sant Posted July 26, 2009 Report Share Posted July 26, 2009 sambya, sir what do you exactly expect from vaishnavs and how they should behave. Be clear. Certainly if you have some good point they might consider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 no amount of good suggestions can change the habits of centuries !! anyways here is what i expect -- if they cannot respect or love other faiths and beliefs let them be silent at least ....stop ninda and rectify the holier than thou attitude . thats it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kd gupta Posted July 27, 2009 Report Share Posted July 27, 2009 Vaishnav jan to tene kahiye je PeeD paraayi jaaNe re One who is a Vaishnav knows and feels the suffering of others Par-dukhkhe upkaar kare toye Man abhimaan na aaNe re Serves others who are in miseries, does not let pride enter his mind SakaL lok maan sahune vande Nindaa na kare keni re Humble to all, in the entire world, does not criticize anyone Vaach kaachh man nishchaL raakhe Dhan-dhan janani teni re Keeps his words, deeds and thoughts pure, blessed is his mother Sam-drishti ne trishna tyaagi Par-stree jene maat re Looks upon all with equality, has renounced passion, honors other women as his mother Jivha thaki asatya na bole Par-dhan nav jhaalee haath re Tongue may get tired, but will not utter untruth, does not covet another’s wealth Moh-maaya vyaape nahi jene DriDh vairaagya jena man maan re Does not succumb to worldly attachments, has mind firmly fixed on renunciation Ram naam shoon taaLi laagi SakaL tirath tena tan maan re Always he is intent on chanting Rama’s name, all holy places of pilgrimage are within him. VaN-lobhi ne kapaT-rahit chhe Kaam-krodh nivaarya re Has conquered passion,avarice and anger BhaNe Narsaiyon tenu darshan karta KuL ekoter taarya re The sight of such a Vaishnav, says Narsaiyon, saves entire family through seventy-one generations AUM...Who knows about it , is a VAISHNAV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kd gupta Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 The glory of AUM is illustrated in vedas. Also[ Deva mritupghanat ] shows the glory of aum. It is also said thru Brahmcharya [ achieving brahma ] is possible , the supreme pleasure . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 no amount of good suggestions can change the habits of centuries !! What do you mean by centuries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 kd gupta, The soul is made of brahman. The soul is eternal, all-cognizant, all-blissfull. The soul is indivisable & atomically very tiny. God-almighty is the present as the nucleus of each souls being, in every being [concsous or non-conscous]. God-almighty is his own transcendant person, far far away from the limits of MATERIAL TIME & SPACE yet expontially giantically larger than any thing that can be thought of. So, our short life-times, birth after birth, afford us repeated chances to come to "That which is absolute" ---regardless of the phantasmagoric occurances during each of our births throughout time. "The glory of AUM is illustrated in vedas" --- the name of the materially manifest cosmos is an 'echoic' (onomatopoeic) name of the person who first banged-the-gong. AUM is the sound of the cosmos humming. Brahma-ananda (blissfull feeling of being) is the soul's constitutional quality. This bliss is there from the start but is covered by all sorts of subtle ego stratums of mind-constructs that place interest in other mind-constructs as past-times during ones life span. That is why bliss is felt during meditation --training the soul to stop PAYING its attention (consciousness) to temporal material phenonena. A Vaishnava keeps their eye on a goal beyond these things Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kd gupta Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 I think , last time I wrote , the glory of word AUM is illustrated in vedas. I dont know , why it not appeared. Anyway... Can you pl. relate the word aum with vaishnav, or it can not be ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmHari Posted July 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Bhagavat Gita : 7.8 raso 'ham apsu kaunteya prabhasmi sasi-suryayoh pranavah sarva-vedesu sabdah khe paurusam nrsu O son of Kunti [Arjuna], I am the taste of water, the light of the sun and the moon, the syllable om in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether and ability in man. Bhagavat Gita : 9.17 pitaham asya jagato mata dhata pitamahah vedyam pavitram omkara rk sama yajur eva ca I am the father of this universe, the mother, the support, and the grandsire. I am the object of knowledge, the purifier and the syllable om. I am also the Rg, the Sama, and the Yajur [Vedas] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 this is a wonderfull song and very inspiring , but i have some practical confusions...... that should mean both material sufferings and spiritual sufferings , right ? both material and spiritual miseries i presume ? Hello Sambya. No.Not BOTH material and spiritual sufferings.ONLY material sufferings.There are no spiritual sufferings. I understand your doubt and i'll try my best to clarify it. When a beggar is suffering,both the rich,kind man(Say X) feels sad for him BUT X doesn't feel sad for a criminal who suffers in jail. Now we're talking about mahabhagavatas like Prahlad etc. here. So Mahabhagavatas feel sad even for the criminal.They see the Supreme Lord everywhere(paramhamsas) and even in the criminal.They KNOW, "Ah-this jeevatma is suffering due to illusion-he has forgotten the Lord.Just look how he is trying to find happiness in money and getting frustrated over and over.Only if somehow i could make him cleanse his heart then Shyamsundar will make him fully blissful like Himself." THIS is their line of thinking.They don't feel sad that a person has lost his house/car.They don't Sympathise becoz the car was a source of "happiness" for that man. They sympathise even with the rich man and ALSO with the poor man becoz house/car or not,BOTH are in misery. "not criticize anyone " ? many vaishnavas criticize everyone !! do they overlook the word 'anyone' ? anger towards other sampradayas is freely permissible ? clear my doubts This is not a taunt,just a way of making you understand, Mayavadi : Brahm has no form.All forms are of maya. Bhagavata in his mind,"Oh I have seen MYSELF the eternal,Blissful form of My shyamsundara and I SEE the eternal Vaikuntha ever fixed and yet this mayavadi is speaking like this.No doubt he speaks about the formless aspect of My Lord,but still this is not beneficial for the devotees.If i don't criticise him,they will be confused and UNDERMINE the form of Shyamsundar." So Bhagavata to mayavadi : You are a rascal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindustani Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Better let others remain un-understood if your way of teaching is like this ranjeet,here you are directly insulting Bhagvataji.Absolute rubbish line from you this is. This is not a taunt,just a way of making you understand,So Bhagavata to mayavadi : You are a rascal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 This is not a taunt,just a way of making you understand, Mayavadi : Brahm has no form.All forms are of maya. Bhagavata in his mind,"Oh I have seen MYSELF the eternal,Blissful form of My shyamsundara and I SEE the eternal Vaikuntha ever fixed and yet this mayavadi is speaking like this.No doubt he speaks about the formless aspect of My Lord,but still this is not beneficial for the devotees.If i don't criticise him,they will be confused and UNDERMINE the form of Shyamsundar." So Bhagavata to mayavadi : You are a rascal. This is not a taunt,just a way of making you understand, dvaitavadi: Brahm cannot be formless.All formless perceptions are inferior perceptions . advaitist in his mind,"Oh I have realized MYSELF the eternal and Blissful brahman and I FEEL the eternal brahmananda , and yet this dvaitavadi is speaking like this . No doubt he speaks about the saguna aspect of My Lord,but still this is not the highest perception .If i don't criticise him, general masses will be confused and UNDERMINE the importance of brahman. " So advaitist to dvaitavadi : You are a rascal..... does it sound good to you ?!! .............. i just used your example and logic !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 to ranjeet , so using the words 'rascal' and 'idiot' indiscriminately amounts to mere criticism ?!! i thought it was direct and uncivilized insult !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 to ranjeet , so using the words 'rascal' and 'idiot' indiscriminately amounts to mere criticism ?!! i thought it was direct and uncivilized insult !! It all depends on the user. If the GV Guru is calling someone a rascal, that is friendly, healthy, good-natured criticism. if anyone else else uses the term, it is an insult. As for myself, I am just happy that Ranjeet is back! As the number of his posts increase, a search on these forums for the word "rascal" will produce proportionally more results. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kd gupta Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Thank you Om hari for referring aum as said in gita , as I remember this word aum contains three letters described in yajurveda . I am surprised to note that the discussion is moving from the essence of vaishnav . As vaishnav has been derived from Vishnu in Vedas , therefore if we focus ourselves to the point that 5000yrs b.c.e.rishi muni have done the disclosure of such a divine literature , which contains the mantras and not the language , and going so fast in developing science, we are zero in spirituality . See what we have done till now , only translating the mantras in our words , challenging each others views . Does it shows our skill anyway …no. I dont know , how many of us have heard about Kailash mansarover , this is the place described in puranas as lord Shankar tapasthaly .I have seen in video…I can not describe , so beautiful is it. Similarly we have learnt much about parmatma described in different shashtras etc. But what is NEW done by us in this field , can anyone pl. tell ? I know that 99% are not able to visit kailash but are there not 1% who can put the real soul of Vedas before Hindu Vaishnav World . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindustani Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 I just can't stop laughing and this is perhaps the 1st time I really laughed seeing some lines in this spiritual forum!Well said Kaisersoseji As for myself, I am just happy that Ranjeet is back! As the number of his posts increase, a search on these forums for the word "rascal" will produce proportionally more results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kd gupta Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 World is full of professionals , they are sitting in safe places and befooling the common and poor man in the name of religion , taking the whole world to terrorism . What the intelligent people from all religions doing? Are they making good use of this internet forum technology or just making fun of each other ? Actually this is the topic to discuss and above all other topics we post . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 oh God... referencing Sambya's good mimicry of my hypothetical conversation between a bhagavata and a mayavadi... it is not the same... The bhagavata purana states that mayavadis offend the Supreme Lord by declaring Him to be Mayic. That's like saying Brahmadeva is a chandala. You expect bhagavatas not to criticise the mayavadis when they call Sat.Chit.Ananda. Sri Krsna/Sri Rama as sattvic ???? Sattva guna is worse than garbage in front of the nature of Bhagavan. You won't understand this.To you it's not important...You may be a great kali bhakta or whatever..but it doesn't help even one bit when you think that Bhagavan has a sattvic body...It's an offense...blasphemy... Like saying Jagadamba is like an ordinary woman of Mumbai...You just don't get it do you...?? If you say that Bhagavatas are wrong when they criticise the mayavadis,then so be it. at the end of the day,whatever you believe is JUST mayavada.. for you,sab chalta hai...mix everything and then just keep on speculating on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 why are you people so overexcited and 'outraged' when SP called the mayavadis(some of them insist they be called Narayana.Others just plainly denounce deity worship.He called SUCH people) rascals ??? Do you even know how it is ??? WHo are THESE mayavadis we talk about ??? Mayavadis CAn NEVER achieve Brahmananda if they even think that Sri KRsna is mayic..I challenge to your face. In the geeta,Sri Krsna states,"This is MY maya.No one can overcome her without My approval." So you ALL think you've got it all figured out...But,basically,you all reject Bhagavad Gita,thus rejecting Hinduism itself. And if you are so sure...get me one single mayavadi(who strongly declares that Bhagavan is mayic) and who is situated in Brahma samadhi. The truth is,a person who even thinks in the slightest that Bhagavan is sattvic,can NEVER EVEN achieve a slight advancement . Which are the advaitists you talk about who have gained jnana while fully maintaining that Sri Krsna had a material body ???? Produce just one name here...don't try to even think that you can get away with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 under the banner of hinduism,you are all spreading nonsense... for kali upasaka : How would it feel if I say the Mother of the Universe,Durga has a sattvic body.Oh,it will be maintained till long,but the body gets destroyed just like any other human body. How does it feel ??? It is downright insulting,isn't it ??? Now reconsider your position before even trying to analyse the behaviour of the Bhagavatas who are the personal associates of the Supreme Lord and who constantly see His infinitely Blissful Form. This is how it is..These are the implications of mayavada. As for the anger they display...it is related to Bhagavan..It's not that the mayavadi called the Bhagavata a cheat and that's why he got angry...No...They DESPISE personal honour...And as the Bhagavatam states,everything in relation to the Lord is beyond maya...so whatever emotions/leelas/desires these vaishnavas express on earth are free from the slightest scent of maya.. So if they show anger doesn't mean they are under maya.Maya runs away from them the moment they attain the vision of the Lord. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 oh God... referencing Sambya's good mimicry of my hypothetical conversation between a bhagavata and a mayavadi... it is not the same... i was just showing you the loopholes in your logic . grudges a bhagavata has towards an advaitist might as well be harboured by an advaitist towards a bhagavata . that doesnt give anyone the right to ninda and call rascal , not to any of the parties . The bhagavata purana states that mayavadis offend the Supreme Lord by declaring Him to be Mayic. That's like saying Brahmadeva is a chandala. see the supreme lord as per majority hindu scriptures is brahman . 'supreme lord' to a vaishnava is vishnu . but 'supreme lord' to an advaitist is nirguna brahman . he doesnt offend nirguna brahman . obviously after months of experiance in this forum you wouldnt proceed to debate on basis of a purana ? You won't understand this.To you it's not important...You may be a great kali bhakta or whatever..but it doesn't help even one bit when you think that Bhagavan has a sattvic body...It's an offense...blasphemy... oh of course it is important . my mother is sattvick as brahmani , rajasic as vaishnavi and tamasic as rudrani , trigunamayi as adishakti and tri-guna-tita as sodashi !! she is formless when she is brahman , energy when she is brahmashakti , with form when she is uma , the daughter of the himalayas ! in short she is all any more doubts ?!! Like saying Jagadamba is like an ordinary woman of Mumbai...You just don't get it do you...?? after all the descriptions that i have given of her , do you think that i veiw her that way ? by the way , i know what you think of her -- " forms of uma maheswar are horrendous and revolting " If you say that Bhagavatas are wrong when they criticise the mayavadis,then so be it. yes , i say so and very strongly . and numerous others also have been saying so for thousands of years . at the end of the day,whatever you believe is JUST mayavada.. whatever you believe is petty dvaitavada ( ha ha ha) falling short of reasons and trying to escape by sying this ?!! hi hi........ for you,sab chalta hai...mix everything and then just keep on speculating on it. wrong again .....ranjeet nahi chalta .....!! ho ho ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Not grudes, nor superiority complex does a vaishnava show themselves ---it is PARENTAIL INTERVENTION. We, vaishnavas MERCIFULLY despense chasticement to mayavadis . . . just as the Steward of the 'Conclusion-Verdict-Purpose-of-the-Vedas' [vedanta]. Rascal is one who shoild know better . . . but due to self-infactuating ego, or, youthfull indescretion, errs ---that is when a Vaishnava shines the light on your embrassment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 It's the "Conclusion of the Vedas" --- Krishnas tu bhagavan svayam ergo: a person; ergo, LOVE. Rascal, is a term of endearment. Krishna's rod-of-chastisement has been translated from the sanskrit as, mudha ---So, now you know the truth Sambya, we Vaishnavas have been most diplomatic along the way. Such is the sensation of "Tough Love" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) see the supreme lord as per majority hindu scriptures is brahman . 'supreme lord' to a vaishnava is vishnu . but 'supreme lord' to an advaitist is nirguna brahman . he doesnt offend nirguna brahman . MAybe yes.But, looks like you nevr heard of ramanujacahrya or if you heard why would you talk like that. What does Nirguna Brahman mean? Ramanuja argues vehemently against understanding Brahman as one without attributes. Brahman is Nirguna in the sense that impure qualities do not touch it. He provides three valid reasons for staking such a claim: Sruti/ Sabda Pramana: All sruti and sabda's denoting Brahman always list either attributes inherent to Brahman or not inherent to Brahman. The Sruti's only seek to deny Brahman from possessing impure and defective qualities which affect the world of beings. There is evidence in the Sruti's to this regard. The Sruti's proclaim Brahman to be beyond the tri-gunas which are observed. However, Brahman possess infinite number of transcendental attributes, the evidence of which is given in vakhyas like "satyam jnanam anantam Brahma" Pratyaksha Pramana: Ramanuja states that "a contentless cognition is impossible". And all cognition must necessarily involve knowing Brahman through the attributes of Brahman. Anumana Pramana: Ramanuja states that "Nirgunatva" itself becomes an attribute of Brahman on account of the uniqueness of no other entity being Nirguna. Why all other jagadguru\s except shanakracharya accept this. after all the descriptions that i have given of her , do you think that i veiw her that way ? by the way , i know what you think of her -- " forms of uma maheswar are horrendous and revolting " They are. do you doubt it. For destruction purposes they take such forms. Never heard of bhairav or veebhadra have you. whatever you believe is petty dvaitavada ( ha ha ha) falling short of reasons and trying to escape by sying this ?!! hi hi........ Achintya bheda bhada to be specific. Jai ram Edited July 31, 2009 by sant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 for kali upasaka : How would it feel if I say the Mother of the Universe,Durga has a sattvic body.Oh,it will be maintained till long,but the body gets destroyed just like any other human body. Durga in material world is different from durga from spiritual world. By the way durga does have a satvic body since for shakts everything is brahm and brahm is devi and maya is devi so maya is also brahm and also but jeev is brahm so is jeeva maya also? Then waht is prakriti or mula prakriti. Shaktism talks about prakriti as 5 fold-durga,saraswati,savitri,radha and laxmi. But it then says durga is mula prakriti. Can someone confirm which devi is brahm in shaktism . Is it the lady of universe in mani dvipa or durga on a lion or i dont know. Very confusing. Jai rama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 i was just showing you the loopholes in your logic . grudges a bhagavata has towards an advaitist might as well be harboured by an advaitist towards a bhagavata ...... tell me what grudges can a advaitist nurse ?? That his nirguna Brahm is getting offended by "Limiting Him to a Form" ??? Who is getting offended ??? His hands ?? His legs ??? His mind ??? Or his nose ??? Everything is BRahm,according to him.The words "Brahm has a form Strictly." is also Brahm.So where is the question of offense ??? that doesnt give anyone the right to ninda and call rascal , not to any of the parties . ..... I will chastise a person who thinks that the Lord has a material body as I'd do the same to a person who declares that Brahmadeva is a menial chandala. It's COMMON SENSE actually. You call a supremely pure Person as merely being equal to the lusty devas and you DESERVE chastisement. Is it clear ? see the supreme lord as per majority hindu scriptures is brahman . ..... Which scriptures,my dear ??? The vedas address the Supreme Person. Like sant rightly revealed and Ramanuja pointed out : "Satyam Gyanam Anantam Brahm." Brahm has infinite Paraphernalia.To think that Brahm is NOT A PERSON is plain short sightedness. Obviously,demons nowadays reject the vedas.So i can understand....But then again,which hindu scrptures are more accepted than the vedas? 'supreme lord' to a vaishnava is vishnu . but 'supreme lord' to an advaitist is nirguna brahman . he doesnt offend nirguna brahman . obviously after months of experiance in this forum you wouldnt proceed to debate on basis of a purana ?..... The Supreme Lord to advaitist is Nirguna Brahm ??? fine.But won't the realised jnani have FULL knowledge that the 'offending' bhagavata and himself are essentially the same ??? Where is the question of offense ???? oh of course it is important . my mother is sattvick as brahmani , rajasic as vaishnavi and tamasic as rudrani , trigunamayi as adishakti and tri-guna-tita as sodashi !! she is formless when she is brahman , energy when she is brahmashakti , with form when she is uma , the daughter of the himalayas ! in short she is all any more doubts ?!!..... The Mother of the Universe,is tamasic as Rudrani ???? How sweet.Equating Her to demons,now,are you ?? Ignorant people believe that Lord Shiva,being in charge of destruction,is "bewildered" by Tamas guna and is thus situated in it. Even you seem to feel somewhat similar. Great. after all the descriptions that i have given of her , do you think that i veiw her that way ? by the way , i know what you think of her -- " forms of uma maheswar are horrendous and revolting "..... You call her nothing short of a demoness by saying she is tamasic. yes , i say so and very strongly . and numerous others also have been saying so for thousands of years . ..... for eg ????? whatever you believe is petty dvaitavada ( ha ha ha) falling short of reasons and trying to escape by sying this ?!! hi hi............. I strongly believe in Acintya Bheda abheda which resolves all the doctrines and which is self sufficient and supremely independent. It is the ocean where all the doctrines approach and empty themselves. wrong again .....ranjeet nahi chalta .....!! ho ho ..... whatever that means. 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.