Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Narasingh

  1. Please don't put down your pen. I thank you for your clarifications. I don't consider you a bigot by any sense, and to clarify why I addressed my statement to you, it was to remain in context with your queries, and not the get involved in a spin-off with other posters. I agree that the morality of Abrahamism's contemporary teachings is and should be under scrutiny, in as much as Vedic moralities have come under scrutiny and reform. In that Allah and Jehovah are inexorably tied to Abrahamism, you'd have to debunk the whole notion that they are in any way addressing the Absolute Creator rather than serving as a reform. I don't quite see your equation of Zeus and Odin to Param Ishvara, though. It is my understanding that both Zeus and Odin share their capacities with other gods in a clearly pantheistic way. Thus they have yet to be considered as Deva Deva or God of Gods, or it remains to be seen by a representation of either Zeus or Odin by a person of their faith. Your question, in this regard, is one of depth. Not easily addressed. It is still a revolving door in the Hindu community as well, with the discussions of who is Param Ishvara/Ishvari, Shiva or Vishnu or Shakti. Back to your original question regarding meditation and Yoga. What I said about Sri Caitanya pertains to this. He isn't the only one to prescribe the cleansing of the lens to soul's heart, although He is certainly one who put great emphasis on Hari Nama and mantra japa as a means to do so. This cleansing of the lens is what the end purpose of Yoga is. Upon deeper inspection regarding Vishnu and morbid offerings, you'll find the revelation of Arjuna as he witnessed the Vishwarup to be particular as he watched Vishwarup devouring the men of Kurukshetra with His mouth, their heads being crushed by his teeth. Is this not Vishnu? Vishnu is death, life and everything in between and outside. Yoga should instill in us an awareness of the true nature of things. The soul is not the body. Designations such as cat, dog, man, woman, father, daughter, are all temporary designations. Our life in this framework is precarious. Meat eating and the sacrificial slaughtering of animals is gradually deemed obsolete since its foundation is the offering of our most cherished desires to God. Gradually, as one evolves, they will find that they no longer desire as much, especially the desire to benefit from the pain of other creatures of God. They will see that in God's request of sacrifice from us it is really a request of self-sacrifice since we obviously cherish ourselves above all else. Compassion, tolerance, cleanliness, and truthfulness are encouraged in both Buddhism and Vaishnavism. It has been understood and shown that those who are compassionate, tolerant, clean and truthful are happy, and that those who are aDharma are not. Even a rudimentary analysis will provide for this. These are qualities which are respected world wide, not only Abrahamic or Hindu.
  2. Smiley, Forgive me, (those who are not adherents to the philosophy of Sri Caitanya) but I believe that, inherently, Sri Caitanya addresses this subject, most authoritatively, in many ways through Krsna Das Kaviraj in Sri Caitanya Caritamrta. Sri Caitanya does not go through, systematically stating that people don't believe in God. He acknowleges their belief in Parabhraman, Sri Krsna, albeit by different names and approaches, then questions why they don't sensitively and sensibly approach faith wholeheartedly. It is on this ground of sensibility, sensitivity, and wholeheartedness that a person can establish a refutation. Anything else will be the same thing that any other bigot can accomplish. The point being, B.G. 4.11 ye yatha mam prapadyante tams tathaiva bhajamy aham mama vartmanuvartante manusyah partha sarvasah All of them--as they surrender unto Me--I reward accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Prtha. This is a great meditation to maintain when trying to establish why you follow Sri Caitanya's philosophy. Upon establishing the authority of the Supreme, you can then use philosophy and logic to establish the wholesome ways of devoting one's self to the Supreme. It is accepted that Buddha was right in that one need no longer sacrifice animals. True sacrifice comes from within. This is an axiomatic truth accepted across the board of Theists. Suffering, hate, lust, envy, exploitation and confusion are not a soul's constitution, but a self-accepted designation. This needs to be addressed.... Why does a soul accept these designations? Yoga, meditation, samadhi, mantra japa, are all ways in which one peels away the coverings of one's miserable designations. Ceto darpana marjana... We must cleanse our soul's heart of the soot of miserable designations. We must root out selfishness and take up the four legs of Dharma: cleanliness, truthfullness, tolerance, and compassion. Sri Caitanya establishes that the only way in which one may efficiently and completely cleanse their heart and relieve themselves from their miserable existence is through Sri Krsna Sankirtanam. Establish that Krsna is none other than the same God you and I devote to and you have done a great service. This establishment cannot be done by simply saying, "You believe in a false God". It has to be done by showing that Krsna is God in full aspect. He is the complete gem and not the facet.
  3. Smiley, a friend posted this to me. Let me know what you think. While point 2 is arguable regarding Bhagavan meaning Self (due to the large umbrella of Hinduism) it is unarguably true regarding Nirvana. I addressed the nature of Self previously. Wonderful point regarding the African countries, and loose morals in point 6 as well.
  4. In Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krsna emphasizes this... B.G. 10.41 yad yad vibhutimat sattvam srimad urjitam eva va tat tad evavagaccha tvam mama tejo-'msa-sambhavam Know that all beautiful, glorious, and mighty creations spring from but a spark of My splendor. Prior to this statement He lists a plethora of partial representations of Him in order to direct His devotees to Him in all respects. While the wind is not God, God is the wind. While Brahma is not God, God is Brahma. The beauty of the Vaishnava is that they are able to see the representation of Krsna in everything. Such as the humble sage who sees with equal vision, the brahmana, the elephant, the dog and the dog-eater. The question arises, "How does the "family" of Abraham define Allah, Jahweh?" If they acknowledge that He is the cause of all causes, greater than the greatest, smaller than the smallest, of infinite capacities, omnipotent, omniscient, containing everything, and within everything (being the possessor of the six opulences), then can we say that they are not considering God? Sri Chaitanya acknowledged the Koran more than once in Sri Caitanya Caritamrta (take Madhya 18 for instance). Using the Koran as a basis, He stressed that the Koran sees God in the aforementioned light, as in God does posses the six opulences. On this basis, He encouraged the Muslim community to be sensitive to what is already written in their scriptures regarding the nature of the supreme power of God and encouraged them to acknowledge that there is nothing in His mission which detracts from these opulences, it only augments and emphasizes these opulences. He did not say that Allah is not God, only that they should be more sensitive to God's qualities. It is in this vein that I agree with primate in his statement
  5. Funny, I don't remember a limit on the names of Vishnu at 1000. I know of Vishnu Sahasranam, but I didn't know that because there are only 1000 names there, that Vishnu's names stop at 1000.
  6. A variant to expose how a bigot might talk. No two wrongs make a right. And this is why I wrote.
  7. Are you going to tell me there are no open minded persons who have heard the "Christian Bigot" and are looking for a representation from the other side of the river? While I am certainly no Srila Prabhupada, I see the need to make certain concessions as he also did. If his thought process was like this: I wonder how much chance you would have stood to come in contact with him?
  8. Yes! Maybe they should be called Sindhus rather than Hindus, using this logic. Calcutta= Kolkata Bombay = Mumbai Hindu = Sindhu
  9. Hmm... I guess since I tried to relate the two I must have betrayed my ignorance. Buddhism being spiritual suicide is definitely your personal opinion as well as a proportionate few others. "No thought is useless". About there being no such thing as Hinduism... try telling that to the rest of the world. The majority of the world sees something which is defined as Hinduism. How does expounding upon the differences of Shakarites and Vaishnavas serve a better purpose for Smiley's questions? Who is the braying Jackass? Judge Not, Lest the First Stone be Cast at Your Glass House! I'm sorry but I was not initiating my post by calling others ignorant Jackasses. Look for yourself. Seriously, you are more than welcome to try to address the problem's faced by Smiley. So, why don't you do that instead of taking a negative stance. You are simply calling others wrong. I'd love to see you take a stab at the issues at hand instead of addressing a non-existing argument. The current varna-ashram system is not without its faults. In fact, Gaudiyas have strived against violent opponents to establish that the system is corrupt. What you are calling varna-ashram doesn't exist here on earth at this time (unless in another realm). Hindu is what the Persians called those on the South Eastern side of the Indus River. So, the shoe fits regardless of what you intend to establish. What would you like to do, establish a new language? Do you intend to call black the new brown? Aryans, Dravidians, how many more labels would you like to refine in this essay? Do you actually think it will serve a greater purpose in addressing Smiley's questions to establish the differences in Buddhism, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, Tantrism.......yada yada yada. If so, put the pen to paper and write some dissertation. Come on, lets see. If yours is more authoritative and follows the pulse of the questions at hand, I will concede it with no objections. First, lets see some product.
  10. Sonic Yogi, First read the opening post before stating your intentions. You are argumentative, and lack the capacity to understand contextual circumstances. Kanistha Kanishta.
  11. Just a quick reply to Sonic Yogi, and if he persists in polarizing this thread then I believe we should consider flagging his posts for removal. Sonic Yogi, while I have immense appreciation for Prabhupada, I also understand that Gaudiya Acharyas such as Baladeva Vidyabhusana did take the time to establish that Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy was, in fact, a bona-fide path within the Hindu umbrella. They sought to gain acceptance into the community, not to exclude themselves. Jayadeva Goswami, much appreciated by Mahaprabhu, took the time to praise Buddha with his Dasavatara Stotra. To this day, Vaishnavas sing the praises of Buddha. Vyasadev (whom we honor each Vyasa-Puja) wrote the Vedanta Sutra along with a multitude of other scriptures, as well as the Bhagavatam. Shankaracharya is heralded in Gaudiya Vaishnava communities as being Mahadev. Gaudiya Vaishnavas also practice Yoga, so they are "lumped" into the accused group as well. Regardless of what Srila Prabhupada wanted the Western world to call what was then and is to this day referred to as Hinduism, it is still contemporarily called Hinduism. With all this to consider, how do you feel justified in a simple contradiction? Also, I suspect you have not even read the opening post on this thread, because you are clearly not sensitive to the issue at hand. Why post if you haven't seen why I wrote the short essay to begin with?
  12. Thank's Smiley, I will take your advise. Any others?
  13. Can you provide for the Indr font link? I have a Devanagari font installed but it is comingup without. Thanks
  14. I have revised my essay's draft in order to de-emphasize TM and substantiate yoga as being integral to Eastern philosophical practices. Also I tried to emphasize that de-personalization has positive potential and that in and of it self it is not necessarily a bad thing. Please look it through and give your suggestions. It is for building on and my hope is that it serves as a foundation. I drew from the Bhagavad Gita, Vedanta Sutra and the Fourfold Noble Truths of Buddhism. I invite others to build on it and look forward to critiquing.
  15. Would it be presumptuous to assume that meditation groups (especially of "yogis" of India) have its roots in Eastern sadhanas? It would not be inaccurate to say that meditation is part of Eastern philosophy, as well.
  16. Here is a little of my attempt. I look forward to critique. From "behind-the-tm-facade.org" While TM is a relatively new form of Hindu based practice, it draws its inspiration from age old practices. I don’t intend to address the pros or cons of TM in particular, but to address the merits and otherwise of the purpose behind TM and other Eastern based philosophies. This, I believe, is to become aware of one's self, one's surroundings, and one's relation between one's self and one's surroundings. For the sake of simplicity I will assume that Buddhism (which began in India) draws much of its foundation from Hindu values. India has long held the Vedanta Sutra as an axiom in its philosophical discussions. The first sutra (or statement) within the Vedanta Sutra is "athato brahma jijnasa", which translates to a necessity to inquire and know Brahman. Brahman is defined as the Self; both the local Self and the Conglomerate Accumulative Self (Para Brahman). If there were an axiom within the Vedanta Sutra, it would be this sutra. The questioning into the nature of the self (introspection) is considered the differential of the "human" species and the "animal" species. This boils down to action based on function rather than form; in other words, spirituality. The person who has undergone such introspection may arrive at an initial stage of awareness where there is a disassociation with one’s perceived reality. One may view their body as being separate from their self. Self-identity, or ego, can become undefined since it may no longer be defined solely on a physical basis. Obviously, this undefined stage can be disconcerting for a practitioner and confusion or panic may set in. The purpose behind Eastern philosophies is not to stop at this elimination of an ego which is solely based on physical definitions. It is to gain a broader perspective which includes an associative ego and its relation with the personal ego. The qualities of the self, shared by both Buddhism and Hinduism, are that the self is inherently undying, conscious, and blissful, or sat, chit, and ananda. While this seems particular to Eastern philosophy, one can find corresponding ideas in Abrahamic philosophies as well. The idea of heaven is a blissful place of eternity where one is conscious. There is no consideration of a heaven in which one is non-existent or depressed. In Buddhism, the greatest need of mankind is the cessation of suffering. The “Four Noble Truths” are axiomatic to Buddhism. These are: <o:p> </o:p> 1. Life means suffering 2. The origin of suffering is attachment 3. The cessation of suffering is attainable 4. There is a path to the cessation of suffering The first Noble Truth is a variable truth. The meaning behind it is that one who does not concern themselves with the basis of suffering will suffer. This suggestion of questioning the nature of things, the basis, is akin to the Vedanta Sutra’s suggestion of “athato brahma jijnasa”. <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p>
  17. I completely understand the interpersonal dynamics of sibling "rivalry" I might suggest that you start a new thread specifically targeting point by point discussions. Also, I suggest you be very diligent to flag-for-removal any posts which aren't specific or are of a less objective standpoint. Who is on board for this refutation!
  18. It may have been a variant of tadiya seva, which is mentioned in C.C.
  19. In much the same way, local dialects around Vrndavana say, "Vrndravana". Bengalis say rakha instead of raksha for protection. Bengalis also tend to say Brindaban. So it definitely depends on the general region as well as the local placement. (<< this is all a general rule of thumb and not meant to state the exceptions)
  20. Everything, but this, is a valid statement. How can this be stupid? Same thing goes with the Shaivites and Shaktis. All the puranas and upanishads end up saying the same thing, that is ParaBrahman delights in the pleasure of the devotee. Krsna worships Shiva, Shiva worships Krsna. How is this stupid? It makes perfect sense in a dynamic, never ending, pleasing realm of satisfaction.
  • Create New...