Nataraja

So speaks a really egoless person! Congratulations great soul!! Nataraja

Dear Pnkaja_Dasa, Buddhists and so called Mayavadins are all the same? Which Buddhists and which Mayavadins? Why don't you answer? Maybe you don't answer, because you don't know, what you are writing. I asked you for scriptures etc. and you don't answer. You said: " I could quote Sastra. When I do and start doing it, then hold on to your Dhoti. Hear from Krishna devotee..." And then you wrote, that people with Ego usually read something once then say 'it is not so good'. I gave you texts from shruti and you're ignoring them. What do you want? To find an answer for the question: How can brahman, which is eternal, assume form? I don't think so. So I want to ask you once again: Which buddhistic schools do you mean? Which scriptures can you quote? Do the so called mayavadins really teach such things you wrote? If yes, you surely can quote such passages from their scriptures. Would you do this? Or would you going on to declare your hearsaying pseudowisdom? Greez Nataraja

Sorry, but I won't read the Gita as it is, because this translation is the badest I've ever hold in my hands. Maybe this translation is good for a special group af vaishnavas, but this book is not the Bhagavad-Gita. It's the Bhagavad-Gita-how-Shrila-Prbhupada-understands-ist, but not the Gita as it is. Sorry for this harsh words. and now I'm waiting for answers. Your answer: philosophy = doctrine says what? Can you give me the name of the school or the name of a scripture, which tells us such things like: Universe is eternal...? and which Buddhists do you mean: Theravadins? Mahayanis? Vajrayanis? Ca it be, that you never read buddhistic sutras or buddhistic scriptures? And then you judge about the buddhists? Is this the vaishnava-way? I don't think! Greez Nataraja

Dear Pankaja_Dasa, you're like a parrot of a very intelligent brahmin. You repeat evry sentence of the holy brahmin, but you don't know, what you are saying. There is only a noise comming over your lips, but no meaning. God gave you a mind, so use it! For you a nice verse from Rig-Veda (RV I; 164; 39): ṛco akṣare parame vyoman yasmin devā adhi viśve niṣeduḥ | yastan na veda kiṃ ṛcā kariṣyati ya it tad vidusta ime samāsate || Upon what syllable of holy praise-song, as were their highest heaven, the Gods repose them,-- Who knows not this, what will he do with praise-song? But they who know it well sit here assembled. Greez Nataraja

Which buddhists? The Mahayanis? The Theravadins? Whicj doctrin? The doctrin of sarvastivadins? The doctrin of the Paudgalavadins? Do you really know, what are you speaking of? They cannot reconsile why everything is dying at every moment? Sure? Did you ever read texts of Abhidharma-schools? Do you know Nagarjuna? Do you know, what's real? Why? Which doctrine? The Veda - Rig-Veda X; 129, gives you the answer: "Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?" Nobody can tell you how or why or in which mode or in which way the One was divide into two. That's the blind spot in every philosophy of this world. Neither Platon nor Plotinos, neither Shankara nor Shri Gauranga, neither Hindus, nor Buddhists can tell you this. What will you say about something, which is not this and not that? Na iti na iti! Greez Nataraja

And again dear Pankaja_dasa, can you say why? Can you give me an example for your statement. But a good example and not a primitive phrase without any reasons. Not Jndas said this. The shastras said this! Greez Nataraja

Dear Pankaja_Dasa, Never! No Buddhist would tell you, that there is something, which is eternal. There is no eternal substance. Buddhists tell you, that everything in this universe is a combination of the five skandhas (rupa, vedana, samjna, samskara vijnana). And no combination of these five skandas is able to be eternal. It's against each logic: Nothing, which have a beginning moment, can be eternal. The so called mayavadis don't tell such things too. For the so called mayavadis and for the most buddhist schools the universe is not real, because this universe don't have substance. How can a thing without subtance - a thing, which is not svabhava - be eternal? The only thing, which is eternal in this universe is the foolishness of people, and therefore you will never find a moment in time whithout an universe. But remember: The universe you can see at one moment, is different from a universe at another moment. The wheel of samsara is never stopping. But the turning of this wheel is never real! Greez Nataraja

Hari Om Pankaja_Dasa, You didn't give me answers of my questions in my last post: I'm waiting for bonafide answers. Greez Nataraja

Dear Pankajaka_Dasa, what do you mean with: Who classified Buddhism in that way? And can you give me statements of shruti or smriti, which classifiing Bhuddhism in the same way? Sure not. It's nothing more than antibuddhistic phrases of people, who are not able to use their mind! What in detail is tamas of buddhistic thinking? And which philosophy is telling us, that God can be covered by Ignorance? If you know that, give me details from these scriptures. What's your oppinion for the quotet Upanishad-text here? Greez Nataraja

Dear guest, you are trying to play off high philosophy of sanatana-dharma against folk-piety. Why?? That philosophy and folk-piety is something diffrent is not unknown. Why do you compare two things, which are not compareable? Greez Nataraja

Why is this Buddism? Which kind of Bhuddism? What do you have against Bhuddism? And how would you say something about an exsisting thing, which is beyond every form of perception? When you make a diffrence between eternal and not-eternal, than you're fallen again in the dualistic world of samsara. God is ONE, not two! Hari Om Nataraja

Is this Hindu-like? Is this the acting of a people, who follows sanatana-dharma? Gita and shruti/smriti? Is this important? It's important for sophisticated people, searching for good arguments. Or not? Words from god is shruti. If this is the definition, the Quuran is shruti too. The Buddistic sutras are shruti too. The bible is shruti too! Isn't this the definition for shruti? Is shruti more than words of god or less? Is shruti a category made by men for having an allround argue against all doctrines, which are against my own doctrin? What is the essence of shruti? Wisdom? Moksha? Krishna? Nothing? Little boxes this thing with shruti and right doctrines and not-shruti. Little boxes are always seperatet from the One! Seperatism is not good, it's the work of fools! Ah: Gita is not shruti! But this doesn't matter, 'cause Gita is one of the holy books of mankind. and if you're very silent, you can hear god speaking between the lines! Greez Nataraja

Of course! Since 5 years I'm celebrating the Shiva-puja on shivaratri in various centres in my area. Greez Nataraja

Namaste Prabhus! How can Brahman, which is eternal and formless, assume form. A good question, which can not be answerd, if different conceptions of Brahman are representet. The one side of the theistic Gaudiya-Vaishnavas are thinking, that Brahman is "only" the radiation of the highest personality of godhead. And because of this, they think, that Brahman is unpersonal. The other side of the Shankara-Traditions stating, that Brahman is the highest truth, the pure existing, the only existing. If you are discussing about Brahman, you have to make sure, that you mean the same! Otherwise you are discussing about two different objects. If you do so, you are producing a categorial-misstake. The second misstake is that one, that you have generally a conception of Brahman. In the beginning of this thread everyone is said: Upanishad tells us: "He is not knowable by perception, turned inward or outward, nor by both combined. He is neither that which is known, nor that which is not known, nor is he the sum of all that might be known. He can not be seen, grasped, bargained with. He is undefineable, unthinkable, indescribable. The only proof of his existence is union with him. He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second. This is the fourth condition of the self- the most worthy of all." (Mandukya Upanishad 7) What can one say about Brahman, if Brahman is not knowable by perception? What can you say about Brahman, if it's not an object of thinking? A german monk from the middle-age said, that all pictures/conception of the highest have to push away. Every conception of the highest truth are wrong! And the Upanishad is telling us, that only to be Brahman is a way, to know Brahman! The question of how can Brahman assume form, don't have an answer. because to answer this question, you have to make conceptions of Brahman, of form, of beginning, etc.. The Veda don't give you an answer for this question: Rig-Veda 10; 129: "1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it. What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water? 2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider. That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever. 3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos. All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit. 4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit. Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent. 5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it? There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder. 6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being? 7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not." Maybe the third mistake here is your conception of form. Is form real? Is form eternal? For a Gaudiya-Vaishnava the world with all it's forms is real and eternal. It is changing every time, but the exsitence of world is statet. World is real! For a Shankara-follower, the world is not real. The world has the same quality like a dream. It is something you can see and feel, but it don't have an existence, it's unreal. The best answer for this is indeed a buddhist teaching: If the highest reality is beyond the duality of perception, what is seen? Who sees? There is nothing to see, and there is no seer. The only thing is shunyata - eptiness! And shunyata and this samsara-worls are the same, because if you make a diffrence between the absolute and this world, then you have the duality again in your thinking. and the nondual reality is the only reality. Brahman is this nondual reality! Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being? Greez Nataraja

Dear Guest, hari Bolo! do you know, from where i can get a list of all shankaracharyas of jyoshimath, which starts from the Adi-Shankara? Is there a homepage of the jyotir-math? Hari Om Nataraja