srikanthdk71

With all respects to Ravindranji, The Kamagayatri Mantra starts with Kleem and not Aum. "Kleem Kamadevaya Vidmahe Puspa-banaya Dhimahi Tan No Anangah Prachodayat" Effect: A Gayatri to heal your Love life and Love related problems. Procedure : The traditional Mala-jap can be done. As per me, no time constraints to please the almighty. Man/Woman: If Love was only for a Man and not universal to Woman and other fellow beings, I agree to your concept. I again personally do not believe in blind and meaningless rules. This is believed to be chanted by Gaudiya Vaishnavas before the 'Hare Krishna' mahamantra became popular which helped them to divert all their Love towards Krishna/Vishnu.

Who knows? The common understanding is that it was not quoted by the predecessors. Anyway, it is part of the Vaishnavite tradition and finds mention in the Pancharatras as a part of the various Samhitas by different Rishis and it is believed to be taken from the Shrutis. No dear, any form or for that matter a body(physical or spiritual or transcendental) is finite. That is common understanding. Any form (a Vishnu, Shiva or Brahma) is confined to boundries. So it cannot cover the entire cosmos. The question still arises what is outside the form? Hence, to be eternal and infinite devoid of boundries, the Supreme has to be formless. Since as DW rightly pointed out that formless cannot be perceived, a beautiful form was given in the right perspective to denote the Satva, Rajas and Tamas which pervades the whole cosmos. Yes, it is the journey to start from duality to find the Oneness or all-pervasiveness.

Seeing Gods in dreams shows your involment in spirituality. May not be in this birth, but a previous birth. There is something called sub-conciousness and super-conciousness and if you read the works of Madam Blavitsky or Sri Aurobindo, you will know it better. This is not only your experience. This is my experience also and many more would have dreamt of may temples. This is where the subtle subconciousness work. The familiarity is what we have experienced already (maybe in our previous birth) Well, here I feel you need psychological guidance when you are thinking yourself to be like Andal, it looks like a Chandramukhi movie. The mind is wicked and very creative at times. You have enjoyed your dreams and you have also got attached to it by thinking over it again and again. When your intellect takes control, it looks weird. Though I cannot brush aside your experiences as stupid thinking coz many a time in the past life we would have been subject to deep attachment to a person/persons which is always there in the sub-concious mind and unfolds as dreams. But my sincere advice to you is to not give utmost importance to such thrillers and take it just as an other experience or else you will be lost and you yourself will be responsible for that.

Dear Jahnava Nitai Das, this is the absolute feeling you get when you read the post. There is one more point to add. As we all know, the Keralites are the most converted people to christianity in India. The other(hindus) mallus go to Ayyappa and Krishna temples. If the church in disguise is made to look like a traditional keralite style, there is a feeling that Mallus may be attracted towards it and thereby the other left over hindu population of the mallus can be cashed or else, in Vellore, why do you need a Kerala style of alter with a 'Kuthuvilakku'. Indeed a cheap technique but a very well sketched/plotted one.

There should be a line of demarcation or else in the quest to be spiritual, one will forget the responsibilities of the material life. Well, when one has already adopted what is best for him and got married, it wouldnt be sane to tell him to dump his wife and children and explore new situations which may give peace and that wouldnt be called sprituality. It would be better if he tries to maintain peace within the family which was his own choice at the first instance and yet be spiritual. He can take examples from Lahiri Mahashyay, the guru of Yukteshwar Giri who was inturn the guru of Parahamahans Yogananda. Lahiri Mahashyay was highly spiritual and yet carried the responsibilities of his family. There are many like a Purandara Dasa, Kanakadasa, Gora, and many more.

Dear Jeffster, indeed a brilliant exposition by DW. Verse 8 of Ishopanishad talks about the bodiless, spotless, transcendent self existant nature. It is purely talking about the Atman. To support the Dvaitin point of view, the purport is necessary and more over Brahma Samhita is a text revered in Gaudiya Vaishnavism which was non-existant before Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

Agreed that the simple way is to worship the Supreme Lord in this age of disturbance. The imaginary feeling is not the activities of Lord but overall the Lord himself. What is He/She/It? Can He/She/It be attained with this He/She/It difference? There is the mental jugglery. Who is the Karta of Bhagavad Gita, it is Sri Krishna himself. So he doesnt show you anything outside him. He tells everything is him and within him. The Him within Krishna is the 'I' of me or you. So, it is an indirect pointer to all of us. It clearly says to look within yourself for answers rather to look outside. This is my perception. Hearing about Krishna or Bhagavad Gita or a Srimad Bhagavatam is done by millions of people 24x7 round the clock in India. The person who is reciting the story or the people who are listening gets positive vibrations for the moment till they are hearing or telling. Later, the same daily routine continues. So, the effect is not permanent in doing so is what common experience tells. No cleansing happens. It is all temporary. I thought Lord is ever attentive and we need not do anything to draw his attention rather the Lord himself draws our attention towards him as you rightly say that he is in every heart. So was he in the Heart of Krishna which he realised and was able to portray and we are still trying to find answers outside or in a gross form. This is an inner word of Sri Krishna which applies to all of us. It has many subtle meanings. You already have pointed out that self-realisation is the path to almighty. Where is the self and what is to be realised is left to the individual thinking.

Well, Mukti is presented by Ravindranji in both the monoist and dvaitin point of view and when kaisersose says that the Purusha/Almighty cannot be just subjected to a form, DW argues with the subject that formless cannot be perceived or a form like a cone or a circle will not hold importance. This is quite interesting debate and there is also one small query into all this. Why is the 'Purusha' only a Male, ie., only a Shiva(in case of the Shaivism) and Vishnu (for Vaishnavas) enjoy the main focus and the Devi Purana and the female gods are always inferior to their male counterparts. The division in gods itself as male/female has created confusion. When I say this I mean that there is no Parvati/Lakshmi tradition. So when mukti is debated, and mukti is for all, the creator should be devoid of all differences. Again, the Purusha Sukta tries to explain that all is within when it includes all Varnas like 'Brahmanosya Mukhamaaseet, Bahurajanya kritah, Ooru tadasya yad vysyah..' which includes all as one. The God cannot be perceived as a neutor as neutors do not enjoy respect in the society. Yet the Ardhanareeshwara form tries to close that gap. Hence, when a form was given, the Male enjoyed the forefront and the Woman followed suit as the consort of the Male. If Mukti was like what Ravindranji pointed out, its still a point to ponder.

Dear Friends, as you all know (those who are already familier with my postings) that I follow a monoist stance. I believe that there is Mukti. So, Dvaita cannot give you Mukti. If Dvaita was true, the last abode would be a Kailasa or a Vaikunta in the presence of Lord Shiva or Sriman Narayana. Still, you are not a Mukta, you still maintain the differnce between you and the lord in the Shivaloka or Vishnuloka. If there is Mukti, only one truth applies and that is Advaita. God made everything and everything is god. Unlike the 'Me' is identified as Srikanth, I have these different instruments of sense and action where my five fingers are different, and all organs are different but the truth is 'I'. In Vaishnava Sampradaya, the Samipya, Sannidhya and Sayujya is mentioned. It maintains that there is no Mukti according to Madhva principles. Infact he says that if 'Srilakshmi herself would maintain the differnce, what about us Mortals?'. The monoist principle doesnt focus on Bheda much as DarkWarrior rightly pointed out in one of the forums. Can we have an open dicussion as whether Mukti is the essence of all the Upanishads or is it just like promising something to gain popularity(for the Dharma).

Dear Ravindran, kindly make your presence felt in other forums also. Its so much good to have you,Amlesh,Dark Warrior,shvu,suchandra,Pankaja_Dasa, Bart,Avinash, kaisersose and last but not the least my favorite Bhaktjan around.

Dear Dark Warrior, where ever Krishna is saying I, does it mean he is refering to his physical appearance or is he relating it to the gross body? He is refering to the pure form of 'I', which is nothing but the Self and that which is in everyone. That 'I' is both Saguna in action and Nirguna as non-active. So, the Atma is a combination of both attributes which is defined again as ANORANIYAAN MAHTOMAHIYAAN or the definition of Atma itself which is 'Shivam Shantam Advaitam Chaturtamanyante Sa Atma Sabigyeyah'. The definition itself says it is Advaitam (one and the same, not two). Kriya or action is happening due to the presense of the Trigunas(Sattva, Rajas, Tamas) and delution of these actions were called Maya and yes, Maya is not an entity distinct from Him. There is nothing impure. Everything is Pure. Knowing everything is Vidya. As comprehended many a times 'If there is Dvaita, there is no Moksha'. If there is something called 'Moksha', Dvaita is a wrong concept. Even the definition of Manushya also says 'Mana eva Manushyanaam, Kaaranam Bandhamokshayoh'. So, when all scriptures talk about Moksha, Dvaita is a myth.

May it be a complaint or a complement, somehow Bhaktjan, I feel I know you from a long time. Though we may have many heated arguments, somewhere inside we tend to follow one another. Anyway dude, I do not have anything personal against you nor I believe you have the same. Its just our beliefs do not match and we come together again and again, just to exchange fire.

Dear Bhaktjan, thanks and Cheers for your explanation of the verse. Your advice of finding my own pals, yeah, I will practice alongwith you.

Dear Dark Warrior, you have all rights to speak against Advaita as you have a strong standpoint. No doubts on your credibility.

Dear Kaisersose, for any religion God and Soul are essential entities. But not for Spirituality which is beyond religion. Being religious and being sprititual are two different parameters. The first is bound by belief, subscription and the later is finding truth in your own way. Spirituality covers all forms of religion and beliefs where any religion wouldnt see beyond its boundries and still would vouch that it is the best.

Dear Dark Warrior/Kaisersose, your Vedic stance is fabulous. As per my understanding, The Chaturashram/Chaturvedas/Chaturvarnas have a link. Shruti and Smriti was taught in Gurukulam to be followed in Brahmacharya. The Chaturvedas were followed by the Chaturvarnas in the Grihastashram. The Upanishads were followed in the Vanaprastha. The realised soul would attain the Sanyasa. Now, where does the truth lie? I feel you people are better qualified than me to correct me if I am wrong.

Yeah, its not that i am a critic of DW, I completly agree with your observations. I too love the way he puts forward his perspective. I do not want DW to loose credibility when he takes things too personal and goes for personal attacks. That was my concern and not his outspoken abilities. He is infact like an encyclopedia with all answers. I generally feel, people should respect all forms of beliefs and put forward their belief hietherto otherwise there will be no differnce between a Christian Missionary trying to prove that only Christ can lead you to the truth or a person trying to mend the differance between Kafirs and Fakirs. Lets taste all flavours and enjoy their blends. But yes, your belief (whether Vaishnava/Shaiva/Dwaita/Advaita/VA) is what leads you to the truth.

Dear Bhakjan, can YOU please tell me what the Kaivalya Upanishad meant when it said, NA KARMANA NA PRAJAYA DHANENA TYAGENAIKE AMRITATVAMANASHUH I just want your straight answer and no quotes please. I think that should be simple for your vast knowledge.

IGNORE again

Dear Bhaktjan, unless you yourself read your postings and understand it, or you are guided to improve your lingual abilities, it is better to IGNORE you.

This paragraph tells that by saying so, SP is trying to sell his ideas to the Intelligent Species unlike Indians(Hindus) who believes in all forms of God. Americans believed in only the Christ Theory(One God) which was given a shape to show them their god. He clearly says it is neither Indian nor Hindu but asserts immediately that since it is from India, it has a flavour. Shame on the Americanised Organisation.

For those who are oblivion of Tatwala Babaji, below are two instances quoted by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi who passed away earlier this year at Holland. Tat Wala Baba During the Teacher Training Course with Maharishi in the Academy of Meditation Shankaracharya Nagar in Rishikesh at the end of 1969, a course that included many of the greatest luminaries of the Movement, the course participants asked Maharishi if the famous recluse saint Tat Wala Baba could come to visit the course, as had happened in previous courses. Tat Wala Baba was living in a cave about three miles up in the hills behind our Academy. It was his custom to only come out once a day for one hour to let visitors enjoy his darshan. There was a lean-to just below his cave for this purpose. He was a very powerful man, very muscular like a wrestler, with matted hair that fell all the way to the ground. Maharishi said of him that he seemed to be in a good state of Unity Consciousness. Maharishi agreed to invite Tat Wala Baba to come to speak to the course, and sent Brahmachari Shankerlalji, a very elderly and blissful Brahmachari, who had been Maharishi's Guru Bhai when Maharishi was Guru Dev's Brahmachari, and who lived out all his final years in Maharishi's Academy of Meditation in Rishikesh (except for one time in 1970 when Maharishi sent him to Japan for a trip to see the Movement there). Maharishi also sent Bevan to accompany Shankerlalji to go to the cave and invite Tat Wala Babaji. They drove as far as the could into the forest down a narrow track, and then climbed the final section up the hill. They found Tat Wala Baba had just come out for his daily Darshan and was sitting listening to a Pandit who was chanting slokas from a big book that was open in front of him. Shankerlalji and Bevan respectfully greeted Tat Wala Babaji, and then Shankerlalji conveyed Maharishi's invitation to come to speak to the course. Tat Wala Babaji immediately stood up, saying to the Pandit and the others who had come to see him: "Maharishiji is calling I have to go," and put on his sandals and started walking down the hill. He came in the car through the forest to the Academy, pulling up outside the lecture hall where the course was meeting with Maharishi. The lecture hall was approached from the back down a ramp, and as Tat Wala Babaji entered the ramp the course participants could see him coming, and indicated to Maharishi that he had arrived. Maharishi came immediately from his seat, and as he turned the corner up the ramp, at the moment he first saw Tat Wala Babaji, Maharishi's face lit up like the sun from the joy. There followed a beautiful session of questions and answers with the course with Maharishi and Tat Wala Babaji sitting hand in hand - an experience that no one there will ever forget. * * * On another occasion a visitor to the Academy went up to see Tat Wala Babaji. When he arrived, he found another visitor there, a businessman from Delhi, who asked where our meditator was coming from. He said he came from Maharishi. The businessman scoffed, saying he should study some Indian philosopher from Oxford instead. So our meditator said, "Why not ask Tat Wala Babaji his opinion of Maharishi," to which the businessman agreed. Tat Wala Babaji responded to the question, speaking very rapidly in Hindi, going on for about 15-20 minutes. As he continued, the businessman looked increasingly crestfallen. At the end our meditator asked, "What did Tat Wala Babaji say?" The businessman replied, "He said, 'Maharishi knows everything.'"

Dear Pankaja Dasaji, offence exists as long as one identifies with an institutional belief other than himself. If all starts realising themselves, every being will find that he/she is one and the same. This is what Ravindran also was trying to say and there will be no room for Offence, Insult, Blasphemy, Aparadha etc.

Amlesh, I do not agree with the point that nobody can beat DW logically coz he doesnt apply logic at all. All he does is quote from books with his bhashya. Infact he has tremendous book knowledge. If he applies logic(which is independant of books), he can never be zero tolarent towards other paths.

1 Ans: We are, but you are not. 2 Ans: You are, but we are not. 3 Ans: Not at all. You dont seem to do that also. You are busy in showing your 'Cut & Paste' abilities. 4 Ans: Advaita speaks about Objective sphere and not the Subjective sphere. Go learn advaita first.