Krishna/Narayana/Lord Siva

[ranjeetmore]

Why ?

 

I gave you pramana from Svetasvatara upanishad.

 

You chose to 'interpret' it.

Whereas your quote that Lord Shiva worships Lord Vishnu holds true.I am not even opposing it.

It is YOU who is 'interpreting' rudra as that implying Vishnu.

 

Shaivites can say the same now,can't they ??

 

Then there is Skanda upanishad.

 

***

 

Thanks for enlightening me about the higher position of Shruti over smriti.

 

But you didn't seem quite to follow the other norm

That smriti is greater than Itihasa before.

 

You say that some smritis are man made,ordinary,etc.

 

HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH ONES ARE?

 

YOU CLAIM THE SAME ABOUT Radhikopanishad and Radha tapani upanishad.

 

Pray tell me,do you have complete understanding of brahm,that you know which shruti corroborates and which does not.

 

No offense,but you couldn't even identify Sri Ramacharitmanas as containing truths that can only be found in the hearts of realised transcendentalists.

[ranjeetmore]

 

 

 

Similarly, I could tell you that a scripture is only useful in an inter-sectarian polemic when both parties accept its authority. There is not much point quoting a "scripture" as "proof" of your views when its authority is only accepted by you. All one needs to appreciate this point is common sense. If you have none, consider finding someone who does.

 

 

 

Raghu

 

So You want to say that SRIMAD BHAGVATAM is man made,interpolated,manipulated and NOT AN AUTHORITY amongst vaishnavas ???

 

OKAY,try telling that to...i don't know...Vaishnavas ?

 

Lets consider manipulation of the above text.

It is a Vaishnava text.Someone interpolates it.So why is Lord SadaShiva being hailed as equal to Lord Vishnu ?

It is a vaishnava text,which has been the study scripture of millions of vaishnavas over thousands of years.So now,a vaishnava will infuse such verses which apparently demeans the position of his own Lord Vishnu ?

Why.

 

I understand if a Shaivite interpolating Shiva purana to suit his own views.But will a shaiva interpolate Maha shiva purana to glorify Lord Vishnu ???

No.

 

So how do you say that bhagavatam is interpolated?

 

***

 

I agree i'm not an authority,but have you ever considered what a position you are in ??

 

I suggest you tread carefully before you commit offense.

This is a personal advice.

[bhaktajan]

Raghu - "when its authority is only accepted by you."

 

Authority is always heeded --by way of the carrot or the stick.

 

One authority's references is anothers bibliography. Get it?

[kimfelix]

I have read all these posts with interest. Thank you for taking the time to contribute to the understanding of those who just read the posts.

 

Just a couple of points that occurred to me on this, although they have been covered on other threads.

 

I don't think the argument that the Shvetashvatara is actually referring to Vishnu really holds up if you read through the Upanishad carefully. If that is what is actually meant then the way it is presented is certainly misleading. I think someone said that it should be read in that way because that is 'ordinarily' the meaning. But 'ordinarily' is an imprecise criterion; what is ordinary to one person may be extraordinary to another. The quotation from book 7 of the Rig Veda was very difficult to read.

 

The idea of Vishnu and Shiva's identity also appears in the Mahabharata on a number of occasions, so I can't accept that it is a relatively modern notion that has appeared since the life of Chaitanya. The tendency to elevate Vishnu or Shiva at the expense of the other Deity is primarily a Puranic tendency. The Mahabharata generally seems to regard Vishnu and Shiva as coequal Deities though there are some passages that are predominantly Shaivite and some that are predominantly Vaishnava.

[Amlesh]

 

The idea of Vishnu and Shiva's identity also appears in the Mahabharata on a number of occasions, so I can't accept that it is a relatively modern notion that has appeared since the life of Chaitanya. The tendency to elevate Vishnu or Shiva at the expense of the other Deity is primarily a Puranic tendency. The Mahabharata generally seems to regard Vishnu and Shiva as coequal Deities though there are some passages that are predominantly Shaivite and some that are predominantly Vaishnava.

Hither and Thither.

[kaisersose]

 

The idea of Vishnu and Shiva's identity also appears in the Mahabharata on a number of occasions, so I can't accept that it is a relatively modern notion that has appeared since the life of Chaitanya.

 

I believe what was meant was, a Vaishnava tradition allowing such an identity is not known before the time of the Chaitanya.

 

Smriti (such as Mahabharata) can and will contain such inconsistencies. The commonly accepted norm is to reject such inconsistencies when they do not comply with Sruti interpretation. Based on this premise, no more justification is required to reject such identities - in the case of Tattvavada and as far as I know, in Sri Vaishnavism too. The Shvetashvatara, on the other hand, is a different story. Drawing implicit meanings for these verses requires a lot more ink.

 

However, such debates first require a common ground. I quote from the Position Paper (http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/iskcon.shtml).

 

The basic approach of the system was pinning its faith on a single main source -- Bhâgavata, generally reducing the importance of all other sources accepted by the other schools of Vedânta. Its lack of critical examination by rival schools in debates has resulted in a system which is essentially not capable of being sustained in traditional disputation, as there are no accepted common ground rules essential for debate with the three main systems.

 

This explains the fundamental drawback in these discussions. There is no concept of debate rules, etc., with GVs and it appears the practice with them is to quote any text as authority - so long as it addresses the immediate need - ranging from the Brahma Samhita to Radha Upanishads which no one outside that tradition ever heard about.

 

Cheers

[bhaktajan]

"which no one outside that tradition ever heard about." --Keiserose.

 

.......................................................................................

After the war(s) we can all stop studying Arabic--then we'll all have free leisure time to read traditional ethnic SouthAsian doctrines --and then we'll spend more time visiting the dvaitists.

[Harihar]

I would like to share my views also.

Goswami Tulsidasji have written Ramcharitmanas for his inner peace.The same have been confirmed by him in the beginning itself. He has not written for the world.Those who are interested can read it else keep it aside.It is a devotional literature of a Bhakta to his Ishta/beloved i.e Shree Ram ( Supreme personality). Goswamiji have given more weightage to bhakti of Shree Ram. The final conclusion drawn from Ramcharitmanas is to have selfless devotion towards Shree Ram.

The most important point is in what way you are reading it.If from bhakti point of view it is read then it is full of bhakti only. If from authenticity point of view then a reader would find it different from Valmiki Ramayan & can reject it.We have 18 puranas. All contradicting each other.

The next point is who are we to authorise whether it is authentic or not.Shree Hari is Anant & all HIS divine leelas are also anant.Who has got the capability to describe it fully??Even Shree Hari himself can't describe his leela fully.Everyone according to their capacity try to describe/interpretate it.Finally it is the level of bhakti which matters.

I would request all the members not to drag great devotees & their devotional literatures in all these debates & question their authenticity.Rather we should see within ourselves as to how much bhakti we have got towards Shree Hari??? Salutation to devotees is salutation to Shree Hari.

[Amlesh]

 

I would like to share my views also.

Goswami Tulsidasji have written Ramcharitmanas for his inner peace.

 

Ramcharitramanas is possible only after attaining inner peace.

[ranjeetmore]

 

 

This explains the fundamental drawback in these discussions. There is no concept of debate rules, etc., with GVs and it appears the practice with them is to quote any text as authority - so long as it addresses the immediate need - ranging from the Brahma Samhita to Radha Upanishads which no one outside that tradition ever heard about.

 

Cheers

 

What can i say,Even Svetasvatara upanishad is insufficient for your highness,what to speak about Skanda Upanishad.

 

 

***

 

 

"....it appears the practice with them is to quote any text as authority - so long as it addresses the immediate need - ranging from the Brahma Samhita to Radha Upanishads which no one outside that tradition ever heard about."

 

 

Take up the Brahm samhita and peruse it.Then go through the vedas.

Svetasvatara upanishad says,"Yo vai brahmanam vidhidhati purvam.."

 

One who projects Brahma(Vidhi) from His navel at the beginning of creation,He is brahm.(Sriman Narayana also described in subala shruti,etc. as the origin of Vidhi thus Also known as Aadi kaarana.)

 

 

Isa upanishad describes Him as One without a second,Supreme.(Parama Ishvara-Paramesvara)

 

Rg Veda (1.164.21) states:

 

 

 

dva suparna sayuja sakhaya

 

 

 

samanam vrksam parisasvajate

 

 

 

tayor anyah pippalam svadv atty

 

 

 

anasnann anyo ’bhicakasit

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dva SUPARNA SAYUJA SKHAYA.

 

 

 

He is your friend,The one who resides within each and every living entity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the most celebrated ved mantras is ,"...Raso vai saha".(Ananda)

 

He is Bliss.

 

 

So,Brahm samhita is merely corroborating with this.

 

Ishvarah paramah Krsnah

Sat.Chit.ANANDA vigraha

Anaadir aadir Govindah

Sarva Kaarana Kaaranam.

 

He is the Supreme Lord.(Paramesvara)

He is Supreme Bliss.(ananda)

He is beginningless(Eternal)

Yet the prieval cause of everything(Aadi Kaarana).

 

Lord Brahma further describes the Paramatma feature,faultlessly addressing Him as the Supreme Benefactor/friend.

 

In practical cases,such evidence is enough for intelligent people to accept such texts as authority.

But on the other hand,those who are in gross ignorance and averted to Godhead,demand an 'authoritative evidence',whereas they absolutely adore the materialistic and cheap views of 'scholars' who think that 'anyone who knows sanskrit can easily understand the upanishads.'

 

The fact is that ONLY ADVAITA/MAYAVADA is the one that cannot be identified with Vedanta.It is glaringly faulty and meant for confused people or those who refuse to believe they can be anything less than God.

[kimfelix]

Namaste Ranjeet. I don't think the matter is quite as obvious as you suggest and I certainly don't see that the conclusion you present is 'glaringly' obvious. You have offered us a number of citations from the shruti but in each case there is much room for debate and one who chooses to disagree with you is not to be regarded as a fool or as wicked.

 

1. You cite 6.18 of the Shvetasvhvatara which refers to the one who manifested Brahma and delivered the Vedas to him. But note this verse does not mention Vishnu and you have added 'from His navel' as if it were part of the translation. That is a bit devious. Where the Shvetashvatara does name the Deity it is speaking about, it is always Rudra or Shiva. Note for example: jnatva shivam sarva-bhuteshu gudham (4.16). Vishnu is not mentioned in this Upanishad.

 

2. The Isha likewise never mentions Vishnu by name and neither does it use the word(s) parameshvara as you suggest.

 

3. I am afraid I don't have the full text of hymn 164 of the Rig Veda before me so I cannot say whether it is about Vishnu, although the name is not mentioned in the verses I have been able to access. The line you particularly draw our attention to does not mean 'he is your friend, the one who resides in every living being'. This verse is also to be found in the Shvetashvatara (4.6) and gives us the metaphor of the two birds residing in the same tree, one eathing the fruit and the other the witness. The meaning here is not quite what you represent it to be.

 

Thank you anyway for helping with this discussion. I agree with many of the points you make but as is so often the case it is hard to be dogmatic in drawing conclusions.

[ranjeetmore]

I do accept that i added 'the navel' part.But believe me,it was unintentional.

It's REALLY hard to remember the content of the verse EXACTLY.

 

I did not say that PARAMESVARA,this word comes in Isa up. I said that the Supreme Lord Is one WITHOUT a second.That is why He is known as Param-Greatest Ishvara-Lord.

The verse about the two birds in the same tree ALSO confirms the following :

One bird PARTAKES in tasting the fruit,whereas the other bird is a mere Observer.

AND

 

SAKHAYA means Benefactor/Friend/Sakha.

Further perusal of the upanishads leads to the knowledge that this 'other bird ' is paramatma,with an INTELLIGENCE,hence the activity of 'observing' and 'noting' the karmas of the Jeevatma.

Thus Advaita holds no ground.So it is natural that we move on to more...SATISFYING interpretations of Vedanta.Through unbiased study,only Acintya bheda abheda can be accepted.

There are abheda- richas found in the vedas signifying the non-difference between Jeevatma and Paramatma in some points.

BUT

also there are Bheda-richas signifying the massive differences between Jeevatma and Paramatma.

 

Thus Acintya bheda abheda.

Forget that,anything excpet ADVAITA is welcome,For Advaita Only accepts non-difference,thus eliminating the possibility of Brahm bestowing His mercy.

But the vedas declare that this 'mercy' is absolutely necessary for LIBERATION.Advaita can never be beneficial for satisfaction of Self.

There are other points also.

 

Advaita vadis support their views by stating that Jeevatma is like the space(ghata-akasha) in a pot.As soon as the Pot breaks,he becomes Brahm(Purna- akasha).

 

 

Srila Veda vyasa confirms in the Vedanta that the Jeevatma UNDERGOES Utkraanti,Gati,Aagati and thus he is Not Brahm/Infinite/All pervasive.

 

Utkrantya gatyaagtinam...Brahm sutra.

 

Utkraanti- Leaving the body.

Gati- The journey of the Jeevatma after leaving the body according

to his own certain karma.

Aagati - Taking up another body.

 

So ?

 

An all pervasive element like the akasha NEVER undergoes the process of 'travelling' from one place to the other.A 'handful' of space DOES NOT travel from the earth to the moon planet,after the pot,which contained it ,breaks.

This is the clear logic of Srila Vedavyasa.

 

Thus the idea that Jeevatma is ALL PERVASIVE is only imaginary and concocted.

 

Then there is the obvious question:

 

Why,If ONE and ONLY Brahm,Don't all the Jeevatmas get liberated when a single one does?

 

And if they say that they have the different perceptions due to some pathetic theory about illusion,

 

Why then does each and every Jeevatma percieve the Outer world as the same ?

When we come across the Himalaya,I see a mountain and so do you.

 

Like this,the most brilliant Vaishnava Acharyas have served innumerable other rhetorical questions which are bound to enlighten the fictitious nature of Advaita.

So it is natural that seekers of truth should move on.After Sri Shankaracharya only 5 others remain.

 

 

Sri Ramanujacharya

Sri Madhvacharya

Sri Nimabrkacharya

Sri Vallabhacharya

 

And

Sri Gaurangadeva.

 

 

There should be little to doubt since all 5/5 acharyas accept that Sriman Narayana is the supreme Goal of the vedas.

Of course you may call it dogmatic,but then I'm sorry to say that you consider Vedanta on the level of Bible and thus you make a mistake there.

You HAVE TO accept one of the 6 views on Vedanta.There is no other way.How will you(generalisation) even understand two words of it otherwise ???

 

Either accept the Acharyas or denounce Vedic religion completely.If you opt for the former,Sriman Narayana should immediately replace the vague principle of 'GOD' that existed in your mind for eternal time and bothered you,for you could never really understand who or what it is.

 

 

I just read my post...It may sound a bit too proud...but believe me,it's not.I just have a ..way of writing.

[bhaktajan]

Holy Cowboys and Cowgirls!!!

 

Ranjeetmore--you've outdone yourself, Bravo!

 

I'm dumstruck with you're 'speaking points'

 

A great keepsake meditation!!!

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

PS: The Ihsa-upanishad meantions "the controller (isha)" who 'runs faster than all others' --this is a 'person' (isha).

[Narasingh]

<center> ksiram yatha dadhi-vikara-visesa-yogat

sanjayate na tu tatah prthag asti hetoh yah sabhutam api tatha samupaiti karyad

govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami </center> "Just as milk is transformed into curd by the action of acids, but yet the effect curd is neither the same as, nor different from milk, so I adore the primeval Lord Govinda of whom the state of Sambhu is a transformation for the performance of the work of destruction."

 

 

They are different and the same.

[melvin]

KrsnaNarayanaSiva = Nimai Pandit( Pd animation)

-------------------------------

[gokulkr]

Problem is that many people hassnt understood "Narasimhadeva". Narasimhadeva has no begginning or end. He is Original "Narayana". He is source of all avatars. He is source of heat of the sun and keeping cool laxmi maa (parashakti) on his chest/lap. He has nine planets in his divine face. All panch buthas are at his feet. All gods do their job by his fear or bakthi towards him. He is keeping yoga-maya as his illusinory energy. He is the aadi omkara jwala. He is Narayana. All mantras, tantras, sastras, weapons come from him and surrender within him. He generated Maha-Sudarshana Chakra from it all gods got their weapons. He controls the time thru his kala-chakra. (behind every sudarsha chakra shrine you can see narasimha sitting). He ends everything thru his third eye at end of kalpa. At that time he himself is Sada-shiva or mahaa-kalaa. For Vaishnavas he gives his divine darshan thru his divine Vasudeva form. For Shaivas [rudras followers (not pseudo-shaivas)] or Siddas or Rishis he gives watever powers they ask by giving darshan in form of divine aadi-jyoti. They worship him in form of Linga. He is the one who resides within each linga. Rudra represents our body. Linga represents our aatma. Inside our aatma "narasimha" resides as aatma-jyothi. In all shiva temples you can see rudra outside as urchava, since hes outside the linga. Inside linga it is "Narasimha - the param jyoti" residing. Whenever siddhas enjoy bliss of this jyoti they dance with joy. Since this dance is divine, this dance is taken as form of worship. Rudra being a chief of all siddhas dances in this way so hes called nataraja. Dance is called bharatanatyam. During shivarathri siddhas (including rudra) realises this parama-jyoti. So special Worship is done at siddha pittas, rudra temples and shiva-lingas as parama-jyoti is residing inside the linga (aatma). The above truth is beautifully illustrated by Madhvacharya. Shivarathri are celebreated by Madhvas also. Pradhosam is celebreated in all great Narasimha temples. At Pradosham time Narashima gave darshan to everyone. At this time he accepts all prayers of devas, rudra, brahma and gurus. So at pradosham time, in shiva temples only nandi is collecting prayer from us as rudra is busy in worshippine narasimha (eventhough shaivatees will say something reverse). When Rudra tells in his Gita that Sada-Siva is supreme, he is actually referring Narayana(Narasimha). Since Gita told by Rudra (in padma purana) may create confusion, all acharyas took "Bhagavath Gita" told by Lord Krishna (narasimha himself) as authorotative. Read Narasimha Upanishads, Narashima Sahasranama and Narasihma Purana. There everything explained clearly. Also Read Sri Vedantha Desikars commentary about Narasimhadeva. he clearly explains above. Also Nammalwar told It is Narasimha residing everywhere. Even in Vishnu Sahasranama it is Narasimha pointed out at many times. It is narasimha praised as Sadashiva in "shiva sahasranama". All Gods have praised stotras in praise of Narashima. Even Narasimhas own avatars have worshiipped and praised Narasimhadeva. So whenever someone tells Rama/krishna worshipped linga then it shuold be understood that they worshiiped Narasimha thru linga. Worshpiing Narasimha in form of linga is very ancient method as its easy to make a linga than sculpting his divine form. Only after people gained mastery over crafts they started sculpting narasimha and his divine forms. Both Madhvacharya and Vedantha desikar had told that when narasimha killed hiranyakashipu, blood of hiranya was consumed by narasimadeva to wash off his sins(as requested by prahlada alwar), [in narasimha temples panaga representing blood is given as prasada to narasimhadeva]. hiranyas hide(skin) was worn by virabadra, hiranyas head is accepted by Kaalidevi, hiranyas soul is given to saraba(death ie., rudra) who made sure that this aatma will born again according to its karma. Even death(saraba) is controlled by Narasimha only. Narsimhadeva's anger was calmed down by Prahladalwar's prayers (as God stoops down to devotees pure prayers, he cant be controlled thru ahankara). But shivapurana being tamasic it illustrates everything as reverse just as kaali devotees wrongly tell as though kaali defeated rudra (but actually rudra defeated kaali). It is Narasimhadeva standing in his divine form as "Venkateswara" in Tirumala as to his devotees as he always gives darshan thru his divine Vasudeva form. Since Vaishnavas are soft-hearted Narasimha always gives darshan in form of divine Vasudeva form. Thats why worshppinh Narasimha in form of Vasudeva, Rama, krishna is much more prevalent than form of Narasimha himself. Om Namo Narayanaya.

[ranjeetmore]

True that Shiva purana etc are tamasic.

But lord Mahesvara says himself in Shaiva puranas that if the teachings found in the tamasic/rajasic puranas do corroborate with the sattvic puranas,they are to be accepted without doubt.

 

Skanda purana,Vaishnava khanda is a glorious example.

[kimfelix]

I have read the discussion of the tamoguna in the Bhagavad Gita. I have also read a number of Puranas that some would designate as tamasic. There is absolutely no congruence between the concept of tamas as delineated by the Gita and the content or mode of discourse of these Puranas. Read them yourself and then compare what they say to the notion of tamas; it just doesn't coincide at all.

 

There are different approaches to Advaita. Sriman Shankaracharya establishes a form of Vedanta that is advaitic by interpretation of shastra but for others philosophy is secondary to spiritual realisation, which is intensely personal and by definition subjective. I find the texts are most useful when I read and contemplate each verse without preconception as to its meaning.

 

But there is no 'unbiased perusal'. Bias is an inevitable part of the human condition; but self-knowledge can give some insight into the nature of our biases.

[ranjeetmore]

Jeevatma is related to Sat.Chit.Ananda for eternal and from beginningless time.

 

Everyone wants to live eternally...A minor possibility of threat to life puts us in misery.They're making so many solutions to live etrnally,not to die,but it is impossible in the material body.

 

 

Everyone wants knowledge...constantly.What is that ? How does this work?

Who did she run away with ? What is the origin of the universe?? What is this ??

 

 

Everyone wants happiness.I eat rasa gulla.I hear music.I see movies.I hug my mother.I earn money.Everything for happiness.

 

Sukham me bhuyat dukham me ma bhut.

 

I want sukha/happiness and i do not want dukha/misery.

 

These are the three functions : Sat-eternality.

Chit- Knowledge

 

and

Ananda- bliss.

 

Veda says that jeevatma is the ansh/energy/atom of that Brahm who is Sat.cHit.Ananda

and hence you also have these qualities in minute proportions.

 

Thus the mad/Incessant search for Happiness.The ansh/part ALWAYS hankers after the anshi/Whole.

 

A flame always points towards the sun.Anything that is made from earth is pulled towards it.Thus the jeevatma/ansh/part is eternally in want of ananda/Hapinness/Brahm.

These practical truths DO NOT fit with the doctrine of Mayavada,for by definition,Brahm is jeevatma thus it has to be ANANDA too.

 

Now,the veda says,

 

Rasam he vayam labdhva

ANANDI bhavati.

 

it says ANANDI NOT ANANDO.

 

Anandi.

After attaining that Brahm who is Raso vai saha(Ananda) the jeevatma becomes HAPPY(crude) i.e. ANANDI.It doesn't say - "Anando bhavati"-He DOesn't Become ANANDA.HE becomes ANANDI.

 

***

 

Now these eternal functions remain unsatisfied in the Sayujya Mukti i.e. mukti of the jnanis.Thus the path which points to such a liberation is not to be considered for the result is non-satisfying.In mukti state,the jeevatma maintains it's seperate identity from the Nirvisesa Brahm for By default,both Jeevatma and Paramatma maintain their Satta/position.If it were not so,liberated personalities would have never emanated out of the Brahmjyoti,taken up a material body and Practised Hari Bhakti.

 

Theory which appeals to a certain intelligence is not necessarily the highest truth.Certainly not in the case of Vedanta doctrines.Those which perfectly satisfy all the teachings of the vedanta are to be accepted.

[ranjeetmore]

it seems,the 'other philosophies' which sound 'secondary to spiritual realisation' are the only ones that follow the teachings of Vedanta.

 

So we should say that they're quite mandatory for spiritual realisation.

[Narasingh]

 

True that Shiva purana etc are tamasic.

But lord Mahesvara says himself in Shaiva puranas that if the teachings found in the tamasic/rajasic puranas do corroborate with the sattvic puranas,they are to be accepted without doubt.

 

Skanda purana,Vaishnava khanda is a glorious example.

I have always been curious as to why the other puranas are classified as tamas rajas if they are not Vaishnav Purana

[kimfelix]

Ranjeet, you slightly misquoted what I said but it is not important. I was actually suggesting that jnana may not be about understanding one philosophy or another but about inner realisation of the truth and because this realisation is beyond the range of the rational mind it cannot be revealed through the spoken word. Both the Isha and the Kena Upanishad seem to suggest that true knowledge is beyond philosophising.

[ranjeetmore]

yes,you have that correct,partly.

In kena upanishad,the gross incompetence of the great personalities of the material world is pointed out...incompetence in understanding Who is Brahm.

 

It should be noted that Brahm appears IN A FORM in front of all the devas.BUT the light covering the body of that Brahm is so dazzling that not even Indra can pierce it.

 

This incident is depicted only to highlight the most important thing :

 

Brahm CANNOT be understood by one's own efforts.

There are five senses.

There is one mind

and

there is intelligence.

 

Whatever activities or efforts towards 'understanding' brahm will be done,are limited to these faculties ONLY.

Meditation,etc is work of the mind.

 

Now the vedas are clearly declaring that Brahm cannot be understood by any of this.He Himself provides the energies with which all these faculties work,just like the sun provides energy for a solar bulb.

 

Now,a solar bulb CANNOT light up the Sun.That's quite stupid.So we cannot really understand Brahm even if we sit in a place for billions of years nad try to 'realise' Him.

Even if your einstein(generalisation) whatever statements you make about God/Brahm are totally faulty,of this there is no doubt.

 

Thus Kena Upanishad says that He is Beyond the mind,intellect,senses.

 

So how can we understand Him ?

 

Only if He gives you mercy.Period.There is no other way.I have tried to explain this in 'Brahm has a form but it cannot be understood by you'.

This is not philosophy.This is vedic fact.

 

Thus there arises no question of speculation,logical thinking,reasoning,etc.

 

Only one option remains: Learn from a person who has recieved the Mercy of Brahm.He knows Brahm.He alone can tell you.

 

Svetasvatara Muni states in svetasvatar upanishad: I Know Him.You can also know Him if you recieve His mercy.

 

***

Now comes the obvious part: Who has recieved His mercy ??

 

Shankaracharya's doctrine,by definition,refuses the phenomenon of 'Brahm's mercy.'

Hence the need to move forward to Vaishnavacharyas.

 

 

Please take the time to go through 'Brahm has a form but it cannot be understood by you.'

You might understand better what i'm trying to convey.

[seamusjcarroll]

the tamasic king is the need at this time , to overcome ignorance , what we all might see is a demon king rise to smash this time to pieces , including all your minds, as you rake over what you can notknow , who is who , you do not even know who you are , stuck in your skin and brain , everyone is an alien in sudra form , shiva can not be aproached , he will cover you with lies to mess with your minds, and burn you up , but if your clever you will own your life as one and different , and do the bahkti , if you fake you are dead , and kali will eat your head for tea , go bow down , and let these cheating liars kick you all around , or use ypour intelegence, and kick them out , but no all are decieved while we sweep up dust , and call it gold, words are vibration , vibrate your own soul , and cut the rot , otherwise it stool and think it great , no great is known and it is obvious , when it shows , natures show , is not a joke it is only a joke on you , while you blow words at keys , the heart is the key and when that glows tears flow atmatic a momement of static faster than you , let go , stand up and blow the crap away jai rahda jai kaliu

[bhaktajan]

Kimfelix: "Namaste Ranjeet. I don't think the matter is quite as obvious as you suggest ... it is hard to be dogmatic in drawing conclusions.

 

I have read the discussion of the tamoguna in the Bhagavad Gita.

I have also read a number of Puranas ... There is absolutely no congruence between ... it just doesn't coincide at all.

 

Inner realisation of the truth ... is beyond the range of the rational mind it cannot be revealed through the spoken word."

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Kimfelix, you really should seek council from a higher authority than your private library. Your conclusions are bogus man!

 

Sometimes I can withhold my tendancies to be a faultfinder--this is one of those times--for that I thank you for the chance to practice restaint.

 

Bhaktajan

 

............................................................

All phenomena is experienced to direct one back to the state of ananda.

Ananda is not a limited affair of the pants --you may differ.

 

Ananda is an aspect of Godhead's personality.

 

If one cannot face Godhead's personality --it can be catagorically claimed the such an aspirant is blind of personality of the highest stratum --or maybe they like it that way, for that sleep in a stupor of their own mis-fortune.