Danda 1995 - Suhotra Maharaja Archives
Danda 1995 - Suhotra Maharaja Archives Danda 1995 - Suhotra Maharaja Archives
I have no idea. I think I heard that vasudeva actually expands from Krsna – butI am not confident about it. Please help.Answer by Suhotra SwamiSeptember 24, 1995The point to understand is not that Balarama is the original source of thecatur-vyuha, but that Balarama is the power by which the vyuha expands.Balarama is Lord Krsna's own power, appearing as His brother. Balarama'sservice to Krsna is to make all arrangements for the expansion of His pastimes.Krsna is always the original source.RIGHT OR LEFT EAR?Question from Bhakta Jan MaresSeptember 20, 1995SB 4.25.50-51p. states that right ear (Pitrhu) is `meant' for fruitiveactivities and left ear (Devahu) for spiritual activities like initiation byGayatri mantra. On the other hand, Srila Prabhupada many times says that Gayatrimantra should be uttered into the right ear of the disciple.Could you please clarify this subject?Answer by Suhotra SwamiJanuary 21, 1995When the guru and disciple are both facing East, then the mantra is given in theleft ear. When they are both facing each other then the guru gives the mantra inthe right ear. Some Paddhatis (rule books) say the guru and disciple should faceEast, some say face each other.PRETASQuestion from Vrajendra Kumara dasSeptember 25, 1995Your Holiness, can you please explain why in S.B.2.6.43-45 dead bodies (pretas)are listed amongst living beings possessed of power,opulence etc. What does itmean? Are they some kind of zombies or what?Answer by Suhotra SwamiSeptember 25, 1995Preta means a departed anscestor who did not become a pitri (forefather on thePitriloka). He became a ghost instead. Sometimes pretas move about in deadbodies. There's an interesting story about that in Sanskrit literature.Anyway, preta-dosa (the state of being haunted by a preta) proves the power ofghosts. They are mysterious entities, and men not only fear their power buteven worship them. That power that is feared and worshiped also represents LordKrsna's opulence.Comment by Dadhibhaksa dasSeptember 26, 1995Where we can find this interesting story about pretas in sastras?
Answer by Suhotra SwamiSeptember 26, 1995It is not in sastra. It is an old Sanskrit story. It was translated by anEnglishman named F.W. Bain and published as part of an anthology in 1901.ALTHOUGHQuestion from Janaka Gauranga dasSeptember 25, 1995While translating SB, we came across a following sentence, which is marked.Srimad-Bhagavatam Canto 6: Chapter Nine, Text 34TRANSLATION(the demigods said:) "O Lord, You need no support, and ALTHOUGH YOU HAVE NOMATERIAL BODY, YOU DO NOT NEED COOPERATION FROM US. Since You are the cause ofthe cosmic manifestation and You supply its material ingredients without beingtransformed, You create, maintain and annihilate this osmic manifestation byYourself..."In the PURP it is said:"The demigods are understood to be various limbs of the Supreme Lord's body,although the Supreme Lord has no material body and does not need anyone's help."Does it mean that demigods are rejecting the idea that "if the Lord has tomaintain this material cosmic manifestation, He must have a material body, andif He has not such a material body, He needs a help from demigods" ?Answer by Suhotra SwamiSeptember 25, 1995Yes, I would agree with your analysis.TATTVAVADISQuestion from Adhira dasSeptember 27, 1995Harikesa Maharaja direted me to You with this technical question:In CC Madhya-lila Chapter 9,text 11 Purport,Srila Prabhupada commentsthat:"Actually the disciplic succession of Madhvacarya is known as the Brahma-Vaisnava sect; that is the sect coming down from Lord Brahma. Consequently theTattvavadis or the followers of Madhvacarya do not akcept the incident of LordBrahma's illusion...Srila Madhvacarya has purposefully avoided commenting onthat portion of S.B. in which brahma-mohana ,the illusion of Lord Brahma ismentioned."Why didn't they accept this incident? Our sampradaya is also dominy down fromLord Brahma through Madhvacarya then why do our acaryas comment on that event?Answer by Suhotra SwamiSeptember 28, 1995I don't have an in-depth answer I can give you on this, because though I've readseveral books by the top Tattvavadi scholar of the modern time, and though I'veeven met that scholar personally and discussed philosophy with him, I did not go
- Page 7 and 8: even be well-intentioned (let the c
- Page 9 and 10: Answer by Suhotra SwamiJanuary 15,
- Page 11 and 12: Comment by Vipramukhya SwamiI've me
- Page 13 and 14: i.e. his visible form).to.In the pr
- Page 15 and 16: 1. The self-realization stage just
- Page 17 and 18: ksatriya families worshiped Radha-K
- Page 19 and 20: are banished from Kailasa by being
- Page 21 and 22: always in competition with each oth
- Page 23 and 24: Was that enough, Bhakta Jan? No? OK
- Page 25 and 26: prakampanaloka-gurusrastaparasmai t
- Page 27 and 28: That's they quoted from me.In the c
- Page 29 and 30: to tell how he was abducted to anot
- Page 31 and 32: to come, and these ten avatars corr
- Page 33 and 34: emember and speak the best that has
- Page 35 and 36: devotees, but I gave them as exampl
- Page 37 and 38: CAITANYA UPANISADQuestion from Mukh
- Page 39 and 40: for that. So that... This is going
- Page 41 and 42: A footnote to the previous text:It
- Page 43 and 44: other planets encircle the polestar
- Page 45 and 46: TIME PERCEPTIONQuestions from Rohit
- Page 47 and 48: Answer by Suhotra SwamiJune 27, 199
- Page 49 and 50: connected to the Lord's body. And B
- Page 51 and 52: - How to understand there was no cr
- Page 53 and 54: SB 6.14.55 p., 1st par.: The subtle
- Page 55 and 56: could not even get that. And they l
- Page 57: "Krsna is the supreme living being.
- Page 61 and 62: Answer by Suhotra SwamiOctober 11,
- Page 63 and 64: Vidyabhusana that argued yet anothe
- Page 65 and 66: SELF-ENVYQuestions from Vrajendra K
- Page 67 and 68: I was studying the second canto cha
- Page 69 and 70: Answer by Suhotra SwamiNovember 11,
- Page 71 and 72: Answer by Suhotra SwamiNovember 11,
- Page 73 and 74: ATHEISMQuestion from Jahnu dasNovem
- Page 75 and 76: two years old and under, in accorda
- Page 77 and 78: that sense one would think the exte
- Page 79 and 80: 1) Yes, the message of Jesus is uni
- Page 81 and 82: Paul rationalized that Jesus surviv
- Page 83 and 84: The publication I am working on in
- Page 85 and 86: - From the context of the second qu
- Page 87 and 88: Dear Maharaja,I see that it is a qu
- Page 89: associates, etc. Lord Vamana has Hi
Answer by <strong>Suhotra</strong> SwamiSeptember 26, <strong>1995</strong>It is not in sastra. It is an old Sanskrit story. It was translated by anEnglishman named F.W. Bain and published as part of an anthology in 1901.ALTHOUGHQuestion from Janaka Gauranga dasSeptember 25, <strong>1995</strong>While translating SB, we came across a following sentence, which is marked.Srimad-Bhagavatam Canto 6: Chapter Nine, Text 34TRANSLATION(the demigods said:) "O Lord, You need no support, and ALTHOUGH YOU HAVE NOMATERIAL BODY, YOU DO NOT NEED COOPERATION FROM US. Since You are the cause ofthe cosmic manifestation and You supply its material ingredients without beingtransformed, You create, maintain and annihilate this osmic manifestation byYourself..."In the PURP it is said:"The demigods are understood to be various limbs of the Supreme Lord's body,although the Supreme Lord has no material body and does not need anyone's help."Does it mean that demigods are rejecting the idea that "if the Lord has tomaintain this material cosmic manifestation, He must have a material body, andif He has not such a material body, He needs a help from demigods" ?Answer by <strong>Suhotra</strong> SwamiSeptember 25, <strong>1995</strong>Yes, I would agree with your analysis.TATTVAVADISQuestion from Adhira dasSeptember 27, <strong>1995</strong>Harikesa <strong>Maharaja</strong> direted me to You with this technical question:In CC Madhya-lila Chapter 9,text 11 Purport,Srila Prabhupada commentsthat:"Actually the disciplic succession of Madhvacarya is known as the Brahma-Vaisnava sect; that is the sect coming down from Lord Brahma. Consequently theTattvavadis or the followers of Madhvacarya do not akcept the incident of LordBrahma's illusion...Srila Madhvacarya has purposefully avoided commenting onthat portion of S.B. in which brahma-mohana ,the illusion of Lord Brahma ismentioned."Why didn't they accept this incident? Our sampradaya is also dominy down fromLord Brahma through Madhvacarya then why do our acaryas comment on that event?Answer by <strong>Suhotra</strong> SwamiSeptember 28, <strong>1995</strong>I don't have an in-depth answer I can give you on this, because though I've readseveral books by the top Tattvavadi scholar of the modern time, and though I'veeven met that scholar personally and discussed philosophy with him, I did not go
Change language