1) Bhagavatham is that which tells us what the universe's essence is all about. To gain moksha, you need to know everything (because the lord is everything) or you can know the essence of everything- which is knowing about the Lord. This is also called Brahma Vidya. What is Brahma Vidya? - The knowledge that the root cause of this creation is Bhagavan. 2) what is Bhagavanth? He who is very opulent. There is only one bhagavan in this world. Bhagavan also means that he is the one whose body is this entire creation. 3) Why is Pariksit so lucky? He is lucky because he knew when he was going to die, he knew for sure that he had 7 days to live to contemplate on the lord. While , no one else at that time had this capability to predict for sure how many days they are going to live. 4) How long does it take to gain the grace of the lord of this world? A moment . 5) How long does it take to see God? Less than a moment.
An acharya from Sri Vaishnava sect was telling this as he was giving a whole 7 day session on bhagavatham. .
I have read the bahgavatham ..what verse is this located:??? 4) How long does it take to gain the grace of the lord of this world? A moment . 5) How long does it take to see God? Less than a moment. You may be reading into someone else's interpretation. And that I think its a mistake...if G Lucas makes Star wars and another director makes a phony version of it,,,you cannot quote from that phony version and then say that Lucas said that.
I am not exactly sure. I doubt he would change it, maybe I have not listened properly. I will try to find out where it is said in bhagavatham.
I have read the SB since 1978, and now I have it at home in its entirety.. I may not now what is in it even if i have read it over a hundred times....but I know what is not in it...there are no zen type riddles,and the closest to that is one story where a swan is asked "who are you?" and he goes into the intricacies of the who am I? But that is rare since the SB sticks to the qualities of Krishna as its main messsage. What I try to warn you against, is reading a version that does not have the original sanskrit in it in its completness, and the Iskon version is the only one I have seen with it. I have such great aversion to butcherings of scriptures, that even when Baktivedanta ads or takes away, it makes me cringe. Let the book speak for itself, it needs no purport, or the least interpretation; indeed it speaks for itself.
No no no, he probably didn't mean it like I said it. maybe I shouldn't have said it this way then. Anyway, he was talking about how Pariksit thought he was unlucky but Suka deva Goswami said that he is not unlucky, because he has 7 days to contemplate on the lord. Then, he talks about another person who just has a moment to live and even in that moment he strives to do Lord's dhyana and finally gains moksha within that moment itself. If he could have done it, then Pariksit had 7 days! so thats alot of time. If I made it sound like it shouldn't sound like, then I apologize. You seem to have more knowledge than me, I know better than to argue with an expert
But I'm not arguing with you Jedi (and by the way I'm glad you still hanging around), it's all meant to be a joyful trip. However we have to be careful to never add nor take away from what's written as it is. Even if you write, lets say an essay about how you feel about Krishna, and another tries to quote you, or tell your message in their own words, and in the process adds something that you know is not what you meant, but what's worse may by doing that they mislead the people, then is not a harmless thing at all. When it comes to what Vasistha or Valmiki or Vishnu meant, and them being so absolutely careful to use the pefect words, examples and analogies, and others being careless and unconcerned, and playing with words and parables.... much harm is done. There are so many atheists because of that. One person may say one thing, and another say another thing; then the listener loses faith. Many young people lose faith very early, merely because their parents couldn't agree on what was what, and when was when. My absolute faith in the scriptures is reinforced constantly because I believe it was God who wrote them; and if I lived to be a thousand, or even a million years old, I'd be finding more and more depth in them, more meaning, more grandeur-----but only if they have not been tampered with. To use a humorous analogy: Its like a hard-working french cheff seeing an american customer put ketchup in his masterpiece.:drool:
Very well, I agree with you and will watch out for that. Actually people in the past have told me to watch out for that too. Thank you.
The Bhagavatam cannot be added to, it is completely complete. But in reflection upon it, our understanding of it can evolve and grow. Even linguistically there are fresh and beautiful intricacies that are being discovered even now and plenty I am sure that still havent been unearthed. There are other versions available with the sanskrit from RK mission and other sources in India. And I definitely care very little for the translation and interpretations of ISKCON, though I do credit them with doing a lot to make the text available and I am grateful for that.
I see nothing wrong in what the teacher said. It is the nature of pravachan that you provide an interpretation and elaboration of a scripture to bring out the beauty within it. If any of those statements had NOT been explicitly made in the bhagavatam, they may all nonetheless be inferred without too much of a stretch, from even just the introductory verses.
I agree with that. The only thing is that it should be mentioned who said, and where, so that the purists will not be confused. Anything you quote is good to have its author, mentioned. If it's not purely in the Sb then one should say that. Christains sometimes tell their kids: "it's in the bible, what Im telling you" and later the kids find out that it wasn't, what does that do for their respect?
Actually that goes without saying. In all the different sampradayas Ive been in, if a quote is used, then the source is mentioned, otherwise it is understood that what is said is the teacher's words. Please understand that in this case I am fighting the urge to allow those small-minded purists to take a running jump off Govardhan. I don't have verse and line numbers, but the scriptures do say (I forget which upanishad) that the Sadguru's words are of greater value than scripture. If the Sadguru contradicts the scriptures, then it is the guru who must be followed.
No guru could contradict the scriptures, but the sadguru is Krishna himself, and he can do anyhthing without deviating anyone. I understand fanaticism and overpurists attitudes, and how just by that atitude alone they can be usually wrong 100% of the time, and also miss the mark. My stance is more of one in support-protection that the perfect consistency of the written word be not tainted by poetic licence.
No I agree with you Hari, I might have not understood the acharya properly. I don't dare say the acharya was contradicting bhagavatham, he wasn't.
On the whole teachers don't do that. But there are specific circumstances when the individual student is directed to do something that is not consistent with the scriptures, for whatever reason. Of course, in doing so, the student is still following the scripture because the scripture herslef says to follow the guru.
The true guru is the means; but there are some half-baked prophets too, making it hard to discern for most common folks, and that's why we must be alert. From another perspective, it is easy to also by-pass a true prophet, as in the case of Jesus Christ, where his own religion rejected him.
