sant

That is not reconciling. Look up the word in a standard dictionary. To "reconcile" two points of view means to bring them into accord. He did not show how Advaita and Dvaita were actually compatible. They are not. Saying that "qualitiative oneness" is compatible with "quantitiative difference" is not the same as saying that Advaita and Dvaita are reconciled. Of course, since you have previously redefined words like "brahmin,Hindu,servant," etc, I suppose that it's to be expected that you will similarly redefine "reconcile."

 

By the way, we have yet to see any attempt on your part to reconcile your chauvinistic remarks about Hinduism with "pure Vaishnavism, free of all mundane designations." Nor have you been able to reconcile your views on the use of the term "Hinduism" with the fact that your own guru used the term repeatedly according to its standard meaning in his writings. Nor have we seen you reconcile your callous remarks about Rajan Zed, the victim of Christian bigotry, with the generally civilized attitude that haters are to be decried, not those that they hate.

 

Any chance we will be seeing you acknowledge your double standards, your bigotry against Hindu culture, and your general philosophy of blaming the victim of a hate crime so long as he is a Hindu? If not, then don't bother showing your virtual face here and pretending as if nothing happened.

 

 

aha good way to run away raghu tell me once again where is samadhi in your dvait.

You cannot accept all Jagadgurus at the same time, as they have conflicting views. Pick one and avoid confusion.

 

You are saying Chaitanya claimed reconciliation between Advaita and Dvaita. Do you have evidence? If yes, then he accepted Advaita and Dvaita as true at the same time. If yes, why did Prabhupada write a piece titled "Mayavada is false" and how Shiva came as Shankara to fool people?

 

You have to take a stance and be consistent.

 

Cheers

 

I was talking about other 4 jagad gurus who have said advait as wrong.

but does it mean it is completely wrong?

If yes, why did Prabhupada write a piece titled "Mayavada is false" and how Shiva came as Shankara to fool people?

 

Maybe because it is mentioned in the padm puraan.

I dont know about the article thanks for telling me.

Samadhi as you described is purely an Advaita concept. Nothing to do with Dvaita.

 

 

Samadhi i thought it was a reality.It is mentioned in all holy books and i think even dvait wont deny it.

So why shouldnt i talk about it.I would surely want to know what raghu means by samadhi since he talks about dvait.

It is not clear why this concept of reconciliation is finding supporters among Hare Krishnas. Confusion as usual? On one hand you criticize Advaita as false and then now you claim you are reconciling it with Dvaita. Why do you want to reconcile a false philosophy? Prabhupada wrote an artice titled "Mayavada is a false philosophy" and now here are some of his followers going against his own words.

 

When did i say,i just beleive what mahaprabhu and what the other jagadgurus say.are you denying them.Im not hare krishna.

but other differences also, namely differences between different jivas, difference between Brahman and matter, difference between the jivas and matter, etc. According to Tattvavadi system of philosophy, all of these differences are real and eternal. Thus, "Dvaita" cannot be reconciled with any philosophy which does not also accept all of those differences as real and eternal.

 

No havent you heard of samadhi.In samadhi there is no difference between the atman and the brahman.it is that state where you become one with brahman so what does dvait do there?

You cant say that there at two because samadhi actually is a state where there is no difference.

First and far most rule for Sansaris is,dont show your Rudraksha to others,wear it under your "Vastra"only sanyasis are allowed to wear in such a way that others can see it(coz most of Sanyasis dont wear anything on upper part of their body).

Quote:

I only wish it were true. In India today it is a fashion to wear a Rudraksha. You find hate spewing politicians, movie stars and the like wearing and showing off their Ek-mukhi Rudraksha.

It will be surely a slow process by Rudraksha IF wearer finds a genuine one and use proper pran pratishtha and pooja after wearing them,you may disagree with me but my own experence tells me that these beads are divine beads with upmost powers.Thanks Kaliji.

Quote:

What we are talking about is a gradual process.

Can you tell me hindustani where you get all these rules from.I was reading somewhere that shudras should wear different color rudraksh and kshatriyas should wera different rudraksh etc.

I thought renunciation and detachment go hand in hand.

Creative indeed, since "acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva" does NOT actually reconcile "advaita and dvaita philosophies."

 

 

What do you mean do you think you know too much about dvait and by the way advait and what do you beleive in neodvait or neoadvait.

Second, Now as one has to fulfill his duties & responsibilities for which he has taken birth, and if one avoids it or if for some reason fails to fulfill his present lifetimes mission...he will Definitely take a RE-BIRTH and come back to this world to complete his present and previous pending responsibilities...so one may avoid getting married, like myself but if i am bound to united with someone, i will definitely be united...if not in this lifetime..then the next for sure...now you tell me who wants to come back again and again to this world...& that even to get married ?

 

 

I dont think so mr behal saibaba was also not married.

Upanishads say that there are mountains and mountains of your past karamas so in that way you dont know in how many lives you will have to be united with how many people will have to become your wife.You seem to be unhappy with your non married life so certainly you go and get married if you want but dont tell others that brahmacharya is wrong and is an obstacle to spriritual advancement.If somebody doesnt want to marry then let him be dont forcefully become his mother.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vrindavan

Are there any strictly health related reasons to avoid eating onion or avoid garlic ?

because some people do not care much if you mention religious reasons

Thanks

 

Certainly. It makes your mouth stink.......

What is this 'cheers'? Are you drinking?

 

Even i wanted to know that,

Wait a minute the word is sadhana panchakam but it is pronounced as 'sadhana' and not 'sadhanaa' as in 'maataa'.

please correct me.

Sadhana is a Sanskrit word meaning

 

1. Accomplishment, fulfillment, completion

 

2. Worship, adoration

 

3. Conciliation, propitiation

 

Sanskrit-English dictionary by V.S. Apte.

 

Sadhana Panchakam of Adi Sankara is older than the Hindi language.

 

 

Ok then you must be write

Thank you

I APOLIOISE TO THE MEMBERS

But tell me is there any vedik place or puranic place the word is used.

I think ive got it.

The word is sadhan that should be the sanskrit word.

sadhan means -'means to do something'.

The sanskrit word can be sadhan and as sanskrit words change sadhana can become sadhanam,sadhanah,sadhanaa.

Please correct if i am wrong.

edit

Correct.

 

Shankara from the 8th century, wrote the sanskrit poem, Sadhana Panchakam. Advaita also contains the core concept of Sadhana Chatustaya, the fourfold qualifications necessary for the serious aspirant. These are all essential qualities for the student and if I recall correctly, this is explained in Atma Bodha - another work of Shankara.

 

Sadhana clearly has a much wider usage than what is found on that wikipedia page.

 

Cheers

 

 

Thank you

i apolgise

But why does the wikipedia say it is a hindi word.

And does vedik scripture mentions it ?

Maybe it is used in modern sanskrit but not in ancient sanskrit.

Q.1) Plants are also having life and killing plants is also sin. So in what sense vegetarian food is better than non-vegetarian food, in terms of killing or 'sin'?

SWAMIJI: This is a very good question. It is true that plants also have "life" and killing plants is also sin. So the best way to observe total non-violence is to follow "Shiloncha Vraththi". That is to take only those fruit fallen from the trees, plants. In this way we are doing harm to none. But everyone can not follow that. We have to take food to survive and sustain this body and it the question of survival. So we need to take that path which is less sinful and less harm to other "jivi".

Now there are two reasons to say that vegetarian food is having insignificant sin. Many of the plants like rice, wheat etc. are having life only for one crop time. Once their yield is over, they die, even if we don't cut them. So by cutting those plants we are doing we less sin or no sin at all. In many other plants, like mango, coconut etc, by plucking the fruit, we are not killing the plants and so we are doing very minimal sin or no sin at all. So vegetarian food is less sinful. More over it is inevitable for our survival, but non-vegetarian food is a luxury to us and we can afford to avoid that. It is more sinful since we are killing animals all the time.

Next we need to know why certain acts are sinful. Each and every life (plants, animals etc) has come to this world, to do "sadhana"(efforts), to get better life and finally get "moksha". Whenever such "sadhana" opportunity is cut short, it becomes sin. For plants there is no much "sadhana". They can not do any kind of physical or mental activities, in terms of "sadhana". So by cutting them, we are not doing many harms to their "sadhana" or reducing their opportunity for "sadhana". So it is not sinful. But animals can do a good amount of "sadhana" by means of physical and / or mental activities. By killing them, we are cutting short their opportunities to do "sadhana" towards moksha. So it is more sinful.

To support this aspect further, "suicide" is considered as biggest sin, even though no one else is troubled other than the self, because God has given us this wonderful body and mind to do "sadhana" towards moksha and by rejecting this offer or by cutting short this "sadhana", we are insulting God and betraying him. So it is highly sinful. There is another example in "Sasthra". Suppose there is a very very old man, incapable of doing any physical and mental activities. Then he can enter to fire to end his life. That is not sin because he can not do any more "sadhana" by himself or through others. So in general any act which is cutting short others or self "sadhana", it is considered as sin. and vegetarians are doing less sin.

Q.2) We were thinking that only human beings, having 'thinking power' can only do "sadhana" and other animals can not. Is it not true? How animals can do "sadhana"?

SWAMIJI: It is not true. All animals can also do "sadhana". Otherwise there is a fundamental problem in the system. If animals can not do "sadhana", they can not get better life, namely human life. If they can not get human life, then they can not get "moksha" at all at any time. This is not true and so it is proved that animals also do "sadhana" and get better life.

They do 'sadhana' by their mental activities. We can see lot of difference in the behavior of animals. In the same category say cat, dog or cow, we can see lot of difference like some are soft, some are sensitive, some are more active etc. This is due to their mental "sadhana". Also in kids who are not having any thinking power, we are seeing lot of differences. We have seen a kid, in Bombay, around 2 years old. It loves Krishna like anything. While sleeping, it tightly hugs Krishna idol; does not drink milk without offering to Krishna; always want to listen to Krishna's story; always wants to witness Krishna Pooja. It is really surprising. It is all due to previous "samskara". Like that animals also will have previous samskara and "sadhana".

Q. 3) Is it true that in olden days, sages used to eat meat? There is an incident of 'Agasthya' eating meat in " Vathapi - Ilvala" story.

SWAMIJI: Yes, we can see some mention about such things in very old stories. We need to understand clearly why and under what circumstances they used to consume meat. Firstly they used to take meat, not as their regular food. The animal would be offered to 'yajna', the sacred fire and then the sages, having high yogic power would consume the meat as prasad of the yajna. Due to this auspicious activity, the animal would go to heaven. In the story of 'Augusthya', when he said ' Vathapi jirno bhava', he got digested immediately. Such was the power in those days.

But now meat is not approved to Brahmins. First we need to understand why we consume food. It is to have good health. Health means not only the physical health. The mental health plays a very important role. That's why in Sanskrit it is known as "swasthya" means mental peace, purity and health. Meat or non-vegetarian food improves body and but not the mind. So for those people, who need to have physical strength, like solders, meat is not prohibited. Solders need not have any thinking power. They have to fight like machines. But for Brahmins, mental power is more important. We need to have peace and purity of mind, stability and concentration of mind. So for us meat is prohibited. Since ages our ancestors were having vegetarian food and so Brahmins are generally considered as soft, kind hearted, stable and intelligent people. If we start consuming meat, slowly we will loose all these good qualities. We will not see the changes overnight. It takes time and we will see the changes in the later generations.

Q. 4) There are many noble laureates who are meat eaters. What we can say for that?

SWAMIJI: Getting a noble prize is not at all a yardstick to measure the peace and purity, stability and concentration of mind. It is known that suicide rate is high in scientists too. Actually scientists are more disturbed in their mind. Due to this, they get activated and get involved deeply in something and come out with some new things. For their success, the basic reason is not the peaceful mind, but disturbed mind. Generally Brahmins who is suppose to have the mental capacity to understand ' Brahma', need to have very good concentration power for 'japa' and 'tapa'. and they are supposed to be mentally not disturbed people. In olden days even if they consume meat, they used to keep up their mental stability and peace of mind, due to their yogic power or 'thapas'. But now in 'Kaliyuga', as such our mental powers and concentration powers are getting reduced. We are loosing our purity and peace of mind due to various reasons. As such the 'satvic' atmosphere and 'satvic' qualities are reducing because we are not doing enough 'japa', 'tapa' etc. So if we start consuming meat we will loose all our good mental qualities soon. So in 'kaliyuga', meat is strictly prohibited for Brahmins. It is also sinful as said in previous answers.

Q. 5) Is it not sin to kill silkworms for silk and deer's for 'krishnaa-jina'?

SWAMIJI : Short answer is it is sin if we do for trading purpose. For detailed answer, first we need to understand what sin is. It is not a substance associated with a particular activity. The same activity can be resulted in sin or not depending upon the purpose, intention and circumstance. For e.g. killing in general is sin, but killing a demon or man hunter is not sin. Similarly in olden days kings used to go for hunting. It was not sin because they used to kill only those wild animals, which are troublesome to the sages and the nearby villagers. Similarly if we kill animal to avoid being killed, it is not sin. As said earlier, every creature in this world is for doing "sadhana". Here the priority is for those doing greater "sadhana". To accomplish that, if others have to sacrifice their "sadhana", there is no harm in that. For e.g.: Assume that there are two students in a house, One if preparing for second grade and other one preparing for Medical exam. Though both are preparing for their exams, we consider that medical exam is more important and give preference to him. If needed, we may ask the other to sacrifice his preparation, because he doesn't lose much. Similarly in this world, "jivi" doing higher order of "sadhana", gets preference. So for the benefit of that, others with little "sadhana" may be sacrificed without any sin. So if we are preparing silk for God's pooja, then it is not sin. But if we are preparing silk for decorating ourselves, it is sin. So we need to understand what is the purpose of the act and what we are going achieve finally. http://www.salagram.net/PSM-veg.htm

Sorry my wording was incomplete. By your scriptures I meant those accessable to you by your knowing the original language.

 

im also sorry for any confusion.

Quote:

Sir I thought the scriptures are for everybody.

I said it in a lighthearted way.

you have finished through all scriptures ???

 

 

No but the word sadhana is new to me and i dont think youl find it in the scriptures even a translation of any sanskrit word. The word sadhana is a new word whose defintion is not the same and is not a translation of any word in the scriptures.

The sadhana may not appear in your scriptures

Sir I thought the scriptures are for everybody.

Are those disciplines not sadhana's?

 

 

I meant the word sadhana is not mentioned in any scripture.

From 'It' includes starts the wiki information.

I said the paths are not mentioned as its become a trend to use this word instead of bhakti marg ,or gyana marg or karam marg.

surely the definiton can vary from person to person.Some will say that sadhana is a part of bhakti yoga and some might consider it non different.

JAI SHRI RADHE

What does the word sadhana mean?

I dont remember coming across this 'sadhana' word in any of the scriptures.

So where does this word come from?

Ans.From hindi.

Sadhana is not a sanskrit word it is a hindi word.

There is no path such as sadhana path mentioned in the scriptures.

It includes a variety of disciplines from Hindu and Buddhsit traditions that are followed in order to achieve various spiritual or ritual objectives.

The historian N. Bhattacharyya provides a working definition of the benefits of sadhana as follows:

"... religious sādhanā, which both prevents an excess of worldliness and moulds the mind and disposition (bhāva) into a form which develops the knowledge of dispassion and non-attachment. Sādhanā is a means whereby bondage becomes liberation.

Kinds of Sadhana

Sakaam Sadhana

Sakaam (Devnagari = सकाम, Sa = yes / with, Kaam = desire) Sadhana is spiritual practice done for worldly pleasures. This is the lowest form of sadhana. There is no spiritual progress with sakaam sadhana. Examples of sakaam sadhana is praying for any worldly goals like getting money, job, marriage or any other aim which is temporary and will not last beyond death. In Ramayana it was mentioned that though Ravana and kumbhkarana were great devotees of Shiva and performed various tapas, they were performing sakaam sadhana as their main aim was to become powerful and rule the world.

Nishkaam Sadhana

Nishkaam (Devnagari= निश्काम, Ni = no / without, Kaam= desire) sadhana is spiritual practice done for higher aims. It is done to achieve the aim of enlightenmentor moksha . It is done for the spiritual upliftment of the individual so that he is taken out of the cycle of life and death (samsara).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadhana

That which in the beginning may be just like poison, but at the end is just like nectar, and which awakens one to Self-realization is said to be happiness in the mode of goodness (Sattvic).

 

Is the happinesss talked here same as spritual bliss.

dlete

thanks mr kali upasak

I'm not against Lord Krishna, but against those corrupt people who are robbing innnocent foreigners by using this propaganda that Krishna refers to himself as ultimate god in Geeta & depriving a great sage "Vyas Muni" for its credit.

 

ronin mind your language i know you have a dirty mind.

who youre trying to refer.

krishna is the supreme is accepted by mostly all jagadgurus.

so dear please stop.

Stick to the Vaidic form rather than the Tantrik one.

 

 

sir may i ask why.

generally why do people stop others from doing tantra or tantric mantras