Bhaja Govindam and its context

[shvu]

Bhaja Govindam – Shankara’s famous composition of 12 verses has been misconstrued and interpreted out of context by some third parties.

 

According to Advaita tradition, Shankara once saw an old grammarian teaching/arguing rules of grammar. On seeing this, he took pity on the old man and out came these 12 verses, basically telling him to stop wasting time on such activities and instead focus on releasing himself from the cycle of material life.

 

It was not something that he composed on his deathbed after a “change of heart”. Those are willful lies perpetrated by unscrupulous people who have no regard for truth. Losers – in short.

 

Cheers

[RadhaMukunda]

This is self evident for anyone who is unbiased. Nowhere in the stotra is there proof that Shankara changed his philosophy. It's actually a reinforcement of what ISCKON vaishnavas call mayavada. It's also a great devotional hymn.

[bhaktajan]

This is self evident for anyone who is unbiased.

Yes, We know, after all is said and done at the end of the day, it's still called "Bhaja Govindam"

 

Nowhere in the stotra is there proof that Shankara changed his philosophy.

Yes, We know, after all is said and done at the end of the day, it's still called "Bhaja Govindam"

 

It's actually a reinforcement of what ISCKON vaishnavas call mayavada.

But, after all is said and done at the end of the day, it's still called "Bhaja Govindam"! ---where's the mayavadi?

 

It's also a great devotional hymn.

Yes, We know, after all is said and done at the end of the day, it's still called "Bhaja Govindam"

 

Bolo Hari Nama, everyone!

Bhaktajan

 

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

Remember [or risk yor member-ship]:

Always quote authority. IE: Guru (Mentor), Sadhu (contemporaries of your Mentor), and, Sastra (the authorized Text Books)

 

-- because we cannot always rely on old Grammerians to enter into their memoirs what an Incarnation of Shiva may or may have not said to him 900 years past.

[jinglebells]

 

Those are willful lies perpetrated by unscrupulous people who have no regard for truth. Losers – in short.

 

 

If you can't beat them, join them.

[srikanthdk71]

 

If you can't beat them, join them.

 

Maharaj, Any organisation cannot preach TRUTH, once an organisation is formed, there is Kraya and Vikraya (Give and Take). It becomes a Vyaapaara(Business). An organisation can go to any extent to save its fabric, promote its belief. Even if Krishna decends one day in front of the devotees of an organisation, they will look up to their peers to give a green signal go ahead to believe the truth. That is called self bankruptcy. When you can yourself perceive the truth, why look up to somebody? Lets all realise the TRUTH ourselves in getting lost in beliefs or gloryfing the past.

[bhaktajan]

 

 

SB 4.24.17

 

saìgamaù khalu viprarñe

çiveneha çarériëäm

durlabho munayo dadhyur

asaìgäd yam abhépsitam

SYNONYMS

 

 

 

saìgamaù—association; khalu—certainly; vipra-åñe—O best of the brähmaëas; çivena—along with Lord Çiva; iha—in this world; çarériëäm—those who are encaged in material bodies; durlabhaù—very rare; munayaù—great sages; dadhyuù—engaged themselves in meditation; asaìgät—being detached from anything else; yam—unto whom; abhépsitam—desiring.

 

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

 

The great sage Vidura continued: O best of the brähmaëas, it is very difficult for living entities encaged within this material body to have personal contact with Lord Çiva. Even great sages who have no material attachments do not contact him, despite their always being absorbed in meditation to attain his personal contact.

 

 

 

PURPORT

 

 

Since Lord Çiva does not incarnate himself unless there is some special reason, it is very difficult for an ordinary person to contact him. However, Lord Çiva does descend on a special occasion when he is ordered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this regard, it is stated in the Padma Puräëa that Lord Çiva appeared as a brähmaëa in the age of Kali to preach the Mäyäväda philosophy, which is nothing but a type of Buddhist philosophy. It is stated in Padma Puräëa (25.9):

 

 

 

mäyävädam asac-chästraà

 

pracchannaà bauddham ucyate

mayaiva vihitaà devi

kalau brähmaëa-mürtinä

 

 

 

Lord Çiva, speaking to Pärvaté-devé, foretold that he would spread the Mäyäväda philosophy in the guise of a sannyäsé brähmaëa just to eradicate Buddhist philosophy. This sannyäsé was Çrépäda Çaìkaräcärya. In order to overcome the effects of Buddhist philosophy and spread Vedänta philosophy,

Çrépäda Çaìkaräcärya had to make some compromise with the Buddhist philosophy, and as such he preached the philosophy of monism, for it was required at that time. Otherwise there was no need for his preaching Mäyäväda philosophy. At the present moment there is no need for Mäyäväda philosophy or Buddhist philosophy, and Lord Caitanya rejected both of them.

This Kåñëa consciousness movement is spreading the philosophy of Lord Caitanya and rejecting the philosophy of both classes of Mäyävädé. Strictly speaking, both Buddhist philosophy and Çaìkara’s philosophy are but different types of Mäyäväda dealing on the platform of material existence. Neither of these philosophies has spiritual significance.

There is spiritual significance only after one accepts the philosophy of Bhagavad-gétä, which culminates in surrendering unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Generally people worship Lord Çiva for some material benefit, and although they cannot see him personally, they derive great material profit by worshiping him.

[shvu]

 

Generally people worship Lord Çiva for some material benefit, and although they cannot see him personally, they derive great material profit by worshiping him.

 

Is that right?

 

I know a number of Shiva devotees who worship him for material gain (several years now) and have seen no improvement in their lifestyles. Given that a huge chunk of the Indian population has been Shaiva for thousands of years and if it was as simple as worshipping Shiva to become affluent, then India would have been a superpower now.

 

Of course, I have seen Vishnu/Krishna devotees too who did not get what they asked for. In one case, they went to Tirupathi to pray to the Lord and on their way back, their kids were killed in an accident. They might just as well have stayed home and been better off.

 

In short, statements like the above “they derive great material benefit by worshipping him” are so not true. You are all adults and have lived long enough on the planet to know these things through direct experience. Why do you choose to override your personal experience (and intelligence) with some meaningless quotes from a religious text? Personal experience has more value and truth to it than what is written in a book by someone you never saw or met.

 

Cheers

[bhaktajan]

A bit confounded?

 

Just remember the laws of "Karma-results" already vested, Documented and accrueing further future results at every step --"Karma-reactions" are intended to reconcile one consciousness & work & dharma.

 

So pray! What for? Do most prayers relate to ones salvation or social status?

 

If prayers are seemingly un-answered --it is "karma-reaction", do not be 'further faithless' --BELIEVE that at all time all events are intended to reconcile one consciousness & work & dharma. That is what "Karma" is all about.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Of course, I have seen Vishnu/Krishna devotees too who did not get what they asked for. In one case, they went to Tirupathi to pray to the Lord and on their way back, their kids were killed in an accident. They might just as well have stayed home and been better off.

 

Sri Vaishnavas have written some interesting things on this subject.

 

When someone becomes an ardent devotee of the Lord, His karmas get destroyed and he achieves moksha. The Lord, however, being paramatma, cannot comprehend the minuteness of the Jivatma. This doesn't mean He isn't omniscient...like I explained before, He knows everything that is to be known, but some things have no limit (such as His own greatness or our own Smallness) and He does not know the limits of something that is unlimited.

 

So, in His childish haste to reward someone, He polishes off their karma in one go, by a terrible accident or disease. To onlookers, it will seem as though the devotee has been forsaken, but this is the real truth - that Sriman Narayana is eager to destroy His devotee's karma.

 

However, Sri Vaishnavas say that it is for this reason that an acharya is important. The acharya is not paramatma, so he can understand the minuteness of the Jivatma. The acharya also has Jnana equal to that of the Lord. Hence, the acharya will provide salvation to the devotee, and unlike Bhagavan, he will do it tactfully, instilling faith into the hearts of onlookers.

 

Sri Nampillai, a Sri Vaishnava acharya, was feeling weak and thin as the days went by. His disciples asked him, 'Why are you so weak?'. Acharya replied jokingly, 'When one waxes, the other wanes'. Meaning, when Jnana and Bhakti increases, material body's condition worsens.

 

That is why Pancha Samskaram, initiation rites have to be performed at the age of 7. Only after this rite is performed, Bhagavan accepts the devotee's surrender officially and removes his karmas. If you do this ritual at say, the age of 70, there will be less time for the Lord to remove a whole lot of karmas, and hence, instead of little by little, He will do it in one shot. And you will be a goner!!

[mahak]

 

Bhaja Govindam – Shankara’s famous composition of 12 verses has been misconstrued and interpreted out of context by some third parties.

 

According to Advaita tradition, Shankara once saw an old grammarian teaching/arguing rules of grammar. On seeing this, he took pity on the old man and out came these 12 verses, basically telling him to stop wasting time on such activities and instead focus on releasing himself from the cycle of material life.

 

It was not something that he composed on his deathbed after a “change of heart”. Those are willful lies perpetrated by unscrupulous people who have no regard for truth. Losers – in short.

 

Cheers

 

Who says this? None of my godbrothers and godsisters ever said this. We speak of Lord Siva here, who appeared as Sri Sankara. What, he made a mistake? Cheese louise, it just gets funnier and funnier. Even when he lopped off the head of his son Lord Ganesha, this was no mistake. Even when he sided with Banasura and fought with Lord Krsna, this is no mistake. These folks have no idea of the philosophy of Srila Prabhupada, who would never say such a thing.

 

It is as idiotic as the folks who say "Tsk, tsk, jesus ate meat." He can eat the whole world, and it will not be a mundane error.

 

Fools and rascals, those who say tsk tsk to the advaitists and monists instead of Bhaja govinda-ing, these are the folks who have made critical errors. Sri Sankara says "bhaja govinda" so we STOP saying "you sub-life who doesnt accept me as your guru".

 

funnier and funnier, thats why I dont even bother anymore, life is too short.

 

mudmon

[Pankaja_Dasa]

What about bhaja gopala? Maybe Govinda means fun. Spiritual fun. As Mayavadi etc get boring.

[Nrsinghadev]

Namaste,

 

 

Originally posted by Shvu:

 

Bhaja Govindam – Shankara’s famous composition of 12 verses has been misconstrued and interpreted out of context by some third parties.

 

According to Advaita tradition, Shankara once saw an old grammarian teaching/arguing rules of grammar. On seeing this, he took pity on the old man and out came these 12 verses, basically telling him to stop wasting time on such activities and instead focus on releasing himself from the cycle of material life.

 

It was not something that he composed on his deathbed after a “change of heart”. Those are willful lies perpetrated by unscrupulous people who have no regard for truth. Losers – in short.

 

Cheers

 

And indeed Adi Shankaracharya never had a 'change of heart', since he is the incarnation of Shivaji, who in turn is Govinda's greatest devotee(S.B.12.13.16). Thus his Bhaja Govindam reveals Shankaraji's original disposition, after having succesfully deluded the unfortunate atheists with his muddled monistic teachings.

 

 

[shvu]

 

Namaste,

 

And indeed Adi Shankaracharya never had a 'change of heart', since he is the incarnation of Shivaji, who in turn is Govinda's greatest devotee(S.B.12.13.16). Thus his Bhaja Govindam reveals Shankaraji's original disposition, after having succesfully deluded the unfortunate atheists with his muddled monistic teachings.

 

Again, yet another of the incorrect versions that I was talking about. Ask for evidence and we will see the song & dance. Advaitins themselves do not know this, but you - an outsider - somehow found out about Shankara's "change of heart"!

 

 

First off, you never saw or met Shankaracharya, yet here you are defending his work, which according to your good self (see above quote) doesn't even have much value in it.

 

I have to meet him personally before I can defend his position? Yeah..right, I never met Shankara unlike you guys defending Chaitanya & Jesus because you regularly played golf with them during weekends. This is the kind of nonsense that makes you people lose crediblity.

 

The rest of your post was mumbo-jumo that went straight over my dumb Advaitin brain for which I apologize. Perhaps of you spelt it out in simpler terms (and shorter too), then I may have a better chance grasping it.

 

Cheers

[ramshraddha]

 

So my dear Shvu, if you want to prove a point, I would suggest you start by not contradicting yourself and by backing up your arguments with scriptural reference rather than speculative arguments. Then, and if it can be kept civilized, interesting debates can be had.

 

Otherwise I'm sad to conclude that thusfar your arguments have accrued to form the following image of you (so please allow me to make a summary of your presence on this board based on my 'personal experience', so that hopefully this may inspire you to a change in attitude):

 

To me the only concrete thing you, during your entire span of attendance on this board, have ever managed to convey is that you harbour some sort of deep rooted hatred for the Gaudiyas, as you are always on the prowl to start another round of 'bash Gaudiya Vaishnavism' with rancorous, disdainful and often baseless remarks, sometimes even creating the opportunity yourself to slip in some trite bashing remarks in a totally unrelated thread while pretending to only "innocently respond" to alleged insults. Just as in this topic you feel inclined to add the words "Losers - in short". What are you trying to achieve with this attitude and who are you trying to convince by such comments other than yourself? Do you really intend to be remembered as such a scornful person? I can't imagine that you do, yet this is how your internet presence has come to be known to me, and I'm betting lots of others with me. You always point out how the "HK's" 'don't know a thing about Advaita and should therefore not comment on it', yet your view on Gaudiya Vaishnavism is possibly even more distorted and 'infected with rabies' than you take the "HK's" view on Advaita to be, but that never stops you from commenting on Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Having read one of the very first lines of the introductory treatise of your promoted website advaita-vedanta.org which states:

 

Let us be protected together; let us be cultivated together; let us gain

strength and power together; let our study be successful; let us not

hate each other; Om peace, Peace and Peace (for all).

 

Thanks to this sort of immature activity from both camps, this messageboard has been fast going from an interesting place to frequent, to a place full of manifold aparadha to avoid, therefore I'm feeling inclined to use this topic for posting this message as both a defense of my path of Bhakti Yoga & it's votaries (once again), as well as the hope it might instigate a change of heart amongst you, me and our heated fellow boardmembers. There is nothing wrong with a healthy spiritual debate, but lately things are getting more and more antagonistic and ugly and it's all to easy to get swept along by it's waves. So why don't we drop the hatchet and keep it civilized.

 

Apparently his attitude hasn't changed. The above makes perfect sense; it isn't difficult to comprehend, yet he calls it "mumbo jumbo." When one is addicted to hate, addicted to offending others, then no matter how reasoned and thoughful one deals with such a person, when filtered thru his hate-filled mind and intellect, it translates into "mumbo jumbo."

 

Thankyou Nsringhadev Prabhu for trying. Great post!

[srikanthdk71]

 

Namaste,

 

And indeed Adi Shankaracharya never had a 'change of heart', since he is the incarnation of Shivaji, who in turn is Govinda's greatest devotee(S.B.12.13.16). Thus his Bhaja Govindam reveals Shankaraji's original disposition, after having succesfully deluded the unfortunate atheists with his muddled monistic teachings.

 

Who found it Muddle? Not even Sri Ramanuja. It was Madhvacharya who found his pleasure in killing Advaita/Visistadvaita eventhough his own teachings couldnt cross the borders of Karnataka(mostly confined to the Kanara region). He couldnt dare to establish a Mutt outside it. Such strong was his philosophy.

 

 

First off, you never saw or met Shankaracharya, yet here you are defending his work, which according to your good self (see above quote) doesn't even have much value in it. Following this contradictory line of thinking, first the Advaitins learn from works of the Vedic canon, yet at the same time when somebody quotes from them they are suddenly seen as meaningless quotes from religious texts (see quote above) and 'personal experience' (according to someone's personal experience a snake may be considered a rope) paired with intelligence (a limited material faculty), are to be considered more valuable.

 

I think shvu has answered the first part and if you believe that the unseen and the unexperienced stories which is colorfully presented to gratify your mind and senses has more truth than the 'Rajju, Sarpa Nyaya' which has a profound theory made simple, who can stop you from the 'Herd Mentality' of following the shepherd when you think you are the sheep and not the shephard???!!!

 

 

 

A nice example in tracing the origin of this rather contradictory Advaitic notion is Shankaraji's pastime of faultfinding in his own shiksa guru Gaudapada (in his book Ajnanabodhini), and his attempted faultfinding in Srila Vyasadeva, thereby making guru aparadha, which is condemned in all parts of the Vedas (yes, the same Vedas of which he stressed the importance (all the while understanding that Shankara (Shiva) knew better)).

 

Dear One, it was Madhvacharya who made his own guru as his disciple. Great gesture. Isnt it??!! All are prone to mistakes show that they are human. Even the great Sri Rama in case of Vali. You like it or not, if there was no Adi Shankara, then you guys would have had nothing to look upto. Hence, he is the Adi Guru and finding mistakes is what the followers of Madhva are doing (not Sri Ramanuja). Who is making Guru Aparadha??

 

 

So, first Advaita Vedanta stresses that one learn from guru and Veda, only to proceed with faultfinding and dismissal of their teachings. This is no different from admitting that you haven't learned anything, after all what is learned from a source that one doesn't even accept as truth. That means you don't know the truth to begin with. Not a very confident position to be starting from. Another commonly used practice is that any commentary based on Vedic literature against Advaita Vedanta is often conveniently dismissed as having unauthored sources or being plain lies (see first quote for proof of this), which is of course a quick and clean way of dealing with their philosophy's inconsistencies. This is also mostly the approach used when attacking their 'philosophical opponents'.

 

Fool, Advaita doesnt teach that. It is simple. When you can live in your own light, why are you living in the light of others? It means to say that you believe in Srila Prabhupada more than your own experience. You need his confirmation for everything you experience.

 

Nobody here is telling 'Bash the GVs'. If they are invited by GVs by poking like Mayavadis, Another Monoist, Shiva is Bogus, etc, they will be given due respect.

[srikanthdk71]

 

Apparently his attitude hasn't changed. The above makes perfect sense; it isn't difficult to comprehend, yet he calls it "mumbo jumbo." When one is addicted to hate, addicted to offending others, then no matter how reasoned and thoughful one deals with such a person, when filtered thru his hate-filled mind and intellect, it translates into "mumbo jumbo."

 

Thankyou Nsringhadev Prabhu for trying. Great post!

 

So you think Nsringhadev Prabhu mind is LOVE FILLED. Kindly tell me where can you find his love in his post.Hate breeds Hate. Love breeds Love. Simple.

[Nrsinghadev]

Namaste,

 

 

Originally posted by Shvu:

"Again, yet another of the incorrect versions that I was talking about. Ask for evidence and we will see the song & dance. Advaitins themselves do not know this, but you - an outsider - somehow found out about Shankara's "change of heart"!"

 

I'm not gonna bother posting the complete verses, as you will probably dismiss the evidence out of hand anyway, but you might for example want to look up Padma Purana Uttara Khanda 25/7 and 62/31. It is clear that Shankaracharya was the incarnation of Lord Shiva. It is also clearly stated that Lord Shiva is Govinda's greatest devotee(S.B.12.13.16). Therefore the conclusion is that Shankara never had a change of heart. Moreover, since you said:

 

 

[Nrsinghadev]

Namaskar Srikanth Prabhu,

 

 

originally posted by srikanthdk71:

Who found it Muddle? Not even Sri Ramanuja. It was Madhvacharya who found his pleasure in killing Advaita/Visistadvaita eventhough his own teachings couldnt cross the borders of Karnataka(mostly confined to the Kanara region). He couldnt dare to establish a Mutt outside it. Such strong was his philosophy.

 

Well it appears from the last postings that at least you and Shvu are bewildered by your own philosophy, resulting in the above contradictory statements. Madhvacharya's philosophy was so strong that he converted his own advaitin guru. What's better? To be worshiped by lakhs of ignorants or to have your work praised by a handful of wise men? Quantity does not equal quality.

 

 

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by Nrsinghadev

. . . your phrasing of "when you can live in your own light..." basically sums it up.

 

By saying this you are again verifying that it is okay to brush aside one's guru's teachings. . . .

 

--------------------

Ironically guru may indicate "wise old Indian" just like srikanthdk71's family elders.

[srikanthdk71]

 

Namaskar Srikanth Prabhu,

Well it appears from the last postings that at least you and Shvu are bewildered by your own philosophy, resulting in the above contradictory statements. Madhvacharya's philosophy was so strong that he converted his own advaitin guru. What's better? To be worshiped by lakhs of ignorants or to have your work praised by a handful of wise men? Quantity does not equal quality.

 

Nrsinghdevji Maharaj, I do not have a philosophy. Only experience. Many believe in their experience than philosopy and I am one of them maybe more rational. Incidently if experience tallies with advaita or any other philosophy one may want to live with it since it advocates the same as his/her experience.

 

 

Your personal experience is based on logic and rationality, in other words using the material faculties of mind and intelligence. In contrast, our personal experience or rather, realizations, are derived completely from the mercy of Sri Guru & Vaishnavas who preach about the absolute unchanging Truth as elucidated in the Vedic literature (The same literature on which Adi Shankara has based his teachings and which is now being disparagingly presented by you as being 'colorful tales to gratify the mind and senses'. Talking about "biting the hand that feeds you"!). As presented in the Vedas, one cannot get realization of the Supreme by his own mental faculty. Rather one has to obtain mercy of the Supreme Lord(through his devotees), so how do we obtain this mercy?

 

Not only me use the material faculties of mind and intelligence, but all. Even Sri Vedvyasji Maharaj or any of your or my Guru. When you dissolve your mind, you can experience the truth something like saying that your body is like a house to live for your soul.

 

 

(1) By adopting a service mentality, something which is apparently completely lacking in your philosophy. While you are busying yourself 'trying to be your own light', or in the spotlight(as quoted further down in this message), we are busy trying to serve the source of the light.

 

 

Purnamadah Purnamidam, or 'Ajayamano Bahudaa Vijayate' confirms the 'Tat Tvam Asi'. Yes, infact it can be interpreted in many ways to suit a philosphy but ultimately it should tally with your experience. It should not be like a 'Blind leading the Blind'.

 

 

(2) By following in the footsteps of the great acharyas of our parampara. This means follow their example and instructions, because they preach Absolute Truth. It's not that we reinvent the Absolute Truth at our own convenience, because 'our personal experience tells us so'. No. By following their instructions we are sure to be following in line with what Shastra tells us to do, which is what Bhagavan implores all jivas to do. In this way we can get realizations. How can shastra become subordinate to one's mental speculation?

 

Why were there so many Acharyas? Why did many preach in many different ways? It is the truth that they found with their experience. Is it not? In the same way, what harm is there in finding out the truth for yourself and not rely on the past to get confused. Yes, my dear, it is more confusing to go into theories with different perspective. But if you are satisfied, so be it.

 

 

So it's safe to conclude that yes, I'd rather be a sheep in the herd of a shepherd who knows the way, than to be a blind shepherd trying to lead the way.

 

When you have already decided you are blind, you will be blind for ever. So, open you eyes and start leading the pack. God gave us this material body to realise the truth and intellect to live like a leader and not a follower. Again, the submissiveness to God/Truth/Absolute is excellent, not to a theory or an individual.

 

 

(1) Adi Shankara: Lord Shiva, thus not 'just a human'

(2) Madhvacharya: Hanuman and Bhima combined, therefore not 'just a human'

(3) Lord Rama: Do I even have to dignify this with an explanation? Lord Rama is Supreme Lord, Bhagavan.

 

1. Did Sri Adi Shankara tell it that he was an incarnation of Lord Shiva? People assumed.

2. Since he wanted somebody to listen to him, Madhva told he is the avatar of Mukhyaprana or Vayu and he is an avatar. If you know the Chiranjeevi Stotram which goes like 'Ashwattamo Balirvyaso Hanumanascha Vibhishanah' clearly says Anjaneya is a Chiranjeevi. He is infact still cited in many parts of Himalayas. In such case, he must be doing Double Acting. Yes, Madhvacharya had immense strength and appetite.

3. In the Valmiki Ramayana, Sri Ram is explained as just an other human being with rare qualities. It was only in the Tulsidas Ramayan, Rama was glorified as the Lord from his birth. Anywhere throughout Ramayan, in any of the Khandas, you will not find Rama act unlike a human being. He was a Godly Human.

 

 

For once we agree. Yes, I'm a great fool. You are calling me a fool for explaining Advaita based on what Shvu is telling me about it. It would perhaps delight you to hear that I haven't taken his word as all-in-all regarding your philosophy. On the other hand unfortunately, he and some others seem all too keen to take the final word on Gaudiya Vaishnavism based on the opinion of a few hapless visitors who frequent this messageboard.

Also, your phrasing of "when you can live in your own light..." basically sums it up. By saying this you are again verifying that it is okay to brush aside one's guru's teachings.

I also noticed you brought Srila Prabhupada in this, even though I haven't mentioned his gracefulness at all in this thread. Thank you for bringing him to my attention. All glories to him, and although I don't need his confirmation, I do need his- and the grace of other Vaishnavas to get realization.

Hare Krishna

p.s.: I would like to thank you both for allowing me to engage in discussions about the Supreme Lord, by putting forward your arguments. By doing so, we are at least not spoiling our precious time.

 

Anyway dude, no offence meant. I like the way you have phrased out my briefings. I believe that no organisation can give you enlightenment because once a line of thought is institutionalised, there will be no room for any other free thinking bound in words like 'Gurudroha' or offense. You have to follow a systematic way of the institution/school whether you like it or not. It may help one to gain various positions in the institution just like a Chaprasi to a CEO, bound in various internal politics which you can see in places like Mantrayala, the original essence or the way would have been lost long long back.

[Dark Warrior]

 

In the Valmiki Ramayana, Sri Ram is explained as just an other human being with rare qualities

 

I won't interfere in your debate with Narasingadev, but here, you are wrong. Lord Rama clearly revealed His divinity in the Valmiki Ramayana.

 

Since debates are pretty much causing the death of this forum, I will just clear this up and post no more in this thread. Lord Rama essentially wanted to act like a human being. But being Brahman, He accidentally revealed His true identity in many places.

 

In the Vali Vadham for instance. So many people think Rama killed Vali by hiding because He was afraid. Do they know the basics?

 

Point 1 - Rama sought Sugriva's help to defeat Ravana.

 

Point 2 - Vali is stronger than Sugriva. Vali is stronger than Ravana.

 

Point 3 - To gain Sugriva's trust, Rama showed that He was stronger than Vali. He uprooted seven trees with one arrow. Vali could not even uproot a single tree. This convinced Sugriva that Rama was stronger than Vali.

 

See the contradiction? Vali is stronger than both Sugriva and Ravana. Rama showed He was stronger than Vali. Then, why did He seek the help of weak Sugriva, to defeat weak Ravana, when He was stronger than Vali, who could defeat both Ravana and Sugriva single-handedly?

 

Answer - Sugriva had collected the jewels of Sita when She threw them. By doing so, Sugriva had forged a connection, quite accidentally, with Goddess Lakshmi. The Lord becomes duty bound to protect those who surrender to Lakshmi, whether accidentally or purposefully.

 

Now, why did the Lord hide and kill Vali? After all, he had already shown that He was stronger than Vali.

 

Because, Sugriva, who had obained the grace of Lakshmi (through Her jewels) had wanted Rama to kill Vali. If the Lord had engaed Vali in direct combat, there is a chance that Vali may ask the Lord's refuge and surrender to Rama before Rama gets a chance to kill Him.

 

Vali tells His wife that He knew Rama well, before going off to fight. the Lord had promised Sugriva He would kill Vali for his misdeeds and did not want to give Vali a chance of survival. If Vali surrendered to lord Rama, then the Lord would be unable to kill a surrendered soul. He needed to fulfill His promise to Sugriva.

 

Read Ramayana closely. The Paratvam of Rama is mentioned in many places. Vishvamitra mentions that He meditates on Rama. And Rama Himself makes many such contradictory decisions that reveal His divinity. For instance, take the incident where Rama tells the Vanara Sena that He does not even know whether He is capable of defeating Ravana. But when Vibhishana surrenders to Him, Rama immediately says that Vibhishana will become next King of Lanka!! How does He know that, if earlier, He was unsure of even winning the war? Because, the Lord is omniscient.

 

Hindus do not worship Rama or Krishna without reason. Srimad Ramayana is a divine text with many hidden gems.

[srikanthdk71]

 

Originally Posted by Nrsinghadev

. . . your phrasing of "when you can live in your own light..." basically sums it up.

 

By saying this you are again verifying that it is okay to brush aside one's guru's teachings. . . .

 

--------------------

Ironically guru may indicate "wise old Indian" just like srikanthdk71's family elders.

 

And Ironically even, I now know why you do your 'Cut & Paste' so vigourously. Come on Bhaktjan, come up with some topic of your own. Just read your own posting above and tell me whether it makes any sense at all? But from what I can sum up, I will try.

 

Person A may have an experience differing from Person B and so on. I cannot think like you nor can you think like others. So, your thought needs no confirmation of others. But when you experience something strange that normal beings are devoid of, you go to a seer to confirm whether what you experienced matches with his. That is where a guru comes into picture. The guru can take you to the pond but not make you drink. You have to do it. But, ironically if one is devoid of a guru like many Avadhoots, we cannot brush them aside just because they are devoid of scriptural anecdotes. That is the place where we show our ignorance to believe that what I experience should be experienced by all and what I believe should be followed by all. A guru can tell you the way but you have to tread the path yourself. A guru can be ignorant also keeping the current trend we are living. The 'Gururbrahma, Guru Vishnu...' is reverence to the lotus feet of the Guru who helps you to win on the Bandhana of Samsara.

 

Lastly, the 'Wise old Indian' is better than the 'Arrogant','Narrow Minded', 'Electicuted' individuals. Is it not?

[Amlesh]

 

Hindus do not worship Rama or Krishna without reason. Srimad Ramayana is a divine text with many hidden gems.

But not many have been graced by such eyes.

 

Thanks for the enlightenment.

[bhaktajan]

Bhakajan's Comments are shown in Bold type:

 

That is the place where we show our ignorance to believe that what I experience should be experienced by all and what I believe should be followed by all.

[i am available to enlighten you. Not the other way around. That is my Opinion. Just check with Guru, Sadhus & Sastra they will confirm this.

 

Your statement above is a contradiction of your Declaration of Independent right to enlightenment as your own personal "experience" --I don think that is possible.

 

'Contentment', IMO, is an austerity of the mind that seeks no sense-gratifying entanglements.]

 

 

Nrsinghdevji Maharaj, I do not have a philosophy. Only experience.

[No philosophy means ones cannot articulate what Krishna has said.

 

If samadhi is acheived without the very same guidance spelt out by pass authorities then one is claiming 'self-sufficientcy' --this is only achieved by Avataras.

 

Self-enlightenment via "Only experience" is a false doctrine. IMO!]

 

 

Many believe in their experience than philosopy and I am one of them maybe more rational.

[Maybe is a freudian slip.

 

Rational is not good enough.

 

Being bestowed with blessings/certification/Kudos/congratulations/pier-acknowledgements from higher authority is what proves 'How well one is progressing in spiritual life'.]

 

 

Incidently if experience tallies with advaita or any other philosophy one may want to live with it since it advocates the same as his/her experience.

[some cut and paste skills of mine:

IF 'experience' = advaita = it advocates the same as his/her experience.

 

To claim to have anything extraordinary except 'insignificance' is self-propaganda. IMO]

 

 

Not only me use the material faculties of mind and intelligence, but all.

[Money makes the world go round. Material Faculties are for eating sleeping mating and defending-learn it, do it, teach it.

 

Just remember to pay back your student loans to show your gratitude.

 

Your intelligence is meant to keep you showing up for work --so that being a cog in the wheel will not leave you dejected --since "you know from experience" how to spend the nights until the morning back-to-work bell rings again.]

 

 

Even Sri Vedvyasji Maharaj or any of your or my Guru.

[How does one recognize a Bonefide Guru?

By claiming that ones own experience determines which Guru is bonefide?

The discription & instructions of "How to recognize a Bonefide Guru" is given in scriptures and ONLY through the eyes of Guru, Sadhu & sastra--then after time and blessings and dark nights of the soul --then the vision to see all as maya (illusion) etc, is available.]

 

 

When you dissolve your mind, you can experience the truth something like saying that your body is like a house to live for your soul.

["dissolve your mind"--this is not bonefide. The mind is never dissolved only cleansed of the dust etc etc etc.

 

"experience the truth" is totally self-manufactured self-promoting propaganda. It is 'Self-talk' angrandizement.

 

But, it may save one from the confusion of facing the facts.

 

"your body is like a house for your soul {to live}" --this not a unique statement and says little about "you can experience the truth" --there is no such experience! Sex feels better! You are selling faith in your testimony, that is all you are claiming.]

 

 

Purnamadah Purnamidam, or 'Ajayamano Bahudaa Vijayate' confirms the 'Tat Tvam Asi'.

[Ok. If you say so!

What about all the cut and pasting I have done for your benefit?

 

All my 'cut and pastings' are completely describing 'My experience' since I see through the eyes of sastra of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada {BTW, I have been in preparation for this discussion with you since 1977, Pilgram}]

 

 

Yes, infact it can be interpreted in many ways to suit a philosphy but ultimately it should tally with your experience.

[For me it's a Mandate to 'spread the Dharma'.

 

According to your statement 'tally with your experience' means eating, sleeping, mating and defending is all the same no matter what station in life you are in.

 

But there are many degrees of perfection and many degrees of degradation.

 

But, the concept of one almighty God the father in Heaven requires a Bhakta to see the unique status that is assigned only to one Absolute Personality, Krishna. And that this Krishna fellow is the only goal to sublimate our existance to. --{Now, that's Vedanta.}]

 

 

It should not be like a 'Blind leading the Blind'.

[OK, another original revelation].

 

 

Why were there so many Acharyas?

[...well?... Oh. ... I was waiting ... for another original revelation. ]

 

 

Why did many preach in many different ways?

[...well?... Oh. ... I was waiting ... for another original revelation. ]

 

 

It is the truth that they found with their experience. Is it not?

[it started with Brahmaji and was passed down through Parapara--that's is what I'm trying to tell you --but you keep speaking of your experience rather than concider that my cut & paste indeed represent my own experience(s) "as passed down to me and my compadres".]

 

 

In the same way, what harm is there in finding out the truth for yourself and not rely on the past to get confused.

[Well, I have a long attention span. Other wise there is much danger at every step in the material world unless a qualified Gurkha is leaading the way].

 

Yes, my dear, it is more confusing to go into theories with different perspective. But if you are satisfied, so be it.

["theories with different perspective"?

 

Whose theories with different perspective?

 

Whose theories with different perspective?

 

Yours?

 

Oh Yes, yours!]

 

 

When you have already decided you are blind, you will be blind for ever.

[if you speak Arabic too than your knowledge is in great demand in the war against Terror.

 

There are some Homocidal Muslim Terrorists awaiting your tutorlege.

 

Drug-addict Treatment centers & Mother Teresa's flock could use services. Try it. Let us know if you'd ever bestow your satisfaction upon them.]

 

 

So, open you eyes and start leading the pack.

["Pack?Lead?Eyes, as in visual sense falculty?" --All imperfect senses and presumptousness combined--{yes, I am quotinf sastra, but, YOU CAN"T HANDLE THE SASTRA SO I WONT PASTE IT HERE}]

 

 

God gave us this material body to realise the truth and intellect to live like a leader and not a follower.

[OK. Do I pay you or send a Bank Cheque?]

 

 

Again, the submissiveness to God/Truth/Absolute is excellent, not to a theory or an individual.

[Who do you think you are? That's a rhetorical question].

 

1. Did Sri Adi Shankara tell it that he was an incarnation of Lord Shiva? People assumed.

[Ask me a question and I give you an answer.

 

But I know from experience that you are a wellspring of self-manfest insight.

 

So I ercognize a rhetorical question when I see one {I know from experience}].

 

2. Since he wanted somebody to listen to him, Madhva told he is the avatar of Mukhyaprana or Vayu and he is an avatar. If you know the Chiranjeevi Stotram which goes like 'Ashwattamo Balirvyaso Hanumanascha Vibhishanah' clearly says Anjaneya is a Chiranjeevi. He is infact still cited in many parts of Himalayas.

["he wanted somebody to listen to him"--another Fruedian slip].

 

 

In such case, he must be doing Double Acting. Yes, Madhvacharya had immense strength and appetite.

["doing Double Acting"; "immense strength and appetite" --another Fruedian slip, IMO!!!].

 

 

3. In the Valmiki Ramayana, Sri Ram is explained as just an other human being with rare qualities. It was only in the Tulsidas Ramayan, Rama was glorified as the Lord from his birth. Anywhere throughout Ramayan, in any of the Khandas, you will not find Rama act unlike a human being. He was a Godly Human.

[Well, You did not arrive at this by your own experience. That is a good start. Good for you.]

 

 

I believe that no organisation can give you enlightenment because once a line of thought is institutionalised, there will be no room for any other free thinking bound in words like 'Gurudroha' or offense.

[The Labor Unions, Trademark & Patent Laws, College Professors, Govermental Laws, and the posted motor-way Speed-Limits would differ with your subjective subburnness.

Prabhu, remember, always elect a designated driver before a night of libations].

 

 

You have to follow a systematic way of the institution/school whether you like it or not.

[OK. We are in agreement here].

 

It may help one to gain various positions in the institution just like a Chaprasi to a CEO, bound in various internal politics which you can see in places like Mantrayala, the original essence or the way would have been lost long long back.

[Yeah, whatever.

 

OK, go to lunch.

 

Upon your return, bring a spade, bucket and some plastic sacks to clean up].

 

[srikanthdk71]

Dear Bhaktjan, unless you yourself read your postings and understand it, or you are guided to improve your lingual abilities, it is better to IGNORE you.