The blessed Vishnu said: "I salute Mahadeva. Salutations to Thee.

[Guest guest]

"but only vaishnavam (gita) showed me divine path & gave me "peace of mind". Moreover my community deity is "Lord Venkateswara". i am happy with dear god balaji."

 

Gita is not a Vaishnava text. Gita, in case you have not read and digested thoroughly, is a culling of the Upanishadic thoughts. It is neither Vaishnavite nor Shaivite.

 

"Sarvopanishado Gaavo Dogdhaa Gopaalanandanah"

 

Krishna stands up and teaches Arjuna because Krishna, as a realized soul, knows the Upanishadic statement, "Aham Brahmaasmi".

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

I don't want to embarres you but-

 

 

Padma-Purana

 

mayavadam asac-chastram

pracchannam bauddham ucyate

mayaaiva vihitam devi

kalau brahmana-murtina

 

In answer to a question by Umadevi (Parvati), Mahadeva explains "O Devi! Mayavada is an impure sastra. Although actually covered Buddhism, it has gained entry into the religion of the Aryans, disguised as Vedic conclusions. In the Kali-yuga, I shall appear in the guise of a brahmana and preach this Mayavada philosophy."

 

Uttara-khanda (46.6)

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

Gita is not a Vaishnava text. Gita, in case you have not read and digested thoroughly, is a culling of the Upanishadic thoughts. It is neither Vaishnavite nor Shaivite.

 

 

 

 

 

Krishna stands up and teaches Arjuna because Krishna, as a realized soul, knows the Upanishadic statement, "Aham Brahmaasmi".

 

 

Aham Bramasmi means I am spirit. This is another concoction of the mayavadi. Krishna NEVER says this in GITA. In fact Krishna ordered Lord Shiva to preach this false doctrine to people like you can avoid Krishna. Krishna didn't like people approching Him with a poluted Bhakti-yoga mentality. Hence Mayavadi. Your doing the greatest disservice to Bhakti-yoga and Vaishnavas, by preaching your false doctrine. You cannot support any of your claims except 4 verses from the Vedas. And with that misrepresent the true path.

[Guest guest]

"Aham Bramasmi means I am spirit. This is another concoction of the mayavadi. Krishna NEVER says this in GITA. In fact Krishna ordered Lord Shiva to preach this false doctrine to people like you can avoid Krishna. Krishna didn't like people approching Him with a poluted Bhakti-yoga mentality. Hence Mayavadi. Your doing the greatest disservice to Bhakti-yoga and Vaishnavas, by preaching your false doctrine. You cannot support any of your claims except 4 verses from the Vedas. And with that misrepresent the true path."

 

So, are you stating that (a) Upanishads are false, and, (b) there is a conspiracy between Shiva and Krishna to twist the truth around so that people will be deliberately misled? Where is this mythological story taken from?

 

My good Sir, has it occurred to you that there could be illogic in your statements?

 

'Aham Brahmaasmi', like the other great statements such as "Thath Thvam Asi" is called Mahaavaakya. If you say that Vaishnavites do not accept Shruthi (Vedas including Upanishads), then you do make sense.

 

[Guest guest]

May be a fool like you should resist from talking about Shruti in the first place.

 

By the way you write, it is amply clear that you are not qualified to understand Sruti.

[Guest guest]

"Gita is not a Vaishnava text."

 

bhagavad gita.. the song of bhagavan... who's bhagavan if not vishnu?

 

who's in the arjuna's chariot instructing him?

[Guest guest]

one that's going to lead everybody nowhere. krishna is the supreme personality of godhead. what better way to convey oneself? through an avataar. i think many people get confused between who the 'supreme one' is simply because of the fact that krishna gave such a lecture. big personalities like prabhupada use all sorts of dry logic to debate their point. ive even read him putting percentile classifications on which deity has the most supreme qualities. why do people argue over such things? you can never prove it, and what if you do? you are deriding a god to a smaller place in your mind. it is like saying you are better then that god because your god is the supreme and you are his follower. it's foolishness. doesnt the gita teach us that fools speculate over such matters? and that there is only one from where all such deities eminate? come destruction, im sure shiva will have much greater significance then vishnu, because that is his role. but for the maintenance of the universe, it is vishnu's job. and we can't speculate as to who is greater, they are equal.

[Guest guest]

i do not join such debates "shiva vs vishnu" because they are in my position useless.. i have only a culture of the absolute by scriptures, i read what there's written but i do not have experience.. I respect the siddhanta of my spiritual master and, personally, i can make long discussions only on matters that i also experience and not only theorize

 

but you were asking is gita is a vaishnava text... and because gita is written by krsna/vishnu (they're the same person, the distinction source - avatara is only technical) who says "surrender to me.." the logic says that gita is a vaishnava text..

 

big personalities are big because they're better than us who are little.. so to suspect that prabhupada classificates deities to instillate derision in the readers is a gross way to use the intelligence, it is trying to understand the big mind of big personalities with our small and envious mind...

 

religion is love and consciousness, and consciousness is also culture, tecnique, so it is right to go in details in vedic literature to know who is the supreme, obviously if this is done to develope enviousness, better to abstain from it..

 

" that there is only one from where all such deities eminate?.." yes... the only one is one of such deities that artificially we want to put at the same level when we say that the impersonal energy is the source of everything

 

that is more envious and offensive than to mistake the role of one personality as supreme or subordinate..

 

the absolute is a complete living being (individual and onmipervadent simultaneously) with features and powers.. all features, all opulences, all powers, all the possibilities and ways to have relationships, to act, to love, to receive love, to live a complete, eternal, conscious, blissful life........

 

krsna says "surrender to me..." not "let us surrender to brahman.."

 

Krsna is not envious or eager to gain popolarity or disciples, krsna says the truth

[Guest guest]

I am sure Muslims are having a jolly good time, watchinng the hindus fight over trifles when their country is burning, sankaracharya in jail, modi denied visa, hindus killed in NE and Kashmir and so on and so forth. Well done, Hindus. You will never learn from history.

[Guest guest]

******** krsna says "surrender to me..." not "let us surrender to brahman.." **************

 

I do not deny anything of what you say but I add:

 

Lord Krishna also says "Surrender to me and I will give you knowledge". You may please find the verse.

 

 

***** big personalities are big because they're better than us who are little.. so to suspect that prabhupada classificates deities to instillate derision in the readers is a gross way to use the intelligence, ... ***********

 

 

Just compare:

 

Lord, I surrender to you.

 

And

 

Supreme personality of God Head, I surrender to you.

 

 

Do you see the difference? Lord himself would be so much more economical.

 

 

And without meaning offence, I would request you to not use phrases like "is a gross way to use the intelligence".

 

If you feel offended then in advance I say I am sorry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

if you do not understand that such discussions are transcendental and effective for our spiritual benefit you do not understand sanatana dharma

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

'Aham Brahmaasmi', like the other great statements such as "Thath Thvam Asi" is called Mahaavaakya. If you say that Vaishnavites do not accept Shruthi (Vedas including Upanishads), then you do make sense.

 

Aham Brahmaasmi means I am Brahman I do not deny, but it doesn't say anywhere that this means Param brahman, you take it as impersonal, everything is one. We take both sides of the story. You take only one side. You want spiritual Impersonal Liberation, whereas devotees want to Bliss. Vaishnavas accept all texts in the Vedas. You DO NOT accept all the texts. YOU accept 4 Mains texts. AND you REJECT all others. You misrepresent these 4 texts which you call the Maha-vakya. If you don't take everything which it says in the Vedas, and try to produce some doctrine then you will be forever mislead. How can you deny verses like this from the Gita-

 

Bhagavad-gita As It Is 4.6

Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all sentient beings, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form.

 

 

I want to see your accept this verse from the Upanishad. This verse is also in the Mahabharata and countless other reffs can be found IN the Vedas. You are I will say again taking ONE side. And completely rejected the other side.

 

Hare Krishna, I have tried to convince you. I did my job. I don't normally talk to Mayavadis at all, except in forums. I hope you accept what I have said. On Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

Lord, I surrender to you.

And

Supreme personality of God Head, I surrender to you.

Do you see the difference? Lord himself would be so much more economical.

--obviously saying Krsna, or Bhagavan, or Govinda in a prayer ,being direct names of god, spiritual vibrations, is more effective than a philosophical definition. Vaishnavas chant, sing and pray "govinda jaya jaya.. gopala jaya, jaya.." or "hare krsna , hare rama.." and not "supreme personality of godhead.."

But in a philosophical explanation "god" is too generic.. many do not think for example that god is (also) a personality... Supreme personality of Godhead is a complete teologic statement: "Krsna, among the infinite personalities manifested by the supreme absolute, he is the supreme absolute himself.. "

 

We have not to be afraid of philosophy

 

----

 

And without meaning offence, I would request you to not use phrases like "is a gross way to use the intelligence".

--the suspect that a great saint can make theological distinctions to teach sectarism and offensive behaviour is itself a huge offence... and it is very gross, materialistic, not a subtle philosophical opinion.. no doubt.. Of course my phrase begins with a "if". If one's not offensive in such way the insult does not go to him.. so where's the problem?

[Guest guest]

***** so where's the problem? *******

 

No, there is no problem whatsoever to me.

 

A pious lady used to cry daily that a very un pious lady was a neibhour. The un pious lady did not say wrong things for the pious lady but only prayed to Lord : Lord pardon me for my sins.

 

The pious lady went to a bad place after death. The un pious one went to heaven.

[Guest guest]

***** --the suspect that a great saint can make theological distinctions to teach sectarism and offensive behaviour is itself a huge offence... and it is very gross, materialistic, not a subtle philosophical opinion.. no doubt.. Of course my phrase begins with a "if". If one's not offensive in such way the insult does not go to him.. so where's the problem? **********

 

Can anyone explain this? Except the part "so, where's the problem?".

 

Who is suspect? Who is great saint? what is huge offence?

 

 

 

 

I just want to add: intelligence is Lord Indra.

 

[Guest guest]

****** Aham Brahmaasmi means I am Brahman I do not deny, but it doesn't say anywhere that this means Param brahman, **************

 

It's ridiculous that you accept " Aham Brahmaasmi ".

 

 

Friends, he claims he is Brahman.

 

 

 

 

8.3 Aksharam brahma paramam swabhaavo’dhyaatmamuchyate;

Bhootabhaavodbhavakaro visargah karmasamjnitah.

The Blessed Lord said:

 

8.3. Brahman is the Imperishable, the Supreme; His essential nature is called Self-knowledge; the offering (to the gods) which causes existence and manifestation of beings and which also sustains them is called action.

 

 

[Rajashekhar 0]

"Aham Brahmaasmi means I am Brahman I do not deny, but it doesn't say anywhere that this means Param brahman, you take it as impersonal, everything is one. We take ..."

 

My good man: Brahman IS "Para". It is this universe which is visible that is Apara. Although Parabrahman is commonly used nomenclature, everyone that has studied Samskrit knows that the word "Para" is redundant. Other nomenclature used are: Nirguna Brahman (to represent Brahman) or Saguna Brahman (to represent one with attributes). Brahmaa is the creator god. We use Parashiva to denote Brahman and to differentiate that entity from Shiva, which is a Saguna entity.

 

Which 4 texts are you referring to? And how come everyone in this discussion group thinks that he/she knows so much about what I belive in, or know, or whether I am a Hindu or not? Dont make assumptions about me and make a 'fool' of yourselves like the gentleman who is fond of addressing people who disagrees with him as "Dear Fool".

 

Finally, I don't accept anything except the Truth. "Sambhavaami Yuge Yuge" is a grandiose statement made by Badaraayana but not necessarily truth.

 

 

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

If Param Brahman is Nirguna where did Maya come from? You say Brahman has NO qualities, if this is the case [being formless] then Brahman must be a person with Qualities. A great big sky has NO desire, only a person possess desire. Therefore Maya emanates from a Person.

 

[Guest guest]

if you wrote to correct me, you should have read everything

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

You missed out something here.

 

sri-bhagavan uvaca

aksaram brahma paramam

svabhavo 'dhyatmam ucyate

bhuta-bhavodbhava-karo

visargah karma-samjnitah

 

 

 

8.3 Aksharam brahma paramam swabhaavo'dhyaatmamuchyate;

Bhootabhaavodbhavakaro visargah karmasamjnitah.

The Blessed Lord said:

 

8.3. Brahman is the Imperishable, the Supreme; His essential nature is called Self-knowledge; the offering (to the gods) which causes existence and manifestation of beings and which also sustains them is called action.

 

 

This above Translation doesn't even mention the fact Krishna is speaking this verse. It completly takes Him out of the equation. This is your nescience. You forget who is speaking the Gita. You use the Word Supreme, to denote the Soul or Jiva, when the Sansrit verse clearly says..

 

sri-bhagavan uvaca

 

What are you doing reading the Gita? When you don't accept Krishna? Krishna says become my devotee in the Gita. You see everything in Impersonal realisation is based on formlessness. Krishna Himself states in the Gita:

 

Bg.4.6

Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all sentient beings, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form.

 

This is talking about FORM.

 

 

Carefully look at the questions.

 

Bg [Ch.8 Text 1]: Arjuna inquired: O my Lord, O Supreme Person, what is Brahman? What is the self? What are fruitive activities? What is this material manifestation? And what are the demigods? Please explain this to me.

 

Bg [Ch.8 Text 2]: How does this Lord of sacrifice live in the body, and in which part does He live, O Madhusudana? And how can those engaged in devotional service know You at the time of death?

 

Bg [Ch.8 Text 3]: The Supreme Lord said, The indestructible, transcendental living entity is called Brahman, and his eternal nature is called the self. Action pertaining to the development of these material bodies is called karma, or fruitive activities.

 

Bg [Ch.8 Text 4]: Physical nature is known to be endlessly mutable. The universe is the cosmic form of the Supreme Lord, and I am that Lord represented as the Supersoul, dwelling in the heart of every embodied being.

 

Bg [Ch.8 Text 5]: And whoever, at the time of death, quits his body, remembering Me alone, at once attains My nature. Of this there is no doubt.

 

 

 

[Rajashekhar 0]

"If Param Brahman is Nirguna where did Maya come from? You say Brahman has NO qualities, if this is the case [being formless] then Brahman must be a person with Qualities. A great big sky has NO desire, only a person possess desire. Therefore Maya emanates from a Person."

 

First of all, it is not Param Brahma, it is Parabrahma. Small error, pardon me for pointing it out. According to stories, the Maya was created to sustain the universe. Think about it: If everyone became a realized soul, the world would come to an end. Are you not glad that your parents were not realized souls? Because if they were, you and I would not be here exchanging ideas.

 

I don't understand what you are saying here: Brahman has no qualities so Brahman has to be a person with qualities? There is no rhyme or logic to this statement. Please sort out your ideas a little better and explain your dilemma because you are hitting on something important: The birth of the idea of Ishvara.

 

[Guest guest]

******* This above Translation doesn't even mention the fact Krishna is speaking this verse. *******

 

 

You are a child. Every mature person knows who is speaking those lines. One who is Adiyagna is speaking those lines. One who is knower of fields in all fields is speaking the lines. One who is the abode is speaking the lines.

 

 

 

 

Your original point was "Brahman is not Supreme".

 

Now being shown in the verse 8.3 that Lord says "aksaram brahma paramam", you ask "who is speaking it?" Of course Lord Krishna is speaking it. And so I believe "Indestustrible Param Brahman". And Lord himself is That.

 

And he also says that to attain immortality one must know that indivisible being who appears to be divided among beings -- Who is param atma, Who is param purusha, and who is param brahman -- maheswarah.

 

 

13.23 Upadrashtaanumantaa cha bhartaa bhoktaa maheshwarah;

Paramaatmeti chaapyukto dehe’smin purushah parah.

 

 

13.23. The Supreme Soul in this body is also called the spectator, the permitter, the supporter, the enjoyer, the great Lord and the Supreme Self.

 

 

 

Upadrashtaanumantaa cha bhartaa bhoktaa maheshwarah

 

 

You have given translation of 8.3 as below:

 

Bg [Ch.8 Text 3]: The Supreme Lord said, The indestructible, transcendental living entity is called Brahman, and his eternal nature is called the self. Action pertaining to the development of these material bodies is called karma, or fruitive activities

 

 

Your 8.3 translation is wrong. There is no mention of living entity in "Aksharam para Brahman". The living entity is maliciously inserted. And "para" word is translated as transcendental. Everyone knows what is "Aksharam para Brahman". Para is supreme.

 

 

Go ahead and expose more please.

 

 

 

Vasudevayya Namah

Om Namah Sivayya

[Guest guest]

"If everyone became a realized soul, the world would come to an end"

 

the fact that a nation closes the prisons because there's no more criminals and all citizen are free it is a great new

 

material world is a tiny, limited part of the unlimited,infinite spiritual universe

 

 

-

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

If everyone became a realized soul, the world would come to an end. Are you not glad that your parents were not realized souls? Because if they were, you and I would not be here exchanging ideas.

----

 

With statments like this I am wondering if I walked into a Buddist forum. Ok then if we are ALL one like YOU say. Then Your grandad or his grandad became realized and gained Impersonal realisation this means automatically YOU will get it? But I thought we are all one. This means I shouldn't be here. Why am I not merged? If I am God how did I come into Maya? Why would I put myself in Maya? Am I an idoit? Yes I am. .... Mayavadi idiot.

 

Hare Krishna, I want no more do with you guys, I tried my best, but your not talking about Vedic scriptures, you just being offensive to Krishna.

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

You are a child. Every mature person knows who is speaking those lines. One who is Adiyagna is speaking those lines. One who is knower of fields in all fields is speaking the lines. One who is the abode is speaking the lines.

___

 

Who is the speaker of the Gita? Find out who Krishna is.

 

I am sure even your are bored of all your own speculations. All this Brahman this and Brahman that, not very interesting is it?

 

 

By the way you missed out this verse-

 

Bg.8.4

Physical nature is known to be endlessly mutable. The universe is the cosmic form of the Supreme Lord, and I am that Lord represented as the Supersoul, dwelling in the heart of every embodied being.

---

 

 

sri-bhagavan uvaca

***aksaram brahma paramam

svabhavo 'dhyatmam ucyate

bhuta-bhavodbhava-karo

visargah karma-samjnitah

 

Brahman this and Brahman that, like I said are you bored or what? brahman means spiritual, we are one in quality with Krishna, but Krishna is everywhere we are just 1 living entity. We are dfifferent because of this main reason. But Krishna being Supreme has more qualities [Him being Supreme]. Maybe you have a problem with somebody being Supreme? I goto prepare myself to not come here for a while. Hare Krishna