sambya

chandu . i was shocked to hear such derogatory remarks from you. initially i thought you to be a bit different from most of the iskconites because you seem to have an understanding of vedas etc. although im a follower of ramakrishna i have a deep respect for anandamayi maa also. i would like to know what have you read about her to comment like that. ecstatic bhava and paranormal incidents are so very common all over the indian religious history. if maa's bhava can be psycological disorders then the same may be said of ramakrishna ,chaitanya, meera, kabir, almost everyone. how can you drag in western psychoanalysis to interpret spiritual bhavas ?? it shows your lack of understanding of the true spirituality.indian spirituality rests on personal experiences that dont conform to western materialism and material science.what explanation does science have for nirvikalpa or savikalpa samadhis ?? i cant understand how a hindu spiritual person can bring in western psycology to evalute saints and devotees. moreover , even if you dont believe in someone what kind of courtsy is it to hurt the belief of numerous others who follow her ?!!! you must pooses this much sense of responsibility . find out more more about anandamayi maa and her techings through wikipedia and other sites and then say what is so non-spiritual about her , if any !!!!

you might try out ramakrishna mission or bharat sevashram samgha. i think the broad outlook of ramakrishna mission might appeal to you.personally i follow its teachings. as of my knowledge a formal initiation is all thats needed to get converted under ramakrishna mission. i dont think that there are any difficult rituals for this here.as you say that you like kali and shakti this might be a really good option for you. but in bharat sevashram( primarily a liberal shaivite society) there are difinite process of conversion that involves some rituals. you can try both of them out. apart from them there are numerous ashrams in india ,, specially in places like hrishikesh and haridwar where im sure there are methods for conversion. can try out anandamayi maa ashram founded on a famous indian lady saint --anandamayi maa. they also have a broad and liberal outlook coupled with deep spiritual insights.try to get some literature from each of such institutions to find out which one suits you most. you might want to practise alone also.but that might prove difficult in long run.sadhana under banner of some institution definitely curtails freedom but prevents self deception and keeps a person orderly and focused with less chances of falldown. everything depends on which part of the world you belong. good if there are some branches of these institutions near your place,or else you might check them out online through google.

oh !! thats a clay deity of durga after the first coat of paint but before the eyes were painted .you can see the ten arms at the back. it was shot by me in candle light this navaratri. incidentally my family celebrates durga puja and ive been making the idol for the last 6 years now,just as a hobby . however the picture didnt come up so good here beacuse of its small size.

although what you say is correct it should be noted that only highly exalted devotees with deep sadhana ia capable of remembering god at the time of death. there is a parable of ramakrishna in this aspect ........... " if you dont teach a parrot harinaam at its young age it shall never learn to speak harinaam later when it grows old. and when the cat catches it can never utter hari's name.instead it would resort to screaching. " if we dont practise sadhana we can never think of god at the final hour.how can a person who did not think of lord when he was healthy and strong think of him when he is diseased and in a painfull state. here a point should be noted. if a person dies uttering gods name or remembering him he is liberated from material bondage , not sent to heavens. in hinduism heaven is merely a starting concept and not the end of spirituality as with christians.it is merely a better and more pleasurable state of existence. the other day i was having a talk with an learned indian sadhu regaurding such topics. the question arose how can a sinfull person get liberated just by uttering lords name before death , when he did no pious or spiritual things all his life ?!!! and if liberation is actually so easy why should the yogis toil so hard? the sadhu informed me of two kinds of muktis.the first one is direct liberation in this very birth.when such a thing happens the brahmarandhra in the top of the skull bursts open and the soul leaves the body.this is nirvana or moksha. the second type of mukti deals with krama-mukti or gradual mukti.most people get this krama mukti. as they have alredy started sadhana they slowly rise to higher and higher levels but might not get direct liberation in this very birth. such noble souls continue their sadhana the next birth and ultimately attain mukti. in a case where such a degraded human utters lords name it should be understood that he is initiated into the process of krama mukti. his next birth would be a better one and of less bondage and more devotional than the previous one.in this sense he is liberated from his previous sinfull life . this would continue till he attains final moksh. another thought might come up . what happens when a highly spiritual person with lots of pious activities and sadhana dies without thinking of god? does he get no liberation. the answer is that the net quality of sadhana and spiritual progress is the main determining factor for liberation. what really matters is the level of conciousness thats there at the time of leaving the body .one might not be exclusively thinking of god but if his conciousness is suficiently purified he is entitled to mukti. this mukti would be krama mukti. similarly a high spiritually advanced person would obviously be entitled to liberation even though he is not conciously thinking of god while dying in middle of sleep. the purity of thought and degree of realization that he have attained would be the key determining factors.obviously he wouldnt turn a ghost.he would be entitled to his karma. another thing that i would like to say is that dreaming of god are no measure to spiritual advancement. although its true that god generally appears to highly fortunate devotees in dreams but in many cases such dreams turn out to be self induced psycological phenomenon where your subconcious thoughts and desires surface up in sleep. mere dreaming of god every day wont help to purify a mind.and without purification there can be no self realization at all.

which sect or fath do you follow chandu ? do you have any inclination towards any saint or doctrine ? im rather curious to know . and would you explain these two words ? firstly ' munafiq ' the second word that i forgot in another thread begining with T . you shall obviously think me to be pretending. but whatever maybe the case im highly curious to know.

lovely !!!! you know this word --- #@ing ?!!!!! you are surely a new definition to spirituality , for having used such words ina spiritual forum. you are indeed the great synthesizer of gross materialism and spirituality.

then your 'perfect' god might submit his name for the upcoming 100 meter race in our locality. that would be indeed a magnificent display of his powers and prove his superiority beyond doubt. BTW , do continue with your tradition of providing us with some light refreshments in the form of your humorous posts in middle of serious discussions. thanks and enjoy.

traditionally the concept of avatar or incarnation of god has been unique to bhakti marg.but in todays hinduism we find most sects accepting avatar. traditionally krishna , ramachandra and buddha has ruled the avatar world for centuries. their avatarhood is affirmed in various shastras and other texts. but historically speaking the actual character is obscured from view by innumerable glorificatory verses and exaggerations. this however , is largely not the case with chaitanya mahaprabhu because of his recent appearence and well documented biographies.although there are shastric verses in many puranas that mention of chaitanya as an incarnation there is a strong speculation regaurding its date of inclusion in the main purana. since puranas were written for over a thousand years(additions and alterations being made) till early 18th century, there is a good chance of those being later additions. now the question that arises is whether only shastric slokas are enough to poove an avatar. or does the person's charisma,influence, spiritual wonders, miraculous feats etc also can act as its indication ?!! secondly there is another difficulty that surfaces.are we to believe that no more avatar are to appear anymore as because they are not specifically mentioned in shastras ? or we should understand that many more avatars are likely to appear because it is stated in bhagavatam that innumerable partial and infinite avatars are coming out every moment. also im rather curious to know the gaudiya vaishnav perspective which states that after chaitanya the holy name and the archa-vigraha are the only avatar.does that imply that no more avatars are to happen.and if it is such then would that mean that god has forsaken us ? wouldnt this be contradictory to the revelation as in bhagavatam mentioning of innumerable avatars ? recently i came across an article which was attempting to define the phenomenon of avatar in modern terms. it began by initially describing the orthodox concept of avatar which indicates avatars to be a descending phenomenon .god comes from higher realms to the lower.so it an act of descend. but this modern view takes its perspective from purely human side.in this theory avatar is a phenomenon of ascend. a rarest of rare individual attains that incredible spiritual hights and becomes termed as an avatar.so its an act of ascend. though this explanation is very pleasing to rationalistic mind it surely fails to satisfy our emotional side which cannot rank an avatar as a human.the moment we accept this theory we no longer think god to assume the shape of a man but tend to create a god out of a man instead. all throughout history we find such avatars are always male.there is no ancient record of female avatar of any devi . as purusha and prakriti are two eternal components of the same truth prakriti is thought to accompany the main avatar or purusha as his wife.in these case it is purusha who causes the descend of the prakriti. but why cant the reverse happen ? we have all seen the pre eminence of prakriti in many places in scriptures.so why cant purusha follow a prakiti's avatar? or is it that our patriarchal society never wanted to recognise female avatar even if she came. there is also another curious theory . avatar as we all know is a puranic word which was non existence in early vedic times.so would that mean that such avatars or godmen never existed at those times ? many scholars say that the rishis and visionaries (mantradrashta) that we come across in vedic texts are actually the same phenomenon as in an avatar. these exceptional men with spellbounding spirituality,impressive authority and mystical powers were also known and recognised in those early days.but the name attributed to the same phenomenon was 'rishi' . today claims at avatar has become very common.so many guru claim to be such !!! but what might be the definite proof of an avatar ? ----can a person's revolutionary socio cultural and religious impact coupled with superhuman realizations and mystical powers be a valid indication to his avatarhood? ----can any more avatar be borne in future ? ----is scriptural evidence an absolute necessary to proove anyone an avatar? discussions and individual opinions are welcomed.

i dont think so .because birth as a deva is situated on a higher platform than birth as a human.through punya karma accumulated as results of pious deeds, a man becomes eligible to attain to the position of devas. human birth is the first chance of realising the supreme.this chance continues in birth as a deva.but in many places we do see them falling down from their ideals due to the abundance of material luxuries thats around them. in such a case although , he shall have to take a lower birth again( maybe human).

but as far as i know there have been numerous hindu monks living within the fold of hinduism<o:p></o:p> with atheistic doctrines.for example charvak samradaya was also atheistic and rejected vedas and such things but at the same time they were not kicked out of hinduism. similarly shankara developed his own monastic order,ramanujaachrya gave his vishistadwita and kapila gave shankha philosophy.in a like manner buddha also was a hindu monk donning saffron but propagating a different philosophy.and as always he wasnt kicked out of hinduism.but his views were so drastically different that it eventually formed a seperate religion.buddha never seperated himself from hindu ways of sannyasa like madhukari, saffron,meditation etc. also , i feel hindu monasticism had existed long before buddha as is evident from historical and scriptural records.buddha himself followed the age old path of sannyasa. but those monks were solitary seekers hiding away from society. proper organised monastic order as we know it today was surely modeled by shankara on the model of buddhist sangha. <o:p></o:p>

oh !! but i thought that it was a very personal bias,otherwise why would you drag in speculations relating to my religion and age from a different thread ? or maybe i totally failed to see through your well intentioned 'friendly' message. i meant the rig veda. rig veda is revelation or not composed by one particular author , you may say. i know that . it was the age old set of slokas of wisdom that was passed down trough generation through ages orally(shruti) untill it was finally codified in form of witting.this first composition of rig vedic hymms might have been done by an individual rishi or a group of sages.but in either case the finall book after completation would have been under the authority of one particular body( a group also acts as a single body) or single authority. even in later days when such scriptures were copied or replicated by other brahmins it would have come under scrutiny of many learned individuals.isnt it highly probable that any inconsistency would have been rectified at this point of time ? but a similar advantage was not there in case of puranas which originated in different parts of the country and additions were made onto it till recent times. but who are you to dictate wherefrom shall i quote ???!!!! it all depends on the people who are viewing this thread to accept or reject. in case you have any objection you are definately free to speak it up( your freedom of expression) but you cannot command anybody or negatively speculate about him. thats against basic moral ettiquetes. honestly speaking im really sorry if ive upset you to such a high degree altough without any significant reason whatsoever. i hence forth i shall not reply regaurding this matter.im tired of such silly things .

aha !! now you get my point.

luckily for me i have had the chance of getting the association of some of the highest bhaktas .many of them were from iskcon. one such devotee currently residing at mayapur is highly respected and admired by me. he is south american by birth and highly elevated soul. one day while speaking about srila prabhupadas contribution towards mankind he bursted into tears of love. his ears and neck region went red and speech started faltering .sensing this he quickly ended the class and fell down to offer dandavat.almost at the same time he exploded into tears of ecstasy .one could see that he was trying so hard to keep them hidden from public veiwing.but no matter how hard he tried he couldnt succeed . seeing his exalted state the other people that were in the room also became spiritually charged and started hiding their tears. i can never forget that. seeing that it at once made me remember ramakrishnas words---- " wherever you see pure ecstasy arising out of prema,where people are dancing laughing ,crying like mad for lord ,know that lord is himself present there." that was really a moment of ecstasy. apart from that i had the privilege to be aqquainted with jananivas and pakajanghri prabhu,both of them well known all over the iskcon world.and the very fact that they recognise me even after long gaps makes me so blissfull. as i am anti iskcon in many ways(i dont share many of their views) such talks from me might make people think that im confused.thats not the case. true devotees as with jananivas prabhu and pankajahngri prabhu can never be confined within the limits of some institution.so although im a believer of ramakrishna vivekananda i look up to them with utmost reverence. respect and harmony were the key words of ramakrishna. thanks bija .

hello chandu !!! i cant uderstand what offended you.... that i qouted from vedas ? beacuse i dared to post here? that i opposed you in you other thread? that i said that muslims are constructors of tsj mahal? i would be really obliged if you directly mention the grudge you have for me. ishall answer by qouting the lines where i 'prooved' it.............. for sake of argument i might accept that rig veda does indicate to incest.even then it should be noted that in the last example between yama and his sister yami incest relationship is specifically stated as forbidden. surely there can be no contradictions in one single book for it would have been always under scrutiny of one single person (the composer himself or the later persons who copied them).therefore it is prooved beyond doubt that incest was never a pratice in aryan society.the so called incidents of 'incest' are in reality misinterpretations of contradictory hindu myths.

i think the shramana buddhism your are talking about is mainly the esoteric buddhism of tibet formerly known as vrajajan. but in the mahayan buddhism there is less of shramana. infact buddhism was a complete new philosophy. just as shankya, nyay , vaisheshika etc sprung up in india at various point of time similarly buddhism also originated as a distinct hindu philosophy thats different from the rest . in this context it should be noted that buddha was an hindu monk in every sense.only his teachings differed a bit from mainstream hindu taught. even his eightfold paths and such concepts were a direct adaptation of hindu thought. its only after his parinirvana that his followers eventually gathered themselves into a seperate religion. i feel buddhism was , in its initial stages just a seperate wing of hindu thought much like the famed but currently extinct charvaks. its true that no religions are seperate but as per my knowledge based on studies of vivekananda , buddhism and hinduism are more intricately linked together than any other faiths . same is the case with crhistianity and judaism.these two pairs are sister religions.

i think the shramana buddhism your are talking about is mainly the esoteric buddhism of tibet formerly known as vrajajan. but in the mahayan buddhism there is less of shramana. infact buddhism was a complete new philosophy. just as shankya, nyay , vaisheshika etc sprung up in india at various point of time similarly buddhism also originated as a distinct hindu philosophy thats different from the rest . in this context it should be noted that buddha was an hindu monk in every sense.only his teachings differed a bit from mainstream hindu taught. even his eightfold paths and such concepts were a direct adaptation of hindu thought. its only after his parinirvana that his followers eventually gathered themselves into a seperate religion. i feel buddhism was , in its initial stages just a seperate wing of hindu thought much like the famed but currently extinct charvaks. its true that no religions are seperate but as per my knowledge based on studies of vivekananda , buddhism and hinduism are more intricately linked together than any other faiths . same is the case with crhistianity and judaism.these two pairs are sister religions.

its true that bhakti yoga is best suited for grihastas. and why only grihastas ,it is the easiest option for most people. but as i said pratically speaking there is hardly anyone who attains to that hieghts from grihasta.he might be a sincere devotee and with firm belief and unparralelled dedication etc etc.but as we all know that these are merely prerequisites for real realization of the supreme. and how far a person has advanced is judged from the quality of his spiritual experiences (for ex satwik bikars when nearing the goal ). that is rarely seen even with sannyasis ,what to speak of grihastas.grihastas quit everything for lord mentally whereas sannyasis quit everything for lord both mentally and physically. and it is also not such big a mistake as you are suggesting because buddism is a direct offshoot of hinduism and cannot be strictly seperated.both these are sister religions who have adapted and borrowed each other's concepts over centuries.any attempt to seperate the two would severely cripple both of them. and since both of them believes in sannyasa and nirvana and such concepts , i guess its not that great a mistake as it would have been , had i commented on islam and hinduism (say for ex) . but obviuosly its my own perspective and there are an infinte number of ways to look at things.

hey chandu !! just relax . whats wrong with you? just because i disagreed with you in some other thread doesnt make you my enemy , right ? why are you attacking me personally ?? thats not logical . and moreover there's nothing bad written about hinduism here . infact all the quotes were used to proove that incest never existed in hindu fold. i cant specify the site now as i dont remember which site i went yesterday.but as far as i can recall it might have been a muslim site. i guess no hindu site would have catogarically presented these 'drawbacks' (although they are not so on further analyzations) in their site .thats why i say it might have been a muslim site.as my own rig veda is not with me currently(its at a friends place) i cannot directly quote till i get it back sorry for that. but what of that ?? even if it was a muslim site isnt it good that i prooved their listings wrong using thier qoutations itself? isnt this a victory for hindus? i just provided those qoutes because sahana was asking for references.but here i must mention that im not someone who have finished studying all four vedas and 18 puranas.im not degrading hinduism.and strangely enough you have recently developed a deep rooted belief that im a muslim just because i fought for taj mahal in other post. now , why would a muslim take so much interest in hinduiism?and in case he does that means he is converted to this faith.and if he is a orthodox muslim why would he glorify hinduism at all? as im not in this forum to search for a date or form a matrimonial alliance i have no reson to lower or increase my age.once again dont misunderstand me chandu.and dont get angry. pranaam.

hi bija , today im really feeling very good. perhaps you are the first person that i have met who has such a broad and devotional attidude towards other paths and at the same time abide by srila prabhupada's teachings. personally i think a few more people like you would completely change the misconceptions that people have regaurding gaudiya vaishnavism. maybe then the real vaishnav dharma of gouranga mahaprabhu would resurface once more. and that you have read and understood ramakrishna inspite of being an adherent of gaudiya vaishnava faith is simply unbelievable. when i used the word 'western' i meant the traditional western thought that gave rise to the concept of religious tolerance.of course todays west is totally different.the number of people respecting(not just tolerating) other faiths is on a phenomenal rise all over the world. i didnt mean to generalise at all . but maybe this ever increasing acceptance of other faiths are a result of drifting away from their own faiths.after all how many christian kids identify themselves with their faith ? after reading through your posts i have found that you sound strangely different from typical gaudiya followers.it really amazing. i will definitely go through the book that you suggested. thousand dandavats to you. your admirer.

religious harmony and mutual respect has been the key word of hinduism. in fact tolerance as used by western people is not a very noble concept at all. when i say i tolerate hindus(for example) i mean that i dont support or like their views but im not raising a voice against them.im just tolerating them . this is not a very noble thought .the highest nobility would be if i say i respect and believe in truth of all religions. hindu scriptures have always stood for this. in the oldest religious book of mankind rig veda we find the famous verse " ekam sat vipra vahuda vadanti " (Rig Veda 1.164.46) ekam - unity ,only sat - eternally existent or perment, truth ,reality vipra - men of knowldge or intelligence, brahmins vahuda - many,numerous vadanti -to speak. the truth is one ,the wise call it by many names. this clearly shows the broadness of hinduism.the truth is one and absolute which is given various names by various people . great saint of modern era ramakrishna paramahamsa has always preached this.its sad that many modern religious movements dont believe in this doctrine at all.

I) Pushan is the lover of his sister [Rg Ved VI.55.4][Apte 11] II)Agni is the lover of his own sister [Rg Ved X.3.3][Apte 11] III) Ashvins are referred to as the sons of Savitar and Ushas who are brother and sister [Apte 11]. IV) The Ashvisns married Surya and Savitri who is their sister [RV I.116.19]. V) Agni is the son of his father and his sister [Rg Ved.I.91.7] VI) Yama wards off his sister Yami, saying marriage between brother and sister is forbidden [R.V.X.10][Apte 11] these are some of the places where the 'incest relationship' might have been suggested as according to the original post.i shall attempt to proove them wrong. i would like to say this to all people here that i dont remember the original text as i read rig veda quite a long time ago.i got these texts from a different source. here one important thing has to be noted . i provided such texts not to question for incest or preach anti hinduism . i did that just for ordinary knowledge. hinduism never supported incest. we all know that hinduism is the result of numerous evolutions and various amalgamations over centuries. so in many places one find contradictory texts.this was more prominent with the absence of any central authority like papacy in case of catholics. for example initially uma was shown as sister of rudra or shiva but strangely in later texts she got recognised as wife of shiva.lack of central authority or public religious conventions( like the buddhist conventions held by harshvardhan) meant that those contradictions never got rectified. these contradictory remarks are misinterpreted by people as incest relationship. for sake of argument i might accept that rig veda does indicate to incest.even then it should be noted that in the last example between yama and his sister yami incest relationship is specifically stated as forbidden. surely there can be no contradictions in one single book for it would have been always under scrutiny of one single person (the composer himself or the later persons who copied them).therefore it is prooved beyond doubt that incest was never a pratice in aryan society.the so called incidents of 'incest' are in reality misinterpretations of contradictory hindu myths.

whatever he said is perfectly correct. right at the begining it has to be remembered that these words are spoken for the highest spiritual aspirants and not for half hearted individuals who just want to follow some society's teachings. while there is no doubt that most people dont just have it in them to choose celibacy it is also an undisputed fact that celibacy is the highest virtue. without celibacy god realization is impossible.infact proper advancement also becomes problamatic. at this point one might ask that many grihastas have been self realized souls,what about them? true,but it has to be remembered that all of them maintened strict celibacy afted giving birth to children.for them sex was never a means for bodily enjoyment.such high people are extremely rare( i doubt whether it exists right now).it is impossible to mary and live with one's spouse and refrain from sexual activities forever in life. in all hindu doctrines celibacy is held to be the highest , but licit sex is given as the next best alternative.both are never held in same virtue. but here it should be noted that being a householder never reduces the eligibility of attaining god by any amount. a grihasta can claim equal right to self realization as a sannyasi. but living inside samsrar is trecherous and falldowns are inevitable. ramakrishna always said that grihasta are equally potent as the sannyasis but he added " if you live in a room made of ink you are bound to get stained ,no matter how carefull you are. " so although therotically reaching the highest platform is possible from grihasta life also , practically it is impossible without sannyasa(in body and mind).that is how brhmachrya is superior to all else. but as long as a person is not attaining to this level of perfect renunciation he is made to live in grihasta.after all how many becomes a true sannyasin????!!!! read the book 'brahmacharya in krishna conciousness' by bhakti vikasa swami of isckon( gave an example according to your beliefs). best of luck.

cant comment on that .that their freedom of belief . and after knowing their ways the love for my own religion has increased tenfold. i am never denying the immunerable cases of unrecorded torture and destruction of temples that hindus had to undergo that time. not at all .it is easily concievable.but i need firm indications so as to belive that it actually happened.for ex a written historical record of such a trident can be a forcefull indication.unless such a thing is available it is mere imagination taj mahal is a term developed by commoners.it was a result of alteration in speech over time.now such alteration is not bound by any rules and regulations. can any logical man say " one cannot omit the first three letters "Mum" from a woman's name to derive the remainder as the name of the building. " that was the point that i wanted to convey. true . highly probable that it would be so.but here im talking of solid indications not hypothesis or assumptions. what made him think that ASI is hiding it in this particular case ? without corrobarating such reasons for suspicion the point remains ordinary speculation. immidiately i can remember of jahangirs tomb , imatuddaullah, sher shahs tomb, tansens tomb at gwalior and of course the much later bibi ka mukbara.i will give some more names later. did you know mumtaz was not buried initially in taj.she was buried originally at buhranpur(as far as i can remember of the name) and later her coffin was taken to be relocated at taj when it was completed. iknow that . in bengal theres a mosque there is a a tiled raodway hwere the tiles are 'U' shaped,it is presumed to be sliced shiva lingams. but that dosent mean that they lacked in culture.their civilization had its own glory.its only that their concept of culture differed to us.hindus held tolerance to be a great virtue but mohammedans held forcefull or willfull conversion as highest instead. sorry as i didnt notice your 3rd post while answering previously. once again i dont doubt the possibility of the point raised by oak.it might have been the case.but the probality is very less.and as i said before , the other hypothesis that it is a product of indo islamic art is better fitting.so there is no point in following the second leaving out the first one.

ranjeet , please specify the text number that you have quoted along with its original sanskrit form, not the tampered translation.

bravo ranjeet ! you have finally started reading !!!!!!!!!. now continue that to the principle upanishads and 18 main puranas ,four vedas , shandilya bhakti sutra, vedanta sutras and a few of similar compositions , a couple of tantra nigamas to check out yourself if i have said anything wrong.although im not sure if jagadguru has published commentaries on all such texts. in case he has not you can check out gita press or othrs. best of luck