PDA

View Full Version : Was Muhammad a Yogi?



sunyatisunya
17 April 2009, 02:16 AM
I've done quite an extensive personal study of the Prophet Muhammad's life and the beginnings of Islam. I've read dozens of translations of the Qur'an, know much of it in Arabic, have dozens of books on Hadith and such...

Yet one thing which I've always been questioning is the states of consciousness Muhammad attained to in his life. Obviously I'm starting from the position that Muhammad was a historical personality and his life has been recorded fairly accurately by early Muslim historians. There has been some speculation into him being epileptic and the facts of his life certainly move in this area.

For example, Muhammad was often known to go into different states of consciousness where, outwardly, his body would either be motionless and heavy (like a yogi in Samadhi) or almost frothing at the mouth, eyes rolling back, sweating profusely, etc., and when he came out he said he had received Prophetic Revelation.

Before the revelation of the Qur'an, going by the history, he spent time on the Mountain of Light. There is no record of what he did besides "devotion".

I can never fully understand the whole situation. He said he "saw" Gabriel take manifestation in different forms. Sometimes as a man, sometimes in his angelic form, etc. He would receive revelation from sexual excitement with his favorite wife Aisha but not the others. This is the sort of thing that happens during sex to epileptics - the excitement triggers some sort of ecstatic fit which, in Muhammad's mind may have been presented as a religious revelation.

There is a Hadith where he is with Aisha and says "Gabriel gives you his greeting" and she says "You see that which I do not..." because he was only apparent to Muhammad. How strange that must have been!

I don't want anyone to take offense to this poking and prodding - I have a deep love for Muhammad and early Islamic history. I've been studying it for years and it's ingrained in me. I just find this mystery about what Muhammad really experienced to be fascinating.

Sometimes, due to the lack of any other explanation besides some sort of mental problem (which is hard to accept since the rest of his life was lived with absolute sanity, it would seem) I am inclined to want to accept the traditional belief as true.

Thoughts?

amra
17 April 2009, 04:22 AM
First of all we must be clear that so called mental problems are caused by a glimpse of the truth. This can be clarified by the statement of RD Laing 'schizophrenics and mystics are in the same ocean but one swims and the other drowns.' A lot of insane people just have not been able to digest the truth, as the truth is very powerful.

Muhammed may have been considered epileptic or insane from the point view of the majority of people today, who have been indoctrinated with these false ideas. Whereas in reality he because of his purity became a fit vessel to contain higher subtler powerful energies. Because of the truths he became exposed to were not expressable in ordinary language they took the forms of visions and also the parables we find in the Quran. We can say he received initiation directly from God. In other words he was destined for it. So he was not a Yogi, he was exposed to a higher consciousness, because this consciousness saw fit to manifest through him.

devotee
17 April 2009, 05:22 AM
Namaste SS,

I also have been interested in Islamic scriptures & life of Mohammad. However, my study is much limited as compared to yours. :)

I cannot say whether Prophet Mohammad was a yogi or not but I can tell a few things which keeps him in a different category.

i) Yogis mostly avoid sex ( except the Vaam Margis who use sex for achieving higher level of consciousness), considering it a distraction in yoga, an exercise which leaves deep impression & forms habit & also drains vital energy. However, the life of Prophet Mohammad was of a person with more than normal appetite for sex. It is said that Aisha was only 6 years old when he decided to marry her when Prophet Mohammad himself was quite advanced in age.
ii) Yogis don't shed blood. They consider "Ahimsa"/Non-violence to be one of the most important doctrines to follow. However, Prophet Mohammad fought many wars & shed blood a lot in his effort to win over the Pagans, Christians & the Jews.
iii) Yogis normally see people of other religions also with equanimity. They see everything as expression of the same Infinite Consciousness. However, Prophet Mohammad never reconciled with the Pagans who were Idol-worshippers. In fact, there were many idols in Mecca which were worshipped by the Pagans for centuries. All these idols (except the Black Stone) were burnt in a bonfire or destroyed by Prophet Mohammad & his followers after their victory in Mecca. No yogi would like to hurt religious sentiments of people like this.

May be the revelations he received were God-inspired, may be he was Divine incarnate for a specific job but there were certainly marked differences between his personality & that of a yogi.

OM

sunyatisunya
17 April 2009, 10:44 PM
Namaste SS,

I also have been interested in Islamic scriptures & life of Mohammad. However, my study is much limited as compared to yours. :)

I cannot say whether Prophet Mohammad was a yogi or not but I can tell a few things which keeps him in a different category.

i) Yogis mostly avoid sex ( except the Vaam Margis who use sex for achieving higher level of consciousness), considering it a distraction in yoga, an exercise which leaves deep impression & forms habit & also drains vital energy. However, the life of Prophet Mohammad was of a person with more than normal appetite for sex. It is said that Aisha was only 6 years old when he decided to marry her when Prophet Mohammad himself was quite advanced in age.
ii) Yogis don't shed blood. They consider "Ahimsa"/Non-violence to be one of the most important doctrines to follow. However, Prophet Mohammad fought many wars & shed blood a lot in his effort to win over the Pagans, Christians & the Jews.
iii) Yogis normally see people of other religions also with equanimity. They see everything as expression of the same Infinite Consciousness. However, Prophet Mohammad never reconciled with the Pagans who were Idol-worshippers. In fact, there were many idols in Mecca which were worshipped by the Pagans for centuries. All these idols (except the Black Stone) were burnt in a bonfire or destroyed by Prophet Mohammad & his followers after their victory in Mecca. No yogi would like to hurt religious sentiments of people like this.

May be the revelations he received were God-inspired, may be he was Divine incarnate for a specific job but there were certainly marked differences between his personality & that of a yogi.

OM

All of this is true concerning the external life of a Yogi but there's no law written in the sky which says those things cannot be done by such a one.

There are only a few bits in the Qur'an which give me the impression that they could've come from a truly enlightened soul. I'm thinking of the Light Verse and the string of verses after it which are all very illuminated. The rest is very powerful (in Arabic) prose that certainly came from a great source.

Regarding Muhammad's (lack of) religious tolerance and the destruction of the idols in the Ka'ba and around Arabia - I have, at times, wondered whether this was not a sort of extreme teaching. Not the obvious "We're right, you're wrong" mentality but a sort of blow to awaken them deep in their minds. It was a very, very revolutionary thing that Muhammad did in his life - this must always be kept in mind. He turned a vast land of warring tribes, religious differences, and ancient mythology into a unified whole under one religion. Of course he did it by utterly wiping out those who stood in his way (thinking of all those beheaded Jews ... forgot the name of the event), but it was very successful in his time.

TatTvamAsi
19 April 2009, 07:09 PM
Muhammad (SH*T be upon him) a yogi? hahahha.. is this some kind of joke?

the maniac murdered, directly and indirectly, scores of people in the name of his 'beliefs'. No 'yogi', or even a learned (book-wise) person, will ever kill (even animals for that matter). His seizures and apoplectic behavior was proof that he was literally insane!

Even jesus, the two-bit charlatan, who plagiarized everything and paraded around calling himself 'god' and the 'son of god' did not stoop to the level of killing others. I would never call jesus a yogi, let alone a pedophile murderer like muhamMAD.

sunyatisunya
19 April 2009, 09:12 PM
Muhammad (SH*T be upon him) a yogi? hahahha.. is this some kind of joke?

the maniac murdered, directly and indirectly, scores of people in the name of his 'beliefs'. No 'yogi', or even a learned (book-wise) person, will ever kill (even animals for that matter). His seizures and apoplectic behavior was proof that he was literally insane!

Even jesus, the two-bit charlatan, who plagiarized everything and paraded around calling himself 'god' and the 'son of god' did not stoop to the level of killing others. I would never call jesus a yogi, let alone a pedophile murderer like muhamMAD.

Chill out.

reflections
20 April 2009, 06:20 AM
Prophet Muhammed did a lot of things which will be questionable in today's time. On the face of it, it may look horrible. Like, marrying a 6 year old child is surely horrible for us. But, the society in which he was it was an acceptable norm in that society. I felt angered when he said, women should be given only half inheritance of men. But,I researched more and realized that Christian society in his time did not give any inheritance right to women and thought that women don't have souls. So, it was definitely a step forward by prophet. When we understand his actions in light of his time, it makes sense.

What I like about him is his simplicity. He had immense political, social and religious power over people. He could have chosen a luxurious life, but he chose otherwise. Then he again and again stressed that he was a human and not worshipworthy, only God is to be worshipped. He was known for being trustworthy and truthful. His faith in God and submission to divine are also notable aspects.

Regarding, was he a Yogi? Only God knows it what he had inside his heart.

I feel, his spiritual message is transcendental and I will respect it. However, scope of his action was limited to context of his time. If some extremist think it is ok to vandalize idols or marry a child and by that he is following prophet's example, then I will do everything to oppose it.

TatTvamAsi
20 April 2009, 09:58 PM
Yet there were various yogis, sadhakas, and other spiritual people in India even before the time of muhamMAD who never suggested coercion, killing, looting, and intimidation as a method of adopting a particular philosophy. In fact, one of the reasons Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) is so great is because if this totally non-compulsory and non-exclusivist attitude (live and let live). The Abrahamic faiths are incredibly puerile when comparing them with Sanatana Dharma mainly because of those two reasons.

Indian sAdhUs never suggested violence and coercion. Ahimsa (non-violence), mentally, physically, and emotionally, is one of the pillars of Hinduism!

Indian sAdhUs, no matter what the era (3000 BCE + to modern day) never indulged in looting, invading, killing, and coercing others.

To justify what that madman muhamMAD did is inexcusable and totally uncalled for. For the barbaric West (still), it may be okay, however, for Aryavarta/Bharata, it is NEVER okay to kill, loot, and coerce, except in self-defense.

As I've mentioned before, just because christianity did the same thing doesn't make it okay. Both (islam & christianity) are absolute garbage. Their philosophy and way of life have no bearing for Hindus (Aryans).


Prophet Muhammed did a lot of things which will be questionable in today's time. On the face of it, it may look horrible. Like, marrying a 6 year old child is surely horrible for us. But, the society in which he was it was an acceptable norm in that society. I felt angered when he said, women should be given only half inheritance of men. But,I researched more and realized that Christian society in his time did not give any inheritance right to women and thought that women don't have souls. So, it was definitely a step forward by prophet. When we understand his actions in light of his time, it makes sense.

What I like about him is his simplicity. He had immense political, social and religious power over people. He could have chosen a luxurious life, but he chose otherwise. Then he again and again stressed that he was a human and not worshipworthy, only God is to be worshipped. He was known for being trustworthy and truthful. His faith in God and submission to divine are also notable aspects.

Regarding, was he a Yogi? Only God knows it what he had inside his heart.

I feel, his spiritual message is transcendental and I will respect it. However, scope of his action was limited to context of his time. If some extremist think it is ok to vandalize idols or marry a child and by that he is following prophet's example, then I will do everything to oppose it.

sunyatisunya
20 April 2009, 11:35 PM
muhamMAD
madman muhamMAD


You are aware that the Arabic name Muhammad has no relation to the English word "mad" right? :headscratch:

raghu_001
15 May 2009, 05:31 PM
Was Mohammed a yogi? You be the judge:

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed

"When Muhammad heard of men massing with hostile intentions against Medina, he reacted with severity.[105] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed#cite_note-104) One example is the assassination of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka%27b_ibn_al-Ashraf), a chieftain of the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Nadir) who had gone to Mecca and written poems that helped rouse the Meccans' grief, anger and desire for revenge after the Battle of Badr.[106] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed#cite_note-105)"

"After the coalition's retreat, the Muslims accused the Banu Qurayza of treachery and besieged them in their forts for 25 days. The Banu Qurayza eventually surrendered and all the men, apart from a few who converted to Islam, were beheaded, while the women and children were enslaved.[112] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed#cite_note-111)[113] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed#cite_note-112) "

"With minimal casualties, Muhammad took control of Mecca.[129] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed#cite_note-128) He declared an amnesty for past offences, except for ten men and women who had mocked and ridiculed him in songs and verses. Some of these were later pardoned.[130] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed#cite_note-129) Most Meccans converted to Islam and Muhammad subsequently destroyed all the statues of Arabian gods in and around the Kaaba.[131] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed#cite_note-130)[132] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed#cite_note-131)"

satay
31 May 2009, 04:26 PM
Was Moohamad a yogi? No, he was a rapist and a pervert.




Why Mohammed was not a prophet:

One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives and their “right hand possessions” (Quran 33:50) He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way. Muhammad was a narcissist like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified.



http://www.apostatesofislam.com/

reflections
01 June 2009, 01:12 AM
Satay,
I respect your opinions. However, one thing to note is the site is 'apostates of Islam'. Most of apostates or ex-muslim sites have strong Christian support or recieve some maintenance funds from fundi Christians and many Muslims have already refuted their claims.

I personally know some people, who have converted to Christianity from Hinduism, they go on about criticizing Krishna, and describes Shri Krishna with all kind words which are used below.

So, it is the same tactic. I personally have some issues with conduct of Muhammed. I think later Islamic saints like Rabia, Rumi were much more spiritual than Muhammed. However, I would not quote following site.



Was Moohamad a yogi? No, he was a rapist and a pervert.




http://www.apostatesofislam.com/

atanu
01 June 2009, 02:12 AM
Quran 4:34: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
The part with the blue font is stupendous. No doubt mA is so caring, She does exactly that which God does -- guarding the unseen, guarding the good, guarding those who will excel others for the good of all.

Om

satay
01 June 2009, 09:42 PM
namaskar,


Satay,
I respect your opinions. However, one thing to note is the site is 'apostates of Islam'. Most of apostates or ex-muslim sites have strong Christian support or recieve some maintenance funds from fundi Christians and many Muslims have already refuted their claims.


Thanks for the comments reflections.

In hindsight, I shouldn't have made that post to begin with. I got carried away.

reflections
02 June 2009, 11:39 AM
Namaste Satay,
No issues :)
Normally you are balanced, King Akbar might have irritated you.




namaskar,



Thanks for the comments reflections.

In hindsight, I shouldn't have made that post to begin with. I got carried away.

chandu_69
30 July 2009, 02:17 PM
Namaste sunyatisunya.


All of this is true concerning the external life of a Yogi but there's no law written in the sky which says those things cannot be done by such a one.

Plenty of quotes how a yogi behaves/supposedly behaves.Off the top of my mind i recall from gita
5;11.



There are only a few bits in the Qur'an which give me the impression that they could've come from a truly enlightened soul.

Could be and there is evidence that muhammad borrowed a lot from a variety of people;not just from torah.


I'm thinking of the Light Verse and the string of verses after it which are all very illuminated. The rest is very powerful (in Arabic) prose that certainly came from a great source.
The original source appears Certainly not from a killer and slave trader.


Regarding Muhammad's (lack of) religious tolerance and the destruction of the idols in the Ka'ba and around Arabia - I have, at times, wondered whether this was not a sort of extreme teaching. Not the obvious "We're right, you're wrong" mentality but a sort of blow to awaken them deep in their minds.

Yes to awaken the gullible wanderers to the prospect of rich plunder(Spoils of war; booty; chaper 8 quran).


It was a very, very revolutionary thing that Muhammad did in his life - this must always be kept in mind. He turned a vast land of warring tribes, religious differences, and ancient mythology into a unified whole under one religion.

You are thoroughly mistaken on few counts.

1) religious differences didn't play a role in those warrings before muhammed.Christians and jews were living along with qureshi arabs with no record of religious wars.

2)Muhammaed was revolutionary in the sense he demolished some ethics the arabs had before, with the help of quranic verses: like treating the wife of adopted son as their own daughters , not harming women in a war etc..

Ekanta
30 July 2009, 02:44 PM
Quran 4:34: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
The part with the blue font is stupendous. No doubt mA is so caring, She does exactly that which God does -- guarding the unseen, guarding the good, guarding those who will excel others for the good of all.
Om

It reminds me of this one:

"7) If she does not willingly yield her body to him, he should buy her with presents. If she is still unyielding, he should strike her with a stick or with his hand and overcome her, repeating the following mantra: "With power and glory I take away your glory." Thus she becomes discredited.
8) If she grants his desire, he should repeat the following mantra: "With power and glory I give you glory." Thus they both become glorious." (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, PART SIX, Chapter IV)

rkpande
31 July 2009, 12:11 AM
hindu religion teaches us tolerance. we consider the the whole world as our family. why are we then being judgemental. if millions of people have chosen a particular faith then we are nobody to judge their faith, either way.

chandu_69
31 July 2009, 08:21 AM
hindu religion teaches us tolerance. we consider the the whole world as our family. why are we then being judgemental. if millions of people have chosen a particular faith then we are nobody to judge their faith, either way.

If one knows that such faith(s) killed millions of hindus and continue to kill one cannot avoid being judgmental.

rcscwc
03 August 2009, 09:20 PM
I've done quite an extensive personal study of the Prophet Muhammad's life and the beginnings of Islam. I've read dozens of translations of the Qur'an, know much of it in Arabic, have dozens of books on Hadith and such...

Yet one thing which I've always been questioning is the states of consciousness Muhammad attained to in his life. Obviously I'm starting from the position that Muhammad was a historical personality and his life has been recorded fairly accurately by early Muslim historians. There has been some speculation into him being epileptic and the facts of his life certainly move in this area.

For example, Muhammad was often known to go into different states of consciousness where, outwardly, his body would either be motionless and heavy (like a yogi in Samadhi) or almost frothing at the mouth, eyes rolling back, sweating profusely, etc., and when he came out he said he had received Prophetic Revelation.

Before the revelation of the Qur'an, going by the history, he spent time on the Mountain of Light. There is no record of what he did besides "devotion".

I can never fully understand the whole situation. He said he "saw" Gabriel take manifestation in different forms. Sometimes as a man, sometimes in his angelic form, etc. He would receive revelation from sexual excitement with his favorite wife Aisha but not the others. This is the sort of thing that happens during sex to epileptics - the excitement triggers some sort of ecstatic fit which, in Muhammad's mind may have been presented as a religious revelation.

There is a Hadith where he is with Aisha and says "Gabriel gives you his greeting" and she says "You see that which I do not..." because he was only apparent to Muhammad. How strange that must have been!

I don't want anyone to take offense to this poking and prodding - I have a deep love for Muhammad and early Islamic history. I've been studying it for years and it's ingrained in me. I just find this mystery about what Muhammad really experienced to be fascinating.

Sometimes, due to the lack of any other explanation besides some sort of mental problem (which is hard to accept since the rest of his life was lived with absolute sanity, it would seem) I am inclined to want to accept the traditional belief as true.

Thoughts?
That way it is easy to prove that Bin Laden is a Yogi. So is Bush, he claimed God came in dream and asked him to invade Iraq.

Kasab must be the yogi shrmani.

Yogis do not lose their cool, Mo was usually did.

Yogis do not go on genocides, Mo did.

Yogis do not go about spreading their cult with sword, Mo did.

Yogis need not be celibate, but they do not show promocuness, pediphilia etc, Mo did.

Yogis do not aspire to kingdoms, Mo did.

Yogis do not enslave and rape women, Mo did.

Yogis do not claim to be messengers of God, Mo did.

Mo a Yogi? Then I am Manu.

rcscwc
09 August 2009, 08:25 PM
You are aware that the Arabic name Muhammad has no relation to the English word "mad" right?
In Bhavishya Purana a person Mahamad is mentioned.

Maha big, Mad, as mad in English.

In Sankrit Mad is ego. Highly eogoistic man, Mo was.

atanu
10 August 2009, 01:36 AM
Dear RC,

Does it benefit anyone by trying vainly to prove what you are insinuating? Does it benefit you or Hinduism? When in Bhavisya Purana, actually it is written that 'Paishacha Dharma' of 'Musals' was instituted as per commands of Ishwara?

In sanskrit mada is also known as inspiration/a sevant of Shiva (Bhagavat Purana), a son of Brahma (Vishnu Purana), in addition to other bad and good meanings.

mada': N. of a son of Brahma1 VP. ; N. of a servant of Siva BhP

'mad' is still better, as below:

mad: to gladden , exhilarate , intoxicate , animate , inspire RV.: , to gladden , delight , satisfy , exhilarate , intoxicate , inflame , inspire RV. etc.
----------------------------
I am a Shiva bhakta and I have no need to follow any other deity or dharma. But, IMO, it is immature to vent, lament, and spill frustration. Of course it is for you to decide. Everyone is free. Just wanted to share my understanding.

Om Namah Shivaya

rcscwc
12 August 2009, 05:51 AM
Does it benefit anyone trying to prove that Mo was a yogi? Who is trying to fool and whom?

Paisach has a nature, mad is as undesirable as told in Gita kaam, krodh, MAD, lobh and moh. Mo had all these in abundance. Is paisach a role model?

connyxoberst
13 August 2009, 02:39 PM
if he ever was at any point, he went horrendously wrong somewhere in his life. he went on to spawn the most violent religion with the most violent followers to date. in his 'holy book' there are messages of violence peppered throughout and because of that all of his followers feel justified. when i first learned of his history i immediately thought that hitler was a later incarnation of this dark soul.

rcscwc
17 August 2009, 10:55 PM
Dear RC,

Does it benefit anyone by trying vainly to prove what you are insinuating? Does it benefit you or Hinduism? When in Bhavisya Purana, actually it is written that 'Paishacha Dharma' of 'Musals' was instituted as per commands of Ishwara?

In sanskrit mada is also known as inspiration/a sevant of Shiva (Bhagavat Purana), a son of Brahma (Vishnu Purana), in addition to other bad and good meanings.


'mad' is still better, as below:

----------------------------
I am a Shiva bhakta and I have no need to follow any other deity or dharma. But, IMO, it is immature to vent, lament, and spill frustration. Of course it is for you to decide. Everyone is free. Just wanted to share my understanding.

Om Namah Shivaya

See

The normal meanings attributed to the term 'mada' in Sanskrit are:
intoxication, sexual desire or enjoyment, wantonness, lust, ruttishness, rut;
pride, arrogance, presumption, conceit of or about;

and 'mahAmada' or 'mahAmatta' means:
great pride or indication; excessive or violent rut.

The name clearly explains the nature of the person who founded the 'paishAcha dharma'.

Mad is to read with kam, krodh, lobha, moha, five undesirables.

So if Mo is Mahamad, then he has undesirable qualities.

atanu
18 August 2009, 12:30 AM
See
Mad is to read with kam, krodh, lobha, moha, five undesirables.
So if Mo is Mahamad, then he has undesirable qualities.

Please check before posting.

2(mwd)mad2 (cf. %{mand}) cl. 4. P. (Dha1tup. xxvi , 99) %{mA4dyati} (ep. also %{-te} ; Ved. also I. P. A1. %{mA4dyati} %{-te} ; 3. P. %{mama4tti} , %{-ttu} , %{mama4dat} , %{a4mamaduH} ; Ved. Impv. %{ma4tsi} , %{-sva} ; pf. %{mamA4da} ; aor. %{amAdiSuH} , %{amatsuH} , %{amatta} ; Subj. %{ma4tsati} , %{-sat} ; fut. %{maditA} , %{madiSyati} Gr. ; Ved. inf. %{maditos}) , to rejoice , be glad , exult , delight or revel in (instr. gen. loc. , rarely acc.) , be drunk (also fig.) with (instr.) RV. &c. &c. ; to enjoy heavenly bliss (said of gods and deceased ancestors) RV. TBr. ; to boil bubble (as water) RV. TS. S3Br. Hariv. ; to gladden , exhilarate , intoxicate , animate , inspire RV.: Caus. %{mA8da4yati} , %{-te} (Dha1tup. xxxiii , 31 , xix , 54 ; aor. %{a4mImadat} or %{amamadat} ; Ved. inf. %{madaya4dhyai}) , to gladden , delight , satisfy , exhilarate , intoxicate , inflame , inspire RV. &c. &c. ; (A1.) to be glad , rejoice , be pleased or happy or at ease RV. VS. Kaus3. ; (A1.) to enjoy heavenly bliss RV. TBr. BhP.: Desid. %{mimadiSati} Gr.: Intens. %{mAmadyate} , %{mAmatti} ib. [Perhaps orig. `" to be moist "' ; cf. Gk. $ ; Lat. {madere}.] &236247[777 ,3]

chandu_69
18 August 2009, 04:49 AM
Dear RC,

Does it benefit anyone by trying vainly to prove what you are insinuating? Does it benefit you or Hinduism? When in Bhavisya Purana, actually it is written that 'Paishacha Dharma' of 'Musals' was instituted as per commands of Ishwara?

It doesnt benefit anybody if incorrect claims are made.
Paishacha Dharma of mohammed is not as per commands of Ishwara.It is a claim made by Mohammed.

http://bhavishyapuran.blogspot.com/

That city is known as their site of pilgrimage, a place which was Madina or free from intoxication. Having a form of a ghost (Bhuta), the expert illusionist Mahamada(Muhammad) appeared at night in front of king Bhojaraja and said: O king, your religion is of course known as the best religion among all. Still I am going to establish a terrible and demoniac religion by the order of the Lord .



I am a Shiva bhakta and I have no need to follow any other deity or dharma. But, IMO, it is immature to vent, lament, and spill frustration. Of course it is for you to decide. Everyone is free. Just wanted to share my understanding.

Om Namah ShivayaYes it is important to note what mohammad did and taught .Mohammad behaved ,as per Hadiths like a demon.
Mohammad attacked hamlets killed men looted their belongings and enslaved women and children and sold them in slave markets.His activities are carried forward by his followers.

atanu
18 August 2009, 05:23 AM
It doesnt benefit anybody if incorrect claims are made.
Paishacha Dharma of mohammed is not as per commands of Ishwara.It is a claim made by Mohammed.

Namaste chandu,

Yes. Please read the following.
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=31018&postcount=5

I have no side to take as to whether a historical figure was of certain nature or not. Neither do I have a belief as to whether Bhavisya Purana is authoritative or not. However, the two points that must be pointed out are:

a) you translate as per your wish, and not completely. You ignore the word shown in bold in your translation:

raatrau sa devaruupashca bahumaayavishaaradah paishaacam dehamaasthaaya bhojaraajam hi soabravit

b) 'mad' in sanskrit is not what RC makes it out to be.


Om Namah Shivaya

chandu_69
18 August 2009, 06:44 AM
Namaste,

Namaste chandu,

Yes. Please read the following.
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=31018&postcount=5

Thanks.I read it now.I also noticed that you simply copy pasted the translation from Islamic sites like bvml.org/tmi/SS_bpatpm.html




I have no side to take as to whether a historical figure was of certain nature or not.Obviously you are taking the side of islam and Mohammad as evidenced from your blind copy paste from islamic sites.
Sometimes i wonder what this site is all about after reading your posts.


Neither do I have a belief as to whether Bhavisya Purana is authoritative or not. That is another matter altogether.Since the oped
mentioned about hindu scriptures we will take that in to account.


However, the two points that must be pointed out are:
a) you translate as per your wish, and not completely. You ignore the word shown in bold in your translation:

raatrau sa devaruupashca bahumaayavishaaradah paishaacam dehamaasthaaya bhojaraajam hi soabravit


The translation is straight forward.Unlike you i took the translation from http://bhavishyapuran.blogspot.com/

Now let us see the actual words.

paishaacam= pertaining to pisachas..

Now, what the muslim sites(from which you copy pasted) says?
guise of a Pishacha...

next
deva ruupashca= in the form(ruupa) of deva/angel.

How did the muslim sites tranlate it??

angelic disposition.

Atanuji, for a change, please don't fill this site with islamic junk.

atanu
18 August 2009, 07:02 AM
Namaste,

Thanks.I read it now.I also noticed that you simply copy pasted the translation from Islamic sites like bvml.org/tmi/SS_bpatpm.html



?? bvml.org an Islamic site?? Did not know that. hehe.

raatrau sa devaruupashca bahumaayavishaaradah paishaacam dehamaasthaaya bhojaraajam hi soabravit

The sanskrit passage is clear.

That does not mean that I am claiming I know whether Bhavisya Purana is authentic or not. I only know that it is one of the 18 Puranas.

-----------------------------
Neither am I supporting Muslim aggression and violence, which I am sure are related to particular guna mixture. I am suggesting that let us be as rational as possible, with the sattwik knowledge in the mind that Purusha is one single indivisible body.

The differences pertain not to persons (which do not exist since the Purusha is ONE) but to places and times, which are in the realm of guna prakriti.

Om Namah Shivaya

chandu_69
18 August 2009, 07:30 AM
?? bvml.org an Islamic site?? Did not know that. hehe.

Some lines were missing from my post carried from my word document.

The line was
I also noticed that you simply copy pasted the translation from Islamic sites like http://www.islam101.com/religions/hinduism/Mhs.htm , (http://www.islam101.com/religions/hinduism/Mhs.htm)www.cyberistan.org/islamic/prophhs.html etc (http://www.islam101.com/religions/hinduism/Mhs.htm) which took it from bvml.org/tmi/SS_bpatpm.html


raatrau sa devaruupashca bahumaayavishaaradah paishaacam dehamaasthaaya bhojaraajam hi soabravit
The sanskrit passage is clear.The sanskrit passage is clear. Clear how?.If you have a smallest working knowledge of Sanskrit you would have noticed the gross errors in translation.
paishaacam means pertaining to pishachas
not "in the guise of Pisacha(demon)
devaruupashca means in the rupa(form) of deva

not

"Angelic disposition".

chandu_69
18 August 2009, 07:39 AM
ATANUji please dont insult Lord SIVA by claiming that SIVA himself authorised mohammad.

That is a statement by the demon.

I also noticed your rather consistent tendency to insult Hindu gods.You said in another thread Hindu gods are also jealous(Like the Yahweh of Bible) by quoting Duryodhana.

In another thread you claim Purusha sukta mentions semen.

I am rather pained by your tendency to abuse hinduism while praising the imperialistic religions like islam and christianity.

atanu
18 August 2009, 11:46 AM
Some lines were missing from my post carried from my word document.
Namaste Chandu,

Earlier you said:



From chandu:
Thanks.I read it now.I also noticed that you simply copy pasted the translation from Islamic sites like bvml.org/tmi/SS_bpatpm.html

Now, humiliated yet not humble, you pin the blame of your mistake on 'WORD'. So, you also make mistakes? I thought that BVML was really an Islamic front.


ATANUji please dont insult Lord SIVA by claiming that SIVA himself authorised mohammad. That is a statement by the demon.

OK. I am a demon. But it was you who quoted Bhavisya Purana, which reads Lord Shiva saying: "He has no origin but he achieved a benediction from me".

I have already told you that I have no view on veracity of such Puranas. But it was you only who cited it.



I also noticed your rather consistent tendency to insult Hindu gods.You said in another thread Hindu gods are also jealous(Like the Yahweh of Bible) by quoting Duryodhana. In another thread you claim Purusha sukta mentions semen. I am rather pained by your tendency to abuse hinduism while praising the imperialistic religions like islam and christianity.

??. Are you imagining? I am pained by a Hindu like you who blatantly lies. The greatness of Hinduism does not depend on exhibition of constant fear of persecution and hatred. The greatness of Hinduism is in the strength of faith that nothing whatsoever happens without the will of Brahman-Ishwara, who indeed breaks the pride of even the Devas.




III-1. It is well-known that Brahman indeed achieved victory for the gods. But in that victory which was Brahman’s the gods revelled in joy
III-2. They thought, “Ours alone is this victory, ours alone is this glory”. Brahman knew this their pride and appeared before them, but they knew not who this Yaksha (worshipful Being) was.


III-3. They said to Agni: “O Jataveda, know thou this as to who this Yaksha is”. (He said “So be it.”


III-4. Agni approached It. It asked him, “Who art thou?” He replied, “I am Agni or I am Jataveda”.


III-5. (It said “What is the power in thee, such as thou art?” (Agni said “I can burn all this that is upon the earth.”


III-6. For him (It) placed there a blade of grass and said: “Burn this”. (Agni) went near it in all haste, but he could not burn it. He returned from there (and said “I am unable to understand who that Yaksha is”.


III-7. Then (the gods) said to Vayu: “O Vayu, know thou this as to who this Yaksha is”. (He said “So be it”.


III-8. Vayu approached It. It said to him, “Who art thou?” He replied, “I am Vayu or I am Matarsiva”.


III-9. (It said “What is the power in thee, such as thou art?” (Vayu said “I can take hold of all this that is upon the earth”.


III-10. For him (It) placed there a blade of grass and said: “Take this up”. (Vayu) went near it in all haste, but he could not take it up. He returned from there (and said “I am unable to understand who that Yaksha is”.


III-11. Then (the gods) said to Indra: “O Maghava, know thou this as to who this Yaksha is”. (He said “So be it”. He approached It, but It disappeared from him.


III-12. In that space itself (where the Yaksha had disappeared) Indra approached an exceedingly charming woman. To that Uma decked in gold (or to the daughter of the Himalayas), he said: “Who is this Yaksha?”



IV-1. She said: “It was Brahman. In the victory that was Brahman’s you were revelling in joy”. Then alone did Indra know for certain that It was Brahman.







Om Namah Shivaya

chandu_69
18 August 2009, 01:26 PM
Namaste Chandu,

Earlier you said:



Now, humiliated yet not humble,
Lol.Is that an intelligent comment?.It seems you cannot write any thing intelligible.


you pin the blame of your mistake on 'WORD'. So, you also make mistakes? I thought that BVML was really an Islamic front. When did i say i wont make mistakes?.




OK. I am a demon.The demon was Mahamada.And it is he who made the claim.It appears that you seldom read what you are responding to.


But it was you who quoted Bhavisya Purana, which reads Lord Shiva saying: "He has no origin but he achieved a benediction from me".I am really surpised by somebody who has a terrific reputation on hdf has such a low Attention to detail.

Receiving benediction is not the same as authorisation.Ravan received benediction From Lord Siva that doesnt mean He was authorised to do do adharmic acts.




I have already told you that I have no view on veracity of such Puranas. But it was you only who cited it.Not surprising.Since we are on the subject of The purana we will examine the context.It is pertinent to examine the purana since many muslims including Zakir naik quotes it.




??. Are you imagining? I am pained by a Hindu like you who blatantly lies.You should catch my lies instead of accusing me of making lies.I havent seen you doing that.



The greatness of Hinduism does not depend on exhibition of constant fear of persecution and hatred.Your definition of hatred is when somebody nails your lies and call your bluff like i did in other threads.


The greatness of Hinduism is in the strength of faith that nothing whatsoever happens without the will of Brahman-Ishwara, who indeed breaks the pride of even the Devas.Well, i don't think i(or anybody for that matter) have to learn the greatness of hinduism from somebody who abuses hindu gods and scriptures on a consistent basis.

Here is your quote:


'Paishacha Dharma' of 'Musals' was instituted as per commands of Ishwara?

Om Namah Shivaya
Here is what Bhavishya purana says:

Having a form of a ghost (Bhuta), the expert illusionist Mahamada(Muhammad) appeared at night in front of king Bhojaraja and said:

They will perform purificatory act with the musala or a pestle as you purify your things with kusha. Therefore, they will be known as musalman, the corrupters of religion. Thus the demoniac religion will be founded by me. After having heard all this the king came back to his palace and that ghost(Muhammad) went back to his place.

You are insinuating that Lord Siva has commanded Mahamada to establish paisahca dharma.

How low can you get Mr Atanu?

atanu
19 August 2009, 01:17 AM
I am really surpised by somebody who has a terrific reputation on hdf has such a low Attention to detail.

Dear chandu,

Namaste,

Do you forget that you said bvml.org was a Muslim organisation? Please care for yourself.


Receiving benediction is not the same as authorisation.Ravan received benediction From Lord Siva that doesnt mean He was authorised to do do adharmic acts.

Do you then think that Shiva gives benediction to anyone, just like that? hehe.

The story of Ravana is the story of every egoistic soul, who appropriates Sita (Prakriti) for himself. That is the ego present in everyone. By the benediction of Shiva, Ravana is finally freed of that ignoranace and merges in Vishnu -- the all pervading. The story of Ravana is the story of great benediction, the story of full flight of soul from ego to mergence in Vishnu.

Shiva's benediction is one thing we have no idea about. Only servants of Shiva get it.

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

Dear chandu,

I empathise with the 'Us and Them' them philosophy, because I am hardly above it. It is the most natural outburst in any situation: To blame the other. I empathise.

But there is a simple mistake. Brahman is without a second. He is Ishwara-Sarvesvara to us. Nothing happens without His icchha (Will), simply because He is omnipotent and omniscient. Being omnipotent means no event is beyond His control. Being omniscient means no event is outside Him.

More. When one goes to deep sleep, one loses one's ego and merges with the unlimited Sarvasvara, who is called Pragnya Ghana -- unbroken precursor to the intelligence of all.

In waking the 'unboken precursor to the awareness' remains the same but one sees that as variety of us and them (becuase in waking the ego identifies with the body and forgets that it is Pragny a Ghana that is indivisible ONE.

The premise of 'Us and Them' is wrong. And there is no benediction without comprehending Ishwara -- the whole. What you see and interpret is nothing but your idea superimposed on your own Pragnya Ghana -- the indivisible whole.

Till, the understanding of one single truth pervading every phenomenon is not comprehended, the strife will continue for the ego that sees any difference here.

That is Upanishad:
One who sees any difference here goes from death to death.
One who sees a second is not above fear.

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

With all humility, I say that sometime we attempt to fight the christian tendencies by adopting the same concepts of evil and good as two different beings.

No. It is only the ignorance that creates the evil.

Om Namah Shivaya

chandu_69
19 August 2009, 05:56 AM
Atanu has a way to fill up the pages and derail the core issues.


Do you forget that you said bvml.org was a Muslim organisation? Please care for yourself.

I already gave the clarification.Bvml erroneously translated the verses.

Atanu Wants to avoid discussion of the core issues and get in to a slanging match.

Sorry, Mr Atanu i am not obliging you.

atanu
19 August 2009, 07:32 AM
Atanu has a way to fill up the pages and derail the core issues.

I already gave the clarification.Bvml erroneously translated the verses.

Atanu Wants to avoid discussion of the core issues and get in to a slanging match.

Sorry, Mr Atanu i am not obliging you.


Namaste dear chandu,

Let me ask humbly. Whether there is one post of yours wherein you do not find fault elsewhere? To start with, the evil was seen in the other scriptures. But now evil (or demon) is seen, in bVML, in atanu, or even with the work of sages such as Shri Yogananda? The Universe should follow your dictates only or the Universe is as the Supreme will of God? Are you or your group the only correct thing in the UNIVERSE? Frankly speaking, I find, this approach not a bit different from hard core Christians or Muslims who preach exclusivist concepts. And this approach is incorrect from the view of sanatana dharma because the perceived EVIL WORLD is not something separate from your mind.

Today, in USA, if more than 60% people do not believe in the exclusivist agenda of Christian Church (refer to report in Times of India of 18.08.2009), it is due to the inclusive view and work of sages who have experienced a Pragnya Ghana that is without a second.

Om Namah Shivaya

chandu_69
19 August 2009, 09:06 AM
Namaste dear chandu,

Let me ask humbly. Whether there is one post of yours wherein you do not find fault elsewhere?

I make mistakes everyday and have the confidence to accept them.

Btw, we are discussing the sanskrit verses,Not me.


To start with, the evil was seen in the other scriptures. But now evil (or demon) is seen, in bVML, in atanu, or even with the work of sages such as Shri Yogananda?

Predictable response.Please dont put words in my mouth.I never said EVIL.

There is a problem with the translation in bvml.I pointed out the obvious mistakes.Either we discuss them or we Dont.

Please don't waste my time in slanging match.

saidevo
19 August 2009, 12:06 PM
Namaste Atanu.

I don't consider myself well informed to get into detailed discussion on the core issue of this thread, but I should like to point out something:



The story of Ravana is the story of every egoistic soul, who appropriates Sita (Prakriti) for himself. That is the ego present in everyone. By the benediction of Shiva, Ravana is finally freed of that ignoranace and merges in Vishnu -- the all pervading. The story of Ravana is the story of great benediction, the story of full flight of soul from ego to mergence in Vishnu.


Whatever the spiritual meaning an Advaitin derives from the RAmAyaNa, let him not be deluded by the supposition that it was all a story. RAmAyaNa and MahAbhArata, as you would sure appreciate, are ItihAsas, bearing testimony to the most ancient history of BhArat (that is just India today), highlighting the religious, cultural, social and political life of those days eons ago.

It is all very well that the world is nothing but mAyA, everything that ever happens here is just an illusory, playful sport of Brahman, and so the Hindus should focus only on the Advatic unity of Brahman behind every thing, place, person and event instead of having an 'us versus them' fight of ego. All this is fine, but let us not forget that possibly none of us here is always established in the state of TurIya, so our just intellectual insistence on seeing things only in the Advaitic way and say that all other ways are pitiful ego-play only gets us into an 'us versus us' fight.

So far as I am concerned, there is no denial of the fact that in the vyavahArika satyam (practical reality) of the world, Islam is a religion promoting terrorism in the name of religion, and Mohammad its prophet intended it that way, for the simple reason: that is how their own clergy view their religion. It all might be IsvarA LIlA, but in the drama of the world, we need to play our part--not of invasive aggression but of protective retaliation, especially when our own religious existence is threatened.

So long as the religious top brass of Islam and Christianity do not change their ways of aggressive religious uniformity and monopoly, and do not start to actively promote peaceful religious co-existence, realizing the deeper meaning of their own scriptures that we have discovered for them, we Hindus should desist from reading too much into their scriptures for the simple reason that we cannot make them see it, so why should we fight amongst us, trying to monopolize our own views?

atanu
19 August 2009, 12:28 PM
Please don't waste my time in slanging match.

Namaste chandu,

You may say whatever you like but I consider you a fellow traveller and consider you a friend, and brother. I do not consider it a slanging match and I did not invite you If it is a slanging match then why do you continue?

What you teach is not sanatana dharma. It is replication of christian theme of 'Us, the chosen ones and them, the damned'. Its not a bit different.

You translated:

raatrau sa devaruupashca bahumaayavishaaradah paishaacam dehamaasthaaya bhojaraajam hi soabravit

as below:



Chandu's translation:
Having a form of a ghost (Bhuta), the expert illusionist Mahamada(Muhammad) appeared at night

You omit devaruupashca altogether.

Moreover, devaruupashca does not merely mean devarupa (or of divine form). ca means 'yet' and also covering/concealing/pure/fragment. The BVML translation is not incorrect.

On the other hand, paishaacam dehamaasthaaya does not merely mean paishaacam. It means situated in a deha (body) of a paishaacam.

But your translation totally ignores 'ca' . Though, the funny part is that even your translation does say 'Having a form of a Ghost", and forget that the form may not be the reality.

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

But as I said earlier:

a) We do not need to go to Bhavisya Purana to prove that everything happens by the WILL of Ishwara.
b) The pragnya ghana Sarvesvara is infinite. What one sees in waking state is his own mind (demonic or sattwik) superimposed on the nirgunam Pragnya.
c) The Universe is not separate from the knower's mind.
d) The knower is the ego.


Om Namah Shivaya

chandu_69
19 August 2009, 03:34 PM
I mentioned devaruupashca in post 29:

deva ruupashca= in the form(ruupa) of deva/angel.

The usage to indicate Disposition is not found in any authentic scriptures.



paishaacam= pertaining to pisachas.
paishaacam was used In ramayana to denote brutality and demonic nature.
paishaacam word is used as an attribute.

Paishaacam was/is always used in brutal or demonic context.

Any reference contrary to that explanation would be helpful

atanu
19 August 2009, 11:09 PM
I mentioned devaruupashca in post 29:
deva ruupashca= in the form(ruupa) of deva/angel.
The usage to indicate Disposition is not found in any authentic scriptures.
paishaacam= pertaining to pisachas.
paishaacam was used In ramayana to denote brutality and demonic nature.
paishaacam word is used as an attribute.
Paishaacam was/is always used in brutal or demonic context.
Any reference contrary to that explanation would be helpful

Namskar chandu,

You know no sanskrit. It is not 'paishaacam' alone but it is 'paishaacam dehamaasthaaya' . It is not devaruupa alone but it is 'devaruupashca'. The bvml translation is much nearer the true translation, as below:

'of divine form yet situated in a demonic body' .
-----------------------------------------------------

However, dear chandu, it matters a little to me whether I have read Bhavisya Purana or not.

Sarvesvara Pragnya Ghana is the unlimited fullness that is the origin of all and controller of all. To this Sarvesvara Pragnya Ghana, everyone merges in deep sleep but are repulsed back to experience the embedded desires/karma in the dream and the waking worlds.

What one sees and experiences in the world is one's own mind. Nothing is outside Sarvesvara Pragnya Ghana. But the colouration is by the ego.
Om Namah Shivaya

Note: We all are 'of divine form yet situated in a demonic bodies' . Divine form is divvya form, which is made of light and not of flesh.

Om Namah Shivaya

rcscwc
20 August 2009, 02:08 AM
Even with that, paisach is a despicable one, worthy of pity.

You think missionaries masquerasing as Hindun Swamis are Hindus or xians?

If a snake looks like a rope, does it become a harmless rope?

rcscwc
20 August 2009, 02:10 AM
Naik is a joker. He cultivates people like Agnivesh, who say: Who is true son of his mother to have doubts about islam? Note that he claims to be an Arya Samaji. In Ch 14 of Satayarth Prakash, Maharishi Dayanand, founder of Arya Samaj, castigates islam!! This cookie has been repeatedly caught lying.

Naik selected a soft one in Sh. Sh. Ravi Shankar. He is a more of devotee of Sarswati than a theologian. Naik does not dare to debate with Acharya Dharmendra. This acharya is dreaded by by all crowds like Naik, missionaries etc.

chandu_69
20 August 2009, 02:15 AM
Namskar chandu,

You know no sanskrit.

That is a subjective statement.


It is not 'paishaacam' alone but it is 'paishaacam dehamaasthaaya' aasthaaya=being situated.It is not a temporary form.He(Mahamada)is already
situated in Piscacha form since he was a demon(Tripura).





.
It is not devaruupa alone but it is 'devaruupashca'.

I have mentioned this two times already.
deva ruupashca= in the form(ruupa) of deva/angel.

It appears that you have a problem reading even small paragraphs.Any intelligent discussion is impossible with you.

The demon(Mahamada) appeared in Deva ruupa(deva/angelic) form being a Magician(bahumaayavishaaradah).

And the next lines show mahamada telling Bhoja that he is going to establsih piscacha Dharma(Lol) at the commands of Iswara:

aaryayadharmohi te raajansarvadharmottamah smritah iishaagyayaa karishyaami paishaaca dharma daarunam.

And Mahamada indeed established a pishacha creed.Raiding(Ghazwa:arabic meaning raid), looting and slave trading.

Nobody with "angelic disposition" says he is going to establish Demonic creed.

That itself nails the translation twisting done by bvml.

atanu
20 August 2009, 02:39 AM
That is a subjective statement.


aasthaaya=being situated.It is not a temporary form.He(Mahamada)is already
situated in Piscacha form since he was a demon(Tripura).

Namaste chandu,

"aasthaaya" is not a form-- temporary or permanent. It is illogical to say "Situated as a demon" when one wants to say "Demon".


I have mentioned this two times alreadydeva ruupashca= in the form(ruupa) of deva/angel.

That is why I said you know not sanskrit. As 'Deva Rupa' itself means "In the form of Deva", there is no need to add 'ca', which means "and", "yet", "pure" etc.

It is illogical to say 'deva ruupashca' when one wants to say 'deva ruupa'.


Any intelligent discussion is impossible with you.

Happy to learn that. Good riddance. :) It is not clear however, why do you not choose to discuss with only intelligent people?

Om Namah Shivaya

chandu_69
20 August 2009, 03:15 AM
"aasthaaya" is not a form-- temporary or permanent. It is illogical to say "Situated as a demon" when one wants to say "Demon".

"aasthaaya" is not a form.

That what i am saying.aasthaaya= situated He has not assumed the form.He is already in that form.
That nails the faulty translation of Bvml.
guise of a Pishacha

aasthaaya=situated...

Do you have any other explanation for aasthaaya?





That is why I said you know not sanskrit. As 'Deva Rupa' itself means "In the form of Deva", there is no need to add 'ca', which means "and", "yet", "pure" etc

It is illogical to say 'deva ruupashca' when one wants to say 'deva ruupa'..

It is your opinion and as usual you wont quote the usage from authentic scriptures.



Happy to learn that. Good riddance. :) It is not clear however, why do you not choose to discuss with only intelligent people?

Om Namah Shivaya

I am not happy :(.

I choose to expose the lies of people who are adept in passing off their personal opinions as authentic.And i will continue to do so.;)

atanu
20 August 2009, 03:22 AM
"aasthaaya" is not a form.

guise of a Pishacha


:) Exactly. Guise of a Pishacha. Now, vak devi forced the correct words out of you.

I said you know not sanskrit. As 'Deva Rupa' itself means "In the form of Deva", there is no need to add 'ca', which means "and", "yet", "pure" etc. It is illogical to say 'deva ruupashca' when one wants to say 'deva ruupa'. Neither it is 'paishaacam' but it is 'paishaacam dehamaasthaaya' . How does 'deva ruupashca' differ from 'deva ruupa'? How does 'paishaacam' differ from 'paishaacam' dehamaasthaaya'?

As 'Deva Rupa' itself means "In the form of Deva", there is no need to add 'ca', which means "and", "yet", "pure" etc. Also, it is illogical and travesty of common sense to say 'deva ruupashca' when one wants to say 'deva ruupa'.


The bvml translation is much nearer the true translation, as below:

raatrau sa devaruupashca bahumaayavishaaradah paishaacam dehamaasthaaya bhojaraajam hi soabravit

'He of divine form yet situated in a demonic body' .


Your translation, on the pother hand, being motivated, does not use devaruupashca at all, thus is faulty from the word go. Moreover, Shiva does not grant benediction for nothing. Is Shiva ignorant or not omniscient that He will give boon to a demon for doing harm to the Universe?

It is laughable to even think that Shiva grants benediction to a demon without knowing the consequence?In what light does this put Ishwara?

Ego, being of limited nature, has no capability to take in all inputs and anlayse coherently, keeping the fullness, omniscience, and omnipotence of God.

Om Namah Shivaya

chandu_69
20 August 2009, 03:51 AM
:) Exactly. Guise of a Pishacha. Now, vak devi forced the correct words out of you.


About a couple of posts before i mentioned that you have trouble reading to posts to which you respond.You continue to amaze me with your poor attitude.

I said


That nails the faulty translation of Bvml.
guise of a Pishacha

Now i understand why people allow you to have the last word.One cannot debate with a person with such a poor and unintelligible attitude.

chandu_69
20 August 2009, 04:01 AM
Following are the activities of mohammad and his followers.

These activities are recorded by devout muslims and are considered Authentic(Sahih) by muslim scholars because they agree with quran.

048.020: Allah promiseth you much booty that ye will capture..


And Mohammad prays to Allah to get booty:


sira(biography of mohammad)- Ishaq:510 “We ask Thee for the booty of this town and its people. Forward in the name of Allah.’ He used to say this of every town he raided.


Sahih Bukhari, Book 7: Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.

...3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.



The full hadith can be read at http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/007.sbt.html


Mohammad prasing his henchman for enslaving of women and children.


Sahi Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 447
……Then the Prophet said (to Sad)." These (i.e. Banu Quraiza) have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "Kill their (men) warriors and take their offspring as captives, "On that the Prophet said, "You have judged according to Allah's Judgment," or said, "according to the King's judgment."


And what they did with the slaves captured?
They sell them when ransom is not possible.

Sahih Bukhari, Book 34: Sales and Trade

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their PRICES, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.

Mohammad is telling his followers not to avoid pregnancy of the slaves (before they are sold).

atanu
20 August 2009, 12:14 PM
Now i understand why people allow you to have the last word.One cannot debate with a person with such a poor and unintelligible attitude.


:D Desperation shows. But as I said earlier, I love you as my brother and on account of your love of Sanatana Dharma, which is Sanatana. It requires no props in form of illogic. It is built on truth and love.


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
21 August 2009, 02:14 AM
Dear Chandu,

Please do excuse me, if you have felt bad on my account. Also, please forget all that has been written above. I am as ardent votary of Sanatana Dharma as you are. Let me note a few points, which may not be for you, but that I feel will complement the discussion which otherwise would appear to be pointless to many.

Sanatana Dharma is solely related to Truth and upholding the Truth, since it is believed that satyameva jayate..

Sanatana Dharma also teaches that Truth is Existence itself as Knowledge and Bliss -- that is oneself (though the bliss is not known). The question arises: What is Self? In other words "What is the Truth?"

I will mention three pointers, as I understand:

A. Svetaketu was shown the empty space within a seed and was told "You are That". I try to remember this allways "I am akin to the empty space within the seed. I am not this localised body."

B. A dead body does not say "I wish to live. Please do not cremate me". The "I" is subtle and distinct from the body.

C. In deep sleep a person exists but knows no boundaries. The same person wakes up and sees the body and the Universe, assumes ownership of the body and then all "I, Me, Mine" concepts grow. But the peaceful man in sleep is bounadriless. And surely the man exists in bliss in such condition.
-----------------------
The boundaries that we see and use for all our discussions and fights are not part of the truth.

The boundaries are overgrowths, concretions. Only if one false ownership, (that of "I am this body"), is overcome, the whole perspective will change. This is true, since Upanishad teaches "Svetaketu, you are that", while pointing to the empty space within the seed.

Being of the nature of space, whom will one kill and by whom will one get killed?

Om Namah Shivaya

bhaktajan
21 August 2009, 04:25 PM
[I plagerised the start of this sentence from saidevo Post 39]:

So long as the religious top brass of Islam and Christianity do not change their ways of aggressive religious uniformity and monopoly, and do not start to actively promote . . . Cow-Protection . . . How can we . . . we will perennially fight amongst ourselves

bhaktajan
21 August 2009, 04:29 PM
Chandu 69 wrote [Post 49]:


Originally Posted by atanu http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=31562#post31562)

:) Exactly. Guise of a Pishacha. Now, vak devi forced the correct words out of you.


About a couple of posts before i mentioned that you have trouble reading to posts to which you respond.You continue to amaze me with your poor attitude.

I said Quote:


That nails the faulty translation of Bvml.
guise of a Pishacha


Now i understand why . . .
...........................................................



bhaktajan: Now this was priceless!