Love

That's quite interesting to know that Shankaracharya spent his last days in Tibet. I don;t know if that is true, but I think I read somewhere a theory that Muslim rulers made use of black magic to gain control over the Hindu psyche. It was at this time they focused their attention on Indian tantrics and started killing them in a meditated fashion. They did so to remove any opposition to their black magic, which was proving ineffective while these tantrics were around. So, left with little help around them these tantrics escpaed to Tibet. Also, it seems there are innumerable references to Indian tantrics who lived their lives out in Tibet and were highly respected their and became lamas themselves and did great work to enhance their tantric knowledge. Unfortunately, major part of Tibetan text was destroyed by the Chinese sytematically. The reson for this thinking seems to be the reason that when Muslims tried to ocnvert Hindus to Islam they failed miserably as Hindus refused to believe in their view of the God - A God who was biased favourably only towards those who worshipped Him and destined non-believers to hell (dozakh). So, they started using black-magic to impress upon common Hindu that their God was greater than any God that a Hindu knew. Till, however Indian tantrics were around they anulled their effects and that is where it became necessary for them to eliminate Hindu tantrics, who were actually far superior to the Muslim black-magicians.

Well, I think there is partial truth to your statement about indologists fixing the dates. It may have occured because if you look at ancient India, history was never given much importance as per the Western concept, where they are very particular about their history. Indians believed in constant rejuvenation and remembering history for them was like carrying a dead body upon one's shoulders. So, whatever history has been built up has been only from prejudiced people, like indologists, or mediocre Indian historians who were themselves in turn impressed by the Western dictum on Indian hostory. That is a misfortune for us. However, if that were the case only that indologists wanted to fit things into their world view, why would Ashoka be not dated after Christ, or Buddha, Mahavira for that matter. I end to agree with you but find it incredulous to believe that dates may have been manipulated to such a large extent without some genuine Hindu scholars noting them! I would none-the-less appreciate it very much if you can find some time, at your own leisure, and provide me with the source for the dating you mentioned for Shankaracharya. Thanks

If you go to a state in India called Maharashtra, every Hindu house will hvae several statues of Lord Ganesha. Ganesha being the most popular deity in Maharshtra. However, there is no extra problems you can see in Maharashtra as opposed to other states in india. As a matter of fact, Maharashtra is one of the more prospering states in India. I think we need to come out of superstitions that a particular statue is not a good omen. It is lowly brahmins who have created these petty thoughts in name of vaastu-shastra. If there were to be problems because of keeping Ganesha's statues, there should have been great disharmony in that state. It seems like any other state in India, only being better off than other states. Why? If you look from bhakti perspective, people in maharashtra are almost in love with Ganesha. And if you are sincere in your bhakti all these things cannot matter. In fact, I find it almost foolish to believe personally that keeping God's statue in a respectful manner in your house can be bad for your life!

Hello Jndasji, If it is not too much can you please provide me with the reference - the biography name, where I can find this biography, author, etc - about Shankaracharya being born about 2000 years back. Also, I assume it will tell me a lot about Shankarachrya himself. As far as not referring to Muslims is concerned may be beacuse of the fact that his works I understand are of philosophical nature and references to Muslims were not required there. Besides, his aim seemed to be establishing Hinduism in the way he perceived it and spending his energies on discussing Islam would have diverted his force elsewhere. Is there also some story about Shankaracharya living inside a king's body for some time to keep the king;s body alive? If this story can be subtantiated by some biography or so, can wenot know the date for Shankaracharya as per the date for that king?

I hoipe you are not talking of the dates as per the Hinud calendar or something. The dates I refer to are as per the Christian claendar as that is pretty much the standard these days. I understand that Shankaracharya was born around 788 A.D. and departed near 820 A.D. This is also the time when Muslim invaders from Arab first started their rule in Sindh/ Afghanistan, which used to be predominantly Hindus that time. If you would like to have a look, please just do a search for Shankaracharya on the web (use ). For more authentic sources please consult any quality history book whcih may tell you the approximate period in which Shankaracharya was on Earth. Cheers Love

Hello amanPeter My apologies for misleading you there at all. That last post was meant for Satyaraja. Actually we have been having s discussion for a while on this thread and it is getting interesting. I will certainly check out the other site in a couple of days. I have got long weekend this time and so taking my sister out to see places. I will certainly like to talk on a more personla basis as well. My e-mail should be available on the profile. Take care.

Hello amanPeter My apologies for misleading you there at all. That last post was meant for Satyaraja. Actually we have been having s discussion for a while on this thread and it is getting interesting. I will certainly check out the other site in a couple of days. I have got long weekend this time and so taking my sister out to see places. I will certainly like to talk on a more personla basis as well. My e-mail should be available on the profile. Take care.

I htink you did not understand what I wrote. If you are able to convert all tamasik nature inside yourself in to original love you will eventually evolve and at the psiritual level that love will transform itself into prema if you please. Krishna ahd love in all forms and it was never mixed up at different levels. Why can;t we learn from that incarnatin that love at all levels as long as integrated is equally pure. Vedic culture never says physical love is impure. The only difference is that if you physical love has not evolved and has remained fragmented it continues to be impure. Krishna loves at all levels and he does not get impure for this act. He is nishkarma. You could be too if you oculd integrate your levels of existence into single entity of love. Why do we have to presume that love at physical level is only impure?

I htink you did not understand what I wrote. If you are able to convert all tamasik nature inside yourself in to original love you will eventually evolve and at the psiritual level that love will transform itself into prema if you please. Krishna ahd love in all forms and it was never mixed up at different levels. Why can;t we learn from that incarnatin that love at all levels as long as integrated is equally pure. Vedic culture never says physical love is impure. The only difference is that if you physical love has not evolved and has remained fragmented it continues to be impure. Krishna loves at all levels and he does not get impure for this act. He is nishkarma. You could be too if you oculd integrate your levels of existence into single entity of love. Why do we have to presume that love at physical level is only impure?

Quote: That is a very strange statement and it is against all sastra. In Gitopanisad is clearly stated that one should seek after a tattva-darsini, a preceptor who is conversant on the Truth. (tell me how you put it in bold). Buddha upon the spiritual journey was alone. Mahavira was alone too. Shankaracharya left his guru when he started on his spiritual path. My understanding is that on this path one is all alone. However, I will try and find the references for this and quote them later. Guru can only show you the way but it is oneself that has to walk on that path alone. Guru in that case cannot walk with you because he cannot attain nirvana for you. It is you who has to attain niravana and so on the psiritual path one has to walk alone. Of course, when I say alone it never meant without God. How can that ever be inferred? I meant a guru,as is meant in the usual sense of a teacher becomes irrelevant. At that stage of our personal journey God is the guru. And let's not twist words and say that guru is God. Quote: If someone needs any material instruction such how to be a doctor, he should have a master, or even many masters in this discipline. When I am saying clearing up cobwebs in the somatic level or intellectual level I am not talking of learning skills at this level to survive. I am talking of evolving at these levels to become free of the archetypes that plague us as humans and to come out of the riddles that Mother Nature puts to us in her tamasik form. This is a knowledge that is pretty much common to all men and solutonis are also nearly the same. However at the spiritual level the riddles presented to each one on that path are unique and one's own personal riddles created by God for that one person. Have we heard of someone attaining nirvana under a certain guru. I donlt think so. If that were the case wouldn;t the guru himself attain nirvana. Think about it. For me the spiritual path whose aim is to attain nirvana. I have to go now. I will write about other points later. Thanks

Jndasji, I would rather say that Gita says to take rebirth from the tamasik form in which anger appears in us originally. IN such form it does not see reason. If we take rebirth from such tamasik anger and tunr it into satvik, we will find that anger is actually not bad. In satvik form it is like the anger of Krishna where it is never devoid of reason or super-human in form. It is a rightly produced emotion at times of need. It will be like a fore that warms our body when needed and not an atomic explosion within us that leaves a vacuum inside us in its aftermath. When we are left in pure vacuum we are like Trishanku and no more human. Wheras our dharma is always to find a way towards remaining human at all times. Cheers

I have just started to read the Bhagvad Purana. I was wondering if those of you who have already read parts of it or all of it, provide me with some of thier insights. This will help me read Bhagvad Purana in a better frame of mind. As it is, I am not planning to read it as a book containing stories but a book that is giving us a hidden message about life through those stories. If I learn anything I will certainly add it here. Thanks very much in advance. Love

It is no trivial matter that India gave birth to various sects and beliefs - Hinduism (broken into Vaishnavas, Shaivites, and so on), Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc but they were all tied together with the same sutra - dharma. And it was this that kept all poeple living in Bharat-varsha and having different beliefs to have the same culture. I hope this gives us some insight into the difference between religion and dharma. Even Shankaracharya never rebuffed the people spreading Islam in Sindh through utterly inhuman ways. He simply set about his task of saving Hinduism in his way of setting up the various dham. He thought it wiser than to strain his energies on correcting the Muslim. So, why can;t we take it that it is not unto us to tell the other the correct way. It is only by His grace and wish when someone gets himself enlightened and sees beyond the mediocrity of religion and starts believing in something that suits his existence better - dharma.

I do not understand why the followers of sanatana dharma have to react to the closed-minded views of someone. I am sure sanatana dharma says that when there is foolish talk do not take it upon yourself to set the fool right. IN the vacuum of non-conversation and when the heat of the topic subsides, the person raising an outcry will himself see the incompetence in his flagrant speech. That is of course, if they sincerely follow their religion. However, is this not a nice instance of how all the spiritualists reacted to the offensive set off by Mr. Ron? One was a way to go all on the upper level and try to be philosophical about it. Or the other way where our somatic-self reacted by replacing Jesus and Krishna to give an example of how it owuld sound. Even for the sake of an example is this any dharma? How can followers of sanstan dharma forget that dharma is not = religion. Religion is something tha binds you to what needs to be done as per a book written down in the past and is the epitome of everything. Whereas dharma is like a constantly flowing river that keeps ever fresh and new. Dharma is that faint voice inside each one of us which tells us what is the right thing to do. If we all listen inside us, we will find that we all can have different religions but the same dharma that takes us towards becoming more human.

Right ho! Satyarajaji. My understanding is that each individual lives simultaneously at several levels of consciousness/ existence – somatic, psychological, intellectual, & spiritual. Prakriti can appear in three forms: Sattvik, Rajsik, or Tamsik as you said. It is not this any where you look you will find Prakriti (Nature) appearing in these three forms. There is a good reason for this. If you look at various beliefs around the world – Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc, most of them (apart from Hinduism) accord a separate existence to evil and they classify things as essentially good or evil. In their belief, evil has a separate existence form God (Good) and so good and evil are in constant struggle to take control of the human soul. Here Hinduism differs from other beliefs. It does not accord a separate existence to evil. In fact, Hindu thought says that evil is the building block out of which good is made and hence, those who gain the knowledge of reconverting the evil into the good compound cannot be defeated by evil. It is also for this reason Hinduism says that good always conquers evil. Other beliefs are not so sure about this. In Hinduism the only pre-requisite for this saying to be true is the practice of the yoga of taking rebirths from these evils. (Personally I would not use the word evil but am using it for case of example only). For e.g. let’s say that you love someone. And that person provides you with an instance where they hurt your feelings very badly. Immediately, you will find certain other feelings coming inside you. These vary from individual to individual. You may feel at that moment of betrayal hatred, anger, anguish, depression, dejection, or whatever else. It only means that the outcome of a certain experience was that your love broke down into certain tamasik forms of nature that are manifesting themselves inside you after the satvik form (love) was broken. Now, if you know that there is a way to recombine these tamasik constituents in the original satvik love that you had, you can merge back these tamasik constituents into original love. And that way is the yoga of taking rebirths. There are a few requirements for this yoga. You have to realize that though there may be some qualitative gradation between sattva, rajas, and tamas forms of Nature but that gradation is not for you to know of. There are kinds of knowledge that even though are there cannot be absorbed by the human consciousness and remain intact. This is one of them. The moment an individual retains the knowledge of the inherent gradation between sattva, rajas and tamas forms of nature they are essentially saying that one form of mother Nature is dearer to them than the other. Whereas, the truth is that in any form she is still our mother who is only taking different forms to provide us the environment in which we can evolve so that no one can harm us. This is what she does out of love for us. We need to teach all levels of existence within us that Nature in any form is equally respectable to us and we should pray unto her in all her forms equally well (Saraswati, Lakshmi, or Kali) as she is only our mother who has appeared in several forms to us. The moment you do this sadhana and also command the broken down constituents inside yourself to take rebirth from each other by committing a self-sacrifice of yourself unto all these constituents and asking all these constituents to do the same, they are bound by law of nature to recombine into that original love that you had. Only this time your love will grow the knowledge and the art of recombining each time such kind of incident happens to you. Evolution in life is more like a yagna where you sacrifice yourself every time only to be given a rebirth and evolve stronger than the previous time. While practicing this art we also have to realize that we do not use light of one level of existence upon another level as the light from one level is like darkness to the other. So, if we apply spiritual light or intellectual light to the human body we are disallowing the body to live by its own somatic light, which it has. Over centuries of civilization importance has been given to spiritual or intellectual (rational) thought and this knowledge has been foolishly applied to somatic level of existence. This has forced the somatic knowledge inside us to hide away out of the fear of the brilliance of these two lights. Body’s requirements are simple and simpler is the knowledge it requires. Nature, except for very fortunate ones as you said, appears in her tamasik form to others at this somatic level just as it does on other levels. However, our body has to find a way through this yoga to make her tamasik nature convert into satvik nature in our somatic self. Once we do this, w can evolve further at the psychological and then spiritual level, where it again appears in her tamasik form in a different archetype that we have to break out of. Unless, we have taken rebirth from Nature at our somatic level and converted our somatic nature into satvik we can keep on trying the spiritual path and we will attain NOTHING. Only thing that we will attain is that we will learn to force our spiritual light upon our body in order to keep it in control. One day, then, the body will revolt. So, that is the summary of my belief and philosophy. I would welcome any critic review of what I wrote above.

Right ho! Satyarajaji. My understanding is that each individual lives simultaneously at several levels of consciousness/ existence – somatic, psychological, intellectual, & spiritual. Prakriti can appear in three forms: Sattvik, Rajsik, or Tamsik as you said. It is not this any where you look you will find Prakriti (Nature) appearing in these three forms. There is a good reason for this. If you look at various beliefs around the world – Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc, most of them (apart from Hinduism) accord a separate existence to evil and they classify things as essentially good or evil. In their belief, evil has a separate existence form God (Good) and so good and evil are in constant struggle to take control of the human soul. Here Hinduism differs from other beliefs. It does not accord a separate existence to evil. In fact, Hindu thought says that evil is the building block out of which good is made and hence, those who gain the knowledge of reconverting the evil into the good compound cannot be defeated by evil. It is also for this reason Hinduism says that good always conquers evil. Other beliefs are not so sure about this. In Hinduism the only pre-requisite for this saying to be true is the practice of the yoga of taking rebirths from these evils. (Personally I would not use the word evil but am using it for case of example only). For e.g. let’s say that you love someone. And that person provides you with an instance where they hurt your feelings very badly. Immediately, you will find certain other feelings coming inside you. These vary from individual to individual. You may feel at that moment of betrayal hatred, anger, anguish, depression, dejection, or whatever else. It only means that the outcome of a certain experience was that your love broke down into certain tamasik forms of nature that are manifesting themselves inside you after the satvik form (love) was broken. Now, if you know that there is a way to recombine these tamasik constituents in the original satvik love that you had, you can merge back these tamasik constituents into original love. And that way is the yoga of taking rebirths. There are a few requirements for this yoga. You have to realize that though there may be some qualitative gradation between sattva, rajas, and tamas forms of Nature but that gradation is not for you to know of. There are kinds of knowledge that even though are there cannot be absorbed by the human consciousness and remain intact. This is one of them. The moment an individual retains the knowledge of the inherent gradation between sattva, rajas and tamas forms of nature they are essentially saying that one form of mother Nature is dearer to them than the other. Whereas, the truth is that in any form she is still our mother who is only taking different forms to provide us the environment in which we can evolve so that no one can harm us. This is what she does out of love for us. We need to teach all levels of existence within us that Nature in any form is equally respectable to us and we should pray unto her in all her forms equally well (Saraswati, Lakshmi, or Kali) as she is only our mother who has appeared in several forms to us. The moment you do this sadhana and also command the broken down constituents inside yourself to take rebirth from each other by committing a self-sacrifice of yourself unto all these constituents and asking all these constituents to do the same, they are bound by law of nature to recombine into that original love that you had. Only this time your love will grow the knowledge and the art of recombining each time such kind of incident happens to you. Evolution in life is more like a yagna where you sacrifice yourself every time only to be given a rebirth and evolve stronger than the previous time. While practicing this art we also have to realize that we do not use light of one level of existence upon another level as the light from one level is like darkness to the other. So, if we apply spiritual light or intellectual light to the human body we are disallowing the body to live by its own somatic light, which it has. Over centuries of civilization importance has been given to spiritual or intellectual (rational) thought and this knowledge has been foolishly applied to somatic level of existence. This has forced the somatic knowledge inside us to hide away out of the fear of the brilliance of these two lights. Body’s requirements are simple and simpler is the knowledge it requires. Nature, except for very fortunate ones as you said, appears in her tamasik form to others at this somatic level just as it does on other levels. However, our body has to find a way through this yoga to make her tamasik nature convert into satvik nature in our somatic self. Once we do this, w can evolve further at the psychological and then spiritual level, where it again appears in her tamasik form in a different archetype that we have to break out of. Unless, we have taken rebirth from Nature at our somatic level and converted our somatic nature into satvik we can keep on trying the spiritual path and we will attain NOTHING. Only thing that we will attain is that we will learn to force our spiritual light upon our body in order to keep it in control. One day, then, the body will revolt. So, that is the summary of my belief and philosophy. I would welcome any critic review of what I wrote above.

I apologize for not being very clear when using the word disturbance. The correct word perhaps to use is confusion. When common men themselves go to spiritualist, it is a desire in them to learn fo something higher. When a spiritualist of his own accord comes to the city and start preaching, we cannot deny his statements are also heard by people who are not very interested in higher life. Now, as these people are still not evolved at their somatic, intellectual and psychological selves, the spiritual knowledge confuses them. That must have been the reson in ancient India sages used to live in the forests and people who were interested in spiritual discourses would go to them. None-the-less it does not deny the fact that a spiritual journey is a lonely one and no guru can help on this path. A guru can only help in the clearing up on the way at somatic, psychological and intellectual levels. So, it would be correct if the spiritualists were teaching of removing cobwebs in our somatic, psychological and intellectual levels and help us in integrating them before we attempt the spiritual path.

The point is that people who have decided to live in this world have to find a way first towards liberation of their somatic-self, the physical body. If we bring in an atmosphere of spirituality in a mudane environment, it is going to be like the poison that was produced during amrit-manthan. I am only condemning the need of the various spiritualists today to reach out to the audiences through TV, radio, newspapers, etc. Why do they feel that they have to reach out to the masses? Is it not the same as greed for fame and establishment of the self in the mundane world? Or kali-yuga has blinded them also to their dharma? Have they forgotten the dharma that is older than they can remember which tells that a spiritualist path is alone and no guru can alos guide on the path of spirituality. A guru is required to help clear up the webs along the path where the self evolves at somatic, psychological and rational selfs. However, believe me that a spiritual path is completely isolated for each indivdual. There is no way on the spiritual path where tow could hold hands together and continue with their journey. Thus, it comes to the same question that when spiritualist try and impress us with their spiritual learning goading us to follow that path, is it not denying the simplest of the facts that the spiritual journey is a lonely one and he or I cannot help each other on that. A spiritualist really engrossed in sadhana would not have time to waste on the masses. He would first find a way to liberate hinself and only then perhaps give a sermon. When a saint appears on the TV in the morning and tells that all this is maya, and that we need to grow out of it he is giving a confusing message to the poeple living in the real world. It is so because these poeple are not yet ready to leave the mundane world and yet are disturbed by the pure rhetoric of the sadhu on the TV (for instance) enough to feel themselves as sinners. However, they do not have the courage to give up everything of the material world and so they now under confusion applied by spiritual level on somatic level live a miserable life, cursing themselves. I am only talking of poeple who are sensitive enough to take life to be something more than just life. If someone does not bother about this he will not be affected and he will any way not be liberated. There are various ways to evolve. Surely applying spirituality to somatic existence of this world is not one of them. That is the ideal state of the world when philosophers be kings. That will be the time whent he entire (almost) world or a race (like ancient Hindus) evolve at the lower levels. Such a situation will itself produce the tranquility of spirituality in the air. Today,s cries for spirituality only create disturbances. I apologise if I have hurt any body's sentiments but I equally believe in what I have written and consider it my duty to share my somatic level experiences with others.

I nearly agree with what you say about the need to pass intellectual level. In fact, that is what I said as well if you note when I wrote that we have to evolve at our intellectual level. Evolving at this level means not learning science or whatever bu taking rebirth at this level to grow out of it. Indeed, spiritual level is the highest level of existence of all the levels. However, that is a distinction we humans are not supposed to judge or decipher. It is like having several mothers, but a son's dharma is to have equal respect and devotion to each of them, irrespective of their qualities and never ever to grade them. So, I say that at level of intellect intellect only works best. I guess Krishna was a spiritualist of the highest order. However, even He did not apply spirituality where intellect was required. You can deduce this from several incidents in Mahabharata where he applied His intellect to overcome certain kinds of situations. Why does He not apply spirituality at these stages? Because it is the only way of keeping oneself clear at all times and maintaining unity in the diversity of our existence. Besides, until we have this physical body (we have something called beej-aatman or the seed-soul) which is nothing more than the energy form of this material body which has to be liberated as well. Vedic culture placed equal emphasis on this beej-aatman as the aatman. All I am saying is that we cannot degrade our other levels of existence as impure because that was not meant to be decided by us. Each of these comes from that single substance called love. These are simply myriad images of love broken down into other particles. If one is a true spiritualist who has passed and evolved form other levels of existence, he will not look down in disdain upon the lower levels of existence as that is the surest way to be pulled back into mire of confusion from the elevated seat of spirituality. Cheers

I nearly agree with what you say about the need to pass intellectual level. In fact, that is what I said as well if you note when I wrote that we have to evolve at our intellectual level. Evolving at this level means not learning science or whatever bu taking rebirth at this level to grow out of it. Indeed, spiritual level is the highest level of existence of all the levels. However, that is a distinction we humans are not supposed to judge or decipher. It is like having several mothers, but a son's dharma is to have equal respect and devotion to each of them, irrespective of their qualities and never ever to grade them. So, I say that at level of intellect intellect only works best. I guess Krishna was a spiritualist of the highest order. However, even He did not apply spirituality where intellect was required. You can deduce this from several incidents in Mahabharata where he applied His intellect to overcome certain kinds of situations. Why does He not apply spirituality at these stages? Because it is the only way of keeping oneself clear at all times and maintaining unity in the diversity of our existence. Besides, until we have this physical body (we have something called beej-aatman or the seed-soul) which is nothing more than the energy form of this material body which has to be liberated as well. Vedic culture placed equal emphasis on this beej-aatman as the aatman. All I am saying is that we cannot degrade our other levels of existence as impure because that was not meant to be decided by us. Each of these comes from that single substance called love. These are simply myriad images of love broken down into other particles. If one is a true spiritualist who has passed and evolved form other levels of existence, he will not look down in disdain upon the lower levels of existence as that is the surest way to be pulled back into mire of confusion from the elevated seat of spirituality. Cheers

Vedic culture I think was that which allowed for the search of Truth at all levels of existence and was clear in knowing the difference between the separate levels of existence of human being - annamaykosh, gyaanmaykosh, manomaykosh, anandamaykosh. It also clearly believed that sages did not have any place in the cities. In fact, followers of the spiritual path left the human dwellings and went to forest. The reason for this was that they were not meant to corrupt the worldly life with their spiritual knowledge. Besides, if someone wanted to gain insight into spiritual truth, they would rather go to them in the forest to hear sermon. It is only the democracy of the vedic culture that many branches of vedic culture sprouted - like Buddhism, Jainism, etc. where the philosophical thought may have been different but the culture was the same.

Fritjof Capra is a quite renowned physicist who has attempted to bring science and religion closer. It may be worthwhile to read his books (The Tao of Physics, etc) just to know how a person can learn to not to be biased either towards religion or science. God gave us the intellect and so He expects us to use the intellect in intellectual manner and not spiritual. That would be adharma against the intellect at the intellectual level. Man has to learn to evolve physically initially. By evolving physically means taking rebirth (dwij - twice born) from conflicts within your somatic self and integrating your personality. It is only on this foundation that a spiritual journey can begin. Otherwise, no matter how many years, how many births one may spend, the journey may never complete. When Krishna talks of indriyas and to control them he is talking no spiritual truth but a somatic truth that the senses need to be evolved by giving them re-birth from the terrible mothers that come in various archetypes to the human being. We are only confusing our inner compartments when we enforce our spiritual light upon the somatic or the intellectual self. In fact, that has been the whole of human evolution. In human evolution (evolution in the sense of developing as better beings, not the Darwin concept), we have always enforced either the intellectual or the spiritual light upon the body. No wonder, we don;t seem to have grown much somatically when compared with our prehistoric man. We still have the same conflicts - greed, lobhyati (libido), etc in our physical existence. If this were not true, can someone deny the fact that intellectually and spiritually the man as a species has grown over the history of his existence. However, we cannot say the same for our somatic level. We are still controlled by parochial views, bias, greed, etc in our lives. This is only because we never allowed the somatic knowledge to flower and it has remained pre-historic to this day in the man. Please know that even spiritual light when forced upon the body becomes a lie. Spirituality teaches us that there is nothing in running after worldly things. Yet at the body level the truth is that we have to find purushartha in ourselves and use it to earn fame, fortune, and health and wealth. If we apply the spiritual truth to the body we will corrupt it and in fact make it unfit to survive. At the same time we have to attain dharma in our somatic self. Once we do that we can attain dharma at higher levels. We have forgotten that the body has its own light (knowledge) that is best suited to help the body grow. Instincts (cumulative experience of the personal and the group that is remembered)form a part of this somatic knowledge too. However, this is only a small fraction of the somatic knowledge. At this level the mind is simply the brain, the heart even though the heart does not have emotions but sentiments which drive the moods of the body (mind you not the mind). Man has to learn to take rebirth from sentiments and convert them into emotions. When man integrates himself at the somatic level this way the doors of the psychological realms open to him and then the spiritual level. No matter what one may claim, but if one could not integrate the somatic-self he cannot become a spiritualists. Science is the natural extension of the intellect in the man. However, it is equally wrong for the scientist and the spiritualist to discard each other. Each does not know the other's area well and so when we discard other knowledge we are in fact killing one of the two levels within ourselves and creating problems for ourselves.

Fritjof Capra is a quite renowned physicist who has attempted to bring science and religion closer. It may be worthwhile to read his books (The Tao of Physics, etc) just to know how a person can learn to not to be biased either towards religion or science. God gave us the intellect and so He expects us to use the intellect in intellectual manner and not spiritual. That would be adharma against the intellect at the intellectual level. Man has to learn to evolve physically initially. By evolving physically means taking rebirth (dwij - twice born) from conflicts within your somatic self and integrating your personality. It is only on this foundation that a spiritual journey can begin. Otherwise, no matter how many years, how many births one may spend, the journey may never complete. When Krishna talks of indriyas and to control them he is talking no spiritual truth but a somatic truth that the senses need to be evolved by giving them re-birth from the terrible mothers that come in various archetypes to the human being. We are only confusing our inner compartments when we enforce our spiritual light upon the somatic or the intellectual self. In fact, that has been the whole of human evolution. In human evolution (evolution in the sense of developing as better beings, not the Darwin concept), we have always enforced either the intellectual or the spiritual light upon the body. No wonder, we don;t seem to have grown much somatically when compared with our prehistoric man. We still have the same conflicts - greed, lobhyati (libido), etc in our physical existence. If this were not true, can someone deny the fact that intellectually and spiritually the man as a species has grown over the history of his existence. However, we cannot say the same for our somatic level. We are still controlled by parochial views, bias, greed, etc in our lives. This is only because we never allowed the somatic knowledge to flower and it has remained pre-historic to this day in the man. Please know that even spiritual light when forced upon the body becomes a lie. Spirituality teaches us that there is nothing in running after worldly things. Yet at the body level the truth is that we have to find purushartha in ourselves and use it to earn fame, fortune, and health and wealth. If we apply the spiritual truth to the body we will corrupt it and in fact make it unfit to survive. At the same time we have to attain dharma in our somatic self. Once we do that we can attain dharma at higher levels. We have forgotten that the body has its own light (knowledge) that is best suited to help the body grow. Instincts (cumulative experience of the personal and the group that is remembered)form a part of this somatic knowledge too. However, this is only a small fraction of the somatic knowledge. At this level the mind is simply the brain, the heart even though the heart does not have emotions but sentiments which drive the moods of the body (mind you not the mind). Man has to learn to take rebirth from sentiments and convert them into emotions. When man integrates himself at the somatic level this way the doors of the psychological realms open to him and then the spiritual level. No matter what one may claim, but if one could not integrate the somatic-self he cannot become a spiritualists. Science is the natural extension of the intellect in the man. However, it is equally wrong for the scientist and the spiritualist to discard each other. Each does not know the other's area well and so when we discard other knowledge we are in fact killing one of the two levels within ourselves and creating problems for ourselves.

I think this shloka means something more than what it says. It perhaps means that the only way to find the eternal Truth is to take shelter in Him (at that time it happens to be Krishna speaking this for a very good reason that Vishnu took avataar to create an example on earth for people to follow). However, if you diverge from that aim you will not be able to achieve Him. At the same time, there is a small story of a young boy who was pressing his father's legs at night when Krishna knocks at the door. The boy says that he cannot come to the door as he is pressing his father's legs and that is his dharma at the moment. Krishna says that I am Krishna. Yet the boy does not come to the door. In fact he asks for Krishna to wait till he finshes pressing his father's legs. So Krishna turns into a statue waiting for the boy to come and open the door. This story also tells us that if we follow our dharma then we will reach Him irrespective of our karma. If we can continue to evolve in our dharma we become nishkarma so that our karma do not bind us in our growth. Also, this story also tells the higher meaning of the shloka you quoted. The boy did not specifically tried to reach for Krishna. All that mattered to him was pitra-seva and he found God that way. I think it is not correct to read the sholkas and extricate the literary meaning from them. I feel Indian ancient texts are highly codifed texts so that one could not get the truth just by reading the vedas but by striving for it (Truth), one flowers to understand the meaning hidden behind the shlokas. One has to prove himself worthy of these shlokas before Saraswati Maa will divulge their secrets to him. In the oldest of the vedic times as far as I understand there was a greater emphasis on Brahma than Vishnu or Shiva. They came later on than Brahma. This can simply be attributed to swings of changing times. However, this does not decide ever that who is greater than whom. Further, just as no one can say for sure that they are all same, no one can say for sure who is greater than whom. The reasoning works for both the same way. Lastly, we all very well know that dharma has been defined as the path that produces Satya, Shiva and Sundar. Basically something that is not Satya, Shiva or Sundar cannot be dharma. If I put this question of hierarchy of Gods within me I feel there is something ugly about the whole affair where I try and place one entity before the other. So, I feel that there is something adharmic about even stating that Krishna is superior or Vishnu is the only one, or Shiva is only a demi-god, when there are many instances in ancient texts where two of the Trinity bowed before the Third one among them, praying to that Third entity that onle He can do something to save earth. Does this not give a very clear message that all of them are equal, nay all of them are same, it is only how this Supreme power manifests itself at any time?

Is it not a fruitless effort where we are trying to discuss who is greater, hoping that this way we get to read about some or the pther unheard verse from ancient texts? Are we not forgetting, that Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh, Krishna. Rama, call Him whatever you like is the same power that manifests itself in various forms? Then, by even wasting our time on polemics and discussions about who is greater, are we not digressing from the actual path of realising the unity in diversity, of seeing that single Being in all things around us? Cheers Love