sambya Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 1-- it should be noted that Sanatha kumara's statement should be held true 2-- His statement was,"The BLISS derived from SAGUNA brahm/Sri Visnu is vaikuntha,is like an infinte ocean and the nirguna brahmananda,like water contained in a hoofprint." 3-- ..............if you still say that Sri Krsna is some derivative or mayic form of Nirguna brahm,................... in 1 you establish the infalliabilty of sanatkumaras statement . fine !!! in 2 saguna brahman is not necessarily vishnu or krishna . advaitiins , shaivas shaktas ganapatyas everyone agrees that saguna brahman is brahman with attributes which might be any deity . in 3 dont you know that saguna brahman is indeed a derivative of nirguna brahman ??? start studying more books right now.............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Puh leez do not even try to translate any sloka.I don't give two hoots even if you might be pandit Kashmiri's direct disciple.(Brahm Yonim = hiranyagarbha concept.Wha ?!) Secondly,Your own shankaracharya is the one who adresses Nrsimha in the Nrsimha tapani upanishad. *** The evidence is so glaring in the vedas that the doctrine of Jeeva is Infinite stands no ground AT ALL.There itself you lose all your credibility for making claims to the right path to the Supreme Truth. Everything that follows in just your continous,senseless ranting. The vaishnavas have time and again waved Shankara's written approval of Sri Krsna bhakti superior to Brahmajnyana and yet there are some deluded people who try to turn everything around based on their limited speculations.You should actually be a politician.You can very expertly steer a thousand miles away from the main point. The fact will always remain that you cannot refute the constitutional position of the jeeva as always subservient to Brahm,as given in the vedas and the vedanta.And that's why I can say without the slightest chance of hurting an innocent person, Your a loser.That's what you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Your a loser.That's what you are. HA HA HA !!!!!!! do you know when a person talks like this ? when he realises that he himself is losing ........ (Brahm Yonim = hiranyagarbha concept.Wha ?!) why not ??!!! brahma yoni is a symbolical phrase used to suggest creation and the first 'vikaar' or transformation of brahman was hiranyagarbha which subsequently gave rise to the entire cosmos. in other words first creation(transformation) of brahman was hiranyagarbha .and first creation is also through brahma yoni . nonetheless which one is nearer to the original term - brahmanyoni ? krishna as you are suggesting or hiranyagarbha ? it was not my own translations but taken from a standard book . why dont you provide your translations to the same ? nrishima tapani ? hearing it for the first time . is it a 15th century one like gopal tapani that vaishnavs like you are so fond of quoting ? quote from standard upanishads which was undisputedly composed on vedic age like chhandogya ,kena etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 I will give you some evidence from the horse's mouth. "MUKTA api leelaya vigrahan kritva Tvam BHAJANTE." -Shaankar bhasya (Nrsingha Tapani upanishad )--- (1) "Mukta api henam UPASATE." Sauparna sruti. --- (2) . There is a reason two verses have been quoted.It is a known fact that some limited minds cannot accept the bhasyas of Ramanuja,etc. ,thus Sri Shankaracharya's commentary has been provided.Next,the vedic verse refers to Para brahm,obviously a Personality.This leads to an obvious conclusion for intelligent people.The vedas are not meant to be read by people like you and me.They are to be understood through one of the 6 acharyas. P.S : I feel it's very unfair.The vaishnavas have to quote Sri Shankaracharya to get a point across,but your sect is SO SAD,that it cannot take support of any of the four Vaishnava bhasyas.It just reflects how incredibly ignorant and staunch the Advaitins are.They have nothing but a few lines written by Shankaracharya.Neither Vedas,nor the vedanta conforms with any part of the fantastic doctrine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 15th century ?? OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Shankaracharya lived till the 15th century ??? Wow. *** And are you seriously going on to explain YOUR Hiranyagarbha concept ?? It's precisely that.YOURS. I state point blank that i have no word to word Transliteration.It so happens that some of still follow the Shabda pramana process.It is how Shankaracharya's disciples learnt of a 'brahm'. I have full confidence in the source.Since you don't seem to,you can challenge HIM.You up for it ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 the vedic verse refers to Para brahm,obviously a Personality. how ?? sounds idiotic . how does the word automatically sound a personality ? its sounding such to your ears coz you have trained them to interpret the words as such . The vedas are not meant to be read by people like you and me. what for were they written then . why was it it passed down the genrations with so much care . just for some 6 acharyas ? no one else . They are to be understood through one of the 6 acharyas. no one else ? do you mean that only six saints are the true realised persons and have monopoly in preaching god , vedas and even the sanatana dharma ? Neither Vedas,nor the vedanta conforms with any part of the fantastic doctrine. you know something ? the vast majority of people across the glove understand advaita when they hear the term vedanta . " phalena parichiyate " -- you get to know the tree through the fruit......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 why not ??!!! brahma yoni is a symbolical phrase used to suggest creation and the first 'vikaar' or transformation of brahman was hiranyagarbha which subsequently gave rise to the entire cosmos. in other words first creation(transformation) of brahman was hiranyagarbha .and first creation is also through brahma yoni . Do you even know what you are saying ? You are openly endorsing the 'creation of universe'.It is like your back stabbing Sri Shankaracharya from behind without you even knowing it.Do you realise your utter clash of theories as given in the vedas and the one you uphold yet?? Hiranyagarbha clearly refers to the Supreme Purusha.This Supreme Purusha is identified as Narayana in Subala sruti.Every baccha knows that Sri Naryana projected Brahma from His navel.Yo brahmanam vidhadhati purvam. This supreme Purusha is Sri Narayana.Thus He is called Hiranyagrabha,the One who projects Brahma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Shankaracharya lived till the 15th century ??? as always you seem to be in gross ignorance in relation to history of hindus . in hindu world it was a very common practice among brahmin authors to use the name of some illustrious persons while composing later commentaries or even texts . much the same way you find sankaracharya writting medeival era bengali satyanarayan hymns . please suggest some links where i can get this upanishad along with its 'shankara bhasya' . I state point blank that i have no word to word Transliteration.It so happens that some of still follow the Shabda pramana process.It is how Shankaracharya's disciples learnt of a 'brahm'. I have full confidence in the source.Since you don't seem to,you can challenge HIM.You up for it ?? why dont you do the honour of providing the entire translations at least ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Do you even know what you are saying ? You are openly endorsing the 'creation of universe' tell me something .... do you know what does creation mean to an advaitin ? it is a transformation or vikaar of brahman . brahman projects itself as the cosmos ? is this real transformation ? no , its a transformation due to illussion . Hiranyagarbha clearly refers to the Supreme Purusha. neither hiranyagarbha or purusha was interpreted as krishna in any of those original texts . the later period commentaries and compositions with vaishnav leanings identify purusha , hiranyagarbha and purusha shukta with narayan , not krishna . that comes even later .......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 tell me something .... do you know what does creation mean to an advaitin ? it is a transformation or vikaar of brahman . brahman projects itself as the cosmos ? is this real transformation ? no , its a transformation due to illussion . neither hiranyagarbha or purusha was interpreted as krishna in any of those original texts . the later period commentaries and compositions with vaishnav leanings identify purusha , hiranyagarbha and purusha shukta with narayan , not krishna . that comes even later .......... Can you quote shastra and tika or is all you can do is blurt out unsubstantiated, unsupported personal beliefs of your own? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 how ?? sounds idiotic . how does the word automatically sound a personality ? its sounding such to your ears coz you have trained them to interpret the words as such . HEee HEEE. Mukta means one who has merged in the Nirguna Brahm.You must have forgotten that. A mukta is performing UPASANA/BHAKTI for Whom ?? Nirguna Brahm ?? But,silly,he is mukta.He has already realised Nirguna Brahm.You must surely know that there is only One Brahm.So whom is he worshipping ??If you do not accept that the mukta is worshipping saguna Brahm,there remains only one alternative: He has again come under Maya.This should mean that all the jnyanis who have achieved Mukti are going to come under Maya again.Wonderful.Why even take the pains to do sadhana ? There remains only paramatma and Bhagavan feature.There is absolutely no clarity on saguna brahm in any of the other sects.If you say there is,you must prove it.We have all the confirmations in the bhagavtam.Show me one non- vaishnava scripture which doesn't confuse the concept of devi,Shiva,Ganpati,etc. and concoct something as "Shiva is advaita.He is nirguna brahm.Jeeva is shiva.This and that." Everywhere the same nonsense is there.He(shankara)/She(devi) doesn't have a form.They are nirguna brahm. Look at the Vaishnava scriptures.Straightforward the Saguna Brahm is described as beyond maya,the controller of Maya and the origin of the universe,equipped with Intelligence,mind and senses and most importantly having an eternal form. Nothing of this sort is provided in the sakta,shaiva traditions.If you don't agree,prove me wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Can you quote shastra and tika or is all you can do is blurt out unsubstantiated, unsupported personal beliefs of your own? if you have read through the last couple of posts you shall see that i have provided valid translations and explanations . it is ranjeet who is not doing the same .... unlike gaudiya vaishnavs who hate to go by experiences (no matter how genuine it may be ) and follows only scriptures an advaitist sadhak takes into consideration direct experiences . nothing here has anything to do with my personal beliefs . should you disbeleive that , feel free to get my posts verified from a scholar of advaita vedanta................. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 If you do not accept that the mukta is worshipping saguna Brahm,there remains only one alternative: He has again come under Maya. this is what happens when i have to talk to such ignorant people ..... where did i ever say that i disbilieve saguna brahman ??????????? can you show me ??? i even said that saguna and nirguna brahman are like two sides of a same coin..... it is only that saguna brahman doesnt mean only krishna . it refers to any other deity as well when worshipped with the idea of supreme brahman . you are unable to understand my simple veiws , what to speak to shastras or brahman !!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 this is what happens when i have to talk to such ignorant people ..... where did i ever say that i disbilieve saguna brahman ??????????? can you show me ??? i even said that saguna and nirguna brahman are like two sides of a same coin..... it is only that saguna brahman doesnt mean only krishna . it refers to any other deity as well when worshipped with the idea of supreme brahman . you are unable to understand my simple veiws , what to speak to shastras or brahman !!!!!! I can only tell you what I told Sensible Bloke. End the discussion post haste and go take a cleansing bath in the nearest holy river. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 as always you seem to be in gross ignorance in relation to history of hindus . in hindu world it was a very common practice among brahmin authors to use the name of some illustrious persons while composing later commentaries or even texts . much the same way you find sankaracharya writting medeival era bengali satyanarayan hymns . please suggest some links where i can get this upanishad along with its 'shankara bhasya' .. Oh i do not have the courage to go to any of your sites.They scare me.Why don't you browse through the 'Vedanta' library ??? The shankarites have taken upon themselves to provide crystal clear meanings of the sastras.The disciples who come in chain,must surely know better than you whether authentic Shaankar bhasya on ''XYZ" text exists or not ?? why dont you do the honour of providing the entire translations at least . I have already told you,I do not possess the translations.Jeez,will you stop embarrassing me ? In all seriousness,I'm telling you bluntly,that I've got no word to word traslations.If you have the confidence,that people involved in such discussions generally have,that the disciple/student/sadhaka is NOT twisting the meaning explained by his master,then you should be satisfied.I can only do so much. But if you still think that I'm lying,you are invited to take it up with the concerned master.I shall take it upon myself to get you there.Perhaps you can get the 4 'jagadgurus' who are warming the seats established by Adi Shankaracharya ??? It can be only beneficial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 The Supreme Person is the basis of Nirguna Brahm "Yada parsyam pashyate rukma varnam" Mundaka upanishad.3.1.3 "Brahmano hi pratishtha ham...." 14.27 Bhagavad Geeta. Sri Krsna is the BASIS / Pratishtha of Nirguna brahm.Mundaka upanishad says so and so does the Geeta. This is because Bhagavan is the feature which manifests all the energies.Even Nimbarkacharya proclaims Sri Radha Krsna as "The original form of Godhead ENDORSED BY THE VEDAS." The bhakti Scriptures state: Krsnanda/Ramananda is like a ocean,whereas the brahmananda of the jnyanis is like a drop.Thus Sri Krsna is said to be the basis of the other two features. For the veda states,"Raso vai saha" That Brahm is Rasa.Ananda.This refers to Sri Bhagavan. I'll pose you a question : Does the ACTIVITY of Jnyanis who have submerged in the nirguna Brahm,of coming back to the earth and taking up a material body JUST TO CULTIVATE Sri Krsna Bhakti,IMPLY that sri Krsna is the original person,the basis of Nirguna brahm or does it Not ??? Please answer in yes or no . I don’t know the answer to your question. My basic argument is that there can only be One origin, and One cause of all causes. And if Krishna is both (which seems reasonable), then He must be the Brahman who is equally described in the Vedas as being the ultimate origin and the ultimate cause. And If He is not Brahman, then He must derive from (originate from) Brahman. BTW, your reference to Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.3, appears to translate to: "When the seer sees the brilliant maker and lord (of the world) as the Person who has his source in Brahman, then he is wise, and shaking off good and evil, he reaches the highest oneness, free from passions" (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15020.htm). Your reference to Bhagavad Gita 14.27: "brahmano hi pratishthaham" (I am the basis of Brahman) cannot be misunderstood.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 this is what happens when i have to talk to such ignorant people ..... where did i ever say that i disbilieve saguna brahman ??????????? can you show me ??? i even said that saguna and nirguna brahman are like two sides of a same coin..... it is only that saguna brahman doesnt mean only krishna . it refers to any other deity as well when worshipped with the idea of supreme brahman . you are unable to understand my simple veiws , what to speak to shastras or brahman !!!!!! Please provide the evidence from Sakta,Shaiva sastras supporting the idea that the Supreme Person is their respective deity,who is the origin of Brahmadeva.Who is unborn.Who is Eternal.Who possesses the three energies of Para,Jeeva and Maya as enlisted in the vedas.Whose definition matches that of 'Brahm' as provided in the vedas.Who description matches that of paramatma in the vedas.Whose spiritual dhama/abodes are mentioned in so many upanishads. Then,Kindly expound on the Advaya Jnyana tattva. Svagat bheda Shunya (Indifference with svarupa shakti) Sajatiya bheda Shunya(Indifference with Jeeva shakti) and Vijatiya bheda shunya.(Indifference with maya shakti). Tell me a single deity,including even Sri Vishnu,what to speak of Sri Shankara,Devi etc. who can conform with this tattva. Lastly,please state why there are exactly three sections in the vedas: Jnyana.Karma and Upasana each proclaiming the Supreme Worshipful as Nirguna brahm,Paramatma and Bhagavan respectively.These features are explained solely in the Bhagavatam. This is not a joke.You have to provide evidence boss.There are 3(4,including Srila Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura) acharyas who have already done it.There is not a single sakta,shaiva who could successfully reconcile Vedas and more importantly Vedanta with their respective doctrines centering around their respective deities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 this is what happens when i have to talk to such ignorant people ..... where did i ever say that i disbilieve saguna brahman ??????????? can you show me ??? i even said that saguna and nirguna brahman are like two sides of a same coin..... it is only that saguna brahman doesnt mean only krishna . it refers to any other deity as well when worshipped with the idea of supreme brahman . you are unable to understand my simple veiws , what to speak to shastras or brahman !!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nav Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Thanx for the link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 End the discussion post haste and go take a cleansing bath in the nearest holy river. true indeed . infact the bath should be with clothes on and accompanied by sahasra go-daan to brahmans , complete prayaschitta and a vow made in front of a dwadash salagram shilas never to discuss anything with ranjeet. hee hee:) i stop here ................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 You stop here ?? You can't proclaim something as absurd as 'Every deity is saguna Brahm' and 'stop there'.If you have the audacity to say such a thing,the least you can do to support the credibility of your views,is to provide a couple evidences from the Sastras. You CANNOT stop here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Making any vows in front of shalagrama shilas and pleasing a 1000 brahmanas will amount to nothing,if in your mind,the Shalagrama sheela is just as good as any deity. A person is supposed to take a bath in the Gangaji with his mind.He is supposed to attach his mind to Her,for She emanates from the Supreme Lord. This is not some offer.Anyone come take a bath in Gangaji and get liberated.There is a condition.Gangaji is not some 'holy' river at your disposal.She is the Personal associate of the Lord. You may go and drown in the ganga,be assured,nothing will happen.The duskriti you are performing now,will swiftly eliminate any chance of obtaining even to the heavenly planets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Melvin1 Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 You stop here ?? You can't proclaim something as absurd as 'Every deity is saguna Brahm' and 'stop there'.If you have the audacity to say such a thing,the least you can do to support the credibility of your views,is to provide a couple evidences from the Sastras. You CANNOT stop here. A person who is able to answer controversial issue requires a lot of intelligence and good memory I believe is a gift from God which should be used wisely and humbly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Krishna is Brahman. Human ignorance (maya) hides impersonal Brahman, and apparently 'transforms' Him into personal Krishna.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 "MUKTA api leelaya vigrahan kritva Tvam BHAJANTE." -Shaankar bhasya (Nrsingha Tapani upanishad )--- (1) "Mukta api henam UPASATE." Sauparna sruti. --- (2) . Primate, Kindly consider the point i have tried to convey. You must be also aware of the Krsna stuti provided by Sri Shankaracharya.It goes,"Yamuna nikat tatasthith..." This REEKS of prema bhakti. Further,in prabodha sudhakara,Sri Shankaracharya,openly proclaims that "I do not want the pleasures of any svarga ! I do not want mukti ! That is for fools ! I just want to be completely engrossed in thinking about this Govinda's lotus feet." This only confirms the faultless statements of the vaishnavas over the ages,"Mukti is just a drop of bliss compared to the premananda of sri KRsna." Due to such glaring evidences,do we accept Sri Krsna bhakti to be the most beneficial path. One more relevant thing is: MERCY.The vedas are crystal clear about one thing : If you get His mercy,you can cross this maya like a mere puddle of water in the way.Otherwise forget it. His mercy alone can solve every problem and all the mayic diseases.All of the Vaishnavacharyas stress on this fact.Whereas Shankara's Brahm is unable to perform any such task of giving mercy,simply because He is Nirguna and Niraakara. Let's concentrate upon the most basic step in each path : Purification of the Mind-antah karana shuddhi. Be it jnana,yoga or bhakti,the cleansing of the mind is needed. "shama dama uparathas thitikshu"- Shankaracharya stating the steps. The SECOND(dama) step is : purify your mind. Lets hear what Shankaracharya himself has to say,"Shudhayati naa antaraatma krshna padambhoj bhaktimriteh." - prabodha shudhakara. "Without remembrance/bhakti of Sri Krsna's lotus feet,it is not possible to cleanse the mind." The basics in all spiritual paths itself is dependent on bhakti.When we quote Vaishnavacharyas,it is termed dogmatic.That's why Sri Shankaracharya's works are produced. You are a very intelligent person.You have immdiately grasped all the consistencies(remember you said,"Now it makes a little sense".). I have no problem if the nirguna feature of the Lord is worsipped by people like you. 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.