« first day (307 days earlier)      last day (993 days later) » 
00:00 - 18:0018:00 - 21:00

12:29 AM
@RakeshJoshi Yes, exactly.
 
 
1 hour later…
1:48 AM
@RakeshJoshi By the way, your Gaudapada question is really good. For more evidence, you should read Hajime Nakamura's History of Early Vedanta Philosophy. Nakamura does a detailed analysis of Gaudapada's Karika and does a good job of showing all the similarities with Buddhist terminology and ideas.
 
2:37 AM
Advaitans did said from where avidya came. They said avidya dwell within the brahman. But didn't say who came first Brahman or avidya. @TheDestroyer
@RakeshJoshi Yes. Everything is not an illusion. We assume only there is a similarity between two things.
 
 
1 hour later…
3:54 AM
@RakeshJoshi @Tezz @TheDestroyer @KeshavSrinivasan @SwiftPushkar @Pandya @ChinmayaB@KrishnShweta @Seeker Watch these ^^^
 
4:30 AM
@KeshavSrinivasan Jeeyars with "Ramanuja Jeeyar" are the followers of Manavala mamunigal lineage. Jeeyars without the name are the followers of Ramanujacharya lineage. Ramanuja jeeyar is the sanyasa name given to Manavalamamunigal by Tiruvaimozhipillai AKA Sri sailesar.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan Nirguna Brahman is alone real. Why should we feel there must be some chair like thing in Brahman? Snake and rope are just one kind of example. Why are feeling presence of water in mirage though it doesn't have any water. What water like substance is there in mirage (don't explain with light)? Maya is such as complex thing. But i didn't understand why you said "So it contradicts the Advaita notion of Nirguna Brahman."
@SreeCharan To be frank, that is for better understanding. In reality, Brahman has no Avidya.
Nirguna Brahman is always Sat Chid Ananda.
Maya is Iswara Sristi.
 
5:32 AM
@TheDestroyer There is something water-like which causes someone to think that there is water in the desert, namely the blue light of the sky. The sky is blue, but due to refraction it seems that the blue is on the ground, and so a person mistakenly thinks that he is seeing water.
 
@SreeCharan watching...
 
@TheDestroyer "But i didn't understand why you said "So it contradicts the Advaita notion of Nirguna Brahman." Because if a person thinks he sees a chair, then something must have a chair-like quality, because otherwise he would not form the cognition that there is a chair present. And so if Brahman is the only thing that exists, then Brahman must have at least one quality, namely being chairlike. And thus Brahman cannot be Nirguna or devoid of qualities.
@SreeCharan I don't understand the distinction you're making. All members of Manavala Mamunigal's lineage are members of Ramanujacharya's lineage.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan By manavala mamunigal, I mean Ashtadiggaja lineage.
 
@SreeCharan OK, but the Ashtadiggaja lineage is ultimately part of Ramanujacharya': lineage.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan You explained it as you know Physics behind it. But we don't know Physics of " entire Maya".
 
5:40 AM
@TheDestroyer Even if I lived 2000 years ago and didn't know any physics, just from simple logical reasoning I would be able to conclude that there must be something water-like which causes a person to think that he is seeing water in the desert.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan Yes. But there are jeeyars from Mudaliandan swamy, Shatakopa jeeyar etc., these are not from Ashtadiggaja lineage.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan With same logic, there must be Brahman like thing in Chair but we don't know it now. It may be known in future or realized persons know it. It is believed, Adishankara was in that state when we was expounding theory of Advaita.
 
@SreeCharan As far as I know, all Sri Vaishnava Acharyas today belong to either Vedanta Desikan'a Guru Parampara or Manavala Mamunigal'a Guru Parampara.
@TheDestroyer I am not talking about chairs having a Brahman-like quality, I am talking about Brahman having a chair-like quality. Brahman having a chair-like quality disproves the Advaita theory of Nirguna Brahman.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan Then what about Mudaliandan swamy?
 
@KeshavSrinivasan New discoveries in physics are supporting "thought based Creation models" and previously it was thought of "Mechanical system based Creation models".
 
5:46 AM
@SreeCharan Which Sri Vaishnava Acharya is in the Guruparampara of Mudaliandan?
@TheDestroyer None of that answers the argument I presented.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan Without completely understanding "Maya", how can we come to a conclusion?
 
@TheDestroyer The argument does not depend in any way on whether the Universe runs on a mechanical model.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan How do you explain desert thing to a layman with qualities?
@KeshavSrinivasan Why not? If Universe is real, it should be mechanical model.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan Not a jeeyar but the parampara is going on at Mudaliandan koil mudaliandan.com/kandadaiandan.php
AFAIK They initiate people into Sri Vaishnavism. @KeshavSrinivasan
 
@SreeCharan Nice arguments by seven Anupapatti. But I think the absolute reality whether it may be Advaita or Vishishtadvaita, can only be known by realizing it. These type of arguments are useful up to only some level!
 
5:53 AM
@Pandya Yes. First we need to reach higher states of consciousness through Physical Yoga, and then we should debate.
But at that state we don't debate. haha.
 
@TheDestroyer Because the argument is a reductio ad absurdum. It assumes that Advaita is true and then proves that that leads to a contradiction. So while the question of whether the Universe runs on a mechanical model or not might provide some evidence concerning whether Advaita is true or not, it has no effect on this argument, because the argument already assumes that Advaita is true.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan He has declared infinite no. of souls and Prakriti completely different from Brahman. But as we had discussed previously, Universe (insentient quantities) are actually the distorted form of Brahman according to Vishishtadvaita. Isn't it?
 
@Pandya Yes, Visistadvaita subscribes to Parinamavada, the notion that the world is a transformation of Brahman. So if that video says something different then it's wrong.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan We discussed this already. If we don't assume Advaita as true. These theories are changing withtime. Previously, only Snake and rope example were understood. After advancement of Physics, Mirage example was able to understood with water like quality. But tomorrow, western physics may advance and explain Brahman like thing in chair or we may expand our consciousness through Yoga and find answer for that. These all things change with time. They are true for only certain periods of time.
But unchanging things are always true
 
6:00 AM
@KeshavSrinivasan I've also doubt with the last Nivrutti Anupapatti explained in that video.
He says according to Advaita, knowledge can not destroy bondage! /cc @SreeCharan
He has also said that According to Ramanujacharya, only by Brahman's grace you can get salvation not by dry knowledge of Advaita!
 
@TheDestroyer The mirage thing has nothing to do with advancement of physics. Like I said, even if I was living 2000 years ago and had no knowledge of physics, I would be able to conclude that mirages arises due to something having a water-like quality. That has nothing to do with physics, it has do with logical reasoning.
 
@Pandya Dry knowledge of advaita means thinking we are god.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan But it's waterlike thing not water. Even if there is Brahman-like thing, that need not be Brahman always.
 
@SreeCharan Advaita insist on realization not thinking only.
@SreeCharan He said in video that According to Sri Ramanujacharya, Bhakti alone can give you salvation.
 
@Pandya Ramanujacharya says that we cannot attain salvation by the grace of GOD not thnking we are god. What is realisation? As per Advaita We cannot realise that we are god due to maya.
 
6:09 AM
@KeshavSrinivasan But rope is not rope always. It changes. If it changes form, you need to explain it with different logic. Logics keep on changing as things keep on changing. At sometimes, you may get stuck with no logic. But in Advaita, it is one and same always.
 
@Pandya Yes. By sharanagati
 
@TheDestroyer I am not talking about Brahman-like qualities, I am talking about chair-like qualities. If a person thinks he sees a chair, then there must be something with a chair-like quality. And if the only thing that exists is Brahman, then it must be Brahman which has a chair-like quality. And if Brahman has a chair-like quality, then the Advaita theory of Nirguna Brahman is wrong.
 
@SreeCharan I'm talking about self-realization.
 
@Pandya 7th anupapatti Ramanuja - however, asserts that bondage is real. No kind of knowledge can remove what is real. On the contrary, knowledge discloses the real; it does not destroy it. And what exactly is the saving knowledge that delivers us from bondage to Maya? If it is real then non-duality collapses into duality; if it is unreal, then we face an utter absurdity.
 
@TheDestroyer It doesn't matter how a rope changes, the logic remains the same. If someone sees a rope and thinks he sees a snake, then there must be something snake-like in the rope. That logic is unaffected by a rope changing form. If a rope changed into something that did not resemble a snake in any way, that if-then statement would still remain true.
 
6:13 AM
@Pandya @Pandya Realisation of god gives us moksha. Self is not brahman . It is jiva.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan If i pile up a rope, it appears like table or chair. You may misunderstand it as table in dark, but in reality it is rope.
 
@SreeCharan What do you think Won't the true realization of self gives you an approach to the absolute truth whether Jiva is Brahman or not? /cc @KeshavSrinivasan
 
@TheDestroyer Yes, and in that situation it would still be true that if I see a rope and think it is a table, then there is a table-like quality in the rope.
@Pandya Even if you understood the human body completely, you would not be one step closer to understanding the Jivatma. Similarly, even if you understood the Jivatma completely, that is insufficient to understanding Brahman.
 
@Pandya I didn't quite understand what is self realisation. This body is jiva. Understanding jiva will not give moksha.
 
@SreeCharan This body is Jiva?
@KeshavSrinivasan Hmm....
Haha!
 
6:21 AM
@Pandya Everyone are jivas and there is only one brahman. Brahman dwells in our body as antaryami.
 
@Pandya Haha
 
@Pandya HaHa . You missed Tezz
 
I think he is not involved in the current discussion
 
@KeshavSrinivasan you can't explain all things with this analogy. How do you explain dreams?
 
@TheDestroyer Dreams are created by Brahman. You are the one who thinks Brahman is Nirguna, not me. I think Brahman is Saguna.
 
6:24 AM
@Pandya But he is advaitan too.
 
of-course!
 
@KeshavSrinivasan Dream is also false like snake in snake and rope example. Why are we not able to apply that qualitylike analogy here?
 
What is kannaiah? @SwiftPushkar
 
@SreeCharan Kannaiah is sleeping. He was busy in stealing Butter.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan Anyway, I think meditating on the Param Satya (Brahman) will lead you to the Param Satya (regardless of Advaita and Vishishtadvaita). What do you think? @SreeCharan @TheDestroyer @Tezz
 
6:27 AM
@TheDestroyer You can freely apply that analogy if you like. The conclusion is the same, if you see a chair in a dream then there must exist-something chair-like.
 
@TheDestroyer LOL
 
@Pandya Yes, meditating on Brahman using the techniques given in the Brahma Sutras leads to realization of Brahman.
 
@Pandya Yes. Meditating on brahman gives you salvation.
 
@SreeCharan No i don't have any idea abt.that ,what is this related to , can u pls.wtite the word in hindi , haven't recognized the word😊
 
@Pandya But that requires being cognizant of Brahman's actual qualities. If you meditate on Brahman being a green pumpkin, that will not get you Moksha. Similarly, meditating on Brahman as being the Jivatma will not get you Moksha.
 
6:31 AM
@KeshavSrinivasan I'm not asking in dream state, I'm asking why did i get a particular dream in first place? Why did i assume some false thing (why dream came to me in first place) as true while sleeping? It's clear with qualities in snake and rope but not for causation of dreams. I think this analogy must apply for all such things where we assume a thing as another thing.
 
@TheDestroyer You got a dream as a reward or punishment by Brahman.
@TheDestroyer Dreams are made of sukshma matter. This is not just a Visistadvaita view, all Vedanta philosophers agree on this.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan Not from Brahman. From above snake analogy. If quality analogy can able to explain rope mistook as snake., it should also explain why myself assumed as someother being in dream.
 
@SwiftPushkar We were discussing advaita and vishishta advaita. Pandya classified me and keshav into Vishishtadvaita. Destroyer, Pandya and Tezz advaitans. What is your classification? Kanhaiah or kannaiah कन्हय्या means little krishna.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan Consider we (at-least I) don't know the Param Satya (Brahman), then How to meditate on Brahman with thinking of some qualities. I mean I'm talking about meditating like "I want to realize Param Satya" (regardless of Advaita or Vishishtadvaita)
 
@KeshavSrinivasan In both cases, we are assuming one entity as other.
 
6:35 AM
@TheDestroyer The reason you see a snake in a dream and think it is a real snake is that a snake made of Sukshma matter has the same form as a snake in real life.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan This doesn't explain cause of my confusion.
@KeshavSrinivasan If quality analogy can explain Snake rope confusion, it must explain all types of confusions.
even dreams.
 
@Pandya No, just meditating like "I want to realize the highest truth" does not get you Moksha. You need to learn the nature of Brahman from the Upanishads. That is why the third Sutra of the Brahma Sutras says Shastrayonitvat. It is only through Sabda Pramana that we can acquire knowledge of Brahman.
@TheDestroyer Yes, and it does. The confusion between a snake made of sukshma matter and a snake made of physical matter is exactly analogous to the confusion between a snake and a rope.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan If it can't explain dream analogy, same way it can't explain dream or Maya of Supreme Brahman. It also can't explain, why we assume chair as Brahman.
@KeshavSrinivasan No. I'm not asking that.
 
@TheDestroyer Then what are you asking?
 
@SreeCharan - I do not subscribe to any perticular philosophy school , but do accept something from every Philosophical school of thought , eg.I have learned "no to differentiate in between anything" from Advaita , From Vishishtata davita i like concept of sharanagati etc.So its a kind of strange thinking i have , but thats what my heart says😊👍
 
6:42 AM
@KeshavSrinivasan Yes, ok. Consider one knows the Swaupa of Brahman from Upanishads. (regardless of relationship between Jivatma and Paramatma) then?
 
@TheDestroyerI am explaining to you why dreams seem real. What more do you want to know.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan One day i assume myself as man (me) and tiger, and other day i assume myself as person working on laptop and other day walking on roads,.. why i'm assuming myself as different things in dreams? what qualities in "me and tiger" (of dream: snake ) are similar to "real me sleeping" (rope)?
 
@Pandya Well, if one misinterprets the Upanishads and thereby meditates upon Brahman as the Jivatma, that will not lead to Moksha. But if one reads the Upanishads and correctly understands the qualities of Brahman and then meditates upon Brahman using those qualities, then he will attain Moksha.
@TheDestroyer But I didn't say that you are mistaking your body for a tiger. I said you are mistaking a Sukshma tiger for a tiger made out of physical matter.
@TheDestroyer The rope is not your body, the rope is the Sukshma tiger.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan No. rope is "real me which is sleeping". Snake is "tiger and other me"
 
@KeshavSrinivasan Yes, Obviously using Upanishads' preaching Swarup of Brahman. According to me the essence of Upanishads is to know and meditate upon Brahman.
 
6:48 AM
@KeshavSrinivasan See my profile description. I explained it clearly there.
 
@TheDestroyer No, the thing which is tiger-like is not the human body. The thing that is tiger-like is the tiger made out of Sukshma-matter.
 
The real form of me is being mistaken as an illusory form of me and tiger.
@KeshavSrinivasan Ok. How do you explain this confusion with Qualitylike analogy?
 
@TheDestroyer I told you, there is a quality in the tiger made of Sukshma matter which leads one to confuse it with a tiger made of gross matter. And that quality is its form.
 
ShvetaSvatar 1.6:
> सर्वाजीवे सर्वसंस्थे बृहन्ते
अस्मिन् हंसो भ्राम्यते ब्रह्मचक्रे ।
पृथगात्मानं प्रेरितारं च मत्वा
जुष्टस्ततस्तेनामृतत्वमेति ॥ ६॥
 
@KeshavSrinivasan You are saying in dream. I am asking from reality. Why did i get that dream, not why i felt it that? Dream is different level or plane of consciousness.
 
6:53 AM
> In this great Brahma-Wheel, in which all things abide and finally rest, the swan wanders about so long as it thinks the self is different from the Controller. When blessed by Him the self attains Immortality.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan If we both are on waking state or in dream state, we are able to appply qualitylike analogy but not at transition points of waking and dream states.
 
@TheDestroyer If you are asking why did you get a dream at all, the answer is that it was created by Brahman as a reward or punishment for your actions.
@TheDestroyer Brahman created Sukshma matter for you to perceive.
 
Anyway, While discussing about Brahman by means of different philosophies, we should not forget: /cc @KeshavSrinivasan @TheDestroyer @SreeCharan
> ऋचो अक्षरे परमे व्योमन्
यस्मिन्देवा अधि विश्वे निषेदुः ।
यस्तं न वेद किमृचा करिष्यति
य इत्तद्विदुस्त इमे समासते ॥ ८॥
^^ SvetaSvatar 1.4.8
> IV-8: Of what avail are the Vedas to him who does not know that indestructible, highest Ethereal Being, in whom the gods and the Vedas reside? Only those who know That are satisfied.
> 8 Of what use are the Vedas to him who does not know that indestructible Substance, that akasa-like Brahman, which is greater than the unmanifest and wherein the Vedas and all the gods are sheltered? Only those who know It attain bliss.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan No. Don't say from Brahman. Let's apply this at transition points. I want to know what qualities in me (real me) are responsible for assuming myself as "illusory form of tiger and me with forest an all other background".
This confusion of dream is mistaking something (real me) as another things (illsory form of me and tiger) for sometime. When we wake up (like when we switch on light), i know illusory form and tiger (snake) is me (rope).
 
> Hindi Commentary By Harikrishnadas Goenka

।।4.1.8।।(यह मन्त्र ऋग्वेद मण्डल 1 सू0 164 का उनचालीसवाँ है तथा अथर्ववेद (9। 15। 18) में भी है) व्याख्या -- परब्रह्म परमेश्वरके जिस अविनाशी दिव्य चेतन परम आकाशस्वरूप परमधामसे समस्त देवगण अर्थात् उन परमात्माके पार्षदगण उन परमेश्वरकी सेवा करते हुए निवास करते हैं? वहीं समस्त वेद भी पार्षदोंके रूपमें मूर्तिमान् होकर भगवान्की सेवा करते हैं। जो मनुष्य उस परमधाममें रहनेवाले परब्रह्म पुरुषोत्तमको नहीं जानता और इस रहस्यको भी नहीं जानता कि समस्त वेद उन परमात्माकी सेवा करनेवाले उन्हींके अङ्गभूत पार्ष हैं? वह वेदोंके द्वारा अपना क्या प्रयोजन सिद्ध करेगा अर्थ
 
7:01 AM
@TheDestroyer But I never claimed that you are confusing yourself with a tiger. Here is the sequence of events. Your body goes to sleep. Brahman creates a tiger out of Sukshma matter. Your mind perceives it and assumes it is a tiger made of gross matter.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan Let's forget Brahman creates Dreams for sometime. You don't know why dreams are created. Now explain with Snake and rope analogy.
 
@TheDestroyer Warning! (while argumenting) @KeshavSrinivasan is Shashtrajna ! Haha
 
@Pandya Yeah. But it is not Sastra. It is about Snake and rope analogy.
 
@TheDestroyer Even if I knew nothing about the nature of dreams, I would still be able to draw the same conclusion by logical reasoning. If a person dreams and sees a tiger, then there must exist something which has a tiger-like quality. Even if I didn't know about Sukshma matter, I would still know that there is something that has a tiger-like quality.
@Pandya Haha
 
@TheDestroyer Yes, continue... I've some work; good-bye!
 
7:06 AM
@KeshavSrinivasan Ushh. You are explaining by going into dreams. I am asking the reason for my very confusion in reality not in dream.
 
@TheDestroyer I am talking about reality. Even when you wake up, you can still conclude that there must have existed something which had a tiger-like quality.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan No. It was myself which was mistaken as tiger. No one created tiger. When i woke up, i was alone present and tiger vanished.
 
@TheDestroyer There is some problem in your eye sight. :P
 
@TheDestroyer No, Brahman really created a tiger out of Sukshma matter. You did not just dream that Brahman created a tiger. All Vedantic philosophers agree on this. The reason the tiger vanishes is that when your body wakes up your gross senses take over and so you cannot perceive that Sukshma matter.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan This explanation is ok. But i also want to know why i assumed myself as tiger like why i assumed rope as snake with above analogy.
 
7:13 AM
@TheDestroyer I told you, you did not assume yourself as a tiger. You are not the rope. That tiger made out of Sukshma matter is the rope.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan Did my Sukshma matter has tigerlike qualities?
@KeshavSrinivasan Dream is assumption only. It's not real.
 
@TheDestroyer Yes, it did. The tiger made of Sukshma matter did have tiger-like qualities. That is why you mistook it for a real tiger.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan though they consider dream as false but they yet believe that the roaring of tiger in dream wakes up a person ... and compare with coming out of avidya
 
@KeshavSrinivasan why other times i get laptop in my dream? Does it has laptoplike attributes too?
 
the analogy of snake and rope fails to explain jagat or brahman . it only creates unwanted confusion in people.
 
7:19 AM
@KeshavSrinivasan In snake and rope example, Pratyaksha Pramana is easy to understand. but here it's bit difficult to understand how Sukshma matter has tiger like qualities? Any scriptures for explaining it clearly?
 
@TheDestroyer There are two separate questions. First is why do you mistake a laptop made of Sukshma matter for a physical laptop. The answer to that is that it has laptop-like qualities, specifically its form. Second is why did a laptop made of Sukshma matter exist at all. And the answer to that is Brahman created it as part of a reward or punishment.
@TheDestroyer Brahman gives you experiences in the waking world as rewards or punishments for major good deeds and bad deeds, whereas minor good deeds and bad deeds are rewarded and punished with good dreams and bad dreams.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan This assumes Brahman created Sukshma Laptop not myself assumed itself as laptop.
 
@TheDestroyer The notion that objects in dreams are made of Sukshma matter which the mind perceives through Sukshma senses is universally agreed upon by all Vedantic philosophers.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan I'm not disagreeing with that. But i want to know it from Snake and rope analogy.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan can u provide the verses where sri vaisanava have talked against sankaras. some people have requested in comments
 
7:26 AM
@KeshavSrinivasan Will discuss that later. What i feel is Snake and rope analogy can be applied at only same plane of existence. It can't be applied at transition points. Like to my waking state and dream state.
 
@TheDestroyer I told you how the snake and rope analogy applies. The snake is a tiger made out of physical matter and the rope is a tiger made out of Suksha matter.
@RakeshJoshi Look at the Mahasiddhanta section of Ramanujacharya's commentary on the first Sutra of the Brahma Sutras: sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/index.htm That contains a detailed refutation of Advaita.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan i m looking for specific which i have posted in my quesion about accusor of sankara advaita
i hink u have seen that thread
 
@RakeshJoshi Start at this section and keep clicking next: sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48008.htm
 
also comments of bhaskara, yamunacharya
desikan
 
7:35 AM
@RakeshJoshi Bhaskara isn't a Sri Vaishnava, and his commentary on the Brahma Sutras has never been translated into English, so I can't really help you with him. Concerning Yamunacharya, he refutes Advaita in his work the Siddhitrayam.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan Yamunacarya (917–1042 CE) stated that Buddhism and Mayavada was essentially the same thing. The only difference he could see was that while one was openly Buddhist (prakata-saugata), the other was simply covered (pracchana-saugata).
@KeshavSrinivasan In another work, Paramata-bhangam, Vedanta Desika refers to Sankara as, “One who studied the Vedas in the shop of a Madhyamika Buddhist” (referring to Sankara’s param-guru Gaudapada
@KeshavSrinivasan Furthermore, Ramanuja states that the concepts of such crypto-Buddhists make a mockery of the teachings of the Vedas (veda-vadacchadma pracchana-bauddha).
i was talking about these
 
@RakeshJoshi Here is Vedanta Desikan's Paramatha Bhanga: srivaishnavam.com/desikaprabandam/meaning/paramadha.htm
 
7:50 AM
@KeshavSrinivasan thanks
 
@RakeshJoshi Here is the Sri Bhashya section where Ramanujacharya refers to Advaitins as crypto-Bauddhas: sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48231.htm
"This point has already been set forth in detail in our refutation of those crypto-Bauddhas who take shelter under a pretended Vedic theory."
 
@KeshavSrinivasan its verse number 27 of vedanta sutra ?
 
@RakeshJoshi It's Adhyaya 2 Pada 2 Sutra 27.
 
8:11 AM
@KeshavSrinivasan explain more clearly, how my Sukshma matter has tiger like qualities?
 
@KeshavSrinivasan our acharyas in one pic
 
8:42 AM
@SreeCharan What's the name of left Acharya?
 
@TheDestroyer Vanamamalai Ramanuja Jeeyar swami.
 
@SreeCharan ok. What's the meaning of Jeeyar?
@TheDestroyer God is omni present, So he will not and can not take avatars, Krishna was indeed a very high self realized soul, these souls can take birth with out mothers Womb as they have complete access to 5 elements, So IMO Krishna could be self realized yogi, but this too is not sure that he attained moksha or not, as vedas says one who has attained moksha will only come back after millions of bharama ratri. — Rishi 49 secs ago
@SreeCharan @Tezz ^^^
 
A Jeeyar is a Vaishnavite Sanyasi. The word Jeeyar in Sanskrit is based on the root Jee-jaye, to win i.e., one who has controlled all his senses victoriously (Jayaseela) and is able to win over the challenges posed by others by means of arguments for which he has to master Vedic lore and Sastras. The other suffix of “Yar” is the symbol of respect to an ascetic, drawn from Tamil tradition. That is how the word is coined as Jeeyar.
@TheDestroyer There are two types of Jeeyars. The first type concentrate on the administration of temples and know the Divya Prabhandams. The others must take to preaching by going around the country, having mastered the scriptures. Some Jeeyars like that of are both administrators and preachers.
 
@SreeCharan ok. Vanamamalai means?
Vanamamala.
 
@TheDestroyer यद् भावं तद् भवति | Can't help that understanding.
 
8:50 AM
Yes. Tamil "yar" is equivalent to "lu" in telugu.
 
Vanamamalai Jiyar,
* Bhattar Piraan jiyar,
* Koil kanthaadai annan,
* Prathivaadhi Bhayankaram annaa,
* Erumbi appaa,
* Appillai,
* Appillan. . * Tiru venkata jeeyar
THese are the eight main disciples of Manavala maha muni also known as Ashtadiggajas.
@TheDestroyer Vanamanalai is one of the 108 divyadesams [vaishnava temples.]
Vanamamalai Permual Temple is a Hindu temple dedicated to the god Vishnu, in Vanamamalai (Nanguneri), Tamil Nadu, India on the banks of Thamiraparani river. Constructed in the Dravidian style of architecture, the temple is glorified in the Divya Prabandha, the early medieval Tamil canon of the Azhwar saints from the 6th–9th centuries AD. It is one of the 108 Divyadesam shrines dedicated to Vishnu. Vishnu is worshipped here as Vanamalai Perumal and his consort Lakshmi as Varamanagi. The temple is believed to have been built by the Pandyas, with later contributions from Vijayanagar kings and Madurai...
 
@SreeCharan ok. Thanks!
 
do you know about S. Navalpakam place in tamil nadu @SreeCharan @KeshavSrinivasan
 
@TheDestroyer literally means Lord of the forest.
 
@Rishi Many vedic verses talk about Omnipresence of Brahman.
 
8:56 AM
@TheDestroyer Thanks can you explain Aitreya Upanishad [2.6.1] as I was always told omnipresent means god can not take birth as humans
@TheDestroyer Chandogya Upanishad says:
‘Ekamevadvitiyam Brahma’(Chan. VI-ii-2)
‘Brahman alone exists without a second.’
Regarding the nature of this reality the seers say that it is neither perceived by the external sense organs nor grasped by the mind and intellect.
 
@Rishi I haven't read any upanishads. @Tezz or @KeshavSrinivasan can explain you Aitreya Upanishad 2.6.1
@Rishi Brahman has both sakara and Nirakara forms.
 
Let me show the entire meaning of 2.6.1 Brahman:-
The answer to this question is already reached in the Nasadiya Sukta of Rig Veda. The Upanishads designate “that One” or “tad ekam” as Brahman and describe it as the existence itself and as one without a second.
Chandogya Upanishad says:
‘Ekamevadvitiyam Brahma’(Chan. VI-ii-2)
‘Brahman alone exists without a second.’
Regarding the nature of this reality the seers say that it is neither perceived by the external sense organs nor grasped by the mind and intellect.
 
ढे वाघ ब्रह्मणो रूपे-मूर्त चैवामूर्त च, मत्र्य चामृत च, स्थितं च यच्च, सच्च त्यश्च ॥ १ ॥

Brahman has but two forms-gross and subtle, mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited, defined and undefined. (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.3.1)
 
Brahman cannot be seen by the eyes, cannot be heard by the ears, cannot be smelt nor can it be felt by touch. We cannot perceive Brahman as we perceive an object
Also Brahman is beyond objectification
 
9:15 AM
@TheDestroyer See what ever we say but it is clear that Brahman can not be perceived by naked eyes but the way you are saying is brahman is also in this computer screen entire internet everything, I agree and we can say it is also GOD, but you can not say individually krishna is god then you and me are also god, See we need to understand this deeply that GOD is in everything.

So it is right to say GOD is Everything is GOD or GOD is everything, But please do not say that one person is GOD and another is GOD.
I have read many Good books which claims physical world is also a form of GOD, which I agree
 
@Rishi they have types of gods like nirguna and saguna , with maya and without maya etc

further avatara also have categories
 
@TheDestroyer The one on the left is my Acharya, the Vanamamalai Jiyar.
 
@Rishi - "brahman is also in this computer screen entire internet everything," 😊 Agree with you👍
 
@TheDestroyer The tiger made of Sukshma matter has the same form as a tiger made of gross matter, i.e. it has a head, four legs, orange stripes, etc.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan oh ok 👍👍
 
9:28 AM
@SreeCharan I've never heard of this notion of two types of Jiyars.
 
@SreeCharan @KeshavSrinivasan - What is the coloured "Mala" Shree Chinna Jeeyar is wearing ?
 
@SwiftPushkar Hmm, I've never seen those before. Chinna Jeeyar Swami is @SreeCharan'a Acharya, so he may know the reason.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan ok 😊👍
 
@RakeshJoshi I was talking of GOD Father not small gods and goddess 🤔
 
@KeshavSrinivasan - BTW , There is mentioning of "TriDandi" in SB as was asked by sv 😊
 
9:42 AM
@Rishi what is this small and big gods ?
 
@RakeshJoshi Rakesh Sir Kindly refer to above chat , We were discussing about Brahman who is beyond objectification
@RakeshJoshi Rakesh ji aap devi devtao ki baat kar rahe ho, or main brahm ki
 
@KeshavSrinivasan - In Maharashtra Varkari Vaishnav Sect.do not have Acharyas , but there are different saints ,the teaching and texts whome they follw , so most of us here are unaware or system of Guru parampara and Math , over here people make saint's as Guru's 😊
 
jab ek hi cheez exist karti hai to devi devta hum aur aap bhi brahman hi hue na @Rishi
@SwiftPushkar varkari is far better system ... at least till now as far i have observed
 
@RakeshJoshi Sahi kaha apne, ise samajne k do tarike hai ya to ishwar sabh kuch hai ya phir ishwar humari samaj se pare hai , dono hi batein sahi hai
 
@Rishi ji hamare rishi ne bhi yahi kaha hai ki ek ishwar hi expand ho kar jagat ka roop dharan karta hai. sab kuch wo hi hai . ishavasyam idam sarvam .
 
9:50 AM
@RakeshJoshi Ok , They follow the preaching and teaching of Saint's , but that is same as scriptures like SB ,(HariPath , Tukaram Abhanga , Gyneshwari etc. because they can't read or write sanskrit , 😊 and are not much familiar wirh Hinduidm scriptures(Except new Once) who have acess😊
 
Chalo thoda samajne ki kosis karte hai details mae jaise ki "Dekhiye is jagat ko ishwar ka bhotik roop keh sakte hai parantu ismae kuch problem hai"

Jaise ki kumhar jab ghada bnata hai to use mitti ki jarurat hoti hai , to iske 2 karan hue ek hua upadan karan or dusra nimitt karan

To ishwar nae bharamand ki rachna kisi object se hi ki hai , parantu ishwar har jagah hai humare or apki ander bhi.

dusri ek to baat humesha debates mae paai jati hai ki ishwar lgatar bharamand ko chala raha hai ya ek baar chala k ab mje se baith k dekh raha hai
 
@SwiftPushkar holy me's word only become scropture na ... then what wrong . there is no need to be schlars to know god right .

one famous doha about kabeer " masi kagaj chooyo nahi.... "
 
@RakeshJoshi Kindly tell who is your Rishi 🙏🏼
 
@Rishi
That (Brahman) having created entered into that very thing. And having entered there, It became the formed and the formless, the defined and the undefined, the sustaining and the non-sustaining, the sentient and the insentient, the true and the untrue. Truth became all this that there is. They call that (Brahman) Truth.’ (Taittiriya Upanishad, 2.6.1.)
 
@RakeshJoshi and what does " masi kagaj chooyo nahi.... " mean
 
9:53 AM
that he hardly was literate or could read/write.
 
Okay THAT's ENOUGH THEORY.. LETS DISCUSS OUR EXPERIENCES in meditation or any kind of spiritual experience
 
ok but here people only focuses on scriptuires @Rishi at least from what i have observed.
 
@RakeshJoshi haha yes , BTW Millions of Varkaries walk Mile's and Mile's and visit Vitthal Temple every year ,This is called "Vari" .. they do not know anything Except Vitthala and consider him as Mother&Father ,they touch everybody's feet and call each other "Mauli" -Mother
 
@SwiftPushkar that is the speciality of this sect that naama japa is alone sufficient.
this sect arise when people were finding it hard to cope with complicated stdy of vedas and some places only selected varnas were allowed .. etc so this was a good initiative to unite all without any caste difference or gender difference which is great.
 
I believe scriptures are only the map, some one have to walk to get to the destination.
 
@SwiftPushkar i guess that akkalkot swmai might be brahmin and some mahant of a mutt before becoming avadhoota. in some places he mentioned that he is yajurvedi brahmin. once some scholars of sankara tradition referred him with some sanyasin name. and in another instance he clartified the doubt about panchadasi book of advaita by reciting its verses.
@Rishi nice
 
Those colored malas are not only limited to my acharya but to all jeeyars. @SwiftPushkar @KeshavSrinivasan
@KeshavSrinivasan Some jeeyars do not initiate people into Vishishtadvaita but they only take care of a temple or a mutt.
They are like a welcome garland.
 
@RakeshJoshi ok @SreeCharan - Yes ,Grt.video , that's what I like abt.south India ,they are still keeping their Tradiations ( and of Hinduism) very much alive , i would like to take part in one such a ceremony 👍👍 It's those people beacuse of whose grt.efforts Hinduism and it's , Tradiations are alive 🌷⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ and Namaskaram to both Acharyas🙏🙏
*to
@KeshavSrinivasan - haha 👍Tell me you secret of finding exact refrences 😀
 
@SwiftPushkar which ceremony ?
 
10:14 AM
@RakeshJoshi From the video of @SreeCharan the procession 😊
 
10:25 AM
@SreeCharan @KeshavSrinivasan - What is the meaning of Sangoshti संगोष्ठी?
 
11:02 AM
@KeshavSrinivasan But again, it says Suksha matter changed to subtle tiger. But i want about my sukshma matter before changing to subtle tiger.
@Tezz In this verse, नान्यं पश्यामि भैषज्यमन्तरा वृषभध्वजम्। वृषभध्वजम् is referred as Lord Shiva right?
@Tezz "Vrishabhadvajam" is bull bannered lord. Got it. Vrishabha and Dvajam. Took sometime to understand meaning of "Dhvajam" here. Best translation would be "bull bannered lord" instead of "Uma's Lord".
 
11:18 AM
@SwiftPushkar A meeting or assembly.
@TheDestroyer "గళ్" is equivalent to "లు" suffix ర్ is used when referred to elders in tamil and న్ is used when referred to younger people. similar to వారు in telugu.
 
@SreeCharan ok :-)
 
11:37 AM
@SreeCharan ok. Thanks!
 
12:31 PM
@SreeCharan Sri Ramana Deekshitulu is called as Ramana Deekhitir in tamil. I know "Gal" is used for "Ru".
 
 
2 hours later…
2:05 PM
@KeshavSrinivasan Can you give me Sri Bhashya on Brahma Sutra 2.1.3?
 
2:20 PM
@Tezz I don't completely understand why Yoga has refuted in Brahma Sutra.
 
@Pandya thanks
 
@RakeshJoshi for what?
 
for acknowledging comment on yoga by sankara.
 
@RakeshJoshi Note that I'm strong believer of Upanishads.
 
@Pandya yes I know . But vedanta sutra are individual texts with diverse and extraordinarily different interpretations :)
 
2:24 PM
@RakeshJoshi and FYI: Brahma Sutra is not written by Adi Shankaracharya.
 
@Pandya its interesting that another vedantic text "geeta" glorify "Yoga" in most of the chapters but some people try to refute it in their commentaries.
further yogic methods are secretly expounded in upanishads as "madhu vidya" , "dahara vidya" "panchagni vidya" etc.
@Pandya are there any commentaries of Vedanta sutra available prior to sankara ?
 
@RakeshJoshi Yes, I think.
Advaita Vedanta (IAST, Advaita Vedānta; Sanskrit: अद्वैत वेदान्त, literally, not-two) is a school of Hindu philosophy and religious practice, and one of the classic Indian paths to spiritual realization. The term Advaita refers to its idea that the soul (true Self, Atman) is the same as the highest metaphysical Reality (Brahman). The followers of this school are known as Advaita Vedantins, or just Advaitins, and they seek spiritual liberation through acquiring vidyā (knowledge) of ones true identity as Atman, and the identity of Atman and Brahman. Advaita Vedanta traces its roots in the oldest...
@RakeshJoshi ^^
The Brahma sūtras (Sanskrit: ब्रह्म सूत्र) is a Sanskrit text, attributed to Badarayana, estimated to have been completed in its surviving form some time between 450 BCE and 200 CE. The text systematizes and summarizes the philosophical and spiritual ideas in the Upanishads. It is one of the foundational texts of the Vedānta school of Hindu philosophy. The Brahma sutras consists of 555 aphoristic verses (sutras) in four chapters. These verses are primarily about the nature of human existence and universe, and ideas about the metaphysical concept of Ultimate Reality called Brahman. The first chapter...
 
geeta is fully focusing on yogas and types of yoga like sankhya etc
 
> Numerous commentaries have been written on the Brahma-sutra text, but many such as that of Bodhayana,[note 7] Upavarsa,[note 8] and eighteen out of twenty one mentioned by Narayana in Madhvavijaya-bhava-prakashika are considered lost.[96] Of the surviving commentaries, the earliest extant one is by Adi Shankara.[96]
@RakeshJoshi ^^
 
they are not available :)
 
2:31 PM
@SreeCharan Thanks for the videos. :)
 
so the oldest commentary available is that of sankara @Pandya
Further, Vedanta sutra talks of buddhism also hence the text is composed after Buddha and Mahavira . So the author Badarayana is not Vyasa of purana but someone else in post budda era. @Pandya
Madhyamaka Buddhist concepts such as Sunyavada, acknowledged in the Brahma-sutras, may be a late invention, and suggests that both Sunyavada and Brahma-sutras may therefore have emerged between 200-450 CE. @Pandya @Seeker
 
2:54 PM
@RakeshJoshi I think Ramanujacharya had wandered in whole India in search of Commentary on Brahma Sutra prior to Shnakaracharya. /cc @KeshavSrinivasan right?
 
@Pandya he found Bodhayana Vritti in Kashmir .
but many sankara vedantins do not agree to this i think. @Pandya
@Pandya so historians beleve that vedanta sutra is post buddhist period . might be 200 AD. i hope you getting my point
 
@RakeshJoshi Yes, so, what do you think who should has written Brahma Sutra?
 
vyasa existed during the end or middle phase of dwapara.
 
1
A: How do the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras refer to each other?

PandyaBhagavad Gita is older than (or prior to) Brahma Sutra of Vedavyasa according to the Timeline of Hindu texts or say the chronology of Hindu texts. Here is what Adi Shankaracharya said in his Bhasya on Bhagavad Gita verse 13.5: English Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary ...

 
@Pandya i feel that brahma sutra could have been interpolated by sankara to uphold his views. this is possible because there is no other way of tracing the original text.

further, we dont even find people priot to sankara mentioning or commenting on Geeta... but after sankara suddenly there was so much upsurge in geeta commentary. I hope you understand why I said that day that I am suspecious for BG and BS .
 
2:59 PM
@RakeshJoshi So, your BG views are also similar to BS?
 
@Pandya if genuine 9 upansihad is considered as brahma sutra then no problem
 
@RakeshJoshi I mean do you consider BG is also interpolated or not authentic spoken by Krishna?
 
In BG we dont find commentaries previous to sankara and i not sure if anyone before sankara has quoted Bg in their works ...
if its such an important text then how its possible @Pandya
 
@RakeshJoshi Yes, I insist only on Mukhya Upanishads.
 
@Pandya secondly i doubt that Gaudapada ever met his so called Guru Shuka in a physical body because Suka lived in dwapara and Gaudapada initiated Sankara around 1000 AD ... so ..
 
3:03 PM
@RakeshJoshi Though I don't have such objections with BG, you may be interested in:
5
Q: Who developed the terminology of the Prasthanatrayi of the Vedanta school?

Keshav SrinivasanThe most popular school of Hindu philosophy is the Vedanta school. Vedanta derives its teachings from three sources or authorities, known as the Prasthanatrayi or three starting points: The Upanishads, texts traditionally included with the Vedas consisting of conversations between sages and th...

 
@Pandya prasthana trayi is ok but where were these prasthanas before sankara ? there was no acharya betweem vyasa and sankara considered them worthy to comment or talk about ?
@Pandya in my further posts on this site i will post some of my doubts and about contradictions of BG and objectionable verses (which i feel) of BG.
 
@RakeshJoshi You may be interested in:
5
Q: How did the Advaita Acharya Gaudapada meet Vyasa's son Shuka?

Keshav SrinivasanThe most prominent thinker associated with the Advaita Vedanta school is Adi Shankaracharaya, but he wasn't the founder of Advaita; Adi Shankaracharaya's guru Govinda and Govinda's guru Gaudapada were also Advaitins. As I discuss in this question, Gaudapada is famous for his commentary on the Ma...

@RakeshJoshi ok. Now what do you think Why did Adi Shankaracharya interpolated BS or BG?
 
@TheDestroyer yes, correct translation of 'Vrishavadhwaja' is 'Bull bannered Lord.'
@KeshavSrinivasan btw do you know which Smriti/Purana he is quoting in "" Let everyone worship, by soma, the Divine Being who is associated with Uma and who is adorned with the moon."
 
@KeshavSrinivasan According to Visishtadvaita, Jivatma itself has no power, all the power that it has is provided by Brahman who dwells inside it, right?
 
3:19 PM
@Pandya is shuka deva chiranjeevi ?
immortal ?
 
There by has Yoga has been answered. (II. I 3:)
The Smriti of Hiranyagarbha, too, which treats of the means of attaining yoga speaks of the Pradhana as the cause; so that a doubt arises as to whether the construction of the vedic teaching has to be modified or not in the light of that smriti, though it has to undergo no modification such as may be caused by its
opposition to the Saiikhya-sniriti declaring that the Pradhana is the cause.
[Purvapaksha :We say that modification is necesary.—Why ?—In the Svetas'vatara—Upanishad Yoga-vidya is elaborately described as a means to the intuitive per
@Pandya ^^^
@Pandya above is SriKantha Bhasya on why Yoga is refuted...
 
will be back in some time....
 
{Siddhanta :]—As against the foregoing we hold as follows. The given construction of the vedic teaching has to undergo no modification in the light of the yoga-smriti. From the sutra "yog a is the restraint of the thinking principle," onwards, it is devoted to the exposition of the vedic yoga with its eight angas or subsidiary stages, as the main point of its teaching, but not also the non-vedic doctrine that Pradhana is the cause. If it should lay stress on this doctrine
also it is but right to reject it as we have rejected the Sankhya smriti. Wherefore , it quite stands to reason that the
@Pandya and above is the Siddhanta ^^^
 
3:37 PM
@KeshavSrinivasan btw have you seen my this question... hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/17125/… .. you might have some hint of the story...
 
3:51 PM
@KeshavSrinivasan yes I have read it... It's in Narayaniya section...
 
@Tezz Yeah, and that story is also said to explain the Srivatsa, the tuft of hair on Vishnu's chest, although there are other explanations for the Srivatsa.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan yes, Bhrigus foot kick is also used to denote Srivatsa...
 
@Tezz I think there is another explanation of the Srivatsa in the Narayaniya itself somewhere, but I don't remember what it is.
 
I've never heard of Shiva's blue neck being due to Indra's Vajra, but I do know of one other explanation of Shiva's neck being blue, namely that it's because Shiva was choked by Vishnu's incarnation sage Narayana. — Keshav Srinivasan ♦ 7 mins ago
@KeshavSrinivasan haha. When did he choke and why did he choke?
 
@TheDestroyer once there was fight between Rudra and Narayana (sage) in that event..
 
4:00 PM
@Tezz ohh..why? Which scripture has that story?
 
@TheDestroyer See this chapter of the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata: sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12c042.htm
@Tezz By the way, one of the Alwars was an incarnation of Vishnu's Srivatsa mark:
Thiruppaan Alvar or Thirupaanazhwar is one of the twelve azhwar saints of South India, who are known for their affiliation to Vaishnava tradition of Hinduism. The verses of azhwars are compiled as Nalayira Divya Prabandham and the 108 temples revered are classified as Divya desam. Thirupaanazhwar is considered the eleventh in the line of the twelve azhwars. As per Hindu legend, he descended from eternity and was found in a paddy field by a couple from the paanar community. Thirupaanazhwar is known for his affiliation to Ranganatha of the Srirangam Ranganathaswamy temple and is believed to have...
 
@KeshavSrinivasan What does it mean by "bygone" period? Previous kalpa?
 
@KeshavSrinivasan Oh I didn't know it...
 
@Tezz Is "Shivoham" Advaita Vakya or Shaiva vakya?
 
@TheDestroyer if you intrepret Shiva as transcendental state ie. Turiya (shantam Shivam chaturtham manyante) then it is Advaita vakya...
 
4:08 PM
@Tezz else?
 
@TheDestroyer if you intrepret Shiva as three eyed Lord of Uma then it can be Advaita Vakya also upto some level... and Shaiva vakya also...
 
@Tezz Do Shaivaites think or assume themselves as Shiva, three eyed Lord?
 
@TheDestroyer I don't think any Shaivites equate themselves with Shiva... but Sarupya Mukti in Shiva Loka includes getting Shivas form...
 
@TheDestroyer Kashmiri Shaivites like Abhinavagupta think of themselves of Shiva, although they're not philosophical Shaivites as they follow Shakta Agamaa. But most members of Shaiva Siddhanta sect, which follows Shaiva Agamas, do not think of themselves as Shiva.
 
@Tezz Sarupya Mukti is available in cosmic Kailasa or himalaya Kalilasa?
 
4:14 PM
@TheDestroyer Concept of Shiva loka is highly complex... there are curtains of Vamadeva Sadyojata etc.. read the chapter 'Glory of Pranava Panchakshara Mantra' in Shiva Purana... it summarizes...
@TheDestroyer also Shiva Purana differentiate between Rudra Loka and Shiva Loka...
 
@Tezz Ok. There's a chapter in Skanda Purana where some people after going to Himalaya kailasa come back to earth or cycle of life and death.
@Tezz I think i read it long ago. I don't remember now. Will read it again.
 
@TheDestroyer which chapter...? Is it in Maheswara Khanda or Vaishnava khanda...?..
 
@Tezz It describes places near Ujjain..which Khanda?
 
@TheDestroyer I don't know... I haven't read Skandha Purana... I have read only few chapters of Arunachala Mahatmya...
 
@Tezz Let me find those chapters. It's a very long story of king and it is actually interesting with suspenses.
 
4:20 PM
@TheDestroyer who reach Himalaya Kailash only might return... although the Mahabharata describe it as 'Where the sun moon do not shine etc... ' ... So I'm not sure about Himalaya Kailash...
 
@Tezz ok.
 
@TheDestroyer also it is unlikely that anyone who reaches Himalaya Kailash is liberated... as we see many demons and demon army go there and attack Shiva also....
 
@Tezz Yeah. I think life is there but no sorrow only bliss of infinite time. If we are unlucky, we may get cursed by Shiva or Parvati or any visiting Sage.
 
@TheDestroyer yes exactly... also there are Crores of Ganas of Shiva...
 
@Tezz My Guess is correct, As Per Skanda Purana, indra's thunderbolt made Rudra's throat blue during Jalandhara Episode
Let me check Shiva and Padma Puranas again.
 
4:35 PM
@TheDestroyer Ok ... Thanks... answer that question...
 
@Tezz Yes. Will answer after checking padma purana too.
 
@TheDestroyer Ok...
 
@Tezz Wow! Skanda Purana says Linga absorbed Kalakuta.
It doesn't describe Shiva drinking Poison.
Perfect kalpa Bheda.
 
@TheDestroyer wow nice... !
@TheDestroyer so in that Kalpa Indras Vajra made Lord Rudras Neck blue...
 
4:53 PM
how were different kalpa puranas got available in this yuga cycle ?
 
@RakeshJoshi Vyasa was omniscient to write and edit Puranas composed by Brahma...
 
@Tezz interestingly he is not a seer of any vedic mantra ??
 
@RakeshJoshi I'm not sure whether Vyasa is seer of any Vedic mantra or not... @KeshavSrinivasan knows it...
 
instead of kalpa bheda it can also be contradicion right ?
 
@RakeshJoshi it isn't contradicton... it is Kalpa bheda because Puranas themselves state about Kalpa Bheda...
 
5:03 PM
:)
 
@Tezz Why i'm not finding Linga of Kalakuta? It is there in Maheswara Khanda.
@Tezz Ok. got it.
 
@TheDestroyer Ok...
 
5:19 PM
@Tezz Posted it.
 
@Tezz No, Vyasa isn't the rishi of any Vedic mantra.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan thanks
 
@TheDestroyer Deekshitar, Bhattar, shastri, mishra etc., used to be some titles which became surnames these days.
 
@KeshavSrinivasan That chapter of Shanti Parva only says that "it is said that Narayana had seized Rudra by the throat and hence did Rudra's throat become blue", it's just saying that people at that time used to believe that due to sage Narayana had Rudra's throat turned blue.
 
5:41 PM
@RakeshJoshi Vyasa is post or title.
 
so as suka ?
 
There is a vyasa for every Mahayuga. So, i think he can't be seer to any Mantra.
@RakeshJoshi ohh. For which mantra he is seer?
 
when someone can be omniscient then why not seer ?
 
@RakeshJoshi Is Suka seer for any Mantra?
 
0
A: Whose avatara is Sri Ramanujacharya?

Sriram GopalakrishnanSri Ramanuja must have been misconstrued as reincarnation of Adisesha or Lakshmana or Balarama. Ramanuja was named "Ilaiya Azhwar" and was not named "Rama-anuja". "Ilaiya Azhwar" means "Young Azhwar". No where in any texts we have Rama or Krishna being referred to as Azhwar such as "Rama Azhawa...

New theory
 
5:44 PM
no suka is not @TheDestroyer
 
@SreeCharan Yeah. To show Shiva is devotee of Vishnu :P
@RakeshJoshi If Vyasa is seer for any mantra, it causes confusion. Which Vyasa should we consider?
 
do vedas talk of previous kalpas etc ? @TheDestroyer
 
@RakeshJoshi Not directly. They are like Blueprints. Kalpa in Vedas means previous cyles. They don't mention particular names.
 
@SreeCharan @TheDestroyer what a rubish story on ramanuja ...
@TheDestroyer now understand why the confusion of kalpa ? :)
 
@SreeCharan According to Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, a realized soul becomes like a 5 year old child, sometimes he cries, sometimes he laughs, sometimes he behaves like a madman. Sri Ramanuja doesn't seem to behave like this which might suggest that he was not an avatar but was chosen by God to impart knowledge. Sri Ramakrishna told many times that Sri Chaitanya was avatara.
 
5:49 PM
@ChinmaySarupria nice . but chaitanya criticized sankara although took sanyasa from dashanami tradition ?
 
@RakeshJoshi Chaitanya was devotee of God, he had the same state of mind as Sri Ramakrishna but Adi Shankara was Advaitin and Sri Chaitanya was pure devotee, he only knew love. Even though Ramakrishna Paramahamsa was also Advaitin, he suggested people to take the path of Bhakti just like Chaitanya.
 
this is called guru droha . wasnt he familiar with sankaras vedanta before accepting sanyasa in his tradition ?
i think he was related to sri madhwa tradition of udupi . both sankara and madhwa were poles apart @ChinmaySarupria
 
Did you read the Shanti Parva chapter fully? Later on it gives the full story: "Driven off by an exclamation of Hun which Narayana uttered, the dart, its energy being lost, returned to Sankara's hands. At this, Rudra became highly angry and as the result thereof he rushed towards the Rishis Nara and Narayana, endued with the puissance of severe austerities. Narayana then seized the rushing Rudra with his hand by the throat. Seized by Narayana, the lord of the universe, Rudra's throat changed colour and became dark. From that time Rudra came to be called by the name of Sitikantha."
 
00:00 - 18:0018:00 - 21:00

« first day (307 days earlier)      last day (993 days later) »