Bhagwadgita - thinam oru shlokam

[harishkumar09]

Well the philosohphy of Ramanuja also holds all devas (Shiva,Ganesha) are merely a form of Vishnu , which is in one way worse than saying they are inferior to Vishnu , as atleast Iskconites give the devas their identity.

Also you forget that advaitins used to designate their philosophy as vedanta making advaita and vedanta synonymous. Prabhupada was preaching in such an atmosphere where even the existence of
the philosophies of Ramanuja and Madhva were not recognised and considered as vedanta.

So in that atmosphere, he had to hit back. He could not simply keep quite.

Well , the may eb its true iskconites are very repititious in their statements and they ahev got this image , but their stand is no different to those of Shankara and Ramanuja. Only the frequency of repitition might make some people sick, but they are not unique in their statement.

[harishkumar09]

Its not superiority complex but a statement of fact (according to their philosophy) that other devas are inferior in nature. The fact that you have had pleasant experience shows that the "doctrine" ahs not corrupted its followers. Thats because the doctrine only mentions facts but due to the repitition appears as superiority complex to you.

Anyway perceptions differ and lets not fight it out endlessly and instead move on to the next shloka.

[Shakthiprabha.]

Please bear with me this week. I shall go on to the next one soon.

[anbu_kathir]

Its not superiority complex but a statement of fact (according to their philosophy) that other devas are inferior in nature. The fact that you have had pleasant experience shows that the "doctrine" ahs not corrupted its followers. Thats because the doctrine only mentions facts but due to the repitition appears as superiority complex to you.

Anyway perceptions differ and lets not fight it out endlessly and instead move on to the next shloka.

The doctrine mentions 'facts'? A doctrine is a doctrine. There can't be a 'fact' according to a doctrine, as you said. If there are facts according to doctrines, then they aren't facts, they are just opinions. Opinions to be justified by personal divine experience.

About Srila Prabhupada, I am no person to judge him or any other spiritual Master(or anyone for that matter). I didn't live during his time and don't known him that much.I just happened to read their views, their theology, talk with some of their people, and did not find it a convincing religion of Love-beyond-all-lines-of-separation.

One great thing that ISKCON managed to accomplish was to unite and encourage Krishna lovers across the planet. If there are Hare Krishna temples in so many countries across the globe, even in Russia, its because of ISKCON.

The people I know who did not change by the doctrine were people who were Krishna Lovers first and ISKCON members/patrons next. From my personal experience I could also see people who were simply confused by the doctrine, and couldn't make decisions from their own heart-space because the doctrine put up too much specific rules. That was sad.

Anyway, as you said, we will not argue over it any more, and leave this thread to SP to continue her work.

Love and Light.

[Janar]

Well the philosohphy of Ramanuja also holds all devas (Shiva,Ganesha) are merely a form of Vishnu , which is in one way worse than saying they are inferior to Vishnu , as atleast Iskconites give the devas their identity.
.

Actually no, this viw is pretty much mainstream. The Saivas also believe that the forms of all other gods are the forms of Lord Shiva. ie Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Mahesvar, Sadsiva are His five faces...saying the as a "form of the supreme" makes them as worshippable as the supreme..demigod, however, makes them sound as if they are living creatures who are just living on another dimension...this cannot be said for Lord Shiva, Ganesh, Durga, Karitkeya etc..

the word demigod is a great , erronous misnomer. The word deva should just be as it is..or the beings of Light, since deva is assciated with Light...no "demigod" nonsense, even Mao ZeDong, China's communist leader and the ancient egyptian pharoahs were demigods..herculea was a demigod, elvis presley, frank sinatra were demigods...

[harishkumar09]

Yes, I agree that demigod is a wrong designation. The correct word would be just "Deva" ( opposed to "Asura" Being of darkness and hater of the Light). But there is a specific reason Prabhupada uses certain words , demigods in this context. The westerners have always accused hindus of worshipping many gods and prabhupada was at pains to clarify the issue. So he said Krishna was God and others were demigods. It must have clarified things to westerners.

I think all of Prabhupada's works need to be re-written as many of his works bear the stamp of his times and may be mis-interpreted by today's people.

Actually no, this viw is pretty much mainstream. The Saivas also believe that the forms of all other gods are the forms of Lord Shiva. ie Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Mahesvar, Sadsiva are His five faces...saying the as a "form of the supreme" makes them as worshippable as the supreme..demigod, however, makes them sound as if they are living creatures who are just living on another dimension...this cannot be said for Lord Shiva, Ganesh, Durga, Karitkeya etc

The fact that a view is mainstream does not automatically make it correct. The Scriptures per se speak of Paramathman , Devas and Asuras. I don't see why these things have to be "interpreted" to mean something else , for example , an emanation (or form) of Vishnu or Shiva.

[Shakthiprabha.]

Chapter 23/24/25/26/27/28


nainam chindhanthi shasthraaNi nainam dhahathi paavakah
na chainam kledhayanthi apaha na shoshyathi maruthah: ||

acchethyah ayam athahyah ayam akledhyah ashoshyah eva cha
nithyah sarva gathah sthaaNur achalah ayam sanaathanah ||

avyakthah ayam achinthyah ayam avikaaryah ayam uchyathe
thasmad evam vithithva-inam na anushochithum arhasi ||

atha cha enam nithya jaatham nithayam va manyase mrutham
thathaapi thvam mahabaho nainam shochithum arhasi ||

jaathasya hi dhruvo mruthyu dhruvam janma mruthasya cha
thasmad aparihaarye arthe na thvam shochitum arhasi ||

avyakthaadheeni bhoothaani vyaktha mathyaani bharathah
avyaktha nidhanaani eva thathra ka paridhevana ||


The soul cannot be cut by weapon, burnt by fire, drenched by water
or withered away by wind

This soul cannot be severed, burnt or withered. It is eternal, omnipresent,
immovable, premordial

It is uncreated, (to be differentiated from NOT-CREATED) imperceivable,
ever present. Having known the same, you should not grieve.

IF u think, soul goes thro the circle of birth and death, even then,
oh mighty warrior, you should not grieve.

For, that which is born must die. That which dies would be born again.
Why lament for something which is inevitable?!

Bharatha! all these creations are from unmanifest in the beginning,
then are manifest, again goes back to the unmanifest. Why then lament?


ஆயுதங்கள் இதை வெட்டுவதில்லை. தீ எரிப்பதில்லை.
நீர் நனைப்பதில்லை. காற்று அலர்த்துவதில்லை.

இந்த ஆன்மாவானது வெட்டபடாதது, எரிக்கப்படாதது, அலர்த்த முடியாதது.
நித்தியமானது. எங்கும் நிறைந்தது. அசைக்கமுடியாதது. நிலையானது. பழமையானது.

தோன்றாதது. சிந்தனைக்கு அப்பாற்பட்டது மாறதது என்றெல்லாம் சொல்லப்படுகிறது.
இவ்வாறு இதனை அறிந்த நீ வருந்தல் ஆகாது!

ஆன்மாவானது பிறந்தும் இறந்துமான சுழற்சியில் தொடர்ந்து ஈடுபடுகிறது என்று
நீ நினைத்தாலும், அப்போதும் கூட வீரனே நீ வருந்தல் ஆகாது.

ஏனெனில், பிறந்ததற்கு இறப்பு உண்டு. இறந்த பின் மீண்டும் பிறக்கும் மறுக்க முடியாதது.
தவிர்க்கமுடியாத ஒன்றிற்காய் நீ வருத்தப்படத் தேவையில்லை.

பாரத! உயிர்கள் துவக்கத்தில் தோன்றாமல், இடையில் தோன்றி, இறுதியில் தோன்றாததாக
இருக்கின்றன. இதை குறித்து வருந்துவது ஏன்?

[Shakthiprabha.]

Friends,

For next couple of days, if anyone is interested or knowledgeable in this respective topic, please post ur views :

on

"UNMANIFEST" state !

Unmanifest, to manifest again and goes back to being unmanifest parabrahman! I think the talk is on DISSOLUTION ! (in totality)

Any interesting quotes, by any gurus or clan of philosophical thoughts / religions are welcome.

Discussions (healthy) are welcome too!

[anbu_kathir]

Friends,

For next couple of days, if anyone is interested or knowledgeable in this respective topic, please post ur views :

on

"UNMANIFEST" state !

Unmanifest, to manifest again and goes back to being unmanifest parabrahman! I think the talk is on DISSOLUTION ! (in totality)

Any interesting quotes, by any gurus or clan of philosophical thoughts / religions are welcome.

Discussions (healthy) are welcome too!

I have thought about this quite a bit , and it makes me nothing less than crazy. 'Time' is the whole problem here. What is being manifest? What is not manifest in the Unmanifest state? I certainly understand that all things change and go through cycles of construction and destruction through Time. But this 'unmanifest' and 'manifest' thing seems to be something more basic than that.

It looks like what is being talked about is the Creation of All things and the Destruction of All things. And these 'All Things', include 'Time' and 'Space' (Space-time, rather, now we know these 2 are just one thing really). So we ( atleast me ) have a really strange problem here. What is the meaning of Creation if it included the creation of Time? What is the Unmanifest 'state', if it has no correlation with the flow of time as we know it ? (a state generally is something related to Time).

I have discussed a few people about this whole 'Creation' thing. Is Creation 'eternal' or 'everlasting'? Note that there is a difference between the two words - eternal => out of Time, and everlasting => endlessly existing through Time. Why did it happen at all?

Ultimately after a lot of trouble, I had to accept the sad truth that these questions were meaningless for the mind. To ask 'why did it happen?', I assumed that it happened at a point of Time. But that's crazy, because Time was created too. 'Before' creation, 'Time' didn't exist. Well.. one sees how crazy it gets.

So I think Creation is not 'everlasting', but 'eternal'. There are no 2 things, no two states , - Manifest/Unmanifest. That seems to be a joke to me now, because the Unmanifest 'state' is not a state par se, as is the Manifest 'state'. They are one thing, and it is our minds which because of Maya comes to believe in these notions of time and space, hence the whole thing becomes puzzling and crazy.

Love and Light.

[Meera-ssg]

It is puzzling and crazy ! The whole concept of manifesting and unmanifesting!

I found this site very interesting ! Nothing can be said true or false, because everything (including existence of god) is true and false in different perspectives.

What is true is the 'unmanifest', who is, but who is beyond conception!

I loved this site, because, it talks on annihilation as "awakening" at the highest level.

Link is here.

http://www.nijanand.org/cr.htm

It would be interesting to know some of ur views, ofcourse, apart from shakthiprabha's continuation on shlokas.


The site has 'personifications' of events and manifest and unmanifest states. Lets not concluide it as false, just because we catch the personfications and fail to grasp what is the foundation of the words. So please ignore the personifications and try to enjoy the substance alone.