Shashi

Shames on you BhaktavasyaJi. You are starting this topic as for chatting with Lord and now what you are promoting? Or is it you are making Krishna Chat a Chat radio programme and it is now times for some radio advertisements?

ShashiJI moves one amendment to RamJi's proposition. Moving that "vaishnava" be no more there and that "some peoples" put in place. Otherwise line of questionings is supported. If my amendment be not agreemented by RamJi then I am sadly forcibly not suppoort his motion.

Agreemented. Motion seconded. Speechings in support: Honourables Chairperson, in seconding RamJi's proposition I would most humbly utter "Achintya Bhedabhed". Please beg my pardons.

Seconded By Shashi subjecting to RamJi's proposition having addendum of Shashi's much much early on comment as hereon:- [This message has been edited by Shashi (edited 07-26-2002).]

Those upstanding for this line of questionings. MR or Madam Chairperson, please be including Shashi.

Agreemented with RamJi. Motion seconded without speechings by Shashi.

If you say Brahman is being unmanifest you are bringing Brahman as duality which is not advaita. How is advaita claiming unmanifest and still the non duel? If unmanifest, then opposite is there. Manifest is attribution therefore same same unmanifest. This cannot be non duel unless one explains with the achintya bhedabhed in which case the prospect of Lord and BRahman together becomes lively. Other hand if Brahman is being compared like mango seed then that one is unmanifest mango tree. But seed no more once baby mango tree becomes. But if Lord is compared as the mango then the twig is called as mango, the leaf as mango, the fruit as mango, the wood as mango, the seed as mango - see alll is mango. The mango is the Supreme Attribute for the twig, the leaf, the woods, the seeds, the fruits. Without mango the mango seed is meaningless. Therefore Brahman is in LOrd as seed is in mango. Seed is not separate from mango. It is being mango seed. BG 14:27 Lord is saying Brahman is home in Lord. Non duel (advaita) state of Brahman is already reached by previous BG 14:26. Verse 27 is now decribing status of non duelty. Lord and Brhaman are non different but Brahman is in Lord. The relations between Lord and Brahman is subject for achintya bhed abhed. Otherwise how you can say Brahman unmanifest (and therefore call in opposite prospect) and claim non duel?

Thank you for enlightning. I am not having that Webster. My appalogies.

One is seeing the poetics where poetics is none. Another one is seeing frustrated and anger where frustrated and anger is none. These ones are the expart philospohers?

What word is this RamJi, it is not being in dictionaries. Are you having the poetic licenses? [This message has been edited by Shashi (edited 07-22-2002).]

The enterance to kingdom is not being needle's eye. The enterance is being so much large that we are not beeing able to see the door frames. Without seeing same we are not even knowing wheteher we are being in enterance or not. Such is enterance. As for the camels and the needle's eye? Why would camel even desire to be going through needle's eye?

RamJi I was never being the impolite to yourself. I am not calling you nonsense. Where I am saying this? I am did say that what you say is nonsense when you are say that I am making poetries when I am giving one anology. Then you are said that the poetry (which is not existing) is flaw. Another times you are say the poetics is coming from Lords devotee. Then you are saying poetry is inferiar to Truth. So it is hodge podge sequences of utterances about poetry. This is the truths of the matter as I am seeing it. If the truth is being impolite for you, please bury head in sand pitch. And, how you will challenge and defeat true Gaudiya if are discerning so much little that you are thinking I am Gaudiya?

WRONG number 1. I have not said any the poem! What nonsense you are saying. I gave one comparison. WRONG number 2. In mine comparison I saying Lord is the mango and Brahman the mango seed within mango. SEed is part of the mango not seprate. Lord is not pulp Lord is the whole mango. Otherwise meanings of BG 14:27 is not applied. WRONG number 3. Where is mention "brahmajyoti" in BG 14:27? And where have I mention brhamajyoti regarding Brahman? Where I am say I representation of GVV? Ding Ding Ding. WRONG number 4. Some idiots are throwing away. Others are planting. SEEd is not rubbish. SEed is UNmanifest tree. When manifest no more the seed. BUt still the mango. WRONG number 5. Where is BG 14:27 mentioning "jyoti"? WRONG number 6. Whoever is seeing poetic where none poetic is existing, that one is the flaw.

Why GlutenJI are they asking this one? Are you having the forgetful face?

No no no dear RamJI. By your requesting we are discussing BG 14:27. Gita is the poetry and Lord is speaking. It is Truth. Can you deny this? BhAGAVAD gITA IS dIVINE sONG. Song must have lyreic which is the poetry. So what is Lord Poet say on this topic. Not mango not drums but, "I am the abode of Brahman" which is meaning that Brahman is abiding in Lord. Where are seeing brhamajyoti, Ram JI? "brahmaNO hi pratiSTha 'ham" please be noting it is not being like brahmajyotihi pratiSTha etc etc but "brahmaNO hi pratiSTha 'ham".