[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[seventhray1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHh9ywmo5AE


Yifu, this is the category you fall into by diminishing the adherents of
Bhagawan.

(yea, I know I've posted this before, but it is such a classic)


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> Ravi, I am indeed blessed to be targeted by you, and am now in a
select group. Keep up the good work...I have seen you evolve quite a bit
since your first posts speaking in the 3-rd person and the like.
> You seem to be getting "smoother..." and more settled down, as to your
energy field; although some work remains to be done.
> http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/redtail-hawks.jpg
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Yogi" raviyogi@ wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear yifuxero piece of shit - your nightmare is coming true the Hare
Krishnas are coming after you, you can run or hide but they will surely
make you Krishna's bitch. Say goodbye to all your stupid posts with
links from Google images.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Nope...I'm familiar with the tricks of these devious Krishna
Bhaktis. They state outright (privately), that any tricks whatsoever are
legitimate, as long as it results in somebody saying "Krishna". Take a
look at what he's doing pursuant to the previous efforts of the Hare
Krishna Guru.
> > > ...
> > > The latter's pov was that Krishna was Superior to the impersonal
Absolute, and that the impersonal Absolute was an "emanation" of
Krishna. That message obviously will not be conducive toward converting
the Impersonalists (i.e. non-dualists) such as Buddhists, Advaitins,
Neo-Advaitins, and of course the whole fold of TMO and
Maharishi-inspired Cosmology. We can broadly combine the various
separate originations of non-dualism (mainly Buddhism and Saivite
Hinduism); into what Wilber calls "The Great Tradition". Adi Da called
this world-view "Advaitayana Buddhism".
> > > ...
> > > Now getting back to the Guru below, let's zero-in on a single
statement that calls his bluff, exposing his hairy butt, revealing the
Wolf; and a phoney attempt to trick the Impersonalists into worshipping
Krishna: It's
> > > ...
> > > "And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal
form"
> > >
> > > That's it right there!. Let's go over this examining the key
words. First, "Bhagavan". By this he really means "Krishna". It's
obvious this deceiver is a Hare Krishna Vaishava Gaudiya Bhakti akin to
the Hare Krisha Guruonly the latter was a white zebra with black
stripes, and this Guru is black with white stripes. There both
zebras.((but no offense to black or white...just the same old critter
but differing stripes).
> > > ...
> > > OK, as stated a million times, there's no evidence that (even if
there were a "Bhagavan"), that Krishna is THE Bhagavan, as opposed to
(say) YHVH. Apart from Vaisnava Scriptures chiefly the Srimad Bhagavan,
what's the evidence that Krishna is "Bhagavan"?
> > > ...
> > > In order to pull the wool of your eyes, he's simply replaced
"Supreme Personality of Godhead", with "Bhagavan", and tricked you even
more.
> > > ...
> > > Next, the sentence says "...which is the Absolute".
Duuuhhheverything is the Absolute. A dirt clod = the Buddha. There
is no Absolute "above" the Absolute. A dirt clod is equal in its
Absoluteness to Krishna. Krishna is not "more" Absolute than dog crap.
Dog = "God" backwards, same stuff.
> > > ...
> > > Next to Last, he says..."...Absolute with Personal Form". Again,
this is pure Hare Krishna bullshit, only he's cleverly eliminated saying
"Supreme Personality of Godhead". Everything is "Absolute with form", if
it has form. But again, apart from Scriptures, no evidence, that Krishna
is THE MAN.
> > > ...
> > > Last, zeroing in on the final 2 words, "Personal Form", this is
faith-based on Scriptural Authority. We are to believe Krishna's
"Personal Form" (whatever the word they use - Viratarupa...) is somehow
superior to the Christian Deity?, the Mormon God, or Xenu? Tom
Cruise,...where are you
> > > ...
> > > See what he's doing? He's eliminated "Supreme Personality of God",
replacing that with "Bhagavan", and eliminating the Hare Krishna Guru's
usage of "Absolute Body", or "Viratarupa", with essentially, an equally
faith-based, totally Scriptural assertion: That Bhagavan (Krishna) is
THE Personal God above other Gods, and that He's the Absolute in
Personal form.
> > > ...
> > > Adi Da claimed the same thing for himself: that he was the
Transcendental Man, the Absolute in Personal form, blah, blah,...total
rubbish. Any Personality whomever is obviously "The Absolute in Personal
form". Even Hitler. So go figure.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various
stripes - the Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow
b

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[Yifu]

Ravi, I am indeed blessed to be targeted by you, and am now in a select group. 
Keep up the good work...I have seen you evolve quite a bit since your first 
posts speaking in the 3-rd person and the like.
You seem to be getting "smoother..." and more settled down, as to your energy 
field; although some work remains to be done.
http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/redtail-hawks.jpg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ravi Yogi"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Dear yifuxero piece of shit - your nightmare is coming true the Hare Krishnas 
> are coming after you, you can run or hide but they will surely make you 
> Krishna's bitch. Say goodbye to all your stupid posts with links from Google 
> images.
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> >
> > Nope...I'm familiar with the tricks of these devious Krishna Bhaktis. They 
> > state outright (privately), that any tricks whatsoever are legitimate, as 
> > long as it results in somebody saying "Krishna". Take a look at what he's 
> > doing pursuant to the previous efforts of the Hare Krishna Guru.
> > ...
> > The latter's pov was that Krishna was Superior to the impersonal Absolute, 
> > and that the impersonal Absolute was an "emanation" of Krishna. That 
> > message obviously will not be conducive toward converting the 
> > Impersonalists (i.e. non-dualists) such as Buddhists, Advaitins, 
> > Neo-Advaitins, and of course the whole fold of TMO and Maharishi-inspired 
> > Cosmology. We can broadly combine the various separate originations of 
> > non-dualism (mainly Buddhism and Saivite Hinduism); into what Wilber calls 
> > "The Great Tradition". Adi Da called this world-view "Advaitayana Buddhism".
> > ...
> > Now getting back to the Guru below, let's zero-in on a single statement 
> > that calls his bluff, exposing his hairy butt, revealing the Wolf; and a 
> > phoney attempt to trick the Impersonalists into worshipping Krishna: 
> > It's
> > ...
> > "And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form"
> > 
> > That's it right there!. Let's go over this examining the key words. First, 
> > "Bhagavan". By this he really means "Krishna". It's obvious this deceiver 
> > is a Hare Krishna Vaishava Gaudiya Bhakti akin to the Hare Krisha 
> > Guruonly the latter was a white zebra with black stripes, and this Guru 
> > is black with white stripes. There both zebras.((but no offense to black or 
> > white...just the same old critter but differing stripes).
> > ...
> > OK, as stated a million times, there's no evidence that (even if there were 
> > a "Bhagavan"), that Krishna is THE Bhagavan, as opposed to (say) YHVH.  
> > Apart from Vaisnava Scriptures chiefly the Srimad Bhagavan, what's the 
> > evidence that Krishna is "Bhagavan"?
> > ...
> > In order to pull the wool of your eyes, he's simply replaced "Supreme 
> > Personality of Godhead", with "Bhagavan", and tricked you even more.
> > ...
> > Next, the sentence says "...which is the Absolute". Duuuhhheverything 
> > is the Absolute. A dirt clod = the Buddha. There is no Absolute "above" the 
> > Absolute. A dirt clod is equal in its Absoluteness to Krishna. Krishna is 
> > not "more" Absolute than dog crap. Dog = "God" backwards, same stuff.
> > ...
> > Next to Last, he says..."...Absolute with Personal Form". Again, this is 
> > pure Hare Krishna bullshit, only he's cleverly eliminated saying "Supreme 
> > Personality of Godhead".  Everything is "Absolute with form", if it has 
> > form.  But again, apart from Scriptures, no evidence, that Krishna is THE 
> > MAN.
> > ...
> > Last, zeroing in on the final 2 words, "Personal Form", this is faith-based 
> > on Scriptural Authority. We are to believe Krishna's "Personal Form" 
> > (whatever the word they use - Viratarupa...) is somehow superior to the 
> > Christian Deity?, the Mormon God, or Xenu? Tom Cruise,...where are you
> > ...
> > See what he's doing? He's eliminated "Supreme Personality of God", 
> > replacing that with "Bhagavan", and eliminating the Hare Krishna Guru's 
> > usage of "Absolute Body", or "Viratarupa", with essentially, an equally 
> > faith-based, totally Scriptural assertion: That Bhagavan (Krishna) is THE 
> > Personal God above other Gods, and that He's the Absolute in Personal form.
> > ...
> > Adi Da claimed the same thing for himself: that he was the Transcendental 
> > Man, the Absolute in Personal form, blah, blah,...total rubbish. Any 
> > Personality whomever is obviously "The Absolute in Personal form". Even 
> > Hitler. So go figure.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - 
> > > > the Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) 
> > > > claims Krishna is the "Supreme Personality of Godhead", apart from 
> > > > Scriptures, what's the evidence? 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You're not pa

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[do.rflex]

Your obvious anger and open hostility toward Bhaktis tell much more than 
anything else about your point of view here, Yifu.

It isn't only the Hare Krishnas [whom you apparently despise] that look to 
'enlightenment' in terms of a personal relationship with God. Guru Dev's 
discourses are filled with recommendations to follow Bhagwan and to worship 
Paramatma, all according to the Veda Shastras. The following are only two of 
the dozens of examples he offers:

--- Attainment of Bhagwan's World [from Guru Dev]---

"With the support of "nishkama (disinterested) karma yoga" every human being 
can come to the other side of the ocean of being

"nishkama karma" does not mean to do action without desire, because without 
desire then nobody can have the pravritti (tendency, inclination or 
perseverance) of mind [to perform action]. 

There are two causes of pravritti (tendency for activity), one is the knowledge 
of "ishta sadhana" that is information that by doing an action we shall gain 
fulfilment; and secondly the knowledge of "krita sadhyata", knowledge that this 
work is feasible and possible for us to accomplish. 

Only by knowing these two pieces of information can there be a spur for any man 
to perform action. If there is any uncertainty about either of the two aspects 
then the spur to action will not occur. Therefore preceding a spur to action 
there must be the desire. Consequently the meaning of "nishkama karma" appears 
to be exactly this, that the karma suitable to be done is that which is fitting 
to offer to Bhagwan. 

"nishkama karma" is action done on Bhagwan's account. That karma that is to be 
offered to Bhagwan, and is not on account of being attached. Your right is only 
in the action of karma; never desire the effects.

Because the soul's life has been suffering poverty from many lifetimes; it has 
no help with this call for assistance, not knowing what to ask for. When any 
demand is made then the demand is based on one's own merit. If the soul will 
wish for the effects of its karmas, then by one's merit there will be little 
effect desired, but if one surrenders to Bhagwan then Bhagwan who is 
All-Knowing, All-Powerful, from one's own merit offered to him on high he will 
give a high gift.

Intelligently, delivering to Bhagavat (God), doing action, man gains Bhagwan's 
world. 

According to devotion he receives salvation, freedom and deliverance and is 
always released from being bound to birth and death. 

Performing karma one gets freed from bondage of life and death, this is the 
means to acquire moksha (final liberation, beatitude, redemption, absolution, 
quietus, salvation, freedom, death).

>From Guru Dev, 
Swami Brahmananda Saraswati's 108 Discourses
[Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita kaNa 8 of 108]
http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/UA_Hindi.htm#kaNa_8


--The power of the grace of Bhagwan is not an arrangement to commit paapa 
(sin). In truth with the endless feeling from singing bhajan (hymns) to Bhagwan 
no forbidden behaviour can be practised. 
Then there is infinite wealth, for without Bhagwan there is nothing. When this 
kind of condition of devotion will come, then only that which pleases Bhagwan 
will be done. 

In the name of Bhagwan the strength of sin fades, so much so that wicked 
wrongdoings cannot be done. 

Valmiki is an example of maharishis (sages) who were very evil and wicked 
before but who let go of their own wickedness after being fully attentive to 
worshipping Bhagwan, from when they were made good. However sinful one is 
before, yet if he applies himself to worshipping Bhagwan, then sadagati 
(salvation, good conduct) will be certain.

[Shri Shankaracharya UpadeshAmrita kaNa 15 of 108]


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> Nope...I'm familiar with the tricks of these devious Krishna Bhaktis. They 
> state outright (privately), that any tricks whatsoever are legitimate, as 
> long as it results in somebody saying "Krishna". Take a look at what he's 
> doing pursuant to the previous efforts of the Hare Krishna Guru.
> ...
> The latter's pov was that Krishna was Superior to the impersonal Absolute, 
> and that the impersonal Absolute was an "emanation" of Krishna. That message 
> obviously will not be conducive toward converting the Impersonalists (i.e. 
> non-dualists) such as Buddhists, Advaitins, Neo-Advaitins, and of course the 
> whole fold of TMO and Maharishi-inspired Cosmology. We can broadly combine 
> the various separate originations of non-dualism (mainly Buddhism and Saivite 
> Hinduism); into what Wilber calls "The Great Tradition". Adi Da called this 
> world-view "Advaitayana Buddhism".
> ...
> Now getting back to the Guru below, let's zero-in on a single statement that 
> calls his bluff, exposing his hairy butt, revealing the Wolf; and a phoney 
> attempt to trick the Impersonalists into worshipping Krishna: It's
> ...
> "And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form"
> 
> That's it right t

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[seventhray1]

Is your real name Matlock?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> Nope...I'm familiar with the tricks of these devious Krishna Bhaktis.
They state outright (privately), that any tricks whatsoever are
legitimate, as long as it results in somebody saying "Krishna". Take a
look at what he's doing pursuant to the previous efforts of the Hare
Krishna Guru.
> ...
> The latter's pov was that Krishna was Superior to the impersonal
Absolute, and that the impersonal Absolute was an "emanation" of
Krishna. That message obviously will not be conducive toward converting
the Impersonalists (i.e. non-dualists) such as Buddhists, Advaitins,
Neo-Advaitins, and of course the whole fold of TMO and
Maharishi-inspired Cosmology. We can broadly combine the various
separate originations of non-dualism (mainly Buddhism and Saivite
Hinduism); into what Wilber calls "The Great Tradition". Adi Da called
this world-view "Advaitayana Buddhism".
> ...
> Now getting back to the Guru below, let's zero-in on a single
statement that calls his bluff, exposing his hairy butt, revealing the
Wolf; and a phoney attempt to trick the Impersonalists into worshipping
Krishna: It's
> ...
> "And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form"
>
> That's it right there!. Let's go over this examining the key words.
First, "Bhagavan". By this he really means "Krishna". It's obvious this
deceiver is a Hare Krishna Vaishava Gaudiya Bhakti akin to the Hare
Krisha Guruonly the latter was a white zebra with black stripes, and
this Guru is black with white stripes. There both zebras.((but no
offense to black or white...just the same old critter but differing
stripes).
> ...
> OK, as stated a million times, there's no evidence that (even if there
were a "Bhagavan"), that Krishna is THE Bhagavan, as opposed to (say)
YHVH. Apart from Vaisnava Scriptures chiefly the Srimad Bhagavan, what's
the evidence that Krishna is "Bhagavan"?
> ...
> In order to pull the wool of your eyes, he's simply replaced "Supreme
Personality of Godhead", with "Bhagavan", and tricked you even more.
> ...
> Next, the sentence says "...which is the Absolute".
Duuuhhheverything is the Absolute. A dirt clod = the Buddha. There
is no Absolute "above" the Absolute. A dirt clod is equal in its
Absoluteness to Krishna. Krishna is not "more" Absolute than dog crap.
Dog = "God" backwards, same stuff.
> ...
> Next to Last, he says..."...Absolute with Personal Form". Again, this
is pure Hare Krishna bullshit, only he's cleverly eliminated saying
"Supreme Personality of Godhead". Everything is "Absolute with form", if
it has form. But again, apart from Scriptures, no evidence, that Krishna
is THE MAN.
> ...
> Last, zeroing in on the final 2 words, "Personal Form", this is
faith-based on Scriptural Authority. We are to believe Krishna's
"Personal Form" (whatever the word they use - Viratarupa...) is somehow
superior to the Christian Deity?, the Mormon God, or Xenu? Tom
Cruise,...where are you
> ...
> See what he's doing? He's eliminated "Supreme Personality of God",
replacing that with "Bhagavan", and eliminating the Hare Krishna Guru's
usage of "Absolute Body", or "Viratarupa", with essentially, an equally
faith-based, totally Scriptural assertion: That Bhagavan (Krishna) is
THE Personal God above other Gods, and that He's the Absolute in
Personal form.
> ...
> Adi Da claimed the same thing for himself: that he was the
Transcendental Man, the Absolute in Personal form, blah, blah,...total
rubbish. Any Personality whomever is obviously "The Absolute in Personal
form". Even Hitler. So go figure.
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex" do.rflex@ wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various
stripes - the Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow
below...etc) claims Krishna is the "Supreme Personality of Godhead",
apart from Scriptures, what's the evidence?
> >
> >
> > You're not paying attention, Yifu and you clearly didn't read the
post. He didn't claim that Krishna is the "Supreme Personality of
Godhead".
> >
> > This is what he said:
> >
> > "Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual – is the
Absolute personal, is the Absolute impersonal?" And sometimes I would
get very vague answers. And sometimes I would get very conflicting,
combating answers against the apparent opposing side. And I was really
looking to understand.
> >
> > "And on the path of Bhakti I found what I felt to be the synthesis
of the two, and it's based on the Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads,
the holy scriptures and a whole line of great saintly people who teach
this principle. And I'll share with you a little piece of it.
> >
> > "There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse in Sanskrit
then explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth we can call
God, we can call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth.
> >
> > And according to 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[Ravi Yogi]

Dear yifuxero piece of shit - your nightmare is coming true the Hare Krishnas 
are coming after you, you can run or hide but they will surely make you 
Krishna's bitch. Say goodbye to all your stupid posts with links from Google 
images.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> Nope...I'm familiar with the tricks of these devious Krishna Bhaktis. They 
> state outright (privately), that any tricks whatsoever are legitimate, as 
> long as it results in somebody saying "Krishna". Take a look at what he's 
> doing pursuant to the previous efforts of the Hare Krishna Guru.
> ...
> The latter's pov was that Krishna was Superior to the impersonal Absolute, 
> and that the impersonal Absolute was an "emanation" of Krishna. That message 
> obviously will not be conducive toward converting the Impersonalists (i.e. 
> non-dualists) such as Buddhists, Advaitins, Neo-Advaitins, and of course the 
> whole fold of TMO and Maharishi-inspired Cosmology. We can broadly combine 
> the various separate originations of non-dualism (mainly Buddhism and Saivite 
> Hinduism); into what Wilber calls "The Great Tradition". Adi Da called this 
> world-view "Advaitayana Buddhism".
> ...
> Now getting back to the Guru below, let's zero-in on a single statement that 
> calls his bluff, exposing his hairy butt, revealing the Wolf; and a phoney 
> attempt to trick the Impersonalists into worshipping Krishna: It's
> ...
> "And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form"
> 
> That's it right there!. Let's go over this examining the key words. First, 
> "Bhagavan". By this he really means "Krishna". It's obvious this deceiver is 
> a Hare Krishna Vaishava Gaudiya Bhakti akin to the Hare Krisha Guruonly 
> the latter was a white zebra with black stripes, and this Guru is black with 
> white stripes. There both zebras.((but no offense to black or white...just 
> the same old critter but differing stripes).
> ...
> OK, as stated a million times, there's no evidence that (even if there were a 
> "Bhagavan"), that Krishna is THE Bhagavan, as opposed to (say) YHVH.  Apart 
> from Vaisnava Scriptures chiefly the Srimad Bhagavan, what's the evidence 
> that Krishna is "Bhagavan"?
> ...
> In order to pull the wool of your eyes, he's simply replaced "Supreme 
> Personality of Godhead", with "Bhagavan", and tricked you even more.
> ...
> Next, the sentence says "...which is the Absolute". Duuuhhheverything is 
> the Absolute. A dirt clod = the Buddha. There is no Absolute "above" the 
> Absolute. A dirt clod is equal in its Absoluteness to Krishna. Krishna is not 
> "more" Absolute than dog crap. Dog = "God" backwards, same stuff.
> ...
> Next to Last, he says..."...Absolute with Personal Form". Again, this is pure 
> Hare Krishna bullshit, only he's cleverly eliminated saying "Supreme 
> Personality of Godhead".  Everything is "Absolute with form", if it has form. 
>  But again, apart from Scriptures, no evidence, that Krishna is THE MAN.
> ...
> Last, zeroing in on the final 2 words, "Personal Form", this is faith-based 
> on Scriptural Authority. We are to believe Krishna's "Personal Form" 
> (whatever the word they use - Viratarupa...) is somehow superior to the 
> Christian Deity?, the Mormon God, or Xenu? Tom Cruise,...where are you
> ...
> See what he's doing? He's eliminated "Supreme Personality of God", replacing 
> that with "Bhagavan", and eliminating the Hare Krishna Guru's usage of 
> "Absolute Body", or "Viratarupa", with essentially, an equally faith-based, 
> totally Scriptural assertion: That Bhagavan (Krishna) is THE Personal God 
> above other Gods, and that He's the Absolute in Personal form.
> ...
> Adi Da claimed the same thing for himself: that he was the Transcendental 
> Man, the Absolute in Personal form, blah, blah,...total rubbish. Any 
> Personality whomever is obviously "The Absolute in Personal form". Even 
> Hitler. So go figure.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - 
> > > the Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) claims 
> > > Krishna is the "Supreme Personality of Godhead", apart from Scriptures, 
> > > what's the evidence? 
> > 
> > 
> > You're not paying attention, Yifu and you clearly didn't read the post. He 
> > didn't claim that Krishna is the "Supreme Personality of Godhead". 
> > 
> > This is what he said:
> > 
> > "Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual – is the Absolute 
> > personal, is the Absolute impersonal?" And sometimes I would get very vague 
> > answers. And sometimes I would get very conflicting, combating answers 
> > against the apparent opposing side. And I was really looking to understand. 
> > 
> > "And on the path of Bhakti I found what I felt to be the synthesis of the 
> > two, and it's based on the Shrimad Bhagavatam, t

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[nablusoss1008]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - the 
> Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) claims Krishna 
> is the "Supreme Personality of Godhead", apart from Scriptures, what's the 
> evidence? The Guru below appears to be more "liberal" than the Fundie 
> Bhakti's since he's saying there's a certain legitimacy in accepting the 
> impersonal Absolute in terms of Realization, along with Bhakti. Fine...even 
> Ramana Maharshi was a devotee of Shiva and Ramakrishna was a devotee of Kali.
> ...
> However, under the cover of Absoluteness, he appears to be sneaking in a form 
> of  "Godhead" Personality worship; even though he's provided no evidence that 
> Krishna is superior to YHVH or the Scientology God Xenu. Again, there's no 
> evidence that one or the other of these "gods" is the "Supreme Personality of 
> Godhead".
> ...
> The Guru below is a Wolf in Sheep's clothing - trying to sneak in Hare 
> Krishna Fundamentalism in to the field under the cover of Brahman 
> Realization. It's a Trojan Horse. Don't fall for it.
> ...
> Either there is a "Supreme Personality of the Godhead" or there is not. But 
> should any Entity make such a claim, I would spit in His face. Goddesses such 
> as Kali and Durga are sugar and spice. The male "gods": Krishna, YHVH, 
> Ram,...appear to be self-worshipping abusers high on testosterone rather than 
> Soma.


Rick Archer even interviewed Igal Harmelin, why not another nobody ?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[Yifu]

Nope...I'm familiar with the tricks of these devious Krishna Bhaktis. They 
state outright (privately), that any tricks whatsoever are legitimate, as long 
as it results in somebody saying "Krishna". Take a look at what he's doing 
pursuant to the previous efforts of the Hare Krishna Guru.
...
The latter's pov was that Krishna was Superior to the impersonal Absolute, and 
that the impersonal Absolute was an "emanation" of Krishna. That message 
obviously will not be conducive toward converting the Impersonalists (i.e. 
non-dualists) such as Buddhists, Advaitins, Neo-Advaitins, and of course the 
whole fold of TMO and Maharishi-inspired Cosmology. We can broadly combine the 
various separate originations of non-dualism (mainly Buddhism and Saivite 
Hinduism); into what Wilber calls "The Great Tradition". Adi Da called this 
world-view "Advaitayana Buddhism".
...
Now getting back to the Guru below, let's zero-in on a single statement that 
calls his bluff, exposing his hairy butt, revealing the Wolf; and a phoney 
attempt to trick the Impersonalists into worshipping Krishna: It's
...
"And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form"

That's it right there!. Let's go over this examining the key words. First, 
"Bhagavan". By this he really means "Krishna". It's obvious this deceiver is a 
Hare Krishna Vaishava Gaudiya Bhakti akin to the Hare Krisha Guruonly the 
latter was a white zebra with black stripes, and this Guru is black with white 
stripes. There both zebras.((but no offense to black or white...just the same 
old critter but differing stripes).
...
OK, as stated a million times, there's no evidence that (even if there were a 
"Bhagavan"), that Krishna is THE Bhagavan, as opposed to (say) YHVH.  Apart 
from Vaisnava Scriptures chiefly the Srimad Bhagavan, what's the evidence that 
Krishna is "Bhagavan"?
...
In order to pull the wool of your eyes, he's simply replaced "Supreme 
Personality of Godhead", with "Bhagavan", and tricked you even more.
...
Next, the sentence says "...which is the Absolute". Duuuhhheverything is 
the Absolute. A dirt clod = the Buddha. There is no Absolute "above" the 
Absolute. A dirt clod is equal in its Absoluteness to Krishna. Krishna is not 
"more" Absolute than dog crap. Dog = "God" backwards, same stuff.
...
Next to Last, he says..."...Absolute with Personal Form". Again, this is pure 
Hare Krishna bullshit, only he's cleverly eliminated saying "Supreme 
Personality of Godhead".  Everything is "Absolute with form", if it has form.  
But again, apart from Scriptures, no evidence, that Krishna is THE MAN.
...
Last, zeroing in on the final 2 words, "Personal Form", this is faith-based on 
Scriptural Authority. We are to believe Krishna's "Personal Form" (whatever the 
word they use - Viratarupa...) is somehow superior to the Christian Deity?, the 
Mormon God, or Xenu? Tom Cruise,...where are you
...
See what he's doing? He's eliminated "Supreme Personality of God", replacing 
that with "Bhagavan", and eliminating the Hare Krishna Guru's usage of 
"Absolute Body", or "Viratarupa", with essentially, an equally faith-based, 
totally Scriptural assertion: That Bhagavan (Krishna) is THE Personal God above 
other Gods, and that He's the Absolute in Personal form.
...
Adi Da claimed the same thing for himself: that he was the Transcendental Man, 
the Absolute in Personal form, blah, blah,...total rubbish. Any Personality 
whomever is obviously "The Absolute in Personal form". Even Hitler. So go 
figure.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> >
> > Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - the 
> > Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) claims 
> > Krishna is the "Supreme Personality of Godhead", apart from Scriptures, 
> > what's the evidence? 
> 
> 
> You're not paying attention, Yifu and you clearly didn't read the post. He 
> didn't claim that Krishna is the "Supreme Personality of Godhead". 
> 
> This is what he said:
> 
> "Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual – is the Absolute 
> personal, is the Absolute impersonal?" And sometimes I would get very vague 
> answers. And sometimes I would get very conflicting, combating answers 
> against the apparent opposing side. And I was really looking to understand. 
> 
> "And on the path of Bhakti I found what I felt to be the synthesis of the 
> two, and it's based on the Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy 
> scriptures and a whole line of great saintly people who teach this principle. 
> And I'll share with you a little piece of it.
> 
> "There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse in Sanskrit then 
> explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth we can call God, we can 
> call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth. 
> 
> And according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally, simultaneously 
> has three features: Br

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - the 
> Hare Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) claims Krishna 
> is the "Supreme Personality of Godhead", apart from Scriptures, what's the 
> evidence? 


You're not paying attention, Yifu and you clearly didn't read the post. He 
didn't claim that Krishna is the "Supreme Personality of Godhead". 

This is what he said:

"Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual – is the Absolute personal, 
is the Absolute impersonal?" And sometimes I would get very vague answers. And 
sometimes I would get very conflicting, combating answers against the apparent 
opposing side. And I was really looking to understand. 

"And on the path of Bhakti I found what I felt to be the synthesis of the two, 
and it's based on the Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy scriptures 
and a whole line of great saintly people who teach this principle. And I'll 
share with you a little piece of it.

"There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse in Sanskrit then 
explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth we can call God, we can 
call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth. 

And according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally, simultaneously 
has three features: Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagawan.

"Brahman is the all-pervading formless, impersonal Absolute, which is... the 
realization of that Brahman is to merge with that one Absolute. 

"Paramatma is that one Supreme same Absolute who is situated within the heart 
of every living being, giving guidance, giving intuition when we actually 
connect to it. And Patanjali and many yogis really tried to connect to that 
Paramatma, that Absolute within the heart who can give power, who can give 
wisdom, who can give everything. 

And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with personal form."

-


>
The Guru below appears to be more "liberal" than the Fundie Bhakti's since he's 
saying there's a certain legitimacy in accepting the impersonal Absolute in 
terms of Realization, along with Bhakti. Fine...even Ramana Maharshi was a 
devotee of Shiva and Ramakrishna was a devotee of Kali.
> ...
> However, under the cover of Absoluteness, he appears to be sneaking in a form 
> of  "Godhead" Personality worship; even though he's provided no evidence that 
> Krishna is superior to YHVH or the Scientology God Xenu. Again, there's no 
> evidence that one or the other of these "gods" is the "Supreme Personality of 
> Godhead".
> ...
> The Guru below is a Wolf in Sheep's clothing - trying to sneak in Hare 
> Krishna Fundamentalism in to the field under the cover of Brahman 
> Realization. It's a Trojan Horse. Don't fall for it.
> ...
> Either there is a "Supreme Personality of the Godhead" or there is not. But 
> should any Entity make such a claim, I would spit in His face. Goddesses such 
> as Kali and Durga are sugar and spice. The male "gods": Krishna, YHVH, 
> Ram,...appear to be self-worshipping abusers high on testosterone rather than 
> Soma.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't let yourself be conned by these Krishna Bhaktis. Krishna is not the 
> > > "Supreme Personality of Godhead". 
> > 
> > 
> > Nowhere in the interview was that claimed.
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > There is no such Personality, and the burden of proof apart from merely 
> > quoting Scriptures is on the claimants. 
> > >
> > 
> > So where's the proof of YOUR claim, Yufi?
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > Anybody however, is free to set up a dualist, loving relationship with one 
> > of these "gods"; whomever She/He may be.
> > > http://www.utilitarianism.com/gautama-buddha.jpg
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Excerpt transcribed from an interview Radhanath Swami gave to Rick
> > > > Archer -
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Rick Archer: I exchanged a Facebook chat with someone the other day who
> > > > had had what she called a 'non-dual' realization. If you're kind of in
> > > > tune with the current atmosphere around, there are a lot of teachers
> > > > espousing non-duality and non-dual realizations and I hear very little
> > > > talk of God among them.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > But in any case this girl said that, you know what, there was no sense
> > > > of personal self and all is one, but there was no bliss. And she said,
> > > > well is that all enlightenment is. It's hyped up to be this great
> > > > blissful thing and I'm hardly even interested now. It didn't have the
> > > > allure that I expected it to have.
> > > > 
> > > > I suggested to her that perhaps that little glimpse she had had was not
> > > > necessarily the full blossoming of what enlightenment or realization or
> > > > awakening can be and that she should keep persevering as ther

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[emptybill]

Radhanath Swami holds a position on the ISKCON GBC – the governing
board of the Hari K's.

While what he opines is somewhat less doctrinaire than other members, in
truth he can still only spout ISKCON`s brand of Gaudiya theology.



His responses are comparable to someone at a high level in the TMO –
in other words corporate-speak.

This is one reason he iterates claims from the Gaudiya interpretation of
Shrimad Bhagavatam, since this is the only "real" veda for their
movement.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> Don't let yourself be conned by these Krishna Bhaktis. Krishna is not
the "Supreme Personality of Godhead". There is no such Personality, and
the burden of proof apart from merely quoting Scriptures is on the
claimants. Anybody however, is free to set up a dualist, loving
relationship with one of these "gods"; whomever She/He may be.
> http://www.utilitarianism.com/gautama-buddha.jpg
>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[Yifu]

Like I said, if somebody (say any Krishna Bhaktis of various stripes - the Hare 
Krishna Guru, Swami Prakashanand, the fellow below...etc) claims Krishna is the 
"Supreme Personality of Godhead", apart from Scriptures, what's the evidence? 
The Guru below appears to be more "liberal" than the Fundie Bhakti's since he's 
saying there's a certain legitimacy in accepting the impersonal Absolute in 
terms of Realization, along with Bhakti. Fine...even Ramana Maharshi was a 
devotee of Shiva and Ramakrishna was a devotee of Kali.
...
However, under the cover of Absoluteness, he appears to be sneaking in a form 
of  "Godhead" Personality worship; even though he's provided no evidence that 
Krishna is superior to YHVH or the Scientology God Xenu. Again, there's no 
evidence that one or the other of these "gods" is the "Supreme Personality of 
Godhead".
...
The Guru below is a Wolf in Sheep's clothing - trying to sneak in Hare Krishna 
Fundamentalism in to the field under the cover of Brahman Realization. It's a 
Trojan Horse. Don't fall for it.
...
Either there is a "Supreme Personality of the Godhead" or there is not. But 
should any Entity make such a claim, I would spit in His face. Goddesses such 
as Kali and Durga are sugar and spice. The male "gods": Krishna, YHVH, 
Ram,...appear to be self-worshipping abusers high on testosterone rather than 
Soma.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
> >
> > Don't let yourself be conned by these Krishna Bhaktis. Krishna is not the 
> > "Supreme Personality of Godhead". 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the interview was that claimed.
> 
> 
> >
> There is no such Personality, and the burden of proof apart from merely 
> quoting Scriptures is on the claimants. 
> >
> 
> So where's the proof of YOUR claim, Yufi?
> 
> 
> >
> Anybody however, is free to set up a dualist, loving relationship with one of 
> these "gods"; whomever She/He may be.
> > http://www.utilitarianism.com/gautama-buddha.jpg
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Excerpt transcribed from an interview Radhanath Swami gave to Rick
> > > Archer -
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Rick Archer: I exchanged a Facebook chat with someone the other day who
> > > had had what she called a 'non-dual' realization. If you're kind of in
> > > tune with the current atmosphere around, there are a lot of teachers
> > > espousing non-duality and non-dual realizations and I hear very little
> > > talk of God among them.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > But in any case this girl said that, you know what, there was no sense
> > > of personal self and all is one, but there was no bliss. And she said,
> > > well is that all enlightenment is. It's hyped up to be this great
> > > blissful thing and I'm hardly even interested now. It didn't have the
> > > allure that I expected it to have.
> > > 
> > > I suggested to her that perhaps that little glimpse she had had was not
> > > necessarily the full blossoming of what enlightenment or realization or
> > > awakening can be and that she should keep persevering as there's more to
> > > it.
> > > 
> > > I just want to throw in one more point and I want you to respond, and
> > > that is that interviewing lots and lots of people, a new one every week,
> > > I encounter a great number of people who don't say much or speak much of
> > > God. They almost seem to think of God as a human concept, and yet they
> > > have a sort of a realization, a non-dual realization of some sort. And
> > > I'm always kind of needling them a bit to suggest that perhaps there's
> > > further progress yet to undergo and that the whole thing will become
> > > richer, fuller and more with a Divine quality to it as time goes on.
> > > 
> > > Very often they say, no, no, I don't see how there can possibly be any
> > > further progress. So it's a pity in a way. It seems like, to me anyway,
> > > it's only half the package and there's more to be known.
> > > 
> > > Radhanath Swami: (chuckles) You're expert, Rick, at extracting deeper
> > > and deeper understanding. To be honest with you, I had the same dilemma
> > > on my journey and I have written about in my book 'The Journey Home'
> > > that I met people that I saw such incredible character of compassion ans
> > > self-control and enlightenment.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > And some of them were talking about the Absolute being a very
> > > all-pervading impersonal experience and others, a very intimate loving
> > > personal experience. And I loved my teachers in both of these schools,
> > > and the many variations among these schools.
> > > 
> > > I was only 19 or 20 years old at the time and I was really seeking. And
> > > I couldn't just accept superficial answers some people gave me when I
> > > questioned. "Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual –
> > > is the Absolute personal, is the Absolute impersonal?"
> > > 
> > > 
> > > And sometimes I would get

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[do.rflex]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu"  wrote:
>
> Don't let yourself be conned by these Krishna Bhaktis. Krishna is not the 
> "Supreme Personality of Godhead". 


Nowhere in the interview was that claimed.


>
There is no such Personality, and the burden of proof apart from merely quoting 
Scriptures is on the claimants. 
>

So where's the proof of YOUR claim, Yufi?


>
Anybody however, is free to set up a dualist, loving relationship with one of 
these "gods"; whomever She/He may be.
> http://www.utilitarianism.com/gautama-buddha.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > Excerpt transcribed from an interview Radhanath Swami gave to Rick
> > Archer -
> > 
> > 
> > Rick Archer: I exchanged a Facebook chat with someone the other day who
> > had had what she called a 'non-dual' realization. If you're kind of in
> > tune with the current atmosphere around, there are a lot of teachers
> > espousing non-duality and non-dual realizations and I hear very little
> > talk of God among them.
> > 
> > 
> > But in any case this girl said that, you know what, there was no sense
> > of personal self and all is one, but there was no bliss. And she said,
> > well is that all enlightenment is. It's hyped up to be this great
> > blissful thing and I'm hardly even interested now. It didn't have the
> > allure that I expected it to have.
> > 
> > I suggested to her that perhaps that little glimpse she had had was not
> > necessarily the full blossoming of what enlightenment or realization or
> > awakening can be and that she should keep persevering as there's more to
> > it.
> > 
> > I just want to throw in one more point and I want you to respond, and
> > that is that interviewing lots and lots of people, a new one every week,
> > I encounter a great number of people who don't say much or speak much of
> > God. They almost seem to think of God as a human concept, and yet they
> > have a sort of a realization, a non-dual realization of some sort. And
> > I'm always kind of needling them a bit to suggest that perhaps there's
> > further progress yet to undergo and that the whole thing will become
> > richer, fuller and more with a Divine quality to it as time goes on.
> > 
> > Very often they say, no, no, I don't see how there can possibly be any
> > further progress. So it's a pity in a way. It seems like, to me anyway,
> > it's only half the package and there's more to be known.
> > 
> > Radhanath Swami: (chuckles) You're expert, Rick, at extracting deeper
> > and deeper understanding. To be honest with you, I had the same dilemma
> > on my journey and I have written about in my book 'The Journey Home'
> > that I met people that I saw such incredible character of compassion ans
> > self-control and enlightenment.
> > 
> > 
> > And some of them were talking about the Absolute being a very
> > all-pervading impersonal experience and others, a very intimate loving
> > personal experience. And I loved my teachers in both of these schools,
> > and the many variations among these schools.
> > 
> > I was only 19 or 20 years old at the time and I was really seeking. And
> > I couldn't just accept superficial answers some people gave me when I
> > questioned. "Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual –
> > is the Absolute personal, is the Absolute impersonal?"
> > 
> > 
> > And sometimes I would get very vague answers. And sometimes I would get
> > very conflicting, combatting answers against the apparent opposing side.
> > And I was really looking to understand. And on the path of Bhakti I
> > found what I felt to be the synthesis of the two, and it's based on the
> > Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy scriptures and a whole line
> > of great saintly people who teach this principle. And I'll share with
> > you a little piece of it.
> > 
> > Rick: Please.
> > 
> > Radhanath Swami: There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse
> > in Sanskrit then explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth we
> > can call God, we can call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth. And
> > according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally,
> > simultaneously has three features: Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagawan.
> > 
> > 
> > Brahman is the all-pervading formless, impersonal Absolute, which is...
> > the realization of that Brahman is to merge with that one Absolute.
> > 
> > 
> > Paramatma is that one Supreme same Absolute who is situated within the
> > heart of every living being, giving guidance, giving intuition when we
> > actually connect to it. And Patanjali and many yogis really tried to
> > connect to that Paramatma, that Absolute within the heart who can give
> > power, who can give wisdom, who can give everything.
> > 
> > And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with persnoal form.
> > 
> > Rick: The Personal aspect of God.
> > 
> > Radhanath Swami: Yeah, the Personal aspect of God – just like the
> > sun and the sunshine. The sunshine i

[FairfieldLife] Re: Eternal relationship with God vs Merging with the Absolute

[Yifu]

Don't let yourself be conned by these Krishna Bhaktis. Krishna is not the 
"Supreme Personality of Godhead". There is no such Personality, and the burden 
of proof apart from merely quoting Scriptures is on the claimants. Anybody 
however, is free to set up a dualist, loving relationship with one of these 
"gods"; whomever She/He may be.
http://www.utilitarianism.com/gautama-buddha.jpg



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Excerpt transcribed from an interview Radhanath Swami gave to Rick
> Archer -
> 
> 
> Rick Archer: I exchanged a Facebook chat with someone the other day who
> had had what she called a 'non-dual' realization. If you're kind of in
> tune with the current atmosphere around, there are a lot of teachers
> espousing non-duality and non-dual realizations and I hear very little
> talk of God among them.
> 
> 
> But in any case this girl said that, you know what, there was no sense
> of personal self and all is one, but there was no bliss. And she said,
> well is that all enlightenment is. It's hyped up to be this great
> blissful thing and I'm hardly even interested now. It didn't have the
> allure that I expected it to have.
> 
> I suggested to her that perhaps that little glimpse she had had was not
> necessarily the full blossoming of what enlightenment or realization or
> awakening can be and that she should keep persevering as there's more to
> it.
> 
> I just want to throw in one more point and I want you to respond, and
> that is that interviewing lots and lots of people, a new one every week,
> I encounter a great number of people who don't say much or speak much of
> God. They almost seem to think of God as a human concept, and yet they
> have a sort of a realization, a non-dual realization of some sort. And
> I'm always kind of needling them a bit to suggest that perhaps there's
> further progress yet to undergo and that the whole thing will become
> richer, fuller and more with a Divine quality to it as time goes on.
> 
> Very often they say, no, no, I don't see how there can possibly be any
> further progress. So it's a pity in a way. It seems like, to me anyway,
> it's only half the package and there's more to be known.
> 
> Radhanath Swami: (chuckles) You're expert, Rick, at extracting deeper
> and deeper understanding. To be honest with you, I had the same dilemma
> on my journey and I have written about in my book 'The Journey Home'
> that I met people that I saw such incredible character of compassion ans
> self-control and enlightenment.
> 
> 
> And some of them were talking about the Absolute being a very
> all-pervading impersonal experience and others, a very intimate loving
> personal experience. And I loved my teachers in both of these schools,
> and the many variations among these schools.
> 
> I was only 19 or 20 years old at the time and I was really seeking. And
> I couldn't just accept superficial answers some people gave me when I
> questioned. "Is the Absolute dual, or is the Absolute non-dual –
> is the Absolute personal, is the Absolute impersonal?"
> 
> 
> And sometimes I would get very vague answers. And sometimes I would get
> very conflicting, combatting answers against the apparent opposing side.
> And I was really looking to understand. And on the path of Bhakti I
> found what I felt to be the synthesis of the two, and it's based on the
> Shrimad Bhagavatam, the Upanishads, the holy scriptures and a whole line
> of great saintly people who teach this principle. And I'll share with
> you a little piece of it.
> 
> Rick: Please.
> 
> Radhanath Swami: There's a beautiful verse in the Vedas (recites verse
> in Sanskrit then explains it as follows): There's one Absolute Truth we
> can call God, we can call Nirvana, but there's one Absolute Truth. And
> according to the Vedas, this one Absolute Truth eternally,
> simultaneously has three features: Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagawan.
> 
> 
> Brahman is the all-pervading formless, impersonal Absolute, which is...
> the realization of that Brahman is to merge with that one Absolute.
> 
> 
> Paramatma is that one Supreme same Absolute who is situated within the
> heart of every living being, giving guidance, giving intuition when we
> actually connect to it. And Patanjali and many yogis really tried to
> connect to that Paramatma, that Absolute within the heart who can give
> power, who can give wisdom, who can give everything.
> 
> And then there is Bhagawan which is the Absolute with persnoal form.
> 
> Rick: The Personal aspect of God.
> 
> Radhanath Swami: Yeah, the Personal aspect of God – just like the
> sun and the sunshine. The sunshine is like Brahman. It's all-pervading,
> it's everywhere, it's light. And the sun is simultaneously existing with
> the sunlight and the sun has form. So God simultaneously exists, but God
> is infinite.
> 
> When we say that form limits God, to say that God has no form is also a
> limit of God. So the Bhakti scriptures teach that the form of the Lo