|
|
Post by vs on Jun 19, 2009 13:02:00 GMT -6
''Well I think we are perhaps dealing with a misunderstanding here. That passage had nothing to do with sadhakas or parikaras. It is about whether Krsna maintains his saravjnatva even when he is mugdha.''
Yeah, I know. That was my point. In relation to the topic of this thread "is theism and pre-requisite for raganuga sadhan?"... the point being that atheists would question/doubt that there is any being that is "sarva-gyata".
The passage has to be read in context with the topic of the thread.
Yet such type of conceptions are laced throughout vaishnava literature, which brings me to the next question:
Which type of vaishnava literature would you recommend for atheists interested in raganuga sadhan as a modality?
aradhyo bhagavati vrajesh tanayaas tad dham radha kundam
|
|
|
|
Post by madanmohandas on Jun 19, 2009 14:45:40 GMT -6
I understood Visvanatha's point, which he supports from Bilvamanga's verse, stating that Krsna is symultaneously omniscient and ignorant and can therfore respond according to the bhakta's desire.
Baladeva Vidyabhusan proposes in his Prameya Ratnavali that Krsna is symultaneously all-pervading and situated in one place; the example he gives is how many devotees meditating on Krsna in various parts of the world see him in one and the same form.
And if the gopis of Vraja are ignorant of Krsna's status, then how would they have uttered such remarks as;
na khalu gopikAnandano bhavAnakhiladehinAmantarAtmadrk/
vikhanasArthito vizvaguptaye sakha udeyivAn sAtvatAM kule//
Surely, you are no son of a cowherdess,
you are the inner witness of all embodied beings;
solicited by the creator, you have appeared, O friend,
in the Satvata clan to protect the world.
Bhag. 10.31. 4
|
|
|
|
Post by vs on Jun 19, 2009 14:53:07 GMT -6
I understood Visvanatha's point, which he supports from Bilvamanga's verse, stating that Krsna is symultaneously omniscient and ignorant and can therfore respond according to the bhakta's desire. Baladeva Vidyabhusan proposes in his Prameya Ratnavali that Krsna is symultaneously all-pervading and situated in one place; the example he gives is how many devotees meditating on Krsna in various parts of the world see him in one and the same form. And if the gopis of Vraja are ignorant of Krsna's status, then how would they have uttered such remarks as; na khalu gopikAnandano bhavAnakhiladehinAmantarAtmadrk/ vikhanasArthito vizvaguptaye sakha udeyivAn sAtvatAM kule// Surely, you are no son of a cowherdess, you are the inner witness of all embodied beings; solicited by the creator, you have appeared, O friend, in the Satvata clan to protect the world. Bhag. 10.31. 4 Divyonmada. Crazy persons are liable to say anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 19, 2009 14:56:20 GMT -6
'' Well I think we are perhaps dealing with a misunderstanding here. That passage had nothing to do with sadhakas or parikaras. It is about whether Krsna maintains his saravjnatva even when he is mugdha.'' Yeah, I know. That was my point. In relation to the topic of this thread "is theism and pre-requisite for raganuga sadhan?"... the point being that atheists would question/doubt that there is any being that is "sarva-gyata". The passage has to be read in context with the topic of the thread. Yet such type of conceptions are laced throughout vaishnava literature, which brings me to the next question: Which type of vaishnava literature would you recommend for atheists interested in raganuga sadhan as a modality? aradhyo bhagavati vrajesh tanayaas tad dham radha kundamMostly poetry, drama, songs, various rasasvada sorts of things. Let an atheist enjoy the humanistic sides of Krsna and Radha. It will dawn on him or her gradually that there is something special or unusual about them. They kind of stick in one's memory and even though one does not believe in any god or afterlife one still wants to think about them. No need wasting one's time on the philosophical or theological works. None of that really matters unless you think there is truth of some sort in the scriptures. And of course we will need to write some new literature. A literature that presupposes/recognizes the benefits of lila-smarana or mantra smarana even if one does not believe that there is a Krsna or a Radha. By the way your verse should read aradhya bhagavati vrajesa-tanaya taddhama ... But wait, who is this daughter of Nanda? |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 19, 2009 15:02:35 GMT -6
I understood Visvanatha's point, which he supports from Bilvamanga's verse, stating that Krsna is symultaneously omniscient and ignorant and can therfore respond according to the bhakta's desire. Baladeva Vidyabhusan proposes in his Prameya Ratnavali that Krsna is symultaneously all-pervading and situated in one place; the example he gives is how many devotees meditating on Krsna in various parts of the world see him in one and the same form. And if the gopis of Vraja are ignorant of Krsna's status, then how would they have uttered such remarks as; na khalu gopikAnandano bhavAnakhiladehinAmantarAtmadrk/ vikhanasArthito vizvaguptaye sakha udeyivAn sAtvatAM kule// Surely, you are no son of a cowherdess, you are the inner witness of all embodied beings; solicited by the creator, you have appeared, O friend, in the Satvata clan to protect the world. Bhag. 10.31. 4 Divyonmada. Crazy persons are liable to say anything. Yah, a wild guess. Hyperbolic gushing resulting from the rupture of love. |
|
|
|
Post by vs on Jun 19, 2009 15:28:33 GMT -6
By the way your verse should read
aradhya bhagavati vrajesa-tanaya taddhama ...I try to write as pheonetically as possible, so ... naw. But wait, who is this daughter of Nanda? So Nanda Baba is the one ish of Braj? But my Swamini's baba has 11 lakh cows and your gwal's baba has only 9 lakh, so tell me, who then is the real ish of Braj?...  na khalu gopikAnandano bhavAnakhiladehinAmantarAtmadrk/
vikhanasArthito vizvaguptaye sakha udeyivAn sAtvatAM kule//
Surely, you are no son of a cowherdess,
you are the inner witness of all embodied beings;
solicited by the creator, you have appeared, O friend,
in the Satvata clan to protect the world.
Bhag. 10.31. 4 Divyonmada. Crazy persons are liable to say anything. Yah, a wild guess. Hyperbolic gushing resulting from the rupture of love.Exactly! aradhyo bhagavati brajesh tanayaas tad dham radha kundam!!!Jai Sri! 
|
|
|
|
Post by vs on Jun 19, 2009 16:16:37 GMT -6
What I spoken about has nothing to with prayers. I've spoken about communicating with paramatma, i.e. having a conversation. When one reaches the stage of bhava-bhakti or self-realization, the ontological truth of the relationship between paramatma and jivatma is not just philosophically understood, but it is revealed and experienced, i.e. the mind of the jiva is understood to be manifested by paramatma, therefore the self-realized yogi is able to converse with paramatma in the mind. It isn't just the mind where paramatma speaks, it is also through everyone and everything he experiences, that is the whole point of Krishna saying:Whether prayers or conversation, a raganuga sadhak is not satisfied with paramatma. That was the point. Not whether or not one's communication with their ISHT takes the form of prayer, conversation, joking, rebukes or what-not. Also, bhakti is divided into three; sadhan bhakti, bhav bhakti and prem bhakti. You are speaking of bhav bhakti, i am citing Chakravartipada in relation to sadhan bhakti. Nevertheless, a jata-rati bhakta who who's previous sadhan was of the raganuga category, would not be satisfied with communications with paramatma because paramatma is not rasik. That is Chakravartipada's point, not mine. You can take it up with him. Love ya!
|
|
|
|
Post by malati on Jun 19, 2009 17:25:21 GMT -6
Madanmohandas: I understood Visvanatha's point, which he supports from Bilvamanga's verse, stating that Krsna is symultaneously omniscient and ignorant and can therefore respond according to the bhakta's desire.
Baladeva Vidyabhusan proposes in his Prameya Ratnavali that Krsna is symultaneously all-pervading and situated in one place; the example he gives is how many devotees meditating on Krsna in various parts of the world see him in one and the same form.
And if the gopis of Vraja are ignorant of Krsna's status, then how would they have uttered such remarks as;
na khalu gopikAnandano bhavAnakhiladehinAmantarAtmadrk/
vikhanasArthito vizvaguptaye sakha udeyivAn sAtvatAM kule//
Surely, you are no son of a cowherdess,
you are the inner witness of all embodied beings;
solicited by the creator, you have appeared, O friend,
in the Satvata clan to protect the world.
Bhag. 10.31. 4
This is how I understood the topic also.
Debate: To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
V S, in replying to my "debate comment", you seem to give a negative connotation to the word. It's a neutral term.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jun 19, 2009 18:08:25 GMT -6
Here is a sweet little verse I just did today. It is from a paddhati, or guide book for practitioners, that I am translating.
sm.rte sakalakalyaa.nabhaajana.m yatra jaayate|
puru.sa.m tamaja.m nitya.m vrajaami "sara.na.m harim|| 2||
When he is remembered a person becomes
a receptacle of all noble virtues;
I go for shelter to him, Hari,
the unborn, eternal person.
One of the nice things about CV is that it is not a confessional tradition. In other words, one is not saved only if one confesses "I believe in the holy ...." or "There is no god but God ..." (I have been reading Origen's Exhortation to Martyrdom. Rather sad, in some respects. If one can't stand the pain of the torture and winds up denying Christ, one is welcomed by the denizens of hell and becomes a play thing of the Devil.) This verse implies that anyone who remembers Hari (as when hearing of him in poetry or in a play) becomes a treasure trove of auspicious traits, whether she believes or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by vs on Jun 19, 2009 18:12:51 GMT -6
Debate: To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
V S, in replying to my "debate comment", you seem to give a negative connotation to the word. It's a neutral term. Well, I didn't see anywhere where I was engaging in "argument" or opposing any point. Your comment about "losing a debate" was with regards to the meme thread and I don't recall opposing any concept there. I just said that I use the word meme as a substitute for "samskar" when in conversation with persons not-familiar with Sanskrit terminology. I acknowledged that it may be an over-extension (or perhaps under-extension) of the term understood by you, Subal and others (in connection with Dawkins and evolution). I actually was not familiar with the word "meme" until this year! I kept hearing it and reading it here and there but somehow conflated it with computer techie language. LOL! Finally I googled it and this is the first and only sentence on wiki that I read: A meme (pronounced /ˈmiːm/, rhyming with "cream"[1]), is a postulated unit or element of cultural ideas, symbols or practices, and is transmitted from one mind to another through speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena. I therefore thought, "oh ok, a unit or element of cultural ideas, symbols and practices transmitted from one mine to another..... that sounds like 'samskar' to me." And have since used it in that way. It wasn't until you and Subal started talking about Dawkins that I realized he coined the term. (And if you scroll further down on the wiki page, which I did not the first time, Dawkins' name comes up, of course) I've not read Dawkins - other than a few random articles over the years - and I've been out of the United States for a long time and hence not privy to much of the lingo used now. For example, "meme" and "modality" were two words I never heard til I returned from abroad. They were not used back in the day when I was going to college here, at least not in my field of study. So basically I just read and liked the first simple definition of meme that I came across and implemented it in my lingo as an English substitute for " samskara". But you and Subal connected the word to Dawkins (he coined it, I didn't know) and seemed to imply that one has to accept the whole nine yards of Dawkins' theories in order to use the word "meme". I'm not well read in Dawkins theories but I like the word "meme". I'm not one to debate or enjoy debate. In fact, thats why I've specifically chosen to live in an area where there are no western vaishnavas. They seem to like to debate a lot and thats just not me. I really don't care if someone is atheist or theist or if they are into Dawkins or not, or if they believe in evolution or not. I'm not for or against any of those things. I'm not even for or against Paramatma. If you want truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease." — Sent-ts'an aradhyo bhagavati brajesh (Brishabhanu Baba) tanayaas tad dham radha kundam!!!!!  |
|
