The Shrimad Bagavatam: have you studied it?

I've only read some of the 10th canto but I will love to read more

 

Aww lol. He's such a cute. He would eat anything from Radha's hands because it was in his lover's hands. lol.

 

There were gurus here already and in fact he began his journey first by being a cook in some other gurus's ashram or storefront, but he hated everything about it because he does not agrree one iota about the impersonal aspect of God (as it is so wonderfully explained in the Vasistha Yoga)

About Bakti, when I use them term I reffer to love of Krishna, really loving the character naturally, not being at awe about his position (supreme God of all gods) but like Radha or Chaitanya later on in that incaranation.

The word "bakti" means that, and does not include impersonal realisation, at least I have come to understand that after decades of reading both kinds of literature.

 

Yup, the supreme Lord of the universe , is a slave of her tender hearts love.

 

you have to read some more... don't know what books you are reading

for one, "impersonal realization" is a term i've never seen outside of poor funded arguments of bs and so by the very fact you are using this term, means you are not very well informed

the ideas you have a poor understanding of are what is known as advaita and bhakti, love is very much the essence of advaitin practices

 

I first read the bahagavad gita in 1975, and the Bhagavatam I started with the Krishna trilogy in 1978, the Vasisthat Yoga began in 1980.

If you read the Bagavatam you will see the word "impersonal" used many times, at least by Baktivedanta.

I stayed twice for two weeks at Krishna temples, and for years I was trying to convince the devotees in the temple that there was no difference, but they continue to this day to be as stubborn as bulls as far as denouncing the Brahman concept. Believe me I have argued and raised some hell.

Only recently I read the biography of Chaitanya and then I understood why
they were so adamant against the wholle concept of what they term "impersonal".

Perhaps you have never been to a Krishna temple.

Go get some prasadam sometime.

 

That may be their stance.

But Shankaracharya, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and others were staunch advaitins , and at the same time worshipped Krishna too.

 

There's nothing wrong with worshipping the impersonal, since this is solely what Vasistha taught Rama, and isn't "Chaitanya"(last Avataras name) concioussness? ( what the Vasistha yoga refers as the absolute) and isn't the meaning about all philosophies "acynta veba veba" Sri chaitanyas' conclusion about the final truth,"all is simultaneously one and different"?

 

Thats the way it looks, If krishna is the fire, Radha is closer to the fire than all of us in that instance .

The moral could be said that krishna is for everyone, but whoever goes close to him, he comes close to that person. He is one's best friend, best lover, best son, best father if one chooses him as such.

 

Nothing is really mine
Nothing is really mine except Krishna.
O my parents, I have searched the world
And found nothing worthy of love.
Hence I am a stranger amidst my kinfolk
And an exile from their company,
Since I seek the companionship of holy men;
There alone do I feel happy,
In the world I only weep.

I planted the creeper of love
And silently watered it with my tears;
Now it has grown and overspread my dwelling.
You offered me a cup of poison
Which I drank with joy.
Mira is absorbed in contemplation of Krishna,
She is with God and all is well!

-Mirabai

 

the word "impersonal" is never used in the bhagavatam. only in translations as the work itself is in sanskrit

the word itself, "impersonal" is used to describe the heartless machine like way people and the world have become with modern industrialization and so to describe someone's faith as impersonal i find derogatory and i'm sure bhaktivedanta and his guru knew that when they chose this word as they were offensive towards practitioners of advaita theology

so what book about chaitanya did you read? have you read any s. k. de? he claims that chaitanya was an advaitin with strong bhakti sentiments. for one, it is historically true that he preferred sridhar swami's (a known advaitin) rendition of the bhagavatam. chaitanya as well took initiation from an advaitin. the story is a long one if you care to investigate

the food is good but its the philosophy i don't eat

 

Swamiji at the Vedanta Centre said in his talk about Sri Chaitanya that he was initiatied into the Swami Order of Shankaraacharya....indeed bhakti is not at all divorced from Advaita Vedanta

 

Poonja, the Indian enlightened master, states that he physically saw Krishna when he was a child at night when the child Krishna visited him and played games with him and spoke to him, at night when he was going to sleep.
He states that he physically touched Krishna too. When his mother, who was the sister of Swami Rama Tirtha, checked his room when hearing noises, found no one there except Poonja.
This continued for many months till Krishna didn't return.

However this made a strong impression on Poonja, who became a strong devotee of Krishna to his adulthood.
Later in his search for wisdom he met Ramana Maharshi, who asked him to seek God not externally , but within himself.

Poonja did honestly as the master taught him to do, and he became self-realized and enlightened.

And he himself , like maharshi , became a proponent of advaita vedanta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._W._L._Poonja


http://www.realization.org/page/doc0/doc0096c.htm

Ramana maharshi , the proponent of advaita vedanta and enlightened master, himself wept silently upon seeing a picture of Krishna playing the flute to Radha.

Similarly with Paramahamsa Yogananda , who writes in his book ,"The autobiography of a yogi " of seeing Krishna smiling and waving at him outside his room.

Similarly with Aurobindo , who while arguing his case in a court, instantly saw Krishna everywhere, in the judge, in the lawyers, in the policemen, and the people.

And both aurobindo and yogananda too were advocates of advaita vedanta.

 

What book about chaitanya did you read?
I began reading it last, after I have read many times the Bhagavatam.
I even made a Journal about it
http://nilagriv.livejournal.com/

Only by reading parts of this book I understood the baktis philosphy, and I have to admit it was still too heavy for me since I have held on to advaita philosophy like for ever.

I followed Muktananda since 1980 till he died, taking one intensive and reading all his books.

I believed in him and what he preached, but I'm not sure now about what he practiced. I think he may have been another Nasrudin.

 

that is correct, his guru was isvara puri of the sankaracarya order

 

He ate mud once.

 

Then Yashoda Mata opened Baby Krishna's mouth and saw the whole universe!

 

The entire univese is nothing but mud.

 

true, it is incorrect to say chaitanya was vegetarian since mud is not a vegetable

 

And since mud obviously have worms or bacteria or stuff, you can say that Chaitanya was a non-vegetarian. :jester: