Why Advait Is A Complete Hoax.

[bhaktajan]

sambya, you keep using the term childish.

 

What man uses this term more than once in a debate?

 

A Pyscho analyist could be of great benefit to your caretakers peace of mind.

 

Oh and thanks again for the Education of Advaita-Philosophical maxims--why does the 'term' 'bhakta-jana' keep popping up in your writtings?

 

..............................................................

Rudra01's siddhis includes his ability define an empty void as possessing no qualities! Using no more than 500 words--nouns, verbs, people, places and things too.

 

Oh and thanks again for the Education of Advaita-Philosophical maxims--why does the 'term' 'bhakta-jana' keep popping up in your writtings?

 

Yours in Krishna's service,

Bhaktajan

 

Hang-ten Cowabanga Dudes and dudettes!

[kaisersose]

 

by accepting nirgun brahman you automatically accept that everything is brahman.thanks for your final admission.now you know that advaita is not a complete hoax.it is in reality a very hazardous path with real dangers of falling down, which is why most spiritual leaders add bhakti with advaita and respect bhakti.that is why it is also written in gita that "one who follows gyan marga also comes to me,but with difficulty".so it is prooved that it is not a complete hoax but maybe an insufficient path.you dont need to follow advaita,but dont disrespect or disbelieve it. best of luck.

 

Bhakti and Advaita and not mutually exclusive as some morons (not you, of course) here assume.

 

Most Advaitins follow the Bhakti route. The Upanishad approach of introspection also known as the Jnana-Marga is hard for most people.

 

As for falling down, we have seen a number of high profile Bhaktas "fall down" in the recent years. Some went to prison and some have ongoing cases against them for abusing women in their Ashrams, etc. So the danger of falling down is not reduced just because one chooses the Bhakti approach.

 

Cheers

[sambya]

hi bhaktajan,

would you mind me asking you ,which part of the world you belong to? i know this is personal and i do not mean to offend you in any way.this is just a curiosity on my part.ive asked this on a previous occasion also.

if you are a westerner that would immediately make sense of your style of arguments which are modeled on arguments of christians and followers of other abrahamic religions.in that case i would understand that it is not your fault, but your samskars as a westerner thats working.that would strentghen my already strong belief in purva janma and samskars.

[bhaktajan]

Oh and thanks again for the Education of Advaita-Philosophical maxims--

 

Now I know why the 'term' 'bhakta-jana' keep popping up in your mind!

 

Yours in Krishna's service,

Bhaktajan

[ranjeetmore]

 

hi ranjeet

you said "whereas mayavadis say: Eh,I'm as great as you are.I won't bow down to you.I don't need you to cross this mountain."

but this is a generalisation of all the advaitists.its true that some adherents to this theory are actually puffed up but most of them dont pursue advaita to defy or outshine god.just think of shaktas ans shaivas. almost all of them pursue a path of devotion to their respective ishta dev or devi ,but simultaneously believe in advaitic nirvikalpa to be the highest realization.so they are basically bhaktas with an advaitic philosophy.they never try to say im as great as you,but they dont reject advaita anubhuti.and specially in todays time most people believe in what some people call as neo-vedanta.in this there is no derogation or underestimation of the path of bhakti.they pursue prema bhakti but keep their belief in advaita .its called gyan mishra bhakti..

 

I'm sory...prema Bhakti just doesn't 'roll' that way.

Gyan mishra bhakti is that when at the final stages of atma gyan...the gyani goes in pursuit of the lord's krpa sakti...(Only if he is intelligent...90% of them consider atma-gyan to be IT.)

 

That time he HAS TO DO BHAKTI for gaining liberation(Sayujya mukti).

Who will bestow Krpa otherwise?

Shankara? Durga?

They HAVE swarupa shakti but they dance according to Sri Bhagvan's wishes and are not independent.(I know you might find it objectionable...but If Uma-Shankara were here,they'd certainly dance in joy-no sarcasm intended.)

 

 

when you said "but we take different meanings for the term Bhramn too." i couldnt understand what you meant. how can brahmn have two interpretations? brahman is unity.maybe you are trying to suggest the saguna and nirguna thing but that dosent split brahman in two.its a mere perception of brahman. similarly in paramhamsa case their realizations are essentially one,but the perceptions of general people

may vary..

Of course Bhramn has two interpretations.

Our Bhramn has an eternal Form,Name,Quality,Pastimes,Abode and is simulataneously Formless and Paramatma.

Your Bhramn is.....well,you.

 

 

 

you said"Bhukti-Mukti pishachani. thats true. many advaitins(specially the neo advaitins) do not care for bhukti or mukti.they love brahman the formless nirguna aspect of lord just like dvaitins love their god with a form.its a misconception that advaitiats only strive for mukti and nothig else..".

 

 

How can you love Formless THING?

No pastime.No name to Glorify.No Quality to remember.

 

You love your mum.It's un doubtedly selfish love,but still you love her becoz of her qualities.When you remember your mum,you remember her qualities,form and pastimes and then you feel whatever 'love' it is.

 

Mukti KILLS the potential for experiencing/giving unlimited love through transcedental dealings with the lord.

 

As my intelligence suggest,you cannot play with mere effulgence(Bhramnjyoti)...neither can you sit on it's back and play as though your superior to it.

 

Bhramn has all the energies.Agreed.but they are dormant.Whereas Sri Krsna's hladini sakti(Sri Radhika)/the most important of all saktis sees to it that the bhakta as well as Sri Bhagavan forget their position

 

(This takes place on Shuddha sattvik level.Thus the factor of avidya raring it's head is obviously not possible)

 

and love each other,experiencing ever increasing infinite happiness.THIS IS LEELA.

How can you love Bhramajyoti?

 

 

also markendaya purana is not written by markendaya.it is a diolouge between jaimini and sage markendaya.all the major puranas were written by vyasa himself.remember that it is durga who was the main shakti of vishnu before the concept of radharani generated in gaudiya vishnavism.durga and mahalaxmi are non different and it is laxmi who took birth as tulasi according to one purana.also you say"Parabhupada has explained that there is not a distinct difference between the possessor of the Energy and the Energy as such,BUT the possessor alwys remains the controller of energy."that is true from one perspective but remember there are innumerable ways of viewing at things.when i think from the side of the 'powerfull' it is evident that he is superior to power , for without him power cannot work at all.but when i look from the side of 'power' its evident that without her powerfull cannot budge an inch.here power becomes superior.it all depends on what perspective you are looking at it..

 

The birds say- 'The omnipotent, omniscient and the omnipresent Almighty God is worshipped even by the deities. We salute that Lord Vishnu who is the originator of this universe and who pervades everywhere. We salute Brahma from whose four mouths, the Vedas appeared and sanctified all the three worlds. We bow down at the feet of Mahadev.

--- Markandeya purana.The birds dialogue with Jaimini.

 

What is left to explain?

 

How can Maya be the main sakti Of Sri Vishnu? She is Jada/dead in nature.Whereas His superior sakti/rama Sakti is INDIFFERENT from Himself.

 

Bhramadeva reveals that,

"That Supreme Primeval Person,Mahavishnu Only associates ONLY with His internal energy,Rama sakti.The acit sakti/maya sakti is the reflection of this divine energy/rama sakti."

 

Radharani was introduced by gaudiya Vaishnavism?

May i remind you that Creation of the entire cosmic manifestation is repetitive and cyclic?

 

This highest truth(Sri Radhe of course) was introduced on this planet at one point of time is completely irrelevant to the position of the truth.It doesn't affect the position of the truth in the slightest.

 

If i were to not know who radha rani is...that means She becomes non existent? Hardly.

 

You are right...The Supreme Power and the Supreme Powerful are non different.But this applies to the Hladini potency(Srimati Radhika) AND Sri Bhagavan(Shyamsundara).Hladini potency is the maintainer of ALL the potencies of Godhead.Krsna and Radhika being one and the same...

Maya sakti doesn't come in the picture only.

 

The vedas describe that Maya doesn't go in front of Godhead.This is true.

Godhead is light and Maya is nescience/darkness.There is no question that she should come anywhere near Him.

 

And yet,she resides within Him,being His energy.See the Acintya(incomprehensible) tattva that My Shyamasundara is?

 

 

you mentioned --And the verse of the really illustrious Jiva Gosvami means thus:

"Although Maya/durgadevi is really the external energy of sri krsna,she still resides within Him for she is His energy afterall."

how is that? the interpretation would be--

yah-one who

krishna-is called as krishna

sa iva-he is also

durga syat-durga herself

yaa durga-one who is called as durga

krishna eva-is also krisha

sah-himself.

where does the words 'external energy(vahiranga shakti)', 'resides' comes in?.

 

I'm really sorry but i cannot reply to that unless i come across the verse and it's transliteration either by a realised prema bhakta of the rasik class.

 

Who else will undersatnd Jiva gosvami's words??

 

Sri kripaluji maharaj has always revealed that

Sri saraswati devi,the mother of all vedic knowledge and even Sri Bhrama cannot understand the dealings,the emotions,the sentiments,the actions and words of rasiks,what to speak of us ordinary human beings.

 

you said-"I'm not refuting the existence of Nirgun,Nirvishesh,niraakar Bhramn"

by accepting nirgun brahman you automatically accept that everything is brahman.thanks for your final admission.now you know that advaita is not a complete hoax.it is in reality a very hazardous path with real dangers of falling down, which is why most spiritual leaders add bhakti with advaita and respect bhakti.that is why it is also written in gita that "one who follows gyan marga also comes to me,but with difficulty".so it is prooved that it is not a complete hoax but maybe an insufficient path.you dont need to follow advaita,but dont disrespect or disbelieve it. best of luck.

[sambya]

 

I'm sory...prema Bhakti just doesn't 'roll' that way

how do you know that,you have not tasted it.

 

 

How can you love Formless THING?

No pastime.No name to Glorify.No Quality to remember.

by this do you want to suggest just because you cant no one else can?each individuals approach and capacity to understand god is different,which is why there are so many different faiths in this world.

 

 

Sri Krsna's hladini sakti(Sri Radhika)/the most important of all saktis

that is according to gaudiya vaishnavism and not the ancient vaishnavisn .

 

 

The birds say- 'The omnipotent, omniscient and the omnipresent Almighty God is worshipped even by the deities. We salute that Lord Vishnu who is the originator of this universe and who pervades everywhere. We salute Brahma from whose four mouths, the Vedas appeared and sanctified all the three worlds. We bow down at the feet of Mahadev.

--- Markandeya purana.The birds dialogue with Jaimini.

 

What is left to explain?

it also says sa vidya parama.....sa iva sarveshwareshwari" which means that this shakti is the ultimate vidya or truth and the one who gives liberation.she's also the cause of bondage and the ishwari of all other ishwar(gods) whts left to explain?

 

 

How can Maya be the main sakti Of Sri Vishnu? She is Jada/dead in nature.Whereas His superior sakti/rama Sakti is INDIFFERENT from Himself.

shes jada according to gaudiya faith only.in every other faith and in almost all puranas she is the root conciousness.its a shame that as an indian you are unawre of the basic hindu mantras like --ya devi sarvabhutesu......chetanetyavidhiyate.....namo namah.it means that the devi is present all over the cosmos in form of conciousness. in the same markendaya purana it was only the devi who existed (apart from vishnu in yoganidra)after the end of kalpa. surely a jada vastu cant exist after pralay?!!!!!!!! infact under the spell of yogamaya vishnu was lying jada in yoganidra.start reading some sciptures right now.

 

You are right...The Supreme Power and the Supreme Powerful are non different.But this applies to the Hladini potency(Srimati Radhika) AND Sri Bhagavan(Shyamsundara).Hladini potency is the maintainer of ALL the potencies of Godhead.Krsna and Radhika being one and the same...

Maya sakti doesn't come in the picture only.

i'll show you your fault.----------

durga =vahiranga shakti(power)

radha=antaranga shakti(power)

krishna=powerfull

so krishna in totality constitute both vahiranga and antaranga shakti,right ?? then you call durga jada or demigod. so a part of krishna turns demigod.and so he is not absolute.can he be called god anymore??!!!!!!!!

 

 

Nowadays,Oshos and Yoganandas are passing off as mahatmas.

These are not mahatmas.

The basic quality of a mahatma is shama(control over senses).

Even yogis achieve this through rigorous sadhanas.

 

The former couldn't control from taking drugs and the latter ate fish.

so refraining from eating fish is the first criteria for becoming a mahatma ? a realized soul eats fish and he forgets all about brahman,isit like that?

did you see these people?how can you be so sure that they are not mahatmas?with full respect towards sri maharaj how are you so sure of his exalted state?

 

 

This is not a veda mantra.It is a direct order By Sri Krsna.

ha ha !!!! this is your knowledge of hinduism!!!!!!!! whats the difference between a veda mantra and krishnas words ??????????? vedas are considered gods direct revelations in hindu fold.did'nt you ever read that?or do you want to sugest that there are 2 different gods--one who revealed the vedas and one who reaveled the gita??

[Rudra01]

 

..............................................................

Rudra01's siddhis includes his ability define an empty void as possessing no qualities! Using no more than 500 words--nouns, verbs, people, places and things too.

 

Oh and thanks again for the Education of Advaita-Philosophical maxims--why does the 'term' 'bhakta-jana' keep popping up in your writtings?

 

Yours in Krishna's service,

Bhaktajan

 

Hang-ten Cowabanga Dudes and dudettes!

you be happy with your siddhi of circular (il)logic since there is nothing more you can argue about. I'm very familiar with your ilk. i'd like to know if you are a "new" arrival on the sanatana way. that'll explain some of your aggression

[Rudra01]

 

 

ha ha !!!! this is your knowledge of hinduism!!!!!!!! whats the difference between a veda mantra and krishnas words ??????????? vedas are considered gods direct revelations in hindu fold.did'nt you ever read that?or do you want to sugest that there are 2 different gods--one who revealed the vedas and one who reaveled the gita??

 

sambya,

 

i'm new here, but it seems too surreal to be true.

are you certain these characters aren't rabid abrahamics in the guise of vaishnavites?

[ranjeetmore]

 

 

it also says sa vidya parama.....sa iva sarveshwareshwari" which means that this shakti is the ultimate vidya or truth and the one who gives liberation.she's also the cause of bondage and the ishwari of all other ishwar(gods) whts left to explain???

 

The birds say,"

The Omnipotent,Omniscient and Omnipresent Godhead is worshipped even by the dieties.We worship THAT Lord Vishnu.

I hope you know what Omnipotent means.Omnipotent means the cotroller of all known,unknown energies and potencies.Maya is an energy.

Vidya means truth?

She is the ultimate knowledge- she is bhakti mahadevi.(Uma manifests in 9 forms of bhakti.

Technically speaking she IS the cause of bondage,being maya and all.But literally,jeevatma is bahirmukha(not facing) from Sri krsna,that's why Maya is holding us.

 

And tell me one thing,Why are you quoting this verse?

If SHE IS THE CAUSE of bondage,your mayavad loses all it's meaning.You are Bhramn and yet maya caused your Conditioned state.

Your mayavad goes for a complete toss.What will you answer now?

 

She gives liberation- Already accepted.Durga loka is a spirtual planet.But there is one condition.If bhagavan favors only then such liberation is possible.

 

in upport: Ravana,Durvasa,Bhaumasura,Banasura.

 

Durvasa(Shiva bhakta) had to run for his life becoz he offended yudhistira.

 

Ravana(Shiva bhakta) got smashed like a mere fly.All the demigods were under his rule.

 

Bhaumasura(Shiva bhakta): Obtains a boon from mahadeva that he can kill anyone by just placing his hand over that person's head.Then he himself runs after shiva to kill him.Shiva takes shelter of Sri Vishnu.This is corroborated in THE SHIVA PURANA.

 

Banasura(Shiva bhakta): has a 1000 arms.Calls lord shiva to join him in battle against Bhagvan Himself.The supreme Lord releases His Narayana-astra which brings rudra jvara under control.Rudra jvara brings about the destruction of the world.

Lord Shiva is stunned(All these personaltities perform very good acting).Then the lord cuts off 998 arms of banasura in FRONT OF SHIVA.

It is on Shiva's plea that the lord even spares 2 arms.

Uma - mahesvara are under Sri Bhagavan although they can freely distribute their mercy.

 

 

 

shes jada according to gaudiya faith only.in every other faith and in almost all puranas she is the root conciousness.its a shame that as an indian you are unawre of the basic hindu mantras like --ya devi sarvabhutesu......chetanetyavidhiyate.....namo namah.it means that the devi is present all over the cosmos in form of conciousness. in the same markendaya purana it was only the devi who existed (apart from vishnu in yoganidra)after the end of kalpa. surely a jada vastu cant exist after pralay?!!!!!!!! infact under the spell of yogamaya vishnu was lying jada in yoganidra.

 

Maya sakti is jada means she is material in nature.

If it were no so,the buildings would have talked to you.

Maya'DEVI' is Not jada.It is like....COMMON sense.

 

Devi is present apart from Sri vishnu?

After pralaya,Maya sakti gets destroyed a what?

Obviously no.She enters into Sri Vishnu.So says the Garbha stuti.

 

 

infact under the spell of yogamaya vishnu was lying jada in yoganidra.

Please speculate elsewhere(No offense).

 

 

i'll show you your fault.----------

durga =vahiranga shakti(power)

radha=antaranga shakti(power)

krishna=powerfull

so krishna in totality constitute both vahiranga and antaranga shakti,right ?? then you call durga jada or demigod. so a part of krishna turns demigod.and so he is not absolute.can he be called god anymore??!!!!!!!!??

 

I never said Durga is demigod.And again,no speculation.

 

 

with full respect towards sri maharaj how are you so sure of his exalted state???

 

Manifestation of the 8 sattvik bhavas and their genuine symptoms have been recorded in the books of Rasik saints.

 

 

ha ha !!!! this is your knowledge of hinduism!!!!!!!! whats the difference between a veda mantra and krishnas words ??????????? vedas are considered gods direct revelations in hindu fold.did'nt you ever read that?or do you want to sugest that there are 2 different gods--one who revealed the vedas and one who reaveled the gita??

 

Paroksha vado vedo yam.

You cannot understand the vedas.One thing is indicated,another thing is meant.

 

Srimad Bhagvat Gita Comes within the Mahabharata,which is easier to understand.There is no Paroksha vad in this Text.

Thus the natural request to accept the direct order of Sri krsna.

[Amlesh]

Sure Ranjeet, that's why she is popularly known as Vishnu Maya...

[sambya]

 

If SHE IS THE CAUSE of bondage,your mayavad loses all it's meaning.You are Bhramn and yet maya caused your Conditioned state.

Your mayavad goes for a complete toss.What will you answer now?

this is what happens with a shallow knowledge of scriptures.the concepts of maya as understood by an advaitin ,a shakta and a vaishnav are not same at all.i have discussed this in another post of mine. when i quoted from markendaya purana i spoke from the highly personalised shakta veiwpoint.advaitic 'maya' has nothing to do with shakta's 'maya'

 

 

She gives liberation- Already accepted.Durga loka is a spirtual planet.But there is one condition.If bhagavan favors only then such liberation is possible.

dont keep on doing the same mistake.you are speaking from only vaishnavite view point.want to know what the shaktas say to this ?? "yes most definitely,jagadishwari mother is rajrajeshwari.obviously she cant row a jiva across the bhava sagar(ocean of material existence).so she has kept a krishna to do the job."

 

 

Devi is present apart from Sri vishnu?

After pralaya,Maya sakti gets destroyed a what?

Obviously no.She enters into Sri Vishnu.So says the Garbha stuti.

after dissolution of cosmsos vishnu came under the spell of yogamaya and entered into yoganidra.when madhu and kaitav came to kill brahma brahma tried to wake vishnu up.however unable to do so he prayed to yogamaya in the famous stava--------"twam swaha twam swadha........." . it means ,'o godess you are swaha and swadha mantra,you are the omkara,you are the mother of devas.you create , sustain and destroy.you are laxmi and supreme ishwari etc.....'

 

pleased by this yogamaya left vishnu's body after which he got up to fight.but even after a thousand years of battle he could not win .then yogamaya mesmerised the danavas only after which vishnu managed to decapitate them.all this was after kalpanta or pralay.durga and vishnu are sole independent entities after this dissolution.........markendaya purana.

 

 

 

I never said Durga is demigod.And again,no speculation.

lovely !!! if she's not a demigod then worshipping her is surely as fruitfull as worshipping krishna.moreover if she is not a demigod then she must be god.as god cannot be two then it conclusively implies that KRISHNA AND DURGA ARE SAME.or do you want to preach two diferent gods???!!!!!!!!

 

 

You cannot understand the vedas.One thing is indicated,another thing is meant.

 

sure sure !!!!! i forgot that our rishis and sages were idiots dressed in saffron who had nothing more to do than compose shastric riddles and jigsaw puzzles .!!!!thanks for this revelation.

[ayurveda4uall]

Dear reason behind is :- Advait :- Means A- Nahi (No) dvait Means :- some one else :-( no one else like him ) Unique and one power and that is Brahma and that is the all about advait sidhanta.. it means only one is the creator of this creation and that is lord brahma..

You know freind my self my name is Adwait Tripathi

 

regards

adwait tripathi

[sambya]

 

Dear reason behind is :- Advait :- Means A- Nahi (No) dvait Means :- some one else :-( no one else like him ) Unique and one power and that is Brahma and that is the all about advait sidhanta.. it means only one is the creator of this creation and that is lord brahma..

You know freind my self my name is Adwait Tripathi

 

regards

adwait tripathi

 

lord brahma !!! do you mean to say brahma with four heads who grew out of vishnu's navel? i didnt knew that!!!! can you elaborate ??

[Amlesh]

 

this is what happens with a shallow knowledge of scriptures.the concepts of maya as understood by an advaitin ,a shakta and a vaishnav are not same at all.i have discussed this in another post of mine. when i quoted from markendaya purana i spoke from the highly personalised shakta veiwpoint.advaitic 'maya' has nothing to do with shakta's 'maya'

 

A vaishnava accepts all the different versions of maya whereas others can't simultaneously.

How... let me explain....

A Shakta point of view, it means Devi personification and that great lady is in charge of this ever lasting physical mutability.

Advaitins don't beleive in personication but accepts that it is that illusion which is non-eternal.

Vaishnava says yes to the theory of Advaitins as its attributes and also accepts the in charge to be the Great Devi.

And that Vaishnava knows perfectly for whom that great lady is the devotee of.

I've seen your viewpoint on the Vaishnavas perspective... I could not hold myself laughing.

 

 

dont keep on doing the same mistake.you are speaking from only vaishnavite view point.want to know what the shaktas say to this ?? "yes most definitely,jagadishwari mother is rajrajeshwari.obviously she cant row a jiva across the bhava sagar(ocean of material existence).so she has kept a krishna to do the job."

 

Well, that is not said by Devi maata anywhere.

But Krishna said explicitely, that Maya of mine is difficult to cross..

But with my grace it becomes easy.

Who's Maya. Vishnu's maya.

I don't think Krishna lies... hahahahahahaha......

 

 

after dissolution of cosmsos vishnu came under the spell of yogamaya and entered into yoganidra.when madhu and kaitav came to kill brahma brahma tried to wake vishnu up.however unable to do so he prayed to yogamaya in the famous stava--------"twam swaha twam swadha........." . it means ,'o godess you are swaha and swadha mantra,you are the omkara,you are the mother of devas.you create , sustain and destroy.you are laxmi and supreme ishwari etc.....'

 

very funny.

The only 3 beings who are eternal according to Hinduism are Shiva, Vishnu and Shesha...

 

Now, let's analyse:

 

See Tulsidasa's Ramcharitramanas.. Uma ask Shiva.. why do you carry a skeleton garland..

In reply... Shiva says, whenever my different wife dies yuga after yuga, I recollect their skull in her memory.

Uma herself is Shakti.

 

 

pleased by this yogamaya left vishnu's body after which he got up to fight.but even after a thousand years of battle he could not win .then yogamaya mesmerised the danavas only after which vishnu managed to decapitate them.all this was after kalpanta or pralay.durga and vishnu are sole independent entities after this dissolution.........markendaya purana.

 

Even Garuda was in agony and doubted the supremacy of his Sweet Rama when he say him in the battlefield where coiled at the mercy of some snakes.

and snakes fear garuda .

however, all that lead to the conversation between Bushundi and Garuda.

And Lords how sweet it is... the conversation.. imagine the sweetness of Sri Rama now.

without Rama no chance of such nectarian words... no chance for Gandhiji to read all these inspiring words and no chance of India to get inpendence and no chance to teaching self respect by nicely kicking the then arrogant british.

 

Again beta, hail to Sri Rama.

 

 

lovely !!! if she's not a demigod then worshipping her is surely as fruitfull as worshipping krishna.moreover if she is not a demigod then she must be god.as god cannot be two then it conclusively implies that KRISHNA AND DURGA ARE SAME.or do you want to preach two diferent gods???!!!!!!!!

 

Of course she is not a demigod but hahahahah a demi goddess.

Ok, I'll stop joking.

 

Infact it is not what Ranjeet meant.

Between Hari and you, there is Maya and the only one that can help you overcome that Maya is Hari Himself.

 

 

sure sure !!!!! i forgot that our rishis and sages were idiots dressed in saffron who had nothing more to do than compose shastric riddles and jigsaw puzzles .!!!!thanks for this revelation.

Using the Vedas to understand Hari is not the thing to do.

The Vedas itself fails to comprehend him.

Had it been the case, the Bhagwatam would not have been the cause to exist and also why the need for Krishna to reveal the Gita which he says is an ultimate secret.

 

Several times you funny people tried to explain HIM via Vedas...really funny.. what else.. to make sugar out of sea water.

[sambya]

hello amalesh. puranas are most contradictory scriptures in hinduism.so quoting from puranas to establish supremacy of any particular diety is baseless.because someone else might as well come up with a equally potent sloka illustrating the supremacy of his diety over all others.

 

this is a common mistake that iskcon is so adept at and recently you have taken recourse to.

 

i did quote ,not with the intention of glorifying durga but to show to you that it is not just krishna who is given the status of supreme truth in puranas.

 

each purana seeks to glorify a particular deity to the level of highest truth. in case you disbeilieve you can check out a few puranas and find it out for yourself.till then its useles to argue.

 

lastly a question :

is durga demigod or not ? answer in yes or no ..

[Deathless]

 

Bhagavad-gita Chapter 2 Verse 72:

 

ñä brähmé sthitiù pärtha

nainäà präpya vimuhyati

sthitväsyäm anta-käle ’pi

brahma-nirväëam åcchati

 

SYNONYMS

eñä—this; brähmé—spiritual; sthitiù—situation; pärtha—O son of Påthä; na—never; enäm—this; präpya—achieving; vimuhyati—one is bewildered; sthitvä—being situated; asyäm—in this; anta-käle—at the end of life; api—also; brahma-nirväëam—the spiritual kingdom of God; åcchati—one attains.

 

TRANSLATION

 

"That is the way of the spiritual and godly life, after attaining which a man is not bewildered. If one is thus situated even at the hour of death, one can enter into the kingdom of God."

 

Nirvana = Extinguished; Disappearance; Vanishing

 

I must say that "Disappearance in Brahman" or "Vanishing in Brahman" is a far more fitting translation for Brahma-Nirvana than "Kingdom of God".

A better way of saying "Kingdom of God" would be something along the lines of Bhagavan Rajya, in my opinion. However, that isn't what Krishna said.

[Deathless]

 

lastly a question :

is durga demigod or not ? answer in yes or no ..

What exactly is a 'demigod', even? Are there 'demiasuras', 'demighosts', 'demipeople', and 'demianimals' as well?

[Amlesh]

 

hello amalesh. puranas are most contradictory scriptures in hinduism.so quoting from puranas to establish supremacy of any particular diety is baseless.because someone else might as well come up with a equally potent sloka illustrating the supremacy of his diety over all others.

 

 

WEll, true.

The Gitam however is not a Purana.

It is the only scripture where the Supremacy issue has been clarified without any contradiction.

 

Had Krishna lied, Shiva would not have come at his door step waiting for 3 days when he took birth.

Neither Durga Maa coming as His sister

 

 

this is a common mistake that iskcon is so adept at and recently you have taken recourse to.

 

Amlesh has his own style...

Humbly... I suit myself with people I'm talking to.

Those who likes to quote, I answer by quoting.

Those who likes personal experience, I answer likewise.

 

But the style what I'm still searching for, till now, I've never seen.

 

That is not to argue in favor of one's own doctrine and show supremacy but use all knowledge acquired blended with others knowledge to build up with something concrete.

 

If I'll count who will want to do so, then I'll be the only one.

 

I don't mind if other don't see my Ram as supreme. But what I like is Truth.

 

Me and my relationship of Rama is something to tough to explain.. let's remain with the rudimentary principles.

 

Everyone have the right to remain happy in their lala land but when selfless duty is concerned then I'm ruthless to the opposing elements.

 

As Krishna said it is a secret, so let it be a secret.

 

 

i did quote ,not with the intention of glorifying durga but to show to you that it is not just krishna who is given the status of supreme truth in puranas.

 

each purana seeks to glorify a particular deity to the level of highest truth. in case you disbeilieve you can check out a few puranas and find it out for yourself.till then its useles to argue.

 

True. But I'll prefer what you've just said, "Puranas can't be a gauge to outline Supremacy."

 

But I'll tell you, I know the purpose of why each Puranas glorify each Deity.

 

As I told you earlier, my aim is not to learn abcd like a parrot, but to use them in sentences.

The same way, my aim is not to tell what I learned but to use my knowledge of some good cause. That's it. In some way or the other I'm still young.. I'm still 25... Audarya is a place where I'm learning many things.

When I'll be out from this school, I want to be someone who can even love the Atheist or even the worst crap in this world.

 

 

lastly a question :

is durga demigod or not ? answer in yes or no ..

God is one without a second, the rest is his energy.

Me, you and even Durga Maa.

Depending on our level of Consiousness, certain amount of powers are given.

Einstein with his E = MC2 explains that really well.

 

But who gives that power, very few really knows

 

The word Demi God is a circumstance wise word.

For Hari all are his subject regardless of his garb, from cat, dog , me and devas.

 

Those who are in spirituality, does not stress too much with that.

That's why Gita says.. the wise does not see any difference between the DOG and the DOG EATER.

 

Now you are asking about Demi God.

Then Sorry dear... I've a very different way of seeing things.

[sambya]

 

It is the only scripture where the Supremacy issue has been clarified without any contradiction.

texts in gita where krishna says "surrender to me" or "worship me instead of devas" have two explanations.the first explanation literally believes that krishna is asking to surrender only to him leaving out everyone else.the other understands it as krishna asking people to surrender onto god(acording to one's belief and not just in the form of krishna)

 

 

as i believe in harmony of religions i accept the latter.if i accept the first interpretion i cant help myself from turning fundamentalist.for in such a case i would be perfectly convinced of krishna's supremacy over the rest. and it would also turn krishna into a tyrant

 

you are speaking of synthesing religions but paradoxically believing the first explanation.

 

 

That is not to argue in favor of one's own doctrine and show supremacy but use all knowledge acquired blended with others knowledge to build up with something concrete.

 

If I'll count who will want to do so, then I'll be the only one.

 

I don't mind if other don't see my Ram as supreme. But what I like is Truth.

 

great realization but you dont seem to follow them.or else you wouldnt have derogated durga in your previous posts.speaking from the viewpoint of psychology derogating other automatically amounts to glorifying yourself.similarly derogating durga implies that you wish to establish ram's supremacy.yet you say that, you don't mind if others don't see your Ram as supreme.

 

 

God is one without a second, the rest is his energy.

Me, you and even Durga Maa.

 

for vaishnavs durga is ishwar's shakti,but to a shakta, durga is ishwari himself.thats what ive been trying to make you understand.

 

i'll narrate a parable of ramakrishna that might help you to a have a better understanding and broad outlook :

 

.............once when sri ramachandra was in vanavas in forest he came across some rishis meditating on the brahman.seing ram they all bowed and said , " o ram, many say that you are purna brahman and god incarnate,but since begining we are worshippers of nirgun niraakar brahman.in our eyes you shall remain nothing more than dasharath's respected son" . hearing this ramachandra smiled , blessed them and walked away............

 

does ram get irritated with them . no !!!! he knows that he is desired by those munis in his impersonal aspect.and he respects their desires. thats why he is causelessly mercifull.

 

 

Everyone have the right to remain happy in their lala land but when selfless duty is concerned then I'm ruthless to the opposing elements.

surely experssing ones personal views that dont tally with your thoughts would'nt amount to opposition ????????? oposition is when someone directly charges you . advaita might not believe in ram but dosent preach against ram . why do you have to get so violent against advaita ?you are being ruthless to an individuals freedom of thought and expression.

 

think about this.

[Amlesh]

 

texts in gita where krishna says "surrender to me" or "worship me instead of devas" have two explanations.the first explanation literally believes that krishna is asking to surrender only to him leaving out everyone else.the other understands it as krishna asking people to surrender onto god(acording to one's belief and not just in the form of krishna)

 

Perfect.

That proves that my Krishna is the only one who says that you are not doomed when you don't worship him... which is non-sectarian.

 

There is nothing bad in it.

 

Your second definition is quite loose.

Since Arjuna confirms that I see you the Supreme just the same way as Devala, Asita and Narada sees you.

 

No chance for any loopholes.

 

Anyways, even if it still holds true, then what's the use of differentiating Himself with Devas, in the first instance.

 

Hmmm.... really nice. You've just said literal and other meaning.

Well my friend, I'm gonna reveal something really beautiful.

 

There is a secret when to take the literal meaning and to take other possible secondary meaning... and there is only 1 text which explains that... and that is SRI BHASYA.

But it is damn complicated.

 

Don't worry it is not sectarian.... Sri Ramanuja was perfect in his explanation concerning how to decode codes without adding his personal sentiments.

BTW, he is the only one who wrote on such issues.

 

 

 

as i believe in harmony of religions i accept the latter.if i accept the first interpretion i cant help myself from turning fundamentalist.for in such a case i would be perfectly convinced of krishna's supremacy over the rest. and it would also turn krishna into a tyrant

 

Can't be.. who asked you to change your views.

Gita is spoken to only 1 person.

In the battlefield Gita was spoken to only Arjuna not even to Bhisma.

A Mahatma is rare in this whole and it is a settled rule.

 

 

you are speaking of synthesing religions but paradoxically believing the first explanation.

 

Beleif? What's Zat?

Truth, I like.

 

I accept others views as well as part of it.

 

You like part of Truth.... I like Truth.

 

Everything is depicted in the degree of renunciation and love of Truth... not in only in mere reasoning.

 

 

 

great realization but you dont seem to follow them.or else you wouldnt have derogated durga in your previous posts.speaking from the viewpoint of psychology derogating other automatically amounts to glorifying yourself.similarly derogating durga implies that you wish to establish ram's supremacy.yet you say that, you don't mind if others don't see your Ram as supreme.

 

Well, there is nothing wrong in playing the game.

I had already decided to remain silent. but do you still remember the episode when I first encountered you when you said something about Krishna and Iskcon.

Well, you can comment and not me.

 

That's why I came back.

 

I love to play the game.... I don't mind you don't accept Krishna as supreme but I surface when you say Krishna is not the supreme.

 

 

for vaishnavs durga is ishwar's shakti,but to a shakta, durga is ishwari himself.thats what ive been trying to make you understand.

 

No need to make me understand.. I already know that part.

The degree of selflessness is more though in a Vaishnava...that's the difference.

Svadharama is something explained only in gita.

There is nothing more selfless than that.

 

 

i'll narrate a parable of ramakrishna that might help you to a have a better understanding and broad outlook :

 

.............once when sri ramachandra was in vanavas in forest he came across some rishis meditating on the brahman.seing ram they all bowed and said , " o ram, many say that you are purna brahman and god incarnate,but since begining we are worshippers of nirgun niraakar brahman.in our eyes you shall remain nothing more than dasharath's respected son" . hearing this ramachandra smiled , blessed them and walked away............

 

does ram get irritated with them . no !!!! he knows that he is desired by those munis in his impersonal aspect.and he respects their desires. thats why he is causelessly mercifull.

 

That's why I love my sweet lord.

By the way I love those impersonalist equally as such.

I don't get irritated by them, I told let everyone be happy in their lala land.

But don't come in my path when I'm in Selfless Duty.

 

I remember Surdas.. when he said... If a Vaishnava get outclasses by a Mayavadi or A Mayavadi get outclassed by a Vaishnava..

The Vaishnava will be in more turmoil... Since we are attached to Him as a person and the Mayavadi not as a person.

We love him in a desired relationship.

 

However, to outclass a Vaishnava, I mean a real one..... hahahahahahaha

 

 

surely experssing ones personal views that dont tally with your thoughts would'nt amount to opposition ????????? oposition is when someone directly charges you . advaita might not believe in ram but dosent preach against ram . why do you have to get so violent against advaita ?you are being ruthless to an individuals freedom of thought and expression.

 

think about this.

 

As from today, I'll be really nice.

Like a good boy.

 

Personal Views... hmmmmm

 

Gyan is incomplete without Vigyan..

 

First you learn [Gyan] then you Realise what you've learnt via day to day activities [Vigyan].

Knowledge into REalised Knowledge.

 

I can prove all my realisation via SACRED TEXT.

[sambya]

 

Beleif? What's Zat?

Truth, I like.

truth cannot be plural.its essentially one.but approaches and understanding of truth vary greatly,not just quantatively as vaishnavs sugest.explanation : a vaishnav says that brahman is truth but an inferior truth resulting from a lesser degree of realization.but a vaishnav's raganuga bhakti and advaitin's nirvana may be other sides of the same coin.it may be two different aspects of the same truth itself.one does not necessarily have to be inferior to the other.

 

sad that you are not aware of the concept of 'belief' for thats the only stepping stone to truth. if you dont have a belief you are not even remotely spiritual.

 

 

.......when you said something about Krishna and Iskcon.

how does my comment on iskcon hurt you ? and you should have understood that i have nothing against lord krishna ( he knows it ).i accept his supremacy and that he is purnaavatar.if i have said anything apprently against him that was not to derogate him but to protest against the sick doctrines of isckon.reading the entire discussion would make it evident.

 

 

No need to make me understand.. I already know that part.

and still you are derogating devi , with whom countless shaktas have emotional bonds(just as you have with lord ram).

 

 

Gyan is incomplete without Vigyan..

vigayn comes from the sandhi of vishesh+gyan. so vigyan is superior to gyan . ramakrishna used to compare gayn with ishwar anubhuti and vigyan with the highest realization. both have nothing to do with ordinary material knowledge.true gyan and true vigyan both relate to god.

 

 

I can prove all my realisation via SACRED TEXT.

.........assuming that there is a perfect monopoly in interpretation, right ??!!

 

you say " my realization ". thats great. what level are you in currently ?? asakti , ruchi or prema ?!!!!!!!! its good to know a person of realisation preserving a taste for futile discussions in an online forum.

[Amlesh]

 

truth cannot be plural.its essentially one.but approaches and understanding of truth vary greatly,not just quantatively as vaishnavs sugest.explanation : a vaishnav says that brahman is truth but an inferior truth resulting from a lesser degree of realization.but a vaishnav's raganuga bhakti and advaitin's nirvana may be other sides of the same coin.it may be two different aspects of the same truth itself.one does not necessarily have to be inferior to the other.

 

True.. but all the approaches should lead one day or the other to that singular Truth..

 

The question beckons: WHEN ?

 

 

sad that you are not aware of the concept of 'belief' for thats the only stepping stone to truth. if you dont have a belief you are not even remotely spiritual.

 

I prefer the word REALISATION.

 

 

how does my comment on iskcon hurt you ? and you should have understood that i have nothing against lord krishna ( he knows it ).i accept his supremacy and that he is purnaavatar.if i have said anything apprently against him that was not to derogate him but to protest against the sick doctrines of isckon.reading the entire discussion would make it evident.

 

nope no comments hurt me...

Infact, I myself commented a lot -vely on Iskcon.

 

I know you did not mean so... You told me.

 

I asked for confirmation also. The game was already on, I just participated.

 

The ISKCON doctrine is not sick but the ISKCONITES are sick, but not all, but the majority yes.

 

Well that's the last time I'm saying anything against them though.

 

 

and still you are derogating devi , with whom countless shaktas have emotional bonds(just as you have with lord ram).

 

Well, if I'm bad then you are worse.

Atleast me, I say She exist but Advaitins say that She is invisible.

 

I don't derogate her .. just like Shakta people take her for Supreme and me my Ram and others Humpty Dumpty, arguments do crop up.

 

Well, as from today, I won't put my argument that Ram is the Supreme Lord in a debate.

Unless someone sincere wants to know about Him, I won't tell about his Supremacy. I guess that settles everything.

 

many of my questions have been left unanswered.

But next time, you'll come again in the back to square 1 mood.

 

 

 

vigayn comes from the sandhi of vishesh+gyan. so vigyan is superior to gyan . ramakrishna used to compare gayn with ishwar anubhuti and vigyan with the highest realization. both have nothing to do with ordinary material knowledge.true gyan and true vigyan both relate to god.

 

I agree to some extent...

But realisation is complete by using both material and spiritual knowledge.

But how?

It is where the science of Gita starts.

I prefer Sri Krishna of the Gita as a teacher rather than RamaKrishna [for whom I have great respect though]

 

 

you say " my realization ". thats great. what level are you in currently ?? asakti , ruchi or prema ?!!!!!!!! its good to know a person of realisation preserving a taste for futile discussions in an online forum.

 

My Kaarya will tell that one day.

Action speaks for itself.

[sambya]

 

I agree to some extent...

But realisation is complete by using both material and spiritual knowledge.

But how?

It is where the science of Gita starts.

I prefer Sri Krishna of the Gita as a teacher rather than RamaKrishna [for whom I have great respect though]

 

its rather like - when you have realisation you automatically aqquire both material and spirituall knowledge. gita does not have any material knowledge in it.its perfectly refined spirituall knowledge . but what it does have in few places is actually deep spritual paths made easy for materialy inclined persons.

 

another parable of ramakrishna :

 

a common man wanted to enter into into the palace of an aristocrat person.he was curious to see the treasures it contained and the the beutiful garden inside.but unable to enter he sat at the gates speculating about its beauty etc.then another person advised him to go and meet with the aristocrat person directly,in whatever manner posssible.when he finally met the person after lots of struggle the ownr himself described to him his riches his gardens ,how much property he has etc.

 

similarly its important to see god before doing anything else.once, having met him,he himself will let you know of his opulances(material nature).

when you have vishesh gyan you automatically have gyan also.

[sambya]

 

I prefer the word REALISATION.

 

ya but thats the last word of spirituallity !!!!!!!!!! none of us here have it right now !!!!!!!!!

 

 

Well, if I'm bad then you are worse.

 

did i say that ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!! why are you having such negative thoughts. a bhakta should be always positive.everything about him must be positive. why do you keep assuming your bad ?!!! without believing in oneself one can never believe in god . dont you know that ??

 

it is only that some of your contradictory opinions that are really bad.

[Amlesh]

 

its rather like - when you have realisation you automatically aqquire both material and spirituall knowledge. gita does not have any material knowledge in it.its perfectly refined spirituall knowledge . but what it does have in few places is actually deep spritual paths made easy for materialy inclined persons.

 

Gita does not have Material knowledge.

Good... Now you'll teach me Gita.

You don't beleive in the Supremacy of Speaker.. but can comment on it.

 

Well, FYI...Gita contains all the different philosophies that exist in this world.

In addition, since Gita teaches detached Activity...

Anyone, from Politician to Businessman to a scanvenger sees himself and his material activities.

 

However, the mood of execution which primes and is needed to be known.

 

 

another parable of ramakrishna :

 

a common man wanted to enter into into the palace of an aristocrat person.he was curious to see the treasures it contained and the the beutiful garden inside.but unable to enter he sat at the gates speculating about its beauty etc.then another person advised him to go and meet with the aristocrat person directly,in whatever manner posssible.when he finally met the person after lots of struggle the ownr himself described to him his riches his gardens ,how much property he has etc.

 

similarly its important to see god before doing anything else.once, having met him,he himself will let you know of his opulances(material nature).

when you have vishesh gyan you automatically have gyan also.

 

Well, you are contradicting what you've said earlier.

OR you have not understood RamaKrishnaji.

 

Cause I'm perfectly aware of that.

 

that's what I've told u above...

Material Knowledge itself becomes the cause of freedom when properly executed... The gita explains that.

 

Why did you say Gita does not contain material knowledge.

 

Buddy, gita is complete... If material knowlege is missing then how can it be complete.

 

Enough of me saying, now let me hear from you.. what's ur say about the Gita?