-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Need Help In Understanding Hinduism
- Thread starter grainne
- Start date
What does Swami tapasyananda comment on ,"Brahmano hi pratishtha ham "
"I(Sri Krsna) Am the basis of Brahm"???
There is NO interpretation to this verse.
So we should skip to this verse IN ANY GITA translation and READ the commentary.If the Commentary SUPPORTS the fact that Sri Krsna,the PErson,Is the basis of Brahm,Then it is THE BEST commentary on the geeta,the real deal.
The other commentaries are not so useful for practical purposes and don't make much sense(except to speculators.)
I believe it is important to read widely. Every preacher has a specific focus. None are wrong, they just give a different perspective. Prabhupad focuses on the personal feature of God and heavily emphasises devotion and surrender. But there are things lacking that are fulfilled by other individuals who only lack in this personal aspect. So yeh, read widely. Understand the different views and if you are like me, you will see them all as pieces to the puzzle.
no...really,no.
A mahatma is a person who has all the knowledge FIRST hand.
He KNOWs the revealed vedas and what they actually mean.The svetasvatara upanishad talks about the Supreme Being as running without legs.
The mahatma KNOWs exactly the meaning of such verses.I'm sorry but it's not that intelligent to go through the commentaries of anyone.It only confuses.
tulsidas advises strongly agaonst all this.He says further to not go into the puranas.They will only confuse you.
So whether it is the Brahm Who is formless as described in the upanishads sometimes or if it is the Supreme Lord ,Purusha,Who has a divine body,the mahatma knows all the facts.
It's a different thing that some reveal greater knowledge while others barely describe the nirgun brahm.
A mahatma is a person who has all the knowledge FIRST hand.
He KNOWs the revealed vedas and what they actually mean.The svetasvatara upanishad talks about the Supreme Being as running without legs.
The mahatma KNOWs exactly the meaning of such verses.I'm sorry but it's not that intelligent to go through the commentaries of anyone.It only confuses.
tulsidas advises strongly agaonst all this.He says further to not go into the puranas.They will only confuse you.
So whether it is the Brahm Who is formless as described in the upanishads sometimes or if it is the Supreme Lord ,Purusha,Who has a divine body,the mahatma knows all the facts.
It's a different thing that some reveal greater knowledge while others barely describe the nirgun brahm.
And yet most people are not in association with a person who knows the exact meaning of the verses and many wouldn't know if a person is a realise soul or not. For those people a good starting point is to read widely from the persons who did have great understanding. They didn't write thsoe books for nothing, after all. At least it provides some small level of understanding and provides inspiration. In the end, it is the Paramatma that guides the individual to truth.
No but it is a gopi. It is a painting by a lady named Shamarani.
You would know a Guru by testing them over time, how also could you trust yourself to pick and choose different interpretations? as there would be a tendency to pick what is appealing to us at that moment rather than what is correct.
How could you test them?
I guess we each look for different things.
I tend to think that a guru is genuine when they do not try to convert you or praise themselves. A real guru, in my opinion, is very humble and only tries to point you to God.
I think time and realisation on the individuals behalf is part of the test, and also following the gurus instructions to see if they produce the promised results.
A problem with your last point for me is that the guru could be bona fide representitive of God, so they may automatically appear to us as being the converting type, ssimply because of our fallen states.
What I mean by that last part is that I do not trust a guru who says that you should only follow him, even reject other gurus. I think this is rare but it does happen.
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
Bhagavad gita Chapter 14 Verse 27 is a popular verse with the Daivita crowd. Swami Tapasyananda puts his comments in the back of every chapter. This lets the Gita speak for it self. He give both the Daivita and Adaivita view in his commentary on this verse.To me this Teaching is Krishna is personal.
There are also many many verses in the Vedas that teach Advaita Vedanta. Some verses in the Gita also teach it.
Our scriptures teach many different views and paths to God. So each person can find the right path do to his/her maturity and personal characteristics.
The Mahabhrata is full of different teachings for different people. Just to make my point obvious, lets look at the subject of eating meat.
The great Bhisma has said this in the Mahabharata
'He who desires to attain Supreme Peace should on no account eat the flesh of any animal in the world."
And yet the same text a hunter also gives a long philosophical discourse on why its ok to eat meat. Mahabharata 3.199
The great Rishis of the past have set down a path for us all.
Jai Maa
Last edited:
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
I think it use to be rare today its more common then all of us would like to believe. Just look at all the scandals that plague so many Hindu religious groups today. Some groups have never had a scandal in many many years. That's a good sign if there is no scandals. One group comes to mind. The Ramakrishna Math. They have Thousands of Monks and have been around for well over a 100 years. They have never had a scandal. Not one Swami has went back on his vows in over a 100 years.
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
Yes this is true.
In the Ramayana some of the Rishis did not recognize the Lord Rama as Vishnu yet they were still called rishis. Some call God Krishna, some Mother, some believe in the impersonal God. God has many names. Krishna is so beautiful in so many forms.
That makes sense, if it was ISKCON, there was a lot of controvercy over the changing of the original books, so that false gurus could set themself up, this site is good for links, etc....and see "The guru business" book on here.
PRABHUPADA Your ever well-wisher