Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Ravindran Kesavan

Members
  • Content Count

    320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ravindran Kesavan

  1. Dear Justin, There is a clear distinction between madness and spiritual enlightenment, though to a normal ( here I mean the statistical normality, the average typical mejority of folks, falling under the mid portion of a normal curve - not in the sense of 'Healthy') both may look like one. An analogy is useful here. Light in very high frequency (ultravilot and beyond) and very low frequency (infrared and below) both look the same to the human eye . Both are invisible and hence dark. Human eye cannot distinguish between them. (We can only distinguish the freqency bands falling in between them as the different colour light spectrum). This does not mean infrared is same as ultraviolet. They are far apart - indeed two extreem ends of the spectrum. Similarly madness is subnormal . Enlightment is supernormal. Both differ from normal, the middle category, and may be confused to be same by the standards of the normals. The difference between subnormal (or abnormal) and supernormal is that subnormal is a helpless slave of mind Supernormal is a master of mind with powers. Subnormal is mad. Asupernormal is an Adept. But of course analogy may not satisfy you, I guess. Let me illustrate the difference with a concrete real life data. I knew of a case of a boy who was severly Schizophrenic, subjected to colossal hallucinations, dellusions and completely unable to survive independantly. His parents tried everything posible including psychiatric institutionalised treatment for many years withnout success. Then someone advised the parents to seek a particular agori who was living in Banaras crematory, at that time, who is considered to be mad by many as he used to live in crematory and used to eat dead human flesh of the funeral fire as his regular food. No one dared to even approach him. He never talked to anyone at the first place. The parents of the boy out of desparation as well as by the testimony of his well-wisher, accepted to try this and took the boy to the agori. The mother pleaded the agori, with tears flowing, to save his son. The aghori who himself looked to be completely mad, stared at the boy with intense eyes and screemed " You fool! none with out a guide can explore the realms all alone. It is a dangerous. You have fallen in this pit. Just get out of here and go to the surface realm of the normal , and be contented to live there . Wait till your turn . When time is ripe you will be guided to these realms safely. Dont wander around alone again". That is all he said and dismissed the parents by sign and went back to silence again. The boy visibly seems to have been jittered at his yelling and seems to be shocked for a while , As they reached home the boy started talking and behaving normally. He became normal for good. The disease never releapsed back again. Latter the parents asked the boy what did the agoribaba tell him (obviously they did not understand the message). Boy told them that the realm of the mind is very deep vast and mysterious ,and the normals live in a small portion of it at its surface. One day the mind opened up for him, and he saw the immensity of it and started wandering and exploring . In his exploration he went too far from the normal region and got trapped in a deeper portion with out knowing how to return back to the familiar corner. Everybody thought he was mad and were treating accordingly. Psychiatrist dint know what they were doing and were pumping him with chemicals in their ignorance. It was not helping him . Actually it was further harming him. The agori perfectly understood him and explained his condition to him. And the agori mysteriously showed him the way back. In a single jolt he flipped back to the normal surface portion of his mind and the agori closed the door to the depth,with the promise to guide him safely in a future date.Till then the boy must wait. This is the instruction . This was the boy's explanation. In any case he is very normal now for many many years, and the agori could cure a tough case of schizophrenia in few seconds, which the psychiatrists were struggling for years without success. The question now to us is Is the agori mad or he is a grand healer? He seems to be the master of mind and that is no madness. If he lives in crematory and doing weird thing like eating human flesh that is not madness. That is experimenting with mind - with its mysterious unconscious forces (like cannibolistic urge which is there in all of us in the depth of our unconscious, which we are hardly aware of). He is a scientist of mind. Tantra is a science of mind and soul. There are very knowledggible adepts in this science. But to ordinary normals (mediocres) like us they look very weird and mad. That is because we dont understand them. I think you should take Srikant's invitation seriously and go to Kumbamela. If you are lucky you will meet some interesting adepts there. That will change your life perspective forever, in an interesting way. However the choice is yours. If you choose to live a 'normal' life it is your choice. For me normality is boring and is worse than madness, as normality is a form of madness -very uninteresting kind. Regards, K.Ravindran --------- An anecdote on madness: "There are two kinds of mad people : those who live inside the asylum and those who live outside, the former are curable the latter uncurable''. ( The uncurable variety is called 'Normals')
  2. Dear Thehat, This approach is technically known as biological determinism. This approach holds that everything about us ( living beings) - our feelimgs, thoughts and behaviours is determined biologically. Hence the idea of god is no exception to this rule. Genetic code and evolution histry dectermines everything about us. This is one of the three approaches of scientific psychology. There are other two approches to expplain everything about us: Psychic determinism and Environmental determinism. In psychic determinism the cause of everything - our feeling thought and behaviour - is the unconscious mind .Freud developed this theoritical perspective. In this approach too god and religion have explanation based on the unconscious factors. In Envirnmental determinism our thought, feelling and behaviour are explained by the conditioning. In this approach, developed by behaviourist school ( Pavlove, Skinner and Bandura), reinforcers (social rewards and punishment) are the determining factors. Belief in god and religion , in this approach, are simply conditioned behaviour patterns, socially learned. These are the three major approaches in psychology to explain human behaviour. Regards, K.Ravindran
  3. Dear Bart, Sorry for my slip on Europe instead of England. Yes I meant England in my example. Even Europe, though is not an Island, still is a continent with its border intact. That is the point I am making. By sketching the border of any irregular closed shape very very accurately to the minutest detail to ther size of a quark or even to the gemeotric dimentionless point , you dont make the contour length infinite. It can become very very large. It is still finate as long as it is a closed loop, however complex and intricate the figure may be. There is a rigorous mathematical proof to it. (Infinite points does not make the length infinite. Every finate segment of a real line contain infinite points). Only an unclosed and unending thing is truely infinite. Real life entities like borders of nation islands and leafs may not be neat circles ( or ellipses, squars, triangles or any such neat and simple geometric objects that we study in elementary geometry text books) . They are intricate fractul designs is true but nontheless they are closed loops, and hense of finate lengths. Regards, K.Ravindran
  4. Dear Jeffster, I have no problem with that copnception of god. Being inconceivable and having a definite form are contradictory. What is ment by a form at the first place ? We can think of god as having defenite conceviable attributes. If god is inconceivable then the form argument fals apart is int it? What still a mystic calls a form of god is not literal and can only be described in paradooxical terms as you have rightly pointed out Smaller than the samallest and, simultaniously, bigger than the biggest. This is not any definite specific form . I have no quarrel with this mystic's paradoxical (imposible) and metaphoric language. It points out to ther very inconceivablity of a god's form. But I have problem with the bhakta's literlal language -that there is a place called Vaikunda as described in mythologies - a definite spacial geoghaphy ( or celestography) and an antrophomorphic god , suggestive of a definite space bound visual form , living there. Regards, K.Ravindran
  5. Dear Justin, Even if I have not seen the whole of europe I know for certain that it is a small island surrounded by sea, hence is limited. The logic holds good that however big a thing may be, if it has a boundry it is still limited , finate- not infinite. If you dismiss space from your conception of form there is no meaning of form in a visual sense. Then you cannot argue god has a head, eyes hands and is lying in a snake bed etc. (If you mean that as gods form. Perhaps you may not be believing that , as you seems to agree with me that any spacial form is finate). You then should decscribe gods form in completely devoid of spacial form. If you clarify what is this form according to you - what attributes you think belongs to what you call form - then perhaps we can discuss it further. Regards, K.Ravindran
  6. This Refers to post 165 of Radhika. That in fact is the right way to comprehend form and infinity. Any form by very definition is limited. A form cannot be limitless in space. It starts some where and ends somewhere in space in order to assume a form. If this limitation does not take place, if a thing is infinately extended in space in all directions, it is indeed formless. K.Ravindran
  7. Dear Proud Vadic Learner, Let me add one more dimention to your discussion on war. There is a inner isoteric significance to the mythological warefare. The wars describer in mythologies are not actual physical historuic events but the description and prescriptions of the inner war of the soul against its inner enemies kama, krodha, loba, moha, madha, macharya, and Anava, karma and mayeeya malas. The war is an attempt of the soul to realise itself. The enemies are those meterialistic tendencies which act against this spiritual urge and pulls the soul down and keeps it immersed deeply in material condition. The only peace is spiritual realization. Hence the peaceful warrior is one who fights a spiritual battle. Regards, K.Ravindran
  8. Dear bija, and jeffster, A bhakta and Jnani are not different in their final outcome, though they choose to reach it through different paths. A bhakta and Jani ultimately see god (Or brahman) in every thing and everywhere. (Pragalladh saw Narayana in dust and in piller). In Soundarya Lahari, the religious song of the Goddess, there is one song which describes a realised jnani's state: " (For a realised one ) The speach become mantra, the walking becomes pradakshana, Sleeping becomes prostration , Gestures become mudras. " In short every thing - the entire life - become worship in the case of a realised jnani because the jani is in god consciousness - sees god everywhere and in every thing. Hence special place like temple, special mantras and special ritual signs like mudras are not nessary for such a one. Not any different from the description of a Bhakta - cooking, eating and so on -described by Bija. isn't it? In the final state Bhakti and Jnana are one. Regards, K.Ravindran
  9. Dear Sephiroth, <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> I have no quarrels with anything you said so far. And if I have understood Srikant correctly, he would not have any either. In fact he would agree with you ditto, with the substantive part of your post. It is just your language is provocative (no offence meant) and your opponents in debate , could react to that and you in turn to that and the real substantive aspect goes astray . In this process you and Srikant (and me too) who are so similar in ideas would be lost in busy fighting who otherwise could beautifully contribute and compliment each other. I see that possibility. <o:p></o:p> May be there are real difference between you me and Srikant in finer aspect, or may be in some major way, even. But so far this genuine difference if any has not surfaced and hence my contention there is no cause for a quarrel right now. <o:p></o:p> Regards, K.Ravindran
  10. So if I am nothing and god is everything why should it worry me? It worries me because whome I call 'I' is a separate ego and the ego fears its death. Hense it struggles against the the merging with god and becaome one with god. But the spiritual ideal is with out ego. What is the problem if I as a separate entity does not exist? It is all the more better if I am one with god or one with everything isint it? K.Ravindran
  11. Radhika's words, short and sweet, are certainly much better and clear than many of ours who write volumes. Keep it up radika. Regards, K.Ravindran
  12. Dear Srikanth, and Sephiroth, I dont see much of difference between you on the level of ideas. It is my strong hunch that you both are meaning the same. Why are you fighting unnessarily, when you mean the same? Sephiroth, is taking the mystic's position. Since the ultimate reality is not cognizable by mind and not describable by words, all that we say become meaningless. "Those who talk do not know, thouse who know do not talk". Srikant, this mystic position of Sephiroth will go very well with your position on mukti. Monism and Mysticism (that is undefinability and ineffablity) go hand in hand . Because if there is only one thing with out the other, how can we define and describe it in words? To define means to use other words and concepts . In the absense of the other, -with just one category -how do we define that one thing? And Sephiritoth, if one really practice the mystic's principle then one cannot say anything. One must keep silent. the discussion forum will have no posting. This is why mystics themselves have broken the rule of silence and spoke their experience in volumes and volumes.So why accuse Srikant for attempting a discussion? The misunderstanding between you is just verbal, not substantial. Regards, K.Ravindran
  13. Dear Not HEEHEE, Physics neither concerns itself with the subject nor it admits subject as real category. It simply is the study of objects of the world. The human being and scientists are just part of matter. ( you and I may not agree on this owing to our spiritual oriantation , but that should not confuse you and me in understanding of physics or physical sciences which are completely materialistic - sorry no scope for subject there. No subject object duality. There simplt is matter. That is the positrion of physical sciences. Physical science doesnot deny the perceived difference in the phynominal world. As to the perceived difference of matter that does not mean duality either. When a physist maintain there is oneness it is ment an underlying oneness. For example you obviously see different colours in the world : the grass is green, the sky is blue and thesunflower is yellow and so on. But you must be aware that there are are not so many colours rerally - there are only three primary colours. we perceive the combination of these three in to many many varieties of colours. Now going a step further there are not even three things as for as colours are concerned . At still deeper level there is only a colourless electromagnetic wave - A mere vibration. Depending on the speed of vibration ( frequency) alternately of its wave length, our eye and subsequently our brain differently respond as different colours. All that is there in the real world is simple electromagnetic wave. some one thing that moves . Of course this wave is faster or slower - that difference exists . By that does not makle it dual or plural as a variation is really motion one one medioum one thing or one single parameter. There is no difference in kind though there is difference in quantity of one thing. In perceived world however this variation of spped of one thing is perceived as many different kinds of colours. What i said in the sase of colour holds good for all other things in the universe too. Universe is a manifestation of one single energy perceived as varity oif things at phynominal level. It is all simple physics I am talking about. There is no confusion in me. I am clear. If there is coinfution in you, you are free to sort it out. I can even help you on that. However if you find my description too dificult to grasp you can even learn science from more simpler sourses. I have no problem in acceptiong that I could be more complex to your simple mind and my explanation might be confusing to you. I accept that - after all you are only helping me by giving your feed back .I should learn to communicate more simply and elegantly. I will try. Regards, K.Ravindran
  14. Dear Justin, It is the current consensus of theoritical physists that there are only two theories in physics : Quantum theory, And General theory of relativity. Quantum theory is not a small branch of physics anymore but one of the major paradigm . It is also true that serious attempt is going on to unite them together to produce onr single theory of everything. Whatever I said about seience are true fact not opinion or imagination. About the monism of science I should admit that it is presently not yet achieved that status and hence I cannot convince you that it is already monoistic. As a mater of fact I said there are two theories Quantum mechanics and general theory. Together they explain the universe. Hence you are right that it is at present dualistic. You need two theories to account for all that is there. But however, as I said, attempt is goiing on to unify them to produce a grant unified theory. (This is a common knowledge in physics circle. I am not saying anything strange or weird or imagined things). I can only argue with you at present that the value of science is monistic. ie. the ideal of science is monism . Otherwise those scientists would not striving to unify the forces. However what you can still maintain is that this attempt will never succeed as science is fundamentally dualistic and has to be that way. On wich I will not have any argument with you but wait to see what happens to the attempt of unification. Well you may even be right that science can never be a monistic endwever and any attempt to make it will fail. I am willing to buy that stance as a hypothesis. But your certainity on that is quite another matter. Scientists who tries to unify , if they have that certanity and clarity, will never attempt the unification task. It is obvious that they think otherwise. Forget of all the past scientist you listed. they may not have thought about the monistic science (Except Einstin of course) . In their time it was not a real possibility. The present scientists who are working on unification certainly think of such a possibility and even dream of it as the goal of physics . And mind you thay are regorous scientists, not spiritualist. You can accuce me of my projecting my spiritual monism on science. But you cannot accuse of that to these material scientists. In any case I will have no argument with you if you say that the present real status of science is dualistic . I will have to aggree to that as I myself said there are two theories now. Whether it would remain that way or not is to be seen. Let us wait and see who is right - if we live up to that time. Note: Monism or unification is not about pig and dog and worms and human being same. Obviously at the phenominal level there are differences. Monism is about the underlying ontic truth, that behind phynominal plurality there is an ontic unity. There is no denial that there are different things and forces in the universe at the surface level. What the monistic schema in physics argues is that behind these varities of phenominon there is one single underlying force, that account for all the variety. Pig and worm and human being are made of same atomic particles: Proton eletron and neutron. There is nothing else other than atoms and everything is composed of atoms That is the implication of monistic thinking . No one is saying Pig is Human But what one is saying is pigs and humen are atoms really. (Of course atomic structure is now outdated ontology the most resent verson would be that everything are made up of strings) Regards, K.Ravindran
  15. Dear Bija and Srikant, It is nice to see that you are opening up freely. This is authentiic sharring. Much more useful than theoritical bookish discussion. I too have a spiritual experience of a very powerful profound kind, not an NDE though. It is a kundalini awakened experience. It is little longish to post - toomuch of details and too vast . I have seen every posible state of mind in these profound spiritual experiences . May be I will assemble parts of it some time and post it. For the time being I can only say that your experiences are not symptoms of madsness or anything to do with any sickness. They are genune real states - not illusions. Dont go by the psychatrist's opinion on this Psychiatry is in a lousy state as a science and not developed much. It is the least developed branch when compared to other branches of medicine, and not at al satisfactory. There are controled researches done on psychiatry and psychiatriests in the west and the result is that the psychiatric diagnoisis is as bad and random as coin throw and not at all realiable. Psychiatrists dont know really much. Psychology it self is just scraching on the surface of our very mysterious mind. We dont know much of our mind and its Profound depts and potentials. Dear Bija, you dont have to be assamed of or uncertain of or appologetic about of your profound experience. It is in fact a universal experience of all those who have NDE, hence not an illusion or hallucination. It is very real. And srikant your out of body astral travel experience too is real. US army once was supposed to have engaged in training soldiers on "remote viewing" (to spy on countries and events), which is nothing but astral body travel of the kind that you have experienced. There are internet sites now established by the retired US army soldiers to train on this. You can check on it if you need more information on it. Tibeten Buddhism too have esoteric system of training to accomplish this siddhi. Though madness and psychological illhealth are actual facts , there are genune mystical and spiritual experiences too. Mind is the most misterious devise in the universe. We (Psychologist and Scientists) know almost nothing about it at present. And anything we dont understand we tend to clasify as weird and mad. It is good to share these experiences freely so that people having these experiences need not get confused and scared and ashamed of their experiences. I feel like joining you in this but my only itch - it is too vast. and I dont know how to present it short and sweet. May be I should try. Regards, K.Ravindran
  16. Dear bija , I am aware of Stanlislav Grof's work and other broder perspectives too. In fact I personally to these broader theories than the narrow psychological theories. I am deeply spiritual like you. The above post is addressed to a specific argument of justin and intented to show the problem with his narrow perspective of spirituality. As to my own understanding the dualism-monism fight is quite unwarented, and arises out of our own limitation to grasp the complete truth. I shall give an anology to illustrate my claim. Look at your hand. You have five fingers and A palm. this you can look at with different perspectives : One you can narrowly focus on your fingers alone neatly cut off from the palm ( ignore the palm) and argue that there are five different things. Or you can narrowly look at the palm alone withoue cognising the fimngers and argue there only one thing ( palm) Even when you look at the whole hand the perspective of emphasis will give rise two different versions: (1) You can emphasise the fingers and argue that they are five things attached to one palm; Or you can give emphasis on palm and argue there is only one that has grown - extended itself -in to five extentions. If we see only the souls then there are many. If we only see Krisna the supersoal then there is only one. If we see the soul and krishna then there are two possible position depending on our emphassis. We might argue from the souls's perspective souls are all different and are just attached to a supersoul. ( I beliecve this is the dualist Vaishnava stance) or we might argue, from the Krishna's perspective, that there is only one suprer soul Paramatma and all the individual souls are extentions of this one supersoul. This is my position. I am a monist in this sense. I may not be a Sankarian monist in this sense but non-the-less a monist as I see only one supersoul with trillions of extentions . With all the trillion extended parts the whole is one single thing. I dont deny my fingers but I see them as extentions of my one complete whole hand. I dont deny that there are souls but I see them as extentions of Krishna only. This is why I dont see any contradiction between you and me. We are saying the same thing in different language. I say there is only one . you say there are many with a connecting one. There is no fundamental difference between us. I know that you know Krishna as supersoul by your experience and not from books. Though I haven no fundamental problem with you expecxially, I do have serious problem with the partial seers - whome I call pure dualist- who do not recognise the whole or see the oneness principle behind the apparent dualism and plurality, though they may quote verbally krishna is a supersoul of all souls , mechaniocally. Sharp rigid dualism cannot go with the presence of Krishnsa as supersoul. That is why I call myself a monist, and have problem with 'pure dualists'. Regards, K.Ravindran
  17. Dear Sudarshan, Bhairo has given you complete and exaustive material on Tara. Follow that. If you are thinking of upasana of Tara I would add only one detail. Tara Upasana must be done with the condition of strictly speeking truth. No lies must be spoken during upasana period. Best of luck, K.Ravindran
  18. Derar Justin, I believe that by 'science' here you mean specifically psychology. Because Physics or chemistey of biology doesnot deal with people's experience and mind. Madness, mentally challenged, and neuroses are the subjerct matter of psychology. I am a psychologist by training and profession. I know the theoritical stance you are talking about. The same theory rejects religious experience, religious belief and and religious practice too as neuroses. By this theory your chanting Hare krishna mantra repetedly is Obsessive compulsive neurosis. Your belief in Krisna in Delution. No ! you canot use scientific psychology partially to dismiss your opponents religious belief as madness and your own as sane. All that I am asking you is to be consistent in your argument. If you are applying scientific psychology then apply it consistently. With that I will have no problem . But if you apply it selectively to your convenience to reject monistic spiritual thought as madness but fail to apply it to dualistic religious thought , then I have a problem with your argument. I would point out to you , then , that you are not consistent in applying your principle. You dont see your 'scientic proof'' argument is a double edged razer. Your argument is a self distructive argument. You and your opponent are sailing in the same boat, as for as the scientific psychology is concerned. You make a hole in the boat thinking to drown your opponent you sink too. Regards, K.Ravindran
  19. Dear Not-HeeHee, Monism is a general philosophic term refering to any philosophy that hold that there is only one stuff behind the apparant multiciplity. As a gereral philosiphic technical term it does not restrict itself to the Special Advaida doctrine of the sankara or spiritualist. It can and does refer to the brand of philosophy that the whole world is made of mater - one kind of matter and there is no spirit or soul or consciousness . Spirit if at all exists it is an epiphenomenon - a by-product of matter - or simply a poeitic lie with out any substance to it.This is called the Material Monism. In what you are refering to as monism in your post you are limiting to what is is technically called Spiritual Monism which assumes that everything is made up of pure spirit.- no matter - matter is an illusion.- the classical indian advidic position. Philosophically it is true that Physics - is Material Monistic. There is no misundrerstanding on my part of either monism or science. I am using a standard terminology of Philosophy of Science. In Philosophy Knowlegde is offen conceptualised in terms of the subject - object dichotomy. There is a subject who knows an object.There are disciplines which deals with the subject ( Say psychology) and disciplines which deal with the objects ( Say Physics) In Physics and in most of the natural sciences which are based on the objectivity criterion , there is no way to admit the category of a scientist. Subject and subjectivism are not the valied category of objective material sciences. Natural sciences simply deal with the object side . For a physist, a scientist is a conclomoration of atoms - just a omplex arrey of matter - and nothing else Hence there is no duality. It is true that physics is fundamentally monistic in the material sense. Physics simply does not admit a nonmaterial category, at the first place and at the second believes that all matter is ultimately is of one stuff. This is the meaning of Grand Unification. There is only one force or energy that is expressed as the many forces and million things of the universe. This is the belief and value in physics. I am not off-quating Einstein or lifting his statement out of context in my post. In fact it is Einmstein who first suspected that behind the multitude of forces there is one fundamental force, going by his success in unifying gravity and mechanics. Then he attempted to integrate Electromagnetism in to his general theory of relativity (of Gravity) but failed. He till his death was attempting on the unification problem - unifying all forces in to one single systyem or theory. Thus it was Einstein who innograted the unified field theory of physics which others picked up and are continues to work. I was refering to this in my post. Out of the four fundamental forces of universe: Gravitational , Electromagnetic, Strong nuclear force and Week nuclear force, except gravitation all other three has been already unifird at pressent. Gravity stands alone so far refusing to unite. But work is on. Physicists believes that Gravity too will one day join the union leaving us with one single fundamental force of the universe. At present there are only two fundamental theories: (1) Quantum theory which account for all three forces by a single theory ,(2) General theory of relativiuty of gravitation . Physists are working on the final unification of this two theories together. Superstring theory is supposed to be a strong contestant for the final Grand Unification. Once we succeed in this attempt then we will have one single force under the entie multidyde of manifestations, and one single theory explaining everything in the universe. Science is Monistic - ( material monistic - I must qualify). Regards, K.Ravindran
  20. Bija certainly is a gem and a realised soul. His Spiritual realization shows in his fine debate culture. Even when he disagrees with you he does very nicely with grace serinity and with sweet and kind words. We all should learn from him how to debate. Disaggreement is the very nature of debate. Otherwise there is no debate. But how one does it is a fineart in which Bija is a master. His genune spiritual realization and genune Krishna bakti is to be attributed for this fineness and sweetness - He knows - or rather is in - Madhurabhava genunely. K.Ravindran
  21. Dear Jyotiss, Not just two there are many mantras for the same purpose and each devada has many mantras. Kama deva himself has many mantras . So is the case with Krishna, whose mantra Kleem is and so is with Goddess. The alternate forms of same devada are are not inferior superior. Any one of them will do. Different mantras come about, I guess , from different names and aspects of the same god. For example Manmada is called Manmada, Kamadeva, Manotbhava, Ananga, Kandarpa, Makaradwaja, Meenaketu, ect. One can use any one of them or a combination of them in a mantra. Similarly the beejas themself are different for different aspects of Manmada. For example Appart from Kleem, Aim, Hreem, Sthreem bloom are all his beejas - represending five different aspects of him. Each has a technical name. One is called Manmada, another Makaradwaja, yet anothewr Manodbhava ect. (I dont remember now which name belong to which beeja). Amoung the alternate forms one is not better , or effective or faster than others - that entirly depends on your sadana. They are different aspects of the same deity though. K.Ravindrtan
  22. Srikant is right. There is a mantra like that - with Kleem at the begining - for Kamadeva. He is also right regarding the effect of the mantra. It is more of self curative rather than manipulative of something external to us.( I have an direct experience on this). In any case there is no contradiction between self healing and gaining an external objet. As per advaidic understanding there is no difference between our self and others - there is only one big mind or one big consciousness. Hence the mantra can act on other minds too as all minds /souls are just parts of one big Mind. This is the theoritical basis of the Science of Mantra. Thanks, Srikant, for the correction. And thanks for the interesting information that this was the previous mantra of Gaudiya Vaishnavas Regards, K.Ravindran
×
×
  • Create New...