listening to the holy name from the lips of mayavadis

[Dark Warrior]

 

Mr. Dark warrior,

You can fabricate anything if you are claver with words, given the same Vedic texts. I have done it myself. I used to argue with supportive Pramanas that Brahman is Brahma the creator deity. I have done it for many years. And I am really good at it. I tell you it is much easier and much more convincing to show that Brahman is Brahma than it is Narayana. . Now I don’t do it. Credit goes to my Guru. He had Brahma Jnyan.

 

How about showing me how, here? From Shruti.

 

And no, don't say 'Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahma' or 'Brahman is Hiranyagarbha'. It is laughable to think that Brahma is Brahman, because no Vedantin has ever come up with that idea. Stupidity.

 

 

Brahma's birth is evident. Eko Narayana Asit Na Brahma....itself establishes that. And when even Shaivites accept that Narayana alone is Brahman due to etymological and grammatical considerations, what bringest thou half-wit to suggest that Brahma is Brahman?

 

Heck, Krishna mentions Brahma's vulnerability to pralaya in Gita itself.

 

First of all, people should understand that there are rules to interpret shruti. There is actually one, systematic interpretation that evolves a meaning out of it. It isn't playing 'games' to interpret it correctly.

 

 

 

 

When I met him, he told me a story of a blind man whose ancestors were expert art weavers and painters. This blind man has in his collection a mind boggling painting on a cloth canvas. But he could not see the beauty of it and could not understand the value of it as he was blind from birth. But he had heard its greatness from his grand father and his father. For many years he was wondering what could be is the greatness of this plain useless cloth. Then one day he pulled out a few strands of threats and cut a few patches out of the great art canvas and stitched an underwear out of it. Now he could understand the value of it. On the top of it all he was trying to sell it as the original work of the great ancestors.

My guru pointed to me that I am like that blind man. Not having Bhrama-jnyan, I don’t see the truth of the grand work of the grand Seers. In my blindness I pull our Pramanas here and there and cut patches here and there out of Veda, put them together and stitch an underwear out of the marvelous Vedic design, try to sell it as an authentic Seer’s work.

 

Dude, this shows that your guru lacks any sort of Brahma Jnana.

 

 

I dint see the point even then. My guru initiated to an Upanishad Vidya. A few years of rigorous practice opened my spiritual eye and I saw the truth, of the seers. Then my understanding of Veda changed drastically and I stopped stitching underwear and promoting it as the seer’s original work. .

You don’t have Brahmajnyan. Do you? You don’t see the Seer’s truth. Or do you think you see? I understand you too well as I was like you once. My advice to you: Stop all this cross-word games with Veda. Approach a realized Guru and try to acquire the inner wisdom of the seers. With out such knowledge no one can understand Veda.

Brahmoham

 

I see. And what Upanishadic Jnana have you understood? Talk about a half wit.

 

A realised guru is someone like Sri Ramanuja or Sri Madhva. Not every street person with a beard is a Guru.

 

EDIT: It seems to be a fashion to say 'Vedas are too difficult to understand' without understanding how to interpret them. The Vedas do not have contradictory interpretations enshrined in them. Only one interpretation resolves contradictions.

[Brahmoham]

Mr. Dark Warrior,

You don’t see.

I would not dare to argue and show you for argument sake even. I am not talking of argument at all. That phase of mine is over. The truth is beyond wordily understanding.

You wanted to talk about my understanding. The true Vedic Wisdom is beyond words. Senses do not reach it. Words do not capture it. This is all I can say to you for now. Even Vedas do not describe Brahman - it merely points to it. Its language is not descriptive.

You don’t understand anything of Vedic truths unless you see it directly by a Swanubhudhi – direct self experience. And this experience is not with in the realm of senses or intellect to describe in words.

You depend so much on words. And you derive validity of that word knowledge from others Ramanuja et al. You know why? Because you cannot see yourself- you are blind. . Your poetry of the beauty of colorful flower meadows and the wonder of the starlit sky comes from others words of them. You don’t understand anything of Vedic verses. Your arguments are a blind man’s poetry of others some sighted and some blind men.

My guru is not any street person with a beard. He is a Himalayan monk with out any beard (he never grew beyond 16 years to grow a beard) coming in the unbroken lineage of guru-sishya Upanishad-Vidya tradition. And my knowledge is not derived out of his word description. He dint teach me Veda with words. He simply gave a method to open an inner eye where by I could see directly the truth of the Vedic Seers. He opened my eyes. He did a miracle to my knowledge. That is true guru.

Veda is not just difficult to understand. It is impossible to understand with out a mysterious seeing faculty.

I have no intention to argue. I know how futile it is. I am only trying to appeal to the Brahman which resides in you with the hope that the Brahman in you will understand and stop the childish babbling of you, the ignorant jiva..

You must understand that you are not doing any good to Vedic Wisdom. I hope one day you will understand.

Brahmoham

[Dark Warrior]

 

Mr. Dark Warrior,

You don’t see.

I would not dare to argue and show you for argument sake even. I am not talking of argument at all. That phase of mine is over. The truth is beyond wordily understanding.

 

Very good. Seems like everything is beyond understanding, eh? Even sanskrit.

 

 

You wanted to talk about my understanding. The true Vedic Wisdom is beyond words. Senses do not reach it. Words do not capture it. This is all I can say to you for now. Even Vedas do not describe Brahman - it merely points to it. Its language is not descriptive.

 

Typical pseudointellectual stuff.

 

Vedas describe Brahman as possessing infinite Jnana and gunas. What is indescribable is the limit of His attributes...it is unlimited.

 

The Svarupa of Brahman is indescribable. But His saulabhya causes Him to manifest in a form with 4 hands, as the Lord of Lakshmi. His Svabhava contains some gunas that are describable, thanks to His grace.

 

Words cannot describe the extent of His greatness. But He shows us a glimpse of His greatness.

 

You can never understand who He is. But as the Upanishads say, 'Atman reveals itself to those whom Atman chooses'. His Saulabhya is the reason why.

 

 

You don’t understand anything of Vedic truths unless you see it directly by a Swanubhudhi – direct self experience. And this experience is not with in the realm of senses or intellect to describe in words.

 

Yeah, I guess your great self has experienced it?

 

You see, a Bhakti Yogin is instructed to undergo an upasana so He can experience the truth. Hence, experience sanctioned by Vedic injunctions is true experience.

 

Shut the clap trap.

 

 

 

You depend so much on words. And you derive validity of that word knowledge from others Ramanuja et al. You know why? Because you cannot see yourself- you are blind. . Your poetry of the beauty of colorful flower meadows and the wonder of the starlit sky comes from others words of them. You don’t understand anything of Vedic verses. Your arguments are a blind man’s poetry of others some sighted and some blind men.

 

So now the Vedas become 'just words', huh? Yeah, I guess Paramatma was wrong when He said, 'I am to be known by the Vedas'.

 

And I derive validity from a foremost Vedantin, he calls it useless. However, his guru, who probably herds goats in the Himalayas, is more qualified to impart 'knowledge'.

 

 

My guru is not any street person with a beard. He is a Himalayan monk with out any beard (he never grew beyond 16 years to grow a beard) coming in the unbroken lineage of guru-sishya Upanishad-Vidya tradition. And my knowledge is not derived out of his word description. He dint teach me Veda with words. He simply gave a method to open an inner eye where by I could see directly the truth of the Vedic Seers. He opened my eyes. He did a miracle to my knowledge. That is true guru.

 

Dude, you open your inner eye, your outer eye, your middle stomach, your 9 gates...whatever you want. I could care less.

 

 

Veda is not just difficult to understand. It is impossible to understand with out a mysterious seeing faculty.

 

It is also impossible to understand without mental faculties, which is why you think these 'words' are unimportant.

 

 

I have no intention to argue. I know how futile it is. I am only trying to appeal to the Brahman which resides in you with the hope that the Brahman in you will understand and stop the childish babbling of you, the ignorant jiva..

You must understand that you are not doing any good to Vedic Wisdom. I hope one day you will understand.

Brahmoham

 

I suppose then, that the likes of Sri Sankara, Sri Ramanuja, Sri Madhva et al. too did not do any good to Vedic Wisdom. Only you and your guru have hit upon something that just about every Vedantin missed. Kudos.

 

Now, we have a moron who talks of Veda as 'words', proposes an idea that has never been thought of by the most proficient Vedic scholars, has a half baked guru that causes him to open his inner and outer eyes, and he calls me 'ignorant'.

 

Oh well, dude, that's your belief. I too see no reason to argue with you. Good day.

[srikanthdk71]

 

I suppose then, that the likes of Sri Sankara, Sri Ramanuja, Sri Madhva et al. too did not do any good to Vedic Wisdom. Only you and your guru have hit upon something that just about every Vedantin missed. Kudos.

 

Now, we have a moron who talks of Veda as 'words', proposes an idea that has never been thought of by the most proficient Vedic scholars, has a half baked guru that causes him to open his inner and outer eyes, and he calls me 'ignorant'.

 

These two paragraphs show that you are not Ignorant, you are beyond all Yogis who didnt need books to realise, greater than a Shirdi Sai, greater than Mahavtar Baba, greater than Lahiri Mahasaya, Paramahamsa Yogananda, Ramana Maharishi, Swami Vivekananda. My Pranams to you and your seers. All these were morons or rather half baked. You are a full-fledged, full-baked Vedantin. Pranaams again.

[Dark Warrior]

 

These two paragraphs show that you are not Ignorant, you are beyond all Yogis who didnt need books to realise, greater than a Shirdi Sai, greater than Mahavtar Baba, greater than Lahiri Mahasaya, Paramahamsa Yogananda, Ramana Maharishi, Swami Vivekananda. My Pranams to you and your seers. All these were morons or rather half baked. You are a full-fledged, full-baked Vedantin. Pranaams again.

 

Dude, not just me, but all Vaishnavas do not consider any of those people as 'realised'. Not just my opinion, trust me. The average VA or Dvaitin would certainly consider them to be below their level.

 

I agree that our beliefs are different. Hence, I shall not argue with you. Of course, I certainly respect your beliefs.

[RadhaMukunda]

You talked about interpreting the vedas. Can you tell more about this. I would like to study what is necessary to understand the vedas. What's your opinion on the way Arya Samajis interpret the Vedas? I used to know an Arya samaja pandit who was teaching Hindi and Sanskrit in small classes. He spread books on Arya Samaja. He had a lot of knowledge, but frankly I don't even respect anyone from the Arya Samaja for they don't respect anyone else's belief and make fun of Hindu Gods.

[kaisersose]

 

You talked about interpreting the vedas. Can you tell more about this. I would like to study what is necessary to understand the vedas. What's your opinion on the way Arya Samajis interpret the Vedas? I used to know an Arya samaja pandit who was teaching Hindi and Sanskrit in small classes. He spread books on Arya Samaja. He had a lot of knowledge, but frankly I don't even respect anyone from the Arya Samaja for they don't respect anyone else's belief and make fun of Hindu Gods.

 

shvu here...changed my username as a new name is refreshing in many ways.

 

Arya Samaj, etc., - like Purva Mimamsa - interpet the Vedas without using auxillary texts like Pancharatras and Puranas as they are authored texts. This yields a very different interpretation which is devoid of form worship of any kind. There is no place in their interpretaton for Rama, Krishna, Shiva and everyone else.

 

About making fun of other beliefs - that is certainly not unique to Arya Samaj.

 

Cheers

[kaisersose]

 

These two paragraphs show that you are not Ignorant, you are beyond all Yogis who didnt need books to realise, greater than a Shirdi Sai, greater than Mahavtar Baba, greater than Lahiri Mahasaya, Paramahamsa Yogananda, Ramana Maharishi, Swami Vivekananda. My Pranams to you and your seers. All these were morons or rather half baked. You are a full-fledged, full-baked Vedantin. Pranaams again.

 

Here is the situation in hand....A is a Guru who belongs to a classic time-tested tradition and is qualified acording to the requirements of the tradition. B on the other hand, is an unorthodox Guru who became popular through unconventional circumstances (Osho, the Babas, etc).

 

If you were to pick one as your Guru, who would you pick? By the law of parsimony, A would be a smarter choice. However, due to our own subjective preferences, we may ultimately choose B.

 

Advaita recognizes the concept of Jivan-mukthi, that is liberation when the body is still alive. Ramana, Sukha, Shankara, etc., are accepted by the tradition as Jivan-muktas. However, the Dvaita tradition does not recognize the concept of Jivan-Mukti. And since Ramana is not in their sampradaya either, he would have no value in the tradition. If Vishishtadvaita has the same view on Jivan-Mukti, then Raman would have no value in that tradition either.

 

And even if we recognize the concept of Jivan-Mukti, how do we really know the dude is genuine? There really is no way and we just accept or reject him on faith.

 

Cheers

[RadhaMukunda]

Kaisersose, what's the name of that movie again? Good movie.

[kaisersose]

 

Kaisersose, what's the name of that movie again? Good movie.

 

The Usual Suspects

 

Cheers

[suchandra]

Nice article by Demian Martins about listening, sravanam, the process of hearing.

 

<!-- Begin #content --> <!-- Begin #main --> Tuesday, August 5, 2008

 

<!-- Begin .post --> Sravanam, The Process of Hearing

 

 

posted by Demian Martins

http://bkdemian.blogspot.com/2008/08/sravanam-process-of-hearing.html

 

 

Sravanam, hearing, is the first item of the nine processes of bhakti-yoga mentioned by Prahlada Maharaja:

 

sri-prahrada uvaca

sravanam kirtanam visnoh

smaranam pada-sevanam

arcanam vandanam dasyam

sakhyam atma-nivedanam

 

“Prahlada Maharaja said: Hearing and chanting about the transcendental holy name, form, qualities, paraphernalia and pastimes of Lord Visnu, remembering them, serving the lotus feet of the Lord, offering the Lord respectful worship with sixteen types of paraphernalia, offering prayers to the Lord, becoming His servant, considering the Lord one's best friend, and surrendering everything unto Him (in other words, serving Him with the body, mind and words) -- these nine processes are accepted as pure devotional service.”

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 7.5.23, SB

 

Srila Prabhupada often emphasises that hearing is the most important point:

“But out of all the nine different methods, the first one, namely hearing, is the most important function in the process of bhakti-yoga. Without hearing sufficiently and properly, no one can make any progress by any of the methods of practice.”

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 2.2.36

 

And of all the different methods of hearing, he emphasises the following one:

 

“Hearing from the text of Srimad-Bhagavatam is considered the most important process of hearing.”

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 7.5.23-24

 

But sometimes Srila Prabhupada also used to warn about that animal like hearing will not do:

 

“Simply to hear like the hogs is not sufficient; one must be able to understand from the authorities.”

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bg 15.19

 

One must seriously try to understand who is qualified to speak Bhagavatam, how to hear and what are the results of hearing.

 

In many places like Vrndavana, professional Bhagavata-saptahas are almost a fashion, and sometimes several of them are going on simultaneously, but is that a bonafide hearing process?

 

“Thus there is now a system of Bhagavata business, with recitations called bhagavata-saptaha that continue for one week, although this is not mentioned in Srimad-Bhagavatam. Nowhere does Srimad-Bhagavatam say that the Bhagavatam should be heard for one week from professionals.”

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Antya 5.131

 

So, this is the first lesson:

 

“And hearing from whom? From a loafer? No. From Krsna or Krsna's representative. That will effect. Hearing, there must be hearing process also from the authorized person.”

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bhagavad-gita 7.1 -- Los Angeles, March 12, 1970

 

In other words, to speak Bhagavata one must be Bhagavata. And what are the symptoms of a Bhagavata? That is described by Yudhisthira Maharaja:

 

bhavad-vidha bhagavatas

tirtha-bhutah svayam vibho

tirthi-kurvanti tirthani

svantah-sthena gadabhrta

 

 

“My Lord, devotees like your good self are verily holy places personified. Because you carry the Personality of Godhead within your heart, you turn all places into places of pilgrimage.”

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 1.13.10

 

Such a Bhagavata is a narottama:

 

yah svakat parato veha

jata-nirveda atmavan

hrdi krtva harim gehat

pravrajet sa narottamah

 

“He is certainly a first-class man who awakens and understands, either by himself or from others, the falsity and misery of this material world and thus leaves home and depends fully on the Personality of Godhead residing within his heart.”

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 1.13.27

 

This is a proper description of a person qualified to speak, and even though this statement is made by Vidura, it describes very well his own qualities. And how did Vidura become such a Bhagavata?

 

suta uvaca

viduras tirtha-yatrayam

maitreyad atmano gatim

jnatvagad dhastinapuram

tayavapta-vivitsitah

 

“Sri Suta Gosvami said: While traveling on a pilgrimage, Vidura received knowledge of the destination of the self from the great sage Maitreya and then returned to Hastinapura. He became as well versed in the subject as he desired.”

>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 1.13.1

 

This is the process: by hearing from a Bhagavata, one also becomes Bhagavata.

 

“So one who is serious about hearing, he can become a future nice preacher. Sravanam kirtanam. Next stage is developed. That is development. If one has actually heard nicely, then he will speak nicely.”

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Room Conversation -- May 10, 1969, Columbus, Ohio

 

And how to recognize such a Bhagavata? By his look?

 

“My Guru Maharaja used to say, "Don't try to see a saintly person by your eyes. You see a saintly person by the ear." Because if you hear from the saintly person and if he is speaking from the experience which he has heard from the, another saintly person -- this is called guru-parampara -- then the knowledge is perfect.”

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Srimad-Bhagavatam 6.1.42 -- Los Angeles, June 8, 1976

 

Now, let us say that someone is still fond of hearing from professionals or unqualified people, what would be the benefit?

 

“We receive knowledge from the perfect person. There is no use getting knowledge from imperfect person. That is useless waste of time.”

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bhagavad-gita 7.2 -- Nairobi, October 28, 1975

 

“Don't go and hear Bhagavata-saptaha by a professional man. That is useless waste of time.”

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.8.44 -- Mayapura, October 24, 1974

 

To illustrate this point with a personal example, let us expand our concept of hearing:

 

“These are not ordinary books. It is recorded chanting. Anyone who reads, he is hearing.”

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Rupanuga: -- Mayapur 19 October, 1974

 

Srila Prabhupada used to say that in the last two hundred years many hundreds of translations of Bhagavad Gita were done, but not a single person turn into a devotee by reading them. However, when Bhagavad Gita As It Is was published, it ignited in the whole world a Hare Krishna revolution. When I was fifteen years old, I read one of those many translations by so-called scholars. Though I found it an interesting book, upon finishing it, I just put it aside and everything was over. There was no vivid result nor any perspective of practical spiritual life. It was just like any other interesting book. But a few years later, when I read Srila Prabhupada’s translation and commentary, a new universe was open before my eyes. And that was only the beginning. So this is the proof of a bonafide hearing process- there must be some cognitive, visible or even tangible outcome. The example we find in the Bhagavatam is Dhrtarastra, who even though said to be ‘vadhira’, hard-hearing (SB 1.13.22), someway or other became impressed upon hearing from his brother, the maha-bhagavata Vidura, and the result was most beneficial for him.

 

“This is the way of spiritual realization. The message should be heard attentively, and if spoken by a realized soul, it will act on the dormant heart of the conditioned soul. And by continuously hearing, one can attain the perfect stage of self-realization.”

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 1.13.14

 

Here the word ‘attentively’ is very significant, because the way one hears is very relevant to have the proper result.

 

“Simple hearing is not all; one must realize the text with proper attention. The word nivista means that Suta Gosvami drank the juice of Bhagavatam through his ears. That is the real process of receiving Bhagavatam. One should hear with rapt attention from the real person, and then he can at once realize the presence of Lord Krsna in every page. The secret of knowing Bhagavatam is mentioned here. No one can give rapt attention who is not pure in mind. No one can be pure in mind who is not pure in action. No one can be pure in action who is not pure in eating, sleeping, fearing and mating. But somehow or other if someone hears with rapt attention from the right person, at the very beginning one can assuredly see Lord Sri Krsna in person in the pages of Bhagavatam.”

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 1.3.44

 

The next important word is ‘continuously’-

 

srnvatam sva-kathah krsnah

punya-sravana-kirtanah

hrdy antah stho hy abhadrani

vidhunoti suhrt satam

 

“Sri Krsna, the Personality of Godhead, who is the Paramatma [supersoul] in everyone's heart and the benefactor of the truthful devotee, cleanses desire for material enjoyment from the heart of the devotee who has developed the urge to hear His messages, which are in themselves virtuous when properly heard and chanted.”

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 1.2.17

 

nasta-prayesv abhadresu

nityam bhagavata-sevaya

bhagavaty uttama-sloke

bhaktir bhavati naisthiki

 

“By regular attendance in classes on the Bhagavatam and by rendering of service to the pure devotee, all that is troublesome to the heart is almost completely destroyed, and loving service unto the Personality of Godhead, who is praised with transcendental songs, is established as an irrevocable fact.”

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 1.2.18

 

The process of hearing should go on always, if possible twenty four hours a day.

 

“Caitanya Mahaprabhu said that we must hear about Krsna twenty-four hours. Not that a particular time I hear and then stop. Don't stop.”

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Srimad-Bhagavatam 2.3.15 -- Los Angeles, June 1, 1972

 

By such hearing from a bonafide guru, Yudhisthira Maharaja got rid of all lamentations (SB 1.13.60) and Arjuna also became pacified and free from all material contamination (SB 1.15.27-28). But the real outcome of the hearing process is described thus:

 

yah sraddhayaitad bhagavat-priyanam

pandoh sutanam iti samprayanam

srnoty alam svastyayanam pavitram

labdhva harau bhaktim upaiti siddhim

 

“The subject of the departure of the sons of Pandu for the ultimate goal of life, back to Godhead, is fully auspicious and is perfectly pure. Therefore anyone who hears this narration with devotional faith certainly gains the devotional service of the Lord, the highest perfection of life.”

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 1.15.51

 

Srila Prabhupada is the perfect maha-bhagavata, therefore the perfect speaker of Bhagavatam, giving everybody the chance to hear:

 

“We are opening all over the world hundreds of centers. Why? We are giving chance to the people to hear about Krsna.”

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.6 -- Calcutta, February 26, 1974

 

I am one of those who were thus benefitted and I keep on trying to improve daily by hearing Srila Prabhupada through his books and lectures, in this way taking benefit of another result from the hearing process- the satisfaction of the spiritual master:

 

“So when a person comes to a transcendentalist to inquire about sreya uttamam -- uttamam means transcendental subject matter -- he becomes very happy. He becomes very happy. One who hears very attentively about the spiritual subject matter, the spiritual master becomes very happy.”

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.25.12 -- Bombay, November 12, 1974

posted by Demian Martins at 8:56 AM

[Brahmoham]

Mr. Dark Warrior,

You seem to have been offended by my claim that you are ignorant. I dint mean to offend you. But let us examine objectively. We are all ignorant. Are you not? Are you an Omniscient Genius? Only a complete moron will feel that way.

You called me half baked. I don’t mind that. But you called me my Guru half baked, I don’t take it. My main reason for posting again in this forun is that. And this is my last post.

Let me tell you about my background a little. Not for self glorification but to have a correct assessment of yourself by yourself . I am born in a family where Sanskrit and Vedic scholarship are in my very blood and air. My father is a traditional teacher of Veda and Veda Bhashya. I am introduced to Sanskrit ever since I started learning language and initiated to Vedic studies at the age of seven. I learned Vedas in the traditional way of chanting, and I studied Bhasya under my Father. I was so good at Sanskrit that I could write poetry at the age of 15. (I am not very god at English and I learned it latter but Sanskrit is a different story altogether) I have a Post graduate degree in Sanskrit and a Ph.D in Vedic studies. My Ph.D dissertation, written in Sanskrit, is on the thesis that Brahman is Brahma, which I mentioned in my earlier post.

If you think this is half baking, I have no problem in accepting with all humility, provided you are better qualified in Vedic studies. (I don’t know what your credentials are but going by your posts you don’t give an impression that you have studied Veda even in a rudimentary level. Certainly you don’t give me any impression that you are capable of any originality.)

Now some thing about my guru.

I met him in my continuous engagement of Vedic knowledge in Badari ashram. He is a Vishnava Sanyasi belonging to the lineage of Nara-Narayana tradition. He initiated me in to a Upanisadic Vidya (which I cannot reveal as it is not a public Vidya like the “Hare Krishna Here Krisna …” Maha mantra.). A few years latter I got some time to practice this Vidya in an uninterrupted way for about a month. During this practice , one day, some thing mind boggling, totally Awe inspiring experience, befell on me. I suddenly saw in a prolonged splash of insight the true import of the Vedic sears. I directly saw the mystic Brahman that Vedas adore. All my previous conception got demolished by this direct experience. All my Vedic Scholarship turned out to be nothing but a blind grouping. The true meaning of Vedic Brahman is the mysterious thing that lies beyond sense experience and beyond the intellectual grasp and beyond the reach of language and words. I understood the Vedic verses in a completely different new way.

It is not that Vedic words are meaningless. That is not what I meant. Vedic Pramanas are true and made complete sense to me after this experience but in a completely new way. Previously I was playing with words like the blind man’s poetry of the star-lit sky. Even a blind man has his own way of making sense of these words that he uses. But it is just that his meaning is completely of the mark than that of a sighted man who could see the stars of the sky and the colors of flowers. That is the difference. Veda is not for interpretation by spiritually blind people. Such interpretations are completely wrong.

 

If you think that my guru, who comes from a true Visnava tradition right from Nara- Narayana avatar and was capable of giving me a seer’s eye, with which I could myself see the Vadic truths, is half baked and you are better baked, then I cannot debate on that. But I would humbly with folded hand request you to show me a proof of that superiority that you are a grater guru avatar than my Guru. And if you could convince on that I will serve you dearly and follow you from here onwards.

But right now I don’t get that sense. I don’t even get that you are any thing to do with spirituality and not even with Vishnavism. You don’t seem to have the humility of a Vishnavite, You seem to have no respect for Visnava traditions and gurus even. You certainly have no sign of Bhakti which you preach. You are not only ignorant you are arrogant to the core and a very pitiable ass hole.

This is my last post and visit to this forum.

Brahmoham

[Dark Warrior]

Well, looks like the mods have deleted a rather long (and abusive) post of mine, which I addressed to this loser named Brahmoham (and his bogus guru). Oh well, he and his guru can both get out of here. Here is an answer (without the insults):

 

 

You seem to have been offended by my claim that you are ignorant. I dint mean to offend you. But let us examine objectively. We are all ignorant. Are you not? Are you an Omniscient Genius? Only a complete moron will feel that way.

 

Dude, I never get offended by anything. Least of all by a Ph.D touting non-entity like you.

 

 

Let me tell you about my background a little. Not for self glorification but to have a correct assessment of yourself by yourself . I am born in a family where Sanskrit and Vedic scholarship are in my very blood and air. My father is a traditional teacher of Veda and Veda Bhashya. I am introduced to Sanskrit ever since I started learning language and initiated to Vedic studies at the age of seven. I learned Vedas in the traditional way of chanting, and I studied Bhasya under my Father. I was so good at Sanskrit that I could write poetry at the age of 15. (I am not very god at English and I learned it latter but Sanskrit is a different story altogether) I have a Post graduate degree in Sanskrit and a Ph.D in Vedic studies. My Ph.D dissertation, written in Sanskrit, is on the thesis that Brahman is Brahma, which I mentioned in my earlier post.

 

Aren't you the sweet little prodigy? Well, then, you must know that it is impossible to say Brahman isn't NarayaNa as it would violate Panini's laws (The 'NAkaara' makes it a proper noun). So, I could care less about your Ph.Ds.

 

As I have mentioned countless times before, I too come from a lineage stemming to Sri Yajnamurthy and Sri PB Anna, stalwart Sri Vaishnava acharyas. I have learned Sri Vedanta Sangraha from my acharya, as well as the different systems of interpretation, Srimad Ramayana and Divya Prabandham. Unlike you, I have some knowledge of philosophical systems. And no Vedantic sect accepts your views.

 

 

If you think this is half baking, I have no problem in accepting with all humility, provided you are better qualified in Vedic studies. (I don’t know what your credentials are but going by your posts you don’t give an impression that you have studied Veda even in a rudimentary level. Certainly you don’t give me any impression that you are capable of any originality.)

 

Quite true. I have studied Vedanta Sangraha and the Upanishads under a superior acharya (miles better than your guru), rather than the Veda. So, considering that you are unwilling to accept the simple fact that every Vedantin accepts NarayaNa as Brahman, I'd say I know more than you.

 

Why should I be 'original'? The object is to be faithful to the purport of Veda, and not to show your 'creativity'.

 

 

I met him in my continuous engagement of Vedic knowledge in Badari ashram. He is a Vishnava Sanyasi belonging to the lineage of Nara-Narayana tradition. He initiated me in to a Upanisadic Vidya (which I cannot reveal as it is not a public Vidya like the “Hare Krishna Here Krisna …” Maha mantra.).

 

Dude, nobody cares who your guru is. Fact is, he didn't teach you anything about Vedanta. Rather, he apparently taught you to be 'original' and make foolish conclusions about subject matters that have been expounded admirably by true acharyas.

 

First of all, the primary criterion to be a Vaishnava is to accept NarayaNa as supreme. Your guru did not do that, so he is neither a guru, nor a Vaishnava.

 

The Hare Krishna Mantra is not a Vidya, in case you do not know. It is not found in any canonical text, but in one 'Kali Santarana Upanishad' which isn't authentic. It is however, a sweet mantra.

 

 

 

A few years latter I got some time to practice this Vidya in an uninterrupted way for about a month. During this practice , one day, some thing mind boggling, totally Awe inspiring experience, befell on me. I suddenly saw in a prolonged splash of insight the true import of the Vedic sears. I directly saw the mystic Brahman that Vedas adore. All my previous conception got demolished by this direct experience. All my Vedic Scholarship turned out to be nothing but a blind grouping. The true meaning of Vedic Brahman is the mysterious thing that lies beyond sense experience and beyond the intellectual grasp and beyond the reach of language and words. I understood the Vedic verses in a completely different new way

 

Yep, I suppose Vedantins over the years have been 'blindly groping' whereas some obscure guru has hit on the answers. Dude, this same claim has been made by Sai Baba, Jesus, Leher Baba and many more swamis.

 

The Vedic Brahman is not 'mysterious' and the Vedas should not be tortured like you are doing to it. Brahman is NarayaNa, as affirmed by many great sages. There are 32 Brahma Vidyas that emphasise meditation on NarayaNa in an uninterrupted manner. The seeker will then experience Brahman.

 

'Mysticism' is a misnomer. The sages of the Upanishads were well learned in the Veda, yet, they believed that a study of the Vedas is not sufficient. As Yama revealed to Nachiketas, Atman reveals itself to those whom Atman chooses. Hence, grace of NarayaNa is paramount and no personal effort or 'Mysticism' will reveal Him.

 

So, I suggest you stop deluding yourself and really get your act together.

 

 

It is not that Vedic words are meaningless. That is not what I meant. Vedic Pramanas are true and made complete sense to me after this experience but in a completely new way. Previously I was playing with words like the blind man’s poetry of the star-lit sky. Even a blind man has his own way of making sense of these words that he uses. But it is just that his meaning is completely of the mark than that of a sighted man who could see the stars of the sky and the colors of flowers. That is the difference. Veda is not for interpretation by spiritually blind people. Such interpretations are completely wrong

 

I see. Dude, basically you are saying that every Vedantin in history is wrong and you are right.

 

This type of nonsense is really rampant nowadays. Vedas should not be interpreted, people can get on with spirituality according to their whims and fancies. Just about anybody can become a guru, etc.

 

Your ignorance is appalling. Interpreting the Vedas in the right way, instead of sticking to delusions and fancies, and false gurus is the need of the hour.

 

 

If you think that my guru, who comes from a true Visnava tradition right from Nara- Narayana avatar and was capable of giving me a seer’s eye, with which I could myself see the Vadic truths, is half baked and you are better baked, then I cannot debate on that. But I would humbly with folded hand request you to show me a proof of that superiority that you are a grater guru avatar than my Guru. And if you could convince on that I will serve you dearly and follow you from here onwards.

 

I am far superior to you and your guru. Because, unlike you or your pseudoswami, I actually follow an authentic tradition, solidly based on pramanas, that has interpreted the Veda as it should be.

 

You do not even know one kalyana guna of Sriman NarayaNa. And you have the cheek to advice others.

 

 

But right now I don’t get that sense. I don’t even get that you are any thing to do with spirituality and not even with Vishnavism. You don’t seem to have the humility of a Vishnavite, You seem to have no respect for Visnava traditions and gurus even. You certainly have no sign of Bhakti which you preach. You are not only ignorant you are arrogant to the core and a very pitiable ass hole.

 

I am certainly arrogant!! And during my bad old days, I was called much worse than that.

 

Number one, it is you who has nothing to do with spirituality. True Spirituality is following the tenets laid down by authentic gurus, who have insisted that NarayaNa is Brahman, and to follow the words of Lord Krishna. Secondly, you and your guru are not Vaishnavas (or 'Vishnavas', if that is a new cult!!) and hence, I have scant respect for such frauds.

 

Secondly, your 'experience' is nothing more than a product of maya. Anyone can get an 'experience'. However, the experience needs to be verified as genuine. You have pretty much shown how uninformed you are, because every Vedantin believes in the right interpretation of Veda.

 

So, despite your 'creativity', rest assured, NarayaNa is Brahman.

 

Thirdly, I have a lot of bhakti. By the grace of Sri Ramanuja, I hae experienced and enjoyed the kalyana gunas and the lilas of Brahman, rather tha claiming to have some 'mystic view of the mysterious Brahman'. NarayaNa is incomprehensible, but He certainly isn't mysterious. His soulabhyam (accessibility) is immense.

 

Do you know why He came as a fish and boar in Matsya and Varaha Avataras? People would find it silly, that God could come as a fish or boar. But that is His accessibility. He lowers Himself to ridiculous levels so that we can atleast reach upto Him and understand Him a little.

 

I suggest you stop lecturing people on spirituality. I assure you, any Vaishnava would rip your thesis apart. No amount of Ph.Ds, or fathers teaching 'Bhashyas', or gurus teaching 'Vidyas' can cover the lack of knowledge you have exhibited here.

 

---

 

Just to keep it clean, I will reiterate that Brahma's birth is mentioned in Rig Veda and Mahanarayana Upanishad. Mahopanishad also talks about his birth from NarayaNa. Krishna also mentions in Gita about Brahma's life span and him disappearing during pralaya.

 

So, no doubts there. And no amount of Ph.Ds will change that.

 

 

Arya Samaj, etc., - like Purva Mimamsa - interpet the Vedas without using auxillary texts like Pancharatras and Puranas as they are authored texts. This yields a very different interpretation which is devoid of form worship of any kind. There is no place in their interpretaton for Rama, Krishna, Shiva and everyone else

 

I addressed this as well earlier, but it was deleted too. Basically, my point is that, Mimamsa has not interpreted the Vedas anyway. They merely focus on the Karma Khanda section, performance of Sacrifices, etc. Their quest is primarily concerned with Dharma, and hence, they do not pay attention to Gods.

 

Arya Samaj and Brahma Samaj are Christian-oriented, I believe. They reject what they call 'idol worship'. I suppose, another group that loosely falls under the all-inclusive banner of Hinduism.

[Bart Happel]

I really think you are going too far Dark. You spoiled the topic.

[srikanthdk71]

Dark Warrior, i think you are taking things too personal and banging up with offensive language. Your scholarliness will not get any recognition if you continue to do so and will injunct Hate in the minds of people reading your posts. Calm yourself down. Do not spoil the fabric of the topic. Please..

[Hiranyagarpa]

Creator is true Brahman - A plausible thesis

The idea that Brahman is the creator god cannot be brushed away that easily. This is a belief at least in certain sect of Brahmins, though this argument never saw limelight. Unlike the Advida acharya or the Vaishnava acharyas , no one bothered to promote this thesis publically. But , inspite of its lack of public visibility, there is a strong scriptural proof for this.. I cannot offer the pramanas for this I am not as good as Dark Warrior in pramanas. But certainly such scholarship exists among the sect which believes in it. What I can provide here is a sort of loose argument to show that this is certainly a possibility.

 

Vishnu is not associated with Veda or knowledge .His specialization is not knowledge but wealth His wife is Lakshmi. Siva doses not possess Veda either his specialization is power.

In the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">varna</st1:City></st1:place> system, it is Brahmins who are declared to be entitled to learn and teach Veda. And they are dealing with Knowledge, Saraswati . Lakshmi is a Traders goddess and Sakti is the goddess of Kshatrias . Vaisya and Kshatria’s dharma is not Vedic study and teaching. Though these three varnas are entitled for mokash, according to bhrama sutra, warriors and traders business is not to study interpret and teach. Knowledge. ie. Saraswati , does not belong to them and is the exclusive property of Brahmin. And what is the knowledge that Brahmins are involved with? Knowledge of Brahman. And who is Saraswati’s husband? The creator Brahma.

Now let us look at the symbolism of the Bhrama

 

• The Crater has four heads and they are assumed to be the four Vedas. From each mouth came one Veda. He is Vedas personified.
  
• He possesses the Vedas. He holds in his hand. He creates the world with Vedas.
  
• His wife is goddess of knowledge. What the Brahmin is engaged with.
  
• His name is Brahma. He is the only god bearing as his personal name the directly the same word ‘Brahman’ Other gods are only attributed the quality of Brahman.

.

And there is no temple or idols for the creator. There is a mythological account for this. How Brahma and Vishnu failed to find the Siva’s head and Brahma lied and as ca result earned Siva’s curse that there will be no temples or idols or worship for him. But that is only a myth. The true signification behind the absence of temple and idol worship for Brahma is that the creator being Brahman, he is formless and cannot be worshipped in the regular fashion as other gods which are in any case not Vedic but as per Agamas. Bhrama’s worship is the study of Vedas and related Sastras through Saraswati. . Grasping Brahman, that is the worship. And that is what the Brahmins are doing. They through Veda worship Brahma the creator of everything.

 

There are too many factors associated with the creator to dismiss the thesis that Brahma is all in all the true embodiment of Veda personified. That Brahma is true Brahman.

Though in the forgoing attempt I have not produced scholarly Vedic pramana, as I am no scholar of Veda, but such a proof exists and I have heard such a rigorous reasoning in certain circles of Vedic scholars. Other members who have knowledge on this may provide such scholarly proof.

 

Hiranyagarpa

[Dark Warrior]

Yep, I will no longer post in this thread. So far, in this forum, I have debated with covert Shiavites who called themselves Vaishnavas, a guy who claimed to be a manifestation of Narayana, a guy who believed that scripture is full of contradictions and is man-mde, a guy who believed that scripture is full of contradictions but is still divine and a guy who has realised a mysterious Brahman, a tattvavadi and many Hare Christnas.

 

So, I guess that's enough variety for me. I sign off from this thread. One request - Please try to come back to the topic of the thead which is, 'Mayavadis and Vaishnavism'. If you can't do this, please do not start unnecessary debates.

[Amlesh]

 

Dark Warrior, i think you are taking things too personal and banging up with offensive language. Your scholarliness will not get any recognition if you continue to do so and will injunct Hate in the minds of people reading your posts. Calm yourself down. Do not spoil the fabric of the topic. Please..

He is like fire; the moth like to play around; when burnt, then only the we get the realisation about the burning sensation.

 

Logically, no one can beat him; the only hick, he is zero tolerant about other paths.

[Amlesh]

and so are others...

[Ahren Berg]

Mr. Hirayanyagarpa,

You are right. There in fact there exists a very strong evidence for the thesis that the ultimate deity of the Veda is the Creator. At least it is stronger thesis than the thesis that Brahman is the Maintainer. I have the necessary supportive evidences for this. But right now I am on tour and am in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region>. I need to get back to <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Germany</st1:place></st1:country-region> for the material. Then I will post it.

Ahren Berg.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Mr. Hirayanyagarpa,

You are right. There in fact there exists a very strong evidence for the thesis that the ultimate deity of the Veda is the Creator. At least it is stronger thesis than the thesis that Brahman is the Maintainer. I have the necessary supportive evidences for this. But right now I am on tour and am in ffice:smarttags" />India. I need to get back to <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<st1:place w:st=" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Germany</st1:place></st1:country-region> for the material. Then I will post it.

Ahren Berg.

 

Had to come back for this...it made me laugh because that is a typical Max Muller opinion.

 

Vedas say that Brahman is the Creator, Maintainer and Destroyer. That Being who creates, maintains and destroys is Vishnu. Shruti (Satapatha Brahmana, Mahopanishad, Rig Veda, Mahanarayana Upanishad) is overflowing with vakyas of NarayaNa creating Brahma, and Brahma creating by virtue of his indweller (NarayaNa).

 

NarayaNa Suktam hails NarayaNa as Para Brahmana and says 'NarayaNa is Brahma, Siva, Indra' (Sarira Sariri Bhava/Sarva Shabda Vachya should be used here). That ought to be enough.

 

The word 'NarayaNa' can only denote Brahman, as Appaya Dikshitar admitted. For instance, when we say 'Gita', we only think of Bhagavad Gita although other Gitas exist. When we say RamayaNa, we don't think of a guy named 'Ram Kumar', but only about Lord Rama.

 

Hence, NarayaNa alone is Brahman. There cannot be any 'stronger thesis' because NarayaNa cannot be relegated to a lesser deity. In fact, no need to go to Veda. Look at the Bhagavad Gita sloka wher Krishna talks about the vulnerability of Brahma.

 

Now, I shall really go. This debate is endless, and doubtless more people will come with new theories. It is to be hoped that they study Vaishnava Literature, formulate some constructive criticism, if possible, on the proofs provided by Sri Ramanuja's Vedant Sangraha and Sri Madhva's Vishnu Tattva Vinirnaya, and THEN, put forth their opinion.

[Saraba Iyar]

And what about the poor old Sun god?

In your busy promoting of Bhrama and Vishnu as the Bhraman, you forgot the real one. How do you overlook conveniently that a Bramin’s first and only commitment is Gayatri mantra, which is the very essence of Veda. Other gods are optional for a Brahmin. And Gayatri is representing which god? Savitr (Sun god) my friends. He is called Pratyaksha Bhraman (verily the manifested Brahman)

“Vishnu” is nothing but one of the twelve names of Sun god.

Sun god is the oldest god in other civilizations too. Egyptian mythology has it that Ra the sun god self created himself first. Then he created other gods. It is just another matter that we forgot him and relegated him to a non entity and promoted many other deities above him. It is different issue that we worship many deities But when it comes to sandia vandana, by gayatri, we worship Sun as Brahman and no one else.

Sun verily is the manifestation of Brahman

Saraba Iyar

[Amlesh]

I suppose we have very few Brahmins here.

 

Concerning the Sun God, as far as I know, you are the first one to refer him as Prominent [in this Forum I mean].

 

You are the lucky first, if I'm not wrong.

 

Truly, you were the only one missing in this Forum, Unity in Diversity.

 

Welcome to Audarya.

[RadhaMukunda]

 

And what about the poor old Sun god?

In your busy promoting of Bhrama and Vishnu as the Bhraman, you forgot the real one. How do you overlook conveniently that a Bramin’s first and only commitment is Gayatri mantra, which is the very essence of Veda. Other gods are optional for a Brahmin. And Gayatri is representing which god? Savitr (Sun god) my friends. He is called Pratyaksha Bhraman (verily the manifested Brahman)

“Vishnu” is nothing but one of the twelve names of Sun god.

Sun god is the oldest god in other civilizations too. Egyptian mythology has it that Ra the sun god self created himself first. Then he created other gods. It is just another matter that we forgot him and relegated him to a non entity and promoted many other deities above him. It is different issue that we worship many deities But when it comes to sandia vandana, by gayatri, we worship Sun as Brahman and no one else.

Sun verily is the manifestation of Brahman

Saraba Iyar

Surya Deva is one of the Pancha Brahman, also known as Surya Narayana. During Sandhya we also say this prayer to Surya:

 

dhyeya sadA savitr maNDala madhyavartI

nArAyaNaH sarasijAsana sanniviSTaH

keyUravAn makara kuNDalavAn kirITI

hArI hiraNmaya vapuH dhrta zaGkha cakraH

"One should meditate on the form of Lord NArAyaNa situated in the sun globe. He is seated on a lotus, with golden bracelets, crown, shark earrings; he is golden in complexion, and holds the shankha and chakra in his hands."

 

I personally believe that the Pancha Devas are all manifestions of Brahman which are: Ganesha, Surya, Shiva, Vishnu and Devi. Definitely, my Ishta- and Kula Devata is Krishna, but I have no problem worshipping other manifestations of Brahman. This correspodenses to Smaarta believe, but I actually follow what is popularly known as Sanatan Dharma in North India.

 

Great vaishnavas like Tulsidasa and Vallabhacharya didn't see difference between Shiva and Vishnu, but they still decided to worship Rama or Krishna. If 20.000 references from the Vedas would prove Vishnu to be lower than Brahma or Rudra, Tulsidasa would still worship Rama and Vallabha would still worship Krishna. That was their true bhakti.

 

 

One request - Please try to come back to the topic of the thead which is, 'Mayavadis and Vaishnavism'. If you can't do this, please do not start unnecessary debates.

I think nobody is interested in that topic anymore.

 

But to go back on that topic I would like to refer again to the story of Ajamila in the Bhagavat Puran.

[guliaditya]

 

Had to come back for this...it made me laugh because that is a typical Max Muller opinion.

 

Vedas say that Brahman is the Creator, Maintainer and Destroyer. That Being who creates, maintains and destroys is Vishnu. Shruti (Satapatha Brahmana, Mahopanishad, Rig Veda, Mahanarayana Upanishad) is overflowing with vakyas of NarayaNa creating Brahma, and Brahma creating by virtue of his indweller (NarayaNa).

 

NarayaNa Suktam hails NarayaNa as Para Brahmana and says 'NarayaNa is Brahma, Siva, Indra' (Sarira Sariri Bhava/Sarva Shabda Vachya should be used here). That ought to be enough.

 

The word 'NarayaNa' can only denote Brahman, as Appaya Dikshitar admitted. For instance, when we say 'Gita', we only think of Bhagavad Gita although other Gitas exist. When we say RamayaNa, we don't think of a guy named 'Ram Kumar', but only about Lord Rama.

 

Hence, NarayaNa alone is Brahman. There cannot be any 'stronger thesis' because NarayaNa cannot be relegated to a lesser deity. In fact, no need to go to Veda. Look at the Bhagavad Gita sloka wher Krishna talks about the vulnerability of Brahma.

 

Now, I shall really go. This debate is endless, and doubtless more people will come with new theories. It is to be hoped that they study Vaishnava Literature, formulate some constructive criticism, if possible, on the proofs provided by Sri Ramanuja's Vedant Sangraha and Sri Madhva's Vishnu Tattva Vinirnaya, and THEN, put forth their opinion.

 

Respected dark Warrior,

 

There is no need to post your opinion again & again.You have explained many times in a very logical way.As mentioned above, Bhagavad Gita alone is sufficient to prove your point.

Anyway, as usual nice post worth reading

 

Pranaam