Subject: Re: superstitions
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Manish Tandon)
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 18:33:32 GMT
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
In article #1411, Jaldhar Vyas <email@example.com> wrote:
Jaldhar, you sent me a response to my first post on this thread, but never
replied to my response to it. May I ask why??
Also I haven't seen your response to Mani either where he showed that bhakti
is infact superior to jnana and other yogas. Mani actually showed that
Shankaracharya was a Vaisnava!! Any particular reason for hiding?
|> On Sun, 23 Oct 1994, H. Krishna Susarla wrote:
|> The upanishads are part of the Veda. The Gita is part of the Mahabharata
|> which was written by Veda Vyas as the essence of the Vedas.
Sorry to tell you that Upanishads are not part of the the Vedas, rather Veda
Vyasa wrote Upanisads because he didn't feel satisfied after writing the Vedas.
FYI, this was and is agreed upon even by prominent advaita teachers.
And who told you that "Mahabharata which was written by Veda Vyas as the
essence of the Vedas"??
Please can you give me his/her email or phone #?
I would be very interested in talking to this great sage.
If however this is a child of your own frekish frenzy, let me tell you that
Mahabharat is 'itihas' i.e. history. It is an account of an actual incident
and Veda Vyasa merely helped document it. I say helped because Vyasa spoke it
and Ganesha actually did the writing, NON STOP!!! (one hundred thousand verses)
|> > This is because many of the sacrifices prescribed within these four vedas
|> > are meant for regulation of materialistic practices,
|> According to the Mimamsakas, who are the authority on these matters, the
|> Vedic rituals are of three kinds. Nitya ("daily" such as bathing etc.)
|> Naimittika("occasional" such as marriage or Diwali etc.) and Kamya ("for
|> pleasure" such as praying for a son etc.) Only the the third kind can
|> possibly be considered materialistic. One who performs the first two
|> kinds only commits no sin.
Are you drunk or what?
Since when did "marriage" and "Diwali" start to fall under the same category??
Moreover, you also seem to have some problems with the english language.
H. Krishna Susarla is saying that "many of the sacrifices prescribed" in the
Vedas are for regulation. That means, (1) if _not_ performed as per the
Vedas, they will be materialistic practices, not otherwise, and (2) Not all
Vedic rituals/sacrifices are for materialistic activities.
|> > No! This is exactly what i find so offensive about advaitist philosophy!
|> > According to advaitists, bhakti is for weaker or less intelligent people.
|> > Thus, those who are devoted to a personal God are supposedly less ignorant
|> > of the shastras!
|> Whether you find something offensive or not is irrelevant. The shastras
|> declare that Bhakti is recommended for the people of the Kali yuga
|> because they are ignorant and weak.
And to enlighten you here again, the Puranas tells us that even Brahama and
Shiva try there best to take birth as human beings on the planet earth in the
Kali Yuga, because _only_ in this age can one practice the bhakti-yoga so
easily, which is the culmination of *ALL* yogas including jnana-yoga, and
attain prema-bhakti which even they consider to be beyond 'moksha' <sigh>
|> > Nothing can be further from the truth! All of the great
|> > devotees of Krishna were bhaktas, not impersonalists.
|> Which proves nothing. It is possible to attain moksha without Krshna who
|> is only one of the saguna forms of Brahman.
I suggest that you do some homework before you say such outrageous things.
What you have said only reflects the views of some advaita schools.
According to dvaita and acintya-bhedaabheda-tattva, both nirguna and saguna
brahman are merely two of the several features of the 'Bhagavan' -- the Supreme
Personality of Godhead who is the Absolute Truth.
|> > If we are to interpret the scriptures literally, then we have to believe
|> > that God is personal. This is a conclusion that is easily evident from
|> > reading Srimad Bhagavatam or Bhagavad Gita.
|> Or from the Vedas, or the Vedangas, or the Upavedas, or the Mahabharata or
|> the Ramayana or the Puranas or the Dharmashastras. I do not deny that
|> God can be personal. The trouble is that while some shastras proclaim
|> that Vishnu is supreme, others proclaim the glories of Shiva or Devi or
|> Ganesh. If the Personal aspect of God is all their is, some of the
|> shastras contradict each other. The Bhagavat is only one of 18 puranas.
|> The Gita is only one small part of the Mahabharata. One has to look at
|> the whole picture rather than small pieces.
Although the issue of some scriptures claiming petty demigods like Shiva, Durga,and even Ganesha! as god is extremely *foolish*, nonetheless a lot of ignorant
people uphold such views.
So, I will deak with it _explicitly_ in seperate post.
(please read "Is this irreligious" if interested)
|> > If you call yourself a follower of the Vedic shastras, then where do you
|> > get off expressing an idea that is so obviously in conflict with them?
|> And where do you get off expressing ideas in conflict with the other
|> puranas? (Which were also written by Veda Vyas.)
There is NO conflict in any of the Puranas.
Please substanciate your claim BY CITING VERSE(S) FROM SOME PURANA(S) in case
you disagree with my statement and I will show you why you are wrong.
|> > In the Gita, Krishna very clearly tells Arjuna "Worship Me, Be completely
|> That's because devotion won't get him to merge with the impersonal
|> Brahman. Only Jnana can do that.
FYI, a devotee considers it GREAT SIN to even contemplate about the idea of
merging with the impersonal brahman which is only an inferior aspect of the
Param-Purusham -- Bhagavan.
|> I did not suggest that all Bhaktas were ignorant and week. I said Bhakti
|> is neccessary for those who are ignorant and week. For those who are not
|> it is optional.
hmmm... Please also say that Brahma, Shiva etc. are all ignorant and week
(since the Puranas tell that they perpetually worship the Supreme Lord but
still desire to be born as human beings in the Kali-yuga to attain the highest
perfection of prema-bhakti).
<Also in a later post you wrote>
|> Why was Bhakti recommended for the Kali yuga? Because most people of this
|> are weak and they need it's support. Those who are strong in intellect
|> and knowledge of the shastras have no need for it, which is why Karma yoga
|> is mentioned seperately.
As usual, you continue with your rantings.
I told you before and Mani even cited Shankaracharya's ref. to prove that
bhakti yoga is superior to all yogas including jnana-yoga.
Once more you say this without citing any ref. from a Vedic scripture and
you will automatically qualify for the _liar_ of the year award.
|> > Even Lord Krishna, the Supreme God confirms this in the Gita. Why would
|> > you want any other opinion than God's opinion?
|> In Gita 12:4, he says that the path of those who are not bhaktas is
|> much harder than bhakti. He doesn't say it is impossible.
Well that's a very smart move trying to use the Bhagavad Gita against people
who are actually trying to follow it. Let me give you some food for thought.
18.55 "One can understand Me (mam) as I am, as the Supreme Personality
of Godhead, only be devotional service (bhaktya). And when one
is in full consciousness of Me (tatomam) by such devotion, he
can enter into the kingdom of Godhead."
13.13 "I shall now explain the knowledge, knowing which you will taste the
eternal. Brahman, the spirit, beginningless and subordinate to Me
(mat-param) lies beyond the cause and effect of the material world."
Advaitans Note: Krishan _explicitly_ says "Brahman is subordinate to Me".
|> > The Pandavas became renounced (maybe this makes them official sannyasins,
|> > i don't know) only because their only desire was to go to Krishna.
|> > It is confirmed in the Bhagavatam that they do indeed, go to Krishna's
|> > abode. The Bhagavatam does not say that they went to an impersonal God.
|> The mere fact that they went to Krishnas abode does not prove there is
|> nothing beyond Krshnas abode. Bhakti is good becaus it encourages people to
|> persue Moksha. But it is not the cause of Moksha. Only jnana is.
You keep repeating the same *bogus* claim over and over again.
Read "Bhakti DOES NOT encourages one to pursue Moksha. Real Bhaktas
consider it GREAT SIN to even contemplate about the idea of
Moksha as merging with the impersonal brahman."
The gopis infact use to curse Brahma for creating _eyelids_ which blink and
thus caused them to loose sight of Lord Krishna momentarily.
FYI, according to itihas, it was the great learned sages, read JNANA-YOGIS, of
the treta yuga who asked for this benidiction from Lord Rama to associate with
the Lord in more personal pastimes and thus ended up as gopis with Krishna.
|> > No, look back at the point I made about the word nirguna, which means
|> > "without estimation of qualities" (having all unlimited qualities).
|> Nirguna means nothing of the sort. Look in any Sanskrt dictionary.
According to the Vedic scriptures, the 'tri-lokas' (the three worlds) have
three 'gunas', sato, rajo, and tamo.
Since we live in this mritu-loka (earth), we do not know what is there
beyond the three lokas. So some concluded that that must be nirguna, i.e.
devoid of the three gunas. Nirguna can have transcendental qualities (gunas)
and it would still be technically correct to call it devoid of qualities since
the very intent of concieving something beyond the three lokas was to think
of something which is not polluted by the three gunas.
As you yourself said in another place "Even the Nirguna Brahman has the
attributes of Sat, Chit, and Ananda".
(The fact that Nirguna Brahman only has Sat and Cit and NOT Ananda is a
different issue and can be discussed seperately, if you want.)
Also since you advaitans try to use your concocted logic that says since the
Brahman is infinite, it cannot have a form, since that would mean that it
is bound, read the following quote.
"When we say something is infinite, we signify only that we are
not able to concieve the ends and bounds of the thing named."
- Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) English philosopher
Read some book on the metaphysics of Infinity and maybe your mind will come
out of its limited thinking.
|> > According to Swami Prabhupada, meat eaters are supposed to offer their food|> > to Kali. This supposed to be a regulatory practice for people who are
|> > too ignorant to give up meat.
|> Then he doesn't know what he is talking about. There is no requirement
|> that meat-eaters offer their food to Kali. It just so happens that
|> certain (not all) Kali Bhaktas eat meat.
Carrying your line of argument a little further, there is no requirement that
_Rapers_ should offer their victim to someone before or after the crime, and
the same can be said about robbers, murderers, etc.
Your argument is as baseless as an argument can be.
And let me tell you it is you _again_ who have no idea of what you are talking
about. Srila Prabhupada knew very well what he was talking about.
|> > Krishna would never accept such an offering. And
|> > the conclusion of the Gita is that Krishna is the Supreme God.
|> And the conclusion of the Chandi Patha of the Markandeya Purana (also
|> written by Veda Vyas.) is that Durga Mata is the supreme God.
As I said earlier, cite any verse that you think appropriate and I will show
the flaw in the logic that lead you to such conclusion from that verse.
Or else, if you are just saying this because someone told you that such and
such Purana says that Durga is supreme God, than I feel soory for you.