Question:What is the difference between thinking one is a soul and acting as a soul?

[krsna 3]

Bg 5.2 Purport:

Therefore, jïäna (or knowledge that one is not this material body but spirit soul) is not sufficient for liberation. One has to act in the status of spirit soul, otherwise there is no escape from material bondage. Action in Kåñëa consciousness is not, however, action on the fruitive platform. Activities performed in full knowledge strengthen one's advancement in real knowledge. Without Kåñëa consciousness, mere renunciation of fruitive activities does not actually purify the heart of a conditioned soul. As long as the heart is not purified, one has to work on the fruitive platform. But action in Kåñëa consciousness automatically helps one escape the result of fruitive action so that one need not descend to the material platform. Therefore action in Kåñëa consciousness is always superior to renunciation, which always entails a risk of falling. Renunciation without Kåñëa consciousness is incomplete, as is confirmed by Çréla Rüpa Gosvämé in his Bhakti-rasämåta-sindhu (1.2.258):

präpaïcikatayä buddhyä

hari-sambandhi-vastunaù

mumukñubhiù parityägo

vairägyaà phalgu kathyate

"When persons eager to achieve liberation renounce things related to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, thinking them to be material, their renunciation is called incomplete." Renunciation is complete when it is in the knowledge that everything in existence belongs to the Lord and that no one should claim proprietorship over anything. One should understand that, factually, nothing belongs to anyone. Then where is the question of renunciation? One who knows that everything is Kåñëa's property is always situated in renunciation. Since everything belongs to Kåñëa, everything should be employed in the service of Kåñëa. This perfect form of action in Kåñëa consciousness is far better than any amount of artificial renunciation by a sannyäsé of the Mäyävädé school.

[Sarva gattah 0]

For the benifit of simple souls like myself, please spell Krishna as KRISHNA or KRSNA. They are the two ways Prabhupada spelt Gods name. Keep it simple. Also visitors can easily read KRISHNA.

 

We are not sanskrit expert jnani's, in fact even those LEARNED devotees should spell KRISHNA in a simple way for the benifit of everyone, meaning the way Srila Prabhupada spelt His name in English in his books!

 

 

 

 

KRISHNA

 

[Beggar 0]

Kåñëa? Isn't this a technical problem that occurs when one copies a text but doesn't have the proper fonts on their computer?

[Sarva gattah 0]

Thats a good point, where ever you go over the web KRISHNA'S name is spelt in that annoying way, even if it is done purposely by Scholars and jnani devotee, please Stop it fix the problem. KRISHNA'S NAME IS KRISHNA

[Shakti-Fan 0]

http://allaboutradha.com/

 

KANA - The name Kana is an intimate name for Lord Krishna in the Vedic literature. Thakra Bhaktivinoda says, "O Kana, please hear me! O lord of Radha, You are my life and soul! Also kana - small, a name for Krishna when He was a small boy.

Also from this site:

 

 

 

 

This shows that these brief declaratory statements called yihudim were (and among the Hasidim and the tradition-bound Sephardi and Oriental Jews still are) recited many times a daily, and thus indicate that the Shekhina, and feminine aspect (or "person") of the Godhead was (and is) a living reality in the belief system of considerable contingents of the Jewish people.

[theist 1]

 

Kåñëa? Isn't this a technical problem that occurs when one copies a text but doesn't have the proper fonts on their computer?

 

Yes it is the Balarama font. The vedabase does this to all sanskrit words. A real pain in the ass as far as I am concerned.

 

To resolve this problem use the Balarama font converter @ http://www.bvml.org/books/fonts/convertor.html

 

Only takes a second and it restores the text to a readable form.

 

It was created by Madhvananda and brought to us by Bhaktivedanta Memorial Library and I am very grateful to both for having made this accessable.

[Sarva gattah 0]

Thank you Theist. Although for the seeker of truth seaching all over the web, wouldn't it be best for the Vedabase to correct this so EVERYONE has the chance to say KRISHNA

 

Wouldn't it be best for Madhvananda to change it back to KRISHNA or KRSNA and let scholars and devotees use the 'font' to access the Sanskrit? The other way round?

[theist 1]

 

Thank you Theist. Although for the seeker of truth seaching all over the web, wouldn't it be best for the Vedabase to correct this so EVERYONE has the chance to say KRISHNA

 

Wouldn't it be best for Madhvananda to change it back to KRISHNA or KRSNA and let scholars and devotees use the 'font' to access the Sanskrit? The other way round?

 

Yes makes sense to me. I used to have to go through anything I posted from vedabase to change Kanea back to Krsna or Krishna along with so many other words and names. It was really a pain. Madhavanada offered a solution to the fact that they won't change it.

[gHari 0]

Another solution is to convert Folio texts to the Harvard-kyoto convention. People without Balarama font can also read it then. The attached file contains a program I developed years ago to do it automatically. It's been working fine since Windows 95 ten years ago. The zip file also contains a version that could handle non-Vedabase Folio texts.

 

In ten seconds any quote any size transforms into Harvard-kyoto. FROM THIS:

When Kåñëa says, man-manä bhava mad-bhakto mad-yäjé mäà namaskuru [bg. 18.65], etc., we, unlike the so-called scholars, do not say that Kåñëa and His inner spirit are different. Kåñëa is absolute, and there is no difference between Kåñëa’s name, Kåñëa’s form, Kåñëa’s qualities, Kåñëa’s pastimes, etc. This absolute position of Kåñëa is difficult to understand for any person who is not a devotee of Kåñëa in the system of paramparä (disciplic succession). Generally the so-called scholars, politicians, philosophers, and svämés, without perfect knowledge of Kåñëa, try to banish or kill Kåñëa when writing commentary on Bhagavad-gétä.

 

TO THIS:

When KRSNa says, man-manA bhava mad-bhakto mad-yAjI mAM namaskuru [bg. 18.65], etc., we, unlike the so-called scholars, do not say that KRSNa and His inner spirit are different. KRSNa is absolute, and there is no difference between KRSNa's name, KRSNa's form, KRSNa's qualities, KRSNa's pastimes, etc. This absolute position of KRSNa is difficult to understand for any person who is not a devotee of KRSNa in the system of paramparA (disciplic succession). Generally the so-called scholars, politicians, philosophers, and svAmIs, without perfect knowledge of KRSNa, try to banish or kill KRSNa when writing commentary on Bhagavad-gItA.

 

Below column "A" represents the diacritic and column "B" is Harvard-kyoto

h-k.zip

[krsna 3]

gHari thank you so much for helping all the assembvled devotees in cyber loka!!!

 

Hari bol