sambya1

There Kazi admitted that there were many faults in the Muslim scriptures, yet he said that he was a part of the Muslim community so he would still follow his religion for the benefit of others... and so he did. Doesn't it prove that the 'Muslim religion' was actually not much different from vaisnavism in Bengal at that time?

actually it prooves the wonderful power of mahaprabhu to win over peoples heart and can be understood as nothing short of a miracle . to protest against a kaji in those days of muslim autocracy was next to impossible and kaji was the supreme head of the region literally . there was no western sysytem of justice and things like appeal was normally absent . the incident brings out the divine powers of mahaprabhu . it also indicates that the wise kaji did not want to get into a inevitable clash with mahaprabhu whose popularity was reigning high at that time , and offend the masses . it proves his diplomatic ways .....

Srila Prabhupada did not speak of the Islam all over the world, neither he spoke about Islam for 'all times'. He spoke about what you have named 'some isolated events'..

if thats the case then its ok . but then perhaps he should have said " bengali muslims are vaishnavs " rather than " islam is vaishnavism " .

You can't produce any proof that there was any eating of meat in regards to animal sacrifices in the Vedic ages.

 

Show some proof from shastra that there was any eating of meat in regards to an animal sacrifices.

if you would have studied history of hinduism you could have instantly known that beef was the favourite food of indra and agni . whatever is put in to the fire is a way of providing agni with naivedya . what about the cow or horse sacrifices then ?

yajnavalkas passion for meat was well documented and munusmriti specifically says that meat eating is not forbidden .

charak samhita page 86 recommends meat soup as a cure.

manu smriti chapter five ---

27. One may eat meat when it has been sprinkled with water, while Mantras were recited, when Brahmanas desire (one's doing it), when one is engaged (in the performance of a rite) according to the law, and when one's life is in danger.

lastly i must mention that im NOT ENCOURAGING MEAT EATING BY ANY MEANS. i said all these just to make you believe that there is a lot of difference between hinduism as taught to you by iskcon and hinduism as it actually was in historical times .

im merely protesting against your idiotic rigidity of thought . im personally a vegetarian

"He Who was Rama and Krisna is now in this body."

"I have seen God more clearly than i can see you."

"The 19 symptoms that are manifested during mahabhava have manifested in my body at once.It takes one whole lifetime for even one of these symptoms to manifest in another devotee."

"Did you tell him that I am an incarnation ? What did he say ?"

"You are vishnu(to vivekananda)"

whats the big deal ???

dont you know that he attained nirvikalpa and was a advaitin ? advaitic veiwpoint does'nt consider it sinful for anyone to think of himself as god at the highest point of realization . and ramakrishna was undisputedly situated on such a platform .......

he realized his 'oneness' with rama and krishna as per advaitic sadhana . you are repeatedly verifying things in a dualistic light .

and remember that dinabhav (extreme idealistic humilty ) that you are glorifying in chaitanya is only appriciated in vaishnav sadhana . others like shaivas shaktas or advaitas carry more of virabhava . there's nothing to condemn .

most people who came in contact with ramakrishna thought of him as an avatar . but in almost all of the cases he (ramakrishna) refused to accept this . right now im remembering a situation where he said back to the person who glorified him as an avataar -- ' dont ever say such things, we are the ocean's(god) waves(jiva) . no one says wave's ocean . '

but there were some isolated incidents where he was silent in samadhi when asked about his divinity( avataar ) . and there were some vague dialogue between him and his disciples which to his follower's conviction is an indication of his hidden divinity . but such phrases are vague and carry many meaning . and many contemporary intellectual and aristocratic individuals of calcutta accepted him as an avataar silently . thats all for his avatrhood .

and i'll get you the references where gouranga accepted his divinity by showing silence or direct speech . just give me some time .......

dont go by what they said . realize the noble god intoxicated life they have led . take the best out of these god-men .

check out his life and work ...... not some isolated comments made in a different light .

I frankly have no knowledge about the position of Ramakrishna(avatar or not),but I'm sure about one thing : Sri Ramakrishna is Like Sri Shankaracharya and Bhagavan Buddha.

that puts it . equating him with shankara or buddha automatically makes him an avataar . dont waste time in evaluating saints . live life as per their teachings . they did not come to preach their name . they came to glorify righteousness and god ............

Vivekananda tried to justify Buddhism

you are saying this because you have not read anything substantial about him . you dont know how much he crticised buddhism for bringing about a unintentional ruin to our land . read before you talk...

Let me clarify again - if I find flaws in your belief do you feel disgusted?

no ! obviously !!! no faith is free from faults and its your own wish to find it out and reflect upon it . freedom of thought !!!

(which you said you would if anyone criticizes)

do you feel that 'criticising' and 'fault finding' are synonymous terms ? one is free to mentally speculate the faults and leave the religion aside for others to follow in case it doesnt suit to his taste but publicly criticising it is not good.

If there are several loopholes in a faith I may have to condemn it

oh !!!!!!!!! so is that what you believe ? then why get angry ? thats exactly what i did in this thread . surely your ideals are universally and not selectively applicable ??

for it is pointless in following a lovely religion that has elements of deception that some will never find out.

what may look like deception to you may not be deception to others . and what may not be deception to you may be verily the worst deception to others. or are you trying to suggest that there is only a small group of people like you who can successfully point out true deceptors ???!!!!!!!!

Will you label me as sectarian in the above cases?

no ---- if you merely think , realise , believe in your own ideas.

yes---- if you publicly go about proclaiming the inferiority of some paricular religion and attempt to convert its followers into your belief.

i exposed this fraud who goes by the id sambya at Marriages of GODS.

thats quite a spectacular achievement !!!! why dont you open a voluntary investigating agency all over the internet ...............................................................

In some way or the other, even I do wag my tongue in a critical way from time to time.

actually being critical is not altogether bad . its true that all religions having some shortcomings . all religions have a particular unique message that ensures its existence. for example madhur bhava may be present in all hindu sects but nowhere is it so prominent as in vishnava faiths. so if i make a critical analysis of tantra ( for example) and say that it does not have the fullest expression of madhur bhava thats not sectarianism . but if i say that because tantra doesnt excel in madhur bhava its all but incomplete or wrong , then it would amount to sectarianism .here it should be noted that matribhav ( percieving god as mother ) finds its fullest expression in tantra not in vaishnavas . every faith has its own distinguishable charateristics . these distinct thoughts are its own contribution to the world. the day the necessity of that thought vanishes the religion automatically vanishes or subsides.

constructive criticisms are not bad.

Sambya1:

You consider yourself to be counted out of the sectarian cluster.

 

How?

ive already answered that ............ as everything in this world is relative and not absolute anyone who follows a particular path might be termed sectarian .

its obvious that the follower would love his path most . that automatically implies that he would not be able to love other paths equally . and that , may be understood as a type of sectarianism . in this sense there can be no true nonsectarian person . a politician loves his party most , a social worker likes charity most , a spiritual candidate loves meditation most etc.

thus in its finer aspect we all are sectarian . but when we say sectarian in gross sense of term , as used in day to day life , we mean one who openly critisises other beleifs. i try to refrain from doing that and hence think myself to be not a gross sectarian. when i do criticise its only because those individuals themselves criticised others.maybe i do it with the hope that they might realize that it feels really bad to have your cherised belief ot ideal blasphemised and thus stop doing that for others .

Are you ever going to answer the questions I put to you

i already did that to the best of my capacities and now you are free to interpret or understand to the best of your capacities.

What difference does it make?

actually it does .

most sectarians ive met till date openly preach sectarian thoughts but doesnt want to be branded as such and shirk away from being labelled . they like to be called open and broad minded . maybe this is he result of the so called 'secular' 'democratic' education that they have recieved since childhood which they cannot ignore. but you are perhaps the first person ive met who is confidant in your own sectarian belief and agressively defends it.

this is a rare incident and i would like to know which creed or sect you follow . this would give me a greater understanding of such a glorious faith which can produce so strong willed followers (hard to find in most spiritual paths also) and help enrich my experiences .

and i would be gratefull if you can explain me your veiws regaurding how a sectarian religion be of collective benefit to mankind and whether it would be right to term such a belief , religion at all.

you didnt understand me at all ................when i said 'collective' i didnt mean for each and every individual on this planet . vedic philosophy is meant or written for everyone but it also recognises the diversity in beliefs and religions across the world. of course every individual cannot follow a same path !! but by recognising this fundamental truth of human behaviour vedic thought has outshone other contemporary religions.

now you might say that im glorifying vedic thought above the rest . yes thats true , its my faith and this is also a hindu spiritual forum . but that doesnt imply that im degrading other faiths.

You are providing a personal opinion explaining the purpose of the Vedic religion. Personal opinions differ from individual to individual.

ok !! you tell me why do you think concepts such as dharma ,artha, kama, moksha , bramacharya ,grihasta , vanaprashta , sannyasa were formulated when the sages already knew that kama or artha can never be the end . i would be happy to hear your perspective........

So if anyone disagrees with you, does that make that person a sectarian?

no !! obviously !!! but when the person differing from any veiw openly criticises and condemms that belief , yes !!!!

You consider anyone who does not follow Vedic religion to be sectarian.

NO !!!!

You wrote that you get irritated when someone points out flaws.

you yourself indicated that everything is relative in this world. what may be flaw in my eyes may be the sole truth in someone else's. its not about fault finding only , its about disrespecting , condemming , criticising blaspheming etc.

Why not be tolerant towards those people and give them respect instead of denouncing people who disagree?

exactly !!!!!!!!! you have summarised my thinking !!!

sadly many people dont do that and its them that i criticise back .

Are you sure that Vedas can be practiced by every Tom, Dick and Sally!!?

once again---- vedas are meant for everyone but not enforced on anyone . this , you are failing to understand.......

Sectarianism is created automatically. Those who do not believe in a religious path have their own sect. E.g. there are people who said humanity is greater than divinity. They formed their own sect and are now throwing stones at anyone who practices Godliness. Those who believe in a particular path are already sectarian in a sense. For e.g. you said that when people blaspehemize others beliefs, you get irritiated and you DO NOT want them to criticize. This itself indicates that you are intolerant towards people who do not share your world view. Unknowingly you are criticizing those people who do not agree with your opinion.

evrything in this world is relative . there is nothing absolute except god . viewed from that perspective any one who follows a sect is sectarian . thats ok . but such a perspective would unnecessarily make matters complex . only that much should be accepted which helps people collectively , not individually. because individual progress which retards collective progress is harmfull . religon , as we all know is a process of evolving-- from lower to higher life forms , from lower to higher and from higher to highest levels of conciousness. although its true that only a few people become truly religious in strict sense of term , it also cannot be denied that religion is the sustainer of society and culture. therefore any religion that collectively degrades the social progress is not an idealistic religion . as i said religion and society are not seperate.

Vedic religion was not purposed for the collective benefit of mankind. It talks about God and how an interested individual can attain Him. There are people who do not believe in God or have wrong notions about God. Vedic religion was not meant to and will not benefit such people.

 

im sorry but this is an absolutely wrong notion. vedic religion was indeed for collective benefit . lets take the varnashrama dharma for example. a student passes through brahmacharya , grihstha , vanaprshtha and finnaly sannyasa . vedic seers knew that only a few would be interested for true realization and the rest would be contended to lead a ordinary life. but they also realised that self relization is the only way towards happiness and thats the goal of human birth . thats why they laid down this injuction so that all indivduals can slowly learn to strive for god. after enjoying the sensory pleasures in householder life he was compelled to slowly try and learn the way to god. this slow and compulsory training would elevate the soul and thereby he shall get another chance in his next birth.

similarly we find mention of dharma artha kama and moksha as the four goals of an average human's life. when the rishis understaood that all cannot take to self realization they taught people to enjoy material world in a regulated way but taking care that their ultimate goal should always be moksha. thats why moksha was always kept higher than artha kama or dharma. all four were the necessary , but none equalled moksha . such injuction were made for collective social benefit with the full realization that everyone cannot spontaneously turn towards god.

also vedic religion is one such religion that doesnt directly condemm any other faiths . it lays stress on following dharma or that which is inherent in man . dharma also varies with change in social status and caste. but by following ones own respective dharma he is supposed to remain in the correct path . such an injuction is also for collective benefit of society.

infact when atheistic doctrines like charvakas surfaced they were also not thrown out of the society . although buddhism disagreed with the vedas it was not denounced but given a place in the society . vedic religion has always been broad and universal . this also reflects the belief in collective benefit , not individual benefit .

may be what you are suggesting here is that only a few blessed individuals ever strive for spiritual enlightment and the spiritual disciplines are shown for them . while that is true , it doesnt stop shastras from formulating various ways for collective upliftment.

raghu , im curious to know what is your idea or belief regarding god ? which path do you follow ?

also i never want to force any thought on anybody . but at the same time i dont want anybody to criticise other peoples much cherished beliefs . its just when some people blasphemise other beleifs that i feel irritated . its not necessary nor practical to think that everyone would support or like other faiths . but its definately desirable to keep atleast silent if you cannot have respect for them .

i would like to have another answer from you .......

how can a religion ( or belief ) that creates sectarianism and rifts in the society be of any collective benefit to the mankind ? can any such narrow belief that creates social differences be termed as true religion?

Saying they strive for the same thing is not the same thing as saying they are the same. But in any case they do not strive for the same thing if you read about what they each claim to be striving for.

in most of my posts i have used the phrase ' all religions are equally valid ' . when i say all faiths are same i mean they are all equally valid.

respective ends as mentioned in the scriptures are different but the reason behind their origin and the purpose of their existence is always same. conciousness , death , birth , existence , nature etc were the puzzles that mankind wanted to solve since times immemorial . the quest for these answers brought them closer towards god . over time various understanding of this puzzles devoloped . they were the different religions.

with time these religions evolved to varying degrees . while some never left their primitive stage , some as in case of vedic religion , evolved to a very high degree of perfection .

you are taking taking things only in its literall sense ( not suprising , most of your vaishnav brothers do that). just because the end result or target of each religion vary greatly you are assuming all of them to be totally different. you think that out of all only one is true religion.

it means that the rest all are absolutely wrong paths . here i would like to say one thing . say for example an innocent man thinks that god is formless and not with form.and with such thought he dedicates himself in the pursuit of this formless god. would god , who is causelessly mercifull and absolute perfect curse him ? would not god understand that it is actually he , who is being called ? does the father chastise the baby when he calls his father 'pa' instead of 'papa' ??

it is the understanding of god that varies and creates these differences in the respective targets of these religions . but all of them do search for god . god is unity . he is not plural . ask a tribal he would say that his faith leads to god . ask a christian and he'll say that christianity leads to god ..........so on and so forth.it can be clearly seen that all of them are thinking about a phenomenon called god. all of them want a relief from material existence , death , diseise etc . all want to find a place of comfort and dependence . thus the internal targets of all religions are same . their external beliefs and idea about the ways to reach this plane of happiness might vary . this is how all religions are 'same' .

externally a religion might be striving for moksha or prema bhakti but internally it is seeking liberation from this mundane existance. this way its same . its internal goals are non different.

im sorry if you didnt understand . not everyones mental faculties are same.

lastly you must understand that its my own personal belief . you are free to practice and profess your belief that most religions are wrong.

enough of this....................

Also it is taught that a Vaisnava wants to see to everyone's welfare both materially and spiritually.

This was in the early seventies when India was having a crisis of lack of food. We can't ignore the practicle side of life when presenting God consciousness.

 

Does it make sense to read scripture to a man dying on the roadside due to thirst or to offer him water so that he may be able to listen to the same scriptures after his thirst is quenched.

God consciousness does not mean abandoning common sense humanity.

good !! nice understanding .

but what charitable work was done by isckon in 70's when india was starving ? or even in 80's ?

(remember ,im not attcking vaishnavs here)

but the thing is I don't expect the Westerners either to understand Archa Vigraha.

I won't plunge into something based on circumstance.. that I'll leave to those Westerners and also to those Indians who's thinking capacity limits itself to the same level as the westerners.

I don't understand why craps hate those Murtis, when we know how our Lord is.. His yellow dhoti, peacock feather on his Head, and charismatic smile, Mayurakshi [Lotus eyes] et al.

He know him.. Bhaktas try to reciprocate those visions with carvings, paintings, statue, murti, idols and we get to appreciate all that.

You people are stuck with no vision at al and even if you want to depict him.. you'll be stuck with that to do next...

couldnt get you ...... i wasnt speaking about archa vighrha or idol worship..........neither am i an westerner.

I've heard from you many times on Iskcon.. I diverted for the first time on RamaKrishna Mission.

I don't see why there is any fuss in all that.

 

let me clarify . i have indeed said against iskcon a couple of times . but thats because iskcon itself attacks against almost all indian sects . they are adept at making personal attacks also. had they been silent about others and continued in their own belief it would not have been an issue atall. but they dont do that. they'll irritate you till you are forced to retaliate. as regaurds ramakrishna mission , they never criticised anyone . they are happy with their belief . whats the need of attacking them.

but i will have full respect about your thoughts on mission .its your own belief .

When I first touched the Gita... I was completely unbias.

does that mean you are biased now ??

read ramakrishna vivekananda ( at least the gospel of ramakrishna and complete works of vivekananda ) and then criticise with your full heart . trust me, ill come and support you .coz ,it shall be your learned opinion not the ignorant one . moreover ramakrishna himself preached in freedom of thought .

enjoy........

Vaishnavas and Shaivites disagree with each other as to who God is. Advaitins and Non-Advaitins disagree with each other about what liberation is. Jews and Christians disagree with each other about the second coming. Muslims disagree with almost everyone else.

Scientifically speaking, all available evidence (respective scriptures, etc) indicates that these are different religions. Two things which have the same properties could be the same. But if two things have any different properties, then they are not the same. This is common sense.

By what sort of methodology do you conclude, in spite of their obvious differences, that all these religions are equally true?

yes , every faith is externally different from the other . its ideals , practice and expectations do not match many a time. but its true that at the end they are all searching out that one same god . maybe their approach and methods or understanding of that god varies . but all religions search for god. there's no denying that . and god is always one.

when i say all religions are same i dont mean that they are similar (which you are understanding out of my words) . i mean that they struggle for same truth -- to find the causes of this existence and the inherent conciousness of the cosmos. they are not similar but strive for the same answers.

secondly when you say that they are not equal it implies that they do not search for the same truth . then it also implies that only one of them is true . this would provoke severe sectarianism , bloodshed and fanaticism in addition to what already exists. this might ruin the civilization and is certainly undesirable for the society .

now , can a thought that collectively injures the society as a whole be of benefit to individuals? even if it actually benefits some it cannot be 'religion' .religion is meant for total upliftment not individual upliftment.

this veiw might drag in much of sociology but telll me something , is society and religion seperable individual units ??

amlesh,

i guess everyone should agree on one point , hatred is born out of ignorance . this is equally applicable in this case also .

each and every man that criticises ramakrishna or vivekananda that i have seen till date have either not read their books at all or have read very little. and on this flimsy grounds they base their conclusions . i wouldnt have objected if someone dislike them after gathering sufficeient knowledge about them . thats his freedom of thought . i would respect that . but that never happens.

religion is never seperate from society . a religion that denies society perishes in time . this was one of the causes of dissapearence of buddhism from india , because they stressed monasticism more than householder life and started concentrating only on that aspect . religion and society are inseperable parts . so any religious thought has its consequent influence on the social structure . vivekananda in his attempt to revive the ancient indian religion also attempted to revive the dying indian civilization . thats why he spoke and worked at lenghts on topics like starvation , poverty , india etc . you ought to analyze it in the context of those dark times .

while you practise sadhana you cannot sit idle . a jiva goes on performing karma all times . but for an aspirant such karma should be sattvic karma which can boost their spirituality . such noble works directly helps with your sadhana. destroying the false ego ( me , mine) is another most crucial aspect of any sadhana . by constant service to the poor and helpless this deep seated ego gradually reduces . one begins to think in terms of we and ours. this is how the entire outlook of the man changes and helps him in broadening his mind. this broadness and purity is absolute necessary for realization. other similar sattwik works are puja dhyan japa seva etc. they all result in chittasuddhi .

when vivekananda said about playing football or watering eggplant that was all in accordance with the place time and circumstances in which it was being spoken. when he toured entire subcontinent on foot he saw the actuall pitifull state of the demoralised nation sleeping under the burden of 1000 years of foriegn rule . he realised that only the spirituality of india can save the nation . but poverty , weakenss and over dependence on england stood in way of this spiritual revival. those who were poor never realised their greatness . and those who were educated looked forward to britain for greatness . this was the reason the made his fiery speeches , devoted his time to charity etc . the nation needs to be awaken first. one must relise that they are independent free thinking glorious individuals before they can lay their trust on thier gods . how can a poorest peasant who has heard that his gods are all but idols from christian missionaries right since his childhood ever take to spiritual paths ?? this tough shell needed to be cracked first .

similarly west thought of india as a idol worshipping ,superstitious ,widow burning, tribal country. vivekananda spoke advaita and impersonal god to them to make them realize that hindus are not merely blind idol worshippers .they have their own beatifull philosophy and a far better one. evrything he said or wrote had a particular target . you must read though the entire original text and the circumstances in which it was spoken before you get a proper picture .

lastly , why criticise yaar ?? can everyone belive and practise the same path ? then there would be one single vast religion by now.

What they might have thought is good might not be necessarily good..

applicable to you also...

for example the same beggar who received some money or food could have been a terrorist from an organisation, collecting money for this and that.

so do you stop feeding the foodless , lest some terrorist join in disguise and benefit from the kichhdi ? is this your logic ??!!!

Krishna teaches.. well he is the only one to do that.

says who? says the vaishnavs .......right? now isnt it natural that his follwers would always say that? going by this logic of yours sathya sai baba's followers might as well correctly say that its he (baba) who can only teach. so on and so forth .

The RamaKrishna mission like many other schools have their thinking and saying about the Gita... but like Iskcon and the rest.. not in detail.

its not about detail . each have thier own persective and own understanding of the text and thats percisely how gita is universal . if you say it has only one interpretation it automatically turns it into a sectarian text .

Can you SCOOP or separate out a small portion of Brahm ??

 

Or

'

Can a liberated "jeevatma" become a Jeevatma again ??

 

Answer yes or no.

 

(Sambya,Don't give me your holy epositions.Anwser yes or no,simple.)

i thought i had asked you a simple question as to whose life you want to change and why ? when you asked your first question i answered it nicely . but when i put forward a question you cared little to answer it and put back another one . is that your own 'dualistic' conception of courtesy ?

anyways here goes the answer..........

to the first one the answer is no.

to the second one there can never be a single word answer because the question itself is wrong in advaitic terms . advaita makes no distinction like jeevatma and paramatma . atman is one which is brahman . this question clearly shows your classical ignorance while dealing with things as tough as advaita . now i realize why advaita is rumoured to be not for kanishta-adhikaris !!!

tell me something .......... do you think that something like brahmatattwa is really that easy to be answered in a 'simple yes or no' ??

I would like to ask a series of questions in an earnest spirit,to the Mayavadis.I hope Mayavadis,except kaisersose(He thinks that Sri Shankaracharya's Brahm can perform work-(I know!)),will reply and invite anyone else you would like to.

Please try to answer the immediate question as briefly as possible.Since it is generally expected from us(Vaishnavas) to quote scriptures,it would be expected from the mayavadis that they quote at least shankaracharya ESPECIALLY when sensational claims (Like that of Kaisersose) are made.

I am positive that the end of this discussion shall culminate in an intense,if not life changing,conclusion.

Mayavadis,Hear Hear.

before i answer i would like to mention that it was a disgusting way to start a thread with personal sarcasms .

secondly what do you mean by 'life changing conclusions" ?? whose life ?

mine ? yours ? all in this forum ? life needs to be changed for what ? are advaitists terroroists or drug addicts ? or is it because they are inclined to search out for impersonal god ??? please answer .

ANSWER-- firstly quoting from scriptures is absolutely non essentiall in advaita belief . scriptures hold their significance only to make people understand what their goal of life should be . after focusing your goal(realization) sadhana is more important . while you call for a discussion you must folllow the common rules . quoting may be important to you but maybe idiotic to me . you cannot expect your 'opponent' to folow your personal rules , isnt it ???!!!

According to Mayavada,

What happens to the personalities who are eligible for liberation after leaving the body ?

no one knows . nirvikalpa experience cannot be described . even those rare ones who came back after nirvikalpa couldnt explain it because explanation demands minimum ego and nirvikalpa is absolutely egoless.

we can at the best say that they become what they were ( brahman) or they realise what they are(brahman) . still better would be they realise that they only exist.

So jeevatma is Brahm .Undifferentiated,Non divisible,Unlimited Brahm who is ONE ?

 

Yes.Or no ?

yes , correct but such claims can only be made after realizing that stage.

raghu ,

nowhere in my post did i mention ramakrishna mission or vivekananda. instead i gave bharat sevashram sangha as an exapmle . i said that i am a ramakrishna vivekananda follower in a different thread. you are making personal attacks here .

i cannot continue a dialogue with you beause you expressedly said that you dont believe as all religions being equally true. and thats exactly the message i want to convey . before coming to a sound scientific conclusions one must observe , experiment and then draw an inference. i guess you have finished all the three steps for all the existing faith systems and have finally concluded that only your religion is true. if thats the case ,its fine .

if not then i must say that you lack in scientific and rational logic . as argument is all about logic i cannot do that with you . you live happy in your belief and me in mine . enjoy ..........

Who can really say that with proof?

why would it devalue it and rank it with other primitive religions? do i hear a contempt for these religions why is it negative? why would it devalue it if it startet as somekind of shamanic religion... why would it even matter? the important issue is what it evolved into!

obviously i cannot proove it historically . but i would tend to disagree with it beacause shamanistic traditions and vedic tradition differ greatly.

its not about speaking negative . its about proclaiming vedic religion as superior over the rest . all religions hold some fundamental truth and explore a part of the whole . they also vary according to levels of knowledge . shamanistic religion though not untrue would be a crude concept than the highly refined vedic philosophy.

moreover the principle defining point in vedic religion is its deep philosophy which was unique to vedic culture. this was not borrowed from other thoughts . so the bed rock of vedic religion is it own indegenous philosophy. thats why i would refrein from sayin that it had shamanistic roots. if it atall had any shamanitic base it should have fallen of by the time of rig veda . it could have been a kind of evolution or metamorphosis.

in this context i am remembering an old phenomenon in bengal and eastern india. im not quite sure if that's equally there in other parts of india as well ( i think they do) . its about cases when a person becomes 'possesed' by some god or deity . not evil ones i mean .the person might start rolling in dust with groans and frantic shaking of heads etc. they are known to prophecise and have healing , thought reading powers as long this continues . and the moment the 'god' leaves his or her body he comes back to normal but dazed state . while this was very common in old bengal nowadays it is rarer and more of a rural thing . its more prevalent in financially and educationally weaker sections of the society and victims are mostly women .

although most cases are false pretence some are indeed intriguing . and most of such cases happen on occassion of some puja ceremony , public or private . mostly it happens with shakta deities showing occult influence on modern tantra. in fact one or two such incident might actually help establish that the deity is indeed 'alive' in course of the puja or festival.

what might this be ? what do you guys think the psychology behind this ?

i think its fake . keep it in water overnight or 12 hours . pieces might come apart or loose its colour etc and help you get to the truth

I see the vedic appearance as, a great pinnacle in consciousness evolution as a collective. The indigenous shamanic traditions may have evolved alongside vedic culture...but as we know inter-connection is a truth.

hi bija,

thats what i meant . maybe i couldnt express myself to you . its very natural for shamanistic and occult practises to exist alongside vedic philosophy 4000 years ago . both infuenced each other and finally got merged together and that might have given rise to early vedic thought .

much like todays shaktism . the vedic savitri , saraswati etc got fused with all the local dravidian , rural and tribal deities like shitala , manasa , sarvamangala etc and formed the concept of the 'single mother' or shakti who is the essenstial power of all male deities.

its might have been a amalgamation of the two schools(the philosophical one of the rishis and shamanistic one of the shamans) . but to say that it was pimarily a shamanistic religion at its begining is ludicrous .

Why would make the tradition shallow? it is a fact that shamans wo uses these plants indeed have reached some of the same levels of counciousness as vedic enlighted masters, if you read the story about Maria Sabina it clearly proves my case she has great telephatic abilities and healing powers something that shows her high level of counciousness.

If the psychedelic experience was hollow how can it lead to such powers?

my meaning in saying 'higher levels of conciousness' is actually 'highest level of conciousness' . yes , shamans do have higher conciousness levels than an ordinary human which is self evident through their psychic powers . but remember that telepathy or healing has nothing to do with spirituality and neither is a denoter of 'highest levels' . on the 'highest levels' such things become idiotic to a true spiritual aspirant .

although its true that a spiritual person might aqquire some psychic powers while his sadhana . its also true that some spiritual disciplines like the vamamarga of tantra have well defined rituals of attaining this highest state through the use of intoxicants. and there have been real good spiritually advanced persons in such paths also . but the principle target of these sadhaks were always attaining the supreme not healing , prophesising or similar paranormal powers .

No vedic religion is not a "primitive" religion but that still dont proves it didnt have shamanistic roots and rig-veda IMO proves that the vedic religion actually had plant use an essential part of it.

vedic religion didnt have shamanistic roots but might have had shamanistic influences.saying that it was shamanism in the begining and attained a more deeper spiritual philosophy later would completely devalue it and rank it with other primitive religions.

These soma rituals and the secret knowledge of how to find and make the soma formed the priest-caste who then made the basis for the organized vedic religion who produced so many seers and great spirituality.

are you suggesting that it was soma which did all the wonders for this land ?

I think the psychedelic experience can be described as a forced and very invasive spiritual experience and not like meditation who trains your counciouness and diciplines your counciousness,

psychedelic experiance is not a spiritual experience . all spiritual experience is the result of sadhana , dedication , patience , faith etc . even if a young man shows highest levels of conciousness all of a sudden it is because of the sadhana of his previous births.

Look at the great rise in interest in Buddhism and Vedic religions after LSD was released.

 

 

oh my god !!! is this rise in interest beacuse of release of LSD or search of inner peace which the materialistic culture of west failed to provide ?!!!!

This is called stupidity. If you cannot quote a single verse from Shankara, you should do the right thing and stay away from mentioning him and his doctrine in every other post. With your tiresome copy/paste nonsense, you are just making an idiot of yourself - in case you have not realized it yet.

 

But if that is what you want, then go ahead.

im really starting to wonder whether ranjeet had any personal feud with sri sankaracharya a thousand year ago in his past incarnation . maybe that samskar is still working in him .

otherwise how can a person go on with his incessant attempts to disproove sankaracharya virtually in every post ??!!!!!!!!!!!!!