ranjeetmore Posted April 13, 2009 Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 In the Brahma Vaivarta Purana (Krishna-Janma-Khanda, 118.35) : “I am Mahalakshmi in Vaikuntha, Srimati Radha in Goloka, Shivaa [connected with Shiva] in the region of Shiva, and Sarasvati in the abode of god Brahma.” This is like Nrsimha stating He is Krsna,He is Ramacandra,etc. When the expansion rightfully declares His Being as indifferent from the Lord.Bhagavati Durga(subhadra for the gaudiyas) is speaking in such a fashion. It is very important to understand that Durgadevi,the Spiritual potency,is known as Yogamaya.She is called as Subhadra in the Jagannatha pastimes and Her shadow(durga) is known as mahamaya. If you worship and glorify Sri Balarama,some other devotee can glorify this Durga of Vaikuntha. *** “Please hear, O Narada, and I will tell you the meaning of these mantras. The material world is manifested by the Lord’s maya potency and other external potencies. The spiritual world is manifested by the Lord’s chit potency and other internal and everlasting spiritual potencies. The protector of these potencies is said to be the gopi Sri Radha, who is Lord Krishna’s beloved. The transcendental goddess Sri Radha is the direct counterpart of Lord Sri Krishna. She is the central figure for all the goddesses of fortune. She is the pleasure potency of Lord Krishna. The wise say that She is the pleasure potency of Lord Krishna. Durga and the other goddesses in the world of the three modes are a million-millionth part of one of Her expansions. She is directly Goddess Maha-Lakshmi and Lord Krishna is Lord Narayana. O best of sages, there is not the slightest difference between Them. O best of sages, what more can I say? Nothing can exist without them. This universe made of spirit and matter together is Their potency. She is Durga and Lord Hari is Shiva. Lord Krishna is Indra and She is Shachi. She is Savitri and Lord Hari is Brahma. She is Dhumorna and Lord Hari is Yama. O Narada, please know that everything is Their potency. Even if I had many hundreds of years, I could not describe all Their glories.” --- sanath kumara sanghita. I wanted to post this last part,otherwise I would,by default,be termed as a pashandi,or a tantrik. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindustani Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 No idea where Shri Sonic Yogi gone when I asked him for vedic references. Now let me quote some reference for him as he is not available to comments.As he is from USA visible from his profiles I am giving reference in English so he can digest easily. Indra form of Shiva is also called the friend of the Munis (VIII.17.14), to Indra the Cosmic Lord (Rig Veda.VIII.87.2, Rig Veda.II.22.1), and Indra the father or mother and who grants bliss (Rig Veda.VIII.87.11). These relate to the Powerful Form of Shiva as Ishvara, who has the Supreme Yogic Power to take us to the ‘Great Beyond’ Soma or the Ananda, Sattva and Sahasrara form of Shiva is known as Sadashiva (Vishnu) or Parashiva in Agamic texts. He is the Supreme Source and origin of all, and thus personifies the Highest Abode of Shivasvarga (Shiva Heaven) in the Sahasrarapadma Chakra (Chakra with a Lotus of a thousand petals) or Soma Chakra. ---------------------- One needed clarification:- I shall never commit a sin by comparing who is the God,when shashtra says Shri Shiva constantly worship Shri Narayana(same goes for Shri Narayana),I would have never jumped here but I felt to comment to shri sonic yogi's challenge so posting above references.For me Shri Shiva and Shri Narayana both are Same.One should never involve in judging business else cycle of rebirth will never end for him or her hence If you have any plan to libarate yourself from this vitious cycle stop claiming one is inferior and one is superior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted April 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 i repeat my point but i want to say that god is only impersonal brahman according to shakt and shaiv texts EXAMPLE: shivling is attributeless and nirguna form of god as written in shiva puraan. he is known as shiv/sadahshiv and is not rudradev rudra dev is only a part of him as according to the puraan even devi bhagwat says about god being formless atrribute less they just call her shakti AND MAA kali is a small form of that shakti just like lakshmi and vaishnav philosophy says that krishna is basis of that brahman aint i right? krishna is not subservient to that brahman so their is a big difference Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajasanthi Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 That is not authentic Vedic shastra.It is Gaudapada's unauthorized commentary. Anybody can come along and make a comment in Sanskrit, but that does make make it Vedic or in accord with the Vedic siddhanta. There is no reason to even accept that Gaudapada was self-realized. His comments clearly show that he did not understand Vedic siddhanta. Ultimately, Gaudapada cannot be accepted as a bona fide commenter on Vedic shastra. Gaudapada was a fraud. Its not abt accepting or rejecting.Who knows abt the past and who knows abt the future.we cannot search for a proof all times.we have think ourselves.no one can make the other enlightened.its all with in u...One should have no limits and should be free.Religion cannot bring peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Its not abt accepting or rejecting.Who knows abt the past and who knows abt the future.we cannot search for a proof all times.we have think ourselves.no one can make the other enlightened.its all with in u...One should have no limits and should be free.Religion cannot bring peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Ever wonder about what real "psycho-babble" sounds like [unlike keiserose's crying out for mercy-rants]: Originally Posted by rajasanthi Its not abt accepting or rejecting. [iT IS WRITTEN: the function of the Mind, is to accept & reject. Did you know that?] Who knows abt the past and [usually arrest warrants are in affect in-perpetuity --unless you are referring to angry 'grudges'. Also, many institutions keep copious records!] who knows abt the future. [wear clean underwear? And Scrape your tongue et al?] we cannot search for a proof all times. [so the Universities are now cost-free?] we have to think ourselves. [so we don't need Lawyers? Nor Firemen?] no one can make the other enlightened. [that's what I said to the Court Judge & the traffic Policeman] its all with in u... [That's what I said at the Job Interview . . . !] One should have no limits [except if you're unconsenting/underaged?] and should be free. [to roam the Indian Ocean with kalishnikovs?] Religion cannot bring peace. [Ah, now I see --what brings this guy peace would be illegal in muslem countries. Those mexican Cartels! When will they quit their religious practices and thus bring peace to that old fashion way of selling drugs, before they were illegal?] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted April 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 repeat my point but i want to say that god is only impersonal brahman according to shakt and shaiv texts EXAMPLE: shivling is attributeless and nirguna form of god as written in shiva puraan. he is known as shiv/sadahshiv and is not rudradev rudra dev is only a part of him as according to the puraan even devi bhagwat says about god being formless atrribute less they just call her shakti AND MAA kali is a small form of that shakti just like lakshmi and vaishnav philosophy says that krishna is basis of that brahman aint i right? krishna is not subservient to that brahman so their is a big difference Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindustani Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 If you really love God Sant start with neutral views for all living creatures,in long run you will develop respect for all sampradays.To curse any thoughts or sampradaya is also a sin in my opinion.Do we have such time to discuss on such things,do we know when we shall say bye bye to this material world?May God Krishna blesses us. and vaishnav philosophy says that krishna is basis of that brahman aint i right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasingh Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 repeat my point but i want to say that god is only impersonal brahman according to shakt and shaiv texts EXAMPLE: shivling is attributeless and nirguna form of god as written in shiva puraan. he is known as shiv/sadahshiv and is not rudradev rudra dev is only a part of him as according to the puraan even devi bhagwat says about god being formless atrribute less they just call her shakti AND MAA kali is a small form of that shakti just like lakshmi and vaishnav philosophy says that krishna is basis of that brahman aint i right? krishna is not subservient to that brahman so their is a big difference Is shiva linga attributeless? The name indicates attributes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted April 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Wel its a form to represent the formles nature of god. have you heard about brahmakumaris they are rajayog folowers they believe in this and they are a big example they dont worship bhole baba in particular but the formles shiva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Wel its a form to represent the formles nature of god. have you heard about brahmakumaris they are rajayog folowers they believe in this and they are a big example they dont worship bhole baba in particular but the formles shiva You keep saying that God (Deva in Sanskrit) is said in shastra to be formless. How can God or Deva be formless? The very conception of God or Deva implies personality, form and character. Shastra does not say that God is formless. That is your misunderstanding. Brahman does not mean "God". Deva means God. Brahman means spiritual. Shastra never says that Deva is formless because that would be a contradiction. The form of God is Brahman. It is spiritual form. Brahman means spiritual or transcendental. The form, name and qualities of God (Krishna or Vishnu) are Brahman - they are spiritual. The formless Brahman is but the light that shines from the form of God Krishna. God shines in magnificent glory and that shining light of the form of God is the formless aspect of God. But, beyond the formless light of Brahman is the form of Brahman which is the body of God Krishna or Vishnu they are the same person in different form. This is what Sri Chaitanya Maharaja and the Gaudiya acharyas all teach and is supported in Vedic shastra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted April 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 I Mean Brahman Only But There Are Many People Worshpping As Shiva The Formless Parmatma Take An Example Read Ab\out Brahmakumaris - Very Big Organisation Take The Example Of Baba Avdhoot Shivanand See His Website Or Watch Him On Tv Shivling Says That Parmatma Is Formless And I Think They Refer To The Breahman Of Krsihna Which Is Atributeless And So You Can Call Him By Any Name Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 I Mean Brahman Only But There Are Many People Worshpping As Shiva The Formless Parmatma Take An Example Read Ab\out Brahmakumaris - Very Big Organisation Take The Example Of Baba Avdhoot Shivanand See His Website Or Watch Him On Tv Shivling Says That Parmatma Is Formless And I Think They Refer To The Breahman Of Krsihna Which Is Atributeless And So You Can Call Him By Any Name Yes, we know about all those things. We know quite well the Mayavada philosophy of formless Brahman as the supreme reality. Gaudiyas are not ignorant of what the Mayavada impersonalists believe. We are well educated to the philosophy of jnana and yoga. Gaudiyas have no interest in this sayujya mukti so much aspired for by the jnani followers of Shiva. There are 5 kinds of moksha. The sayujya mukti of impersonal realization is the lowest form of mukti and the Vaishnavas have no interest in it. The only mukti that the Vaishnava aspires for is Krishna bhakti. Krishna bhakti is the highest kind of mukti and that is the goal of the Gaudiya Vaishnava. Sure, a successful jnani can merge into oneness of suyjya mukti and attain Brahma-bhuta platform, but beyond that is Krishna bhakti and the highest kind of liberation into the spiritual Vaikuntha world where there is eternal, blissfull life of Krishna-lila. There is no lila of beautiful forms and pastimes in the impersonal liberation. The Vaishnavas prefer the lila of Krishna over the spiritual suicide of merging into oneness of Brahman. What enjoyment is there by losing the sense of individual existence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted April 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Its Their Wish And That Is Why Krisna Conscious Is So Rare Besides Being In The Knowledge Of Brahman Is Great Blisss InITSELFThat Is Why They Are There When One Realises The Brahman There Is Extreme Bliss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jinglebells Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 It's obvious that Brahman is formless, both logically and from the standpoint of scriptures. Imagine Brahman being a blue-skinned boy playing the flute and running around with girls! This is more like a Hindi movie... Scriptures also confirm this, in fact, nowhere do they talk of form except while describing Brahman in positive terms so that mediocre minds can understand. Otherwise, it's always been Nirguna Brahman they talk about. Even the concept of a God with form creating a world filled with insects, rats etc. etc. seem abhorrent, such an idea is an insult to God! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted April 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 JINGLE BELLS LOOKS LIKE YOUVE NEVER HEARD OF SAGUNA BRAHM GO AND DO SOME STUDY YOURSELF Quote: <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0> Even the concept of a God with form creating a world filled with insects, rats etc. etc. seem abhorrent, such an idea is an insult to God! </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->PLAESE TALK FROM SCRIPTURES HOW AM I INSULTING GOD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted April 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Please Edit Your Post If People Like Bhakt Jan Will Read It Here He Might Become Unwell Laughing At Your Foolishness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Even the concept of a God with form creating a world filled with insects, rats etc. etc. seem abhorrent, such an idea is an insult to God! But the concept of a God without form creating insects and rats is not abhorrent? Why is it abhorrent if personal god with form creates miserable conditions and life forms, but you think it is not abhorrent if the impersonal god creates it? Obviously, you are blurting out ignorant statements without thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jinglebells Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 But the concept of a God without form creating insects and rats is not abhorrent?Why is it abhorrent if personal god with form creates miserable conditions and life forms, but you think it is not abhorrent if the impersonal god creates it? That's the beauty of the Impersonal - there's no creation at all. The whole thing is just an illusion, and like all illusions, there's good, bad, and ugly. Whereas, in personal god stuff, god meticulously creates tapeworms and all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted April 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Hey nobody is denying the impersonal aspect of god Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Again with the old "Classic Tape-Worm" argument? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 That's the beauty of the Impersonal - there's no creation at all. The whole thing is just an illusion, and like all illusions, there's good, bad, and ugly. Whereas, in personal god stuff, god meticulously creates tapeworms and all that. Even if it is an illusion, it is a real illusion otherwise it would be nothing instead of an illusion. The concept of an illusion also necessitates that there is a reality that the illusion is a false representation of. If everything is an illusion, then there would be no embodied people like you setting around flapping their jaws that the whole world we perceive doesn't really exist. Even illusions are real illusions, otherwise there would be no illusion to speak of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 It's obvious that Brahman is formless, both logically and from the standpoint of scriptures. Imagine Brahman being a blue-skinned boy playing the flute and running around with girls! This is more like a Hindi movie... Scriptures also confirm this, in fact, nowhere do they talk of form except while describing Brahman in positive terms so that mediocre minds can understand. Otherwise, it's always been Nirguna Brahman they talk about. Even the concept of a God with form creating a world filled with insects, rats etc. etc. seem abhorrent, such an idea is an insult to God! Well,the vedas state,"Dve vava brahmano rupe murtancaiva amurtanca." Brahm has two simultaneous manifestations : Saguna brahm as well as the formless brahm drava. Shankaracharya states that ,"Sri Narayana is BEYOND the material manifestation in its totality." i.e. this Person,Narayana is beyond maya. from above,it is understood that Sri Krsna is the saguna brahm,who is incessantly described in the vedas. The upanishads state His qualities,(satyakaamah,satyasankalpa) and so do the puranas(Bhagavatam describes how Satyakaamah is the quality of the unborn Supreme Lord.) So also,Sri Shankaracharya explains that Brahm has a sarira(form) as well as is formless.He further states that the Saguna Brahm manifests Satya kaamah and satya sankalpa whereas the Nirguna brahm manifests absolutely no energy at all. But since the sastras talk about the multitude of energies of Brahm and Their workings,Sri Krsna is understood to be the One addressed and not nirguna Brahm.===> conclusion. This,according to the siddhanta of Sri Shankaracharya(that Nirguna Brahm does not manifest kriya sakti and thus performs no work,no attributes,etc),is a LOGICAL conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Paräsya çaktir vividhaiva çrüyate ... sva-bhäviki,jnana,bala kriya ca. (Çvetäçvatara Upaniñad 6.8) SVABHAVIKI means 'BY NATURE/svabhava'. These energies are further explained in Vishnu purana. There should be no doubt whatsoever that these three energies: Sandhini,samvit and Hladini are endorsed time and again by the vedas and confirmed by sastras like Srimad- Bhagavatam.It is in fact the Advaita doctrine that has no support whatsoever,sastric or LOGICAL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.