barney

Enquiry into Atma – Methodology There are various methods adopted by the Upanishads to reveal the Consciousness aspect of Brahman and to show that while this original consciousness cannot be objectified, it can be recognised as the witness-consciousness behind the mind a. The known is not yourself. This method is called “Drk Drsya Viveka”. . Whatever you perceive or know as an object cannot be yourself, because you are the ultimate witness or subject and no object can be the subject. Cf. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad III.8.xi - (Also III.vii.23) – “Verily, this Absolute, O Gargi, is never seen, but It is the Seer; It is never heard but It is the Hearer; It is never thought but It is the Thinker; It is never known but It is the Knower. There is no other seer than It, there is no other hearer than It, there is no other thinker than It, there is no other knower than It.” (Sankaracarya’s commentary – “Being the consciousness Itself, It is not an object of the intellect.”) Brhadaranyaka Upanishad III.4.ii - “…… ‘Tell me precisely about that Brahman only which is immediate and direct – the Atma that is within all’ ‘ This is your Atma that is within all.’ ‘Which is that within all, Yagnavalkya?’ ‘You cannot see the Seer of the seer ( the witness of the vision), you cannot hear the Hearer of the hearer, you cannot think the Thinker of the thinker, you cannot know the Knower of the knower. This is your self that is within all. Everything besides this is unreal (mithya)….” Kenopanishad II.2.- “ I don’t say that I know Brahman nor do I say that I don’t know Brahman. I know and do not know as well. He among us who understands that utterance ‘not that I do not know, I know and I do not know’, knows that Brahman Kenopanishad II.3 - “ He who says that he does not know ( Brahman) knows; he who claims that he knows ( Brahman) does not know……It is unknown to those who know and known to those who do not know ( The meaning of these intriguing Mantras is that that the atma, the original consciousness, cannot become the object of the pramata. The example just as fire cannot be consumed by thee consuming fire. Pramata is antahkarana cum reflected consciousness. How can reflected consciousness illumine its source? It being the original consciousness Itself, there cannot be dependence on another consciousness, just as light does nor depend on another light. But as it is said in Kenopanishad II.4, Brahman (atma, the original consciousness) is “pratibhotaviditam” – Brahman or Atma is the consciousness recognized as the witness of all cognitions. In this connection we can also refer to the discussion in Sankaracarya’s introduction to his commentary on Brahmasutra, where he refutes an opponent who says that study of Sastra is futile. The opponent’s argument is ‘if Brahman is known, there is no need to study Sastra and if Brahman is unknown, no definition or description of an unknown thing is possible. Sankaracarya’s answer is that Brahman is neither totally unknown nor totally known. No one denies that he exists and that he is a conscious being. Thus, the consciousness that is the real I is known , but we are under the spell of the ignorance that we are limited individuals. It is necessary to study Sastra to understand that we are Brahman, the infinite Existence-Consciousness-Infinite. b. Inward enquiry. Another method is “ Panca Kosa Viveka” which we learn in Taittiriya Upanishad Brahmananda valli. It talks of “aannamaya kosa” corresponding to the sthoola sarira, “I” corresponding to that part of the sukshma sarira consisting of the five vital airs – prana, apana, vyana, udana, and samana – together with the five organs of action (karmendriyas), “manomaya kosa” corresponding to that part of the sukshma sarira consisting of mind, i.e.,. the faculty that receives stimuli from the outer world through the organs of peception (jnanendriyas) and which is the seat of emotions and feeling, together with the five organs of perception (jananendriyas). “vijanamaya kosa” corresponding to that part of the sukshma sarira consisting of the intellect,, i.e., the deciding faculty as well as that which creates a sense of doership (ahamkara), together with the jananendriyas ( - the mind and the intellect are really two aspects of the same thinking faculty; the nature of the intellect is cognition and of the mind volition.), and “anandamaya kosa” corresponding to the karana sarira of the seep sleep state in which a person experiences ignorance and bliss.. The kosas are introduced one after the otter as Atma. First, the Upanishad describes the annamaya kosa and says it is Atma. Then, saying that there is something interior and subtler than that, namely pranamaya kosa, negates the annamaya kosa (that is, dismisses it, saying that it is not Atma – it is anatma) and so on, until it negates even anandamaya, describing its parts as “priya”, moda” and “promoda” which are grades of experienced happiness and, ultimately, reveals the ultimate conscious principle and avers that that is Atma, Brahman. c. The constant consciousness of the waking, dream and deep sleep states (i)Another method which we learn from Mandukya Upanishad is “Avasthatraya Viveka”. This Upanishad deals with the waking state ( “jagrat awastha”), the dream state ( “ swapna awastha”) and the deep sleep state ( sushupti awastha”) and establishes that the consciousness that is Atma or Brahman is constantly there in all the three states, the jagrat, the swapna and the sushupti awasthas, as the constant conscious principle. It is only in the presence of Atma that, in jagrat avastha, the mind which is part of the apparent creation perceives, with the aid of the reflected consciousness, the apparent external world; it is in the presence of the Atma that, in swapna avastha, when the mind itself has become the dream world, the dream world is witnessed by the Atma through cidabhasa. In the sushupti awastha , though the mind is resolved, the Atma continues as the unchanging witness ( sakshi caitanyam); the absence of experience and absence of mental activity and feeling of happiness are registered in the dormant ahamkara , to be recalled by the active ahamkara on waking up (and we say “I did not know anything; I slept happily”. (ii) In this connection we can refer to the following passage in “Upadesa Sahasri” of Sankaracarya: - The disciple is asking “But at no time Your Holiness, have I ever seen pure consciousness or anything else”. The teacher answers , “ Then you are seeing in the state of deep sleep; for you deny only the seen object, not the seeing. I said that your seeing is pure consciousness. That [ eternally] existing one by which you deny [ the existence of the seen object] when you say that nothing has been seen, [ that precisely] is the seeing, that is pure consciousness. Thus as [it] does not depart [from you] [its] transcendental changelessness and eternity are established solely by Itself without depending upon any means of knowledge.” The pupil said, “….And there is no apprehender different from this apprehender to apprehend it.” (iii) That consciousness continues even during the deep sleep state when all instruments of knowledge including the mind are dormant is expressed poetically in Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.iii.23 to 30 – “ That It does not see, smell, taste, speak, hear, think. touch, or know is because although seeing, smelling, tasting, speaking, hearing, thinking, touching and knowing then (the reference is to the continued presence of the original consciousness as witness of the non-functioning mind) it does not see, smell, taste, speak, hear, think, touch or know (the reference is to the fact that since ahamkara is dormant, there is no experience of an external world of objects or an internal dream world. It is only when the sense organs and mind are functioning that one perceives an external world of objects and it is only when the mind is active, even though the sense organs are dormant, that one sees a dream world) ; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is imperishable( - the reference is to the fact that the original consciousness is eternal – there is no interruption in the presence of the original consciousness as the witness of the mind, whether the latter is active or dormant. ). But there is not that second thing separate from it, which it can see. ( i.e., since the mind cum cidabhasa are dormant, there is no triputi and there is no particular experience.)” Section 19 –Brahman as Bliss 1. Brahman is described as Sat Cit Ananda. Ananda is translated in English as Bliss. But the word ananda used to define Brahman’s nature, does not refer to experiential happiness. It should be equated with anantatvam i.e. infinitude – infinitude not only space wise, but time wise and entity-wise – indicated by the word “anantam’ occurring in the Taittiriya Upanishad mantra II.i – “ Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahma”. This anantatvam (or poornatvam) is reflected in the pure, calm mind of a Jnani who has identified himself with the infinite nature Brahman. And so, he has a sense of utter fulfilment and such a sense, we can say, is supreme happiness. Thus, we have to distinguish between “swaroopa ananda”, ananda as the nature of Brahman and “kosa ananda”, the ananda experienced by a jnani. (The ananda experienced by a jnani is unconditional happiness. happiness experienced by others is conditional and graded.) The word ananda to define Brahman is used as such in some places in the Upanishads.–Brhadaranyaka Upanishad III.ix.28 (7) –“vijanam anandam Brahma ....parayanam tishtam anasya tat vida’ (“Knowledge, Bliss, Brahman ......the supreme goal of him who has realised Brahman and is established in It.”- Taittiriya Upanishad III.vi.1 – “anando brahma iti vijanat” (“He knew Bliss as Brahman”). Taittiriya Upanishad II.v.1– “ananda atma” (“Bliss is Atma” ,i.e., Brahman) Taittiriya Upanishad II.vii – “ ko hi eva anyat pranat yat esha akasa (Brahman) ananda na syat” (“Who indeed will inhale, who will exhale, if this Bliss be not there in the supreme space within the heart) - Taittiriya UpanishadII.iv.1 and II.ix.1 – “anandam bramano vidwan na vibheti kadacaneti - kudascaneti” (“The enlightened man is not afraid of anything after realising that Bliss that is Brahman”) Chandogya VII.xxiii.1 “yo vai bhooma tat sukham” (“ The Infinite alone is Bliss”). – Brhadaranyaka IV.iii.32 “Esha Brahmalokah....esha asya parama anandah. Eta anandasya anya bhootani matram upajivati” (“This is the state of Brahman....This is Its supreme bliss. On a particle of this very bliss other beings live.”) Kathopanishad II.ii.14 refers to Brahman as supreme bliss (“paramam sukham.”) . Kaivalya Upanishad 6 refers to Brahman as consciousness and bliss (“cidanandam “). 2. The ananda which a Jnani derives from his sense of utter fulfilment or desirelessness is brought out in certain places in the Upanishads. In the “Ananda mimamsa” portion in Taittiriya Upanishad ( Chapter II, Valli 2, anuvaka 8 and in Brhadaranyaka Upanishad mantra IV.iii.33, it is equated with the absence of desire for the happiness available in the highest world, the plane of Hiranyagarbha, which is the highest plane of the vyavaharika satyam. In Taittiriya Upanishad Chapter 2, Valli 2, anuvaka 7 (mantra 2), the name for Brahman is “ rasah”. “Rasah”, in Sanskrit, in such contexts is the synonym for ananda . The mantra says, “The One described as Self Created (i.e. Unborn) in the previous mantra, is indeed rasah (ananda swaroopam). Attaining that rasa (identifying himself with that ananda, the Brahman) the jivatma becomes anandi (enjoys supreme happiness.). 3. The logic of saying that Brahman’s nature is Ananda is contained in Brhadaranyaka Upanishad in the second chapter, fourth section, fifth Mantra. Here, Yajnavalkya tells Maitreyi, his wife ( who is such an expert in Vedic lore that she carries on a long and wonderful debate with her husband who is a Jnani) “ Verily the husband is dear ( to the wife ) not for the sake of the husband, my dear, but it is for her own sake that he is dear. Verily the wife is dear ( to the husband) not for the sake of the wife, my dear, but it is for his own sake that she is dear. Verily sons are dear ( to parents) not for the sake of the sons, my dear, but it is for the sake of the parents themselves that they are dear. Verily wealth is dear not for the sake of wealth, my dear, but it is for one’s own sake that it is dear. ……..verily worlds are dear not for the sake of the worlds, my dear, but it is for one’s own sake. Verily gods are dear not for the sake of gods, my dear, but it is for one’s own sake that they are dear. Verily beings are dear not for the sake of beings, my dear, but it is for one’s own sake that they are dear. Verily all is dear not for the sake of all, my dear, but it is for one’s own sake that all is dear………” The argument is that everyone ultimately loves only oneself and all other love is only because it subserves the primary love of oneself. And one loves only that which is a source of happiness. So, it is conclued that Atma is the source of happiness and, therefore the nature of Atma is ananda. (Atma is none other than Brahman.) 4. The nearest example to the ananda aspect of Brahman is our state of deep sleep. Cf. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.3.xxi - Just as a man embracing his beloved wife becomes one with her and does not know anything at all, external or internal, so does this Infinite Jivatma fully embraced by the Paramatma does not know anything at all, external or, internal, (such as ‘I am this’, ‘I am happy’ ‘I am miserable’). By talking of Jivatma and Paramatma becoming one, Upanishad is referring to the fact that since ahamkara is suspended, there is no idea of difference. Since there is no perception and there are no thoughts, there is no desire; there is no mental disturbance at all. It is a state of happiness, though it is not evident at that time. Since there is no desire, there is no grief. In the next mantra, it is said, “ in this state, father is no more father, mother is no more mother, worlds are no more worlds, gods are no more gods, Vedas are no more Vedas”. ( i.e., all relationships and the consequent samsara are due to the notion of individuality. Since ahamkara is suspended during sushupti, there is no notion of individuality and there is no notion of relationships. There is no notion of means and ends, either. Vedas are means for moksha. There is no idea of wanting to have recourse to Veda.) However, sushupti should not be mistaken to be moksha. Sushpti is only a rough example for the state of liberation. In sushupti, empirical dealings (vyavahara) are suspended. In the state of liberation, empirical dealings are seen as mithya. Hence one is permanently free from all empirical dealings.. Section 20 – Benefit of identification with Brahman All over the Upanishads, we get statements mentioning the benefit of the knowing, “I am Brahman” and”All that there is is Brahman” (“”sarvatmabhava”) i.e., the understanding that even though the nama roopas are unreal appearances, they are not separate from the substratum, Brahman that is myself; the substance of everything is Brahman only, that is myself.) A few quotations would not be out of place. Taittiriya Upanishad II.i.1 “The knower of Brahman attains Brahman. (“Brahmavid apnoti param”. Mundaka Upanishad III.2.ix. – “Anyone who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed. ….He overcomes grief, rises above punya papa; and becoming freed from the knots of the heart (i.e., overcoming self-ignorance), he attains immortality.” Kathopanishad II.ii.12 – “Eternal peace is for those who recognize the Paramatma that is the Atma in all beings and as the homogenous consciousness available for recognition in oneself through its manifestation as knowledge in the intellect, like a face appearing ion the mirror – not for others.” Kathopanishad II.ii.13 – “Eternal peace is for those who recognize the Paramatma, the eternal among the ephemeral, the consciousness among the conscious (i.e., it is owing to the fire that water, etc, that are not fire, come to be possessed of the power to burn, similarly the power to manifest consciousness seen in others is owing to the consciousness of Atma)....in their hearts – not for others. (The paraphrase of Kathopanishad mantras III.ii.12 and 13 are based on Sankaracarya’s bhashyam.) Chandogya Upanishad vii.i.3 – “The knower of Atma goes beyond sorrow.” Kathopanishad I.iii.15 – “ One becomes freed from the jaws of death by knowing That (i.e.,Brahnan) which is soundless, colourless, undiminishing, and also tasteless, eternal, odourless, without beginning, and without end, distinct from mahat, and ever constant.” Taittiriya Upanishad II.vii – “whenever an aspirant gets established in this unperceivable, bodiless, inexpressible, and unsupported Brahman, he reaches the state of fearlessness.” Svetasvatara Upanishad II.14. –“Knowing the Atma, one becomes nondual, fulfilled and free of sorrow.” Svesvatara Upanishad II.15 – “when one knows Brahman as Atma, i.e., knows “I am Brahman” (“the original consciousness in me is the infinite Brahman”), the Brahman which is unborn, whose nature is immutable, which is unaffected by avidya and its products and which is effulgent, one becomes freed from all bonds.” Svesvatara Upanishad III.7 – “Knowing that Brahman that is beyond the universe and Hiranyagarbha and is infinite, that is the indweller of all beings, that encompasses the universe, men become immortal.” Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.iv.23 -“This ( Brahman described as ‘not this, not this’) is the eternal glory of a knower of Brahman. It neither increases nor decreases through work; therefore one should know the nature of that alone. Knowing it one is not touched by evil action. Therefore he who knows it as such becomes self-controlled, calm, withdrawn into himself, enduring and concentrated and sees the Atma in his own body; he sees all as the Atma. Papa does not overtake him, but he transcends all papa. Papa does not trouble him but he consumes all papa. He becomes free of papa, taintless, free from doubts and a Brahmana ,i.e., knower of Brahman.” Svesvatara Upanishad IV.17 - “Benefited by the teaching that negates the Universe discriminates between Atma and anatma and reveals the unity of Jivatma and Brahman, he who knows that Brahman becomes immortal.” Taittiriya Upanishad II.ix.1 - _ “He who knows ananda that is Brahman has no fear.” _ Taittiriya Upanishad II.1.i. – “Brahman is Existence-Consciousness-Infinity; he who knows that Brahman as existing in the cave-like space of the heart (i/e., mind) (i.e., as the consciousness behind one’s own mind) and thus having identified himself with that infinite Brahman, enjoys, simultaneously, all the desirable things.” (“Simultaneous enjoyment of all desirable things” implies sarvatmabhava.) Mundaka III.i.3 – “ When the seeker recognizes the effulgent Sakshi as the all pervading Brahman, who, in the form of Iswara, is the creator of the universe, becomes free from punya papa, becomes taintless and attains total identity with Brahman.” Mundaka Upanishad II.i.10 – “He who knows this supremely immortal Brahman as existing in the heart destroys, here, the knot of ignorance.” Brhadaranyaka Upanishad IV.iv.12 – “If a man knows the Atma as Brahman, then desiring what and for whose sake will he suffer when the body is afflicted? “(Since he, as Brahman, is the Atma in all beings, there is no other seer than he and there is no other knower than he; as Atma, he has nothing to wish for and Atma being all, there is none other than himself for whose sake he may wish anything). Kathopanishad II.ii.11 – “ Just as the sun which is the eye of the world is not tainted by the ocular and external defects, similarly the Atma that is one in all beings is not tainted by the sorrows of the world, it being transcendental.” ( it is through avidya superimposed on Atma and, consequently, by superimposing false notions of karma, karta and karmaphalam, like the superimposition of snake on rope, that people suffer the sorrows arising from desire and work and experience the misery of birth, death etc.) Prasna Upanishad IV.10 – “he who realizes that shadowless, pure, immutable attains the supreme immutable itself.” Kaivalya Upanishad 4 – “Through a life of renunciation, the pure minded seekers clearly grasp the meaning of Vedantic teaching. Having become one with the Infinite Brahman (while living), all those seekers get totally resolved into Brahman at the time of final death.” ( “Vedanta vijnana suniscitartha sanyasa yogat yataya suddhatatva; te brahmalokeshu parantakale paramrutah parimucyanti sarve.” Kaivalya 9 –“He alone is everything which was in the past , which is in the present and which will be in the future and He alone is eternal. Having recognised Him, one crosses immortality. There is no other means for liberation.” Kaivalya Upanishad 10 – “Clearly recognising oneself to be present in all beings and clearly recognising all beings in oneself, the seeker attains the supreme Brahman, not by any other means.” Kaivalya Upanishad 23 – “ Thus having recognised the nature of Paramatma which is manifest in the mind , which is partless, non-dual, the wines of all, distinct from cause and effect and is pure, one attains the nature of nature of Paramatma.”. In one of the Upanishads, it is said that the jnani does not want to protect himself even from Iswara. That is because even Iswara is of a lower order of reality than Brahman and the Jnani has identified himself with that Brahman.. Cf. Brhadaranyaka Upanishad I.iv.2 – “From a second entity only fear arises.”. Section 21 – Benefit of knowing that I am all “Sarvatmabhava” is not different from the realisation, “ Brahmasatyam jaganmithya”. “The existence part of everything is Brahman and I am Brahman. In this sense everything is myself. Since everything is myself, I have no sense of lacking anything. So I am without desire. Since all cidabhasas are reflections of my original consciousness, I can regard, as a matter of intellectual attitude, all glories and all happiness as my glory and happiness. At the same time, there is the understanding that the nama roopas superimposed on the Existence-Consciousness-Infinity which is myself, are of a lesser order of reality and I cannot be disturbed by any untoward phenomena. Moreover,.” This is the position of one who has known ‘aham brahmasmi” and that there is no world, in essence, other than Brahman. Cf. Isavasya Upanishad mantra 1 – “This entire universe must be clothed with Brahman (which means that what you think is the world should be seen as Brahman; the world should be dismissed as unreal, as mere nama roopa.) Protect yourself from samsara by renunciation (the renunciation consists in the dismissal of mithya. The moment Brahman is known as the only reality the world is renounced as mithya.) (Commentary of Sankaracarya – “As the indwelling Atma of all, He is the Atma of all beings and as such rules all. All this is to be covered by one’s own Atma that is nondifferent from Brahman, with the realisation, ‘as the indwelling Atma of all, I am all this’. All that is unreal, whether moving or unmoving, is covered by Brahman. The unreal world of duality characterised by the sense of doership and enjoyership and other effects of ignorance superimposed on Atma will be abandoned through the recognition the supreme Truth. He who is thus engaged in the thought of Atma as Brahman renounces desires for worldly objects.”) After “Protect yourself through renunciation of desires.”, the mantra says “ Do not covet anybody’s wealth – your own or of others – Whose is this wealth?” (This is interpreted as saying ‘you as Atma nondifferent from Brahman is everything; do not hanker after the unreal.) Isavasya Upanishad 6 – “He who sees all beings in the Atma and Atma in all beings feels no hatred.” (“yastu sarvani bhootani atmani eva anypasyanti sarvabhhoteshu ca atmanam tato na vijupsate.”) Isavasya Upanishad 7 – “When one understands all beings to be his own Atma, for that seer of oneness what sorrow can there be?” (“yasmin sarvani bhootani atma eva abhoo vijanatah tatra ko moha kah sokah ekatvam anupasyata”). Kaivalya Upanishad 10 - “Clearly recognising oneself to be present in all beings and clearly recognising all beings in oneself, the seeker attains the supreme Brahman; not by any other means”. (“Sarva bhotastam atmanam sarva bhootani ca atmani sampasyan paramamyati na anyena hetuna”). . Section 22 – Purpose of teaching about Gods with attributes 1. The absolute reality of Advaita Vedanta is not even a single personal god, not to speak of many gods. It is pure existence, i.e., an eternal all pervading presence without form and without attributes which is also pure consciousness; with that as the substratum, there is, as a lower order of reality, a superimposition of manifold forms which appear to us as concrete objects. What makes this possible is the power called Maya which is the unevolved form of Nama roopas. Brahma caitanyam is reflected in Maya and that entity is called Iswara. Iswara designs creation in accordance with the requirements of the karma of jivatmas and impels Maya to unfold as manifest nama roopas; it is the manifest nama roopas superimposed on Brahman that is existence that we experience as objects of the world including our own bodies and minds. Cf. Kathopanishad II.i.11 - “There is no diversity here.” (“na iha nana asti kincana”). Brhadranyaka Upanishad II.v.19 – “Even though Brahman is the nondual divisionless consciousness, he appears to be many on account of the false identification with Nama roopas. (“indro mayabhih pururoopa iyate”) Y.xxxi.19 “ Though unborn it appears to be born in diverse ways”. (“ajayamano bahudha jayate”). While maintaining that on the paramarthika plane (i.e. as absolute reality), there is only the nondual atrributeless Brahman (“nirguna Brahman”) Advaita Vedanta accommodates, on the vyavaharika plane, (as a lower order of reality), Brahman with qualities (“saguna Brahman”). Uncreated saguna Brahman is called Iswara. “Uncreated” means, that, on the vyavaharika plane, Iswara is always there, without beginning or end.. Iswara is omniscient ( “sarvajnah”), omnipotent (“sarvasaktiman”) and omnipresent ( “sarvagatah”). Controlled by and as aspects of Iswara, on the vyavaharika plane, Hindu religion talks of various deities performing specific functions relating to and presiding over various aspects of the cosmos with various powers of Iswara. Thus various aspects of forces and nature are personified as gods, such as Brahmaa (pronounced with an elongated to distinguish from Brahman), i and Siva, the creator, sustainer and destroyer of the universe described in Hindu puranas and other gods like Indra (the presiding deity of thunder and lightning), Agni (the presiding deity of fire and eyes), Varuna ( the presiding deity of fire and eyes), Vayu (the presiding deity of air and pranas.) etc. Incarnations of Iswara, (called “avataras”) like Rama, i etc. are also accepted as phenomena on the vyavaharika plane. Avataras are Iswara descending in various worlds in various forms and with various manifestations of his powers on critical occasions when restoration of cosmic harmony is called for. The bodies and minds of avataras are also mithya ( vyvahaarika satyam.) It is made clear in certain Upanishads that there is only one absolute reality; that is called Brahman, and gods are only manifestations - Nama roopas – on the vyavaharika plane. Mahanarayana Upanishad III.12, talking of Brahman, say that he is Brahmaa (‘a’ elongated ), Siva and Indra. In Brhadaranyaka Upanishad III.ix.1 to 9, in the dialogue between Vigadha and Yajnavalkya, read with Brhadaranyaka Upanishad III.ix.xxvi, it is made clear that the various gods mentioned in Vedas , like Vasus, Rudras, Adityas, Indra, Prajapati, Hiranyagarbha are only manifestations of the one absolute non-dual, attributeless Brahman. Svetasvatara Upanishad VI. 7 – “He is the ruler of all the rulers; he is the god of all gods…” Mundaka Upanishad II. I. 7– “ From him take their origin the numerous gods, the heavenly beings……..” Kaivalya Upanishad 8 - “ He is Brahmaa, he is Siva, he is Indra, he is the imperishable, the supreme majesty, the self-effulgent; he is Vishnu, he is prana, he is time, he is fire, he is the moon.” – Aitereya Upanishad III.i.3 – “This one that is essentially consciousness is Brahma (‘a’ with elongated a); he is Indra, he is Prajapati, he is all these gods. And he is the five elements – earth, air, space, water, and fire – and he is all the beings in subtle seed form and all beings born from eggs, wombs, sweat, and the soil, horses, cattle, elephants and human beings. Including all these, whatever there is in this universe, flying beings, those moving on the ground , those that are immoveable – have their existence only in consciousness and everything is functioning in their own field of work or role only by getting the requisite power and knowledge only from that consciousness. That consciousness is the substratum of everything. (Consciousness is the one reality in which all phenomenal things end, just as the superimposed snake ends in its base, the rope, on the dawn of knowledge.) That consciousness is Brahman.”(Based on Sankaracarya’s commentary.) According to Sastra the gods like Indra, Varuna, Agni, Vayu, Surya, Candra etc are only exalted jivas, i.e., those whose prarabdha karma is so punya-predominant that they deserve to enjoy life in the higher worlds for certain periods; when the period is over they take rebirth on the earth or lower worlds, depending on the punya-papa proportion of the prarabdha karma assigned for that particular janma. 2. On analysis, it will be seen that the purpose of teaching saguna Brahman is only to enable man to go through worship and meditation of saguna Brahman and graduate to jnana yoga (study of Upanishads) and gain knowledge of jivabrahma aikyam. Cf. Sankaracarya’s statement “citta avatara upaya matratvena”. Saguna Brahman and the various presiding deities and avataras are unreal. A jnani has no need of saguna Brahman worship or saguna Brahman meditation, but, as an example to those in the lower stages of spiritual progress, he may do saguna Brahman worship and saguna Brahman meditation. In this, a jnani who has gained knowledge through the teaching of Advaita Vedanta does not make any distinction between gods of one religion and another. He can accept Jesus and Mohamed as he does Rama and Krishna as manifestations of saguna Brahman or as avataras in the vyavaharika plane and he can happily worship in a church or a mosque as he does in a temple. The idea is that, in religion, meant as the teaching of preparatory, purificatory disciplines that qualify a seeker of liberation, there can be many paths. But when it comes to philosophy, the Advaita Vedanta follower will adhere to his faith that the direct means of liberation is only one and that is the knowledge of jivahbrahma aikyam. Cf. Svetasvatara Upanishad III. 8 - (“I know that Paramatma (Brahman) that is infinite, that is effulgent and that is beyond avidya. Knowing that, men go beyond death, i.e., gets liberation from the bondage of births and deaths; there is no other way.” (“Na anya pantha vidyate ayanaya”) – - “Liberation is only through knowledge.”(“Jnanat eva kaivalyam.”) (The source of this statement is unknown.) The jnani may also do worship in a temple or pray to god, but he does so with the knowledge that the mithya sarira and the mithya antahkarna are worshipping the mithya god. Section 23 - Process of obtaining knowledge of identity with Brahman The sadhana or process for obtaining the knowledge “ i am Brahman” consists of “ sravanam”, , “ mananam” and “nididhyasanam”. Cf. the passage in Brhadaranyaka Upanishad II.4.5 – “atma vai are drashtavyah srotavyah nididhysasitivyah.”. a) Sravanam is study of sastra by listening to the teaching of a competent teacher who can interpret the scripture properly, i.e., a teacher belonging to the teacher-student lineage of Vedantic teaching – the guru sishya parampara. Upanishads are full of seeming contradictions and obscurities. The problem is that any part of the upanishadic lore can be subjected to harmonious interpretation only by a person who knows the whole; since no student will know the whole until he reaches the end of his study, studying by oneself will only lead to misconceptions. Also, seeming contradictions and obscure portions can be clarified only through study of commentaries that analyse the purport of the passages in accordance with the rules of harmonious construction called mimamsa. There are countless commentaries and sub-commentaries and explanatory works and there are works containing arguments and counterarguments among philosophers of different schools of thought and only a teacher who has himself studied under a competent teacher in a course covering the original works, the commentaries and important prakarana granthas and works of disputations can convey the purport and meaning of Upanishadic passages. An ideal teacher is defined as “ strotriya brahmanishta” i.e., one who has himself learnt under a competent teacher belonging to the guru sishya parampara and has also got the clear and fully assimilated knowledge that he is Brahman. The idea is that unless he himself has learnt under a competent teacher how can he teach and unless he himself knows without any mental reservation that he is Brahman (“aham bramasmi) how can he tell the student sincerely, “Thou art That” (“Tattvamasi”)? The mahavakya, “Tattvamasi” (which means “You are Brahman”) should ring true in the student’s ears when uttered by the teacher. If one cannot find a teacher who is himself a jnani, (the difficulty is that only a jnani himself knows whether he is a jnani, there being no valid external signs to indicate whether one is a jnani.), the next best thing is to approach one who may or may not have reached the final stage of assimilating the knowledge but has acquired all the knowledge necessary to teach, having himself learnt under a competent teacher. ( i.e., a mere srotriya). b) Mananam is the process of getting doubts arising in the course of the study clarified by one’s own cogitation and by discussion with the teacher. c) Even after Mananam has eradicated intellectual doubts; the habit of emotional identification with the body mind complex acquired through the countless past janmas may remain. Nididhyasanam is meant for the destruction of this habit.. It is of no use if one part of the mind is saying, “ I am Brahman” while other parts are really saying, “i am a miserable, limited individual” “ I am a husband”, “I am a father”, “This is my house” “ I am afraid I will die” “ I want to go to heaven (‘swarga’)” etc. To remove these notions which are related to the wrong identification with the body mind complex ( called, “dehatmabhava”) one has to dwell on the various important aspects of the teaching, such as, “ I am the infinite Brahman”, “ Brahman is relationless (‘ asanga’); I am Brahman; so, I have no wife, no children, no house. They are all nama roopas superimposed on me, the Brahman. Since, in this janma, this particular nama roopa of a body has married that nama roopa called wife and given birth to certain other nama roopas called children, this nama roopa has to discharge its duties to those nama roopas but there is no place for sorrow, worry or anxiety.” “ I am the immortal, changeless Brahman; where is the question of any fear of death or any grief worry or anxiety? Brahman is everything and everybody; I am Brahman. So what do I lack? Where is the question of desire for anything? Where is the question of hatred toward anything or anybody? I may have preferences, but I have no needs.”.. Ultimately, the entire mind has to be saturated with the knowledge “ I am Brahman” and even while experiencing things, transacting with persons and handling situations in the world , the “ I am Brahman” thought should be running as a constant undercurrent in the mind and should surface immediately if there is the slightest tendency of intrusion of any notion related to dehatmabhava (identification with the body mind complex).

Jivatma & Paramatma . Swami Atmananda Asti - God is there : …….. Jivatma means the individual self and Paramatma means God. Vedas in their earlier sections reveal the existence of God to man. Man is told of the ways of God, his nature and teachings. God is someone to be loved, because he is himself an embodiment of infinite love. He is revealed as the very creator, sustainer and also the destroyer of the world. Just as all musicians in an orchestra have to tune themselves to a basic note being played by one, so also every person has to tune him or herself to that basic harmony and order of the world called God. This facilitates bringing about a holistic vision. Such a person is never alone, on the other hand such person always has company of the highest embodiment of knowledge, love & power. It is a well known fact that it is our thinking which carves out our personality, thus with a single stroke the Vedic masters saw to it that all their followers not only retain the thought of the best and highest but also ultimately be an embodiment of all what God represents. Asmi - I am that : …….. The Vedic masters do not merely stop at revealing the existence of God. All religions and religious masters have been talking about these things. The unique aspect of Vedas is to reveal that there is a state in this very life & this very body where this Jivatma discovers its total identity with Paramatma. It was the summum bonum of human life. It was an experience beyond imagination. The contentment was total. It was something which he or she always was seeking. It was total liberation from all limitations of time, space and objectivity. They called it Moksha - the total freedom, the ultimate goal of human life. They discovered that Jivatma is & always was Paramatma alone. The duality was born out of ignorance. The seeker is the sought. Like in a dream a person erroneously takes oneself to be something which one is not and suffers unnecessarily, so also are the suffering of man. The final leap to total freedom & fulfillment is merely by some knowledge, the knowledge of Self. Vedanta - the science of revealing the identity : …….. It is interesting to note the two words Jiv-atma and Param-atma. Both have the word 'atma' in common. Atma means the Self, that which reveals as the 'I' in the hearts of all. When this 'I' is seen to have a sense of limitation, along with a sense of enjoyership & doership, then such 'I' is referred to as the Jiva-atma. A Jiva is someone who sees himself to be limited by space & time - he is at one place alone and not everywhere, and his existence is at a particular time alone and not at all times. When these sense of limitations are inquired upon and are realized to be an error then this sense of limitation drops and the same 'I' is seen to be free from these limitations of time & space then this very 'I' is referred to as the Paramatma. Param means that which is free from all limitations of time, space & objectivity i.e. that which is there at all times, all places and in all objects. Thus the word atma which is the common denominator in both these words shows that God is always realized as the very subjective essence of a person and not as some objective reality. The science which facilitates us to conduct this inquiry into the Self is Vedanta, the culmination of which is in the discovery of oneself to be free from all limitations. That person alone is said to have attained proper spiritual health, that person alone makes the best of his or her life, rest are comparable to a sick man, always seeking and seeking, and at the end of it all dying also with all the sense of limitations. They know not the joy & potential of human life. They have missed the boat.

Marijuana was used and still in use by tantric shadus in India who are called Goaris. It helps them to concentrate and focus their mind in one direction but it is not for followers of Saiva Sithantha Sanadhana Dharma. For one thing taking marijuana will not help you in your family life in anyway. It is for the shadus who take up celebacy and have no other responsiblilty. So do not experiment with what you are not prepared to do. Tantric is although mentioned in Hindu vedas but it is to be avoided but non tantrics. Read about the tantric sastras before you experiment such methods.

Did Jesus Christ Really Live? by Marshall J. Gauvin Scientific inquiry into the origins of Christianity begins to-day with the question: "Did Jesus Christ really live?" Was there a man named Jesus, who was called the Christ, living in Palestine nineteen centuries ago, of whose life and teachings we have a correct account in the New Testament? The orthodox idea that Christ was the son of God -- God himself in human form -- that he was the creator of the countless millions of glowing suns and wheeling worlds that strew the infinite expanse of the universe; that the forces of nature were the servants of his will and changed their courses at his command -- such an idea has been abandoned by every independent thinker in the world -- by every thinker who relies on reason and experience rather than mere faith -- by every man of science who places the integrity of nature above the challenge of ancient religious tales. Not only has the divinity of Christ been given up, but his existence as a man is being more and more seriously questioned. Some of the ablest scholars of the world deny that he ever lived at all. A commanding literature dealing with the inquiry, intense in its seriousness and profound and thorough in its research, is growing up in all countries, and spreading the conviction that Christ is a myth. The question is one of tremendous importance. For the Freethinker, as well as for the Christian, it is of the weightiest significance. The Christian religion has been and is a mighty fact in the world. For good or for ill, it has absorbed for many centuries the best energies of mankind. It has stayed the march of civilization, and made martyrs of some of the noblest men and women of the race: and it is to-day the greatest enemy of knowledge, of freedom, of social and industrial improvement, and of the genuine brotherhood of mankind. The progressive forces of the world are at war with this Asiatic superstition, and this war will continue until the triumph of truth and freedom is complete. The question, "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?" goes to the very root of the conflict between reason and faith; and upon its determination depends, to some degree, the decision as to whether religion or humanity shall rule the world. Whether Christ did, or did not live, has nothing at all to do with what the churches teach, or with what we believe, It is wholly a matter of evidence. It is a question of science. The question is -- what does history say? And that question must be settled in the court of historical criticism. If the thinking world is to hold to the position that Christ was a real character, there must be sufficient evidence to warrant that belief. If no evidence for his existence can be found; if history returns the verdict that his name is not inscribed upon her scroll, if it be found that his story was created by art and ingenuity, like the stories of fictitious heroes, he will have to take his place with the host of other demigods whose fancied lives and deeds make up the mythology of the world. What, then, is the evidence that Jesus Christ lived in this world as a man? The authorities relied upon to prove the reality of Christ are the four Gospels of the New Testament -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These Gospels, and these alone, tell the story of his life. Now we know absolutely nothing of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, apart from what is said of them in the Gospels. Moreover, the Gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men. They are not called "The Gospel of Matthew," or "The Gospel of Mark," but "The Gospel According to Matthew,The Gospel According to Mark,The Gospel According to Luke," and "The Gospel According to John." No human being knows who wrote a single line in one of these Gospels. No human being knows when they were written, or where. Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four. The chief reasons for this conclusion are that this Gospel is shorter, simpler, and more natural, than any of the other three. It is shown that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord's prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke. But the Gospel of Mark, as we have it, is not the original Mark. In the same way that the writers of Matthew and Luke copied and enlarged the Gospel of Mark, Mark copied and enlarged an earlier document which is called the "original Mark." This original source perished in the early age of the Church. What it was, who wrote it, where it was written, nobody knows. The Gospel of John is admitted by Christian scholars to be an unhistorical document. They acknowledge that it is not a life of Christ, but an interpretation of him; that it gives us an idealized and spiritualized picture of what Christ is supposed to have been, and that it is largely composed of the speculations of Greek philosophy. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, which are called the "Synoptic Gospels," on the one hand, and the Gospel of John, on the other, stand at opposite extremes of thought. So complete is the difference between the teaching of the first three Gospels and that of the fourth, that every critic admits that if Jesus taught as the Synoptics relate, he could not possibly have taught as John declares. Indeed, in the first three Gospels and in the fourth, we meet with two entirely different Christs. Did I say two? It should be three; for, according to Mark, Christ was a man; according to Matthew and Luke, he was a demigod; while John insists that he was God himself. There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D. There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels -- the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ -- were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon. Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic -- the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek -- every one of them. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts -- such is the evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus lived. But while the Gospels were written several generations too late to be of authority, the original documents, such as they were, were not preserved. The Gospels that were written in the second century no longer exist. They have been lost or destroyed. The oldest Gospels that we have are supposed to be copies of copies of copies that were made from those Gospels. We do not know who made these copies; we do not know when they were made; nor do we know whether they were honestly made. Between the earliest Gospels and the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament, there is a blank gulf of three hundred years. It is, therefore, impossible to say what the original Gospels contained. There were many Gospels in circulation in the early centuries, and a large number of them were forgeries. Among these were the "Gospel of Paul," the Gospel of Bartholomew," the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot," the "Gospel of the Egyptians," the "Gospel or Recollections of Peter," the "Oracles or Sayings of Christ," and scores of other pious productions, a collection of which may still be read in "The Apocryphal New Testament." Obscure men wrote Gospels and attached the names of prominent Christian characters to them, to give them the appearance of importance. Works were forged in the names of the apostles, and even in the name of Christ. The greatest Christian teachers taught that it was a virtue to deceive and lie for the glory of the faith. Dean Milman, the standard Christian historian, says: "Pious fraud was admitted and avowed." The Rev. Dr. Giles writes: "There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were then written with no other view than to deceive." Professor Robertson Smith says: "There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views." The early church was flooded with spurious religious writings. From this mass of literature, our Gospels were selected by priests and called the inspired word of God. Were these Gospels also forged? There is no certainty that they were not. But let me ask: If Christ was an historical character, why was it necessary to forge documents to prove his existence? Did anybody ever think of forging documents to prove the existence of any person who was really known to have lived? The early Christian forgeries are a tremendous testimony to the weakness of the Christian cause. Spurious or genuine, let us see what the Gospels can tell us about the life of Jesus. Matthew and Luke give us the story of his genealogy. How do they agree? Matthew says there were forty-one generations from Abraham to Jesus. Luke says there were fifty-six. Yet both pretend to give the genealogy of Joseph, and both count the generations! Nor is this all. The Evangelists disagree on all but two names between David and Christ. These worthless genealogies show how much the New Testament writers knew about the ancestors of their hero. If Jesus lived, he must have been born. When was he born? Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. He could not have been born during the administration of these tow rulers for Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later. Herod and Quirinius are separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod's son. Between Matthew and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years, as to the time of Christ's birth. The fact is that the early Christians had absolutely no knowledge as to when Christ was born. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says: "Christians count one hundred and thirty-three contrary opinions of different authorities concerning the year the Messiah appeared on earth." Think of it -- one hundred and thirty-three different years, each one of which is held to be the year in which Christ came into the world. What magnificent certainty! Towards the close of the eighteenth century, Antonmaria Lupi, a learned Jesuit, wrote a work to show that the nativity of Christ has been assigned to every month in the year, at one time or another. Where was Christ born? According to the Gospels, he was habitually called "Jesus of Nazareth." The New Testament writers have endeavored to leave the impression that Nazareth of Galilee was his home town. The Synoptic Gospels represent that thirty years of his life were spent there. Notwithstanding this, Matthew declares that he was born in Bethlehem in fulfillment of a prophecy in the Book of Micah. But the prophecy of Micah has nothing whatever to do with Jesus; it prophesies the coming of a military leader, not a divine teacher. Matthew's application of this prophecy to Christ strengthens the suspicion that his Gospel is not history, but romance. Luke has it that his birth occurred at Bethlehem, whither his mother had gone with her husband, to make the enrollment called for by Augustus Caesar. Of the general census mentioned by Luke, nothing is known in Roman history. But suppose such a census was taken. The Roman custom, when an enrollment was made, was that every man was to report at his place of residence. The head of the family alone made report. In no case was his wife, or any dependent, required to be with him. In the face of this established custom, Luke declares that Joseph left his home in Nazareth and crossed two provinces to go Bethlehem for the enrollment; and not only this, but that he had to be accompanied by his wife, Mary, who was on the very eve of becoming a mother. This surely is not history, but fable. The story that Christ was born at Bethlehem was a necessary part of the program which made him the Messiah, and the descendant of King David. The Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, the city of David; and by what Renan calls a roundabout way, his birth was made to take place there. The story of his birth in the royal city is plainly fictitious. His home was Nazareth. He was called "Jesus of Nazareth"; and there he is said to have lived until the closing years of his life. Now comes the question -- Was there a city of Nazareth in that age? The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time." No certainty that there was a city of Nazareth! Not only are the supposed facts of the life of Christ imaginary, but the city of his birth and youth and manhood existed, so far as we know, only on the map of mythology. What amazing evidence to prove the reality of a Divine man! Absolute ignorance as to his ancestry; nothing whatever known of the time of his birth, and even the existence of the city where he is said to have been born, a matter of grave question! After his birth, Christ, as it were, vanishes out of existence, and with the exception of a single incident recorded in Luke, we hear absolutely nothing of him until he has reached the age of thirty years. The account of his being found discussing with the doctors in the Temple at Jerusalem when he was but twelve years old, is told by Luke alone. The other Gospels are utterly ignorant of this discussion; and, this single incident excepted, the four Gospels maintain an unbroken silence with regard to thirty years of the life of their hero. What is the meaning of this silence? If the writers of the Gospels knew the facts of the life of Christ, why is it that they tell us absolutely nothing of thirty years of that life? What historical character can be named whose life for thirty years is an absolute blank to the world? If Christ was the incarnation of God, if he was the greatest teacher the world has known, if he came to cave mankind from everlasting pain -- was there nothing worth remembering in the first thirty years of his existence among men? The fact is that the Evangelists knew nothing of the life of Jesus, before his ministry; and they refrained from inventing a childhood, youth and early manhood for him because it was not necessary to their purpose. Luke, however, deviated from the rule of silence long enough to write the Temple incident. The story of the discussion with the doctors in the Temple is proved to be mythical by all the circumstances that surround it. The statement that his mother and father left Jerusalem, believing that he was with them; that they went a day's journey before discovering that he was not in their company; and that after searching for three days, they found him in the Temple asking and answering questions of the learned Doctors, involves a series of tremendous improbabilities. Add to this the fact that the incident stands alone in Luke, surrounded by a period of silence covering thirty years; add further that none of the other writers have said a word of the child Jesus discussing with the scholars of their nation; and add again the unlikelihood that a child would appear before serious-minded men in the role of an intellectual champion and the fabulous character of the story becomes perfectly clear. The Gospels know nothing of thirty years of Christ's life. What do they know of the last years of that life? How long did the ministry, the public career of Christ, continue? According to Matthew, Mark and Luke, the public life of Christ lasted about a year. If John's Gospel is to be believed, his ministry covered about three years. The Synoptics teach that Christ's public work was confined almost entirely to Galilee, and that he went to Jerusalem only once, not long before his death. John is in hopeless disagreement with the other Evangelists as to the scene of Christ's labors. He maintains that most of the public life of Christ was spent in Judea, and that Christ was many times in Jerusalem. Now, between Galilee and Judea there was the province of Samaria. If all but the last few weeks of Christ's ministry was carried on in his native province of Galilee, it is certain that the greater part of that ministry was not spent in Judea, two provinces away. John tells us that the driving of the money-changers from the Temple occurred at the beginning of Christ's ministry; and nothing is said of any serious consequences following it. But Matthew, Mark and Luke declare that the purification of the Temple took place at the close of his career, and that this act brought upon him the wrath of the priests, who sought to destroy him. Because of these facts, the Encyclopedia Biblica assures us that the order of events in the life of Christ, as given by the Evangelists, is contradictory and untrustworthy; that the chronological framework of the Gospels is worthless; and that the facts "show only too clearly with what lack of concern for historical precision the Evangelists write." In other words, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote, not what they knew, but what they imagined. Christ is said to have been many times in Jerusalem. It is said that he preached daily in the Temple. He was followed by his twelve disciples, and by multitudes of enthusiastic men and women. On the one hand, the people shouted hosannas in his honor, and on the other, priests engaged him in discussion and sought to take his life. All this shows that he must have been well known to the authorities. Indeed, he must have been one of the best known men in Jerusalem. Why, then, was it necessary for the priests to bribe one of his disciples to betray him? Only an obscure man, whose identity was uncertain, or a man who was in hiding, would need to be betrayed. A man who appeared daily in the streets, who preached daily in the Temple, a man who was continually before the public eye, could have been arrested at any moment. The priests would not have bribed a man to betray a teacher whom everybody knew. If the accounts of Christ's betrayal are true, all the declarations about his public appearances in Jerusalem must be false. Nothing could be more improbable than the story of Christ's crucifixion. The civilization of Rome was the highest in the world. The Romans were the greatest lawyers the world had ever known. Their courts were models of order and fairness. A man was not condemned without a trial; he was not handed to the executioner before being found guilty. And yet we are asked to believe that an innocent man was brought before a Roman court, where Pontius Pilate was Judge; that no charge of wrongdoing having been brought against him, the Judge declared that he found him innocent; that the mob shouted, "Crucify him; crucify him!" and that to please the rabble, Pilate commanded that the man who had done no wrong and whom he had found innocent, should be scourged, and then delivered him to the executioners to be crucified! Is it thinkable that the master of a Roman court in the days of Tiberius Caesar, having found a man innocent and declared him so, and having made efforts to save his life, tortured him of his own accord, and then handed him over to a howling mob to be nailed to a cross? A Roman court finding a man innocent and then crucifying him? Is that a picture of civilized Rome? Is that the Rome to which the world owes its laws? In reading the story of the Crucifixion, are we reading history or religious fiction? Surely not history. On the theory that Christ was crucified, how shall we explain the fact that during the first eight centuries of the evolution of Christianity, Christian art represented a lamb, and not a man, as suffering on the cross for the salvation of the world? Neither the paintings in the Catacombs nor the sculptures on Christian tombs pictured a human figure on the cross. Everywhere a lamb was shown as the Christian symbol -- a lamb carrying a cross, a lamb at the foot of a cross, a lamb on a cross. Some figures showed the lamb with a human head, shoulders and arms, holding a cross in his hands -- the lamb of God in process of assuming the human form -- the crucifixion myth becoming realistic. At the close of the eighth century, Pope Hadrian I, confirming the decree of the sixth Synod of Constantinople, commanded that thereafter the figure of a man should take the place of a lamb on the cross. It took Christianity eight hundred years to develop the symbol of its suffering Savior. For eight hundred years, the Christ on the cross was a lamb. But if Christ was actually crucified, why was his place on the cross so long usurped by a lamb? In the light of history and reason, and in view of a lamb on the cross, why should we believe in the Crucifixion? And let us ask, if Christ performed the miracles the New Testament describes, if he gave sight to blind men's eyes, if his magic touch brought youthful vigor to the palsied frame, if the putrefying dead at his command returned to life and love again -- why did the people want him crucified? Is it not amazing that a civilized people -- for the Jews of that age were civilized -- were so filled with murderous hate towards a kind and loving man who went about doing good, who preached forgiveness, cleansed the leprous, and raised the dead -- that they could not be appeased until they had crucified the noblest benefactor of mankind? Again I ask -- is this history, or is it fiction? From the standpoint of the supposed facts, the account of the Crucifixion of Christ is as impossible as is the raising of Lazarus from the standpoint of nature. The simple truth is, that the four Gospels are historically worthless. They abound in contradictions, in the unreasonable, the miraculous and the monstrous. There is not a thing in them that can be depended upon as true, while there is much in them that we certainly know to be false. The accounts of the virgin birth of Christ, of his feeding five thousand people with five loaves and two fishes, of his cleansing the leprous, of his walking on the water, of his raising the dead, and of his own resurrection after his life had been destroyed, are as untrue as any stories that were ever told in this world. The miraculous element in the Gospels is proof that they were written by men, who did not know how to write history, or who were not particular as to the truth of what they wrote. The miracles of the Gospels were invented by credulity or cunning, and if the miracles were invented, how can we know that the whole history of Christ was not woven of the warp and woof of the imagination? Dr. Paul W. Schmiedel, Professor of New Testament Exegesis at Zurich, Switzerland, one of the foremost theologians of Europe, tells us in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, that there are only nine passages in the Gospels that we can depend upon as being the sayings of Jesus; and Professor Arthur Drews, Germany's greatest exponent of the doctrine that Christ is a myth, analyses these passages and shows that there is nothing in them that could not easily have been invented. That these passages are as unhistorical as the rest is also the contention of John M. Robertson, the eminent English scholar, who holds that Jesus never lived. Let me make a startling disclosure. Let me tell you that the New Testament itself contains the strongest possible proof that the Christ of the Gospels was not a real character. The testimony of the Epistles of Paul demonstrates that the life story of Jesus is an invention. Of course, there is no certainty that Paul really lived. Let me quote a passage from the Encyclopaedia Biblica, relative to Paul: "It is true that the picture of Paul drawn by later times differs utterly in more or fewer of its details from the original. Legend has made itself master of his person. The simple truth has been mixed up with invention; Paul has become the hero of an admiring band of the more highly developed Christians." Thus Christian authority admits that invention has done its work in manufacturing at least in part, the life of Paul. In truth, the ablest Christian scholars reject all but our of the Pauline Epistles as spurious. Some maintain that Paul was not the author of any of them. The very existence of Paul is questionable. But for the purpose of my argument, I am going to admit that Paul really lived; that he was a zealous apostle; and that all the Epistles are from his pen. There are thirteen of these Epistles. Some of them are lengthy; and they are acknowledged to be the oldest Christian writings. They were written long before the Gospels. If Paul really wrote them, they were written by a man who lived in Jerusalem when Christ is supposed to have been teaching there. Now, if the facts of the life of Christ were known in the first century of Christianity, Paul was one of the men who should have known them fully. Yet Paul acknowledges that he never saw Jesus; and his Epistles prove that he knew nothing about his life, his works, or his teachings. In all the Epistles of Paul, there is not one word about Christ's virgin birth. The apostle is absolutely ignorant of the marvellous manner in which Jesus is said to have come into the world. For this silence, there can be only one honest explanation -- the story of the virgin birth had not yet been invented when Paul wrote. A large portion of the Gospels is devoted to accounts of the miracles Christ is said to have wrought. But you will look in vain through the thirteen Epistles of Paul for the slightest hint that Christ ever performed any miracles. Is it conceivable that Paul was acquainted with the miracles of Christ -- that he knew that Christ had cleansed the leprous, cast out devils that could talk, restored sight to the blind and speech to the dumb, and even raised the dead -- is it conceivable that Paul was aware of these wonderful things and yet failed to write a single line about them? Again, the only solution is that the accounts of the miracles wrought by Jesus had not yet been invented when Paul's Epistles were written. Not only is Paul silent about the virgin birth and the miracles of Jesus, he is without the slightest knowledge of the teaching of Jesus. The Christ of the Gospels preached a famous sermon on a mountain: Paul knows nothing of it. Christ delivered a prayer now recited by the Christian world: Paul never heard of it. Christ taught in parables: Paul is utterly unacquainted with any of them. Is not this astonishing? Paul, the greatest writer of early Christianity, the man who did more than any other to establish the Christian religion in the world -- that is, if the Epistles may be trusted -- is absolutely ignorant of the teaching of Christ. In all of his thirteen Epistles he does not quote a single saying of Jesus. Paul was a missionary. He was out for converts. Is it thinkable that if the teachings of Christ had been known to him, he would not have made use of them in his propaganda? Can you believe that a Christian missionary would go to China and labor for many years to win converts to the religion of Christ, and never once mention the Sermon on the Mount, never whisper a word about the Lord's Prayer, never tell the story of one of the parables, and remain as silent as the grave about the precepts of his master? What have the churches been teaching throughout the Christian centuries if not these very things? Are not the churches of to-day continually preaching about the virgin birth, the miracles, the parables, and the precepts of Jesus? And o not these features constitute Christianity? Is there any life of Christ, apart from these things? Why, then, does Paul know nothing of them? There is but one answer. The virgin-born, miracle-working, preaching Christ was unknown to the world in Paul's day. That is to say, he had not yet been invented! The Christ of Paul and the Jesus of the Gospels are two entirely different beings. The Christ of Paul is little more than an idea. He has no life story. He was not followed by the multitude. He performed no miracles. He did no preaching. The Christ Paul knew was the Christ he was in a vision while on his way to Damascus -- an apparition, a phantom, not a living, human being, who preached and worked among men. This vision-Christ, this ghostly word, was afterwards brought to the earth by those who wrote the Gospels. He was given a Holy Ghost for a father and a virgin for a mother. He was made to preach, to perform astounding miracles, to die a violent death though innocent, and to rise in triumph from the grave and ascend again to heaven. Such is the Christ of the New Testament -- first a spirit, and later a miraculously born, miracle working man, who is master of death and whom death cannot subdue. A large body of opinion in the early church denied the reality of Christ's physical existence. In his "History of Christianity," Dean Milman writes: "The Gnostic sects denied that Christ was born at all, or that he died," and Mosheim, Germany's great ecclesiastical historian, says: "The Christ of early Christianity was not a human being, but an "appearance," an illusion, a character in miracle, not in reality -- a myth. Miracles do not happen. Stories of miracles are untrue. Therefore, documents in which miraculous accounts are interwoven with reputed facts, are untrustworthy, for those who invented the miraculous element might easily have invented the part that was natural. Men are common; Gods are rare; therefore, it is at least as easy to invent the biography of a man as the history of a God. For this reason, the whole story of Christ -- the human element as well as the divine -- is without valid claim to be regarded as true. If miracles are fictions, Christ is a myth. Said Dean Farrar: "If miracles be incredible, Christianity is false." Bishop Westcott wrote: "The essence of Christianity lies in a miracle; and if it can be shown that a miracle is either impossible or incredible, all further inquiry into the details of its history is superfluous." Not only are miracles incredible, but the uniformity of nature declares them to be impossible. Miracles have gone: the miraculous Christ cannot remain. If Christ lived, if he was a reformer, if he performed wonderful works that attracted the attention of the multitude, if he came in conflict with the authorities and was crucified -- how shall we explain the fact that history has not even recorded his name? The age in which he is said to have lived was an age of scholars and thinkers. In Greece, Rome and Palestine, there were philosophers, historians, poets, orators, jurists and statesmen. Every fact of importance was noted by interested and inquiring minds. Some of the greatest writers the Jewish race has produced lived in that age. And yet, in all the writings of that period, there is not one line, not one word, not one letter, about Jesus. Great writers wrote extensively of events of minor importance, but not one of them wrote a word about the mightiest character who had ever appeared on earth -- a man at whose command the leprous were made clean, a man who fed five thousand people with a satchel full of bread, a man whose word defied the grave and gave life to the dead. John E. Remsburg, in his scholarly work on "The Christ," has compiled a list of forty-two writers who lived and wrote during the time or within a century after the time, of Christ, not one of whom ever mentioned him. Philo, one of the most renowned writers the Jewish race has produced, was born before the beginning of the Christian Era, and lived for many years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died. His home was in or near Jerusalem, where Jesus is said to have preached, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified, and to have risen from the dead. Had Jesus done these things, the writings of Philo would certainly contain some record of his life. Yet this philosopher, who must have been familiar with Herod's massacre of the innocents, and with the preaching, miracles and death of Jesus, had these things occurred; who wrote an account of the Jews, covering this period, and discussed the very questions that are said to have been near to Christ's heart, never once mentioned the name of, or any deed connected with, the reputed Savior of the world. In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on "The Antiquities of the Jews." In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history. There were no printing presses in those days. Books were multiplied by being copied. It was, therefore, easy to add to or change what an author had written. The church felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In the fourth century, a copy of "The Antiquities of the Jews" appeared, in which occurred this passage: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." Such is the celebrated reference to Christ in Josephus. A more brazen forgery was never perpetrated. For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen an Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed that that writer had not acknowledged Christ. This passage first appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is know to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage in his "Evangelical Demonstration," (Book III., p.124), in these words: "Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness." Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage. It is written in the style of Eusebius, and not in the style of Josephus. Josephus was a voluminous writer. He wrote extensively about men of minor importance. The brevity of this reference to Christ is, therefore, a strong argument for its falsity. This passage interrupts the narrative. It has nothing to do with what precedes or what follows it; and its position clearly shows that the text of the historian has been separated by a later hand to give it room. Josephus was a Jew -- a priest of the religion of Moses. This passage makes him acknowledge the divinity, the miracles, and the resurrection of Christ -- that is to say, it makes an orthodox Jew talk like a believing Christian! Josephus could not possibly have written these words without being logically compelled to embrace Christianity. All the arguments of history and of reason unite in the conclusive proof that the passage is an unblushing forgery. For these reasons every honest Christian scholar has abandoned it as an interpolation. Dean Milman says: "It is interpolated with many additional clauses." Dean Farrar, writing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, says: "That Josephus wrote the whole passage as it now stands no sane critic can believe." Bishop Warburton denounced it as "a rank forgery and a very stupid one, too." Chambers' Encyclopaedia says: "The famous passage of Josephus is generally conceded to be an interpolation." In the "Annals" of Tacitus, the Roman historian, there is another short passage which speaks of "Christus" as being the founder of a party called Christians -- a body of people "who were abhorred for their crimes." These words occur in Tacitus' account of the burning of Rome. The evidence for this passage is not much stronger than that for the passage in Josephus. It was not quoted by any writer before the fifteenth century; and when it was quoted, there was only one copy of the "Annals" in the world; and that copy was supposed to have been made in the eighth century -- six hundred years after Tacitus' death. The "Annals" were published between 115 and 117 A.D., nearly a century after Jesus' time -- so the passage, even if genuine, would not prove anything as to Jesus. The name "Jesus" was as common among the Jews as is William or George with us. In the writings of Josephus, we find accounts of a number of Jesuses. One was Jesus, the son of Sapphias, the founder of a seditious band of mariners; another was Jesus, the captain of the robbers whose followers fled when they heard of his arrest; still another Jesus was a monomaniac who for seven years went about Jerusalem, crying, "Woe, woe, woe unto Jerusalem!" who was bruised and beaten many times, but offered no resistance; and who was finally killed with a stone at the siege of Jerusalem. The word "Christ," the Greek equivalent of the Jewish word "Messiah," was not a personal name; it was a title; it meant "the Anointed One." The Jews were looking for a Messiah, a successful political leader, who would restore the independence of their nation. Josephus tells us of many men who posed as Messiahs, who obtained a following among the people, and who were put to death by the Romans for political reasons. One of these Messiahs, or Christs, a Samaritan prophet, was executed under Pontius Pilate; and so great was the indignation of the Jews that Pilate had to be recalled by the Roman government. These facts are of tremendous significance. While the Jesus Christ of Christianity is unknown to history, the age in which he is said to have lived was an age in which many men bore the name of "Jesus" and many political leaders assumed the title of "Christ." All the materials necessary for the manufacture of the story of Christ existed in that age. In all the ancient countries, divine Saviors were believed to have been born of virgins, to have preached a new religion, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified as atonements for the sins of mankind, and to have risen from the grave and ascended into heaven. All that Jesus is supposed to have taught was in the literature of the time. In the story of Christ there is not a new idea, as Joseph McCabe has shown in his "Sources of the Morality of the Gospels," and John M. Robertson in his "Pagan Christs." "But," says the Christian, "Christ is so perfect a character that he could not have been invented." This is a mistake. The Gospels do not portray a perfect character. The Christ of the Gospels is shown to be artificial by the numerous contradictions in his character and teachings. He was in favor of the sword, and he was not; he told men to love their enemies, and advised them to hate their friends; he preached the doctrine of forgiveness, and called men a generation of vipers; he announced himself as the judge of the world, and declared that he would judge no man; he taught that he was possessed of all power, but was unable to work miracles where the people did not believe; he was represented as God and did not shrink from avowing, "I and my Father are one," but in the pain and gloom of the cross, he is made to cry out in his anguish: "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" And how singular it is that these words, reputed as the dying utterance of the disillusioned Christ, should be not only contradicted by two Evangelists, but should be a quotation from the twenty-second Psalm! If there is a moment when a man's speech is original, it is when, amid agony and despair, while his heart is breaking beneath its burden of defeat and disappointment, he utters a cry of grief from the depth of his wounded soul with the last breath that remains before the chill waves of death engulf his wasted life forever. But on the lips of the expiring Christ are placed, not the heart-felt words of a dying man, but a quotation from the literature of his race! A being with these contradictions, these transparent unrealities in his character, could scarcely have been real. And if Christ, with all that is miraculous and impossible in his nature, could not have been in vented, what shall we say of Othello, of Hamlet, of Romeo? Do not Shakespeare's wondrous characters live upon the stage? Does not their naturalness, their consistency, their human grandeur, challenge our admiration? And is it not with difficulty that we believe them to be children of the imagination? Laying aside the miraculous, in the story of the Jewish hero, is not the character of Jean Valjean as deep, as lofty, as broad, as rich in its humanity, as tender in its pathos, as sublime in its heroism, and as touchingly resigned to the cruelties of fate as the character of Jesus? Who has read the story of that marvelous man without being thrilled? And who has followed him through his last days with dry eyes? And yet Jean Valjean never lived and never died; he was not a real man, but the personification of suffering virtue born in the effulgent brain of Victor Hugo. Have you not wept when you have seen Sydney Carton disguise himself and lay his neck beneath the blood-stained knife of the guillotine, to save the life of Evremonde? But Sydney Carton was not an actual human being; he is the heroic, self-sacrificing spirit of humanity clothed in human form by the genius of Charles Dickens. Yes, the character of Christ could have been invented! The literature of the world is filled with invented characters; and the imaginary lives of the splendid men and women of fiction will forever arrest the interest of the mind and hold the heart enthralled. But how account for Christianity if Christ did not live? Let me ask another question. How account for the Renaissance, for the Reformation, for the French Revolution, or for Socialism? Not one of these movements was created by an individual. They grew. Christianity grew. The Christian church is older than the oldest Christian writings. Christ did not produce the church. The church produced the story of Christ. The Jesus Christ of the Gospels could not possibly have been a real person. He is a combination of impossible elements. There may have lived in Palestine, nineteen centuries ago, a man whose name was Jesus, who went about doing good, who was followed by admiring associates, and who in the end met a violent death. But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing. This Jesus, if he lived, was a man; and if he was a reformer, he was but one of many that have lived and died in every age of the world. When the world shall have learned that the Christ of the Gospels is a myth, that Christianity is untrue, it will turn its attention from the religious fictions of the past to the vital problems of to-day, and endeavor to solve them for the improvement of the well-being of the real men and women whom we know, and whom we ought to help and love.

You do not know the difference betweent satan and God. If need to know go to England and look for the dark church which is the church of Satan or Saitan as they call it. It's chief priest would explain who the Dark Prince and if not in US they have a satanic church you can find your answer there. Here is the platform for spritual discussion or as the Xians call the holy sprit also know as the holy ghost. Please do not let me post the nagative part of Christianity which would open a can of worms..

By Campantar [sambandar], 6th-7th centuries Translated by Indira Viswanathan Peterson, Poems to Shiva: The Hymns of the Tamil Saints (Princeton Library, 1989), p. 180. Tirunanacampantar (popularly known as Sambandar or Campantar) was one of the earliest and most important of the sixty-three Nayanars, "leaders" who were devoted to Shiva (Figure 1). A 6th-7th century poet who sang of his devotion to God in Tamil, this saint is one of the earliest figures associated with Tamil devotional (bhakti) tradition. Bhakti has never been a disinterested or obligatory devotion to God: it is often ecstatic and always personal. Poets are described in the poems and later hagiographical writings as traveling among the sacred shrines of the Tamil countryside, singing of their devotion to their Lord and God. The later poet Mannikakkavacaka was another important Shiva devotee from the Tamil-speaking regions of south India; he is known as one of the preceptors of the tradition (Figure 2). These poems and the saints who sang them profoundly shaped Tamil devotional culture. The poems are still sung at temples during ritual services as offerings to God, at the behest of kings and private citizens. Today, singers (otuvar) stand outside the central shrine during the daily worship services (puja) and sing at the end of the cycle of sixteen components (known as upachara) that form the core of the ritual service. While devotional literature from other parts of India protested against temple-based worship and ritual, the works of the Tamil poets devoted to Shiva sang its praises. Poems by Sambandar and other saints are dedicated to particular locations in the Tamil cultural and linguistic region, and temples and shrines are extolled. The poems focus on the blessing of seeing the great God, and bring this experience to listeners by evoking the sacred image in all its glory. Powerful love and personal devotion shape the poems, bringing God to the listener by commemorating a vivid visual and physical experience of the image and the sacred place. The works of Sambandar were compiled in the Tevaram, which is one of the first extant Hindu devotional (bhakti) and sectarian texts in a vernacular language rather than in Sanskrit, the formal language of religious practice and theology. Manikkavachaka's works were compiled in the Tiruvacakam. Unlike other vernacular languages, Tamil had an established classical literary canon from the beginning of the first millennium, but the Tevaram constitutes the first mainly religious text in Tamil.

Lingodbhavamurthy is an iconic representation of Shiva, installed in the rear devakoshta (niche) of the garbagriha (sanctum) of all Shiva temples. The story of Lingodbhavar is that of the attempts of Vishnu and Bhrama to discover the origins (the beginning Aadi and the end Antha) of Shiva, as stated in three of the puranas - the Kurma Purana, the Vayu Purana and Shiva Purana. Vishnu was engaged in his yoganidhra - the slumber of yoga - at the end of a kalpa, in the waters of the great deluge, when there appeared before him, Bhrama emerging from a great illumination. Bhrama introduced himself to Vishnu as the Creator of the Universe, to which Vishnu replied that he was the architect of the Universe. An argument ensued between both as to their superiority over one another, when there appeared before them - a huge lingam of fire - with tongues of flames blazing out of it. Curious to trace the origins of this column of fire, Bhrama assumed the form of a swan and flew upwards, while Vishnu assumed the form of a boar, and burrowed down into the earth. Days of search in either direction proved futile, and hence the duo surrendered to this column of fire with prayers. Shiva then appeared out of this column of fiery lingam, with a thousand arms and legs, with the sun, moon and fire as his three eyes, bearing the pinaka bow, wearing the hide of an leephant, bearing the trishul, and addressed Vishnu and Bhrama in a thunderous voice, explaining that the two were born out of him, and that the three were then separated out into three different aspects of divinity. The non-anthropomorphic form Shivalingam is a representation of this infinite cosmic column of fire, whose origins were not tracable by Bhrama or Vishnu. The Shivalingam is the center of reverence and worship in all Saivite temples. The manifestation of Shiva in this column of fire in front of Bhrama and Vishnu, is carved in stone, as the Lingodbhavamurthy manifestation of Shiva, and is always enshrined in the rear niche of the sanctum enshring a Shivalingam. Since most temples face east, Lingodbhavar faces West. This legend described above is held at the vast Arunachaleswara temple complex at Tiruvannamalai, where the sacred Annamalai hill itself, is considered to be a manifestation of this cosmic column of fire. Tiruvannamalai, is one of the Pancha Bhoota Stalas, representing the primordial element fire. There is another interesting aspect to this legend. While Bhrama was flying upwards in the guise of a swan, he saw the petals of a ketaki flower drifting down. Tired by the futility of his efforts to reach the top of the mysterious column of fire, Bhrama requested the flower to acquiese to his lie that he had seen the top of the column where the flower had previously resided. Accompanied by his accomplice, Bhrama confronted Vishnu and asserted that he had indeed discovered the origin of the cosmic column. An enraged Shiva appeared out of the fiery column and cursed Bhrama so that he would not be worshipped in temples on earth. This legend relates to the fact that there are hardly any temples dedicated to Bhrama in India. There is a shrine to Bhrama at Uttamar Koyil in Tamilnadu, and Bhrama is also represented in the devakoshtas (niches) in Shiva temples; there are thus no Bhrama temples of any significance in India.

Adolf Hitler was branded bythe Christians as anti Christ and so did Nostradamus. May this poo lady did not know about Hinduism and the aspect of avatar. Maay be she can join Hitler by taking her own life.

That is because every second I mention lord SHIVA's name. Only his name appears in my thought so I believe, in that case only he resides in my soul. But even when I mention his name I know ultimately it is the Paramathma who is the Supreme Brahma so, it does not matter which name we utter coz he is in every name and every soul. Only the ignorant fanatic think otherwise.

Shankaracharya (7th century A.D.) preached Advaita or Monism. Sri Ramanuja (12th century) preached a blend of monism and dualism. Madhvacharya or Anandatirtha (13th century) preached Dwaita philosophy. All the above three were recognized by the Hindu markam as proficient acharyas of Sanadhana Dharma or Hinduism as it is known the world over. Even during their time there were people who were ignorant of the truth, despised and ridiculed them but that did not deter their mission because they were destined to reform the Hindu religion. Shankara's arrival on the scene was at a most critical juncture when both Buddhism and Hinduism were fast disintegrating into various sects and cults. Buddha's original teachings were a reaction to the vedic sacrificial extremities. But in the later centuries practices like magic and sexual mysticism crept into Buddhism. Vedic religion was not very different, having given way to superstitious ways, and a large number of rituals. It was Shankara who tried to re-assess and integrate sound teachings of Buddha in the vedic (Hindu) following, and was successful in the revival and reformation of Hindu thinking and way of life. Sri Ramanuja (born in 1017 A.D. -- not to be confused with the great Indian mathematician with the same name) appeared on the spiritual scene of South India ignited by the devotional revolution started by the Alvars. He came from a pious Brahmin family and studied all holy scriptures as was the practice. But he could not reconcile to monistic system and interpreted Brahma-sutras and Bhagavadgita in his own volition of synthesizing devotion and knowledge. According to him, God, the soul, and the universe together formed one reality. God is all pervading supreme spirit. The universe comes out of Him and returns to Him in cycles. He said that God-realization was possible only through Bhakti, which was a spiritual discipline. Madhvacharya had to face a lot of opposition due to his preaching which were quite opposite to established norms of worship and belief. Tradition exists that his commentaries (on palm leaf books) were stolen and destroyed. There is a story depicting his fearlessness in crossing a flooded river, facing armed robbers in a forest and a Muslim king who had no sympathy towards Hindu monks. He spoke to the sultan in Persian, convincing him that his Allah and his own Narayana are one and the same. " We are all citizens of His Kingdom." At the age of 79, the acharya left for his final pilgrimage from Udupi to Badari--never to be seen again. Madhva Navami is observed in his memory. The temple town of Udipi bears Madhva's memory at every step with eight mathas and innumerable followers, who throng everyday throughout the year. Thus we find that there is but one scripture as the source common to the different sects and schools of thought in the Hindu religion. This source includes the Upanisads. On ten of them (Dasopanisad) the great teachers of the Saiva, Vaisnava, and Smarta traditions have written commentaries. The Upanisadic texts proclaim that the Brahman is the one and only Godhead: In the Kathopanisad it is called Visnu; in the Mandukyopanisad it is called Sivam. All the deities mentioned in the Samhitas of the Vedas- Mitra, Varuna, Agni, Indra and so on - are diffrerent names of the same Truth. So it is said in the Vedas: "Ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti. " The Vedas that constitute the scripture common to all and which reveal the Godhead that is common to us also teach us how to lead our life, and- this is important- they do us the ultimate good by showing us in the end the way to become that very Godhead ourselves. They are our refuge both here and the hereafter and are the source and root of all our different traditions, all our systems of thought. All sects, all schools of our religion, have their origin in them. The root is one but the branches are many. The Vedas are the source not only of various divisions of Hinduism, all the religions of the world may be traced back to them. It is our bounden duty to preserve them for all time to come with their glory undiminished.

Opinions are many, concepts varies but the truth is one and that is God. Call it what you want makes no difference coz he is the one and the same. Gosh! I did not know I am dealing with a fanatic. Fanatisim breeds enemity and ultimatley war. If you feel your path is the right path go ahead there is no one to stop but why have a conflict here. Here we exchange knowledge and if it does not please that just ignore. Being sarcastic will not help in your spritual journey. Learn to be humble which is what is expected of spritualism not confrontation. If you differ please explain instead of being sarcastic.

Ultimate Truth Whatever different the approach may be but ultimately your oblation goes to the Supreme Brahman. It is simple to understand but for certain people it will take a very long period to comprehend the real truth. Take for instance when a child is sick, the maternal parents will attend to he /she day and night and at the same time you will see uncles, aunties, cousins and all other relatives attending with loving care but it is all from the same source the great great-grand parent whom the child would not have seen, Just because the child did not see does not mean that the great-great grand did not exist once. If not for them all these relations or for that matter the child would not be here. So, ultimately there is a Supreme Brahman whom we call God and the rest are manifestation of that reality. Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Sakthi, Ganesha, Murugan and the nine avatars of Vishnu, all belongs to the Supreme Reality who goes by thousands of namas. Only the sages had realized this truth that is because they have the inner eye we call nyana kann or the third eye which is hidden inside each and everyone of us but would not open if you do not reach the level of spiritual awareness. Just reading the scriptures alone would not suffice, one need to submerge in it, show compassion to all, give selfless service to mankind, rid of the I and egoistic and self-centered thoughts, jealousy and being fanatical of personal God. In Hinduism pay your spiritual homage to your personal god whoever he may be but do not forget that it ultimately reaches the Supreme Reality who is without form and with form, without name and with names and this universe exist because he exist. He is the light and sight that we see so do not blind although you have the sight. We can argue but it should be a healthy argument which in turn would increase our spiritual knowledge but do not argue for the sake of argument. Fact is what we need and we have all the references we need in our Vedas. May the Grace of the Supreme Brahman be with us all. Barney. 06/03/04

Have you seen Christ or have you seen Mohammed. It is all in their book they respectively call Bible and Koran. So, they believe coz they have faith and so do we as our scriptures are way far from thiers and had lived over centuries some few thousand years. Today even the western scientist are extracting informations about medicines and other form of medical science to enhance their search for cures to complicated dieases. Mathematics would not exist if not for our sastras. All this was possible because our ancient rishis could communicate with the supreme being to gain useful information for the well being of all species. You are not blind or ignorant but just refuse to believe and that is plain stupidity.

Rudra-Hridaya Upanishad -- Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). Om ! Let there be Peace in me ! Let there be Peace in my environment ! Let there be Peace in the forces that act on me ! Now, at this moment, I take refuge in that Pure State of the Supreme Absolute which can be known by the Vidya, called the Rudra Hridaya Upanishad. After prostrating before the celebrated form of Sri Mahadeva-Rudra in his heart, adoring the sacred Bhasma and Rudraksha and mentally reciting the great Mahavakya-Mantra, Tarasara, Sri Suka asked his father Sri Vyasa Maharshi, thus: Who is the real God of gods? In whom are all these existences established? By worshipping whom, can I please the Devas in whole? Hearing these words, Sri Veda Vyasa replied thus: . All devas are merely different manifestations of Sri Rudra Himself. On the right side of Rudra, there is the sun, then the four-headed Brahma, and then three Agnis (fires). On the left side, there exist Sri Umadevi, and also Vishnu and Soma (moon). Uma Herself is the form of Vishnu. Vishnu Himself is the form of the moon. Therefore, those who worship Lord Vishnu, worship Siva Himself. And those who worship Siva, worship Lord Vishnu in reality. Those who envy and hate Sri Rudra, are actually hating Sri Vishnu. Those who decry Lord Siva, decry Vishnu Himself. Rudra is the generator of the seed. Vishnu is the embryo of the seed. Siva Himself is Brahma and Brahma Himself is Agni. Rudra is full of Brahma and Vishnu. The whole world is full of Agni and Soma. The masculine gender is Lord Siva. The feminine gender is Sri Bhavani Devi. All the mobile and immobile creation of this universe, is filled up with Uma and Rudra. The Vyakta is Sri Uma, and the Avyakta is Lord Siva. The combination of Uma and Sankara is Vishnu. Hence everybody should prostrate to Sri Maha Vishnu with great devotion. He is the Atman. He is the Paramatman. He is the Antaratman. Brahma is the Antaratman. Siva is the Paramatman. Vishnu is the Eternal Atman of all this universe. This whole creation of Svarga, Martya and Patala Lokas is a big tree. Vishnu is the top portion (branches) of this tree. Brahma is the stem. The root is Lord Siva. The effect is Vishnu. The action is Brahma. The cause is Siva. For the benefit of the worlds. Rudra has taken these three forms. Rudra is Dharma. Vishnu is the world. Brahma is Knowledge. Therefore, do Kirtan of His name, ‘Rudra’, ‘Rudra’. By singing like this, the hallowed name of this great Lord, all your sins will be destroyed. Rudra is man. Uma is woman. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is Brahma. Uma is Sarasvati. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is Vishnu. Uma is Lakshmi. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is Sun. Uma is shadow. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is moon. Uma is star. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is day. Uma is night. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is Yajna. Uma is Vedi. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is Agni, Uma is Svaha. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is Veda. Uma is Sastra. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is tree. Uma is creeper. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is scent. Uma is flower. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is meaning. Uma is word. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is Linga. Uma is Pitha. Prostrations to Him and Her. The devotee should worship Sri Rudra and Uma with these Mantras referred to above. O my son, Suka! With these hymns, you should meditate on the Eternal Para-Brahman, which is beyond the reach of the senses, which is pure Existence, knowledge and Bliss and which cannot be understood either by the speech or by the mind. After knowing this, there is nothing more to be known, because everything is the form of That, and there is nothing separate from That. There are two Vidyas to be known. They are Para and Apara. Apara Vidya is the embodiment of the four Vedas and their six Angas. They do not deal with the Nature of the Atman. But the Para Vidya is called the Moksha-Sastra. It deals with that supreme philosophy of the Absolute Truth, ununderstandable, impersonal, Nirguna, Nirakara, without ears, without eyes, without hands, without feet, eternal, omnipresent, imperishable, and knowable by the intelligent daring sages. From that Lord Siva who performs a terrible penance in the form of Supreme Jnana-Marga, this whole world is created which is the food of the mortals. This world is Maya. It seems to appear just like a dream. It is superimposed on the Lord just like a rope on a serpent. This is the eternal Truth. There is no creation in reality. All is absolute. All is Truth. Knowing this, one is liberated at once. Only through Jnana, you can get rid of this Samsara. Only through Jnana, you can understand this existence and never through Karma. Understand this through the guidance of a Brahmanishtha-Srotriya Guru. The Guru will give the disciple all the necessary knowledge of Brahman, the Absolute. By cutting off the bondage of Ajnana or Avidya, one should take refuge in Lord Sadasiva. This is the real wisdom to be understood by an aspirant seeking after Truth. The Pranava is the bow. The Atman is the arrow. The Para-Brahman is the target. Just like the arrow, the Atman will become one with Brahman. But all these three, the bow, the arrow and the target are not different from that Sadasiva. There do not shine the bodies of the sun, moon or the stars. There does not blow the wind, there do not exist many Devatas. He, the One Lord only exists. He only, the Purity of purities, shines for ever and ever. There are two birds in this body, the Jiva and the Paramatman. The Jiva eats the fruit of his Karmas, but the Paramatman is untouched by anything. The Paramatman is only the Sakshi. He does not do anything. He only assumes the form of the Jiva through His Maya, just as the Akasa inside a pot seems to be different from the Akasa outside and assumes the form of the pot. In reality all is Siva, Advaita, the One Absolute. There is no difference of whatever kind. When all is understood to be One, Omkara, the Absolute, there is no sorrow, there is no Maya. Then the attainment of the Advaita-Paramananda is very easy. Think that you are the basis of all this universe, you are the One, Kevala, Sat-Chit-Ghana. All people cannot understand this Truth. Those devoid of Maya can know this secret. After knowing this, the Atman does not move towards any place at any time. It becomes one with the Absolute, just like Ghatakasa with Paramakasa. Just as Akasa does not move anywhere, similarly this Atman does not have any movement. It becomes one with OM. One who knows this great secret Truth is the real Muni. He becomes the Para-Brahman Itself. He becomes Satchidananda. He attains permanent peace. Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). Om ! Let there be Peace in me ! Let there be Peace in my environment ! Let there be Peace in the forces that act on me ! Here ends the Rudra-Hridayopanishad belonging to the Krishna-Yajur-Veda.

That much some of you understand about me. Without Krishna there is no Bagavatam. The mahabaratham and Gita upanisham is soly based on Lord Krishna's wonders and his lesson to mankind. But some of you do not know the crux of the matter here that is all. Krishna is only the Avathar of the Supreme Brahman and calling him by other names does not kame krishna lower or undignified. Some of them here do not understand the real concept of Sanadhana Dharma. They are no different from the Muslim saying Allah is h the true God and none other while Allah has 99 names which they refuse to use. But we the Hindus have 1008 names for the Supreme Brahman and among them is Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma and so on. Gee! When will you all learn?

I did not write Kalki purana and for that matter you should seek advice from those fluent it that subject. I merely said what I percieve from the puranas. Ii is a know fact that Kali Yug will last for another 415,000 years and it has been stated that Kalki will appear at the end of Kali whereas we ae just in the beginning of Kali Yug which has just passed 5000 years or so. Now where is your logic that Kalki has arrived? Simply getting worked up will not quench your thirst. Learn to find where water is and only than will you be able to quench your thirst. Sorry, that is how see it.

Hindu Scriptures Hindu religious literature, the most ancient writings in the world, is of two types: primary scriptures (Sruti) and secondary scriptures (Smriti). The Sruti scriptures are of divine origin, whose truths were directly revealed to ancient rishis (sages) in their deep meditations. The Smriti scriptures are of human origin and were written to explain the Sruti writings and make them understandable and meaningful to the general population. Sruti scriptures include the four Vedas (Rig, Yajur, Sãma and Atharva) and the Bhagavad Gîtã, and constitute the highest religious authority in Hindu religion. The Vedas are groups of hymns and chants containing religious and spiritual insights of the ancient sages and seers. Each Veda consists of four parts: Mantras (or Samhitãs), Brãhmanas, Ãrany-akas, and Upanishads. Mantras are poetic compositions and hymns of supplication and incantation addressed to the deities, the symbolic representations of the Supreme Lord. The Brãhmanas deal with rules and regulations for proper performance of religious rites, rituals and ceremonies. The Ãranyakas (as forest books) provide the symbolic and spiritual basis for the Brãhmanas. The Upanishads reveal the knowledge about Brahman and are known as Vedãnta, meaning "end of the Vedas." They are the concluding portions of the Vedas. Whereas the Upanishads represent the essence of the Vedas, the Bhagavad Gîtã, the most popular scripture of Hindus, contains the essence of the Upanishads. The Vedas reflect the dawn of spiritual insight the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gîtã contain the full splendor of a spiritual vision. Message of Hindu Scriptures for Mankind During their spiritual quest, the ancient rishis experienced sparks of divinity in all things and beings of the world. The vision of the Hindu scriptures is thus a vision of the unity of all existence, summarized as follows: There are many ways of conceiving the Supreme Reality (Brahman) and numerous ways of approaching It. To insist that one's own way is the only way is thus wrong and harmful. 1. God is the source of goodness and truth. Man's goal in life is to seek union with Him. This union can be sought in many ways, all requiring sincerity of purpose, self-sacrifice and discipline. 2. The highest religious experience is the one in which an individual transcends the intellect and realizes God immediately. 3. The concept of "survival-of-the-fittest" is God's law for the animals. Harmlessness 4. to all creatures is His law for humans. 5. There is natural order (rita) inherent in the natural world. There must be morals 6. order (dharma) inherent in human life. Everyone must be responsible for his (or her) actions and their conse-quences (karma). We cannot blame God for our ills. 7. Individual responsibility and one's ethics are a foundation for individual happiness 8. and social stability. 9. The universe is a wheel of sacrifice (yajña). At the beginning the Supreme Lord 10. performed self-sacrifice to create the universe and set the wheel in motion. The water sacrifices to form clouds, the clouds sacrifice to make rains, the rains sacrifice to grow food, and the food sacrifices to feedhumans. In turn, humans must sacrifice for the welfare of the Mother Earth and all its creatures. 11. There is no intrinsic evil in Nature nor any evil force in the world to oppose God. 12. Man commits evil only due to ignorance (mãyã). 13. Love, freedom and peace are fruits of the tree of divine consciousness, which can be planted by worshipping God regularly and systematically through yoga, meditation, study of scriptures, by performing religious rites and ceremonies-as enjoined by scriptures-and selfless work. Hindu Scriptures Summarized SRUTI (Primary Scriptures) Vedas Include religion, philosophy, art, medicine, (Rig, Sãma, Yajur & Atharva) Ssience, technology, language, music, etc. Bhagavad Gîtã A spiritual discourse between Lord Krishna and warrior Arjuna; summary of the Upanishads. SMRITI (Secondary Scriptures) Dharma Shãstras Law Codes Manu Smriti Includes laws for individual happiness and social stability;social philosophy. Artha Shãstra Includes guidelines for ruling the country. Kãma Shãstra An ancient manual of love and pleasure. Itihãsas (Epics) Rãmãyana Describes the life story of Lord Rãma; a most popular instrument of religious teaching. Mahãbhãrata Includes the story of the Mahãbhãrata war. The Bhagavad Gîtã is a part of the Mahãbhãrata. Purãnas (Mythology) There are 18 major Purãnas: six devoted to worship of Shiva, six to Vishnu, and six to Brahma. Ãgamas & Tantras Sectarian Scriptures. Scriptures of the three major theological traditions: Shaivism, Vaishnavism, and Shaktism.

People sometime get carried away by their devotion. They must read the Kalki purana to know when and where Kalki wil appear and as mentioned in it he will be a warrior on horse back and as it is we have passed that period of time fighting on horse back but as mentioned such a period will appear again in a couple of thousand years coz soon the will stop producing oil as there is an indication that the oil wells will soon die down and that is the time people wil revert back to madievil time and that is the end of Kali Yug and there he will appear. So, all die hard fan of Kalki will not able to see the warior avathar not in this birth anyway. People need to be educated on such issues if not more will claim Kalki is here now.

We all understand the reason why Maha Vishnu reincarnated to be Krishna on earth in Dvapara-yuga. Unlike Ramayan, Mahabharata deals with more down to earth issues like politics, human nature, human weaknesses, and does not attempt to idealise the characters as in Ramayan. But the contradictory issue here is his tenth avatar at the end of Kali yuga as described in the Kalki purana is yet to come because we have still a few thousand years to go before the world to changes into tyranny. This part of the yuga will see rulers of nations having demonic qualities who have no fear for God and we can understand why God has to take a form of a worrier to free the people from this demonic rulers. What puzzles me is his incarnation as Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. As composed by Sri Rupa Goswami: In other ages the Lord incarnates along with His weapons for destroying the demons, but in Kali yuga He shows special mercy to the demons by delivering them with nama-sankirtana. In the Kali-yuga there are practically only demons on this earth, so if the Lord were to kill the demons there would be nobody left. Instead He chose to kill the demoniac tendency within the heart of the demons by giving them Krishna bhakti. Lord Chaitanya's incarnation is mentioned and predicted in numerous scriptures. The following are some of the important references. In the Atharva Veda (Purusha-bodini Upanishad) it is said: saptame gaura-varna-vishnor ity anena sva-shaktya caikyam etya prante pratar avatirya saha svaih sva-manum shikshayati "In the seventh manvantara, the Supreme Lord will, accompanied by His own associates, descend in a golden form. He will teach the chanting of His own holy names." If the above is acceptable than why we cannot accept Sri Satya Sai Baba as an incarnation of Sri Krishna? Is it because he is not from a Brahmin family? Or is it because he is not form the north? Why are the followers of Krishna especially HK movement does not recognize his service to mankind. He is doing the service as what Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did. Except during CM’s time the world was not developed as it is now and sorry to say this but CM could not be chauffeur driven in Mercedes cars coz during his time there were no motor vehicles. But that should not be a reason for not accepting Sri Satya Sai as another incarnation of Krishna. He is spreading spiritual love and respect for all in this world by uniting all walks of life. Please do not think that I am propagating the Sai cult here. I’m merely pointing out the hypocrisy of HK people who have accepted CM but refuse to believe the teaching of Sri Sai Baba. As far as I can see he has not invented any new scripture or doctrine. He is reviving the Vedas and spreading the love for God in everybody and this is not in any way hurting the Hindu religion or the Vedas. When we talk about divine birth we should not forget Swami Ramalingam [Vallalar of Valadur], Swami Ragaventhra and Sri Ramakrishna Paramamsa. They are all persons of divine quality and they played a great part in developing the Hindu religion whereby the westerners are now drawn to Hinduism in Yoga and other spiritual development. Barney 4th. 03. 04

You can study all you want but it will be a waste if you are showing anger and disrespect for fellow human. All I said was Krishna was born a mortal and dies a mortal. Was I right or wrong? You wnat to built a temple at his birth place but where is the temple at his death place? Can you tell me where he died? Is there a temple to show that Krishna died here or he was shot in the feet [mistaken for a deer] by a hunter at this spot. There seem to be nothing but praise to Krishna but how many of you are living according to his scripture? Krishna is not only the avathar of God there are many others and yet you do not care for any of them. Do not just lip talk. Hinduism does not base only on Gita. Gita is part of Hinduism and there are other puranas too. Have you been fare to others. I see only hypocrisy among followers of HK. They are not interested in any other scriptures of Hinsuism but Gita alone while we accept all and speak of all forms of God. There were mahans [saints] who were servants of Lord Shiva, Mother Durga, Lord Murugan, Maha Vishnu and Maha Ganapathy who have preached peace among all and have been recorded in history of Hindu puranas. Why do you think only Krishna is the ultimate path? Didn't Arnagirinathar reach the abode of Lord Murugan? What about Appar and Manikavasagam and not forgetting the great Adthi Sankhara who is believed to be the avathar of Lord Shiva. Do you wnat me to post all thier great teachings? Do not be bias, open your eyes not the one you are seeing in but your inner eyes only than you wil realize the real truth behind Hinduism. OM MAHA GANAPATHAYEH NAMO NAMHA OM MAHA DURGAYEH NAMO NAMHA OM PARAMESWRAYA NAMO NAMHA OM MAHA VISHNUVEH NAMO NAMAHA OM SKANDAYE NAMO NAMHA OM MAHA LECKCHUMIYE NAMO NAMAHA OM MAHA SARASWATHYE NAMO NAMAHA OM KRISHNAYE NAMO NAMAHA.

A real Guru will only advice and teach you the right path but the choice is yours. Whereas a bogus Guru will compel you to follow his path and brainwash you to think in his way like the Rev. Jim Jones who took the freedom and life on innocent people. There are many calling themselves Gurus and avathars but if you are sincere and open minded the real Guru will be seen by your inner eyes that we call the third eye. The atman will show you the real Guru you are seeking. Till than go investigate, mix, ask questions and let you heart tell you what you really want.

Wel, you keep praying while we keep dicovering there is more to all this. May be we'll meet each other when crossing path and say hi!. Avathars will come from time to time Sri Krishna was an avathar in his time and died just like a mortal but the true form of God has no death. "GURUR BRAHMA, GURUR VISHNU, GURUR THEVO MAHESWARAHA, GURUR SATCHAT PARAM BRAHMA TASMEHE SRI GURVEY NAMAHA.

What were she and you thinking when you both fell in love. I'm sure both of you never thought of the religious barrier and the problems it would cause between both families. Both matured and intelligent enough face consequences so why ask thhis question now. She being a Muslim eats only halal meat, halal rice, halal vegitable, halal bread and drinl halal water, use halal money and take halal transport. So, how about you friend, eat anything that crawls? Well, she knew you better and so did you than why this questions? Having any doubts about you choice? I thought you were matured enough to make decisions and here you are uncertain, oh what a moron you are.

The word Swastika is normally believed to be an amalgam of the words Su and Asati. Su means 'good' and Asati meant 'to exist'. As per Sanskrit grammer the words Su and Asati when amalgamated into one word become Swasti (as in the case of Su and Aaatam becoming Swagatam meaning welcome). If this derivation of the word Swastika is true, then the literal meaning of the term Swastika would be 'let good-prevail'. There exist many types of signs which stand for the Swastika. Even the standard version has two forms the one facing the right also called the symbol of- the right hand path and the one facing the left called the symbol of the lefthand path. These two Swastikas are also considered to represent the male and female. There is also a Swastika which is an amalgam of these two types.

Who is the real God of gods? In whom are all these existences established? By worshipping whom, can I please the Devas in whole? Hearing these words, Sri Veda Vyasa replied thus: Rudra is the embodiment of all Devas. All devas are merely different manifestations of Sri Rudra Himself. On the right side of Rudra, there is the sun, then the four-headed Brahma, and then three Agnis (fires). On the left side, there exist Sri Umadevi, and also Vishnu and Soma (moon). Uma Herself is the form of Vishnu. Vishnu Himself is the form of the moon. Therefore, those who worship Lord Vishnu, worship Siva Himself. And those who worship Siva, worship Lord Vishnu in reality. Those who envy and hate Sri Rudra, are actually hating Sri Vishnu. Those who decry Lord Siva, decry Vishnu Himself. Rudra is the generator of the seed. Vishnu is the embryo of the seed. Siva Himself is Brahma and Brahma Himself is Agni. Rudra is full of Brahma and Vishnu. The whole world is full of Agni and Soma. The masculine gender is Lord Siva. The feminine gender is Sri Bhavani Devi. All the mobile and immobile creation of this universe, is filled up with Uma and Rudra. The Vyakta is Sri Uma, and the Avyakta is Lord Siva. The combination of Uma and Sankara is Vishnu. Hence everybody should prostrate to Sri Maha Vishnu with great devotion. He is the Atman. He is the Paramatman. He is the Antaratman. Brahma is the Antaratman. Siva is the Paramatman. Vishnu is the Eternal Atman of all this universe. This whole creation of Svarga, Martya and Patala Lokas is a big tree. Vishnu is the top portion (branches) of this tree. Brahma is the stem. The root is Lord Siva. The effect is Vishnu. The action is Brahma. The cause is Siva. For the benefit of the worlds. Rudra has taken these three forms. Rudra is Dharma. Vishnu is the world. Brahma is Knowledge. Therefore, do Kirtan of His name, ‘Rudra’, ‘Rudra’. By singing like this, the hallowed name of this great Lord, all your sins will be destroyed. Rudra is man. Uma is woman. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is Brahma. Uma is Sarasvati. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is Vishnu. Uma is Lakshmi. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is Sun. Uma is shadow. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is moon. Uma is star. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is day. Uma is night. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is Yajna. Uma is Vedi. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is Agni, Uma is Svaha. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is Veda. Uma is Sastra. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is tree. Uma is creeper. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is scent. Uma is flower. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is meaning. Uma is word. Prostrations to Him and Her. Rudra is Linga. Uma is Pitha. Prostrations to Him and Her. The devotee should worship Sri Rudra and Uma with these Mantras referred to above. O my son, Suka! With these hymns, you should meditate on the Eternal Para-Brahman, which is beyond the reach of the senses, which is pure Existence, knowledge and Bliss and which cannot be understood either by the speech or by the mind. After knowing this, there is nothing more to be known, because everything is the form of That, and there is nothing separate from That. There are two Vidyas to be known. They are Para and Apara. Apara Vidya is the embodiment of the four Vedas and their six Angas. They do not deal with the Nature of the Atman. But the Para Vidya is called the Moksha-Sastra. It deals with that supreme philosophy of the Absolute Truth, ununderstandable, impersonal, Nirguna, Nirakara, without ears, without eyes, without hands, without feet, eternal, omnipresent, imperishable, and knowable by the intelligent daring sages. From that Lord Siva who performs a terrible penance in the form of Supreme Jnana-Marga, this whole world is created which is the food of the mortals. This world is Maya. It seems to appear just like a dream. It is superimposed on the Lord just like a rope on a serpent. This is the eternal Truth. There is no creation in reality. All is absolute. All is Truth. Knowing this, one is liberated at once. Only through Jnana, you can get rid of this Samsara. Only through Jnana, you can understand this existence and never through Karma. Understand this through the guidance of a Brahmanishtha-Srotriya Guru. The Guru will give the disciple all the necessary knowledge of Brahman, the Absolute. By cutting off the bondage of Ajnana or Avidya, one should take refuge in Lord Sadasiva. This is the real wisdom to be understood by an aspirant seeking after Truth. The Pranava is the bow. The Atman is the arrow. The Para-Brahman is the target. Just like the arrow, the Atman will become one with Brahman. But all these three, the bow, the arrow and the target are not different from that Sadasiva. There do not shine the bodies of the sun, moon or the stars. There does not blow the wind, there do not exist many Devatas. He, the One Lord only exists. He only, the Purity of purities, shines for ever and ever. There are two birds in this body, the Jiva and the Paramatman. The Jiva eats the fruit of his Karmas, but the Paramatman is untouched by anything. The Paramatman is only the Sakshi. He does not do anything. He only assumes the form of the Jiva through His Maya, just as the Akasa inside a pot seems to be different from the Akasa outside and assumes the form of the pot. In reality all is Siva, Advaita, the One Absolute. There is no difference of whatever kind. When all is understood to be One, Omkara, the Absolute, there is no sorrow, there is no Maya. Then the attainment of the Advaita-Paramananda is very easy. Think that you are the basis of all this universe, you are the One, Kevala, Sat-Chit-Ghana. All people cannot understand this Truth. Those devoid of Maya can know this secret. After knowing this, the Atman does not move towards any place at any time. It becomes one with the Absolute, just like Ghatakasa with Paramakasa. Just as Akasa does not move anywhere, similarly this Atman does not have any movement. It becomes one with OM. One who knows this great secret Truth is the real Muni. He becomes the Para-Brahman Itself. He becomes Satchidananda. He attains permanent peace. Om ! May He protect us both together; may He nourish us both together; May we work conjointly with great energy, May our study be vigorous and effective; May we not mutually dispute (or may we not hate any). Om ! Let there be Peace in me ! Let there be Peace in my environment ! Let there be Peace in the forces that act on me ! Here ends the Rudra-Hridayopanishad belonging to the Krishna-Yajur-Veda.