Namaste EM and Atanu G
Thank you for your valuable research inputs. (H O L I hai)
But, may I interrupt
I somewere read the names of kaurav brothers, I forgot.
There is a thread about them plz giv me the link of that thread.
Namaste EM and Atanu G
Thank you for your valuable research inputs. (H O L I hai)
But, may I interrupt
I somewere read the names of kaurav brothers, I forgot.
There is a thread about them plz giv me the link of that thread.
JAI DEV
Namaste Pretnath,
You may be talking of this thread which I searched with key word kaurav. There may be other threads also.
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...ghlight=kaurav
In the above link, I found the link given below that does say that kurukhestra is this alone (citing Shri Krishna himself).
http://www.yatharthgeeta.com/english_geeta/e_index.htm
Om
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.
I would like to clear some points that in my opinion are not so clear delineated.
Krishna is bhagavan – the Supreme Lord, and this is the way Vyasa addressed Him in Bhagavad-gita.
Bhagavan doesn`t need to gain transcendental knowledge from anybody.
People with little knowledge about bhagavan-tattva would think that the Lord was born in ignorance and would need to be taught by any Rishi. But Krishna says:
sarvasya cāhaḿ hṛdi sanniviṣṭo
mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaḿ ca
vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāham BG 15.15
(As the Supersoul) I sit in the hearts of all living beings
And (accordingly) remembrance and forgetfulness come also from Me.
From the Vedas and all other (scriptures) I am the One that should be known.
I made Veda-anta -The Conclusions of the Vedas and (of course) certainly I am The Knower of the Vedas.
In this verse Krishna says: "one should know me" not "one should know bhraman.
Krishna doesn’t need to do anything, He is everything, but to not confuse people He behaves according dharma (He goes to guru-kul too).
Dear Atanu,
Krishna is not a mortal man, He is the Supreme Lord who plays like a mortal man.
Krishna lila is only one of His plays – a human like play – naravat lila.
So Bhagavan Sri Krishna says:
cātur-varṇyaḿ mayā sṛṣṭaḿ
guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ
tasya kartāram api māḿ
viddhy akartāram avyayam BG 4.13
Acording to the divisions of material qualities – guna and prescribed activities- karma
I created the four varna (classes) (of society),
but you (Arjuna) should know that although I made it
I don’t do anything, than I am transcendental.
The fact that Sri Krishna is (was) not a mortal man but the transcendental Supreme Lord, can be also understood from this verse:
na māḿ karmāṇi limpanti
na me karma-phale spṛhā
iti māḿ yo 'bhijānāti
karmabhir na sa badhyate BG 4.14
There are no prescribed activities that affect Me, nor I aspire for any results.
One who knows this will not be bound by the reactions of his activities.
janma karma ca me divyam
evaḿ yo vetti tattvataḥ
tyaktvā dehaḿ punar janma
naiti mām eti so 'rjuna BG 4.9
My birth and my activities are transcendental (there is no mortal man that can pretend that)
The one who knows this, knows the truth (and)
Upon leaving his body, he won’t be born again (but)
He attains Me , o Arjuna.
There is also not proper to compare the Supreme Lord - Sri Krishna with the Christ of the Christian or Buddha Sakhya Muni, as being equal,
than both of them were never originally spoken as Supreme Lord – Bhagavan, although now fraudulent changes may be there.
Namaste Anadi,
Exactly Anadi. And you hold on to the Mortal mAyA coil as the true Krishna and do not pay heed to His teaching that "I an the Self" and "I am unborn Mahesvara". You like Devaki Putra as a heroic man born of a heroic woman. I believe that Devaki Putra is Sarvesvara, born of all pervasive Devi -- the pure consciousness of the Self. I believe in the spiritual that is the reality and eternal. You believe in the result that is ever changeable, different from place to place and time to time. I am disappointed that I am encountering the same anadi.
Did I say that Shri Krishna is a mortal man? I said Shri Krishna is Sarvesvara and unborn Mahesvara. Please check up.
It is the kind of misunderstanding that made you jump up and defend Shri Krishna's status (as if Bhagawan requires defending) that made me write that the likes of you are clouded, holding BG as the only scripture superior to Vedas and Upanishads. I cannot explain any better than I have already done in the preceding discussion and thus I will not repeat anything.
I may be wrong. But please do not dump verses and their ISKCON purports here to prove that I am wrong.
Before proceeding any further, you are requested to clarify whether I have already said that Shri Krishna is Sarvesvara or not? And explain why you are not happy with that? (I already know though).
------------------------
Om
PS:
I think we had voluminous discussions earlier wherein I kept repeating a single question and each time you responded with cut and paste of different verses and their purports. And you provided the purports as proofs for your version of Bhagawan. You wanted me to believe that Bhagawan as taught in Vedas is not so correct as Bhagwan of your purports.
Last edited by atanu; 15 March 2009 at 09:10 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.
Namaste anadi,
Prostrations to you as before, since you only know the Bhagawan tattva and others have only little knowledge. But I am sure that you do not know your self (that only knows the bhagwan tattva). Without knowing the knower how will you know Bhagawan correctly?
Right Ho. This was our earlier discussion. As Shri Krishna is the Atman everywhere, then why you should not know your Atman, that is called Brahman in Vedas and Upanishads?And you are not correct with your claim that Shri Krishna does not teach 'one should know brahman', since Shri Krishna has explained in the 13th Chapter as to how anadimat brahman is to be known and that it alone is the untaintable Atman.
Om Namah Shivay
------------------
The last salutation will irk you no end. But you will pretend to be polite.
Last edited by atanu; 15 March 2009 at 11:34 AM. Reason: To add 13th Chapter reference
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.
This query is only for people with little knowledge. People with full knowledge of Bhagawan excluded.
Isn't the one who KNOWS the Bhagwan tattva, greater than Bhagawan Tattva itself? For example, atanu writes a report. And inexplicably, the created report begins dancing "I know atanu tattva".
May be it is possible. Who knows?
Om Namah Shivaya
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.
Dear Atanu,
you are very nice person and I like you a lot .
You are a proficient person, and I may learn something from you.
As regarding your statements, I would like to answer them in another section of the forum related to bhagavan tattva or so.
Please tell me where could we continue this discussion.
In this forum, I would prefer to remain on topic.
Last edited by anadi; 15 March 2009 at 12:06 PM.
As Arjunga presented the Moral and duty (dharma) which will condemn him as a sinner, if he would fight,
Krishna addressed him, starting a presentation of sankhya-yoga, with the purpose to remind him how the things really are, from a transcendental point of view:
While speaking learned words, you are mourning for what is not worthy of grief.
Those who are wise lament neither for the living nor for the dead.
Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings;
nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.
As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from (a body of a) boy to (a body of a) young person and to (a body of an) old person,
the soul similarly passes into another body at death.
A wise person is not bewildered by such a change.
O son of Kuntī, the nonpermanent appearance of happiness and distress, and their disappearance in due course,
are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons.
They arise from sense perception, O scion of Bharata, and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed.
O best among men, the person who is not disturbed by happiness and distress and is steady in both attains immortality (amṛtatvāya kalpate).
Last edited by anadi; 15 March 2009 at 01:26 PM.
Dear anadi,
I reciprocate with fond memories of an earlier time. But let us not debate. Let us soake in the queries of each other to get enriched. From my understanding of scriptures, I hold that no individual can 'know' bhagawan, who himself is the knower and seer. That is how is He seated in every heart.
Shri Krishna says in BG itself: The truth is known in samadhi alone.
Whether the individual knows the truth or whether the individual, losing the mAyA of panchakosa, loses individuality in the truth and remains as the truth, will only be experienced in samadhi. So, debate may not help.
Best Wishes. Please continue and permit me to throw a few queries here and there.
Om
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks