|
Post by Nitaidas on Dec 11, 2011 22:48:59 GMT -6
So jnana sunya bhakti does not have its origin in CV? In the Ramananda Samvada, this term is used and that is the reason I asked about it. Now if we call it ignorance, what do we make of its use in CC? TEXT 66 prabhu kahe, “eho bahya, age kaha ara” raya kahe,–”jnana-sunya bhakti–sadhya-sara” What can I say? Should we take KdK's words over the Goswamis'? He also got Sankara completely wrong by calling him a vivartavadin. Maybe that is where CV made its wrong turn. It let the reader's digest version of CV become the main version. Jnana-sunya bhakti is a good definition of fanaticism, it seems to me.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Dec 11, 2011 22:58:23 GMT -6
So jnana sunya bhakti does not have its origin in CV? In the Ramananda Samvada, this term is used and that is the reason I asked about it. Now if we call it ignorance, what do we make of its use in CC? TEXT 66 prabhu kahe, “eho bahya, age kaha ara” raya kahe,–”jnana-sunya bhakti–sadhya-sara” In addition, I did not get the idea of krama mukti from IGM or CV. I got in from my friend who is in the advaita tradition. Krama mukti is a fairly standard idea coming from advaita tradition. I no longer read any material coming from IGM, so I feel that it is unfair that you attribute everything I read to have its source their. Like you have already pointed out before, I have become aware of problems coming from IGM sources. The problem now seems to be in every source, so it will take time to decipher. It is generally good advice to forget everything you learned in IGM. That will never harm you and can only benefit you. Is it the only source of misinformation? No, certainly not. As far as I know Sankara never mentions anything like krama-mukti. He does say that performing naiskamya karma leads to purification of the mind, but not to mukti. When the mind is pure, liberating knowledge can arise. It is knowledge alone that brings liberation, not karma and knowledge. Bhakti is a form of knowledge. If you got that information from an advaitin it probably came from some work not written by Sankara. Remember Advaitins are often incapable of distinguishing between what is really by Sankara and what is not. Plus they can be about as ignorant as any IGMer. But IGM is still even worse. They celebrate their ignorance, And I will throw in many if not most traditional CV writers. It is rare to find a modern CV writer who has actually read Sankara or rasa-sastra, or even a little nyaya. Haridas Sastra has, of course, because he was educated from the ground up in a traditional school where one had to study that stuff. He should know better.
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Dec 12, 2011 0:20:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Dec 12, 2011 1:06:35 GMT -6
Well I do see the mention of krama-mukti in Sankara's commentary on that sutra (VS IV.3.10), but I do not see where he says it is the result of bhakti. Krama-mukti seems to refer to the liberation of those on Brahmaloka at the time of the destruction. There is nothing connecting it with bhakti as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Dec 12, 2011 4:08:30 GMT -6
What about jnana sunya bhakti?
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Dec 12, 2011 10:39:44 GMT -6
What about jnana sunya bhakti? Not empty of all knowledge. As Sri Jiva says in his comment on Sri Rupa's definition of bhakti beginning anyAbhilasitAzUnyam, with special reference to the jJAnakarmAdyanAvRtam: j JAnam atra nirbhedabrahmAnusandhAnam, na tu bhajanIyatattvAnusandhAnam tasyAvazyApekSaNIyatvAt|Knowledge here means inquiry into undifferentiated Brahman, but not inquiry into the truths about the object of worship, because that is a necessity. So when KdK says jJAna-zUnya bhakti he cannot mean free of all knowledge. The most complete definition of bhakti is that given by Baladeva in his Siddhanta-ratna which is built on top of Sri Jiva's discussion in the Sandarbhas: tathA ca hlAdasaMvidoH samavetayoH sAro bhaktiriti sidhyati|
And thus it is concluded that bhakti is the essence of pleasure and awareness inseparably joined. This awareness is knowledge. If you remove that you destroy bhakti. Both hlAda and saMvit are parts of the svarupa-zakti.
|
|
|
Post by malatimanjari on Jan 3, 2012 2:46:45 GMT -6
I just came across this thread and would like to reply to Nitaiji’s question: “I have heard from a friend whom I trust that Satyanarayana has been banished from Haridas Sastri's presence. I had no idea that there was any trouble or bad blood between them.”
Believe me, this is all false propaganda by certain people with ulterior motives. I've had some exchanges with these people myself. Just a few days ago SND Babaji brought some Rudger’s students to Sastriji Maharaja for darshan. He is a member of Maharaja's trust and also in the management committee. You can get this confirmed from Sandeep Mittal, who is now in charge of the trust, if you like.
|
|
|
Post by malatimanjari on Jan 3, 2012 3:02:59 GMT -6
I just received some photographs of that darshan a few days ago. If you like I can send them to your email address.
|
|
|
Post by cuckoo4cocopuffs on Jan 12, 2012 8:02:17 GMT -6
I don't care how potent the semen becomes. I am NOT going to put it on top of my veggie burger as a special sauce!
|
|
|
Post by cuckoo4cocopuffs on Feb 11, 2012 8:10:00 GMT -6
One question is how far back vegetarian Hindus really go. My own suspicion is that it originally was a Jain or Buddhist influence on the brahmins that caused them to give up eating flesh. Perhaps in the case of Buddhists, they felt the need to compete, since Buddhism was winning over the masses by educating them.
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Feb 11, 2012 10:28:40 GMT -6
"Strategies of Conversion: The Emergence of Vegetarianism in Post-Vedic India" at edwinbryant.org articles may address this issue for you.
|
|
|
Post by rahulhb on Sept 8, 2012 22:20:10 GMT -6
Thanks for the link , read the article , it's interesting. Personally I don't care if a devotee eats meat and am happy they are chanting and reading etc. I like the attidude many devout Sikhs or Sikh scripture have towards eating meat , indifference generally. And many i know have not considered our path simply because of the vegetarian diet "requirement" , my brother for example. How popular meat eating is in India now.
It is amazing how many devotees in my opinion waste time on animal rights activism or spend large amounts of time promoting a vegetarian diet to others. Always judging people who eat meat being very critical and arrogant towards meat-eaters. Instead they could spend better time talking about CV to a newcomer or spending time on their sadhana than get caught up with animal rights fanatics. Looking at my facebook feed nearly every day some devotee posts something very nasty about meat eaters , something along the lines that they are monsters or going to hell.
Edwin Bryant , his biography on his site states that he is simply a praticioner of yoga , quite a bit of his work seems to focus on Krishna , i have his 10th canto translation and Krishna sourcebook , he may not like to admit that he is a devotee on his site or to his students. Does anyone know if he is actually a Vaisnava , IGM , CV?
|
|
|
Post by Ldd on Jan 29, 2020 19:27:17 GMT -6
I had rumors to that affect about Satyanaryana ji, but I don't think I can comment reliably on this issue. In the book list on the website www.uttama-bhakti.org/booklist.pdf kindly see English books. It is the fourth in the list. Review of “Beef in Ancient India” Pg 200. There is another book "Scriptural Prohibitions on Meat Eating. Though Vedas are not prescriptive, prohibitions seems to be pretty prescriptive. Even Sam Harris says vegetarianism is good. The point is whether meat/beef was consumed in the vedic times by brahmanas or not and more or less there is overwhelming evidence to show that they did. All this idea of kali yuga being especially degraded because of prevalance of beef eating does not make sense to me. I don't eat meat and neither do I want to eat them, but I won't base my decision on vedic injunctions. Where is there a prohibition against anything in a Veda? First off. The wanna be donkey - scholar V Kaul must learn facts before launching out : It wasn't Haridas Sastri who wrote the book "Review of beef eating in the Ancient India." He published the book. And has published books for other writers. The book was an original refutation of one book called "Beef in the Vedas" published under Indo Aryan literature, (by a so call Bengali vaishnava Raja Rajendra Lal Mitra born 1822) When Mohandas Gandhi started the cow protection movement in Balgaon (the Go-raksha Parishad) the book was compiled by noble pundits like Dr, Umesh Chandra Pandeya, Dr. Bhagavata Dutta etc etc. (1925) It has become the book of book for cow warriors. If the ape need glasses to read, let me know. Print versions: 5000 copies Gita Press (1971) 1100 copies Sri Krishna Janma Sevastan, Mathura (1983) 2000 copies Haridas Shastri (2009) "Scriptural probihitions" was written by Maharaj-ji, and some other books that propagate the ahimsa viewpoint..
|
|
|
Post by Ldd on Jan 30, 2020 0:11:16 GMT -6
Secondly we are under Mahaprabhu, and all these vedic animal yajna do's don'ts how's why's, are not our concern. He himself dropped all his brahmana duties and chanted only Naam.
When they asked Mahaprabhu - Oh but cow killing is in Vedas? he said: But only old cows for rejuvenation. And by brahmanas who had the power of mantra..(if he knew more or less we don't know and need not waste time arguing these people, we should always support Mahaprabhu's position.)
|
|
|
Post by Ldd on Jan 30, 2020 9:24:43 GMT -6
Everyone should become independent and affluent as possible. We don't need the money and views of rich atheists and debate with them
|
|