Why Advait Is A Complete Hoax.

[Amlesh]

 

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

 

Nope... There is no last word for spirituality.

 

You used the word belief and I said no because.. it is not a word that is compatible with spirituality.

 

Realisation is the an on-going process of the discoveries of the facets of the Supreme.

 

It is never a last word.

 

 

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 ??

 

To be True.. without knowing ignorance, Truth is incomplete.

 

 

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

Well.. many feel the same when reading the Gita.

My words are context wise.

Judgement is based on 3 criteria:

Time, Circumstance and The object of judgement itself.

[Amlesh]

Well Sambya... I'll present you my apology.

 

I know, sometimes my posts resemble that of an uncivilised monkey.

[ranjeetmore]

 

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 ..

 

 

 

The different purusa-avatäras are described in Sätvata Tantra:

"Viñëu has three forms called puruñas. The first, Mahä-Viñëu, is the creator of the total

material energy (mahat), the second is Garbhodañäyé, who is situated within each universe,

and the third is Kñérodaçäyé, who lives in the heart of every living being. He who knows these

 

becomes liberated from the cluthes of mäyä."

 

sadäçiväkhya tan-mürtis

tamo-gandha-vivarjitä

sarva-käraëa-bhütäsäv

aìga-bhüta svayam-prabhoù

väyavyädiñu saiveyaà

 

çiva-loke pradarçitä-----laghubhag...by srila rupa Gosvami.

 

Çiva's form named Sadäçiva, who is a direct EXPANSION of the Personality of Godhead, is

the cause of all causes, is free from the slightest scent of the mode of ignorance, and resides

 

in Çivaloka, is described in the Väyu Puräëa and other scriptures.

It's common knowledge that Sri Visnu is known as the One who maintains Sattva Guna."Sattva - tanu" is the word used.

 

"He who expands the activities of the

 

mode of goodness (sattvam tanoti)" or "He who is the controller of the mode of goodness."

It is accepted by all Mahatmas that ONLY when on the platform of Sattva guna,can the jivatma dream of transcending Maya.

This is the reason why Puranas are separated into 3 sections.Sattvic.Rajasic and Tamasic.

 

Lord Siva has Distinctly declared in the Saiva Puranas,"Saiva Puranas have faulty conception of the Absolute Truth.THEY DO NOT CORROBORATE WITH THE VEDIC REVELATIONS.The statements confirmed by the Sattvic Puranas which are also found in the Saiva Puranas ARE ONLY TO BE ACCEPTED."

 

Lord Shiva's statement lies within the tamasic puranas only.It has to be accepted.

 

It is false that Saiva Puranas have been interpolated.But It is true that Saiva Puranas are for pple in the Tamasic category.

These(Tamasic) Puranas have ablsolutely no clear aim or content that is reconciled by the sruti sastra in any way.They are Faulty

 

It is to be thus understood that Sattvic puranas are the highest authority for the common man.

DURGA is NOT a demigoddess.But that doesn't mean you accept whatever her purana declares.

Why don't we understand one simple logic.All these Puranas were scripted by Srila Vyasadeva.Vyasadeva Himself wrote the Bhagvata AFTER even the Vedanta Sutra.He declared it as the Gem of all Vedic literature.

When we say this,some pple immediately revert to the other puranas quoting various other conclusions.

Instead,plz analyse yourself...

Sankaracarya commented on Vishnu Purana,Bhagvad Gita,etc.He DID NOT comment on Shiva geeta.

He accepts that the Lord is BEYOND material modes in Sahasranama Bhasya,Gita Bhasya,Prabodha Sudhakara,Govindashtakam.

I mean this should be enough for any person to accept the fact.

PPle view Sri Visnu as just another deity.It is not so.We should accpet Sri Shankara's views as well as the other Jagadgurus' views.This is no point of debate.It only takes a bit of a humble approach.

Radhe Radhe.

 

[ranjeetmore]

The most amusing thing is...Sri Shankaracharya travelled across the Four holy sites(We call char dham) and HE HIMSELF established MURTIS(Arca Vigrahas) Of Lord Hari In ALL of these four Dhams.

'All forms are Mayic ?'

Sri Sankara may appear a bit whimsical,but for the Vaishnavas,he is very respectable,for he didn't quite forget to show what exactly is the Supreme Truth.

 

Shudha-yati naa antar atmaa,Krsna Padambhoj Bhaktimriteh.

[ranjeetmore]

While We are Discussing Sri Shankaracharya.....

His lineage is:

 

Shankaracharya

Gaudapadacharya

Govindacharya

Shudeva Paramhamsa

Sri Vyasadeva

Srila Narada

Sri Bhrahmadeva

Sri Krsna.

 

Krsnam Vande Jagadgurum.

[ranjeetmore]

 

 

"In order to bewilder the moving and non-moving inhabitants of the material universe, the

Puräënas and other Vedic scriptures may sometimes say that this or that demigod is the

Supreme Lord. The actual final conclusion of all Vedic literatures, however, is that only Lord

 

Visnu, and no one else, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

-Padma Purana(A sattvic Purana).

[ranjeetmore]

 

 

In Mahä-varäha Puräna also:

"Matsya, Kürma, Varäha, and other incarnations are equal to Lord Visnu, for they are not

different from Lord Visnu Himself. Brahmä and the other material demigods are described as

not equal to Lord Visnu, although as His potency they are also equal to Him."

The word "prakriti" (potency) here means “spiritual potency". Because they are

simultaneously different and not different from the Lord, here it is said that they are both

 

equal to Him and not equal to Him.

This same thing was described by Sri Kripaluji Maharaj and I remember how offensive i was towards him.

He had said that Siva,Bramha Bhagavan se abhinn(non-different) hai.

Later on,through close studies of the Gosvamis' revelation,it is apparent that sometimes Lord Hari Himself becomes Brahma or he is an avesa Incarnation.

Lord Siva is Non different from the Supreme Lord but Since he is always associated with the task of destruction,and destructon being dark/tamasic in nature,he is said to be bewildered by it.

Although Lord Sadasiva Is an expansion of Godhead(Sri Sankarsana to be precise) and resides in Sadasivaloka beyond maya.

Lord Siva of the material manifestation is nothing but the form of this original Sadasiva and is further manifested as the Fire of time from Sri Sankarsana.

The lord does state in the Gita,"I Am the fire of time."

So knowing these subtle truths is imperative for any sadhaka.

That's why we should not be foolish and write off great Mahatmas like Sri Tulsidas who apparently wrote that Sri Shankara is non different from Sri Hari.

They could be meaning to say the exact same thing as confirmed in the Padma Purana.

[sambya]

 

Sankaracarya commented on Vishnu Purana,Bhagvad Gita,etc.He DID NOT comment on Shiva geeta.

He accepts that the Lord is BEYOND material modes in Sahasranama Bhasya,Gita Bhasya,Prabodha Sudhakara,Govindashtakam.

I mean this should be enough for any person to accept the fact.

 

" prajesham ramesham mahesham suresham........gatistvam twameka bhavani."

----- sri shakaracharya(bhavanyastak)

 

o devi i dont know brahma , vishnu , shiva , indra , surya or vishwanath.i dont care for any other deva also.you ,only you is my worshippable ishta.

 

 

DURGA is NOT a demigoddess.But that doesn't mean you accept whatever her purana declares.

 

 

and why not ?!!!

 

 

 

"In order to bewilder the moving and non-moving inhabitants of the material universe, the

Puräënas and other Vedic scriptures may sometimes say that this or that demigod is the

Supreme Lord. The actual final conclusion of all Vedic literatures, however, is that only Lord

 

Visnu, and no one else, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

 

sorry but reading this makes me rude. what if i say that i care a fig for such a hypocrit religion where godmen and saints conspire together to mislead innocents. may be you are happy with such blind faiths but i cannot accept this by any reasoning whatsoever.

 

can i expect something thats more substantial and not so paradoxical next time ranjeeet ?

[bija]

 

o devi i dont know brahma , vishnu , shiva , indra , surya or vishwanath.i dont care for any other deva also.you ,only you is my worshippable ishta.

In Bhagavatam the gopies worshipped an aspect of Durga to attain Krsna. Because they were very greedy for Krsna.

 

In the Gaudiya tradition the internal bliss potency is female. And Krsna is very greedy. Nice hey!

 

Polemics only lead to offences. It is said by Srila Vishvanatha Cakravarti that those who make polemics saying this is greater that is greater (Shiva or Visnu) will have to beg forgiveness, and chant the Holy Name constantly to make recompense.

[bija]

 

 

In Mahä-varäha Puräna also:

"Matsya, Kürma, Varäha, and other incarnations are equal to Lord Visnu, for they are not

different from Lord Visnu Himself. Brahmä and the other material demigods are described as

not equal to Lord Visnu, although as His potency they are also equal to Him."

 

The word "prakriti" (potency) here means “spiritual potency". Because they are

simultaneously different and not different from the Lord, here it is said that they are both

 

equal to Him and not equal to Him.

 

This same thing was described by Sri Kripaluji Maharaj and I remember how offensive i was towards him.

He had said that Siva,Bramha Bhagavan se abhinn(non-different) hai.

 

Later on,through close studies of the Gosvamis' revelation,it is apparent that sometimes Lord Hari Himself becomes Brahma or he is an avesa Incarnation.

 

Lord Siva is Non different from the Supreme Lord but Since he is always associated with the task of destruction,and destructon being dark/tamasic in nature,he is said to be bewildered by it.

 

Although Lord Sadasiva Is an expansion of Godhead(Sri Sankarsana to be precise) and resides in Sadasivaloka beyond maya.

 

Lord Siva of the material manifestation is nothing but the form of this original Sadasiva and is further manifested as the Fire of time from Sri Sankarsana.

 

The lord does state in the Gita,"I Am the fire of time."

 

So knowing these subtle truths is imperative for any sadhaka.

That's why we should not be foolish and write off great Mahatmas like Sri Tulsidas who apparently wrote that Sri Shankara is non different from Sri Hari.

They could be meaning to say the exact same thing as confirmed in the Padma Purana. posted by Ranjeetmore

Here is the text Ranjeetmore:

 

Shri Bhagavatamrita Kanika

http://nitaaiveda.com/All_Scriptures_By_Acharyas/Vishvanatha_Chakravarti_Thakura/Bhagavatamrita_Kanika.htm

A particle of Shri Bhagavatamrta

[The nectar of Shrimad Bhagavat]

Shri Visvanath Cakravarti Thakur

[brhad Bhagavatamrta is a work by Shri Sanatana Gosvami]

[Laghu Bhagavatamrta is a work by Shri Rupa Gosvami]

This short essay entitled A Particle of Shri Bhagavatamrta is by Shri Visvanath Cakravarti Thakur.

...Hereafter the gunavatars are being introduced.

By the action of the mode of goodness, the Master of the milk ocean, Shri Vishnu, maintains the universe. By the action of the mode of passion, the universe is created by Lord Brahma, who is generated from the lotus flower arisen from Garbhodasayi Vishnu's navel. In some kalpas, a jiva (living entity) who has amassed profuse piety takes the position of Lord Brahma and creates the universe. In this instance, due to the infusion of the Lord's potency in that jiva, he is referred to as an avesavatar. Because in that Brahma there is a connection with the mode of passion, he cannot be compared on a equal footing with Lord Vishnu. In those kalpas when there is an absence of any qualified jiva to take up the position of Lord Brahma, then Lord Vishnu Himself becomes Lord Brahma. Similarly, during some manvantaras, the incarnation of the Lord as Yagya has to take up the position of Lord Indra. During that manvantara when Yagya becomes Indra and during that kalpa when Vishnu becomes Brahma, then it can be said that they (Brahma and Indra) attain equality with Lord Vishnu.

The gross body of Brahma, consisting of the total material substance (the aggregate of the universal form of material nature, extending from Patala up to Satyaloka), is also known as Brahma. Hiranyagarbha, Who is manifested within that gross body as subtle living entities, is also known as Brahma. The indwelling soul therein, the second purusha, Garbhodasayi, is Iswar, the Supreme Controller. He Who is the destroyer, by the action of the mode of ignorance is Lord Siva. The indwelling purusha within the Universal Form as well as the subtle form of the Creator, Hiranyagarbha, Who is the super excellent controller born of the lotus flower, have both been referred to as Brahma. This Brahma also accepts the form of Siva for the purpose of destruction. During some kalpas very pious jivas attain this position whereas in others, Lord Vishnu Himself accepts the position of Lord Siva. However, the personality of Sadasiva, is a plenary portion (vilas-vigraha: as distinct from svamsa expansions which are endowed with a smaller degree of potency from the original Godhead) of the self-same form of the Supreme Lord, Shri Krishna, and He is transcendental to the three modes of material nature. It is from Him that the gunavatar of Siva is expanded. Therefore He should be understood to be superior to Brahma, equal to Lord Vishnu, and entirely separate from jivas, who are influenced by the material modes of nature....

[sambya]

 

Polemics only lead to offences. It is said by Srila Vishvanatha Cakravarti that those who make polemics saying this is greater that is greater (Shiva or Visnu) will have to beg forgiveness, and chant the Holy Name constantly to make recompense.

 

true !!! thats exactly what i want to make some individuals in this forum understand.

 

when i quote contrary verses from shatras i never intend to highlight one deity and devalue the rest . i do it to break the misconception of such people that shastra has always glorified their ishta exclusively.

[raghu]

 

aadi Shankaracarya(whm i shal adress as A.S. Henceforth)

Wrote a hoax commentary on the brahm sutra knwn as Advait.

First,let us go thru the vedic version AS IT IS.

 

Brahm,jeev maya.3 principles have been enumeratd in the veda.

Brahm is the controller,inspirational entity,governor whereas Jeev is controld,inspired and governed by Brahm.

 

Brahm has an inferior energy-maya,whatever we see around us is jada/mayic.

 

Vedas also describe the marginal position of jeeva tattva.Jeeva tattva is that tattva between maya,brahm's inferior energy and His superior energy(which can be identified by Brahm Himself).

 

Being a marginal entity,the jeevatma is subject to control either by maya or by yogmaya(Superior energy),depending on his choice,Preya or shreya marga.

 

All this is the vedic version.

 

Ranjeet,

 

Tell me if I am completely off my mark here.

 

You have never actually read the vedAnta-sUtra.

 

You have never studied the Vedas.

 

Let me know if I have said anything in the above that is factually incorrect.

[raghu]

 

 

"In order to bewilder the moving and non-moving inhabitants of the material universe, the

Puräënas and other Vedic scriptures may sometimes say that this or that demigod is the

Supreme Lord. The actual final conclusion of all Vedic literatures, however, is that only Lord

 

Visnu, and no one else, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

-Padma Purana(A sattvic Purana).

 

There is no such statement in the padma purANa.

[sambya]

 

There is no such statement in the padma purANa.

 

thanks raghu.

[ranjeetmore]

Okay...Raghu must be jagadguru.He knws the entire Padma purana...

 

Obeisances to you.

[sambya]

ranjeet , please specify the text number that you have quoted along with its original sanskrit form, not the tampered translation.

[chandu_69]

 

Thank you for enlightening the world fellas.

 

It is a pity, you two were not born a thousand year earlier. The face of Indian religion would have been completely different.

 

India definitely needs more bright guys like you. Keep it coming!

 

Cheers

 

I am searching for enlightened posts of kaisersose on advaitan philisophy to no awail till now.

kaisersose could you direct me to your specific posts on Advaitan philosphy.

[raghu]

 

Okay...Raghu must be jagadguru.He knws the entire Padma purana...

 

Obeisances to you.

 

Pranams to you. One does not need to be a jagad guru to know the entire Padma Purana. Merely having the entire manuscript in the original Sanskrit will suffice to say that the sloka you attributed to it does not exist. If you wish to claim otherwise, then you could simply provide the verse number, which would help your audience verify your claim. Unless of course you don't want them to verify that verse, since it does not exist. By all means, prove me wrong, and I shall retract my statement.

 

I notice also that you did not respond to my questions about your knowledge of the Veda and the Vedanta. Since you started out posting about the conclusions of both, it implicitly follows that you should have studied both. But you have not, have you? Not that I disagree with your conclusions (I don't, actually), but don't you think you should know what you are talking about before presuming to pontificate on such lofty subjects?

[chandu_69]

 

"

. what if i say that i care a fig for such a hypocrit religion where godmen and saints conspire together to mislead innocents.

 

 

 

Nothing but pure hate.

 

Where is the MODERATOR?

 

Does it serve any purpose of this forum if this fellow is allowed to flame like this on a regular basis?

[bhaktajan]

Here is some advaita --[learn it well!]:

 

No offense intended: This is NOT FOR ATHEISTS TO READ.

 

No offense intended: You all have a lot of 'LOST TIME TO MAKE-UP FOR' You do realize what you did to fall behind; and thus, how you lost all that time?.

 

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Chanting of the holy name of the Lord should be loudly done, and it should be performed offenselessly as well, as recommended in the Padma Purana.

 

One can deliver himself from the effects of all sins by surrendering himself unto the Lord. One can deliver himself from all offenses at the feet of the Lord by taking shelter of His holy name.

 

But one cannot protect himself if one commits an offense at the feet of the holy name of the Lord. Such offenses are mentioned in the Padma Purana as being ten in number.

 

The first offense is to vilify the great devotees who have preached about the glories of the Lord.

 

The second offense is to see the holy names of the Lord in terms of worldly distinction. The Lord is the proprietor of all the universes, and therefore He may be known in different places by different names, but that does not in any way qualify the fullness of the Lord.

 

Any nomenclature which is meant for the Supreme Lord is as holy as the others because they are all meant for the Lord. Such holy names are as powerful as the Lord, and there is no bar for anyone in any part of the creation to chant and glorify the Lord by the particular name of the Lord as it is locally understood. They are all auspicious, and one should not distinguish such names of the Lord as material commodities.

 

The third offense is to neglect the orders of the authorized äcäryas or spiritual masters.

 

The fourth offense is to vilify scriptures or Vedic knowledge.

 

The fifth offense is to define the holy name of the Lord in terms of one’s mundane calculation. The holy name of the Lord is identical with the Lord Himself, and one should understand the holy name of the Lord to be nondifferent from Him.

 

The sixth offense is to interpret the holy name. The Lord is not imaginary, nor is His holy name.

 

There are persons with a poor fund of knowledge who think the Lord to be an imagination of the worshiper and therefore think His holy name to be imaginary. Such a chanter of the name of the Lord cannot achieve the desired success in the matter of chanting the holy name.

 

The seventh offense is to commit sins intentionally on the strength of the holy name. In the scriptures it is said that one can be liberated from the effects of all sinful actions simply by chanting the holy name of the Lord.

 

One who takes advantage of this transcendental method and continues to commit sins on the expectation of neutralizing the effects of sins by chanting the holy name of the Lord is the greatest offender at the feet of the holy name. Such an offender cannot purify himself by any recommended method of purification.

 

In other words, one may be a sinful man before chanting the holy name of the Lord, but after taking shelter in the holy name of the Lord and becoming immune, one should strictly restrain oneself from committing sinful acts with a hope that his method of chanting the holy name will give him protection.

 

The eighth offense is to consider the holy name of the Lord and His chanting method to be equal to some material auspicious activity.

 

There are various kinds of good works for material benefits, but the holy name and His chanting are not mere auspicious holy services. Undoubtedly the holy name is holy service, but He should never be utilized for such purposes. Since the holy name and the Lord are of one and the same identity, one should not try to bring the holy name into the service of mankind.

 

The idea is that the Supreme Lord is the supreme enjoyer. He is no one’s servant or order supplier. Similarly, since the holy name of the Lord is identical with the Lord, one should not try to utilize the holy name for one’s personal service.

 

The ninth offense is to instruct those who are not interested in chanting the holy name of the Lord about the transcendental nature of the holy name, if such instruction is imparted to an unwilling audience, the act is considered to be an offense at the feet of the holy name.

 

The tenth offense is to become uninterested in the holy name of the Lord even after hearing of the transcendental nature of the holy name. The effect of chanting the holy name of the Lord is perceived by the chanter as liberation from the conception of false egoism.

 

False egoism is exhibited by thinking oneself to be the enjoyer of the world and thinking everything in the world to be meant for the enjoyment of one’s self only.

 

The whole materialistic world is moving under such false egoism of “I” and “mine,” but the factual effect of chanting the holy name is to become free from such misconceptions.

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by sambya:

 

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>

 

Originally Posted by ranjeet:

"In order to bewilder the moving and non-moving inhabitants of the material universe, the

Puräënas and other Vedic scriptures may sometimes say that this or that demigod is the

Supreme Lord. The actual final conclusion of all Vedic literatures, however, is that only Lord

 

Visnu, and no one else, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

sambya: sorry but reading this makes me rude. what if i say that i care a fig for such a hypocrit religion where godmen and saints conspire together to mislead innocents. may be you are happy with such blind faiths but i cannot accept this by any reasoning whatsoever.

 

can i expect something thats more substantial and not so paradoxical next time ranjeeet ?

 

---------

chandu_69's response to Sambya:

Nothing but pure hate.

Where is the MODERATOR?

Does it serve any purpose of this forum if this fellow is allowed to flame like this on a regular basis?

 

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Bhaktajan's statement to Sambya:

 

So YOU do not give any regards to the Mahabharata & Gita?

 

So YOU do not give any regards to this statement? YES or NO?:

 

" . . . It is said in the Mahabharata, Adi-parva (20) that 640,000,000 men were killed in the eighteen days of the Battle of Kuruksetra, and some hundreds of thousands were missing. Practically this was the greatest battle in the world within five thousand years. . . . "

 

 

YES or NO --do you give any regards to this statement??

 

If you give no regards to this statement, and think it FALSE??

 

No war? No Krishna's discussion with Arjuna? No Bharata-vamsa?

 

<!-- / message -->

[Deathless]

 

Here is some advaita --[learn it well!]:

 

No offense intended: This is NOT FOR ATHEISTS TO READ.

Advaita is not atheism, you fool.

 

 

Chanting of the holy name of the Lord should be loudly done, and it should be performed offenselessly as well, as recommended in the Padma Purana...

The tenth offense is to become uninterested in the holy name of the Lord even after hearing of the transcendental nature of the holy name. The effect of chanting the holy name of the Lord is perceived by the chanter as liberation from the conception of false egoism.

bhajagovindam bhajagovindam govindam bhaja muudhamate sampraapte sannihite kaale nahi nahi rakshati dukrijnkarane

 

 

Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda. Oh fool! Rules of Grammar will not save you at the time of your death.

 

But one cannot protect himself if one commits an offense at the feet of the holy name of the Lord. Such offenses are mentioned in the Padma Purana as being ten in number...

The seventh offense is to commit sins intentionally on the strength of the holy name. In the scriptures it is said that one can be liberated from the effects of all sinful actions simply by chanting the holy name of the Lord...

The eighth offense is to consider the holy name of the Lord and His chanting method to be equal to some material auspicious activity.

bhajagovindam bhajagovindam govindam bhajamuudhamate naamasmaranaadanyamupaayam nahi pashyaamo bhavatarane

 

Worship Govinda, worship Govinda, worship Govinda, Oh fool! Other than chanting the Lord's names, there is no other way to cross the life's ocean.

 

 

The first offense is to vilify the great devotees who have preached about the glories of the Lord...

The third offense is to neglect the orders of the authorized äcäryas or spiritual masters.

gurucharanaambuja nirbhara bhakatah samsaaraadachiraadbhava muktah sendriyamaanasa niyamaadevam drakshyasi nija hridayastham devam

 

Oh devotee of the lotus feet of the Guru! May you be freed from Samsara. Through disciplined senses and controlled mind, you will come to experience the indwelling Lord of your heart!

 

 

 

The second offense is to see the holy names of the Lord in terms of worldly distinction. The Lord is the proprietor of all the universes, and therefore He may be known in different places by different names, but that does not in any way qualify the fullness of the Lord...

The fourth offense is to vilify scriptures or Vedic knowledge...

The fifth offense is to define the holy name of the Lord in terms of one’s mundane calculation. The holy name of the Lord is identical with the Lord Himself, and one should understand the holy name of the Lord to be nondifferent from Him...

The sixth offense is to interpret the holy name. The Lord is not imaginary, nor is His holy name.

 

geyam giitaa naama sahasram dhyeyam shriipati ruupamajasram neyam sajjana sange chittam deyam diinajanaaya cha vittam

 

 

Regularly recite from the Gita, meditate on Vishnu in your heart, and chant his thousand glories. Take delight to be with the noble and the holy. Distribute your wealth in charity to the poor and the needy.

 

How do proponents of Advaita violate any of the rules you've mentioned? All the quotes I've given you are from Adi Shankaracharya, the founder of Advaita Vedanta! He clearly didn't violate these rules and neither do his followers.

 

And...

 

The ninth offense is to instruct those who are not interested in chanting the holy name of the Lord about the transcendental nature of the holy name, if such instruction is imparted to an unwilling audience, the act is considered to be an offense at the feet of the holy name.

...don't Hare Krishnas commit this offense when they sit on the side walk singing constantly about Krishna to people who don't even know or care who he is, and then go and make fun of his followers?

[sambya]

 

So YOU do not give any regards to the Mahabharata & Gita?

 

So YOU do not give any regards to this statement? YES or NO?:

 

" . . . It is said in the Mahabharata, Adi-parva (20) that 640,000,000 men were killed in the eighteen days of the Battle of Kuruksetra, and some hundreds of thousands were missing. Practically this was the greatest battle in the world within five thousand years. . . . "

 

 

YES or NO --do you give any regards to this statement??

If you give no regards to this statement, and think it FALSE??

No war? No Krishna's discussion with Arjuna? No Bharata-vamsa?

 

YES !!

 

i believe in the war of mahabharata and its legends.as regaurd to the figures of dead and missing i cant comment. for historically its not prooved wrong as yet. one might say that such a vast population at that time is highly unlikely , but thats mere speculation.

 

but whenever i beleive in any mythogy , folklore , epics and such i always take in to account history , sociology and science. i dont like to say that just beacuse scriptures say this , science ( or even history) must be wrong or vice versa.

 

correct synthesis between science and spirituality is utmost important for preservance of both. the 'scientists' who deride god are as much in fault as the religious fanatics who disregaurd science.

 

in this context think of what condition christianity has degraded itself to just by constant persecution and denial of science.

 

like for example i would accept that puranas were written till18th century but that would not decrease my faith towrds them.beacuse all of them contains some truth and relizations made by saintly persons through ages.

 

if a belief can accept all theories prevailing in earth then that can be truly called a universal religion. accepting history ,science etc doesnt devalue my religion as many in hinduism think.

 

for example shalagram shilas are fossilized ammonites from tethis ocean in pre jurrassic age, thats found in gandaki river.

 

religious fanatics would never accept that it is a fossill and stick to their idiotic mytholgies. but i dont shirk away from accepting this. why ?........

 

see....... we worship the supreme in jada vastu or material objects like vigraha( remember vighraha is chinmay or concious only after pran pratistha) and also in chit vastu like kumari puja in tantra etc. in slagram we find this most beautifull manifestation of jadavastu and chidvastu.

 

perhaps for this salagram was held to be the highest vigraha.

 

in scriptures there are stories of vajrakita( an insect) causing the whorls and chakra marks of a salagram. now doesnt this show the intelectual brilliance of our rishis ,who thousands of years ago understood them as fossils of vajrakita(thunderous insect) and still accepted its supremacy ?

 

like this i can have utmost respect for a salagram inspite of accepting it to be a fossil. my devotion is not so fragile that i shall shirk away from agreeing to science. why cant anyone see the conciouseness in a fossil?

 

god is everywhere ,right ?

 

i believe in harmonising and synthesising as one of the greatest of virtues.

[ranjeetmore]

I thought there is this basic understanding between the thickest of Mayavadis and Bhaktas that saints(actual ones identified by the dint of our limited understanding of scriptures) from both the sides are quite honest and do not LIE or CHEAT...

 

I don't say Sri Shankaracharya Lied outright when he quoted Aham Brahmasmi from the vedas.I never said he made it up.No one says that.It's a different thing altogether that the verse gained such popularity.

 

Now if one of the gosvamis Quotes a verse,you deny it outright????

 

This is not done.

 

It's common knowledge that 95% of the vedic writings were lost over time.And I'm not even sure if you've searched the text thoroughly to declare whatever you are declaring.

 

The word of the mahatmas is accepted as a pramana.It is to be understood.(Unless obviously if you think mahatma=charlatans/chanda baba/khopda baba/nanga baba(no offense to the genuine class.Our own Sukadeva roamed naked))

 

 

And plz note that I,Myself,have ABSOLUTELY NO knowledge of sripture.All these quotes are either from Sri Maharajji's Lectures,Srila Prabhupada's Books or the Gosvamis' lectures.

I thought this fact was apparent throughout the deal......

[raghu]

 

aadi Shankaracarya(whm i shal adress as A.S. Henceforth)

Wrote a hoax commentary on the brahm sutra knwn as Advait.

First,let us go thru the vedic version AS IT IS.

 

Brahm,jeev maya.3 principles have been enumeratd in the veda.

Brahm is the controller,inspirational entity,governor whereas Jeev is controld,inspired and governed by Brahm.

 

Brahm has an inferior energy-maya,whatever we see around us is jada/mayic.

 

Vedas also describe the marginal position of jeeva tattva.Jeeva tattva is that tattva between maya,brahm's inferior energy and His superior energy(which can be identified by Brahm Himself).

 

Being a marginal entity,the jeevatma is subject to control either by maya or by yogmaya(Superior energy),depending on his choice,Preya or shreya marga.

 

All this is the vedic version.

 

 

 

And plz note that I,Myself,have ABSOLUTELY NO knowledge of sripture.All these quotes are either from Sri Maharajji's Lectures,Srila Prabhupada's Books or the Gosvamis' lectures.

I thought this fact was apparent throughout the deal......

 

Does anyone other than me find these two quotes of Ranjeet rather striking when placed in apposition?