Lord Krishna

[raghu]

 

The Brahma Samhita and Garga Samhita are acceptable by everybody. Apparently it's convenient for non-believers to reject those scriptures and say only Gaudiyas accept those. Thanks to the British (ironically) the Garga Samhita at least could be found outside of India.

 

Kyros, can you please prove your claim in the first sentence by citing the writings of even *one* non-gauDIya Vaishnava vedantin in which he quotes from the Brahma Samhita and Garga Samhita? Assuming of course, that you do not consider it impertinent of me to doubt your claim in the first place.

 

I am eagerly awaiting your response.

 

 

Krishna says he's the source of everything, and he further expands that in the same chapter where he mentions stuff like "of the Vedas I am the Sama Veda,of the demigods I am Indra,of the Adityas I am Visnu."

 

The point of that chaper was to point out that Krishna is the best"." <- period

 

But the point under contention is that Krishna is allegedly the source of other forms of Vishnu. When asked to substantiate that view, the gItA is offered up, but as you pointed out this only says that Krishna is the source of all other dependent entities like devatas, etc - and that the best of everything represents Him. Not that Krishna is the source of Vishnu as was originally claimed.

 

 

The Kali-Santarana Upanisad is only corrupt up to the point that a couple of the lines have been switched around. There's no reason to reject a scripture because of that lame reason.

 

We do not know that. All we know for a fact is that the text is corrupted. We do not know what other corruptions might have taken place in that text, but evidence of one corruption certainly raises the question of other corruptions. Then too is the fact that the text is not a traditional Upanishad. The Upanishads enjoy authority because they are passed down as shruti in multiple different traditions - the same is not true for the Kali Santarana which appears relatively recently in Indian history. As mentioned previously, Vaishnava vedantins like those following Ramanuja and Madhva do not draw on the text, but ironically mayavadis do accept it. Does it not strike you as ironic that the gaudiyas and mayavadis both accept this as an "Upanishad?"

 

Even if the text is genuine and there are no corruptions beyond the Hare Krishna/Hare Rama mantra, it is illogical to cite this as an authority on the Hare Krishna mantra when that is the mantra whose legitimacy is disputed.

 

Even going beyond all this, this Upanishad has nothing to do with the question of Krishna being the "source" of all avatAra-s.

 

 

Might I add that it doesn't really matter if Krishna is the source or not.

 

Then why do gaudiyas make this claim? Why did gokulkr make this claim in the very first posting of this thread? Why do iskcon people make claims like this publicly, and then when questioned, retreat behind the excuse of "oh it does not really matter, it's a matter of the heart," etc etc?

 

A very tricky preaching strategy this. Say whatever you want because the uneducated masses will swallow it without question. But the moment someone scrutinizes your claims, the excuses begin.

 

 

Even Prabhupada himself said that not everybody will accept Krishna, kind of like how Hanuman won't accept anybody but Lord Ramacandra, or how the Gopi's won't accept anybody but Krishna.

 

Nonsense. A devotee of Vishnu will not hesitate to worship Him in any form in which He presents Himself.

[gokulkr]

Rama and Krishna are so sweet avatars. I dont deny that. But these avatars have their base in Lord Narasimha. It is same Narasimha sitting in third eye of Rudra. Since Krishna acted as trinity he is considered as Fully-complete avatar whereas Rama acted as Dual(hari and hara), he is considered as Complete Avatar. But still Narasimha is the source of all yuga avatars.

But Adi-avatar is Lord Hyagreeva. He is considered as form of "Para-vasudeva" (Adi narayana) himself. Para-Vasudeva or Narayana is none other than Venkateswara who is giving seva in archa-rupa in Thirumala. So Venkateswara is source of all avatars, thats why Venkateswara is considered as Complete Brahman irrespective of all sects.

But Last-avatar will be Lord Kala-Narasimha. He is none other than supreme form of Lord Narasimha himself. He may also considered be otherside of Para-vasudeva. It is said that Venkateswara's kula devata is Sri Narasimha himself. At end of kalpa everything will end in Lord Kala-Narasimha. He is the Sadashiva.

 

So Venkateswara is the Aadi and Kala-Narasimha is the Anthaa.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya

[Amlesh]

 

But the point under contention is that Krishna is allegedly the source of other forms of Vishnu. When asked to substantiate that view, the gItA is offered up, but as you pointed out this only says that Krishna is the source of all other dependent entities like devatas, etc - and that the best of everything represents Him. Not that Krishna is the source of Vishnu as was originally claimed.

 

True.

 

 

Nonsense. A devotee of Vishnu will not hesitate to worship Him in any form in which He presents Himself.

Makes sense. All the forms of Bhagwan is equally auspicious. They are eternally existent.. so how come one is the source of the other.

 

It is going to be tough to convince me that My Ram has a source.

 

Ram is Krishna.. Krishna is Ram.

[kaisersose]

 

Rama and Krishna are so sweet avatars. I dont deny that. But these avatars have their base in Lord Narasimha. It is same Narasimha sitting in third eye of Rudra. Since Krishna acted as trinity he is considered as Fully-complete avatar whereas Rama acted as Dual(hari and hara), he is considered as Complete Avatar. But still Narasimha is the source of all yuga avatars.

But Adi-avatar is Lord Hyagreeva. He is considered as form of "Para-vasudeva" (Adi narayana) himself. Para-Vasudeva or Narayana is none other than Venkateswara who is giving seva in archa-rupa in Thirumala. So Venkateswara is source of all avatars, thats why Venkateswara is considered as Complete Brahman irrespective of all sects.

But Last-avatar will be Lord Kala-Narasimha. He is none other than supreme form of Lord Narasimha himself. He may also considered be otherside of Para-vasudeva. It is said that Venkateswara's kula devata is Sri Narasimha himself. At end of kalpa everything will end in Lord Kala-Narasimha. He is the Sadashiva.

 

So Venkateswara is the Aadi and Kala-Narasimha is the Anthaa.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya

 

Dude,

 

you are the one who started this thread by copy-pasting a Hare Krishna piece on how Krishna is the source of all avatars and Vishnu as well, triggering off an argument.

 

Now seeing this post, it would appear, you simply copy-paste internet articles without even reading them.

 

Cheers

[gokulkr]

After starting this thread only i read about tattparya of venkateswara and narasimha. So i come to know that and i pasted in this thread. Wats wrong in that ? Moreover everyone in this forum somewhere or somehow are copying the sayings of acharyas or scriptures. No one can write their own scripture or philosophy or article as no one is Veda vyasa or Sri Ramanujacharya here.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya

[kimfelix]

Raghu, I think the Brahmavaivarta Purana teaches that Krishna is the original source of Vishnu. I know that Puranic evidence is not always acceptable or persuasive but that may provide some sort of answer to the question you have been posing. If you want I can probably locate the exact passages in the Brahmavaivarta but it may take a little time.

[kaisersose]

 

After starting this thread only i read about tattparya of venkateswara and narasimha. So i come to know that and i pasted in this thread. Wats wrong in that ? Moreover everyone in this forum somewhere or somehow are copying the sayings of acharyas or scriptures. No one can write their own scripture or philosophy or article as no one is Veda vyasa or Sri Ramanujacharya here.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya

 

This is what you posted. Check the underlined portions. No Sri Vaishnava would agree with these statements, which implies you did not read it before posting. That is my point.

 

Although Lord Krishna is often considered the 8th Avatar of Lord Vishnu He(Lord Krishna) is actually the Supreme personality of Godhead. He is actually the source of all avatars and is the cause of all causes. This is confirmed in various vedic sastras and is the conclusion of vedic uttama siddhanta which is the Srimad Bhagavatam.

The main objective of Gita is to help people struggling in the darkness of ignorance cross the ocean of transmigration and reach the spiritual shore of liberation while living and working in the society. The central understanding of the Bhagavad Gita is to not only do your duty but ultimatly surrender unto the Supreme personality of Godhead. Sri Krishna. By doing your duty in the thought of Lord Krishna and ultimatly offering everything unto him.

The congregational chanting of the maha-mantra, Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare, is accepted by the Vedas as the most effective means of self-purification in this age.

Cheers

[bhaktajan]

There are primarily four parties spreading devotional service all over the universe. These are the Rämänuja-sampradäya, the Madhva-sampradäya, the Viñëusvämi-sampradäya and the Nimbärka-sampradäya.

The Madhva-Gauòéya-sampradäya in particular comes from Lord Caitanya Mahäprabhu. All these devotees are spreading this Kåñëa consciousness movement very widely and giving protection to innocent people who are being so much embarrassed by pseudo-avatäras, -svämés, -yogés and others.

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

The philosophers known as kevalädvaita-vädés generally occupy themselves with hearing the Çäréraka-bhäñya, a commentary by Çaìkaräcärya advocating that one impersonally consider oneself the Supreme Lord.

Such Mäyäväda philosophical commentaries upon the Vedänta-sütra are simply imaginary, but there are other commentaries on the Vedänta-sütra. The commentary by Çréla Rämänujäcärya, known as Çré-bhäñya, establishes the viçiñöädvaita-väda philosophy.

Similarly, in the Brahma-sampradäya, Madhväcärya’s Pürëaprajïa-bhäñya establishes çuddha-dvaita-väda. In the Kumära-sampradäya, or Nimbärka-sampradäya, Çré Nimbärka establishes the philosophy of dvaitädvaita-väda in the Pärijäta-saurabha-bhäñya.

And in the Viñëu-svämi-sampradäya, or Rudra-sampradäya, which comes from Lord Çiva, Viñëu Svämé has written a commentary called Sarvajïa-bhäñya, which establishes çuddhädvaita-väda.

A Vaiñëava should study the commentaries on the Vedänta-sütra written by the four sampradäya-äcäryas, namely Çré Rämänujäcärya, Madhväcärya, Viñëu Svämé and Nimbärka, for these commentaries are based upon the philosophy that the Lord is the master and that all living entities are His eternal servants.

One interested in studying Vedänta philosophy properly must study these commentaries, especially if he is a Vaiñëava. These commentaries are always adored by Vaiñëavas. The commentary by Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté is elaborately given in the Ädi-lélä, Chapter Seven, text 101. The Mäyäväda commentary Çäréraka-bhäñya is like poison for a Vaiñëava.

It should not be touched at all. Çréla Bhaktivinoda Öhäkura remarks that even a mahä-bhägavata, or highly elevated devotee who has surrendered himself unto the lotus feet of Kåñëa, sometimes falls down from pure devotional service if he hears the Mäyäväda philosophy of the Çäréraka-bhäñya. This commentary should therefore be shunned by all Vaiñëavas.

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

There are four sects of worshipful devotees of the Lord, and the chief amongst them are the Brahma-sampradäya, Rudra-sampradäya and Çré-sampradäya, descending directly from Lord Brahmä, Lord Çiva and the goddess of fortune, Lakñmé, respectively.

Besides the above-mentioned three sampradäyas, there is the Kumära-sampradäya, descending from Sanat-kumära.

All of the four original sampradäyas are still scrupulously engaged in the transcendental service of the Lord up to date, and they all declare that Lord Kåñëa, Mukunda, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and no other personality is equal to Him or greater than Him.

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

Our sampradäya belongs to the disciplic succession of Mädhavendra Puré, who belonged to the Madhva-sampradäya. We are in the disciplic succession of Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu, who was initiated by Çré Éçvara Puré, a disciple of Mädhavendra Puré’s. Our sampradäya is therefore called the Madhva-Gauòéya-sampradäya.

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

The Tattvaväda sampradäya of the Madhväcärya school sticks to the principle of varëäçrama-dharma, which involves fruitive activity. Their ultimate goal (mukti) is simply a form of material desire.

A pure devotee should be free from all kinds of material desire. He simply engages in the service of the Lord. Nonetheless, Caitanya Mahäprabhu was pleased that the Madhväcärya-sampradäya, or the Tattvaväda sampradäya, accepted the transcendental form of the Lord. This is the great qualification of the Vaiñëava sampradäyas.

It is the Mäyäväda sampradäya that does not accept the transcendental form of the Lord. If a Vaiñëava sampradäya is also carried away by that impersonal attitude, that sampradäya has no position at all. It is a fact that there are many so-called Vaiñëavas whose ultimate aim is to merge into the existence of the Lord.

For example, the sahajiyäs’ Vaiñëava philosophy is to become one with the Supreme. Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu points out that Çré Mädhavendra Puré accepted Madhväcärya only because his sampradäya accepted the transcendental form of the Lord.

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

“The most intimate devotee of Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu, namely Gadädhara Paëòita, accepted the tridaëòa-sannyäsa and also accepted Mädhava Upädhyäya as his tridaëòi-sannyäsé disciple.

It is said that from this Madhväcärya the sampradäya known in western ffice:smarttags" />India as the Vallabhäcärya-sampradäya has begun. Çréla Gopäla Bhaööa Vasu, who is known as a småty-äcärya in the Gauòéya Vaiñëava-sampradäya, later accepted the tridaëòa-sannyäsa order from Tridaëòipäda Prabodhänanda Sarasvaté.

Although acceptance of tridaëòa-sannyäsa is not distinctly mentioned in the Gauòéya Vaiñëava literature, the first verse of Çréla Rüpa Gosvämé’s Upadeçämåta advocates that one should accept the tridaëòa-sannyäsa order by controlling the six forces:

 

 

 

väco vegaà manasaù krodha-vegaà

 

 

 

 

jihvä-vegam udaropastha-vegam

 

etän vegän yo viñaheta dhéraù

sarväm apémäà påthivéà sa çiñyät

 

 

 

 

 

“One who can control the forces of speech, mind, anger, belly, tongue and genitals is known as a gosvämé and is competent to accept disciples all over the world.’ The followers of Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu never accepted the Mäyäväda order of sannyäsa, and for this they cannot be blamed.

Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu accepted Çrédhara Svämé, who was a tridaëòi-sannyäsé, but the Mäyävädé sannyäsés, not understanding Çrédhara Svämé, sometimes think that Çrédhara Svämé belonged to the Mäyäväda ekadaëòa-sannyäsa community. Actually this was not the case.”

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

Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu accepted the chain of disciplic succession from Madhva Äcärya, but the Vaiñëavas in His line do not accept the Tattva-vädés, who also claim to belong to the Mädhva-sampradäya.

To distinguish themselves clearly from the Tattva-vädé branch of Madhva’s descendants, the Vaiñëavas of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<st1:place w:st=" /><st1:place w:st="on">Bengal</st1:place> prefer to call themselves Gauòéya Vaiñëavas.

Çré Madhva Äcärya is also known as Çré Gauòa-pürëänanda, and therefore the name Mädhva-Gauòéya-sampradäya is quite suitable for the disciplic succession of the Gauòéya Vaiñëavas.

AC. Bhaktivedanta Swami'sspiritual master, Oà Viñëupäda Çrémad Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté Gosvämé Mahäräja, accepted initiation in the Mädhva-Gauòéya-sampradäya.

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

Mäyävädé sannyäsés are very puffed up if they hold the elevated sannyäsa title Tértha, Äçrama or Sarasvaté. Even among Mäyävädés, those who belong to other sampradäyas and hold other titles, such as Vana, Araëya or Bhäraté, are considered to be lower-grade sannyäsés. Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu accepted sannyäsa from the Bhäraté-sampradäya, and thus He considered Himself a lower sannyäsé than Prakäçänanda Sarasvaté.

To remain distinct from Vaiñëava sannyäsés, the sannyäsés of the Mäyävädi-sampradäya always think themselves to be situated in a very much elevated spiritual order, but Lord Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu, in order to teach them how to become humble and meek, accepted Himself as belonging to a lower sampradäya of sannyäsés. Thus He wanted to point out clearly that a sannyäsé is one who is advanced in spiritual knowledge. One who is advanced in spiritual knowledge should be accepted as occupying a better position than those who lack such knowledge.

The Mäyävädi-sampradäya sannyäsés are generally known as Vedäntés, as if Vedänta were their monopoly. Actually, however, Vedänté refers to a person who perfectly knows Kåñëa. As confirmed in the Bhagavad-gétä (15.15), vedaiç ca sarvair aham eva vedyaù: By all the Vedas it is Kåñëa who is to be known. The so-called Mäyävädé Vedäntés do not know who Kåñëa is; therefore their title of Vedänté, or “knower of Vedänta philosophy,” is simply a pretension. Mäyävädé sannyäsés always think of themselves as real sannyäsés and consider sannyäsés of the Vaiñëava order to be brahmacärés.

A brahmacäré is supposed to engage in the service of a sannyäsé and accept him as his guru. Mäyävädé sannyäsés therefore declare themselves to be not only gurus but jagad-gurus, or the spiritual masters of the entire world, although, of course, they cannot see the entire world. Sometimes they dress gorgeously and travel on the backs of elephants in processions, and thus they are always puffed up, accepting themselves as jagad-gurus. Çréla Rüpa Gosvämé, however, has explained that jagad-guru properly refers to one who is the controller of his tongue, mind, words, belly, genitals and anger.

[bija]

 

Raghu, I think the Brahmavaivarta Purana teaches that Krishna is the original source of Vishnu. I know that Puranic evidence is not always acceptable or persuasive but that may provide some sort of answer to the question you have been posing. If you want I can probably locate the exact passages in the Brahmavaivarta but it may take a little time.

 

There is that kind of reference here:

 

Birth of Lord Krsna - Brahma Vaivarta Purana

[ganeshiva]

nice

[gokulkr]

dude,

 

i dont know what u are saying by telling "Sri vaishnavas" wont accept the statements. Are u telling "Sri Vaishnavas" wont accept "Narasimha" as source or u telling they wont accept "Krishna" as source. Anyway All are narayana only. i think lets end the fuss.

[raghu]

 

dude,

 

i dont know what u are saying by telling "Sri vaishnavas" wont accept the statements. Are u telling "Sri Vaishnavas" wont accept "Narasimha" as source or u telling they wont accept "Krishna" as source. Anyway All are narayana only. i think lets end the fuss.

 

I believe he is referring to the fact that Sri Vaishnavas do not accept the idea that "Krishna is the source of all avatars [of Vishnu]"

 

While we're on that subject, neither do the followers of Madhva, of whom gaudiyas claim to be related in parampara.

 

If you don't want to start a fuss, then don't make unsubstantiated claims that you cannot defend. This is just a humble suggestion. After all, there are people who actually come to forums like this to learn spiritual truths. Don't you think that one is obligated to substantiate his views with evidence before stating them as if they are undisputed facts?

 

To Bija and others:

 

There may indeed be evidence in the brahma-vaivarta to back this claim (making a grand total of 2 smriti references and no shruti references to back up the "various vedic sastras" comment). However, it is well known that the viShnu purAna treats Krishna as an avatAra of Vishnu. So, what of that? Why accept the brahma-vaivarta and reject the viShNu purAna? Especially as the latter is in the sAttvic class and the former is not?

 

Aren't you really just picking and choosing what appears to support your view and just arbitrarily rejecting the rest?

[kaisersose]

 

dude,

 

i dont know what u are saying by telling "Sri vaishnavas" wont accept the statements. Are u telling "Sri Vaishnavas" wont accept "Narasimha" as source or u telling they wont accept "Krishna" as source. Anyway All are narayana only. i think lets end the fuss.

 

You dont know what I am saying because you are making the same mistake again - not reading posts that I make or even the posts that you made.

 

If the writer of your original post truly believed all avatars are Narayana with no difference in stature, then he would not have written that piece at all.

 

Anyway, I think I have made my point. What you posted is not acceptable to Sri Vaishnavas - that Krishna is the source of Vishnu or that the Hare Krishna mantra is the best approach in 2008.

 

Cheers

[bija]

 

Aren't you really just picking and choosing what appears to support your view and just arbitrarily rejecting the rest? by raghu

Just one thing Raghu, I posted a link to Brahma-vavairta-purana just to assist kimfelix (I like him) - and because generally I am an ok type of person who likes to join in and assist. To be honest I am not interested in producing scripture to convert others...I cant be bothered with the book in the hand preacher stuff (anymore).

 

Now, about picking and choosing - my heart is just my heart. Others also have hearts... I am easy about that.

 

Some may consider me uncompassioante with such a mood...I consider it my sanity.

 

My heart Raghu lives in a huge world of mystique...and also the Veda is huge. I cant process the whole cannon, therefore I choose what rings true to my heart. Each to their own, brother....

[gokulkr]

dude

 

you are rite, but i cant tell it as a mistake as i got the source from a hare-krisna source. ofcourse they chant mahamantra, wheras srivaishnavas chant ashtakara mantra. but srivaishnavas themselves tell krishna as fully complete avatar. but sametime they also tell venkateshwara as aadi and narasimha as antaa. thats wat i told. lets end the fuss.

[raghu]

 

Just one thing Raghu, I posted a link to Brahma-vavairta-purana just to assist kimfelix (I like him) - and because generally I am an ok type of person who likes to join in and assist. To be honest I am not interested in producing scripture to convert others...I cant be bothered with the book in the hand preacher stuff (anymore).

 

Now, about picking and choosing - my heart is just my heart. Others also have hearts... I am easy about that.

 

Some may consider me uncompassioante with such a mood...I consider it my sanity.

 

My heart Raghu lives in a huge world of mystique...and also the Veda is huge. I cant process the whole cannon, therefore I choose what rings true to my heart. Each to their own, brother....

 

Then my conversation is obviously not with you. It's with people who insist on making bald claims to the effect that the Vedas support ideas like "Krishna is the source of Vishnu" etc as if these are objectively verifiable facts.

 

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, just as I think everyone is entitled to scrutinize each other's beliefs. And it is noticeably the case that, once again, when one scrutinizes the Hare Krishna beliefs, one is made to feel that this is somehow inappropriate. But it is perfectly appropriate to state that such beliefs are true even when one cannot substantiate them with facts, i.e. quotes from the Vedas when Vedas are specifically named.

 

But then again, what is new?

[bija]

 

And it is noticeably the case that, once again, when one scrutinizes the Hare Krishna beliefs, one is made to feel that this is somehow inappropriate.

I guess Raghu we each put our chosen faith under scrutiny at some stage too - and if we are fortunate the faith remains alive, and even better, hopefully matured and more accomodating.

 

The non-accomodating people seem to demonize people and beliefs which do not fit their mold. The internet is a ripper for that game - and it is because of that set point that I (personally) almost left the fold of association. But then I wisened up and realized the collective unconscious ignorance is no reason to bail. And the demonizers are just playing a game (with themselves)...

 

Ammachi put it nicely when someone asked her, does she get upset with people? She smiled and said, 'how could I get upset, when no-one is seperate from myself?'.

 

Such comments are based on a deep realization arent they. And that is a sadhana in itself. There is no doubt in my mind that we are one yet unique.

 

 

It's with people who insist on making bald claims to the effect that the Vedas support ideas like "Krishna is the source of Vishnu" etc as if these are objectively verifiable facts.

I don't know if I could formulate in words why I have faith in Krsna as the Origin of my heart...it must be some form of love. And love can get a person in very deep water (internally)...

 

Love cant be objective reality from the way I see it, it is super-subjective (and personal). And that is why I have decided to throw away the preachers book.

 

But I will express my heart and that which I feel is lovely and good. I feel that is service to others, rather than preaching and force feeding dogma.

 

I will not join people intimately if they force feed...its aweful (and within me too). It pervades all religion, and oneday all will have to acknowledge that it has no place in advanced (purified) consciousness - which is the destiny of the human race. Until then we press on.

[raghu]

 

I guess Raghu we each put our chosen faith under scrutiny at some stage too - and if we are fortunate the faith remains alive, and even better, hopefully matured and more accomodating.

 

The non-accomodating people seem to demonize people and beliefs which do not fit their mold. The internet is a ripper for that game - and it is because of that set point that I (personally) almost left the fold of association. But then I wisened up and realized the collective unconscious ignorance is no reason to bail. And the demonizers are just playing a game (with themselves)...

 

Ammachi put it nicely when someone asked her, does she get upset with people? She smiled and said, 'how could I get upset, when no-one is seperate from myself?'.

 

Such comments are based on a deep realization arent they. And that is a sadhana in itself. There is no doubt in my mind that we are one yet unique.

 

I don't know what any of the above has to do with anything that was stated in this thread.

 

The point I have made time and again is that one should be honest when putting forth one's views. It is dishonest to make a claim to the effect that "X Idea is found in Y Scripture" when one has not actually taken the trouble to review "Y Scripture" and see if this is truly the case.

 

Whatever else you are imagining that I said is entirely in your imagination.