Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ... 121819202122
Results 211 to 215 of 215

Thread: B.G in the context of Maha-Bharat

  1. #211

    Re: B.G in the context of Maha-Bharat

    Quote Originally Posted by atanu View Post
    Dear grames,

    I think that it is all my fault. I love all who follow their path with devotion and dilligence, and yet do not disparage other faiths. I genuinely feel love for anadi, sudarshan, grames, and also bhaktajan.

    Regards

    Om Namah Shivaya
    Namaste Atanuji
    I did not understand your post , people asked Swami Ramsukhdasji that there is criticism of Vedas in gita , he replied , there is criticism of sakam devotees and not the one . You can see the devotion in previous threads as below…

    Lord Krishna is the original Vishnu.

    MahaVishnu is an expansion of Narayan---Narayan is an expansion of Balarama ---Balarama is an expansion of his Brother Krishna. Krishna is Srimati Radharani's...


    What Krsn says…..

    Iti te jnaanamaakhyaatam guhyaad guhyataram mayaa;
    Vimrishyaitadasheshena yathecchasi tathaa kuru.
    Thus has wisdom more secret than secrecy itself been declared unto thee by Me; having
    reflected over it fully, then act thou as thou wishest.

    You know this was not the Final .

  2. #212

    Re: B.G in the context of Maha-Bharat

    Quote Originally Posted by bhaktajan View Post
    We should all buy a copy of the Mahabharata [BR Chopra's 94 Hours long on 16 DVDs] and watch it over and over again---BTW, the women folk do indeed become engrossed in its 'soap-opera-like' drama.


    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    Atanu,
    [again I quote the masters at whose feet I sit ---when I can manage the free time]:

    "You believe that other philosophies are getting carried away by just names and forms but it is not SO.

    When He {Godhead's Persona} is eternal, His names and forms are also eternal and which has Shruti support but, your logic is illogical because you deny that forms and names as not eternal or not permanent and justifying that with misinterpretations of shruti. How is it?

    Is it problem of Shruti which says:
    He has no name but then list out thosands of names for Him?

    Shruti says:
    He has no form but then talks about His million incarnations?

    Shruti says:
    He is "nirguna" but then list out all the auspicious qualities of Him?

    Come on . . . .
    O come on, my little brother, you are a hindu after all , what if you are sitting in America ?

  3. #213
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: B.G in the context of Maha-Bharat

    Quote Originally Posted by kd gupta View Post
    Namaste Atanuji
    I did not understand your post , people asked Swami Ramsukhdasji that there is criticism of Vedas in gita , he replied , there is criticism of sakam devotees and not the one . You can see the devotion in previous threads as below…

    Lord Krishna is the original Vishnu.

    MahaVishnu is an expansion of Narayan---Narayan is an expansion of Balarama ---Balarama is an expansion of his Brother Krishna. Krishna is Srimati Radharani's...

    What Krsn says…..

    Iti te jnaanamaakhyaatam guhyaad guhyataram mayaa;
    Vimrishyaitadasheshena yathecchasi tathaa kuru.
    Thus has wisdom more secret than secrecy itself been declared unto thee by Me; having
    reflected over it fully, then act thou as thou wishest.

    You know this was not the Final .
    Namaste

    You are correct. Actually, in Svet.Upanishad it is said that one who does not understand the Supreme is not equipped to be benefitted by Veda. When one is not free of kAma, one does not reflect on scripture with a transparent mind. The kAma gets superimposed on the scripture, which is water -- pure.

    For example: While showing the Visvarupa to Arjuna, Shri Krishna says: See these ----. See also what else you wish to see.

    An American, most likely, will not see a dhoti clad Vishnu-Aditya or an elephant hide clad Rudra in visvarupa.
    -----------------------------

    Whatever is in one's consciousness, that is true since consciousness is true.

    Regards

    Om Namah Shivaya
    Last edited by atanu; 17 September 2009 at 11:24 PM.
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  4. #214

    Re: B.G in the context of Maha-Bharat

    Yes Krsn said…. ----. See also what else you wish to see.
    But not this…
    Whatever is in one's consciousness, that is true since consciousness is true.
    Because it is a temporary phase and Arjun will have to fight .

  5. #215
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: B.G in the context of Maha-Bharat

    Quote Originally Posted by kd gupta View Post
    Yes Krsn said…. ----. See also what else you wish to see.
    But not this…
    Whatever is in one's consciousness, that is true since consciousness is true.

    Namaste Gupta Ji,

    No. Krishna did not say so. I did not say that Krishna said so.

    "Whatever is in one's consciousness, that is true since consciousness is truth---" is from Yoga Vashista.

    Om Namah Shivaya
    Last edited by atanu; 18 September 2009 at 07:26 AM.
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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
  •