Bhagavan discribes himself in Bhagavadgita .... it is the best description ever given, so once asking what is Bhagavan ..itis better to read That than expecting human being to be able to explain it.
@@morekozhambu The Lord says, yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati [Bhagavad Gita 4.7]. 'Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion-at that time I descend Myself." That is why Krishna came. But He also showed Arjuna His universal form by which everyone understood that He is Bhagavan the original personal source of everything.
33 corod Iswar kese hogeya, agar ham ek murty banate he or puja karte hai to murty hamko puja karega. Kiuki hame murty ko banaya, for example chair ko hame banaya chair ka kam hamoko bitaye,
Opening and listening to Shwam8 Dayanand Sarswati talk in english i was thrilled with pleasure to understand the glorious essence of it, but a bit of sadness du to his delivery in english language.. A.P. Tripathi Adv.Gorakhpur INDiA
Chavo Gorero of course i had the opposite experience when i met him im 96. I liked his good English haha. Maybe he could have done Hindi talks as well?
you are made up of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen .. etc atoms, i dont think those are living. so you are also not living.. just some bunch of atoms moving around.
Ādī Śankarācarya actually tackles this contention in his Sūtra Bhāsya- how does Brahman, which is pure consciousness, being forth both the sentient (ajada) and insentient (jadā) objects that constitute our cosmos. The answer is that Bhagavān is indeed the material cause of the universe, but through His Māyā-śakti. In other words, Īśvara undergoes an apparent transformation into the world- the world is a mere appearance.
Īśvara is both the upādāna kārana as well as the nimitta kārana. Īśvara is the efficient cause for we recognise that the world is fashioned in an intelligent manner. Īśvara is the material cause for there could not have been matter that existed prior to creation for it would result in a fallacy of infinite regress (anavasthā dosa). However, Īśvara does not undergo any real modification (parināma) when He becomes the cosmos. This transformation is apparent (vivartā). As Sureśvarācarya states, the universe of name and form is a manifestation of Māyā which has Īśvara as its ground or locus.
How can the maker and material be the same? He is supporting his statement by giving an example of a shirt and fabric. But he should know that fabric does not turn itself into a shirt. Because fabric is 'Jad' (insentient) and not chetan (sentient). How can a fabric convert itself into a shirt ? A maker (chetan or sentient) entity is always needed to turn fabric into a shirt. Therefore, Paramatma is the Karta or ther Nirmata of this Sristi (Jagat) Second, by definition Parmatma is also called Kutasth. Kutasth means who does not change its form. It remains what it is. Parmatma never changes its form to form another object. Parmatma does not change itself to form Sristi in contrast to the explanation given by guruji. Also, being karta also does not mean that Parmatma is sitting somewhere sitting in the heaven or somewhere in another point of space.
Manish Gupta kutasth means which is unchanged ,its not thar which cannot change , u said parmatma cannot change his form ,tell me where did he changed his form ,when paramatma it means the absolute truth , his absolute form is what remains as it , even though he has many other forms to take while creation is happening , if paramtama cannot take avatar or roop or form ,then why did vedas said that. Sarvam khalividam brahman (everything is brahman) the absolute truth is brahman , u see in yajurveda verses before ch-32 it is written that reality(brahman)is sun ,stars,is this world , it seems u do not understand that god is both sakar and nirakar . His absolute form is unchanged ,but that does not mean he cannot take forms,if that's so then god is not all capable . Peace ✌
Chitransh Srivastava, yes I agree with your explanation. Universe is in form(it is manifestation of God, changed form with infinite attributes) and at the same time in god is unmanifestration form(it is beyond our understanding, no attribute). In whole god is infinite(no limit), so everything should be part of infinite, it can not be out side of infinite god. Again the changed form will change to different form, but it can not be one zero. At the time of destroying the universe, the changed form converted to unchanged form, it s called unmanifestration. But like energy or soul, nothing can be destroyed , it will change form. Everything have some unit of consioysness. Like matter have 1 unit of consiouesness, human have 8 unit of consiouesness. Human can move from 8 unit to 16 unit of consiouesness with help of sadhama, that will be god experiance or realization state.
The conclusion was systematically arrived using a negation process -- If the maker and material are different, then what is the separating factor between the two, and who created that? Since this cannot be answered (or it leads to a infinite regression), one has to deduce that maker and material are same. Shirt-fabric metaphor was not to "support" the above argument. It was to convey another point -- where the material effect is, there the material cause is.
so according to you, Manish, Paramatma is not in heaven or space? does he exist? existence implies space. A non existent thing occupies no space. Even a thought requires the "space" of a brain to be in.
Manish Gupta cloth is Mithya from the point of the thread, thread is Mithya from point of cotton, cotton is Mithya from the point of it’s atoms, atoms are Mithya from particles, particles from waves and finally no mass , apparently all based on observer as per Quantum science . It could be waves or particles! Jagat Mithya, Atma Brahma Satya, unchanging and is not a dependant reality . There’s no change in Paramatma. It’s the Maya , the shakti of Ishwara that seems to give the impression of change that is Jagat we are experiencing.
For father, when son says something he doesnot or experince, its a fun only. Read upanishads, advaita vedanta for sometime, then you will know what his intent.
Pranam Swamiji 🙏🙏🙏
Swamiji ke shricharnon me koti koti pranam
Pujya Swamiji still guiding us 🙏🏽!
Param pujya Swamiji,
Humble pranams unto your lotus feet. You have given me and my whole family vision of life and taught us how to live it.
Om shanti durudev..🙏
Om sri gurubhyo namaha
Guru krupa
ପ୍ରଣାମ।
Hari Aum Pranam, Param Gurudev ...
jaigurubhyonamah
🙏🌺Hari Om
Blessed to hear this inspiring divine talk🔥✌️Radhe Krishna
Dhanyosmi
God is an intelligence far beyond human comprehestion
Lol.
Why LOL ?
BRILLIANT! namaste from germany ...
Sastanga Pranam Swamiji
Bhagavan discribes himself in Bhagavadgita .... it is the best description ever given, so once asking what is Bhagavan ..itis better to read That than expecting human being to be able to explain it.
so, why the the bhagavan in bhagavadgita, took a human form to describe and explain that he is bhagavan. your statement is self contradicting.
@@morekozhambu
The Lord says, yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati
[Bhagavad Gita 4.7].
'Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion-at that time I descend Myself."
That is why Krishna came. But He also showed Arjuna His universal form by which everyone understood that He is Bhagavan the original personal source of everything.
🙏🙏🌼👣🌼🙏🙏
Wonderful exposition. Thank you!
Om Sri Sadhgurubyo Namaha!
Wisdom lies in accepting the fact that we know very little about the existence.
When you listen to Swamiji, it helps you know all you need to know.
Sri gurubhyo namaha!
Very nice
Hari Om!
Excellent - intelligent cause and material cause are same.
🙏🙏🌸🌸🌹🌹🙏🙏😌😌
Nice 👌
I, me, we, once had a favorite shirt that shrank after being laundered...
33 corod Iswar kese hogeya, agar ham ek murty banate he or puja karte hai to murty hamko puja karega. Kiuki hame murty ko banaya, for example chair ko hame banaya chair ka kam hamoko bitaye,
Opening and listening to Shwam8 Dayanand Sarswati talk in english i was thrilled with pleasure to understand the glorious essence of it, but a bit of sadness du to his delivery in english language.. A.P. Tripathi Adv.Gorakhpur INDiA
Chavo Gorero of course i had the opposite experience when i met him im 96. I liked his good English haha. Maybe he could have done Hindi talks as well?
Material is unliving thing and god is living thing that is why there is a must difference between them.
you are made up of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen .. etc atoms, i dont think those are living. so you are also not living.. just some bunch of atoms moving around.
Ādī Śankarācarya actually tackles this contention in his Sūtra Bhāsya- how does Brahman, which is pure consciousness, being forth both the sentient (ajada) and insentient (jadā) objects that constitute our cosmos. The answer is that Bhagavān is indeed the material cause of the universe, but through His Māyā-śakti. In other words, Īśvara undergoes an apparent transformation into the world- the world is a mere appearance.
But the pot maker is not made of clay. He is something different than clay. Can someone please explain to me :(
Tat Tvam Asi
Īśvara is both the upādāna kārana as well as the nimitta kārana. Īśvara is the efficient cause for we recognise that the world is fashioned in an intelligent manner. Īśvara is the material cause for there could not have been matter that existed prior to creation for it would result in a fallacy of infinite regress (anavasthā dosa). However, Īśvara does not undergo any real modification (parināma) when He becomes the cosmos. This transformation is apparent (vivartā). As Sureśvarācarya states, the universe of name and form is a manifestation of Māyā which has Īśvara as its ground or locus.
How can the maker and material be the same? He is supporting his statement by giving an example of a shirt and fabric. But he should know that fabric does not turn itself into a shirt. Because fabric is 'Jad' (insentient) and not chetan (sentient). How can a fabric convert itself into a shirt ? A maker (chetan or sentient) entity is always needed to turn fabric into a shirt. Therefore, Paramatma is the Karta or ther Nirmata of this Sristi (Jagat) Second, by definition Parmatma is also called Kutasth. Kutasth means who does not change its form. It remains what it is. Parmatma never changes its form to form another object. Parmatma does not change itself to form Sristi in contrast to the explanation given by guruji.
Also, being karta also does not mean that Parmatma is sitting somewhere sitting in the heaven or somewhere in another point of space.
Manish Gupta kutasth means which is unchanged ,its not thar which cannot change , u said parmatma cannot change his form ,tell me where did he changed his form ,when paramatma it means the absolute truth , his absolute form is what remains as it , even though he has many other forms to take while creation is happening , if paramtama cannot take avatar or roop or form ,then why did vedas said that. Sarvam khalividam brahman (everything is brahman) the absolute truth is brahman , u see in yajurveda verses before ch-32 it is written that reality(brahman)is sun ,stars,is this world , it seems u do not understand that god is both sakar and nirakar . His absolute form is unchanged ,but that does not mean he cannot take forms,if that's so then god is not all capable . Peace ✌
Chitransh Srivastava, yes I agree with your explanation. Universe is in form(it is manifestation of God, changed form with infinite attributes) and at the same time in god is unmanifestration form(it is beyond our understanding, no attribute). In whole god is infinite(no limit), so everything should be part of infinite, it can not be out side of infinite god. Again the changed form will change to different form, but it can not be one zero. At the time of destroying the universe, the changed form converted to unchanged form, it s called unmanifestration. But like energy or soul, nothing can be destroyed , it will change form. Everything have some unit of consioysness. Like matter have 1 unit of consiouesness, human have 8 unit of consiouesness. Human can move from 8 unit to 16 unit of consiouesness with help of sadhama, that will be god experiance or realization state.
The conclusion was systematically arrived using a negation process -- If the maker and material are different, then what is the separating factor between the two, and who created that? Since this cannot be answered (or it leads to a infinite regression), one has to deduce that maker and material are same.
Shirt-fabric metaphor was not to "support" the above argument. It was to convey another point -- where the material effect is, there the material cause is.
so according to you, Manish, Paramatma is not in heaven or space? does he exist? existence implies space. A non existent thing occupies no space. Even a thought requires the "space" of a brain to be in.
Manish Gupta cloth is Mithya from the point of the thread, thread is Mithya from point of cotton, cotton is Mithya from the point of it’s atoms, atoms are Mithya from particles, particles from waves and finally no mass , apparently all based on observer as per Quantum science . It could be waves or particles! Jagat Mithya, Atma Brahma Satya, unchanging and is not a dependant reality . There’s no change in Paramatma. It’s the Maya , the shakti of Ishwara that seems to give the impression of change that is Jagat we are experiencing.
At 23:06: this guru should not make fun of some other religion.
Oh, shut up.
why?? Zakir pig and other missanary have taken licence for this.
Why,
What’s this stupid comment....where did he say anything like it
For father, when son says something he doesnot or experince, its a fun only. Read upanishads, advaita vedanta for sometime, then you will know what his intent.
A hindu saint talking of Hindu culture and Hindu religion in foreign language pricks a bit, why..
because each and every one need's to understand that's the reason ...
2&*()×the
. 6s
Vijaya Mootoosamy, it is to show ignorance of Arab and kristians.
Because hindi is not understood by non Indians and hindi is grossly misunderstood by Indians 😆
Many Indians do not know Hindi. If he speaks in Sanskrit, can u understand it?
🙏🙏🙏🙏