isopanishad's first sloka indicates advaita philosophy

[ranjeetmore]

 

thats impossible . how? think carefully..........

 

god as we all know is the supreme and infinite and no one can come equal to him(from a dualistic point of veiw of course). so , if someone would have actually understood him totally that would mean understanding him as infinite. remember 'infinite' here is a very broad word .it does not merely mean unending or ever expansive. and its also acepted that all individuals are imperfect by senses. so if a person claims to have understood god completely it would be equivalent of understanding that which is infinite.

 

and its obvious only infinite can understand infinite completely. being 'finite' means being limited. how can finite grasp the infinite. it is absurd.and if only infinite garsps infinite then it would assertain advaita .for there can be no two infinite.

 

so if you suggest that there are indeed some souls who can grasp him totally that would mean that those persons are infinite. that wouldnt conform to you dualistic philosophy.

 

no one can know him completely.ask this out to your guru and see what answer you get.

 

sambya

 

 

Your absolutely right....well,upto a certain point.

 

It's true that no one can grasp the infinty if Sri Krsna.

In bhagvatam,there is veda stuti(glorification of Sri Krsna by the vedas.)

 

I remember sri Kripaluji's lecture so i'll try to reproduce in hindi but am sorry for i can't reproduce the verse.

 

Sri Krsna,

Brahma ,shankara,Narada...koi nahi jaanta tumhe.

 

He Sri Krsna! tum Svayam apne aap ko Nahi jaante!

 

This last statement is very favourable for Mayavadis to prove that Sri Krsna is not all knowing.

 

It's not like that.Sri Krsna alone can Know Himself.

 

Brahma says in Bhagvatam,

 

Main,Brahma,Bhagavan ko nahi jaanta.Shankarji bhi nahi jaante usko.Baaki sab toh meri santaan hai.Jo koi kehta hai ki woh Bhagavan ko jaanta hai woh sabse bada murkh hai.

 

I,Brahma,declare that I don't know Para brahm.Shankarji also does not know Him.Everyone else,being my progeny,also do not know Parabrahm.One who says he knows Bhagavan is the biggest fool.

 

That's why only one answer is left:

 

Who Knows Bhagavan?

Bhagavan.

 

Who can see Bhagavan?

Bhagavan.

 

Who can hear Bhagavan?

Bhagavan.

 

True.

 

So, after bhagavatpraapti,Bhagvan gives His man/indriya(intelligence/mind/senses) to the devotee.Now the devotee can see Bhagavan.Hear Bhagavan and touch bhagavan.

 

 

This is the most simple logic.

 

But Bhagavan,being infinite,never comes under the grasp of the purest of all inetelligences also.

Because,knowing any tattva fully,implies that that principle has come under the grasp of intelligence.

But Bhagavan is Vibhu chit,Ananta,Divya...He cannot be contolled on the strength of your intelligence.

 

He only comes under Bhakti.

Narada says,

 

"Kimbru matwam yashode,

kati kati sukrt ksetra vrinda nipurvam

Gatwa ki dhit vidhamayi

kati kati sukrt nyarjit nitvaaiva

....

tat purnam brahm bhu mao biluthati bilapat

krodh marao dhukamam."

 

Mother Yashoda! Parabrahm is crying...flailing His arms to come into your lap and your saying,"ja ja ! Mujhe bahut kaam pada hai."!

This Parabrahm doesn't even come in the samadhis of Brahma,Vishnu,Shankar and your doing like this !

 

Sri Kripaluji maharaj joked,"Oh ho ho..bada bhaari kaam hai."

 

Sri krsna confesses to Uddhava Paramhamsa,

"Bhaktya mam ekaya grahya"

 

Uddhava,I am obtained only by Bhakti.There is no other way at all.

 

Tulsidas also says,"yogi,shoor,sutapas gyani...."

 

Whether he be a great warrior(kstriyas that die in battle go to heaven),Yogi,or a jnani of great penance,he CANNOT obtain My master,Sri Ramacandra without serving His lotus feet.

 

 

So Bhagavan reveals Himself in proportion to the devotion.

 

Jaya Vijaya can hardly dare to sit on Sri Narayana's shoulders and order Him to take them for a ride.

Who can dare?

 

But in Vrndavana...these cowherds take turns at teasing Kanua.They call Him Kalua kalua(kaalu kaalu).Then Sri Krsna starts crying and goes to Mother Yashoda.

 

This is the condition.

 

Only nishkaam bhaktas can know this side of the Lord.NOT ANYONE ELSE.

[sambya]

 

So Bhagavan reveals Himself in proportion to the devotion.

 

Jaya Vijaya can hardly dare to sit on Sri Narayana's shoulders and order Him to take them for a ride.

Who can dare?

 

But in Vrndavana...these cowherds take turns at teasing Kanua.They call Him Kalua kalua(kaalu kaalu).Then Sri Krsna starts crying and goes to Mother Yashoda.

 

This is the condition.

 

Only nishkaam bhaktas can know this side of the Lord.NOT ANYONE ELSE.

 

 

thats correct . only bhaktas can know. bhagavat prapti is actually not anything material . all this happens in the mental and emotional aspect. a sadhak sees god its with his divya eyes.its something that no one can comprehend.

 

sri ramakrishna used to say............................

 

"how would you describe to someone how does ghee tastes ? its imposiible !! only one who have tasted it knowshow does it taste."

 

but that doesnt mean he can know god totally.

 

 

So, after bhagavatpraapti,Bhagvan gives His man/indriya(intelligence/mind/senses) to the devotee.Now the devotee can see Bhagavan.Hear Bhagavan and touch bhagavan.

thats a paradoxical statement. bhagatprapti happens only after you see hear and feel bhagavan. its not that you begin to see hear and feel him after bhagavatprapti , as your suggesting.

[chandu_69]

 

really !!!!!!!!!!!! even after showering anandamayi maa with abusive words ? how did she 'encroach' on your life ?!!!!!!!!!

Where did i abuse her?? sleeper muslim.I only said she is delusional from her bio.

[sambya]

 

"Anandamayi would shed profuse tears, laugh for hours, and talk at tremendous speed in a Sanskrit-like language. Other unusual actions included rolling in the dust and dancing for long periods whirling like a leaf in the wind. She would also fast for long periods and at other times consume enough food for eight or nine people..

Sounds like involuntary emotional expression disorder (IEED).

 

The bio also reads

 

"she once passed a Muslim tomb. She immediately began to recite portions of the Quran, and to perform the Namaj ritual (Muslim prayers)..

Well,bhismashelper was asking info on sanatan dharma is'nt he??

now calling satvik bhavas as emotional exopression disorders clearly doesnt seem to suggest a respect towrds her.

 

 

once again you said , "She immediately began to recite portions of the Quran, and to perform the Namaj ritual (Muslim prayers).."

WHATS WRONG IN THAT ?!!!!!!!!!!! you are showing the muslim hatered again. sanatana dharma is indeed broad enough to incorporate in itself all facets of other religions. thats why the concept of satyanarayan puja in form of a muslim sufi pir originated in puranas (refer to skanda purana). that was also aimed at harmonising these two faiths. was that wrong ?

its nothing new for hindu sadhaks and philosophers to include muslim mannerisms within their fold.

im sory to say that you are not at all spiritual,but a mere speculator of hinduism and other faiths.

once more , i would like to know techings of which saint do you abide by , if at all.

[chandu_69]

 

now calling satvik bhavas as emotional exopression disorders clearly doesnt seem to suggest a respect towrds her.

Of course i have no special regard for delusional people".That doesn't mean i am abusing.

 

 

 

once again you said , "She immediately began to recite portions of the Quran, and to perform the Namaj ritual (Muslim prayers).."

WHATS WRONG IN THAT ?!!!!!!!!!!!

Ofcourse it is wrong to give her example to a person who is asking for info on sanatana dharma.

 

Now are u going to come out of your sleeper mode and show true colors??

You exposed yourself at the thread http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/449697-marriages-gods-2.html

 

where u quoted malicious interpretation of rigveda lifted straight from rabid antihindu sites.

 

 

I) Pushan is the lover of his sister [Rg Ved VI.55.4][Apte 11]

 

II)Agni is the lover of his own sister [Rg Ved X.3.3][Apte 11]

 

III) Ashvins are referred to as the sons of Savitar and Ushas who are brother and sister [Apte 11].

 

IV) The Ashvisns married Surya and Savitri who is their sister [RV I.116.19].

 

V) Agni is the son of his father and his sister [Rg Ved.I.91.7]

 

VI) Yama wards off his sister Yami, saying marriage between brother and sister is forbidden [R.V.X.10][Apte 11]

 

 

these are some of the places where the 'incest relationship' might have been suggested as according to the original post.i shall attempt to proove them wrong. i would like to say this to all people here that i dont remember the original text as i read rig veda quite a long time ago.i got these texts from a different source.

and after i exposed u with the original texts of rigveda u reveal

 

 

but as far as i can recall it might have been a muslim site.

 

Gullible people who fall for sambya's bait and bash tactics should read the post i mentioned above.

[Amlesh]

 

i guess that's much better than the other branches.

 

Hmm... what I know interms of organisation and the people down there are really Hard working and doing great job.. just like the Akshaya Patra et al.

I've met some really Great people there. Most of them are Highly qualified people and really admirable too.

I came to know them personally,I mean friendly acquantances.

 

The Akshaya Patra stuff is really mind blowing service to the Kids, out of love for Krishna.

 

But since my place of worship can be in my house, my neighbourhood temple, my heart, your heart, their heart and everyone's heart, under a bridge, in the sugar cane field et al.. then I can't really comment on what is really better..

I was not that close also to any institution... what matters to me about any institution is their Doctrine and nothing else.

 

 

but obvious !! thats the path you follow !! everyone would love their own path. thats very good.

 

Not exactly.

The sacrifice that they behold is really amazing.

The mahatmas are the only one who work in the Akarmic mode... and no other.

Mahatma is given to only those who behold Hari as their only means of Suport. They don't devise any method to protect themselves even if menaced to death.

They leave everything on Hari. Even though you've seen Gandhiji coming with really amazing methods to gain independence for India but He knew perfectly that the soul never does. His thought coincided with Ram. Even though people saw him doing still He never did.

As he himself said, "If you remove the element of God within me, I'm good for nothing."

 

 

 

i see !!!!!! as for me , my schooling would end the day i meet him face to face. theres no end to knowledge , you know.

After schooling and before meeting Him there is another element which is the Gateway to HIM.

 

It is the most important ELEMENT and more important than seeing Him face to face.

 

The missing element is the Kaaj [WORK] that you'll need to perform, that is all knowledge acquired transformed into concrete selfless actions for the betterment of this world.

You'll probably notice that none of them is a selfish motive.

That very initial phase of obtaining knowledge for the sake of self happiness or elevation is infact derided in a later stage and transformed into a very selfless motive with no reward in thought and even sacrificing the thought of liberation.

As I said, working in the Akarmic mode is really difficult and mukti is placed as secondary.

[sambya]

chandu ,

 

you have proven yourself worse than the most dogmatic religious fundamentalists. if you call a saint a psycological patient then you must provide valid reasons why you think so. that should include details from psycology , spiritual history and mystical experiences .

 

without that its baseless.

 

would it please you if i say that im a muslim ???? if it would then please understand as such and keep shut. dont bring up the same old topic again and again in your every post.

 

instead provide us with some other valuable information by starting a new thread with something substantial in it (perhaps).

 

without following a partiular path or belief a person cannot be spiritual at all. you are just a mere intellectual (psuedo , i mean) speculator of contemporary religions.

 

hereafter you wont get my replies in this matter.

[Amlesh]

 

everyone knows that hinduism is a recent word . strictly speaking it is not a recent word but a later word.

 

Anyways.. it did not exist.

It is the Great Swami Vivekananda himself who once said that is wrong to call us Hindus... the word should have been Vedanta.

 

 

i tagged only hinduism because historically there is no indications as yet to show that it was followed by any cultures outside the subcontinent.say greeks , china , middleast etc.

 

Not perfectly ditto.. but elements of that doctrine could be seen on the different surface of the globe..

Gita englobes all that.

If you speak about time then obviously dude... there certain dude.. Gita is timeless.. the very word and concept Nirvana was already known by Arjuna 5000 years back.

Buddha came some 2500 years later to speak about it.

 

To be more explicit.. the concept of Laissez faire, mixed, oligopolistic, monopolistic and other concepts are not recent inventions.

The first chapter of the Gita explain them to the most and lucidly... the only thing HE HARDLY GIVES ONE THE EYES FOR SEEING ALL THAT IN DETAILS.

AND TO BE MORE TRUE.. I'll say that there is one method of ruling a country that has not yet been discovered by nowadays people but the First CHAPTER of the Gita teaches.

Very few came to know them.... but I guess it is normal.

The Gita has said everything past present and Future...

Whatever great philosophy that might come in the future has already been spoken in the Battlefield to the great archer.

 

 

and by 'hinduism' i meant those numerous sects and religions that shared some common things like , belief in vedas , gods and goddeses, similar rituals , guruparampara etc.

 

From the other aspect of that limited thing that you've outlined, Gita beholds the other components of Truth and not only hinduism.

 

 

even the ancient yavanas (greeks) collectively meant these religions while coining the term 'hindu'

 

They've played a part in distorting many things..

The Greatest of fools were the Indians who were supposed to guard that Tradition.

Those Indians are in fact still showing their lacuna even now, it is not a mere random event that many of books were destroyed from the Nalanda library.

Funnily, I can't really blame them.. time not only heal wounds but also the cause for degeneration and obsoleteness and deviation.

Luckily, each phrase of the Gita is not touched by the Time Factor.

 

 

 

funny thing with gaudiyas ( not meaning you of course) is that they accept history selectively whenever it suits to thier purpose. for example , they would readily accept this 'origin of hindu ' theory but deny that puranas were written in later hindu ages and continued till 18th century.

The Gaudiyas [not the Philosophy] hold a bigger problem than that...

They don't know where and when to open their mouth.

[sambya]

 

After schooling and before meeting Him there is another element which is the Gateway to HIM.

 

how can schooling end before god realization ???????? until you are god realized you are not an perfected individual. and your guru is always guiding you (whether he is in this body or not ) till you actually see god. being under guru also amounts to schooling !!!!!!!!! till we reach the perfect knowledge(god) we are lacking in knowledge.this means we still have many things to learn. learning is merely the other name of schooling.

 

and assertaining independence from guru amounts to a falldown.

[Amlesh]

I'll give you an Example Sambya..

Take for example.. Dalai Lama and Gandhi... one is a buddist, the other a Mahatma.

They share the same mission, their countries were/are free.

While Dalai is not exile leaving his country and commenting from far this and that.

The same Gandhi would have dared not only to remain in Tibet but also to venture fearlessly in China to fight them.

A Mahatma knows no pain of his.. but of others.

[Amlesh]

 

how can schooling end before god realization ???????? until you are god realized you are not an perfected individual. and your guru is always guiding you (whether he is in this body or not ) till you actually see god. being under guru also amounts to schooling !!!!!!!!! till we reach the perfect knowledge(god) we are lacking in knowledge.this means we still have many things to learn. learning is merely the other name of schooling.

 

and assertaining independence from guru amounts to a falldown.

Not exactly.

After learning is over.. the student is supposed to give Guru Dakshana.

After that the student is permitted leave the Guru for Selfless [God Centered] or Selfish [egoistic] action or continue with the mission of the Guru if ever he has one.

 

Knowledge is never ending, true... but learning continues even while working.

The Guru however remains someone whom we'll always cherish of.

However, in purely spiritual thinking there is no Guru also except God.

When Pandavas were confronted with Drona their Guru.. at that time Swadharma [bhakti to Krishna] ruled.

I guess, selfless actions are much more important than anything.

NB: Arjuna had deep affection for Drona even though in opposition in the Battlefield.

[sambya]

 

Not perfectly ditto.. but elements of that doctrine could be seen on the different surface of the globe..

 

like ?!! any references?!!

 

 

 

Anyways.. it did not exist.

It is the Great Swami Vivekananda himself who once said that is wrong to call us Hindus... the word should have been Vedanta.

 

i guess it would be wrong to say it didnt exist when so many nations used that word. it was a misterpratation and wrong way of reffering to the followers of vedas.

 

 

 

 

From the other aspect of that limited thing that you've outlined, Gita beholds the other components of Truth and not only hinduism

 

again thats true !! but only philosophically speaking, not through historical evidence !!!!!!!!!!

 

 

They've played a part in distorting many things..

The Greatest of fools were the Indians who were supposed to guard that Tradition.

Those Indians are in fact still showing their lacuna even now, it is not a mere random event that many of books were destroyed from the Nalanda library.

thats a problem not just with greek but with all cultures.just as we have deformed 'ALEXANDER' to 'SIKANDAR' or 'ISKANDER'. just as there are so many regional adaptaions of ramayan. just as radha krishna is presently seen evolving under iskcon paintings. one can clearly see the unusually high levels of western physical traits( face structures and well toned roman bodies etc) and western landscape etc in many of these pictures. this is also a process of adpatation that has just started. these are expected regional adaptations and alterations that occur as a result of cultural interchange.

 

as much i can remember nalanda was not destroyed by greeks but by muslim invaders.

[sambya]

 

Not exactly.

After learning is over.. the student is supposed to give Guru Dakshana.

After that the student is permitted leave the Guru for Selfless [God Centered] or Selfish [egoistic] action or continue with the mission of the Guru if ever he has one.

 

O GOD !! thats ridiculous .you are speaking about the gurus of material knowledge like veda adhyayan, ashtra vidya etc ec. spiritual gurus never leave anyone. although you do provide gurudakhshina the relation doesnt end. infact day by day it increases untill you realize god.

 

and once you do that you feel that guru and ishta are same.

 

in a spiritual guru the learning or relation is never over.

[Amlesh]

 

again thats true !! but only philosophically speaking, not through historical evidence !!!!!!!!!!

 

True.

From a learned perception, we can see or formulate that.

But we can't expect someone to write a thesis on that as well.

People are more to prowl on the difference but rarely would like to see that unity.

Time holds this degenerating Factor.

 

 

thats a problem not just with greek but with all cultures.just as we have deformed 'ALEXANDER' to 'SIKANDAR' or 'ISKANDER'. just as there are so many regional adaptaions of ramayan. just as radha krishna is presently seen evolving under iskcon paintings. one can clearly see the unusually high levels of western physical traits( face structures and well toned roman bodies etc) and western landscape etc in many of these pictures. this is also a process of adpatation that has just started. these are expected regional adaptations and alterations that occur as a result of cultural interchange.

 

Maybe externally yes... but if the rudimentary principles of a philosophy is kept in its pristine form then no need to worry about other secondary changes.

Just like many fight over Tulsi Ramayana being not a replica et al...

that makes me laugh... the only important thing that is needed to derived from both version of Ramayana is ditto same and Tulsi never deviated from that.

AND that is Bhakti to Sri Ram.

But who would see that?

 

 

 

as much i can remember nalanda was not destroyed by greeks but by muslim invaders.

Yeah I know.. I felt no need to mention that.

I know you will know that.

 

the thing I would like to point out is "Today we are left with that much of books and tomorrow with none."

 

And surely, no sacred books from the Vedic culture is the most detrimental thing that the world can face.

10 millions atomic bombs on earth is puny compared to that.

[Amlesh]

 

O GOD !! thats ridiculous .you are speaking about the gurus of material knowledge like veda adhyayan, ashtra vidya etc ec. spiritual gurus never leave anyone. although you do provide gurudakhshina the relation doesnt end. infact day by day it increases untill you realize god.

 

and once you do that you feel that guru and ishta are same.

 

in a spiritual guru the learning or relation is never over.

 

If you take another birth.. Are you sure to have the same Guru?

 

No relation is eternal except that of God.

 

I hold terrific respect to My Guru and of course it is a very subtle matter.

 

The vidya given to Arjuna by Drona were not only material.

 

However, when Krishna speaks to an Individual, then only it becomes complete.

And not before that.

[sambya]

 

I'll give you an Example Sambya..

Take for example.. Dalai Lama and Gandhi... one is a buddist, the other a Mahatma.

They share the same mission, their countries were/are free.

While Dalai is not exile leaving his country and commenting from far this and that.

The same Gandhi would have dared not only to remain in Tibet but also to venture fearlessly in China to fight them.

A Mahatma knows no pain of his.. but of others.

 

 

 

i think there's a huge point of difference between gandhi and dalai lama.

 

dalai lama is primarily a spiritual leader who has resorted to politics due to unavoidable circumstances.

 

gandhi was primarily a politician who accepted a deep spiritual life .

 

also i would object to the word mahatma.

 

its true that he was indeed a noble man and a real high morals. but using that word for him would amount to degrading other illustrious persons who were solely spiritual.

 

it was rabindranath who gave him this title. now in those days there was a sudden hindu revival and spiritual resurgance and people were awarded such titles easily, especially in bengal.

 

thus just by writing anandamath and vande mataram bankim chandra became rishi bankim in bengal.

 

merely by being a great socio religious reformer and a man of some spiritual insights did devendranath tagore(rabindranath's father) became maharshi.

 

now this is a serious insult to the vedic maharshis and rishis who devoted their entire lives in painstaking pursuit of spiritual truth.

 

'mahatma' is also a similar title. he was not a mahatma beacuse he was realized and perfected individual.

 

if he would have been as such the ugly feud between him and subhas chandra bose wouldnt have appeared in the congress session.

 

he was a politician with a deep spirituality.

[sambya]

 

If you take another birth.. Are you sure to have the same Guru?

 

No relation is eternal except that of God.

 

I hold terrific respect to My Guru and of course it is a very subtle matter.

 

one doesnt find numerous gurus over his next life. you are overlooking the process known as samskars.

 

when you finally come under the guidance of a genuine guru you start a bond that never perishes.it gets merged in the supreme at the end.

 

say , you are initiated in ram mantra by a real spiritually high competent guru and you continue its chanting all through your life. now what happens after you die ? do you get a completely new guru? NO !!!!!!!! here your samskars from your previous life redirect you to the same soul or in some rare cases to a soul with same teachings. the bhav of your sadhana never changes .

 

if i assume that you were to change gurus at every birth then it would amount to changing paths continuously.

 

as krishna says in gita that if a yogi dies in middle of sadhana he gets the chance to start exactly from the same point in the following birth.

 

now would that have been possible without the same guru ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

secondly guru is god himself. the mercy of god takes the form of guru to help you across the bhavasagar.guru being god is always changeless.

 

and percieving guru as human (which you are doing) is one of the greatest aparadhs.

[Amlesh]

 

i think there's a huge point of difference between gandhi and dalai lama.

 

True one was a mahatma the other no.

 

 

 

dalai lama is primarily a spiritual leader who has resorted to politics due to unavoidable circumstances.

 

He did not learn the lesson then....

One should continue to do his Duty that is of one's nature even if one has to meet destruction rather than to do another's duty and attain success.

Gandhiji would not have erred on that.

In such a case when an unworthy person is assigned to specific job.. instead of coming to a solution... things get complicated since it is not his job.

 

gandhi was primarily a politician who accepted a deep spiritual life .

 

so whatever.. what I meant is being fearless and go in the battle fearlessly.

 

 

also i would object to the word mahatma.

 

hahahaha... OK

 

its true that he was indeed a noble man and a real high morals. but using that word for him would amount to degrading other illustrious persons who were solely spiritual.

 

it was rabindranath who gave him this title. now in those days there was a sudden hindu revival and spiritual resurgance and people were awarded such titles easily, especially in bengal.

 

thus just by writing anandamath and vande mataram bankim chandra became rishi bankim in bengal.

 

merely by being a great socio religious reformer and a man of some spiritual insights did devendranath tagore(rabindranath's father) became maharshi.

 

He had Ram in his mind.. that's the qualification for a mahatma.

 

 

now this is a serious insult to the vedic maharshis and rishis who devoted their entire lives in painstaking pursuit of spiritual truth.

 

without Rama?.. it is fine but incomplete.

 

 

'mahatma' is also a similar title. he was not a mahatma beacuse he was realized and perfected individual.

The only definition of Mahatma that we have is given in the Gita.

 

 

if he would have been as such the ugly feud between him and subhas chandra bose wouldnt have appeared in the congress session.

 

he was a politician with a deep spirituality.

too loose.

With our mind and intellect...might be good.

wih Krishna's mind.... it becomes perfect

[sambya]

 

He had Ram in his mind.. that's the qualification for a mahatma.

merely having ram in mind wont help at all. the end thing is

1- degree of realization

2-level of purity

3-continous dedication to lord like unbroken flow of oil.

 

if all of these were present in him he could have never resorted to politics. yes , not even the noble politics of british era !!!!!

 

from a veiwpoint of politicians and diplomats he was an mahatma undoubtedly, but not when judged from spiritual points.

 

goodnite for today

[chandu_69]

 

chandu ,

you have proven yourself worse than the most dogmatic religious fundamentalists.

 

Pot calling the kettle black

 

 

would it please you if i say that im a muslim ???? if it would then please understand as such and keep shut. dont bring up the same old topic again and again in your every post.

 

Dishonesty doesn't please anybody especially in a spiritual forum.Come clean.

 

You still haven't answered my question.I.e. why did u post malicious and hateful interpretation of rigveda hymns.

 

 

 

hereafter you wont get my replies in this matter.

 

This is the second time i am hearing this .

[Amlesh]

 

merely having ram in mind wont help at all. the end thing is

1- degree of realization

2-level of purity

3-continous dedication to lord like unbroken flow of oil.

 

True and He had.

 

 

if all of these were present in him he could have never resorted to politics. yes , not even the noble politics of british era !!!!!

 

The difference again is the degree in which you Trust God.

A Mahatma is the final word in completeness in the surrender to God.

 

 

 

from a veiwpoint of politicians and diplomats he was an mahatma undoubtedly, but not when judged from spiritual points.

 

goodnite for today

hahahahahahaha........

Ok.......

Karya dude... Karya.

 

Sorry, I went to sleep before you...

[Deathless]

 

They leave everything on Hari. Even though you've seen Gandhiji coming with really amazing methods to gain independence for India but He knew perfectly that the soul never does. His thought coincided with Ram. Even though people saw him doing still He never did.

As he himself said, "If you remove the element of God within me, I'm good for nothing."

 

And he was a proponent of Advaita Vedanta.

[Amlesh]

 

And he was a proponent of Advaita Vedanta.

Really.....

He took the name the Ram while dying.

 

Gita was his life and soul.

 

Sri Ram was dearer to him than his own life.

 

Tulsidasa's Ramcharitra Manasa was considered by him to be the Greatest work.

 

His influence was Vaishnavism.

 

He was a born Sri Hari Bhakta.. he was born in such a family.

 

He was somewhat initially contemplating and ventured in knowing the Arya Samaj and its doctrine... but who can resist Sri Ram.

He returned to the Bhagvata doctrine.

 

When He was asked who will accompany him to the 1st and 2nd conference table... He replied, "Sri Madana Mohan Malaviya"... The Great Vaishnava Brahmana who created the Banaras Hindu University.

 

The appreciated the work of the Advaitins but to become a Mahatma the only solution is the lotus feet of Sri Krishna.

The Advaitins had some role in the Independence Era but the Major Protagonist were Sri Hari Followers.

He does not give major roles to the whimsical who think themselves the doer, but to those who know that HE is basis in all the understanding.

 

Dude, read the story of my experiment with truth before coming to any conclusion.

 

AS HE HIMSELF SAID, "TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE SUPREME ALL PERVADING ABSOLUTE TRUTH FACE TO FACE ONE NEED TO LOVE EVEN THE MEANEST OF CRAP."

[Amlesh]

 

like ?!! any references?!!

The Gita spoke about the Atheist.. you can see them in China.

The Gita spoke about the Karma Mimamsic... you see them in Japan.

The Gita spoke about impersonalism.. see the mirror.

The Gita spoke about whimsical ruler.. see Hitler

The Gita spoke about Nirvana.... Buddism

 

 

 

i guess it would be wrong to say it didnt exist when so many nations used that word. it was a misterpratation and wrong way of reffering to the followers of vedas.

 

Find that term in any Sanskrit Text.

 

 

again thats true !! but only philosophically speaking, not through historical evidence !!!!!!!!!!

 

Open your eyes.. you are blind...

Too much of spoon feeding is not Good.

But one day maybe I might reveal it to you.

But I guess it is not worth trying... I once spoke about Swadharma and I guess you did not understand 1 single statement I said.

[Amlesh]

 

one doesnt find numerous gurus over his next life. you are overlooking the process known as samskars.

That was not my question.

 

when you finally come under the guidance of a genuine guru you start a bond that never perishes.it gets merged in the supreme at the end.

 

True but only after knowing the Supreme.

 

 

say , you are initiated in ram mantra by a real spiritually high competent guru and you continue its chanting all through your life. now what happens after you die ? do you get a completely new guru? NO !!!!!!!! here your samskars from your previous life redirect you to the same soul or in some rare cases to a soul with same teachings. the bhav of your sadhana never changes .

 

You've guessed it right... only after knowing Ram.

 

But there is the element of FORGETFULNESS, REMEMBRANCE AND KNOWLEDGE.

The one who is the controller of that is SRI HARI

 

if i assume that you were to change gurus at every birth then it would amount to changing paths continuously.

 

no..

Different Gurus Teaching the same REAL conclusion.. that is Bhakti to Sri Ram.

 

as krishna says in gita that if a yogi dies in middle of sadhana he gets the chance to start exactly from the same point in the following birth.

 

now would that have been possible without the same guru ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

But who says that we might get ditto the same Guru in the next Birth.

 

Do you still remember who was your Guru in your Previous birth.

If I 'll ask you what you ate 3 weeks back, you'll say ehhhhh ehhhhh.

 

 

secondly guru is god himself. the mercy of god takes the form of guru to help you across the bhavasagar.guru being god is always changeless.

 

True... but that was not the issue of our debate...

It was about the Eternal Relationship et al.

 

 

and percieving guru as human (which you are doing) is one of the greatest aparadhs.

hahahahahahaha......

I'm not doing so......

I accept My Guru to be Greater than My LORD Himself but when it concerns RAM Kaaj... then there is no concession.

 

My priority goes to TRUTH and nopthing else.

Kaaj to Krishna is what really matters.