06-17-2005, 11:05 AM
sunder,
Still no coherent theory coming forth. Same old Goebbelsian refrain...
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"And to this day whoever in like manner knows It as, âI am Brahmanâ, becomes all this (universe). Even the gods cannot prevail against him, for he becomes their self. While he who worships another god thinking, âHe is one, and I am anotherâ, does not know. He is like an animal to the gods."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Firstly, this verse is clearly speaking about <b>karma-kAnDa, not raja-bhakti</b>. The two are poles apart. Only a misinformed idiot confuses the two, and you failed to recognize it. The Vedic literature often refers to karma-kandis as dwipAda pashu -- two-legged animals. Also, "devaanaam" refers to any higher being, not Godhead. The demigods are not essentially different from us in an ontological sense, etc... A clear sambandha-jnana is a sine qua non for the practice of raja-bhakti. Certainly, if a misguided person "worships" some arbitrary deity in the Mode of Ignorance (tamo bhakti), then it is a waste of time.
An Upanishad is not junk, my friend, but it becomes junk when parsed by a mayavadi interpreter, just like the example I gave previously. An MP3 file opened with a word-processor application is junk. As peasant-headed as you are, you simply cannot let go of the junk that you have been told about "bhakti". I'll repeat once more:
"aham brahmaasmi" = "I am spirit soul" = "I am not this gross or subtle body, etc" (neti neti). I am not material. <b>"Brahman" is not an object. It is an essence.</b>
A comparison is given: In order to go into the sun, we have to become fire-like. If we go in with these gross bodies, we will perish, i.e., is it not possible. Likewise, to associate and reciprocate with Godhead, we have to become <b>godly</b> (not "God", but "godly"). IOW, we have to rid ourselves of the material contamination, and extinguish False Ego. Only an idiot thinks that he becomes God Itself by some process of yoga, or "suddenly realizes" that he has always been God, but somehow forgot about it.
Take one example: Bhagavad Gita, 18:54
brahma-bhutah prasannatma
na socati na kanksati
samah sarvesu bhutesu
mad-bhaktim labhate param
<b>"One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman. He never laments nor desires to have anything; he is equally disposed to every living entity. In that state he attains pure devotional service unto Me."</b>
Note how the sense of difference is still maintained. Note how the word "labhate" is employed. And note how brahma-bhuta is a preliminary qualification after which parabhakti becomes attainable if so desired.
Excerpt from the Bhaktivedanta PURPORT:
"To the impersonalist, achieving the brahma-bhuta stage, becoming one with the Absolute, is the last word. But for the personalist, or pure devotee, one has to go still further to become engaged in pure devotional service. This means that one who is engaged in pure devotional service to the Supreme Lord is already in a state of liberation, called brahma-bhuta, oneness with the Absolute. <b>Without being one with the Supreme, the Absolute, one cannot render service unto Him. In the absolute conception, there is no difference between the served and the servitor; yet the distinction is there, in a higher spiritual sense</b>..."
Before trying to talk of Mandukya or this or that Upanishad, get your ABCs right. Get your semantics right. As Walt Whitman wrote, "We read the Bible day and night,\ You read black and I read white..."
Other than maniacally repeating yourself, why don't you try to lay out your coherent theory of Vedanta, if you have one. Tell us, if you are God, why are you in maya right now, etc. But you don't want to get into that. You only want to keep splashing mis-translated and mis-interpreted verses about "one-ness" on this thread. Just like an ignorant karma-kAnDi, the mayavadi is also an unintelligent animal. <b>The only differencce between a mayavadi and an ass is the numbber of legs.</b>
Still no coherent theory coming forth. Same old Goebbelsian refrain...
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"And to this day whoever in like manner knows It as, âI am Brahmanâ, becomes all this (universe). Even the gods cannot prevail against him, for he becomes their self. While he who worships another god thinking, âHe is one, and I am anotherâ, does not know. He is like an animal to the gods."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Firstly, this verse is clearly speaking about <b>karma-kAnDa, not raja-bhakti</b>. The two are poles apart. Only a misinformed idiot confuses the two, and you failed to recognize it. The Vedic literature often refers to karma-kandis as dwipAda pashu -- two-legged animals. Also, "devaanaam" refers to any higher being, not Godhead. The demigods are not essentially different from us in an ontological sense, etc... A clear sambandha-jnana is a sine qua non for the practice of raja-bhakti. Certainly, if a misguided person "worships" some arbitrary deity in the Mode of Ignorance (tamo bhakti), then it is a waste of time.
An Upanishad is not junk, my friend, but it becomes junk when parsed by a mayavadi interpreter, just like the example I gave previously. An MP3 file opened with a word-processor application is junk. As peasant-headed as you are, you simply cannot let go of the junk that you have been told about "bhakti". I'll repeat once more:
"aham brahmaasmi" = "I am spirit soul" = "I am not this gross or subtle body, etc" (neti neti). I am not material. <b>"Brahman" is not an object. It is an essence.</b>
A comparison is given: In order to go into the sun, we have to become fire-like. If we go in with these gross bodies, we will perish, i.e., is it not possible. Likewise, to associate and reciprocate with Godhead, we have to become <b>godly</b> (not "God", but "godly"). IOW, we have to rid ourselves of the material contamination, and extinguish False Ego. Only an idiot thinks that he becomes God Itself by some process of yoga, or "suddenly realizes" that he has always been God, but somehow forgot about it.
Take one example: Bhagavad Gita, 18:54
brahma-bhutah prasannatma
na socati na kanksati
samah sarvesu bhutesu
mad-bhaktim labhate param
<b>"One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman. He never laments nor desires to have anything; he is equally disposed to every living entity. In that state he attains pure devotional service unto Me."</b>
Note how the sense of difference is still maintained. Note how the word "labhate" is employed. And note how brahma-bhuta is a preliminary qualification after which parabhakti becomes attainable if so desired.
Excerpt from the Bhaktivedanta PURPORT:
"To the impersonalist, achieving the brahma-bhuta stage, becoming one with the Absolute, is the last word. But for the personalist, or pure devotee, one has to go still further to become engaged in pure devotional service. This means that one who is engaged in pure devotional service to the Supreme Lord is already in a state of liberation, called brahma-bhuta, oneness with the Absolute. <b>Without being one with the Supreme, the Absolute, one cannot render service unto Him. In the absolute conception, there is no difference between the served and the servitor; yet the distinction is there, in a higher spiritual sense</b>..."
Before trying to talk of Mandukya or this or that Upanishad, get your ABCs right. Get your semantics right. As Walt Whitman wrote, "We read the Bible day and night,\ You read black and I read white..."
Other than maniacally repeating yourself, why don't you try to lay out your coherent theory of Vedanta, if you have one. Tell us, if you are God, why are you in maya right now, etc. But you don't want to get into that. You only want to keep splashing mis-translated and mis-interpreted verses about "one-ness" on this thread. Just like an ignorant karma-kAnDi, the mayavadi is also an unintelligent animal. <b>The only differencce between a mayavadi and an ass is the numbber of legs.</b>