sambya

VIVEKANANDAR PRAISES JESUS CHRIST IN GNANADEEPAM:

 

All of us should worship the Lord Jesus Christ as our God who took the form of a human being. We must have a close relationship with Him to reach Moksha (Heaven). Because He is the only God who is above all gods (sudar7, page270). He forgave those who crucified Him. He bore all our sins. He says “Come unto me, all you that labour and are heavy laden, I will give you rest”. He gives peace to all (sudar2, page372). If a person accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord, his soul is changed. He will become like Jesus Christ, and his life becomes holy (sudar 4, page600).

 

where did you get that ? which vivekananda ? please refer the original source !

well the answer as to why it is so lies in the history of western lands !!

christianity was the main religion in the west and consequently the culture and values were all shaped by that religion there . the opposition that the church showed towards any free thinking liberal thoughts and scientific progress is well known . many of their philosophies were strange and insufficient to a prudent individual but one had to accept it without raising any question . to this were added the problems of bruning at stake and other vices . and most importantly not all leaders were very pious men . all this slwoly created a feeling of hatred and isolation from mainstream religion or christianity . and chruch succeeded in projecting itself as a tyrant , anti-science anti-modernisation hypocritic order . natuarally most westerners have lost faith over their old religion .

in india things were a bit different . although numerous contradictory thoughts and sects existed in this soil no one tried to destroy the other . there was mutual coexistence in all feilds . and this accomodating universal nature of hindus are well known. thus when modern western science first appeared on the horizon of india there was an attempt to synthesize it with the existing indian philosophical systems instead of condemmning it . recently modern physics have also discovered the strange similarities between the indian spiritual philosophies and this has further strengthened the conviction of hindus both on science and religion .

I highly recommed pranayama and meditation for people that might not be so inclined towards exlusive bhakti sadhana.

you might not be aware but pranayama also falls within the scope of spiritual bhkati disciplines . it directly helps in one spiritual path . however most modern yogis utilise pranayama as a mere breath control excersise which has resulted in lot of misconceptions .

when you concentrate on something deeply your breathing movements automatically slows down . this is easily noticable while meditating . this slowing down of external brathing movement is actually the result of internal calming down of prana or life force . this slow-down goes on increasing with increased levels of concentration untill it finally stops at samadhi . pranayama also attempts to calm down the restless prana and make it conducive to higher concentration by regulation of that breath.

yoga sutras specifically mention self realization as the culimination point of yoga . yoga itself means unifying with the supreme or self .

pranayama is extremely helpfull at the onset of japa . it quickly clams the mind and helps one to better concentrate on the mantrartha . even i felt it .

What was it?

vedic religion of course !!

instead of asking me register yourself in some reputed library and find out what it was !!

Hare krishna's dont teach hinduismm.Srila bhaktivedanta had explained it taht he was not preaching hinduism.Do you want me to quote him.

vedic religion was not vaishnavism !!

Raisng kundalini doesnt mean realisation.

Ordinary bhakti raises kundalini, does it?

Bhakti is ordinary.See your physche.

both are directly related . theres no realisation without a raised kundalini and kundalini doesnt rise without realization .

i didnt use the wrod ordinary to show bhakti as something inferior . being a bhakti practioner myself i would like to believe just the opposite . i used 'ordinary' in the sense of 'more common and easy' than the complex yogic procedures .

This is why i said that iskcon classes went out off your ears.

you're right ! perhaps i already knew a little bit about hinduism for them to pass of their restructered cult as 'authentic vedic discipline'

, unlike the many unfortunate brainwashed fellows who came in blank and went out as hare krishna fanatics cursing the same gods that they have been taught to pray to by their forefathers since childhood !!!

How did you decide then that iskcon philosophies are inferior to ramakrishna or something like that.

how can i put one above the other ?

its obvious that i would love my faith most but at the same time i am fully aware that there might me many people out there who actually sees many fauts in the philosophy that i follow .

You know how untruthful those things are.

no i dont ! its all in shastras , why should it be untruthfull ?!

but tantra calls for artificial methodes to raise it.

actually there are two methods of raising kundalini - either by yoga or by ordinary bhakti . both are correct and accepted . things become bad when any persons misutilises the paranormal powers that he gets by raising it .

Again thats my point.Ypu always start comparing with iskcon or vaishnav gurus.

why should that hurt you ? it only shows that they are indispensible in modern spiritual world !! ha ha

You stop saying sahjiya vaihnavism is vaihnavism.

i didnt say its vaishnisvm . i said its corrupted version of vaishnivism just like vamarga is the corrupted version of tantricism .

And by expericnce i meant experience in sprituality and in realisation and in god.

good .................. but how does a lay man like me determine who has experience in spirituality ?

just pont out the idiocies in your communist friend's philosophy . we have a proverb - "phalena parichiyate" - a tree is know by what fruit it bears . his dearly held communism has perished in its very land of birth and has failed miserably world wide . whereas this hinduism , even with so many burdens and continued attacks is still shining bright without the slightest sign of deterioration .

all according to lords will !!

When the pair starts to appear on the forum, the entire system becomes dynamic and animated. I love this two.

ha ha

i am fully situated in the fact that ramakrishna's teachings are misleading...reflections of these are clearly visible in the life of vivekananda.

i think you will understand that evaluating someone on the basis of another person is not very meaningful to a sane mind !

..............with respect to your personal opinion .

i nurture hatred for him subconsciously ???

 

You seem to know my mind better than i do .

the mind of the author is clearly reflected in his writings ....didnt you know that ? i think not ..............for if you had , then perhaps you would have been more carefull !

After all those iskcon classes you ask why.Dont you know the value of serving the lords feet.Whose feet devi herself worships and whos name shankara chants you still ask the value of becoming his bhakt.

You compare it with such things as kundalini jagran,mahavidya etc.

as has been discussed a thousand times before there are innumerable references where other gods worships devis feet . so im not going into those details .

what do you know about kundalini jagaran ? it is a automatic process which is activated as one progresses in bhakti . the more advanced one is in bhakti sadhana the more awakened is his kundalini . it has nothing to do with black magic or witchcraft . and as far as i can immidiately remember the process is mentioned in bhagavd gita also(including your own as it is version) .....................

So you remember.Anyway same thing since tantra is more known for that nowadays.

not exactly ........it is appears like that to people who loves watching saas bahu tv soaps depicting terrifying tantrics or potentially daisasterous black magic , not to scholarly people who actually studies about tantra than believing in popular media .

it cannot be the same thing . there are a lot of differences between what common men believe and what are the facts . common people think that leaving everything for god is sheer madness . but that is a wrong perception .

Experience.Are you self realised.Have you read the vedas.Have you beaten 100s of scholars in debate.

out of the four criteria that you have specified three of them are so easy to accomplish- reading the vedas ,

beating 100 scholars,

experience in guru-giri .

wow !! that instantly makes many not-so-holy individuals , most eligible gurus !! great........

You should be ashamed of your self comparing vaishnavism to tantra.

why ?? explain to me !

Sambya if we remember then it was you yourself who said i dont know about tantra and now youre telling me.

as usual you didnt get through my words . i said i dont know tantric witchcraft and black magic .

Sambyacharya i dont know what you mean by that but dont you know it takes some authority and gods grace to be able to understand waht vedas say.

how to determine who has this authority ?

Don't know anything about sanskrit but I love this particular verse.

do you really ? and follow it too ? essence from vamamarga tantriks and osho as well ?

so there...triple gurantee.

and a seal , hologram and a certificate too , i presume ?

Are u a practicing tantrik?.

 

Tantra is supposed to be a secret ritual practiced by a very few people the details of which no tantrik discusses on internet.

 

Despite your indignation at sant for mentioning sex, it is well established fact that Many tantriks(like the rk hamsa in his failed practice) consider sex to be the final step.Neo tantriks(like..., you know who..) did replace actual sexual act with Bhava with nil results only to fall back on bhakthi.

yesss !! infact i am presently chewing through a piece of human ashthi while reading through your posts of revelation.......... tired after last nights strenous sava-sadhana with all that sadhvis and rotting corpse !! HA HA ! i dont care for bhava ............ just want the raw %@* !!! ha ha

If Brahman is supreme, then references describing Vishnu as supreme should be sufficient to indicate that Vishnu = Brahman. There is also the fact that the Upanishads are focused on Brahman, and in the Katha Upanishad Vishnu is specifically mentioned as the highest goal of endeavor.

indirect and vague method , instead of being specific and conclusive ........but anyways.............a lot of centuries have rolled by and nothing could be done about that now .

............ tantras are smritis, and like all other smritis their authority is conditional upon not contradicting the shrutis.

thats correct and gets my full support .............and it applies to puranas alike .

Sometimes???????????

You forgetting sex,drug,alchohol,fish

Dont say this is corrupted tantra

actually it is !

like the sahajiya vaishnavas !

im sorry but i cannot discuss things with you because you have absolutely no knowledge of tantra , which i know from the previous discussions with you . and neither will you accept what i say nor go out and seek it yourself !

gaudiya vaishnavite who followed tantra..I'm not taunting...but can you explain how it works ?????

 

i mean...how ??

well im not commenting on the issue of bhairavi brahmani because i have not read it anywhere else apart from wikipidea ( but im sure i have a lot more to read ) .

but there can be gaudiya vaishnavas who also follows tantra . as we know many important concepts of modern hinduism came in from tantra ....... like mudra , yantra , bija etc . tantras are also accepted by vaishnavas including gaudiya vaishnavs . there are certain tantras which are classified as vaishnava tantras like gautamiya tantra . they are considered to be sattvick in nature by vaishnavas .

after chaitanya mahaprabhu vaishnavism disintigrated into numerous sects . it was such individual families and esoteric sects through which gaudiya vaishnavism was transmitted . the GV that you see today is largely a modern reconstruction . during those times tantra and GV frequently merged simply because both were dominant in bengal . tanras have entire chapters dedicated to krishna upasana , gopal mantra sadhana and radhatatva . a person could get initiated in krishna mantra and be a practising vaishnav through a tantric sect . such tanricks primarily worshipped vasudeva or salagram . similarly G vaishnavas often adopted more tanric practises like worship of kali and organised lavish durgotsavas . the difference betwwen the two was marginal . you can still get a idea of what i am saying by visiting shantipur - the birthplace of advaita acharya and cultural town of bengal . on the festival of rasayatra the descendents of advaita acharya take oput huge processions with radha krishna deities and there are countless kali pujas all over the town even in a purnima day !!

later this gaudiya vaishnavism was restructed and resurrected by bhaktivinoda thakura and sarswati thakura which besides doing a lot of good , also destroyed the most distinguishing features of chaitanya movement .

as with many other things sant and ranjeet both have a confusing stand on ramakrishna .

on one hand he is a great saint and on the other he misleads people !

he is a mahtama(as per kripaluji) and again he taught wrong things !

both cannot be simultaneously correct ! if he is a saint all his teachings must be correct ( although it might not suit you or may not be your path) . and if his teachings are wrong then he cannot be called a saint . this is so obvious .

i think both of you are actually in disagreement with his veiws and also have certain sunconscious hatred towards him and at the same time cannot deny the popularity of the person . that is why you take this confusing stand .

oh but look what adi shankaracharya says,"Shuddhayati na antar aatma krsna padambhoj bhaktimriteh."

 

and the upanishads say,"mind is the reason for conditioned and liberated states."

So those people who have ACTUALLY attached their minds to sri Krsna fully can be said to be mahatmas.

so ???

the sankarachrya successors never gave a declaration or had a press conference stating that they have not or they never will attach their minds to krishna ! instead they have upheld sankaracharyas teachimgs which includes the quote that you provided

I can think of a few references off the top of my head:

 

The Katha Upanishad wherein Yama is describing the goal which all the Vedas point to (see 2.15) states in 3.9 that the abode of Vishnu is the highest and the "end of the journey."

 

Then we have Rig Veda 1.22.20 in which it is stated that the nitya suris behold always that supreme abode (paramam padam) of Vishnu.

 

The Aitareya Brahmana 1.1.1 states among all devatas, Vishnu is highest and Agni is lowest.

 

Rig Veda 1.154.4 describes how Vishnu alone upholds the three worlds - another obvious reference to His supremacy.

These are just a few references off the top of my head.

good , but i was searching for a direct reference that firmly affirms vishnu=brahman in the shrutis .

the examples that you gave like "tadvishnor paramam padam..." etc indicate to the supreme nature of vishnu but does not directly equate brahman with vishnu .

Tantras are smriti texts whose validity is conditional upon agreeing with shruti.

as per my knowledge tantra does not depend upon the vedas at all . all it does is to accept the validity of the ancient shrutis and give them their due respect . but at the same time it loudly proclaims that rituals described in shrutis are ineffective in the age of kali and tantra is the way salvation . hence they are free to deviate from vedic principles(which they sometimes does) and show a complete independence !!

I would not say that Durga is identical to Vishnu because this conclusion is not upheld by the shrutis. For instance, in the Kena Upanishad 4.1-4 we learn that the devatas were humbled by their inability to challenge the power of Brahman, and that it was through Uma that they learned who this Brahman is. This indicates that Uma and para Brahman are different.

so is there a place in shrutis where brahman is equated with vishnu ?

the tantras however do acknowledge uma or durga to be identical with brahman .

Ego is not a bad thing in itself.

 

how ? even in dvaitamarga ego is considered bad . only ego relating to god is beneficial .

ummmmm,maybe because every generation from 500 years ago witnessed top class mahatmas spring from the same line ?????

wow . that means dasanami sampradayas of sankarachraya are the most infalliable for they have produced mahatmas for the last 1000 years .

double gaurantee !!

so why should anyone go for single gaurantee ?!!

congratulations theist ! true realizations and honest admittance !!