Narasingh Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 The Vishwarupa is simply a representation of kala (time), the ultimate devourer/destroyer of men. (The Bhagavatam actually views the form as illusory.) Therefore when Arjuna, after seeing that terrible form asked the Lord what it meant, He replied, "I am Time, the Destroyer ..." However Sri Vishnu never requested people to make morbid sacrifices, going to great lengths to explain in Bhagavad Gita the differences between sacrifices made under the influence of the different gunas. Those who due to ignorance make morbid sacrifices, do so under the influence of tamas guna. Such sacrifices are never recommended. Unlike the evolving morals of Theists, Sri Vishnu does not change. Therefore we are left with the conclusion that any deities who requested morbid sacrifices are not Him - even though He hears the prayers of all. If a child in distress calls for his father but his father is not, any caring adult may answer that call. This does not mean that that adult is the actual parent - it is simply an act of compassion.I never meant it as Vishnu's suggestion to make morbid offerings, only that Vishnu's aspect as Vishwarup is in the constant process of consuming, whether items are offered directly or indirectly. It happens to be a morbid vision, yet true. This world of illusion and exploitation consists of the basis of jivo jivasya jivanam (S.B. 1.13.37). There is no existence here without the exploitation of other souls. Hence, time is constantly consuming identifications. It is the yogi who'se heart is full of compassion that looks for a change of perspective in order to see the hand of God behind all existence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Melvin1 Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 What I know about Buddhism was the movie I saw years ago entitled, " The Last Emperor of China." The Emperor Puyi defied the sacred law of Lord Buddha not to leave the forbidden city when China was at war with Japan. China in the end became a communist country. To me if one practices Buddhism, one should not leave the place where he/she was born by migrating to another land. If one wants to reside in some country say, India, he/she should use his/her mind only in going there. As for Hinduism, it`s like Catholicism where the practitioner idolizes and worships saints/demigods.In my view, there`s really nothing wrong with Buddhism or Hinduism. Liberating not obliterating the mind to a practitioner who have embraced both religions is his/her cup of tea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 "True religion has a universal quality. It does not find fault with other religions. Forgiveness, compassion, tolerance, brotherhood and the feeling of oneness are the signs of a true religion." (Sri Chinmoy -- World-Destruction: Never, Impossible!, Part 1, pp. 43–44) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Melvin1 Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 In my search for Truth chanting, Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare, by itself is the religion. " That all vedic mantras, rituals and conclusions are all compressed in just 8 words, Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare( Narada pancaratra). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasingh Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 In my search for Truth chanting, Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare, by itself is the religion. " That all vedic mantras, rituals and conclusions are all compressed in just 8 words, Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare( Narada pancaratra). To you, what is the purpose of chanting the Hare Krsna Maha Mantra, Melvin1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 It is not about words and idioms, it is about morality. Did a Supreme Being order people to do this or not? If an unchanging being would - then it is not a stretch that it may be within his "will" that similar be done today - thus religious violence becomes thinkable. Yes, I often ask the question: "What kind of impotent god needs little girls to strap dynamite to their chests then blow themselves up in random crowds of people"? In the Vedas, Krsna in His form of Parasurama destroys entire generations of warriors by the thousands over and over again. Then, of course as Kalki He will slay most of the inhabitants of the earth, as He does at the end of every Kali-yuga. My Psalm 46 quote earlier was an attempt to explain that meditation and yoga are actually comparable to "Be still". "Know that I am God", that Kingdom is the platform the Christians must reach before casting stones; otherwise they may fiind themselves offending the One they claim to worship. Until then, they simply worship their minds. And their devotion, that is simply in their mind, a pompous fantasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 I guess if God needs to kill or slay, He will just do that. There's no need at all for us humans to do the job for Him. Religion that incites violence or condones violence performed by humans in the past, seems to have gone wrong somewhere down the road.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley Posted March 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Precisely! By only doing it Himself which could be easily accomplished through death during sleep, accidents, illness, wild animals or natural disasters ('acts of God'), etc. according to a persons karma - no one will ever think that they are justified in doing it for Him. An all-knowing being knows that if He ever told people to kill women, children and non-combatants, it wouldn't just stop with the instances that He actually ordered. That is why the All-Knowing One stated unequivocably that "one who knows the principles of religion" does not kill a boy, a woman, a foolish creature or a surrendered soul. Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.7.36 I guess if God needs to kill or slay, He will just do that. There's no need at all for us humans to do the job for Him. Religion that incites violence or condones violence performed by humans in the past, seems to have gone wrong somewhere down the road.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Melvin1 Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 To you, what is the purpose of chanting the Hare Krsna Maha Mantra, Melvin1? Because as soon as I chant the name Hare Krsna the pandora box of memories inside my brain instantly opens and my mind transported into a surreal world. It`s like opening a bottle you took from the sea and out came the Genie giving you 3 wishes for your dreams to come true. It summoning the wind to cool a very intense summer heat. It`s an oasis in the desert. A well in the forest. A glass filled with water. A fruit given when hungry. A dropped tulasi leaf to chew.It` s like the appearance from nowhere a holographic image of Srila Prabhupada smiling at you for a job well-done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gita Dharma Posted April 4, 2009 Report Share Posted April 4, 2009 Since I referenced the Bhagavatam in the context of the Universal Form, I feel that I should clarify my position. Although some if it is inspiring, I do not have complete faith in the Bhagavatam. Sri Bhagavan describes the Universal Form as supreme - rupam param (B.G. 11:47) and so I can not accept the Bhagavatam's teaching that it is illusory. The Vishwarupa is simply a representation of kala (time), the ultimate devourer/destroyer of men. (The Bhagavatam actually views the form as illusory.) Therefore when Arjuna, after seeing that terrible form asked the Lord what it meant, He replied, "I am Time, the Destroyer ..." However Sri Vishnu never requested people to make morbid sacrifices, going to great lengths to explain in Bhagavad Gita the differences between sacrifices made under the influence of the different gunas. Those who due to ignorance make morbid sacrifices, do so under the influence of tamas guna. Such sacrifices are never recommended. Unlike the evolving morals of Theists, Sri Vishnu does not change. Therefore we are left with the conclusion that any deities who requested morbid sacrifices are not Him - even though He hears the prayers of all. If a child in distress calls for his father but his father is not, any caring adult may answer that call. This does not mean that that adult is the actual parent - it is simply an act of compassion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasingh Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 Keep reading a little further in the Bhagavad Gita and you will find the entrance to the Bhagavatam. When Arjuna was perplexed and discouraged by seeing the Vishvarupa form, he was subsequently shown the four-armed form of Bhagavan, and lastly the two-armed form which is also deemed Supreme, albeit most accessible and endearing. This two armed is the all-attractive form. I just posted this elsewhere but it seems to fit here better. Sat (existence) is there with or without consciousness of itself. Chit (consciousness) is there with or without bliss, but presupposes sat. Ananda (bliss) is all-encompassing and is the most inclusive form of existence. Krsna's two-armed form is the form of ananda. The Bhagavatam suggests: vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvaḿ yaj jñānam advayam brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gita Dharma Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 The Bhagavad Gita does not teach that only the two-armed form of Bhagavan is all-attractive but that all of His forms are. If one is most attracted to the two-armed form then that is fine. If another is most attracted to the four-armed form then that is also fine. He dwells within giving the proper shradda for each individual. Keep reading a little further in the Bhagavad Gita and you will find the entrance to the Bhagavatam. When Arjuna was perplexed and discouraged by seeing the Vishvarupa form, he was subsequently shown the four-armed form of Bhagavan, and lastly the two-armed form which is also deemed Supreme, albeit most accessible and endearing.This two armed is the all-attractive form. I just posted this elsewhere but it seems to fit here better. Sat (existence) is there with or without consciousness of itself. Chit (consciousness) is there with or without bliss, but presupposes sat. Ananda (bliss) is all-encompassing and is the most inclusive form of existence. Krsna's two-armed form is the form of ananda. The Bhagavatam suggests: vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvaḿ yaj jñānam advayam brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasingh Posted April 5, 2009 Report Share Posted April 5, 2009 The Bhagavatam and Bhagavad Gita are both supportive of each other. The Bhagavad Gita and the Vishvarupa Lila experienced by Arjuna indicate that while no one can claim one as being more supreme than the other (they are contained within each other) the beautiful human-like form is more relishable by Bhagavan's devotees. The Vishvarupa form is appreciated along with the element of awe and fear, but is encouraging because of It's enlightening features of pure consciousness. Krsna's manush rupa is praised by Krsna, Himself as very rare. Arjuna realized how he had been intimate with the Person who accommodates Vishvarupa within Him. He felt that he must have committed some offense to such a powerful Person. Krsna revealed that He likes this intimate interaction with Arjuna, because Arjuna is His dear devotee. So you are right in that one may be subjectively attracted to one form over another, but, objectively, Krsna's manush rupa is more intimate and He actually enjoys the intimacy of His devotees through this form. This is the gist of the Bhagavatam, and is pointed towards in the Gita. Rasa lila is Krsna's pleasure. The devotees who approach Him in such an intimate way cause Krsna's Heart to melt. He becomes their servant and drives their chariot or massages their feet, out of love for them, because of their love for Him. shraddhavan bhajate yo mam, sa me yuktatamo matah Also Chapter 7 is indicative of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gita Dharma Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 Thanks for sharing your opinion. The Bhagavatam and Bhagavad Gita are both supportive of each other. The Bhagavad Gita and the Vishvarupa Lila experienced by Arjuna indicate that while no one can claim one as being more supreme than the other (they are contained within each other) the beautiful human-like form is more relishable by Bhagavan's devotees. The Vishvarupa form is appreciated along with the element of awe and fear, but is encouraging because of It's enlightening features of pure consciousness. Krsna's manush rupa is praised by Krsna, Himself as very rare. Arjuna realized how he had been intimate with the Person who accommodates Vishvarupa within Him. He felt that he must have committed some offense to such a powerful Person. Krsna revealed that He likes this intimate interaction with Arjuna, because Arjuna is His dear devotee. So you are right in that one may be subjectively attracted to one form over another, but, objectively, Krsna's manush rupa is more intimate and He actually enjoys the intimacy of His devotees through this form. This is the gist of the Bhagavatam, and is pointed towards in the Gita. Rasa lila is Krsna's pleasure. The devotees who approach Him in such an intimate way cause Krsna's Heart to melt. He becomes their servant and drives their chariot or massages their feet, out of love for them, because of their love for Him. shraddhavan bhajate yo mam, sa me yuktatamo matah Also Chapter 7 is indicative of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehat Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 Here try this link, maybe it'll help you out. Dharma self defense: http://www.stephen-knapp.com/dharma_self_defense.htm It seems to be designed for the main purpose of refuting christian arguments against hinduism/sanatan dharma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiley Posted April 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 Thank you for sharing that thehat! Here try this link, maybe it'll help you out. Dharma self defense: http://www.stephen-knapp.com/dharma_self_defense.htm It seems to be designed for the main purpose of refuting christian arguments against hinduism/sanatan dharma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.