Pankaja_Dasa 1 Report post Posted February 20, 2006 Shankracaharya preached Mayavada for Proud Brahmins. And Buddists. Who were not respecting the REAL Bhagavatas [devotees of the time]. There by getting them on a path appropriate for their consciousness. It was Krsna mercy that Shankracharya was sent otherwise Bhagavad-bhakti would have been lost. They were saved from thier offences in this way. Later Madhvacharya came at a potent time and sucessfully preached against and converted many to Vaishnavsium. Except his own Guru who was the leader of the Mayavadis. This is the general history as many know it. Shankracharaya is non other than Shiva. Shambu. Lord Shiva. Who was doing it because Krishna asked Him to. It was one of the most profound instances in history where a philosophy was preached to save Bhagavad-Bhakti. ALthough many still hold on to Mayavada even today. Many are seeing the light of day [parden the pun] In Bhagavad-dharma. We can only conclude that the material desire to become one with God is not really an option in this age. [impersonal liberation]. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 20, 2006 What are you basing your convictions on? Scriptures? Islam, Christianity and so many other religions have devotees who quote scriptures from their religions to disprove others. If that's your only source of conviction, it's a weak foundation indeed. On the other hand, there are those who have directly experienced the Self and have described the process to get there, the experiences along the path as well as illuminating the many different levels of awareness that lie in the path. And that's what it really is all about, that's where the difference lies, those who worship God with form have a different level of awareness than those who do not and have a "mayavadi" outlook. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pankaja_Dasa 1 Report post Posted February 20, 2006 Worship Him in Gita. ANd that is what Vaishnava says. I don't know what other realized or not. And who can say even if they are telling the truth or not? Only in Gaudiya Vaishnava can you find complete wholesale knowledge. Nobody can deny it! It is best. www.vedabase.net Why don't you read some of these books with a calm mind,, then surely you can say that we have a monopoly! But really joking away this is truly great what we have. I don't want to complicate it for anybody. But you just need to read it. Mahaprabhu talking with Mayavadi head of. The Mayavadi SANNYASI [THEY WERE ALL SANNYASI]. Took Mahaprabhu by the hand and they talked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 20, 2006 Sorry, but I believe many are authentic. Whether they claim themselves as God or not, is irrelevant, it's the experience that matters, the interpretation is inadequate to capture the experience. There are different levels of consciousness and different interpretations for those levels, resulting in a number of different philosophies and religions. But the Truth can be found inside each and everyone and scripture doesn't provide ultimate authority for anything, because it is open to interpretation. There are tons of scriptures floating around espousing one philosophy over another, contradicting others, etc. You may say that one must look at a scripture with a rational mind and see whether it is telling the Truth or not, but every scripture has been observed by rational minds and found its proponents and detractors. It's like looking at everything through an orange lens: the whole world becomes orange in color, when we clearly know this is not true. That's not to say I don't believe in God, or that we are parcels of God, and God Himself is Supreme. I truly believe that. However, I do not believe following scripture will lead us to enlightenment anytime soon. Nor am I at all convinced that Krishna incarnated on this Earth and did those amazing feats that are described in the Bhagavat Purana. However, I do think that God is Krishna, Rama, Allah or whatever to whomever He appears as to the devotee. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pankaja_Dasa 1 Report post Posted February 20, 2006 We don't really know anything to tell you the truth. So best thing to do is goto somebody who does. I find this in Prabhupada. He has given so much. Whether we believe or not we should read His Books and see for ourselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 23, 2006 You are going after material desire to become one with god, like how a 'doosri radha' requires a makeup and saree playing down his god given male form, to become one with krishna. I think these are good things to keep trying and make your point in busy streets of india. A 'Doosri radha' like demonstration of bakthy has a rebel like nature in it by not accepting his own sex. All bakthy movements in india represent a social scenario at that time. Bakthy movements evolve from the feeling of being oppressed and victimised by a so-called powerful. Bakthy movements thrive on the fact that this oppression is not going to last, and one day God is going to come to level scores. A person refusing to feel oppressed or victimised and not buying-into the stories such as god will come one day in future, is considered athiest. That god and the following is later made into a religion, a following, a way of life. But the point to note is it was good for that time to overcome the oppression and give courage to people to stand up to it. Once that specific nature of oppression is gone, there is no need for that type of god and that exact type of following to continue. I mean, it becomes dated. Spiritualism in sanatana dharma or advaitha is not from a social movement. It's more at an individual level for an experience to happen. It offers knowledge and removes the ignorance in one. So there is no evaluation or proof points of to favour if gaudya is better than madhawa, or jain better or islam better, etc... Also there is no story that a god is 'going to come' and 'then the world will see our point'. There is no situation of 'why' say 'krishna told shiva' so and so etc. Sanatana dharma is based on spirituality. the focus is on -The moment of truth, that is 'now'. -It doesn't live in the 'going to' stories or the 'reasons' which fit well to answer for a 'why' regarding gods. -It's believe in surrender, bakthy but through service/actions as explained in BG. - It provides an understanding of good vs bad karma as explained in BG. And focus on how to act now. -Vaishnavism is loads of bakthy with zero actions, zero understanding of goodvs.bad karma, full of show/drama, material greed & gossip. -Sanatana dharma tricked vaishnavism to own BG as their own, for the upliftment of vaishnavite thinking. This is certainly good. Else we'ld have loads of 'dhoosri radhas' on the streets and what competing in skin show etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pankaja_Dasa 1 Report post Posted February 23, 2006 Surrender as mentioned in Gita is the first step. Not the final instruction. Bhakti begins from the point of Surrender not the other way around. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted February 25, 2006 If you stray a jot away from what's said in BG, then I am tempted to ask the question. How surrender without service different from the experience of masturbation. Here is a tip for you from BG. Surrender is - action of service - when not in action or in action, surrender is about dis-associating with the credits/results of actions as performed by your body. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
