Shiva - Swaminarayan - Jesus

[Guest guest]

An ant, a tree, a drop of water, a stray cat, or even the wind... who are you to say which is God and which is not? You read a book and believe all is said and done in this one book lol You say that Krishna is the only God worthy of following...this is pure ignorance. I say to you, Krishna is just a name. Names are symbols which do not give direct knowing. If they did, then you would know your so-called Krishna just by knowing his name, and well, based on the words you speak, it is obvious to me that you do not. Your argue for your Krishna like a lawyer argues for his client in court lol your argument is meaningless. God has many forms and works in many ways through many different means unknown to you. Follow your own path and let others follow theirs.

 

[Guest guest]

Please come out of your gross ignorance. If you want to worship a stray cat than go ahead, yes he is in God and God is in the cat but that the not make the cat God. We, unlike foolish swaminarayan followers go by bonafide scriptures and bonafide guru's that can be traced back to Krishna Himself. Everything is presented AS IT IS, not as you want it to be. Obviously you don't believe in the scriptures and you culture does not even follow the Vedic Literature, nor does it follow Swaminarayan,who worshipped Krishna. Krishna is not 'just' a name, like your foolish statement is trying to establish, nor is a symbol. He CAN be known just by uttering His name, it does not matter if the people here haven't done so yet. Krishna's name is nondifferent from Himself, He can use His senses in whatever way He likes. But you wouldn't know that because you follow some concocted religious path, not a bonafide path. Everything is in Krishna and Krishna is in everything and based on your foolish ideas everything is worshipable as God, so go ahead and worship the man in the slaughterhouse, or the ant on the ground. It is all very excellent if you can see God in these entities, that is very advanced, but don't be surprised if people consider you a huge fool if you worship these entities as the Supreme personality of Godhead Himself. We know they are just part and parcels of Him, but not God Himself personally,because they are not mentioned by the scriptures, which were penned down by an incarnation of God Himself. So please come out of your ignorance and understand the reality of things. Who is such a fool that he will water the leaves of a plant instead of it's roots?

 

p.s.: you boldly state to follow your own path and let other follow theirs, but who was it that came to this Hare Krishna forum to spread mentally concocted nonsense about some other path? right, so follow your own path and keep the nonsense out of our forum.

[Guest guest]

Plus it is further proof of ignorance that you look to the 'stray cat' to find God. Could He manifest Himself in a stray cat? Of course He could, the Lord can do as He pleases as He's all powerful, all encompassing and omnipotent. However,since here we have been revealed the shown and proven personality of Godhead(or simply the Supreme,God),from the oldest revealed scriptures,the Vedas, and recognized by authorized spiritual leaders, and the name Krishna revealed as the all attractive one,fully explained,recognized an worshiped in the Vedic literature, we shall not look in the drop of water or the stray cat for God as that would be utterly foolish. So why don't you accept Him?

But you say: "no, I shall look for God in a drop of water or a stray cat", while He is right there presented on a nice silver plate to you! The table is set for you but you refuse to join at the table, like a small child. No,you insist on searching for the Lord everywhere BUT where He's been fully revealed,taking some Vedic derivative instead of dealing with the source of Vedic literature, namely Vishnu, Krishna. So unless you come to your senses and recognize the shown and proven Lord please stop bothering us, this is my request.

 

Hare Krishna

[Guest guest]

Wow I just googled this site.

 

I wouldn’t consider myself religious like you guys, some of the words I didn’t even understand so had to google them too.

 

I don’t know much hindi or gujrati, English being my only language, which I admit is a great weakness, makes me kind of blind when it comes to the teachings of god. I know this will open me up to criticism, those who think how can someone who hasn’t read any religious books make an opinion. I wasn’t going to write on this forum, but this subject has un-eased me.

 

Hard for me to grasp that you guys have actually read religious books and hopefully gained some valuable insight, but saddened you also use the knowledge gained to enter in a discussion to prove who is the supreme lord.

 

I was raised to respect all gods, I bow before all gods, and never to enter the discussion to prove which god is the supreme of them all, and those who try, not only insult their own god, but their own beliefs.

 

How can you people start quoting religious scripts, are all of you gurus? Or has your guru made a statements attacking another religious following?

 

The day I hear a guru, especially a Hindy Guru, be little another god or religion and the contents in the religious book to say your god worshiped my god so your god is not supreme is the day that I would call prime minister of UK, Tony Blair the supreme lord. But obviously I can’t. (Don’t have his email address)

 

Some comments by people are really worrying especially when these people are fellow Hindus.

 

Does it really matter to you to prove who is the supreme Lord?

 

I am thinking it does to some, cause you want to tell the world that your apart of the following who worships the one and only true supreme lord, this way you will get some pride!!!!!

 

Lord Krishna, Lord Swaminarayan and many other Hindu gods have a vast amount of followers, to each there lord is supreme, which is the way it should be, one who thinks his lord is supreme must be a true devotee but as Hindus we should not make it upon ourselves to find a supreme Lord to be little all other gods and faiths.

 

I am sorry if I have offended anyone. But the fact is, knowing or not knowing some of you have offended me. I personally think the person who has started this subject obviously had doubts on his faith, and if I was him/her I would ask for forgiveness.

 

[imported_yasodanandana]

I was raised to respect all gods, I bow before all gods

--so let us discriminate who's god and who's not god

[Guest guest]

Do you think you are in any position to discriminate whos God and whos not? and if at the end of the day u prove whos god whos not do you actually achieve anything apart from destroying peoples believes?

 

 

[harikrishna1]

shri swaminarayan bhagwan is a reincarnation of lord shri krishna at his own free will.

 

it does not mean that because there is nothing in the scriptures about lord shri swaminarayan that he is not god

 

lord krishna has himself said that

"whenever and whereever there is a decline in religious practice and wicked actions predominate, i descend myself and assume a form"

 

and also

 

"in order to protect the saints and to destroy and annihilate the devils and to establish the principles of religion, i advent myself and come into concrete existence from time to time"

 

therefore there is no difference between ram, krishna, and swaminarayan as they are all one supreme being

[Guest guest]

you can identify god by couple of ways

 

1 if you look under the feet you will see unique marks that you will never see on anybody known as charnavind

 

2 if you put a divo behind god you willsee that divo through him

 

3 his arms are longer-down to the knees

 

the first two are the main ways of identifying god

 

also lord swaminarayan was able to put people into trance- no body can do this unless he was god

how do i know this?

well he was physically on earth 200 years ago

[Guest guest]

I read through the Swaminarayan philosophy. I could not understand one thing. If someoone could through some light on that, I would be greatful.

 

I believe (let me know if I am wrong) as per Swaminarayan philosophy, Lord Swaminarayan is the Parabrahman. The aim of every jiva is to be Brahmaroop, and identify oneself with Brahman and offer devotion to Parabrahman. I read on one of your scripture, that in the final emancipation, brahman dissolves into Parabrahman. In that state, what is the identity of the brahmaroop realized soul.

 

If what I have read is incorrect (meaning brahman dissolving into parabrahman), is brahman always at the mercy of parabrahman, and even in a pralaya the state of brahman is maintained.

 

[Guest guest]

Can U tell us, which scripture is Shree Krishna and Vyas Bhagwan are predicted.

[Guest guest]

Not only 500 Paramhansas, 2 million people beleived him as god when he was present on Earth and they used to do his pooja as well. Many used to believe him as Krishna Bhagwan and many used to believe him as the Avatari of all the Avatars. He is the Avatari because the things which he did was not done by any of the Avatars. First of all the Samadhi, Who ever used to see him or hear the voice of his shoes they used to go into Samadhi. In Samadhi many of them had darshan of Lord Swaminarayan in Akshardhaam and all the incarnations coming out of him and merging back into him but he never merged into any of the avatars.No avatars previously had done such a thing because to attain samadhi you have attain Ashtang yoga but all the poor or rich who ever had his Darshan attained Samadhi and had the darshan of their respective Ishtadevs and finnally of Lord Swaminarayan.

 

No other avatars had installed their Idols during their presence on Earth But Lord Swaminarayan had built 6 Mandirs and in the Vadtal mandir he had installed his own idol. Other thing he did was on the 13th Day of him become the guru at the age of 21yrs, he asked the saints to start doing the Bhajan of Swaminarayan.All the Saints believed in Radha Krishna and they used to do their Bhajan, all saints wre 20-25yrs elder to Sahajanand Swami but still they accepted him as God and started doing the Bhajan of Swaminarayan. Swaminarayan Bhagwaan had no intention killing any Physical asuras or demons like the other avatars. His Intention was to make all the souls free from their "karan" body, remove their Ignorance of Iness, make them Brahmroop and finally take them to Akshardhaam Which is above maya.He didnt kill any Asuras but he killed the qualities due to which the Asuras are Born. Ravana though he was a Brahman and a devotee of Shiva, controller of many lokas still could not Identify Ram Bhagwan , his ahamkar and his Lust made him a Demon and he died. But Swaminarayan killed all the demons so called Lust Anger,Lobh etc...and made them pure.

 

He is present even today on this earth through his Ideal Devotee Akshar Brahm on this earth. That Akshar Brahm is H.D.H Pramukh Swami Maharaj. Doing the puja of such a saint is equivalent to doing puja of God himself, having Darshan of Saint equivalent to having the Darshan of god. Lord Swaminarayan in Vachanamrut Gadhada I-27 has told the qualities of Saint through god is present and thge power of sucha saint.

 

Pramukh Swami is not god but God resides in him 100% as he resides in the Marbel Idols in Mandir. When we have darshan we dont see the deities as stone, we believe them to be god himself. Similarly Pramukh Swami Maharaj is the Idol in which god can reside.

 

Believe it or not every thing written is 100 % truth from the Jeevan Charita of Lord Swaminarayan and Vachanamrut. not critisising any one but i have written everything for ones understanding about Swaminarayan Sampraday(BAPS).

 

Jai Swaminarayan

[Guest guest]

"Lord Krishna, Lord Swaminarayan and many other Hindu gods have a vast amount of followers, to each there lord is supreme, which is the way it should be, one who thinks his lord is supreme must be a true devotee but as Hindus we should not make it upon ourselves to find a supreme Lord to be little all other gods and faiths."

 

Having loads of followers doesnt make someone god, and the intelligent have to discrimainate who is god, the foolish just follow the crowd we have around 300 people in india claiming they are god some with followerws of 20 million. Doesnt prove anything.

 

""After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare. Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures. I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship some demigod,I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to that particular deity. "

 

Quote

"Names are symbols which do not give direct knowing. If they did, then you would know your so-called Krishna just by knowing his name, and well, based on the words you speak,"

 

We'll thank you for your speculation, however the scriptures say that the name and the lord are non-different, past acaryas have claimed to of experienced that everything is in the holy name, we are therefore testing this claim by following a process and not judjing it dogmatically before we have even tried it.

 

Quote

"I am thinking it does to some, cause you want to tell the world that your apart of the following who worships the one and only true supreme lord, this way you will get some pride!!!!!"

 

Krishna in the gita says that one who spreads my glories is dear to him, this means convincing people that krishna is not just a god that you can pick and mix out of a bag, but understand his claim and prove him through logic.

 

Ramunujaacrya, madhvaacrya, valaabhacarya, mahaprabhu, all engaged in debate about the supreme these are the greatest saints india has had, there is nothing wrong anywhere in our scriptures with deabte and discriminatioon that is a symptomof intelligence not sentimentalism.

 

quote

"you can identify god by couple of ways

 

1 if you look under the feet you will see unique marks that you will never see on anybody known as charnavind

 

2 if you put a divo behind god you willsee that divo through him

 

3 his arms are longer-down to the knees"

 

1, and 3 are a way of recognising god dont know what u mean by 2.

 

quote

"the first two are the main ways of identifying god

 

also lord swaminarayan was able to put people into trance- no body can do this unless he was god

how do i know this?

well he was physically on earth 200 years ago "

 

So what if he was here 200 years ago you wernt there, the prime method to know who go is in the age of kali when people are so polluted and dgraded it through the eyes of scripture, predictions of kaliyuga are in the srimad bhagavatam, it says in the age of kali many will deviate religion by claiming to be god therefore he mentions his incarnations in sastra so no foolish sentimental people can claim by making up stories true or not that someone is god.

 

quote

"Can U tell us, which scripture is Shree Krishna and Vyas Bhagwan are predicted. "

 

Vyas wrote the scriptures according to the vedas themselves, and as for prediction krishna has entire puranas dedicated to him as well as in the sruti scriptures.

Chaitanya mahaprabhu is also mentioned in many places like vishnu sasrnama where he is described as golden and as a householde who takes sanyas, theres a link to all his predictions somewhere is you do a goggle search.

 

"Not only 500 Paramhansas, 2 million people beleived him as god when he was present on Earth and they used to do his pooja as well. Many used to believe him as Krishna Bhagwan and many used to believe him as the Avatari of all the Avatars. "

 

This doesnt mean a thing there are current so called gods with more followers.

 

quote

"Who ever used to see him or hear the voice of his shoes they used to go into Samadhi. In Samadhi many of them had darshan of Lord Swaminarayan in Akshardhaam and all the incarnations coming out of him and merging back into him but he never merged into any of the avatars.No avatars previously had done such a thing because to attain samadhi you have attain Ashtang yoga but all the poor or rich who ever had his Darshan attained Samadhi and had the darshan of their respective Ishtadevs and finnally of Lord Swaminarayan. "

 

More unverifiable proof, the proof is sastra in this age of kali, not claims by so many cult figure followers.

 

There are also many siddhi where one can control the mind of others aswell as tantra not that im suggesting he did, and its not true that no other incarnation has done this, chaitanya mahaprabhu sent thousands in to tears of love of god when he performed the yuga dharma of harinam sankirtan, he also showed the universal form and other incarnations. He also left verifiable evidence of miracles like where he went in to ecstasy in orissa near jagantha puri when he payed his obeisiences at alarnath temple his body melted the stone and made an imprint on the ground, this can still be seen today which ive seen. This temple isnt a iskcon/gaudiya chaitanya mahaprabu temple. Another example is the priests at the famous jagantha puri temple will show you the place just behind jagantha where mahaprabhu went in to ecstasy and his hand melted the stone column the hand print is till seen today. Again another unbiased verification of mahaprabhus divinity, he gave us the yuga dharma which is chanting the mahamantra.

Again these are just verifiable evidence, the prime proof for us in this chaotic age of kali is sastra as in this age very few are pure and not prone to illusion and mistakes.

 

I hope this helps us understand how we should not be so sentimental and go through the process which the unlimited has given us through sastra to understand who god is and the dharma for this age, in gaurada, bhavishya, bhagvata, vishnua purana, all the puranas in the mode of goodness clearly and undispituably over and over again say that in this age of kali there is no other way for ultimate salvation other than chanting the names of krishna. If we have reason to disagree with this then the reason better be good.

[Guest guest]

Forget all scriptures. Can anyone prove his god to be greatest purely by reason. You wont be able to, because no one has seen Krishna Bhagwan or Swaminarayan Bhagwan. We depend upon what we have heard or read. Again what is read, has different interpretations, for e.g. the Gita. Sankara gave his commentary, Ramanuja gave his commentary and many others. People who follow Sankaracarya believe that his commentary is most accurate, similarly Ramanaju followers would support Ramanuja and so on. Can any philosphy stand on pure reason. A very dear question, each one of us should try to answer. Thinking that your god is supreme is a noble thought indeed. But belittling someone else's faith is bad. Also trying to prove someone else's faith as wrong is a display of our own weak faith, because we feel itchy about why the other person is not following my god: is there another god greater than mine. True devotees would never try to prove supremacy of their god over others, all they would say is that for me Swaminarayan is supreme or Krisha Bhagwan is supreme. Mere arguments would not help anybody in spiritual progress. Instead we should discuss as to how, we should intensive our Sadhana to reach our intended goal.

[imported_yasodanandana]

we'll be sure who is God only when we'll see him.. and using scriptures, realization and logic is the way to show to God that we want to see Him revealed to our eyes..

 

so your idea about scriptures ad useless to know the asolute reality lead us nowhere and make us remain in the wheel of births and deaths

 

fanatism is irrational and negative ... your idea can be another form of fanatism

[Guest guest]

I agree my idea can be another form of fanatism. But scriptures can also be misleading. For e.g. if you read Sankara's commentary on Brahma Sutra it will reveal a different meaning. If you read Ramanuja's commentary, it will reveal something else. So who is right ?

 

Dont forget that all these people were realized souls and all were right from their own standpoint. God is infinite, he is purna (refer Isa Vasya Upanishad). His different qualities are seen by different aspirants which they note down in the scriptures. For e.g. Upanishads are a result of the direct experiences of the towering sages of wisdom like Yagnavalkya, Mundaka etc. Important thing to remember here is that scriptures are a result of knowledge. Can knowledge be extracted back from the scriptures is a point to consider. You cannot deny the fact that none other than Bhagwan Shree krishna knows the real meaning of the Gita. And when the truth is written down in words, there itself it gets diluted, because truth is experienced in consciousness and it cannot be expressed.

 

Here I am not giving any idea as to what we are supposed to do. The proport of my writing is only that there is no use fighting about which god is greatest. It leads nowhere. Whatever you follow, follow with extreme sincerely, and you will definitely achieve what you are longing for. If you ask me then I would say,

Krishna Bhagwan of the Vaishnavs = Shiv Bhagwan of Tantra = Swaminarayan of Swaminarayan Bhaktas = Kali of the Shaktas = Satchitananda Brahman of the Vedantists. But again this is jut my opinion, and you may not accept this. But whatever you believe, its better to follow that rather than thinking what the other is believing is wrong.

 

Let me know, what you think.

[imported_yasodanandana]

you have not to only to read shankara acharya or ramanuja or chaitanya mahaprabhu.. you have to take some risk, choose carefully a path and follow it sincerely

 

religion is only in a little part a culture... religion is mostly practice and life

 

practicing religion our intelligence increases and well'understand things that now we see as strange, contraddictory or mythologic

[Guest guest]

Advaitain I think the below may be useful for understanding philosphys, and the vaishnava view point.

 

In Srila Prabhupada's purports, a few times he has commented upon the Mayavadi, or Impersonalists, in a way that to me sometimes seems very disparaging.

 

It¹s important to understand this within the context of Indian religious history, and not within the context of Western religious history. Here¹s the difference.

 

In India, we don¹t find a long history of bloody wars fought over religion. Indian religion has always tended to be inclusivistic, rather than exclusivistic. Thus the different ³religions² in Hindu culture tended to accept each other as valid but to view other schools as subordinate or preliminary to their own view.

 

Following this tradition, Srila Prabhupada often states that the impersonalists are ³bona fide transcendentalists² but that their impersonal understanding is subordinate or preliminary to Vaishnavism.

 

This is quite distinct from, say, declaring that impersonalism is simply false and evil. Robust theological debate flourished in India within a safe, multi-religious environment in which debate was not a precursor to war.

 

All this stands in marked contrast to the bloody fanaticism which often typified the European and Middle Eastern approach to religion. The early Chrisitian church developed the notion of ³true² and ³false² religions, ³living² and ³dead² gods etc. In time, this strident, fanatical view led to crusades, inquisitions, religious wars etc. This type of thinking, and the violence it fostered, never became prominent in India.

 

Today, much of the liberal, eclectic, ³all paths are the same² ethos in the West is a direct reaction to centuries of European and Middle Eastern fanaticism. Thus as in Newtonian physics, we have here an equal and opposite reaction which is far more tolerant, but equally fanatical in its own way.

 

In general, liberal thinkers in the West do not reason their way to the conclusion that all paths are equally valid. Rather they tend to hold their view more as an ethical principle than a philosophical conclusion, more as an antidote to fanaticism than a serious, logical description of ultimate reality. Coming from a tolerant, inclusivistic culture, Prabhupada does not feel the need to emphasize the relativity of spiritual views, but rather rigorously seeks the logical truth about God.

 

 

I understand the basics of the Impersonalist beliefs, and I know how Vaishnavism and Krishna consciousness are different from them. I, personally, prefer Vaishnava beliefs and bhakti yoga to worshiping a formless God. But I'm unsettled by anything that seems to be a value judgment against another religion.

 

A preference IS a value judgment. The problem here, apparently, is not making a value judgment but rather making it publicly. It is fair to say that both the personal and the impersonal aspects of God exist simultaneously. However it is not fair, or logical, to say that both the personal and the impersonal aspects of God are supreme simultaneously.

 

A soul who sincerely, earnestly seeks the highest truth has a ³right² to know what that ultimate truth is. If I actually know that God is ultimately a person, and I don¹t publicly say it, then I am consciously misleading or deceiving those persons who sincerely and unconditionally seek the highest truth.

 

 

If I prefer bhakti yoga and being lovingly devoted to Krishna but an Impersonalist prefers something different, then what's wrong with that?

 

It is not ³wrong², in a mundane moral sense to prefer the impersonal. In a sense every soul prefers whatever seems best to that soul. Prabhupada never teaches that impersonalists are evil souls, however he does give deep insights into metaphysical psychology.

 

If there is a personal God, and I am duly informed of this fact, and I choose to reject that personal God, it is not then ³wrong² for an enlightened spiritual teacher to analyze my motives in making that decision. After all, if there is a unique value in knowing

God¹s ultimate nature, then there must, logically, be a loss of value in not knowing that fact.

 

To avoid that monumental loss, Prabhupada, who actually has the ultimate good of all souls at heart, speaks the truth. We cannot a priori reject his words simply because he does not relativize all spiritual claims. After all, to relativize all spiritual claims is to negate all of them. Consider the following:

 

The personalists claim God is ultimately a person. The impersonalists claim the opposite. Now if you claim that personalism and impersonalism are the same, you are actually disagreeing with, and rejecting, the claims of both personalists and impersonalists.

 

So metaphysical egalitarianism is only apparently liberal and tolerant. Actually it resembles fanatical Christianity in that it ultimately rejects the claims of virtually all

historical religions through the act of relativizing and equating them.

 

 

I consider all these other approaches as very valid ways to understand God. I am attracted to Krishna very much now, and I am a very enthusiastic student of Krishna consciousness, and I think that approach is best for me, as it is for all the other Vaishnavas I know. But I don't think I can say what's best for anyone else. My nonjudgmental approach, I believe, helps me to be more skilled and compassionate in the psychotherapy I do with others. I hope to maintain that perspective.

 

As explained above, different paths make different claims. Many of these claims are valid, however validity and equality are very different concepts and should not be confused.

 

Krishna states in the Gita that He is the source of everything. This claim, logically, is either true or false. If it is true, then other valid views must be understood within the context of Krishna¹s statement. If Krishna¹s claim is not true, then even if we politely say that Krishna¹s claim is valid, it is still not true.

 

Similarly some Buddhists deny the existence of God. If their claim is true, Krishna¹s claim is false. If Krishna¹s claim is true, their claim is false. If we say both claims are true, we deny both paths, since both traditions reject the notion that both claims are true.

 

Buddhism certainly teaches much that is true in regard to human psychology and the temporary nature of the world. However the validity of this teaching does not validate the claim made by some historical forms of Buddhism that God and the soul do not exist.

 

The simple point here is that we should avoid both fanatical exclusivism as well as fanatical inclusivism. We should recognize the wisdom and validity present in many of the world¹s traditions, but at the same time we should have the courage and wisdom to seek, and speak, the highest truth without compromise.

 

With best wishes,

Hridayananda das Goswami

[Guest guest]

I do not completely agree with this argument that both the personal and impersonal aspect of God can exist simultaneously, but both cannot be supreme simultaneously. Vaishnavism claims that personal God is supreme and the impersonalists claim that nirgun brahman is supreme. If every soul has the right to chose whichever path he thinks is right, then who really has the authority to claim which path is supreme. Words can be interpreted anyways and the right interpretation is always a matter of debate. When Krishna says that he is the source of everything, one can always argue that he is referring to the impersonal self and not his personal aspect. Its at a certain level of one's own consciousness, that one comprehends reality.

 

Before we make any judgement about Krishna's words or Buddha's words, its necessary that we ourselves take a stand. Because unless our own stand is not clear our interpretation would hold no meaning, because if the perceiver himself is in a muddled condition, then what he perceives holds no value. If we take a stand of a bound soul with all the upadhi's covered by the cloud of ignorance, we donot hold the right to make any judgement, because our judgement would be through that cloud of ignorance. If we take a stand of Brahmajnani, then there is no need to ask any questions, because asking questions would defy your stand. Hence Krishna's words "I am the source of everything" and Buddha's words "There is no God or a soul" can still be simultaneously true. Its mentioned in the scripures that existence of God, soul, world are all Atiprashna's and cannot be answered in the relative. In the absolute all these questions dissolve and the need to ask these questions never arises.

 

Speaking the highest truth is again subjective and it may not apply to everyone around. For what you consider as the highest truth, may not be considered by someone else as the highest truth. For e.g. I read in some scriptures in Swaminarayan Sampradaya that Guru of Sahajananda Swami was Ramananda Swami who was given the vision of Nirguna Brahman by his Guru who was Atmananda Swami. Atmananda Swami declared this as the ultimate truth. But Ramananda Swami was not satisfied with this and wanted the vision of Sagun Brahman (God with Form) which he considered as the ultimate truth. Atmamanda Swami experienced bliss in Nirguana Brahman and Ramananda Swami experienced bliss in Saguna Brahman. Point here I am trying to make is that ultimate truth cannot be brought into words and its a matter of one's own experience. God is infinite and limiting his certain aspect superior to another is a matter of debate.

 

[Guest guest]

"When Krishna says that he is the source of everything, one can always argue that he is referring to the impersonal self and not his personal aspect."

 

Krishna says He is the source of everything, so where is the possibility of an argument there? He says HE, the person Krishna, is the source of everything. He does not say, My impersonal feature is the source of everything.

Words can be interpreted yes, but they should not be interpreted, that's the whole point of presenting this material as it is. So since we take it as it is there can not be any argument. Every soul has the right to chose his path, but that doesn't mean one path cannot be supreme. Clearly it is stated by God that the path of bhakti yoga is supreme, so how do you render devotional service to an impersonal feature, this glaring effulgence of the Lord? In impersonalism there can be no question of devotional service because you need to have an aim for your bhakti first. The lightsource is always supreme to the light itself, but without the lightsource there cannot be any light. Thus the light(impersonal aspect) is inferior to the lightsource(personal aspect). The impersonalist claims are easily refuted by the intelligent swami's.

[imported_yasodanandana]

"I do not completely agree with this argument that both the personal and impersonal aspect of God can exist simultaneously, but both cannot be supreme simultaneously"

 

why not? god is not subjected to dualist human logic

 

"God is infinite and limiting his certain aspect superior to another is a matter of debate."

 

god is all .. inside the "all" there's supremacy too

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"If every soul has the right to chose whichever path he thinks is right, then who really has the authority to claim which path is supreme. "

 

That means you reject the claims of the personalist and impersonalists, and instead have your own theory that everything is relative to the perciever.

 

"Words can be interpreted anyways and the right interpretation is always a matter of debate. "

 

Well firstly krishna spoke the gita with the intention to get a particular "interpretation" across to arjuna, and arjuna understood it in that way.

 

Krishna in the gita also explains how the gita and krishna can be understood he doent leave it to "debate".

 

 

Chapter 18, Shloks (verses) 65-66 He says, "Let your mind be constantly directed towards me; be devoted to me; dedicate all your actions to me; prostrate yourself before me; over and above the claims of all Dharmas (duties) is complete surrender to me and me alone".

 

Chapter 11, Verse 53.

The form which you are seeing with your transcendental eyes cannot be understood simply by studying the Vedas, nor by undergoing serious penances, nor by charity, nor by worship. It is not by these means that one can see Me as I am.

 

 

Chapter 11, Verse 54.

My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding.

 

Chapter 11, Verse 55.

My dear Arjuna, one who is engaged in My pure devotional service, free from the contaminations of previous activities and from mental speculation, who is friendly to every living entity, certainly comes to Me.

 

He categorically krishna states only by bhakti that one can come to know him in truth. He says he has to be free of mental speculation ("debate"), he is god and he has told us how to attain him.

 

He also gives the qualifications of reading gita and whom one should aquire this knowledge from.

 

People may want to give the gita a relative interpretation to the gita but the slokas krishna speaks is certainly not relative. krishna says in the gita foolish people devoid of knowledge do not want to surrender so go on speculating.

 

In Chapter 18, Shlok 67 Krishna says, "This confidential knowledge may not be explained to those who are not austere, or devoted, or engaged in devotional service, nor to one who is envious of Me. "

 

So form the onset krishna disqualifies those with out any bhakti from even reading the gita, how many possible ways can you word jugglery this? Those with out bhakti can never understand the gita with all their debating if as krishna says you dont have bhakti. He is the reciteir of the gita he knows best how one should recieve it.

 

In chapter 12 he talks about the qualities of a devotee so as to be sure what a devotee is and not word juggle krishnas words to mean something else.

 

There are many more clear verses of how the gita should be understood and from whom it should be understood.

 

Now either krishna is a liar or you know better what he ment than the clear statements he has made. The gita does not make relative debatable statements he says one should approach a guru in parampara and do devotional service unto him, he should have bhakti the diciple should be a devotee and surrendered without being engaged in mental speculation nor fruitive works and only in this way one can know krishna in truth. He then gives many ways for someone in the mental specualtion stage or fruitive work stage yogas to attain bhakti. However krishna makes it clear that the preliminary qualification to understand gita is devotion, he says to arjuna because your are my friend and devotee i am revealing this knowledge to you.

 

Anyway there is a whole book on this which makes it clear mental speculation disqualifies you from understanding the gita.

 

[Guest guest]

Krishna does prescribe other methods to seek him. e.g. Jnana Yoga, Karma Yoga and Jnana Yog. Bhakti is the ultimate means for realization, because ultimately Bhakti will take you to the inner quarters of your heart. As it is said that mind creates the abyss and heart crosses it. But Bhakti according to advaitins is Swarupa Chintan. Meditation on the self (Atman which is equivalent to Brahman) To quote some upanishadic versus, you might be quite aware of versus like

Aham Brahmasmi

Tat Tvam Asi

Ayam Atma Brahma

Prajnanam Brahma

These are the mavavakyas in the upanishads. Nature of Brahman is consciousness, and consciousness does not have a form. Impersonalists are not averse to Bhakti. Infact Sankara has translated the Gita and has also written scriptures like Bhaja Govindam. You can know more about the impersonalist view at

http://www.haryana-online.com/History/advaita.htm

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"But Bhakti according to advaitins is Swarupa Chintan. Meditation on the self (Atman which is equivalent to Brahman) "

 

I think thats where we differ, krishna says clearly think of me meditate on me whatever you do think of me.

 

Im also aware of the brahman verses, even in the gita krishna declares all to be brahman but he also talks about gradations of brahman, his inferior material energy his higher spirtual energy, brahman and parbramhan, (the souls which fall into illusion and the supreme who is acyuta) etc.

 

We accept the the oneness and difference as similatously exsiting as described in the gita.

 

This is turning into an impersonal/personal discussion, my original point of sending out that article was to establish that there are differences in philosophies and we are not going to relavtise it by saying that everything is correct, as some schools of thought believe. This is not our philosophy and thus do not agree with it as explained.

[Guest guest]

Jai Swaminarayan- Jai shir Krishna - god bless you

 

I am Swaminarayan

 

"Haribol"

I gues all that who are talking on this web site, are HINDU?

and i guess Vaishanaves

 

why have followed the path of jessus and Kurane, than if you do nto follow one your are not goin to attain mukti?

 

Like some telling "fool bilive in krishan or other wise your will go to hell"

That is not what HINDUISUM teaches, at all

 

AS Pramukswami Maharaj has said to POPE Late JHON PAUL II

when he meet Him, it was Mahatma Ghadhiji's statment

 

that " All Rives meet the SEA, but follow a different path"

 

and I belive that

 

if you Bilive in Krishna belive Him as the suprime,

if you belive in Jessue belive Him as the suprime,

and If you belive in Swaminarayan belive him as suprim,

 

then why is this question, and that also on this website, you have he picture of she maprbhu, on top, so pls conot condempt any one on this site, use to improve you understing,

 

This is what all the Mahan Saint did

 

Do nto condem any one,

 

 

and one more thing

for "Haribol"

 

your will bear the sing of all those who are effiected by this,

 

[imported_yasodanandana]

I gues all that who are talking on this web site, are HINDU?

••no.. i am a(n aspiring) gaudya vaishnava... an hare krishna. Not a hindu, (What's hinduism?)

 

All Rives meet the SEA, but follow a different path

••not everything that is definited by the followers a spiritual path, is really a spiritual path

 

you do not convince us to be not precise,krsna says "surrender to me.." not "surrender to anyone who says to be god"