Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Guest guest

what can i do but to laugh at these ISCONites and those who believe in Godhead

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

do u think Prabupat (sorry for mis spelling his name) whould have attained mukti? certainly not....even for the vaishnavas its a great sin to talk ill about shiva as for them shiva is a greatest vaishnavite.....and the beauty is that i dont see a single shivaite talking ill about vishnu...do u think there is any difference between these ISCONits, the krishna Godhead believers and Islam/christianity?

If the ISCON talks about other sect gurus as demons(i have see few ISCONites say this so dont ask me for proof-search through teh form and u will find many)who preach false principles then who is prabupat? i feel ashamed of myself for talikng bad about gurus (no matter whether they r right or wrong) but they act of these Krishna godhead people have infuriated me to this extent....i will definitely try to control myself in the future.....

 

ISCON is a shame to Hinduism....no wonder the Indian government didnt accept it as a sect of hinduism...for one i do like the Indian gov....

 

God is one-He is Brahman- if u dont believe it no probs u will be given another life and another life and another life....atlast u will belive and when u believe u will be shocked to know that all these lives God had been in u, only that u refused to see Him......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Sir,

 

I read your posting.Every thing in this world has other side also.But let us look into what we can learn from every living thing.

 

Take for instance,Caitanya Mahaprabhu the very base of ISKCON cult.

 

Can anyone blame him? No they cannot.Because like current day ISKCONites, he never indulged in raw rivalry but he engaged in intellecutal debates and proved the greatness of Vaishnavism.

 

Likewise Sri . Ramanuja also was able to create a Vaishnava trend.But noone blames his holiness for this.Why?They had genuineness.They had austerity and penance in the nerves of their blood.And it is that sincere devotion that made them famous.

 

But dont mistake me -- take current day trend of Sri Vaishnavas(not all but some).They fight over Vadakalai and Thenkalai namams in Tamilnadu Vishnu temples.Likewise in Bangalore ISKCON,it has become more commercialized nowdays.

 

But for all these, the original founder's Caitanya Mahaprabhu's philosophy does not go in vain.I got convinced on Caitanya Mahaprabhu's teachings which I read in the light of not only Shrila Prabhupad but also on the light of another Gaudiya Acharya Naryana Maharaja.If you have carefully read Shrila Prabhupad books,not even in a single instance he degraded Shiva but it was his pseduo followers bringing ill fame to entire Vaishnava community.

 

For there are insects we dont burn the house,instead we cleanse them.And here,please stop laughing at or getting angry over irresponsible arrogant people and instead you can prove the truth of Advaita or Shaivism in the light of scriptures.

 

Thats what Sri . Ramanuja meant when he wrote Brahma Sutra Bhashyam and Gita interpretation.

 

The stage is set for everyone to come and argue but in a decent manner.

 

For your information,one Veera Shaiva king Kulothunga chola blinded foremost disciple of Sri . Ramanuja namely Kuresha.That king also made the soldiers to torture another disciple Periya Nambi to death.Simply because both of them denied to accept Shiva as supreme.

 

Should we blame Shaivism for this act of king? No way,we should conclude that the king is neither a Shaivite for Shaivism so far I know, does not preach to harm others.

 

And for bad elements throwing blasphemy on one of great Mahajanas viz Lord Shiva,please dont directly criticize Shrila Prabhupad.His objective had sincerity of spreading devotion.Otherwise thousands of hippies could not be converted for without the blessings of Lord Krishna.

 

But for sincerity in his devotion,famous George Harrison known for his beads would have got converted as a bhagavatha or devotee.

 

Indeed every mission in this Kali yuga had got contaminated.

 

Take Adhi Shankara Sampradayam and note today it in the hands of law book.

 

Take Buddhism and so many Buddhists monks are non-veg.Should we blame Gautama Budhha for this?

 

Take Sri Vaishnavas,most of them fight over which mark to put on Vishnu's face.Should we blame Ramanuja or later acharyas Vedanta Desika and Lokacharya for this?

 

The root cause is that man comes to religion to become cultured but eventually turns religion itself to be uncultured.

 

And it never serves the purpose by emotionally degrading Gods.But one can argue on the strength of logic and scriptures.Inspite of being a Shaivite(smartha brahmin) by birth,I am fully inclined to Maha Vishnu.

 

And Sir -- if you think of bad elements,we also slowly unconsiously get their character and I advise better insulate yourself from pseduo ISKCONites but never say the philosophy itself is wrong.No,it convinces few like me for some reasons.

 

And regarding sect of Hinduism,it is not at all a factor for all Vaishnavas are known by character and practise and not by govt certificate.

 

Hare Krishna!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

your approach is demonic...

instead of insulting are you able to take any single principle of gaudya vaishnavism and to examine it at the light of scriptures and logic and defeat it?

 

scriptures are there, philosophy is there.. please make a little effort, learn, study and come back demonstrating efficiently your position

 

otherwise we cannot trust you even a little

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

18.66 Surrender unto Him.

 

Now how can you surrender unto yourself? Surrender means must be person. Otherwise how can you surrender? Krishna says give it up and Surrender! But people say I will surrender my sences in Impersonal Brahmajyoti. So everybody is being misguided by Impersonalist intrepretations of Gita. If a Man says Surrender unto me, this means you do that. Krishna is Supreme Person and He is asking surrender unto me. How can you misintrepretate this? Its impossible to Surrender unto yourself. There must be two individuals. If you say your God, then you cannot Surrender unto yourself, do you see the lunacy?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Then whats the point of saying Surrender? That means everybody is already Surrendended, according to your theory.

 

 

How can you Surrender to 'sky'? Note the use of the Word: Surrender. Can only be applied to a person.

 

Here is the verse:

 

sarva-dharman parityajya

**mam ekam saranam** vraja

aham tvam sarva-papebhyo

moksayisyami ma sucah

 

 

sarva-dharman-all varieties of religion; parityajya-abandoning; mam-unto Me; ekam-only; saranam-surrender; vraja-go; aham-I; tvam-you; sarva-all; papebhyah-from sinful reactions; moksayisyami-deliver; ma-not; sucah-worry.

 

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear.

 

 

However hard you try nobody can misrepresent this verse, unless your a complete fool with no understanding of Gita.

 

Saranam can also be applied to Feet. Try to see the truth. Its staring right at you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

why personal brahman is constructed and impersonal one is real?

how many "inpersons " you know in your town?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

is one interpretation. As Krsna is speaking from the atmic perspective, he is one with all things, and thus, if you worship him, you worship the atman and vice versa.

 

Dhurdyodana couldn't surrender to Krsna because he had ego, for instance.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Govindaram,

 

Pure devotee or not , it differs from person to person. I would request you to more respectful to people who have different view other than yours. Calling them fools and rascals doesnt show a krishna baktha in good spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"However hard you try nobody can misrepresent this verse, unless your a complete fool with no understanding of Gita."

 

I guess ISKON is just another variation of the Judeo-Christian, proselytizing, close-minded religions... if I am to go by your statements, it is even more close-minded than Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

in reply to

 

-----

Can anyone blame him? No they cannot.Because like current day ISKCONites, he never indulged in raw rivalry but he engaged in intellecutal debates and proved the greatness of Vaishnavism.

-----

 

i c.....so calling other Gods appart from krishna as demi gods is intellectual for u?

 

-----

Likewise Sri . Ramanuja also was able to create a Vaishnava trend.But noone blames his holiness for this.Why?They had genuineness.They had austerity and penance in the nerves of their blood.And it is that sincere devotion that made them famous.

-----

 

no one blames another for creating a seperate trend....one gets blamed when creating a treand by abusing and talking low of other existing trends.....

 

-----instead you can prove the truth of Advaita or Shaivism in the light of scriptures.

-----

 

iam not for a shiva/vishnu superiority debate....have a look at the "shivism and vishnavism" tread for that...my point is about this ridiculus attitude of the ISCONites....

 

----

Should we blame Shaivism for this act of king?

----

deifinitely not but dear my point of argument is entirely different....my question is not to the followers of ICSON but to ISCON itself....how can ISCON say that all other Gods are demi Gods? do u know what the vedas speak about? even in vedas in is not clearly mentioned who is supreme...and for ur info there is absolutely no mention of krishan....

 

----

Mahajanas viz Lord Shiva---

 

what exactly do u mean by Mahajanas?do u know what is meant by Mahajana? Shiva is one of the trinity....to me He is supreme but i dont look low on other Gods...i respect others feeling and have no problem when one prays to Vishnu saying Vishnu is supreme...the problem is thet when u say Vishnu is supreme u call Shiva his servent....i think Mahajana is a polite version of demigod....i understand ur subtleness....

 

------

The root cause is that man comes to religion to become cultured but eventually turns religion itself to be uncultured

------

 

this i accept with out any opposition...absolutely correct

 

-----------

Inspite of being a Shaivite(smartha brahmin) by birth,I am fully inclined to Maha Vishnu.

 

-----------

 

ha this is one thing which i really want to talk about.....i have no problems with born christians,born muslim,born vishnavite following their own practices....when it comes to a convert my question is that does he/she fully know about his/her religion or sect before getting converted?most of the hindus dont...they just get carried away by the converters words and think that their religion has no values....i ask u this question...before reading ramayana,bagavat gita, and the other vaishnavite books have u read shiva puranam?have u read thevaram and thirumurai? did u really understand them .....and promise me that only after reading these shivite book that u read the other vaishnavite book and that when u compared both u found more values in vishnavism.....when gandhi's friends asked gandhi to get converted to christianity his reply was that to get converted he has to know well about his own religion and only after that can he come to any conclusion of whether it is worth being in that religion or to get converted to other religion.....

 

-----

Vaishnavas are known by character and practise and not by govt certificate.

-----

 

definitely....vishnavites are know for their character....for who else is SOOOOO great to look down on other Gods....and call others as their servents......u have a great character and a great attitude that will definitely project u from others......long live ur character...long live ur attitude.....iam proud of ur attitude....hinduism is proud of ur attitude and what else the whole of India is proud of ur attitude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Sir!

 

I am Krishna the same tamil smartha brahmin again.

 

Before accepting Vaishnavism I was a staunch devotee of Lord Shiva.

Yes sir -- I have read so many Shiva literatures.Ammaye Appa Opila maniye anbinil velaindha aar aamudhe of Thiruvasagam by Manikavasagar is indeed to be appreciated for its ecstasy.Karaikal Ammaiyar is a very strange yet exalted devotee indeed.

 

Another person worthy of glories even now is Patinath Adigal for his getting inspired by Shiva's sentence "Kaadhu aatra usiyum vaaradhu kaan un kadai vazhike." But I tell you Sir -- inspite of all these,few questions remained in my mind for which I did not get any provoking answer.

Those answers I got from Dr. P.V.Krishnan Ph.d Professor,IIT Delhi a direct disciple of Shrila Prabhupad.

 

And now,because I have to account for my getting converted to Vaishnavism I put forth the same questions on Shaivism which arose in my mind.Sir -- never think I am throwing blasphemy for these are my true doubts and just I am expressing them outside.

 

i) The philosophy of Shaivism is very inconsistent for first they praise Shiva in full devotion as almighty and all.Suddenly they involve yogic practices with devotion,mix them up and finally proclaim I and Shiva are one.

 

Now I explain this point clearly:

 

For instance,the famous Thayumavar saint of my birth place Trichy, accepted Mouna Guru Swamigal as his Guru.That yogi wont speak mostly and he is coming from Thirumular the great mystic yogi's tradition.And accepting him as Guru,Thayumanavar mixed devotion and yogic principles in his work Paraapara Kanni.

 

But devotion and yogic practice cannot co-exist.The very definition of Bhakthi is complete surrender,depending on nothing else and more importantly not to transcend the deity upon which Bhakthi is placed.

 

But what Yogic tantra says? Master your body and sense organs.Raise your kundalini and they even say,jeeva soul is Shiva and Kundalini is Shakthi.They slowly move towards Adhi Shankara's Advaita ignoring the pure and strict adherence to devotional science as expounded by the Four Samaya Kuravars.

 

And now,even getting convinced that the old Shaivism is purely devotional,even the great Samaya Kuravars accept that Shri Nandi(supposed to be the principal and very exalted devotee of Shiva carrying him) is the foremost guru of Thirumular.The philosphy of Thirumular is purely yogic based and for those who follow his tradition,everyone is Supreme by controlling sense organs.

 

And this Thirumular fully taught Raja Yoga which is glorified by yet another class a new one,different from devotee and advaitam,which is called Siddhas or mystic yogis.

 

And these mystic yogis slowly move out of vedic tradition,do some avoidable things such as smoking and drinking.Not all but one sect called Aghori sect, who claim Thattadreya as their guru and they say "we are shiva bhutas".

 

And now,take for instance Nayanmars literature(esp of Karaikal ammaiyar and Patinathu Adigal),we can find enormous verses totally inclined towards knowledge rather than pure bhakthi.And when knowledge comes,there is no place for bhakthi and vice-versa.If by pure love we appeal to God in bhakthi,knowledge is that part of science dealing with Atma Vicharam as "who am I" which will lead to advaitic merge.

 

Also even accepting Advaita tatva is mixed by smartha brahmins in Shaivism,there is no religious institution purely for Shiva Bhakthi fully avoiding mystic tantra of Thirumular and Advaita of Adhi Shankara.

 

So what is the point in myself clinging to something as pure Shiva Bhakthi religion, when that exists in no reality and also no previous Nayanmar clearly laid out the path for it.

 

So the only way to accept Shiva as Supreme Lord is to accept it along with accepting the Yogic practice of raising Shakthi within ourselves and along with accepting I am God concept of Advaita.Ofcourse,I know some veera shaivas even today, who reject the advaitic influence in Shaivism.But they also nevertheless accept Thirumular and other Siddhars such as Kagabhujandhar,Gorakar as Shiva's representative Gurus.And these mystic yogis eventually starts imitating Lord Shiva and it is not good.And also not a fair sense of devotion we can see in this 18 siddhars and their original head Thirumular.

 

But Shakthi, as an eternal consort of Shiva is verily our Mother and the Thirumular says you can raise Kundalini and make Shakthi merge with your jeeva and then jeevan becomes sivan.And now if everything is done with a sole purpose as in yogic practice,where is the place for motiveless pure devotion?

 

So even assuming Thirumlar is different from Shaivism and all,if we start filtering one by one based on pure shiva bhakthi and pure dasya attitude to Shiva,we may end up with two or three,that also because they left no literature on their part.

 

So Shaivism as such is a mix of yogic tantra,advaita and so called Bhakthi.That too there are very few Shavities to boldly proclaim "only Shiva is greater and no other can be equal or greater to him".

 

ii)And why bloody animal sacrifices are taking place for Kalabhairava aspect of Lord Shiva?

Dont say "they are not in Shaivism".Why Shiva's forms are chosen for sacrifice while not Vishnu's forms?

 

iii)why the demons worship only Shiva and not Vishnu?

 

iv) Why Lingayat sect that is supposed to be pure Shiva bhakthi tradition openly proclaimed

"Vedas misrepresent Shiva".Has any Shavists math addressed the controversies between them and Lingayats.

 

v)Why in Sri Rudram and Chamakkam,a fearful attitude is present while praying to Lord Shiva?

If he is lovable and devotable,then why in Sri Rudram it is requested to Shiva not to destroy them?

 

Sir -- Shrila Prabhupad had to use extreme words as fools and rascals not against true jnanis and yogis,but against false yogis who demand money inturn for learning Pranayamam and Yogas.Are they really Yogis?No,pseudo God men polluting the society.

 

You are ready to degrade Sri Krishna Caitanya Mahaprabhu,Sri . Ramanuja and whole Vaishnava community,by commenting on their character.Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu never claimed the presidentmen ship of Krishna but by his divine attraction,thousands including some animals,muslims became his devotees.Please stop commenting on these Acharyas for never we can come even closer to their dust of the feet.

 

But Shrila Prabhupada added the respect title "Sri ." before the name of Adhi Shankara every time he used his name.He never called Thirumular a rascal.Never.Even he called Sage Ramana as Ramana Maharishi.He never criticized true sages but only the pranayama yogis who collect money for Atma Vidya.Indeed it is shame on their part,to talk about Shrila Prabhupad who never carried a penny when he went to US.

 

And what really you find in ISKONites?Demi god is not a derogatory term and Shiva is often considered foremost among demi gods,a personality unlike Indra or Brahma and more precisely he is MahaJana.MahaJana is a title given to a very very exalted Vaishnava Guru.

 

Sri . Ramanuja is not a MahaJana and even Sri Krishna Caitanya.But Lord Shiva is a MahaJana.Not only that;He is the foremost among the twelve MahaJanas.

 

Yes Shiva is one among the trinity and as such he is co-eternal with Maha Vishnu.He is thus called Sadha Shiva.

 

Ofcourse for yogic people,Shiva is just a brahman aspect and everyone can become God or Brahman.

 

Surely we respect and give Shiva his proper position,more than advaitists,who simply considers Shiva or Vishnu as idol and illusionary forms.

 

So dont be aversive on entire Vaishnavism for some improper pseudo followers degrade Lord Shiva.

 

Thank you.

 

Hare Krishna!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

when there's debate about the supremacy of sri vishnu, the funny thing is that the ones who claims that sri shiva is superior or the ones who are scandalized by the quarrel, acually think that all individualities are maya (=illusion, non reality) and only an all pervading energy with no qualities, action and consciousness, the brahman, is the real supreme

 

the promoters of vishnu/krsna as supreme recognize to shiva the quality of a highly transcendental satCITananda person.. literally exactly as god but simultaneously not god only because his powers are derivate by vishnu..(that's exactly the position of gaudya vaishnava sampradaya.. iskcon included)

 

the promoters of his supremacy or the advocates of "no supremacy", actually say that shiva does not exist really,that he's not absolute but he's relative to our distorted consciousness who likes to see individualities

 

so i ask myself who is really blaspheming lord shiva? absolutely not the vaishnavas..!!

 

..

 

another thing to observe is that iskcon is not a new thing.. iskcon is an english translation of "krsna chaitanya" (krsna consciousness).. or "vaishnavism" (worshipping of sri vishnu).. and his customs and siddhanta is completely in line with other gaudya missions and with the original branch of vaishnavism initiated by chaitanya mahaprabhu in 1500 century

 

so to claim that the philosophy of gaudya vaishnavism is a derivative from christianity is simply to be not sufficiently informed about the indian religions that someone puts together with the "hinduism" name

 

or better... many hindus do not know that higly traditional path.. it is worldwide famous only in the last 35 years, and , because it promotes monotheistic personalism they believe that it is not sanatana dharma...

 

...

 

generalization and massification is the greatest enemy of a spiritualist, obviously not all gaudya vaishnava/iskcon practitioneers are perfect spiritualists.. but to offend in such way showing to be completely ignorant about the siddhanta of such traditional and highly respectable movement and path is a great danger for one's spiritual life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Krishan,

 

First and fore most, i cant stop myself from appreciating u for they way u put ur points.....if by devine grace i have the oppertunity to c u, i would definitely embrace u and take pride in knowing u....when ever i read a post by an ISCONite my temper rises though i know i should control myself....but when i read ur post a pleasent smile comes on my face.....i can understand that u dont accept things for the sake of acceptance.....and before i start, my humble request is pls dont call me sir for one thing, even iam 22 and the other thing that i have no guru so that i learn things in a proper way....but this doesnt mean that what ever i write is without proof....i fight with the little knowledge i have....but what ever knowledge i have, iam very clear of it....doubts do rise in my heart but my God has always been with me to clear them....

 

now coming to our discussion

fore most there are 4 ways to attain mukti and bakthi yoga is just one amoung them....

if bakthi is one path then the path of knowledge is another

below is a quote from a website....what more can i provide u to understand what is mukti and how to attain it?

 

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1226869

 

"There are four paths to Moksha/mukti, and the simplest is Bhakti or Bhakti Yoga. Believers will invoke the spirit of Brahman to manifest itself in an idol (in the most positive, non-judgemental sense of the word) that they then worship and make offerings to. The relationship between the devotee and the divine is that of submission, reverence, and adoration: "Whatever you do, eat, offer as an oblation, give as a gift or undertake as a penance, offer all that to me, O Arjuna" (Bhagavad-Gita)." me here stands for Brahman

"The second path to Moksha is Yoga, which is basically exercises and meditation under the guidance of a guru. This focuses more on the individual's relationship with the divine, and the objective is to push out all outside distractions- i.e. worldly desires, imminent nuclear war, crying babies, and the like.

The opposite path to Yoga is Karma, which requires selfless action as a part of your Dharma. This means that one must be involved in the world of maya, which is why many consider it to be so different from the more personal path of Yoga. However, in the Bhagavad-Gita, the path of Yoga is reconciled with the three other paths, as Hindus are instructed to serve the world but not be trapped by it. In other words, go ahead and feed the homeless but don't get too involved with organizations or relationships, because those things are temporary and still contain maya.

The final path to Moksha is Jnana, which is the most difficult path, as it is only possible during the last two ashramas of Vanaprastha and Sannyasin. It requires careful study of the scriptures and of the self for enlightenment and Moksha.

 

Hindus have innumerable paths with which they can come closer to the divine- through study of the Vedas, meditation on the atman and Brahman, good works, devotion to an ishwara (personal god), and some even believe that one can attain Moksha without believing in a god (atheistic). Also, the degree of intimacy between a believer and the divine varies, although it tends to become more intense as one reaches the last few stages of life. Of course, that is rather common in any religion, as one comes closer to death and to the possibility of eternal life with or without the Ultimate Reality."

 

in ur word

---------

For instance,the famous Thayumavar saint of my birth place Trichy, accepted Mouna Guru Swamigal as his Guru.That yogi wont speak mostly and he is coming from Thirumular the great mystic yogi's tradition.And accepting him as Guru,Thayumanavar mixed devotion and yogic principles in his work Paraapara Kanni.

---------

u very clearly state that Thayumanavar is a yogi...what does it meam?it means that he has chosen the yoga path, the 2nd paths to mukti as his path....so u can see very less bakthi in his path

 

 

 

------

But what Yogic tantra says? Master your body and sense organs.Raise your kundalini and they even say,jeeva soul is Shiva and Kundalini is Shakthi.

------

exactly....because its the path of yoga

 

my friend i can see ur problem....u think that only bakthi is the only path to mukti....its very clear and as u cant accept the other 3 paths and do any sec which acknowledges (note very carefully, i use the word acknowledge and not practice) the other 3 paths is confusing 4u....

 

-----------

And now,even getting convinced that the old Shaivism is purely devotional,even the great Samaya Kuravars accept that Shri Nandi(supposed to be the principal and very exalted devotee of Shiva carrying him) is the foremost guru of Thirumular.The philosphy of Thirumular is purely yogic based and for those who follow his tradition,everyone is Supreme by controlling sense organs.

-----------

again ur talking about the 2nd path to moksha....dear dear dear why ru confusing ur self.....

 

---------

But devotion and yogic practice cannot co-exist.

---------

accepted...but note that both the paths lead u to mukti...

 

now listen very carefully

*the path of the lalvar(appar,sundarar,smabanthar,manikkavasagar)is the path of bakthi....1st path to mukti

 

*that of Thayumanavar is yoga-2nd path to mukti

 

*i dont remember an eg to quote for the karma path-3rd path to mukti but there are many...its just that i dont remember now

 

*the path of adi shankarar is the path of jnana

 

now is it not clear that shivism does not support only bakti path but all the 4 pahts.....on the other hand look at the vaishnavites (iam not blaming them)...they have taken only the easiest path....the bakthi path

 

i know what ur thinking...why take the tougher paths when u have a easy path...thats ur choice....here are the 4 paths and u choose what u want...remeber u can choose bakti path even in shivism....and not that for bakthi path u dont need a guru (esp for shiva bakthi)...kannapar didnt have a guru, yet he attained mukti in 6 days after he became a devoti, u know what he offered to God? he offered pig meat but God saw only his devotion....most of the nayanmar didnt have a guru...u know why...cos bakthi comes from ur heart.....bakthi needs no knowledge.....but for the other paths u need a guru (esp for the 2nd and 4th paths)

 

----

And these mystic yogis eventually starts imitating Lord Shiva and it is not good.And also not a fair sense of

----

 

and who is the yogi who acts like shiva? if there is one then u ave the answer...this is kali yuga and people like that do exist (its not just u who can take the cover of kali yuga my friend)

 

u learnt shivism-good

u got doubts regarding shivism-very good

but what did u do to clear the doubts?

now u will say that u went in search of a guru but didnt find one...

rather i will tell u what u should have done-u should have asked ur inner subconciousness......that is why it is said "aham Bramhasmi".......where did adi shankara got his wisdom?where did vivekananda get his wisdom?now dont tell me that they had gurs....guru can only give u knowledge and show u the path of wisdom....but how do u get wisdom?think . all i want to do is think..........think u will get the answer.....no probs if u dont get the answer, u know why?for in the true sense no matter to whom u pray, if u pray with true bakti u will get mukti....if u dont accept this and say that only bakti to krishan will only give u mukthi then u imply that adishankara,appar,sundarar,all the nayanmars did not attain mukti......if u say likr that it wont take long for me to ask the same quest for ur guru......

 

i think i have made my point...to accept it or now is in ur hands...if u still have doubts, ask and i shall try to answer with what little knowledge i have "katradu kaiman alavu, kallathathu ulagalavu"

 

OM NAMA SHIVAYA-the clarity of the soul,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mr.yasomatinandana

 

it made me my head spin to understand what u have tried to say...first i want u to understand what my point....God is one....brahma/vishnu/shiva are His forms when he does the work of creation, protection and destruction(dont take the litteral sense of destruction)....that one God of hinduism is Brahman......

 

----------

claims that sri shiva is superior or the ones who are scandalized by the quarrel

----------

 

i dont claim the supremacy of one over the other....i only object the vaishnavites claiming the superiority of vishnu...

 

----

only an all pervading energy with no qualities, action and consciousness, the brahman, is the real supreme

----

 

when i talk for Brahman how can i claim for the trinity's superiority? and who said Brahman has no qualities?no action?no consciousness?

pls understand that Brahman is ur subconcious reality...He is the quality of brahma,vishnu,shiva

and the work of the trinity are His actions....

 

-----

the promoters of vishnu/krsna as supreme recognize to shiva the quality of a highly transcendental satCITananda person.. literally exactly as god but simultaneously not god only because his powers are derivate by vishnu..(that's exactly the position of gaudya vaishnava sampradaya.. iskcon included)

------

 

first of all who will promote?salesmen will promote....so pls dont sell God in discounts.....and who told u that shiva got his power from vishnu?if u come with a vishnu puran then i will come with shiv puran......dont be ridiculus, u make me laugh....///now Mr.Krishna do u see what irritates me?////

 

 

--------

the promoters of his supremacy or the advocates of "no supremacy", actually say that shiva does not exist really,that he's not absolute but he's relative to our distorted consciousness who likes to see individualities

--------

u mess things very clearly....if u want to discuss on who God is then c my posting in shivism and vishnavism thread

 

just one thing to add--u cna never measure shiva, he is the vast pillar of absolute truth....he has no beginning nor end.....show me one verse (also refer ur vishnu pura) that talks about the birth of shiva....

 

u see shiva as a demi god or a great vishnavite-the problem lies here..........He is the concept of all concepts....

 

for me shiva is supreme...yet i believe in Brahman...u know why...i dont catch the coller of a vishnavite and shout into his years that only shiva is supreme....as far as iam concerned, when i say shiva is supreme i mean Brahman is supreme for i see Brahman as Shiva....that is why i have no problem when a vaishnavite thinks that vishu is supreme for again to me it implies Brahman is supreme...but i really have a problem when the vaishnavites proclaim that vishnu is supreme....and there is one more very note worthy difference between the vaishnavite and the saivites......the saivites stop with only saying that Shiva is supreme but these vaishnavites say that only vishnu is supreme and that shiva is his servent/greatest vishnavite......ridiculus......

 

there is no problem when one says that he is very intellegent....there is problem when one says that he alone is intellegent and all the others are fools....

 

 

 

----

another thing to observe is that iskcon is not a new thing.. iskcon is an english translation of "krsna chaitanya" (krsna consciousness).. or "vaishnavism" (worshipping of sri vishnu).. and his customs and siddhanta is completely in line with other gaudya missions and with the original branch of vaishnavism initiated by chaitanya mahaprabhu in 1500 century

----

 

stop giving ur own explanations for ISCON....the vaishnava tradition claims the superiority of vishnu but ISCON claims the superiority of Krishna and krishna alone...now dont ask what is the difference......and its a well known fact that ISCON doent go allong with other vaisnava sects for which the rejection of identity of ISCON as a sec of hinduism by the gov is an example.....go tell ur stories to people who know nothing....u know why ISCON is more successful in the US cos people there know very little about hinduism....

 

to conclude u say that advita is blaspheming shiva just because U dont know who Shiva is or what SHIVAM is....to u shiva is just a servent of vishnu/greatest vaishnavite....but thats not what SHIVAM is....SHIVAM is the concept of all concept......

 

one more ques to the ISCONites ....if krishna is godhead why has he to die?i think u just stop reading with gita...have u ever read mahabaratham?not only krishan dies but also all his sons....do u know that krishna was subjected to a curse of gandhari?

 

OM NAMA SHIVAYA....from whom things start and into whom they end.....the ultimate reality...the absolute truth

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

----------

"iam 22 and the other thing that i have no guru "

 

this explains everything

-----------

 

if 22 is a problem then thirujnanasambanthar wouldnt have become a nayanmar.....if not having a guru is a problem then kannapar wouldnt have attained mukti.....

 

for the wise learns from all-shiva is my atmartha guru,i have attended many talks at the temple,have attended spirituality talks at ammaikatti ashramam,....etc

 

yet i dont claim to be all knowledgeable for "katrathu kaiman alavu, kallathatu ulagalavu"-what u have learnt is equivalent to a hand full of sand but what u have learnt is equivalent to the size of earth....this also applies to the learnt

 

the reason u give is ridiculus....if u want to reply back then reply back for my question and question my answers....

 

spirituality is above age and sex...........

 

OM NAMA SHIVAYA....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hi Thiruvengadam,

 

Good & Responsible reply not showing any temper, while I even was a little bit hot on my previous reply.Good yaa really good.I feel proud of you that the Jnana Sabai of Shaivism is still there in rare corners.

 

At this difficult juncture for Shavism for lack of proper understanding,indeed you were able to bring yogism,shiva bhakthi and jnana under one roof.Great flow of logic but somewhere it is lacking one basic understanding, thats what now I am going to address here.

 

Vaishnavism has answers to all of your queries and before all that I want to explain some basic tenets where our proud Vaishavism greatly differs from almost all paths.

 

While everybody has one definition of mukthi as liberation,we define Mukthi as Vaikunda Padham or Parama Padham or Moksha Samrajyam.And this Vaikunda Padham is not exactly analogous to your Mukthi but this is what Vaishnavas aspire, while you aspire for Mukthi.

 

We want liberation or mukthi, but it does not stop there for Vaishnavas.After liberation from cycle of birth and death,what is the exact state of soul?For us,the state of the soul is that of pure devotional service.So our end and means to attain the end is same viz Bhakthi.In this way it is indeed superior to other three paths mentioned by you.

 

And Bhakthi is not easy as it seems.It is simultaneosly easy,pleasant to practise way and also very tough to come into.Why you know?Because in entrance or gateway to devotional science stands one attitude "Bhagvat dasan" attitude.Here we have to renounce all our egos and purposeful sadhanas.After coming to Bhakthi,the only hold for us is Lord Narayana and nothing else.We become children in his hands,fully dependent on his mercy and surrendering everything to Him including our bad sense desires,desire for liberation and all.Thats what for Krishna calls everybody at the end of Gita "Sarvadharaman parthyajya maamekam sharanam vraja".Sarvadharaman -- all paths and religion we simply renounce and take refuge on that black cowherd boy who is a real thief to attract souls rapdily.

 

Jnana,yoga and karma has a definite purpose,a means to attain it.But in all these you believe fully on your ability,practice something and atlast attain liberation from birth cycle.And now,what the jeevatma will be after being freed from birth? It cannot loose its individuality as you say "Aham Brahmasmi".Indeed it is Aham Brahmasmi but not "Aham Para Brahamasmi".Yes Krishna is Para Brahman and not a mere Brahman effulgence.So after janma long sadhana the soul cannot become non existent.

 

And even if assuming that merging with Brahman is ultimate as you say then also Bhakthi is not a way to merge with Brahman.It looks very strange.First cry 'shiva','shiva' you are my father,mother and all.Suddenly when our senses get controlled and we get spiritual power,merging with the same Shiva.Then what will happen to your previous devotional attitude?Is it not like "yedatha kudutha madatha pudungardhu" thing?(ie coming as a refugee and claiming the country).Also you people not only merge but say that Shiva form also merges in Nirguna Brahman.And to make Shiva non existent being as an objective,you say,Bhakthi or dasya attitude is a start.Very strange na?Start with glorifying and finally saying to Shiva "You and I are maya.come let us merge in Brahman".

 

So Bhakthi is not a way to merge with Brahman for even after liberation Bkathi must continue.Otherwise it looses its purpose.

 

Its not a exhibition thing "Those who want liberation, in easy way come here!Bhakthi is easy!Select a favourite form(as like a dish).So many forms are there!Shiva,Durga,Kali,Krishna etc etc!! Take anyone!!Or take all at a time!! Or any number you want!!Then start Bhakthi(Pseduo bhakthi)!!After liberation cooly say 'O so many forms! Nice!!Now you were all illusion!!!!Go and merge with Brahman!!!!!I am also following you!!!!'".

 

No yaa not at all!! This is not Bhakthi because on the base of your heart you are assuming Shiva form as time-being one and then how can you really love that form?Because your heart knows you have chosen that form.So how real love is possible?And without real love to your deity,what you really mean by Bhakthi?

 

So dont mix up Bhakthi(may it be towards Shiva or Vishnu)with other three paths.Other three paths are for liberation as an aim but Bhakthi's aim transcends liberation and continue even after liberation.

 

And also no answers for bloody animal sacrifice and demons worshipping Lord Shiva.

 

So you have two options now -- if you say "aimmye appa opila maniye" then forget Adhi Shankara or viceversa.But both cannot co-exist because it becomes ridiculous as we saw before.

 

Before criticizing Vaishnavs,you people must clearly define your purpose.Lot of confusion you have in understanding liberation itself(some say nirvana or void and some I am God).And you draw Bhakthi as a means to attain that silly, abrupt, abstract end of merging.

 

If defending Shiva,you must defend him but as said by one previously,you people try to kill both Shiva and Vishnu as imaginary,concept,infinity,representation what not!!

 

Dont bring your poor material science and maths here!!!!

 

Thank you!!

Hare Krishna!!!!!

 

And for Vaishnavas,we ofcourse take Bhakthi as a path first.But we dont believe on us for liberation.We glorify Lord Narayana and whatever he decides to do with us,we are ready for it.But we want only one thing from him,a constant remembrance of his lotus feet.Nothing else.

 

But on Lord Vishnu's part,he gives us a place in Vaikunda and enable us to do devotional service to him.Yes in Vaikunda after liberated from birth cycle,the souls constantly perform Nama Sankritanam and glorify Lord Narayana.

 

And for very much exalted devotees,they dont even ask that Vaikundam.They claim to accept even Hell but what they want is his Thiruvadi Remembrance.

 

"Pullai piravi thara vendum kanna punidhamaana vrindavanam adhil oru pullai piravi thara vendum".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

God is one....brahma/vishnu/shiva are His forms when he does the work of creation, protection and destruction(dont take the litteral sense of destruction)....

++so in this way you are putting sri shiva in a lower position.. lower than the position who give to him the gaudya/iskcon vaishnavas.

Vaishnavas think that shiva is an ABSOLUTE REALITY.. you think that he's a fake, a mere representation of the brahman

 

that one God of hinduism is Brahman......

++my opinion is that your conception of god only impersonal is not sanatana dharma... hinduismmeans everything and the opposite of it, so it is surely possible to find your conception in hinduism

 

i dont claim the supremacy of one over the other....i only object the vaishnavites claiming the superiority of vishnu...

++no.. vaishnavas say that visnu and shiva are ABSOLUTE.. you say that Brahman is the only ABSOLUTE and all personal transcendental deities are low and illusory

 

understand that Brahman is ur subconcious reality

++now you are revealing that you cannot bear discussions about supremacy because you consider to be yourself the supreme. In this way you hate the acharyas who say that Supreme is not you but Vishnu

 

first of all who will promote?salesmen will promote....so pls dont sell God in discounts

++i appreciate your sense of humour

 

just one thing to add--u cna never measure shiva, he is the vast pillar of absolute truth....he has no beginning nor end.....

++that's the exact gaudya vaishnava siddhanta... but it is not your siddhanta becaise you stated to believe to be yourself the supreme brahman and that shiva is a representation of your power

 

stop giving ur own explanations for ISCON....

++i have to give because you don't know even how to write the name..

 

if krishna is godhead why has he to die?

++this demonstrates the level of your culture..if you knew something about vedic spirituality you never made this elementary question

 

(all this quarrel, all this offences against devotees and acharyas because you are envious and sad being not considered the Supreme Lord.

Please respect of Lord Shiva and do not use it as a weapon to fight with others for your supremacy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What kind of nonsence is that?

 

You like to read Gita intrepretated by anybody?

 

Ever heard of 2 legged animal?

 

I wish everybody understand why it's so important instead of being affected by words. Like Raskal etc. Raskal means going against God. Thats what they are doing, athiests.

 

What is the POINT of reading by them? Leave Gita alone for pure devotees. In fact there are many translations by pure devotees not just Gita as it is. But esp now this is the only bona-fide translation in exsistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Thanks for your very kind words.

 

But you still need to be humble with anybody. First learn it .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello my friend Mr.Krishna

 

Belated tamil new year wishes.....sorry i couldnt reply for ur message yesterday...hope u had a good time too...i got up early morning and had to walk to the mirror with my eyes closed and had to open my eyes in front of the mirror (before which fruits and money are displayed)...my cousin sister had to guide me to the mirror...thats the way we celebrate our new year....

 

if mine is the only note worthy post u see from saivites, my dear friend so do i consider urs......when i say 'my dear friend" i mean it from my heart....

 

now back to our discussion...my dear friend

-----

At this difficult juncture for Shavism for lack of proper understanding

-----

whose lack of understanding?is it the lack of understanding of the vaishnavites over saivism or the lack of understanding of the saivites over saivism?or is it the lack of understanding of the saivites over vaisnavism or the lack of understanding of the vaisnavites over vaisnavism? the answer of this question is available to u if u could understand my post....

 

-----

While everybody has one definition of mukthi as liberation,we define Mukthi as Vaikunda Padham or Parama Padham or Moksha Samrajyam.And this Vaikunda Padham is not exactly analogous to your Mukthi but this is what Vaishnavas aspire, while you aspire for Mukthi.

-----

interesting to know that each sect has their own definition for mukti......if there are many definitions for mukti then what is the true definition?now dont tell me that ur definition is only true for if u say so then u r biased...here we r only discussing and have not come to any conclusion (if u keenly note and understand then u will realise that there is no conclusion for this topic...then why discuss?ask me and i will answer this ques in my next post)

 

----

We want liberation or mukthi, but it does not stop there for Vaishnavas.After liberation from cycle of birth and death,what is the exact state of soul?For us,the state of the soul is that of pure devotional service.So our end and means to attain the end is same viz Bhakthi.In this way it is indeed superior to other three paths mentioned by you.

----

kindly tell me in what way does vaisnavism differ from christianity except that in vaisnavism its vishnu and its jeasus in christianity and ofcourse some differences due to geographical changes..

 

 

---

And Bhakthi is not easy as it seems.It is simultaneosly easy,pleasant to practise way and also very tough to come into.Why you know?Because in entrance or gateway to devotional science stands one attitude "Bhagvat dasan" attitude.Here we have to renounce all our egos and purposeful sadhanas.After coming to Bhakthi,the only hold for us is Lord Narayana and nothing else.We become children in his hands,fully dependent on his mercy and surrendering everything to Him including our bad sense desires,desire for liberation and all.Thats what for Krishna calls everybody at the end of Gita "Sarvadharaman parthyajya maamekam sharanam vraja".Sarvadharaman -- all paths and religion we simply renounce and take refuge on that black cowherd boy who is a real thief to attract souls rapdily.

----

what is bakti? i will define it in a while....

 

----

Jnana,yoga and karma has a definite purpose,a means to attain it.But in all these you believe fully on your ability,practice something and atlast attain liberation from birth cycle.And now,what the jeevatma will be after being freed from birth? It cannot loose its individuality as you say "Aham Brahmasmi".Indeed it is Aham Brahmasmi but not "Aham Para Brahamasmi".Yes Krishna is Para Brahman and not a mere Brahman effulgence.So after janma long sadhana the soul cannot become non existent.

-----

due to vapourization the water from the ocean (Brahman) becomes water vapout and comes down ar rain.they form rivers (Athma) and move towards the ocean (in search of mukti-mearging with the ocean).....what happens to the river water after it reaches the ocean?river water did have its own identity before merging with the ocean...it was diferent in taste,density and all that (the differences between param brahman and aham brahma)...what happened to all these differences after merging?

 

well i have many doubts regarding many things....i ask for an answer and when i get the answer what happens to my doubts?do they disappear? if they disappear then into what do they disappear?do they disappear in to void?if something disappear into void how can void remain void?i never claimed God to be void.....then where did my doubts go?

 

ur way of attaining moksha is like salt merging with water-the twoness which becomes oneness(u can seperate it again into two)

but for us its water merging with water(u divide it into as many containers u want but its still water)

 

----

And even if assuming that merging with Brahman is ultimate as you say then also Bhakthi is not a way to merge with Brahman.It looks very strange.First cry 'shiva','shiva' you are my father,mother and all.Suddenly when our senses get controlled and we get spiritual power,merging with the same Shiva.Then what will happen to your previous devotional attitude?Is it not like "yedatha kudutha madatha pudungardhu" thing?(ie coming as a refugee and claiming the country)

-----

 

i think ur still not clear enough to differentiate between the 4 paths of mukti...i will come to it very soon

 

----

Also you people not only merge but say that Shiva form also merges in Nirguna Brahman

----

great joke...who said that shiva will merge into nirguna brahman? my dear i say that shiva IS nirguna brahman....shiva IS also guna brahman(i forgot the sanscrit equivalent of the opposite of nirguna brahman)

did u not note that i mentioned shiva to be the concept of all concepts?u will find more info about this in my reply to mr.yasomatinandana's post....

 

----

So Bhakthi is not a way to merge with Brahman for even after liberation Bkathi must continue.Otherwise it looses its purpose.

----

this is where the problem is....u talk like a christian killing the essence of mukti....

 

----

Its not a exhibition thing "Those who want liberation, in easy way come here!Bhakthi is easy!Select a favourite form(as like a dish).So many forms are there!Shiva,Durga,Kali,Krishna etc etc!! Take anyone!!Or take all at a time!! Or any number you want!!Then start Bhakthi(Pseduo bhakthi)!!After liberation cooly say 'O so many forms! Nice!!Now you were all illusion!!!!Go and merge with Brahman!!!!!I am also following you!!!!'".

----

what is bakti?bakti towards whom ?is bakti towards krisna only true bakti?then what is bakti towards jesus?if bakti towards jesus is false then why didnt God show his form(krishna form) to the west?where the west deprived of bakthi till ISCON could take krishna to the west?if so how can a Just God do injustice to the west?was God biased towards india?were only indians blessed to attain mukti and vaikuntam?if bakti towards krishna is ALSO bakti, when what is true bakti?how do one become a devotee and to whom should he serve?what if a person never gets to know about krishna in his life?is he cursed no matter he has pure bakti towards his form of God?if even he gets mukti then does it mean that it is possible to attain mukti without surrenderance to krishna?and above all what is the difference between bakti and jnana?are they both entirely different or do they have a common base? who will question and reason-a person who is a bakth or a person in search of jnana?

 

now before i go into the answering section i want to just remind u that u were once a saivite and since u couldnt (actually were not fortunate enough) find answers to ur QUESTIONS about self,mukti and all other spiritual questions,u went in search of a so called better sect and came across ISCON and as u FELT that u could get answers for ur questions u became a vaishnavite.....

 

now coming to the answering section

 

who is a bakth?

a person who has submitted himself without any ego to God...which God? any God....remember u can also be a bakth of ur guru....is guru God?

a bakth sees all the manifestations of God as God Himself...he loves everything for its God who has created all...he also loves his enemy.....a true bakth doesnt even gets angry-even when some one says something bad about his God...why? cos the person who speaks ill about his God is also a manifestation of his God....will anyone cut his head for a head ack? a bakth will never question, for if he questions than he doubts God....it is complete acceptance for him....

 

let us leave the definition of yoga and kara as we both r only interested in bakthi and jnana paths of mukti...

 

who is a jnani?how does one becomes a jnani?what is a process of becoming a jnani?

when a person is told about a faith and if he sees some truth in it, the truth will make him think...thinking will lead to many doubts...in order to clear his doubts he will discuss with other persons who have doubts....when their doubts are cleared he realises that God is in every one....he will learn to respect the God in him and the God in others..."athithi devo bava"....he then starts seeing others as God (note:he starts SEEING others as God....i never said that others are GOD-there is lot of dfference between these two)when he sees others as God he becomes a jnanai.....

 

now a bakthi sees all the manifestations of God as God...a jnani sees others as God.....what is this?then are bakth and jnani the same?

now u ask me many questions as ur not clear of some aspects of saivism and u were a saivite....then how do u become a bakth when u question?

i do accept that u claim that ur doubts were answered by vaisnavism but the truth is that u had doubts...u were not clear....u couldnt surrender ut ego immediately....what does that mean? it means that u wanted some jnana to be a bakth......and when does jnana comes?jnana comes when u think that there is some truth...what does this mean? it means u need certain level of acceptance in the start....meaning u need to have some bakthi in the start.....

 

now tell me whether bakthi and jnana are completely different or do they share a common base? ru a pure bakth or a little jnani?

 

iam not going to answer any of these questions.....i want u to think and come out with an answer....

 

 

do u know where the problem lies?here u go...

all gurus are great cylinders without a roof....though they confide themself within their cylinder and have specific practices, atlast they all merge with the oneness (sky) at the top (for they are roof less)....they could merge only because they were roof less....have u ever heard a great guru curse the concepts of another great guru? why didnt they fight when their concepts were completely different? cas they were all one at the top.....but what do we do?we seal the cylinder and refuse to merge....and hence we fight....we fight for our supremacy.....we fail to recognise the oneness in us....we tend more to see the differences.....

what did ragavendra mean by "athma jnanam adaintha pinum jeevan unnai theduthay"-"even after attaining the knowledge of the self my jeevan acks for u"

 

now coming to animal sacrifices.....as far as i know there is no shiva temple where animal sacrifices takes place. for our argument let us assume that there are temples that support animal sacrifices.....who will do animal sacrifice?a person with out jnana will do it for in tamil saivam means vegitarian......ok, if a person without jnana does sacrifices why doesnt God come and punishe him? cos he has a crude but pure bakti .....why God accepts such a bakti...cos bakthi needs no understanding.....how else would kannapper who offered pig meat to shiva get mukti....if u have understood what bakti is then u would have understood my explanation.....the greatest problem with bakti is that there is no understanding.....i cant help it...in bakti there is no meaning for understanding....there is only meaning for acceptance...

 

now coming to demons worshiping Shiva......who r demons?who created them?do we have a seperate God for demons unlike christianinty?

here is my explanation....when a demon performs penace he is in a forma of a bakth (accepting God above him)...his heart is pure and there is no evil.....only after he gets his wish does that evilness comes back to him....and as the evilness comes back to his his own boon becomes his bane....when there is no evil at heart and there is only pure bakti God cant deny anything....for instance when the demons dont disturb any one even lord vishnu have told the devas that he is helpless...he says "until they commit sin i cant touch them, so make them do evil and i shall protect u"....what does this signify? God is just to all...a heart with pure devotion is also his home (note:i said 'is also'...i never said 'is only')

 

no pure saivite (a bakth or a jnani) would go proclaiming that he is Shiva and so people have to worship him......if some one does that then he is not a pure bakth or a pure jnani and so not a pure saivite......its kali yuga...anything and every thing is possible (as u said)

 

-----

if you say "aimmye appa opila maniye" then forget Adhi Shankara or viceversa

-----

i say "aimmye appa opila maniye" and i say God is in me....do i contradict? no for i mean "God is great" and i say "God is in me".....it doesnt mean 'iam great'...it only means that the God in me is great...dont i make perfect sense....

 

if u have a hard mind nothing will enter into u....if u have a weak mind then evrything will break into u....if u have a good and just mind only those which makes sense will enter u.....i see ur smirk-ru calling me a weak mind-call if u please but what is true is always true.....no matter we accept it or not....

 

if u have read all my postings clearly then u would have noticed that i have never looked down on any sect not even other religions......but yet i call my self a strong saivite....does this makes sense? it will make sense to a mind that sees God every were....this applies to a bakth and also to a jnani who see God every were......unlike vaishnavam i never claim saivism as The way.....then what is my argument? if u have not got my point then i accept that iam not very good in expressing myself.....i have failed as a representative of jnani (but not as a bakth)-if at all iam one. ...i would ask no one to make fun of this sentence for if u do so u hurt someones innermost feelings-anyone who does this sin, no matter to what ever sect he belongs, is a sinner.....a sinner can not be a bakth nor a jnani....i warn u

 

"perava varam vendum, nan saitha thavarale meendum peranthal unnai marava varam vendum"-karaikal ammaiyar

 

OM NAMA SHIVAYA

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

look at they way they have linked bakthi and jnana...its wonderful....its been copied from the thread "bakthi is NOT A PATH"...it has been posted by a guest

 

"Union with God is the goal of this human life. It is the be-all and end-all of our existence. It is the summum bonum of life. This can be achieved by following the path of Bhakti Yoga, Raja Yoga, Jnana Yoga or Karma Yoga.

 

Bhakti Yoga is the path of devotion or the path of affection that is suitable for people of devotional temperament, in whom the love-element preponderates. Women are fit for this Bhakti Yoga Marga as affection predominates in them. Raja Yoga is suited to men of mystic temperament. Some are fond of acquiring Siddhis (powers). They can take up this path. Jnana is the path of Vedanta. Men of rational temperament with reasoning power, strong individual thinking and bold reasoning can take up this path. Those who have an active temperament can follow the path of Karma Yoga.

 

Bhakti Yoga is suitable for the vast majority of devotees. Generally there is a mixture of devotional and intellectual temperaments in all men. Some are purely devotional. Some are purely intellectual. One can realise through selfless Karma Yoga also. Karma Yoga purifies the mind (Chitta Suddhi) and prepares the aspirant for Jnana Yoga. People of active temperament should take up Karma Yoga. Bhakti is also classified as mental Karma. It comes under Karma Yoga. Raja Yoga is also a form of Bhakti Yoga. In Bhakti Yoga the devotee does absolute self-surrender to the Lord. A Raja Yogi has subtle egoism. The Bhakta depends upon the Lord. He is extremely humble. A Raja Yogi exerts and asserts. He is of Svatantra type (independent). Bhakti Yoga and Jnana Yoga are not incompatibles like acid and alkali. One can combine one-pointed devotion with Jnana Yoga. The fruit of Bhakti Yoga is Jnana. Highest love (Para Bhakti) and Jnana are one. Perfect knowledge is love. Perfect love is knowledge.

 

Sri Sankara, a Kevala Advaita Jnani, was a great Bhakta of Lord Hari, Hara and Devi. Jnana Dev of Alandi, Poona, a great Yogi, was a Bhakta of Lord Krishna. Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa worshipped Kali and got Jnana through Swami Totapuri, his Advaita Guru. Lord Gouranga of Bengal was a great Advaita Vedantic scholar and yet he danced in the streets and market-places singing the Names of Hari. Appaya Dikshita, a famous Jnani of Adaiyapalam, North Arcot District, the author of Siddhanta Lesha and various other Vedantic books, was a devotee of Lord Siva.

 

It behoves therefore that Bhakti can be combined with much advantage with Jnana. Raja Yoga aims in controlling all thought-waves or mental modifications. The second Sutra in Yoga Darshan of Patanjali Maharishi in the first chapter reads:

 

Yogas Chitta Vritti Nirodhah.

 

“Yoga is the restraint of mental modifications.”

 

This is the definition of Raja Yoga according to Patanjali Maharishi. Sri Jnana Dev, Goraknath, Raja Bhartrihari and Sadasiva Brahman were all Raja Yogis of great repute and glory.

 

Bhakti is a means to the end. It gives purity of mind. It removes Vikshepa (tossing of the mind) Sakamya Bhakti (devotion with expectation) brings Svarga and Brahmaloka for the devotee (Uttamaloka Prapti). Nishkamya Bhakti (love without expectation of fruits) brings Chitta Suddhi and through the purity of the mind the aspirant gets Jnana.

 

Published By

THE DIVINE LIFE SOCIETY

P.O. Shivanandanagar—249 192

Distt. Tehri-Garhwal, Uttaranchal,

Himalayas, India."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...