Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

MikeMalaysia

Members
  • Content Count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MikeMalaysia


  1. Dear Sant,

     

    It's okay. I forgive you.

     

    I guess I must not have made it clear that I am a Hindu now. We weren't at the time, but we are now. Hare Krishna! Om Namah Shivayah! Jai Ganesha! Jai Subrahmanya! All glories to Goddess Mariamman!

     

    From the stories that I've read on Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami's site, none of the couples who converted to Hinduism mentioned having a Hindu wedding ceremony. It would have been a big step for them and also a very new experience. But not one of them mentions it. So if we take that as a guide, then that means that couples who are already married and convert to Hinduism don't need to get remarried.


  2. Dear Sant,

     

    It's okay. I forgive you.

     

    I guess I must not have made it clear that I am a Hindu now. We weren't at the time, but we are now. Hare Krishna! Om Namah Shivayah! Jai Ganesha! Jai Subrahmanya! All glories to Goddess Mariamman!

     

    From the stories that I've read on Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami's site, none of the couples who converted to Hinduism mentioned having a Hindu wedding ceremony. It would have been a big step for them and also a very new experience. But not one of them mentions it. So if we take that as a guide, then that means that couples who are already married and convert to Hinduism don't need to get remarried.


  3.  

    Ive spoken to a panditji he says that mangalsutra should be offered to krisna and done infront of his idol.but ive not read this.Kali upasak is right Why do you worry you are married in your own mind and court thats alright.

     

    I know that we are married, but my wife's parents are trying to pretend that it doesn't exist. I want to have a defense so that I can show them that yes, we are married according to the Hindu religion.

     

     

    youre not even a hindu so why do u worry to get maried in that way.

     

    I am very offended by your comment. I AM A HINDU, thank you very much. I pray to Lord Ganesha. Just because I was not born in India to a Hindu family doesn't make me any less a Hindu because that is the path that I want to follow. I want to have a formal Namakarana Samskara to mark my entrance into Hinduism, but I need someone who speaks Tamil to help me on that.

     

    As Srila Prabhupada stated, we are not these bodies - we are eternal spirit souls. It doesn't matter if we are Indian, Western, Asian, African - the soul inside is the same no matter which body it is in. Just like if you are driving a Toyota, or a Ford, or a Holden, or a BMW - you are the same person. It is just the car that is different. The body is like the car, and the soul is like the driver.

     

    Please refrain from making such offensive comments again. And please read Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami's book How to Become a Hindu and see how conversion to Hinduism does happen.


  4.  

    This is not a Gandharva marriage. Please see

     

    http://weddings.iloveindia.com/features/types-of-hindu-marriages.html

     

    I'm sorry, do you mean that the kind of marriage described by Sant is not a Gandharva marriage, or that my marriage to my wife is not a Gandharva marriage?

     

    The site you linked to said this:

     

     

    Next is Gandharva marriage, which is more like love marriage. Here the bride and the bridegroom get married secretly without the knowledge of their parents. This kind of marriage is similar to the love marriages of today's generation. It is not considered a right kind of marriage as it is done against the will of the parents so it is inferior kind of marriage. This marriage reminds us of the love affair of Sakuntala and Dusyanta.

     

    My wife and I got married secretly without our parents' knowledge. I read on this site that all that is required for a Gandharva marriage is mutual love and mutual consent.

     

    I am sure you have some proof of having got married. And you consider yourselves to be man and wife.

     

     

    Do not bother about the rituals or the type of marriage. You are married in the eyes of GOD. That is what is important.

     

    Yes, we have the marriage certificate. In fact, we have three marriage certificates - the original one from New Zealand, signed on the day of the marriage, and two copies of the Malaysian marriage certficate when we registered the marriage in Malaysia.

     

     

    None of the Dharmasasthras are strictly applicable in modern times. They were written long time back and reflect the social mores and norms of the times when they were written.

     

     

    I am assuming that by the Dharmasastras, you mean the Manu Smriti and other Smritis.

     

     

    To satisfy you mentally, go to the nearest temple and exchange garlands with your wife. You can do it in any temple after informing the priest. You do not need a Guru. Temples in Tamil Nadu do it all the time.

     

    Just wanted to add a couple of things. In Tamil Nadu couples who run away and get married, go to the temple and exchange garlands in front of the deity. The groom also ties a mangal sutra. Please take a Tamil friend and talk to the priest of the local temple.

     

    This procedure costs next to nothing. Only the cost of the garlands and dhakshina to the priest. Mangal sutra could be a simple one.

     

    This is an accepted form of Hindu marriage.

     

    I told my wife about this, and she doesn't want to do it. She wants a big wedding. However, I only earn RM2000 per month, and it would take ages to save up enough (although I am going to buy a lottery ticket tomorrow - I prayed to Goddess Lakshmi and chanted the Lakshmi Gayatri while shaking a box with the numbers from 1 to 52, and recorded the numbers which fell out).

     

    I just want to know if the civil marriage is recognized as a Gandharva marriage, since we had mutual love and mutual consent, and we did it without the knowledge of her parents.

     

    Thanks for your help, Kali.


  5. Dear Apollymi,

     

     

    1. What is the role of the Devas(demigods) if they are not to be worshipped? From others, I hear, in this case, they are on par with the angels in Christianity: they are semi-divine(not sure if that's the right word) beings but they are not to be worshipped?

     

    This will vary according to which denominations or philosophical schools you ask. Gaudiya Vaishnavas believe that Krishna alone is the Supreme Lord, and that the devas ("demigods" is an incorrect term) are His servants, like ministers under the Prime Minister. I'm not sure about other Vaishnava schools, but I think that Madhva's folowers would have the same teachings (Chaitanya was initiated into the Madhva sampradaya, after all). I'm not sure about Ramanuja, Vallabha or Nimbarka's schools.

     

    Other Hindu schools (Saivism and Saktam for example) teach that the devas are just different forms of the Supreme Lord, like facets of a diamond. I think that Saiva Siddhanta is somewhere between the two (they refer to Lord Ganesha and Lord Murugan as mahadevas who seem to be separate beings distinct from Lord Shiva.

     

    Don't listen to anyone who tells you not to worship the devas or not to worship anyone except Krishna/Shiva etc. Hinduism has no god who proclaims "thou shalt have no other gods before me". Lord Krishna states in the Gita: "Whatever form any devotee with faith wishes to worship, I make that faith of his steady. Endowed with that faith, he engages in the worship of that form, and from it he obtains his desires, which are actually being ordained by Me" (Bhagavad-Gita 7:21-22)

     

     

    2. Despite the fact that if Krsna is the supreme godhead, is Visnu+Krsna one-in-the-same? Or is Krsna different from Visnu? Or is Visnu different than Krsna?

     

    This will depend which school of Vaishnavism you follow. Gaudiya Vaishnavism (Chaitanya sampradaya) regards Krishna as the source of all the avatars and expansions (including Vishnu). This view is shared by the Vallabha and Nimbarka sampradayas. According to Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the eighth incarnation of the Lord is Balarama. The Ramanuja and Madhva sampradayas regard Lord Vishnu as the Supreme, and they regard Lord Krishna as the eighth incarnation of Lord Vishnu.

     

     

    3. What is the best way to study the Bhagavad Gita? I'll admit I have read the Bhagavad Gita, but some of the stuff just doesn't click(meaning I can't remember anything I read). I also have a journal and was wondering what kinds of things I would put in this "Vaisnava" journal...thoughts, meditations, important verses?

     

    You need to get a decent English translation. Prabhupada's translation (Bhagavad-Gita As It Is) is ok, but he puts the Gaudiya interpretation on it and condemns Advaita-vedanta in his purports (commentary). A good one to get is Paramahamsa Yogananda's translation, which is in two volumes. I've only read a small part of it, but it seems to be good. You can get an online version here at http://www.gita-society.com/ I use Swami Chidbhavananda's translation, but I'm not sure if it's available where you live (I bought it from a Hindu bookstore).

     

    If the commentary seems to be distracting, try reading just the verses first. When you have read the entire Gita, go back and read the commentary.

    I have no idea what to put in a Vaishnava journal, but I would just write down any thoughts or musings that you might have. Sorry I can't be of more help here.

     

    Anyway, I hope my answers can help you. If you want some links to check out, try these:

     

    www.krishna.com - good site with information about the Gaudiya Sampradaya

    www.veda.krishna.com - a Gaudiya Vaishnava encyclopedia

    www.vedabase.net - Srila Prabhupada's books online

    www.himalayanacademy.com - a site with lots of information on Hinduism (Saivite)

     

    You can also find a lot of links to Hindu material here.


  6.  

    here this site will help .

    you can contact them if you want.

    http://www.gandharv.com/gandharv-marriage

    Method of Gandharv Marriage

     

     

    Can anyone provide me with quotes from the Sastras about Gandharva marriage? Don't bother posting the passage in Manu-Smriti where it is mentioned as I've already read that. But the information given on that site is much more extensive than what is found in the Manu Smriti, so there must be additional sastric sources for the Gandharva marriage.


  7.  

    here this site will help .

    you can contact them if you want.

    http://www.gandharv.com/gandharv-marriage

    Method of Gandharv Marriage

    The Gandharv Marriage is done through the pronunciation of adequate mantras and mutual promises for the happy marital life of the bride and groom and by the exchange of Garlands. These Garlands must be made of pure roses only or the Gandharv Marriage is not complete, also the Gandharv Marriage can not be done at night, and only at day. The Gandharv Marriage does not require the presence of any purohit (priest) as well, only the presence of the bride and groom, the knowledge of mantras and knowing of promises is required for the Gandharv Marriage

     

    Thanks for posting the link. It disturbed me that it said mantras needed to be said. We were not Hindu at the time of marriage, so obviously we wouldn't have chanted mantras. Do couples who convert to Hinduism later in life get remarried in a Hindu ceremony? I'm sure that the Hindu religion isn't like the Eastern Orthodox Church which teaches that there is no true marriage outside of the Orthodox Church, and that converts MUST remarry in an Orthodox ceremony. Civil marriage is done in India, right?


  8.  

    Gandharva marriage doesnt need any rituals.I remember somebody answering in astrology forum that horoscope matching is not necessary for love marriage.

     

    So a Hindu couple in India going to the civil registry office and getting a civil marriage would count as a Gandharva marriage in Hinduism?

     

     

    It is also said svayamvara is also a form of Gandharva marriage.

    What is 'svayamvara'? I'm not familiar with the term, sorry.

    And manusmriti is'nt such a sacred thing et all it is just a set of rules Framed by manu.

    Isn't it considered the sacred law book for Hindus?

    It would be bring peace of mind to you and your people if you can somehow win the hearts of her parents.That may involve living the life of a simple hindu.

    Believe me, I'm trying. They are not religious Hindus and care more about money and academic qualifications than being religious and praying.

    I just want to know if the Saivites consider our marriage to be valid under Gandharva marriage terms (which is considered the best kind of marriage according to the Kama Sutra). They are simply pretending that the marriage doesn't exist. If you pretend that Barack Obama is not the President of the United States because you don't like him, that doesn't make him any less the President.


  9. The term 'demigod' was used by Srila Prabhupada to translate the word 'deva'. It is also used by his successors in the same way.

     

    The word 'deva' most certainly means 'god', not 'demigod'. In fact, the word 'deva' is the origin of the Latin word 'divinus', from which comes the English words 'divine' and 'divinity'. It is the origin of the Latin word Deus, meaning 'God'. I would not be surprised if at one stage the word was Devus. The original Latin alphabet used 'v' for both 'u and 'v', so it would have been written as DEVVS. It wouldn't have taken much to get rid of one 'v', making DEVS (the spelling of Deus in old Latin manuscripts). The Nicene Creed reads "Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem..." meaning "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty..."

     

    Even in English, the word 'god' (with a small 'g') means 'a divine being'. We talk about the Greek gods, the Egyptian gods, the Norse gods, etc. None of them are considered to be the Supreme Lord.

     

    According to Gaudiya Vaishnava theology, Krishna is the Supreme Lord, and Lord Shiva, Lord Ganesha, Lord Murugan, Mother Durga, and the other gods are His servants. They are like ministers under the Prime Minister, who is Krishna. They are not considered to be different forms of Krishna, but instead independent beings who are subordinate to Krishna.

     

    When Srila Prabhupada came to the West to preach Krishna Consciousness, he had to make it understandable for Westerners, whose concept of God came from Christianity. If he had used the word 'god' to translate 'deva', people would have immediately thought his movement was polytheistic. Therefore he used the word 'demigod' in order to emphasise that (according to him) the devas are divine beings, but they are subordinate to Krishna and are not equal to Him or different parts of Him.

     

    As Deathless has pointed out, the word 'demigod' has some problems when used to refer to the Hindu devas. It literally means a half god. The word 'demigod' is used to refer to Greek heroes like Perseus and Heracles (Hercules), who were born to human women who were impregnated by the god Zeus. They are half human and half god, like a 'liger' is half lion and half tiger. The Hindu devas are not like that at all. They are entirely divine beings, and so the term is inaccurate. Srila Prabhupada should have just used the word 'deva' and explained what it meant.


  10. I know that the Gandharva marriage is a marriage between two young people who get married without their parents' consent. It is considered valid according to Manu Smriti and the Kama Sutra considers it the best kind of marriage.

     

    My question is, what exactly is necessary to bring about a Gandharva marriage? I know that it isn't performed with extensive rituals, but what rituals are necessary for it? Are there any at all?This site states that the only thing necessary for a Gandharva marriage are mutual love and mutual consent.

     

    My wife and I got married in New Zealand by a marriage celebrant. I was not a Hindu. She was born a Hindu but she signed a letter declaring that she believed in the Nicene Creed of Christianity right before the marriage. She had previously decided to become a Christian. However she told me a few months ago that she hadn't really believed in it. She says these kind of things often, and it's hard to know what she actually believed. Her parents were upset that we had gotten married without their consent. It was after this that we converted (well, she reverted) to Hinduism.ied. Do we fall under the category of "Gandharva marriage" even though neither of us were Hindu (most likely) at the time?

     

    We have all the legal marriage documents, and the state considers us marr state that a couple are not really married until they have been through the vivaha samskara? Are we considered to be married according to the Hindu religion?

     

    Are there any Hindu scripture verses that say that the Hindu marriage ceremony is necessary for a couple to be declared "married"? My wife's parents don't consider us to be married, but they know very little about Hinduism and have never read Manu Smriti. I liken it to pretending there is no law against smuggling drugs - you can pretend all you want that the law doesn't exist, but all the pretending in the world won't help you when you get caught and they put the noose round your neck (yes, that is the punishment for drug smuggling in Malaysia).

     

    I have asked this question on Krishna.com's Live Help, and one devotee said that yes, we are married but we need to do the fire sacrifice. Another devotee (who was Indian and a Saivite previously) said that another marriage ceremony is not necessary. The same devotee told me at a later date that we fall under the category of the Gandharva marriage.

     

    I know that this is true for ISKCON and Vaishnavism, but does Saivism accept the Gandharva marriage as well? Would they accept us as really married or would they require the vivaha samskara to be performed as if we'd never been married before? I'm asking this because I'm thinking of becoming a Saivite - IVaishnavism. I am vegetarian but I do consume onions, garlic, mushrooms a could never chant 16 rounds a day or fulfil the other requirments.I am vegetarian, but I consume onions, garlic, mushrooms and also caffeine. I don't think that sex for pleasure is wrong and I don't see a problem with buying a 1 ringgit lottery ticket. I am also devoted to Lord Ganesha (which ISKCON devotees frown upon, Prabhupada forbade the worship of Ganesha in ISKCON temples).

     

    I know that an answer would be to have a Hindu wedding ceremony, but at the moment, I am not financially able to have such a ceremony. I would need to save up for a long time, and I would like my wife and I to move into our own place as soon as possible.

     

    Can anyone help me out, please? If possible, can anyone give me the name of a Saivite guru to whom I can ask? Most temple pujaris here only speak Tamil.


  11.  

    There is a procedure but i have avoided doing it as I am meant to ask Krishna. :)

     

    This worked for me in the past and I am desperate to do it again in future if my Job and Money prospects don't improve. The Vrat is called 'Vaibhava Laksmi Puja' involving 11 Weeks or 21 or 100. I would go for 11 weeks. Please be warned that once you do it (and you get money etc) if you stop half way through i.e

     

    You do 4 weeks get money and think okay I will stop Puja, then don't. As you would just displease, finish it all properly (i cannot stress that enough).

     

    All you need is Vaibhava Laksmi Book, and some paraphnelia (red power, tumeric power, small brass pot, some rice) VERY simple things you need. If somebody asks you they can do it for you, they can't. Also you need to do it properly, don't make things up as you go along. Its very simple.

     

    Buy the Book Here £2 or $3

     

    This is the book I have at home, in ENGLISH, i also have a Tape, which tells the story and has arati. (i recommend this), just sit and listen to do Puja. If if you can't get the Tape or Cd (hard to find), the book will suffice.

     

    Personally speaking this is what you do off top of my head:

    Fast for the day, (eat after puja is done).

     

    Get all you stuff together, brass pot, rice, red/yellow power, some gold or money.

     

    Put some water in the pot, get a red cloth put picture of lakmi, put some rice in round circle put pot over it. Get small dish, put money, red/yellow power.

     

    This is very important: Pray to the pictures in the book (learn the appropriate mantra), after that is done, easy part comes. Light candel incence and do puja which is inside the book.

     

    It seems very complicated, but its not at all. When i did this before I got a Job (not a crap job) a very good job within 4 weeks of doing this Puja. It always seems to work

     

     

    Thanks LotusFlower,

     

    Unfortunately I have problems with my credit card so I cannot order online. I will write down the name of the book and I'll ask at the various Hindu bookshops in Kuala Lumpur if they have a copy of it. It sounds like the way to go, if I could just get hold of the book.

     

    Thank you very much and may Lord Krishna bless you.

     

    Michael.


  12. I've never been there, but I intend to go there sometime in my life. The closest major city to Mayapur is Kolkata (Calcutta). It is possible to fly from Heathrow Airport to New Dehli or Mumbai and then connect to Kolkata.

     

    Steven J. Rosen (Satyaraja Dasa) provides the following travel information in his book, The Hidden Glory of India.

    Mayapur

    In Mayapur one can find sacred places connected to the pastimes of Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and His associates. Many ruins from Shri Chaitanya's time are prominent tourist attractions, and some have been refurbished by the Archeological Society of India.

    Kolkata to Navadvip/Mayapur

    Mayapur is 73 miles north of Calcutta. Although a taxi is probably the best way to get there, many pilgrims take trains from Shealdah and Howrah stations to Krishnanagar of Navadvip. From Navadvip one takes a short rickshaw ride to the Mayapur boat crossing. A low boat awaits pilgrims on the shore. After crossing the Ganges, one arrives on the outskirts of Mayapur. Another short rickshaw ride leaves one in Mayapur proper. An alternative route is the Kamrup Express, which involves a similar journey. There is also an early-morning bus that leaves for Mayapur from the Esplanade bus stand in downtown Kolkata, but this is a somewhat longer ride, because the bus makes many local stops. One can also take "The Mayapur Bus," run by members of ISKCON; it goes to and from Kolkata daily.

    Places to Stay

    The Jambhitirtha Hotel is located in the centre of Mayapur. The best accomodation in Mayapur, however, is ISKCON-owned: The Chakra building is economical, while the Lotus building is more costly but offers nicer accomodation.


  13. Does anyone know the procedure of how to perform a Lakshmi puja at home to obtain wealth? My wife and I are in need of money, so I want to do a Lakshmi puja at home to get wealth. We have a small picture of Lakshmi on the altar.

     

    What is the procedure involved? A pujari did tell me, but I've forgotten and I'm not sure he understood the question properly, as his English wasn't too good.


  14. I recently returned from my wife's grandfather's house in Sungai Siput, Malaysia (around 3 hrs north of Kuala Lumpur). He is a devout Saivite and has a prayer room in which he offers puja every evening (and possibly morning as well). However, in his prayer room, he has the following rack of weapons:

    prayerroomweapons.jpg

     

    What is the purpose of these weapons? Not for breaking coconuts, that's for sure (he keeps the knife for that beside the altar). The top one looks like a large, double-handed machete. What use would a two handed machete, a double-ended trident and a normal trident be? Are they actually used, or are they symbolic of something?

     

    And what about the rope things draped over the weapons? Are they supposed to resemble snakes or something?


  15.  

    Dear Mike, it is not as easy as you think. To me they are all forms of Brahman, regardless of whether Prabhupada thinks I am a “mayavad”. I cannot separate them in my mind. I always thought that
    He also says "Brahman, the spirit, beginningless and subordinate to me, lies beyond the cause and effect of this material world" (Bhagavad-Gita 13:13)

     

    So it's quite obvious that Lord Krishna is the origin of Brahman and that Brahman is subordinate to Lord Krishna. When Arjuna views Krishna's Universal Form, he says: "All the various manifestations of Lord Śiva, the Ādityas, the Vasus, the Sādhyas, the Viśvedevas, the two Aśvīs, the Maruts, the forefathers, the Gandharvas, the Yakṣas, the Asuras and the perfected devas are beholding You in wonder." (Bhagavad-Gita 11:22)

     

    If the devas are beholding Krishna is Brahman (the actual source) and you can worship Brahman in any form like <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com> <FONT color=black><FONT face=Verdana>Lord Krishna states in the Bhagavad-Gita (14:27)

    .

     

    <FONT color=#0000e0 p < 10:2) (Bhagavad-Gita sages? and devas the of source am I respect, every in for, opulences, or origin My know sages great nor hosts Neither>

    <FONT color=black><FONT face=Verdana>

     

    <FONT color=black><FONT face=Verdana>Lord Chaitanya, who was God Himself incarnate in the form of a pure devotee, said the same thing. Srila Prabhupada is not making up something - he is simply restating that which Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu stated.

     

    <FONT color=black><FONT face=Verdana>

     

    <FONT color=black><FONT face=Verdana>For a start, Buddha is an incarnation of Lord Krishna, as attested by the Vedic Scriptures. In reference to the Muslims. Jews and Christians they are referring to a generic definition of God. The Saivites and other deva worshippers are specifically referring to Lord Shiva and/or the other devas who are not God. When the Jews, Muslims and Christians refer to God they are referring to a single God. They just do not have sufficient information about this God.


  16.  

    There is no small g and big G in the case of God. God is one and is always big G . The small g comes from the smallness or petiness of the devoties.

     

    Lord Krishna is the Supreme Lord. He is the source of all spiritual and material worlds, and everything emanates from Him.

     

    There is a great misconception about the gods or devas of this material world, and men of less intelligence, although passing as great scholars, take these devas to be various forms of the Supreme Lord. Actually, the devas are not different forms of God, but they are God's different parts and parcels. God is one, and the parts and parcels are many. The Vedas say, nityo nityanam God is one. Ishvarah paramah krishnah. The Supreme God is one — Krishna — and the devas are delegated with powers to manage this material world. These devas are all living entities (nityanam) with different grades of material power. They cannot be equal to the Supreme God — Narayana, Vishnu, or Krishna. Anyone who thinks that God and the devas are on the same level is called an atheist, or pashandi. Even the great devas like Brahma and Shiva cannot be compared to the Supreme Lord. In fact, the Lord is worshiped by devas such as Brahma and Shiva (shiva-virinci-nutam).


  17.  

    I really get tears in my eyes without my knowledge whenever I go to Sai baba temple. He is the real Sadguru. He is the incarnation of Vishnu, Shiva, brahma. He is the Rama. He is the Krishna.

     

    When God incarnates on Earth, He is always mentioned beforehand in the Scriptures. Lord Chaitanya's birthplace, mother's name, father's name etc are all mentioned in the Vedic Scriptures thousands of years before He was born. It was even mentioned that He would be called "Gauranga" and that he would chant the names of Lord Krishna.

     

    If you believe that Sai Baba is God, then please post Scriptural references prophesising Sathya Sai Baba's incarnation.

     

    However, Lord Krishna states: "As soon as one desires to worship some deva, I make that faith of his steady so that he can devote himself to that particular deity. Endowed with that faith, he endevaours to worship a particular deva and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me alone" (Bhagavad-Gita 7:21-22).

     

    So even though you're praying to Sai Baba, it is Krishna who is hearing and answering your prayers.


  18. Unless you are older than my wife's grandfather (who is 92), I think you must be referring to Sathya Sai Baba. Shirdi Sai Baba left this world in 1918.

     

    I don't want to offend you, but Sathya Sai Baba's claim to fame is that he is the reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba. This is not something that can be proven and must be believed by faith. He does not even have a guru and he isn't initiated into any sampradaya. And if he really is God (which he isn't), why has he been caught using magic tricks before? Even if he does have real powers to perform "miracles", that doesn't mean that he is God - it simply means that he is a yogi, as yogis can obtain "magical" powers, such as the power to get anything from anywhere in the universe, through the practice of yoga.

     

    However, the gurus from Gaudiya Math and ISKCON can trace their spiritual lineage back to Lord Krishna Himself - first in the form of Lord Caitanya and then all the way back to Sri Krishna Himself when He appeared on earth 5,000 years ago.


  19.  

    To respect all followers of Sanatana Dharma, we should atleast refrain from using "demigod" (even "deva" with an inferior meaning) for any of these forms. We all have to understand that each Purana presents similar spiritual tales from different perspectives. Puranas for Krishna assume that He is the Supreme Soul. Similarly, literature for Ganesha shows that He is the Lord. Yet they were all written by the same author (Ved Vyas).

     

    There are eighteen Puranas.

    Six are in the mode of goodness:

    Vishnu Purana

    Bhagavata Purana

    Naradiya Purana

    Garuda Purana

    Padma Purana

    Varaha Purana

     

    Six are in the mode of passion:

    Brahmanda Purana

    Brahma Vaivarta Purana

    Markandeya Purana

    Bhavishya Purana

    Vamana Purana

    Brahma Purana

     

    Six are in the mode of ignorance:

    Matsya Purana

    Linga Purana

    Agni Purana

    Shiva Purana

    Skanda Purana

    Kurma Purana

     

    The Bhagavad-Gita states that goodness is better than passion and ignorance, so naturally we would want to go with those Puranas in the mode of goodness.

     

    The "Ganesha Purana" which I am assuming you are referring to with regard to scriptures saying that Lord Ganesha was the Supreme Lord, is not listed with the other Puranas. That is because it was a later creation, written by people who already believed that Lord Ganesha was the Supreme Lord, to justify their beliefs. It contains the "Ganesha Gita" which is pretty much a plagiarism of the Bhagavad-Gita but with Ganesha put in the place of Krishna as the Supreme Lord. Such a thing would be like re-writing Lord of the Rings but putting Sam Gamgee or Merry or Pippin as the Ringbearer instead of Frodo.

     

     

    The beauty of Sanatana Dharma is that it gives us a choice to make our own spiritual model. We can even worship all these forms together (without specifying an ista-devata) with the belief that the same Brahman manifests in all these forms. And we can also opt for an Impersonal God.

     

    Lord Krishna states in Bhagavad-Gita (9:23) that those who worship other gods actually worship Him but in a wrong way.

     

    To believe that God is impersonal is to indirectly deny the existence of God.

     

    Since we possess individuality, it is logical that our ultimate source doesn't possess individuality? Since we can normally observe that personality is superior to an impersonal energy, we can conclude that personality is superior to impersonal energy. Since the Vedanta sutra explains that the Absolute Truth is the source of all existence, it must also be the source of personality and possess personality.

     

    The Mayavadis (impersonalists) say that the Brahman is manifested in a personal form in this material world. How can something personal be manifested from something impersonal? Where do we have an experience of such a phenomena? Lord Krsna explains in Bhagavad-Gita 7:24 that this theory is extremely illogical and indicates a lack of intelligence.

     

    Furthermore, the Padma Purana states:

     

    vedartavan mahashastram mayavadam avaidikam |

    maya eva kathitam devi jagatam nashakaranat ||

     

    "The theory of Mayavadism - though given a facade of great importance and claiming itself to be derived from the Vedas - is in truth a non-Vedic theory. O Goddess (Parvati)! It is I [Lord Shiva] who has propagated this concocted theory, which will become the cause of the world’s destruction."


  20. I can do no better than to quote the sacred words of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu:

     

    "Glory to the chanting of Krishna's names (Sri Krishna Sankirtan), which cleanses the heart of all the dust accumulated for years and extinguishes the fire of conditional life, of repeated birth and death"

     

    Chanting Krishna's names has the power of releasing one from karma and material existence. The Buddhist teaching where you "dilute" your bad karma by accumulating more and more good karma does not apply in Hinduism. If you do good and help people, you will have to return to this material world to enjoy the fruits of your actions. Perhaps the fruits may be that you are born as the son of Bill Gates or into a powerful family, but you will still have to return to this material world to experience the results of your good deeds. To get out of this material world, you need to render devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Krishna, and do everything as an offering to Him.

     

    Just chant Hare Krishna and be happy!


  21.  

    Lord shiva is the Supreme, Which does not have any parents Which never takes birth

     

    I'm sorry, but the Vedic Scriptures disagree with this statement.

     

    "Then we shall expound the Mahopanishad. They say Narayana was alone. There were not Brahma, Shiva, Waters, Fire and Soma, Heaven and Earth, Stars, Sun and Moon. He could not be happy" (Maha Upanishad: I-1-4)

     

    "Narayana desired to create people. Because of this thought, Soul (prana) rose from him. Mind and all body parts, sky, air, light, water and the earth which can carry all these created beings took their form. From Narayana, Brahma was born. From Narayana, Rudra (Shiva) was born. From Narayana, Indra was born .From Narayana those people who rule these human beings were born. From Narayana, the twelve suns, eleven Rudras, Eight Vasus and all those meters (for writing) were born. All these function because of Narayana. All these end in Narayana. Thus is read, the Upanishads of Rig Veda." (Narayana Upanishad)


  22.  

    Ufff , seriously this is confusing :(. I give up. I have tried my very best to seperate these Gods in my head but I cannot. Refering to them as demi-Gods is also very demeaning.

     

    Well, refer to them as gods. god (with a small 'g') is the actual meaning of deva anyway. Srila Prabhupada used the word 'demigod' because there is no accurate translation of deva in the English language and he wanted to emphasise Krishna's supremacy, which is taught in the Vedic literature. But the word 'deva' does mean 'god'. The Latin word 'divinus' comes from the Sanskrit word 'deva'. Even the Latin word for god, Deus (spelled DEVS), probably came from 'deva' (Sanskrit -a ending corresponds to Greek -os and Latin -us endings, e.g. Sanskrit 'pada' = Greek 'podos'). I would not be surprised of the original Latin spelling of 'Deus' was 'Devus' ('DEVVS' as Latin had no letter 'u').

     

    So just refer to the gods as 'gods' or 'devas'. I hope that this will clear up any issues.

     

     

    Yes I cringe too everytime I hear it. For one thing, my family are not Vaishnavas. They worship one God, not for any material benefit. My favourite God is Krishna, but the problem arises when I have to accept that my family are foolish and stupid for worshiping another God. I cannot think of them like that. For me, this is like trying to take joy from a faith which tells me that my good parents are going to hell for worshipping the wrong "God". Where is the spirtuality/peace in this? I am no better than my parents, and I do not want to end up with an ego over my head saying I am superior and more clever than my parents for worshipping right God over "demi-God". And to be honest, I have noticed some people with such ego over their head. Sorry about the rant there but this is seriously very confusing.

     

    Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad-Gita: "As soon as one desires to worship some deva, I make that faith of his steady so that he can devote himself to that particular deity. Endowed with such a faith, he endeavors to worship a particular deva and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me alone" (Bhagavad-Gita 7:21-22)

     

    Lord Krishna also states that "Those who are devotees of other gods and who worship them with faith actually worship only Me, O son of Kunti, but they do so in a wrong way" (Bhagavad-Gita 9:23).

     

    Just devote yourself to Krishna, chant His Holy Names, sing kirtan, eat Krishna-prasadam, and don't worry about your family. Concentrate on your own devotion to Krishna, and perhaps they will also become Krishna devotees.


  23. Look at the quotes again that I provided, especially the ones with Narayana in them. The Upanishads are part of the Vedas and are classified as Shruti.

     

    The goal of the Vedas is to come to knowledge of the Absolute Truth, which is Lord Krishna. Lord Krishna states "I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come rememberance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas" (Bhagavad-Gita 15:15). Lord Krishna also says "I am also the Ṛg, the Sāma and the Yajur Vedas." (Bhagavad-Gita 9:17)

     

    However, the Vedas were intended for earlier ages and not for the Kali Yuga. The Scriptures for this particular age are the Kali Santarana Upanishad, the Bhagavad-Gita and the Srimad-Bhagavatam. There are certain factors that make it practically impossible to study the Vedas in this age:

     

    After Srila Vyasadeva divided the Vedas into four books (Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharva), his disciples further divided them into 1,130 divisions. This is stated in the Kurma Purana (52.19-20):

    eka-vimsati-bhedena rg-vedam krtavan pura

    sakhanam satenaiva yajur-vedam athakarot

     

    sama-vedam sahasrena sakhanam prabibheda sah

    atharvanam atho vedam bibedha navakena tu

     

    ‘Previously the Rg Veda was divided into 21 sections, the Yajur Veda into 100 sections, the Sama Veda into 1,000 sections and the Atharva Veda into 9 divisions.’

     

    Each division has 4 minor divisions, namely the Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanisads. Thus altogether the 4 Vedas contain 1,130 Samhitas, 1,130 Brahmanas, 1,130 Aranyakas, and 1,130 Upanisads. This makes a total of 4,520 divisions.

     

    At present, most of these texts have disappeared due to the influence of time. We can only find 11 Samhitas, 18 Brahmanas, 7 Aranyakas and 220 Upanisads which constitutes a mere 6% of the entire Vedic canon!

     

    Even if the Vedas were complete in there entirety, in order to understand them one must first study the Vedangas which includes Siksa (the science of phonetics), Vyakarana (grammatical rules), Kalpa (ritualistic rules), Nirukta (obscure word meanings), Chanda (Metres for chanting Vedic hymns), and Jyotisa (astrology and astronomy).

    Since the language of the Vedas is enshrouded in mysterious meanings, one must also be willing to sacrifice years of study in order to learn Vaidika (classical) Sanskrit. This entails primarily learning the basic grammar (which generally takes 12 years or so) and then memorising extra vocabulary in order to decipher the mystical language of the Vedas. 1

    Apart from that, it is practically impossible for those born in the age of Kali (who are generally ‘mandah sumanda-matayo’) to memorise even the slightest thing. What to speak of the entire Vedas or even the 6% that still survives today! At present, amongst the brahmana communities in India, it is generally observed that vedadhyayana simply consists of memorising the text of one of the four Vedas ‘parrot-fashion’, but as we can see from above, there is much more to it than that. Therefore, we may conclude that although the Vedas are perfect sabda-pramana, it is impractical to become thoroughly conversant with the Vedas in this day and age in order to understand the Supreme. Hence the solution lies in the Puranas and the Itihasas. This is explained in the following verse -

     

     

    bharata-vyapadesena hyamnayarthah pradarsitah

    vedah pratisthah sarve sarve purane natra samsayah

     

    "On the pretext of writing the Mahabharata, Vyasa explained the meaning of the Vedas. Certainly all the topics of the Vedas have been established in the Puranas." (Visnu Purana)

     

    Furthermore, it is explained in the Mahabharata (Adi Parva 1.267) and Manu Samhita –

     

    itihasa puranabhyam vedam samupabrmhayet

     

    " One must complement one’s study of the Vedas with the Itihasas and the Puranas."

     

    In the Prabhasa-khanda of the Skanda Purana (5.3.121-124) it is said –

     

    veda-van niscalam manye puranartham dvijottamah

    vedah pratisthitah sarve purane natra samsayah

     

    bibhety-alpa-srutad vedo mam ayam calayisyati

    itihasa-puranais tu niscalo’yam krtah purah

     

    yan na drstam hi vedesu tad drstam smrtisu dvijah

    ubhayor yan na drstam hi tat puranah pragiyate

    yo veda caturo vedan sangopanisado dvijah

    puranam naiva janati na ca sa syad vicaksana

     

    " O best of the brahmanas, the meaning of the Puranas is unchanging just like that of the Vedas. The Vedas are all sheltered within the Puranas without a doubt. The Veda has a fear that unqualified people will read her and then distort her meaning. Thus, the significance of the Veda was fixed in the Puranas and Itihasas. That which is not found in the Vedas is found in the Smrti. That which is not found in the Smrti is to be found in the Puranas. Those who know even the Vedas and Upanisads are not learned if they do not know the Puranas."

     

    The reason they are called ‘Puranas’ is because they make the Vedas complete (puranat puranam iti canyatra). This is not to suggest that the Vedas are incomplete. It simply means that the Puranas are explanatory supplements which aid one to understand the concise and ambiguous passages in the Vedas. If the Puranas complete the Vedas, it is only logical that they must be Vedic in nature.

     

    The Atharva Veda states:

    rcah samani chandamsi puranam yajusa saha

    ucchistaj-jajnire sarve divi deva divi-sritah

     

    "The Rg, Sama, Yajur and Atharva became manifest from the Lord, along with the Puranas and all the Devas residing in the heavens." (Atharva Veda 11.7.24)

×
×
  • Create New...