Narasingh

Narasingh,

I think a few clarifications are in order: 1. I am not a follower of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu but I do like certain paintings of Sri Krishna. 2. It is not my intention to convince my brother of anything but to make an adequate defense of Truth. If that somehow or another plants a seed which sprouts into deeper thinking at some future point - so be it. I am not out to convert him at all and that attitude would only confirm what many Christians already fear - that Hindus, Buddhists, etc. have that agenda 3. I am not stuck on names, idioms, words, etc. I prefer to use the revealed names of Sri Vishnu and I think it would be presumptuous of me to go beyond that. My only issue with the names of Jehovah and Allah are that they are inexorable with the Bible and the Koran, both of which call for the slaughter of innocents and describe Jehovah and Allah as jealous and disgusted with the worshipers of images. That being said, I have no doubt that the same being which resides in me resides equally within everyone including Christians and Muslims, many of which are no doubt more pious than I am. That doesn't change in the least any of my arguments against the teachings of the Abrahamic literatures - which should be subjected to moral scrutiny. To reiterate - my views are based upon what I think are dangerous and morally flawed teachings. I am trying to do philosophy here - if that makes me like "any other bigot" in your eyes - so be it. Unless you want to address those issues and the other points which I raised (i.e. Zeus, Odin, Elvis Presley and Sai Baba) then I should put down my pen now since I am just spinning my wheels.

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.

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

Smiley, a friend posted this to me. Let me know what you think.

The excerpts you posted show that this person has a very limited understanding of Hinduism and Buddhism, and therefore, we can assume, know very little of what he is talking about, i.e., yoga. For that reason, we can safely assume that he may also not know what yoga leads to.

 

Some of the mistakes he makes:

 

1. Not all Hinduism is the same as Shankara's idealist monism. In fact, the Yogasutras of Patañjali are neither idealistic nor monistic, and they strongly support the notion of surrendering to God (Isvara -- the same term that Christians in India today use for God).

 

2. The Self is not termed Brahman in Hinduism, neither is it called Nirvana in Buddhism.

 

3. None of the traditional yoga scriptures agree with what he says is the purpose of asanas and breath excersises. According to Patanjali (YS 2.48), asanas should lead to freedom from the oppression of dualities (cold/ heat, pleasure/ pain), so as to facilitate meditation etc.

 

4. How has he proved that the Hindu gods are demons? He cannot refer to the Bible, because then you can just as easily refer to the Vedas. If he has not proved that, he cannot prove that mantras invoke demons.

 

5. The effect of Yoga cultures-paragraph is completely false. In fact, there have been hospitals in India at least from the time of Ashoka (304-232 BC). Also, the Yogasutra (1.33) explicitly say that the yogi should cultivate compassion towards the suffering. Again, not all of Hinduism is idealist, in fact most Hindu philosophers are realists. And if you wish to use the present poverty of India as an illustration of the evils of Hinduism, you must be able to explain how many strongly Christian countries in Africa (e.g. the Congo) are faring even worse.

 

6. Where is the evidence that yoga leads to loose morals? Instead, we have plenty of evidence to show that the so-called Bible Belt fares worse than the rest of the USA in many "moral" issues. For a recent example, see

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1668...-consumers.html

We can "suppose" all kinds of things but pure speculation does not bring us closer to the truth. Does the Shiva Purana describe the pastimes of Sri Vishnu? Are these the pastimes of Sri Vishnu?! Sri Vishnu can be distinguished by His qualities; if those don't matter then what about Zeus, Odin, Sai Baba or Elvis Presley? To define is to exclude - otherwise definitions become gibberish.

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

We must reason constructively: There is only One God.

Fact is, there is no evidence that in fact Allah or Jehovah are names of Vishnu or Krishna and they are certainly not found amongst the thousands of names of Vishnu mention in the Vedic shastra.

In christianity,God is just a provider.You give me happines here on earth,i will give you prayers and maybe some tears.

But such a God might as well be called a demon by the Hindus.

Why?,you should ask.

 

You yourself believe that Yoga,mediation,etc. is like calling the devil.You yourself accept that the yogis of the himalaya region can perform some extraordinary feats.Thus you obviously conclude it as devil's work..Like a pact,you say..the devil's pact.Pact means bilateral trade.

I give this to you,

you give that to me.

 

So the Christian God is nothing but the devil,by your own logic.The promise of heaven and protection and eternal life,etc.etc.

 

You may defend this by saying,"Heaven is good so Our Lord,Jesus is not the devil."

Due to this,even i proclaim that Sri Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead who is described as all-auspicious and has under His control,Innumerable planets which are all spiritual,full of bliss and eternally lit by His own effulgence.

Due to this,I'm led to not blast the Christian God,for there is only one God,who manifests Himself in the Most attractive form of Sri Krsna.

 

Sri Krsna is revealed as "Our Lord,God" in the west and as Himself in Bharatavarsa...This is due to the immense revealing nature of the vedas.

 

You may call our lack of enthusiasm for christianity as consorting with some bogus devil,but in reality,all we want to say is that,Your religion is too primitve,basic and crude for the vedic followers.

A variant to expose how a bigot might talk.

I would suggest you just ignore and avoid these Hare Krishna bigots.

You cannot open their eyes, inform them, educate them or help them understand.

 

They are the demons and you should just avoid them and not waste any time or energy arguing or debating with them.

 

Spend your time helping the innocent and sincere.

Don't waste your time on these demons in the guise of religionists.

 

They are idol worshipping heathens with no regard for the Bible.

 

Avoid them like a plague and spend your energy getting some Christian books into the hands of open-minded people.

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 would suggest you just ignore and avoid these Christian bigots.

 

You cannot open their eyes, inform them, educate them or help them understand.

 

They are the demons and you should just avoid them and not waste any time or energy arguing or debating with them.

 

Spend your time helping the innocent and sincere.

Don't waste your time on these demons in the guise of religionists.

 

They are meat-eating melecchas with no sympathy for innocent creatures.

 

Avoid them like a plague and spend your energy getting some KC books into the hands of open-minded people

It seems that since India has changed the name "Calcutta" to Kolkata and Bombay to Mumbai, it is about time they stopped referring to Vedic culture as Hinduism and the followers as Hindu.

Calcutta= Kolkata

Bombay = Mumbai

Hindu = Sindhu

The whole idea of lumping Buddhism and Hinduism into some homogeneous group betrays the ignorance of the person who does so.

 

Buddhism is about spiritual suicide.

There really is no such thing as Hinduism.

 

Your can't lump Shankarites and Vaishnavites into one broad spectrum called Hinduism.

They are polar opposites.

 

So, trying to talk philosophy with a braying Jackass is useless.

 

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.

Sonic Yogi, First read the opening post before stating your intentions. You are argumentative, and lack the capacity to understand contextual circumstances. Kanistha Kanishta.

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?

Thank's Smiley, I will take your advise. Any others?

Can you provide for the Indr font link? I have a Devanagari font installed but it is comingup without. Thanks

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:

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”.

It is common knowledge that the process of elimination is a particularly helpful exercise in discovering what something is. The objective process of elimination, when applied to the nature of suffering and attachment leads one to nirvana (more literally without a jungle of entanglement).

Attachment, when misdirected, is the root cause of many pains. In the Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2 verses 62 and 63, attachment is shown to be the root of sadness, anger, jealousy, envy, and bewilderment. If this is disagreeable, I encourage the reader to analyze this for themselves. It remains true, that misdirected attachment causes the aforementioned undesirable traits. Examples can be a childhood crush not reciprocated, the cherished object lost or stolen, or a lover having lost their beloved. All these incorporate attachment in their existential fabric.

Is detachment bad? It depends. Yes, it can serve to distance one from the apparent needs of others. However, I ask you, “is it the man who is detached from their own desires who is more likely to hurt others, or the man who is detached from others’ desires?” A person who is detached from their socially taught and acquired desires, such as brand-name clothes, fast cars, members of the opposite sex as objects of enjoyment etc… will likely be a more valued communal asset. Selfish motivations will be unheard of. It is detachment which needs to be defined. The accusation that meditation leads to detachment may or may not be a negative accusation. Greed can also cause detachment.

Eastern Philosophies such as Hinduism and Buddhism urge the practitioner to perform introspection in order, not to encourage greed, but, to encourage selflessness and compassion; to see the nature of desire and be objective about it. It is virtually unheard of for a sincere practitioner of Eastern philosophy to hate based on physical characteristics. The Bhagavad Gita 5.18 goes so far as to validate one who sees, with equality, animals and humans of all different categories.

 

 

From "behind-the-tm-facade.org"

While TM is a relatively new form of Hindu based practice, it draws its inspiration from the age old practices Dhyana Yoga, or meditation. I don’t intend to address the pros or cons of TM in particular being that TM and most other meditative practices try to exclude themselves from Hinduism, but to address the merits and otherwise of the purpose behind meditation and other Eastern based philosophies. Dhyana Yoga is one of the six foundational schools or structures of Hindu philosophy; these being, Sankhya, Yoga (Dhyana), Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa, and Vedanta. All of these schools are structured to encourage an awareness 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 include that Buddhism (which began in India) draws much of its foundation from Hindu values. Dhyana, after all, is the root of Zen. 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. It is this questioning which encourages a thoughtful approach to intended actions and strives to remove action from a purely reflexive response.

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.

 

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.

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.

Here is a little of my attempt. I look forward to critique.

From "behind-the-tm-facade.org"

From a review of the literature on meditation and depersonalization, and interviews conducted with six meditators, this study concludes that: 1) meditation can cause depersonalization and derealization; 2) the meanings in the mind of the meditator regarding the experience of depersonalization will determine to a great extent whether anxiety is present as part of that experience; 3) there need not be any significant anxiety or impairment in social or occupational functioning as a result of depersonalization; 4) a depersonalized state can become an apparently permanent mode of functioning; 5) patients with depersonalization disorder may be treated through a process of symbolic healing -- that is, changing the meanings associated with depersonalization in the mind of the patient, thereby reducing anxiety and functional impairment; 6) panic/anxiety may be caused by depersonalization if catastrophic interpretations of depersonalization are present.

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:

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”.

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!

The stupidity is in differentiating with name and form and saying this god is superior to that, on which this arguement is based.

 

I agree with you that this divine leela is what creates experiences in which the parabrahman rejoices.

 

Being the only guy in a Whole Universe is tough otherwise.

It may have been a variant of tadiya seva, which is mentioned in C.C.

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)

Consider me on board!

Even if we do consider puranas, they are at logger heads with one another. If it is believed that <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place> worshipped a shiva linga...Immediately some krishna premi will say will say that God worships his devotee. Actually krshna is supreme.. Dont you see the stupidity of it all??