita an intellectual philosophy, unlike many Vaishnavas who seem to hate it. I'd call Advaita as an 'elegant error'.

 

However, this does not discount advaitins as demonic, or as atheists. It may surprise you to know that the followers of Adi Sankaracharya are also Vaishnavas. After all, Vaishnavism means 'Worship of Vishnu'. It does not mean 'Worship of Personal God as Vishnu'.

 

The mordern day advaitins have veered from the path set by Sri Sankaracharya. They worship demigods like Shiva, Durga, Kali, etc. as manifestations of Brahman. But Adi Sankara never advocated demigod worship. Although an advaitin, He firmly established that the highest Saguna Brahman was none other than Sriman Narayana.

 

Therfore, true Mayavadism, or Advaitam is Vaishnavam. Advaitins may say everything is Narayana, that Narayana has no form, that they themselves are Narayana, but they are Vaishnavas in the sense that they accept Narayana as the ultimate truth to be realised. Like I said before, Vaishnavism is simply acceptance of Vishnu above demigods. The Saguna Brahman of Advaitins is indeed none other than Vishnu. Heck, there is sufficient proof to say that Sri Sankara wore a tilak, and not the ash of Shiva as he is popularly depicted in pictures to be wearing.

 

The works such as Saundarya Lahiri, Sivanandalahiri that praise Demigods are not authored by Sankaracharya, but by another person (presumably Appaya Dikshitar) who wrote them and passed it off as Sri Sankaracharya's works. The mordern day followers of the Smarta tradition have unfortunately been mislead to believe that Adi Sankara advocated Demigod worship, so they worship Demigods as well. So, now Advaitam is corrupted.

 

And I am quite willing to accept that Advaitam is a legitimate path, just as philosophies like Vishishtadvaita, Dvaita, Shuddhadvaita, Dvaitadvaita, etc. But in Kali Yuga, it is not an easy path to take. For instance, according to advaita, to become Narayana, you must let go of ego. But the mordern day advaitins, having accepted that the Self is Narayana, get egotistical and supercilious in the process. Hence, you have to possess the intellect of Sankaracharya himself to succeed through Advaita.

But it is actually possible to be both. I am both. It would be a little silly to deny the existence out and out. But I still find it hard to understand, and in the process I can be a pain in the back side for people when they explain it to me and I still don't understand . There may well be something out there who created us, but does this existence interfere with matters on earth? I am not so sure. If I did believe then perhaps I would be a Deist. I am still pondering on these things. I am quite confused.

JustRish,

The very fact that you are open to the idea of existence of a Creator means that you are a Theist. That is my honest opinion.

Regarding interference of Krishna, there is not need for Him to personally interfere but because He wants to give His association to His pure devotees and increase the devotional sentiment among the Theists He Himself descends (Avatara) to the material world.

That's what the famous verse "Yadaa Yadaa Hy Dharmasya..." mentions.

As stated by Krishna:

Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion--at that time I descend Myself.

In order to deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I advent Myself millennium after millennium.

- BG 4.7-8 (http://www.asitis.com/4/7.html http://www.asitis.com/4/8.html)

Hare Krishna!

Thanks a lot Dark Warrior, for giving the Sri Vaishnava point of view on this topic. It's indeed good to know this.

Hare Krishna!

Buddha being an avatar is accepted by Sri Vaishnavas. Both our mordern teachers and our acharyas have referenced to Buddha.The alvars have also spoken about them. Sri Nammalvar in fact, openly calls out to Krishna in ecstasy, "O Kannan! You enter into the body of a jivatma and provide atheists with false vedas..."

 

Furthermore, Sri Parasara Bhattar, a Sri Vaishnava acharya of great intellect, has shown that the names 787-810 (If I got it right) in the Vishnu Sahasranama refer to Buddha avatara only.

 

The Sahasranama points out that there are many Buddha avatars of Vishnu. And Gautama Siddhartha was also empowered.

 

However, we do not accept Buddha in the Dasavatara. Nor is He worshippable. Since Srimad Bhagavatam is pramana, we can accept that He was just a soul empowered by Vishnu. Which means, Gautama Siddhartha, after death, may even be subject to transmigration as he was never a devotee of Vishnu (although a partial avatar), and the powers of Vishnu would have been removed from him upon completion of his work. Or he may have attained Moksha/Nirvana, who knows.

So Ramanuja, Madhva, Shridhara Swami and countless others were all using their conditioned minds to interpret scripture, right? Anyways, rest happy deluding yourself. If Prabhupada's rendition is all that you're capable of basing yourself on, I'll only be wasting my time writing anymore here. Ciao

My dear LoveroftheBhagavata,

I am not arguing at all and, I don't want to say to anyone that they are deluding themselves, as you stated.. If I say that Srila Prabhupada's rendition is authoritative it does not mean that other's coming in disciplic succession is not authoritative.

There is no doubt that Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya and Shridhara Swami - All of them are equally authoritative as well because they are in the proper disciplic succession(Evam Parampara Praaptam).

As stated by Krishna:

This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost. - BG 4.2 - http://www.asitis.com/4/2.html ]

Wish you all the best wishes in your spiritual path.

Hare Krishna!

I'm sure you must've heard of what many make of this verse. But hey, I respect your interpretation of shastra and it would be idiotic to initiate an argument over this.

 

Best regards

LoveroftheBhagavata, I do not use my conditioned mind and brain to interpret the shastra because if I do there is no meaning and use of my statements. I'm basing this on Srila Prabhupada's translation.

I'm sure that He is an etenally liberated person and therefore his translation will give the original transcendental meaning..

Sure there is no need to argue. The only need is to try to understand Krishna and His devotees and get engrossed in appreciating their magnificent activities!

Hare Krishna!

Here comes another piece of sectarian propaganda. Jayadeva was not a Vedic rishi, and please excuse if many of us do not take his pronouncements as authoritative.

If you don't accept Jayadeva, no problems. But, surely you do accept Bhagavatam.

So, it's stated in Bhagavatam:

[ tataḥ kalau sampravṛtte

sammohāya sura-dviṣām

buddho nāmnāñjana-sutaḥ

kīkaṭeṣu bhaviṣyati

"Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Añjanā, in the province of Gayā, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist." - SB 1.3.24 - http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/24/en ]

Hare Krishna! Cheers!

JustRish,

To start with I must admit that you are trying to use your intelligence to understand the Creation and also to certain extent whether there is a Supreme Creator or not. This in itself is a great attribue!

True I would be considered a theist if I do believe in God. Just because the definition is different does not make me atheist does it?

 

I like to think of myself as a Buddhist-Jainist-Pantheist so I do alot of blending myself. I also think of myself as a Hindu in a way because much of our inspiriation is taken from Hinduism. Actually we've all influenced each other greatly. In fact, when I lose something or have exams I think of Jalaram Bapa. Don't know how I do that but always manage to think of him and chant his name lol. I know he was probably not a God but a saint.

 

But you are right. Spirituality cannot be forced. But there is no harm in understanding and then may be if I can understand I can accept . I might not and I might. As Buddha said (read the bold bit):

 

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it

.

 

Just the creation part is what I find hard to understand not the whole creation story. Our guru never taught creation part. He just said this planet always existed and always will with some 'scientific explanation'. Now with modern day science we know this is not possible right? So I have to dig deeper than that.

It will be indeed difficult to understand the creation part, considering that we are atomic souls smaller than ten-thousands part of a tip of hair (Keshaagra Shata Bhagasya Shatadha Kalpitasya Cha). But, if try to understand what Krishna has said and accept it then there is no problem. Krishna Himself states in Bhagavad-Gita that everything is emanating from Him (Aham Sarvasya Prabhavah).

Krishna says:

[ Aham Sarvasya Prabhavah Mattah Sarvam Pravartate

Iti Matva Bhajante Maam Budhaa Bhaava Samanvitaha

"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who know this perfectly engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts." - BG 10.8 - http://www.asitis.com/10/8.html]

Hope this helps. Hare Krishna!

Can someone explain, please

Krishna consciousness means being conscious of Krishna, as much as we can. Because Krishna is purely spiritual by being conscious of Him, we can realise our original spiritual nature as a part and parcel of Krishna.

Hare Krishna!

In the passages under discussion, Prabhupada doesn't seem to be referring to the differences you guys are stressing above. His tone was unambiguous - women have got brains half the size of those of men and are usually dumb, unreliable and untrustworthy. Likewise, if a sexual union results in a baby girl, that means that the woman was more dominant that the father, whereas the opposite holds true in the case of a male child.

 

THIS is the garbage that anyone in his right mind would and should not swallow. Or is it that your knowledge of eugenics and behavioural genetics chimes with the foregoing?

Vikram, I understand that you want to look everything in an extremely logical way and reach a conclusion. But, at some point of time it is better to not try and logically understand each and every matter. The reason is that even the human logical thinking has got certain limitations and therefore cannot understand everything.

A person who is absorbed in thinking of Krishna 24/7 has to be respected and each and every statement given by him should be understood in the right spirit of understanding.

If you really want a logical explanation, then science has proved that the cow-dung has got beneficial ingredients only recently where-as, the Vedas have informed this to us in the ancient times itself.

The point is that science takes a lot of time to come to conclusion and prove something which is already there in the Vedas..

Pregnancy is physical. [True] love is spiritual. Similarily, a woman may have a different mindset than a man, but all of us are the same gender (neuter) when it comes to our soul, and it is from our soul that devotion to a specific God/Goddess comes from.

 

As a matter of fact, women are nearly impossible to convert. I tried it with my mother - she's stubborn as a mule. Men, meanwhile, are easier to convert (I myself have bounced back and forth between religions before settling on Hinduism in general). As said before, there are many exceptions.

You are right that we are all originally spirit souls and therefore the gender aspect does not matter. But, if we see even from Krishna's own pastimes in Vrindaavana that the ladies responded to Krishna. The best pastime is the one in which Krishna's friend ask for some food from the Brahmanas, who refuse. But, their wives instantly engage in delivering the food to Krishna and His friends.

I guess, as you mentioned in your comment, there can be exceptions to this rule...

Exactly. They have softer hearts. Bhakti is a "religion" of the pure heart. The intellect can only take us to the point of understanding that we need to give our hearts to Krsna. Also valuable for preaching. But it is not intellegent to give more importance to intelligence than the heart.

 

The purifed heart must rule the head or one becomes a dry academic or the proverbial Nowhere Man from Yellowsubmarine.

 

 

You are right Thesit Ji. Just dry intellect without love can never help a person in involving in devotional service to Krishna.

Organization doesn't require a rigid hierarchy of privilige and position.

My experience is the minds of those participating are more caught with their positional qualifications than achieving the humilty of equal vision.

Only if the community needs military action is such a hierarchy needed.

To always gravitate toward militancy reveals a pathological mindset.

What you said is a drawback which a hierarchical structure could bring. Of course, the process of spreading Krishna consciousness is a battle against external energy of Krishna and therefore a subtle military action for sure. The advantage being that the weapon used here is Krishna's instructions and Krishna's Holy Names.

At least the Christians and other mainstream religions acknoweldge 'welcoming the stranger' as a basic principle. In fact with Jesus in went beyond that to 'love your enemy'.

Whether I have that realization is not the point. The point is how can a hierarchical religious system ever bring one to that point of equal vision.

Hierarchy is needed if an institution has to get something done. Otherwise there tends to be quite a lot of chaos and confusion. But, it should not be a hindrance to equal vision because the hierarchy is only in relation to the temporary body. In terms of the spirit-soul there is only rendering pure love for Krishna.

do you have that vision now?

 

the way I see it, first the hierarchy is created out of the chaos of material designations in order to bring us to the mode of goodnes consciousness and activities. only then a properly purified person can eventually come to this ultimate realization.

Very well said Kulapavana Ji. It is a process of first going to the mode of Goodness by following all the rules and regulations of the Varnaashrama Dharma and then with the Grace and Mercy of Krishna and Guru transcending even the mode of Goodness to reach the level of Pure Devotional service.

Spot on. It is flabbergasting indeed to see a female resorting to such uninformed, backward reasoning in 2007. Prabhupada was quoting Vishnugupta (Kautilya for the Western academic practitioners) when he made those outrageous comments. Whilst the latter may have been a formidable political advisor and remarkable scholar, his views reflected the social mores and attitudes of his own era, i.e. the 4th century BCE. We now know from thousands upon thousands of research experiments conducted in the 20th century that there is no difference in the overall intelligence level of men and women really. If a discrepancy does exist between male and female faculties, it is concerning the development of the regions of the brain which tend to be geared towards different abilities and skills. Hence, one finds that, generally, guys do better in the fields requiring abstract and mathematical skills, whereas ladies often possess striking superiority in language and the humanities. Of course, as always, there are many, many exceptions to this rule of thumb.

Ok there may be many exceptions -- Agreed! But give an example of a man who becomes pregnant? Just like the physicalities of man and woman differ, similarly the mentalities would also differ. What is the difficulty in understanding this?

In fact, the mentality of woman is in some cases more favourable for devotional service because majority of women tend to be simple and can accept the simple Absolute Truth, As It Is.