sambya

i just came across a writing that the early exponents of gaudiya vaishnav thought adopted the tilak of madhva sampradaya but eventually did away with they central black line(running between the parrel white ones)which used to be drawn from the ashes of nitya homa,because they laid more stress on naam yagna than direct fire sacrifice.but why did they they abondon the red dot below the black one symbolising laxmi and added their own tulasi leaf in stead.if devotion to one's sampraday is of so importance did'nt this act amount to disrespect for ones disciplic lineage??

one of the most derogatory propaganda's of twentieth century is the theory of aryan invasion of india.it all began when early20th century historians,who were heavily influenced by christian faith and notions of european superiority devised the aryan invasion theory.in this it was hypothecated that the bearers of vedic knowledge were in fact a sopisticated white skinned brown haired nomadic tribes who attacked the uncivilized,barbaric dravidian occupants of the primitive india and thus the country got its first civilization(imported). we all know that religion is always the bearer of culture and in the case of sanatan dharma vedas are the root of our religion.so it became the matter of utmost importance that the hindus be discredited of their shinning past and the vedas and make them remain as demoralized as before in order to retain the british grip over the vast subcontinent.this was very similar to the policy of divide and rule.so this absurd theory was formed. the texts and writtings of any race constitute the biggest source of information about themselves,just as in the case of egypt.but in this case,inspite of no direct mention of a large migration anywhere in the early texts it was formulated.if aryans were nomadic tribes in rugged terrain of central asia what for they would have needed those chariots which is abundantely mentioned all over.chariot is essentially a urban vehicle of the plains.thankfully the later discovery of the spectacular indus civilization prooved this point beyond doubt the existence of a vast and superior culture millenia before the aryans 'entered' within the very soil of india.anthropologicaly aryans are one of the most superior primal races of mankind so attempt to link them to ones lineage has continued since history right down to hitler. early reformers like swami vivekananda and dayanand saraswti raised the first voice against this false claim and called upon the nation to wake up and write their own history from their own prespctive.later numerous other scholars questioned its validity.if they did come from outside india then why the historians are not being able to say from where.it is a well reasearched fact that numerous latin and persian words have their root in sanskrit,which is regaurded as mother of languages.by this some historians wants to suggest that aryans were outsiders.isnt it more feasible that the indigenous aryan culture of india influenced the rest of the world? and specially when the other paraphernalias of aryans like vedas and varanshram are not found anywhere else. another cause put forward by this theory is that indus valley people knew no use of horse which is why the aryans razed them to ground and overtook them.but subsequent seals unearthed from archaelogical sites show horses in them and modern reaserch has indicated natural disaster to be the probable cause of their dissapearence.the area of indus valley was heavily forested in those days with tigers and rhinos moving around,which has dramatically changed to arid desert now.isnt it more probable that some flood or deluge took place at that time as an external symptom of the sudden climate change? keeping in mind these thoughts the correct hypothesis of a prudent mind would be that the flourising indus civiloization declined(not perished)due to natural factors and again resurfaced with much clearer and refined thougths at a later period.assuming this ,it would be easy to understand the strange similarities in the religion,behaviour,dresses and manners of these two giants of mankind. sadly the school textbooks in india is still laden with these victorian propagandas.its time to realize our superiority and antiquity and shake off these prejudiced notions,for unless we realize the strength of our culture we can never be proper believer in our faith.and faith we all know is the start of realization.

dear mahaprabhu, i'll definitely get you their disciplic chart (they have it framed) when i visit the place next(my relatives house that is).as navadwip is quite near to my place and i shall try to get one from the numerous goswami families out there.historically a century or so after the dissapearrence of mahaprabhu the central vaishnav authority got split up in numerous sects and were independently practised by each of such families.but after a few generations most deviated from the original vaishnav path.later tantric and regional influences also severely plagued this movement.in early colonial bengal vaishnav came to meant as half educated,wandering couples in ochre robes begging alms by singing beutiful songs.but things changed with advent of bhaktisiddhanta saraswati and srila prabhupad who restructured the entire school and saved it from extinction.but i suggest not to say of your interest in such things to your iskcon authorities,for in all probalities they would not take them in a very good light.

Many of u want to establish your viewpoint by refering to scriptures. in this context i'm curious to know what do you actually mean by scriptures.does that list include bhagavatam,charitamrita,gita and isopanishad and drop out everything else ? if you take the pains of reading through even a few of the 16 puranas(not to mention the other upa puranas),108 upanishads, the four principal vedas,64 tantras,and numerous other commentaries and books you would immediately find that that those very devas are also equally glorified in some of these.

its absolutely true that nirvana and prema bhakti are not the same experience.neither do a vishnu bhakta get a darshan of shiva nor a shiva bhakta of vishnu.that is becouse,lord manisfested to his devotee in the form that they desired respectively.the end experience is not the same because each of them got an aspect of the totall truth.for bhaktas its the madhurya ras and for gyanis it is the nirvana feeling. and as god is rasa-swarup he maintains numerous relationshipa with everyone.he is mother to some(durga)lover to some(krishna) and yogi to some(shiva) and so forth.but at the end the main root is essentially the same. there is indeed no limit to god.and that is precisely the reason you cannot say that yours is the only path.for example if i say god is only personal and not impersonal then im denying his feture of 'impersonality' .that would limit him.as he cannot be limited he is both personal and impersonal at the same time.so claiming that he is only personal would limit him and would not make him 'infinite'. thats the logic behind yato mat tato pat.

some might object in my explanation of the slokas,but i should inform that these thoughts are not formulated by me and is from a advaitic standpoint. and indeed some slokas need to be interpreted not just in literal sense but also in its emotional aspect.just like in purusa shukta there is no mention of vishnu at all yet we percieve him as vishnu.taking literally that would mean another god--purusha.isnt it?as the saying goes, 'bhavagraahi janardan'(janardan always considers the bhav or feelings that you harbour for him)

Dear bee, its wonderfull to see someone sharing the same thoughts as me.it is a undisputed fact that every individual likes to see his ishta dev(chosen diety) as the highest.there's no harm in that and in fact it solidifies one's love towards his ishta.but in most cases this developes into a fanatical race for supremacy between different groups. one must understand that god is essentially one and he is someone beyond our conceptions.judging by as much we could grasp of him,we alot him different names.ramakrishna used to give his famous parable of blind persons trying to know what a elephant is.one who felt its ears thought it to be like fan,one who touched the legs thought it like pillars and so on.none were totally wrong,yet none were totally right. we,with our limited senses can never fully comprehend his nature. qotations from shastra to justify a particular deity is always misleading.different scriptures glorify different gods by piling all the highest virtues on each one of them.the underlying truth is that they are all manifestation of the same truth. and now comes the question so as to why krishna,being the purna avatar,denounced the worship of other gods in gita?the meaning of this text should be taken not literally.what he is condemming is not their worship,but the prayers of material prosperity,money,sex,etc that almost immediately follows their worship.generally a person would worship laxmi for wealth,wouldnt they?it is this dangerous mentality,which retards ones spiritual progress,that krishna wants to leave aside. from the point of advaita vedanta a demigod worship is when you perform it with material cravings and such mentalities.it shows that you are far from spirituality. and true worship is when you do it in pusuit of truth and spirituality.such worship can be offered to any deity,but viewing him as the supreme brahman or ultimate truth.in other words you must accept him as the supreme and attribute all the highest virtues to him.the moment you take him in material perspective(say as god of fire etc) or pray for material benedictions you enter into the realm of demigod worship. similarly when krishna says that surrender onto me it means,absolute surrender to god for spiritual attainment.it does not mean surrendering only to krishna and to nobody else.if the latter was true then that would imply that all other faith systems are totally wrong.question may arise that if nothing in this world happens without god's will then how come such false religions are surviving on earth for so long? it means god definately has a positive reason and wish to make these religions exist. this is the interpretation of the sloka from advaitic viewpoint.but some other sects like to take it in literal sense.they dont belive in the fact that the same truth is being searched by men of different faiths through different paths. i would suggest to find out which diety you are naturally inclined to,and after having done that,stick to him for your sadhana.dont change your ishta,for forcefull alteration of a river's course could spell havoc. jay radhe...

'Destination' means reaching the end of spiritual realisation.According to all schools of Hindu philosophy destination is reached in actual realisation of god(be it prema bhakti or nirvana).Now according to your view there are multiple destinations(multiple end points)for different paths.That would imply that truth or god is mutiple.Surely truth cannot be more than one.God is truth and god is absolute,to that we all agree.Absolute truth cannot have a dual existence,can it?? That again prooves that paths are different but goal has to be same.Yato mat tato pat !!!

Ramakrishna paramhamsha,formulated the theory of 'yato mat tato mat' , which means that there are numerous views reguarding the truth(god) and all of them are like different path ways to reach him.According to this veiw if any individual confidently believes in his own path and treads it with perfect purity and sincerity he can attain the truth.This is essentially a typicall advaitic concept which have been indicated by ancient Indian sages like Sankracharya,when he wrote numerous hyms and praises to various deities,but with same respect.But Ramakrishna was first to publicly preach such a concept. When Ramakrishna appeared hinduism was in an advanced state of decay.Internal strifes and numerous sects had destroyed its structure,the advaantage of which were being reaped by the christian missionaries.At this crucial juncture he came forward to harmonise all major religions through this theory.Incidentally he was the first man to speak of religious tolerance and universal truth of all major faiths in the world.Later this thought inspired numerous intellectuals of the world like Rabindranath Tagore ,Romain rolland ,Max muller etc. Ramakrishna in one of his parables speak of a water tank,out of which four different man of different faiths are drinking water-the christians are calling it water,muslims say 'pani' hindus say it as 'jal',while some others speak of it as aqua.But the thing is essentially the same. This is summarized in his theory of yato mat tato pat. Another famous parable that he preached, and which was used later by a lot of other spiritual leaders, was that of four blind persons trying to understand what an elephant is.As none of them had ever seen one before they began to feel it-one who felt the ears said that an elephant is like a fan.One who felt the legs thought it to be like pillars and one who felt the trunk thought it to be like a pipe.Mo one is wrong , but no one is correct either. Same is our understanding of the lord.We can never grasp him in totallity,for we are impaired by our material senses.But whatever little we know of him its truth,although partial truth. He also said that although all these ways are true,there are some easier ways and some harder ones,some that are dirty,some clean . He considered bhakti yoga to be the most fitting of our age. Ramakrishna mentioned that although ways are numerous one should not try every one of them.He must stick to his own chosen ideal with the perfect sincerity,comparable to a chaste lady serving her husband.But he should not denounce others faith and beliefs. In this age of religious intolerance it is highly advisable to mould our lives as per his instructions.Many hindu sects have disrespect for his noble thoughts and publicly deride himTo such ignorant people i would like to ask one question....if you do not belive in yato mat tato pat whats your belief? Is it one mat only path or something like that ?? Does it imply that except the ones following your path the rest are suppossed to rot in hell?????

IS VISHNU,KRISHNA,DURGA,SHIVA,LAXMI AND RADHA THE SAME PHENOMENON? It is said in the vaishnav doctrines that lord shiva is an expansion of vishnu himself.and vishnu is non different from krishna.Next, puranas and tantras reguard durga(shakti) and shiva to be abhed(without distinction).Puranas state that laxmi is an expansion of durga or shakti.It also mentions that laxmi incarnated in this material world as tulsi.So indirectly durga and tulsi is the same concepts.Then again durga and krishna are inseparable(shakti and shaktimaan).Vaishnavs claim radha to be superior to durga,but in puranas like markendaya and devipuran radha is durga's expansion.And again radha and krishna together is the whole. So in the end all ends up to be the representations of the same reality.

There are lots of hindu movements operating worldwide.ramakrishna mission is the oldest of this and credit goes to them for having ressurected the failing hindu monastic system.they follow 'gyan mishra bhakti' , meaning bhakti coupled with advaitic insight.that what makes them so broad minded,unlike hare krishnas.then there is also the bharat sevashram order,founded by a shaivite monk,famous for their charitable work.i would advise not to go in sai baba cult but you can definately try out with the recent 'art of living' guys.

Celina ,I think you didnt catch my meaning.I am not speaking about the exclusivism and collectivist mindset of hindus.Every individual has the right to profess hinduism or sanatan dharma.In fact its the duty of every man to follow dharma.But what i mean to say is that spiritual knowledge or enlightment is not for the masses. Only very elevated soul nearing their liberation actually recieves that knowledge.While the rest speculate and try to practise religion.Hindu doctrines recognized this and so it is said that brahma jignyasa(inquiry into the nature of the self) indeed strikes a few persons.Rest are contended in merely practising their faith.This is also mentioned in gita. Sanatan dharma recognised that not all people are eligible to tread the spiritual path.So for them numerous yagnas and rituals were suggested which would increase their merits(punya) and so that eventually all of them comes to the point of brahma jignyasa,if not in this birth,maybe in future ones. And as reguards my opinions and veiwsIi must say im largely influenced by vivekananda.So my views are largely expansions of his ideas reguarding hinduism. By the way,i respect your strong unflinching devotion to your belief.

what i mean to say is , are their paths absolutely wrong according to your perspective?and will that imply that only your path holds the key to gods kingdom ? i desire a straightforward answer.

it is highly unwise to comment on someone without reading properly about him.i would like to ask those who derogate ramkrishna as to how many books on him or his sayings have they actually read. none, i can bet. i would humbly request all such persons to actually read about him and his sayings .im sure that you would come to differ once you have finished doing that.he was indeed one of the greatest mystics that india has ever produced. he had proper bonafide succession(puri sampradaya of sankaracharya).he was not just a kali devotee as it is generally portrayed.in fact if you read through the 'gospel of ramakrishna' you will find more references of chaitanya and krishna than kali. and when he said that only harinaam wont help he also added that longing and crying for god is to be accompanied with it.why is that not mentioned in the post??? it is absolutely useless to srgue with such people who derogate him.do these guys know his list of admirers and followers??rabindranath tagore,mahatma gandhi,netaji subhas chandra bose,max mueller,romain rollan,indira gandhi,jwaharlal nehru,aldous huxley,christopher isherwood, leo tolstoy,sarvapalli radhakrishnan,sree aurobindo to name a few that i can remember.were these people dodoheads to accept him without verification? and also his theory that yato mat tato pat is very true indeed.opposite would mean one mat and one pat(only one exclusive way to truth).so if you dont believe yato mat tato pat you must be a follower of the opposite.dont you think that this sounds so horribly fanatical like the medieval christian missionaries???? please read at least a few of his sayings before blasphemising him.ignorace is the cause of hatred(in fact all vices). haribol.

Isnt calling durga by the term 'demi god' a big mistake? durga is krishna's vahiranga shakti.prabhupad said that durga is the supreme power (SHAKTI)and krishna is the supreme powerfull(SHAKTIMAAN) and that there is no strict difference between the two , in his 'krishna' book. so if you label durga as demigod u automatically label a part of krishna as demigod.as we all know demigods are not perfect it also implies that krishna becomes imperfect by this principle. and can anyone who is imperfect be termed as godhead??? how,then can you call her a 'demigod' ?

The most important feature distinguishing a salagram from other stones is the circular chakra mark(geologically ammonite fossils)found on it.In olden days , when there was an abundance of such stones on the holy river gandaki only the best of the stones were collected for puja.And as a rule these stones always had a circular opening on them , revealing an inner cavity with the chakra markings. All ancient silas have such openings on them and depending on the number of chakras,size of the openings,size of the silas,its texture,colour etc each sila was given a name(damodar,sridhar,nrisimha etc) But sila search over thousands of years have almost extinguished that stock of beautifull,shiny,smooth salagrams. Todays salagrams are most bizzare shaped. i dont intend to disrespect salagrams(for it is lords direct manifestations),but just describing the facts.But so long it has a chakra it is a salagram . But to my amazement I saw that in iskcon many devotees worship silas with no chakra.This is absolutely not recomended in shastra.One prabhuji also said that silas can be without chakras !! Can someone well versed in iskcon's principles tell me the scriptural basis of such a wierd practice? Which sloka tells us about a salagram having no chakra?

so if you disagree 'yato mat tato pat' then whats your veiw? one mat and the only pat??? what becomes of the muslims,christians and numerous other sects? they rot in hell,right??do you mean to say that gaudiya vaishnavism is the only path? doesnt that sound like the medieval christian missionaries who wants to deliver the world? do you at all have an answer?????????

durga is an exception to this mahat tattva law.for durga in her form as yogamaya is the cause of lord vishnu's sleep,called yoganidra.that is why in markendaya puran we find that brahma is invoking the goddess and requesting her to leave vishnu's body so that he might be able to fight off the demon brothers-madhu and kaitav.it's obvious that one whose existence is merely within the sleep of vishnu cannot be influential enough to cause that sleep itself.

What absolute idiocy to refer to durga as demigod !! leaving aside all other scriptures if i go by gaudiya vaishnav philosophy,then durga is the bahiranga shakti of krishna. now you are calling her a demigod.then it also implies that a certain portion of krishna's energy becomes demigod. As we know demegods are not perfect it also implies then that krishna is not perfect(having durga as his shakti). NOW WOULD YOU CALL ANYONE WHO IS NOT PERFECT GOD??? do you know what srila prabhupad said about durga?he said that durga is the supreme enrgy(shakti) while krishna is the supreme powerfull(shaktimaan)and that there is no strict difference between the two(refer krishna book). how can purusa and prakriti be differentiated?calling durga demigod,my friend you stand a chance of offending krishna himself(she is his own shakti) Are you aware of the different forms of durga?? here are a few: naarasinghi(half lady half lion,shakti of nrisimhadev) vaaraahi(shakti of varaha avatar) narayani(seated on garuda,shakti of narayan) subhadra(sister of krishna himself whom all vaishnavs worship) and you calll her a demigod!!!! did you know that nityananda prabhu's father worshipped durga in his home(the deity is still there in bengal) ? moreover i have objections with this word 'demigod'. yes,everyone wants to see his chosen diety as highest but why derogate others??? demigod originally means divine beings like yakshas,kuveras,gandharvas,apsaras etc.the word 'deva' never means 'demigod'.if you at all have to use such concepts then why not use terms like 'lessor god' ?

India is the land of spirituality.It is the essential life force for the entire of the hindu race.No faith system is so strong and unconquerable as hinduism(used in sense of sanatan dharma) is. As the hindus were a civilized race before anyone else, they knew everything about cultivation and hence did not have to waste time in defence or gathering food.That precious time they gave in speculating about htis cosmos and its creator.Thus they discovered those wonderfull eternal principals long before anyone even got a idea of it. In India a ordinary illiterate farmer knows a lot more about god than any other part of the world. It is that land which gave birth to buddhism,jainism,sikhism,sufism,etc.Perhaps this is indeed lords chosen land. Throughout history India is the country who taught religion to others.Its religion(remember buddhism is a off shoot of hinduism) even captured china,who already had such a strong culture.Buddhism also shaped the christian thought.In fact modern theories suggest jesus to gather his ideas in India .It even moulded the strong islamic faith into sufism. India is the fountainhead of spirituality.For that reason may be lord appears more in this land than others.Also other races frequently denounce the avatars,making them unrecorded in history. And dont you think god is too scared to alight in other places,lest they crucify him again.he he

There is only one hindu nation because hindus never undertook to preach or convert.The first missionary activities started with budhism,which spread even to alexandria and china. Hindus always belived that spirituality is for a chosen few(truth seekers) while commoners were advised to follow dharma and merit gaining rituals(punya karma).They also had this broad universal outlook which made them realise that all paths ,if properly adhered to, is essentially true.That is why hindus accepted budda as god,even though he criticised vedas,wheras jews killed jesus just because he said something new!!That is why the original persians(zorastrianism by faith)found home only in india.Its due to same cause that the tormented jews were left untouched in this country .Even now,in modern times india has shown its broadness by accepting tibetan buddhists in their soceity. It is indeed a miracle that the hindus have survived such various onslaughts without a preaching mechanism. It is testimony to the truth that they are indeed lords chosen ones.

proper hinduism does not have anything that can be termed as primitive.it may appear as primitive to a few overly rationalistic people,but it does have a far greater underlying truth to it.even the catholics kiss their crosses and kneal in front of mary,only they are afraid to admit it.we hindus are not hypocrites and admit our idolatry.in fact it is not idolatry at all. hinduism is a vast religion having enough space for everyones beliefs.it has within its fold all kinds of worship-worship with form.formless woship,theist philosophies,agnostic doctrines.no religion ever provides such a varied option of faith.this is not a negative point of hinduism, its a positive virtue.it understands that no two persons can worship the same god.everyones conceptions about god vary according to their natures.

namaste radha mukunda, i do not disrespect tulsi.i believe that even materiallists should not disrespect tulsi owing to its medicinal properties.i have 15 tusi devi's in my home for salagram archan,and this year i toured muktinath(to see the abode of salagrams). and its perfectly true that indians are overtly proud of their nation.and why shouldnt they?its the oldest surviviung culture in the world which survived every possible attacks(greeks ,macedonians,buddisht revolution,tartars,persian raids,muslim autocracy,christian missionaries,portugese colonisation,dutch attacks,french imperialism,british raj etc etc) and still survives unscathed.there's no denying that indian thought is most near to perfection than other thought systems,its religion most mystical and wide than any other. its obvious that indians are more proud of their culture with 6000 years of heritage than americans with only 500 years of heritage. im not derogating america but justifying our pride in our heritage. and there was certain definite reason so as to why vivekananda promoted nationalism along with spirituallity.one must remember that the period in which he was born there was hardly any self respect left in any indians mind.600 years of muslim domination and ongoing british missions completely degenerated them. few handfull indians who got western education became so inclined towards western thought that they broke away from hinduism.brahmo movement etc are all proof of this. in a time when indians were third class citizens in their own land and could not rise above a clerical post in public service (inspite of having required degrees) one cannot expect them to love their culture.they totally lost faith in themselves,to top it all numerous sects and samprdayas had split up hinduism and all of them were busy ascertaining thier own beliefs and were fighting among themselves.meanwhile the missionaries took advantage of the situation and began their conversion process by thousands(specially in south). is it possible for such a dying race to take pride in themselves or even feel that their religion is true?obviously no!! and without being convinced of ones religion can anybody pursue it? at this crucial juncture vivekanda wanted to show the spiritual supremacy of indians.but the greatest obstacle in that path was the incredibly low self esteem of the indians themselves.that is precisely why vivekananda started an agressive nationalistic and spiritual campaign.without a minimum moral upliftment no race can believe in themselves,which is the first step in spirituality.vivekananda and his teachings have to be analyzed from a 19th century perspective. without him where would hinduism and india stand today?western people would still think them to be half tribal fakirs with opulent maharajas,snake charmers,tigers,elephants,lost temples and terrible gods.india coould have never attained political freedom(almost all nationaists derived their inspiration from him).hinduism would have collapsed under the intellectual brahmo and suchlike movements(remember almost all educated and intellectual heads joined such movements) and state sponsored christian missionary activities.hindus would have been reduced to the status of primitive nature worshipping race.

EXTENSION TO MY PREVIOUS POST:Question may arise as to why then chaitanya mahabrabhu criticise advaita? I believe that no avatar ever condemms any original vedic ritual.What they attempt at doing is to remove the prevailing adharma and misconceptions. When he descended the condition of India(specially Bengal) was very bad . Most of the common folks had no conception of dharma or religion, and the pundits and brahmins busied themselves in endless arguments,scriptural debates and supressing the common folk.They totally forgot that shastras are for realizing god,not for debates and dry mental speculation.Most of these pundits adhered to advaitic faith,without any realizations. In advaita one is not suppossed to say aham brahmasmi(im brahman) untill reaching the perfectional state. For as long as u are on the dualistic or dvaita plain you are never brahman.but those pundits led a perfectlly material life and when challenged,said "its not we who are doing it,its brahman".this was the condition of advaita in those days. In order to eradicate the deep rooted ills that have penetrated into the society through advaita it was obviously essential tocondem it.

When some vaishnav scholars derogate devi they overlook the varahi(shakti of varaha),naarasinghi(shakti of narasimha),idrani(shakti of indra),narayani(shakti of narayan) and many other suchlike dities.These deities all proove that devi is the para prakriti,other side of purusa. By derogating the energy(shakti) you derogate the energetic(shaktimaan) and commit an offense. if you say that durga or yogamaya is demigod then you are reducing the the energy of krishna to the level of demigod.Then krishna himself fail to qualify as godhead.For someone whose one half is demigod cannot be absolute,and hence not god. what need to be condemmed is the vaamachari hypocrites and their corrupt sadhana in name of devi.