PDA

View Full Version : Krishna The Supreme Godhead



Spiritualseeker
05 August 2009, 12:49 PM
Namaste,

I just recently purchased this book http://www.amazon.com/Krsna-Personality-Bhaktivedanta-Swami-Prabhupada/dp/0892133333/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249494515&sr=8-1

I am interested at the review that was given. It seems to be pretty good. I hope it has some great insights in it.

With Love
-Juan
OM

yajvan
05 August 2009, 04:44 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~


Namasté

aham ātmā guḍākeśa
I am the SELF guḍākeśa¹ … Kṛṣṇa , the Bhāgavad gītā chapt 10, 20th verse.

praṇām

1. guḍākeśa - thick haired i.e. Arjuna
guḍā गुड - is a ball or globe ~ the head. It also means sugar which forms itself into lumps , dry sugar , treacle , molasses , first thickening of the juice of the sugar-cane by boiling - hence we get 'thickness'.
keśa केश - is the mane of a horse or lion; also a lock of hair on the crown of the head.

Spiritualseeker
05 August 2009, 06:19 PM
Namaste,

Thank you yajvan. Have you heard of the author of the book? It seems good its over 800 pages. Suppose to answer some deep questions about God. To be honest I dont know that much about Krishna other then him teaching the Bhagavad Gita. Which I absolutely love the Bhagavad Gita and its refferences to Kriya yoga. I am listening to audio CD's explaining the Bhagavad Gita based on the teachings of Sri Yogananda my guru :)

-juan

Spiritualseeker
05 August 2009, 07:29 PM
Namaste,

Also do you know if Sri Yogananda was a Vaishnava?

What is main differences in Vaishnava and Shaivite?

yajvan
05 August 2009, 08:45 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

Namasté juan


Namaste,

Thank you yajvan. Have you heard of the author of the book? It seems good its over 800 pages. Suppose to answer some deep questions about God. To be honest I dont know that much about Krishna other then him teaching the Bhagavad Gita. Which I absolutely love the Bhagavad Gita and its refferences to Kriya yoga. I am listening to audio CD's explaining the Bhagavad Gita based on the teachings of Sri Yogananda my guru :)
-juan

Yes, I have heard of this author (svāmī prabhupāda). He was the guru of one of my jyotiṣ teachers and stayed with him for some time.
I have read his works ( along with others). This always brings a balance to the views of the writer and what they offer when you can compare and contrast one view or insight vs. anothers view.


you mention

What is main differences in Vaishnava and Shaivite?
Much can be said about this and on HDF this tends to lead to the discussion (vāda) or even wrangling (jalpa) over who is Supreme (anuttara -अनुत्तर - best, excellent, chief ) . I'd much rather pursue what is common to both (samatā समता - sameness) and that is Brahman¹ , fullness and the expansiveness of Being. That is, Viṣṇu and Śiva are expressions of this Supreme Brahman.


So where are the differences? It is how one worships (adores) this Supreme as bhagavān¹ . Many here on HDF will assist you and we have many a post regarding this matter. I am happy that you are interested in this , it will yield much good.

praṇām

words

brahman ब्रह्मन् - from the root bRh ( some write bRMh)- to grow great or strong , increase to expand, greater then the greatest. This is the classical definition of Brahman, yet Brahman is considered beyond all conceptualization
bhagavān भगवान् - composed of bhaga + vān
bhaga भग-is " dispenser " , gracious lord ; We also know this bhaga as good fortune , happiness , welfare , prosperity
vān - if we look at vā, ( its 2nd definition) it is to procure or bestow anything. This fits well as the gracious Lord who bestows.
If we look at van वन् - this too can apply nicely as it means become master of , possess . Hence the gracious Lord is the master of and possor of. Yet what does He possess ? Bhaga - good fortune, welfare, prosperity. What else does He possess? That of bhā to shine forth; to be splendid, beautiful ; light or a beam of light , lustre , splendour ; It is He, bhagavān that possesses and /or is made of light and splendor, who is the bestower of fortune, and prosperity.

Spiritualseeker
05 August 2009, 08:51 PM
Yajvan. Thank you very much. Please excuse me I wasnt trying to draw out differences to get sectarian I am just curious. And since I believe Yogananda was a Vaishnite I am interested in it as I will soon start the self realization fellowship courses (waiting for the first package with basic meditation instruction).

With love
-juan

yajvan
05 August 2009, 09:12 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

Namasté juan



Yajvan. Thank you very much. Please excuse me I wasnt trying to draw out differences to get sectarian I am just curious. And since I believe Yogananda was a Vaishnite I am interested in it as I will soon start the self realization fellowship courses (waiting for the first package with basic meditation instruction).
With love -juan

I know your intentions are only the best - as it comes out in your words. I know your questions are sincere and being curious is a good 'itch' to have.

I do not recall what school Paramahaṃsa Yogānaṃda chose to follow.

praṇām

Spiritualseeker
11 August 2009, 08:10 PM
namaste,

So i got the book and starting to read it. It is a bit difficult for me to comprehend because it has a lot of myth in it. A lot of words are not translated which I dont understand. I will keep reading though and review it :)

saidevo
11 August 2009, 08:41 PM
Namaste SS.

If the title 'Supreme Personality of Godhead' means 'parabrahman', then it's the beauty of Hinduism that allows practically every major God to be treated this way. Thus we have the Shaivites with Shiva as Supreme, VaishNavities with VishNu, Iskconites with KrishNa, GANapatyas with Ganesha, KaumAras with Muruga and ShaktAs with Shakti.

According to the authority of the Smriti (PurANas), SrI KrishNa is an avatar of MahAVishNu although the Iskconites treat it the other way, not unlike some Christians for whom Jesus as the only God (although he was born as a man). It's the Bhagavad GitA of SrI KrishNa that verily makes him a ParaBrahman and rightly so, along with that entitlement for every other major God. As Yajvan has pointed out, it would only be needless wrangle to deny the state of ParamAtman to any major Hindu God.

Spiritualseeker
11 August 2009, 09:06 PM
Namaste,



If the title 'Supreme Personality of Godhead' means 'parabrahman', then it's the beauty of Hinduism that allows practically every major God to be treated this way. Thus we have the Shaivites with Shiva as Supreme, VaishNavities with VishNu, Iskconites with KrishNa, GANapatyas with Ganesha, KaumAras with Muruga and ShaktAs with Shakti.


This is amazing so its basically all these deities are the Supreme Godhead. Just viewed in different aspects so it seems. In the end Moksha is all the same no matter which deity you devote yourself to.



According to the authority of the Smriti (PurANas), SrI KrishNa is an avatar of MahAVishNu although the Iskconites treat it the other way, not unlike some Christians for whom Jesus as the only God (although he was born as a man). It's the Bhagavad GitA of SrI KrishNa that verily makes him a ParaBrahman and rightly so, along with that entitlement for every other major God. As Yajvan has pointed out, it would only be needless wrangle to deny the state of ParamAtman to any major Hindu God.


I sort of understand Parabrahman but could you give me a simple definition of it? I would much appreciate it.

OM
-juan

Spiritualseeker
11 August 2009, 09:12 PM
I found this definition

Parabrahman (Sanskrit) [from para beyond + Brahman (neuter) universal self or spirit]

That which is beyond Brahman; the self-enduring, eternal, self-sufficient cause of all, the one essence of everything in the kosmos. It is before all things in the kosmos, and is the one sole limitless life-consciousness-substance from which starts into existence a center of force which may be called the Logos. In the Vedic cycle of writing it is referred to as tat (that) as opposed to the world of manifestation called idam (this).

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Parabrahman/id/135452

saidevo
11 August 2009, 10:08 PM
The term 'parabrahman' does not indicate something beyond Brahman; 'para' as the attribute belongs to Brahman in the sense that Brahman is 'supreme, beyond definition'.

So there is no simple definition of Brahman except that it is 'nirguNa' (without attributes--the attributes that we ascribe are for our own comprehension). Below are some of the approaches by our Smriti (Vedas, Upanishads) towards knowing Brahman:

• satyam, jnAnam, anantam Brahma(n) -- Taittiriya Upanishad

Here 'satyam' denotes that Brahman is the eternal Truth; 'jnAnam' denotes that Brahman is not inert but active consciousness; 'anantam' means that Brahman is not localized in Heaven but infinite.

• a-dvayam, a-dvaitami, a-dvidtiiyam -- Chandogya (6.2.1,6.2.2), Kaivalya (19,23), Brhadaranyaka (4.3.22), Mandukya (7)

That is, "Brahman is One without a second." This statements is expanded in Mandukya Upanishad mantra 7:

"It (Brahman) is not the inward awareness. It is not the outward awareness. It is not the intermediate awareness. It is not the undifferentiated mass of awareness. It is not the knowing awareness. It is not non-awareness. It is unperceivable. It is not accessible to transaction. It cannot be grasped. It is attributeless. It is not accessible to thought. It is not amenable to communication. It is the substratum of the I thought. It is the remainder of the negation (annulment) of the universe. It is changeless. It is auspiciousness. It is the nondual reality. …… That is 'AtmA'.

(na antah-prajnam, na bahih-prajnam, na ubhyatah-prajnam, na prajaana-ghanam na prajnam na aprajnam; adrshtam avyavahaaryam agraahyam alakshanam acintyam avyapadesyam ekatma-pratyaya-saaram prapancopasamam saantam sivam advaitams......sa atma)

• "Subtler than the than the subtlest, greater than the greatest." "Nearer than the nearest, farther than the farthest …… unmoving moving everywhere." -- Kathopanishad I.ii.20, I.ii.21

Brahman is not just a flesh-incarnated avatar of God, not the Holy Ghost or the Father God but in and beyond them all. Brahman is not just in heaven but everywhere, unmoving in nature but moving everything in the world.

• "He is all pervasive, pure, bodiless, without wound, without sinews, taintless, untouched by sin, omniscient, ruler of mind, transcendent, and self-existent." -- Isavasya Upanishad 8

• Finally, Chandogya Upanishad (6.8.7), cryptically summarizes Brahman into three words: tat tvam asi -- That You Are. And you will know it when you realize, "aham brahmAsmi" -- I am Brahman.

This NirguNa Brahman cannot be worshipped, only meditated. When It takes a form it becomes SaguNa Brahman, starting with the Hindu TrimUrtis--the Godforms we worship.

Hindu scriptures refer to Brahman by the term 'Brahma', which is not to be confused with BrahmA, the Creator God among the TrimUrtis.

devotee
11 August 2009, 11:03 PM
That is a really good explanation, Saidevoji.

However, imo, it is not "ParaBrahman" but "ParamBrahman" : "Para" means beyond whereas "Param" means Supreme.

OM

Spiritualseeker
12 August 2009, 06:26 AM
Namaste,

Saidevo thank you for that wonderful explanation. Brahman it appears can only be experienced and not conceived through the intellect.

OM
-juan

saidevo
12 August 2009, 08:19 AM
Namaste Devotee.



However, imo, it is not "ParaBrahman" but "ParamBrahman" : "Para" means beyond whereas "Param" means Supreme.


'parama' (not 'param') means 'supreme, highest, greatest, excellent'.

The term 'param' is, I think, is the singular objective case of 'para', just like 'rAmam' and 'rAmaH'. 'para' has both the meanings of 'beyond' and 'supreme' and their derivatives.

SS, Brahman is intellectually known, devotionally felt and experientially realized--as the very Self immanent in us and all other beings. Knowing it intellectually is 'jnAna', devotionally is 'bhakti' and experientially is 'samAdhi'.

yajvan
12 August 2009, 03:33 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

I would like to offer a POV if I may regarding para, parā (some write parA) and parama. I look to the help of Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary (2002 and 2008 revision) and a few few other reference books and gleam the following:
With parā परा or para पर we see it defined as far , distant , remote (in space) , opposite , ulterior , farther than , beyond , on the other or farther side of , extreme ; previous (in time) , former ; ancient , past ; later , future , next ;exceeding (in number or degree) , more than.

Yet we see this also as any chief matter or paramount object having as the chief object , given up to , occupied with , engrossed in , intent upon , resting on , consisting of , serving for. Lets add an 'm' to para and get param परम्- and we get simular definitions.

Note that all are rooted in pṛ which IMHO links all of the words just discussed. This pṛ has several meanings:
to bring over or to bring out of , deliver from, rescue , save , protect , escort , further , promote.
What then of parama परम( a noun and superlative of para) is chief , highest , primary , most prominent or conspicuous yet is also most distant , remotest , extreme i.e. the highest point , extreme limit, in the highest degree.

As I see it it fits nicely with para+brahman परब्रह्मन् - the Supreme. Now some would say are you applying this to brahman ? brahma or brahmā ? We can leave this for now and see if my post ( and the others above) are in concert with each other on the notion of para, parā and parama.

praṇām

Spiritualseeker
12 August 2009, 07:59 PM
SS, Brahman is intellectually known, devotionally felt and experientially realized--as the very Self immanent in us and all other beings. Knowing it intellectually is 'jnAna', devotionally is 'bhakti' and experientially is 'samAdhi'.


Namaste,

Nicely said. I wish I could truely practice what I want to and stop getting caught up in my ego.



On another note I have been reading KRSNA The Supreme Personality of Godhead and I am getting a bad vibe from Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. On pg32-33 of the book he says:

"For persons who are not very advanced in absolute knowledge of the Supreme, Lord Krsna exhibits his Transcendental pasttimes. Such persons can simply think of the pastimes of the Lord and get full benefit. Since there is no difference between the transcendental name and form of the Lord, there is no difference between the transcendental pastimes and the form of the Lord. For those who are less intelligent (like women, laborers, or the mercantile class), the great sage Vyasedeva wrot in Mahabharata."


This seems rather sexest for me. I have heard already the many arguments Muslims made in defense of their sexest views. Now I am not blaming the beautiful Sanatana Dharma nor the Vaishnava path, but the author seems a bit sexest. I just hope Vaishnavas and Shaivites do not share his views that women are defficient in intelligents like Muhammad viewed them.

Spiritualseeker
13 August 2009, 06:09 PM
BUMP!

Eastern Mind
13 August 2009, 06:55 PM
SS: There is ongoing debate here and elsewhere on whether or not Sri Prabhulapada was a mysogynist (sp?) or not. As you know, the translations and commentaries on any sacred works differ widely. If it offends you, then in my opinion, that is a good thing. But all such comments are debatable in the ntellectual realms. I think you can see it (gender discrimination) better in actions, and in emotions. Sometimes it is just a clearer definition of gender roles, and a cultural sense of keeping apart for mental purity reasons. There is wisdom is single gender monasteries obviously. Happy exploring this issue.

Aum Namasivaya

Spiritualseeker
13 August 2009, 07:01 PM
Namaste,

Thanks EM. So it seems this has been an issue. I have heard the many statements on why it is said women are deficient in intelligence, but I just dont buy it especially when it comes to Enlightenment. It was said buddha himself originally thought enlightenment was just for men but upon his awakening knew it was for everyone.

Eastern Mind
13 August 2009, 07:15 PM
SS: In my opinion, a misogynist will surely be reborn as a woman. I mean, do we believe in karma and reincarnation, or not? Is it a reality, or just some intellectual concept that may or may not be true? You're getting me going now, lol. Enlightenment is no intellectual concept.

Lets try to describe the feel of riding a motorcycle down the empty road with the wind blowing across your face, and the smell of jasmine mixed with diesel coming through those nostrils.

Then jump on your friends bike and ride down the roads of India for half an hour.

You tell me which event will stick with you.

Aum Namasivaya

Spiritualseeker
13 August 2009, 07:18 PM
Haha well said. I would give you rep points but I gotta spread it to other users it states.

Eastern Mind
13 August 2009, 07:32 PM
SS:

I have no idea how to give rep points, and I wish that feature wasn't even there. This place is not a contest. But that's my opinion only. Others will vary. I wonder if I say a few really stupid things if I could get someone to ask to have some of those rep points removed.

A strategy for when people put you on a spiritual pedestal is to start smoking and spitting, I guess. lol

Aum Namasivaya

Spiritualseeker
13 August 2009, 08:23 PM
lol. I like them though. It gives us a chance to give appreciation to those who take time to respond to our post.

OM
-juan

devotee
13 August 2009, 10:08 PM
"For persons who are not very advanced in absolute knowledge of the Supreme, Lord Krsna exhibits his Transcendental pasttimes. Such persons can simply think of the pastimes of the Lord and get full benefit. Since there is no difference between the transcendental name and form of the Lord, there is no difference between the transcendental pastimes and the form of the Lord. For those who are less intelligent (like women, laborers, or the mercantile class), the great sage Vyasedeva wrot in Mahabharata."


This seems rather sexest for me. I have heard already the many arguments Muslims made in defense of their sexest views. Now I am not blaming the beautiful Sanatana Dharma nor the Vaishnava path, but the author seems a bit sexest. I just hope Vaishnavas and Shaivites do not share his views that women are defficient in intelligents like Muhammad viewed them.

Ah ! Not again, SS !! Don't keep on picking up something from everyone's statement & generalise the same for Vasihnavas, Hindus etc. These are the opinion of an individual & they should be treated as such. Forgot that Hindu Dharma is an un-organised religion ? Let everyone has his say.

Everyone has to taste the fruits of his own karmas. I must concentrate on my karmas ... where is the time for watching others ?? Remember, women are no less Brahman than BV Prabhupad is. If he chooses to see the difference ... he can do it at his own peril.

OM

Spiritualseeker
14 August 2009, 11:37 AM
Ah ! Not again, SS !! Don't keep on picking up something from everyone's statement & generalise the same for Vasihnavas, Hindus etc. These are the opinion of an individual & they should be treated as such. Forgot that Hindu Dharma is an un-organised religion ? Let everyone has his say.

Everyone has to taste the fruits of his own karmas. I must concentrate on my karmas ... where is the time for watching others ?? Remember, women are no less Brahman than BV Prabhupad is. If he chooses to see the difference ... he can do it at his own peril.

OM

Namaste,

I didnt generalized I just was hoping it was not the view of Vaishnavas and Shaivites. The reason why in particular Vaishnavas is the quote did come from the mahabharata.

"For persons who are not very advanced in absolute knowledge of the Supreme, Lord Krsna exhibits his Transcendental pasttimes. Such persons can simply think of the pastimes of the Lord and get full benefit. Since there is no difference between the transcendental name and form of the Lord, there is no difference between the transcendental pastimes and the form of the Lord. For those who are less intelligent (like women, laborers, or the mercantile class), the great sage Vyasedeva wrote in Mahabharata."

So Vyasedeva wrote this in Mahabharata. I find that this set of works is emphasized by Vaishnavas. So Vyasedeva wrote this and the founder of ISKON supported it. It was not just the founder of ISKON. it comes from a scriptural text.

Sorry If I offended you, it is just a concern for me.

-juan

ScottMalaysia
14 August 2009, 01:44 PM
Dear SpiritualSeeker,

The theology presented by Srila Prabhupada in that book is different from normal Hindu theology. He claims that Krishna alone is the Supreme Lord, and that Shiva, Ganesha, Durga and all the other Gods who are not incarnations of Vishnu are demigods. He refers to Lord Shiva and Lord Ganesha as demigods, as he believes that they are servants of Lord Krishna.

In his translation of Bhagavad-Gita, Prabhupada translates the word "deva" as "demigod". The word "deva" is the root of the Latin word "divinus" and the English words "divine" and "divinity". It clearly means "God" but he translates it as "demigod". Well, in most places, anyway. There are three verses in his Gita where he translates the word "deva" as "Lord" as it clearly refers to Lord Krishna. These are:

Bhagavad-Gita 11:38
tvam ādi-devaḥ puruṣaḥ purāṇas tvam asya viśvasya paraḿ nidhānam
vettāsi vedyaḿ ca paraḿ ca dhāma tvayā tataḿ viśvam ananta-rūpa

Prabhupada's Translation
You are the original Personality of Godhead, the oldest, the ultimate sanctuary of this manifested cosmic world. You are the knower of everything, and You are all that is knowable. You are the supreme refuge, above the material modes. O limitless form! This whole cosmic manifestation is pervaded by You!

Bhagavad-Gita.org translation
You are the original Lord, the eternal Personality, You are the supreme refuge of the universe, the knower and the knowable and the supreme abode; by Your infinite form all the universe is pervaded.

Bhagavad-Gita 11:44
tasmāt praṇamya praṇidhāya kāyaḿ prasādaye tvām aham īśam īḍyam
piteva putrasya sakheva sakhyuḥ priyaḥ priyāyārhasi deva soḍhum


Prabhupada's Translation
You are the Supreme Lord, to be worshiped by every living being. Thus I fall down to offer You my respectful obeisances and ask Your mercy. As a father tolerates the impudence of his son, or a friend tolerates the impertinence of a friend, or a wife tolerates the familiarity of her partner, please tolerate the wrongs I may have done You.


Bhagavad-Gita.org Translation
Therefore prostrating my body flat on the ground in offering obeisances, I am propitiating You, the worshipful Supreme Lord as a father with a son, a friend with a friend and as a lover with a beloved. O Lord be merciful and tolerant.


Bhagavad-Gita 11:45
adṛṣṭa-pūrvaḿ hṛṣito 'smi dṛṣṭvā bhayena ca pravyathitaḿ mano me
tad eva me darśaya deva rūpaḿ prasīda deveśa jagan-nivāsa


Prabhupada's Translation
After seeing this universal form, which I have never seen before, I am gladdened, but at the same time my mind is disturbed with fear. Therefore please bestow Your grace upon me and reveal again Your form as the Personality of Godhead, O Lord of lords, O abode of the universe.


Bhagavad-Gita.org Site:
O Lord, by seeing this never before seen universal form I am gladdened yet my mind is agitated out of fear, O Lord of all gods, O refuge of the universe, show me Your former form.


So we can see write there that Prabhupada did a bit of "selective translation" in his Gita translatoin.

bhaktajan
14 August 2009, 03:11 PM
Scott, I don't get your point ---it does not appear different. BTW, you are quoting different parts of Sri Arjuna's prayers & exaltations ---maybe you want to correct Arjuna's sentiments.

Scott wrote:
"Srila Prabhupada . . . claims that Krishna alone is the Supreme Lord,
and that Shiva, Ganesha, Durga and all the other Gods . . . are demigods. . . . that they are servants of Lord Krishna."

Scott this is correct!

The intellectual concept of "GOD" indicates & is revealed by Bhaktivedanta Swami's graciousness to you and others ---who accept the concept of "What is the definition of God".

God is: That person who is revealed as God Almighty as Krishna ---heretofore, unknown to the denizens of Bhumi-loka in this modern era.

Scott, what you have yet missed-out on is: The fact that 'Shiva, Ganesha, Durga and all the other Gods (devas) are cousins and related over the past 115 Trillion years since Sri Maha-pita-maha (dear great-grand-father) the adi-prajapati (the first progentitor) Lord Brahma (first born person/Engineer of the cosmos/father of Shiva/One-third part of the Hindu-Trinity incharge of Raja-Guna [active-mode of passion]) was born and began to poplulate the universe (the brahmanada).

The Demigods are each incharge of universal management ---and yes, they decend from a common family tree that starts with Lord Brahma. BTW, each Jiva-atma (individual Soul) entered the material Maha-Vishnu-Tattva by taking a birth their first birth in the material world, as a 'brahma' ---and then failed to achieve moksha. So here we all are searching out "Who is that supreme personality of Godhead that I must serve?".

The demigods are Gods to you and me and every body else ---who may seredipitously (luck), or, by causless mercy (unexpected benediction), or, by extreme tapasya (penence) chance upon being an unwiting or a willing tool in-the-service of such a Demigod ---at which point: Know that you are on the side of the angels and thus, doing a good job is to aide in God's work(s).

Eastern Mind
14 August 2009, 05:05 PM
Bhaktajan:

This is a Vaishnava opinion, or perhaps a personal interpretation, not a matter of fact. Lets not forget that Hinduism is very very vast. There is room for several variations of philosophy. It is not just one sect. Any reference to Siva being a demigod is an insult to any sincere Saiva, and their intelligence. Here we discuss Sanatana Dharma.

There are people who as devotees don't even consider the Gita as much of an authoritarian scripture, for them. This is not to deny that it is for yourself, and others. Our religion is so vast. In fact many devotees follow no scriptures at all. They rely on mystical experience or temple worship or a Guru's darshan to bring them the sense of God's presence that they cherish.

Aum Namasivaya

Spiritualseeker
14 August 2009, 07:49 PM
Namaste,

I would love to hear some comments on the text from the mahabharata that was quoted.
"For persons who are not very advanced in absolute knowledge of the Supreme, Lord Krsna exhibits his Transcendental pasttimes. Such persons can simply think of the pastimes of the Lord and get full benefit. Since there is no difference between the transcendental name and form of the Lord, there is no difference between the transcendental pastimes and the form of the Lord. For those who are less intelligent (like women, laborers, or the mercantile class), the great sage Vyasedeva wrote in Mahabharata."

P.S.
Thanks Scott
-juan

ScottMalaysia
14 August 2009, 08:16 PM
Scott, I don't get your point ---it does not appear different. BTW, you are quoting different parts of Sri Arjuna's prayers & exaltations ---maybe you want to correct Arjuna's sentiments.

I am showing how Srila Prabhupada selectively translates the word "deva" as "demigod" when it refers to Gods who are not Krishna or His incarnations, and as "Lord" when it refers to Krishna. If the word can be used to mean Krishna, then it cannot mean "demigod" unless you want to call Krishna a demigod.

The term "demigod" is used to refer to human being who later became worshipped as Gods, such as Madurai Veeran and Sanggili Karuppan, worshipped in Southern India and also Malaysia.


Scott wrote:
"Srila Prabhupada . . . claims that Krishna alone is the Supreme Lord,
and that Shiva, Ganesha, Durga and all the other Gods . . . are demigods. . . . that they are servants of Lord Krishna."

Scott this is correct!

The intellectual concept of "GOD" indicates & is revealed by Bhaktivedanta Swami's graciousness to you and others ---who accept the concept of "What is the definition of God".

God is: That person who is revealed as God Almighty as Krishna ---heretofore, unknown to the denizens of Bhumi-loka in this modern era.

Scott, what you have yet missed-out on is: The fact that 'Shiva, Ganesha, Durga and all the other Gods (devas) are cousins and related over the past 115 Trillion years since Sri Maha-pita-maha (dear great-grand-father) the adi-prajapati (the first progentitor) Lord Brahma (first born person/Engineer of the cosmos/father of Shiva/One-third part of the Hindu-Trinity incharge of Raja-Guna [active-mode of passion]) was born and began to poplulate the universe (the brahmanada).


Please provide Sastric proof for this. I want to see quotes from the Vedas or Upanishads - don't even bother quoting the Srimad-Bhagavatam at me as the Shiva Purana and Linga Purana are also Puranas but they provide a different view altogether. Shruti alone is admissible in a debate.


The Demigods are each incharge of universal management ---and yes, they decend from a common family tree that starts with Lord Brahma. BTW, each Jiva-atma (individual Soul) entered the material Maha-Vishnu-Tattva by taking a birth their first birth in the material world, as a 'brahma' ---and then failed to achieve moksha. So here we all are searching out "Who is that supreme personality of Godhead that I must serve?".

The demigods are Gods to you and me and every body else ---who may seredipitously (luck), or, by causless mercy (unexpected benediction), or, by extreme tapasya (penence) chance upon being an unwiting or a willing tool in-the-service of such a Demigod ---at which point: Know that you are on the side of the angels and thus, doing a good job is to aide in God's work(s).

Again, please provide proof from the Shruti for this.

TatTvamAsi
14 August 2009, 08:36 PM
You seem to want to elicit a response to criticize others with this particular quote.

The point is that the Mahabharata is itihAsA (historical) in nature.

You're a westerner with a particular mindset of "how" women etc. should be treated. This is definitely not the same for people around the world. Accepting that and letting others live with their mindsets, as long as it does not cause harm, is what Hinduism is about. Not this feigned 'freedom' BS that is spewed out by westerners on a daily basis while they treat their pets better than their relatives!

When in comes to spirituality, there is an absolute difference in propensity between males and females. Within that, there is a difference between the castes as well. Hinduism has codified this and explained this in a deep philosophical way; hence Varnashrama Dharma.

As ex-Harvard president Larry Summers said, there is a distinct difference in capability in mathematics and science between males and females. How many female mathematicians, physicists, or other scientists do you see compared to that of males (ratio)?

At the end of the day, women have their strengths and men have theirs. It is foolish to force nature, and consequently the mindset of people, into a pre-determined state where everything is fake. This is why political correctness is a blight in society; people are not able to speak their minds.

Of course, there are exceptions as always, like Maitreyi, the wise wife of Sage Yagnavalkya. There have been many great female devotees and sages, however, in ratio, they form a very small number, analogous to the mathematicians/scientists example.

Remember, people are only equal in terms of having opportunity, for which I wholeheartedly support. This does NOT mean "everyone is equal"! Each person, male or female, has his good and bad points. We must cultivate each person's good points so that the society as a whole, not individualistically, will prosper; this is basis of the much maligned "caste system".

Namaskar.


Namaste,

I would love to hear some comments on the text from the mahabharata that was quoted.
"For persons who are not very advanced in absolute knowledge of the Supreme, Lord Krsna exhibits his Transcendental pasttimes. Such persons can simply think of the pastimes of the Lord and get full benefit. Since there is no difference between the transcendental name and form of the Lord, there is no difference between the transcendental pastimes and the form of the Lord. For those who are less intelligent (like women, laborers, or the mercantile class), the great sage Vyasedeva wrote in Mahabharata."

P.S.
Thanks Scott
-juan

ScottMalaysia
14 August 2009, 08:41 PM
SpiritualSeeker,

You should check out these links for more info on ISKCON:

ISKCON - A Boon or a Curse? (http://iyerwall.blogspot.com/2008/07/iskcon-boon-or-curse.html)
Hare Krishna Women (http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com)

Srila Prabhupada thought that women were less intelligent than men, and he also thought that they shouldn't be educated beyond basic reading and writing. He also said that worship of Ganesha should not be done - only Krishna and His incarnations can be worshipped.

Spiritualseeker
14 August 2009, 08:44 PM
Namaste,

judging by your reaction it seems like this struck your core. Do not make it personal. It is simply a concern. Basically your defending it. That is quite alright. I will disagree with you. You may call it western BS but I find my concerns valid. Just like a muslim who beats his wife after admonishing her, and forsaking her in bed, he thinks it is also western BS. I know a friend of mine who argued me on that point. Does that mean my point is BS? Maybe, but I do not think so. This text is basically suggesting that women are deficient when it comes to Spiritual matters. This is just as rediculous as the muhammadin concept that women are deficient because they are more emotional and have menses and thus cant do their salat (prayers). But that is your opinion. I have mine. It is not personal. I am on a journey. You will not stand in my way in my journey or I will run you over. I will not stand in your way or you will run me over. Its all right.

Perhaps I am deluded because I am westerner. But I will not bow down to this text because some Sage wrote it and I am suppose to agree with him.

-juan

Spiritualseeker
14 August 2009, 08:52 PM
SpiritualSeeker,

You should check out these links for more info on ISKCON:

ISKCON - A Boon or a Curse? (http://iyerwall.blogspot.com/2008/07/iskcon-boon-or-curse.html)
Hare Krishna Women (http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com)

Srila Prabhupada thought that women were less intelligent than men, and he also thought that they shouldn't be educated beyond basic reading and writing. He also said that worship of Ganesha should not be done - only Krishna and His incarnations can be worshipped.

Thank you for this scott. It seems like this guy was far from enlightened. Maybe another hundred lifetimes and he will be set alright.

Spiritualseeker
14 August 2009, 08:52 PM
Tat,

by the way I believe in the divine Matrix. The oneness of all beings. Women and men. Call it BS. I call it Divine.

with love
-juan

devotee
14 August 2009, 11:08 PM
For those who are less intelligent (like women, laborers, or the mercantile class), the great sage Vyasedeva wrote in Mahabharata."[/FONT]

So Vyasedeva wrote this in Mahabharata. I find that this set of works is emphasized by Vaishnavas. So Vyasedeva wrote this and the founder of ISKON supported it. It was not just the founder of ISKON. it comes from a scriptural text.

Sorry If I offended you, it is just a concern for me.


Namaste SS,

No, no, I didn't feel offended at all. It is a friendly discussion & your questions are also valid.

What I wanted to say that please don't be guided by Srila Prabhupad or others unless you read and understand the scriptures yourself in Samskrit i.e. in original form. I am not aware if Maharishi Vyas used such derogatory language for women. With due respect to Srila Prabhupad, I find most of his mis-translations of holy scriptures very very annoying. that includes even Bhagwad Gita. If you read Bhagwad Gita (mis)translated by him, it would leave you utterly confused.

In Hinduism, women always have enjoyed status which is never less than men. Let me tell you something :

i) Once you marry, you must do all religious activities with your wife, otherwise it is not considered "complete". The wife is not just a life partner in Hinduism, she is called "ardhaangini" ( half of your own being) & therefore, she must be involved in all religious ceremonies. I don't know whether it is done in all communities within Hindus but in our community, the bridegroom is supposed to touch the thumb of the right foot of the bride before starting the "Saptpadi" (taking seven rounds of the fire & taking vows) as she is considered to be Mother Goddess Laxmi at that moment.

When Mandan Misir was defeated in spiritual debate by Adi Guru Shankaracharya, his wife said that Shankara must first defeat her too before claiming victory as she was half of the being of Mandan Misir (being his wife).

ii) The position of mother is above father in Hinduism. When Rama was ordered to go to forest by his father, mother Kaushalya said that I being your (Lord Rama's) mother enjoy higher authority than your father & I order you not to go the forest. Then Lord Rama smiled & said, "Mother, it is not only the order of father but it is also the wishes of my (step) mother Kaikeyee & therefore, I must go.".

iii) The first step of bride into her in-laws's house is considered as those of Mother Goddess.

I don't deny that there have been some saints who have expressed their opinion which can be considered denigrading the position of women. However, there have been saints who have also worshipped their own wives as mother goddess (e.g. Ramkrishna Paramhans) !

Hindus believe in, "Naaryah yatra poojyante ramante tatra devataah" ===> The gods live where the women are worshipped !

OM

TatTvamAsi
14 August 2009, 11:14 PM
Your questions are well-intentioned for the most part however the last one in which you asked people to 'comment' seemed a bit pointless as one's comments don't reflect the nature of the philosophy anyway.

And that is the crux of the problem. You think that this is "some text" and we Hindus don't consider them that trivially. They are collective experiences or revelations that have been written down, albeit recently, to guide human beings in the pursuit of happiness (i.e. figuring out the purpose of life).

If these were just 'texts' from which we can cherry pick what we want and what suits us at a particular time, their significance would be totally washed away and consequently the content would be banal.

You claim that the assessment by Sage Vyasa that women and other lower caste people as being spiritually wanting is "rediculous" (what is that?) is completely unwarranted and frankly is of no value. Now, this does not mean that I am personally any more spiritually developed than yourself, but I certainly believe that Sage Vyasa was far more highly developed than the both of us combined. His statements are pithy and each contain kernels of wisdom for people in all stages of their lives. To trivialize his statements is tantamount to trivializing Krishna Dwaipayana (Vyasa) himself! Whether you consider him your guru is another story; and Hinduism allows you the freedom to choose your guru (or the guru to choose you). However, as a Hindu, you cannot denounce Vyasa, his knowledge, his stature as a jnani etc. That would not make sense.

Also, these statements were not by "some sage" either. A sage by definition is one who is a jnani (enlightened person). If an enlightened person were to make trivial remarks as per your claim, the entirety of the philosophy or the culmination of their statements would be puerile and insignificant.

I am totally open to debate and discussion of topics such as this. However, if you say you will have your "opinion" and I mine, where is the discussion? The discussion will have concluded even before it is begun!

Anyway, there is no need to look upon females and lower caste people as 'inferior' and treat them cruelly. However, they themselves should know their limits, capabilities, and capacity before engaging in loquacious dialogue.

Namaskar.


Namaste,

judging by your reaction it seems like this struck your core. Do not make it personal. It is simply a concern. Basically your defending it. That is quite alright. I will disagree with you. You may call it western BS but I find my concerns valid. Just like a muslim who beats his wife after admonishing her, and forsaking her in bed, he thinks it is also western BS. I know a friend of mine who argued me on that point. Does that mean my point is BS? Maybe, but I do not think so. This text is basically suggesting that women are deficient when it comes to Spiritual matters. This is just as rediculous as the muhammadin concept that women are deficient because they are more emotional and have menses and thus cant do their salat (prayers). But that is your opinion. I have mine. It is not personal. I am on a journey. You will not stand in my way in my journey or I will run you over. I will not stand in your way or you will run me over. Its all right.

Perhaps I am deluded because I am westerner. But I will not bow down to this text because some Sage wrote it and I am suppose to agree with him.

-juan

saidevo
15 August 2009, 01:02 AM
Namaste SS.

This is in reference to post #17 dated 13 Aug 2009 wherein your first brought up the question if women (you zoomed out the word) are less intelligent and if sage VyAsa said so.

It seems that the origin of this controversy is the Srimad BhAgavatam verses 1.4.24 and 1.4.25 whose translations are as follows:

SB 1.4.24: Thus the great sage VyAsadeva, who is very kind to the ignorant masses, edited the Vedas so they might be assimilated by less intellectual men.

SB 1.4.25: Out of compassion, the great sage thought it wise that this would enable men to achieve the ultimate goal of life. Thus he compiled the great historical narration called the MahAbhArata for women, laborers and friends of the twice-born. (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/4/en)

Please notice that verse 1.4.24 only speaks about the "less intellectual men" and verse 1.4.25 speaks about "women, laborers and friends of the twice-born" without assigning any qualifications to them.

Please also notice that it is in his 'PURPORT' where PrabhupAda gives his own interpretation of the translation, he speaks about women being of the "less intelligent classes", giving an impression that sage VyAsa also thought as he thought about women. This is what PrabhupAda says in the 'PURPORT':

"The less intelligent classes of men, namely women, shUdras and unqualified sons of the higher castes, are devoid of necessary qualifications to understand the purpose of the transcendental Vedas. For them the MahAbhArata was prepared. The purpose of the MahAbhArata is to administer the purpose of the Vedas, and therefore within this MahAbhArata the summary Veda of Bhagavad-gItA is placed. The less intelligent are more interested in stories than in philosophy, and therefore the philosophy of the Vedas in the form of the Bhagavad-gItA is spoken by the Lord SrI KrishNa. VyAsadeva and Lord KrishNa are both on the transcendental plane, and therefore they collaborated in doing good to the fallen souls of this age." (http://vedabase.net/sb/1/4/25/)

And PrabhupAda reiterates his opinion in his 'PURPORT' to SB 3.23.54. The actual translation of the verse is:

SB 3.23.54: Not knowing your transcendental situation, I have loved you while remaining attached to the objects of the senses. Nonetheless, let the affinity I have developed for you rid me of all fear. (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/3/23/en)

This is a statement of DevahUti, to which PrabhupAda adds his own interpretation thus:

DevahUti is lamenting her position. As a woman, she had to love someone. Somehow or other, she came to love Kardama Muni, but without knowing of his spiritual advancement. Kardama Muni could understand DevahUti's heart; generally all women desire material enjoyment. They are called less intelligent because they are mostly prone to material enjoyment. DevahUti laments because her husband had given her the best kind of material enjoyment, but she did not know that he was so advanced in spiritual realization. Her plea was that even though she did not know the glories of her great husband, because she had taken shelter of him she must be delivered from material entanglement. Association with a great personality is most important. (http://vedabase.net/sb/3/23/54/)

Does VyAsa say anything such as that he wrote his epic for the "less intelligent" class of people like "women and laborers"?

The Adi Parva introduces the epic MahAbhArata thus:
(Kisari Mohan Ganguli's translation, downloadable as a single pdf file
at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14126117/Mahabharata-Kisari-Mohan-Ganguli)

"The Purana, first promulgated by the great Rishi Dwaipayana, and which after having been heard both by the gods and the Brahmarshis was highly esteemed, being the most eminent narrative that exists, diversified both in diction and division, possessing subtile meanings logically combined, and gleaned from the Vedas, is a sacred work. Composed in elegant language, it includeth the subjects of other books. It is elucidated by other Shastras, and comprehendeth the sense of the four Vedas."

Sage VyAsa himself describes his 'composition' to Lord BrahmA thus:

"O divine Brahma, by me a poem hath been composed which is greatly respected. The mystery of the Veda, and what other subjects have been explained by me; the various rituals of the Upanishads with the Angas; the compilation of the Puranas and history formed by me and named after the three divisions of time, past, present, and future; the determination of the nature of decay, fear, disease, existence, and non-existence, a description of creeds and of the various modes of life; rule for the four castes, and the import of all the Puranas; an account of asceticism and of the duties of a religious student; the dimensions of the sun and moon, the planets, constellations, and stars, together with the duration of the four ages; the Rik, Sama and Yajur Vedas; also the Adhyatma; the sciences called Nyaya, Orthoephy and Treatment of diseases; charity and Pasupatadharma; birth celestial and human, for particular purposes; also a description of places of pilgrimage and other holy places of rivers, mountains,, forests, the ocean, of heavenly cities and the kalpas; the art of war; the different kinds of nations and languages: the nature of the manners of the people; and the all-pervading spirit;--all these have been represented. But, after all, no writer of this work is to be found on earth."

Understand that in ancient India, Sanskrit texts were 'composed' and 'passed on' under a great oral tradition. Sage VyAsa wants his 'poem' to be 'written down' which is why he says "no writer of this work is to be found on earth".

Lord BrahmA blesses him thus: "I esteem thee for thy knowledge of divine mysteries, before the whole body of celebrated Munis distinguished for the sanctity of their lives. I know thou hast revealed the divine word, even from its first utterance, in the language of truth. Thou hast called thy present work a poem, wherefore it shall be a poem. There shall be no poets whose works may equal the descriptions of this poem, even, as the three other modes called Asrama are ever unequal in merit to the domestic Asrama. Let Ganesa be thought of, O Muni, for the purpose of writing the poem."

The story of GaneshA imposing a condition that the sage should never let his pen pause even for a moment while he was writing, VyAsa agreeing to it, and then GaneshA writing down the composition in great speed, breaking one of his tusks to serve as a pen, and sage VyAsa matching his speed in composition, frequently giving the God tough verses to ponder on before he wrote them down is well known, even to the "less intelligent" people like us, let alone women and labourers!

And mind you, MahAbhArata was composed and written down in high Sanskrit. But for the translations in the modern days and the lectures in the ancient days, the populace would never have understood it.

rkpande
15 August 2009, 04:30 AM
If in BG inferiority of woman is implied, if Shri Shankra in his VivekaCudamani does not mince his words in saying that only male body can get liberated and when Goswami Tulisidas keeps a woman in the same category as ‘pasu’, we don’t have to be ashamed of our inherited wisdom or to become defensive or to take offence or to out rightly discard it as rubbish.

IMHO, there has to be some one, on the top of karmic- food- chain, ready to get liberated, a bird or a plant or an animal, I am sure can not reach that apex in their present life form. They have to advance constantly incarnations by incarnations to reach a point from where they have a possibility to jump in void of sunayata or state of turiya. Like an airplane which has to reach v2 from v1 velocity before it can take off. Perhaps a woman incarnation is in v1 stage.

May be, in karmic dispensations as designed by the almighty, the last station of life has to be a male human form. Why question that. What it may imply is that a woman might have to incarnate as man finally to be able to liberate and so she is inferior to man human form. If it’s a divine rule, why argue, we don’t know that yet, that’s it. If we have to incarnate in 84 crores of yonies, why bother. Liberate, we will, finally

Spiritualseeker
15 August 2009, 06:45 AM
Namaste SS,

No, no, I didn't feel offended at all. It is a friendly discussion & your questions are also valid.

What I wanted to say that please don't be guided by Srila Prabhupad or others unless you read and understand the scriptures yourself in Samskrit i.e. in original form. I am not aware if Maharishi Vyas used such derogatory language for women. With due respect to Srila Prabhupad, I find most of his mis-translations of holy scriptures very very annoying. that includes even Bhagwad Gita. If you read Bhagwad Gita (mis)translated by him, it would leave you utterly confused.

In Hinduism, women always have enjoyed status which is never less than men. Let me tell you something :

i) Once you marry, you must do all religious activities with your wife, otherwise it is not considered "complete". The wife is not just a life partner in Hinduism, she is called "ardhaangini" ( half of your own being) & therefore, she must be involved in all religious ceremonies. I don't know whether it is done in all communities within Hindus but in our community, the bridegroom is supposed to touch the thumb of the right foot of the bride before starting the "Saptpadi" (taking seven rounds of the fire & taking vows) as she is considered to be Mother Goddess Laxmi at that moment.

When Mandan Misir was defeated in spiritual debate by Adi Guru Shankaracharya, his wife said that Shankara must first defeat her too before claiming victory as she was half of the being of Mandan Misir (being his wife).

ii) The position of mother is above father in Hinduism. When Rama was ordered to go to forest by his father, mother Kaushalya said that I being your (Lord Rama's) mother enjoy higher authority than your father & I order you not to go the forest. Then Lord Rama smiled & said, "Mother, it is not only the order of father but it is also the wishes of my (step) mother Kaikeyee & therefore, I must go.".

iii) The first step of bride into her in-laws's house is considered as those of Mother Goddess.

I don't deny that there have been some saints who have expressed their opinion which can be considered denigrading the position of women. However, there have been saints who have also worshipped their own wives as mother goddess (e.g. Ramkrishna Paramhans) !

Hindus believe in, "Naaryah yatra poojyante ramante tatra devataah" ===> The gods live where the women are worshipped !

OM


Namaste Devotee,

Thank you for sharing this and showing clarification. When I asked for comments on the verse I was hoping to hear something like this. THank you very much :)

Spiritualseeker
15 August 2009, 06:49 AM
Namaste SS.

This is in reference to post #17 dated 13 Aug 2009 wherein your first brought up the question if women (you zoomed out the word) are less intelligent and if sage VyAsa said so.

It seems that the origin of this controversy is the Srimad BhAgavatam verses 1.4.24 and 1.4.25 whose translations are as follows:

SB 1.4.24: Thus the great sage VyAsadeva, who is very kind to the ignorant masses, edited the Vedas so they might be assimilated by less intellectual men.

SB 1.4.25: Out of compassion, the great sage thought it wise that this would enable men to achieve the ultimate goal of life. Thus he compiled the great historical narration called the MahAbhArata for women, laborers and friends of the twice-born. (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/4/en)

Please notice that verse 1.4.24 only speaks about the "less intellectual men" and verse 1.4.25 speaks about "women, laborers and friends of the twice-born" without assigning any qualifications to them.

Please also notice that it is in his 'PURPORT' where PrabhupAda gives his own interpretation of the translation, he speaks about women being of the "less intelligent classes", giving an impression that sage VyAsa also thought as he thought about women. This is what PrabhupAda says in the 'PURPORT':

"The less intelligent classes of men, namely women, shUdras and unqualified sons of the higher castes, are devoid of necessary qualifications to understand the purpose of the transcendental Vedas. For them the MahAbhArata was prepared. The purpose of the MahAbhArata is to administer the purpose of the Vedas, and therefore within this MahAbhArata the summary Veda of Bhagavad-gItA is placed. The less intelligent are more interested in stories than in philosophy, and therefore the philosophy of the Vedas in the form of the Bhagavad-gItA is spoken by the Lord SrI KrishNa. VyAsadeva and Lord KrishNa are both on the transcendental plane, and therefore they collaborated in doing good to the fallen souls of this age." (http://vedabase.net/sb/1/4/25/)

And PrabhupAda reiterates his opinion in his 'PURPORT' to SB 3.23.54. The actual translation of the verse is:

SB 3.23.54: Not knowing your transcendental situation, I have loved you while remaining attached to the objects of the senses. Nonetheless, let the affinity I have developed for you rid me of all fear. (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/3/23/en)

This is a statement of DevahUti, to which PrabhupAda adds his own interpretation thus:

DevahUti is lamenting her position. As a woman, she had to love someone. Somehow or other, she came to love Kardama Muni, but without knowing of his spiritual advancement. Kardama Muni could understand DevahUti's heart; generally all women desire material enjoyment. They are called less intelligent because they are mostly prone to material enjoyment. DevahUti laments because her husband had given her the best kind of material enjoyment, but she did not know that he was so advanced in spiritual realization. Her plea was that even though she did not know the glories of her great husband, because she had taken shelter of him she must be delivered from material entanglement. Association with a great personality is most important. (http://vedabase.net/sb/3/23/54/)

Does VyAsa say anything such as that he wrote his epic for the "less intelligent" class of people like "women and laborers"?

The Adi Parva introduces the epic MahAbhArata thus:
(Kisari Mohan Ganguli's translation, downloadable as a single pdf file
at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14126117/Mahabharata-Kisari-Mohan-Ganguli)

"The Purana, first promulgated by the great Rishi Dwaipayana, and which after having been heard both by the gods and the Brahmarshis was highly esteemed, being the most eminent narrative that exists, diversified both in diction and division, possessing subtile meanings logically combined, and gleaned from the Vedas, is a sacred work. Composed in elegant language, it includeth the subjects of other books. It is elucidated by other Shastras, and comprehendeth the sense of the four Vedas."

Sage VyAsa himself describes his 'composition' to Lord BrahmA thus:

"O divine Brahma, by me a poem hath been composed which is greatly respected. The mystery of the Veda, and what other subjects have been explained by me; the various rituals of the Upanishads with the Angas; the compilation of the Puranas and history formed by me and named after the three divisions of time, past, present, and future; the determination of the nature of decay, fear, disease, existence, and non-existence, a description of creeds and of the various modes of life; rule for the four castes, and the import of all the Puranas; an account of asceticism and of the duties of a religious student; the dimensions of the sun and moon, the planets, constellations, and stars, together with the duration of the four ages; the Rik, Sama and Yajur Vedas; also the Adhyatma; the sciences called Nyaya, Orthoephy and Treatment of diseases; charity and Pasupatadharma; birth celestial and human, for particular purposes; also a description of places of pilgrimage and other holy places of rivers, mountains,, forests, the ocean, of heavenly cities and the kalpas; the art of war; the different kinds of nations and languages: the nature of the manners of the people; and the all-pervading spirit;--all these have been represented. But, after all, no writer of this work is to be found on earth."

Understand that in ancient India, Sanskrit texts were 'composed' and 'passed on' under a great oral tradition. Sage VyAsa wants his 'poem' to be 'written down' which is why he says "no writer of this work is to be found on earth".

Lord BrahmA blesses him thus: "I esteem thee for thy knowledge of divine mysteries, before the whole body of celebrated Munis distinguished for the sanctity of their lives. I know thou hast revealed the divine word, even from its first utterance, in the language of truth. Thou hast called thy present work a poem, wherefore it shall be a poem. There shall be no poets whose works may equal the descriptions of this poem, even, as the three other modes called Asrama are ever unequal in merit to the domestic Asrama. Let Ganesa be thought of, O Muni, for the purpose of writing the poem."

The story of GaneshA imposing a condition that the sage should never let his pen pause even for a moment while he was writing, VyAsa agreeing to it, and then GaneshA writing down the composition in great speed, breaking one of his tusks to serve as a pen, and sage VyAsa matching his speed in composition, frequently giving the God tough verses to ponder on before he wrote them down is well known, even to the "less intelligent" people like us, let alone women and labourers!

And mind you, MahAbhArata was composed and written down in high Sanskrit. But for the translations in the modern days and the lectures in the ancient days, the populace would never have understood it.

Namaste,

This is excellent Saidevo. This clarified a lot. So it seems he just mistranslates a lot judging by some post. I am not going to finish that book. I rather learn about the life of Krishna or someone else through the mind of a saint. Sanatana Dharma is indeed vast with different opinions. I do appreciate you taking the time to clarify this issue for me and others.
-Juan

chandu_69
15 August 2009, 10:01 AM
"The zooming of text WOMEN" .

something is amiss here.
And the saint obviously will be Yogananda who writes a lot about "christ consciouness".

"THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST
"

http://www.yogananda-srf.org/scoc/scoc_frameset-des.html

bhaktajan
17 August 2009, 01:52 PM
One who is born of a brahmana father but does not act as a brahmana is called, in Vedic language, a brahma-bandhu, and is calculated to be on the level of shudras and women. Thus in the Bhagavatam we find that Mahabharata was specifically compiled by Vyasadeva for stri-shudra-brahma-bandhu.

Stri means women, Shudra means the lower class of civilized human society, and brahma-bandhu means persons who are born in the families of brahmanas but do not follow the rules and regulations carefully. All of these three classes are called less intelligent; they have no access to the study of the Vedas, which are specifically meant for persons who have acquired the brahminical qualifications.

This restriction is based not upon any sectarian distinction but upon qualification.

The Vedic literatures cannot be understood unless one has developed the brahminical qualifications.

It is regrettable, therefore, that persons who have no brahminical qualifications and have never been trained under a bona fide spiritual master nevertheless comment on Vedic literatures like the Srimad-Bhagavatam and other puranas, for such persons cannot deliver their real message.

I am only a brahma-bandhu, maybe even a servant of the servant of God, or maybe a servant of the most neglected souls,
Bhaktajan

Ganeshprasad
17 August 2009, 05:38 PM
Pranam




One who is born of a brahmana father but does not act as a brahmana is called, in Vedic language, a brahma-bandhu

--- and brahma-bandhu means persons who are born in the families of brahmanas but do not follow the rules and regulations carefully. All of these three classes are called less intelligent; they have no access to the study of the Vedas,
This restriction is based not upon any sectarian distinction but upon qualification.
The Vedic literatures cannot be understood unless one has developed the brahminical qualifications.
It is regrettable, therefore, that persons who have no brahminical qualifications and have never been trained under a bona fide spiritual master nevertheless comment on Vedic literatures like the Srimad-Bhagavatam and other puranas, for such persons cannot deliver their real message.




I am only a brahma-bandhu, maybe even a servant of the servant of God, or maybe a servant of the most neglected souls,
Bhaktajan

A classic case of contradiction,
How are we to believe any thing you say on the subject matter if by your own admittance,you are a Brahma bandhu or lower, and therefore unable to deliver real message.

Jai Shree Krishna

rkpande
18 August 2009, 12:09 AM
Please refer to Vajrasucika Upanisad which belongs to the Sama Veda and describes the true character of a brahmana and incidentally offers comments on the nature of supreme Reality. The upnishad is valuable in that it undermines caste distinctions based on birth.

bhaktajan
18 August 2009, 09:34 AM
Scott wrote:
The term "demigod" is used to refer to human being who later became worshipped as Gods . . .

Demigods—universal controllers and residents of the higher planets.

Deva—a demigod or godly person.


Scott wrote:
"Srila Prabhupada . . . claims that Krishna alone is the Supreme Lord,
and that Shiva, Ganesha, Durga and all the other Gods . . . are demigods. . . . that they are servants of Lord Krishna."


The intellectual concept of "GOD" indicates & is revealed by Bhaktivedanta Swami's graciousness to you and others ---who accept the concept of "What is the definition of God".

God is: That person who is revealed as God Almighty as Krishna ---heretofore, unknown to the denizens of Bhumi-loka in this modern era.

Scott, what you have yet missed-out on is: The fact that 'Shiva, Ganesha, Durga and all the other Gods (devas) are cousins and related over the past 115 Trillion years since Sri Maha-pita-maha (dear great-grand-father) the adi-prajapati (the first progentitor) Lord Brahma (first born person/Engineer of the cosmos/father of Shiva/One-third part of the Hindu-Trinity incharge of Raja-Guna [active-mode of passion]) was born and began to poplulate the universe (the brahmanada).



Scott wrote:

Please provide Sastric proof for this. I want to see quotes from the Vedas or Upanishads - don't even bother quoting the Srimad-Bhagavatam at me as the Shiva Purana and Linga Purana are also Puranas but they provide a different view altogether. Shruti alone is admissible in a debate.


The Demigods are each incharge of universal management ---and yes, they decend from a common family tree that starts with Lord Brahma. BTW, each Jiva-atma (individual Soul) entered the material Maha-Vishnu-Tattva by taking a birth their first birth in the material world, as a 'brahma' ---and then failed to achieve moksha. So here we all are searching out "Who is that supreme personality of Godhead that I must serve?".

The demigods are Gods to you and me and every body else ---who may seredipitously (luck), or, by causless mercy (unexpected benediction), or, by extreme tapasya (penence) chance upon being an unwiting or a willing tool in-the-service of such a Demigod ---at which point: Know that you are on the side of the angels and thus, doing a good job is to aide in God's work(s).



Scott wrote:
Again, please provide proof from the Shruti for this.


THE PROOF FROM SHRUTI FOR THE SMARTA:
#######################################

#######################################
eko vashee sarva-gah krishna eedyah/ eko ’pi san bahudhaa yo ’vabhaati. (Gopaala-taapanee Upanishad 1.3.21)

In the Atharva Veda (Gopala-tapanee Upanishad 1.24) it is said, yo brahmanam vidadhati poorvam yo vai vedams ca gapayati sma krishnah: “It was Krishna who in the beginning instructed Brahma in Vedic knowledge and who disseminated Vedic knowledge in the past.”

In the Atharva Veda (Gopala-tapanee Upanisad 1.24) it is similarly said, “He who existed before the creation of Brahma and who enlightened Brahma with Vedic knowledge is Lord Sree Krishna.”

Similarly, the Narayana Upanisad (1) states, atha purusho ha vai narayano ’kamayata prajah srijeyeti . . . : “Then the Supreme Person, Narayana, desired to create all living beings. Thus from Narayana, Brahma was born. Narayana created all the Prajapatis. Narayana created Indra. Narayana created the eight Vasus. Narayana created the eleven Rudras. Narayana created the twelve Adityas.” Since Narayana is a plenary manifestation of Lord Krishna, Narayana and Krishna are one and the same.

The Upanishad continues, narayanad brahma jayate, narayanad prajapatih prajayate, narayanad indro jayate, narayanad ashtau vasavo jayante, narayanad ekadasa rudra jayante, narayanad dvadasadityah: “From Narayana, Brahma is born, and from Narayana the patriarchs are also born. From Narayana, Indra is born, from Narayana the eight Vasus are born, from Narayana the eleven Rudras are born, from Narayana the twelve Adityas are born.” This Narayana is an expansion of Krishna.

Then it is said, eko vai narayana aseen na brahma na isano napo nagni-samau neme dyav-aprithivee na nakshatrani na sooryah: “In the beginning of the creation there was only the Supreme Personality Narayana. There was no Brahma, no Siva, no water, no fire, no moon, no stars in the sky, no sun.” (Maha Upanishad 1)

The Narayana Upanisad (4) also states, “Devakee’s son [Krishna] is the Supreme Lord.” The identity of Narayana with the supreme cause has also been accepted and confirmed by Sreepada Sankaracarya, even though Sankara does not belong to the Vaisnava, or personalist, cult.

In the Maha Upanishad it is also said that Lord Siva was born from the forehead of the Supreme Lord. Thus the Vedas say that it is the Supreme Lord, the creator of Brahma and Siva, who is to be worshiped.

The Atharva Veda (Maha Upanisad 1) also states, “Only Narayana existed in the beginning, when neither Brahma, nor Siva, nor fire, nor water, nor stars, nor sun, nor moon existed. The Lord does not remain alone but creates as He desires.” Krishna Himself states in the Moksa-dharma, “I created the Prajapatis and the Rudras. They do not have complete knowledge of Me because they are covered by My illusory energy.”

It is also stated in the Varaha Purana: “Narayana is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and from Him the four-headed Brahma was manifested, as well as Rudra, who later became omniscient.”

See: Svetasvatara Upanishad—one of the 108 Upanishads. It very clearly presents the Vaishnava point of view regarding the Lord and the living entity.

bhaktajan
18 August 2009, 09:59 AM
Ganeshprashad: "A classic case of contradiction?????"
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Ganeshprashad, your mind is divided and lost to the disscussion's topic:
"In Defence of Women's Sanatana Needs"

You have said something about me and thus implicated how women are:

'. . . lower, and therefore unable to deliver real message.'

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Or were you trying to say something else?


BTW, my actually personal understanding of the term "Brahma-bandhu" is: "friend-of-the-brahmanas" (vs. a contemporarie or colleage)

Ganeshprasad
19 August 2009, 05:59 AM
Pranam





You have said something about me and thus implicated how women are:



How did you work that out? did i say anything about women?

Jai Shree Krishna

bhaktajan
19 August 2009, 09:08 AM
Yes, Ganeshprashad-ji, you "did not say anything about women"

Yes, Ganeshprashad-ji, I digressed from the Thread theme.

The tangent topic was last spoken of by me in post 44 ---where I posted:
RE: In Defence of Women's Sanatana Needs aka, the status of Women's propensity for spiritual pursuits.

"a brahma-bandhu, . . . is calculated to be on the level of shudras and women"
and then I ended with, "I am only a brahma-bandhu, . . . Bhaktajan"

And then in post 45 you wrote:
"How are we to believe any thing you [Bhaktajan] say on the subject matter if by your own admittance,you [Bhaktajan] are a Brahma bandhu or lower, and therefore unable to deliver real message[?]"

So by simple comparison: < Bhaktajan = brahma bandu//shudra = Women> This is how I worked out my comment, "You have said something about me and thus implicated how women are [too]"

atanu
19 August 2009, 11:30 PM
Then it is said, eko vai narayana aseen na brahma na isano napo nagni-samau neme dyav-aprithivee na nakshatrani na sooryah: “In the beginning of the creation there was only the Supreme Personality Narayana. There was no Brahma, no Siva, no water, no fire, no moon, no stars in the sky, no sun.” (Maha Upanishad 1)



Hi Bhakajan,

The Upanishad says 'na isano', which means no Lord. It does not really say 'na shiva', which is introduced by some translators and interpreters.

However, go to the next verse please:


I-1-4. Then we shall expound the Mahopanishad. They say Narayana was alone. There were not Brahma, Shiva, Waters, Fire and Soma, Heaven and Earth, Stars, Sun and Moon. He could not be happy.

I am a bit surprised that whereas the scripture says that "That is purna", here we find Narayana is not happy alone.

Do you have any opinion of your own on this?

Also consider from the same Upanishad:


V-45. sarvam is calm (needing) no support, existing in the ether (of the heart), eternal, shivam, devoid of ailment and illusion, name and cause.
V-46. Neither existent nor-existent, nor in between, nor the negation of all; beyond the grasp of mind and words, fuller than the fullest, more joyful than joy.

The Self called Shivam (which is true Narayana) requires no support and is fuller than the fullest, more joyful than joy.

-------------------------
Dear Bhakta, this not a sectarian pointer but a question on which you should ponder.


Om Namah Shivaya

bhaktajan
20 August 2009, 09:56 AM
atanu-ji,

It begins: "eko vai narayana . . . " then, 'Isvara' (controller) is mentioned immediately after saying "na brahma" (no brahma ~the creator).

Isvara is bandied about the same way term 'Bhagavan' is used for God Almighty and also for any Devata.

The words are plainly descriptive of the status quo before Narayana expanded his energies. The real impetus for this "Creation Process" was to facilitate "Persons" a "Place" to "live their Lives".

Your parting words lack the recognition that Lord Shiva is Lord Brahma's son. Certainly Lord Shiva is the pinicle of a Good-son (putra).

Certainly Lord Shiva is the pinicle of the ideal sannyasa and "su-hrdam-sarva-bhutanam".

Certainly Lord Shiva is the pinicle of the ideal Vaishnava.

May Lord Shiva bless you to become full-time Vaishnava so that at the time of your final examination you will prove yourself to be an ideal Vaishnava.

Lord Shiva is a real person, living far away, engaged in his own personal affairs beyond our perview ---unless and until the fame of such a Maha-Vaishnava as Lord Shiva is revealed to us, as done, by a servant of Vyasadeva.

BTW, How Many Demigods (devas) are there?
Is there not a "demigod" for every different "Thing" in existence?
For example, Is there not a "demigod" for the blinking of the eye?
Is there not a "demigod" for each of the elements on the "Elements Chart"?
Is there not a "demigod" for marriage, for death, for air, for water, et al?

If so, why are we playing favorites?

Why do we neglect this first chapter in understanding the Family Tree of all of Lord Brahma's descendents and Lord Shiva's cousins and grandchildren and grandparents?

Should we not seek advise on being the best Putra and Putri(s) from all the sastra revelations so as to honor the Father and Mother for their exclusive personal pleasure?

A good Putra/Putri is not 'selfish',
bhaktajan

atanu
20 August 2009, 11:50 AM
atanu-ji,

The words are plainly descriptive of the status quo before Narayana expanded his energies. The real impetus for this "Creation Process" was to facilitate "Persons" a "Place" to "live their Lives".

Namaste bhakta,

Staus quo? Or do you mean status in the sense of hierarchy? Surely you mean the latter. For 'Eko' there is no status.

Eko in the mode of unhappiness is the Creator.

-1-4. Then we shall expound the Mahopanishad. They say Narayana was alone. There were not Brahma, Shiva, Waters, Fire and Soma, Heaven and Earth, Stars, Sun and Moon. He could not be happy.

Wheras 'Eko' is the mode of fullness is Shivam:


V-45. sarvam is calm (needing) no support, existing in the ether (of the heart), eternal, shivam, devoid of ailment and illusion, name and cause.


V-46. Neither existent nor-existent, nor in between, nor the negation of all; beyond the grasp of mind and words, fuller than the fullest, more joyful than joy.


Your parting words lack the recognition that Lord Shiva is Lord Brahma's son. Why do we neglect this first chapter in understanding the Family Tree of all of Lord Brahma's descendents and Lord Shiva's cousins and grandchildren and grandparents?

Such is the problem. You lack recognition that Shri Krishna is the son of Nanda. You forget that the fuller than the fullest Shivam has no family and does not require any support to be happy, since it is more blissful than the bliss.


Should we not seek advise on being the best Putra and Putri(s) from all the sastra revelations so as to honor the Father and Mother for their exclusive personal pleasure?

?

But yes we should. I am however disappointed when there is no willingness to open up and ponder.
Om Namah Shivaya

bhaktajan
20 August 2009, 12:28 PM
Status quo [latin] = the way things are; present condition as it is.

"'Eko' there is no status" =???

BTW, The number one [1] is famously grouped with it's (maybe even more famous) soul mate, number Zet [0].

Chairman Sinatra has said [and also held dear by Sir Gates & Sir Jobs],
"One & Zero, One & Zero, go together like a horse & carriage, this I tell you brother, you can't have one without the other . . . "

Some details from my little sanskrit dictionary:
eka = one
ekaM = one
ekaH = (adj) one
ekatvaM = in oneness
ekatvena = in oneness
ekada.ntaM = one who has a single tusk
ekada.ntaaya = to the one-tusked
ekamaksharaM = pranava
ekamevaadvitiiyaM = one without a second
ekayaa = by one
ekavachanaM = singular
ekasthaM = in one place
ekasmin.h = in one
ekaaH = one
ekaakini = solitary woman
ekaakii = alone
ekaagra = one-pointed
ekaagraM = with one attention
ekaagreNa = with full attention
ekaantaM = overly
ekaaksharaM = the one syllable
eke = in one
ekena = alone
ekaikaM = one by one
ekaikamaksharaM = each and every word
eko.ahaM = I the one single being

Some more details from my little sanskrit dictionary:
kalakala = a sort of sound imitation (dhvnyanukaraNa) like a river flow
kalatrakaaraka = Significator of marriage partner which is Venus
kalayataaM = of subduers
kalaha = fight/discord/argument
kalaa = Art
kalaanaatha = moon (??? I may be wrong here)
kalaayaH = (m) groundnut
kali = Bud
kaliyuga = the current, pleasure-loving age
kalilaM = dense forest
kalevara = (neut) body
kalevaraM = the body
kalau = during the kali age
kaldaspaagheti = (m) left-overs
kalpa-druma = kalpa-vRiksha : the tree that will give you anything you can
kalpataru = (m) The heavenly tree giving whatever one desires
kalpate = is considered eligible
kalpavR^ikshaaNaaM = the kalpa(imagined) vR\^iksha trees (wish-yielding)
kalpakshaye = at the end of the millennium
kalpaadau = in the beginning of the millennium
kalpita = imagined
kalmashhaH = all material contamination
kalmashhaaH = of sinful reactions
kalyaaNa = well being (of others)
kalyaaNakR^it.h = one who is engaged in auspicious activities


Mahavishnu is asleep [the yoga-nidra of Maha-Vishnu] this nidra, or sleep, is not like our nidra in the mode of ignorance. The Lord is always situated in transcendence. He is sac-cid-ananda—eternally in bliss in all stages turya-sthitah, always situated in transcendence. In transcendence there is no such thing as jagarana-nidra-susupti—wakefulness, sleep and deep sleep.

The word yoga-nidra is significant. When one is spiritually reconnected through self-realization, one regards his material life as having been like a dream.

Bhagavad-gita 2.69:
“What is night for all beings is the time of awakening for the self-controlled; and the time of awakening for all beings is night for the introspective sage.”

The stage of self-realization is called yoga-nidra. All material activities appear to be a dream when one is spiritually awakened. Thus yoga-nidra may be explained to be Yogamaya.

The Vedic scripture Chandi describes maya, the energy of the Supreme Lord, as nidra: durga devi sarva-bhuteshu nidra-rupena samasthitah.

The energy of Yogamaya and Mahamaya keeps the living entities sleeping in this material world in the great darkness of ignorance.

This material world is a product of the mahat-tattva, which is a state of the Lord’s dreaming condition in His yoga-nidra mystic slumber in the Causal Ocean, and yet the whole creation appears to be a factual presentation of His creation. This means that the Lord’s dreaming conditions are also factual manifestations.

bhaktajan
20 August 2009, 12:43 PM
"sarvam" = "all". All what? All things, yes? If something possesses a quality in such a quantity to be called "sarvam" ---then how could "sarvam" be "devoid of . . . name"?

"beyond the grasp of mind and words" ---evidently except those Persons/Places/Things mercifully revealed by virtue of devine revelation, Yes?

"fuller than the fullest" ---is the conconminant factor possessed by all things transcendent to the mundane material cosmos.

Nirvana is without fullness ---it is devoid of pain & sufferring and ego-drama, ergo, blissfull 'neer-do-well-ism'.

"Shivam has no family" [shivam? Shivam as in "auspiciousness"?]
Sri Lord Maheshvara Shiva has a wife, son father et al. You have been locked out of this greatest teacher of Vaishnavism? For how lobng has this been the case ma priya anga Atanu?

IN RE TO: "advise on being the best Putra and Putri(s)":

I assembled a summary of sholkas and commentary from a parampara of a great Bhagavata Maharshi at this link:
http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/hinduism/448520-putra-dharma-duties-son.html

IN RE TO: "Producing Progeny who will be Putramyasya":

Also, I assembled another summary of sholkas and commentary from the same great Bhagavata Maharshi at this link:
http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/vedic-verses/445387-garbhadhana-samskara-what-prabhupada-said-about-sex.html

atanu
21 August 2009, 01:27 AM
"Shivam has no family" [shivam? Shivam as in "auspiciousness"?]
Sri Lord Maheshvara Shiva has a wife, son father et al. You have been locked out of this greatest teacher of Vaishnavism? For how lobng has this been the case ma priya anga Atanu?



Namaste bhakta,

Your posts, from the days of Indiadivine, exude confidence just as all newcomers exhibit -- filled with ideas of discrete fleshy gods serving another fleshy god who holds a chakra.

Have you seen or experienced Mahesvara and family? Mahesvara is said to reside at the culmination of OM, in the silence as shantam, shivam. There is no man and his wife, as you imagine.

Have you seen Krishna for that matter? Have you questioned yourself what is that is dark. What is that is all attractive and not merely to you and other ISCONITES? Have ever contemplated what is that melody of flute which attracts all -- not just a few.

Think of that Universal phenomenen. Contemplate in the backdrop of Upanishads and come back, if you get an intuitive flash.

Please do not teach Hindus, after being in ISCKON for some time. Please.

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



Maha Upanishad

-1-4. Then we shall expound the Mahopanishad. They say Narayana was alone. There were not Brahma, Shiva, Waters, Fire and Soma, Heaven and Earth, Stars, Sun and Moon. He could not be happy.
---------------
V-45. sarvam is calm (needing) no support, existing in the ether (of the heart), eternal, shivam, devoid of ailment and illusion, name and cause.


V-46. Neither existent nor-existent, nor in between, nor the negation of all; beyond the grasp of mind and words, fuller than the fullest, more joyful than joy.

Because immature ISCKONITES exhibit the first verse of Maha Upanishad (without reading any scripture in full) as proof of their hierarchy concept, I asked:

Whether you would like to worship or aspire for closeness to the God, who is NOT HAPPY alone and thus creates. Or you would aspire for fuller than the fullest, more joyful than joy?

(Note: I do not imply that these above two are two different fleshy discrete individuals).

Om Namah Shivaya

Eastern Mind
21 August 2009, 06:13 AM
immature ISCKONITES

Atanuji: This makes the assumption that there are mature ISKCON people. I would like to share a story of one.

A few years back while visiting my son in Ottawa, our nation's capital, I encountered a few Hare Krishnas from the Montreal center dancing and chanting in celebration of Canada Day, our national independence day. I stopped to talk, kind of wondering what they were up to. The leader of the group was the first to welcome me. After chatting for a moment, I mentioned that I too was a Hindu, but of the Saiva variety. I swear the next thing that came out of his mouth was a quote from someone high up in the sect, perhaps Prabupada himself. (It went something like this:

"If a Vaishnava ridicules a Saiva, he will surely go to hell, and if a Saiva ridicules a Vaishnava, he will surely go to hell."

What a decent way to start out! After that there was a lot of smiling going on and some chanting of common mantras together in harmony. In short, I had a great time, in the company of a fellow Hindu, which sort of erased some earlier not so fond memories of this particular sect.

Here in my city the ISKCON temple has its annual chariot parade, and it stops at another more Smarta temple where a free lunch for all participants is provided. A decent move in Hindu solidarity, I would say. But at the same time I've been told by a few acquaintances that they have stopped going to the ISKCON temple altogether because of overt attempts to convert them to that particular sect within Vaishnavism. This coming from other Vaishnavites.

So on it goes. I really don't know what else to say.

Aum Namasivaya

chandu_69
21 August 2009, 09:29 AM
atanu-ji,

May Lord Shiva bless you to become full-time Vaishnava so that at the time of your final examination you will prove yourself to be an ideal Vaishnava.



WELL, SRI KRISHNA has no problem with anybody becoming a Shiva Bhatktha.

Bhagavadgita 7:21: I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship some DEVA, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to that particular deity.

By arguing with a Saivete you are actually Acting against Sri Krishna.

Glorify Sri krishna, but don't get in to arguments about whom people should worship.

Namo Vasudevaya Namah.

sunyata07
21 August 2009, 10:24 AM
Namaste everybody,

Interesting post, SS! I have also been quite interested in Sri Krishna and the Vaishnavism tradition of worship. I would consider buying a book on the history behind worship of Lord Krishna and Vishnu as the Supreme form of Brahman but I am wary about purchasing books that are biased. I realise now that newcomers like myself to the study of Sanatana Dharma need to careful about what is taught. The paths in Hinduism are unbelievably varied. I had thought I understood just how diverse it was before, but now I realise there may be paths within paths within paths. It just boggles the mind... And I used to think there was confusion enough in the Protestant-Catholic division in Christianity! People can still have their opinions without having to question their whole faith.



SpiritualSeeker,

You should check out these links for more info on ISKCON:

ISKCON - A Boon or a Curse? (http://iyerwall.blogspot.com/2008/07/iskcon-boon-or-curse.html)
Hare Krishna Women (http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/)

Srila Prabhupada thought that women were less intelligent than men, and he also thought that they shouldn't be educated beyond basic reading and writing. He also said that worship of Ganesha should not be done - only Krishna and His incarnations can be worshipped.


Scott, thank you for that post. I have seen similar attitudes in ISCKONites myself, who claim that worship of Ganesha and other "demigods" is not allowed if one is sincerely devoted in following Sri Krishna. And I was quite amazed and even angered at hearing how Lord Shiva was called an "impersonalist rascal who thinks he is God" - and that is a direct, untampered quote I have given there. Ah, naive thing that I was to think this "my God is better than your God" concept didn't exist outside the religion I had been growing up in. I sometimes get the feeling that followers of one path (I'm not just speaking about ISKCON members) that have been too long immersed in scriptures and the nitty gritty details can become clouded in understanding of the real message. For some reason, and I suspect it could be because of my past aversion to overly zealous followers of the Christian faith who purport that their path is the only way to salvation, I don't think I'd ever be closely drawn to the ISKCON circle.

kd gupta
22 August 2009, 11:53 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~


Namasté

aham ātmā guḍākeśa
I am the SELF guḍākeśa¹ … Kṛṣṇa , the Bhāgavad gītā chapt 10, 20th verse.

praṇām

1. guḍākeśa - thick haired i.e. Arjuna
guḍā गुड - is a ball or globe ~ the head. It also means sugar which forms itself into lumps , dry sugar , treacle , molasses , first thickening of the juice of the sugar-cane by boiling - hence we get 'thickness'.
keśa केश- is the mane of a horse or lion; also a lock of hair on the crown of the head.


Who is the godhead ? Veda explains…
Pra tadvochedmratam nu vidwan…means only gyani can describe.
Gita says…Uttamah purushastvanyah…godhead is somebody else.
Ramcharitmanas says..Nana bhanti rama avtara…supreme personality is of many kind.
So the thinking is advancing with time , but it is certain that Rama , Krsn or other great souls are not the godhead and it is something coming in thoughts with scientific approach , we can call the thought as Vedastra .
Many of us do not know, many do not want to know and many have time not to care.
What is it ? the ignorance and it can not be a solution .
It is a fact that 100% of us , FEEL IT . so let us try in that way and consider gita as the great and krsn as the great .

dera2
25 August 2009, 11:20 PM
.
Gita says…Uttamah purushastvanyah…godhead is somebody else.


Ha,

anyah? :) did anyone speculate that godhead was kd?

dera2
25 August 2009, 11:30 PM
Namaste bhakta,

Have you seen or experienced Mahesvara and family? Mahesvara is said to reside at the culmination of OM, -----

namaste,

culmination, i suppose actually means 'the root'? srimadbhagavatam extolls Girisha as the support of the OM, which is whatever is in time and beyond. Those who do not know Om will miss the purport.

SANT
26 August 2009, 03:20 AM
but it is certain that Rama , Krsn or other great souls are not the godhead and it is something coming in thoughts with scientific approach , we can call the thought as Vedastra .
kd gupta.
What sceintific approach do you talk about.
.

chandu_69
26 August 2009, 12:23 PM
Ha,

anyah? :) did anyone speculate that godhead was kd?

May be Kd himself do that in dreams.

If Kd continues to read the same chapter he will know who is that Uttampurusha

yasmAt.h xaramatIto.ahaM axarAdapi chottamaH |
ato.asmi loke vede cha prathitaH purushhottamaH

atanu
27 August 2009, 07:58 AM
I imagine that you are not Hindu in the slightestYou are propagating very clever dis-information. Hmm, like who would have such long-term stretergy such as to use subtle subterfuge as stating:
"Mahesvara is said to reside at the culmination of OM, in the silence as shantam, shivam. There is no man and his wife, as you imagine."
----
BTW, I have posted so much nectar that reveals the Glories of Lord Shiva and all you serve up is the old hash distribe.

Namaste,

Have you posted a lot of nectar? I feel, OTOH, there is lack of reading, comprehension, and experience. Mahesvara indeed is advaita who is transcendental to OM and also exists as all pervading in the hearts of all beings in the three phenomenal states:



Mahanarayana Upanishad
dahra.n vipaapa.n varaveshmabhuuta yat puNDariikaM
puramadhyasa{\m+}stham.h .
tatraapi dahre gagana.n vishoka.n tasmin yadantastadupaasitavyam.h
.. 16..

yo vedaadau svaraH prokto vedaante cha pratishhThitaH .
tasya prakR^itiliinasya yaH paraH sa maheshvaraH .. 17..


XII-16: In the citadel of the body there is the small sinless and pure lotus of the heart which is the residence of the Supreme. Further in the interior of this small area there is the sorrowless Ether. That is to be meditated upon continually.

XII-17: He is the Supreme Lord who transcends the syllable Om which is uttered at the commencement of the recital of the Vedas, which is well established in the Upanishads and which is dissolved in the primal cause during contemplation.

---------------------------
Dear bhakta, if ISKCON has taught you something does not mean that you have right to ridicule teaching, understanding, and experiences of others.


Do not fear, do not worry, do not hesitate Atanu & Chandu 69 there is no lost and deminuation in forgetting that Lord Shiva is the Chief Vaishnava within the 14 Worlds & the 3 Planetary Systems & within all the Brahmandas.
Please note that your concepts only are intellectual. Shiva Mahesvara is the reality, who is advaita (one without a second) transcendentally and also all pervading in the world, being resident in every heart. I have said nothing that is not shastric; the following extract from Bhagavatam is cited as evidence. Please note that I can cite many other scripture.



From the Chapter of Churning of Ocean
23. O lord Girisha, you are self-effulgent and supreme. You create this world by your energy, and you assume the names Brahma, Visnu and Mahesvara when you act in creation, maintenance and annihilation

24. You are the cause of all causes, the self-effulgent, inconceivable, Supreme Brahman. You manifest various potencies in this cosmic manifestation.

25. O lord, you are the original source of Vedic literature. You are the original cause of material creation, the life force, the senses, the five elements, the three modes and the mahat-tattva. You are eternal time, determination and the two religious systems called truth [satya] and truthfulness [rta]. You are the shelter of the syllable om, which consists of three letters a-u-m.
--------------
31. O Lord Girisa, since the Brahman effulgence is transcendental to the material modes of goodness, passion and ignorance, the various directors of this material world certainly cannot appreciate it or even know where it is. It is not understandable even to Lord Brahma, Lord Visnu or the King of heaven, Mahendra.

Shiva is indeed the shelter, the root, the culmination and the source of OM, which comprises the full. Lord Girisa is not comprehensible to even the highest controllers, including Vishnu. But unfortunately, ISCKON teaches that Shiva is like them -- a Vaisnava. Girisha is Vishnu -- all pervading. But all pervasion is from our perspective, whereas Girisha is one without a second. When there is no second, the question of all pervasion is a moot point.

Om Namah Shivaya

bhaktajan
27 August 2009, 09:29 AM
Atanu-dev,

I happily accept your invitation.

I ask you:

"Do you accept that Lord Shiva is BHAGAVAN?"

Please answer quickly YES or NO.

I have other enlightening & enlivening questions.

satay
27 August 2009, 09:59 AM
Admin Note,

Namaskar,

I request that we keep the 'vishnu/shiva' supermacy arguments contained in the ISKCON forums please.

All other posts related to this matter will be deleted so please save us all some time.

Thanks,
ps: please strive to see Lord's feet instead of trying to argue if he wears a chandan or bhasma tilak.

chandu_69
27 August 2009, 10:32 AM
Namaste Satay ji,

Lot of time would have been saved if the thread itself with a provocative title designed to incite sectarian arguments was disallowed in the first place.

Just my opinion

bhaktajan
27 August 2009, 11:00 AM
Lord Caitanya must have expected this:

If one says Krishna is God the Person Supreme ---then that would be "a provocation designed to incite arguments"

Oh my, what shall be done with all the poor sectarians?

chandu_69
27 August 2009, 11:33 AM
Lord Caitanya must have expected this:

If one says Krishna is God the Person Supreme ---then that would be "a provocation designed to incite arguments"

Oh my, what shall be done with all the poor sectarians?

The one who said that(The thread initiator) is neither a Vaishnava nor a Sri Krishna Bhaktha.

That is the reason i said
Designed to initiate ;).

kd gupta
29 August 2009, 10:25 AM
May be Kd himself do that in dreams.

If Kd continues to read the same chapter he will know who is that Uttampurusha

yasmAt.h xaramatIto.ahaM axarAdapi chottamaH |
ato.asmi loke vede cha prathitaH purushhottamaH

Chanduji 69
Really interesting , but uttamah purushah +tu+ anyah is same as purushah+ uttamah , so it it is necessary to define purushottamah explained in Vedas , which is as…
Yam krandasi avsa tasbhane abhyekshetam mansa rejmane . Yatradhi sur udito vibhati ..KASMAI DEVAY…

Now the sun does not rise , it is always there scientifically , so veda also is not sure about uttamah purushah , therefore it says Kasmai .
Now any doubt being kd , the uttamah purushah ?

atanu
29 August 2009, 03:12 PM
Really interesting , but uttamah purushah +tu+ anyah is same as purushah+ uttamah , so it it is necessary to define purushottamah explained in Vedas , which is as…
Yam krandasi avsa tasbhane abhyekshetam mansa rejmane . Yatradhi sur udito vibhati ..KASMAI DEVAY…

Now the sun does not rise , it is always there scientifically , so veda also is not sure about uttamah purushah , therefore it says Kasmai .
Now any doubt being kd , the uttamah purushah ?

Namaste KD,

It is really interesting. Veda is not sure of Uttama Purusha but, it seems, you are very sure of anya status of uttama purusha? How so?

'Anya' in the Gita verse, which you quoted partially, refers to the fact that Uttama Purusha is different from the perishable bodies and also from the imperishable moola prakriti. Shri Krishna teaches "I am the Self". Self is not anyah.

Sages of Vedas and Upanishads very well knew that sun and moon rise and set only when day follows night and so on. '---the sun does not rise----' is not an unknown state for vedic rishis. Sun can rise only in dream or waking states. The sun does not rise in Shushupti or in Turya.

Om Namah Shivaya

chandu_69
29 August 2009, 05:08 PM
Chanduji 69
Really interesting , but uttamah purushah +tu+ anyah is same as purushah+ uttamah , so it it is necessary to define purushottamah explained in Vedas ,....

Kd Ji, it would be more interesting if you first finish reading Gita.

I was responding to your post


Gita says…Uttamah purushastvanyah…godhead is somebody else.

I dont think you and i and are competent enough to discuss Vast vedic literature if we cannot even complete reading GITA.

yajvan
29 August 2009, 11:40 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namast&#233;
I wrote on another post,


I am sure there is more to write yet it will fall short of the fullness and completeness that keśava (Kṛṣṇa) brought to this good earth.
Why so? It is in His name keśava. We know this word keśava means having long ,handsome hair. Yet if we look deeper we see the brilliance of His name keśava. It is ka + a + īśa = keśava.
ka क- is brahmā ; it is also splendor, light; it is 1st consonant of the saṃskṛt assembly of akṣara&#185;, that is, the nāgarī&#185; letters of the saṃskṛt alphabet.
a अ- is a noun of viṣṇu ; it is the first letter the first vowel (svara) of the saṃskṛt assembly of akṣara&#185;, that is, the nāgarī&#185; letters of the saṃskṛt alphabet. From here , from this a, all else proceeds.
īśa ईश- is master, lord; it is a noun of śiva, the Supreme, Śivabhaṭṭāraka.

Another favorite name of Kṛṣṇa's ( for me) is hṛṣikeśaḥ हृषिकेशः hṛṣi हृषि is joy, splendor. Note that hṛṣya means to thrill with rapture , rejoice , exalt , be glad or pleased; + keśa केश is the hair on the head, which somewhat gets us back to keśava described above. Yet keśa is another name for the lunar mansion (nakṣhtra) of rohiṇī. This is the nakṣhtra of Kṛṣṇa's birth.


But what of this hṛ? This hṛ is to master, hold, win, subdue. But to master what? That of hṛṣīka हृषीक or organs of the senses. Hence hṛṣikeśaḥ is the Lord, controller of the senses. It also ties in keśa , the one with long hair. Is there any relationship?


It is said ( by Mahaṛṣi Mahesh Yogī ) that long hair has to do with control of the senses. Cutting the hair , says Mahaṛṣi, some energy is released that also tends to release the senses from control.

So, in one word we see how hṛṣikeśaḥ is one filled with joy , splendor, and a master of the senses who has control. What can Kṛṣṇa control ? He is the Supreme so nothing is outside of his jurisdiction and will.


praṇām

kd gupta
30 August 2009, 02:31 AM
Namaste KD,

It is really interesting. Veda is not sure of Uttama Purusha but, it seems, you are very sure of anya status of uttama purusha? How so?

'Anya' in the Gita verse, which you quoted partially, refers to the fact that Uttama Purusha is different from the perishable bodies and also from the imperishable moola prakriti. Shri Krishna teaches "I am the Self". Self is not anyah.

Sages of Vedas and Upanishads very well knew that sun and moon rise and set only when day follows night and so on. '---the sun does not rise----' is not an unknown state for vedic rishis. Sun can rise only in dream or waking states. The sun does not rise in Shushupti or in Turya.

Om Namah Shivaya


Atanuji
Not being biased, why purushah and why not mahila [ lady ]
If we do not discuss , then how to define uttamah . your quote…
refers to the fact that Uttama Purusha is different from the perishable bodies and also from the imperishable moola prakriti.
I think this translation will not be proper , as ksharah and aksharah are , prakrati and atma , because body is a part of prakrati .
PL. do not be so impatient , discussing the Vedas, upanishads etc. , because , there is much addition and subtraction in the original .
Krsn says..yatah pravirtirbhutanam yen sarvamidam tatam…now tatam does not mean self , so Krsn never says that he is Parmatma or uttamah .
Kindly let me know about UTTAMAH .

Chanduji 69 , I shall discuss after finishing gita .

kd gupta
30 August 2009, 04:41 AM
Anyway what I feel is as...

See what sribhagwatam says...
Na tasya tattwa grahanya sasad variyasar api vachah samasan, swapne niruktya grahmedi saukhyam na yasya heyanumitan swayam sat.
Means Vedas, although an excellent source, are insufficient to bring about direct knowledge of the truth.

see , what gita says...Taavaan sarveshu vedeshu braahmanasya vijaanatah.
means he, who knows the UTTAMAH has nothing to do with vedas upanishads or shashtras etc. Therefore not matters the false or true subject of granthas.
So soul of the gyan is bhakti , by which one can know uttamah. See gita .....
yo’vyabhichaarena bhaktiyogena sevate;
Sa gunaan samateetyaitaan brahmabhooyaaya kalpate.
Jai jai sri Krsn..the yogeshwar .

atanu
30 August 2009, 05:09 AM
Atanuji
Not being biased, why purushah and why not mahila [ lady ]

From the very beginning it was clear that your agenda is to prove supremacy of your idea of Krishna. Towards that you also cite Gita partly to show that Purusha is anya, whereas Shri Krishna says "I am the Self".

Purusha does not mean male, which connotation is not part of Veda. Purusha means that which is before Usha and that is why Krishna is dark. Moreover, Aitereya Upanishad in its begginning verses clarify that Atman formed the Purusha from the waters (Consciousness).



Aitareya Upanishad

OM aatmaa vaa idameka evaagra aasiinnaanyatki.nchana mishhat.h . sa Ikshata lokaannu sR^ijaa iti .. 1..

sa imaa.N llokaanasR^ijata . ambho mariichiirmaapo.ado.ambhaH pareNa diva.n dyauH pratishhThaa.antarikshaM mariichayaH ..
pR^ithivii maro yaa adhastaatta aapaH .. 2..

sa iikshateme nu lokaa lokapaalaannu sR^ijaa iti .. so.adbhya eva purushha.n samuddhR^ityaamuurchhayat.h .. 3..

I-i-1: In the beginning this was but the absolute Self alone. There was nothing else whatsoever that winked. He thought, “Let Me create the worlds.”

I-i-2: He created these world, viz. ambhas, marici, mara, apah. That which is beyond heaven is ambhas. Heaven is its support. The sky is marici. The earth is mara. The worlds that are below are the apah.
I-i-3: He thought, “These then are the worlds. Let Me create the protectors of the worlds.” Having gathered up the Purusha form from the water itself, He gave shape to it.


Also, Mula Prakriti is akshara as is Atman-Brahman. Shri Krishna teaches about the lower and higher Prakriti. Svabhava and Svarupa is akshara and that is revealed Pragnya Ghana. The Uttama Purusha grade is in contrast to other Purusha types (Purusha who is immersed in Prakriti) and not in contrast to Atman, which Shri Krishna says He is and which is Advaita Shiva. Atman is never entagled in Prakriti. Atman is untainted ever (Na lipayate) as per Shri Krishna.

Om Namah Shivaya.

atanu
30 August 2009, 05:22 AM
Anyway what I feel is as...
see , what gita says...Taavaan sarveshu vedeshu braahmanasya vijaanatah.
means he, who knows the UTTAMAH has nothing to do with vedas upanishads or shashtras etc.

The sanskrit verse of Gita cited above says that 'Veda is no more required for the knower of Brahman" KD replaces Brahman by Uttamah.

KD, are you a knower of Brahman?

Om

kd gupta
30 August 2009, 12:45 PM
The sanskrit verse of Gita cited above says that 'Veda is no more required for the knower of Brahman" KD replaces Brahman by Uttamah.

KD, are you a knower of Brahman?

Om

Namaste Atanuji
Me , you and everybody of us know Parmatma , but this wall of bookish knowledge has prevented we all to surrender to that Almighty.
My only agenda is to devote to that parmatma and nothing else.
May each of us be drowned in the Bhakti Ocean .I only pray, O almighty help us all [ Sarve bhavantu sukhinah ]

atanu
31 August 2009, 03:42 AM
Namaste Atanuji
Me , you and everybody of us know Parmatma , but this wall of bookish knowledge has prevented we all to surrender to that Almighty.
My only agenda is to devote to that parmatma and nothing else.
May each of us be drowned in the Bhakti Ocean .I only pray, O almighty help us all [ Sarve bhavantu sukhinah ]

Namaste Gupta ji,

That is the only worthy goal. Yet paramatman is not another, else He/It would not be atman.

Om Namah Shivaya

kd gupta
01 September 2009, 06:13 AM
Atanuji
No doubt it is a written fact in most of the scriptures that atma is parmatma , but after a darshan to Balaji Hanuman temple near jaipur [ because you are in India ], it creates confusion that how stronger atmas overpower the weaker one and also atma being parmatma ?

bhaktajan
01 September 2009, 09:56 AM
Kd & Atanu,

Are you aware that your coorespondence is lacking clarity --IOW I do not know what you are saying --especially in the last post(s).

You both make reference to esoteric ideas and terminology That I do not follow. I have the Gita 500 times minimum during the last 30 years. ---Yet I do not follow your references.

The Thread Topic Title Is "Krishna The Supreme Godhead".

yours in Krishna's service,
Bhaktajan