Page 12 of 30 FirstFirst ... 2891011121314151622 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 294

Thread: Misunderstandings - VAD Threads

  1. #111
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1364

    Re: Misunderstandings - VAD Threads

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    Pardon me for butting in here, but which "Gaudiya vaishnavas" say that? I hope by "Gaudiya vaishnavas," you aren't referring to the one "Gaudiya Vaishnava" who also thinks that homosexual monogamy should be officially recognized, that ancient Hindu women liked Radha and Sita walked around bare-breasted, and that Sri Prabhupada was wrong for insisting on an orthodox standard of morality for his followers.
    - Not happy to know this.
    Only God Is Truth, Everything Else Is Illusion - Ramakrishna
    Total Surrender of Ego to SELF is Real Bhakti - Ramana Maharshi

    Silence is the study of the scruptures. Meditation is the continuous thinking of Brahman which is to be meditated upon. The complete negation of both by knowledge is the vision of truth – sadAcAra-14 of Adi SankarAcArya

    namah SivAya vishnurUpAya viShNave SivarUpiNe, MBh, vanaparva, 3.39.76

    Sanskrit Dict | MW Dict | Gita Super Site | Hindu Dharma

  2. #112
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Posts
    1,525
    Rep Power
    2741

    Re: Misunderstandings - VAD Threads

    Namaste

    If one's caste, varna, jati "only by birth" was the most critcal fixation of importance to everything, why didn't the Divine make it easy for everyone by putting some brand right on the nose of everyone born, not some attire someone puts on later, but branded right on their nose or forehead like a big letter "B" for brahmin, "U" for untouchable? If by birth is the end all of be all, it certainly would have made things easier.

    Or perhaps the Divine doesn't believe in branding.

    Om Namah Sivaya

  3. #113
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1364

    Re: Misunderstandings - VAD Threads

    Quote Originally Posted by ShivaFan View Post
    Namaste

    If one's caste, varna, jati "only by birth" was the most critcal fixation of importance to everything, why didn't the Divine make it easy for everyone by putting some brand right on the nose of everyone born, not some attire someone puts on later, but branded right on their nose or forehead like a big letter "B" for brahmin, "U" for untouchable? If by birth is the end all of be all, it certainly would have made things easier.

    Or perhaps the Divine doesn't believe in branding.

    Om Namah Sivaya
    Namaste,

    When I asked Bhagavan, he replied: Opps

    By birth is not an end. Have you heard or read anywhere that a Brahmin because of evil karma is officially demoted and then his surname changes.

    If it is varNa by guNa, and guNa is not inherent by birth, then why only talk about promotion, why not about demotion? It has to be positive and negative.

    If there are e.g.s of promotions in shastra-s, there has to be e.g. of demotion, as there are e.g.s of both good and bad karma.

    This is no branding, it is distribution of work for universal well being.

    In either case of varNa based or birth or guNa, all agree that there is varNa and ashrama dharma in Hindu Dharma.

    If there was no varNa dharma or was of trivial importance, then it should have been 4 padvi-s (honorific titles), that are given to highly qualified personal, as an honour to their achievement in a particular field

    e.g. Phd, Dr., Engineer, noble price winner, padma bhushan, etc

    108, 1008, mahamahopadhyaaya, mahaa mandaleshawar, Shankaracharya, Gaudpadacharya (yes, like shankara lineage, there is Gaudpadacharya lineage and there are 4 maths, whose successors hold the name of Gaudpadacharya).

    If Bhagavan does not care about branding, then why at all give birth in a particular varNa or why at all say about varNa in Bhagavad Gita and in Uddhava Gita. Infact Uddhava Gita talks in details about duties of all 4 varNa-s.

    It also says that all 4 varna-s, by sincerely dedicating themselves to the duties assigned to their varNa, they are progressing spirituality (chitta shuddhi), all are dear to Me (Krishna) and all deserve to be one with Bhagavan. Now the question is, we are given tough path or easier path.

    We are all concerned about passing exams with good marks. It does not matter if the question paper is though or easy? Right.

    Where it is said that Shudra-s do not deserve grace of Bhagavan or that Bhagavan do not like Shudra-s?

    Why obsession about walking on tough path. We all like to go for best, but not all can crack entrance exam for getting admission in IITs.

    I purposefully did not give my own comments on verses provided by me in last post. I leave it to the discretion of readers.

    It is not insulting to be of any varNa. Please ignore evils produced by 'civil' society

    Matured ones should show compassion and give right direction but not make fun of those whom they consider inferior, as they have better understanding by grace of Bhagavan, even good memory is a natural gift (God's gift).

    Om Namah Shivaya
    Last edited by Amrut; 15 August 2013 at 09:19 AM.
    Only God Is Truth, Everything Else Is Illusion - Ramakrishna
    Total Surrender of Ego to SELF is Real Bhakti - Ramana Maharshi

    Silence is the study of the scruptures. Meditation is the continuous thinking of Brahman which is to be meditated upon. The complete negation of both by knowledge is the vision of truth – sadAcAra-14 of Adi SankarAcArya

    namah SivAya vishnurUpAya viShNave SivarUpiNe, MBh, vanaparva, 3.39.76

    Sanskrit Dict | MW Dict | Gita Super Site | Hindu Dharma

  4. #114
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1364

    Re: Misunderstandings - VAD Threads

    Btw, guNa-s / desires / vAsanA-s are invisible. Karma (action) is grossest form of vAsanA. So one has to study actions, which take time. Again ,the intention or motive or triggering force behind any action is more important that action itself.

    As on today, how are we to know the motives. Husband betrays wife and vice versa. Business partner stabs from back.

    I will give an e.g. It is a case of Asaram Bapu (Please do not question about authentity, it is just an e.g.)

    One person, would daily come to Asharam Bapu, tough his feet, offer Rs. 10,000/- or more and leave. No explanation.

    This goes on for days, so curious Bapu asks him, why, to which he replies, 'I have a good business and it is because of your grace'. No more explanation.

    This went on daily for more than a month and now he had already given more than 3 - 4 lakhs-s. One day Bapu called him to his room and asked about his business. He replied that he runs a money laundering business and earns on commission, all by his grace.

    In a few days, Bapu called this new devotee and gave him Rs. 5,00,00,000 (5 crores). Bapu and or his close devotees asked this guy to invest, to which he agreed and committed to give good returns. No documents were signed. No questions asked.

    Do you know what happened next, any guesses?

    Bapu may be a good psychologist, as he manages to attract good crowd and may have good management skills and skilled man power, but ...

    It is difficult to judge the actual guNa by karma. This is the practical difficulty, at least today. There are very few saints who may have divine eyes and far sightedness (like that of upanishadic and vedic rishi-s)

    So who is going to decide who gets promotion?

    Hari OM
    Last edited by Amrut; 15 August 2013 at 12:41 PM. Reason: edited word in blue.
    Only God Is Truth, Everything Else Is Illusion - Ramakrishna
    Total Surrender of Ego to SELF is Real Bhakti - Ramana Maharshi

    Silence is the study of the scruptures. Meditation is the continuous thinking of Brahman which is to be meditated upon. The complete negation of both by knowledge is the vision of truth – sadAcAra-14 of Adi SankarAcArya

    namah SivAya vishnurUpAya viShNave SivarUpiNe, MBh, vanaparva, 3.39.76

    Sanskrit Dict | MW Dict | Gita Super Site | Hindu Dharma

  5. #115

    Re: Misunderstandings - VAD Threads

    Quote Originally Posted by Indiaspirituality Amrut View Post

    Originally Posted by philosoraptor Pardon me for butting in here, but which "Gaudiya vaishnavas" say that? I hope by "Gaudiya vaishnavas," you aren't referring to the one "Gaudiya Vaishnava" who also thinks that homosexual monogamy should be officially recognized, that ancient Hindu women liked Radha and Sita walked around bare-breasted, and that Sri Prabhupada was wrong for insisting on an orthodox standard of morality for his followers.
    - Not happy to know this.
    The individual in question would be considered a "brahmin by quality, not by birth," as per the standards which brahma-jijnasa preaches. In fact, it appears brahma-jijnasa is quoting this individual specifically when he references what "Gaudiya Vaishnavas" believe in regards to the meaning of certain mantras from the Rig Veda.

    The individual in question is also a guru in ISKCON, and he has disciples who share his condescending views of traditional culture as well. I guess they would also be "brahmins by quality, not by birth."
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  6. #116
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Misunderstandings - VAD Threads

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    Pardon me for butting in here, but which "Gaudiya vaishnavas" say that? I hope by "Gaudiya vaishnavas," you aren't referring to the one "Gaudiya Vaishnava" who also thinks that homosexual monogamy should be officially recognized, that ancient Hindu women liked Radha and Sita walked around bare-breasted, and that Sri Prabhupada was wrong for insisting on an orthodox standard of morality for his followers.
    Are we disingenuous here? Are you trying to discredit a translator here?
    I don't know about homosexual monogamy, etc, and I do not care, but I know that mentioned translator is a professor of Sanskrit at Harvard.

    which "Gaudiya vaishnavas" say that?
    Guess who they were. A. C. Bhaktivedanta .... Bhaktivinoda Thakur ...
    You know, once in the past Jaya and Vijaya were also those ones "who once resided in the divine kingdom".

    regards

  7. #117

    Re: Misunderstandings - VAD Threads

    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa View Post
    Are we disingenuous here?
    How is it being disingenuous to say that the Gaudiya Vaishnava whose views you are representing here, held views (like officially recognizing homosexual marriages) that went against his own guru's views? It's all over the internet, and hardly a secret. I knew one of his disciples who rejected him after he realized he would not change his views on this subject. Apparently, the disciple had some idea that a guru should be faithful to his own guru's words. Strange idea that, eh?

    Are you trying to discredit a translator here?
    He already discredited himself. I am just pointing out his differences vis-a-vis the rest of the sampradaya.

    I don't know about homosexual monogamy, etc, and I do not care, but I know that mentioned translator is a professor of Sanskrit at Harvard.
    Wow. And here I thought that fidelity to the paramparA was the marker of one's authority, not a PhD from Harvard.

    Guess who they were. A. C. Bhaktivedanta .... Bhaktivinoda Thakur ...
    I have all of their writings in my library. Please show me where either of them quoted Rig Veda 10.13.1 and stated that it refers to Vaikuntha. I would just like to be convinced that when you say "Gaudiya Vaishnavas," you aren't basing that on the single, ISKCON, "brahmin by quality" who, along with his disciples, thinks that ancient Hindu women were used to running around in public with their breasts exposed.

    You know, once in the past Jaya and Vijaya were also those ones "who once resided in the divine kingdom".
    Yeah, funny thing about that. Because I couldn't find any more examples of fallen people who "once resided in the divine kingdom," despite all this about "fall from Vaikuntha." Good thing to, since Bhaktivedanta Swami says that, aside from special cases like Jaya and Vijay, no one falls from Vaikuntha.

    SB 3.16.29 purport:

    "As explained in connection with text 26, all the incidents that took place had the approval of the Lord. Ordinarily, there is no possibility that the four sages could be so angry with the doorkeepers, nor could the Supreme Lord neglect His two doorkeepers, nor can one come back from Vaikuṇṭha after once taking birth there. All these incidents, therefore, were designed by the Lord Himself for the sake of His pastimes in the material world. Thus He plainly says that it was done with His approval. Otherwise, it would have been impossible for inhabitants of Vaikuṇṭha to come back to this material world simply because of a brahminical curse."

    SB 7.1.35 purport

    "This very significant question would be difficult for an ordinary person to answer, but Nārada Muni, being an authority, could answer it. Therefore Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira inquired from him, saying, etad ākhyātum arhasi: "only you can explain the reason." From authoritative sources it can be discerned that associates of Lord Viṣṇu who descend from Vaikuṇṭha do not actually fall. They come with the purpose of fulfilling the desire of the Lord, and their descent to this material world is comparable to that of the Lord. The Lord comes to this material world through the agency of His internal potency, and similarly, when a devotee or associate of the Lord descends to this material world, he does so through the action of the spiritual energy. Any pastime conducted by the Supreme Personality of Godhead is an arrangement by yogamāyā, not mahāmāyā. Therefore it is to be understood that when Jaya and Vijaya descended to this material world, they came because there was something to be done for the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Otherwise it is a fact that no one falls from Vaikuṇṭha."

    As an aside, you are welcome to answer my question about Ashvathama's caste, anytime.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  8. #118
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Misunderstandings - VAD Threads

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    How is it being disingenuous ....
    Wow. And here I thought that fidelity to the paramparA was the marker of one's authority, not a PhD from Harvard. ...
    I have all of their writings in my library. Please show me where either of them quoted Rig Veda 10.13.1 and stated that it refers to Vaikuntha.
    YOU are disingenuous because you are turning the conversation to something that is not the topic.
    He translated the verse according to how he learned from his guru, ie Srila Prabhupada who has said we all came from Vaikuntha.

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    Yeah, funny thing about that. Because I couldn't find any more examples of fallen people who "once resided in the divine kingdom," despite all this about "fall from Vaikuntha." Good thing to, since Bhaktivedanta Swami says that, aside from special cases like Jaya and Vijay, no one falls from Vaikuntha.
    It seems to me that you do not understand something here. Srila Prabhupada said that fall of Jaya and Vijaya was a special case, ie it was a part of Lord's lila, but nevertheless he took this example universally applicable to all living beings in this material world, ie we all came down from Vaikuntha.
    Since you're very good at quoting his purports, find one. I know it exists.

    As an aside, you are welcome to answer my question about Ashvathama's caste, anytime.
    About that in my reply as regards varnas. Wait until then.

    regards

  9. #119
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Misunderstandings - VAD Threads

    Namaste
    Quote Originally Posted by ShivaFan View Post
    Namaste

    If one's caste, varna, jati "only by birth" was the most critcal fixation of importance to everything, why didn't the Divine make it easy for everyone by putting some brand right on the nose of everyone born, not some attire someone puts on later, but branded right on their nose or forehead like a big letter "B" for brahmin, "U" for untouchable? If by birth is the end all of be all, it certainly would have made things easier.

    Or perhaps the Divine doesn't believe in branding.

    Om Namah Sivaya
    Good point, and very funny.

    regards

  10. #120

    Re: Misunderstandings - VAD Threads

    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa View Post
    YOU are disingenuous because you are turning the conversation to something that is not the topic.
    Evidently, English is not your first language, since you obviously don't know what "disingenuous" means. It means to misrepresent things, to be less than forthcoming or sincere, etc. For example:

    He translated the verse according to how he learned from his guru, ie Srila Prabhupada who has said we all came from Vaikuntha.
    This is an example of a disingenuous remark on your part. It is unlikely that HDG learned Rg Veda 10.13.1 from Sri Prabhupada. We know this because Sri Prabhupada never quoted RV 10.13.1 in any of his writings (feel free to search vedabase if you don't believe me), because there is no Gaudiya commentary on the RV, and because Prabhupada repeatedly told his disciples to focus on the books which he published (which did not include RV). Thus, you have no proof that HDG learned this from Sri Prabhupada, as opposed to, say, his Indology friends at Harvard.

    Another example of your disingenuous behavior was when you referred to ISKCON's conversion of mlecchas to "brahmins" as evidence that such a practice was genuine and efficacious. But, you totally neglected to mention the widespread degradation in ISKCON's "brahmin" community, which would naturally nullify that argument.

    Similarly, you have never hesitated to rush in to discussions about the interpretations of scriptures which you have obviously never read. Common sense would hold that you ought to be familiar with a book before you can begin talking about it in any meaningful way. But ignorance never stopped you before. You've given verbose explanations of Baladeva's interpretation of the anAdi-karma sUtra despite the fact that you have not studied Baladeva's Vedanta commentary, and obviously did not understand the context of the sutras (not that you were ready to volunteer that information). You profess to know what chAndogya upaniShad has to say about varNa in the satyakAma episode, despite never having read that, either. Do you even understand what a gotra is? And then there was the time you subjected us to your personal explanation of how to translate "hiraNmayena pAtrena...." from IshopaniShad, when you don't even know Sanskrit.

    So, all in all, you've clearly shown yourself as one who wants to win the argument at all costs, even if it means advancing arguments for which you have no footing in reality. This particular thread appears to be no different, as you haven't bothered responding to my other quotes from the chAndogya showing clear hereditary basis for varNa, have not responded to the other examples I brought up from the mahAbhArata/bhAgavata, and have yet to answer the basic question "how does one tell a brahmin by quality, when many such people identified as such by Prabhupada ultimately failed the litmus test of brahminical quality?"

    It seems to me that you do not understand something here. Srila Prabhupada said that fall of Jaya and Vijaya was a special case, ie it was a part of Lord's lila, but nevertheless he took this example universally applicable to all living beings in this material world, ie we all came down from Vaikuntha.
    "Therefore it is to be understood that when Jaya and Vijaya descended to this material world, they came because there was something to be done for the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Otherwise it is a fact that no one falls from Vaikuṇṭha."

    That's what he said, brahma-jijnasa. Have your own views if you wish, but acknowledge the fact that he disagrees with you, at least in this instance.
    Last edited by philosoraptor; 15 August 2013 at 11:45 PM.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Should Caste threads have Their Own Section?
    By ShivaFan in forum Feedback
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 12 June 2013, 01:42 AM
  2. Quality threads --- how to locate them easily
    By devotee in forum Feedback
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02 March 2012, 11:26 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01 August 2011, 11:56 AM
  4. threads
    By henrikhankhagnell in forum Feedback
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 15 June 2011, 02:04 AM
  5. Similar Threads
    By satay in forum Feedback
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 21 April 2011, 07:59 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •