listening to the holy name from the lips of mayavadis

[Amlesh]

...in brief, is the difference between Jnana Yoga and Bhakti Yoga. Jnanis will meditate on their own atman (Akshara) and realise themselves (ie, their atman) to be the body of the indwelling paramatmA. Ayam Atma Brahma is one such example of a meditative vakya - First the AtmA, then Brahman is realised...... by Dark Warrior

Exactly, the Jnany is in search of the absolute Truth and therefore his quest is more focussed on solitary meditation under a Banyan Tree or Himalaya.

For the Bhakta, he already know the Absolute Truth, his quest for knowledge ends; he starts working for the Lord; in other words, for the welfare of all living entities.

But to be chosen by Krishna for a Karya, you need to be really special; in other words, you'll be chosen only by His Grace or the Grace of his Beloved.

That's why Prahalad maharaj says, it is much better to work for the benefit of Sarva Bhutani rather than doing some selfish solitary acts for Mukti in the Himalaya.

 

 

[Amlesh]

You need to be on the battlefield inorder to receive First Class Mukti, not by intelligence or opulence [but directed by Hari].

 

The Vedas teaches Pavriti and Nivriti.

 

The Devaki Putram Gitam is the knowledge that binds Man to God.

[ranjeetmore]

There's an old saying in bengal,

 

Kanu bina gita naahi.

 

There is absolutely no Gita without Sri Kanea.

 

I think that says it all.

[ranjeetmore]

 

Dear Dark Warrior, where ever Krishna is saying I, does it mean he is refering to his physical appearance or is he relating it to the gross body? He is refering to the pure form of 'I', which is nothing but the Self and that which is in everyone. That 'I' is both Saguna in action and Nirguna as non-active. So, the Atma is a combination of both attributes which is defined again as ANORANIYAAN MAHTOMAHIYAAN or the definition of Atma itself which is 'Shivam Shantam Advaitam Chaturtamanyante Sa Atma Sabigyeyah'. The definition itself says it is Advaitam (one and the same, not two). Kriya or action is happening due to the presense of the Trigunas(Sattva, Rajas, Tamas) and delution of these actions were called Maya and yes, Maya is not an entity distinct from Him. There is nothing impure. Everything is Pure. Knowing everything is Vidya. As comprehended many a times 'If there is Dvaita, there is no Moksha'. If there is something called 'Moksha', Dvaita is a wrong concept. Even the definition of Manushya also says 'Mana eva Manushyanaam, Kaaranam Bandhamokshayoh'. So, when all scriptures talk about Moksha, Dvaita is a myth.

 

Dvaita is no myth.The Supreme lord Himself has said ,"Some fools deride Me whenever I appear in front of them in a human form.They do not know of My transcendental nature."

 

This transcendental nature of the Supreme lord is clearly explained in the vedas.So also,the adi-lila of Caitanya charitamrita states,"Sri Govinda's Names,Form,Pastimes[leela],Associates,Abode and all His paraphernalia is He Himself.There is no difference AT ALL."

That is His transcendental nature.That is His absoluteness.

Even the devotee is indifferent from the lord[note: The devotee doesn't become the lord,the creator maintainer and destroyer,just as Sri Vrinadavana is indifferent from the lord,so is His devotee.This is inconcievble simultaneos oneness and difference.]

Here lies the answer to your difficulty.The Lord's form is He Himself.We jeevatmas are not the body.We are the Atman.But the lord's body is He alone.There is no difference at all.This is accepted by Sri Shankaracharya and every single jagadguru.

[Bart Happel]

 

In the first verse itself, Krishna differetiates between Himself and the Jivas, 'Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor did you'. ...

 

 

When, in this phrase, ‘you’ is part of ‘I’ (i.e., you are part of Krishna), then there is no conflict with advaita (monism). There may be a conflict with dvaita (dualism), however.

 

I understood elsewhere, that the meaning of the Sanskrit terms may be different from the meaning of the English terms: The advaita/dvaita controversy denotes the question whether or not we can ‘become one’ with God. This seems to imply an initial difference. The monism/dualism controversy (in the same context), denotes the question whether or not we (and everything in our individually perceived reality, including ‘other’ perceiving, conscious living beings), are integral parts of a universal whole (God).

 

Personally I adhere to the latter view. That is (apart from terminology): monism is the idea that everything is always part of God and as such everything is always ‘one’; and dualism is the idea that everything may be different from God and as such there may be at least 2 different forces in the universe.

 

Herein, as a scientist, I opt for monism, because it is a much simpler solution, with equal (and possibly even better) explanatory potential of perceptual phenomena (Occam’s razor: the simpler model is always better). I also think this agrees much better with the ideas in the ‘Bhagavad Gita’.

 

So, in my view, ‘you’ do not exist as an autonomous entity that is somehow not a part of the whole (God). There never was and there will never be, a time when ‘you’ exist without God.

 

Perhaps a small, intricate thing that I like to call ‘free will’ also exists, but that’s probably largely irrelevant..

 

Kind regards, Bart

[srikanthdk71]

 

Dvaita is no myth.The Supreme lord Himself has said ,"Some fools deride Me whenever I appear in front of them in a human form.They do not know of My transcendental nature."

 

Exactly correct(always) what the Supreme lord himself has said. If you interpret in the Biblical way, what you say is correct but when you take the pointers to which he mean when he say "My Transcendental Nature" you need to give it a thought again as to what he is refering to.

 

 

This transcendental nature of the Supreme lord is clearly explained in the vedas.So also,the adi-lila of Caitanya charitamrita states,"Sri Govinda's Names,Form,Pastimes[leela],Associates,Abode and all His paraphernalia is He Himself.There is no difference AT ALL."

That is His transcendental nature.That is His absoluteness.

Even the devotee is indifferent from the lord

Fine till this point. But what you have infered below after reading the above is totally opposite. What do you mean when you say No Difference At All?

 

 

[note: The devotee doesn't become the lord,the creator maintainer and destroyer,just as Sri Vrinadavana is indifferent from the lord,so is His devotee.This is inconcievble simultaneos oneness and difference.]

Here lies the answer to your difficulty.The Lord's form is He Himself.We jeevatmas are not the body.We are the Atman.But the lord's body is He alone.There is no difference at all.This is accepted by Sri Shankaracharya and every single jagadguru.

 

Who is at difficulty here while trying to say 'Devotee is indifferent from Lord" and yet immediately saying "Devotee Doesnt become Lord". Are your statements not contradactary? If we are "ALONE" and lords body is "ALONE", what business do we have with him nor has he with us? Both are independent. So, to know one another, we must be connected and I believe we are.

[sreevalsakolathayar]

all puranas, upanishads and sruthis declare that God is one ......the paramathma.

"ekam sad viprah bahudha vadanthi"----Rigveda

wise people say the one as in many ways.

Vishnu and Siva are one and the same......we should not see even a little difference between them..........says SrimadBhagavatham

also......there is only one.......no two......

that one is paramathma.........beyond three gunas.....

sarvam sivamayam

radhesyam

[sambya]

you all agree that god is the reservoir of unending love and compassion towards all, right?if you dont, then no point in worshiping such a heartless phenomenon. and in case you do then you also know that he is also our parent ,friend,lover etc all rolled in one,right?then how can he not respond if anyone calls out to him with full heart or desperately seeks him,be it mayavadi or whatever?does the father or mother get angry and kills the child if ,unable to pronounce 'papa' he says 'pa'? dose'nt the parents rush to love him more for his tender failure?even if a mayavadi is treading a wrong path wouldnt the almighty excuse him an embrace him with love?

[srikanthdk71]

Again for those who came in late, this is another top-class thread of Bija and all of them can get to know the scholarliness of Dark Warrior in this thread. Absolutely marvellous. A true Vaishnava.

[hindustani]

By the way where is Dark Warrior?not seen not heard of for a long time,hope he is fine.

[kaisersose]

 

By the way where is Dark Warrior?not seen not heard of for a long time,hope he is fine.

 

Actually he was not fine as long as he was posting here. As a Sri Vaishnava, he had to constantly battle

 

1. Christian Hare Krishnas who found it extremely important to link Jesus to Vaishnavism to the point of redefining the meaning of the word.

2. Mayavadins/Advaitins

3. Shaivas

 

Now that he is not posting here, he does not have to fight which means he is doing just fine.

 

Cheers

[hindustani]

You never know,on internet people have different IDs,he may be here but with another id!

 

Actually he was not fine as long as he was posting here. As a Sri Vaishnava, he had to constantly battle

 

1. Christian Hare Krishnas who found it extremely important to link Jesus to Vaishnavism to the point of redefining the meaning of the word.

2. Mayavadins/Advaitins

3. Shaivas

 

Now that he is not posting here, he does not have to fight which means he is doing just fine.

 

Cheers

[Amlesh]

Great person indeed is Dark Warrior.

Nostalgia.

[Amlesh]

 

As a Sri Vaishnava, he had to constantly battle

Cheers

Each time he used to outclass everyone.

You were always his favorite prey.

[hindustani]

What is your definition for Vaishnavas?I know many and they are humble-down to earth poople and respect others very well.Take an example of Lord Krishna,study his Charitrya(character)and you will get an idea how real Vaishnava should be.

 

Originally Posted by kaisersose

As a Sri Vaishnava, he had to constantly battle

Cheers

 

[kaisersose]

 

What is your definition for Vaishnavas?

 

A more general question would be "what is the standard, accepted definition of a Vaishnava?" The answer is, "a worshipper of Vishnu" and I accept the standard.

 

 

I know many and they are humble-down to earth poople and respect others very well.Take an example of Lord Krishna,study his Charitrya(character)and you will get an idea how real Vaishnava should be.

 

If you think I was saying DW was a bad guy for arguing with non-Vaishnavas, then that is not correct. DW was more level-headed than most Vaishnavas who have posted here.

 

Cheers

[hindustani]

It is your belief my friend,genuine Vaishnava never downgrade anyone's Guru or his path of worship,he did it more than one times,leave this matter/subject when he is not present here.

 

If you think I was saying DW was a bad guy for arguing with non-Vaishnavas, then that is not correct. DW was more level-headed than most Vaishnavas who have posted here.

 

[kaisersose]

 

It is your belief my friend,genuine Vaishnava never downgrade anyone's Guru or his path of worship,he did it more than one times,leave this matter/subject when he is not present here.

 

You can do all that and still be a Vaishnava as long as you worship Vishnu. Simple Semantics. Though Prabhupada and his followers mocked Sai Baba and a whole bunch of other Gurus, they are still Vaishnavas because they worship Krishna.

 

This is like saying Punjabis are brave people. What about Punjabis who are not brave? Are they not Punjabis? There is a difference between Definition and Euology.

 

Cheers

[Justin]

You never know,on internet people have different IDs,he may be here but with another id!

You bet, dark warrior has multiple ids and he moves in mysterious ways. His avatars range in representing Mayavada to VD to Tattvavada. This proud friend of mine has the guts to take the attack right to the opponents camp even if it means putting his id at stake

[srikanthdk71]

 

You bet, dark warrior has multiple ids and he moves in mysterious ways. His avatars range in representing Mayavada to VD to Tattvavada. This proud friend of mine has the guts to take the attack right to the opponents camp even if it means putting his id at stake

 

Hey Justin, you still there. Nice to see you back. Thats why threads like these bring on those old memories. Dark Warrior was too good. Infact i invited and messaged him several times to be back with no avail. Like Kaisersose said, he was more level headed than most of the guys around.

[Amlesh]

 

Hey Justin, you still there. Nice to see you back. Thats why threads like these bring on those old memories. Dark Warrior was too good. Infact i invited and messaged him several times to be back with no avail. Like Kaisersose said, he was more level headed than most of the guys around.

Yep, you are right.

 

He came from the most orthodox school of thought, Sri Vaishnava.