Ravindran Kesavan

Global warming a true fact – And dooms day is nearing<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Anthropogenic (manmade) global worming is neither a philosophy nor a delution (false pathological belief) but a true fact. Earth is like a green house where plants are kept under a glass roof. The glass roof acts like a woolen blanket so that the heat from inside is not lost, providing the necessary heat to the plants. Earth is exactly like that. Earth’s atmosphere keeps the heat so that it does not loose out the heat during the night to the outer space and there by cooling to the temperature of the outer space which is near absolute zero (-273 degree centigrade) and no life is possible if it were to lose heat like this. Green house effect is our protective blanket. <o:p></o:p> However due to our faulty life style – overpopulation along with made consumption of energy by every body, cars fridges and other materialistic consumerist life styles and with atomic warfare lots of heat is being released to the earths atmosphere which ends up heating the globe. There is a clear factual data that it all started after the technological age of mankind and the commercial use of technology in large scale. By our blind materialistic lifestyle we are committing the sin against mother earth and she is not able to bear the burden. Already the signs are showing up. Polar ice is melting though slowly but definitely. Grass started growing in polar region. Last year amaranth Ice lingam failed to form Sea level is rising slowly and gradually day buy day, year by year. There is so much of water in the polar ice caps if all of them melt the entire earth would be submerged leaving the top peaks of few mountains, eliminating all land living life creatures. Dooms day is certainly nearing - Prallaya is certainly a true scientific fact not a mythic fiction. And the cause of this is human sin of materialistic lifestyle. Pralaya is a consequence of our sin and not a god’s sadistic whim. It is our doing. <o:p></o:p> There is no point in denying this and shut our eyes and continue in the sinful path. We are foolish to believe it is a philosophy of atheist, delution of mad people or propaganda of politicians. Unless we - human race - wake up and stop our sinful ways we are doomed for certain. We cannot afford self deception that nothing is happening and that if it is happening we have nothing to do with it. That would be ostrich strategy. <o:p></o:p> K.Ravindran

Animal Sacrifice and liquor offering.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Dear Innocent, <o:p> </o:p> God is for every body and not only for what is the so-called high culture. Every culture- low or high - worship god according to its own conception. Hunters have their gods too. When a hunter offers a beast to god there is no sense of guilt or even that he is offering something low or unholy. He loves god and he offers what he considers as the best food which he can think off. He offers what he consumes. Animals are food for him there is no other connotation. Similarly when a particular tribe man offer liquor or cigar to god they are not some forbidden or bad objects as we tend to think – He is offering the best of things from his perspective. In many tribes, liquor is a valued thing; they celebrate all their festival with liquor drinking. In their marriage customs they exchange liquor as bride price. Liquor is not a evil thing for them- it is a vary holy valuable thing. What they offer to the god is the best of things according to their own perspective though it may not be from our perspective. <o:p> </o:p> Even in the Vedic rites animal sacrifice and soma juice drinking were prevalent. For example Indra is supposed to be very fond of horse’s head and offered that, while the rest of the gods are offered the rest of horse’s parts, in Vedic yagas. They also offered and drank Soma juice an intoxicating liquid made out of a hallucinogen plant called soma. Though now we contemn such practices in their own days and culture there is no such negative connotations attached to those things. <o:p> </o:p> We must understand worship from the cultural contest. The present practices come from these roots, though we have changed our notion on these issues. Religion being conservative in its approach will not change its rituals that easily. So they continue. <o:p> </o:p> Regards, K.Ravindran

Dear Ravikishore, I personally dont think anything wrong to employ tantric science to achieve what we want. It is a science. Just like mankind invented aeroplane to fulfill its desire to fly, And there is no violation natural laws or forcing nature if you fly in an aeroplane. Similarly Tantra is a Science and is a wonderful invention to fulfill human needs. Employing it is no sin - the purpose of employing it may be sinful or holy. If changing somebody's mind is is called forcing against nature we all the time do that - by our regular conversation where we employ convincing argument, marketing and advertisement where the agency convinces the customers to buy things they dont actually need, and all ththat kind of regular things. Do you consider if you are convincing your point of view to another who has a different view by logical argumentation a sin? -No .But did you forced to change his original mind? -Yes. If you bare behaving very nice to a girl do all the nicest things to her talking sweetly to win her, are you not manipulating her mind? Yes. But it is wrong to do that? No. That is what you should behave if you have any scope to win her. Is int it? When we do all the time therse things regularly - trying to control other's mind, where is the question of sin comming in to picture if you are employing a science to achieve the same result more effectively? If you are trying to win a girl with your nicest behaviour you are manipulating her mind. That is fine and you have to do that if you want to win her. You dont wait doing nothing till she autimatically on her own fall in love with you. That wont happen. Tou will have to work for it - Right? If this is the case what is the problem of employing more effective method of influncing her. Why do you have to confine stupidly to methods which does not work ? If there is some other methods more effective then your present behaviour you will have to learn and employ them isint it? If tantra is that effective method then is int it is wise employ that? It is a common belief in many people that employing tantra to make some one fall in love with you is forcing that person unnaturally and if you love that person that person should love you naturally out of her free will. If that is the formula then you cannot do anything but passively wait till naturally that person fall for you with out any attempt from your side - you cannot even express your love to her as that is an emotional manipulation. (If you tell her you love her it causes emotional disturbances in her mind at least initially) . So you cannot do that even. See the stupidity in this " no force" argument? Everything is forcing only. Hence employing an effective method of forcing is no sin. There is no sin or holiness in the method itself. ( Some people think employing tantra itself is sin- this is just an ignorance) What makes it a sin or holy is your intention behind it. If you are in love and planning to take care of her throughout your life then there is no sin. If you are angry with her and planning to take your revenge by making her love you and then do something terrible to her, then it is a sin. It is not the method but your intention that makes it sinful or holy. However , having said all this, I sense a guilt in you in employing the tantric method. If that is the case dont do it. It will haunt you like a ghost throughout your life. It will never let you be peaseful. Why should take up on yourself such a terrible consequence? Moreover these tantrics - most of them you find in common place - are no genune tantric atall. They are just con-men surviving on the innocence of people, to make a living. I dont know the perticular person you have in mind but I know for certain, that genune tantrics are extreemly rare , and they dont live with common people and make a business of ther knowledge and accomplishment- they are not in need of mony. The original purpose of tantra is Kundalini awakening and uniting with god. And genune tantrics know this and strive for that in places where people dont distrube them. It is not at all easy to find them at the first place , Even if you find them it is not at all easy to make them aggree to work for your petty purpose - unless they see a great purpose in it. The ones who readily aggrees for you to do all sort of petty things for you are likely to be con-men. This is my experience from my long regorous research in this field Of course I am not discouraging you from trying. Give it a try provided you can offord the price and no guilt- not even an iota of guilt - associated with it. Do it as an expriment. And if it works let me know as I am interested in meeting such genunely powerful people. Regards, K.Ravindran

Dear Passionate freak, Whether it is tough or easy depends your strategy to deal with the energy. It is a tough task if you either supress it or repress it. Let me make a distinction between these two. Supression is conscious. You say "It is a wrong urge and hence I will not engage in it" . You simply control it with your iron will consciously. Repression is unconscious. You have managed to push it below the surface of consciousness. You will not experience the urge in you consciously anymore. In either case you have not managed to eliminate it. It is there and it will assert. It will seck expression constantly. In the case of Supression you know this consciously and control it consciously. In the case of repression you dont know it's presence consciously but it is there hidden. Then it expresses itself in various ways. One way it expresses it is through dreams - It seeks fulfilment in dream. Dream is very much like a fantacy- only that you dont know you are doing it. In Proper fantacy - called daydreeming - you are doing it consciously , in dreaming you are doing it unconsciously. Appart from dreams, the repressed sexuality expresses it self in many strange ways symbolically . Various neurotic symptoms are nothing but the expressions of repressed sexuality. Though there are many many symptoms of this repressed sexuality one example I can give to show the expression of the repressed sexual urge that you might find interesting. You know there are claims of cases of Spirit possession and god possession. Most of them are not any spirit or god. It is a disorder called Hysteria. If you watch them when they are thus possessed, they move their whole body rithemically and violently panting with noicy breathing and finally -when the entity leaves - fall down and remain rested for a wile.If you carefully notice the entire episode including the climax of falling down and resting - is the exact immitation of movement of sexual coitus. In the name of possession they esecute a symbolic couitus. this is the repressed sexuality manifesting itself - though the person doesnot see it that way. Sexual ensegy like any other energy cannot be distroyed. It will not vanish if you truy to stop with an iron will or simplly deny its existance. Supression is like standing on the way of a wild bull and trying to stop it and control it with all your might with head on collosion. Repression is to run away from it's path and forget that it ever exists. Both are ineffective strategies. Sublimation is like, when the bull nears you just dodge from its path a little and jump on its very back and sitting firm there leting it do all its tricks till it gets tird, and then bridiling it and there by puting it to the service of some good purpose. We transform the beastly sexual energy and use its power to do some useful task. This is sublimation this is what is done in kundalini yoga. Kundalini is originally sexual energy. It is not difficult . It all dependas on the desciplining of the path and training. though I agree it is not as easy as I put it. It does require training and skill. But it can be done. Regards, K.Ravindran

Dear Ashok, It is true that We are born as a biological creature and the biological project being reproduction sexual urge will manifest in us. Even if we behaviorally control our urges, the urges will appear mentally. However we have a choice to live like an biological creature in the grip of the biological instincts or to transcendent to godhood - a true potential that lies with in us. When we transcendend our biological nature sexual urge will automatically drop. It is no use in just suppressing your sexuality and calling that celibacy. Suppression wont work. There is another process called Sublimation. we need to achieve that We need to sublimate sexual energy, not suppress it. That is true celibacy. Sublimation is not all that difficult. It happens routinly when you are involved in something gripping. Notice people who arre involved in some gripping work - like a rigorous scientific thinking or even simple office work . Haven't you noticed workaholics - for whome work is everything - naturally show a diminished sexuality? That is why workholics and serious scients, who are really involved in ther work , are poor romantics and their wifes usually have complaints of such people. This is sublimation. They have sublimated ther sexual energy in to some thing else. Their love is nor a women but their work. The Sanscrit word equilant of Celibacy is Bhramacharya. This word has a broader connotation than mere sexual supression. An impotent man who is not married and does mate is not called Bhramacharya ( though in english he will be called a celibate). Bhramacharya ( bhrama + charya) is the one who 'walks on the path of - or towards - Bhraman' . That is, he is involved in the serious persuit of Bhraman. He seeks Bhrama jnana. This is a very intricate involved work and all his mental energy is concentrated towards this . If a scientist, or even an ordinary office workholoc can forgt sex even from their mind, then think of a person who is involved in seeking bhraman. The mind is ferrd from sexual urge if one is engaged like this. The sexual urge is sublimated. Not even inn mind they are sexual. Regards, K.Ravindran

Dear Ravikishore, Dont be harrased by guilt fealing. You have not done anything gravely wrong to be called a sin. You were naturally aspering for a girl you wanted. and your behaviour is a natural outcome of that emotion. Havent you heard all are justified in love and war? I am not justifying any wrong doing by people - I am only saying that certain behaviours in love is very natural and god has made us that way. Kama Deva is equally a god and created by Bhrama. If you notice he has weppens in his hands- though soft wepens - Sugarcane bow and flower arrows. The arrows though made of flowers are not to be taken lightly- they are deadly wepens nonthe less. Each arrow causes a deadly harasemant. One causes severe restlessness one cannot be at peace at all. another causes burning of our body. Another causes fainting , yet another causes Even death. It is all terrible harrasement And GHamafdeva is made that way to give this harasment. The man or women in love is like this . He or she is hit by Kama devas arrow suffers on the one hand and Acts like Kama deva And stages a war on the object of desire onthe other hand It is all the very nature of love. God wont punish us for what he himself made us do. However if you feel you have done something really wrong, to the girl and her family You genunely appologise to that girl and her family . Have a open talk. If you are really sincere and open You will feel much at rest after this. If for any reason you cannot do this Address to your god and ask a sinsire forgiveness. If you repent with your heart sinserly, with a resolve that you will never mindlessly repeat them , all your sins will be forgiven and bad karmas will be neatly wiped away. God can do that. Dont be guilty for what you have done out of your innocence of love. Love is a lession. The experience itself is important. We become wiser by this. You are lucky that you have experienced the pain of love. Perhaps love came to you to turn your self spiritual. To turn you towards god. ( this is what happened to me). Follow up that clue and that path Every thing will be alright and you will be happy in future that all this happened to you. Regards, K.Ravindran

Dear Ravikishore, Dont be too rictualistic in sadana, and dont get trubled with number where exactly you sit etc. Just do it as much as possible and with comfort. In all these matters it is your own mind that is working and producing the results. Mind has that power. You just has to cultivate it. The word prayacha is to be prounced as you have shown in your prounciation . You have understood correctly. Pra as in prashant, ya as in yamuna or yama, cha as in chandra, or chandighar. In the place of Mamabilashida kanya you can substitute the girls name if you like. Otherwise also the mantra is suppose to work as your ming knows who you are aiming at. The best temple for any god or goddess is Your Own Heart. I am not joking or lightining the issue in any way. I mean it. God resides in your heart. It is the ultimate spiritual truth. Worship your favourate god or goddess there. That is the best temple. There is a story about it. Once there was Sufi master whose fame grew owing to his wisdom and ablity to advise people. His fame even reached Gods ears and one day god decided to take his advice. God's problem was that he had no privasy all the time people disturbed him for this or that demand and he could find a hiding place. His own devine advisers are of no use as they advised him to go to some unapproachable place top of a mountain , in a remote island or some thick forest. But in due course people reached every where there were no unapproachable place anywhere. When God visited the sufi master and put his problem to the saint the saint advised him: Hide in a place that people hardly could suspect - their own hearts. God took up that advise and hide in the heart of creature and from then on people are in perpectual search of god in every place in the world unsuccessfully. You perhaps are not in a mood to listern to stories and advisees. I know that you want to win your women. But I tend to aggre with the good advise given bu Dhuruva on this. Not because of anything else - the truble you cause to her or the karmic outcome etc.- but becauste of a very simple practical expreiencial wisdom of people. The same person ypou desire now desperately will become just an ordinary person tomarrow. And even a hazell. the people who are deeply in love sooner or latter will start getting in to the nerve of each other. Love is bound to disapper. Many love marrages end up in diverse. This is a fact and i am sharring this with you not to discourage you or frighten you but to give you practical wishdom. If you wait suffeciently long the fgeeling will go from your mind. Pray to god and leave it to god. If it is good for you it will happen . Otherwise forget it. - Or take it easy. I know that at this point this advise is very difficult to follow. You will desperetely would want to force the issue. But still, keep my words with you. I am an experienced man and once felt the way you feel now. But I saw my stupidity latter and an happy man now with out my foolish youth ful desire fulfilled. . Regards, K.Ravindran

Dear Dark Warrior, Whatever the initial positions were, in a dibate , the positions and ideas tend to change. If this does not happen then what is the point of debate. When I entered debate with you I came with certain notion about Veda and the concept of Bhraman. But in due course due to the exposure to your argumentation my ideas changed and evolved. I became open to the possibility that my notions could be wrong. That is a good sign and is your contribution. If it were not the case , If I remained stay put in my initial notions and you in yours then that is not a debate at all. In a genune debate ideas evolve and change - doesnot remail stall and fixed. It is a sign of good debate.In this natural process new idas and questions arise that should be thoroughly discussed and resolved. You seems to be thinking that is a crime, and invoke the original position, and refuses to resolve the new issues that arise. I came with a certain idea of Braman -say - it is formless. You pointed out that is not the case and in fact Bhraman is A blue skined lotes eyed male. Now I became aware for the firtst time that my ideas could be wrong. My conception of Veda under went a change. I became open and was no more that certain about my position. (Is int it good my friend? Is there is any thing wrong in it?) But then, A new problem opened up, as a logical conclution. If I could be wrong in my understanding , then you could also be wrong. Any body could be wrong. Then I needed a certainity that what you are holding is true. If you say Bhraman is a blue skinned man lying on a snake, How do you know that? How are you so sure of that? How do you know you are not deciving yourself? Or How am I to be certain that you are not coning me on this, to mislead me in to untruth and sinful life. These are genune questions my friend not to be brushed assided and evaded. Now when I am asking this questions you seems to take a position that you have nothing to do with the validity of this claim and you are only interested in stating that this is the way some X -book - be it Veda or Bagavada purana - describe Bhraman. Let me sharpen this point. One could think of your claim in two ways: 1) X book says bhraman is a blue skined lotus eved man. (This is the meening of Bhraman As per book -X) 2) Bhraman is a blue skined Man. (This is the real truth of bhraman) The first state ment is a statement of scholarship. Belonging to language and meaning. To be found in a book. Let me call it Semantic claim for the want of better word. The second one is a statement of truth. Belong to the realm of reality. Let me name it Veritic Claim ( veritic = pertaining to truth, real). Now which claim are you making. Are you saying you have nothing to do with the actual truth of what you say . You dont know wether Bhraman is really a blue skinned man or not - and you are not concerned either. All that you are holding is that certain book makes this claim. - Are you saying this ? Or are you commiting that Bhraman is acrually A blue shined man? Please clarify this explictly. If you are making the first claim that you actually dont know what the hell actually bhraman is but only saying that a certain book says this is what bhraman is, then you are mearly a scholar. And I dint come to you to check your scholarship. And I dont care a dam of your Scholarship. But if you are maintaining that this claim of yours is an actual fact - A truth , then I am interested in it. For I am searching for truth - and that is a genune spiritual persuit - not semantic scholarship. If you are holding that Bhraman is really a blue skined man lying on a snake , which is what I think you hold - (and if I am wrong on that correct me explictely in your next post with no uncertain terms) - you need to offer a justification for it. You need to show me why this is the case and why not Bhraman is a white skinned man wearing a snake on his neck - say. For prooving this begging the question won't do - you cant quote a book. That would only support the semantic claim not the veritic claim. You need to do something better than that. You have to offer the proff in my terms not in your ternms of pramana from some book - not even Vedas - there are pramanas for any dame thing you want to prove. Only you need to select them judiciously and interpret them in a twisted way. You have been doing all that - selecting some and ignoring some and interpreting according to your whims and fancy. An example of this is your complete neglet of the mahavakyas which I have reffered. You even dint know its existence as vedic pramanas - you were arguing that I have picked them up from "some where". So much for your claim of your Vadic knowledge. Yes that reminds me that you have been asking Pramana for the mahavakyas. Where from do you think I picked them up? If you have no Idea I will explictely provide them for you : (1) Prajnanam Bhrama , meaning Consciousness is Bhraman , called, "Statement of Definition" (Laksna Vakya) is from Aitareya Upanisad - V.3 of Rig Veda. (2) Aham Bhrama Asmi . meaning I am Bhraman, called "Statement of experience" (Svanubhava Vakya), is from Brhadaranyaka Upanasad - 1.4.10, of the Yajur Veda. (3) Tat Tvam Asi , meaning You are That , Called "Instructional Statement" ( Upadesa Vakya) is form Chandogya Upanisad - VI 8.7 - VI 16.3, of the Sama Veda. (4) Ayam Atmaa Bhrama, meaning This self (soul) is Bhraman called "Statement of Practice" ( Abhyasa Vakya) is from Mandukya Upanasid - 2, of Atarvana Veda. I have provided pramanas which you have asked as per your terms. Now it is your turn to provide proof for your claim - that Bhraman is A blue skined man, as per my terms. ( no quotting books) (Tomarrow and sunday are holidays and I will not be assessing my computer. i will see the posting on only monday. you have enough time to think of some decent answers to my question.) Regards, Ravindran

Dear Dark warrior, You are not answering the question. The question has nothing to do with wether I personally believe in Veda or not. But Belief wont do. You needa method to assertain that belief. Because people believe in all sort of thinmgs, Including superstition. How do you convoiince a neutral seeker? Do you have a method other than insisting on the faith- "you believe in what I say other wise you will go to hell" sort of thinmg. Do you have a method to test scriptural validity? That is the question. Listern. if the fundamentals are not clear there ics no way one can proceed. there is no use in calling name being abbusive and Justifying aggression. Priding obver that you do it in a style just not justfy it. There are murders who do it in style , They carve aesthetic partterns in their victims body. Is that is any justification for murder -You Gunda? Answer logically. if you can. Convince me logically or emprically. Give a proof for your pramanic claims. Dont just bulldoss them. ( Dear dark warrior, dont be desperate if i dont respont quickly. ( I know you are huuked on to me.) I have duties. I head a department and lot of work. I assure you I am not chickening out as you think. Some time tomarrow I will again post . The debate continues Mean while Do post me your reply.) Regards, K.Ravindran

Dear Dark Warrior, If you have openly said you dont accept any vedic system ....Dark Warrior (Quote) By the by Let us take this suggestion and follow it up a bit. For argument sake. You insist on somuch on pramana. And you demand pramanic evidence. Let me for an argument sake say that Veda is written by a premitive ignorant race who dint have any regorous or scientific conception of world , after drinking some halucinogenic drink ( extratyed from soma plant ). And hence they conytain nothing of truth or even meaning. In that bcase your quoting of Vedic proposition is hardly a proof for the truth status of it isint it? How will you establish the truths of your pramana itself ? Any method? ( I mean apprpant from abusing the opponent - that method I am learning from you. It will take time to master that. ) (Abuses does not come to me. It goes to the sourse. You are making a thorough fool of yourself. And that - I believe - you must be knowing very Well and this is your cause of abuses. It all describes you my friend. - the darkest side you have in deep in you. By the by I am not affected by them .-Dont worry. Go ahead and expose your dark nature . I learn from that.) with regards, K.Ravindran

Dear Dark Warrier. I have nothing to prove to you or to many body who refuse to accept logic. Pramana sourses (texts) are many are many and interpreted in many ways. Some one will ask you why should accept your pramana text (Veda), (and why not bible)?. How do I know it is true. There are so many texts in the world what is the pramana for your pramana is the true pramana? you will then no convincing answer to such questions . (Other than perhapes resorting your standard uncivilised and anti spiritual name calling abuses - dull headed, idiot, fool etc.(there you go again you see from dark to the darkest of unspiriyual realms.) - you cant convince any body rationally by pramana the truth of pramana itself can you?) You rejected personal experiance as a sourse. Pramana is a pramana because it is an experience of some one rishes who found veda have found it in their direct experiance. If you dismiss that then you are only let to circular argumanta saying pramana is true because the pramana says so. Do you have any better reason to pramanas other than you just happened to believe them. If you have no inclination to argue logically then i dont have any inclination to argue by faith claims alone. Just like youn are demanding pramanic proof I demand logical proof. When you accept my condition of logical rigor I will accept your condition of pramanic evidences from veda. I am insisting on that because with out a logical rigor pramanas will be any subjected to any interpretation. Afterall the same vedas have been interpreted by different people differently - sankara, madva, ramanuja, and now you and me. Who knows whatis the true interpretation? ( thoiugh you will insist yours is true. But that can be said by any fool (in your language) isint it.? How do I know you are not a fool - or even you not - how do I know you are not fooling me? Is your quoting left right and centre is any proff that you are not a fool or not fooling me? No. People need either logic or direct emprical experience man . Do you have any? Or your entire entire enterprice is a bookish fooling arround with out knowing or a coherant grasping what that book declares? Common man A parret can do that man. ( Good you are warming up in your abusive language. For some time you were sober. Go fully and reveal your darkest side man. Why are you restraining yourself and being mild? The members miss all the fun of the previous forum , I heare . You are my guru (in abusive debating. I am picking up. common teach me more) . Let all the price and abuses go to Krisna. Sarvam Krisnarpanam. Regards, K.Ravindran

Dear Ravikishore, I dont know which god or goddess you are fond off. For anything, you can ask god - your ista devada. This is the best and fine path. If you please your ista devata, the vdevata will grant you what you ask. Sravana month is very good for Siva worship. - In case you are a siva bhakta . Otherwise there is a particular mantra called Gandarva raaja mantra exclusively ment for getting the girl of once choice. yhe mantra goes like this; Om Gandharva raaja Viswaavase Mamabilaashidhaam Kanyam Prayacha Swaahaa. (dobble 'aa' are long souinded and singla 'a' short sounded.) Meaning: "O ghandarva King ( by name) Visvavasu get me the girl I desire". To be chanted 330 times or more for sitting. Do regularly Once a day minimum or twise a day or thrice a day. More number of jaba better. This is all there is. Nothiong more to it by way of rictual etc. Just chant it daily. For any mantra to work bhakti is a prerequisit. there is no merit in mechanical repitition. Regards, K.Ravindran

Dear Dark Warrior. First of all I am not a vedantin in the Sankarian sence, and I have no oblication to remain in that scheme of interpretation - as advised by some of you. Nor I am seeking to Advocate that line of thought. This should be very clear. If it is not clear so far, let me explicitly state that here, I have no commitment to Sankaras version of Vedanta. My points are actually very few. If you want to assign a name to that you might- if like - call it Ravindraian Vedanta- not that I am immodest but classifying my conception with anyother's version has a problem. Then you are not fighting with me but with Sankara and others. Logic is the basis of debate . That is My understanding of a debate. Whatever point I am making I am using logic to show the conclution. So In maters of God which belongs to the infinite category, if I am showing that Infinite set logic applies and I am explicating my point with that logic it is not some irrevelant stuff - my friend, It the very rigour of debate. Unless You are anti- logic . In that case I dont have anything to argue with you - because by very definition Argument is logical. My Points are extreemly simple and very few in fact. All that I said sofar springs from two basic premise. And I dont think you reject these premise at all. If fact you accept them as evidenced by your own statements. It is only that you dont follow the conclutions that follow from these premisis regorousely. Let state my premises. (1) There is only one god. (monotheism) You agreed with it Dark W warrior, dint you? . ( unless now you deside to go back on it or reinterprit it in new ways) Let me quote your exact words: There is only one truth but it has many names. Hence it meens Sriman Narayana , Lord of Infinite attributes, is Bhraman and all names ie Indra, Rudra, Chandra etc. belongs to him only. This is your words. If this is the case where the question of one being demi or super or one being good and other evil? Once you hold this primidse then to say Rrudra is evil is to say Narayana is evil because rudra is narayanas name only. You will be contradicting your self by that. is int it. (And you will be doing Actually aparata to Narayana himself by dispising some of his attributes). Now let me add one more primise on god. (2) God is every where there is no place where god is not present (Omnipresence) I hope you have no problem with this premise. ( or do you have?). Asuming you accept this premise i shall show what is the regorous logical implication for your form argument that god has a specic form. If Narayana has a specic form , say He is a Blue skinned Lotus eyed Man, lying in a Sea , then what lies outside Him ? What about the sky above him, the space surrounding him and the water benieth him.? Is he there or not there, in the space outside his skin encaplulated form? If you are consistant with the omnipresent assumption, you will have to admit Narayana is there too. You need to extend Narayana beyong the skin boundry. But how far you need to extend His presence. Actually to infinity to include all space. Because he is every where. In that case the form looses ots significance isint it? . Let me show this with a simple argumantation devise ( dont rejeect it as irrelevant stuff simply I am not using vadic quotation. I am engaged in a logical dialogue with you now. Dont get irritated ) Think of a form - a simple one - say a circle of a definite size. Now enlarge it to include more and more space. It is still a circle - a bigger one . Enlarge it to infinity. Make the radious infinity. Is it still a circle? One tend to hastly think that it is a circle still - a big big one. But upon caseful analysis you can see that it is no more a circle . To call it a circle we need to have a boundry line. But A infinitely expanded thing will have no boundry. It is not a big circle - as big circle is still finate. Being infinate it has no boundry and hence it has no form. An infinitely extended Narayana , an omnipresent Narayana cannot have a form. To say God has a form is to bottle up god in a container - like solomon's ghost - (according to some religion it is another sin). This this is the sense in which the formlessness brahman is to be understood - not a fomlessness of Nothing but a formlessness of everything Now the rest of my conclutions - that god is the only thing existing in the universe , that there is nothing else but god , that the world is god only, and that there is only one atma - paramatma - plurality of jeevatma's are illusion - all these could be shown as rigorous logical conclution with the accepted properties of god ; omipotence omnipresence and monotheism. amd it can be shown that violation of any one of the conclutionds would lead to either a contradiction or rejection of god's, accepted attributes of suprimacy, omnipotence omnipresence, and omnience. But I will not proceed and I will stop here. Because I can sense that slowly the irritation and animosity is growing in you . I can understand that perfectly. As a friend I can only suggest to you to engage in spiritual introspection of the root of your irritation and anger. As you have wrongly diagnosed that it does not arrise out of my being posting irrelevant stuff of mathematics and logic - It is the opposite. It because that I am rigourus in argument using regour of logic you find it quite relevant - you see the point. You see your position - however much you tend to defend drawing the support by Vadic text, is logoically contradictory. It is because of this that you get jittery. Your old belief which you have been holding on all this while is getting shaken. And you dont like it. This is the cause of your irritation and finding the logically coherand argument irrelevant. And I know you - and many others who are insecure- would feel the strong urge to attack. And you will not be able to demolish any of my conclusions with logical rigour. And that will frustrate you more and trigger more aggression. Aggression and irritation and abuses are non spiritual - actually anti spiritual. And I dont want to particiopate in that as I am striving to be a spiritual man. I am in fact a more strong Narayana bhakta (perhaps) then any one of you perhaps who claiming to be narayana baktas and engage in Blephemy of Narayana freely and ignorantly . I would not dare to spit at other faces of Narayana - for me every god is Narayana and there is only Narayana. If you are incited to take up that sinful path and decided to lead very anti spiritual life by nutruring aggression and hatred calling yourselves visnavites, that is your own Karma. I have nothing to say further and dont want to be a cause of Aggression hate and abusies. I stop here , leaving the rest to your own karma. Sarvam Krisnarpanam. Sarvam Krishnarpanam Ravindran

Dear Ram Yes I am a teachedr in Tata Institute of Social Sciences. Regards, K.Ravindran

Dear Dark Warrior, Brahman is not formless, but has a beautiful form. He is Pundarikaksha, the lotus eyed one. He is the Purusha extolled in the Vedas. He is Gitacharya, the One who delivered the Bhagavad Gita.- quote Dark warrier I too maintain Bhraman is not formless. Where i differ from your view is that he exists only with a form or one form.Bhama is formless as well as all forms. If you hold bhraman has a form and only exist as that form, then what lies outside the borders of that form? The outside space of Narayana is what? non Narayana? - no narayana is every where insidwe and outside of his skin boundry. Narayana is with form and without form In fact he has infinite forms. All forms are of Narayana only. There is nothing else otherthan Narayana / Bhraman The Mandukya Upanishad, openly dismisses the idea that the world is unreal, or an illusion. In the Brahma Sutras, the world is clearly described to be real and even Sri Sankara struggles to get around this one. The World is real, but temporary in the sense that it is a constantly changing thing. - quote Dark Warier I didnot maintain that world is unreal . I dint maintain it to be maya. In fact technically there is anothrer word that is applicable to world - Mitya - not maya. Mitya is appearance. Behind that appearance there is a real thing. the real thing is Narayana - Bhraman. We, due to our ignorance - maya - perceive the world to be variety of appearences and fail to grasp that it is Narayana. Maya belongs to us our property-our ignorance.Mithya is of the world. There is only one truth, but it has many names. hence it means, Sriman Narayana, Lord of infinite attributes, is Brahman, and all names, ie, Indra, Rudra, Chandra, etc. belong to Him only. - Dark warrior I am in total aggreement with you on this one . In fact this is what I have been maintaining right from the begining and this is the cause of my dispute with others when they maintain there a variety of gods different from Narayana /Bhraman. All gods are one.All are Narayana only where is the question of one form of Narayana , say Narayana-1 is inferior or superior to another form of Him, say Narayana-2? Even if you are assuming that one Narayana is a whole and other Narayanas (other gods) are parts, - I dont know you are saying that, but assuming that - even then there is no status difference amoung them. Let me demonstrate with a Sruti declaration and with a subsequent regorous formulation of it. Remember "Purnamatam Poornamitam........" That is purna, this too is poorna. From purna poorna has come. Remove poorna from purna what remains is yet poora. Now I am aware that translation of vadic sanscrit to other languges has its own problem However let me do a nearest possible translation of poornam I will translate it to be infinity ( some of its other near equivalence are 'Perfect', 'Complete') the above vedic formula if translated to english using the meaning of Infinity for poorna we get this perfectly valied mathematical formula. I mean we can understand the above sruti declaration with the corresponding marthematcal version of it : Remove infinity from infinity the remainder is still infinity. Infinity minus infinity is infinity. In fact add substract multiply and divide an infinity with anything else the result is still infinity. That is Any part of infinity is infinity - part of whole is not in any way less than the whole it is whole. There is a regorous proof of this strange result in mathematics by Cantor. But that is out of scope here . i shall demonstrat this result by a simple eligant proof. ( I am not deviating from Veda, by geting to mathematics. I am demonstrating a vadic truth, hence I request you to be patient.) Think of all natural numbers: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,.etc...... Now think of only even numbers: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, ..etc..... Our immediate intution tells that there is only half of the numbers in the second row. Even numbers being part of the natural numbers is less than the odd numbers. We vleft out many numbers - in fgact half of them from the whole set in creating the set of even numbers, hence the number of even numbers is less than the total numbers of the natural numbers which includes odd and even numbers together. But this is an illusion. Let me prove. Take each natural number and multiply by 2. 1 x2 = 2 2 x2 = 4 3 x2 = 6 4 x2 = 8 5 x2 = 10 6 x2 = 12 .............. etc up to infinity Now look at the first row and the last row. the first row is the set of natural numbers and the last row is the set of only even numbers Yet each natural number in the first row is neatly pared up with only one even number number in the last row. No natural number is left out with out a pair. That is there is ecactly asmany even numbers as there are odd numbers. The number of evens are not less than the naturals they are exactly equal. This strange reaslt happens because we are dealing with an infinite set. If we do such thing finate set the results would have been normal. But with Infinite set Part is the whole. This is what is meant by the vedic dictim Poorna madam. Poornamidam. Now back to Narayana who is infinity. Part of narayana is the whole of Narayana. Visnu Narsayana is Bhrama Nrayana is Siva Narayana is Indra Nrayana is Adoni Nrayana - you see With infinite entities our ordinary notion of part whole inferior superior breakes down. Every thig is infinity and all are equal. That verse does not mean all gods are equal. It only means, we must look beyond the bodily designations of cat, dog and brahmana, and see that all jivatmas are essentially similar, and equal to one another. We should also understand that every cat, dog, brahmana, deva, gandharva, etc. has Narayana as his/its antaryami. In short, see Narayana as indweller of all entities. - Dark warrior. there is a problem in this sort of dualistic interpretation. the body soul dualism - for thaqt any matter versus god dualism is untenable. I shall demonstrate this with the Aid of Cristiniaty, where this dualism is sharp. According to critinaty, nature - the material world is not god but gods creation. As a result of this sharp distinction between ceation and the creator, that religion holda any worshiping things of nature is a sin One should worship not the creation but the creator. this is the treason that cristanity considers idol woship - for that matter any form worship - a sin. the problem with this position is if we hold that the created world is not god and is distinct from god, then from where god created it? If we are consistant with the dualist position we need to assume that God created the world from a pre exting matter of some sort. ( you will soon see why this assumption is needed) then we must assume that this prematter existed always eternally along with god. this is a violation of God's Sovernity. Thenif we assume that god created not from any preexisting matter but out of his will , we are to assume that what is created is part of him. It came from him. In that case it is equally god and holy. We cannot then dispise it as an evil and worship of nature is evil. I believe the hindu position is that nature being came from god itself is godly. and that is why hindus have no problem in worshipping a tulsi plant, a tree a snake a cow or an idol made of stone or mettel. Everything is manifestation of god. Anything that came from god, being a part of god is itself godly. Soul included. The interpretation that narayana dwelves in the body or in the world. has this problem. Narayana just not Dwels in the world, . Narayana is the world. For Ajnani the devine appears as world for Jani it appaers as Narayana or Bhraman. Since everything came out of Bhraman, or of Narayana, they are Bhman -or Narayana only. I get the impression that sancret is a vert presise and perfect language and very perticular of its gramital formulation. If the vadic seers wanted to say what you are saying, then they would have formulated the Mahavakysa accordingly as Bhraman is in the soul . But that is not how they have worded the mahavakyas . The wording is Soul is Bhraman. Ayamatma bhrama . Similarly other mahavakyas. Do you think that vedic Rishis made grammetical mistake? Monism seems to be the only viable option when we look at the issues regorously. Of course not the kingd of Stale monism of Sankara, with out life and dinamism. Not a stale stagnant inattribute Bhraman. I dont buy that kind of monism. But nonethe less monism istrue in the sense of one single dynamic force, constantly changing and creating new new manifestation. Siva (Bhraman) is not a dead body Siva is A dancing Siva. Regards, K.Ravindran

Dear Ranjeetmore, Veda or any religious text must be interpreted with out contradiction. that is Hermaneutics - the rules of interpretation of a text. Hence going by this prinvciple, if the Vedic text declares there is only one princple -Bhraman, and then introduces a second -Jeevatman And then yet another, Maya, We need to interprete them in such a way there is no contradiction to the parts. That is, the first statement - that there is only one principle, is not to be rejacted when we come accros that there is a second. We need to integrate them. This is not difficult or imposible given the fact that Vadas- Upanisads rather -explicitly state that integration formula too. Consider the four Mahavakyas of the upanasids: (1) Pragjnanam Bhrama ( consciousness is bhraman) (2) Aham Bhramasmi ( I am Bhraman - I refering to jeevatman) (3) Tat Vam Asi ( you are that) (4) Ayamatma bhrama (this soul is bhraman) These prety explicit statements of upaniads clearly and explicitly establishes the unity of Jeevatma ans paramatma (or Bhraman) Therby establishing there is only one thing. Jeevatma and paramatma are actually one. No contradiction. Now coming to the third Maya, What is maya? It is the very illusion that jeevatma is different from Bhraman -this very dualistic conception - is maya. Where is the difficulty. Everything coherently fits in the oneness schema isint it? As to my sourse I dont draw from sankara. My sourse is upanasids themself. They are pretty explicit. I dont need any secondhand interpreter. However I have no problem with many of his interpretation. After all he is a scholar. Though I may not agree with all he says. Regards, K.Ravindran

Dear Passionate freak, I Agree. It is not at all easy to find the internal guru's feet. Nor I am holding that a living the guryu is not nessary. I am only holding that there is a provision, and gets actualised in certain rare cases.Not the regular rule. Regards, K.Ravindran

Dear Passionate freek, I too aggree with you in many of your posting. You make sense. And you are rigorous and cut and right. I liked yoyr postings.I hope that we will meet some time and I will have an oppurtunity exchange notes and to meet the Perfect guru you talk about. I am a strict celibate. And a pure vegitarian. I have been this way for years. An idel material to be a spiritual deciple for kundalini yoga. Regards, K.Ravindran

Dear Passionate freak, I do agree with you and I will not do such thing myself. I am pure right hand guy you see. But however Knowing is no harm There are such methods in the lefthand path. One need not practice them but one should know them. And those who want to do them I will hardly judge as there are Satvic Rajasic and Thamasic souls and each one have their own typical worship. K.Ravindran

Dear Dark warrior. I am not goimg to react to your provocations of calling me childish, having nonsical views and rest of the name calling. Not that I dont have my valied diffence to counter them but I simply think that is true inappropriteness in a rational discussion and least spiritual. I rather respond to you purely at the rational debate with Stita prajna. I would not even have mentioned these things normally at the first place. But With you I am doing this because you should not assume that my civilised behaviour to be my weekness and acceptence of your accusations. I will drop this at that and to rational spiritual discussion. While you quoted many evidences for supporting your your thesis that Narayana is a suprime god - which I have no problem to accept at the first place,( only I have problem with the positions other gods inferior, I will come to the reason soon) - you have conspicuoukly silent about the very important vadic concept of Bhraman. What is your posion on it? I am asking this because, If we settle that issue first many unnessery debate which goes on this forum will disappear. Let me explain. Bhramin is the unifying concept. Braman is the source of everything . Braman is everything. All dualism and plurality is an illusion created by our lack of spiritual intution of bhraman. This applies to the myrrads of objects in the the physical world as well, as the thousands of gods that mankind ever worshiped and going to worship. In otherwords, God is one and that one theistic entity, one god, is called Bhraman. Different people of different languages of different geographical reagions of different cultures of different time period called the same thing with different names and conceived of different forms. Sarvam Kalvidam Bhraman is the upanisadic truth. (I am including Upanisad as part of Vedas). Does veda contradict this vision anywhere? Even Bhavad geeta declares the one who sees a dog and a priest (bramana) as equal, (as bhramin - or narayana, if you like - reaides in them , or manifestations of Bhraman) is a true jnani. If that is the case where is the question of different gods being inferior or superior? Sarva dharma Sama bhava is truely spiritual and a natural application of the one bhraman concept. Does veda reject this idea? What is your position on this oneness concept? I have heard some Vishnavite scholars arguing for the case that Advida - the oneness concept- is Sankara's, misinterpretation of Veda. I dont know whether you hold that position. But in case you hold that, I dont see any misinterpretation as Upnisads are quite explicit on it. I like your hemaneutics of interpreting veda with out contradiction. You pointedd out the contradiction in asuming Indra as suprime and hence one must reject it. I expect the same rigour in your further analysis too. You need to interpret veda with out contradicting with the central notion of Bhraman. If any thing contradicts this central idea then that which contradicyts should be rejected - Unless of course you decide to reject the concept of Bhramin itself. Regards, K.Ravindran

Dear Dark warrior, Freud's theory , and Akbar-birbal stories , are not irrelevent for explaining human behaviour. They are very pertnant to throw light on how people behave. I am only using them to throw light on what is happening to the quality of the discussion in this so called spiritual forum. Rather than declaring my line of argument irrelevent show me with your rational argument how this is irrelevent and not applicasble to the behaviour of people in this forum. Geting angry is hardly the way of a discussion. Argue out your case man. If you claim to follow vedas perfectly then do that perfectly. then you should be propounding Indra as the greatest god Every other are demigods. Shall we have a desent discussion on Veda? A true true Vedic discussion. I am ready for that stuff. No freud, no Akbar nothing else othewrthan the Veda. Are you ready? Only Veda .No purana and all that stuff. Ravindran

Hi All, Sigmund Freud has an excellent observation to make on love. Which throughs light on what is happening on this forum. If some one is in love the thing they love is blotted out of proposion. The object on which libido is cathexed (invested) swells. This observation can easily be verified with people in love. For a man who is in love his beloved is a beauty quin and an angel . But for all others she is very ordinary and even ugly, and very ordinary in morals too -nothing angelic. A women who loves a man describes him to be very special , very intellegent - an Einstin, but for all others he ramain to be very ordinary and foolish even. This is the alchemy of love. It blots the object. You all must have heard the story of Laila and Majunu? For Majunu Laila was the most beautiful women - (Actually she was supposed to be ugly) . There is another story of Agbar and Birbal which demonstrates this principle: Once Agbar and Birbal were taking a strole in the busy market place, where they found a women weeping and pleeding for help. Akbar asked what was the matter . The women said that she lost her baby in the crowd. She pledded to find her baby. Akbar asked for the description of the child . She described it part by part vividly. It turned out to be a stunningly beautiful baby - extreemly good looking. Then akbar asked his attendends to search for such a baby. Every body failed to locate her baby. there was no baby of the discription in the whole market place. Then birbal took up ther task himself and soon returned with a very ugly and dirty child, and gave it to the women She was on the top of the world - very happy and started fondling that very ugly and dirty child with superlative attributes. Akbar was very purplexed . "She said it is a very beautiful baby but is is quite opposite in reality" how did you know that it is her baby? and how come she is giving false discription al the first place?". Birbal explained "My lord, For a crow its own baby is a golden baby". For a mother her own baby is very beautiful - the best. There is another mechanism of love that Siogmund Freud reports. Libido is a limited energy and obeys the law of conservation. that is if a full amount of libidinal energy is to be cathexed on an object, then the energy must be withdrawn from elsewhere where it was previously cathexed, owing to limited and finate energy available. It is not possible to love equally every thing . Love energy is is not infinate, but finate. (this is called the economic principle of libido) This also can be easily verified . those who fell in love some time in ther llife can easily validate this truth. Recall when you fell in love with a person of opposite sex. If you introspect you would notice that at the same time you fell in love, your love towerds the previous people whome you loved before - like parrends or friends -reduced. They became less significant for you. Love energy is limited. If you love one thing then that love must be withdrawn from other things. This two laws of will explain what is happening in this forum. Vishnavite think their god is the greatest - (swelling of the amorous obljct ) - every religion thinks that way. Jews think YHVH or Adoni is the greatest and only god worthy of worship. Muslims think the same about Allah. Visnavite's demotion of all other gods as demigod status is the natural consiquence of the withdrawing of their libido from all other gods to place it on Vishnu. this is the same reaspon that many religions are prejudicied against other religions. It is the sign of love sickness . This is the problem of every lover. Love is blind after all. Dont give too much importance than what it deserves. Of course serious form of prejudices which are distructive in nature cannot be tollerated as that could lead to religious war and bloodshed . Earth has witnessed it before. We cannot allow our civilised and spiritual existence to be regressed to that kind of degradation. Regards, K.Ravindran

Washing one face of Vishnu and spiting on his other face. Hi Supercow, Are you originally a cristian? I am curious to know because cristians have the same prejudice towards snakes , as you , as snake has a evil connotation in that religion. (Satan came as a serpant to corrept Eve) I have met Cristisans who showed this prejudised negative reaction to live snakes. They think snakes are evil creatures. In Hinduism there is no such negative connotation. Snake is a holy symbol. Kundalini Shakti , which is a spiritual energy, is represented as a snake. Hindus Worship Snake. Hence wearing a snake is not some thing negative or evil in Hinduism It is the most holy thing . Even if you are not a Cristian , you still could havev other sourses of prejudices. You could have acquired from prejudiced stories and movies. Star war and other such movies are made by cristians who fundamentally think that all other religions and gods are satanic in any case. Your feeling that Siva is evil is completely a wrong prejudiced view. He is just the Opposite. He is the Good principle incarnet. The word meaning of 'Siva' in sancrit, is Auspiciousness, Good. He is a destroyer of all evils. Rudra is highly adored in Veda. I dont know which god you worship now? But assuming you are now a Vishnavate, note Krishna has a viswarupa form - (Universal form - shown to Arjuna) In that form he has ananda (infinite) heads ( some consider it to be be 1000 head, but technically ananda is infinity not thousand). Every god's face appears as a face of krisna in this form. One of the head is Siva's head. Hence worshiping Vishnu and dispising Siva - or any other god for that matter - is equivlant of doing abhishaka (wahing with pure holy water) Vishnus one face while spitting on Vishnu's other face. Dont foolishly hope for your salvation for you with that kind of act of Spiting on one face of Vishnu. Here is the dictum form "horse mouth" on this issue: Siva Ninda is the greatest sin. There is no salvation for any one who commits it even by million and millions of yagas, and other meritorious deeds. Vishnu will not grace that fool even if such a fool worship Vishnu for ananda kalpa ( infinite Kalpas) . Ignorance is no escuse for such a grave sin. - Hayagriva upadesa sutra. (Hayagriva is one of visnu's form with a horse head - a teacher incornate). K.Ravindran

My Email ID is : ravi@tiss.edu Regards, K.Ravindran