Rajashekhar

There is only one meaning for Krishna. Dark skinned. All other meanings were made up by his devotees.

Bhakti is expounded by ISKCONites as a great path to God. But is Bhakti THE PATH to GOD? Not if you think logically and understand Bhagavad-Gita itself. First of all: Krishna says in no uncertain terms that there are only TWO PATHS for salvation. Karma and Gnyana. In Gita 3.3, Krishna says, "As Expounded by me of Old, O Blameless One, there are in this world two paths: the Yoga of Knowledge for men of contemplation and the Yoga of action for men of action." And he continues to expand on this theme considerably. He did not say 'Bhakti' is a path. He did not say there are other paths. He said there are two paths, and two paths alone...Karma and Gnyana. Logically thinking, one can ask: Does not one who engages himself in action (like daily prayers, for example) do so with Bhakti? Everyone who engages in Prayers, Helping the poor or Studying and Pursuing Gnyana Maarga, does so with devotion to Lord Shiva in whatever form he prefers. So how can Bhakti be a path by itself? Proponents of the Bhakti movement seem to think that all one has to do is engage in daily bhajans and he/she will be free from the Samsara. There are two problems with this line of thought. First, one can never stop engaging oneself in Karma (Gita 2.5). Thus one is always along the path of Karma. When one tires of singing Bhajans, one goes to sleep and then one eats food prepared by one's students. Eating food prepared by someone, sleeping in a bed while others help oneself out are all actions too! Secondly, Bhakti truly results in an extraordinary bliss. The pleasure I derive from eating food when I am hungry, will turn into true ecstasy if I can, at the same time, listen to Shiva Sahasranaamam sung by Vidushi Sathyavathi. It becomes so great that I sometimes stop listening to Shiva Sahasranamam because I don't want to be distracted too much from work. This means that the so called proponents of Bhakti movement like all the great Vaishnavs or Shaivites did so for the pure pleasure of it. Not because they wanted Moksha from this Samsara. Pursuit of happiness can never qualify one for Moksha, right? Q.E.D. One last remark. I am really glad that the Bhakti movement revived Hinduism when it was in a decline, but it is about time that we understood where the Hindu scriptures stand (although we may not all agree with them).

[if so ur wrong......i delieve in one God Brahman....but my preference amoung the trinity is Shiva....thats it....] Bhartrhari said in Vairagya Shathaka (Rough Translation): "I know that there is no difference between Vishnu and Shiva, but I personally prefer to worship Him in the form of Chandrashekhara".

[Firstly, it is not my logic. I have proof from the scriptures(Puranas). ] Most scholars, Hindu or Non-Hindu, agree that Puranas are not scriptures. They are only vehicles used to convey the deep philosophical thoughts contained in the Upanishads. This is why there are innumerable contradictions between various Puranas. Only Shrutis (The four Vedas containing Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads) are considered true Scriptures by learned Hindus. [secondly, She doesnt want to kill demons.Only when some devotees(example: devas,rishis or Trimurtis) get tired of the demons, they pray to Mother to kill them.And She, due to extreme affection towards the weeping child,takes Her Samharini Form,(whose vision is also deadly) and starts fight with the demons.This is the case with each and every Killing She has done(can refer to any Devi books).] These are, again, nice stories but still, just stories. Yes, yes, yes. In these stories, The Mother kills the demons to protect Her children in the stories. But you did not get the point (see below). [some other avatars of the Trimurtis may kill for fun.But my mother wont.Clear?] Your Mother won't? Your Mother, My Mother...what is this? Do you have some kind of private rights over Devi? And which of the Avatar of ANY Trimurtis are supposed to have killed for fun? [Thirdly, I dont know Whether Mother created demons.....But then also my Mother stands far apart from creation. I think Lord Brahma is in-charge of creation.] Here is where you go off the deep end. If Mother did not create demons, who does? You worship Mother as the Embodiment of Supreme Reality, right? In that case, Your Mother needs to take responsibility for everything including creation. Apparently you have not understood the Hindu principles well. You are talking just like any Vaishnav/Christian/Muslim/Jew by saying that the Supreme Lady stays far apart from creation. Do you understand the problem with this logic? If you don't understand it, ask me. I personally have no problems with Mother in the form of Lalitha, Durga or Kali. But I think your understanding is a little flawed. If you consider Shiva and Shakti are separate entities and you want to worship Shakti alone, then you are contradicting the scriptures. If you consider God in the form of Shakti, then your logic is bad.

My good friend Govindram wrote: [i feel I am talking to some dog, you keep barking] Do you often talk to dogs, my dear chap? That is interesting information. If I sound like a dog to you, dear Govindram, do you know what YOU sound like? [Your basically lowest of low. At least most Hindus here, except Krishna and Gita] Your opinions, my good fellow, thankfully are never based on facts so I will never take offense at the first sentence. But what do you mean by the second sentence? 'At least most Hindus here, except Krishna and Gita'? What do you mean?

Govindram, in his infinite wisdom said: [Maybe Krishna can tell you in Gita, He says He has a planet which we can goto. Theres one clue for you!] What planet, Govindram? And does it not strike you that when you say a planet, it means this "Iha" or Apara Samsara or creation that we live in? Good Lord, man, are you telling me what the Christians have always said? That Krishna will create a separate 'home' for you and you will go live there for ever?

My dear Bhadramoorthi, there is a flaw in your logic. You say: "She kills only demons.". Why does She kill the demons? If She wants to kill the demons, why did She create the demons in the first place?

[kali is very ugly and nacked. Durga is beatiful and well dressed and armed.] So OK, go ahead and like Kali more if you like her more than Durga.

Ratheesh wrote: -------------------------- because most theories say that jesus traveled to india and learned from buddhist and hindu sages and took that message back to israel -------------------------- There are theories that he spent his youth in India learning magical tricks, which he put to good use while he showed his 'powers', and there are theories that he was taken down from the cross and lived, then later took off to Kashmir and died there. These are theories, with no substantial proof. I like them because they sound plausible.

Guest says among other things: -------------------------- Once I also adored Mother Lalitha Devi as Supreme to even Shiva & Vishnu.But in Lalitha Sahasranama,if you keenly note all namas,one nama says 'Mahamaaya',other nama is 'Samharini rudrarupa','bali priya','maha kali' etc. If she is Maha Maaya then it means she is material energy of Vishnu and thats why we call her 'Sister' of Vishnu.And Maha Kali is ferocious -------------------------- Apparently you are basing your judgement on one attribute of Lalitha in Her Sahasranaamam. Plus, you must be a good Vaishnav, since you call Mahaa Maaya the material energy of Vishnu. You are wrong from Shaivite perspective. And totally wrong from Shakta perspective. Apparently you have not studied Lalitha Sahasranaama thoroughly.

There are books written on the subject. Is there authentic historical evidence that Jesus was in India? There is no authentic historical evidence to prove that he survived the cross or that he rose from the grave. All we have are theories. But I thought we were discussing Hinduism in this forum.

[God made you this way so accept it.] That is good advice. [The Lord wants love] What is this? The Lord needs love? If The Lord needs something, what kind of Lord is He? [if you were born a dog and eating prasad in front of a temple and slowly adapted and liked hearing regular hymns] Oh my God, here you go off the cliff completely. Why would anyone expect a dog to hear and understand the hymns? Perhaps the dog will love the music in time, but then how can the dog understand that the music and words are related to God?

Guest wrote: -------------------------- I am a Hindu living in USA and though not an HK devotee, an ardent devotee of Srikrishna. I have been through some bad phase and have been miraculously recovered since started believing in Srkrishna. I had never hurt anyone in my life still had to go through a very bad phase. I am looking for some good books on Bhagawat Gita! Would it be possible for somebody to suggest good readings?...I have to go in that direction only... --------------------------- Have you heard the phrase: "This too shall pass"? Everyone goes through bad phases one time or another. People take satisfaction by going to astrologers, giving them money and hearing that their star is in a certain position (Shani?) and in another year, their fortunes will improve. All you need to do is wait it out, while working to get out of your difficult situation. Bhagavad Gita will only tell you that you need to be more of a "Sthithapragnya". Have you heard of the Shloka: "Sheethoshna Sukhaduhkheshu.." (Chapter 12). If you are a true Hindu, you should learn to take the pain along with the pleasure. If you still need to do something about it, send me a couple of hundred dollars and I will pray for you.

Let's face it, if Duryodhan had not been bitten by the bee of jealousy, we would not have Mahabharatha.

My dear Govindram, You wrote: ______ If you merge that means void. Are you an idoit? ______ I know this is between you and the person that calls himself Om Namah Sivayya, but I want to offer a comment or two. Actually, three. (a) In the material world, merging does not result in void. For example, when sugar merges with water, both retain their separate identities, but sugar molecules take their positions between H2O molecules. The same thing is true of solid solutions like steel (Carbon in Steel). No one, including even you, my good scholarly and brilliant man, knows what happens in the spiritual world. (b) Calling another person an 'idiot' because you think you know something about a totally unknown world and the other does not agree with your opinion, does not speak well for your intelligence and brilliance. Somehow you seem to have specialized in calling people 'idiot'. You called me an idiot when I opined that Krishna aged and you KNOW that He stopped aging at 26! I loved it, though. © None of the three schools - Advaita, Dvaita and Vishistaadvaita - believe that after merging, one becomes 'void'. Hope you are not offended, my good buddy.

[self pleasure involves thoughts, if you are thinking of some other female in your thoughts who is not rightfully ur wife. Dont you think you are comitting a sin right there and then ? ] Just thinking of another woman and having a pleasurable thought is not a sin. What is sin? It is created when you intentionally and knowingly hurt someone. I don't understand who is hurt when someone masturbates while thinking of some other woman. But what may happen, if one does not keep his senses under control, is to try to take the next step and have an affair. That may have disastrous consequences when the wife finds out.

_________ ******* The truth is that there is no such thing as Pramana. ********* That is when in ekam advaitam where vac also is non-existent. But not before that. Vac being a pointer is pramana and not the truth itself. ******* I can point out a few examples of untruth in the Vedic literature, ********* No, I do not know. Please give examples. _________ All you need to do, my good man, is to read parts of Atharvana Veda. The older day Brahmins thought they had a cure for everything including how to make a woman fall in love with you. Don't tell me that Atharvana Veda is not a Veda, because it is! _________ ******* [The second point. You are partly echoing Upanishads, but very wrongly. What is the source of the pure minds wherein the shrutis were delivered? Lord Pragnya is the root.] OK, I understand your point, but in what context? ******** You have said earlier that gods are imaginations of sages. This is the subject of Upanishads. I would like to differ with the word imagination. I would use Pragnya. The Lord Pragnya, who creates VAC. Moerover, if you as body-mind is true, Iswara is true. When you truly become an Atma, then there is no God beside you. You have become Yuktatma and one. But not before that. And I am not in that stage and I think you are also not in that stage. In our stage, there is a superior power who different people call by different name and visualise in different forms. When Tryambaka takes one there, then only one knows (or realises). _________ It is impossible for a soul with a body (and a mind) to be like a pure soul. I doubt it if you will ever reach a stage where with the mind, the brain, the pre-conceived notions and the experiences you have amassed, you will ever be like a pure Atman. I most agree with what you have written. But the point is that you seem to agree with me too: That the gods including Shiva and Vishnu seem to be born of our imaginations. Am I right?

It is not true that Lingam is phallic. Many people including Vyasa fell into that trap, mostly because of the Tantric cult and as a result, Hindus never recovered their self-respect. Linga means an icon, a sign, to represent the Infinite and Omniscient God with a finite object, to adore and to worship. That said, the older day Hindus had the opinion that preserving the Amogha (Wonderful) Rethas or Virya (I won't translate this because there are too many prudes on this group) should be preserved. They had no idea that once the Rethas goes out, it is created/secreted again in the body. Loss of Rethas has truly nothing to do with keeping the body in high energy and good health. Is sex a sin? Not between two consenting adults or when one engages in self-pleasure such as masturbation. A sin is a sin only when someone (man or animal) is hurt, phisically, mentally or emotionally, to derive pleasure for oneself.

[Agni is the lowest among devatas and Visnu is the highest, this one(tad - meaning 'this Visnu') who is the antaratma of all other anya devatas. ] I think most people (like me) who are trained in Vedas agree that Agni is the 'first' (not lowest) and Vishnu is the best god, according to the imaginations of the old seers. This is why Rudra Chamaka starts with 'Agnaavishnoo Sajosemaavardhanti...' But Shiva is not a god. Shiva is the Supreme Reality, as portrayed by the Shaivites. Which is why, Shiva's name (or you can say Rudra's name) does not appear once in the Chamaka.

[Rig Veda states that Rudra is the only self dependent god. And it also states that Rama (son of Dasharatha) will be known as parabrahman. Yajur Veda and many upanishads state that Rudra has...] This is not accurate at all. No part of Rig Veda states that Rama will be known as Parabrahman. Do you have references? If not, your statement will be just another opinion. [That is what Madhava (in this site) also says. But truly, the sense "I have to do this" or "I have done this", will defeat the purpose. What is wrong and what is right? Who has to decide? What your mind says to be wrong will be proclaimed as correct by another mind. Who is wrong and who is correct?] What you are saying is what Jehovah's Witnesses say. They tell me that if they see a murder happening, they just run away. You along with 850 million other Hindus are afraid of thinking about Rama's character primarily because you are conditioned to think that Rama can do no wrong. I have said before and I will say it again: Rama and Krishna were both humans; they aged (did not stop aging at 26, whatever staunch Hare Krishna people like Govindram say) and they died. Between their births and deaths, they lived the lives of humans which includes occasional mistakes. They were great men; but no gods.

_________ of course... so if i accept that you see your way, i see my way, another sees his way there's two possibilities: 1-all ways are only in the mind of the wises.. so truth does not exist 2-all ways are there because truth has many aspects (gunas) so who says that truth is (only)nirguna is actually against "Ekam Sata Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti".. (how can i choose various ways if they aren't in the supreme?) _________ If I may intervene here for a moment, the original verses in Yajurveda or Rigveda does not say 'paths'. And paths are not meant either. The word is 'names'. Here is the translation, with the original text left out for brevity. May it be called Agni, Aditya, Vayu or Chandrama All are the NAMES of the Supreme Spirit He is Brahma and Prajapati, the Supreme Lord of all He is the ultimate power, protector of all beings (Yajur 32.1) That one supreme reality has been styled By various names by te learned seers, They call one by many names, They speak of Him as Indra, the Lord resplendent; Mitra, the surveyor; Varuna, the virtuous; Agni, the adorable; Garutman, the celestial and well-sung; Yama, the ordainer; Matarishvan, the cosmic breath. (Rig 1.164.46) So they don't say all paths lead to Him. They merely say that He is called by many names. In Kannada, the Sarvagnya Kavi says: The great Yogi, Shiva, appears to the devotees of Hari as Hari, and, as Shiva to the devotees of Shiva. There is only one path, and that is of righteousness and help to other people while ensuring that Jagath-Kalyana is taken care of: this means taking care of the environment, forests, animals and plants, as well. I hope I have helped you here :-)

[sri Govindram, Sir, can you please explain what is Mayavadi and what is Maya. You sound like a veery knowledgeable person like Mr. Atanu who calls himself Aum Nama Sivaya. Thank you most kindly, Sir.] I don't think Govindram understands the meaning of Maya, as he himself keeps asking that question over and over again. You can ask him a hundred times in the most polite and flattering tones but he still won't bother to teach the little he knows. Maya is illusion. In Vedantic terms, the person does not understand that the True Truth is Atman and carries on with the business transactions with his/her spouse, children, parents, etc. When the person realizes that Atman is the Sath, then Maya is supposed to be lifted like the fog is lifted from the rays of the Sun, and the person becomes eligible for "Mukti". There are philophical problems with this scenario but I won't confuse you any further.

[it is very easy to understand why. Let's first consider the concept of superimposition. The advaitists say that the world is false and Brahman alone is true, and they explain this with the superimposition concept. They also present the usual example of the rope...] You present the arguments well. But there are a couple of errors in your thinkijng that I would like to point out. The word 'Mithya' is not 'false' but it is actually 'Asath'. As I have explained in a couple of posts before, Sathyam means Immutable. It is in this context that the sages said: "Brahma Sathyam Jagan Mithya". But all the same, it is not necessarily logical to say that Brahman is 'personal' at the highest level. As one goes deeper and deeper into matter, one encounters lesser and lesser attributes. What may appear as golden color will no longer appear gold at the atomic level. As we go into subatomic levels, one finds truly no difference between two entirely different elements. In a similar way, the argument goes, that when you go higher and higher, all attributes merge in the Brahma Vastu (note the neutral gender) and the highest form of God is totally attribute-less. One last remark: The Shaivites, mostly, consider Shiva as the Supreme Lord or even Parabrahman, so I suppose for them, Vishnu is a demigod that worships Shiva as the supreme. Not that it matters. After all, what is in a name, right?

[so how do you prove that your ignorant ramblings and nonsense are factual.] I am not saying that these are facts. I am proposing a theory for the way the concept of Shiva and Vishnu came into existence. It took many hundereds of years. On the other hand, if you believe that Shiva and Vishnu are actual deities, then how do you believe they came into existence? [Readers just go through this fool's posts. You will realize, this fool rajashekar is here to cause problems. I said before this person is a DK from tamil nadu. ] So you are the person who has been hiding behind the name 'Guest' and calling me a fool. So far, I have not seen anything substantial from you. I can fully understand it. Have you read the 12th Chapter of Gita? Have you understood the substance of it? But I refuse to call you bad names in return. Soon, I may begin to ignore your posts, but that could be profitable for me since it seems a waste of time to read and reply to your notes.

[The first point. In another thread you have said Vedas (shrutis) are the pramanas. I hope I need not copy paste from there. So what is the truth?] The truth is that there is no such thing as Pramana. I can point out a few examples of untruth in the Vedic literature, but I hope you are sufficiently well-read to know that. I don't consider the Vedas as the Pramanas, the staunch Hindus consider the Vedas as the Pramanas. I have written through various posts that I accept only what has been proven as truth, not something that is alleged to be the truth. [The second point. You are partly echoing Upanishads, but very wrongly. What is the source of the pure minds wherein the shrutis were delivered? Lord Pragnya is the root.] OK, I understand your point, but in what context? [The pramanas that you accepted -- in the beginning -- refutes that thoughts can reach the truth. [Are you consistent?] I sure am, my dear Om. Like I have said before, what Hinduism believes and what Rajashekhar believes may not be the same thing. As long as you remember that, you won't have any trouble. Let's keep talking. I like talking to you.