tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-874569402678296044.post2462743823052759872..comments2024-01-04T02:13:08.221-08:00Comments on Gandharva's Blog: GOD-PERSONAL OR IMPERSONAL????Dr.Chinmay Kulkarnihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15174639899619103683noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-874569402678296044.post-63801980029744390282008-04-26T10:21:00.000-07:002008-04-26T10:21:00.000-07:00interpretation of harer namait made me laugh for s...interpretation of harer nama<BR/>it made me laugh for some time seeing your friends interpretation of harer nama which is there in your blog.<BR/><BR/>keep preaching. <BR/><BR/>nama nishthaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-874569402678296044.post-86150651381306774812008-04-25T09:52:00.000-07:002008-04-25T09:52:00.000-07:00mamaivanso jiva-lokejiva-bhutah sanatanahmanah-sas...mamaivanso jiva-loke<BR/>jiva-bhutah sanatanah<BR/>manah-sasthanindriyani<BR/>prakrti-sthani karsati<BR/>(chapter 15,text 7)<BR/>The Bhagavad Geeta<BR/><BR/>Translation--the living entities in this conditioned world are my external fragmental parts.Due to conditioned life,they are struggling very hard with the six senses,which include the mind.<BR/><BR/>Purport--in this verse the identity of the living being is clearly given.the living entity is the fragmental part and parcel of the supreme lord-eternally.it is not that he assumes individuality in his conditioned life and in his liberated state becomes one with the supreme lord.it is clearly said,'sanatanah'.according to the vedic version,the supreme lord manifests and expands himself in innmerable expansions,of which primary expansions are called visnu-tattva and secondary expansions are called the living entities. <BR/><BR/>Brahmano hi pratishthaham<BR/>amrtasyavyayasya ca<BR/>sasvatasya ca dharmasya<BR/>sukhasyaikantikasya ca<BR/>(chapter 14,text 27)<BR/>The Bhagavad Geeta<BR/><BR/>Translation--And I am the basis of this impersonal brahman,which is immortal,imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.<BR/><BR/>Purport--The constitution of brahman is imperishability, immortality,eternity and happiness.brahman is the beginning of transcendental realization,paramatma,the supersoul ,is the middle,the second stage in transcendental realization,and the supreme personality of godhead is the ultimate realization of the absolute truth.Therefore,both paramatma and the impersonal brahman are within the supreme person.<BR/><BR/>(A fragment of the original purport by Gurudev Srila Prabhupada is presented here). <BR/><BR/>Na tv evaham jatu nasam<BR/>na tvam neme janadipah<BR/>na caiva na bhavisyamah<BR/>sarve vayam atah param<BR/>(chapter 2,text 12)<BR/>The Bhagavad Geeta<BR/><BR/>Translation--Never was there a time when I did not exist,nor you,nor all these kings;nor in future shall anyone of us cease to be.<BR/><BR/>Purport--the mayavadi theory that after liberation the individual soul,seperated by the covering of maya,or illusion,will merge into the impersonal brahman and loose its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Krishna,the supreme authority.Nor is the theory that we only think of individuality in the conditioned state supported herein.Krishna clearly says herein that in the future also the individuality of the lord and others,as it is confirmed in the 'upnisads',will continue eternally.This statement of Krishna is authoritative because Krishna cannot be subject to illusion.If individuality were not a fact,then Krishna would not have stressed it so much--even for the future.<BR/><BR/>(A fragment of the original purport by Gurudev Sril <BR/>Avyaktam vyaktim apannam<BR/>manyante mam abbudhayah<BR/>param bhavam ajananto<BR/>mamvyayam anuttamam<BR/>(Chapter7,text 24)<BR/>The Bhagavad Geeta<BR/><BR/>Translation--Unintelligent men,who do not know me perfectly,think that I the supreme personality of Godhead, Krishna,was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality.Due to their small knowledge,they do not know my higher nature,which is imperishable and supreme.<BR/><BR/>Purport--Those who are worshippers of demi-gods have been described as less intelligent persons,and here the impersonalists are similarly described.Lord krishna in his impersonal form is here speaking before Arjuna,and still,due to ignorance,impersonalists argue that the supreme Lord has no form.<BR/><BR/>Explanations by 'yamunacharya','shankaracharya',Lord Brahma and from The great text Srimad Bhagavatam have been incorporated in the original purport by Gurudev Srila Prabhupada.<BR/><BR/>(A fragment of the original purport by Gurudev Srila Prabhupada is presented here). <BR/>For indepth knowledge on the subject refer to "The bhagavad geeta--as it is" by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada.<BR/>1968 October 22 : "Krishna is so nice. He is carrying the whole planetary system as Sankarsana, but at the same time, He agrees to be carried by His devotees as small as a devotee can carry Him."<BR/>Prabhupada Letters :: 1968 <BR/><BR/>1972 October 23: "There must be regularly classes and reading, chanting 16 rounds, going for kirtana. This is our programme for enthusiasm, if you do not follow it, what can I do? If everyone follows strictly, there will be no lacking for anything."<BR/>Prabhupada Letters :: 1972 <BR/><BR/>1970 April 23 : "One who is Krishna Conscious although possessing everything in the world, he is perfect spiritualist, and one who has renounced everything, but lacking Krishna Consciousness, he is a gross materialist."<BR/>Prabhupada Letters :: 1970 <BR/><BR/>1970 April 23 : "One who is Krishna Conscious although possessing everything in the world, he is perfect spiritualist, and one who has renounced everything, but lacking Krishna Consciousness, he is a gross materialist."<BR/>Prabhupada Letters :: 1970 <BR/><BR/>PranjalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-874569402678296044.post-76416504418061051252008-04-24T13:12:00.000-07:002008-04-24T13:12:00.000-07:00My Views on the Discussion so farFrankly, I feel t...My Views on the Discussion so far<BR/><BR/>Frankly, I feel that the debate on this topic is as meaningless as saying that 3+4=7 or 5+2 = 7 when we know that either way you're going to get seven.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Mr. Chinmay, I went through your blog and frankly, i find that both of u are talking like 2 kids fighting over a candy. There is absolutely nothing I would call as informative in it and it is full of insults to our great sages.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Let me ask all of you, those who wish to debate on personal/impersonal, Do you go to temple? Do you have god's wallpapers, calendars in your houses, yet some of you bow to the energy of the sun, feel the aura around u as a sign of God (shakti).<BR/><BR/>What does that indicate? Its just that mind can easily focus on something which we can picturize and artists over the ages have given a human form to god. But is God really human? I don't know... maybe. He took many forms... a fish (matsya), a lion (narsingha), human, etc. Maybe if people were asked to worship an animal or a non living object, they might find it hard to. Hence human form is most conceivable.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Next thing is, why is it said that Bhakti yoga is the most powerful, because with the help of chanting we can think of god. He can be in our mind always. Likewise, there is karma yoga, through knowledge, etc.<BR/><BR/>The people who argue who is superior and who is a 'fanatic' (with reference to the blog) are really that qualified? How many of you actually know Srimad Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam to make such remarks on sages? It is very sorry to say that people with very little knowledge argue just for the sake of false pride.<BR/><BR/>Just imagine the amount of time you people are wasting with such fruitless discussions, which have no end. God doesn't force us to believe anything. <BR/><BR/>Accept him in whichever form u like (human, animal, non living) or even formless. No matter which one you choose, if you have dedication to meet the supersoal, eventually u will attain moksha. It doesnt matter how u reach the goal, important thing is that u do.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Some people believe that by praying to a clay-made murti, they will attain moksha. Some people pray to shakti. Some people also pray to a plastic wallpaper. Will anyone of them attain moksha? I think, all !!<BR/><BR/>It doesn't matter how you conceive God... Important thing is to surrender your to God. Do your karma with out any desire for its fruits. <BR/><BR/>I am no scholar. I am not even a learned person. Yet there are a few points I have learned from Gita and that is that it is upto YOU how you wish to follow your journey. You're the master here... the Lord will be your guide. Important thing is to follow God's teachings. Address him in whichever form, whichever name you desire. He will still be there for you.<BR/><BR/>Call him Ram/Krishna/Vishnu/Shiva or whatever... even a rock... it doesn't matter. Important thing is to do your karma, for which you're here.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Sadly, people don't understand this basic truth... They spend their lives arguing over faith or sect or belief or religion and forget their basic aim. More so, they forget their religious teachings and get misguided by their sect leaders. Instead of being united through a powerful tool like Srimad Bhagavad gita, we divide ourselves on the basis of faith. We argue and call each other as fanatics.... we split our identity on the basis of dwaita and adwaita and create humanly barriers between us.<BR/><BR/>.... and finally we breed hatred in our hearts and abuse each other.... <BR/><BR/><BR/>What a pity... what a shame !Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-874569402678296044.post-49889092993236841182008-04-24T13:11:00.000-07:002008-04-24T13:11:00.000-07:00we respect Yogis more than normal people.............we respect Yogis more than normal people...........<BR/><BR/>The first law of a yogi is that he seeks the divine and is not having ego.. hence he does not seek your respect.. wether you respect him or not is of no concern to him...<BR/><BR/><BR/>Shankaracharya is basically biggest imporsonalist......... converted a lot of impersonalists in His lifetime.<BR/><BR/>I dont believe in conversions.. That is what I have known.. and reject that conversion philosophy completely..<BR/><BR/>there has to be transformation and spiritual transformation is not just had by getting a certificate, putting a label, wearing some dress or speaking something..<BR/>It is real transformation from inside.. mind, body, intelligence, and ego are purified and trasformed in order to have a divine nature..<BR/><BR/>Adopting a particualr dress, speaking a particualr language, wearing some symbols are all external things and are not that important.. many times it serves no significant purpose.. By converting you change a person only externally and not internally.. organisation.. there is nothing spiritual in all this.. its all physical, vital and mental level..<BR/>I am sure Chatianya Mahaprabhu was not such a person becaus eany such person is not spiritually transformed.. just having external labels.. <BR/><BR/>Even Ramakrishna, Aurobindo, Yogananda Paramhansa all have delved ont he sound vibration of the Lord or his names in mantras for their spiritual paths... You are not the only one.. <BR/>Yogis have fabricated Gita hundreds of times 2 put their view n not Krishna's<BR/><BR/>Who has fabricated and where?... proof?... verse to have been fabricated... Is it rellay the other one who has fabricated or is it your source which is fabricated one?<BR/><BR/>We should not simply beat around the bush.. Provide proofs.. When I stated to someone in a post somewhere to somebody that his version of the GITA is tampered with.. I gave proofs and evidence... "brahma-nirvana" translated as Goloka and so on.. <BR/>You have mentioned in your blog<BR/>सर्वधर्मान्परित्यज्य मामेकं शरणं व्रज अहं त्वां सर्वपापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि मां श्रुच: <BR/>Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me..........................................<BR/><BR/>this is classic example of fabrication - dharma has no counterpart in English.. If you see the versions of Sri Chinmayananda, Sri Aurobindo.. even in English they have used dharma... and clearly explained the concept of dharma in commentary<BR/><BR/>the nearest word could be duty - but even that is not close enough to the sanskrit word dharma... and that is why you wont even find it translated as duty in such genuine translations<BR/><BR/>There is no word as religion in sanskrit... Religion is a concept introduced by semetic religions (christianity & islam)<BR/><BR/>The Sanskrit term Dharma means the law of being... <BR/>ex - dharma of fire is heat and light & dharma of ice is cool<BR/><BR/>it also include duties and obligation<BR/>it also includes code of conduct, morality, aims and missions in life..<BR/>all othr things such as brahman is gods sun-rays and all is ridiculous and drastic mis-interpretation and mis-translation.. If its really so then its in contrast to what the upanishads say... so it would be an insult to the scruiptrues if we say such things and mis-interpret accrroding to our fancies and all..<BR/><BR/>Infact it makes no sense.. there is nothing expressed in impersonal brahman.. no rays...<BR/>everything is there but unexpressed..<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>When you talk of bhakti...<BR/>the true bhakti is something else..<BR/>its not only crying and dancing<BR/><BR/>read the lives of Sri Aurobindo, vivekananda, ramakrishna, Yogananda.. you will see real Bhakti that led their lives.. So called Bhakti without spiritual understanding or gyana is not true bhakti.. and there can be no true spiritual understanding without devotion... <BR/><BR/>Raj d gr8Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-874569402678296044.post-82365052941905185732008-04-24T11:49:00.000-07:002008-04-24T11:49:00.000-07:00(harer nama harer nama harer nama iva kevalamkalau...(harer nama harer nama harer nama iva kevalamkalau nasty eva nasty eva nasty eva gatir anyatha)<BR/><BR/>The name f d Lord.... OM has been described in d Gita to be d sound vibration of d supreme & d ppl who meditate or worship even the Absolute impersonal aspect repeat this sound vibration..<BR/><BR/>OM - is not just any mundane mantra.. Infact it can be heard in meditation and even in spiritual visions during sleep if your conciousness reaches the higher stages..<BR/><BR/>Many ppl who follow the even the impersonal aspect hear that sound duing meditation.. some others hear it during visions in sleep... the sound mostly is defeaning and it feels as if the whole universe is going to explod.. ears feel defeaned & exploding... with unlimited joy and satisfaction & light<BR/><BR/>In the gita it is mentioned<BR/>"Any one unttering the indestructible mono-syllable OM, the transcendental sound vibration of the Supreme, remembering me continously thus relinquishing their body in this way achieves the Supreme goal.."<BR/><BR/>And majority of the spiritualist follow this advice.. Hence they repeatedly utter OM.. repeat phrases such as OM shanti, Hari OM, OM OM..<BR/><BR/>every vedic verse contains OM in it..Every vedic Mantra starts and end by OM..<BR/><BR/>whatever chaitanya mahaprabhu has said - whats the issue in that.. Its followed by all spiritual organisations.<BR/><BR/><BR/>(those Yogis who don't chant God's name ,generally call God nirgun ,niraakaar<BR/><BR/>dear friend you make wrong assumptions & henc gt wrng ans confusing yourself & everybody else..<BR/><BR/>Chant - they donot chant mechanically..... they chant spiritually ... the hear the trancendental vibration... have that most precious spiritual experience of hearing the trancendental OM... and then they repeat it..<BR/><BR/>thats why I said, that to comment both sided you need knowledge of the other side..<BR/>Do you know, that ppl who go deep into samadhi are called back by slowly chanting OM into their ear... many transcendentalists repeat OM OM during meditations...<BR/><BR/>So whats the controversy hereAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-874569402678296044.post-73380601800792446942008-04-24T10:38:00.000-07:002008-04-24T10:38:00.000-07:00As per Yajur Veda God is impersonal. We can see Go...As per Yajur Veda God is impersonal. We can see Godly qualities in creation, then God becomes personal.<BR/><BR/>Bharat BhushanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-874569402678296044.post-12528209864353884442008-04-24T10:36:00.001-07:002008-04-24T10:36:00.001-07:00God is personal, impersonal and beyond that. He ca...God is personal, impersonal and beyond that. He cannot be limited to personal or impersonal. But it is easier for humans to think of him as personal. Of the biographies of self realised people that I have read, they meditate on gods personal form and hence "see" him in his personal form. But the feelings of Bhakti and devotion that they feel for him is not personal. Its impersonal. So there is not going to be a solution to this question.<BR/><BR/>Like Krishna says: 10.42<BR/><BR/>atha va bahunaitena<BR/>kim jnatena tavarjuna<BR/>vistabhyaham idam krtsnam<BR/>ekamsena sthito jagat<BR/><BR/>"But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe." <BR/><BR/>VasudevAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-874569402678296044.post-19051363288358669192008-04-24T10:36:00.000-07:002008-04-24T10:36:00.000-07:00@ rajOur question is : which is Supreme-personal o...@ raj<BR/>Our question is : which is Supreme-personal or impersonal??<BR/><BR/>Wrong question and hence you are getting wrong answers.. GITA, vedas and upanishads have all mentioned in different ways.. YOu must have heard of the owrd SATCHIDDANANDA - the Absoute Supreme<BR/>The absolute being has three aspects SAT CHIT ANANDA.. and none of them is greater or smaller.. these three are integrated like the particle wave theory both simultaneously true..<BR/><BR/>This question is not wrong. In fact this type of questions have been the subject matter of discussion between King Parikshit and Shukadeva Gosvami.<BR/>The word Sat-chit-Ananda are followed by word vigraha in the following verse from Bramha samhita:<BR/><BR/>Ishvarah paramah krishnah, sac-cid-änanda-vigrahah<BR/>anädir ädir govindah sarva-kärana-käranam<BR/>"Krishna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes."<BR/><BR/>Its a fact that any tom, dick and harry can come and claim his self concocted philosophy to be perfect. That is why we require to quote and verify from time to time from scriptures. Its said in scriptures that one should see this world from Shastra-Chakshu(That is in the light of scriptural injunctions) and try to make advancement in spiritual life by understanding philosophy from Guru-Sadhu-Shastra. <BR/>@raj<BR/>u have said that less intelligent people fight on issue that God is personal or impersonal. i reject it totally.many gr8 sages,devotees,Yogis have discussed this issue.<BR/>- Who has discussed and where?....... what is ur defination of gr8<BR/>I can show you a dozen verses in BG, Bhagwat & Narada Bhakti sutra where arguments and debates have been discouraged..<BR/><BR/>There are numerous examples in shastra where gr8 sages, devotees, yogis have discussed this issue. The most famous and noteworthy being the discussion between King Parikshit and Shukadeva gosvami in the form of Srimad Bhagavatam. Also queen Devahuti inquires from Lord Kapila and then there is discussion on this subject. Sanatana Gosvami, Rupa Gosvami enquire from Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and again there is diccussion on this question only.<BR/>Gita advocates humble and submissive inquiry from a higher source of Knowledge....<BR/>tad viddhi pranipaatena pariprashnena sevaya <BR/><BR/>you are right in that dry and inconclusive arguments are discouraged as the famous verse in Mahabharata says....<BR/>tarko aprathistah shrutayo vibhinnah<BR/>nasav rishir yasya matam na bhinnam<BR/>dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhayam<BR/>mahajanah yena gatah sa panthah<BR/><BR/>One should follow in footsteps of Great personalities and How do you know who is great. The answer comes from scriptures. One who is living his life as per the injunctions of the scripture is Great. <BR/>@ raj<BR/>Who are you to decide whether GOD is impersonal or personal.. rejecting one and accepting the other.. Do you think you are too great to accept and reject when the things are mentioned in the scriptures and have been realised by great sages since time immemorial .. Is is going to make a difference to GOD?... <BR/><BR/>I am a sincere seeker of absolute truth and I am sure Krishna will reveal and is revealing Himself to me. I don't think I am too great or rejecting or accepting from scriptures. I am just reading scriptures in the parampara under the guidance of Guru, sadhu, Shastra.<BR/>I don't need any certificate from you as in your words Realization speaks for itself.<BR/><BR/>Its a fact that by shouting, some false thing can not become true. But you should also remember that. Please Kindly tell me why you loose patience as soon as we start discussing anything. lets discuss philosophy only as your sentimental attacks will not affect or help anyone. <BR/><BR/>RahulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-874569402678296044.post-41846923128940322822008-04-24T10:35:00.000-07:002008-04-24T10:35:00.000-07:00SPIRITUALITY IS ALL ABOUT REALISING.. NOT FIGHTING...SPIRITUALITY IS ALL ABOUT REALISING.. NOT FIGHTING OR ARGUMENTING<BR/><BR/><BR/>Exactly.... and with this i would like to ask all the members who wish to debate here to refrain from any personal attacking / mudslinging as we've seen in other threads. Let there be peaceful discussions only. <BR/><BR/>Whether you accept others' point-of-view or not, learn to live with it.<BR/><BR/>DestinyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-874569402678296044.post-26852132566040439332008-04-24T10:34:00.000-07:002008-04-24T10:34:00.000-07:00personally prefer Advaitha and Dwaitha as referenc...personally prefer Advaitha and Dwaitha as reference when we talk about Soul and god... <BR/><BR/>arawindAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-874569402678296044.post-7230347313346913092008-04-24T10:33:00.000-07:002008-04-24T10:33:00.000-07:00God is definetly not personal...soul and God r ent...God is definetly not personal...soul and God r entirely different <BR/><BR/>arawindAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-874569402678296044.post-44062232299582494832008-04-24T10:32:00.000-07:002008-04-24T10:32:00.000-07:00dont care about personal impersonal.. Absolute bei...dont care about personal impersonal.. Absolute being is more important.. personal & impersonal is secondary issue.. I dont want to dictate what GOD is and what he is not... I think instead of arguing - if you keep on chanting and sincerely pray him to reveal his both aspects.. won't it be better?<BR/><BR/>All I was concerened is that man has limitations and he wants to impose the limitations on him - then only he can recognise HIM..<BR/><BR/>ex - A person who is greedy for GOLD will believe that LORD must be having a lot of gold & jewels on his body.. thats impotant for him<BR/><BR/>Personality means something peculiar that we can recognise.. How will you recognise LORD... by attributes... The Lord is free of attributes(beyond attributes - duality) and he is also free to use attributes when he requires.. colour of dress, shape of body, age of body, type of physical form, mental qualities, emotional qualites..<BR/><BR/>I said our relationship can be personal... relationship with the divine being is more sweeter if its personal.. Ananda potion of Sachiddananda - leela of the Lord...<BR/>The Lord is beyond all forms.. He just uses forms to have leelas.. for Ananda or divine bliss<BR/><BR/><BR/>Our question is : which is Supreme-personal or impersonal??<BR/><BR/>Wrong question and hence you are getting wrong answers.. GITA, vedas and upanishads have all mentioned in different ways.. YOu must have heard of the owrd SATCHIDDANANDA - the Absoute Supreme<BR/>The absolute being has three aspects SAT CHIT ANANDA.. and none of them is greater or smaller.. these three are integrated like the particle wave theory both simultaneously true.. <BR/><BR/><BR/>u have said that less intelligent people fight on issue that God is personal or impersonal. i reject it totally.many gr8 sages,devotees,Yogis have discussed this issue.<BR/>- Who has discussed and where?....... what is ur defination of gr8<BR/>I can show you a dozen verses in BG, Bhagwat & Narada Bhakti sutra where arguments and debates have been discouraged... I am indulging in it because may be I am less intelligent [acc to scriptural defination]... but rather I like debating and discussing.. You can call that my hobby or even weakness<BR/><BR/>One story - There were 2 people fighting in a room - Sun is there or not...The windows of the rooms were closed so no sunlight entering the room. But they had lot of scriptures on the subject about the sun and all.. they could have easily broken the door and seen the sun if it existed, but were busy in fighting and convincing others [this is probably what we are doing]...but there was a 3rd person who was sitting there and watching the show.. he did not argue, he just went out and saw the sun... He came back inside laughing... he knew - he needed no arguments, no proofs..<BR/><BR/>Ppl discuss because the mind is active.. needs something to do - and takes on a spiritual argument... But that is not the true search of the soul for the Divine... When spiritual realisation comes - there is not time for discussion.. the experience is all-engulfing and the peety mind gets absorbed in that experience.. There is conciousness and spirituality is transmitted by conciousness...<BR/><BR/>Many sadhakas have recorded to get spiritual realisations - personal or impersonal aspect of the Lord just by coming into the conciousness of a highly realised soul.. No Arguments & No discussions..<BR/><BR/>One way to check whether wherever you are going is having true spirituality- When you are in deep crisis - even emotion/psychological...just go to the place and sit there silently or pray.. If your anarthas begin to get dissolved it means there is the spiritual consiousness there. <BR/><BR/>Especially books like savitri by Sri Aurobindo are nt meant for casual readng.. Its sadhana - spiritual practise... I have met advanced souls who had some spiritual experiences and the next morning they got the relevant verses from his book which described the conditions and meaning on experience.. They were reading it one chapter after the other and still before reading it - they got the experience.. Savitri was a spiritual journey for them.<BR/><BR/>Sri Aurobindo does not write like odinary men, saints or gurus.. His physical mind is totally silent.. He is in deepest states of higher conciousness and knowledge pours down from the higher sources.. tom dick harry wud never b able to understand <BR/><BR/>Any tom dick and harry like me and you cannot understand Sri Aurobindo so easily..<BR/>I myself can't.. whatever I gain from is some quote here and there and some easy paragraphs or explanations..<BR/><BR/>Earlier the scriptures were not given to those who were not eligible for it... Similarly a person who is ready only can understand his words.. He cannot interpret - a person who is still in the stage of interpreting will get it all wrong.. He will never understand anything form the book - saying that its too complex.. Just like Nikkin Ezzekian the great poet and professor of English Language said - I can' t understand Sri Aurobindo... Its not English"<BR/><BR/>But then there have been circumstances in life when the higher divine conciousness overwhlemes you and gives you sufficient experience in life ... that you forget all doubts, and discussions and arguments... <BR/><BR/>Understanding develops as a result of realisation - which is 1000 times better than the fake understanding developed by intellectual doubts and discussions..<BR/><BR/>You know a thing - you can't expalin why or give proofs or authenticity.. U know it and know it from your heart... Just as you need no proof to state that you exist and you live... <BR/><BR/>Its self evident.. then faith develops... the guru has said, that - walk on this path.. after 5 kms you will see a red temple... keep on walking an then after 10 kms orange temple and so on...<BR/><BR/>At first you disbelieve but walk.. then you actually see the red temple.. faith builds slowly... then come s the orange temple... faith builds more... now truth is your reference and you quote examples and experiences from your life and not just the scriptures..<BR/><BR/>One who is living his life as per the injunctions of the scripture is Great.<BR/>thats what.. the scripture is reflected in the life of such persons.. they dont need to talk to prove their worth.. Infact they are not even concerned to prove their worth... they never claim to be realised soul - because they ARE..<BR/><BR/>Only cheaters claim to be something that they are not.. If you are true - there is no claiming and proving.. You ARE and an intelligent person will be able to recognise.. You dont need to shout and blasphemise others in order to hold yourslef as true..<BR/><BR/>SA was so gentle and egoless... that there are many incidence wherein he asked forgiveness from his disciples..<BR/><BR/>One such incident- Sri AUrobindo needed something urgently.. The disciple who was taking care of that got sleepy due to mistake.. the disciples were so eager to help him and offer hims service that thye would consider it as a gift of GOD if they cud be of some use to SA.. Sri Aurobindo realised that he was sleeping and did not distrub him... After some searching he cud not find and had to wake him up.. SA felt sorry and first asked forgiveness for awaking him in his sleep.. The disciple got ashamed and quickly did the work. Even after that SA was not satisfied, he again asked forgiveness for breaking his sleep.. that disciple nearly weeps when describing this incident..<BR/><BR/>this gentleness, egolessness and simplicity are there is GOD realised soul.. love compassion..<BR/><BR/>there are many instance sof sadhakas having spiritual problems, emotional turmoils and bad thoughts.. In dreams they would get a vision of their guru and all their problems would be solved by the touch of the higher conciousness... <BR/>King Parikshit and Shukadeva Gosvami<BR/><BR/>- ya Shukadeva Goswami must have instructed Parikshit about the truth... and so do the other saints... but I am not in touch with any great sage who has argued over the issue... what I mean that personal and impersonal are two aspects of the Supreme and they are integrated.. Realisation of any single one makes it partial.. The saint may have experiences both aspects and prefer to be connect to one particular aspect.. But After just a partial realisation any body who claims that he has full knowledge - rejecting the other aspect is a rascal and a fool and is giving self imposed interpretation to the verses.<BR/><BR/>We should not decide whether GOD is impersonal or personal.. rejecting one and accepting the other.. We are not that great to accept and reject when the things are mentioned in the scriptures and have been realised by great sages since time immemorial .. Is is going to make a difference to GOD?...<BR/><BR/>Any body who say that GOD is impersonal and not personal or he is personal and not impersonal is a fool and is misinterpreting and insulting the great sages to have said such stupid things..<BR/><BR/>So the question in consideration is out of context.. Infact it shows our limited understanding of the scriptures and truth...<BR/><BR/>Actually ppl have a propensity to fight and argue.. Regarding authenticity every one claims that.. Chaitanya mahaprabhu himslef had many disciples and today many sects exists with conflicting ideologies each claiming to be the original version of chaitanya mahaprabhus message and rejecting their GOD borthers as rascals and cheaters.. The is no certificate from krishna that this is authentic source.. The only authentic source is the presnece of higher conciousness which has certian symptoms as mentioned in the scriptures...<BR/><BR/>and its far from fights, arguments, vanity, pride, egoism and desire to dominate others..<BR/>truth is not proved by shouting.. I am true , I am true... I am authentic..<BR/><BR/>A self realised soul has some symptoms according to the scriptures.. peace, calm, harmony, endless bliss, endless love for all creatures on earth, compassion....<BR/><BR/>Infact if we even stand near a self realised soul - we get purified by his presence... he has the higher conciousness in him...<BR/><BR/>If you have some bad thoughts or sever emotional conflicts.. it get dissolved in the presence of spiritually realised soul... and you become spirituallly conscious...<BR/>these symptoms are far from arguing, fighting, egoism, vanity and pride... or blashpemising others.. Sri Aurobindo never did that...<BR/><BR/>Everyone in this world claims that he is authentic and true.. there is no ceritificate provided by Krishna... the only way you can be sure is - realisation.. If you get the realisation... probably you are correct..<BR/><BR/>Its a fact that any tom, dick and harry can come and claim<BR/><BR/>thats what I have been saying all along... Its the results that matter and not the claims.. even after 500 lives of discussion and scripture reading we cannot realise personal or impersonal form.. all our discussion and authenticity is useless..<BR/><BR/>without coming out of his well a frog cannot understand.. In his well the frog can keep on claiming that he is the most truest.. we must come out of our well... regarding scripture and all.. just by shouting we cannot prove that we are understanding scripture properly...<BR/><BR/>Zakir Naik says that Muhammed is Kalki avatar.. And he has given all scriptural verses from Indian scriptures as well as Islamic ones to prove his point... even he claims that his understanding is most authentic.. he is also following his discplinic succession and holy book..<BR/>Arguing and criticising<BR/><BR/>I have never come across anywhere when Sri Auro or any realised saint has done mundane gossip in the name of spirituality or argued, criticised.. 24 hours he was immersed in the highest spiritual consiousness and bliss...<BR/><BR/>In one of his conversations<BR/>A close disciple asked a question - "........(his personal confusions)......... There is something erroneous there of which I cannot find the cause, but which has made me stand aside from the movement.."<BR/><BR/>"HPB was an amazing woman, with strong intuitions but wherein everything was mixed up...........There is a core of true spirituality there, very small, surrounded by a mass of erroneous facts and psychical data. And in time even the core becomes affected. Whilst in other men, who don't claim to be guided by perfect masters, one often finds much more spirituality, as in some Yogis and other people. Their conception is mental and ethical, not spiritual. And as ethical, it has nothing remarkable."<BR/><BR/>(this is the only place where SA has talked about any other spiritual sect and its not even criticising, just explaining the disciple and answering his question)<BR/><BR/>Bt SA was so deeply establishd in truth.. his simplicity and childlikeness.. love for all creatures ..he immediatly said to clarify : -<BR/><BR/>One must be very strong and hold on to the truth in order to resist.<BR/>It is for this reason that I am answering and not in order to speak about them. I have nothing against it nor against any of the Theosophists to all of whom I wish the best. I am not against them.<BR/><BR/>A truly realised soul is not against anybody and spontaneously his actions and thoughts are a reflection of the scriptures.. He does not need to follow it artificially, but its his basic nature. He talks and behaves with perfect divine calm and equanimity.. he does not get disturbed, does not criticise others, does not wish ill for anyone, does not fight or argue.. Each word of scripture is reflected in his life as I'v seen in Sri Auro's lif <BR/>God is personal, impersonal and beyond that. He cannot be limited to personal or impersonal <BR/><BR/>You have put it nicely.. this is exactly what I wanted to say... to majority of the common people, it is easier to have a relation to the personal form... but it is not a fixed rule.. <BR/><BR/>Moroever if we are really sincere in the personal chaturbhuja form devotion, we will develop a thirst for the all pervading pure consciousness aspect of the Supreme Divine also..no one can make it compulsory for all ppl to do as he wants to do...<BR/><BR/>otherwise we can be sure that something is wrong.. "The lord teaches you through each and every experience and each and every momment if you are readyto learn.. He is in front of your eyes -but you cannot recognise" .. this are the sayings of a self realised sage <BR/><BR/><BR/>RajAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-874569402678296044.post-27091614873355242812008-04-23T14:20:00.000-07:002008-04-23T14:20:00.000-07:00Krishna is the superme personality of Godhead. PRA...Krishna is the superme personality of Godhead. <BR/><BR/>PRANJALAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-874569402678296044.post-6785523674974756992008-04-23T14:19:00.000-07:002008-04-23T14:19:00.000-07:00he is personal . impersonal and anything and every...he is personal . impersonal and anything and everything you cant even imagine of <BR/><BR/><BR/>raja shekharAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-874569402678296044.post-1869226660338672772008-04-23T14:18:00.000-07:002008-04-23T14:18:00.000-07:00Why do we really want to put a limit to the forms ...Why do we really want to put a limit to the forms or formlessness of the Supreme power and being.. <BR/>Lord is beyong forms or formlessness..<BR/>He is beyond understanding..<BR/>The human mind can only understand what is in its reach<BR/>The supreme brahman or even the supreme being is beyond the reach of the human mind<BR/><BR/>As for me the there is no confusion.. The Lord is personal as well as impersonal<BR/><BR/>Impersonal - because he contains all the personalities of the world.... He is not limited by an ego which characterises a human personality....<BR/><BR/>When we talk of person - there is a personality, which means some defined ways, typical natures and fixed limits.. But the Lord is everything and infact beyond everything...<BR/>"Sarvam Iti Brahman"... And the Brahman is even beyond what exists which includes expressed as well as unexpressed... he is beyond all limits and exceeds even his creation...<BR/>So to say that the Lord is a fixed rigid personality - would be limiting the Lord and insulting him..<BR/><BR/>But the relaitonship is Personal<BR/>But the magic comes here.. though he is beyond everything.. but he can be percieved - still he is so sublime that we can maintain a personal relationship with him with certain typical characterstics with fixed rules and specific systems... And hence the relation is personal.. The Lord can appear to us in a way in which we can understand him.. And hence the limitation is due to our lack of understanding or capacity to recognise and connect with the Lord... <BR/>In most temples I have seen dieties of GOD..<BR/><BR/>But there are many ashrams of rishis or spiritual gurus wherein you cannot find a single diety.. may be just the picture of the guru maharaj is kept..<BR/><BR/>Why is it so - I asked?<BR/><BR/>He said - It is because we want people to connect in full with the Lord, and percieve him originally... Not get limited by the diety.<BR/>If a person sees a diety every morning.. He gets satisfied - I have seen the Lord.. But that may be a representation of the Lord or contains his conciousness<BR/><BR/>When we are talking of forms - the diety is not the original form of the Lord if any... Diety is just to hel us to connect to him.. And hence after some advancement the diety may no longer be very usefull.. You have to connect to the Lord on a deeper level...<BR/><BR/>U TALK OF THE LORD BEING IMPERSONAL - BUT YOU YOURSELF HAVE TO BECOME IMPERSONAL (LOOSE THE EGO - realise yourself as ATMAN which has no limited personality) in order to understand the Supreme Brahman or the LORD.<BR/><BR/>I would rather say Impersonal personality<BR/>and personal impersonality ...... these two words fit the concept of integrated spirituality very much.. <BR/>I would rather talk about integrated spirituality<BR/><BR/>small and ignorant minds fight over the issue, but all those who have really realised understand in a wholesome perspective...<BR/><BR/>Supreme truth is not so easy to understand and cannot be comprehended by Logic alone.. This does not mean that you should accept whatever nonsense that somebody claims to teach you authoritatively..<BR/><BR/>It means that there is a higher mind which is higher even than the viveka-buddhi and then the spiritual mind, which when develops understands these things<BR/><BR/><BR/>For ex even in science - Radiation is wave like as well ans photons - particle like... this is a irony, to Logic it can't seem both, but scietifically it is proved that electromagnetic waves are both particles and wave... But then as we understand things - it can be only one.. very diff to explain... cannot be understood by unrefined mind.. <BR/>if you are really very interested in understandiing this...<BR/>and if you have a hgh spiritual base and very stong intellect<BR/>and a good command over english language<BR/><BR/>Please read Synthesis of Yoga by Sri Aurobindo<BR/><BR/>I have till date not obtained the capacity to understand even one paragraph of what is written.. very strong intellect and higher understanding is required... but ppl can try.. <BR/>In Indian philosophy, the Absolute is conceived of as being Sat-Chit-Ananda, of the nature of pure Being, Consciousness, and Bliss.<BR/><BR/>Sat - truth - impersonal Brahman<BR/>Chit - conciousness - supersoul - consciousness<BR/>Ananda - bliss - Personal <BR/><BR/>If you worship only one out of this.. you are not accepting complete Supreme.. only parital supreme and hence whatever your philosophy it is incomplete... you want to dictate what Lord is and not accept as He is and as He wants to come to you..<BR/><BR/>The fight between arious aspects of truth is only for partially realised ppl or ppl who cant understand fully..<BR/><BR/>As Sri Aurobindo puts it, "Existence is Consciousness and there can be no distinction between them; Consciousness is Bliss and there can be no distinction between them."<BR/><BR/>" Satchchidananda contains within Itself specific modes. And although these three attributes - Sat-Chit-Ananda, existence, Consciousness, and Bliss - are in inseparable unity, each can stand in front of the others and manifest its own spiritual determinates, for each has its primal aspects or inherent self-formulations, although all of these together are original to the triune Absolute" <BR/><BR/>Raj d gr8Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-874569402678296044.post-88320551924691114342008-04-23T14:17:00.000-07:002008-04-23T14:17:00.000-07:00Well, this question has been the feeding ground fo...Well, this question has been the feeding ground for all spiritualists to ascertain whether the Supreme Being is Personal or Impersonal. It is difficult question to probe into. I am not going to assert any opinion but I will just list according to different acaryas.<BR/><BR/>The Acharyas belonging to Sankara and Vaishnava Schools both assert that Narayana is the Supreme Personality of GodHead. Of Course Acharyas belonging to Shankara school have stated that Narayana is impersonal contrary to the Vaishnava Acaryas. But one must remember some Acharyas of Sankara School of though have also revealed their interests in Personal Truth which they call as ParaBrahman<BR/><BR/>Madhusudhana Saraswati ( Acarya of Sankara School from West Bengal 15th century ) in one of his songs has expressed his opinions as follows. He says “My Lord, After experiencing the Bliss of Brahman, I am not able to concentrate on Brahman after seeing Lotus like Face of Sri Krishna”. Now what does that mean? Well, this means when he was in Advaita Bhava he was experiencing oneness and experiencing bliss in Brahman and when he transformed himself to dvaita bhava he saw Krishna’s face as more sweet… Indeed it is not possible for us to understand the reality of ParaBrahman<BR/><BR/>Even Sukadeva Goswami, Sadasiva Brahmendra, Bodhendra Saraswati (Kanchi Mutt) were absorbed in Rama Nama Chanting experiencing personal association of Sri Rama<BR/><BR/>It is very clearly said in the Gita (7th Chapter verse 19). A Great mahatma is one and very rare to find who has realized that Vasudeva is the Absolute Truth. Which clearly means Vasudeva is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. But we are so far from that stage that our conviction is not strong<BR/><BR/>Impersonal Brahman is the first realization then after realization when we become qualified enough then o only we come to Bahunam Janmanam Ante ( Gita 7:19) and realize that Sri Krishna is indeed both personal and impersonal. <BR/><BR/>BalakrishnaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-874569402678296044.post-39312265948004645292008-04-23T14:16:00.000-07:002008-04-23T14:16:00.000-07:00@ChinmayaI feel you can tell Mr. Sridhar following...@Chinmaya<BR/>I feel you can tell Mr. Sridhar following rules of sanskrit grammer in terms of interpretations of Gita by many people. Chaitanya mahaprabhu also tells this same thing to the impersonalist philosophers of Varanasi that they should take the mukhya vritti of the scriptures and not the gauna or lakshana vritti. <BR/><BR/>An interpretation of a text that adheres directly to the dictionary definitions of its words is called mukhya-vritti, and an imaginary or indirect interpretation is called lakshanä-vrtti or gauna-vritti. Srila Prabhupäda pointed out, “Sometimes … as a matter of necessity, Vedic literature is described in terms of the lakshnä-vrtti or gauna-vrtti, but one should not accept such explanations as permanent truths.” In general, one should understand Shästra in terms of mukhya-vritti.<BR/>The rule is that a word should not be understood metaphorically if its mukhya-vritti makes sense in the given context; only after the mukhya-vritti fails to convey a word's meaning may lakshanä-vritti be justifiably presumed.<BR/><BR/>Now in Bhagavagita Lord Krishna has used words like<BR/>mam = unto me<BR/>aham = I<BR/>mat = my<BR/>maya = by me<BR/>mayi = unto me<BR/>The meaning is as clear as to a small child. Krishna is refering to Himself. Where does the question of Supreme being inside Krishna comes from?<BR/>Here mukhya vritti is making complete sense that<BR/>LORD KRISHNA IS THE SUPREME PERSONALITY OF GODHEAD. <BR/>sarva-vedänta-säram hi<BR/>Srimad-bhägavatam ishyate<BR/>tad-rasämrita-triptasya<BR/>nänyatra syäd ratih kvacit<BR/><BR/>Shrimad-Bhägavatam is accepted as the essence of all Vedic literature and Vedänta philosophy. Whoever tastes the transcendental mellow of Shrimad-Bhägavatam is never attracted to any other literature.[CC madhya 25.146]<BR/>When Chaitanya mahaprabhu converted all the famous and learned impersonalist sannyasis of Benares including Prakashananda Sraswati, one of the very learned disciples of Prakashananda saraswati (Note it He was a impersonalist turned vaishnava) described that....<BR/><BR/>upanishadera karena mukhyärtha vyäkhyäna<BR/>shuniyä pandiita-lokera judäya mana-käna<BR/><BR/>Sri Caitanya Mahäprabhu explains the direct meaning of the Upanishads. When all learned scholars hear this, their minds and ears are satisfied.[CC Madhya 25.26]<BR/><BR/>sütra-upanishadera mukhyärtha chädiyä<BR/>äcärya ‘kalpanä’ kare ägraha kariyä<BR/><BR/>Giving up the direct meaning of the Vedänta-sütra and the Upanishads, Shankaräcärya imagines some other interpretation.[CC Madhya 25.27]<BR/><BR/>äcärya-kalpita artha ye pandita shune<BR/>mukhe ‘haya’ ‘haya’ kare, hridaya nä mäne<BR/><BR/>All the interpretations of Shankaräcärya are imaginary. Such imaginary interpretations are verbally accepted by learned scholars, but they do not appeal to the heart.[CC Madhya 25.28]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-874569402678296044.post-21281375006462611282008-04-23T14:15:00.000-07:002008-04-23T14:15:00.000-07:00To say He cannot be personal or He cannot be imper...To say He cannot be personal or He cannot be impersonal is limiting Him. He is limitless...<BR/><BR/>The.ConsigliariAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-874569402678296044.post-76151665108887027132008-04-23T14:14:00.000-07:002008-04-23T14:14:00.000-07:00Some people believe that God is personal brahman w...Some people believe that God is personal brahman while some believe that he is impersonal brahman. i've tried to find a reason and both the sides seem to be justifying their points very well.<BR/><BR/>At the end, what i felt was that it depends on one's belief... otherwise, there is no end to this argument. <BR/><BR/>DestinyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com