headers
Rajaram Venkataramani | 1 Nov 2011 08:37
Picon

Re: Bhaktirasayana

There is no English translation of this work. Prof Lance Nelson is
writing one and his thesis covers the points in BhR. It is available
online.

On 31/10/2011, Krunal Makwana <makwanakb@...> wrote:
> Jai Sri Krsna
>
> Thank you so much Shri D.V.N. Sharma for this great master piece.
>
> Can I be cheeky and ask if there is an English translation of this and if
> so where I could locate a copy :-)
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Krunal
>
> On 31 October 2011 12:51, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@...> wrote:
>
>> Thanks to our member Shri D.V.N. Sharma, we have the Sanskrit text of
>> Swami Madhusudan Saraswati's Bhaktirasayana on our website.
>>
>> You can download it from:
>> http://www.advaita-vedanta.**org/texts/bhaktirasayana.pdf<http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/texts/bhaktirasayana.pdf>
>>
>> --
>> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@...>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.**org/archives/advaita-l/<http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/>
>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.**culture.religion.advaita<http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Rajaram Venkataramani | 1 Nov 2011 20:09
Picon

Nirguna Brahman and Maya

For Ishwara, Maya is his aisvarya shakti. How about Nirguna Brahman?

When one realizes aham brahmasmi, what does he understand by the term
brahman, which is beyond words and mind?

--

-- 
Sent from my mobile device
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
kuntimaddi sadananda | 2 Nov 2011 01:44
Picon
Favicon

Re: Nirguna Brahman and Maya

 
PraNAms
 
First we cannot ask what about NirguNa Brahman since that very question objectifies that which cannot be objectified.
For our understanding we can say a jnaani understands that His true nature is beyond words and names.
He also understands all the words and names are mithyaa only. 
He understands all are in Him but yet none are in Him as Krishna says mastaani sarva bhuutani  and then again
na ca mastaani bhuutani.
This apparent contradiction is one from undersanding I am the NirguNa Brahman and other understanding all
this apparent naama and ruupa are my glory.
 
Hari Om!
Sadananda

--- On Tue, 11/1/11, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk@...> wrote:

For Ishwara, Maya is his aisvarya shakti. How about Nirguna Brahman?

When one realizes aham brahmasmi, what does he understand by the term
brahman, which is beyond words and mind?

--

-- 
Sent from my mobile device
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
D.V.N.Sarma డి.వి.ఎన్.శర్మ | 2 Nov 2011 02:09
Picon

Re: Bhaktirasayana

Prof.Lance Nelson considers Arjuna to be a madhyama adhikari.
The question arises "Why the Lord taught things meant for a uttama adhikari
to Arjuna?"

regards,
Sarma.

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk@...
> wrote:

> There is no English translation of this work. Prof Lance Nelson is
> writing one and his thesis covers the points in BhR. It is available
> online.
>
> On 31/10/2011, Krunal Makwana <makwanakb@...> wrote:
> > Jai Sri Krsna
> >
> > Thank you so much Shri D.V.N. Sharma for this great master piece.
> >
> > Can I be cheeky and ask if there is an English translation of this and if
> > so where I could locate a copy :-)
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Krunal
> >
> > On 31 October 2011 12:51, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks to our member Shri D.V.N. Sharma, we have the Sanskrit text of
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Venkatesh Murthy | 2 Nov 2011 05:34
Picon

Re: Bhaktirasayana

Namaste

For Uttama Adhikari pure Vedanta has to be taught. But Krishna gave
Karma Yoga instruction to Arjuna because he wanted to give up his duty
and run away.

First Karma Yoga makes him eligible for higher studies. Bhagavad Gita
is for Madhyama Adhikaris only.

But only 0.00000...1% of world's 7 billion population will be Uttama
Adhikaris. Rest are below that.

Gita is for practically all people.

2011/11/2 D.V.N.Sarma డి.వి.ఎన్.శర్మ <dvnsarma <at> gmail.com>:
> Prof.Lance Nelson considers Arjuna to be a madhyama adhikari.
> The question arises "Why the Lord taught things meant for a uttama adhikari
> to Arjuna?"
>
> regards,
> Sarma.
>
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk <at> gmail.com
>> wrote:
>
>> There is no English translation of this work. Prof Lance Nelson is
>> writing one and his thesis covers the points in BhR. It is available
>> online.
>>
>> On 31/10/2011, Krunal Makwana <makwanakb <at> googlemail.com> wrote:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Venkata sriram P | 2 Nov 2011 06:28
Picon
Favicon

Bhakti Rasayanam

Dear All,
 
A copy of Bhakti Rasayana of Madhusudana Saraswati is there in the kamakoti website
 
http://www.kamakoti.org/telugu/30/chapters.htm
 
This is in Telugu.  A short biographical sketch of MS is also provided here.
 
regs,
sriram
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Rajaram Venkataramani | 2 Nov 2011 08:25
Picon

Re: Nirguna Brahman and Maya

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 12:44 AM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
kuntimaddisada@...> wrote:

>
> PraNAms
>
> First we cannot ask what about NirguNa Brahman since that very question
> objectifies that which cannot be objectified.
> For our understanding we can say a jnaani understands that His true nature
> is beyond words and names.
> He also understands all the words and names are mithyaa only.
> He understands all are in Him but yet none are in Him as Krishna says
> mastaani sarva bhuutani  and then again na ca mastaani bhuutani.
> This apparent contradiction is one from undersanding I am the NirguNa
> Brahman and other understanding all this apparent naama and ruupa are my
> glory.
>

Ishwara can understand or say this but Nirguna Brahman does not know any
thing other than Him. There is no name or form - apparent or real for
Nirguna Brahman. Is it not?

There are two questions:

   1. When one says or hears "aham brahmasmi", what is he supposed to
   understand? The entity indicated by the word Brahman is beyond
   comprehension and understanding. So, a speaker is equating an entity that
   is known (I) to an entity that is unknown (Brahman). This is useful when we
   have to understand the unknown entity in terms of the known but not to
   remove ignorance about a known entity with the knowledge of an unknown
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ramesh Krishnamurthy | 2 Nov 2011 09:17
Picon

Re: Nirguna Brahman and Maya

Namaste,

nirvisheSha brahman is not an entity the way you put it. In fact it is not
an entity at all in the sense that it is not an object at all. In the final
analysis, understanding "aham brahmAsmI" essentially means getting out or
letting go of the tendency to objectify and limit oneself.

For example, consider the following statements:

"I am a human"

"I am a son"

"I am a thinker"

"I am a doer"

"I am a knower"

Whenever I make such statements, I am objectifying and thereby limiting
myself, for any object excludes others.

The constant human "thirst" is a thirst for fulfilment, of freedom from
limitations. As long as the tendency for self-objectification continues,
the thirst also continues. This tendency for self-objectification is what
is termed avidyA, and expresses itself in the form a mutual superimposition
of Atman and anAtman.

When I get out of this tendency, I "understand" my own limitlessness. This
is expressed empirically by saying that I am the truth of all objects, but
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
kuntimaddi sadananda | 2 Nov 2011 14:58
Picon
Favicon

Talks on Kenopanishad and Bhagavad Gita

PraNAms - 
 
Talks on Kenopanishad, and Bhagavad Gita on you-tube are up-loaded for those who are interested. The link
for the tow can be found below. 
 
Hari Om!
Sadananda

<http://forum.advaitaforum.com/index.php?topic=252.0>
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Kalyan K | 2 Nov 2011 16:44
Picon

Scholarly Article on Why Vedas are Valid

Namaste Vidyasankar-ji,

Here is my long-delayed response to your post.

>We might be talking at cross purposes here. My point is not that there
>should be no temples for the vedic gods. My point is that we need not
>have an expectation of temple worship for indra, agni, vAyu, varuNa etc.

Why is that we should not have such an expectation? I do not think that
just because yajna is a mode of worship, we should not have such
expectations.

In any case, I interpreted it as meaning that they should not have temples
since you mentioned that they were not supposed to be worshipped in
temples.

>My counter to that would be to suggest that we need to revisit what we
>mean by primary vedic gods and minor vedic gods.

Good point raised. I will tell my point of view below. In the meanwhile,
here are a few questions to ponder about -

1. Can you say that purusha is a major rig vedic god due to purusha sukta?
2. Can you really say that Indra and Agni are minor vedic gods?

>The popular gods of
>today have been the popular gods of yesterday and of the day before
>yesterday too, as far as I can see.

Here is a counter example - Shirdi Sai baba was not a popular god  (as he
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane