nitya baddha

[kaisersose]

 

The rest of you have gotten your feathers ruffled because I suggested that an important Vedic philosopher might have been influenced by Christians.

 

No one is ruffled. Just making it clear that there is no evidence for such a connection.

 

Cheers

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Aside from the fact that you totally evaded Kaiser's questions along with mine, you are now just speculating wildly with no idea what you are saying.

 

I think the root of this problem, like that of many others on this forum, is your desire to preach without having made the necessary sacrifice of time to commit yourself to learning the subject matter properly under a qualified guru. A true student will admit when he does not know rather than concocting more fluff to conceal his ignorance. But in your behavior I do not see this sort of humility; rather, you seem desperate to prove that you are right even when it has been proven that you are incorrect.

 

Suffice it to say that the Vedanta-sutra clearly teaches the concept of beginningless karma. Baladeva Vidyabhushana, the Vedanta commentary for the Gaudiya sampradaya, also accepts beginningless karma (not beginningless "spiritual" karma or other concoctions of your fertile imagination). Nothing in the Bhagavata contradicts the concept of beginningless karma. As you have indicated, you disagree with all of the above, which makes any claim you could make of representing Gaudiya Vaishnavism tenuous at best.

In the Vedic shastra, karma in it's most fundamental concept means prescribed duties in the varnashrama system.

 

The anadi-karma you keep referring to are the prescribed duties of the Varnashrama system.

 

You keep trying to use "karma" in the sense of vikarma or ugrakarma etc., while you ignore the fact that karma also means "prescribed duties".

 

Your narrow interpretation of the meaning of karma negates the many references in Vedic shastra to the fact the the jivas have fallen down into material existance.

 

If they were always contaminated by material existence, then there would certainly be no meaning to "fallen" in terms of the condition of the jivas in the material energy.

 

If "karma" is "anadi" in the absolute and eternal sense that you are trying to make it, then certainly the conditioned jivas could not rightly be called "fallen".

 

Karma is a relative principle.

You cannot assign absolute values to the relative principle of karma.

 

By assigning absolute values to the karma of the jiva you in effect put all the blame on God for the fallen condition of the living entity and remove all culpability of the spirit soul.

 

You remove the principle of free-will and the misuse thereof as well.

 

So, I don't buy your absolute and eternal theory of the anadi-karma of the jiva.

To do so would negate the principle of free will in the jiva and blame God for the suffering of all the conditioned living entities.

[Sonic Yogi]

Anyone who would assert that some petty Christians who were a tiny little cult in India at that time influenced Madvacharya would do so only out of extreme ignorance of the history and culture of India.

 

You would have to be living in a lot of ignorance of the history and culture of India to make such a pathetic claim.

 

Such a ridiculous proposition exposes a very deep lack of understanding of Indian culture and religion typical of Christian bigots.

 

Christians in India at that time were considered untouchables of the lowest order as meat-eaters - mlecchas and outcastes.

To say that a great Vedic philosopher like Madhva was influences by some untouchables in India is laughable.

[theist]

 

Anyone who would assert that some pettyChristians who were a tiny little cult in India at that time influencedMadvacharya would do so only out of extreme ignorance of the historyand culture of India.

 

 

How many times does sanatan have to explain he was not asserting anything?

[Sonic Yogi]

 

How many times does sanatan have to explain he was not asserting anything?

 

I don't recall writing that Sanatan specifically asserted anything.

Why could I have not been referring to the source where he says he heard about the idea?

 

Nonetheless, repeating such ridiculous claims being espoused by some Hare Kristians is certainly begging for an argument.

[theist]

 

I don't recall writing that Sanatan specifically asserted anything.

Why could I have not been referring to the source where he says he heard about the idea?

 

Nonetheless, repeating such ridiculous claims being espoused by some Hare Kristians is certainly begging for an argument.

 

 

Because the context in which you placed your post gives the strong impression you were referring to him or at best him indirectly, since he is the one that brought it up. If not then it would have been helpful if you would have clearly made the distinction that you were not.

 

 

Clearly the Madhvacarya question deserves an investigation and it is incumbant on those who claim spiritual lineage from him to reconcile this matter.

 

 

Just my opinion.

[Beggar]

 

 

Where I come from we don't tolerate Hare Krsitians at'all. Nope we either shoot 'em or feed 'em to the Lions!

 

 

[bija]

....no long hairy's:rolleyes:.

 

 

 

 

Where I come from we don't tolerate Hare Krsitians at'all. Nope we either shoot 'em or feed 'em to the Lions! by beggar

 

 

pax (dude)!

[sanatan]

 

Anyone who would assert that some petty Christians who were a tiny little cult in India at that time influenced Madvacharya would do so only out of extreme ignorance of the history and culture of India.

 

You would have to be living in a lot of ignorance of the history and culture of India to make such a pathetic claim.

 

Such a ridiculous proposition exposes a very deep lack of understanding of Indian culture and religion typical of Christian bigots.

 

Christians in India at that time were considered untouchables of the lowest order as meat-eaters - mlecchas and outcastes.

To say that a great Vedic philosopher like Madhva was influences by some untouchables in India is laughable.

 

I'm sure that some, if not many, here are Indian-born. You come from a culture that has been beaten up by Christians for 500 years or so, and is now coming back into its own as miltary, economic, and spiritual power.

 

It's not surprising that you're touchy when someone raises the question to the effect that Christians might have influenced the thinking of one of India's greatest philosophers. They're still over there messing with you, and shouldn't be.

 

I'm USA-born, grew up a semi-believing Christian, and am still struggling to reconcile that upbringing, which was a beating in itself, with the Vedic influences that I encountered as a young man and have shaped my life for many years. Lots of karma, I guess...

 

 

 

....

 

Clearly the Madhvacarya question deserves an investigation and it is incumbant on those who claim spiritual lineage from him to reconcile this matter.

 

 

Just my opinion.

 

Mine too. That's all I've been trying to say.

[Beggar]

 

 

Yeee Haaw!!! Rid'in a Nuclear Warhead down ta take out a couple of million

Hare Kristians!!! The South of India will rise again!!!

 

 

[Sonic Yogi]

S.B. 3.32.40 purport:

 

Also, there are so-called disciples who become submissive to a spiritual master most artificially, with an ulterior motive. They also cannot understand what Kṛṣṇa consciousness or devotional service is. Persons who, due to being initiated by another sect of religious faith, do not find devotional service as the common platform for approaching the Supreme Personality of Godhead, also cannot understand Kṛṣṇa consciousness. We have experience that some students come to join us, but because of being biased in some particular type of faith, they leave our camp and become lost in the wilderness. Actually, Kṛṣṇa consciousness is not a sectarian religious faith; it is a teaching process for understanding the Supreme Lord and our relationship with Him. Anyone can join this movement without prejudice, but unfortunately there are persons who feel differently. It is better, therefore, not to instruct the science of Kṛṣṇa consciousness to such persons.

[Sonic Yogi]

There is a modern day saying "spiritual but not religious".

 

 

The one thing that is worse than that is "religious but not spiritual".

(Christians)

[theist]

 

Mine too. That's all I've been trying to say.

 

I hear ya.

 

I take this as a reminder not to accept things blindly from anybody, celebrated personage or not.

[raghu]

 

In the Vedic shastra, karma in it's most fundamental concept means prescribed duties in the varnashrama system.

 

The anadi-karma you keep referring to are the prescribed duties of the Varnashrama system.

 

And where did you get this idea from? Which guru taught you that? Where in the sutras do you see evidence to support that view? In which commentary do you see evidence to support that view? Please quote explicitly the evidence to back your views.

 

I find it ironic that you demand to know the basis of my views when I quote directly from Vyasa, yet you have no problem superimposing your own bogus interpretations on the very same.

 

You haven't even read the sutras (which I have now quoted multiple times) or understood the sense of them. If you had, you would realize that "anAdi karma" does NOT refer to "prescribed duties of the Varnashrama system." Such an interpretation *makes* *no* *sense* in that context.

 

Once again, you are disagreeing with Vyasa, disagreeing with Baladeva Vidyabhushana, and disagreeing with all other Vedanta commentators in the various Vaishnava traditions. What makes you think you know more than them?

 

 

Your narrow interpretation of the meaning of karma negates the many references in Vedic shastra to the fact the the jivas have fallen down into material existance.

 

"Many references?" I'm calling your bluff. Quote one such reference from "Vedic shastra" above and beyond the Jaya/Vijaya fall, which we all know is an exceptional case that had the Lord's sanction.

[raghu]

 

I'm sure that some, if not many, here are Indian-born. You come from a culture that has been beaten up by Christians for 500 years or so, and is now coming back into its own as miltary, economic, and spiritual power.

 

It's not surprising that you're touchy when someone raises the question to the effect that Christians might have influenced the thinking of one of India's greatest philosophers. They're still over there messing with you, and shouldn't be.

 

I'm USA-born, grew up a semi-believing Christian, and am still struggling to reconcile that upbringing, which was a beating in itself, with the Vedic influences that I encountered as a young man and have shaped my life for many years. Lots of karma, I guess...

 

The evidence that supports the view that Madhva was influenced by Christian missionaries is about as substantive as the evidence that supports the view that Madhva was influenced by three-legged aliens from outer space.

 

Some people are still failing to grasp the simple point that you don't need evidence to disprove stupid and baseless ideas. The burden of proof falls on the one with the challenge to conventional history. It is not the responsibility of the mAdhva community to recant every baseless idea that comes out of the fertile imagination of pseudo-vaishnava mental speculators. And one does not need to be born in India to have an opinion that one should stick to the truth.

[sanatan]

 

The evidence that supports the view that Madhva was influenced by Christian missionaries is about as substantive as the evidence that supports the view that Madhva was influenced by three-legged aliens from outer space.

 

Some people are still failing to grasp the simple point that you don't need evidence to disprove stupid and baseless ideas. The burden of proof falls on the one with the challenge to conventional history. It is not the responsibility of the mAdhva community to recant every baseless idea that comes out of the fertile imagination of pseudo-vaishnava mental speculators. And one does not need to be born in India to have an opinion that one should stick to the truth.

 

I questioned, very politely, what you hold to be inviolable, so I'm a "psuedo-Vaisnava mental speculator".

 

You're no better than the Christians.

[tackleberry]

 

I questioned, very politely, what you hold to be inviolable, so I'm a "psuedo-Vaisnava mental speculator".

 

You're no better than the Christians.

 

You made a statement alleging Madhva was influenced by Christians. Raghu and Kaiser asked for evidence. So far, you haven't provided any and, instead, you've started accusing people who demand evidence. Don't you realize how ridiculous you sound?

[sanatan]

 

You made a statement alleging Madhva was influenced by Christians. Raghu and Kaiser asked for evidence. So far, you haven't provided any and, instead, you've started accusing people who demand evidence. Don't you realize how ridiculous you sound?

 

 

Raghu asked me for evidence, yes.

 

I, having read my assertion from a forgotten source, asked him to assist me by providing some.

 

Perhaps my tone wasn't one of sufficiently polite request; if it wasn't, I apologize to him and any others I offended.

 

As stated in an earlier post, I'd really like to know some answers on the point I brought up.

 

In any case, I got accused of being a "psuedo this-and-that speculator" and other nasty things by many here, the notable exception being Theist, who picked up on where I was going.

 

Yes, many of you remind me of evangelical Christians in your attitude about the absolute superiority of "Vedic culture" and philosophy.

 

Over and out, on this thread.

[theist]

Sanatan,

 

Now you can see why I have both of the above individuals on my ignore list.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

And where did you get this idea from? Which guru taught you that? Where in the sutras do you see evidence to support that view? In which commentary do you see evidence to support that view? Please quote explicitly the evidence to back your views.

 

I find it ironic that you demand to know the basis of my views when I quote directly from Vyasa, yet you have no problem superimposing your own bogus interpretations on the very same.

 

You haven't even read the sutras (which I have now quoted multiple times) or understood the sense of them. If you had, you would realize that "anAdi karma" does NOT refer to "prescribed duties of the Varnashrama system." Such an interpretation *makes* *no* *sense* in that context.

 

Once again, you are disagreeing with Vyasa, disagreeing with Baladeva Vidyabhushana, and disagreeing with all other Vedanta commentators in the various Vaishnava traditions. What makes you think you know more than them?

 

 

 

"Many references?" I'm calling your bluff. Quote one such reference from "Vedic shastra" above and beyond the Jaya/Vijaya fall, which we all know is an exceptional case that had the Lord's sanction.

It appears that you aren't a Gaudiya Vaishnava.

My orientation is with Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

In the Gaudiya sampradaya the Srimad Bhagavatam is the principle work of study as it has been said to be the commentary on Vedanta by Vyasa.

Vyasadeva himself says that Srimad Bhagavatam is his commentary on Vedanta-sutras.

 

So, we don't study the Vedanta-sutras. We study the Srimad Bhagavatam per the instruction of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

In the line of the Gaudiya acharyas we get our own explanations of the Vedanta-sutras.

In fact the Srimad Bhagavatam starts out janmadyasya-yatah.

 

Our Gaudiya acharyas explain it thusly.

 

 

The root of all actions is the desire for acts, the root of which again is avidya. Avidya is the name for the forgetfulness of soul's essential nature that 'I am Krsna's servant.' This avidya did not commence within the course of the mundane time. That root of karma of the jiva arose when he was at the tatastha position. As such, the beginning of karma is not to be traced within mundane time, and, on that account karma is beginningless (anadi). (Jaiva Dharma, page 234)

S.B. 3.31.44 purport

 

 

It is clear that a particular body is given to the living entity for a particular type of activity. This process is going on perpetually, from a time which is impossible to trace out. Vaiṣṇava poets say, therefore, anādi karama-phale, which means that these actions and reactions of one's activity cannot be traced, for they may even continue from the last millennium of Brahmā's birth to the next millennium. We have seen the example in the life of Nārada Muni. In one millennium he was the son of a maidservant, and in the next millennium he became a great sage.

So, this is the way the Gaudiya acharyas explain it.

You can say that they contradict Vyasa, but I will just say that you don't properly understand the Vedanta-sutra the way the Gaudiya acharyas do.

 

So, blame me if you like, but the Gaudiya acharyas do not use "anadi karma" in the absolute sense, but in the terms mentioned in the above quotes.

[Sonic Yogi]

Raghu, here again our acharyas refer to the point of the falldown and where the falldown happened from.

 

 

A jiva is a spark of the eternal consciousness. A jiva is first situated on the line of demarcation between the material world and the spiritual world. There those jivas who do not forget their relation with Krsna derive the power of consciousness and are drawn into the spiritual world-they come in eternal touch with Krsna and enjoy beatitude arising from the worship of Krsna. And those who forget Krsna and give themselves up to maya's enjoyments, maya'with her own force draws them into herself. It is from that very moment that we fall into the misery of this world. (Jaiva Dharma, chapter 7, page 95-96)

[Sonic Yogi]

So Raghu, stop dogging me about anadi karma.

The Gaudiya acharyas don't teach it as absolute beginningless but as incomprehensible beginninglessness.

 

Maybe your guru teaches Vedanta sutra differently.

But, that is not the Gaudiya conception as best I can see.

[raghu]

 

It appears that you aren't a Gaudiya Vaishnava.

My orientation is with Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

In the Gaudiya sampradaya the Srimad Bhagavatam is the principle work of study as it has been said to be the commentary on Vedanta by Vyasa.

Vyasadeva himself says that Srimad Bhagavatam is his commentary on Vedanta-sutras.

 

Again, since you evaded the original question, let me ask it again. Where is your evidence that the "karma" in the anAdi-karma sutras refers to "prescribed duties of varnashrama?" Which guru taught you that? In which commentary is it written?

 

So far you have not quoted any commentary on the Vedanta-sutra. You claim that the Bhagavatam is a commentary on the Vedanta-sutra. But you have not actually quoted the Bhagavatam. Instead, you only alluded to a commentary on the Bhagavatam.

 

 

So, we don't study the Vedanta-sutras. We study the Srimad Bhagavatam per the instruction of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

Where in the Srimad Bhagavatam is it written that the anAdi-karma refers to beginningless prescribed duties? Where is that written? I'm calling your bluff. Please quote the Sanskrit, chapter and verse.

 

Baladeva Vidyabhushana accepts that karma is literally beginningless. This is obvious from his commentary. You argue that the Bhagavatam teaches you to contradict Baladeva. But so far you have not quoted any statement in the Bhagavatam which supports your view.

 

Again, why is it you disagree with Vyasa?

 

Why do you disagree with your own sampradaya's Vedanta commentator Baladeva Vidyabhushana?

 

How can you claim to be a Gaudiya Vaishnava when you disagree with your own acharyas?

[raghu]

 

I questioned, very politely, what you hold to be inviolable, so I'm a "psuedo-Vaisnava mental speculator".

 

You're no better than the Christians.

 

Sanatan, I remember reading somewhere once that a passing stranger once fed you some dog meat when you were alone once as a very young child. However, i cannot remember where I read that... can you provide me with some evidence to rebut this?

 

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

[Sarva gattah]

Quote:

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Srila Prabhupada – ‘originally everyone (all marginal living entities) is nitya-siddha’.

 

Srila Prabhupada - “Originally everyone is nitya-siddha. nitya-siddha krsna-bhakti ’sadhya’ kabhu naya sravanadi-suddha-citte karaye udaya. Every living entity originally nitya-siddha, ". Srimad-Bhagavatam Class 7.9.4– Mayapur, February 18, 1977

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

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

Our original position is eternal, we are all eternally nitya-siddha which IS our original and eternal position, presently covered while we dream away in the material creation.

The Brahmajyoti or Krsna’s effulgence, IS the entire creation, divided up into three zones of conscious thought, from devotional activity in the Vaikunthas, to conditioned activity in the mahat-tattva, to inactivity in the dormant dreamless state - All are aspects of the Brahmajyoti

These different aspects of the Brahmajyoti can be achieved or experienced by free will and choice however, ONLY Krsna's abode and the Vaikunthas, that make up 75% of the Brahmajyoti, Spiritual Sky or creation, are without end and situated in the personal active 'eternal present' of Krsna's perpetual pastimes.

The other 25% of the Brahmajyoti is made up of those who have chosen to forgotten their nitya -siddha body in the 'eternal present' and have entered that part of creation known as the perishable mahat-tattva and later on may enter the temporary impersonal Brahman, both in a 'dream consciousness' known as the baddha-jiva (NITYA-BADDHA).

This devotional active original fullness of the Brahmajyoti is eternal personal, which means it is made up of ALL living entities that are perpetually represented there in their perpetual nitya-siddha body serving Krsna

For a living entity, who has transmigrated through the lower species to the human biological body, simply means that the living entity had FIRST chosen to ‘consciously (like in a dream), fall down from Krsnaloka, long, long, long ago, from also the eternal body that is their real perpetual ‘self’ (nitya-siddha) whose only activity there is serving Krsna or God.

This was achieved by free will and choice; the marginal living entity therefore is able to leave Goloka ‘consciously’ as their secondary lower baddha-jiva consciousness and travel to the heavenly planets within the mahat-tattva creation of Maha-Vishnu.

The baddha-jiva may then travel further to the middle planets, then the hellish planets, and the then to lower species of biological life.

Some baddha-jivas may also take shelter in the dormant aspect of their own baddha-jiva consciousness that is collectively, along with other baddha-jivas who have also chosen the dreamless dream state, known as the impersonal aspect of the Brahman effulgence

The impersonal characteristic of the Brahmajyoti or Brahman IS the nitya-baddha souls in a collective of souls that IS the impersonal aspect of the Brahmajyoti.

The brahmajyoti is full of jiva-souls; the word sarva-gatah means life IS the Brahmajyoti and is everywhere. So, what is the Brahmajyoti?

The Brahmajyoti or Krsna’s effulgence, IS the entire creation, divided up into three zones of conscious thought, from devotional activity in the Vaikunthas, to conditioned activity in the mahat-tattva, to inactivity in the dormant dreamless state - All are aspects of the Brahmajyoti

1.The Vaikunthas and Krsnaloka those are always active in service to Krsna or Vishnu

2. The mahat-tattva or material creation of Maha-Vishnu that is where the marginal living entity can CHOOSE to go to lead their own way of life without Krsna

3. When those who have entered the mahat-tattva become fed up with the temporary frustrating nature of the material world and the vessels or bodies they move around in, they often seek an inactive dormant state of consciousness.

They only seek out such an end to their existence because they still have no memory or recollection of their eternal body in Krsnaloka.

Therefore, due to this ignorant state the baddha-jiva is in, they choose to learn through the yogic process, to ‘close their consciousness down’ and stop the generation of thought. (which can be achieved, but is also a temporary dormant 'state of the baddha-jiva's consciousness".

This dormant conscious state of the baddha-jiva is known as the impersonal Brahmajyoti, which means it is the ‘inactive ‘state of consciousness of the souls that make up and IS the Personal Brahmajyoti – hence its reflection is the impersonal aspect of that same Brahmajyoti.