kaisersose

Sadhana is a Sanskrit term used very frequently in Tantric literature. The Wikipedia article is wrong. This article represents the Point of View of an individual. Please see the talk page.

Correct.

Shankara from the 8th century, wrote the sanskrit poem, Sadhana Panchakam. Advaita also contains the core concept of Sadhana Chatustaya, the fourfold qualifications necessary for the serious aspirant. These are all essential qualities for the student and if I recall correctly, this is explained in Atma Bodha - another work of Shankara.

Sadhana clearly has a much wider usage than what is found on that wikipedia page.

Cheers

I am saddened by intolerance such as that shown in the vid. I am not blaming anyone, intolerance is there in every society, culture and religion nowadays. It shows that religious system as beautiful they are, they still lack something. I wonder what it is?

It is the basic nature of man to not deal well with a conflicting viewpoint. It is called intolerance.

The outcome of intolerance, is an attempt to convert others to one's own viewpoint - something that we all do on this forum every day or to simply eliminate conflicting viewpoints - as seen in history. And when these attempts to convert/eliminate do not succeed, some people react violently. It can be physical violence or just emotional violence.

Cheers

Basic question. Are detachment and renunciation relevant to a non-sanyasi at all?

I do not think so. In my opinion, detachment and renunciation run counter to the concept of grhastashrama, of someone living in society. For example, if you practice detachment towards your wife and son, that is going to reflect negatively in your relationship with them. If you practice renunciation and give up on material comforts, that is going to impact them negatively too.

I think most people are confused about what they are required to do, to be spiritual. Those who are interested in spiritual pursuits should take the time to clearly understand the roles and responsibilities of non-sanyasis and sanyasis. This understanding may help remove a lot of this confusion.

This trend of blurring the line between sanyasashrama and grhastashrama is a fairly new concept. Telling married couples to abstain from sex, threatening them with grim consequences, etc., is outright silly and shows a clear lack of understanding of fundamental concepts...not to mention a lack of precedent. Traditionally, detachment, renunciation, etc., has been only for sanyasis and it should be noted that sanyasa is not for everyone.

Cheers

:Cynic alert!

Material gain, spiritual gain..is there really a difference?

You take interest in God because you want something or else there is never a need to turn towards God. This being the case, I do not see a difference in asking for material gains vs. spiritual gains. The underlying concept is exactly the same in both cases.

However, there is a key difference to be noted. Asking for material gains is problematic because you will know - sooner or later - that your prayer was not answered. Material goals are time bound and specific (in most cases) which means it is possible to know if you got what you wanted or not. This problem does not arise when seeking spritual gains because the end goal is an abstraction and cannot be verified. In most cases, it is to happen after death which means you will never know in this lifetime if the time & effort spent in prayer will be fruitful or not.

Going by this logic, it makes sense that a religious Guru will discourage prayer for material worship and encourage the other option instead.

Cheers

Quote:

Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this. - Bhagavad-gita 2.42

?

Has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Cheers

Actually Vaisnavism is the eternal funtion of the soul a point I have made before.

No. Actually Shaivism is the eternal function of the soul, a point I am making now. Or Shaktism, Bahaism...any of those.

Krishna said not to be distracted by the flowery words of the vedas. Just concentrate on Him.

 

Bye

Really? I suppose in theist's world, the Vedas are offering up definitions of Hinduism which we are supposed to ignore.

Cheers

As matter of intellectual curiosity to find the answer to the question who wrote the Bhagavad Gita, please read the Chandogya upanishad.

The major traditions of Vedanta do not equate the Chandogya Krishna with THE Krishna. I dont think any of these traditions object to the fact that Krishna and Rama are completely absent in legitimate/extant Sruti.

Krishna says in the Gita that it is an ancient science that was lost. By his own admission then, it was not a new revelation that was unavailable before the war. Technically, since these concepts are rooted in Sruti, they are beginningless and without authorship. When packaged as a Gita, it does have an author. We will never know for sure the identity of this author or authors and in the absence of such evidence, we have to assume it was one guy and this guy was the author of the Mahabharata.

Cheers

what is 'mess' ?

what mess are you speaking of ?

 

The so-called mess obviously exists only in his mind.

This is nothing new..he has been spinning this Hinduism = mess rant for several years now, including the Jesus = Vaishnava and Mayavada = poison theories. These theories stem from a very common affliction of double standards and intolerance, found among his distinguished peers. Surprisingly, he has let his obsession on the last two theories go. Based on that, there is still some hope left that he will someday stop poking his nose into Hindu threads.

If he has problems calling himself an American, then he has more serious issues to worry about, in my opinion.

Cheers

I don't belive in any Ghost theory here only thing is possible that Baba did not take prasada when offered,that is against the rule in general.When there is a name of God chanted around like Hare Krishna no way Ghost or any black magic can appear around that area.

Where do you guys get these rules from?

1) What about Casper, the friendly ghost? If he cannot appear in the "area" too, then that is simply not fair. Corrupt individuals are allowed to enter the "area" and even become Gurus, but Casper cannot enter the area, simply because he is a ghost. Isn't that bad?

2) In a more general case, why is that shallow people, megalomaniacs, pedophiles, etc., can enter the area, but ghosts cannot? What makes the ghosts any worse than these people?

Cheers

Why be so attached to a term denoting a varying and contradictory belief systems? What value is there in such attachment. I was born into and American body but I am not an American. I was born into a country and culture that considers itself Christian but you will never hear me call myself a Christian...

...cannot be taken seriously because you are not honest.

If you were to apply this logic uniformly, then someone would take you seriously. But since you try to apply a special set of rules to the label Vaishnava - your whole position is undermined. Now you can say it was not your idea, but someone else's, but that is really beside the point. In short, double standards are a sure way to lose credibility.

If I cannot respect the other man's belief, then I should not be expecting any from others. But then, haven't we had this conversation several times already?

Cheers

this is making me mad.

Spiritually mad or materialistically mad?

Sri Krsna is svayam Bhagavan for the gaudiyas and I'll just hold on to that...

 

Radhe Radhe.

But this is about Shiva and not Krishna. Since the Gaudiyas on this thread themselves cannot agree on the topic, the most likely possiblity is, the concept is not clearly defined in any Gaudiya source. But is that a problem?

The reason is, Shiva is not really necessary in a Vashnava doctrine, just like Vishnu/Krishna is redundant in a non-Vaishnava doctrine. Lip service paid to non-doctrinal Gods is usually for political reasons - like a section of Gaudiyas trying to factor in Jesus.

Not all Vaishnava doctrines have the same definition of Krishna. Why should they be expected to have a common definition of Shiva?

Cheers

the We in the above statement refers only to Bhagavan and His associates.Not me.

Thanks for clarifying.

Cheers

Starting a new thread as this topic digresses from the original topic of the other thread.

lol,I like this point : "The materialistic people consider Us(Bhagavan and prema bhakta) mad and

We consider the materialistic people mad."

Ranjeet, your post makes me curious. We will try to do this without getting into the usual mud-slinging.

1. Do you watch Television?

2. Do you use Computers?

3. When you need to travel, do you always walk or do you also ride/drive/fly as appropriate?

4. Do you enjoy eating Rasmalai?

5. Do you live a frugal life, keeping the bare minimum for yourself and give away the rest of your earnings to people lacking basic facilities?

6. Do you have a savings account and/or investments or have you left your future entirely to Krishna and have no financial investments?

7. Do you love your family?

8. Do you have career aspirations?

I ask all these questions because these are what a materialistic person does – eat Rasagullas, seek a comfortable life and save for the future as circumstances permit (cannot rely on Krishna or Rama for money), generally love one’s family, seek better career prospects, etc.

Your comment makes me wonder how you are different from this. You may say, you do all this, but the difference is you love Krishna. Why does that make the material person “mad”? Just like you he is doing whatever makes him happy and as long as he is happy, what is the problem? Now you may say, his happiness is short-lived, etc. But the problem is, you have no way of measuring the other person’s happiness and classify it as short-lived or long-lived, etc.

I think you get what I am asking. I am curious to know how different you are from the stereotype material person and what makes him mad. Everyone is welcome to add and please refrain from quoting religious books. This is one question you can answer with your own intelligence; without falling back on someone else’s wisdom.

Cheers

By the same logic, Adiyen is here trying to remove that dvesha. And I hope I am communicating something cuz people(offended by me) in that excitement to counter, misunderstand and argue.

The misunderstandings and arguments are also destined.

Do you see how it goes, once you try to selectively apply the destiny idea?

Cheers

Discussion IS healthy but arguements are very poisonous. In India, there are so many religions, man-made communities, man-made castes, man-made sub- castes, man-made sects this that exist. Each one has views that are opposed to others. This only increases the tension within. People who can relate to that sect will resort to listening only to the glory of it.

Why single out India? This is exactly how it is worldwide and everything, everywhere is man-made.

We must avoid dvesha.

 

If you are destined to know something, you will.

 

 

By the same logic, if you are destined to experience dvesha, you will. You cannot avoid it.

Cheers

If everything is written what is the use of praying to God?

If everything is "written", then the praying activity is also written and is not a matter of choice.

In any case, you have no way of knowing how much bad karma you have accumulated. Instead of worrying about it, you may actually focus on avoiding creating more bad karma. Do the right thing, be a responsible citizen and you pretty much have it covered.

Cheers

Originally Posted by sambya

harir hi - hari himself

nirguna-beyond attributes

Why is Nirguna translated to "Beyond attributes"? Nirguna means without Gunas or devoid of attributes.

And isn't this exactly what Nirguna is taken to mean, when used to criticize Advaita ? How does it become "beyond attributes" in this case?

Cheers

This is precisely the point I had on these forums earlier.

Which form? The young Rama or the adult Rama or the young Krishna, or the adult Krishna, the Vishwaroopa...which one is the one?

1) If we say, there is one original (real) form, then all these above forms are unreal which leads to Mayavada.

2) If we say there are multiple original forms, that opens the door to numerous questions too.

The solution is to not get into details about the original form - or even see it as a form that can be understood by the mind. This does not necessarily mean formless.

Cheers

I am curious. When you say Krishna is a person, do you mean it in the sense that he may be having a human form?

if not, then what is the context behind the usage of 'Person'?

Thanks,

so you believe now shaiva worship formless shiva

With due respect, you should seriously work on improving your english for I said no such thing. This is just my opinion - but I believe time spent on improving your lingual skills is likely to benefit you more than time spent on Rama and Krishna. This is a real world we live in, and it requires real world skills to survive. Clearly Rama & Krishna are yet to show real interest in our world and our problems. Does not matter if you are a devotee or not - you need the right skills to land a job and the right care to treat an ailment. No magic is forthcoming from Vaikunta or Goloka or any such place.

Cheers

So-called students of the Vedas are condemned when they are ignorant of the actual purpose of the Vedas on account of their "disobeying the Acaryas; or neglecting the authority of great teachers (Acaryas); or they follow so-called Acaryas who are not in any chain of transcendental succession (parampara/sampradaya)

 

... One must approach a bona fide spiritual master in order to understand the transcendental message of the Vedas. That is the direction of the Mundaka Upanishad (1.2.12).

The actual Mundaka verse says "a Brahmana who desires learning should approach a Guru with fuel in his hands...". Looks like your translator left the controversial parts out to make his life easier! How many Brahmanas do you know who approached their Gurus with fuel (firewood, gasoline, nuclear...anything) in their hands?

Anyway, this verse has no bearing on Shaivism in general, as most Shaivism groups have no interest in the Vedas - which is in line with most of Hinduism.

Cheers

ok i told you they are advait in disguise but not true advait,i will tell you about formless shiva another time since i dont have the material right now,But i am not saying this myself but i have learnt this from a shaiv only and a really great one.

And for shivling it represents the formless god ask any shaivite that, have a look at prince goutham now-Characteristics of the Supreme Reality: The Supreme Reality is called Siva. He is infinite consciousness. He is eternal, changeless, formless, independent, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, one without a second, beginningless, causeless, taintless, self-existent, ever free, ever pure, and perfect. He is not limited by time. He is infinite bliss and infinite intelligence. He is free from defects, the all-doer, the all-knower.

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/39026-do-vaishnavas-ever-pray-lord-ganesha-5.html

 

Though he does not beleive in advait.

Shaivism far predates Advaita. How then can it be "disguised Advaita"?

To recap, we are talking about Shaivas and their conception of a formless Shiva as claimed by Ranjeet. If you have evidence that Shaivas are characterized by worshipping a formless Shiva, which would mean the Shiva with a form is a non-Shaiva entity (as claimed by Ranjeet), then you may have a case. If not, then you can agree that we were just seeing more of Ranjeet's spiel.

Cheers

The lingam is the simplest and most ancient symbol of Shiva, especially of Parasiva, God beyond all forms and qualities.

The Lingam is a form with shape, size and color - not unlike a conch in the Vaishnava world. Nothing about a formless Shiva.

Use some logic or maybe common sense

OK.

The fact that kashmir shaivism teaches non dualism that means everything is brahman.

Any flavor of Shaivism or Vaishnavism, can always add to the fundamental concept of Shiva worship or Vishnu worship. Hardly means we can go the other way and make a generalization.

There are several Advaitins who worship Krishna and no one else. Can we conclude that Vaishnavism = Advaita?

Cheers

...and this was just one of the innumerable vices of british colonialism !!!

None of which matters to our local fundamentalist, Chandu. His sole intent is to malign Muslims and show them as the root cause of all evils. He is fine with the British moving the Kohinoor to UK, but he has problems with Indian Muslims who fought the British while they were moving the Kohinoor to their country!

I am done with this thread. If anyone wants to continue the topic, please start a new thread with the right title.

Cheers

Hindustani,

I have responses for all your points which btw, are vague and unfocused.

But I do not want to hijack this thread.

Cheers