Purebhakti.comVedabase.comKrishna.com>Who is Krishna?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iazBLgoD_YY>What is the Hare Krishna mantra?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYxOWgjhygM>books by Srila Prabhupadahttps://www.vedabase.com/booksQuestions and discussions about the supreme personality of godhead, Lord Krishna.
>>19967744Ain't this some fokin demon
>>19967754He's the supreme demon killer.
Bump
Haribol! One day before the speaking of the Bhagavad-Gita. Does anyone have any plans or special austerities they have vowed to take? Ekadashi is also tomorrow. I think I shall fast for the day, but the illness that just hit my body might complicate things. I still plan to do it, it just means my work will suffer a bit. But that would happen anyway with a head cold. I'll also be heading to temple in the evening for bhajan but right now I have a few hours and would love to talk about anything pertaining to Krishna Consciousness and bhakti yoga.On a tangent, I recently heard about the Motel Gita project - attempting to get the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is in every hotel room across the US and eventually the world.http://www.motelgita.org/>As of January 2013, we have placed 150,000 Bhagavad Gitas in about 1,100 hotel and motels across North America.Vaisesika Dasa Maharaja was also present at temple last Sunday, which was a delight for me. I had met him years ago before he became an initiating guru for a talk on ways to distribute books purely, and he is still going strong. Steadfast devotees are such personal souls. He remembered me even though I look different and our meeting was on the other side of the continent. The words and instructions are bliss, but there is so much mercy in association. The encouragement for my own sadhana is palpable. You can check out his site and programs here:http://www.fanthespark.com/
>>19969209Hopefully will get out and do some sankirtan and book distribution. Thinking of joining a local ashram who do 6 hours kirtan everyday. According to my calendar ekadasi is today sadhu
To spark the flame, I've been thinking on the first chapter of the Gita. Why is it there? Why spend so much time describing the battlefield and the people on each side? Why not just make the second chapter the first, and lengthen it a bit to include Arjuna requesting Krishna to drive out to the middle of the field so he may look over the lines?Things of import I note in the first chapter of the Bhagavad-Gita:>Though the Pandava army is smaller, it specifically describes the blowing of conchshells and other war instruments as shattering the hearts of the enemy. This is not the case when the Kauravas sound their instruments.>Arjuna lays out five arguments against fighting, and in the second chapter Krishna refutes them each in order>All of Arjuna's arguments and grief stem from compassion toward his family. He never once laments on how it will specifically affect himself.>>19969225>ekadashiYou're right. Ugh, I am so bad at scheduling those. Why did I think they were on the same day? After a bit of net history, it is because Wikipedia misled me. Wiki states Gita Jayanti is celebrated on the same day as ekadashi. Perhaps that is true in some places, but then they are celebrating on the day before the speaking.
>>19969272http://www.purebhakti.com/resources/vaisnava-calendar-mainmenu-71.htmlThe best ekadasi calendar I've found so far. Custom dates and times for whatever location you're in.
>>19969289Thank you, prabhu. For guru and for the assembled devotees I will work harder at observing such regulations.
>>19969209Hey Bhakta, I didn't get to respond to you in a previous thread. You had issues accepting the correlations between Lucifer and Shiva and I wanted to clarify things. I'm pretty tired right now, so not at my best, but I'll start regardless.You are of course familiar with the relations of Shiva and Pavarti, so let's take a step westward before we go north. Are you familiar with Apollo and Artemis? They follow a similar current and have a similar relationship to the extent that when Greeks first came to India, they made the correlations themselves, many quite confused at how in this distant land, they found temples in which their own stories were seemingly told. Note, there are times when the two are joined in one, both masculine and feminine. The greeks did not care for such things (small mystery cults excluded, also excluding hermeticism.) but then we go north and westward.>CatharsHere we find the same union between the polar pair of Lucifer (lightbringer, an aspect of Apollo) and Lucibel, the feminine side of polarity. Lucibel was Lucifer's Pavarti. Also note, these names are titular rather than proper.
More on lucifer/lucibel, Apollo/Artemis, Shiva/Pavati. https://lykeiaofapollon.wordpress.com/apollon-and-artemis-shiva-and-parvati/>In a sense, if we look at Dionysos as Krishna, being a god contained within Zeus as Vishnu, we can understand the juxtaposition in Hellenic mysteries in which there are two kings. There is Zeus the king of the earth, gods and men, and then there is the king Apollon. Apollon has been referred to as king in literature including that of Homer. His kingship functions differently than that of Zeus, but through it he is not only depicted as a son of Zeus, but also as a god who proceeded Zeus as father of the Corybantes (the nurses of Zeus). The closely tied relationship between Zeus and Apollon, looking through another cultural lens, can easily translate to that of Vishnu and Shiva, and the emphasis of Dionysos and Herakles can easily be contained in Krishna and Ram (in the latter case even as Ram received the bow of Shiva for his trials, Herakles also received a bow from Apollon). In the Ramayana with Vishnu (as Ram) honoring Shiva, and Shiva (as Hanuman) honoring Vishnu we see two kingly gods who are honoring each other as king gods in the cosmos.
Is there room for Kek in Vishnu?
>>19970727>if we look at Dionysos as KrishnaThis is very incorrect. In Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Krishna is not the "god of" anything. Krishna is simply God. He has no demenses for all demenses are His.I am not so concerned with how Shiva is perceived in other cultures, and think that parallels are nice but trying to equate them will always be filled with error due to our limited senses and cheating propensity.>SB 4.24.28 — Lord Śiva continued: Any person who is surrendered to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, the controller of everything — material nature as well as the living entity — is actually very dear to me.>>19970960The Supreme Lord is worshiped by persons in countless forms and names. However, from what I have seen of those who put importance on Kek, there is no conception of Kek being Supreme over everything. There is room in that Krishna can be represented in different fields by the topmost object of said field, as described in the 10th Chapter of the Gita, and in that Krishna is the seed of all existences.But while Krishna says "Of fish, I am the shark," this should not be taken to mean a shark is Krishna.
How do you know hindu deities aren't demons?
>>19968035looks like he's killing a human, not a demon
>>19967744Thread starts off with a foot soldier level LARPer who thinks he's understood Krishna's message. >>19968035OP, or perhaps another LARPer, chimes in with a fanboy statement>>19969209OP, or another LARPer, proves his foot soldier status by preaching about spreading the message of the GITA>>19969272First potential intellectual, but will not reach enlightenment since his/her sources are shallow and worldly experience non-existent. >>19969289>>19969317Thread degenerates to foot soldiers discussing how they're preparing to showcase their fanboy/fangirl statuses >>19970720OP, or another LARPer, tries to act cool by getting someone else to participate in his/her foot soldier level discussions>>19970960First good post, top kek>>19970976Don't pretend to talk about stuff you don't understand Anon Bhakta>>19971074Troll>>19971077TrolledIf any of you Bhaktas really know anything, then try grappling with this. What is Dharma, Rta, and Karma? How do these three fit in a scientific way? Explain, if you can, Rta -> Dharma -> Karma. No pseudo intellectual bullshit you picked up from one of your fanboy/fangirl books from some guru. Only answers that come from within. If you wannabe Krishna followers can't answer this, consider yourselves the blind followers of Krishna who will never reach enlightenment.
>>19971786What would you wish to discuss friend, you have mighty words, what do you wish?
>>19971798Anon belief, I don't think you need me to tell you that >What would you wish to discuss friend, you have mighty words, what do you wish?is not an answer to: >What is Dharma, Rta, and Karma? How do these three fit in a scientific way? Explain, if you can, Rta -> Dharma -> Karma.
>>19971786In Gaudiya Vaishnavism I've never heard of Rta. Dharma, however, is the inherent, intrinsic nature of something. For example, the dharma of the jiva or living being is "jivera svarupa haya krishna nitya das", or the eternal servant of Krishna.Karma is the culmination of worldly, material activities that guides the soul from body to body in the cycle of transmigration. By the practice of bhakti yoga karma is cut off and one attains the transcendental platform of service to god. The concept of serving and learning from a guru is absolutely essential in sanatana dharma and your criticism of the same shows your deep ignorance.
>>19971786>Only answers that come from within. Because you heard and understood these terms strictly from your own endeavor. What a joke.
>>19971809Karma is switching of the polarities when when exceeds a temptation on either side creating disharmony but always equal in the deserving outcome. A balance of femininity and masculinity is required to be one with the act of Karma.For Dharma this is of equivalence in English, and of a for hermetic style of teachings, but of the same value. http://www.peace.ca/universallaws.htmRTA Meaning the trinity that includes the Atman? Otherwise I do not identify the usage of your RTA
>>19972353This is totally new age and inaccurate from a genuine vedic perspective. See >>19972325
>>19972367That doesn't matter, it's still true and of equivalence.
>>19972389Sure balance is great, but it has nothing to do with dharma or karma
>>19972398Karma is the interaction with balance so it has everything to do with it, as it is the 'flow' of unending nature. Dharma is more of the rules that one notices in their nature and being, IE of their perspective. The 20 Universal rules merely opens one up to the possibilities of ideas like the ones we are discussing. If you do disagree with my statement please
>>19972414Good sir.Dharma is the destiny that you are right.Karma is the energy that puts us back into our path, Example:Let´s say bad man kills 3 while drinking and driving, he then goes to prison where he starts to write and fulfills his dream of launching his first book.Dharma was his destiny to write the books, karma was the energy that made everything happen by putting him in said path. Now the question was there balance in this energy? Was it good? Was it bad?
>>19972441In my belief, once you separate duality it fails to entropy and chaos, as subjectivity and objectivity and so on.This is why people say destruction is the quicker path, IE left hand path.We are all one with Dharma, as Karma is still inside the system of Dharma.Dharma is 1Karma is 2But, I still don't understand you're RTA? Was that a trinity describing the Atman? Thank you for your words
>>19972325Why Anon, why do you blindly repeat stuff that you picked up from your Guru. Why is it so hard for you to think it through, analyze what you've learnt, connect it to the real world, and then derive your own interpretation? Coming to your answer. Here's a wiki page on Rta (rrtam)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%B9%9AtaYour understanding of Dharma is not complete, or to be blunt, completely off. Your answer on Karma, yeah, what you're saying is true if one assumes that reincarnation is true. Karma is then an account of a soul's journey in one lifetime that decides which body the soul inhabits in the next lifetime. So yeah, even though I don't believe in reincarnation, and I believe only in Jnana and Karma yogas, I can still agree with your understanding of Karma.
>>19972631Ah i see friend.Stopping the use of karma, and leave the safety net of Dharma.
>>19972631Funny how you think wikipedia is a better source than a bonafide guru in the bramha madhva gaudiya sampradaya. Do you have any background in sanatana dharma other than a superficial internet basis? What sastras have you actually studied?
>>19972353Anon, if you're the OP, I take back what I said earlier. Your understanding of Karma is intuitive, not precise, but still good. Yes, Karma is indeed generated when there is a disharmony (I won't agree with your femininity extension just yet). Now, the part where you bring in femininity and masculinity, you're not wrong, but I don't think you've grasped the idea of femininity and masculinity in the sense of the brahman. But you're correct, one needs to be in balance with one's feminine and masculine nature to produce zero Karma. That is, I believe that there is no thing is good Karma, only negative Karma that must be eliminated from life to life. Thus, I can agree with your understanding of Karma. Can't agree with your definition of Dharma. It's incomplete. Think about all the contexts in which Dharma is discussed in the great epic Mahabharata Anon. 1) When Draupadi asks Bheeshma as to why he did not save her, Bheeshma replies that the way of Dharma is subtle. In what context does he use Dharma here. 2) When the Pandavs relinquish their throne and go to the forest to die, the dog, Dharma in disguise accompanies Yudhistra. What is the dog a metaphor for? Also remember, that all the Pandavas fall, but the dog and Yudhistra are still alive. What is the metaphor in play here?
>>19972367>>19972398I get what you're trying to say Anon, but in the absolute sense your statement is inaccurate. Balance is indeed an aspect, not the basis of the definition, of Dharma and Rta. Balance is indeed the basis of definition for Karma.
>>19972668>thinks new age bullshit has anything to do with hinduismBecoming increasingly clear you don't know your shit.
>>19972414Good Anon, you have a good understanding of Dharma. Also, I think you've understood Karma, even though your description was off, But by the way you've described Karma and Dharma, I know you understand both ideas perfectly, at least on an intuitive level.
>>19972441You've understood the ideas of Dharma and Karma intuitively Anon, but you have you be more precise. Equating Dharma with destiny is not entirely wrong, but it is inaccurate. Dharma in conjunction with Karma determine one's destiny.
https://youtu.be/00PZNSx5108
>>19972668This is exactly what I've been looking for thank you.I don't read much about this stuff, I discover my ideas through understanding art and correlating it with reality. So I thank you for the compliment.1)He uses that the teacher is subtle, as there is always another process(I Don't know who Bheeshma is)2) The Dog represents the the Dharma never leaves, it just hides, similar to the concept of ego.
>>19972463This makes no sense to me Anon>In my belief, once you separate duality it fails to entropy and chaos, as subjectivity and objectivity and so on.>This is why people say destruction is the quicker path, IE left hand path.but perhaps you were replying to the last shepard Anon. >We are all one with Dharma, as Karma is still inside the system of Dharma.>Dharma is 1>Karma is 2>But, I still don't understand you're RTA? Was that a trinity describing the Atman? Here's a basic definition of Rta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%B9%9AtaDharma 1 and Karma 2, if that implies that first comes Dharma and then comes Karma, you are correct Anon. Now place Rta in the appropriate location in your order.
>>19972763It seems to fit rather snuggly, I just need to refine it a bit.
>>19972718Part 1:Yes. :) The teacher is indeed subtle, and yes, your understanding of the metaphor is complete. Rta is the universal Law the holds the universe together and all beings within it. So the way I would order it is 1) Rta (universal laws)2) Dharma (local laws)3) Karma (consequence of one's actions in accordance with local and universal laws). Why are there two separate laws, one for the universe, and one for local? Perhaps it is better to approach Hinduism from a scientific perspective since Hinduism was based on science, and over the course of centuries, people who didn't understand the original ideals began to preach it to others, thus degrading the understanding of all those who seek enlightenment.
>>19972790Ah I see, I was thinking Dharma as 1 and karma as 2.But dharma is the first system of Rta, as it is the "source" of all these ideas.So my order was reversed. Interesting that God is also 3 letters and is also the whole of the trinity and complete.Rta allows one to distinguish the first rule sets, as it shows how each 3 are seperate.
>>19972790>>19972773Part 2: Once again, Anon, this is my understanding, and yes, I do believe you can connect this to the Holy trinity once you've understood the big picture. I do indeed feel that the teachings of the Bible are very much in line with what the Gita says. The first step is to realize that no one is truly in control of their actions. Though Krsna mentions this to Arjuna, we would be poor students to believe Krishna blindly. Thus, even though we know from Krishna's words that no one is in control of their actions, the first step is to verify, scientifically. People can take whatever path they desire here. I chose Neuroscience first, and then introspection to verify the hypotheses presented in neuroscience research. Neuroscience cannot determine where human thoughts originate. They've done multiple experiments, but they do not know where thoughts originate. The next step is to verify this research personally. Think Anon, have you ever been able to see, feel, or sense, the source of your thoughts? Even better, when faced with a choice, can you see, or visualize the actual engine which makes the choice for you? As far as I know, all of us observe our thoughts after they are "given" to us. None of us can pin point the source of our thoughts.
>>19972816>>19972807Now, logically speaking, I would say there isn't sufficient evidence for me to accept that I'm in control of my actions. Why? If I do not know the source of my thoughts, then how can I claim to be in control? For if I could control my thoughts, then I must be able to manipulate their origin. If one counters this by saying one can always "feel" their thoughts before they perceive them, then the argument is the person who "feels" is also not in control, for they don't know the origin of their feelings. Moving on. If we are willing to accept that we are not in control of our thoughts, the next question that arises is, who is "I"? Someone, or something, seems to be observing "My" thoughts. For now, let's call this "I", the observer. The question is, is the observer in control of "My" thoughts? No - for if the observer was in control of "my" thoughts, then the observer would be able to pin - point the origin.
>>19972816Yes, I've seen and met and became one with the source of my thoughts.I was outside this Rta system thats been described, I was one with all of time and picked actions and future potential for my self, but I let the higher power inside me decide everything at that momment.I then chose to relinquish my power of time and retro causality of destiny.But It is but a memory that feels like the birth of me.I actually was really interested in becoming a neuro scientist my self, I don't have a proper education other than my self study so I don't have access to tools. I can't help but say you seem very similar to me.
>>19972835No, see the observer is everything that the I is not.The true I is the energy the one the goes with the flow and is in tune with all realities.I is the essence of ego, similar to the disapearing act of Dharma.As dharma is the energy.Looking back at one self is Karma in this sense
>>19972835>>19972816Part 4:Not enough explanation for the next step, but I will now make the following conjecture1) There is one observer2) There is an engine that generates thoughts which is then "observed" by the observer. In Christianity, the observer and the engine together could be considered God. In Hinduism, it is Brahma, who creates the universe (engine) and Narayana who observes. Now, I'm going to come to the point. If one admits one is not in control, and the universe is an automaton with an observer observing the automaton's evolution, then how do 1) Rta2) Dharma3) Karma fit in? 1) Rta is the laws of the universal automaton. This includes all things in the universe, living or non-living. The automaton's rules pre-define the evolution of the universe, and these rules are broadly termed as Rta2) Dharma is the laws of operation of a living creature and its immediate environment (I'm not going to strongly defend the immediate environment part). To the living creature, it may seem that it's in control, but it's actions are predetermined and so is the evolution of its surroundings (Rta). 3) So what is Karma? When a living entity "acts," it creates a small change in the evolution of itself and its immediate environment (governed by Dharma). The immediate environment connects with the universe as a whole (governed by Rta). Thus, Karma is the estimation of the change caused by the "actions" of a living being in the entire universe - first computed via Dharma since the living being's actions affect its immediate environment the most, and then scaled to Rta.
>>19972866Part 5:Before I get to reading you other threads Anon, the final question. If Rta, Dharma, and Karma together define a living being's evolution in the universe, then why don't people talk about Rta? Why is it always Dharma and Karma. My hypothesis is that those who disseminated these ideas understood that no mortal can meaningfully affect the flow of the entire universe. Gods can, and perhaps they are learn Rta in their schools. But mortals always affect only their immediate environment - Dharma, and I feel that is why over the ages, the teaching of Rta was lost/ignored.
>>19972873I believe the Rta isn't discussed because it is harder to grasp, and since most cant self realize this step it gets ignored due ro karma since they have failed a step in the ultimate system of dharma which allows Rta
>>19972840>I was outside this Rta system thats been described, I was one with all of time and picked actions and future potential for my self, but I let the higher power inside me decide everything at that momment.>I then chose to relinquish my power of time and retro causality of destiny.You're a better Anon than me. I cannot let go of the illusion of control even though I know and have accepted that I'm not in control. >But It is but a memory that feels like the birth of me.:) Yes, it is a memory that attaches the observer to the human body. Memories formed over a lifetime. That is all the observer knows and now believes. > I actually was really interested in becoming a neuro scientist my self, I don't have a proper education other than my self study so I don't have access to tools. I don't have training in it either, though I have training in researching and publishing. Neuroscience articles are very easy to read, and if you desire (based on your answers, I don't think you will in the future) most of the good articles can be found on Google Scholar and in PDF form. >I can't help but say you seem very similar to me.Perhaps the universe brought me here. Perhaps you're nearing the end of your spiritual journey and you needed some information from somewhere. Today was the first time I posted on this board, so I definitely didn't come here by choice.
>>19972853>No, see the observer is everything that the I is not.Yes. :) The observer is indeed everything the I is not. >The true I is the energy the one the goes with the flow and is in tune with all realities.Yes. :) >I is the essence of egoYes. :) >As dharma is the energy.Looking back at one self is Karma in this senseI'll take a leap of faith and assume you've understood the idea, and are just describing it in your own way.
>>19972342>>19972664>>19972682Strong words. :) But I merely collect my knowledge from experience, who am I to judge those who are taught by renowned gurus. At least my trip to this board wasn't a complete waste of time.
>>19972906This is very interesting indeed, I knew I was to manifest something of this sort in my destiny today.I thank you with your words. Looking into the future is not Good I see.As it is another act of not being in the now.How long have you been studying this stuff?i started about 7 months ago
>>19972919Would highly recommend you read the srimad Bhagavad Gita for the appropriate and genuine understandings of these terms. From what I have read this is all your speculation
>>19967754>>19968035Actually, in buddhism krsna is a demon one must defeat. Authoritative śastra says buddha is a visnu-tattva whose goal was to fool the atheists of that time into following the dharmic principles
>>19973477He actually did the opposite, which was to discredit the vedic scriptures as to stop animal sacrifice.
>>>19971786The message of Lord Krishna is very easy to understand to those devoted to Him.>sarva-dharmān parityajya / mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vrajaI am curious as to what you think I am LARPing as. I have always presented myself as a fallen fool trying to follow the instructions of Guru and Krishna. If there is any wisdom in the words I type, it is because they are the words of the acaryas.I must warn you against being so insulting to the devotees. Lord Chaitanya can forgive and tolerate any incursion except those against His loving devotees. Think of what happened to Durvasa Muni when he transgressed against Prithu Maharaja, or how quickly Lord Chaitanya showed His wrath against Jagai and Madhai who attacked Lord Nityananda.>trinad api sunichena / taror api sahishnuna>amanina manadena / kirtaniyah sada harih>Don't pretend to talk about stuff you don't understand Anon BhaktaI welcome any realizations and instruction you can provide, but I do not accept mental concoctions. I will ask that you support your words with sastra.>What is Dharma, Rta, and Karma?Dharma was answered excellently by this prabhu >>19972325Rta is Krishna.>Bg 9.10 — This material nature, which is one of My energies, is working under My direction, O son of Kuntī, producing all moving and nonmoving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again.Karma is the temporary manifestations that arise and dissolve within the eternal material energy.>books from some guru.You directly contradict the words of Sri Krishna.>Bg 4.34 — Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.>who will never reach enlightenment.That is alright, as long as I can perform some seva let Krishna keep me in delusion. We see again and again the great devotees explicitly reject mukti in favor of seva.
I'm sorry but I cannot accept any of your conclusions. They go against sastra and the teachings of the acaryas. Your insistence on being the ultimate authority ignores the cheating and imperfect tendencies of the jiva under the influence of Maya.I always enjoy the serendipitous ways of Krishna. This was the verse I have been studying today.>CC Ādi 7.41 — The blasphemers said, “Although a sannyāsī, He does not take interest in the study of Vedānta but instead always engages in chanting and dancing in saṅkīrtana.The full purport would not fit in this post, but it is very relevant.https://www.vedabase.com/en/cc/adi/7/41>...we also meet such Māyāvādīs who criticize our method of chanting and accuse us of not being interested in study...although we study, we do not study the nonsense of the Māyāvādīs>Actually, such men do not understand what is meant by Vedānta. In the Bhagavad-gītā (15.15) Kṛṣṇa says, vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyo vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāham: “By all the Vedas I am to be known; indeed I am the compiler of Vedānta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.”>Foreseeing the bad effects of their presenting Vedānta philosophy in a perverted way, Śrīla Vyāsadeva compiled Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as a commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is bhāṣyo ’yaṁ brahma-sūtrāṇām; in other words, all the Vedānta philosophy in the aphorisms of the Brahma-sūtra is thoroughly described in the pages of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Thus the factual propounder of Vedānta philosophy is a Kṛṣṇa conscious person who always engages in reading and understanding the Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and teaching the purport of these books to the entire world.>The commentary of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas is the Govinda-bhāṣya.>The Māyāvādīs do not know that chanting, dancing and preaching the principles of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, called bhāgavata-dharma, are the same as studying Vedānta.
>>19972938>This is very interesting indeed, I knew I was to manifest something of this sort in my destiny today.Yes, I felt the same. Perhaps I was brought to this board to assist you on your spiritual journey.>Looking into the future is not Good I see.As it is another act of not being in the now.You're a better Anon than I. I understand this, and yet I can neither let go of the past nor the future. >How long have you been studying this stuff?i started about 7 months agoI've been studying and searching for knowledge on Krishna's teachings seriously for the past 5 years, and I was exposed to it while growing up. But it matters not Anon. In 7 months you've crystallized your spiritual understanding, and are more malleable than I am. I think there are many paths to enlightenment. I saw you had mentioned the Holy Trinity before. The teachings of the Bible are very similar to what the Gita has to offer. So the length of time you've researched on this matters not Anon. Continue on your journey and be prosperous.
>>19973022Really? After all those strong words, that's the best you can do? You're going to ask me to read a book? Not counter what I've said with your own understanding? Or is it that you have no understanding, have no original thoughts or interpretations, and thus the best counter you have is to tell someone to go read a book?
>>19973974>The message of Lord Krishna is very easy to understand to those devoted to Him.Arjuna, who was devoted to Krishna all his life needed the vishwaroopa to give into Krishna, but you are somehow more special and thus understand Krishna's message perfectly simply because you're devoted to him. >sarva-dharmān parityajya / mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vrajaDo you want me to enter this in Google Translate for you, or was there a point to this? >I am curious as to what you think I am LARPing as.Anon asks me what anon is Larping as >I have always presented myself as a fallen fool trying to follow the instructions of Guru and Krishna.Proceeds to define the LARP himself.> If there is any wisdom in the words I type, it is because they are the words of the acaryas.Thank you for confirming Anon, I didn't think you had independent thinking either. >I must warn you against being so insulting to the devotees.Assumes I'm insulting him by telling him his understanding of Krishna's message is incomplete. >Lord Chaitanya can forgive and tolerate any incursion except those against His loving devotees.Assumes he's a devotee simply because he thinks he is and everyone around him tells him he is. >Think of what happened to Durvasa Muni when he transgressed against Prithu Maharaja, or how quickly Lord Chaitanya showed His wrath against Jagai and Madhai who attacked Lord Nityananda.Thinks a shitposter on 4chan is as important as Durvasa and thinks of himself as Prithu. >trinad api sunichena / taror api sahishnuna>amanina manadena / kirtaniyah sada harihLost in translation. >I welcome any realizations and instruction you can provide, but I do not accept mental concoctions. I will ask that you support your words with sastra.Because parroting is easier than understanding. >Dharma was answered excellently by this prabhuPoints to an incomplete answer on Dharma and evades. >Rta is Krishna.Everything's Krishna you jackass.
>>19973974>Karma is the temporary manifestations that arise and dissolve within the eternal material energy.Anon proceeds to parrot scripture in hopes that his subconscious does not reveal to his conscious mind how hopelessly lost he is. >You directly contradict the words of Sri Krishna.Don't confuse your guru with Krishna. >That is alright, as long as I can perform some seva let Krishna keep me in delusion. We see again and again the great devotees explicitly reject mukti in favor of seva.This is the epitome of cowards. A follower of GITA who rejects enlightenment in the favor of maya is no true student of the GITA. Because Anon, true followers of the GITA have the will to act, unlike fakers like you. They are not scared to seek information even if it hurts them.
>>19974086That's fine Anon. It appears your Dharma does not require you to seek the true meaning of Krishna's teachings. It appears your environment consists of people shallow enough to let you be with a superficial understanding of the GITA.
>>19974268You're too simple minded to look past media-created stereotypes. Go work yourself to death, sheep.
>>19974268"Original thought" means different than the Absolute Truth. It will necessarily be incorrect and influenced by Maya. "Interpretation" means putting yourself as a higher authority than Krishna. You have spent years trying to steal the words of Krishna for your own enjoyment and ignoring the speaker.>>19974302>Arjuna, who was devoted to Krishna all his life needed the vishwaroopa to give into KrishnNot true at all. Arjuna accepted the Supremacy of Krishna and then requested to see the Universal Form for our benefit.>Bg 10.12-13 — Arjuna said: You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental, original person, the unborn, the greatest. All the great sages such as Nārada, Asita, Devala and Vyāsa confirm this truth about You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me.>Bg 10.14 — O Kṛṣṇa, I totally accept as truth all that You have told me. Neither the demigods nor the demons, O Lord, can understand Your personality.>Bg 11.4 — If You think that I am able to b-ehold Your cosmic form, O my Lord, O master -of all mystic power, then kindly show me that -unlimited universal Self.>Do you want me to enter this in Google Translate for you, or was there a point to this? It is a verse from the Gita. It is Krishna's conclusion and final instruction.>Proceeds to define the LARP himself.LARPing implies I am not what I say I am. In what way do you think what I said is false?>Thank you for confirming Anon, I didn't think you had independent thinking either. I have had many realizations. I do not share them with non-devotees and those who would not understand them. If by independent you mean in contradiction with sastra, then such thoughts are rejected as the foolishness they are.>Assumes I'm insulting him by telling him his understanding of Krishna's message is incomplete. No, I claim this due to the hostile nature of your words.
>>19974374>You're too simple minded to look past media-created stereotypes.Anon gets his ass handed to him. Proceeds to call the guy who handed him his ass simple minded, thus proving Anon is even stupider than a simple minded person. > Go work yourself to death, sheep.Most polite retort ever. Quite likely Anon is Canadian.
>>19974405>"Original thought" means different than the Absolute Truth.Anon, there are only so many ways in which you can prove you're sheep. Please, stop. This is just not fair for you. You're shooting yourself in the foot again and again. >It will necessarily be incorrect and influenced by Maya.This is perhaps the first piece of independent thought you've mentioned Anon. So I commend you for it. But here's the problem, how do you know what your Gurus have taught you are not Maya? How do you know what you've read in books is not Maya? >"Interpretation" means putting yourself as a higher authority than Krishna.I'm beginning to get the sense that you might think of yourself as Krishna's equal. This is the second/third time your implying that I think of myself as higher than Krishna. >You have spent years trying to steal the words of Krishna for your own enjoyment and ignoring the speaker.Makes no sense Anon. How can I steal Krishna's words if I cited Krishna? Are you saying that I'm stealing the words of gurus? That unfortunately is not true Anon. Move on. >Not true at all. Arjuna accepted the Supremacy of Krishna and then requested to see the Universal Form for our benefit.The passage you cite specifically shows Arjuna wanted to see the Vishwaroopa for his benefit and not yours idiot. The point here is that Arjuna kept asking Krishna questions till Krishna showed him his vishwaroopa, thus revealing to Arjuna how meaningless it was for him to think of only himself in the entire universe. Unless you think you're as important as Arjuna, or unless lord Krishna has appeared to you and bestowed his knowledge on to your personally, don't pretend to understand Krishna's message Anon. >LARPing implies I am not what I say I am. In what way do you think what I said is false?You're playing a role Anon, the role of a devotee. The role of a Bhakta. True devotees don't have to play a role. Their bhakti is aligned with their Dharma.
>>19974302>Assumes he's a devotee simply because he thinks he is and everyone around him tells him he is.I am no devotee, but I try to be.>Thinks a shitposter on 4chan is as important as Durvasa and thinks of himself as Prithu. Again, no. The point being that one even as great as Durvasa could not remedy insulting the devotees. What to speak of a self-proclaimed shitposter.>Lost in translation. What is the use of your studying?>Because parroting is easier than understanding. Understanding in contradiction to guru and sastra is no understanding.>Points to an incomplete answer on Dharma and evades. It was not incomplete. Try to understand.>Everything's Krishna you jackass.Again you contradict sastra.>Bg 9.4 — By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.>his subconscious does not reveal to his conscious mind how hopelessly lost he isI know I am lost, as are all jivas in the material condition. Our only hope is to somehow or other surrender to Krishna.>Don't confuse your guru with Krishna. Guru separate from Krishna is no guru.>in the favor of mayaNot at all. In the favor of seva.>Siksastakam, 4: O almighty Lord, I have no desire to accumulate wealth, nor do I desire beautiful women, nor do I want any number of followers. I only want Your causeless devotional service birth after birth.>>19974350>the true meaning of Krishna's teachingsYou have admitted you are unaware of Krishna's teachings and conclusion.
>>19974405>I have had many realizations. I do not share them with non-devotees and those who would not understand them. If by independent you mean in contradiction with sastra, then such thoughts are rejected as the foolishness they are.Anon, this is not fair. You can't make this argument this easy for me. Why do you keep running to your sastra. Have you not learned enough and understood enough from the sastras that you can let go and preach on your own? And what if your thoughts are different from the sastra? A true devotee will verify if the sastra's incorrect. After all, sastras are written by Humans. Only Arjuna had the privilege of listening to Krishna's message first hand. The rest of us mortals have had to read adulterated versions. >No, I claim this due to the hostile nature of your words.I'm not hostile to you Anon. There is no need for me to be hostile. However, I seem hostile because I question your understanding. Since you've spent most of your life blindly following the teachings of Krishna giving to you by other humans, I seem hostile to you since I question their teachings. I wish for all devotees of Krishna to work hard and find their path to him. You on the other hand prefer to take the easy route, and thus I seem hostile.
>>19974522>I am no devotee, but I try to be.Second piece of independent thought. Good Anon. >Again, no. The point being that one even as great as Durvasa could not remedy insulting the devotees. What to speak of a self-proclaimed shitposter.Why Anon? Why do you keep running away from thinking for yourself. You had just admitted that you were not a devotee but you try to be, and then you had to spoil that thought with this statement. >What is the use of your studying?I don't study sanskrit. > Understanding in contradiction to guru and sastra is no understanding.Who told you this? Your Guru? If so, do you realize that your guru told you his teachings can never be wrong? Did Krishna demand such a high price from Arjuna? If your guru did not tell you this, then do you not realize that you're following your Guru blindly? >It was not incomplete. Try to understand.I did understand, and it was incomplete. >Again you contradict sastra.I'm beginning to think you take your sastra with you everywhere. >I know I am lost, as are all jivas in the material condition. Our only hope is to somehow or other surrender to Krishna.Yes, this is not a completely incorrect thought. Surrender to Krishna, but no one else. Your guru is not Krishna, sastras are not Krishna. Only Krishna is Krishna, and luckily Krishna is within you (just like he's within everything). >Guru separate from Krishna is no guru.I agree with you, and I hope you realize what you think I meant is not what I meant. >Not at all. In the favor of seva.>Siksastakam, 4: O almighty Lord, I have no desire to accumulate wealth, nor do I desire beautiful women, nor do I want any number of followers. I only want Your causeless devotional service birth after birth.True, that is an admirable endeavor. But is Krishna your neighbor? Do you go to his house everyday and serve him?
>>19974522>You have admitted you are unaware of Krishna's teachings and conclusion.I'm not even sure if you read what I had typed earlier.
>>19974538Like any other serious science, the vedic spiritual tradition has authoritative understandings and conclusions. In physics, for example, the emphasis is not on personal interpretation but rather understanding the subject as a whole. Of course it's important to relate to things on an individual level but they must rely on a solid basis. Whereas what you're spouting is concocted misconception, we are supporting our teachings with the basis of guru, sadhu and sastra. We have described the gaudiya understanding of dharma and karma as well as pointed to important upanisads and sastras (the gitopanisad in particular). Like I said in a previous post, try to understand these things form a proper perspective, such as authoritative translation and commentary of the gita by srila prabhupad, narayana maharaja and other bonafide spiritual teachers.
>>19974512>how do you know what your Gurus have taught you are not Maya?Because they do not alter the words of the previous acaryas and Krishna.>How do you know what you've read in books is not Maya? You are declaring sastra to be maya?>Bg 18.32 — That understanding which considers irreligion to be religion and religion to be irreligion, under the spell of illusion and darkness, and strives always in the wrong direction, O Pārtha, is in the mode of ignorance.>I'm beginning to get the sense that you might think of yourself as Krishna's equal.Not at all. Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, infinite in glories and potencies. I am an infinitesimal jiva whose existence is dependent on Krishna. Moreso, I am a fallen soul trapped in a prison of my own desire.>implying that I think of myself as higher than KrishnaYou do this by declaring your concoction to be more important than the direct instructions of Krishna.>How can I stHow can I steal Krishna's words if I cited Krishna? You use the words to further your own interpretation, ignoring the speaker.>Are you saying that I'm stealing the words of gurus?I havent seen you use any acarya's words, but from what I have seen it is likely.>The passage you cite specifically shows Arjuna wanted to see the Vishwaroopa for his benefit and not yours idiot. Arjuna plays this part for our benefit. He already stated he accepts Krishna as the Supreme Lord. Asking to see the Universal Form was to demonstrate one manner in which we can confirm a person as Vishnu-tattva.
>>19974607>Your guru is not Krishna, sastras are not Krishna. Actually Krishna is literally sastra. >But is Krishna your neighbor? Do you go to his house everyday and serve him?One can render service to krishna directly through the holy name as well as his archa vigraha form (deities made of stone or wood)
>>19974640>You do this by declaring your concoction to be more important than the direct instructions of Krishna./thread
>>19974623See Anon, I'm not in actuality, questioning your gurus. I'm questioning your understanding. However, since you have no understanding (rather not much of it), and most of your understanding has settled in your brain unfiltered from your gurus, it appears to you that I'm attacking your gurus, your traditions, and your methods of learning. However, you are not the same as those teachings and methods Anon, at least not yet. Right now, you're just a sink. You're absorbing everything, but you haven't actually understood anything. Go back and read all your replies when you've calmed down. You will see that you repeatedly parrot ideas. The Gita is a weapon Anon, a weapon for the mind gifted to Arjuna by Krishna. The Gita is meant to accomplish one thing (among others), and that is to remove all doubt from its users mind. To give the user a comprehensive understanding of their place and role in the universe, and thus freeing them of all incomplete beliefs and lies (maya). However, just like one needs to practice with physical weapons to master them, one must practice with a mental weapon too, and that involves thinking about the teachings of Krishna and understanding what it could have meant, and what it means in the present world. Right now, it seems you're only collecting different parts of the weapon. Your gurus, with their experience, might have learnt to harness the power of the Gita, but you're still young Anon, still raw, you don't seem to understand the true potential of the Gita yet. That is why I seem hostile and condescending to you. But it is fine, you are Krishna's lamb, and Krishna does not fail his devotees. You will learn to understand the Gita's true meaning in due time.
It is said Lord Krishna is merciful. If one desires the life and pleasures of a beast, can this be appealed for? Though the human vessel is ideal for growth, and though it is foolish to ask for my inquiries. Still I ask about this as the ways of people do not provide me pleasure. I dream and frequently have therianthropic forms and enjoy running in nature during the. Basically I'd like to hear personal insight on reincarnation and it's potentialities from you all here. I'd read a little of the Gita.
>>19974662Speaking from the perspective of tattva, delineate clearly as to what you think I have misunderstood. My description of karma and dharma is absolutely harmonious with the message of the gita as well as the other points i've mentioned.
>>19974662>However, since you have no understanding (rather not much of it)Let's put your knowledge to the test then.Describe these tattvas in accordance with the conclusion of the bhagavad gita and see where you stand.>maya tattva>jiva tattva>bhakti tattva>rasa tattva>lila tattva>prema tattva
>>19974662Finally, your blatant ignorance of even basic slokas within the text suggest you haven't even read it, or read it without serious endeavor to understand.
>>19974512>The point here is that Arjuna kept asking Krishna questions till Krishna showed him his vishwaroopaThe last question Arjuna asks of Krishna before this is in Ch8. In Ch10 he requests further details on Krishna's material opulences. And the request to see the Universal Form is not Arjuna's last question.Bg 12.1 — Arjuna inquired: Which are considered to be more perfect, those who are always properly engaged in Your devotional service or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?>don't pretend to understand Krishna's message Anon. The message is very clear to those who are listening without trying to exploit the words for their own use.>Bg 8.14 — For one who always remembers Me without deviation, I am easy to obtain, O son of Pṛthā, because of his constant engagement in devotional service.>Bg 9.34 — Engage your mind always in thinking of Me, become My devotee, offer obeisances to Me and worship Me. Being completely absorbed in Me, surely you will come to Me.>Bg 11.55 — My dear Arjuna, he who engages in My pure devotional service, free from the contaminations of fruitive activities and mental speculation, he who works for Me, who makes Me the supreme goal of his life, and who is friendly to every living being – he certainly comes to Me.>You're playing a role Anon, the role of a devotee. The role of a Bhakta.This is no role. I am not a devotee, though I try to be devoted. I took the name Bhakta simply to show the path I am on.
>>19974702Wouldn't even continue further sadhuji. Would appear blatant he is interested in his own false ego and mental concoctions rather than the genuine meaning of Krishna's authoritative teachings. Unfortunate he hijacked the thread misleading the newer devotees among us.
>>19974640>how do you know what your Gurus have taught you are not Maya?>Because they do not alter the words of the previous acaryas and Krishna.Anon, we have to make a rule. You can't punch yourself in this argument. Please, stop. You keeping shooting yourself in the foot. >How do you know what you've read in books is not Maya? >You are declaring sastra to be maya?It appears your sastras are more important to you than your mother. Does you mother know you love your sastras this much? Is she proud? Or do your sastras and your mother have a cold relationship? >implying that I think of myself as higher than Krishna>You do this by declaring your concoction to be more important than the direct instructions of Krishna.I understand how you feel Anon. When you've calmed down, read this again, and you'll realize that I've never thought of myself of my opinions as higher than Krishna's. However, I do think human beings, even gurus, are susceptible to passing down incorrect information from time to time. Thus, I do not follow any sastras or teachings blindly. I read them, and try to determine whether the teachings are true or not myself. You haven't learnt this technique yet, but someday you will. >How can I stHow can I steal Krishna's words if I cited Krishna? >You use the words to further your own interpretation, ignoring the speaker.I'm not ignoring you Anon. I'm very much aware of what you're thinking.
>>19974640>Are you saying that I'm stealing the words of gurus?>I havent seen you use any acarya's words, but from what I have seen it is likely.Hahahahaha! See, there are two possibilities here. Either I've stolen the words of other gurus, or I haven't. If I haven't, there is nothing for you to be concerned about and this point ends here. If I have, then it still doesn't matter, because even with stolen words your ass has been handed to you repeatedly so far. See, that's a far greater insult to your intellect, because what it says is, me, apparently a charlatan, who's stolen the words of other gurus, twisting them in arguments for my own benefit, is still kicking your ass. That can only mean that you're understanding of the Gita is so raw, that you cannot even compete with a charlatan. >Arjuna plays this part for our benefit. He already stated he accepts Krishna as the Supreme Lord. Asking to see the Universal Form was to demonstrate one manner in which we can confirm a person as Vishnu-tattva.Don't tell me, Arjuna is your neighbor? How do you know he did for your benefit? Did he tell you that himself? or did your guru/sastra interpret his actions that way? Remember Anon, you've already denounced interpretations as Maya.
>>19974682>>19974693>>19974699That is true Anon. I never claimed to be a rishi did I? I've never attended any temples, nor have I practiced as a priest at any time in my life.But what does that say about you? If I'm not a rishi, but an ignoramus as you claim, then shouldn't it be easy for you to answer all my questions, and convince me that your knowledge is useful? Even now you claim that your answer of Dharma and Karma is complete and harmonious with the message of the gita, and yet, the only interpretation/definitions of dharma and karma you have are the ones you've been taught in your sastras. Has you frustration in trying to convince me of your intellect finally surfaced since you realize your knowledge is such an esoteric interpretation that only you and your peers within temples understand it?
>>19974538>Anon, this is not fair.You are welcome to join me on the path and we can strive to be Krishna Conscious together.>Bg 10.9 — The thoughts of My pure devotees dwell in Me, their lives are fully devoted to My service, and they derive great satisfaction and bliss from always enlightening one another and conversing about Me.>Why do you keep running to your sastra.Why do you not know it?Bg 18.70 — And I declare that he who studies this sacred conversation of ours worships Me by his intelligence.>you can let go and preach on your own? I could. I would not be giving people the words of the Supreme Lord then, and would be cheating them.>And what if your thoughts are different from the sastra? A true devotee will verify if the sastra's incorrect.Then they are Maya. A true devotee knows that verification is through guru, sastra and sadhu sangha.>sastras are written by HumansNo. The Vedas are eternal, never written. The literary incarnation of God that is Srila Vyasadeva was the compiler of the Vedas - he did not write them.>I'm not hostile to you Anon...I seem hostile because I question your understanding.No, you are hostile when you post things like>foot soldier level LARPer>fanboy/fangirl statuses >pseudo intellectual bullshit>If you wannabe Krishna followers can't answer this, consider yourselves the blind followers of Krishna who will never reach enlightenment.>I wish for all devotees of Krishna to work hard and find their path to him.Agreed. You should start by studying the Gita.>>19974607>Why do you keep running away from thinking for yourself.I don't. You are falsely equating thinking for yourself with disagreeing with sastra.>you had to spoil that thought with this statement. I don't include myself as one of the devotees you might have offended.>Did Krishna demand such a high price from Arjuna? Yes. Fourth chapter. I have already quoted where He does so.>I did understand, and it was incomplete. It isn't.
>>19974699> Finally, your blatant ignorance of even basic slokas within the text suggest you haven't even read it, or read it without serious endeavor to understand.Tell me one thing Anon. Do you think your knowledge of the slokas and sastras makes you a superior devotee of Krishna? Or that slokas and sastras are the only ways to Krishna? What of the countless people who have no access to those slokas and sastras? Are they not devotees? Are you and your friends in temples somehow superior to everyone outside? If that is true, then aren't you being hypocritical about your devotion to Krishna? For your devotion to Krishna arises from your belief that your knowledge of the sastras makes you understand what Krishna was trying to say, and thus makes you believe that you are entitled to be his devotee. Is this true for you Anon?
>>19974607>Surrender to Krishna, but no one elseYou do not understand what it means to surrender to Krishna. Service to Krishna's devotees IS service to Krishna.>Your guru is not KrishnaOf course not. But they are not different.>sastras are not Krishna>SB 1.3.40 — This Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the literary incarnation of God, and it is compiled by Śrīla Vyāsadeva, the incarnation of God. It is meant for the ultimate good of all people, and it is all-successful, all-blissful and all-perfect.
>>19974662>I'm not in actuality, questioning your gurus>>19974512>how do you know what your Gurus have taught you are not Maya?Now you contradict yourself.
>>19974702Anon, do you realize the you saying that Krishna's teachings are easy to understand to those devoted to him lead to the following passage in your reply? >The point here is that Arjuna kept asking Krishna questions till Krishna showed him his vishwaroopa>The last question Arjuna asks of Krishna before this is in Ch8. In Ch10 he requests further details on Krishna's material opulences. And the request to see the Universal Form is not Arjuna's last question.>Bg 12.1 — Arjuna inquired: Which are considered to be more perfect, those who are always properly engaged in Your devotional service or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?Has the futility of repeatedly citing your sastras and textbooks not tired you yet? Tell me the truth Anon, you scored 100/100 in each and every one of your exams in the temple, didn't you? >don't pretend to understand Krishna's message Anon. >The message is very clear to those who are listening without trying to exploit the words for their own use.Anon, please don't be sour that I'm using Krishna's teachings to hand your ass to you. I assure you, 4chan does not pay me anything to hand your ass to you. In fact, I do it for free. >This is no role. I am not a devotee, though I try to be devoted. I took the name Bhakta simply to show the path I am on.I'm not entirely convinced you're not LARPing Anon.
>>19974711Hahahahahaha! Can't believe you guys are so susceptible. Man, the pure lamentation in the tone of this post just makes this whole effort worthwhile.
>>19974765>If I'm not a rishi, but an ignoramus as you claim, then shouldn't it be easy for you to answer all my questions, and convince me that your knowledge is useful?I've already described these terms in previous posts >>19972325 an can answer any further questions you may have about any section in the bhagavad gita. Speaking as a bonafide diksha bramhin who has studied these and other texts for a period of several years.
>>19974711It allows me to read and convey the words of Krishna. But it is getting late and my body is dealing with illness and fasting. At least the thread is filled with the Gita now.>>19974724>It appears your sastras are more important to you than your mother. Does you mother know you love your sastras this much? Is she proud? Or do your sastras and your mother have a cold relationship?>Bg 9.17 — I am the father of this universe, the mother, the support and the grandsire. I am the object of knowledge, the purifier and the syllable oṁ. I am also the Ṛg, the Sāma and the Yajur Vedas.Krishna Consciousness reconnected me with my mother, actually. She helped me afford a pilgrimage to Mayapur and Vrindavan on the stipulation that she be able to come along. So yes - she is proud.>>19974740>How do you know he did for your benefit?Because I try to seriously study the Bhagavad-Gita.>>19974814>do you realize the you saying that Krishna's teachings are easy to understand to those devoted to himI am not saying this, Krishna is. Study the Gita.>repeatedly citing your sastras and textbooks not tired you yet?Never.>Tell me the truth Anon, you scored 100/100 in each and every one of your exams in the temple, didn't you? Never took exams, though I would have liked to enroll in the Bhaktivedanta College.>I'm using Krishna's teachingsI am aware. I hope someday you move beyond your envy of Krishna and follow those teachings instead.>Bg 18.67 — This confidential knowledge may never be explained to those who are not austere, or devoted, or engaged in devotional service, nor to one who is envious of Me.
>>19974766>You are welcome to join me on the path and we can strive to be Krishna Conscious together.Thank you Anon. But reading sastras all day is not my way of reaching Krishna. I'd rather understand what he was trying to teach Arjuna than to simply accumulate and memorize what he said. >Why do you not know it?I'm sorry Anon, I was just bad at taking exams in the temple. You know, all the pressure. >I could. I would not be giving people the words of the Supreme Lord then, and would be cheating them.Third piece of independent thinking. So you're a good person at heart Anon. That is good to see. >Then they are Maya. A true devotee knows that verification is through guru, sastra and sadhu sangha.See Anon, this is why I say you haven't completely understood. By your logic, only Gurus, sastra, and sandu sangha (peers?) can verify. But, all of these components are outside you. Why are YOU not part of the verification process? >No. The Vedas are eternal, never written. The literary incarnation of God that is Srila Vyasadeva was the compiler of the Vedas - he did not write them.Anon, I can appreciate mythology, but let's keep it scientific here. You and I are not eternal, so let's not go there. I know the stories. Also, Anon, stop missing the point so often. >No, you are hostile when you post things like>foot soldier level LARPer>fanboy/fangirl statuses >pseudo intellectual bullshit>If you wannabe Krishna followers can't answer this, consider yourselves the blind followers of Krishna who will never reach enlightenment.You know Anon, you're right. I take it back. That was hostile. My apologies. >Agreed. You should start by studying the Gita.That I have. >I don't. You are falsely equating thinking for yourself with disagreeing with sastra.Anon, no punching yourself in the face. >Yes. Fourth chapter. I have already quoted where He does so.Oh god, blind faith in sastras. I'm now certain even your mother is jealous of your sastras.
>>19974790>You do not understand what it means to surrender to Krishna. Service to Krishna's devotees IS service to Krishna.What about non-devotees? What about those who hate Krishna? Why don't you service them too?
>>19974801Hahahahahahaha!Anon, please stop I say. You have to stop punching yourself. Why are you making it this easy for me? Where is the contradiction Anon? >how do you know what your Gurus have taught you are not Maya?Please note, I ask how to YOU know what your Gurus have taught you are not Maya? >I'm not in actuality, questioning your gurusTrue, I was questioning YOU Anon, I always have been throughout this thread.
>>19974876We do, namely by spreading krsna consciousness through book distribution and the sankirtan movement.
>>19974869Anon, please give the poster of this thread >>19974711extra prasad next time. I'm not saying this sarcastically. Though you haven't managed to convince me that you're true devotees of Krishna, that Anon is certainly your devotee. >Krishna Consciousness reconnected me with my mother, actually. She helped me afford a pilgrimage to Mayapur and Vrindavan on the stipulation that she be able to come along. So yes - she is proud.Glad to know that Anon. I hope she has a long and prosperous life. >How do you know he did for your benefit?>Because I try to seriously study the Bhagavad-Gita.Someday, when you're calmer, you'll read this thread, IN IT'S ENTIRETY, and realize how many times you contradicted yourself. It's not your fault, you're very passionate about the Gita and that's a good start. But your understanding is complete only when you remove your attachment to it, and right now, you are very attached to the Gita. >do you realize the you saying that Krishna's teachings are easy to understand to those devoted to him>I am not saying this, Krishna is. Study the Gita.Anon, rule, no punching yourself in the face. Also, please quote my full statement in context next time (or don't and punch yourself in the face). >repeatedly citing your sastras and textbooks not tired you yet?>Never.>Tell me the truth Anon, you scored 100/100 in each and every one of your exams in the temple, didn't you? >Never took exams, though I would have liked to enroll in the Bhaktivedanta College.Yeah, and I think it's in their interest not to give you the exam. You might be the first person to score 1000/100 on their exams, inadvertently making it competitive. >I am aware. I hope someday you move beyond your envy of Krishna and follow those teachings instead.I understand your sentiment Anon. Rest assured, I'm not envious of Krishna.
>>19974897But is that the same level of service you provide to the devotees as well? Is service to other devotees restricted to book distribution and sankirtan movement? Or is service to other devotees better than service to non-devotees? Don't worry, I know the answer, but I hope you realize that on some level you discriminate between devotees and non-devotees. I'm ok with that, because Krishna doesn't care. Krishna knows eventually everyone will come to him.
>>19974765>I never claimed to be a rishi did I? I've never attended any temples, nor have I practiced as a priest at any time in my life.What a cheap copout when your ignorance of the text is exposed.
>>19974668May not be related Anon, but this thread may interest you: >>19970563
>>19974668Your consciousness culminated before the time of death determines your next birth. Getting an animal birth is definitely attainable but not the goal of bhakti.
>>19968035Narisimha, I remember this story from my childhood. One of my favorite avatars.
>>19974873>my wayIt's not about you. Krishna has given nine processes of devotional service. Can you name any of them?>I'd rather understand what he was trying to teach Arjuna than to simply accumulate and memorize what he said. You have neither memorized nor understood.>hare krishna hare krishna krishna krishna hare hare>hare rama hare rama rama rama hare hare>iti sodasakam namnam kali-kalmasa-nasanam>natah parataropayah sarva-vedesu drsyateI am flattered you think I can do all this by memory, but I am not such a good a scholar. Fortunately the internet can be a bit like Krishna in carrying what I lack.>harer nama harer nama harer namaiva kevalam>kalau nasty eva nasty eva nasty eva gatir anyatha>Why are YOU not part of the verification process?I? Who am I? This mind that at every moment cheats and simultaneously accepts and rejects? This ego that is falsely based on identification with the material energy? You want enlightenment yet you declare yourself to be the authority already - like a sick patient refusing the instruction of the doctor. Self-verification of your own thoughts will only lead to a vicious cycle of egoism and demonic thought.>Anon, I can appreciate mythology,If you categorically reject the Vedas, then why do you care about what Krishna says at all? Krishna speaks as the ultimate authority, final conclusion, and central focus of the Vedas. Again we see how you reject Krishna and try to exploit His words.>You and I are not eternal, so let's not go there.And again you contradict the direct words of Krishna,>Bg 2.12 — 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.>I know the stories. You clearly do not.>That I have. I've seen nothing to indicate this. You keep confusing knowledge of sastra with blind faith in them, yet you have neither faith nor knowledge.
>>19974876>What about non-devotees? What about those who hate Krishna? Why don't you service them too?They require the greatest service. Yet as long as one is still in a material conception they should not pretend to be on the level of an uttama-adhikari and pretend to see everyone as equal, even though this is true on the Absolute level.>Bg 6.9 — A person is considered still further advanced when he regards honest well-wishers, affectionate benefactors, the neutral, mediators, the envious, friends and enemies, the pious and the sinners all with an equal mind.>NoI Text Five — One should mentally honor the devotee who chants the holy name of Lord Kṛṣṇa, one should offer humble obeisances to the devotee who has undergone spiritual initiation [dīkṣā] and is engaged in worshiping the Deity, and one should associate with and faithfully serve that pure devotee who is advanced in undeviated devotional service and whose heart is completely devoid of the propensity to criticize others.>>19974879>Where is the contradiction Anon?I quoted it. At every turn you reject the instruction and teachings of the acaryas as "blind faith" and refuse to accept even the words of Krishna, yet you then say you are not questioning the instructions of the guru.>I ask how to YOU know what your Gurus have taught you are not Maya? I answered this already. You won't even read what I write, let alone what Krishna has taught.>Though you haven't managed to convince me that you're true devotees of KrishnaI haven't been trying to. I'm not. I'm a fallen soul trying to follow and doing a poor job of it.>that Anon is certainly your devoteeThe devotees who start these generals are my lords. I do what I can to serve them in the hopes that Krishna will show me mercy.>how many times you contradicted yourselfI haven't. This is why I quote sastra so often - to support my conclusions with transcendental authority. Your declarations have no support .
>>19974905>But your understanding is complete only when you remove your attachment to it, and right now, you are very attached to the Gita.Thank you, but I am not so attached to Krishna and the Gita. If I were I would take its instructions much more seriously. Thinking a soul should eventually abandon these things is foolish. Detachment from the material is needed, but the way to do so is through attachment to the spiritual.>Bg 3.31 — Those persons who execute their duties according to My injunctions and who follow this teaching faithfully, without envy, become free from the bondage of fruitive actions.>Bg 3.32 — But those who, out of envy, disregard these teachings and do not follow them regularly are to be considered bereft of all knowledge, befooled, and ruined in their endeavors for perfection.>I'm not envious of Krishna.Your words say otherwise.
>>19967744my family are hare krishna.i don't like it desu, my dad is supposed to be semi famous among the followers, not from is iskcon though.my general opinion is that it's just as mundane as any other religion, i never saw what was attractive about it, especially after talking to people from iskcon, i saw them as very nice but more awkward and zealous than the other sect, not sure what the other one is called.ether way the more i learned as i grew up the more disconnected i became. I just never saw it as real, and after reading the bible and the quran i can say that all of this dogma seems toxic.By all means preach love, but don't let dogma dictate your life, you will eventually see its downsides, if you aren't ignorant of your own actions.
>>19974668I'm sorry. I was so caught up in argument I missed a sincere question. A person's next life is determined through karma and desire. Krishna says by fixing your consciousness at the time of death, that state one will attain.>Bg 8.6 — Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits his body, O son of Kuntī, that state he will attain without fail.Yet the mind is fickle, and death is a tumultuous time, making it very hard to keep a steady remembrance during the transition. A life well spent is one in which you are basically training your mind to always think on the state you wish to maintain at the time of death. You could if you wish train to become an animal in your next life, but I don't think you have thought through the miseries of such a life. Try not to romanticize a beast's life, which is filled with fear of predation, with never having certainty of where the next meal will be, with having to endure the miseries of the elements, and with no understanding of their situation. It is almost certain that you have already lived as all the various animals, that you have spent countless lifetimes migrating through all the different forms of material life. The human form is the best situated for escaping this cycle of birth and death, but as long as you are intent on being the center of enjoyment you will keep yourself in a world of misery.>Bg 8.16 — From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of Kuntī, never takes birth again.Reincarnation and the ties of karma are exceedingly complex - a gordian knot of cause, effect, and influence. Instead of trying to pick it apart, slice through it with the sword of transcendental knowledge.
>>19975549I have experienced hardship, whether man or beast. In this I have given thought and felt a profound sense of peace while dwelling on the desire. I have no interest in power, wealth, family and any lust is in relation to fetishes not attraction to the form of human beings. Ideally yes it would be best to become devoted to Krishna and let go of attachment to the wilderness. I'm reminded of a King Bharata who became a deer after becoming increasingly obsessed with a fawn during meditation and worship. He went mad and died wandering, later to become a deer. Yet he remembered his Lord and returned to human birth later on.
>>19975544>my family are hare krishna.Haribol. You are fortunate. I am sorry something in your life has turned you away from it. It is a great responsibility to be a parent, and to have you reject the teachings of Lord Chaitanya is a failure on their part. I hope later in life your upbringing will resurface to bring you solace. I agree that ISKCON can be overly zealous, and wish they would reach out more to the other branches of the bhakti tree.Scriptural injunction is there, but blind following should be rejected. One should understand the meaning behind the words, the purpose of the instructions, and should acquire their own realizations of the words of sastra. It is one thing to declare honey to be sweet, it is quite another thing to actually taste that honey. The beginning is sraddha, faith, but it should not end there.>Bg 6.8 — A person is said to be established in self-realization and is called a yogī [or mystic] when he is fully satisfied by virtue of acquired knowledge and realization. Such a person is situated in transcendence and is self-controlled. He sees everything – whether it be pebbles, stones or gold – as the same.>>19975563This is a realm of hardship. We are eternal beings forcing ourselves into temporary situations. It is this incompatibility that causes misery. Jada Bharata's great practice is what allowed him the boon of remembrance. All animals will eventually return the the human form - their transmigration is straightforward as their lives are more directly controlled by the Supersoul. Demigods as well can act in ways inappropriate for a human as their bodies are meant for enjoyment, and they return down to human form through the natural order. The human body is the main form where a soul's actions, desires, and awareness have the most influence. Upon returning to the human form, Bharata took great care to not become attached to anything material again, even his own family took him to be a dullard.
>>19975588this is why out of all religions, i tolerate Hare Krishna the most. it seems much more benign than say, islam. but i have see violent people even with the krishna consciousness.though in those cases it were the people that were the problem, most folks at church were very nice.if i had to pick a god to follow, krishna would be him. But i follow no god, i simply live my life, try to be good. i don't believe that a god would punish anyone for being atheists, if anything i think he would probably prefer that, if you hold off your judgement till death you could see the real deal. I would much rather die and get to see god, and ask it personally what to believe. some as "but what if you see the devil?"i don't believe such nonsense, god can have no competition, or he is not god, and what good is fooling someone who has no way to know for sure? it's not a test, it might as well be random.i think there is no heaven or hell, there is just life, and you will see everything there is to see in it. Suffering and pain, beauty and pleasure, no need for heaven or hell, its all right here.and so i live a life of facts, and science. But my life is not devoid of meaning, i philosophy and reason, that is my religion. Though it would be incorrect to compare religion to something like philosophy or science, the first is a dogma, the others are a way to observe the world and oneself, though dogma can find its way even into things where it doesn't belong.ether way, great post, thank you.
>>19975469Anon Bhakta, before you continue reading my responses, I'm getting the impression that this conversation has become a personal battle ground for you. However, I do not want you to think I'm cowering away from your arguments, and thus I will respond to your propositions adequately. But keep in mind what I said Anon Bhakta, this conversation has become personal to you, and chances are you are not able to discern the difference between my attacks on your laziness as a devotee vs my attacks on you personally.
>>19975994>I'm getting the impression that this conversation has become a personal battle ground for you.No, I see it as Krishna impelling me to study ever deeper into sastra. And just maybe He, residing in your heart, will lead you to knowledge. I see you have adopted a name - do you now consider yourself equal to the great Durvasa Muni? Why adopt such a moniker instead of something less grandiose?>my attacks on your laziness as a devoteeAll you've attacked is how I support my statements with sastra. This is no attack to me. I know my failings as a follower of bhakti-yoga. What do you know of the processes of devotional service?
>>19975469>my way>It's not about you. Krishna has given nine processes of devotional service. Can you name any of them?Can you name any of the psychiatric procedures to aid in the treatment of delusions? Once again Anon, you hide behind your sastras. >I'd rather understand what he was trying to teach Arjuna than to simply accumulate and memorize what he said. >You have neither memorized nor understood.It is true that I have not memorized, however, it is more true that you have not understood what you have memorized. >I am flattered you think I can do all this by memory, but I am not such a good a scholar. Fortunately the internet can be a bit like Krishna in carrying what I lack.Anon, please, don't punch yourself in the face. Don't make it easy for me. >Why are YOU not part of the verification process?>I? Who am I? This mind that at every moment cheats and simultaneously accepts and rejects? This ego that is falsely based on identification with the material energy? You want enlightenment yet you declare yourself to be the authority already - Let's get a few things straight Anon. Just because I choose to question you doesn't mean I think of myself as the authority. If you mind my questioning of your knowledge insulting, then you must realize that it does mean that you haven't truly learnt what you should have learnt. >like a sick patient refusing the instruction of the doctor. See, there are two possibilities to what you're saying here. Either you think I'm mentally sick, and I need treatment, or you think that any person who questions you is mentally sick and needs treatment. If you think I'm mentally sick, you are free to walk away from this conversation. From the very beginning, you've had the choice to walk away, but I know you won't, because your ego is now under attack, and I'm guessing it's because there are many of your students following this thread.
>>19975469> like a sick patient refusing the instruction of the doctor. Now if you think that anyone who questions you is mentally sick, then Anon, I'm afraid to say that you are delusional. You haven't truly learnt what Krishna is saying. Your ego is now conflated with your learning. >Self-verification of your own thoughts will only lead to a vicious cycle of egoism See Anon, replies like this is when I know you're not paying attention. Is it not true that you said your Gurus, Peers, and Sastras are the verification? In response I asked why are you not part of the verification process. However, you assumed I'm asking why don't you verify it yourself. Feel free to include everyone in your verification process Anon, but don't ignore yourself in the verification process. God helps those who help themselves. >and demonic thought.Science Anon. >Anon, I can appreciate mythology,>If you categorically reject the Vedas, then why do you care about what Krishna says at all? Krishna speaks as the ultimate authority, final conclusion, and central focus of the Vedas. Again we see how you reject Krishna and try to exploit His words.Anon, no punching yourself in the face. We've discussed this before. If I'm exploiting the words of others, and I'm a charlatan, the fact that you're not able to convince a charlatan of his own shortcomings reveals your gaps in understanding, not the charlatan's.>You and I are not eternal, so let's not go there.>And again you contradict the direct words of Krishna,>I know the stories. >You clearly do not.Anon, are you so delusional that you think you will live forever? >That I have. >I've seen nothing to indicate this. You keep confusing knowledge of sastra with blind faith in them, yet you have neither faith nor knowledge.That's a fair criticism Anon. I can understand if you think that I'm not well versed in the sastras.
>>19976010>Can you name any of the psychiatric procedures to aid in the treatment of delusions?So now you place psychiatry as the authority, instead of Krishna's instructions on how to dispell the illusion of Maya.>Just because I choose to question you doesn't mean I think of myself as the authority.It is when you contradict the teachings of Krishna that you show yourself as thinking you are the ultimate authority on His words.>Either you think I'm mentally sick, and I need treatment, or you think that any person who questions you is mentally sick and needs treatment. All jivas under the influence of the material energy are sick and need treatment. Krishna kindly gives us these treatments all across time and in all cultures.>Bg 4.7 — Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion – at that time I descend Myself.>Bg 4.8 — To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium.>If you think I'm mentally sick, you are free to walk away from this conversation.That would be rejecting what little service Krishna gives me. And I hope I have no students, if thee is anything to learn from me it is that Krishna and the acaryas have the Absolute Truth, and should be questioned submissively and rendered service.But at this time I need to leave for work. If the thread is still up I shall respond more.
>>19975491>What about non-devotees? What about those who hate Krishna? Why don't you service them too?>They require the greatest service. Yet as long as one is still in a material conception they should not pretend to be on the level of an uttama-adhikari Anon, there are only so many ways in which you can accuse me of thinking that I'm the ultimate authority. Do you not realize, that you've made me the ultimate authority on this discussion, not I. This discussion is a fight for your ego's survival, not my desire to be an ultimate authority. >and pretend to see everyone as equal, even though this is true on the Absolute level.Convenient way to say that you prefer devotees to non-devotees, but ok, I'm won't judge. I understand that people will like others who are more like them than those who are not. >Bg 6.9 — A person is considered still further advanced when he regards honest well-wishers, affectionate benefactors, the neutral, mediators, the envious, friends and enemies, the pious and the sinners all with an equal mind.>NoI Text Five — One should mentally honor the devotee who chants the holy name of Lord Kṛṣṇa, one should offer humble obeisances to the devotee who has undergone spiritual initiation [dīkṣā] and is engaged in worshiping the Deity, and one should associate with and faithfully serve that pure devotee who is advanced in undeviated devotional service and whose heart is completely devoid of the propensity to criticize others.Anon, it's great that you want to quote scriptures everytime you want to say anything in response, and I got the impression that you're doing this to spread the Gita for your students who may be on this thread. I'm not going to counter you on and of the quotes, since I don't find it cowardice to quote others work to validate one's delusions. However, I understand that you're devoted to spreading the knowledge of the Gita, and it appears to me that your intentions are pure at least in that realm.
>>19975491>Where is the contradiction Anon?>I quoted it. At every turn you reject the instruction and teachings of the acaryas as "blind faith" and refuse to accept even the words of Krishna, yet you then say you are not questioning the instructions of the guru.No punching yourself in the face. >I ask how to YOU know what your Gurus have taught you are not Maya? >I answered this already. You won't even read what I write, let alone what Krishna has taught.I'm reading every word of what you're typing in full context, and it is because I understand what you're saying, or trying to say, that I'm able to question your statements. >Though you haven't managed to convince me that you're true devotees of Krishna>I haven't been trying to. I'm not. I'm a fallen soul trying to follow and doing a poor job of it.LARP. >that Anon is certainly your devotee>The devotees who start these generals are my lords. I do what I can to serve them in the hopes that Krishna will show me mercy.Well, it's good to see that all of you have camaraderie. That is indeed heartening. >how many times you contradicted yourself>I haven't. This is why I quote sastra so often - to support my conclusions with transcendental authority. Your declarations have no support .And isn't that the whole point of this discussion Anon? I argue on logic and observation, whereas you run behind sastras everytime you're in trouble. Where is your thinking Anon? Did you leave that behind somewhere?
>>19975528Anon is extremely confident of what he knows about himself.>But your understanding is complete only when you remove your attachment to it, and right now, you are very attached to the Gita.>Thank you, but I am not so attached to Krishna and the Gita. If I were I would take its instructions much more seriously. Thinking a soul should eventually abandon these things is foolish. Detachment from the material is needed, but the way to do so is through attachment to the spiritual.Yet rejects the idea that others know about themselves. >I'm not envious of Krishna.>Your words say otherwise.
>>19975544Anon knows what's up.
>>19976006>No, I see it as Krishna impelling me to study ever deeper into sastra.Possible. I won't refute this. >I see you have adopted a name - do you now consider yourself equal to the great Durvasa Muni? Why adopt such a moniker instead of something less grandiose?So you're saying, if someone's named Krishna, then that person becomes equal to Krishna in power and knowledge? I chose Durvasa for a simple reason, because you chose to mention him in your earlier response where you said even the great sage Durvasa was not spared when he mocked Krishna's devotees. You do realize now Anon, don't you, why I'm beginning to think this battle is a survival for your ego? I merely took on a name, and you assumed that I think of myself as an equal to Durvasa. >All you've attacked is how I support my statements with sastra. Very good, 4th instance of independent thought. >This is no attack to me.I would count this as a 5th if you other statements reflected this, but they don't, so this is a shallow statement from you. >I know my failings as a follower of bhakti-yoga.Perhaps, I have no reason to believe otherwise. >What do you know of the processes of devotional service?Once again Anon, none.
>>19976046>Can you name any of the psychiatric procedures to aid in the treatment of delusions?>So now you place psychiatry as the authority, instead of Krishna's instructions on how to dispell the illusion of Maya.Anon feels Anon is winning the argument, and must punch himself in the face again, just to make the argument more fair. You know, after a while, even as a baiting technique, it becomes tiring if you keep telling me that I think I'm an authority on things. >Just because I choose to question you doesn't mean I think of myself as the authority.>It is when you contradict the teachings of Krishna that you show yourself as thinking you are the ultimate authority on His words.Anon has been LARPing as a devotee for so long, that Anon now believes that everything he's read in the sastras are exactly what Krishna told Arjuna on the battlefield with no embellishments or mistakes. In addition, Anon confuses questioning of status quo with rejection of ideas. >Either you think I'm mentally sick, and I need treatment, or you think that any person who questions you is mentally sick and needs treatment. >All jivas under the influence of the material energy are sick and need treatment. Krishna kindly gives us these treatments all across time and in all cultures.Anon decides to punch himself in the face again by proposing all living things under the influence of material energy are sick and need treatment from Krishna. >If you think I'm mentally sick, you are free to walk away from this conversation.>That would be rejecting what little service Krishna gives me.Anon's LARP also consists of being a white knight in service of his lord. Anon conclusively proves that Anon is a fanboy. >And I hope I have no studentsI could hear the other Anon's heart shatter into a million pieces.
>>19976046>if thee is anything to learn from me it is that Krishna and the acaryas have the Absolute Truth, Was fine with Krishna, but you had to punch yourself in the face by mentioning the acharyas, didn't you? >and should be questioned submissively and rendered service.Well, at least you're willing to question, even if it is submissively.
>>19972709Mindfucked Anon.
jīv jāgo, jīv jāgo, gauracānda bolekota nidrā jāo māyā-piśācīra koleLord Gauranga is calling, "Wake up, sleeping souls! Wake up, sleeping souls! How long will you sleep in the lap of the witch called Maya?Resolution to myself: Read whole Bhagavadgita book every single year. I am so hyped up guys,
>>19976656Make sure you have a bonafide edition either by Srila Prabhupada or srila narayana maharaja. Also would suggest you read other important texts like jaiva dharma, srimad bhagavatam, etc
discord.gg/tJcq3x
I'm looking for some nice physical copies of the upanishads, does anyone have any translation suggestions.
>>19977377Isopanisad by prabhupad is nice
>>19973619Not so different from what chaitanya did. The vedic rites themselves are seen as a materialistic burden for an advanced soul. Siddhartha preached to the rascals to stop animal killing. Chaitanya preached to the sanyasis that sankīrtana is the proper yajña for this kali-yuga
>>19970720The emperor Yayāti had five kids (Yadu, Turvasu, Druhyu, Anu and Pūru). From each came a famous dynasty and they spread all over the continent. The turks are the yavana dynasty, and the greeks the mleccha. The others are the famous Yadavas and Pauravas
I'm not speaking against Krishna at all when I ask this (though I'm devoted to Lord Shiva), or to Hare Krishna as a movement, which I know has helped many people, and which has honored Krishna, who is certainly worthy of praise, honor, and love.But some guy from Hare Krishna came to my college campus, walked up to me, gave me two small gifts that probably cost five dollars total, and then basically squeezed me for twenty bucks when I was trying to get to class. It was social engineering 101 preying on the principle of reciprocity.Did I just run into some lone guy who's running cons to get money for Hare Krishna (or even unaffiliated and pretending to be part of it) or is there some group running around teaching people do this kind of thing?
>>19978552Probably ISKCON
>>19978552Hey, i think i've seen you post this on /lit/. I've never met anyone from iskcon, so i wouldn't know. Though i've heard they give prabhupada's books as gifts
>>19978591Yeah as an institution they are very money oriented.
>>19978591He gave me a 12-page flyer and this copy of what was either the Bhagavad Gita or some other text (it was before I was interested in Hinduism myself so I don't recall) that he introduced as "Albert Einstein's favorite book," vaguely talked about wanting to make the world a better place and wouldn't say much more specifically, as if I had to agree with everything he said or I was trying to make the world a worse place. It was weird shit.
>>19976052>Convenient way to say that you prefer devotees to non-devoteesIt's not a matter of preference, it's a matter of proper behavior. A zoologist may like turtles just as much as tigers, but that doesn't mean the zoologist treats them the same. From the Absolute perspective, everyone is a devotee. Everyone serves Krishna without exception.>Bg 4.11 — As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Pṛthā.A jiva has only one choice with which to exercise their minute free will: either serve Krishna in awareness, or serve Krishna indirectly in delusion by serving His material energy.>So you're saying, if someone's named Krishna, then that person becomes equal to Krishna in power and knowledge? You accused me of LARPing by adopting a generic title of one who is trying to follow the path of bhakti-yoga. I am merely applying the same reasoning to your own adoption of a specific name instead of a title.>I chose Durvasa for a simple reason, because you chose to mention him in your earlier response where you said even the great sage Durvasa was not spared when he mocked Krishna's devotees. Exactly. I named a great sage, and after this you chose to call yourself the same.>Once again Anon, none.Then you have no support to say you even know let alone understand the teachings of Krishna and the acaryas.>Bg 9.3 — Those who are not faithful in this devotional service cannot attain Me, O conqueror of enemies. Therefore they return to the path of birth and death in this material world.>Bg 11.54 — My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding.
>>19976384>it becomes tiring if you keep telling me that I think I'm an authority on things.Stop acting as if you are, and I shall stop calling it out.>everything he's read in the sastras are exactly what Krishna told Arjuna on the battlefield with no embellishments or mistakes. You cannot declare something to be embellishment or a mistake without simultaneously declaring you know the correction. A forgery can only be spotted by knowing what the authoritative version is. With your complete lack of knowledge on Krishna's words, you have no support to declare you know what His teachings truly are.>proposing all living things under the influence of material energy are sick and need treatment from Krishna. It is not a proposition, it is what Krishna has said, and wht the acaryas have concurred with.>Bg 3.31 — Those persons who execute their duties according to My injunctions and who follow this teaching faithfully, without envy, become free from the bondage of fruitive actions.>Bg 3.32 — But those who, out of envy, disregard these teachings and do not follow them regularly are to be considered bereft of all knowledge, befooled, and ruined in their endeavors for perfection.Lord Chaitanya has showed us the attitude. Mahaprabhu is directly Krishna and yet - in the mood of a devotee - He always considered Himself fallen and cried out for the mercy of the Supreme Lord.>Siksastakam, 5 - O son of Maharaja Nanda [Krishna], I am Your eternal servitor, yet somehow or other I have fallen into the ocean of birth and death. Please pick me up from this ocean of death and place me as one of the atoms at Your lotus feet.>>19976395To question means to ask about the knowledge of the Absolute, it does not mean to challenge them as if you already know the answer.
>>19976656Haribol! There are over 350 days in a solar year, and 700 verses in the gita. Just two verses a day and this becomes a simple yet very rewarding vow.>Bg 4.38 — In this world, there is nothing so sublime and pure as transcendental knowledge. Such knowledge is the mature fruit of all mysticism. And one who has become accomplished in the practice of devotional service enjoys this knowledge within himself in due course of time.>>19977377I unfortunately do not know of good physical copies other than the Isopanishad, already suggested. Try to find one that presents the original sanskrit as well as the translated language so you can follow their translation process.>>19977865>CC Ādi 7.68 — “You are a sannyāsī. Why then do You indulge in chanting and dancing, engaging in Your saṅkīrtana movement in the company of fanatics?>CC Ādi 7.71-74 — Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied to Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, “My dear sir, kindly hear the reason. My spiritual master considered Me a fool, and therefore he chastised Me. “'You are a fool,’ he said. ‘You are not qualified to study Vedānta philosophy, and therefore You must always chant the holy name of Kṛṣṇa. This is the essence of all mantras, or Vedic hymns. Simply by chanting the holy name of Kṛṣṇa one can obtain freedom from material existence. Indeed, simply by chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra one will be able to see the lotus feet of the Lord. In this Age of Kali there is no religious principle other than the chanting of the holy name, which is the essence of all Vedic hymns. This is the purport of all scriptures.’
>>19978552That is ISKCON. It's a contentious point for me also. On the spiritual platform, that prabhu did you a favor and even in the activities of Krishna He will use trickery to compel people into devotional service like when Vamana-deva asked for three steps of land from Bali Maharaja. I could argue this is the way of dealings in the Western world - that throughout our lives we're inundated with adverts and appeals that prey on our tendencies so to do it in order to carry out the guru's instructions is no issue.Yet I do not think such methods are preferred presently. ISKCON is not the tiny, poor movement it used to be and to continue in this way only makes them appear materialistic. Of course, what is the use of a good reputation if the books do not get distributed, and what merit is there in my own feelings if the order of the spiritual master is not carried out? Still, there are many ways to distribute the books without resorting to leaving a bad taste in a person's mouth after their encounter. It's why I was happy to hear of Gitas being placed in hotels, and why I absolutely love that the vedabase exists so that anyone with access to the internet can access all of Srila Prabhupada's books. Books are the basis, Prabhupada would say, and his spiritual master Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Maharaja called them the brihat-mridanga: the great drum heard all over the world.My muddled conception is that a book distributor should always give as many books as possible, money being only used to cover the cost of printing and distribution. To take twenty dollars and only give one or two small books might help the coffers of the BBT, but I feel it misses the point of trying to get the books out there. If you are desiring to read the books but do not wish to give money, please visit the vedabase or just remain adamant that you want a book but have no money to offer. They should be able to give you a Reservior of Pleasure pamphlet without any payment.
>>19980071>Convenient way to say that you prefer devotees to non-devotees>It's not a matter of preference, it's a matter of proper behavior. A zoologist may like turtles just as much as tigers, but that doesn't mean the zoologist treats them the same. From the Absolute perspective, everyone is a devotee. Everyone serves Krishna without exception.At least you openly admit that you do discriminate between devotees and non-devotees, and like I mentioned before, I don't judge this poorly. Everyone discriminates on some level. >Bg 4.11 — As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Pṛthā.>A jiva has only one choice with which to exercise their minute free will: either serve Krishna in awareness, or serve Krishna indirectly in delusion by serving His material energy.True. My discussion with Anon Belief was pretty much on the same lines as what you say here. >So you're saying, if someone's named Krishna, then that person becomes equal to Krishna in power and knowledge? >You accused me of LARPing by adopting a generic title of one who is trying to follow the path of bhakti-yoga. I am merely applying the same reasoning to your own adoption of a specific name instead of a title.I have no idea how many times you want to prove to me that you're not paying attention to what I'm saying. If you read my replies, you will realize that I say you're Larping because you think of yourself as a fallen fool, NOT BECAUSE YOU CALL YOURSELF BHAKTA. >I chose Durvasa for a simple reason, because you chose to mention him in your earlier response where you said even the great sage Durvasa was not spared when he mocked Krishna's devotees. >Exactly. I named a great sage, and after this you chose to call yourself the same.Read above.
>>19980071>Once again Anon, none.>Then you have no support to say you even know let alone understand the teachings of Krishna and the acaryas.If you say so Anon. Though nothing in this thread has shown me that those who do study under acharayas have any understanding of what Krishna was trying to say.
>>19980120>it becomes tiring if you keep telling me that I think I'm an authority on things.>Stop acting as if you are, and I shall stop calling it out.Anon, no one can "act" like an authority on anything. The power of authority is bestowed on someone by others. If you think I'm acting like an authority on a matter, then it is not because I am an authority on that matter, but it is because you think I'm an authority on this matter. Throughout this discussion, I have questioned your propositions, and not once have I asked you to stop acting like an authority on anything? Why, because I know your understanding is incomplete. On the other hand, you have incorrectly stated multiple times that I'm acting like an authority. Grow up Anon. Based on what you've said so far, you're getting your ass handed to you by a charlatan who has no understanding of the vedas and who pretends to be an authority. Though this doesn't bother me, it seems to bother you very much. >everything he's read in the sastras are exactly what Krishna told Arjuna on the battlefield with no embellishments or mistakes. >You cannot declare something to be embellishment or a mistake without simultaneously declaring you know the correction. A forgery can only be spotted by knowing what the authoritative version is. With your complete lack of knowledge on Krishna's words, you have no support to declare you know what His teachings truly are.Anon sets out to prove me wrong, ends up inadvertently proving that he has blind faith in the authoritative versions of the Gita taught to him by his acharyas.
>>19980120>proposing all living things under the influence of material energy are sick and need treatment from Krishna. >It is not a proposition, it is what Krishna has said, and wht the acaryas have concurred with.How many times are you going to punch yourself in the face Anon? Do you not realize that you're revealing to anyone who reads this thread that you have blind faith in what your acharyas are saying? You were not there when Krishna passed the knowledge of the universe to Arjuna, yes? According to myth only Sanjaya recited the Bhagvad Gita other than Krishna, yes? And yet you believe that what the acharyas tell you is the absolute truth. There is no chance that over generations embellishments were added, or different interpretations of Krishna's original words were added to the Gita. How do you expect any sane person to agree with view that the version of the Gita you've learnt is the same as the one that Krishna passed down to Arjuna? OR IS IT THAT, DEEP DOWN INSIDE YOU KNOW THIS, BUT ADMITTING WOULD BE TO ADMIT THAT YOU'VE HAD BLIND FAITH IN SOMETHING YOU SHOULD HAVE SPENT MORE TIME UNDERSTANDING?
>>19980232>At least you openly admit that you do discriminate between devotees and non-devoteesI never said otherwise. This is to be done, as per the Nectar of Instruction. From the purport of the previous quoted text 5:>In order to intelligently apply the sixfold loving reciprocations mentioned in the previous verse, one must select proper persons with careful discrimination. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī therefore advises that we should meet with the Vaiṣṇavas in an appropriate way, according to their particular status. In this verse he tells us how to deal with three types of devotees – the kaniṣṭha-adhikārī, madhyama-adhikārī and uttama-adhikārī.A devotee on the Absolute platform may have the purity to see all living entities as equal and treat them accordingly, but to falsely adopt such a mentality is cheating yourself and the those you deal with.>I say you're Larping because you think of yourself as a fallen foolThis is not LARPing, it is factual. Even from the meager position of devotional service and regulation I attained previously I have fallen away back into the lap of Maya. Nor is this why you said you called me a LARPer:>You're playing a role Anon, the role of a devotee. The role of a Bhakta.Again, Bhakta is a generic title given to one who is trying to adhere to bhakti-yoga who has not yet been initiated.
>>19980120>>>19976395>To question means to ask about the knowledge of the Absolute, it does not mean to challenge them as if you already know the answer.Perhaps it's been so long since you've thought independently that you've forgotten the nature of questioning. To question does not necessarily mean to that you're challenging someone's narrative with the knowledge of the true narrative, or pretending to know the truth. To question can also mean to point out logical inconsistencies in the discourse. To question is to try and understand what is the teacher trying to say, instead of blindly accepting what is taught to you.
>>19980237>If you say so Anon.Not what I say, what Krishna said.>nothing in this thread has shown me that those who do study under acharayas have any understanding of what Krishna was trying to sayYou disagree with Krishna when He explicitly says this.>Bg 4.34 — Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.And you disagree with Arjuna when he does it.>Bg 2.7 — Now I am confused about my duty and have lost all composure because of miserly weakness. In this condition I am asking You to tell me for certain what is best for me. Now I am Your disciple, and a soul surrendered unto You. Please instruct me.In all the Vedas, the example of taking a spiritual master, rendering service to them, and submissive inquiry is given. Lord Chaitanya was initiated by Isvara Puri. Lord Rama was the disciple of Rishi Visishtha. Even the Supreme Personality of Godhead Krishna accepted Sandipani Muni as His spiritual master. Even in other religions, Lord Jesus accepted baptism from John, and Mohammed took the instruction of Gabriel. The importance of the disciplic succession cannot be denied.>Bg 4.2 — This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost.>>19980264>Anon, no one can "act" like an authority on anything.They can. They are pretenders.>If you think I'm acting like an authority on a matter, then it is not because I am an authority on that matterAgreed.>Throughout this discussion, I have questioned your propositionsNo, you've contradicted Krishna's words.>not once have I asked you to stop acting like an authority on anything?I am not an authority, that is why I show that what I type is on the basis of authority.
>>19980284>>At least you openly admit that you do discriminate between devotees and non-devotees>I never said otherwise. This is to be done, as per the Nectar of Instruction. From the purport of the previous quoted text 5:>>In order to intelligently apply the sixfold loving reciprocations mentioned in the previous verse, one must select proper persons with careful discrimination. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī therefore advises that we should meet with the Vaiṣṇavas in an appropriate way, according to their particular status. In this verse he tells us how to deal with three types of devotees – the kaniṣṭha-adhikārī, madhyama-adhikārī and uttama-adhikārī.You know, the verse you quoted makes it seem that you've been robotically replying to me. The verse itself mentions that there are three types of devotees: Amateur, Moderate, and Prime. That is so disappointing Anon. Here, I thought you were trying to have an honest conversation. Turns out, you cannot even do that. Do you behave this way with your fellow devotees too? As in, do you follow your Guru's instructions on how to behave with other devotees as well? >I say you're Larping because you think of yourself as a fallen fool>This is not LARPing, it is factual.Your Guru told you this, didn't he? And you're such a good student, that you absorbed it without thinking twice, didn't you? >You're playing a role Anon, the role of a devotee. The role of a Bhakta.>Again, Bhakta is a generic title given to one who is trying to adhere to bhakti-yoga who has not yet been initiated.True, but that doesn't change the fact that you're LARPing.
>>19980264>because I know your understanding is incomplete.This is you pretending to be the authority. Show me where the true authority - Sri Krishna - disagrees with what I have said.>>19980274>you have blind faith in what your acharyas are saying?Faith yes, blind no.>You were not there when Krishna passed the knowledge of the universe to Arjuna, yes?I am there every time I read the Gita. Do you think Krishna's teachings are material that they happen once, temporarily, and are gone?>And yet you believe that what the acharyas tell you is the absolute truth. There is no chance that over generations embellishments were added, or different interpretations of Krishna's original words were added to the Gita. No, this does not happen with the acaryas because they strictly teach only what has been taught. Your accusation of "blindly parroting" is exactly what prevents this straying from the Absolute Truth.>How do you expect any sane person to agree with view that the version of the Gita you've learnt is the same as the one that Krishna passed down to Arjuna? We can go back to the original sanskrit at any time, but you have already said you don't bother to study it.>>19980285>To question does not necessarily mean to that you're challenging someone's narrative with the knowledge of the true narrative, or pretending to know the truth.This is all you have presented.
>To question can also mean to point out logical inconsistencies in the discourse.You have to know the discourse first. Do you know the first lesson Krishna gave Arjuna? Do you know the five topics discussed in the Gita? There has been no evidence that you have even read the Gita.Further, it is incorrect that to inquire submissively means to try and correct the spiritual master. If one thinks they have found an inconsistency, they should ask the spiritual master to resolve it rather than declare the spiritual master has made an error, as Arjuna showed through example.>Bg 5.1 — Arjuna said: O Kṛṣṇa, first of all You ask me to renounce work, and then again You recommend work with devotion. Now will You kindly tell me definitely which of the two is more beneficial?>>19980310>Amateur, Moderate, and Prime.That is not what those words mean. Please study and discover their meaning. It is important.https://www.vedabase.com/en/noi/5>Do you behave this way with your fellow devotees too?To those with greater attachment to Krishna and with greater transcendent knowledge I associate in the form of service and attentive listening. To those on a similar platform as me I share my realizations, offer support in their endeavors, and discuss my considerations. To those with less attachment and knowledge I offer respect from a distance, present what I know of transcendental knowledge, and provide ways in which they can become attracted to devotional service.
>>19980296>If you say so Anon.>Not what I say, what Krishna said.Really? Krishna told you that I don't know what he said? YOU MEAN KRISHNA IS ALIVE, AND YOU TALK TO HIM? >nothing in this thread has shown me that those who do study under acharayas have any understanding of what Krishna was trying to say>You disagree with Krishna when He explicitly says this.Correction Anon, not Krishna, your GURUS say this, and you believe them blindly. Thus, the fault lies with neither me, nor your Guru, but with you. >Bg 4.34 — Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth.>And you disagree with Arjuna when he does it.Eh? How did you come to the conclusion that I disagree with Arjuna? Are you confusing me referring to your gurus as acharayas as me referring to Krishna? I have no doubt that Krishna and Arjuna had a perfect teacher-student relationship, but I doubt your abilities as a student. >Anon, no one can "act" like an authority on anything.>They can. They are pretenders.Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!Pretenders to whom? Sheep like you? >Throughout this discussion, I have questioned your propositions>No, you've contradicted Krishna's words.Anon confuses his words with Krishna's words. Anon's been LARPing for soooo long that Anon now believes that he speaks on Krishna's behalf. >not once have I asked you to stop acting like an authority on anything?>I am not an authority, Makes no sense Anon. I say I never once said you're acting like an authority. In response you say you're not an authority? Are you actively LARPing right now?
>>19980322>Show me where the true authority - Sri Krishna - disagrees with what I have said.Hahahahahahaha!>you have blind faith in what your acharyas are saying?>Faith yes, blind no.Faith yes, blind yes. >You were not there when Krishna passed the knowledge of the universe to Arjuna, yes?>I am there every time I read the Gita. Do you think Krishna's teachings are material that they happen once, temporarily, and are gone?This is Anon high on the splendor of life. Who needs DMT when one can go high after LARPing for a long time. >And yet you believe that what the acharyas tell you is the absolute truth. There is no chance that over generations embellishments were added, or different interpretations of Krishna's original words were added to the Gita. >No, this does not happen with the acaryas because they strictly teach only what has been taught. Anon displays his blind belief in his acharyas and their predecessors. >Your accusation of "blindly parroting" is exactly what prevents this straying from the Absolute Truth.Anon proceeds to punch himself in the face again by saying that the acharyas have not embellished anything because they blindly parrot the scriptures. >How do you expect any sane person to agree with view that the version of the Gita you've learnt is the same as the one that Krishna passed down to Arjuna? >We can go back to the original sanskrit at any time, but you have already said you don't bother to study it.Anon now believes that Anon can travel back in time. >To question does not necessarily mean to that you're challenging someone's narrative with the knowledge of the true narrative, or pretending to know the truth.>This is all you have presented.Correction, that's all you've perceived.
>>19972816>Think Anon, have you ever been able to see, feel, or sense, the source of your thoughts? It’s like trying to burn fire with fire anon
>>19980333>To question can also mean to point out logical inconsistencies in the discourse.>You have to know the discourse first.Your answer makes it fairly obvious to me that you've switched off and are now blindly replying. Fine, I'll play my part. >Amateur, Moderate, and Prime.>That is not what those words mean. Please study and discover their meaning. It is important.Anon says translation inaccurate. But Anon does not provide correct translations. Instead, Anon puts up a URL to get more web hits for his organization. Well played Anon, well played. >Do you behave this way with your fellow devotees too?>To those with greater attachment to Krishna and with greater transcendent knowledge I associate in the form of service and attentive listening. To those on a similar platform as me I share my realizations, offer support in their endeavors, and discuss my considerations. To those with less attachment and knowledge I offer respect from a distance, present what I know of transcendental knowledge, and provide ways in which they can become attracted to devotional service.I have nothing against what you say here since you're just telling everyone who you are.
>>19980336>Krishna told you that I don't know what he said?Yes.>Only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding.>YOU MEAN KRISHNA IS ALIVE, AND YOU TALK TO HIM? Krishna is more than alive, and yes I talk to Him often.>I have no doubt that Krishna and Arjuna had a perfect teacher-student relationshipBased on what? Previously in this very post you doubt that the Gita is the words of Krishna, so how then can you next say you have any understanding of their relationship?>Pretenders to whom?To themselves and to those without knowledge of what Krishna has said.>he speaks on Krishna's behalfNo, that is the role of guru. Guru and Krishna are one in that the guru speaks only the instructions of Krishna, and acts only in service to Krishna. Guru has no self-motivation and no interest in anything outside of Krishna. As a perfect emissary or diplomat speaks only the words of the king.>>19980356>Hahahahahahaha!So you cannot do this. You're running out of things worth responding to.>>19980375>But Anon does not provide correct translations.The direct script, word-for-word translation, and explanation of the verse is all there for those who have any interest in learning.
>>19980365True Anon. Isn't that strange though? You can perceive thoughts but you don't know where they originate? It's almost as if they are given you to perceive.
>>19980382>Krishna told you that I don't know what he said?>Yes.Anon, now you're just embedding a troll within a LARP. Please continue, this is fun. >Only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding.>YOU MEAN KRISHNA IS ALIVE, AND YOU TALK TO HIM? >Krishna is more than alive, and yes I talk to Him often.Please, continue this troll. This is fun to read. I won't respond since you're trolling for sure, but this is fun to read. >I have no doubt that Krishna and Arjuna had a perfect teacher-student relationship>Based on what? Previously in this very post you doubt that the Gita is the words of Krishna, so how then can you next say you have any understanding of their relationship?Anon finally wakes up, and thinks independently, even if it is refute something that is almost meaningless at this point. Well done Anon. See, you can think for yourself. >Pretenders to whom?>To themselves and to those without knowledge of what Krishna has said.LARP level over 9000. >he speaks on Krishna's behalf>No, that is the role of guru. Guru and Krishna are one in that the guru speaks only the instructions of Krishna, and acts only in service to Krishna. Guru has no self-motivation and no interest in anything outside of Krishna. As a perfect emissary or diplomat speaks only the words of the king.Example of Anon not paying attention to what I'm saying.
>>19980382>Hahahahahahaha!>So you cannot do this. You're running out of things worth responding to.There comes a point in life where you realize that people are so embedded in their belief system and making them question their beliefs is akin to killing them. What can one do in this situation but laugh? I see now that getting you to think for yourself will practically kill your current identity. That would be cruel on any level. You have such blind faith that I think there's a reason why you need to LARP as a Bhakta. Perhaps its because you've faced great pain in your life and it seems being a Bhakta gives you the release you need and live your life peacefully. What is the point of this discussion once I realize that? If I proceed, then I'll just be killing your identity. I don't see any value in that. My main issue has been that the so called Bhaktas on this board are just parrotting what they are taught. I'm not going to kill your identities if you're not ready for it. Perhaps you'll learn the true meaning of the Gita in due time on your own. That is, I don't think you'll learn the true meaning in this conversation.
>>19980445>What can one do in this situation but laugh?Krishna answers this.>Bg 3.26 — So as not to disrupt the minds of ignorant men attached to the fruitive results of prescribed duties, a learned person should not induce them to stop work. Rather, by working in the spirit of devotion, he should engage them in all sorts of activities [for the gradual development of Kṛṣṇa consciousness].>blind faithYour accusations have no support and no merit. I have faith, it is not blind.>What is the point of this discussion once I realize that?The point of this is to glorify Krishna, and in some small way to fix my mind upon Him. There is no other reason.>My main issue has been that the so called Bhaktas on this board are just parrotting what they are taught.You haven't once shown this. That I can quote a verse does not mean that I do not understand it, see it practically in my life, and gain realization from studying and trying to follow sastra.
>>19967744>>19969209>>19969272>>19969317lol buddha is that you
>>19980461>Bg 3.26 — So as not to disrupt the minds of ignorant men attached to the fruitive results of prescribed duties, a learned person should not induce them to stop work. Rather, by working in the spirit of devotion, he should engage them in all sorts of activities [for the gradual development of Kṛṣṇa consciousness].Yeah Anon, that's what I've been doing on this thread. >blind faith>Your accusations have no support and no merit. I have faith, it is not blind.One who is so invested in his LARP, such as you, will obviously think his faith is not blind, and his ideas the absolute truth. >What is the point of this discussion once I realize that?>The point of this is to glorify Krishna, and in some small way to fix my mind upon Him. There is no other reason.I know you're LARPing Anon. You don't have to tell me that twice. >My main issue has been that the so called Bhaktas on this board are just parrotting what they are taught.>You haven't once shown this. That I can quote a verse does not mean that I do not understand it, see it practically in my life, and gain realization from studying and trying to follow sastra.Go back and read your threads when you're calm Anon. You'll realize that for almost all of your arguments, you used the sastras and the scriptures as a crutch. This thread could have been so much more if you so called Bhaktas had not been lazy and done some independent thinking to interpret what Krishna taught. But it seems most of you are content memorizing what others have written, while confusing memorization with understanding. Doesn't matter.
>>19980497I am no Buddha, though for one who cannot accept the authority of the Vedas the original Buddha is a good teacher. I'm also not OP; I rarely start these threads. Whichever prabhu does is much better than I at preaching without consideration of those who might listen.
>>19980525>Yeah Anon, that's what I've been doing on this thread.No, you've been causing a disturbance by claiming understanding on topics you don't even have superficial knowledge of.>you used the sastras and the scriptures as a crutch. No, I quote sastra and the acaryas to show my statements are not in contradiction with authority.>So there is a disciplic succession. And the acaryas, they’re authorities. Our process of knowledge is very simple. We take it from the authority. We don’t speculate. Speculation will not help us to come to the real knowledge. Just like when we are in difficulty, in legal implication, we go to some authority, lawyer. When we are diseased we go to a physician, the authority. There is no use, speculation. Suppose I am in difficulty in some legal implication. I simply speculate, “I shall be free in this way and that way.” That will not help. We have to go to the lawyer who knows things, and he gives us instruction that “You do not do this, then you’ll be free.” Similarly, when we are diseased, if I speculate at home that “My disease will be cured in this way and that way,” no. That is useless. You go to an authorized physician, and he will give you a nice prescription, and you’ll be cured. That is the process of knowledge. But in the modern age people think that “I am free, I am independent, and I can make my own solution.” That is rascaldom. That’s not good. So Arjuna, when he was talking with Krishna as friend, but when he saw that there was no solution talking like this, he surrendered to Krishna. He said, sisyas te ’ham, aham: “Myself, I surrender unto You as Your disciple.” Sisyas te' ham sadhi mam tvam prapannam. Prapannam means surrender. So that is the Vedic injunction, that if you want to know transcendental knowledge or science. Transcendental means beyond the scope of your direct perception. - Srila Prabhupada, 9/23/69>Doesn't matter.It matters to you enough to keep monitoring the thread.
>If you accept Kṛṣṇa as the standard of perfection of knowledge, then there is possibility of our talking. Otherwise simply waste of time. Why shall we waste our time? Our standard is Kṛṣṇa. If you are agreeable to accept the standard of Kṛṣṇa, then there is possibility. Just like here is a lawyer. He goes to the lawyer. He speaks, he pleads, on the standard of the lawbooks. If somebody comes, "No, no, I don't accept this," then there is no question of argument. Both the lawyers are arguing. The central point is the lawbook. So you must have a central point on which we shall talk. - Srila Prabhupada, room converation, 1/17/71Like one must first know the constitution if they wish to argue constitutional law, one who wishes to argue the meaning of the Gita must first read and know the Gita.
>>19980545You should join the discord prabhuji
>>19980178>He will use trickery to compel people into devotional serviceI'm devoted as far as I can be in my limited, ego-ensnared state, to the well-being of all beings, and Krishna is certainly worthy of love and respect. But I belong to Lord Shiva, and it is to him I do bhakti (again, in the very limited capacity that I can do it at this point).If a person is compelled to do something, that is not devotion at all.
>>19981888It's not really forced, as you described, but rather awakens the latent seed of bhakti that exists in all beings. Simply reading, or even honoring the book builds sukrti, or pious merit that culminates in contact with a pure devotee (sat shishya)
Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu.
>>19981952In the gaudiya sampradaya Krishna is the source and origin of Lord Vishnu.
It is said one can pray to one of the Gods for rebirth into their realm. Which realms are available and what is each one like?
>>19982252
>this thread
>>19981623I think I would be very quiet, but if it is your desire you can put up the link.>>19981888Jai. I pray to Lord Shiva as the greatest devotee of Sankarsana and as the Lord of the fallen. I do not accept that devotion to Lord Shiva will offer the same results as devotion to Krishna, but I do not wish to argue the point with you here. May Lord Shiva offer you his mercy.>If a person is compelled to do something, that is not devotion at all.I agree. But there are those who do not take to devotional service on their own for whatever reason or material attachment. Tricking or compelling such a person to perform an act of devotional service won't induce devotion into their hearts, but it will start them on the path. The Gita describes the four types who do not take to devotional service, and the four who do.>Bg 7.15 — Those miscreants who are grossly foolish, who are lowest among mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the atheistic nature of demons do not surrender unto Me.>Bg 7.16 — O best among the Bhāratas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me – the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute.Such is the nature of the Absolute that even hearing sankirtan or saying the name Krishna in animosity can begin one's path back to Godhead, but it is not so pure as one whose motivation is to please the Supreme Lord and a longer journey.>>19982252The Fifth Canto of the Bhagavatam details a few of the celestial and hellish realms. Since Vedic knowledge accepts subtle or higher-order bodies can occupy places that would be impossible to survive in our present bodies - such as the sun and the moon are occupied by those with appropriate "astral" bodies and their respective gods Surya and Chandra - then it is not so hard to imagine that every globe in space can be reached with appropriate knowledge and karma.
Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare KṛṣṇaKṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Hare HareHare Rāma Hare RāmaRāma Rāma Hare Hare
Im not getting good vibes
>>19982690I appreciate your kindness. I don't know if I'll achieve the same results as someone devoted to Krishna. I just know that the first time in my adult life that I didn't feel on some level broken and unworthy of love was when I was reading bhakti poetry dedicated to Shiva, which I had picked up just out of curiosity, and that I have started repeating "om namah shivaya" in my head, my days have become better and I've become a kinder person.I know that one explanation for the snake around his neck is that it was searching for warmth and he offered to let it stay in his home but it was still cold, so he let it live around his neck. Maybe it's silly, but in much the way the cat in pic related sleeps in the Buddha's lap, I can't shake this thought that it would be nice to rest each night in the lap of Lord Shiva, if he will extend the same warmth to me that he extends to the snake.
>>19984094You need to get some rudraksha beads as well as a lingam.
>>19982690My understanding is that worshipping Shiva will eventually elevate the individual towards service of Radha Krishna.
>>19984094>I have started repeating "om namah shivaya" in my headDo you do so out loud as well? At least loud enough to hear your own words. Sravanam, kirtanam, vishno (rudra in your case) smaranam: hearing, chanting/speaking/ remembering - these are the first three and most important of the devotional processes. Dedicate an amount of time or an amount of the mantra, the suggestion of rudraksha beads is a good one, as well as a shiva lingam though with that you should research proper care and worship.>>19985875I could see that, but I would have to look to see if there is any support of that idea. It would have to be proper worship, for instance doing so with the intention of becoming Shiva wouldn't bring one closer to Krishna Consciousness.The closest I can find to a confirmation of this idea is a verse in the 5th Canto describing how Narada Muni was being instructed by Lord Shiva in knowledge of the Absolute Truth.>SB 4.6.37 — He was seated on a straw mattress and speaking to all present, including the great sage Nārada, to whom he specifically spoke about the Absolute Truth.The very fact that the Rudra Sampradaya exists shows one can learn of Krishna Consciousness from Lord Shiva's instructions, but I think there is a difference in approaching Lord Shiva with the desire to understand the Supreme and approaching him as the Supreme. On the other hand, there is no doubt that worship of Lord Shiva is auspicious and elevating, and one who is elevated and pious in such a way has a greater chance to take to devotional service. If you have more information on this thought I would be interested in hearing it.
There is also in the 10th Canto the story of Banasura, a great devotee of Lord Shiva who actually brought Krishna and Shiva together in battle. After Lord Krishna mitigated and overpowered the weapons of Lord Shiva,, He was asked asked to spare Shiva's devotee and show mercy. So this perhaps is an example of what you are talking about.>SB 10.63.33 — Lord Śiva felt compassion for his devotee Bāṇāsura, whose arms were being cut off, and thus he approached Lord Cakrāyudha [Kṛṣṇa] and spoke to Him as follows.>SB 10.63.45 — This Bāṇāsura is my dear and faithful follower, and I have awarded him freedom from fear. Therefore, my Lord, please grant him Your mercy, just as You showed mercy to Prahlāda, the lord of the demons.>SB 10.63.47-50 — I will not kill this demonic son of Vairocani, for I gave Prahlāda Mahārāja the benediction that I would not kill any of his descendants. It was to subdue Bāṇāsura’s false pride that I severed his arms. And I slew his mighty army because it had become a burden upon the earth. This demon, who still has four arms, will be immune to old age and death, and he will serve as one of your principal attendants. Thus he will have nothing to fear on any account. Thus attaining freedom from fear, Bāṇāsura offered obeisances to Lord Kṛṣṇa by touching his head to the ground. Bāṇa then seated Aniruddha and His bride on their chariot and brought them before the Lord.
>>19967744Fuck those money grubbin’ pieces of shit!!!
>>19987477Are you familiar with the bramhin who was sent by Shiva to seek out Sanatana Goswami? Illustrates the idea pretty clearly
>>19987650I am not. Do you know the story or do you have a link?
Oh this one! I had forgotten the tale and was unaware of that Lord Shiva was involved. From the purport of SB 4.7.6:>Sometimes, of course, it so happens that Lord Śiva becomes the best benedictor in spiritual life. It is said that once a poor brāhmaṇa worshiped Lord Śiva for a benediction, and Lord Śiva advised the devotee to go to see Sanātana Gosvāmī. The devotee went to Sanātana Gosvāmī and informed him that Lord Śiva had advised him to seek out the best benediction from him (Sanātana). Sanātana had a touchstone with him, which he kept with the garbage. On the request of the poor brāhmaṇa, Sanātana Gosvāmī gave him the touchstone, and the brāhmaṇa was very happy to have it. He now could get as much gold as he desired simply by touching the touchstone to iron. >But after he left Sanātana, he thought, “If a touchstone is the best benediction, why has Sanātana Gosvāmī kept it with the garbage?” He therefore returned and asked Sanātana Gosvāmī, “Sir, if this is the best benediction, why did you keep it with the garbage?” Sanātana Gosvāmī then informed him, “Actually, this is not the best benediction. But are you prepared to take the best benediction from me?” The brāhmaṇa said, “Yes, sir. Lord Śiva has sent me to you for the best benediction.” Then Sanātana Gosvāmī asked him to throw the touchstone in the water nearby and then come back. The poor brāhmaṇa did so, and when he returned, Sanātana Gosvāmī initiated him with the Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra. Thus by the benediction of Lord Śiva the brāhmaṇa got the association of the best devotee of Lord Kṛṣṇa and was thus initiated in the mahā-mantra, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare.I'll try to find the source of it.
>>19987698One of my favorite pastimes describing the glory and power of chanting harinam. Probably from Chaitanya bhagavat or Chaitanya Charitamrta.
>>19987477>Do you do so out loud as well?Yes, at home. I've used my fingers to count 108 repetitions. I do intend to get rudraksha beads. I want to get a Shiva lingam eventually as well.Soon, I'll be attending a local Hindu temple at least once a week too.
>>19987709My searching indicates the source to likely be the Bhaktamala by Nabhadas, or the Gaudiya Vaishnava Abhidhana by Sri Haridas Das, or both.http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/sri-bhaktamala-translated-for-first-time-into-english-NAN621/>The spiritual master of Sri Nabha, who was known as Srimad Agradevacarya, had ordered Nabha (Sri Narayana Dasa), around 1666, to compile Sri Bhaktamala.https://nitaaiveda.com/NITAAI_Yoga_Forums/Swami%27s_Writings_and_Articles/Shri_Haridasa_Babaji_and_Gaudiya_Holy_Books.htm (WARNING: unsecured site)>Shri Haridasa Dasa Babaji (1898-1957) who is in the line of the Gadadhara Parampara...is a very striking inspiration for all devotees about the greatest service of Grantha Seva i.e. rendering service to the greatest Holy Books in creation>Haridas Dasji always seemed to be rushing from one library or manuscript collection wherever he heard of one, from one end of the land to the other. He looked through countless manuscripts like someone obsessed trying to find any evidence of works that had hitherto been unknown--writings by Mahajans, Goswamis and Gaudiya Vaishnavas of Lords Nityananda Gauranga. He never thought about whether food or shelter would be waiting for him, his only concern was to go where there was a possiblity that some new literary discovery could be made. But the discovery alone was not enough, he wanted to make these jewels shine for all, and so he translated and published so many such works. Simultaneously, he was constantly gathering notes related to the geography and history of the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya. Everywhere he went, he would inquire into the family histories of Lord Gauranga Mahaprabhu's Eternal Associates. Though his efforts alone were glorious, the success he achieved in compiling the Gaudiya Vaishnava Abhidhana--the fruit of these researches, was even more glorious.
>>19987899Never heard of those sastras. Thanks prabhu
>>19987747>I've used my fingers to count 108 repetitions.This is a very nice method I was taught once. It's also in a mundane sense an ingenious way to count well over the basic ten using the fingers.On the right hand, the four fingers have three knuckle folds and the tip, equaling four. The thumb had two folds, the tip, and the palm as four. Five fours make up twenty. Mark each of these 20 counts on the left hand, touching the thumb to each finger and then the palm - 5 of these 20 counts making 100. From there it is simple to add the additional 8 totaling a count of 108. If one is ever caught without japa beads or some other external way to keep track, this method is available to anyone who is fortunate enough to have fully working hands.>>19987911Nor I. There is so much out there to relish in the nectarean ocean of bhakti. I can understand Prabhupada's insistence that his disciples - so new to the information - stay focused on the three core books of Gita, Baghavat Purana, and Charitamrita. And of course one sincerely devoted will have all revealed by Paramatma residing in their hearts. But it is nice to find the source of these things, to see the modern speakers are not just inventing them. And to those attracted by lore and diverse knowledge such finds are very blissful.
>>19988004Ever read bhakti tattva viveka by bhaktivinod Thakur? Incredibly straightforward in terms of what constitutes pure devotion. My favorite line is "simplicity, determination and exclusive desire for bhakti"
>>19988004The way I was doing it was counting to 12 on my right hand (using each segment of my fingers on my right hand but skipping my thumb), then using my left hand to mark which set of 12 I was on. 12 times 9 is 108, so when I finish the set with my thumb on the bottom segment of my ring finger, I've done 108 repetitions.
>>19988028Have done that myself, but have found it can distract one from focusing internally on the deity or service in question.
There is also a tale I'm looking into about Sanatana Goswami offering prayers to Sadasiva every day, that they would travel to the Mahadev temple together. And when Sanatana became old and feeble, yet still insisted on this trip, Lord Shiva moved the temple for him. Perhaps this is a variation on the tale where mosquitoes were interrupting his work of writing, and so Sanatana Goswami considered moving to another location which upset Lord Shiva who then effectively banished all mosquitoes from the region.>At Govardhana he showed a beautiful example of how he loved the association of devotees Cakalesvara Mahadev. Sanatan Goswami was living right next to him at Manasi-ganga. At that time so many mosquitoes were eating up Sanatan Goswami day and night. It was disturbing his service because he was trying to write books, do his bhajan and there were swarms of mosquitoes. So he was thinking, “I can better do my service somewhere else. I will leave this place.>When Lord Siva understood he was thinking like this and he was his next-door neighbor as Cakalesvara Mahadev deity he couldn’t bare the thought of separation from Sanatan Goswami. So he appeared in a beautiful brahmana form and told Sanatan Goswami to stay one more night and see. Sanatan Goswami said, “I will stay one more night.” And then Lord Siva went to the demigod in charge of mosquitoes (Laughter.) and said tell your mosquitoes not to bother Sanatan at all. So not a single mosquito came that way after that. So in so many ways – vaisnavanam yatha sambhuh! - Radhanath Swami 2/12/2010
I really like Vedic religions but Hare Krishas seems kind of lame. Repeating words over and over is not really my thing. It's a real copout that that's the only kind that made it into the west.
>>19988070There are other forms of bhakti aside from chanting, like deity seva or simply reading devotional literature.
>>19988070A true devotee might argue that the maha-mantra is not like some auspicious mantra for material benefit, and that the soul does not tire from the spiritual potency of the words. That everything is contained therein.Me, I'm with you and prefer more variety, which is why I seek out the lore and other literatures. But like a new parent or lover, it is always seen in relation to my desire for devotion to God. The intensity of love seen in a new parent or lover is a reflection of the love of Godhead. How every topic, every sight simply reminds them and induces them to talk about their beloved or their child (often to the annoyance of those around them, though this never acts as a deterrent). It is the focus of awareness that is important; the insistence on chanting the maha mantra is twofold. One, it is a quintessential method - boiling down all the rituals and the stories and the practices into a pure focus on Krishna. Two, it is the instruction of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu - who we accept as Krishna Himself in the form and mood of a devotee - that the maha-mantra is the essence and core of everything else and the most important practice in this Kali Yuga. The other processes are very nice and helpful but they should be incorporated into our practice of chanting Hare Krishna, not seen as equal or a replacement for it. Lord Chaitanya quoted this from the Brihan-naradiya Purana (38.126):>Harer nama harer nama harer namaiva kevalam / kalau nasty eva nasty eva nasty eva gatir anyatha>In this age of quarrel and hypocrisy, the only means of deliverance is the chanting of the holy name of the Lord. There is no other way. There is no other way. There is no other way.
My searching has found a delightful song written down by Murari Gupta, but originally sung by Lord Chaitanya in praise of Lord Shiva.http://kksongs.org/songs/n/namonamastetridasasvaraya.htmlSpeaking of Murari Gupta - though a close associate of Lord Chaitanya, his worshipable deity and the form of Krishna he was attracted to was Lord Ramacandra. He is my inspiration for foolishly and arrogantly focusing on Lord Balarama as my own, as even when compelled by Mahaprabhu he could not bring himself to abandon Lord Rama and worship only Krishna.>Lord Caitanya once tested Murari Gupta's attachment to his worshipable Lord Ramacandra. Lord Gaurasundara preached to Murari about the supreme sweetness and position of Vrajendra-kumara (Krishna): "Murari, just worship Krishna and take shelter of Him. Nothing but His service can satisfy the mind." Although Murari Gupta became somewhat inclined toward Sri Krishna, the thought of losing Lord Ramacandra's association devastated him. That night he prayed to Lord Rama to take his life. He asked for this because he couldn't stop serving Rama, nor could he defy Sri Caitanya's request.>After crying all night Murari approached Lord Caitanya and said: "What should I do? I've sold my head to the lotus feet of Lord Ramacandra. But if I break Your order to worship Lord Sri Krishna, then what can I do?">Smiling, Sri Gaura Raya replied, "All glories to Murari Gupta! You're so fixed in your worship that even My request couldn't turn your mind. This is exactly the type of love and affection the servitor must have for the lotus feet of the Lord. Even if the Lord wants separation, a devotee cannot abandon the shelter of His lotus feet. Just to test your firm faith in your Lord I repeatedly asked you to change your worship from Lord Rama to Lord Krishna.">Congratulating Murari Gupta, the Lord continued, "You are the incarnation of Hanuman, the eternal servant of Lord Rama. Therefore, why should you give up your worship of Lord Rama?"
>>19988170In the bhagavatam there are devotees who focus exclusively on sankarshan, like bhairava and vrtrasura, I believe
>>19981952>>19981975They're one and the same. To think any of his plenary expansions is less powerful than any other is rascaldom.
>>19988179It is there, certainly. I mentioned before about the description of other lands in the 5th Canto, and I think it's the 18th chapter it describes how occupants of these lands focus worship on forms like Kurma, Hayagriva, etc. What I mean is that my attraction is a fancy of my material mind and ego. I have nothing to suggest it has anything to do with my spiritual position and identity other than the attraction exists. But since it IS an attraction to Vishnu-tattva, I feel no inclination to change it.I am taken in by how Lord Balarama is the ultimate support of Krishna's pastimes and forms, and at the same time is His biggest contrarian. His "devil's advocate" in a sense. Lord Balarama took no part in the battle of Kuruksetra as he was the teacher of Duryodhana in using the mace. As Sri Laksman He challenged Lord Ramacandra's acceptance of their father's order into exile, and was so upset by having to always follow the decisions of Rama (being the younger brother) He made it a point to always be Krishna's elder in subsequent appearances as Lord Balaram and Lord Nityananda. Of course, He still serves Krishna in these forms, but not by Vedic injunction due to social hierarchy.As Ananta-Sesa, He is bed upon which Lord Vishnu rests, and it is described that the material universes rest upon His unlimited heads like mustard seeds, moving in their tracks due to His swaying. As time is the omnipresent, impersonal incarnation of Krishna - so gravity is the omnipresent, impersonal incarnation of Balarama and I find delight in the idea that my worshipable deity is gravity, and holds me in place.>Krsna Book 2: Ananta, or Śeṣa, is the source of the power which sustains all the planets in their different positions. Materially this sustaining power is known as the law of gravitation, but actually it is a display of the potency of Saṅkarṣaṇa.
>>19988070Prabhupada's intention was for people to get into śastra. He actually said he wanted a new generation of devotees learning sanskrit to read the original, or at least recite it properly because it's the actual language of God. And the best way to get people interested was chanting the maha mantra
All glories to Lord Balarama! He is the environment in which Krishna holds His pastimes, He is the paraphernalia of Narayana such as the lotus, conch, mace, and chakra, He is the cit potency of the spiritual sat-cit-ananda, He is the original expansion of Krishna, and He is the source of the unlimited expansions and incarnations.>>19988405Agreed. All the expansions and plenary portions and avatars are omnipotent, but for His own enjoyment there is distinction and variety. Along with this verse from the Brahma-Samhita, the 2nd Chapter of Adi-lila in Chaitanya-Cahritamrita goes into this in detail.https://www.vedabase.com/en/cc/adi/2>Bs 5.46 — The light of one candle being communicated to other candles, although it burns separately in them, is the same in its quality. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda who exhibits Himself equally in the same mobile manner in His various manifestations.
Which scriptures should I study now that I've read through the Gita a few times? I've mostly been learning the Sri Vaishnava tradition but this is the only place on the whole internet it feels like I can get real answers to questions.
>>19990351Jaiva dharma or nectar of devotion. You could also relay any questions you have in this thread.
>>19990351Srimad Bhagavatam primarily, it's a direct followup to the GitaNectar of Devotion, Sri Isopanisad, and Sri Caitanya Caritamrta are also good
>>19988070Hare Krishna/ISKCON is essentially Gaudiya Vaishnavism, which IS the Vedic religion. They go by all the Vedic texts, chief among them being the Gita and Bhagavata Purana. Gaudiya Vaishnavism is much deeper than the chanting of the mahamantra, but that is the essence of all the teachings of the Vedas, to surrender unto Krishna. The chanting process is superior to breath meditation, yogic poses, study of scripture, and so forth. Bhakti is the highest activity, it is transcendental.
>>19967744Is Krsna able to change the physical world?
>>19972664lel
>>19991363Yes, the physical world is but the manifestation of his external energy and thus he has full control over it. Not a blade of grass is able to move without his sanction.
>>19991018>Gaudiya Vaishnavism, which IS the Vedic religionlaughable>The chanting process is superior to breath meditation, yogic poses, study of scripture, and so forthso sad that i cant laugh>Bhakti is the highest activity, it is transcendentalreal bhakti, yes, although none of you superficial v*isnhavs ever get close to that, so what you speak is mundane bhakti, and therefore you're lying (to yourself).bhakti yoga is barely above karma yoga in most traditions, and the fact that your pseudo-sampradaya violently attaches itself to dualism and rabidly opposes the sensible nondualism that is common not only to the legitimate heirs to the vedic religion but also most serious systems of spirituality the world over, is testament to the bankruptcy of your system. your extreme hubris towards such a petty and small-minded system is nauseating, and that seems to be a common thing to members of your sect. you keep doing what youre doing, cult-boy, it's of no importance to everyone else, but at least drop the hubristic air of superiority, because it makes you look and sound like a tool.PS if you think a superficial offshoot of a superficial offshoot of a tradition, created in the 1500s can even pretend to be vedic, you should maybe study harder. or does your cult leader - i mean guru - not allow studying?
>>19990351The natural progression would be to learn more about the personality of Godhead, which is the subject of the Srimad-Bhagavatam. However that is a large and daunting book. Most of the books I would recommend are of Gaudiya Vaishnava origin such as the Chaitanya Bhagavat or the Nectar of Instruction and Nectar of Devotion, and as you are more inclined to the Sri Sampradaya this may dissuade you. The Isa Upanishad (Isopanishad) would be a good and quick read. Have you looked into the commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita by Ramanuja Acarya? You can find it along with the three other acarya's commentaries here:http://bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/Commentaries/sri-intro.htmlhttp://bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-01-01.htmlThe first link is Ramanuja Acarya's intro, and the second has each verse of the Gita with the four commentaries below. I also found this site, which seems a treasure trove of Sri Vaishnava books:http://www.acharya.org/bk/pb/indexLang.htmlThough most of them are not in English. If that is your main language, then use this link:http://www.acharya.org/bk/pb/indexEng.html
>>19991495Gaudiya Vaishnavism only seems dualistic because it contends against unqualified advaita philosophy. Our philosophy is the seemingly paradoxical merging of dualism and nondualism - acintya-bhedabheda-tattva.The Mayavad philosophy is a trick of Lord Shiva who incarnated as Sankaracarya, as confirmed in the Padma Purana:>māyāvādam asac chāstraṁpracchannaṁ bauddham ucyate>mayaiva kalpitaṁ devikalau brāhmaṇa-rūpiṇā>brahmaṇaś cāparaṁ rūpaṁnirguṇaṁ vakṣyate mayā>sarva-svaṁ jagato ’py asyamohanārthaṁ kalau yuge>vedānte tu mahā-śāstremāyāvādam avaidikam>mayaiva vakṣyate devijagatāṁ nāśa-kāraṇāt“The Māyāvāda philosophy,” Lord Śiva informed his wife Pārvatī, “is impious [asac chāstra]. It is covered Buddhism. My dear Pārvatī, in Kali-yuga I assume the form of a brāhmaṇa and teach this imagined Māyāvāda philosophy. In order to cheat the atheists, I describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be without form and without qualities. Similarly, in explaining Vedānta I describe the same Māyāvāda philosophy in order to mislead the entire population toward atheism by denying the personal form of the Lord.”And in the Shiva Purana:>dvāparādau yuge bhūtvākalayā mānuṣādiṣu>svāgamaiḥ kalpitais tvaṁ cajanān mad-vimukhān kuru“In Kali-yuga, mislead the people in general by propounding imaginary meanings for the Vedas to bewilder them.”
>>19991779>>19991773hey look a christcuck!! Or a butthurt mudslime I can't tell
>>19991911Thanks Bhakta, you're always polite and help out people even if they aren't iskcon. I don't know why people shit on you.
>>19991966Christianity and Islam are devotional traditions in some form, though rather different than Vaishnavism. As long as they recognize our differences without animosity, I for one would welcome their realizations in these threads.I consider Lord Jesus to be either an incarnation of the Supreme Lord, or a shakti-avesh avatar: a jiva soul empowered with the full might of God. The description of the Holy Spirit entering Christ upon baptism is what gives me this impression. I consider Lord Mohammed to be a pure devotee, though I admit it is harder for me to see his influence in his tradition. Both instructed their disciples to surrender to God, and gave practices with which to revive their devotion. Certainly a large part of Mohammed's mission was to remove idolatry from his culture, and as a result there is a curious conception of a Personal God without form in Islam. In either case I would challenge any Vaishnava to read the works of St. Francis of Assisi or of the poet Rumi and not see bhakti shine through them.>>19992022Thank you. If anything particularly catches your mind in those books please share them with us.
>>19992888In Gaudiya Vaishnava perspective, it is by the directive of Krishna in preparation for the appearance of Lord Chaitanya. In most Kali Yugas, the final incarnation before Lord Kalki - who wipes the slate clean and returns the universe to Satya Yuga - is Lord Buddha. A major part of His appearance is to stop the exploitation of the Vedas by leading people away from them and giving atheists a final chance to follow God, though unaware of His position. When Lord Buddha advents, the braminical class has fallen to the point of using the Vedas as an excuse to commit sins such as meat eating and oppressing others through an incorrect applicant of varnasrama-dharma.>SB 1.3.24 — Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Añjanā, in the province of Gayā, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.But once every thousand Kali Yugas or so, Krishna comes one more time, and to prepare for this He sends Lord Shiva to re-establish the authority of the Vedas while teaching essentially the same conclusion. Instead of everything being void, everything is an undifferentiated one. With the Vedas returned to their position the acaryas establish a direct counter-point in Madhvacarya's pure dvaita philosophy, Vishnuswami and Vallabhacarya's suddhadvaita "purified monism," Ramanujacarya's visishtadvaita or "qualified monism," and Nimbarkacarya's dvaitadvaita or "dualistic non-dualism." For GV, this culminates in Lord Chaitanya's teaching of acintya-bhedabheda "inconceivable oneness and difference.">SB 11.5.32 — In the Age of Kali, intelligent persons perform congregational chanting to worship the incarnation of Godhead who constantly sings the names of Kṛṣṇa. Although His complexion is not blackish, He is Kṛṣṇa Himself. He is accompanied by His associates, servants, weapons and confidential companions.
Lord Chaitanya did not want to be seen as the Supreme Lord, as His mood was that of a devotee. He "hid" the predictions of His advent in various places such as the Narada Purana>aham eva kalau vipra nityam pracchanna-vigrahah>bhagavad-bhakta-rupena lokan raksami sarvada>divija bhuvi jayadhvam jayadhvam bhakta-rupinahkalau sankirtanarambhe bhavisyami saci-sutah>O brahmana, I will deliver all the worlds, concealing myself in the form of a devotee of the Lord in Kali-yuga.>O demigods, please advent on the earth as devotees in Kali-yuga. To inaugurate sankirtana, I will incarnate as the son of Shachi.And in the Atharva Veda>itotham krta sannyaso’vatarisyami sa-guno nirvedo>niskamo bhu-girvanas tira-atho’ lakanandayah kalau>catuh-sahasrabdhopari panca-sahasrabhyantare>gaura-varno dirghangah sarva-laksana-yukta isvara->prarthito nija-rasasvado bhakta-rupo misrakhyo vidita-yogah syam>“The Supreme Lord Himself says: When between four thousand and five thousand years of Kali-yuga have passed, I will descend to the earth in a place by the Ganges’ shore. I will be a tall, saintly brahmana devotee of the Lord, and have a golden complexion. I will be renounced and free from all desire. I will accept the order of renunciation (sannyasa). I will be a devotee advanced in bhakti-yoga. I will chant the Holy Names of the Lord. I will taste the sweet mellows of My own devotional service. Only the great Devotees will understand Me.”Here is a site detailing various places such verses occur:https://medium.com/@fovais/scriptural-references-to-sri-chaitanya-mahaprabhu-being-avataar-of-sri-krishna-e733a323db12The Atharva Veda reference specifically I am looking into exactly where this verse appears. It seems to be part of what is called the Purusa-Bodhini-Upanisad, along with the Radha Tapani Upanishad. I am not finding reference to these outside of quotes from Vaishnava scholars such as Baladeva Vidyabhushana.
>>19991779>THEY ARE FUCKING DISGUSTING.and you smell like flowers?
Excerpt from an article by Dr Fakir Mohan, "The History of Sri Sri Radha Krsna Worship in Orissan Culture":"In Ujjvala Nilamani Srila Rupa Goswami cites the Gopala Tapani Upanisad and the Rg Parisista to show the authenticity of the worship of Srimati Radharani: gopalottaratapinyam yad gandharveti visrutah radhet rk parisiste ca, etc.'From the Vedic literature we come to know that Sri Radharani is referred to as 'Gandharvi' in the second part of the Gopal Tapani, and as 'Radha' in the Rg Parishistha.'"Srila Vishvanath Cakravarti Thakur and Baladev Vidyabhushan have stated in their commentaries on Gopala Tapani Upanisad that this tapani of the Atharva Veda, Paippalada branch, was previously being recited by the brahmanas of Gujarat and Orissa. Although presently there are no brahmanas of the Atharva Veda Paippalada branch found in Gujarat, thousands of this lineage are still living in the vicinity of the village Remuna, the birth place of Srila Baladev Vidyabhushan, and in other places of Orissa. In the absence of any help from ancient manuscripts, the original text of the Paippalada Samhita can be reconstructed even today from the tradition, which the village reciters still carry with them unimpaired. In this area some rare Paippalada Samhita manuscripts have been found along with a number of hitherto unknown manuals of special Paippalada rites which give an insight into the social, religious and cultural traditions of Paippaladiyans found in the tapani literature."In the 18th century, Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushan has quoted the Purusa-bodhini Sruti, Purusottama Tapini, in his Prameya Ratnavali in connection with the worship of Sri Sri Radha Krsna in the Vedic period. Vaishnava poets like Anandi of Nilachala Dhama and Narahari Cakravarti of Sri Khanda, Bengal, have quoted from the Purusa-bodhini Sruti to establish the authentic nature of the worship of Sri Sri Radha Krsna and Gauranga Mahaprabhu.
>>19993286"Later in the 18th century, Srila Radha Krsna Goswami, the disciple of Haridas Pandit (who was the grand-disciple of Gadadhar Pandit Goswami of Puri), published four prapathakas (chapters) of the Purusa-bodhini sruti in his Sadhana-dipika. Thakur Bhaktivinode of village Chotimangalpur in Kendrapara District, Orissa, also collected the Sri Caitanya Upanisad of the Paippalada branch from Pandit Madhusudan Das of Sambalpur, Orissa, publishing it in 1887. In 1901 Mahamahopadhyaya Sadashiva Kavyakantha of Puri published some additional chapters of this Sruti. In 1966 we collected all twelve prapathakas of this Purusa-bodhini Sruti from different parts of Orissa and published them from our Sri Bhaktivinode Library in Baripada."
>>19993369I'm not certain what you mean. No living entity is created, we are all eternal beings. Lord Buddha did not deceive in that He taught something incorrect; He brought those already with a demonic mindset into a way of following Vedic principles without the authority of the Vedas since they were misusing the precepts for their own purposes and elf-enjoyment. Lord Shiva as Sankaracarya did not deceive in that he led people to doom; He taught an indirect understanding that appealed to those who had been following Lord Buddha to reestablish the Vedas as authoritative. The Vedic system had broken down, and had to be cleared and through small steps rebuilt into the hearts and minds of people. Jivas have always had the opportunity/ability to fall away from devotional service, there is no requirement for anyone to lead them into it. Like a child who does not want to learn, a teacher says "OK, you may play, but you play in this way," and later they introduce learning within the play, and later still when the appeal of education is established the learning can be given without the need for covering it with play.
>>19967744Can Krsna turn back time for someone?
>>19994112I have not heard of any point where Krishna has turned back time. There was an instance during the battle of Kurukshetra where He disguised when the sun set so as to make the opposing forces drop their guard, and there are instances where time dilation is mentioned (when spending a few moments on Sveta-dvipa - the abode of Vishnu in the material realm - causes many lifetimes to pass on Earth), but none I know where time is literally reversed.However, Krishna is powerful beyond the bounds of logic, and if He desired such a thing I have no doubt He could do it. Krishna says in the Gita when showing Arjuna His universal form, "Time I am," kalosmi or kalah asmi. I believe there is an instance in the Bible where it mentions God reversing the sun in its track which could be taken as reversing time.
Sometimes I think that during the parts of Jesus's life we have no record of he was around India learning bhakti
>>19994718He actually went to Japan, so it wouldn't be surprising if he visited India on the way.
>>19995621Seeing grave of Christ in Japanese is funnier than it should be. >kurisuto
>>19994718It's an appealing theory, but one I ultimately reject (which doesn't mean much). The book by Nicolas Notovitch - where he claims to have found a manuscript describing such an event - has been fairly well debunked, Lord Jesus's message is in line with the former rabbinical teachings instead of Vedantic views, and He never seems to use any of the examples or analogies I would expect from one who was educated under a Vedic system.Then again, Lord Jesus is such an exalted personality that He may simply have been expertly disguising such things and I am too clouded to see. I DO think that the three wise men from the East who visited Him on His appearance were Vedic astrologers, celebrating the advent of an incarnation of God on Earth. For all I know, they were Vyasa-deva, Narada Muni, and Nara-Narayana Rsi.
>>19994472>(when spending a few moments on Sveta-dvipa - the abode of Vishnu in the material realm ->causes many lifetimes to pass on Earth)I recall reading about this. Do you have the full story?
>>19991495The krishna bhakti tradition was revived 500 years ago, but the sampradaya itself is thousands of years old.
>>19995997One such story is about the father of Balarama Deva's wife, Revati. In the 9th Canto of the Bhagavatam there is a summary, although in this case they went to Brahmaloka and not Vishnu's abode.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakudmi>SB 9.3.29 — Taking...Revatī, Kakudmī went to Lord Brahmā in Brahmaloka...and inquired about a husband for her.>SB 9.3.30 — When Kakudmī arrived there, Lord Brahmā was engaged in hearing musical performances by the Gandharvas and had not a moment to talk with him...at the end of the musical performances he offered his obeisances to Lord Brahmā and thus submitted his long-standing desire.>SB 9.3.31 — After hearing his words, Lord Brahmā...laughed loudly and said to Kakudmī: O King, all those whom you may have decided within the core of your heart to accept as your son-in-law have passed away in the course of time.>SB 9.3.32 — Twenty-seven catur-yugas have already passed. Those upon whom you may have decided are now gone...You cannot even hear about their names.>SB 9.3.33 — O King, leave here and offer your daughter to Lord Baladeva, who is still present. He is most powerful. Indeed, He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead...Your daughter is fit to be given to Him in charity.A catur-yuga on our timescale is 4.32 million years. But to Lord Brahma - who lives for around 311 trillion years - it is about 1.5 minutes worth of time. The 3rd Canto, 11th chapter also confirms that time flows differently for those living on higher planes.>SB 3.11.11 — The aggregate of two fortnights is one month, and that period is one complete day and night for the Pitā planets. Two of such months comprise one season, and six months comprise one complete movement of the sun from south to north.>SB 3.11.12 — Two solar movements make one day and night of the demigods, and that combination of day and night is one complete calendar year for the human being. The human being has a duration of life of one hundred years.
A speculation on my part has been that the description of Mt. Sumeru - where it is said the top of which Bramha resides - as being a gold mountain whose base is narrower than its summit is actually describing what we interpret as the jets coming from the poles of the supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy. I have heard that Brahma's body is extremely subtle/astral - being only intelligence and ego. And with the understanding that time flows so much faster for him, it is possible that Brahmaloka is actually this colossal mass we call a black hole.
>>19996185Both pics are of course artistic interpretations, and the description in the 5th Canto is of wildly different scale, but the speculation is fun for me.
I know this isn't strictly a Hare Krishna question, but I think I'm more likely to get an answer than anywhere else on the board:Aside from chanting a mantra, how can I show my love and devotion to Lord Shiva? And how do I stop these moments of fear that he doesn't really care at all? This is something I've dealt with for years with other people: A feeling of being unworthy of love or kindness. Insecurity has hurt friendships and romantic relationships alike. I'm much better in that respect than I used to be, but it's still a struggle and sometimes I just feel too broken too be salvageable.
>>19996653I do not know how well it translates to Personalist Saivite understandings, but Prahlada Maharaja details nine processes of devotional service (SB 7.5.32):>śravaṇaṁ kīrtanaṁ viṣṇoḥ smaraṇaṁ pāda-sevanam>arcanaṁ vandanaṁ dāsyaṁ sakhyam ātma-nivedanamHearing, chanting, remembering, serving the lotus feet, deity worship, prayers, carrying out orders as a servant, being the friend, and surrendering everything. The nine people who exemplified each process are Pariksit Maharaja, Sukadeva Goswami, Prahlada Maharaja, Sri Laksmi devi, Prithu Maharaja, Akrura, Hanuman, Arjuna, and Bali Maharaja.If you are like me, the 4th (pada sevanam) and 7th (dasyam) are confusingly similar. The difference as I understand it is that the former is to adopt of our own accord tasks meant for the pleasure of the Lord that may seem distasteful without expectation for reward. It is a conception of humility. It can mean serving those who are engaged in service themselves. It is also taken literally - Laksmi devi literally massages the feet of Vishnu. The 7th is more about conception of ourselves - that we are Krishna's servant - and to carry out tasks and instructions given to us. One example given is that if the guru asks for water, do not give them milk. We may think milk is the preferred drink, but that was not what was asked for. We should follow the instruction to the best of our ability without trying to alter the instruction to fit what we think is better.
>A feeling of being unworthy of love or kindnessBut we ARE unworthy of service, of the mercy of God. It's a fine distinction between not thinking of ourselves out of humility and thinking ourselves broken out of false pride (we SHOULD be better because deep down we feel we ARE better), yet the distinction is important. We should be audacious in our approach. What worth do we have to one who has everything, commands everything? What can we offer? But what choice do we have but to present ourselves; what hope is there but to ask for this mercy? It is not a matter of worth, of compelling service. We cannot force ourselves on Krishna. It is not a business arrangement that we can point to some quality or deed and go "because of this I have proven myself so you must reciprocate." Service without expectation is hard. The closest thing to it in this material realm are the actions of a mother to their child. So much is put into raising a child, and the moment they are independent it is forgotten. We serve our friends, our wives and husbands, our boss and our community. Yet the moment we feel no reciprocation, this service is given up. A fan of a music star buys all the albums and posters and goes to the shows and seems quite devoted, but if the chance to meet arises and the fan is snubbed and ignored - no autograph is given - then the love is diminished, the posters are thrown away and the albums sit unlistened to.
Devotional service is not like this. It means everything for the one I love and serve, let there be no concern for what I get out of it, what condition I am left in. It is in opposition to everything material and is abhorrent to a material mindset. If we were to act like this in a material relationship it would be seen as exploitation and abuse. "Why do you do so much for this person when they don't appreciate you at all, anon?" Lord Chaitanya answers in the final verse of his Siksastakam:>ashlishya va pada-ratam pinashtu mam>adarshanan marma-hatam karotu va>yatha tatha va vidadhatu lampato>mat-prana-nathas tu sa eva naparah>I know no one but Krishna as my Lord, and He shall remain so even if He handles me roughly by His embrace or makes me brokenhearted by not being present before me. He is completely free to do anything and everything, for He is always my worshipful Lord unconditionally.
>>19997061If Krishna doesn't need it, and it does nothing for you, then what's the point? No one benefits, then, so it's arbitrary.
>>19997192>it does nothing for youI disagree. Devotional service is the natural, eternal state of the jiva. We are the energy of Krishna and we serve the Energetic, the difference is whether we do so with awareness and willingness. Devotional service is not FOR our pleasure, but it does fill us with bliss. It is the great paradox that pure devotional service binds Krishna, the Supreme Independent.>Bg 9.29 — I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all. But whoever renders service unto Me in devotion is a friend, is in Me, and I am also a friend to him.>SB 10.32.22 — I am not able to repay My debt for your spotless service, even within a lifetime of Brahmā. Your connection with Me is beyond reproach. You have worshiped Me, cutting off all domestic ties, which are difficult to break. Therefore please let your own glorious deeds be your compensation.Pure devotional service is a loving, reciprocal relationship wherein each tries to outdo the other. As the devotee serves Krishna, Krishna provides ability and opportunity to serve, and with each ability and opportunity, the devotee tries to increase their service.In the beginning, a jiva may take to bhakti for some self-interest, this is natural. To remove the distress of the material realm or to try and increase self-enjoyment. But with understanding, experience, and action these conceptions should fall away until only love for Krishna and desire to serve remains. It is a very high platform and shouldn't be mimicked. Until then, even if we have some self-interest worship of the Supreme Lord is recommended.>SB 2.3.10 — A person who has broader intelligence, whether he be full of all material desire, without any material desire, or desiring liberation, must by all means worship the supreme whole, the Personality of Godhead.In the Nectar of Devotion, Srila Rupa Goswami has detailed the effects and symptoms of pure devotional service.https://www.vedabase.com/en/nod/1
So it really doesn't matter which incarnation you favor or which you believe is "original" right? It's all the same being in the end?
>>19998377You can worship any Vishnu tattva incarnations (direct expansions of Lord Vishnu) while worshiping lesser demigods produces inferior results.
>>19998434That's good. I personally have the best connection with Lord Narayana but the VAST majority of works that have been translated are gaudiya in origin. That and the majority of temples are also gaudiya.
>>19997235I don't think I'm at that point yet. The only times I've felt anything other than terrible about myself, it's seemed clear and my relationship with Shiva made sense to me and I felt this pure adoration and I felt like he was showing me that in the end everything is okay and beautiful and I can see that there's something good in me if I work at it. And other times that clarity goes away, and I can't help thinking I'm wasting my time, and it's hard to remember those moments of beauty and love and believe they were real. And I don't understand how to be genuinely devoted during those times. Doing the things you're supposed to do, sure, but devotion internally.
>>19999018Shiva has so much love for his devotees. I am sure that if you keep doing sadhana, further and deeper realizations will manifest on their own accord.
>>19999069Thank you.
>>19998377Yes and no. It depends on the instructions/traditions of your sampradaya, and on the mood of the personality you worship. Approaching Vishnu or Nrisimha-deva as a dear friend or parent would be rasa-bhasya, "mixed emotion." They are the same being certainly, but they have distinct moods and personalities and practices that please them. Gaudiya Vaishnavas technically could be said to worship Lord Chaitanya, but it was His desire that His followers worship Radha-Krishna and so that is what is taught and done.>>19998651You could make it your service to find and translate works glorifying Lord Narayana. What skills or desires do you have that you could dovetail into His service? Do you read the dasavatara stotra - a song glorifying the ten main incarnations of Vishnu? Have you recited the Vishnu sahasranam, the 1000 names of Vishnu? The Garuda Purana would likely be a good text for you, as well as the Varaha and Vishnu Puranas.There is also Saligram Sila worship, although this requires exacting methods and regulation. Pic is a Narayana form of Salagram. I'm having trouble finding the method that isn't connected to Gaudiya Vaishnavas. You might need to to contact a temple directly for it.>>19999018I certainly know those feels. Consider how glorifying it is of Lord Shiva that even though you feel this way and have such inconstancy, He still is there for you. You might also benefit from the above worship, but with a Shiva Lingam instead of Saligram Sila.I find internal devotion is hard, despite how easy pure devotion is assured. In Gaudiya Vaishnavism there is the consideration of offenses against the Holy Name, of which there are ten. An analogy of a creeper or vine of bhakti is sometimes used. We grow this devotional creeper by our actions, but we must also be wary to avoid planting weeds, or uprooting those we have already planted. If you can, try to find other people on a bhakti path for Lord Shiva and offer to help them in some way.
>>19967744what can krsna change in the physical world?
>>19999263Anything He wants. Why would He change the physical world when it already works under His direction? How about taking some of the most hedonistic people like hippies and communist Russians and changing the hearts of millions of them into sincere devotees?
>>19972816Sorry to interject, but during certain periods or meditation, I can't sense a feeling swell up that is a thought. I know this because it's unique in the way it feels. Not only that, I can't understand if it's negative or positive in nature and I can literally put it down before I have the thought.For example, if you keep thinking about someone attractive, your mind is always giving you thoughts of said attractive person. Your imagination might give your mental images, or your might think in words. Etc.Imagine you sensed a feeling before all that, and then stopped it. You never got the thoughts, the images, or anything like that. Like there is a process that occurs first before the thought.
>>19999426can't = can
>>19999426Again, sorry for the poor english. Work was rough today and I am not thinking straight and super tired.
>>19999426What do you mean by mind? The Vedas describe three aspects of material energy that could be defined as such in English - there is the false ego, identification with the material energy; there is the intelligence, the discriminating aspect (not discriminating as in the negative connotation, but as in choosing one thing over another); there is the mind which is the seat of desires, attraction and rejection. For instance, when we wake up, immediately the mind springs up "I want to get up" and "I want to stay in bed." Based on how we identify (I am a worker, a lazy person, an early riser, am really comfy, have important things to do, etc.) our intelligence chooses one of these desires. These three aspects make up the astral, or subtle body.
>>19999308Is the world already moving in the direction he wants?
>>20000144In what sense? The Age of Deterioration is progressing. The Golden Age of Lord Chaitanya within it is expanding. There are scheduled times for incarnations to appear and to facilitate desire for that sometimes the demoniac forces rise in power. This realm is meant for those who wish to rebel against devotional service and so the fact that jivas are doing just that is according to His direction. What do you see that you would consider things to not be moving according to His direction?Also, which He? On one level, the Supreme Personality Krishna has no connection to the material realm. He is enjoying with the gopis in Vraja and pays no attention - He has expansions doing that for Him. On one level, He has incarnated as Lord Chaitanya and the Holy Name and so is very desirous and intent on spreading love of Godhead to every corner of the globe. On one level, He is Maha Vishnu and simply tasks Maya with covering and throwing the jivas into delusion and so it is by her control that events happen. On one level, He is Garbhodakasayi Vishnu and on the appeal of the devas advents in different forms to restore order to the universe. On one level, He is Ksirodakasayi Vishnu who has expanded into every atom and they act by His direction.
>>20000209I am asking is there any chance that there is anything he wants to change about this world
>>20001609I can't say exactly; I don't know the mind of Krishna outside of what He has said. The battle of Kurukshetra shows that Krishna will often engage His devotees to bring about His desires so they may serve and be glorified. >Bg 11.33 — Therefore get up. Prepare to fight and win glory. Conquer your enemies and enjoy a flourishing kingdom. They are already put to death by My arrangement, and you, O Savyasācī, can be but an instrument in the fight.So if there is something, I would look to the activities of His devotees to determine what that is.
>>20001635I guess you wouldn't be able to tell me how I could figure out what it is he wants then, could you?
>>20001943I can give you the instructions He gives in the Gita, but specific instructions would come from guru.>Bg 9.27 — Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer or give away, and whatever austerities you perform – do that, O son of Kuntī, as an offering to Me.>Bg 12.8 — Just fix your mind upon Me, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and engage all your intelligence in Me. Thus you will live in Me always, without a doubt.>Bg 18.65 — Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend.>Bg 18.66 — Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.Do you chant the maha-mantra? Start with that, even just once a day, and He will lead you to the rest.>Bg 10.10 — To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me.
Final bump. Thank you all for an engaging thread. If you take only one thing away from it, please chant the Hare Krishna maha-mantra.
>>20004146Was reading through mahabharata and found it interesting how they openly violated almost all of the regulative principles. Is this because they were in the kshatriya varna?
>>20004262Are you speaking specifically of gambling, meat-eating, illicit sex, and intoxication? If so then I agree - the ksatriyas were given leeway due to their requirement of being warriors and how their varna is obligated to kill in certain situations. Considering the difference in yuga and how today even our soldiers and police are not really ksatriyas I don't think it is something we can mimic. Except when dealing with Absolute Truth, time place and circumstance are always a factor.There is also the consideration that the Mahabharata is full of how messy and complex it is to apply dharma to real-world situations. For instance the Pandava army is encouraged to break the rules of engagement once the opposing army stops following them. Or how Yuddisthir is stuck between being obligated to accept the invitation of his elder to gamble and the stipulation that one should not gamble. Which is the worse violation - to snub his uncle or to engage in such a practice?
>>19971786responding to my posts with >troll >trolledDoesn't answer my questions.It just shows how immature you are.
>2017 ky >not worshipping GodExplain yourself
>>20006658The divine and the demonic are known by their awareness and motives, not by their appearance. The devas, or demigods, are called such because they act under the direction of God. A jiva can have a very beautiful form, but if they are self-centered and desiring to exploit everything for their own pleasure then the Gita declares them to be a demon.Lord Nrisimha-deva has a fearsome appearance, but He chose that form to simultaneously fulfill the wishes of three devotees: to protect Prahlada Maharaja, to not break the boon given by Brahma, and provide a legendary fight to Vijay who had incarnated as the demon Hiranyakashipu due to the curse of the Kumaras.
>>19967744MORE LIKEharakiri general
>>20006667Not by our timescale. I have heard from some devotees that Lord Chaitanya's rare appearance circumvents the scheduled appearance of Lord Kalki. If this is not the case, then Lord Kalki will appear towards the end of the Kali Yuga. This yuga lasts 432,000 years by our perception of time, and it has gone on for approximately 5000 years already. So if Kalki-deva is coming, it will be in about 428,000 years.
>>19973477>Krishna is a demon>Buddhist text Jataka says buddha was krishna is previous birthWot m8
>>19974437you're an embarrassment
>>19967744im krsn next incarantion i guess
>>20012280If you were, you would be certain. But purify your life and your desires and Krishna can empower you to do many wondrous things.
