continued...

jijaji · April 12, 2001

Satya says;

"Dear Jijaji, I'm a Doctor and sometimes I have to face some cases like that, where one should make a distinction between both situations, and also I still read some articles on this subject matter, and discuss it with some colleges. It's said that delta waves are suggestive of deep absorption in trance and this is a current analysis nowadays. For certain practical medicine is very different in my country (Brazil) than in yours, and I don't known if quotes from Brazilian books of medicine would satisfy your curiosity. If so, I can post many evidences in Portuguese for you. Even in TV newspapers up here trance is considered as a quotidian information."

What type of Doctor are you?

Where did you study?

Sorry Satya I still do not accept or agree with you and most in the medical community around the world will not as well!

jijaji

shvu · April 12, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As you are aware, Srimad Bhagavatam was written after Vyasa completed the other 17 Puranas and the Brahma-sutras. Srimad Bhagavatam was written as a natural commentary on the Brahma-sutras, and for this reason Vyasa started both with the same verse, janmady asya yathah.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A better answer would be that the Puranas were written in parallel. Because the Bhagavata Purana talks about the Padma Purana and the Padma Purana glorifies the Bhagavata Purana.

I have read that Chaitanya was of the opinion that the Bhagavatam is a natural commentary on the Brahma-sutras. This is not acceptable because,

1. If Vyasa meant it to be so, he would have mentioned that in the Bhagavatam and told people not to bother with the terse Brahma-sutras. But he has done no such thing.

2. When Madhva met Vyasa, Vyasa did not tell him so. Madhva wrote a new Brahma-sutra Bhasya, which is definitely not identical to the Bhagavatam. Madhva had access to the Bhagavatam and yet never stated that it was a natural commentary. He wrote a commentary on the Bhagavatam too.

3. If it was a natural commentary, why did Baladeva take the trouble to write the Govinda Bhasya, instead of sticking to Chaitanya's statement? The reason of course, is that there are certain points of the Brahma-sutras that are not covered in the Bhagavatam.

I believe, this should suffice.

Cheers

shvu · April 12, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If you don't accept the Bhagavatam, you will be troubled by other sastras. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see how, considering that neither Shankara nor Ramanuja spoke about the Bhagavatam. However to clarify, I have not rejected the Bhagavatam, only made it clear that Puranas are not 'Vedic lore'.

Cheers

shvu · April 12, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Vedic refers to a culture, any text belonging to that culture can be called as Vedic according to english grammar.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong again.

Historic view:

The Vedic age refers to the period and culture which is pre-Buddha. i.e, before 500 bc as currently accepted by historians. The Puranic age is post-Jesus, and the Puranas appeared as a retaliation of the Hindus against spreading Buddhism. According to history, there is almost a gap of 800 - 1000 years between the Vedic culture and the first Purana.

Traditional view:

Vedic means the 4 Vedas which are timeless and eternal. As opposed to that the Puranas were composed for the people of Kali-yuga, during the dawn of Kali-yuga. It is meant for all classes of people, and is in the form of explicit stories, thus ruling out the possiblity of the verses having double/triple meanings.

Cheers

April 12, 2001

Dear Jijaji

In my past asrama I was a alopatic doc, and I studied in a Medical College in Brazil, after that residence in Hopsital (more 3 years), and I worked in intensive care for 15 nyears. Also I had an office in general clinics. Now I print books on fakes.

Dear Shvu

For certain we would not expected that you would agree with some of our posts. But we will only discuss with you on upasya-tattva next week. Maybe the astrological time will be better them. This is a question of superstion, you should know that.

April 12, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>(I can expect the socalled 'Mayavada' sh*t coming.... from the 'Cultists'!)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please refrain from using inappropriate language in the forums. The topic of this forum is spirituality. As such certain simple guidlines should be voluntarily followed by participants. The word and context of a sentence doesn't change just because we add an '*' or some other character to replace a letter.

jijaji · April 12, 2001

shvu,

ok....you get a little now as well.

You say you are an ATHIEST and at the same time have interest in Advaita and the saint Ramana Maharshi.

Just to let you know Ramana was not an athiest nor a theist, he was a jnani a GNOCTIC a KNOWER, he knew truth through DIRECT experience.

He was not an AGNOSTIC either...someone who claims athiest belief is as caught as ANY fanatical dogmatic thiest.

If you are sincere in understanding what Ramana was trying to say approach the mood of jnani or gnostic.

Athiests are simply locked in their own dogmatism thinking they are free from religious dogma.

;^)

jijaji

jijaji · April 12, 2001

Satya says;

Dear Jijaji

In my past asrama I was a alopatic doc, and I studied in a Medical College in Brazil, after that residence in Hopsital (more 3 years), and I worked in intensive care for 15 nyears. Also I had an office in general clinics. Now I print books on fakes.

> I am so sorry if I was questioning your profession ji..I'm just doubtful of some of these findings.

> Fake books?

Most religious scriptures have been interpolated ...and some have been fakes yes!

What a horrible thing for someone to go through, following some scripture for years and then finding out it was made up!

The Chaitanya Upanishad is one I am very curious about..was it received and recognized by any other Gaudiya Vaishnav Sampraday at the time Bhaktivinode brought it forth? There is no record of it anywhere before recent history..why?

;^0

jijaji

shvu · April 13, 2001

Hi Satyaraja Dasa,

I disagree with your postion of having the same upAsya-tattva as that of the Madhvas for the following reasons,

The GVs differ from the Madhva Sampradaya in,

1. Considering Vishnu as an extension of Krishna.

2. Differentiating between the avatars of

Vishnu as one being superior than another.

3. Worshipping Radha, who is not considered divine by the Madhva Sampradaya.

4. Worship of Chaitanya as an avatar.

5. A different concept of Moksha.

to name a few. There are lots more, which I have not mentioned.

With this being the situation, how can you claim that the upAsya-tattva is the same? You said the differences are minor. But the differences mentioned above cannot be considered minor and show clear digression from Madhva.

To make it more clear, let us imagine the following situation,

I get formal Diksha from a bonafide Gaudiya Acharya, after which I am part of the Sampradaya. I write a new set of literature and change the Gaudiya philosophy saying that ultimately Atma and Paramatma become one and also abolish the Goloka concept. But I retain worship of the same Murthy that is being worshipped among the Tattva-vadis and the Gaudiyas. According to you, I will have the same upAsya-tattva. Armed with this philosophy, I start a new Sampradaya naming it as Brahma-Chaitanya-Sampradaya.

if you think such a thing is unacceptable, then it follows that your claim is unacceptable too.

Cheers

Jahnava Nitai Das · April 13, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>1. If Vyasa meant it to be so, he would have mentioned that in the Bhagavatam and told people not to bother with the terse Brahma-sutras. But he has done no such thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a speculative point as to what Vyasa would have or would not have done. There are people influenced by various modes of nature, and the solution is different for each class. That is why 18 Puranas are written, for different classes of people. Regardless it is mentioned, nigama kalpa taror galitam phalam, Srimad Bhagavatam is the ripened fruit of Vedic knowledge.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

2. When Madhva met Vyasa, Vyasa did not tell him so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you so sure? This is not a legitimate argument.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

3. If it was a natural commentary, why did Baladeva take the trouble to write the Govinda Bhasya, instead of sticking to Chaitanya's statement? The reason of course, is that there are certain points of the Brahma-sutras that are not covered in the Bhagavatam.

No the reason is because Srimad Bhagavatam is a "natural commentary" according to tattvas. There was still a need for a chronological verse by verse commentary.

As to how Srimad Bhagavatm is a commentary to Brahma sutras, and which verses of bhagavatam are commenting on which verses of brahma sutras would require a very in depth study.

Sometimes a single Bhagavatam verse will comment on dozens of Brahma sutra verses. Sometimes a single brahma sutra verse will be commented on by dozens of Bhagavatam verses. This is part of the import of "natural commentary".

shvu · April 13, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If you are sincere in understanding what Ramana was trying to say approach the mood of jnani or gnostic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not interested. Thanx, anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Athiests are simply locked in their own dogmatism thinking they are free from religious dogma.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite possible. But perhaps, it would be more informative if you can say what the dogma of the atheist is.

Cheers

shvu · April 13, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> >2. When Madhva met Vyasa, Vyasa did not tell him so.

Are you so sure? This is not a legitimate argument. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am so sure. If Madhva knew this, it is unlikely that he would keep this piece of Information to himself.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No the reason is because Srimad Bhagavatam is a "natural commentary" according to tattvas. There was still a need for a chronological verse by verse commentary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Frankly, I don't understand why there was such a need. Chaitanya, who started a new Sampradaya did not feel the need. Or am I incorrect in saying that Chaitanya started the new Sampradaya? Is it possible that he had no interest in starting a new Sampradaya and it was done by others who came afer him? That would explain why.

Cheers

shvu · April 13, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Ramana was not an athiest nor a theist, he was a jnani a GNOCTIC a KNOWER, he knew truth through DIRECT experience.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ramana did not deny any of the scriptures, he did not deny the existence of Brahman and most important, he encouraged Bhakti as a means to liberation. How can one say that he was not a theist?

An agnost is neither an atheist or theist because he does not know. But a gnostic knows, which implies that he has to be either atheist or theist. By your own logic, Ramana was a perfect theist and the Buddha was an atheist.

Cheers

April 13, 2001

>>.Ramana did not deny any of the scriptures, he did not deny the existence of Brahman and most important, he encouraged Bhakti as a means to liberation. How can one say that he was not a theist?

The conception that bhakti is only a way to attain moksa is only a fraud. Actually this is not a theist position. This is atheism in disguise.

Those who postulate this nonsense state that this Brahman is nirvisesa; i.e., He is devoid of attributes, form, senses, emotion, energies, and so on. Therefore He has no potencies, even to create the material world, or to freed Himself from maya. This is a conception of an inefficient God, or a non-existing God. Those logicians cannot deny the existence of the non-existent. As their Brahman is nirvisesa, attributes such as existence and non-existence also aren't present in Him. Therefore they cannot be considered as theists in the true sense of the word.

These people practice bhakti worshiping a temporary and imaginary form, as they realize that to worship something abstract is almost impossible. They employ pañcaupasana to attain moksa, and postulate that after moksa bhakti ends. So, their bhakti is only a temporary activity to attain nirvisesa Brahma. Maybe you can call them moksavadis or brahmavadis, but not bhaktas.

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

shvu · April 13, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The conception that bhakti is only a way to attain moksa is only a fraud. Actually this is not a theist position. This is atheism in disguise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here we go again.

So says the GV tradition. But just in case people are not aware, they would be simply amazed to know that there are other Vedantic traditions in India, which happen to be much older than the GV tradition and are still around.

And yes...they would most certainly disagree with this logic. Considering one simple fact that such a claim has no basis in the Sruti.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Those who postulate this nonsense state that this Brahman is nirvisesa; i.e., He is devoid of attributes, form, senses, emotion, energies, and so on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[yawn]

No one 'postulated' this. It is Vedanta and naturally not known to many Gaudiyas and ISKCON-ites. How about a little sample,

We do not know It; we do not understand how anyone can teach It. It is different from the known; It is above the unknown. Thus we have heard from the preceptors of old who taught It to us. - Kena Upanishad 1.3-4

That which cannot be apprehended by the mind, but by which, they say, the mind is apprehended—That alone know as Brahman, and not that which people here worship. Kena Upanishad 1.6

He by whom Brahman is not known, knows It; he by whom It is known, knows It not. It is not known by those who know It; It is known by those who do not know It. Kena Upanishad 2.3

For those who may not know, the Upanishads are Vedanta and are part of the Vedas. Needless to say, it is the highest authority accepted by any tradition of Vedanta.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> This is a conception of an inefficient God, or a non-existing God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So says you and easily proven wrong by reading a couple of Upanishads.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As their Brahman is nirvisesa, attributes such as existence and non-existence also aren't present in Him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to know how existence is an attribute. Perhaps you can exlain how. Since you say their Brahman, I would like to know what your Brahman is. And please don't quote Puranas.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>These people practice bhakti worshiping a temporary and imaginary form, as they realize that to worship something abstract is almost impossible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As long as one worships, he is a theist. And to clarify, there is no such thing as a permanent form, as spuriously introduced by his divine grace, Srila Prabhupada.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>They employ pañcaupasana to attain moksa, and postulate that after moksa bhakti ends. So, their bhakti is only a temporary activity to attain nirvisesa Brahma. Maybe you can call them moksavadis or brahmavadis, but not bhaktas.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to the Advaita tradition, after Moksha there is no worshipper separate from the worshipped. Hence there is no concept of worship anymore. But as long as one worships, he is a Bhakta, plain and simple.

Since some may not be aware of what Advaita means,

Advaita - Better known to Gaudiyas as Mayavada, the false philosophy founded by the cunning Shankara. Strictly for those, who are not intelligent. For more details, refer to an article on this topic by his Divine Grace. (Don't make the mistake of reading some authentic text on Mayavada, because that would expose the false propaganda of his divine grace).

Cheers

April 13, 2001

>>I disagree with your postion of having the same upAsya-tattva as that of the Madhvas for the following reasons,

Those reasons are only nonsense. Upasya-tattva is one, absolute, param-tattva, and it is not mutable by any argument.

In Madhva-sampradaya upasya-tattva is Nrtaka-Gopala, in other words, it is Gopala, Svayan Bhagavam Sri Krsna. It is not Narayana, Rama, and so on.

In Gudiya-sampradaya branch, the upasya-tattva is the same Gopala, Svayama Bhagavam Sri Krsna than Sri Madhva's.

If you add to that param-tattva His saktis, such as Srimati Radhika, you did not change the upasya-tattva. Can you change the infinite by adding or by subtracting any of his components?

Minor aspects on siddhanta and other philosophical points as you had mentioned are not enough to transform the upasya-tattva. Some Madhvaitas state that only brahmanas attain moksa, that gopis are in the same category of the apsaras from Svarga, that Sri Hari does not relish parakhya-rasa with any one, that Laksmi is to be placed in the category of jiva-tattva, and so on. Most of these points are new, and were not established by Madhvacarya in his original texts. But none of them can change upasya-tattva.

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

jijaji · April 13, 2001

shvu says;

"Ramana did not deny any of the scriptures, he did not deny the existence of Brahman and most important, he encouraged Bhakti as a means to liberation. How can one say that he was not a theist?

An agnost is neither an atheist or theist because he does not know. But a gnostic knows, which implies that he has to be either atheist or theist. By your own logic, Ramana was a perfect theist and the Buddha was an atheist."

Try to understand the point dude...

BELIEF is NOT DIRECTLY KNOWING...

Do you BELIEVE in the MOON or The SUN?

Of course not!

Because you KNOW it is there...no need to believe!

A Jnani KNOWS ....he has no need for belief or disbelief because he directly precieves truth.

You seem to think your conclusions are absolute..

enter the jijaji! ha ha ha

shvu · April 13, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Because you KNOW it is there...no need to believe! A Jnani KNOWS ....he has no need for belief or disbelief because he directly precieves truth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got it dude, I stand corrected. I was arguing on the basis that a person who accepts the existence of God is a theist. But then I checked out the meaning and found out that, it is strictly belief. So Ramana was neither theist nor atheist nor agnost. Gnost is the word to describe Ramana and the Buddha.

Interesting...

Since Ramana after enlightenment still encourage worship, and the Buddha rejected God, is there a word to describe this difference?

Cheers

shvu · April 13, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Upasya-tattva is one, absolute, param-tattva, and it is not mutable by any argument. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought you were waiting for an auspicious moment, next week.

I will keep this very simple. By the same logic, do you also accept my new Chaitanya Sampradaya, as described above? If not, please explain why.

Cheers

jijaji · April 13, 2001

shvu says;

"Interesting...

Since Ramana after enlightenment still encourage worship, and the Buddha rejected God, is there a word to describe this difference?"

I will post something of Ramana on Gods & Goddesses later...

thanks mucho~

;^)

jijaji

jijaji · April 13, 2001

shvu says;

"Quite possible. But perhaps, it would be more informative if you can say what the dogma of the atheist is"

The dogmatic athiest is wrapped up in his belief that there is NO god..

So wrapped up he remains CLOSED to the Divine..

;^)

jijaji

jijaji · April 13, 2001

shvu says;

"And to clarify, there is no such thing as a permanent form, as spuriously introduced by his divine grace, Srila Prabhupada."

Prabhupada did not introduce the concept of God having eternal form shvu, The concept is as old as Vaishnavism.

Come on dude, your smarter than that, I think?

Please see answer to; What is Vaishnavism?

;^)

jijaji

animesh · April 13, 2001

jijaji says:

"Prabhupada did not introduce the concept of God having eternal form shvu, The concept is as old as Vaishnavism."

Let's make a distinction between God being eternal and one of His forms being eternal.

The concept that God is eternal is definitely old, but in Vaishnavism, no single form of God is considered to be eternal. Is it mentioned that the two handed form of Krishna present before Arjuna in Kurikshetra is more important than any other form?

Jahnava Nitai Das · April 14, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The concept that God is eternal is definitely old, but in Vaishnavism, no single form of God is considered to be eternal. Is it mentioned that the two handed form of Krishna present before Arjuna in Kurikshetra is more important than any other form?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are mixing up the word 'eternal' with 'original'. In Vaishnavism (any school) all the forms of the Lord are considered eternal, they exist beyond time.

As far as Shvu's statement that Prabhupada introduced the concept of a 'permanent form', I have to assume it was a typo, as he certainly knows that all vaishnava schools accept the Lord's forms as permanent, with perhaps the exception of the virat-rupa.

In the case of the virat rupa, different schools of vaishnavism disagree. Some consider it a material and temporary form, and others do not differentiate it from the Lord's other forms.

animesh · April 14, 2001

-----------

I think you are mixing up the word 'eternal' with 'original'. In Vaishnavism (any school) all the forms of the Lord are considered eternal, they exist beyond time.

-----------

Hmmm.. yeah correct. In Bhagwat Puran, I have read something to this effect. You have used the phrase "all the forms of the Lord". What forms are included in this. Does it include the forms of various incarnations?

Sign In

continued...

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post