PDA

View Full Version : no form that is seen



SANT
26 August 2009, 01:56 AM
got this from a mulsim website




Na tasya pratima asti"
"There is no likeness of Him."
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19]3

The following verses from the Upanishad allude to the inability of man to imagine God in a particular form:
"Na samdrse tisthati rupam asya, na caksusa pasyati kas canainam."
"His form is not to be seen; no one sees Him with the eye."
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:20]4
Yajurveda
The following verses from the Yajurveda echo a similar concept of God:



"na tasya pratima asti
"There is no image of Him."
[Yajurveda 32:3]5
"shudhama poapvidham"
"He is bodyless and pure."
[Yajurveda 40:8]6
Can anyone explain here
thanks in advance

bhaktajan
26 August 2009, 10:43 AM
Isha Upanishad -- Mantra Sixteen:


püñann ekarñe yama sürya präjäpatya
vyüha raçmén samüha
tejo yat te rüpaà kalyäëa-tamaà
tat te paçyämi yo ’säv asau puruñaù so ’ham asmi




püñann ekarñe yama
O maintainer, O primeval philosopher, O regulating principle

sürya präjäpatya
O destination of the süris, O well-wisher of the prajäpatis

vyüha raçmén
remove kindly the rays

samüha tejo
withdraw kindly the effulgence

yat
so that

te rüpaà kalyäëa-tamaà
Your form—most auspicious

tat te paçyämi
that Your I may see

yo ’säv asau puruñaù
one who is, like the sun the Godhead-Personality

so ’ham asmi
as I myself am


Translation by bhaktajan's most favorite maha-bhagavata Swamiji:

"O my Lord, O primeval philosopher, maintainer of the universe, O regulating principle, destination of the pure devotees, well-wisher of the progenitors of mankind, please remove the effulgence of Your transcendental rays so that I can see Your form of bliss. You are the eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead, like unto the sun, as am I."

SANT
26 August 2009, 11:06 AM
Can some one explain the contradiction.

chandu_69
26 August 2009, 12:09 PM
As i see it there is no contradiction.

Many verses in Vedas and upanishads are in some form of contemplation and exploration.

The ones you posted above are such ones including Isopanishad.The initial verses of Rig veda are also in the form of contemplation.

This Particular issue was clarified in Gita.
7:24.

It is my personal opinion that without referring Bhagavad gita ordinary people like you and me get lost in the Maze of Vast Vedic literature.

SANT
26 August 2009, 12:11 PM
Ok chandu ji i get what youre saying.
I know that is why i asked someone to expalin it to me.
One verse says god is bodyless and another says god is with form.
I want to know where i can find the full verse and this part of the yajurveda where it is written.

bhaktajan
26 August 2009, 01:02 PM
My statement "Non-form is inverse of seen poly-forms"
alludes to the two staes of existance spoken of in the sastra.

Non-form = that which is composed of non-material energy [aka, Sattva-chitta-ananda ~sat-cit-ananda ~sacinanda ---eternality-cognisance-bliss = non-material energy] Non-material energy is OUTSIDE the bounds of the Material World. Literally beyond & outside the manifested Material Cosmos. The Spiritual Cosmos are composed entirely of sat-cit-ananda energy ---in that realm there is a different system of 'accounting' ~in that realm there is a different system of 'economic' & 'rules of existance' where there is ONE PERSON ONLY who is sought out always . . . as a means of 'making a living'. In that realm there is a different system of 'working senses' which are born of consciousness and with each so-called second of the day evolve toward 'bliss and more bliss, more bliss, more bliss'. We can go to that realm if only we had any personal interest to do so ---via knowledge & renunciation, ergo the ettiquette of formless living as "spirits-in-the-spiritual-World".

is inverse of

Seen poly-forms = the manifested Cosmos [Material energy = tri-gunas+kala+the 8 elements+Paramatma+Brahman et al] with its varigated & temporary forms as seen/tasted/touched/heard/smelled by the 'embodied soul' with the aide of that good old-fashioned see-taste-touch-hear-smell machine called the body (albiet there are 8,400,000 makes and models to consciously and/or forciably choose to inhabit & animate in each birth life-time). It is at this point where we are free to Eat/Sleep/Mate/Defend to the best of our freewill and level of acculturated sophistication birth-after-birth since time immemorial.

SANT
26 August 2009, 01:14 PM
But bodyless means bodyless theres no mentione of spiritual or material body.

Although i also understand in the way youre saying this.
jagadguru maharaj ramanuja says that the real form of god does not possess of the three gunas.
The verse -na tasya pratima asti as tranlated as there is no image of him itself mentions the word him which means that god is purusha and not something formless.
But since it says there is no image of him but we have images and idols of our vedic deities that is why is ask.

bhaktajan
26 August 2009, 01:20 PM
Yes, this statement is correct: "the real form of god does not possess of the three guna"

Who is saying otherwise?

The Isopanisad is alluding to something beyond the manifest workings of Life/Death beyond the Brahma-jyoti effulgence of God's Face.

SANT
26 August 2009, 01:32 PM
Who is saying otherwise?

I got this from dr nakri hussain.
http://www.islam101.com/religions/hinduism/conceptOfGod.htm
Its in one of these videos on hinduism by his.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNcRO_FxxOU

Anyway ill get later on this when i find more of the translation.

Hiwaunis
26 August 2009, 02:12 PM
Can some one explain the contradiction.


Pranam,
This how I have come to understand God.
First, let's look at a basic definition of light.

Light- a medium that is unseen but when it is present it allows us to see. (Although you see the written words you don't understand them because there is no light.) Once you understand, light is present. Hence the expression, " Oh, now I see the light, I get it!" Therefore, GOD can be compared to physical light. LIGHT- a medium that is UNSEEN but when it is present it allows us to see. What is it that we see? Everything composed of the 5 elements.

Secondly, I like to take a look into outer space.

Look at the earths' tiny existance compared to the size of the Milky Way. Or even better take a look at the largest star in our galaxy. By doing this you will see just how BIG GOD would be if S/He had a form. As far as we know space is infinite.

Lastly, take a look a quantamn physics.
Just the basics will give you a good idea about the infinitesmial nature of GOD's existence.

Just keep in mind the body is just one of the poly-forms. The Soul is non-form.
I hope that helps a little.

Namaste,

SANT
26 August 2009, 02:27 PM
Thank you hiwaunis for your suggestion,but this is not vaishnav philosophy that god is without form.Shore there is the impersonal brahman but beyond that there is god with a form,-hands legs etc..
It is important specially in vaishnav tradition.
Why else you think like this vaishnavs always adore the form of rama krishna on how beautiful he is.
Its not like this is wrong.
As said by jagadguru maharaj god is -anand anand anand anand anand.
The body of god is beyond the 3 gunas
Have a look at ramanujacharya on what he says


What does Nirguna Brahman mean?Ramanuja argues vehemently against understanding Brahman as one without attributes. Brahman is Nirguna in the sense that impure qualities do not touch it. He provides three valid reasons for staking such a claim:
Sruti/ Sabda Pramana: All sruti and sabda's denoting Brahman always list either attributes inherent to Brahman or not inherent to Brahman. The Sruti's only seek to deny Brahman from possessing impure and defective qualities which affect the world of beings. There is evidence in the Sruti's to this regard. The Sruti's proclaim Brahman to be beyond the tri-gunas which are observed. However, Brahman possess infinite number of transcendental attributes, the evidence of which is given in vakhyas like "satyam jnanam anantam Brahma"
(I myself have a hard time to understand this fully but i am just quoting him. But i do understand ,i think ,the point he makes.)

yajvan
26 August 2009, 05:26 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté
If I may, let me offer the following. This goes under 'the appreciation of this upaniṣad' and the core message (IMHO).

The īśa upaniṣad, some prefer it written as īśopaniṣad or īśāvāsya upaniṣad. Its name īśāvāsya upaniṣad comes from the 1st word found in this upaniṣad, īśāvāsya ( after the invocation).

That is, īśāvāsyāmidam sarvam, that this whole world is completely (sarva) covered/pervaded metered out by Him ( world here = total of all). The beauty of this statement is found in its words:

īśāvāsya ईशावास्य is ' to be clothed or pervaded by the Supreme'
āmi आमि is ā + mi . ā is a conjunctive particle ( a connection to the next word) meaning 'moreover, further' + mi is to meter out , measure (sorry to get technical there :) )Hence 'The Supreme pervades and furthermore meters out' . The Supreme is defined in īś ईश् - to rule, to be master of, and īśā is power, dominion. Hence, the Supreme is the ruler, master, Lord and has dominion and power over all (sarva) that is covered and metered out by īśāvara.

So what does this have to do with the 16th śloka that you have pointed to? Both the 15th and 16th śloka suggests how one invokes, prays, or adores īśāvara, to be able to understand His Greatness.


The 15th śloka - remove Thy vail or covering so I may behold it.


The 16th śloka - īśāvara's greatness is recognized and hailed as:

pūṣan पूषन्- is connected with the sun ; the surveyor of all things ,conductor on journeys on the way to the next world, and bringer of prosperity, the sun nourishes the world, without it there is no earth.
yama यम - as a noun it is He who presides over the and rules the spirits of the dead ; He is regarded as the first of men and born from vivasvat , ' the Sun'. And what do we know of yama in its masculine definition? the act of checking or curbing , suppression , restraint.
sūrya सूर्य - the sun i.e. luminance, brilliance.
prājāpati - is the Lord (pati) of prajā or bring forth. What is brought forth? family , race , posterity , descendants , creatures, mankind And hence, the 16th śloka continues by saying:
yat यत् te or tva त्व rūpam or rupa रूप kalyāṇa कल्याण tamaṁ तमं tat तत् paśyami or paśya पश्य

yat यत् - to meet , encounter, to seek to join one's self with
te or tva त्व- thy, or your
rūpam or rupa रूप- likeness , image , reflection ~form~
kalyāṇa-tamaṁ - kalyāṇa कल्याण is beautiful , agreeable, illustrious , noble , generous, excellent , virtuous - note kalya कल्य is auspicious + tamaṁ or tama तम most desired, in high degree.
tat तत् = tad तद् - that, or in this manner
paśyami or paśya पश्य- seeing , beholding , rightly understanding My translation:
… so that I may see (paśya) your most beautiful and agreeable (kalyāṇatamaṁ) form (rupa).
Other views - So I may behold thy glorious form.


Yet the conclusion is, asau puruṣaḥaham asmi - that (asau) Supreme (puruṣaḥ) I(aham) am(asmi )


I am all this, I am also this Fullness of Being at the same time - how can this be? There are many pointers, yet the one I favor is from the ṛg (rig) veda I.164.46, and ṛṣi dīrghatamas.

He informs us:
indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇamaghnimāhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo gharutmān |
ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānamāhuḥ ||

The key words here are ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā. It says, Truth (sad - existence , essence, Brahman) is One ( ekaṃ ), the sages (vipra - ṛṣi-s) call it variously (bahudhā).

praṇām

Hiwaunis
26 August 2009, 09:11 PM
Thank you hiwaunis for your suggestion,but this is not vaishnav philosophy that god is without form.Shore there is the impersonal brahman but beyond that there is god with a form,-hands legs etc..
It is important specially in vaishnav tradition.


Pranam,
Sorry I am not familiar with vaishnav tradition. The traditional thought is that there is God with actual physical humanlike body? I have always associated Vishnu with all prevading which I thought was the same as Brahman.

Honestly, it's much more easier to envision God in form. Compared to the universe around us we are no bigger than a germ. So I can understand God in form creating Brahman to envelope this world.

Namaste,

Hiwaunis
26 August 2009, 09:18 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté
If I may, let me offer the following. This goes under 'the appreciation of this upaniṣad' and the core message (IMHO).

The īśa upaniṣad, some prefer it written as īśopaniṣad or īśāvāsya upaniṣad. Its name īśāvāsya upaniṣad comes from the 1st word found in this upaniṣad, īśāvāsya ( after the invocation).

That is, īśāvāsyāmidam sarvam, that this whole world is completely (sarva) covered/pervaded metered out by Him ( world here = total of all). The beauty of this statement is found in its words:
īśāvāsya ईशावास्य is ' to be clothed or pervaded by the Supreme'
āmi आमि is ā + mi . ā is a conjunctive particle ( a connection to the next word) meaning 'moreover, further' + mi is to meter out , measure (sorry to get technical there :) )Hence 'The Supreme pervades and furthermore meters out' . The Supreme is defined in īś ईश् - to rule, to be master of, and īśā is power, dominion. Hence, the Supreme is the ruler, master, Lord and has dominion and power over all (sarva) that is covered and metered out by īśāvara.

So what does this have to do with the 16th śloka that you have pointed to? Both the 15th and 16th śloka suggests how one invokes, prays, or adores īśāvara, to be able to understand His Greatness.


The 15th śloka - remove Thy vail or covering so I may behold it.


The 16th śloka - īśāvara's greatness is recognized and hailed as:
pūṣan पूषन्- is connected with the sun ; the surveyor of all things ,conductor on journeys on the way to the next world, and bringer of prosperity, the sun nourishes the world, without it there is no earth.
yama यम - as a noun it is He who presides over the and rules the spirits of the dead ; He is regarded as the first of men and born from vivasvat , ' the Sun'. And what do we know of yama in its masculine definition? the act of checking or curbing , suppression , restraint.
sūrya सूर्य - the sun i.e. luminance, brilliance.
prājāpati - is the Lord (pati) of prajā or bring forth. What is brought forth? family , race , posterity , descendants , creatures, mankind And hence, the 16th śloka continues by saying:
yat यत् te or tva त्व rūpam or rupa रूप kalyāṇa कल्याण tamaṁ तमं tat तत् paśyami or paśya पश्य
yat यत् - to meet , encounter, to seek to join one's self with
te or tva त्व- thy, or your
rūpam or rupa रूप- likeness , image , reflection ~form~
kalyāṇa-tamaṁ - kalyāṇa कल्याण is beautiful , agreeable, illustrious , noble , generous, excellent , virtuous - note kalya कल्य is auspicious + tamaṁ or tama तम most desired, in high degree.
tat तत् = tad तद् - that, or in this manner
paśyami or paśya पश्य- seeing , beholding , rightly understanding My translation:
… so that I may see (paśya) your most beautiful and agreeable (kalyāṇatamaṁ) form (rupa).
Other views - So I may behold thy glorious form.


Yet the conclusion is, asau puruṣaḥaham asmi - that (asau) Supreme (puruṣaḥ) I(aham) am(asmi )


I am all this, I am also this Fullness of Being at the same time - how can this be? There are many pointers, yet the one I favor is from the ṛg (rig) veda I.164.46, and ṛṣi dīrghatamas.

He informs us:
indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇamaghnimāhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo gharutmān |
ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānamāhuḥ ||

The key words here are ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā. It says, Truth (sad - existence , essence, Brahman) is One ( ekaṃ ), the sages (vipra - ṛṣi-s) call it variously (bahudhā).

praṇām

Pranam Yajvan,
Are you agreeing with what Sant has posted? Is your post saying that God has a actual physical humanlike body? With the exception of existence, truth, essence and Brahman are unseen, but known.

Namaste,

chandu_69
26 August 2009, 10:08 PM
Why on earth this Nakri hussain worry about What Formless god means?.

Allah of quran obviously has a form cause he sits on a THRONE.

Quran 11:7 He it is who created the heavens and the earth in six Days - and His THRONE was over the waters

Quran.13:2 Allah is He who raised the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; is firmly established on the THRONE .

Please check my pm.



I got this from dr nakri hussain.
http://www.islam101.com/religions/hinduism/conceptOfGod.htm
Its in one of these videos on hinduism by his.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNcRO_FxxOU

Anyway ill get later on this when i find more of the translation.

SANT
27 August 2009, 03:18 AM
Pranam,
Sorry I am not familiar with vaishnav tradition. The traditional thought is that there is God with actual physical humanlike body? I have always associated Vishnu with all prevading which I thought was the same as Brahman.


Namaste,
Vishnu is the all pervading brahman.
This is vaishnavism only.
Your statement
Honestly, it's much more easier to envision God in form. Compared to the universe around us we are no bigger than a germ. So I can understand God in form creating Brahman to envelope this world.

Thats the problem.You are envisioning god with a form but vaishnavism holds that god does have a form.Not that we are praying to something formless as a form and just for our concentration we imaginre god in a form.

bhaktajan
27 August 2009, 11:32 AM
Yes, Vaishnavism explains exclicitely --as per sastra -- That God has an actual human-like body!

Gods body is NON-PHYSICAL/NON-MATERIAL.

Material means temporary transcient manifestation [ie: created-maintained-desolved ~as per the three 'gunas'].

Gods body exists as: "sat-cit-ananda" beyond the laws of manifest time/creation.

yajvan
27 August 2009, 03:44 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté


Pranam Yajvan,
Are you agreeing with what Sant has posted? Is your post saying that God has a actual physical humanlike body? With the exception of existence, truth, essence and Brahman are unseen, but known.

Namaste,

My intent was to add value and round-out the notions offered written in the īśopaniṣad.

Form or formless can be discussed, yet it seems this HDF string is doing fine job on this idea. No matter what form, the Supreme is completely free and independent (svātantrya¹) to do as He/She wills.

Others may talk of the Supreme having a corporal body, or not. This is fine, yet is this a key deciding factor when talking of the Divine?

It is said (in kaśmir śaivism) This Supreme independent (svātantrya) state of God Consciousness (caitanya) is the form.
But the form of what? Here is the wisdom offered and what I hoped to add to the conversation in my previous post. It is the 'form' of everything.
This implies that solid ( body) or spiritual ( non-body) , material or non-material however subtle, has this form. It is the essence of everything, and this is the Supreme, Brahman.


Now one may ask does Brahman then have a body? Does Brahman have a non-body? To this I say yes. Some one tell me what Brahman is not? Could it be śūnyatā (void, emptiness) ? To this I say that śūnyatā is ākāśa (pure space) and is the element that allows all things to exist. The upaniṣad-s call this tattva out as a key mahābhūta. Hence Brahman is not even contained by this.


praṇām




1. svātantrya स्वातन्त्र्य - the following one's own will , freedom of the will , independence

atanu
28 August 2009, 12:11 AM
Thats the problem.You are envisioning god with a form but vaishnavism holds that god does have a form.Not that we are praying to something formless as a form and just for our concentration we imaginre god in a form.

Namaste Sant,

A conventional form means a delineated shape. A delineated shape has a boundary, which Brahman has not. Pragnya (known in the form of I AM awareness) is said to be Brahman. Does Pragnya have a form? Shri Krishna Says "kalosmi". Does time have a form?

But the subject (Brahman) owns the kaplataru. The form is as per the wish. (Gita: Any form one meditates upon at the time of passing away that form one aquires).

asau puruṣaḥaham asmi - that (asau) Supreme (puruṣaḥ) I (aham) am (asmi ).

The Supreme Purusha is of the form of "I Am" awareness. Purusha was built up from the waters by Atman, which is indescribable and ungraspable, because beneath "I AM" there is no form but the Subject alone.

Om Namah Shivaya

rkpande
28 August 2009, 12:48 AM
namaste,

i think atanu ji has amply replied the question.

We all believe that Brahma is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

What form will one give who is infinite and if he is omnipotent he can
take any form -- Ram, Krishn or what ever you want to worship.

SANT
28 August 2009, 04:03 AM
My intent was to add value and round-out the notions offered written in the īśopaniṣad.

Form or formless can be discussed, yet it seems this HDF string is doing fine job on this idea. No matter what form, the Supreme is completely free and independent (svātantrya¹) to do as He/She wills.

Others may talk of the Supreme having a corporal body, or not. This is fine, yet is this a key deciding factor when talking of the Divine?

It is said (in kaśmir śaivism) This Supreme independent (svātantrya) state of God Consciousness (caitanya) is the form.
But the form of what? Here is the wisdom offered and what I hoped to add to the conversation in my previous post. It is the 'form' of everything.

namaste

Kashmir shaivism is more tantrik than vedik isnt that true.

SANT
28 August 2009, 04:08 AM
But the subject (Brahman) owns the kaplataru. The form is as per the wish. (Gita: Any form one meditates upon at the time of passing away that form one aquires).

Here the verse and translation

Text 6
yam yam vapi smaran bhavam
tyajaty ante kalevaram
tam tam evaiti kaunteya
sada tad-bhava-bhavitah
Translation
Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits his body, O son of Kunti, that state he will attain without fail.


The Supreme Purusha is of the form of "I Am" awareness. Purusha was built up from the waters by Atman, which is indescribable and ungraspable, because beneath "I AM" there is no form but the Subject alone.
Jivatma is a seperate entity from god.It is completely dependant on god without whom it has no existence.How you conceive things and how you intepret things is based in the philosophy youre following.

SANT
28 August 2009, 04:12 AM
namaste,

i think atanu ji has amply replied the question.

We all believe that Brahma is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.

What form will one give who is infinite and if he is omnipotent he can
take any form -- Ram, Krishn or what ever you want to worship.

Yes he can take any form but he originally does have a form of his own.
This is vaishnavism
It is true brahm is omnipotent,omnipresent and you can worship him in any form you like but this does not undermine the fact that he does have a form.

atanu
28 August 2009, 05:15 AM
Jivatma is a seperate entity from god.It is completely dependant on god without whom it has no existence.

Namaste Sant,

So, the second sentence over-rules the first. There is dependent origination/existence and thus there is no real separation.


It is true brahm is omnipotent,omnipresent and you can worship him in any form you like but this does not undermine the fact that he does have a form.

If you insist on it then so be it. How does it matter? Finally, the Seer has to see the 'form' or 'no form'. Who is the Seer? Shri Krishna clearly states that seated within the heart of everyone, the Param Atman is the drashta, the karta, the bhokta etc. etc.

Even if you think that you have seen the form, it will be actually the dhrasta who would have seen the form. And dhrasta has the kalpataru. Do we know our true form that we are able to argue on Brahman's form??


Om Namah Shivaya

Spiritualseeker
28 August 2009, 06:27 AM
Namaste Sant,

So, the second sentence over-rules the first. There is dependent origination/existence and thus there is no real separation.


Namaste,

Atanu can you please respond to my PM.

atanu
28 August 2009, 07:15 AM
Namaste,

Atanu can you please respond to my PM.



Namaste SS,

Ya. The pm will take some consideration and time. Please allow me that.

Om

bhaktajan
28 August 2009, 09:08 AM
"you intepret things is based in the philosophy you're following"


Who is the Seer?


Do we know our true form that we are able to argue on Brahman's form??



That is why the maxim is: "Guru, sadhu, sastra" are the three checks to prove something is True.


We all believe that Brahma is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.


Next, there is PRARAMATMA


and


then, there is Bhagavan.


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
For all the talk of "DUALITY".


There is not just "Dual" rules in hindu metaphysics!


There is a trinity.


"Dual" exists within the 'FIELD' ergo, (3) three factors.



Vaishnava school of Vedic Philosophy accepts the standard that the yogi-student progresses through the Vedic study of A] Karma (acts) --then-- B] Gynana (study) --then finally-- C] bhakti (vocation vis-a-vis: acts+study).


Bhakti toward what end? More samsara? ---What does sastra say . . . mercifully understandable/do-able by a common man? Hari-nama-san-kirtana.

Spiritualseeker
28 August 2009, 09:29 AM
Namaste,

thanks Atanu.

On the topic. Though I have no knowledge to bring to the table, but I just wanted to say I am becoming more resting with that I dont know what God looks or is suppose to be. So Instead of saying that I know that Shiva is God and God is Shiva, I simply dont know. And I dont think of a flow. I just try to feel the cosmos and when I pray I pray to the cosmos. This is brahman I believe according to descriptions but a description being told to us are just strings of words. They point to the truth but are not the truth itself. Only we can be that Truth by knowing the Truth. Then there is no difference between knowing the Truth and Being Truth.

OM
-juan

bhaktajan
28 August 2009, 10:12 AM
Brahma-bhuta:

BG 18.54:
"One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman and becomes fully joyful. He never laments or desires to have anything. He is equally disposed toward every living entity. . . . "

"Brahman" understading is a great feat-of-accomplishment.

It is not a minor thing. It is the basis for fearlessness.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
it is said:
'If you want to who your father is ---ask your mother'

Similarly, we pray for the principals of guru-sadhu-sastra to reveal some mercy . . .

atanu
28 August 2009, 12:12 PM
Namaste,

thanks Atanu.

On the topic. Though I have no knowledge to bring to the table, ---- They point to the truth but are not the truth itself. Only we can be that Truth by knowing the Truth. Then there is no difference between knowing the Truth and Being Truth.

OM
-juan

Namaste juan,

But you indeed speak wisdom, which is alligned with Upanishads. Only thing that is required is devotionfull Practise, Practise, and Practise.

Om Namah Shivaya

kd gupta
28 August 2009, 12:22 PM
got this from a mulsim website




Na tasya pratima asti"
"There is no likeness of Him."
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19]3

The following verses from the Upanishad allude to the inability of man to imagine God in a particular form:
"Na samdrse tisthati rupam asya, na caksusa pasyati kas canainam."
"His form is not to be seen; no one sees Him with the eye."
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:20]4
Yajurveda
The following verses from the Yajurveda echo a similar concept of God:
"na tasya pratima asti
"There is no image of Him."
[Yajurveda 32:3]5
"shudhama poapvidham"
"He is bodyless and pure."
[Yajurveda 40:8]6
Can anyone explain here
thanks in advance


Pratima means carving a sketch or recording, pratiman means record
Sur pratima khambhan rachi kari…ramcharitmanas
Pratima does not mean Idol .

SANT
05 September 2009, 05:01 AM
THANK YOU GUPTA JI.But PRATIMAA DOES MEAN -MURTI.

yajvan
05 September 2009, 08:56 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~

Namasté

pratimā प्रतिमा as offered by Monier-Williams Saṇskṛt Dictionay offers the following for this word:

1. prati-mai - to imitate or copy
2. In the masciline sense it is a creator , maker , framer
3. Yet in the female sense it is an image , likeness , symbol, a picture , statue , figure , idol
4. It also can be used as 'reflection'
5. As a noun it is also a meter (chandas)
So what is prati प्रति ? as a prefix to roots and their derivative nouns and other nouns , sometimes pratī ; for 'towards , near to'
Before nouns it expresses also likeness or comparison. An example prati-candra.

And what of this mā मा ? It means a few things, one being time. But as a noun it means 'of various gods or devatā'.
Yet if we apply it to prati प्रति and the explaination just given 'before nouns it expresses also likeness or comparison' then prati प्रति + mā मा can be used to define ' in the likeness, symbol or image' + 'of various devatā'.

One could also say a 'reflection' +' of various devatā'.

I will leave it to you to determine if this suggests an image, idol i.e. mūrti मूर्ति anything which has definite shape or limits but not ākāśa; a person , form , figure , appearance , embodiment , manifestation , incarnation , personification

praṇām

SANT
05 September 2009, 10:28 AM
I will leave it to you to determine if this suggests an image, idol i.e. mūrti मूर्ति anything which has definite shape or limits but not ākāśa; a person , form , figure , appearance , embodiment , manifestation , incarnation , personification


THANK YOU SHRI YAJVAN I GOT YOU.

ranjeetmore
21 November 2009, 05:30 PM
Can some one explain the contradiction.

There is no contradiction.Sri Krsna can become formless whenever He wishes.It is due to His yogmaya potency,He can do anything.

In the ramayana,Tulsidas says that "My Lord can run without legs,He can see without eyes and He can perform everything with any sense organs."

^This is confirmed in the Svetasvatara up.

Sri Krsna energies are natural-svabhaviki-so there is no question of the origin of these inconcievable energies as you cannot question why fire is hot.


Further,the Bhagavatam states that Sri Krsna's body is Himself and it is according to His desire.So also,He can take up any form,in any number,according to His desire.He remains the same.
So also,He can become formless.There is no suprise in this.

SANT
29 November 2009, 04:13 AM
Ranjeet can you tell me about the form of krishna.
IS it mayic or spiritual.(Mayic includes taking a form with yog maya.)

ranjeetmore
30 November 2009, 02:40 AM
^ yogmaya DOES NOT mean mayic form.

whenever God and His assocates descend,they work with the chit sakti/para shakti and yet all their tasks seem mayic to those under maya.

Hanumanji committed crores of murders on the battlefield.He did this seemingly mayic task but he remained unaffected.There was no consequences for this 'crime' watsoever.

This is called as yogmaya.

God and mahatma retain Their position BUT Bhagavan's body is never mayic(even when He comes down to earth,etc) and the mahatma takes up a material body by his own/Bhagavan's will.

SANT
30 November 2009, 03:57 AM
yogmaya DOES NOT mean mayic form.
MAya is maya whether yogmaya or mahamaya.Im talking about the form of krishna in goloka.
Is his body due to yog maya.If yes then what contention does a vaishnav have to deny god is nirguna.

ranjeetmore
04 December 2009, 04:32 PM
His body is ananda- Raso vai saha.

Thus it is eternal.This form is not 'due to' anything as the form is Sri Krsna Himself.His form is the basis of Nirguna Brahm.

It is true that He can take up any form (half man-half lion) but that is inconcievable.It is not the work of mahamaya.

"Svechha pad pritah vapuh" - Bhagavatam.

He can take up any form at will.

Vaishnavas do not deny Nirguna aspect of brahm.

Harjas Kaur
05 December 2009, 12:43 AM
I thought this offered a great explanation of yogamaya and Mahamaya and relationship to Bhagavan.

ਮਾਇਆ ਮੋਹੁ ਮੇਰੈ ਪ੍ਰਭਿ ਕੀਨਾ ਆਪੇ ਭਰਮਿ ਭੁਲਾਏ ॥
माइआ मोहु मेरै प्रभि कीना आपे भरमि भुलाए ॥
Mā▫i▫ā moh merai parabẖ kīnā āpe bẖaram bẖulā▫e.
Emotional attachment to Maya is created by my God; He Himself misleads us through illusion and doubt.
~SGGS Ji ang 67




naham prakasah sarvasya
yoga-maya-samavrtah
mudho 'yam nabhijanati
loko mam ajam avyayam
TRANSLATION
I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My eternal creative potency [yoga-maya]; and so the deluded world knows Me not, who am unborn and infallible.

...In the prayers of Kunti in the Srimad-Bhagavatam (1.8.18) it is said that the Lord is covered by the curtain of yoga-maya and thus ordinary people cannot understand Him. Kunti prays: "O my Lord, You are the maintainer of the entire universe, and devotional service to You is the highest religious principle. Therefore, I pray that You will also maintain me. Your transcendental form is covered by the yoga-maya. The brahmajyoti is the covering of the internal potency. May You kindly remove this glowing effulgence that impedes my seeing Your sac-cid-ananda-vigraha, Your eternal form of bliss and knowledge."

http://www.asitis.com/gif/bump.gifThis yoga-maya curtain is also mentioned in the Fifteenth Chapter of the Gita. The Supreme Personality of Godhead in His transcendental form of bliss and knowledge is covered by the eternal potency of brahmajyoti, and the less intelligent impersonalists cannot see the Supreme on this account. Also in the Srimad-Bhagavatam (10.14.7) there is this prayer by Brahma: "O Supreme Personality of Godhead, O Supersoul, O master of all mystery, who can calculate Your potency and pastimes in this world? You are always expanding Your eternal potency, and therefore no one can understand You.~Bhagavad-Gita Chap 7:25 http://www.asitis.com/7/25.html


Krishna's energy -- His maya-sakti, or svarupa-sakti -- is one, but it is manifested in varieties. parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate (Svetasvatara Upanishad 6.8). The difference between Vaishnavas and Mayavadis is that Mayavadis say that this maya is one, whereas Vaishnavas recognize its varieties. There is unity in variety. For example, in one tree, there are varieties of leaves, fruits and flowers. Varieties of energy are required for performing the varieties of activity within the creation....

Similarly, as explained in the Vedas,parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate
svabhaviki jnana-bala-kriya ca


Krishna's power is variegated, and thus the same sakti, or potency, works in variegated ways. Vividha means "varieties." There is unity in variety. Thus yogamaya and mahamaya are among the varied individual parts of the same one potency, and all of these individual potencies work in their own varied ways. The samvit, sandhini and ahladini potencies -- Krishna's potency for existence, His potency for knowledge and His potency for pleasure -- are distinct from yogamaya. Each is an individual potency. The ahladini potency is Radharani. As Svarupa Damodara Gosvami has explained, radha krishna-pranaya-vikritir hladini saktir asmat (Cc. Adi 1.5). The ahladini-sakti is manifested as Radharani, but Krishna and Radharani are the same, although one is potent and the other is potency. http://vedabase.net/sb/10/13/57/en1

I pervade this entire universe. All beings depend on (or remain in) me. (Avyakta Brahma). I do not depend on them, (because, I am the highest of all) See also, 07:12, (Gita- 09:04).

Yet, beings, in reality, do not remain in me. Look at the power of my divine mystery (yoga Maya). However, the sustainer and the creator of all being, do not remain in them (Gita-09:05), Consider that all beings remain in me (without any contacts or without producing any effects) as the mighty wind, moving everywhere, eternally remains in the space (Gita 9:06). All being merge in to my prakruti (Energy) at the end of a Kalpa (or a cycle of 4:32 billions years) O Arjuna, and I create (or manifest) them again at the beginning of the next Kalpa (Gita 9:07).

No soul can attain everlasting bliss with out severing supreme personality Parabrahma Sri Krishna. Sri Rajchandra said, “that without relation (Bhakti) of Sri Hari, soul could not have eternal bliss (Paramanand)”(Vachanamrut). (Gita 9:07), (May these verses help, to understand the Avyakta Brahm).
The ignorant believes that unmanifest Avyakta Brahma takes Manifestation (that is all), they do not completely understand, my highest immutable, incomparable, and transcendental; divine Personality as Paramatama, (Gita 7:24) (see Gita Ch. 15:16,17, 18). http://www.aboutkrishna.com/files/aum.pdf

By the combination of the energy of Yogamaya (Kevel Brahma) and Chita Ansha of “Sabal Brahma” the divine personality appear at Paramakash; known as “Sumangala Devi.” She is also well known by her other names such as Para, Chidatama, Tripura Devi, Maya Brahma, Chitarupa, and Ardhanareshwar [Half male and half female]. She is residing at Lower portion of Sri Vaikuntdham in Paramakash (VPD-P.135 & Devi BP-12-5-16).
# (7A) In male mood, Sumangala Devi had expanded as “Avyakta Brahma”, also known as Golokinath Sri Krishna. In the female mood, it had expanded as Mahamaya Devi in Seven Great Voids (#10A) in Paramakash. Avyakta Brahma also called “Gopal Sundari” in Devi Bhagavatam. Avyakta Purush had expanded himself at four levels at Paramakash in four different personalities (Vibhuties), same as Lord Narayan had expanded in Brahmandakash (BP canto-1&2). http://www.aboutkrishna.com/files/aum.pdf
In the 100 Names of Kali from Adyakali Svarupa Stotra in the Mahairvana Tantra:
"20. Krishna Black of hue as is Krishna
21. Krishnananda-vivardhini Who Increases Joy and Bliss of Krishna" http://yoniversum.nl/daktexts/kalistotra.htmlThe Tantras teach that Sri Kali is Sri Krishna. So Bhagavan Krishna in the form of Avyakta Akshara Brahma has expanded to become Mahamaya. Devi is another aspect of Krishna. Yogamaya is just that power to control Mahamaya. Krishna has that power because he pervades and expands Maya shakti and is MahaMaya. So not only is Bhagavan Krishna form of the Absolute, but his human appearance is veiling the Absolute because of power of yogamaya. So Krishna's body is not "mayic form," but appears as form to beings with duality consciousness whose perception is veiled by Mahamaya. Krishna is both with appearance of form and beyond form. He is nirguna and sarguna and pervading all creation. That's why it's not a conflict between Sadashiva and Mahamaya and Bhagavan Krishna who is the greatest, because all are emanations of the One perceived differently as different aspects in world of duality consciousness. But in actuality there are no divisions. Krishna is the ultimate, just as Mahakali Adi Shakti is the ultimate just as Sadashiva is the ultimate. Radharani and Krishna are the same as Shiva and Shakti.

(4) Five Shiva’s – (A) Paramshiva (in Sadakash), (B) Sada Shiva, (Amatrik Brahma) (C) Brahma Shiva (Pranav), (D) Lord Omkar, (E) Nadshiva (A U M) has 12 Matras and he is also known as “Samasti Jyoti Swarup, (F) Shiva (expansion of “M” matra of Aum). (All Shivas are in Paramakash except Paramshiva). Most people misunderstand that Sri Sanker is Lord Shiva, but in reality, Sri Sanker is expansion of Lord Vishnu, as Supreme Rudras out of 12 Rudras, known as Mahadeva (superior in all 33 millions Devatas). In reality, Lord Golokinath had expanded as Lord Sadashiv and he had further expanded as Pranav Brahma (Brahma Shiva) Nad Shiva, Shiva &Shambhu, as explained above.

(5) Five Maya Devi: (1) Yoga Maya, (in Sadakash), ((2) Sumangala Devi, (3) Maha Maya, (4) Kal Maya, and (5) Maya Devi. (All Maya Devies are in Paramakash except Yoga Maya). (6) Five Pranas-(1) Pran, (2 ) Apan, ( 3 ) Vayan, ( 4 )Udan, (5) Saman, and
(7) Five Upa Pranas. Lord Paratama Sri Krishna expanded to create the material & spiritual universes in Paramakash as Lord Sada Shiva. He had further expanded in Sthul Pada as Pranav Brahm. He has 16 matras (mighty powers). Out of his 16 matras Pranav Brahm had further expand at Sthul Pada in Paramakash as “Samasti Jyoti Swarup” or Lord Omkar http://www.aboutkrishna.com/files/aum.pdf

(2) Akshar Brahma (Eternal Being or Atma ) is the expansion of the SAT (or existence) nature of Supreme Being in Sada ka s ha, as explained in Gita 10.42 and 14.27. Akshara Brahma, mentioned in Gita 8.03 and 15.16, has three major expansions (Pa da or natures). They are: (2a) Sat, (2b) Chitta or Sabal Brahma, and (2c) Ananda or Keval Brahma. Sat nature is also called Atma or Parameshvara. Chitta nature has various other names, such as Chaitanya Braham, Consciousness, ParamaShiva, cosmic intellect, and Paramatma. Ananda, the blissful energy of Keval Brahma, is also called YogaMa ya (Gita 4.06, 7.25).

(2b) Chitta and (2c) Ananda natures combine to give rise to the fourth Pa da, the Avyakta Brahma or (3) Avyakta Akshara Brahma in Parama ka s ha. This is known by various names such as the inexplicable Brahma, Avyakta, Adi Purusha, Adi Prakriti, Pradhan, Sarva Ka rana Ka rnam (the cause of all causes). Avyakta Brahma, a small fraction of the Absolute, expands into infinite cosmos, as mentioned in Gita 8.18 and 10.41.

Parama ka sh is also the abode of major powers of YogaMa ya , such as: power to veil the real nature of things (Avaran Shakti), power to place obstructions (Vikshep Shakti), powers to multiply and become many (Vigrah Shakti), powers of cosmic intellect, knowledge, and action, and power of converting energy into matter and vice versa. Lord Krishna is known as Golokinatha in Parama ka sha. Golokina tha (or Avyakta Brahma) has two major expansions: (3a) PranavaBrahma (or BrahmaShiva) and (3b) Ma y a Brahma. PranavaBrahma expands into (3a.1) Omka r a (or Na d ashiva). Omka ra expands into (3a.1a) AUM (or Shiva) (Gita 10.25). PranavaBrahma also gives rise to (3a.2) Ga y atri (Gita 10.35) which is the abode of the Vedas (Gita 7.08)

(3b) Ma y a Brahma is a reflection of (2c) YogaMa y ain Parama ka sha. It undergoes further successive transformations as: Maha Ma ya , Ka laMa ya and (3b.1) Ma ya (Gita 7.14). The creative power of Ma ya creates Brahmandakasha by a small fraction (Residual Energy) of her power. A Golden Egg or HiranyaGarbha (4) is also created by Ma ya Devi in Brahmandakash. AdiNa ra yana (or Adi Purusha, Shambhu, Maha Deva) and Maha Devi (or Mother Nature/Amba) remain in an inactive (YogaNidra ) state for over 311 trillion years (verse 9.07) in the Golden Egg until the cosmic sound vibration (or a big bang) of AUM activates the Golden Egg giving rise to (4a) Purusha (also known as Kshara Purusha, Na ra y ana, Maha Vishnu, Gita 7.05, 15.16) and (4b) Prakriti (also known as Nature,
Gita 7.04).
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:-fKQAVNe_YMJ:www.gita-society.com/pdf/genesis.pdf+Avyakta+Brahma&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbS2gjYucnuxXnlElHEy5JrQAyBwNw

SANT
05 December 2009, 01:21 AM
Thank you kaurji.
You claim this-
That's why it's not a conflict between Sadashiva and Mahamaya and Bhagavan Krishna who is the greatest, because all are emanations of the One perceived differently as different aspects in world of duality consciousness. But in actuality there are no divisions. Krishna is the ultimate, just as Mahakali Adi Shakti is the ultimate just as Sadashiva is the ultimate. Radharani and Krishna are the same as Shiva and Shakti.Howewer that is impersonalism.
Why ,because in devi gita devi says she is formless and takes form due to her yogmaya.
Now my question is that if krishna's form also due to yog maya?

SANT
05 December 2009, 01:27 AM
Ranjeet thats what im talking about.
Look at this verse -

http://www.asitis.com/gif/bump.gifI am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My eternal creative potency [yoga-maya]; and so the deluded world knows Me not, who am unborn and infallible.
In unversal form 11.47 krishna says that he takes the universal form due to his internal potency.Howewer krishna form is supreme and not due to maya and is composed of spirit.

vasihnavs do not deny nirguna brahmDo ramanuja or madhwacharya also accept nirguna brahm?

Harjas Kaur
05 December 2009, 02:30 AM
How is it impersonalism? This is not Shankarayachara's philosophy. The Absolute expands into the infinite forms. The Absolute is both personal and impersonal. So coming from the perspective of Achintya bheda abheda tattva, which is taught by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, the Absolute is both. Is it not so? We relate to the Absolute as bhaktas, Dvaita, yet the Absolute resides within us Advaita, because the entire Reality IS the Absolute.


because in devi gita devi says she is formless and takes form due to her yogmaya.
Now my question is that if krishna's form also due to yog maya?"This yoga-maya curtain is also mentioned in the Fifteenth Chapter of the Gita. The Supreme Personality of Godhead in His transcendental form of bliss and knowledge is covered by the eternal potency of brahmajyoti, and the less intelligent impersonalists cannot see the Supreme on this account. Also in the Srimad-Bhagavatam (10.14.7) there is this prayer by Brahma: "O Supreme Personality of Godhead, O Supersoul, O master of all mystery, who can calculate Your potency and pastimes in this world? You are always expanding Your eternal potency, and therefore no one can understand You.~Bhagavad-Gita Chap 7:25" http://www.asitis.com/7/25.html


The theological tenet of achintya-bheda-abheda tattva reconciles the mystery that God is simultaneously "one with and different from His creation". In this sense Vaishnava (http://www.viswiki.com/en/Vaishnavism) theology (http://www.viswiki.com/en/Theology) is not pantheistic (http://www.viswiki.com/en/Pantheistic) as in no way does it deny the separate existence of God (Vishnu (http://www.viswiki.com/en/Vishnu)) in His own personal form. However, at the same time, creation (or what is termed in Vaishnava theology as the 'cosmic manifestation') is never separated from God. He always exercises supreme control over his creation. Sometimes directly, but most of the time indirectly through his different potencies or energies (Prakrti (http://www.viswiki.com/en/Prakrti)). Examples are given of a spider and its web; earth and plants that come forth and hair on the body of human being.[9] (http://www.viswiki.com/en/Achintya_Bheda_Abheda#cite_note-8)

"One who knows God knows that the impersonal conception and personal conception are simultaneously present in everything and that there is no contradiction. Therefore Lord Caitanya established His sublime doctrine: acintya bheda-and-abheda-tattva -- simultaneous oneness and difference." http://www.viswiki.com/en/Achintya_Bheda_AbhedaHere is a nice article:

Dvaita philosophy is pure dualism. According to this school there exists in reality both Nir-guna brahman (non-manifest existence, "no-qualities") and Sa-guna brahman (manifest existence, "with qualities"). These two realities are eternal and never meet. They are eternally separate realities. There is God and there is mortal kind, the spirit worlds and the material worlds. Yin and Yang (but no Tao). this is, in a nutshell, Dvaitadvaita.

Acintya bheda abheda means "Inconceivable oneness and diversity." In other words, according to this philosophy (championed by Srila Caitantya) there is existing simultaneously, inconceivably, both Oneness (as taught by Vedanta) as well as duality (as taught by Dvaita). How this can be is acintya or inconceivable, however when we consider that we are discussing esoteric truths about the nature of God and existence we should not be surprised to learn that there are certain things beyond human comprehension (humility is required of all who would seek to realize the Truth!) and yet when we consider the idea it is quite logical and, I believe, enlightened.

Srila Caitanya came to this conclusion by contemplating the nature of the Person of Ek Devata (the One transcendent God beyond all description). According to the Scriptures and logic everything that exists exists within Param-atman (God). That being generally accepted as a given, we find that all is One IN God. This seems to support the views of Srila Sankara and others (ie Vedanta). However, we also understand that God is a specific Being, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Who alone possesses all attributes (which of course could only exist within Saguna by standard conception as Nirguna, by definition is 'without attributes').

Srila Caitanya therefore questioned how the Ek Devata could be both the accumulation/personification of everything that exists, while simultaneously maintaining a separate, independent existence as a Person called God (by countless Names and Attributes). Yet this was clearly the conclusion of the the scriptures as well. This sounded like a contradiction, a contradiction that had for thousands of years divided the Indians of the Sanatana Dharma (ie Hindus) into rival philosophical camps.

Srila Caitanya concluded that all sides were limitedly correct, noting the nature of Ek Devata is inconceivable (acintya).

Having established this, he concluded that since all existence exists within the Person of God (ie in Oneness) and yet exists as individual living entities with independent thought, karma, marga etc. then the creation (the "Body" of God) must also be inconceivably one and different with the Param-Atman (the Supreme Person) "as above so below." http://www.srijagannatha.com/acintya.htmlਏਕ ਕ੍ਰਿਸਨੰ ਸਰਬ ਦੇਵਾ ਦੇਵ ਦੇਵਾ ਤ ਆਤਮਾ ॥

TEXT 53

aham evasam evagre
nanyad yat sad-asat param
pascad aham yad etac ca
yo 'vasisyeta so 'smy aham
TRANSLATION
"Prior to the cosmic creation, only I exist, and no phenomena exist, either gross, subtle or primordial. After creation, only I exist in everything, and after annihilation, only I remain eternally."

PURPORT
Aham means "I"; therefore the speaker who is saying aham, "I," must have His own personality. The Mayavadi philosophers interpret this word aham as referring to the impersonal Brahman. These Mayavadis are very proud of their grammatical knowledge, but any person who has actual knowledge of grammar can understand that aham means "I" and that "I" refers to a personality. Therefore the Personality of Godhead, speaking to Brahma, uses aham while describing His own transcendental form. Aham has a specific meaning; it is not a vague term that can be whimsically interpreted. Aham, when spoken by Krsna, refers to the Supreme Personality of Godhead and nothing else.

Before the creation and after its dissolution, only the Supreme Personality of Godhead and His associates exist; there is no existence of the material elements. This is confirmed in the Vedic literature. Vasudevo va idam agra asin na brahma na ca sankarah. The meaning of this mantra is that before creation there was no existence of Brahma or Siva, for only Visnu existed. Visnu exists in His abode, the Vaikunthas. There are innumerable Vaikuntha planets in the spiritual sky, and on each of them Visnu resides with His associates and His paraphernalia. It is also confirmed in the Bhagavad-gita that although the creation is periodically dissolved, there is another abode, which is never dissolved. The word "creation" refers to the material creation because in the spiritual world everything exists eternally and there is no creation or dissolution.

The Lord indicates herein that before the material creation He existed in fullness with all transcendental opulences, including all strength, all wealth, all beauty, all knowledge, all fame and all renunciation. If one thinks of a king, he automatically thinks of his secretaries, ministers, military commanders, palaces and so on. Since a king has such opulences, one can simply try to imagine the opulence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. When the Lord says aham, therefore, it is to be understood that He exists with full potency, including all opulences.

The word yat refers to Brahman, the impersonal effulgence of the Lord. In the Brahma-samhita (5.40) it is said, tad brahma niskalam anantam asesa-bhutam: the Brahman effulgence expands unlimitedly. Just as the sun is a localized planet although the sunshine expands unlimitedly from that source, so the Absolute Truth is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but His effulgence of energy, Brahman, expands unlimitedly. From that Brahman energy the creation appears, just as a cloud appears in sunshine. From the cloud comes rain, from the rain comes vegetation, and from the vegetation come fruits and flowers, which are the basis of subsistence for many other forms of life. Similarly, the effulgent bodily luster of the Supreme Lord is the cause of the creation of infinite universes. The Brahman effulgence is impersonal, but the cause of that energy is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. From Him, in His abode, the Vaikunthas, this brahmajyoti emanates. He is never impersonal. Since they cannot understand the source of the Brahman energy, impersonalists mistakenly choose to think this impersonal Brahman the ultimate or absolute goal. But as stated in the Upanisads, one has to penetrate the impersonal effulgence to see the face of the Supreme Lord. If one desires to reach the source of the sunshine, he has to travel through the sunshine to reach the sun and then meet the predominating deity there. The Absolute Truth is the Supreme Person, Bhagavan, as Srimad-Bhagavatam explains.

Sat means "effect," asat means "cause," and param refers to the ultimate truth, which is transcendental to cause and effect. The cause of the creation is called the mahat-tattva, or total material energy, and its effect is the creation itself. But neither cause nor effect existed in the beginning; they emanated from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as did the energy of time. This is stated in the Vedanta-sutra (janmady asya yatah). The source of birth of the cosmic manifestation, or mahat-tattva, is the Personality of Godhead. This is confirmed throughout Srimad-Bhagavatam and the Bhagavad-gita. In the Bhagavad-gita (10.8) the Lord says, aham sarvasya prabhavah: "I am the fountainhead of all emanations." The material cosmos, being temporary, is sometimes manifest and sometimes unmanifest, but its energy emanates from the Supreme Absolute Lord. Before the creation there was neither cause nor effect, but the Supreme Personality of Godhead existed with His full opulence and energy.

The words pascad aham indicate that the Lord exists after the dissolution of the cosmic manifestation. When the material world is dissolved, the Lord still exists personally in the Vaikunthas. During the creation the Lord also exists as He is in the Vaikunthas, and He also exists as the Supersoul within the material universes. This is confirmed in the Brahma-samhita (5.37). Goloka eva nivasati: although He is perfectly and eternally present in Goloka Vrndavana in Vaikuntha, He is nevertheless all-pervading (akhilatma-bhutah). The all-pervading feature of the Lord is called the Supersoul. In the Bhagavad-gita it is said, aham krtsnasya jagatah prabhavah: the cosmic manifestation is a display of the energy of the Supreme Lord. The material elements (earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego) display the inferior energy of the Lord, and the living entities are His superior energy. Since the energy of the Lord is not different from Him, in fact everything that exists is Krsna in His impersonal feature. Sunshine, sunlight and heat are not different from the sun, and yet simultaneously they are distinct energies of the sun. Similarly, the cosmic manifestation and the living entities are energies of the Lord, and they are considered to be simultaneously one with and different from Him. The Lord therefore says, "I am everything," because everything is His energy and is therefore nondifferent from Him.

Yo 'vasisyeta so 'smy aham indicates that the Lord is the balance that exists after the dissolution of the creation. The spiritual manifestation never vanishes. It belongs to the internal energy of the Supreme Lord and exists eternally. When the external manifestation is withdrawn, the spiritual activities in Goloka and the rest of the Vaikunthas continue, unrestricted by material time, which has no existence in the spiritual world. Therefore in the Bhagavad-gita it is said, yad gatva na nivartante tad dhama paramam mama: "The abode from which no one returns to this material world is the supreme abode of the Lord." (Bg. 15.6) ~Sri Caitanya-Caritamrta http://www.bvml.org/books/CC/adi/01.html

SANT
05 December 2009, 02:45 AM
that's why it's not a conflict between Sadashiva and Mahamaya and Bhagavan Krishna who is the greatest, because all are emanations of the One perceived differently as different aspects in world of duality consciousness. But in actuality there are no divisions. Krishna is the ultimate, just as Mahakali Adi Shakti is the ultimate just as Sadashiva is the ultimate. Radharani and Krishna are the same as Shiva and Shakti.

I mean to say that it is impersonalsim if you say all gods including krishna come out pf the unmanifest brahm. Not that durga and shri krishna are not the same but shri krishna is the orginal form of god.
Lord shiva and durga are expanisons of krishna.
That is chaitanya's philosophy.
isvarah paramah krsnah
sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah
anadir adir govindah
sarva-karana-karanam
Now you cant have two gods up there since vedas everywhere say he is one.

Harjas Kaur
05 December 2009, 03:17 AM
In unversal form 11.47 krishna says that he takes the universal form due to his internal potency.Howewer krishna form is supreme and not due to maya and is composed of spirit.So why does Bhagavad-Gita say Krishna veils his potency with yogmaya? Are you reading Gita? Are you reading these quotes? You can't outright dismiss the impersonal aspect of Brahman because that would be to reject Sruti. It is possible to reconcile seeming contradiction between impersonal and personal Divinity as well as separate out mayavaad from aspect of MahaMaya as Krishna being Supreme Controller and hence Master of YogMaya. There is a difference between claiming the transcendental body of Krishna is mere illusion, maya, and stating rightly from the scriptures that this body is inconceivable and due to His YogMaya veils from us the proper perception.


“He is one, the lord and innermost Self of all; of one form, he makes of himself many forms. To him who sees the Self revealed in his own heart belongs eternal bliss–to none else, to none else!” ~Katha Upanishad 2:2:12
“The one absolute, impersonal Existence, together with his inscrutable Maya, appears as the divine Lord, the personal God, endowed with manifold glories. By his divine power he holds dominion over all the worlds. At the periods of creation and dissolution of the universe, he alone exists. Those who realize him become immortal.” (Shvetashvatara Upanishad 3:1) http://www.atmajyoti.org/up_shvetashvatara_upanishad_3.asp

“Thou art the supreme Brahman. Thou art infinite. Thou hast assumed the forms of all creatures, remaining hidden in them. Thou pervadest all things. Thou art the one God of the universe. Those who realize thee become immortal.” (Shvetashvatara Upanishad 3:7) http://www.atmajyoti.org/up_shvetashvatara_upanishad_3.asp


The Eternal Light is the invisible potential energy; Maya is kinetic energy, the force of action of the Lord. They are inseparable like fire and heat. Maya is the supernatural, extraordinary, and mystic power of God, and the Mother of mother Nature. The word 'Maya' also means unreal, illusory, or deceptive image of Reality. Due to the power of Maya one considers the universe existent and distinct from the Supreme Being and the drama of life goes on...

There is another Supreme Personality of Godhead (beyond Kshar and Akshar) called Par-Brahm Paramaatmaa, who, pervading the three Loks as the Eternal Lord (or Ishvar), sustains them. (15.17)
I am beyond both Kshar and Akshar; therefore, I am known in this world and in the Vedas as the Supreme Person (or Aksharaateet, Para Brahma Paramaatmaa, Purushottama, etc.) (See also Mundak Upanishad 2.01.02) (15.18)...


1. PARBRAHM
Krishn is the name of ParBrahm Paramaatmaa (or the Absolute), the Supreme Lord (Gita 15.18) who has expanded Himself in two different levels: Akshar or immutable Brahm and Kshar or mutable existence. His transcendental abode is called Param Dhaam (PD) (Gita 15.06). He is called Sachchidaanand, because Sat (existence), Chitt (consciousness), and Anand (bliss) are His three natures or Svabhaavas.
Lord said: The ignorant ones — unable to understand My immutable, incomparable, incomprehensible, and transcendental form (or existence) — assume that I, the Par-Brahm Paramaatmaa, am formless and incarnate or take forms. (7.24)...


2. BRAHM
Sat Svabhaav (nature) or Atmaa of ParBrahm Krishn is called Brahm, Brahman, Atmaa, Akshar Brahm, Akshar Purush (Gita 10.20, 14.27), or Purush ( Gita 7.05). Brahm also has three Svabhaavs: Sat, Chitt, and Anand.
Sat Svabhaav is called Sat Svaroop, satpurush, or Parameshwar. Anand Svabhaav of Brahm is called Keval Brahm. Yog Maya is the Shakti (power) of Keval Brahma and Sabal Brahm is the Buddhi (intellect) of Keval Brahm. An ansh of Sabal Brahm is called Paraatmaa or Param Shiv that takes part in creation. Paraatmaa (intellect) and Chitt (consciousness) combine to manifest Avyakt Brahm, the mind of Brahm. http://www.gita-society.com/bhagavad-gita-section2/2_maya.htm

SANT
05 December 2009, 03:27 AM
You can't outright dismiss the impersonal aspect of Brahman because that would be to reject Sruti. II am reading gita that is why i asked the question.
I asked becasue i dont know if ramanujacharya and madhwacharya who knew vedas accepted shankara's brahm.

Harjas Kaur
05 December 2009, 03:35 AM
I mean to say that it is impersonalsim if you say all gods including krishna come out pf the unmanifest brahm. Not that durga and shri krishna are not the same but shri krishna is the orginal form of god.
Lord shiva and durga are expanisons of krishna.
That is chaitanya's philosophy.
isvarah paramah krsnah
sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah
anadir adir govindah
sarva-karana-karanam
Now you cant have two gods up there since vedas everywhere say he is one. If I say they are the same, where do you get two different gods from? If I say they are of the same original nature representing only different aspects, that is the meaning of expansion.


I mean to say that it is impersonalsim if you say all gods including krishna come out pf the unmanifest brahm.Did I say this anywhere? No! I quoted this, did you read it?

I pervade this entire universe. All beings depend on (or remain in) me. (Avyakta Brahma). I do not depend on them, (because, I am the highest of all) See also, 07:12, (Gita- 09:04).

The ignorant believes that unmanifest Avyakta Brahma takes Manifestation (that is all), they do not completely understand, my highest immutable, incomparable, and transcendental; divine Personality as Paramatama, (Gita 7:24) (see Gita Ch. 15:16,17, 18).
It is clear then the Avyakta Brahma is an expansion of Sri Krishna because the reference is quoted out of Gita. So I did not at any time equate Sri Krishna with demi-gods or lesser expansions but at every turn referenced Him as the Supreme and Absolute Paramatama. So you are inventing an argument which is not there.

This is what I wrote. Explain how it is impersonalism please:

"The Tantras teach that Sri Kali is Sri Krishna. So Bhagavan Krishna in the form of Avyakta Akshara Brahma has expanded to become Mahamaya. Devi is another aspect of Krishna. Yogamaya is just that power to control Mahamaya. Krishna has that power because he pervades and expands Maya shakti and is MahaMaya. So Krishna's body is not "mayic form," but appears as form to beings with duality consciousness whose perception is veiled by Mahamaya. So not only is Bhagavan Krishna form of the Absolute, but his human appearance is veiling the Absolute because of power of yogamaya. Krishna is both with appearance of form and beyond form. He is nirguna and sarguna and pervading all creation."
Now, you may disagree with it, but where is this saying anywhere anything about impersonalism or that Bhagavan Krishna is subordinate to unmanifest Brahm? I said clearly unmanifest Brahm is an expansion of the Supreme Bhagavan Krishna.

These were also quotes, references from Gita, and hence Bhagavan Krishna as Absolute and Primary One God. So explain please your disagreement unless you are disagreeing with Bhagavad-Gita?


(2) Akshar Brahma (Eternal Being or Atma ) is the expansion of the SAT (or existence) nature of Supreme Being in Sada ka s ha, as explained in Gita 10.42 and 14.27. Akshara Brahma, mentioned in Gita 8.03 and 15.16, has three major expansions (Pa da or natures). They are: (2a) Sat, (2b) Chitta or Sabal Brahma, and (2c) Ananda or Keval Brahma. Sat nature is also called Atma or Parameshvara. Chitta nature has various other names, such as Chaitanya Braham, Consciousness, ParamaShiva, cosmic intellect, and Paramatma. Ananda, the blissful energy of Keval Brahma, is also called YogaMa ya (Gita 4.06, 7.25).

(2b) Chitta and (2c) Ananda natures combine to give rise to the fourth Pa da, the Avyakta Brahma or (3) Avyakta Akshara Brahma in Parama ka s ha. This is known by various names such as the inexplicable Brahma, Avyakta, Adi Purusha, Adi Prakriti, Pradhan, Sarva Ka rana Ka rnam (the cause of all causes). Avyakta Brahma, a small fraction of the Absolute, expands into infinite cosmos, as mentioned in Gita 8.18 and 10.41.

Similarly, as explained in the Vedas,
parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate
svabhaviki jnana-bala-kriya ca

Krishna's power is variegated, and thus the same sakti, or potency, works in variegated ways. Vividha means "varieties." There is unity in variety. Thus yogamaya and mahamaya are among the varied individual parts of the same one potency, and all of these individual potencies work in their own varied ways. ~Srimad Bhagavatumhttp://vedabase.net/sb/10/13/57/en1

Harjas Kaur
05 December 2009, 03:52 AM
I am reading gita that is why i asked the question.
I asked becasue i dont know if ramanujacharya and madhwacharya who knew vedas accepted shankara's brahm.I don't agree with their philosophies, but your original question was positing that all Vaishnavas reject nirguna, and that is not the case in every sampradaya. Of course there are philosophical disagreements between them but I subscribe to Mahaprabhu Caitanya's Achintya bheda abheda which accepts the Sruti of unmanifest Parabrahm as well as manifest and personal. This is also the philosophy of Sikhism. I cannot speak for other philosophies which I do not believe.

Why don't you share what you believe in and reference with scriptural citations, then we can have a discussion. I'm also curious why you began this thread with discussion of Muslim missionary Dr. Nakri Hussein, and from interesting Pms I've had with you. Are you a Muslim trying to gain insights into Hindu philosophy only to refute it as a missionary?


got this from a mulsim website...I got this from dr nakri hussain...Now you cant have two gods up there since vedas everywhere say he is one.What is the problem with 2 gods or 330 millions if ultimate Reality is Oneness? I worship all forms of the God as being One and the Same. I have Kali Durga Shiva and Krishna all over my walls. What is wrong with this from Dr. Nakri Hussein perspective and why should Hindu's care?

SANT
05 December 2009, 03:53 AM
You say this now.


THE Tantras teach that Sri Kali is Sri Krishna. So Bhagavan Krishna in the form of Avyakta Akshara Brahma has expanded to become Mahamaya. Devi is another aspect of Krishna. l.

But you had said this.

That's why it's not a conflict between Sadashiva and Mahamaya and Bhagavan Krishna who is the greatest, because all are emanations of the One perceived differently as different aspects in world of duality consciousness. But in actuality there are no divisions. Krishna is the ultimate, just as Mahakali Adi Shakti is the ultimate just as Sadashiva is the ultimate. Radharani and Krishna are the same as Shiva and Shakti
See you're contradicting yourself now with all due respect.
You decide if devi is the ultimate or yogmaya of krishna.

SANT
05 December 2009, 03:58 AM
on't agree with their philosophies, but your original question was positing that all Vaishnavas reject nirguna, and that is not the case in every sampradaya. Of course there are philosophical disagreements between them but I subscribe to Mahaprabhu Caitanya's Achintya bheda abheda which accepts the Sruti of unmanifest Parabrahm as well as manifest and personal. This is also the philosophy of Sikhism. I cannot speak for other philosophies which I do not believe.

Why don't you share what you believe in and reference with scriptural citations, then we can have a discussion. I'm also curious why you began this thread with discussion of Muslim missionary Dr. Nakri Hussein, and from interesting Pms I've had with you. Are you a Muslim trying to gain insights into Hindu philosophy only to refute it as a missionary?

Quote:
got this from a mulsim website...I got this from dr nakri hussain...Now you cant have two gods up there since vedas everywhere say he is one.
What is the problem with 2 gods or 330 millions if ultimate Reality is Oneness? I worship all forms of the God as being One and the Same. I have Kali Durga Shiva and Krishna all over my walls. What is wrong with this from Dr. Nakri Hussein perspective and why should Hindu's care?Yes im a muslim.If you can beleive kali shiva are aspects of god then allah is also god.Will you accept it?
The original question was asking that how can god have a form. and how can there be images of him
That was a different matter.

I asked another question from ranjeet, If krishna's form is transcedental and spiritual or mayic.
That is my question now.

Harjas Kaur
05 December 2009, 04:06 AM
Quote:
he Tantras teach that Sri Kali is Sri Krishna. So Bhagavan Krishna in the form of Avyakta Akshara Brahma has expanded to become Mahamaya. Devi is another aspect of Krishna.
l.
You say this now.No, I only quoted it to you but had posted it earlier. Original quote appears in post #40 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=36009&postcount=40) of this thread.


hat's why it's not a conflict between Sadashiva and Mahamaya and Bhagavan Krishna who is the greatest, because all are emanations of the One perceived differently as different aspects in world of duality consciousness. But in actuality there are no divisions. Krishna is the ultimate, just as Mahakali Adi Shakti is the ultimate just as Sadashiva is the ultimate. Radharani and Krishna are the same as Shiva and Shakti But you had said this.
See you're contradicting yourself now with all due respect.
You decide if devi is ultimate or yogmaya of krishna.
Devi is the ultimate, because Radharani and Krishna are One and the same. Devi's shakti is yogamaya, which is power of Bhagavan. You aren't reading the scriptural quotes I'm posting?

Yet, beings, in reality, do not remain in me. Look at the power of my divine mystery (yoga Maya). However, the sustainer and the creator of all being, do not remain in them (Gita-09:05)

I also posted this:

Krishna's power is variegated, and thus the same sakti, or potency, works in variegated ways. Vividha means "varieties." There is unity in variety. Thus yogamaya and mahamaya are among the varied individual parts of the same one potency, and all of these individual potencies work in their own varied ways. The samvit, sandhini and ahladini potencies -- Krishna's potency for existence, His potency for knowledge and His potency for pleasure -- are distinct from yogamaya. Each is an individual potency. The ahladini potency is Radharani. As Svarupa Damodara Gosvami has explained, radha krishna-pranaya-vikritir hladini saktir asmat (Cc. Adi 1.5). The ahladini-sakti is manifested as Radharani, but Krishna and Radharani are the same, although one is potent and the other is potency. http://vedabase.net/sb/10/13/57/en1


By the combination of the energy of Yogamaya (Kevel Brahma) and Chita Ansha of “Sabal Brahma” the divine personality appear at Paramakash; known as “Sumangala Devi.” She is also well known by her other names such as Para, Chidatama, Tripura Devi, Maya Brahma, Chitarupa, and Ardhanareshwar [Half male and half female]. She is residing at Lower portion of Sri Vaikuntdham in Paramakash (VPD-P.135 & Devi BP-12-5-16).

# (7A) In male mood, Sumangala Devi had expanded as “Avyakta Brahma”, also known as Golokinath Sri Krishna. In the female mood, it had expanded as Mahamaya Devi in Seven Great Voids (#10A) in Paramakash. Avyakta Brahma also called “Gopal Sundari” in Devi Bhagavatam. Avyakta Purush had expanded himself at four levels at Paramakash in four different personalities (Vibhuties), same as Lord Narayan had expanded in Brahmandakash (BP canto-1&2). http://www.aboutkrishna.com/files/aum.pdf
Agree or disagree, but where is the contradiction? Have you posted even one single reference from a scripture to back up your disagreement? What exactly are your opinions besides criticisms in the background? No one knows what they are. No one can tell from these posts what you even believe in.

SANT
05 December 2009, 04:18 AM
Your confusing me.Gita says that yog maya is krishna's energy-


And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence
Now youre saying she is radha's energy.

Devi is the ultimate, because Radharani and Krishna are One and the same. Devi's shakti is yogamaya, which is power of Bhagavan. You aren't reading the scriptural quotes I'm posting?

Harjas Kaur
05 December 2009, 04:57 AM
Your confusing me.Gita says that yog maya is krishna's energy-Now youre saying she is radha's energy.Remember this quote?
In the Bhagavad-gita (10.8) the Lord says, aham sarvasya prabhavah: "I am the fountainhead of all emanations." The material cosmos, being temporary, is sometimes manifest and sometimes unmanifest, but its energy emanates from the Supreme Absolute Lord. Before the creation there was neither cause nor effect, but the Supreme Personality of Godhead existed with His full opulence and energy.
What do you think it means? Do you think the Absolute Divine is either male or female? Do you think the Absolute Divine is one thing but incapable of being another and so caught by the limitations of duality?

Remember this quote from post #43 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=36012&postcount=43)?:
"Srila Caitanya therefore questioned how the Ek Devata could be both the accumulation/personification of everything that exists, while simultaneously maintaining a separate, independent existence as a Person called God (by countless Names and Attributes)."
http://www.srijagannatha.com/acintya.html

Remember these quotes?
“He is one, the lord and innermost Self of all; of one form, he makes of himself many forms. To him who sees the Self revealed in his own heart belongs eternal bliss–to none else, to none else!” ~Katha Upanishad 2:2:12
The great goddess Devi is identified with prakrti, nature, as in the Samkhya system of philosophy or with yogamaya, the power of illusion responsible for the emanation and development of the visible universe. This energy is embodied as the great goddess, Devi and she is worshipped by gods and humans under a variety of names as the mother of the universe (jagddamba). It is believed that the great Goddess ultimately controls even the supreme male deity whose production she is supposed to be.

Thomas Coburn has rightly said, `although Devi is understood to bear a unique relation to each particular deity, this is no `mere` consort relation, she is beyond being a consort to anyone. So, whenever the Radha-Krishna couple is discussed, this point is to be kept in mind. Radha herself is said to be in eternal union with Krishna and is worshipped as his hiadial-sakti, his power. http://www.indianetzone.com/25/krishna_gopala_radha_great_goddess.htm
Radha (Devanagari: राधा, IAST: Rādhā) is the principal devotee of Krishna in the Bhagavata Purana, and the Gita Govinda of the Hindu religion.[1] Radha is almost always depicted alongside Krishna and features prominently within the theology of today's Gaudiya Vaishnava religion, which regards Radha as the original Goddess or Shakti. Radha's relationship with Krishna is given in further detail within texts such as the Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Garga Samhita and Brihad Gautamiya tantra. Radha is also the principal object of worship in the Nimbarka Sampradaya, as Nimbarka, the founder of the tradition, declared that Radha and Krishna together constitute the absolute truth.[2]

Radha is often referred to as Rādhārānī or "Radhika" in speech, prefixed with the respectful term 'Srimati' by devout followers. Radha is one of the most important incarnations of Goddess Lakshmi.[3] [4] [5]

...The Bengali saint Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486 - 1534) is believed by many (see especially the modern-day ISKCON movement) to be an incarnation of both Radha and Krishna, simultaneously in one form. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radha
Radha Krishna (IAST rādhā-kṛṣṇa, Sanskrit राधा कृष्ण) is a Hindu deity. Krishna is often referred as svayam bhagavan in Gaudiya Vaishnavism Radha is a young woman, a gopi who is Krishna's supreme beloved.[1] With Krishna, Radha is acknowledged as the Supreme Goddess, for it is said that she controls Krishna with Her love.[2] It is believed that Krishna enchants the world, but Radha "enchants even Him. Therefore She is the supreme goddess of all. Radha Krishna".[3]


...The common derivation of Shakti and saktiman, i.e. Female and Male principle in god implies that Sakti and saktiman are the same.[10] Each and every god has its partner, 'betterhalf' or Sakti and without this Sakti, is sometimes viewed being without essential power.[11] It is a not uncommon feature of Hinduism when worship of a pair rather than one personality constitutes worship of God, such is worship of Radha Krishna. Traditions worshiping Krishna, as svayam bhagavan, who is male, include reference and veneration to his Radha, who is worshiped as supreme...

From the Vaishnava point of view the divine feminine energy (shakti) implies a divine source of energy, God or shaktiman. "Sita relates to Rama; LakshmiNarayana; Radha has Her Krishna." As Krishna is believed to be the source of all manifestations of God, "Shri Radha, His consort, is the original source of all shaktis" or feminine manifestation of divine energy.... the identification of Caitanya as Radha-Krishna, the reality and eternality of individual selves, and a method for approaching the absolute reality and the Deity as a person first and foremost.[14]

In any case, the sole object of worship in the Nimbarka Sampradaya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimbarka_Sampradaya) is the unified Divine Couple of Shri Radha Krishna. According to the 15th century Mahavani written by Jagadguru Swami Sri Harivyasa Devacharya
radhaamkrsnasvaroopaam vai, krishnam raadhaasvarupinam; kalaatmaanam nikunjastham gururoopam sadaa bhaje I ceaselessly praise Radha who is none other than Krishna, and Sri Krishna who is none other than Radha, whose unity is represented by the Kaamabeeja and who are forever resident in Nikunja Goloka Vrndavana.
Swaminarayan Sampraday

Radha-Krishna Dev has a special place in the Swaminarayan Sampraday as Swaminarayan himself referred to Radha Krishna in the Shikshapatri he wrote.[9] Further, he himself ordered the construction of temples in which Radha Krishna have been installed as deities. Swaminarayan "explained that Krishna appears in many forms. When he is together with Radha, he is regarded as supreme lord under the name of Radha-Krishna; with Rukmini he is known as Lakshmi-Narayana."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RadhaKrishna

ਆਪੇ ਕਵਲਾ ਕੰਤੁ ਆਪਿ ॥
aapae kavalaa kanth aap ||
He Himself is Lakshmi, and He Himself is her husband.

ਆਪੇ ਰਾਵੇ ਸਬਦਿ ਥਾਪਿ ॥੨॥
aapae raavae sabadh thhaap ||2||
He established the world by Word of His Shabad, and He Himself ravishes it. ||2||

ਆਪੇ ਬਛਰੂ ਗਊ ਖੀਰੁ ॥
aapae bashharoo goo kheer ||
He Himself is the calf, the cow and the milk.

ਆਪੇ ਮੰਦਰੁ ਥੰਮ੍ਹ੍ਹੁ ਸਰੀਰੁ ॥੩॥
aapae mandhar thhanmha sareer ||3||
He Himself is the Support of the body-mansion. ||3||

ਆਪੇ ਕਰਣੀ ਕਰਣਹਾਰੁ ॥
aapae karanee karanehaar ||
He Himself is the Deed, and He Himself is the Doer.
~SGGS Ji ang 1190

SANT
05 December 2009, 05:02 AM
OK radha and krishna are the supreme personality of godhead.
Is that what you want to say?
my only point is that radha and krishna are like sun and sunshine the sun is the sunshine but sunshine is not the sun.
This is going off topic.

Harjas Kaur
05 December 2009, 05:16 AM
It's completely on topic. Just reflect a little. Male and female together make a whole. Husband and wife become one soul. No form that is seen refers to nirguna aspect. RadhaKrishna refers to perceivable sarguna aspect but mystically and imperceivably encompasses nirguna aspect as well.

"The ahladini-sakti is manifested as Radharani, but Krishna and Radharani are the same, although one is potent and the other is potency."

“He is one, the lord and innermost Self of all; of one form, he makes of himself many forms. To him who sees the Self revealed in his own heart belongs eternal bliss–to none else, to none else!” ~Katha Upanishad 2:2:12

If Radharani is Krishna's Hladini shakti, then Krishnas very ability to manifest spiritual ecstacy belongs to the feminine shakti aspect of His own nature. Just as His power of yogmaya comes from His aspect as Adi-Pakriti. This is teaching us that Bhagavan is a Totality reflected in emanations or aspects. But all the aspects are ONE. It doesn't matter if you call as masculine or feminine, ultimately it is all the same power from the same source. Just remember the answer to the seeming contradiction is achintya bheda abheda, "inconceivable Oneness and difference." The God is inconceivbably One and infinitely distinct. The God is all-pervading every being of His creation. Everything is ultimately He. He is the full Reality.

SANT
05 December 2009, 05:29 AM
The God is inconceivbably One and infinitely distinct. The God is all-pervading every being of His creation. Everything is ultimately He. He is the full Reality.
Nice thanks

"The ahladini-sakti is manifested as Radharani, but Krishna and Radharani are the same, although one is potent and the other is potency."

So you view radha and krishna as one eternal bhagavan and radha as not just krishna's shakti.
Ok then who is mahakali and sadashiv?

Harjas Kaur
05 December 2009, 07:04 AM
So you view radha and krishna as one eternal bhagavan and radha as not just krishna's shakti.
Ok then who is mahakali and sadashiv?Didn't you say:

"Now you cant have two gods up there since vedas everywhere say he is one."

How can we arrive at One if there exists a Mahakali and a Sadashiva and a RadhaKrishna? Unless...

“He is one, the lord and innermost Self of all; of one form, he makes of himself many forms. ~Katha Upanishad 2:2:12


tad āhur akṣaraḿ brahmasarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam
viṣṇor dhāma paraḿ sākṣāt
puruṣasya mahātmanaḥ


TRANSLATION
The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, is therefore said to be the original cause of all causes. Thus the spiritual abode of Viṣṇu is eternal without a doubt, and it is also the abode of Mahā-Viṣṇu, the origin of all manifestations. ~Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 3.11.42 http://vedabase.net/sb/3/11/42/en

Vedanta-sutra (1.1.30) and the Ahangrahopasana-sastras declare that the demigod Indra and Goddess Durga are in one sense not different from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the same way, in one sense Sri Radha is not different from Goddess Lakshmi. The difference is that Sri Radha is the original and complete form of Goddess Lakshmi. This is confirmed ion the following words of the Brihad-Gautamiya Tantra: devi krishnamayi prokta radhika. . .

"The transcendental goddess Srimati Radharani is the direct counterpart of Lord Sri Krishna. She is the central figure for all the goddesses of fortune. She possesses all the attractiveness to attract the all-attractive Supreme Personality of Godhead. She is the primeval internal potency of the Lord."*
In the Bahv-rik-parishishta it is said of Sri Radha:
radhaya madhavo devo
madhavenaiva radhika
"Lord Krishna always stays with Sri Radha. Sri Radha always stays with Lord Krishna."
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/sandarbhas/priti/sandarbhas38.htm


Text 140
krsna-prema prema-bhakta
hari-bhakti-pradayini
caitanya-rupa caitanya-
priya caitanya-rupini

She loves Krsna (krsna-prema and prema-bhakta). She gives others devotion to Lord Krsna (hari-bhakti-pradayini). She is present in the form of Lord Caitanya (caitanya-rupa and caitanya-rupini). She is dear to Lord Caitanya (caitanya-priya).


Text 141
ugra-rupa siva-kroda
krsna-kroda jalodari
mahodari maha-durga-
kantara-sustha-vasini

She manifests the terrible form of Durga-devi (ugra-rupa), where She sits on Lord Siva's lap (siva-kroda). She sits on Lord Krsna's lap (krsna-kroda). She rests on the milk-ocean (jalodari). She descends to the material world (mahodari). She happily lives in a great forest that is like an unapproachable fortress (maha-durga-kantara-sustha-vasini). ~The thousand Names of Radharani, Sri Radha Sahasra-nama was originally spoken by Lord Shiva to Parvati devi, recorded in the 5th Chapter of Sri Narada Pancaratra. http://www.vrindavan.de/1000-radha.htmDevi is Devi, and Devi is Krishna. There is only ONE which makes Himself/Herself appear as many forms, expansions, emanations, shaktis.

SANT
05 December 2009, 07:09 AM
So you cant say sadashiv or mahakali is ultimate since krishna is ultimate source of energy.This is chaitanya's philosophy(i hope).
We are also one with god but at the same time different.

Harjas Kaur
05 December 2009, 08:12 AM
So you cant say sadashiv or mahakali is ultimate since krishna is ultimate source of energy.This is chaitanya's philosophy(i hope).
We are also one with god but at the same time different.No. Do you have anything to contribute besides criticisms? What is Sadashiva? What is MahaKali? What is Bhagavan Krishna? They are only names, titles, definitions of something mysterious which is beyond the limits of human understanding. They are describing qualities and potencies of an ultimate Oneness. Descriptively it can be said that ultimate Totality is Krishna. Just as the Tantras call it Devi or Sadashiva. Only duality consciousness looks for separation where there is none. If the Oneness as aspect of Mahavishnu is all-pervading from the highest to the lowest particle, which element of the creation is not God? Can you answer? Again, you have not once cited a scriptural reference to support any position or refute any position. Why is that? You did not answer, are you a Muslim? I ask because I have no idea in this conversation what your beliefs even are as you do not state them. Nor can I fathom the reason for the discussion hinging on comments taken from a Muslim missionary website? Did you seek to answer Muslim objections or to criticize the philosophical Hindu viewpoints?

We are also one with god but at the same time different.


26(b)-27. As a person through illusion mistakes a rope for a serpent, so the fool not knowing Satya (the eternal truth) sees the world (to be true). When he knows it to be a piece of rope, the illusory idea of a serpent vanishes. 28-29(a). So when he knows the eternal substratum of everything and all the universe becomes (therefore) void (to him), where then is Prarabdha to him, the body being a part of the world? Therefore the word Prarabdha is accepted to enlighten the ignorant (only).
29(b)-30. Then as Prarabdha has, in course of time, worn out, he who is the sound resulting from the union of Pranava with Brahman who is the absolute effulgence itself, and who is the bestower of all good, shines himself like the sun at the dispersion of the clouds.


The aspect of individualized jiva subject to Maya and Pakriti is different. The aspect of indwelling Shiva chaitanya is the same as Parabrahma/Paramatma.

Duality is like the subatomic particle which is in one level of material reality something measurable in time and space with tables of predictability as to movement and speed. On another level of reality, the same subatomic particle is a vibrating wave of energy which is infinite in all directions. The nature of material reality from physics perspective is both finite and infinite. Why would our relationship to God be any different?

Ek Akshara Omkara.
The One (Eka) Syllable Pranava has manifested the whole creation AUM through the agency of Pakriti, three gunas represented by three Mahadevas Brahma-Vishnu-Mahesh using power of Maya Shakti, yet the One subsumes and pervades the entirety because delusive power of Maya creates appearance of separation (duality) where there is none in ultimate True being/Sat.

I-13. Delusion appears five-fold; it will be presently set forth. Due to the first delusion, Jiva and God appear to have different forms. I-14. Due to the second, the attribute of agency dwelling in the Self appears to be real. The third (consists in) deeming the Jiva associated with the three bodies as having attachment. I-15. The fourth takes the world-cause (God) to be mutable. The fifth delusion ascribes reality to the world as distinguished from its cause. Then, also, in the mind flashes the cessation of the five-fold delusion.
~Annapurna Upanishad http://salmun.cwahi.net/wrel/rhindu/scrip/108_upan/108_upan.htm#07


Who is the real God of gods? In whom are all these existences established? By worshipping whom, can I please the Devas in whole?

Hearing these words, Sri Veda Vyasa replied thus:


Rudra is the embodiment of all Devas. All devas are merely different manifestations of Sri Rudra Himself. On the right side of Rudra, there is the sun, then the four-headed Brahma, and then three Agnis (fires). On the left side, there exist Sri Umadevi, and also Vishnu and Soma (moon).
Uma Herself is the form of Vishnu. Vishnu Himself is the form of the moon. Therefore, those who worship Lord Vishnu, worship Siva Himself. And those who worship Siva, worship Lord Vishnu in reality. Those who envy and hate Sri Rudra, are actually hating Sri Vishnu. Those who decry Lord Siva, decry Vishnu Himself.
Rudra is the generator of the seed. Vishnu is the embryo of the seed. Siva Himself is Brahma and Brahma Himself is Agni. Rudra is full of Brahma and Vishnu. The whole world is full of Agni and Soma. The masculine gender is Lord Siva. The feminine gender is Sri Bhavani Devi. All the mobile and immobile creation of this universe, is filled up with Uma and Rudra. The Vyakta is Sri Uma, and the Avyakta is Lord Siva. The combination of Uma and Sankara is Vishnu.
Hence everybody should prostrate to Sri Maha Vishnu with great devotion. He is the Atman. He is the Paramatman. He is the Antaratman. Brahma is the Antaratman. Siva is the Paramatman. Vishnu is the Eternal Atman of all this universe. This whole creation of Svarga, Martya and Patala Lokas is a big tree. Vishnu is the top portion (branches) of this tree. Brahma is the stem. The root is Lord Siva.
The effect is Vishnu. The action is Brahma. The cause is Siva. For the benefit of the worlds. Rudra has taken these three forms.
Rudra is Dharma. Vishnu is the world. Brahma is Knowledge. ~Rudra Hridaya Upanishad http://salmun.cwahi.net/wrel/rhindu/scrip/108_upan/108_upan.htm#78

kd gupta
05 December 2009, 08:23 AM
Nice thanks

So you view radha and krishna as one eternal bhagavan and radha as not just krishna's shakti.
Ok then who is mahakali and sadashiv?

Mahakali is like a black stone and sadashiv like a sant bowing to it .

Now this is enough , better ask your people , if I am right ?

atanu
05 December 2009, 08:49 AM
Mahakali is like a black stone and sadashiv like a sant bowing to it .

Now this is enough , better ask your people , if I am right ?

Namaste Guptaji,

May you kindly inform please where is this written? Shiva-Rudra is called as father as well as Shakti putra Agni. Veda also calls Rudra as with forms of terrible Godesses. Rudra is also the Visvarupa, including lowliest with the visva.

Shri Rudram 4th ANUVAKA
Nama uganabhya strumhati bhyascha vo namo | Salutations to you who are in the form of the superior female Gods and the fierce vengeful and powerful Goddesses.
Namo ganebhyo Ganapati bhyascha vo namo | Salutations to you Ganas and their lords.
Namo virupebhyo vishvarupe bhyascha vo namo | Salutations to you who assume grotesque and monstrous forms (virupebhyo) and other diverse shapes (vishvarupe).
---------------------------

RV II, Hymn 33

4 Let us not anger thee with (faulty) worship, Rudra, ill praise, Strong God! or mingled invocation.

yA te rudra shivA tanUraghorApApakAshinI |
tayA nastanuvA shantamayA girishantAbhichAkashIhi ||
( shrI rudram: anuvAka 1 , rik 3; shvetAshvatara Up.: 3.5 )

O Rudra! O Girishanta By that form of Yours which is not terrifying, which destroys sin by its mere remembrance, and which is all blissful, please behold us and unite us with the highest good!


Yajur Veda i. 8. 6. d Rudra alone yieldeth to no second.

These are vedic verses. My motivation is not sectarian but let us not accord smriti, itihasa and folk lore primacy above the Vedas.

Om Namah Shivaya

kd gupta
05 December 2009, 09:00 AM
Yes Atanuji
I am wrong for you but right for this fellow , who does not deserve your wise explanation , he is at wrong platform .

atanu
05 December 2009, 09:09 AM
Yes Atanuji
I am wrong for you but right for this fellow , who does not deserve your wise explanation , he is at wrong platform .

Namaste Guptaji,

I think Sant has some valid questions, which Lord will help to clarify in time. But as Hindus, who hold the Vedas as the repository of the eternal truth, we should care, whether it is Vaisnava track or not. And I repeat my motivation is not sectarian but let us not accord smriti, itihasa and folk lore primacy above the Vedas.

When sages pray as below, who are we?

RV II, Hymn 33
4 Let us not anger thee with (faulty) worship, Rudra, ill praise, Strong God! or mingled invocation.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
05 December 2009, 09:16 AM
Dear Sant,

'No form that is seen' is a contradiction. One can only see/percieve forms with sense organs or with mind, as mental images. Beyond senses and the mind is That which is indescribable, which is said to be nirguna and niraakaar but yet is the sea from which all gun and all aakaar take birth.

Though the post is in the Vaisnava section, but I take liberty because the topic is general. I hope you and others will forgive.

Om Namah Shivaya

satay
05 December 2009, 09:30 AM
Namaskar,


Dear Sant,

'No form that is seen' is a contradiction. One can only see/percieve forms with sense organs or with mind, as mental images. Beyond senses and the mind is That which is indescribable, which is said to be nirguna and niraakaar but yet is the sea from which all gun and all aakaar take birth.


This is advaita theory not accepted by Vaisnavas.



Though the post is in the Vaisnava section, but I take liberty because the topic is general. I hope you and others will forgive.

Om Namah Shivaya

Not sure of the point of posting advaitic ideas in vaisnava forum. Not everyone is advaitin. I think this point has to be accepted. Please accept it.

satay
05 December 2009, 09:34 AM
Sat sri akal,


What is Sadashiva? What is MahaKali? What is Bhagavan Krishna? They are only names, titles, definitions of something mysterious which is beyond the limits of human understanding. They are describing qualities and potencies of an ultimate Oneness. Descriptively it can be said that ultimate Totality is Krishna. Just as the Tantras call it Devi or Sadashiva. Only duality consciousness looks for separation where there is none.

You may be correct, however, for a vaisnava, forms are real. Saguna brahman is real and there is no need to go 'beyond' the form of Krishna. Thus your advaitic reply for vaisnava point of view doesn't make any sense.

Harjas Kaur
05 December 2009, 10:14 AM
Originally Posted by Harjas Kaur http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=36035#post36035)
What is Sadashiva? What is MahaKali? What is Bhagavan Krishna? They are only names, titles, definitions of something mysterious which is beyond the limits of human understanding. They are describing qualities and potencies of an ultimate Oneness. Descriptively it can be said that ultimate Totality is Krishna. Just as the Tantras call it Devi or Sadashiva. Only duality consciousness looks for separation where there is none.

You may be correct, however, for a vaisnava, forms are real. Saguna brahman is real and there is no need to go 'beyond' the form of Krishna. Thus your advaitic reply for vaisnava point of view doesn't make any sense.But I'm not an advaitin. How is the reply contradicting Achintya bheda abheda's qualified Advaita?

I do accept however that the nirguna is simply beyond human conprehension and so bhakti is the ultimate means of achieving mukti. Nirguna is a philosophical inference and construct because it is completely beyond description. Nonetheless, there are qualities of the Absolute described in Vedas which can't be explained any other way then nirgun, beyond form and beyond comprehension.

I also believe forms are "real," as per what we can define material reality as. On another level our material reality cannot be the ultimate reality and all the scriptures say this, so there is no objection. I'm not an advaitin who denies the phenomenal world. I accept qualified Advaita that the ultimate Reality is beyond forms and not limited by them. Take for example time KAL, Shri Guru Granth explains that even the khands and lokas of the demi-gods are finite and passing away, and hence don't have lasting reality.

Those things which are finite and temporary cannot be the ultimate reality. They have a temporary reality. Krishna may have sargun appearance for our sake, but it's clear from Bhagavatum that krishna is greater than sarguna. So Krishna can't be properly identified as sarguna alone.

tad āhur akṣaraḿ brahmasarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam
viṣṇor dhāma paraḿ sākṣāt
puruṣasya mahātmanaḥ


TRANSLATION
The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, is therefore said to be the original cause of all causes. Thus the spiritual abode of Viṣṇu is eternal without a doubt, and it is also the abode of Mahā-Viṣṇu, the origin of all manifestations. ~Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 3.11.42 http://vedabase.net/sb/3/11/42/en



katyayani maha-maye
maha-yoginy adhisvari
nanda-gopa-sutam devi
patim me kuru te namah
iti mantram japantyas tah
pujam cakruh kamarikah


TRANSLATION
Each of the young unmarried girls performed her worship while chanting the following mantra. "O goddess Katyayani, O great potency of the Lord, O possessor of great mystic power and mighty controller of all, please make the son of Nanda Maharaja my husband. I offer my obeisances unto you."
PURPORT
According to various acaryas, the goddess Durga mentioned in this verse is not the illusory energy of Krishna called Maya but rather the internal potency of the Lord known as Yoga-maya. The distinction between the internal and external, or illusory, potency of the Lord is described in the Narada-pancaratra, in the conversation between Sruti and Vidya:


janaty ekapara kantam
saiva durga tad-atmika
ya para parama saktir
maha-vishnu-svarupini
yasya vijnana-matrena
paranam paramatmanah
mahurtad deva-devasya
praptir bhavati nanyatha
ekeyam prema-sarvasva
svabhava gokulesvari
anaya su-labho jneya
adi-devo 'khilesvarah
asya avarika-saktir
maha-mayakhilesvari
yaya mugdam jagat sarvam
sarve dehabhimaninah


"The Lord's inferior potency, known as Durga, is dedicated to His loving service. Being the Lord's potency, this inferior energy is nondifferent from Him. There is another, superior potency, whose form is on the same spiritual level as that of God Himself. Simply by scientifically understanding this supreme potency, one can immediately achieve the Supreme Soul of all souls, who is the Lord of all lords. There is no other process to achieve Him. That supreme potency of the Lord is known as Gokulesvari, the goddess of Gokula. Her nature is to be completely absorbed in love of God, and through Her one can easily obtain the primeval God, the Lord of all that be. This internal potency of the Lord has a covering potency, known as Maha-maya, who rules the material world. In fact she bewilders the entire universe, and thus everyone within the universe falsely identifies himself with the material body."


From the above we can understand that the internal and external, or superior and inferior, potencies of the Supreme Lord are personified as Yoga-maya and Maha-maya, respectively. The name Durga is sometimes used to refer to the internal, superior potency, as stated in the Pancaratra: "In all mantras used to worship Krishna, the presiding deity is known as Durga." Thus in the transcendental sound vibrations glorifying and worshiping the Absolute Truth, Krishna, the presiding deity of the particular mantra or hymn is called Durga. The name Durga therefore refers also to that personality who functions as the internal potency of the Lord and who is thus on the platform of suddha-sattva, pure transcendental existence. This internal potency is understood to be Krishna's sister, known also as Ekanamsa or Subhadra. This is the DurgaVrindavana. who was worshiped by the gopis in Several acaryas have pointed out that ordinary people are sometimes bewildered and think that the names Maha-maya and Durga refer exclusively to the external potency of the Lord.

Even if we accept hypothetically that the gopis were worshiping the external Maya, there is no fault on their part, since in their pastimes of loving Krishna they were acting as ordinary members of society. SrilaSrila Narottama dasa Thakura has strictly forbidden all worship of the demigods for anyone who wants to advance in pure devotional service. Yet the gopis, who are beyond compare in their affection for Krishna, were seen to worship Durga.Prabhupada comments in this regard: "The Vaishnavas generally do not worship any demigods. The worshipers of demigods also sometimes mention that the gopis also worshiped goddess Durga, but we must understand the purpose of the gopis. Generally, people worship goddess Durga for some material benediction. Here, the gopis could adopt any means to satisfy or serve Krishna. That was the superexcellent characteristic of the gopis.
Satay Jio, how does my "Advaitin" definition differ significantly from this Gaudiya Vaishnava commentary by Srila Prabhupada Bhaktivedanta which even includes direct reference to Durga Devi as being energy nondifferent from Krishna?

"Being the Lord's potency, this inferior energy is nondifferent from Him."

"They are describing qualities and potencies of an ultimate Oneness. Descriptively it can be said that ultimate Totality is Krishna. Just as the Tantras call it Devi or Sadashiva."

What about this scriptural reference?

Vedanta-sutra (1.1.30) and the Ahangrahopasana-sastras declare that the demigod Indra and Goddess Durga are in one sense not different from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In the same way, in one sense Sri Radha is not different from Goddess Lakshmi. The difference is that Sri Radha is the original and complete form of Goddess Lakshmi. This is confirmed ion the following words of the Brihad-Gautamiya Tantra: devi krishnamayi prokta radhika. . .

"The transcendental goddess Srimati Radharani is the direct counterpart of Lord Sri Krishna. She is the central figure for all the goddesses of fortune. She possesses all the attractiveness to attract the all-attractive Supreme Personality of Godhead. She is the primeval internal potency of the Lord."*
"Thus your advaitic reply for vaisnava point of view doesn't make any sense."

In light of many scriptural references cited, why doesn't it make sense from the Vaishnav point of view since it has included references from within Vaishnav sampradayas?

atanu
05 December 2009, 10:36 AM
Namaskar,
This is advaita theory not accepted by Vaisnavas.

Not sure of the point of posting advaitic ideas in vaisnava forum. Not everyone is advaitin. I think this point has to be accepted. Please accept it.


'No form that is seen' is a contradiction. One can only see/percieve forms with sense organs or with mind, as mental images. Beyond senses and the mind is That which is indescribable,-----

Namaste Satay,

OK. If you say that the above in quote is advaita then I accept it.

Om Namah Shivaya

satay
05 December 2009, 04:20 PM
Admin Note

Please keep it on topic and do no engage in personal attacks. Personal attacks are against the rules of HDF and will get you banned. There will be no further warning from my part. Please PM me if you have any questions about the rules. The rules of the forum can be found by clicking on the FAQ section.

Thank you for your cooperation. Enjoy the discussions and respect/accept eachother.

Thanks,

SANT
08 December 2009, 02:57 AM
radhe,
dear harjas kaur forgive me again for my comment about you not knowing about vaishnavism ,now i wonder that you even know moe than me.
So this verse of yours=
Being the Lord's potency, this inferior energy is nondifferent from Him. There is another, superior potency, whose form is on the same spiritual level as that of God Himselfone can immediately achieve the Supreme Soul of all souls, who is the Lord of all lords. There is no other process to achieve Him. That supreme potency of the Lord is known as Gokulesvari, the goddess of Gokula.
There are two durgas mentioned here.So which one do you mention?
What is her appearence?

Harjas Kaur
08 December 2009, 03:40 AM
I am still waiting for you to appropriately explain this concept of yours on Hindu Vaishnav forum and especially in conjunction with the Abrahamic Oneness of God philosophy of Dr. Zakir Naik video and website which you posted in your first threads on this topic.

Yes im a muslim.If you can beleive kali shiva are aspects of god then allah is also god.Will you accept it?
The original question was asking that how can god have a form. and how can there be images of him
That was a different matter.

I asked another question from ranjeet, If krishna's form is transcedental and spiritual or mayic.
That is my question now.
radhe,
dear harjas kaur forgive me again for my comment about you not knowing about vaishnavism ,now i wonder that you even know moe than me.
So this verse of yours=Don't play games with me. Why are you staging an entire philosophical discussion from the Abrahamic monotheistic perspective of Dr. Zakir Naik interpretation of Islam from missionary websites on Hindu forums? Thank you.

SANT
08 December 2009, 03:56 AM
huh?
You have a problem if is say that durga is krishna shakti but you also have a problem if i show oneness between allah and hindu almighty.ojio
you still think im a muslim?
kaurji youve been misintepreting me from the start.
First you criticise me of devta ninda and then claim im a muslim.
ojio

Come with an open mind..
What is your beleif does not necessarily mean it will be mine.


1. the first post was only because i as was confused as how god can have images and murtis of him since the vedic mantra says na tasya pratima asti.
2.the 2nd post in abrahamic religions was to prove to you that if youre not fond of some particular belief then it becomes very difficult to accept them as one with your own god.But you think im doing ninda when you yourself are a big example of this.

Harjas Kaur
08 December 2009, 04:08 AM
I did not accuse you of being a Muslim. After you posted link to Muslim missionary websites I thought it prudent to ask if you were a Muslim. I have quoted your own words from your own post that say you are a Muslim. How is that my accusation?

Don't you think the very inclusion of Muslim missionary websites into a Hindu forum topic is a bit odd? What kind of responses do you want?

Whether or not I am misinterpreting you is not the issue. I am discussing the very points you raise with direct quotes from your statements. Perhaps you could clarify why you link Dr. Zakir Naik video on Hindu Vaishnav forum. Do you believe that is engagng in Hindu philosophy discussion or side-tracking into objections of Hindu philosophy which Muslims oppose and disbelieve and exert inordinate material to disprove and invalidate?

1. the first post was only because i as was confused as how god can have images and murtis of him since the vedic mantra says na tasya pratima asti.

That doesn't sound like your confusion. That sounds like Muslim Missionaries aggressive anti-Hindu propaganda. Do you believe in Hinduism or in Dr. Zakir Naik objections to Hindu religion?

2.the 2nd post in abrahamic religions was to prove to you that if youre not fond of some particular belief then it becomes very difficult to accept them as one with your own god.But you think im doing ninda when you yourself are a big example of this.

Why do you always make personal attack against me when I am discussing these issues? I already told you long ago in private PMs where you made same accusations that Guru Granth Sahib Ji accepts that Allah is equal to Shiva is equal to Krishna as a Naam of the God. So you simply go on about what I do not object to. Why? Secondly how am I a big example of nindya? Are you accused here of nindya? Unless you are making criticisms of me personally without supporting it, that is a nindya. How did I so make of you by quoting your exact words and questioning them?

Harjas Kaur
08 December 2009, 04:14 AM
You have a problem if is say that durga is krishna shakti but you also have a problem if i show oneness between allah and hindu almighty.No. I said Durga is Krishna shakti. Why would I have a problem with it? I have already quoted you from Shri Guru Granth Sahib Ji in private PMs that Allah is just another Naam of the Hindu concept of Divinity. So why do you insist I have a problem with it? If you object to something, I invite you to quote my words directly so you do not insert a false statement and attribute it to me, thank you.

Harjas Kaur
08 December 2009, 04:17 AM
First you criticise me of devta ninda and then claim im a muslim.
ojio Sorry, but this is an exact quote of your own words from your own post on this thread. I am not criticizing you of anything. If you are engaging in devatay nindya, then it is your own words which say such. As your own words claim you are a Muslim. Were you negating that Kali and Shiva are aspects of God? Then that is your devatay nindya but I did not so claim.

Yes im a muslim.If you can beleive kali shiva are aspects of god then allah is also god.Will you accept it?
The original question was asking that how can god have a form. and how can there be images of him
That was a different matter.

I asked another question from ranjeet, If krishna's form is transcedental and spiritual or mayic.
That is my question now.

Harjas Kaur
08 December 2009, 04:28 AM
you still think im a muslim?
kaurji youve been misintepreting me from the start.

Come with an open mind..
What is your beleif does not necessarily mean it will be mine.

Let me repeat since you have not answered,

Why are you staging an entire philosophical discussion from the Abrahamic monotheistic perspective of Dr. Zakir Naik interpretation of Islam from missionary websites on Hindu forums? Thank you.
You have already said you were a Muslim. Why is that? Why, after you say you are a Muslim and quote from Muslim missionary websites and link anti-Hindu Muslim missionary video from Dr. Zakir Naik would I be misinterpreting you unless it was your game to pretend to come across as such?

Now can you answer the first question please, repeated:

Perhaps you could clarify why you link Dr. Zakir Naik video on Hindu Vaishnav forum. Do you believe that is engaging in Hindu philosophy discussion or side-tracking into objections of Hindu philosophy which Muslims oppose and disbelieve and exert inordinate material to disprove and invalidate?Are you here to object to Hindu philosophy and railroad discussion into Abrahamic version of monotheism based on aggressive anti-Hindu Muslim missionaries interpretations of Hindu scriptures? Is that why you said:

If you can beleive kali shiva are aspects of god then allah is also god.

Do you not believe Kali and Shiva are aspects of God according to Hindu scriptures? And was your intention to belittle this belief in Kali and Shiva to promote a belief in monotheistic formless God Allah as defined by Muslim missionaries from Muslim Koran?

devotee
08 December 2009, 04:28 AM
Namaste Sant,



1. the first post was only because i as was confused as how god can have images and murtis of him since the vedic mantra says na tasya pratima asti.


I can only advise you ... if you have to learn your own religion, don't learn it from people like Zakir Naik who have absolutely no understanding of our scriptures. They pick & choose some half quotes from somewhere & try to take out a meaning that suits them. This is no way to prove anything.

"Na Tasya Pratima Asti" : Pratima means image. Pratima also means something which is like the original & that root has been used in Apratim i.e. that which is without anything similar/equivalent to the object being referred to. So, that simply means, "There is nothing in this world which is exactly like Him".

Even if we take the earlier meaning then it would be, "There can be no image which can exactly show Him in all His glory)." There is nothing in this world which He-is-not. So, there is no form which is not His form & he is there in formlessness too. So, if that is true, what exactly is His form ?

Now, you can see that this saying has a much deeper meaning than what has been understood by Mr Naik.

OM

Harjas Kaur
08 December 2009, 04:51 AM
Sant wites in PM:


Its stupid to fight over there will loook amateurish.
Please listen carefully-
these were where things started-
Thank you kaurji.No. It is your thread initiated with links to aggressive anti-Hindu Muslim missionary websites and video by Dr. Zakir Naik. I did not start this objection to Hindu polytheism existing in the All-pervading Oneness of Hindu scriptures denied and reviled by Dr. Zakir Naik.

I did not start this, but I will finish this, even if I am banned because I am deeply concerned about your agenda not being what it appears.

You did not simply ask Hindu's about Dr. Zakir Naik's objections, but you voiced them. So that is my concern on this thread and my right to ask for clarification from you for those statements and not only inclusion of ideology from anti-Hindu Muslim missionary websites, but positive objections to Hindu scriptures in defense of those positions.

I do not care how amateurish it looks or if I am banned. I will not tolerate an anti-Hindu missionary playing games. If you are not that, then this discussion should resolve itself amicably with reverence for Hindu scriptures and deference to Sruti.


You claim this- Quote:
That's why it's not a conflict between Sadashiva and Mahamaya and Bhagavan Krishna who is the greatest, because all are emanations of the One perceived differently as different aspects in world of duality consciousness. But in actuality there are no divisions. Krishna is the ultimate, just as Mahakali Adi Shakti is the ultimate just as Sadashiva is the ultimate. Radharani and Krishna are the same as Shiva and Shakti.
Howewer that is impersonalism.
Why ,because in devi gita devi says she is formless and takes form due to her yogmaya.
Now my question is that if krishna's form also due to yog maya?


This bolded text was my question?
now u ask this- Are you a Muslim trying to gain insights into Hindu philosophy only to refute it as a missionary?
so i joked but you couldnt take it Why should any HIndu take a joke that someone is refuting Hindu scriptures to promote an Abrahamic monotheism, while claiming to be a Muslim but then denying that it was a joke while linking anti-Hindu websites?

You say this is where things started: then my quote: "But in actuality there are no divisions." Even as I cited Vaishnav scriptures to prove that? So the question arises do you believe in the Hindu interpretation of the Hindu scriptures or are you debating to support Dr. Zakir Naik's interpretation of Abrahamic monotheism? Is that why "no divisions" between devatay and the Absolute One became contentious for you?

ranjeetmore
19 December 2009, 04:20 PM
You say this now.

l.

But you had said this.

See you're contradicting yourself now with all due respect.
You decide if devi is the ultimate or yogmaya of krishna.

Dear Sant,

Know that Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and His associates have identified Sri Durga,Sadashiva as direct manifestations of Sri Krsna.Actually there are no fights...just like the vaishnavas declare Narayana to be Supreme,so do the Shaivas.
WE JUST CANNOT REFUSE THE SRI VAISHNAVA belief that Narayana is Supreme Person,Who is the centre of adoration of all.Why ?
Because He is an eternal form of God.On Vaikuntha,Naryana is the centre of all adoration-be it vedas,kumaras,narada,etc. etc.

Also,we see Sri Ramacandra as being the centre of all adoration on Saketloka.There is no mention of Narayana,Shankara or even Sri Krsna there.This is due to yogmaya.The form of God(Ram,Narayana,Durga,Shiva) becomes the complete beloved of that devotee.

Tulsidas ACCEPTED in front of Surdas,"Yes,certainly,your Shyamsundara has more qualities that Sri Ramachandra,but i didn't Know my Rama had those many qualities."
and his love for Rama increases and he swoons cherishing his new 'discovery'.

On shivaloka,Shankara is the centre of adoration and on manidvipa,devi is.There is no conflict in the Spiritual realm.

Only one matter remains : that of bliss.rasa.That is another matter and it depends on choices of the individual souls.
WE CANNOT BLASPHEME A TULSIDAS becoz he chose Sri Rama over Sri Krsna.That is inviting million years of hell.

little minded "Vasihnavas" fight amongst themselves or they fight with the shaivas/shaktas.

There have been crores of Shaiva saints even in the olden times.We hear countless saints performing bhakti of Shankara even in bhagavatam,etc.


Chaitanya MAhaprabhu ji brought it all together for us as if it were a piece of cake and He has offered it to us so easily...something which might not happen to us in another kalpa.

In defense of Krsnaites,I'd just say : In Geeta and Bhagavatam(the original commentary on Vedanta) Sri Krsna is identified as the Supreme Person,the be all and end all of everything.

but in the end,you can't say this to a devout Sri Vaishnava or a devout Shakta like Ramprasad,etc. becoz our very own doctrine propagates that Naryana/Devi is indifferent from Sri Krsna.

ranjeetmore
19 December 2009, 04:22 PM
rest assured,kaur ji,that sant is not a muslim.I know him since before.

He just has this little snag he can't get around.

I'd like to believe he tends towards Achintya bheda abheda but he isn't so sure i guess.