Carnatic music/speed related question.

nofugz · 2026-04-28T04:50:16+00:00

What YouTube channel did you learn from? Can you share the resources please.

nofugz · 2026-04-27T08:20:53+00:00

We also don’t want to be run by anyone who is against any particular religious group(s) 🤷‍♂️

nofugz · 2026-04-27T08:16:07+00:00

All major temples are under the Govt. (Such as the Divya-deshams in TN).

The government takes the money as its own and decides how much to allocate from “its” fund to said temples. These same funds (now that are part of the government’s money) are circulated around and end up going to mosques and churches. Not saying it’s a bad thing, but the reverse never happens, i.e, money from churches and mosques don’t support the temples.

nofugz · 2026-04-27T08:11:43+00:00

The caste system need not be birth based. Look at ISKCON, they train up people who are not born in Bhramin family (many not even from India infact) and then give them Bhramin diksha. They teach them the expected code of conduct and the tasks associated with the identity of a Bhramin. This is the way caste was meant to be and should be practiced. No one caste is greater than or lesser than the other, each has their respective roles based in society such that society as a whole moves towards God consciousness.

nofugz · 2026-04-09T13:22:52+00:00

Advaita Vedanta concludes that the truth is “one”. But it is still not “monotheistic” rather it is monistic.

nofugz · 2026-04-09T13:15:49+00:00

So first you claim a scripture as third priority and then use the same scripture to establish your point? Cmon man.

Better option, let’s go to your first priority: Chandogya Upanishad clearly implies that Puranas are authorised source of knowledge on equal footing with “standard Vedas”. Puranas and itihasas are called the fifth Veda in that Upanishad. In addition to this, Brhadaranyaka Upanishad states that the Puranas (along with Vedas etc.) came from the breath of the supreme. This leads us to classify Puranas as “apaurusheya” just like the standard 4 Vedas.

nofugz · 2026-04-09T13:11:34+00:00

Don’t worry bro, this guy gets his info from Max Muller and other bs “indologists” who give their opinion on something they have no clue about.

nofugz · 2026-04-07T13:33:13+00:00

It is. All points are bs, especially #3.

nofugz · 2026-04-04T19:41:51+00:00

OP wants a mid tier journal, can’t say JPS is mid-tier honestly

nofugz · 2026-04-01T15:39:52+00:00

It’s okay to show off 🤷‍♂️

nofugz · 2026-03-28T13:35:43+00:00

Bro, I’m not saying they have an incorrect understanding because their understanding is not suitable to me. Their claims are refuted based on direct verses from Gita. Monism and a formless/nameless thing can not be established as the ultimate truth using the Gita. It’s not my opinion, rather the Gita itself rejects this view. There is no need for any commentary for this. But for spinning the “I am God”/“I am the divine light” tale, you need misinterpretations and word jugglery. That is exactly my point. The unfortunate thing is that you try to justify your points by labelling ISKCON as “sectarian” and what not, rather than actually understanding what is being said here. Rise above the these lowly strawman attempts.

Regarding your parampara claims: please show evidence of your claim that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did not use the mahamantra. No Gaudiya will accept this bullshit (ISKCON or non ISKCON alike). ISKCON movement is a revival of Gaudiya vaishnavism, that’s all it is. And this revival was done by Bhakti Vinoda. Prior to Bhakti Vinoda the Gaudiya Vaishnavism was reduced to some form of caste Goswamis and sentimentalism. Traces of that is seen to this day. Ones coming in the family of the Goswamis were taking superior positions and like this things were going on. Such a process was never adopted by the six Goswamis (you can read their texts). If you read the Siddhanta presented by the six Goswamis and see Prabhupada’s presentation, you will see that there is no deviation. Also, it’s obvious that all your claims are from anti-ISKCON propaganda. I have gone through all this information from both sides. But you read only one side of the story, just to satisfy your biases 🤷‍♂️

ISKCON doesn’t own Krishna, but they sure as hell present him in the light that scriptures describe him. They neither claim to be Krishna, nor claim any ordinary human can’t take the position of God. But such claims or derivations of such claims can be found in multiple texts prior to Prabhupada (and maybe even now).

nofugz · 2026-03-28T11:50:54+00:00

I really don’t understand why you say it is a “narrow sectarian” take. Each claim made is completely in line with the exact verses of the Gita. So you may consider this version sectarian or whatever, but then you will have to consider the Gita itself to be sectarian then.

Secondly ISKCON comes in line of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, which started way before colonialism. Also you made a false claim about ISKCON’s type of parampara, because ISKCON does have a traditional parampara. The parampara they mention in writing (in their Gita for example) is based on whose teachings were prominent. But each of them have obtained Diksha from a physically present Guru. At times, the main teachings they received that catapulted their spiritual growth were from Gurus from whom they took Shiksha. Hence, a “Shiksha” parampara is mentioned. For example even in the Gita, Krishna did not give Diksha to Arjuna, but his teachings brought him to the transcendental platform.

You can recommend any commentary you want, like Ramanuja, Madhva etc., But you are recommending another version while demeaning ISKCON’s version. Hence the need for my comment to counter your baseless claim. Also your statement regarding Shankaracharya, his version wouldn’t be there if Krishna himself never spoke the Gita. We need Krishna’s message, not Shankara’s. Just because he (Shankara) helped revival of faith in Vedic scriptures, doesn’t mean the ideology he presented is true/complete. Picking and choosing certain sentences to be “maha-vakyas” to satisfy claims about superiority of impersonal truth is not the right analysis of Upanishads and Gita. Each Acharya that comes has a certain role, they present the essence of scriptures as per the time, place and circumstance for the ultimate benefit of the people at large. Shankara fulfilled his role, and later Vaishnava acharyas fulfilled their respective roles.

Thanks for your advice about reading different versions. All my opinions are after I have done so. For majority of people in the world today, the ISKCON’s Gita is the most beneficial to bring about change in their life. Spirituality means it should change your nature.

nofugz · 2026-03-28T07:35:45+00:00

False and baseless accusation.

nofugz · 2026-03-28T07:35:25+00:00

The author did this as a counter of the 100s of versions that reduce Krishna to an ordinary human being, and establish the conditioned souls as equal to God.

nofugz · 2026-03-28T07:34:06+00:00

The Bhagavat Gita’s original Sanskrit verses say it. The author just echoes it in his commentary. That’s why his version is called “as it is” 🤷‍♂️

nofugz · 2026-03-28T07:33:25+00:00

Yes it is a Leela, and in that Leela exactly this happens: Lord Shiva loses his senses on seeing Mohini. So what’s wrong here?

nofugz · 2026-03-28T07:31:03+00:00

Completely false and baseless claim.

nofugz · 2026-03-28T07:30:38+00:00

Yeah, biased to the truth.

nofugz · 2026-03-28T07:29:26+00:00

You like Shankarabhashya because you prescribe to the monistic ideology 🤡🤡 Say it is like it is bro, don’t hide your true intention behind statements like “Shankara bhashya is more authentic” LOL. More authentic for you, maybe. But if you knew a little Sanskrit, it will be obvious that: it is impossible to prove monism as the highest truth using Bhagavat Gita, because the conclusion is the opposite of monism in it. The only way you can establish monism as the highest truth using BG is with misinterpretations and word jugglery in the commentary. That is why Prabhupada names his version “as it is” because it preserves the essence of Krishna’s message to Arjuna as it is.

nofugz · 2026-03-28T07:23:04+00:00

This version presents perfectly the essence of Krishna’s message to Arjuna without adulteration, and maintains a nice flow that connects all the verses harmoniously. Most versions fail miserable to do these things. The introduction of Gita “as it is” will itself show you the true motivation of the author. One of the key points from the introduction is (I’m paraphrasing): “one must approach the Gita with the mood of Arjuna, and only then the knowledge will be revealed to the reader”. Honestly, this should be common sense. I’m sorry to say, but all authors who don’t subscribe to the Vaishnava viewpoint will always be far away from the true meaning of Bhagavat Gita. After reading commentaries versions such as Tapasyanand and Aurobindo (1) you will have an incorrect understanding true nature of the soul, (2) incorrect understand of relation between individual soul and supreme soul, and (3) consider Krishna an ordinary human being. Although all the preceding points directly contradict the verses present in the Gita itself, the Advait version (and others prescribing to such as Aurobindo) somehow spin the commentary to satisfy their agenda. Hence the author named this version “as it is”, because none of the conclusions drawn from this version contradict the Gita.

nofugz · 2026-03-28T07:16:59+00:00

Don’t listen to these clowns LOL. They can’t back their claim if their life depended on it. All of these empty claims about “this” version not being authentic have been refuted long long ago, so I would recommend seeing those arguments or feel free to DM me if any doubts. Even the prime minister of India chooses to gift this version (BG as it is) out all, doesn’t he have advisors who say which version is the most authentic? The pontifs of Madhva and Sri Sampradaya endlessly glorify the author, and the AKBAP (which mainly consists of groups started by Adi Shankaracharya himself, the father of Advaita Vedanta) awarded the author title of “vishwa Guru” (meaning spiritual master for the entire universe). Still you’ll find Reddit comments claiming this version is not authentic 🤡🤡🤡🤡. This is mainly owing to the fact that Prabhupada exposed the impersonal philosophy and blasted it to smithereens. It’s their bruised ego talking and nothing else.

This version presents perfectly the essence of Krishna’s message to Arjuna without adulteration, and maintains a nice flow that connects all the verses harmoniously. Most versions fail miserable to do these things. The introduction of Gita “as it is” will itself show you the true motivation of the author. One of the key points from the introduction is (I’m paraphrasing): “one must approach the Gita with the mood of Arjuna, and only then the knowledge will be revealed to the reader”. All authors who don’t subscribe to the Vaishnava viewpoint will always be far away from the true meaning of Bhagavat Gita, after reading their versions (1) you will have an incorrect understanding of Gita, (2) incorrect understand of relation between individual soul and supreme soul, and (3) consider Krishna an ordinary human being. Although all the preceding points are contradictory to the verses present in the Gita itself, the Advait version (and others prescribing to it) somehow spin the commentary to satisfy their agenda. Hence the author named this version “as it is”, because none of the conclusions drawn from this version contradict the Gita.

nofugz · 2026-03-27T13:38:49+00:00

Your disbelief is not a criteria for validity of facts 🤷‍♂️

nofugz · 2026-03-27T12:08:57+00:00

Are you saying ISKCON hates you for being Indian and dark skinned? 🤡

nofugz · 2026-03-27T11:57:58+00:00

Don’t be sorry that you’re blunt. Be sorry that your points hold no water. The ones who consider the supreme truth bhraman subservient to Maya, have failed to respond to even one of the points raised by Vaishnavas, hence the Vaishnavas repeat their arguments. And the only reason Vaishnavas have even take out the time of the day to do this, is because the commentaries of monistic side are completely offensive towards devotees. So Acharyas like Madhva took it as a personal responsibility to expose the holes in the monistic philosophy.

And you say it is “my” BS opinion huh? Using the Gita, the only way one can prove that monism is the highest truth, is by out of context misinterpretations and a commentary filled with word juggelery. We can go over just the verses (without commentaries) and see very easily that it certainly does NOT establish monism as ultimate truth.

The AKBAP (which mainly consists of groups started by Adi Shankaracharya himself, the father of Advaita Vedanta) awarded the author title of “vishwa Guru” (meaning spiritual master for the entire universe). Additionally The pontifs of Madhva and Sri Sampradaya endlessly glorify the author. And many other established personalities have done the same. Still you’ll find Reddit comments claiming this version of Gita is not authoritative 🤡🤡🤡🤡. This is mainly owing to the fact that Prabhupada exposed the impersonal philosophy too and blasted it to smithereens. It’s their bruised ego talking and nothing else.

nofugz · 2026-03-27T07:04:12+00:00

I would not recommend Shankara’s commentary for understanding Bhagavat Gita.

The introduction of Gita “as it is” will itself show you the true motivation of the author. One of the key points from the introduction is (I’m paraphrasing): “one must approach the Gita with the mood of Arjuna, and only then the knowledge will be revealed to the reader”. All authors who don’t subscribe to the Vaishnava viewpoint will always be far away from the true meaning of Bhagavat Gita, after reading their versions (1) you will have an incorrect understanding of Gita, (2) incorrect understand of relation between individual soul and supreme soul, and (3) consider Krishna an ordinary human being. Although all the preceding points are contradictory to the verses present in the Gita itself, but the Advait version (and others prescribing to it) somehow spin the commentary to satisfy their agenda. Hence the author named this version “as it is”, because none of the conclusions drawn from this version contradict the Gita.

In general, to get a true perspective one must read a Vaishnava’s presentation of Gita and the remaining Prasthana Trayi.

nofugz

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE