Pankaja_Dasa Posted February 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.28 ete camsa-kalah pumsah krishnas tu bhagavan svayam indrari-vyakulam lokam mridayanti yuge yuge SYNONYMS ete -- all these ; ca -- and; amsa -- plenary portions; kalah -- portions of the plenary portions; pumsah -- of the Supreme; krishnah -- Lord Krishna; tu -- <font color="red"> but </font color> ; bhagavan -- the Personality of Godhead; svayam -- in person; indra-ari -- the enemies of Indra; vyakulam -- disturbed; lokam -- all the planets; mridayanti -- gives protection; yuge yuge -- in different ages. TRANSLATION All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Sri Krishna is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to protect the theists. www.vedabase.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Dear Tseug Namaskaram "there's no word hindu in vedic scriptures.. " So what ? There is no mention of Lord Krsna in the Vedas either. Hindu is a term of referenence, why are you getting it confused with the vedas, which refers to hymns and philosophical investigation into the nature of the Supreme Reality ? "so you are bringing out a new, not authoritative, non traditional thing, not mine.." Are you accusing me of coining a "new" term called Hindu ? I have pointed out - You cannot speak for all Vaishanva sects, namely Sri Vaisnavas (Visistadvaitins) and Madvas (Dvaitins). So I referred you to a link to highlight a Visistadvaita (Sri Vaishanavas) perspective on the definition of Hindu. You commented "i said that this is a not valid definition because among the hindus these books are interpreted in at least three opposite ways.." Who cares for your validation, the paper has the endorsement of various Hindu sects, just check below.... http://chakra.org/discussions/ODiscJan19_05.html "ask to 100 muslims "who's god" and you'll have one answer ask to 100 hindus "who's god" and you'll have many different answers, maybe opposite" Why are you trying to impose your Judeo-Christian anthropomorphic monotheism on Hindu panentheism ? Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha Yetiraja Ramanuja dasan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 "there's no word hindu in vedic scriptures.. " So what ? ––so there's no possibility to sustain authoritatively the hinduism, in vedic sense. It is not traditional, no scripture brings out the need to build an "indian religion" uniting many different and opposite spiritual conceptions.. There is no mention of Lord Krsna in the Vedas either. --i consider "vedic(=consciousness, knowledge)" also puranas,itihasas,upanishads, aranyakas.. why are you getting it confused with the vedas, which refers to hymns and philosophical investigation into the nature of the Supreme Reality ? ---we are in a religious forum, we examine things under that point of view. If someone feels that politically is opportune to unite all "non muslim" indian religions against muslims he has to explain it in a political way, sincerely and openly, not attempting to twist religion to have more appeal.. That's our subject of discussion.. Are you accusing me of coining a "new" term called Hindu ? --no.. i am simply saying that you have spoken about authority, and the term hindu and the hindu concept (of reunion of all "indian" religions in one) has no authority, no tradition.. Who cares for your validation --you are caring for my validation.. otherwise you weren't here trying to convince me Why are you trying to impose your Judeo-Christian anthropomorphic monotheism on Hindu panentheism ? --god is not antrophomorphic (=with human form), it is human who as a form who's similar to god's form. If hinduism is panteistic, so only a few hindus are really hindus.. For example, if hindu meand "panteheistic", you are not hindu, Sri Ramanuja Acharya's followers are vaishnavas, personalists, monotheists.. not pantheists jaya sri krsna bhagavan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2005 Report Share Posted February 4, 2005 Just because we are answering you back does not mean we care for your opinion. We want to make sure that you dont spread wrong information and false information to the people who happen to visit this forum. We are not uniting all indian religions as hinduism. We very well know the difference between budhhism, jainism sikkism etc. And we are very clear that Vishnu has just 10 avatars, and do not go on to include buddha as an avatar of vishnu ( as propagated by some gurus) with the aim of spreading his control over China and Japan easily. SOme gurus are like chameleons. If they see a muslim, they will say allah and krishna are the same. If they see a christian, they will say christ and krishna are the same. This is artificially uniting the different religions that have a definite hisory. But thats not the case with hinduism, which does not have a beginning or an end. So before getting brainwashed by some divisive policies, read all the puranas casrefully, and try to find out the relationship between the different hindu gods, and dont make your stupid comment again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2005 Report Share Posted February 4, 2005 Dear Tseug Namaskaram " if hindu meand "panteheistic", you are not hindu, Sri Ramanuja Acharya's followers are vaishnavas, personalists, monotheists.. not pantheists" I am afraid I can only answer your questions, unless if you can give the scriptural reference to support your comments a) its not dharmic or logical to worship gods and goddesses b) "HE is the demigods, not that the demigods are him" (in regard to Bhagavad Gita, chpt 10, text 23-24) As followers of Sri Ramanujacarya, we keep our sectarian views to ourselves. Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha Yetiraja Ramanuja dasan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2005 Report Share Posted February 4, 2005 We want to make sure that you dont spread wrong information and false information to the people who happen to visit this forum. --everyone has his opinions... sustain your with scriptures and logic if you can... We are not uniting all indian religions as hinduism. We very well know the difference between budhhism, jainism sikkism etc. --of course i was speaking of the religions that you put inside hinduism And we are very clear that Vishnu has just 10 avatars, and do not go on to include buddha as an avatar of vishnu --again your opinion.. dasavatara's song is accepted by millions of people as a real and authoritative scripture. But thats not the case with hinduism, which does not have a beginning or an end. So before getting brainwashed by some divisive policies, read all the puranas casrefully, and try to find out the relationship between the different hindu gods, and dont make your stupid comment again. --so stupid that you,having read all puranas, have nothing more "authoritative" to say " if hindu meand "panteheistic", you are not hindu, Sri Ramanuja Acharya's followers are vaishnavas, personalists, monotheists.. not pantheists" I am afraid I can only answer your questions, unless if you can give the scriptural reference to support your comments --scriptural reference? you need scriptural evidence to see that ramanuja acharya is vaishnava? As followers of Sri Ramanujacarya, we keep our sectarian views to ourselves. --why you blaspheme sri ramanuja acharya and his followers? they're not sectarian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganeshprasad Posted February 4, 2005 Report Share Posted February 4, 2005 Jai Ganesh Well Mr. tseug Are you going to stick to the context of our discussion? You made a very serious allegation accused some Hindu of killing Bhagvan Krishna presumably because they follow advaita I had refuted your statement by quoting bg 9.15 and 12.3-5 Now it is up to you to deny Krishna or withdraw your poisonous statement. Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2005 Report Share Posted February 4, 2005 the impersonalism of bhagavad gita is without envy for the supreme personality of godhead, that kind of impersonalist practitioneer keep considering krsna the supreme lord but he chooses to approach him from the impersonal aspect.. something like bhismadeva who being in association with sri krsna bhagavan, without anything against him, he preferes to see sri narayana (or krsna manifested as sri narayana) at the moment of death but... the "modern" impersonalist, the "hindu" impersonalist, goes for nirguna brahman because he believes that his form and individuality, and krsna's form and individuality are both maya, non existent.. so krsna is put aside, then, if this realization would be possible, made him disappear becoming the practitioneer the only ONE existing very simple... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 Dear Tseug Namaskaram My discussion with you is not on whether a) Sri Ramanujacarya was a vaishnava b) I am Hindu or Vaishnava The discusion pertains to your comments: a) "so that's because vaishnavas are not hindus.." b) "not dharmic" c) "not that the demigods are in Him" On comment a) As you not from the Sri Sampradaya you dont have the authority to pass remarks on issues pertaining to our sampardaya's position. On comments b) and c) In BG Chpt 10 Text 23 and 25, Lord Krsna says "I am Shankara, I am Skandha etc .." You say "HE is the demigods, not that the demigods are him " My question was where did Krsna say - "not that the demigods are in him " ? As you have not given any evidence to substantiate your claims in b) and c). I conclude your remarks in b) and c) are fallacies. " --why you blaspheme sri ramanuja acharya and his followers? they're not sectarian" Do you have a problem if we keep our sectarian views to ourselves ? Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha Yetiraja Ramanuja dasan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 My discussion with you is not on whether a) Sri Ramanujacarya was a vaishnava b) I am Hindu or Vaishnava ••the discussion with me is decided also by me... if you do not want to share informations about yourself... simply do not do it.. On comment a) As you not from the Sri Sampradaya you dont have the authority to pass remarks on issues pertaining to our sampardaya's position. ••if you were more authoritative than mine you should have given a better answer On comments b) and c) In BG Chpt 10 Text 23 and 25, Lord Krsna says "I am Shankara, I am Skandha etc .." You say "HE is the demigods, not that the demigods are him " My question was where did Krsna say - "not that the demigods are in him " ? As you have not given any evidence to substantiate your claims in b) and c). I conclude your remarks in b) and c) are fallacies. •••if krsna is the demigods of course the demigods are contained in him..where's the problem? " --why you blaspheme sri ramanuja acharya and his followers? they're not sectarian" Do you have a problem if we keep our sectarian views to ourselves ? ••i am only sorry if you call sri ramanuja and his followers "sectarian"....... what's the sectarism of sri ramanuja acharya? if you, to feel yourself hindu, have the need to call your vaishnava beliefs sectarian, it is manifest that for you hinduism and vaishnavism are not the same religion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 There was once a village fool, who went to listen Ramayana in the village temple. The Bhagavatar knew that, the village fool is in the crowd to listen ramayan. So as he was telling ramayana, he used to stop frequently, and ask the crowd if they have understood ramayana. Everybody including the village idiot gave a big nod that they understood. So the Ramayan discourse wnet on till morning, and it concluded. Finally, the bhagavata called the village fool aside to test him, and asked him a simple question " how is Lord Ram related to Sita?" The fool said " Oh its simple -Rama is sita's father's brother ( Chittappa- in tamil)" So the Bhagavatar, accepted his failure that, he cannot make the village fool knowledgeble. So it is the failure of the guru not to impart the correct knowledge to his disciples. Or his disciples were foolish enough not to get the correct instruction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 There was yet another village fool. He was a dedicated RamaBhakta. He reads Ramayana everyday. But as he is a fool, he did not understand that Rama and Perumal ( for vishnu in tamil) are one and the same. So he sees a perumal temple and without thinking starts demolishing it. SO in tamil there is an ancient saying " Padikkaradhu Ramayanam, Idikkaradhu Perumal Koil" Which roughly translated " Reading Ramayan, but demolishing Perumal temple". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 Dear Tseug Namaskaram " ••the discussion with me is decided also by me... if you do not want to share informations about yourself... simply do not do it.. " No comments "••if you were more authoritative than mine you should have given a better answer " I didn't claim to be more authoritative, thats why I wrote "I refer you to the following paper by a Sri Vaisnava scholar on the definition of Hindu " http://www.dharmacentral.com/universalism.htm " •••if krsna is the demigods of course the demigods are contained in him..where's the problem? " The problem is - you say words not spoken by Lord Krsna. "i am only sorry if you call sri ramanuja and his followers "sectarian"....... what's the sectarism of sri ramanuja acharya?" Please show me where I called Sri Ramanujacarya "sectarian" My comment was "As followers of Sri Ramanujacarya, we keep our sectarian views to ourselves" By this, I mean we dont impose our beliefs on others "if you, to feel yourself hindu, have the need to call your vaishnava beliefs sectarian, it is manifest that for you hinduism and vaishnavism are not the same religion" Sectarian - refers to sects following visistadvaita and having theological and doctrinal differences e.g : Tenkalais Vadakalais Ramanandis Swami Narayans Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha Yetiraja Ramanuja dasan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2005 Report Share Posted February 5, 2005 " •••if krsna is the demigods of course the demigods are contained in him..where's the problem? " The problem is - you say words not spoken by Lord Krsna. ---if he's the demigods, he contains the demigods in himself.. otherwise how can he be something that he does not own? that's not difficult or controversial.. "Please show me where I called Sri Ramanujacarya "sectarian" --read this: "As followers of Sri Ramanujacarya, we keep our sectarian views to ourselves" --you are saying that the followers of sri ramanuja have sectarian views.... and that they keep them for ourselves. Who has sectarian views is sectarian (and i do not think that ramanuja acharya's (true) followers are sectarian, they are simply vaishnavas, and vaishnava is different from other beliefs.. often opposite) "••if you were more authoritative than mine you should have given a better answer " I didn't claim to be more authoritative, thats why I wrote "I refer you to the following paper by a Sri Vaisnava scholar on the definition of Hindu " http://www.dharmacentral.com/universalism.htm ---the link is again saying that hindus are hindus because they read the same books... i have already said that for me it is not enough but you are not forced to discuss with me.. if you do not see me as authoritative (and you are right because i am giving only opinions), speak with the people that you consider authoritative and expert where's the problem? 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.