durga is more of vishnu-shakti than shiva -shakti

[raghu]

 

i find it funny that after providing so many quotes of the Gaudiya acharyas, you insist on calling Shiva as a demigod...like Varun or agni.

 

Well, I cannot vouch for your strange sense of humor. But I can simply repeat that it was not *I* who called Shiva a "demigod." Your own guru AC Bhaktivedanta Swami was the one who called him a "demigod." Incidentally, you never got back to me regarding that - is he "offensive" for calling Shiva a "demigod?"

 

My position has simply been that Shiva is not on the same level as Vishnu.

 

 

 

In Navadvipa Dhama mahatmya,

 

Navadvipa Mahatmya is an authored work by Bhaktivinod Thakur, so quoting it here is meaningless.

 

 

the four kumaras a 'mere' avesa avatara of the Supreme Lord transform Themselves into The Supreme Lord Himself.

You can never understand this becoz

 

It is nonsense. There is no question of anyone "transforming" himself into the Supreme Lord. This is Mayavada.

 

 

you think that Bhagavan is cut into pieces and somehow His incarnations are inferior to Him.

 

Strawman. I never articulated such views.

 

 

sorry to break your bubble,but Tulsidas defines Rama-tattva better than you could ever bring yourself upto doing the same.

 

What does this have to do with the conventional definition of Vaishnava?

 

 

He very well went to Vaikuntha.

 

How do you know? Did you see him go yourself?

 

 

And suprise suprise.He maintained Shankara's indifference with Sri Hari.

 

I think you mean "nondifference." Well, other Vaishnava acharyas maintained the idea that Shiva is different from Hari. So what of them? If Tulasi das is right because he went to Vaikuntha (your opinion), then are Madhva and Ramanuja wrong because they supported the opposite view? Either Shiva is Hari or he is not. They cannot both be right.

 

 

Srimad Bhagavatam,Brahm sanghita.

 

Regardless of its other possible merits, the fact is that "Brahm sanghita" is an obscure smriti accepted only by Gaudiyas.

 

As far as Bhagavatam is concerned, which verse are you claiming states that MahaVishnu is an "amsha" of Sri Krishna? Where is such a thing unequivocally stated?

 

 

there are two kinds of amsas.Those Who are amsas of the svarupa sakti vishisht Brahm,are identical with Him,even if They may display ZERO power.

Those who are amsas of the Jeeva sakti vishisht Sri Krsna..they are jeevatmas-ranging from indras,varunas etc down to ants.

 

 

So now you are modifying your position. Previously you said amshas of Hari are identical to Hari. Now you are delineating two different kinds of "amsha" - one identical and one not.

 

 

No.No changing of position.

 

Yogmaya is identical with Sri Hari and Even Mayadevi is identical becoz THEY BOTH ARE HIS ENERGIES..Just becoz Maya performs work of deluding the maya-baddha jivas,should it mean She is a limitedly powerful sakti of Bhagavan ??

 

Mayadevi is identical to Sri Hari because she is one of His energies. Let us think about that carefully.

 

I am typing now with my hands, which are attached to my body, which is being directed by nerve impulses being delivered from my brain. Now, the use of language like "my hands,my body," etc implies that I am different from my body. The moment I say, "this is mine" it implies difference between the two entities. I am a spirit soul. I am not identical to my body. You can certainly accept this. Or do you? Do you say that you and your body are identical because your body belongs to you?

 

Do you see the problem now?

 

 

 

of course i do...

 

You accept that one can worship Shiva or Durga for liberation? Then why articulate that one should only worship Krishna? Your views aren't consistent. They are not even consistent with Prabhupada's views. Let me quote from him:

 

http://vedabase.net/bg/7/14/en1

The words mam eva are also significant. Mam means unto Krishna (Vishnu) only, and not Brahma or Siva. Although Brahma and Siva are greatly elevated and are almost on the level of Vishnu, it is not possible for such incarnations of rajo-guna (passion) and tamo-guna (ignorance) to release the conditioned soul from the clutches of maya. In other words, both Brahma and Siva are also under the influence of maya. Only Vishnu is the master of maya; therefore He alone can give release to the conditioned soul. The Vedas (Svetasvatara Upanishad 3.8) confirm this in the phrase tam eva viditva. or "Freedom is possible only by understanding Krishna." Even Lord Siva affirms that liberation can be achieved only by the mercy of Vishnu. Lord Siva says, mukti-pradata sarvesham vishnur eva na samsayah: "There is no doubt that Vishnu is the deliverer of liberation for everyone."

 

 

If shiva bhaktas never went to Vaikuntha...who or what are the attendants of sadashiva ??? Fictitious characters ???

 

Shiva bhaktas do not go to Vaikuntha. They go to the abode of Shiva. Hence, "antavat tu phalaM teShAm tad bhavatyalpamedhasAm...." (gItA 7.23).

 

 

But skanda purana maintains that Sri Vishnu and Lord Shiva are indifferent.

 

If you mean "non-different," then this contradicts the shruti, and is thus not acceptable.

 

 

Srila Rupa Gosvami writes in Laghu Bhagavatamrta 31

...vayavyadisu saiveyam shivaloke pradarshita

'In the Vayu and other Puranas he is shown to be in Shiva loka.'

 

Baladeva Vidyabhusana in his tika on Laghu Bhagavatamrta comments - shiva loke vaikuntha dhamni -

'In Shiva Loka means in Vaikuntha dhama'.

 

So Gaudiya Vaishnava equate Shiva Loka with Vaikuntha?

 

 

 

CC adi 6.79 partial purport :

In the Vayu Purana there is a description of Sadasiva in one of the Vaikuntha planets. That Sadasiva is a

direct expansion of Lord Krsna's form for pastimes. It is said that Siva (Lord Sambhu) is an expansion from

the Sadasiva in the Vaikuntha planets

 

If he truly believed that, then why does he object to Siva worship for liberation as quoted elsewhere? THe Gaudiya treatment of Shiva seems inconsistent to say the least. He is Vishnu-tattva, but he cannot grant liberation.

 

 

Rupa Gosvami's Laghu Bhagavatamrita:

31 Siva's form named Sadasiva, who is a direct expansion of the Personality of Godhead, is the cause of all

causes, is free from the slightest scent of the mode of ignorance, and resides in Sivaloka, is described in the

Vayu Purana and other scriptures

 

Which contradicts Prabhupada's view earlier that Shiva is under maya and cannot grant liberation.

 

 

298 Lord Siva, who is known as Sadasiva and Sambhu, is manifest in the northeast part of Vaikunthaloka

 

Jagadguru Vallabhacharya: Vishnu is the sustainer of creation while Shiva is the destroyer. Both have been

revealed as such in their own scriptures. Know without a doubt that the Supreme Brahman is both Vishnu and

Shiva for they have both been declared as the Self of all things. They have also been described in their own

scriptures as being flawless and replete with all divine virtues. (Balbodh 12-13a)

 

translated text by Shatanand Swami (a saint of the Vallabha order) who has

written a commentary on the Shikshapatri in Sanskrit.

 

TEXT 47

No distinction shall be made between Narayan and Shiva, as they are

both proclaimed as Brahmnswarupa by the Vedas.

 

Ekatmyameva Vigneyam Narayanamaheshyoha |

Ubhyorbrahmanrupera Vedeshu Pratipadanat ||47||

 

Those who think of God differently to this, where Narayan or Shiva are defamed in some way are insulting God(Sri Krsna).

Shatanand says that such people should have their eyes removed. Such a person is blind to the truth and can

never be enlightened to that truth.

 

Very well. So Vallabha followers also equate Shiva with Vishnu. And they consider distinguishing between them to be an offense punishable by traumatic enucleation.

 

This is certainly enlightening, as I had no idea that Gaudiya and pushi-margas were this fanatical about Shiva. But it really does not address the evidence from shruti placing Shiva in a different position from that of Vishnu.

 

 

Similarly,do you consider Vallabha,Shreedhar and Jeeva Gosvami foolish ?

 

 

When did I say that they are foolish? Please quote where I said such a thing. I only said that I disagree with your position that Vishnu and Shiva are the same. If it is their position also, then I still disagree with it because of evidence from shruti and smriti which repeatedly says otherwise.

 

It was *you* who claimed that those who make the Vishnu-Shiva distinction are foolish. So I asked you then as I will ask again now - do you really mean this? Because you know that such distinctions are accepted among followers of Ramanuna and Madhva, yes? Why do you keep evading this question?

 

Should followers of Ramanuja and Madhva have their eyes put out?

 

 

This reference to shankara shouldn't bother Gaudiyas becoz they know that Sadashiva is indifferent from Vishnu.

 

When you look upon shankara as some different tattva-naturally-you(raghu) get defensive and thus: 'all' vaishnavas would disagree with your opinion that it is about shiva.

 

When have I gotten defensive? I have done nothing more than ask very clear, pointed questions in response to which you have been so hostile that you cannot even spell properly in your responses. For all your verbose feedback, you have not really answered a single question in a convincing, direct manner. Specifically the following questions:

 

1) Why it is offensive for others to call Shiva a "demigod" when Prabhupada calls him a demigod in his writings. Why the double standard?

 

2) Why it is wrong to make distinctions between Shiva and Vishnu even when the shruti and the smritis make such distinctions.

 

3) Why Durga is identical to Vishnu even when she is an amsha of His energies. Saying that some amshas are the same as Vishnu while others are different is just another way of restating the point against which the objection is framed.

 

 

Read the purport of Srila Prabhupada in chaitanya bhagavat provided above.

 

I read the purport. Now will you please answer my question? You said that calling Shiva a "demigod" is offensive. But I showed you several instances where Prabhupada himself caled Shiva a "demigod." Why is he not offensive?

[ranjeetmore]

Srila Prabhupada,Tulsidas etc ..when they talk about Lord Shiva,Lord Brahma...they obviously follow the Bhagavatam.The Bhagavatam states that although shiva and Brahma are guna-AVTAARAS of Sri Garbhodashayi Vishnu,the highest benefit can be obtained from Vishnu.

 

Similarly,Jnyaneshwara,in his geeta bhashya,states,"Even Shankara couldn't get this darshan which the Lord showed to Arjuna."

 

Tulsidasa states in his ramayana many times that Lord Rama's lotus feet are ever worshipped by shankara.And that Lord Hara ever dances while singing the names of Sri Rama.

 

 

Many acharyas,when they talk about Brahm-they say even Brahma Mahesvara cannot understand Bhagavan on the strength of their Intelligence.

Even tulsidas states this.

 

So acharyas have generally accepted the higher position of Visnu over Shankara and Brahma.

 

 

 

 

But on the other hand,Shiva(of the material world itself) is glorified by many of these acharyas as non-different from Sri Vishnu.This is very mysterious.Again,this can be understood by people who actually believe that any avtara of the Lord is identical with Him,whether it is Guna avtara or Shaktyavesa avtara.Certainly,the acharyas go with the conclusion of bhagavatam: that ultimate benefit is achieved from sri Visnu.(otherwise Tulsidas would have worshipped uma and shankara.)

 

But rarely do they mention the nondifference of Shankara and Vishnu.(maybe not tulsidas.)

 

Why,you may ask.

Because it bewilders the followers.Clearly,i can see one example.

 

In the context of Bhagavatam Srila Prabhupada terms Brahma and Shankara as demigods.But no one can ever deny that Shankra and Brahma are the guna avataras.

 

You called Shankara as the incarnation of tamo guna.That is gross foolishness.As stated by Prabhupada,Godhead ACCEPTS THE INFLUENCE OF MAYA VOLUNTARILY in the case of Shankara.

 

Now,as you state and i believe,the above statement sounds like mayavada.

 

Thus,the bhagavatam clears this up,when Brahma glorifies Shankara.It is clearly stated,"You are never deluded by the Supreme Lord's energy for You are His incarnation/expansion."

 

This contradicts the many accounts of shankara being deluded by mahamaya.Many sastras state that "Shankara APPEARS to be deluded by maya but he is actually not."

 

 

But all these contradictions do not extend to Sadashiva.He is accepted by ALL GAUDIYA ACHARYAS to be the direct expansion of the Lord and residing in Vaikuntha and that is that.

[ranjeetmore]

Gaudiyas and Vallabha followers are not fanatical about shankara.You believe Shankara to be a different tattva,that's why you are accusing Gaudiyas and Vallabha followers.

 

Gaudiyas and Vallabha followers are fanatical about Krsna.

 

 

It should atleast be clear by now,why would the perfect sages make puranas on devi and shankara,if there wasn't an iota of truth to it ??.Are they so dumb ??? Or have you started thinking that you are better than them ????

[ranjeetmore]

Btw,demigod means a devata who is a jeevatma.

 

Tell me a single verse in bhagavatam that says shankara is a Jeevatma or even Srila Prabhupad's purports...where does he say shankara is Jiva ???

 

and the vedas talk of only three tattvas: Brahm,Jeeva and maya.

 

shankara is not Jeeva.

Shankara is not maya.

Who is He then ??

 

perhaps a fourth tattva ?? Now talk of not conforming with Shruti.

[ranjeetmore]

you call me a mayavadi.

 

People would think mayavadis have started to believe in an actual,solid Vaikunthadhama....

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

This is a prayer to Rudra but it does not help your thesis in any other way.

 

of course it doesn’t in your eyes, but a self effulgent, whom no one can defeat is quite clear to me. Or

Book 6 HYMN XLIX. Visvedevas.

-----

10 Rudra by day, Rudra at night we honour with these our songs, the Universe's Father.

Him great and lofty, blissful, un-decaying let us call especially as the Sage impels us.

Note: Rudra is the father of the Universe. At night, Soma is His form and in the day the Sun is His form. Sages and men pray to both. Some jiva this one is!

In Rig Veda 7.40.5 it is clearly stated that Rudra gets his strength through worship of Vishnu.

 

Visnu is the lofty arrow of Rudra. This is how Rudra gains strength and this is how He destroyed Tripura with Visnu ashtra.

I can quote how Indra is stronger then Vishu, what would that prove?

　

 

Do you believe the Vedas and shrutis are inconsistent? If you do, then there is no point having any discussion one way or another.

 

Did I say anything to that effect?

 

 

However, if you consider them consistent and one in purpose, then they must be interpreted to resolve apparent inconsistencies. Names like "Rudra,Maheshvara," and so on are also listed as names of Vishnu in the Sahasranama.

 

I see no inconsistencies apparent or otherwise, Shaivas say the same in regards to names of Shiva which includes Vishnu etc.

We find within the Veda a statement that Vishnu is supreme and then another place Rudra is extolled as supreme, we might conclude that Vishnu and Rudra must be the same being or different aspects of the same being.

 

In that way there is no inconsistency in the Veda and we can accept its statements at face value, without recourse to unusual interpretations.

However that’s is not my problem since I have no problem accepting this

 

46 They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and heavenly nobly-winged Garutman.

To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan.

47 -----

48 Twelve are the fellies, and the wheel is single; three are the naves. What man hath understood it?

Note: The wheel is single and the 12 spokes (fellies) are perceived as different aspects. To what is One, sages give many a title.

　

 

The "Rudra" in Svetashvatara Upanishad can be interpreted as Vishnu. This is internally consistent since the Shvetaashvatara invokes Hari in the very beginning and later refers to the Deity as the one from whom Brahma was born.

.

When SU is referring to Shiva, Rudra, Hara Girisa I take it as meaning just that I can fully understand your problems as a Vaishnavas, but I am still inclined to accept what the Upanishad actually says and not what others would like it to say.

If the Upanishad wants to teach us that Narayana is the Supreme Deity, why does it say that it is Rudra who is devanam prabhavas chodbhavas cha?

　

shanno mitra.h sha.m varuNa.h | ... | shanno

vishhNururukrama.h | namo brahmaNe | namsaste vaayo |

tvameva pratyaxam brahmaasi |

 

shankara explains as follows: The various gods are propitiated because they remove the various obstacles encountered while trying attain knowledge. vishNu is called urukrama.h, since he is swift footed. vAyu is called the perceptible brahman rather than the other deities (mitra.h, varuNa.h, vishhNu, etc) because as prANa he is closest to the

self (Atman). Hence vAyu alone is called pratyaxam brahma. Note that shankara has no problems in elevating vAyu as compared to vishNu in this bhAshya.

 

Look at the paradox here vayu, in kena upanisad failed to see brahman yet here he is pratyaxam brahmaasi

 

Unlike you I would not relegate Vishnu to lower then Vayu, because I have no hierarchy problem, Brahman is Achintya.

Jai Shree Krishna

[raghu]

Ranjeet, I don't think you are understanding the problem. Perhaps there is a language barrier here.

 

The problem is that you are only acknowledging contradictions without any obviously effective way at reconciling them. Your sole rationale for this appears to be that your acharyas have also endorsed the contradictions, and therefore anyone who does not believe as they do is foolish and should have his eyes put out.

 

The problem with your theory is that it effectively nullifies any and all criticism of mayavada which you could make. For example, you can no longer criticize Advaitins for accepting the theory that Brahman comes under maya, when you yourselves equate Shiva to Vishnu and state that Shiva is voluntarily coming under maya. You cannot criticize Advaitins for relativizing the significance of Vishnu worship because you have effectively done the same by making special cases for Durga, Shiva, etc. You cannot criticize Advaitins for ignoring bheda shrutis because that is obviously what you are doing when you propose the "non-difference" theory of Vishnu and Shiva. The list goes on and on.

 

With reasoning such as what you offered, you should now have no problem at all with Advaita. In fact, for you to now disagree with Advaita would make you a hypocrite.

 

And, it should be pointed out, that you obviously do disagree with stalwart acharyas like Madhva and Ramanuja. WHich of course is your right. I disagree with some conclusions of your acharyas as you have described them here. But then I do not consider acharya's opinion by itself to be independently authoritative, where as you it seems do. So if one must accept the opinion of acharyas, then you are forced into a situation where you can only accept the opinions of some and reject the opinions of others? SO which ones do you pick and why? I think you and I both know that your acceptance is totally arbitrary. Probably you go to an iskcon temple, so naturally it is a predestined fact that you will accept gaudiya vaishnavas and only anyone who agrees with them. In that case, don't bother pretending that you are accepting the most consistent opinion of shastra, since shastra appears to be only tangentially relevant to your conclusions.

[raghu]

 

of course it doesn’t in your eyes, but a self effulgent, whom no one can defeat is quite clear to me.

 

If you interpret this as referring to a supreme Deity, then it is a reference to Brahman. Brahman is one without a second - you agree with this, yes?

 

Now Vishnu is clearly stated to be supreme as per Rig Veda 1.22.20. So Vishnu is Brahman - no disagreements there I think.

 

Now if there are references to Rudra who is less than supreme (as per 7.40.5) and references to Rudra as a supreme deity (as per Shvetashvatara U and others), then how do you neatly reconcile these two sets of references? Is Rudra both supreme and not supreme, or are there two Rudras?

 

The Vaishnava viewpoint would be to interpret the second set as referring to Vishnu by the name Rudra and the first set as being references to a different Rudra i.e. Umapati. This is a clean, clear and consistent approach.

 

Now how exactly would you resolve the contradictions?

 

Saying that Vishnu and Shiva are "different aspects of the same being" is not valid. Because even in the shrutis we see that they are treated as two different beings (you already quoted some examples). So no help there.

[ranjeetmore]

Ganeshprasad,I'm sorry to point out the foolishness that is "Vayu is pratyakshya Brahm".

 

You see,the Upanishads call Akasha as Brahm.Man/mind is Brahm.Etc etc..

 

this can be understood only by the mahatmas...they alone know the meaning when veda is calling a dead akasha as Brahm.

 

Akasha is not brahm.The vedas are not possible to be understood. by ordinary intellect.

 

 

Vedavyasa writed,"...ananta baram Gambhiram durvigahyam samutravat."

"Oh dull minded men,I have pored over the vedas again and again,and i declare that DON'T EVEN TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE VEDAS."

 

Mayavadis will only twaddle their thumbs when the vedas talk of Vidya,avidya Isha.

 

They will dryly say that they mean Knowledge,Ignorance and Lord over knowledge and ignorance.

 

But the mahatmas who actually have knowledge of the three tattvas: Jeeva,maya and Ishvara,they will point out,Vidya means Jeeva,Avidya is maya and Ishate-Ishvara is Bhagavan.

 

Like this,there are infinite such examples.

[sambya]

 

If Brahman is supreme, then references describing Vishnu as supreme should be sufficient to indicate that Vishnu = Brahman. There is also the fact that the Upanishads are focused on Brahman, and in the Katha Upanishad Vishnu is specifically mentioned as the highest goal of endeavor.

 

indirect and vague method , instead of being specific and conclusive ........but anyways.............a lot of centuries have rolled by and nothing could be done about that now .

 

 

............ tantras are smritis, and like all other smritis their authority is conditional upon not contradicting the shrutis.

 

thats correct and gets my full support .............and it applies to puranas alike .

[ranjeetmore]

 

 

You called Shankara as the incarnation of tamo guna.That is gross foolishness.As stated by Prabhupada,Godhead ACCEPTS THE INFLUENCE OF MAYA VOLUNTARILY in the case of Shankara.

 

Now,as you state and i believe,the above statement sounds like mayavada.

 

Thus,the bhagavatam clears this up,when Brahma glorifies Shankara.It is clearly stated,"You are never deluded by the Supreme Lord's energy for You are His incarnation/expansion."

 

This contradicts the many accounts of shankara being deluded by mahamaya.Many sastras state that "Shankara APPEARS to be deluded by maya but he is actually not."

 

 

But all these contradictions do not extend to Sadashiva.He is accepted by ALL GAUDIYA ACHARYAS to be the direct expansion of the Lord and residing in Vaikuntha and that is that.

[sambya]

 

Are u a practicing tantrik?.

 

Tantra is supposed to be a secret ritual practiced by a very few people the details of which no tantrik discusses on internet.

 

Despite your indignation at sant for mentioning sex, it is well established fact that Many tantriks(like the rk hamsa in his failed practice) consider sex to be the final step.Neo tantriks(like..., you know who..) did replace actual sexual act with Bhava with nil results only to fall back on bhakthi.

yesss !! infact i am presently chewing through a piece of human ashthi while reading through your posts of revelation.......... tired after last nights strenous sava-sadhana with all that sadhvis and rotting corpse !! HA HA ! i dont care for bhava ............ just want the raw %@* !!! ha ha

[hindustani]

Those who are busy in discussion here can give few answers to my questions please?

*How many stars are there in this universe?How many galaxies are there and which is the smallest and the biggest star?

*Why you cannot catch air in your hands where you can compare God's form with other forms!

*When universe born?When it will end,in 2012?

*When we shall die?

*What is the weight of total air on this earth?

*What is the color of water?Why?

*What you will be in your next birth,what you were in your previous birth?

*Where you will go after death?How far is heaven from earth,how far is hell as well?

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

All above are controlled by God,go and find answers and than compare Maa Durga with other form of Gods.

[sant]

 

like the sahajiya vaishnavas !

 

im sorry but i cannot discuss things with you because you have absolutely no knowledge of tantra , which i know from the previous discussions with you . and neither will you accept what i say nor go out and seek it yourself !

 

 

I knew youll come up with that sad word sahajiya vasihnavism.Dont you have any other argument instead of this one.

You should be ashamed of your self comparing vaishnavism to tantra.

Where tantra(Artificial vedas wannabe) and where vaishnavism.

Sambya if we remember then it was you yourself who said i dont know about tantra and now youre telling me.

[sant]

 

Yogmaya is identical with Sri Hari and Even Mayadevi is identical becoz THEY BOTH ARE HIS ENERGIES..Just becoz Maya performs work of deluding the maya-baddha jivas,should it mean She is a limitedly powerful sakti of Bhagavan

Identical doesnt make it equal.Even jivatam is considered a higher energy of lord and is the same as lord in quality.But he is not equal to the lord.

[sant]

 

indirect and vague method , instead of being specific and conclusive ........but anyways.............a lot of centuries have rolled by and nothing could be done about that now .

Sambyacharya i dont know what you mean by that but dont you know it takes some authority and gods grace to be able to understand waht vedas say.Everything if it was direct then what was the point of people having to do some work to intepret the vedas.You think you can understand vedas better than others.

[webramanuja]

Durga Devi is a part of Power of Sriman Narayana!. Called MAYA!

[sambya]

 

You should be ashamed of your self comparing vaishnavism to tantra.

 

why ?? explain to me !

 

 

Sambya if we remember then it was you yourself who said i dont know about tantra and now youre telling me.

 

as usual you didnt get through my words . i said i dont know tantric witchcraft and black magic .

 

 

Sambyacharya i dont know what you mean by that but dont you know it takes some authority and gods grace to be able to understand waht vedas say.

 

how to determine who has this authority ?

[sant]

 

why ?? explain to me !

 

After all those iskcon classes you ask why.Dont you know the value of serving the lords feet.Whose feet devi herself worships and whos name shankara chants you still ask the value of becoming his bhakt.

You compare it with such things as kundalini jagran,mahavidya etc.

 

 

 

as usual you didnt get through my words . i said i dont know tantric witchcraft and black magic .

So you remember.Anyway same thing since tantra is more known for that nowadays.

 

how to determine who has this authority ?

 

 

Experience.Are you self realised.Have you read the vedas.Have you beaten 100s of scholars in debate.

[ranjeetmore]

 

After all those iskcon classes you ask why.Dont you know the value of serving the lords feet.Whose feet devi herself worships and whos name shankara chants you still ask the value of becoming his bhakt.

You compare it with such things as kundalini jagran,mahavidya etc.

 

 

 

So you remember.Anyway same thing since tantra is more known for that nowadays.

 

Experience.Are you self realised.Have you read the vedas.Have you beaten 100s of scholars in debate.

 

 

This actually made perfect sense.

[raghu]

 

indirect and vague method , instead of being specific and conclusive ........but anyways.............a lot of centuries have rolled by and nothing could be done about that now .

 

If saying "X is supreme" is too indirect and vague for you, I think you are going to have problems deriving anything useful from scripture.

[sambya]

 

After all those iskcon classes you ask why.Dont you know the value of serving the lords feet.Whose feet devi herself worships and whos name shankara chants you still ask the value of becoming his bhakt.

You compare it with such things as kundalini jagran,mahavidya etc.

 

as has been discussed a thousand times before there are innumerable references where other gods worships devis feet . so im not going into those details .

 

what do you know about kundalini jagaran ? it is a automatic process which is activated as one progresses in bhakti . the more advanced one is in bhakti sadhana the more awakened is his kundalini . it has nothing to do with black magic or witchcraft . and as far as i can immidiately remember the process is mentioned in bhagavd gita also(including your own as it is version) .....................

 

 

So you remember.Anyway same thing since tantra is more known for that nowadays.

 

not exactly ........it is appears like that to people who loves watching saas bahu tv soaps depicting terrifying tantrics or potentially daisasterous black magic , not to scholarly people who actually studies about tantra than believing in popular media .

 

it cannot be the same thing . there are a lot of differences between what common men believe and what are the facts . common people think that leaving everything for god is sheer madness . but that is a wrong perception .

 

 

Experience.Are you self realised.Have you read the vedas.Have you beaten 100s of scholars in debate.

out of the four criteria that you have specified three of them are so easy to accomplish- reading the vedas ,

beating 100 scholars,

experience in guru-giri .

 

wow !! that instantly makes many not-so-holy individuals , most eligible gurus !! great........

[melvin]

 

out of the four criteria that you have specified three of them are so easy to accomplish- reading the vedas ,

beating 100 scholars,

experience in guru-giri .

 

wow !! that instantly makes many not-so-holy individuals , most eligible gurus !! great........

 

 

You are very funny, Sambya. You know Sant is just a kid.

[sant]

 

as has been discussed a thousand times before there are innumerable references where other gods worships devis feet . so im not going into those details .

 

what do you know about kundalini jagaran ? it is a automatic process which is activated as one progresses in bhakti . the more advanced one is in bhakti sadhana the more awakened is his kundalini . it has nothing to do with black magic or witchcraft . and as far as i can immidiately remember the process is mentioned in bhagavd gita also(including your own as it is version) .....................

 

You know how untruthful those things are.Remember i showed you some Verse and you admitted it was intepreted by the brahmins.

As for kundalini jagran im sorry i know its a big thing but what i was talking about is people trying to raise their kundalini with such and such pranayam,with medicine without having any change in consciousness.

As youve mentioned it is an automated proces(same as automatic i guess) but tantra calls for artificial methodes to raise it.

In my opinion you raise your consciosnesss and not just the snake inside you otherwise youre just looking for some tantric powers by this jagran.

Raising your consciousness happens with change of heart ,change of being otherwise as ive read posts here it is just increasing energy inside you.Artificial methods for raising kundalini or consciousness make no sense.

As for bhakti tell me one shakt kundalini practitioner who does bhakti.You know it.People are just interested for the power or whatever thing this gives you.

 

not exactly ........it is appears like that to people who loves watching saas bahu tv soaps depicting terrifying tantrics or potentially daisasterous black magic , not to scholarly people who actually studies about tantra than believing in popular media .

 

it cannot be the same thing . there are a lot of differences between what common men believe and what are the facts . common people think that leaving everything for god is sheer madness . but that is a wrong

So you like such serials i didnt know that.Your taste reflects in spirituality also.have you been to the tantra mantra topic.You know how many people come there greived due to tantrics.Anyway my point is that it is famous for such things.Not to hurt your feelings.You can practice whatever you want.

 

out of the four criteria that you have specified three of them are so easy to accomplish- reading the vedas ,

beating 100 scholars,

experience in guru-giri .

 

wow !! that instantly makes many not-so-holy individuals , most eligible gurus !! great........

 

 

Again thats my point.Ypu always start comparing with iskcon or vaishnav gurus.You stop saying sahjiya vaihnavism is vaihnavism.IF you can actually prove it is vaishnavism then ill listen to you.Iv proved that vaaman marg is a part of tantra and an integral part.You call it corrupt form of tantra.And you compare with vaihnavism. But You cant call sahjiya vaishnavism corrupted because it is not vaishnavism.That is the point.All waht i said is to prove to you the status of tantra and vaishnavism.

 

Now coming back.

THe conditions ive mentioned are just a few of them.What made madhwacharya a jagad guru.Why dont you Think about that.

And by expericnce i meant experience in sprituality and in realisation and in god.But you like often just Dont get what i try to tell you.

[sant]

 

You are very funny, Sambya. You know Sant is just a kid.

How does mr melvin know sant is a kid.

Even sant doesnt know that.