Mantra to Create a Business ???

[sant]

 

Obviously, blaming brahmins for all the problems of the world is yet another way by which Neo-Hinduism is rationalized.

 

Moderators should delete this word neo hindu wherever its used.

[webramanuja]

Yes Krishna is the GOD HEAD! He is ParaBrahmam! He is the Supreme!

[ranjeetmore]

 

Sant, that quote is from Nectar of Devotion written by your own Prabhupada. If you think he is nonsense, well, that is up to you!

 

Once again that quote:

 

 

One should begin the worship of the demigod Gaṇapati, who drives away all impediments in the execution of devotional service. In the Brahma-saḿhitā it is stated that Gaṇapati worships the lotus feet of Lord Nṛsiḿhadeva and in that way has become auspicious for the devotees in clearing out all impediments. Therefore, all devotees should worship Gaṇapati

 

Let me again point out that I merely quoted this in response to Theist's contention that, "Can't worship some demi-god or the things of this world and expect to also have Krishna too." That may be Theist's view, but that does not appear to be the view of the guru he claims to follow!

But as always, when confronted with inconvenient facts, you always have the option of attacking me. Character assasinations are obviously pure Vaishnavism, free of all mundane designations. Or so I learned from the Hare Krishnas on this forum.

 

elitism.

[ranjeetmore]

 

RAghu as always remain dumb.I asked him do you beleive in madhwacharya as an avtar of vayu.?

No answer.

can you prove it.?

No answer.

What happens to dvaita in samadhi?

no answer.

 

The second part i get excuse.

Your english is bad.

You dont use punctuation marks.

The gaudiyas attack hinduism.

But only i am a true hindu ,rest are neo hindus.

I am a helpless being.

Gaudiyas torture me .

Neo hindus give me death threats.

I am the only one right.

MY aims are pure.

First i ask questions.

Whatever someone answers its wrong.

I have already decided that.

MY opinion is the law.

Of course it will apply to me not to neo hindus.

 

hahahaha...i haven't laughed so hard in weeks !

 

It's true..It's true..Vayu-Sri Madhvacharya.

 

Raghu believes that having faith in Sri Narayana as the Supreme Brahm and then freely slinging mud on other acharyas(Prabhupad,Caitanya) is allowed.

 

He actually,LITERALLY believes that WHATSOEVER HE SAYS has to be accepted as the final truth.

 

Raghu,you have posted over and over again the purport of prabhupad on Ganesha.There is a reason why EVERY SINGLE TEMPLE starts any kind of worship with ganesha.You think your too great to even bow before Ganesha ??? What is your position ??? What great personality are you ???

Nyaneshwara worshipped Ganesha and established his position to be worshipped thus because he is the remover of obstacles on the path of bhakti.Obviously,it is never necessary to worship him.

 

But seriously,what kind of fool are you to think that you knw better than Jnyaneshwara or Prabhupada??? Just look at yourself.

[raghu]

 

Raghu believes that having faith in Sri Narayana as the Supreme Brahm and then freely slinging mud on other acharyas(Prabhupad,Caitanya) is allowed.

 

Lie. I never slung mud at Prabhupada or Caitanya. If you wish to prove me wrong, then provide the URL and exact quote. I have been quite respectful to your gurus even when disagreeing with them, while you on the other hand have flung insults at anyone and everyone who disagrees with your views. You called Shiva ugly, and then you stated that those who believe Shiva to be a jiva are foolish, thus indirectly slinging mud at Madhva and Ramanuja. You also stated that those who make distinctions between Vishnu and Shiva should have their eyes put out.

 

The problem with children like you is that you equate any disagreement with your gurus as disrespect towards them. Then you lecture us on the need to just accept the acharyas view (by which it is meant, your acharyas' views). And then you go on to say things that actually are offensive towards other acharyas. The hypocrisy is amazing.

 

Responses like this just underscore the importance of having a minimum age requirement on forums like this one. As in, no one under the age of 18.

 

 

Raghu,you have posted over and over again the purport of prabhupad on Ganesha.

 

That was in response to Theist making a condescending comment to the effect that "you cannot have demigod worship and have Krishna too." Obviously he was mistaken as per his own guru's views.

 

Whatever else you are reading into it, and frankly it seems you are reading quite a novel into it, is no concern of mine.

[ranjeetmore]

i never said that people who do not accept Shankara indifferent from Sri Vishnu should have their eyes put out.I quoted Shatanand,a saint from the Pushti marg order who said that.

 

Calling Shiva a Jiva is foolish,certainly.This is for those whose acharyas have similar views.You say i have indirectly called Madva and Ramanuja foolish.

 

I fail to see why doesn't the same apply to your case.You've made it clear that you absolutely hate fake avtars of God.I do too.On the other hand,you refuse to accept Chaitanya's avtaarhood.Does it mean,you indirectly hate,despise,look down upon,continuously insult Gauranga ????

 

You see,it's not so easy.

[raghu]

 

i never said that people who do not accept Shankara indifferent from Sri Vishnu should have their eyes put out.I quoted Shatanand,a saint from the Pushti marg order who said that.

 

I fail to understand the difference, unless you are now telling me that you do not believe Shatanand.

 

 

Calling Shiva a Jiva is foolish,certainly.This is for those whose acharyas have similar views.You say i have indirectly called Madva and Ramanuja foolish.

 

You just did. Unless you can show me some evidence in the writings of Madhva and Ramanuja wherein they equate Shiva with Vishnu. Can you?

 

 

I fail to see why doesn't the same apply to your case.You've made it clear that you absolutely hate fake avtars of God.I do too.On the other hand,you refuse to accept Chaitanya's avtaarhood.Does it mean,you indirectly hate,despise,look down upon,continuously insult Gauranga ????

 

You see,it's not so easy.

 

Once again, you seem to be hallucinating. I never said anything about hating "fak avtars of God" (sic). Nor did I say anything about other Vaishnavas being "foolish" for having certain views - this was your position. Nor was it I who directly insulted Shiva by calling his form "horrendous" and "revolting" - that, too, was you. Please see - http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/453765-shiv-maha-puran-doubts-7.html

[ranjeetmore]

Are you a bit...you know... dumb ??? When did i say that Madhva and Ramanuja are foolish...Why are you relentlessly pursuing it ??? You act as if you know all the truths of Vaikuntha.

 

So many vaishnavacharyas believe shankara to be indifferent from Vishnu.

 

I(right now) seriously don't care if you accept it or not.It is clearly affecting your faith in the Bhagavatam and other acharyas and Gaudiya acharyas.It's best you do not pursue the subject.

[raghu]

 

Are you a bit...you know... dumb ??? When did i say that Madhva and Ramanuja are foolish...Why are you relentlessly pursuing it ???

 

Once again for the cognitively challenged:

 

1) Ranjeet says that people who consider Shiva to be a jiva are foolish. His exact words, located in this thread: http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/450287-durga-more-vishnu-shakti-than-shiva-shakti-8.html , are "Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti thakura says that both Sadashiva and Narayana are present as Themselves on the saguna plane as Shiva and Vishnu.Lord Shiva,in this saguna feature,is apparently bewildered by the three modes of maya and foolishly,is thought to be some petty Jeevatma."

 

2) In the Madhva and Ramanuja traditions, Lord Shiva is considered to be a jiva.

 

3) QED Madhva and Ramanuja (and their followers) are foolish, according to Ranjeet.

 

 

You act as if you know all the truths of Vaikuntha.

 

No, I simply know how to read English and infer untenable philosophical conclusions based on the sort of fanatical, prejudiced remarks you tend to make.

 

 

So many vaishnavacharyas believe shankara to be indifferent from Vishnu.

 

By "so many," you mean of course, the Gaudiyas and the pushti-margis?

 

 

I(right now) seriously don't care if you accept it or not.It is clearly affecting your faith in the Bhagavatam and other acharyas and Gaudiya acharyas.It's best you do not pursue the subject.

 

Good point. The more I pursue it, the more it makes you look bad. And we can't have any discussion that detracts from the public perception of you as an unblemished spiritual authority, now can we?

 

Will I be going in your ignore list anytime soon? You know that it is my goal to get every fanatic on this forum to put me in their ignore list. So far I have Theist and Kali, whereas Kaisersose only has Theist. In the short time that I've been here, I've earned the ire of more fanatics than even Kaiser the atheist. HaHa! Kaiser, you are so lame. :-)

[Sonic Yogi]

 

 

2) In the Madhva and Ramanuja traditions, Lord Shiva is considered to be a jiva.

 

Such a very serious claim demands evidence and proper quotes of reference.

Otherwise, nobody should put any credibility in your claims.

[raghu]

 

 

Such a very serious claim demands evidence and proper quotes of reference.

Otherwise, nobody should put any credibility in your claims.

 

Sonic, let us be honest.

 

You and I both know that you have no intention of acknowledging that Madhva considers Shiva to be a jiva.

 

If I quote the Sanskrit directly from his writings, you will not be able to understand that, and thus you will reject it.

 

If I translate the Sanskrit, you won't accept it, because you do not know Sanskrit, and you will not depend on me to translate it for you, since you hate me for having the audacity to question your views. Thus, you will reject that as well.

 

If I provide the translation of a scholar of Madhva, you will reject that also, since you hate people who can think, and in your eyes anyone who is thought of as a scholar is ipso facto not a devotee, and vice-versa.

 

And if I provide the translation of a devotee, you will take issue with his inability to build thousands of temples all over the world as Prabhupada did, and on that basis argue that he knows less about Madhva than Prabhupada. Thus you will reject that also.

 

So given that all of the above are true, when you ask for "evidence" regarding Madhva's views, what *specifically* will you accept to convince you of what it is he thinks on this subject? If you really are not interested in evidence, would it not be better for you forgo asking?

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Sonic, let us be honest.

 

You and I both know that you have no intention of acknowledging that Madhva considers Shiva to be a jiva.

 

If I quote the Sanskrit directly from his writings, you will not be able to understand that, and thus you will reject it.

 

If I translate the Sanskrit, you won't accept it, because you do not know Sanskrit, and you will not depend on me to translate it for you, since you hate me for having the audacity to question your views. Thus, you will reject that as well.

 

If I provide the translation of a scholar of Madhva, you will reject that also, since you hate people who can think, and in your eyes anyone who is thought of as a scholar is ipso facto not a devotee, and vice-versa.

 

And if I provide the translation of a devotee, you will take issue with his inability to build thousands of temples all over the world as Prabhupada did, and on that basis argue that he knows less about Madhva than Prabhupada. Thus you will reject that also.

 

So given that all of the above are true, when you ask for "evidence" regarding Madhva's views, what *specifically* will you accept to convince you of what it is he thinks on this subject? If you really are not interested in evidence, would it not be better for you forgo asking?

 

In other words, you don't have any proper statement from Madhva to support your claims, so you just try to avoid the issue with a false argument.

You should just admit you have no evidence for your claim and that you falsely represented the position of Madhva.

 

Lord Siva gives birth to every jiva in the universe.

To say that he is a jiva is simply ridiculous.

 

Siva functions as a jiva in the destruction of the universe, but that does not make him a jiva.

 

If a jiva attains to Siva-tattva, then he is not a jiva anymore.

[raghu]

 

In other words, you don't have any proper statement from Madhva to support your claims, so you just try to avoid the issue with a false argument.

You should just admit you have no evidence for your claim and that you falsely represented the position of Madhva.

 

Lord Siva gives birth to every jiva in the universe.

To say that he is a jiva is simply ridiculous.

 

Siva functions as a jiva in the destruction of the universe, but that does not make him a jiva.

 

If a jiva attains to Siva-tattva, then he is not a jiva anymore.

 

You are simply throwing up a smokescreen to avoid answering a very simple question:

 

What is the standard of evidence that you will accept to determine what Madhva's views on the subject are? Please stop being evasive and answer honestly.

 

I strongly suspect that you will reject any evidence I provide for the reasons I have given above. Care to dispute that?

 

And the irony is striking, that you would presume to know what Madhva thinks on the subject even though you have never read his writings.

 

Please answer the question and then we will proceed.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

 

And the irony is striking, that you would presume to know what Madhva thinks on the subject even though you have never read his writings.

 

 

My position is that Madhva cannot and should not disagree with what Srimad Bhagavatam says about Lord Siva.

If Madhva disagrees with Srimad Bhagavatam on the position and status of Lord Siva, then I would have to say that Madhva is wrong.

 

My position on Lord Siva is the position that he is ascribed in Srimad Bhagavatam, Brahma-Samhita etc.

 

Anyone who challenges the status of Lord Siva, as he is ascribed in the books of the Gaudiya canon, will not get any acknowledgment from me, even he be Madhvacarya.

[raghu]

 

My position is that Madhva cannot and should not disagree with what Srimad Bhagavatam says about Lord Siva.

If Madhva disagrees with Srimad Bhagavatam on the position and status of Lord Siva, then I would have to say that Madhva is wrong.

 

My position on Lord Siva is the position that he is ascribed in Srimad Bhagavatam, Brahma-Samhita etc.

 

Anyone who challenges the status of Lord Siva, as he is ascribed in the books of the Gaudiya canon, will not get any acknowledgment from me, even he be Madhvacarya.

 

You are still evading the real question.

 

You asked for evidence that Madhva believes Shiva to be a jiva.

 

What standard of evidence will you accept regarding Madhva's view on this subject?

 

This is now, what, the 3rd time I am asking? Why so evasive?

[kaisersose]

 

My position is that Madhva cannot and should not disagree with what Srimad Bhagavatam says about Lord Siva.

 

Tattvavada is a Vedanta doctrine. It is not required for Vedanta based doctrines to agree with Puranas in toto. Puranas are valid only when they align with bigger authorities. If not, they are not authoritative.

 

This is different from the Gaudiya position that the entire Bhagavatam is an authority and the highest authority. Obviously this conflicts with the approach of Vedanta schools like Advaita, Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita and therefore there is not much point in discussion when there is no common ground.

 

Cheers

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Tattvavada is a Vedanta doctrine. It is not required for Vedanta based doctrines to agree with Puranas in toto. Puranas are valid only when they align with bigger authorities. If not, they are not authoritative.

 

This is different from the Gaudiya position that the entire Bhagavatam is an authority and the highest authority. Obviously this conflicts with the approach of Vedanta schools like Advaita, Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita and therefore there is not much point in discussion when there is no common ground.

 

Cheers

 

Vyasadeva has commented that Srimad Bhagavatam was his own explanation and commentary on Vedanta Sutra.

 

So, any conclusions derived from Vedanta-sutra that do not agree with Srimad Bhagavatam in fact challenge Vyasadev's own explanations and cannot therefore be accepted as the proper siddhanta.

[kaisersose]

 

Vyasadeva has commented that Srimad Bhagavatam was his own explanation and commentary on Vedanta Sutra.

 

So, any conclusions derived from Vedanta-sutra that do not agree with Srimad Bhagavatam in fact challenge Vyasadev's own explanations and cannot therefore be accepted as the proper siddhanta.

 

That theory holds good only if you accept all the Puranas as fully authentic compositions of Vyasa. No Vedanta school has held such an opinion in 1300 years. Other than the Veda, Sutras and the Gita, every other authority is secondary and do not hold "infallible" status. It is circular logic that the Bhagavatam is superior because such a claim is made by itself.

 

Now, you are free to disagree with this, but this is the way things are.

 

Cheers

[raghu]

 

Vyasadeva has commented that Srimad Bhagavatam was his own explanation and commentary on Vedanta Sutra.

 

Perhaps in your own imagination he may have said that. But he has written no such thing in either the Bhagavata or the Vedanta-sutra.

 

 

So, any conclusions derived from Vedanta-sutra that do not agree with Srimad Bhagavatam in fact challenge Vyasadev's own explanations and cannot therefore be accepted as the proper siddhanta.

 

Given that there are multiple recensions of the Bhagavata available, I fail to see how you could possibly maintain such a position on logical grounds. So if Bhagavata is independently authoritative, then are all the Shaivite interpolations also authoritative on the grounds that they are in the Bhagavatam, and thus Vyasa's original composition?

 

Also, will you be answering that question about Madhva and standards of evidence any time soon?

[raghu]

Still no answer about Madhva and his views on Shiva.

 

So, Sonic, just to clarify - when you asked for evidence that Madhva believes Shiva to be a jiva, and when you talked about what a serious claim that was, you did not really mean that, right?

[hindustani]

The subject of this thread is

"Mantra to Create a Business ??? "

But as usual some other business is going on.Unless we are deciplined in our life,no way one will find spirituality in life.

[chandu_69]

 

The subject of this thread is

"Mantra to Create a Business ??? "

But as usual some other business is going on.Unless we are deciplined in our life,no way one will find spirituality in life.

 

Somebody put a stop plsss...