narayanadasa

Jai Sriman Narayana: Thats exactly the original question. I did not give any contrarictory answer stating "Material gets moksha.

Jai Sriman Narayana: You question stated every creature but I understood it as everything (including plants, trees etc). So, when all this gone there will obviously be nothing... I cant say whether there will be dark space or not because absence of light is darkness. Plants/trees have souls too. I am saying this because Sastra prescribes how, when, where, why trees should be cut for firewood as they do have life and there are some sort of living beings (some which the human eye may not be able to see out of 840,000,000 species) that live on these too. The intention Sastra prescribes this is so as to cause no harm. There will still be other universes/planets though.

Jai Sriman Narayana: The planet/universe will not exist anymore.

Jai Sriman Narayana: Here are things that I would'nt do. 1. I would'nt believe making all underprivileged into previleged, making all blind people non-blind etc would'nt go on a wild goose chase trying to change the world. 2. I would'nt go around assusuming that God would take me to heaven if I help as many such people on the way as I can and get publicity. 3. I would'nt go around taking advantage of their weakness and converting them to my religion by cheap tactics. 4. I would'nt just throw away money to them just because I have enough and losing a little will not cause any difference to me. The reason here is they may be bossed around by someone to get money, so giving them money may go to wrong hands. It them becomes a sin to provide monetary help. 5. Importantly, before doing any help, I would check for similarities (not just differences) like they too have 2 hands, 5 fingers, 2 legs, 10 toes, 2 eyes, 2 ears etc etc etc). When there are too many similarities instead of being in a shell and telling they need help, I would try and see whether they really need help or are just ignorant about how to live. Believe me, there are still the same number of around the world who suffer although many foreign especially missionary organizations have claimed to have come and made a big change.. collected donations to put in a vatican bank. 6. Lastly, I would'nt want to become one more Mother Theresa (expert in both 3 and 3 above). As stated in her last statement on her diary in her own handwriting "Oh, so many years I have searched for God in the hearts of so many poor, needy, suffering but could'nt find him, so I conclude that either God doesnt exists or if at all he exists he is cruel and wicked". Clearly shows what kind of faith and ideology she had.... sorry these may not be her exact words but they sure were on the same lines/theme. Ofourse, Vatican may not want to publicize this and our great so-called secularists would ask "Have you verified all this is true?" when they have'nt bothered to verify whether "whatever good is known to be done by her is true or not". Similar things are true for Gandhi as well. Anyway, I dont have any hatred for Gandhi or Theresa but certainly dont want to keep them above GOD as is the case with many Indians today... It is upto God to decide what to do with them so why should I worry about them. I remember one of the Gita purport on a verse (not the actual verse though) also states that during lifetime one may encounter such people (who stick to just one thought or good act) and it is safe to leave them alone.. dont advice them, dont discuss about them, dont bother too much about them... leave them alone for God to decide. Here are things I would do: 1. Understand and practise hinduism properly, educate like-minded on hinduism. Do this sincerely. 2. When something is unclear, pray God sincerely and he for sure will help me (it works 100% for me!) by making me take the right action by giving the right thought at the right time. 3. People are experiencing their Karma anyway, so if my Karma allows me to help others I will! I do help sometimes and not at other times. Generally, I donate money regularly and also do some physical service to some known socio-religious (not the christian missionary) organizations who I have witnessed to take right care of the underprevileged. Now, please share your thoughts without riduculing or commenting on my comments (please be courteous enough to reserve that for later!)... because one of your posts said that you 1st need others answers to give yours... how justified!

Jai Sriman Narayana: And was matter always there? Which came 1st, the soul? or the matter? or God?

Jai Sriman Narayana: The universe has no known beginning.. only Lord Narayana knows if there indeed is a beginning. But, it is created, maintained and destroyed regularly and this cycle continues eternally too. Note that this is not the only universe according to Sastra...there are millions of universes. For creation, according to Srimad Bhagavatam Bhagavan Sri Krishna first manifests the aakasha (sky, ether) from which comes vayu (air), after which comes Agni (fire), after that Jala (water), then Prakriti (earth), then plants, animals etc. So, as we can see God provided what living beings needs before he manifested them. More info in Srimad Bhagvatam 2nd cantos 5th and 6th chapters. Aakasha = Sound = False ego Vayu = Aakasha + sense of touch Agni = Vayu + sense of form Jala = Agni + sense of taste Prithvi = Jala + sense of smell

Jai Sriman Narayana: Even as per science an inert body does not change its state unless an external force is applied.i.e. an inert body continues to be stationary if it already is or continues to be in motion if it already is unless an external force forces it to change its state Now, chemicals did not come from nowhere. What is the very 1st chemical and what was its state? They were created on account of some external force. This force is outside... just because it is not visible to the naked eye, or just because you cant feel it, just because you cant hear it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. This force is caused by the soul which has consciousness. Secondly, you are telling God does not exist. But, can you please try and define what you think God is and then say he doesnt exist? Or is it that since you dont know, you can simply say God (as somebody defined) does not exist. I dont know you or your father or your mother, so you all dont exist! /images/graemlins/smile.gif *************************************************** This is one of the best explanations of why God allows pain and suffering that I have seen. It's an explanation other people will understand. A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. Barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many things and various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said: "I don't believe that God exists." Why do you say that?" asked the customer "Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can't imagine a loving God who would allow all of these things." The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop. Just after he left the barbers shop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty hair & an un trimmed beard. He looked dirty and unkempt. The customer turned back and entered the barbershop again and he said to the barber: "You know what? Barbers do not exist." "How can you say that?" asked the surprised barber. "I am here, and I am a barber. And I just worked on you!No!" the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist because if they did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards like that man outside." "Ah, but barbers DO exist! What happens is, people do not come to me." "Exactly!" affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God, too, DOES exist! What happens, is, people don't go to Him and do not look for Him. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world." ***************************************************

Jai Sriman Narayana: Title: God, Rebirth and the Vedas ISBN : 8122405061 Dewey : 294.5/2 20 LCCN : BL1213.32 .P37 1993

Jai Sriman Narayana: After initiation into a particular lineage does the person start quoting his new Gotra for example marriage and other rituals?

Jai Sriman Narayana: So, how much sin is acceptable to God to put me in heaven for eternity? and how much is too much to put me to hell for eternity? Can I now say, (1) God created souls for play (probably he was bored!, contradicts one important quality of God being eternal bliss)... (2) gave them some command (to not eat apple, without complete descriptions of what all that consists off) but do everything else (as freewill) unless guilt prevents that (3) and based on a single lifetime of 50-70 years do more good than bad (no estimating figures given) to finally decide where to put the soul (heaven or hell) for eternity. If guilt alone is supposed to be the deciding factor to not commit sins (as you call it) which again varies from individual to individual based on individual souls that God created (amount of guilt varies) what still you are not answering is (1)Why is God partial to souls that he can create one child deformed and another without the deformity? (2) since every child inherits from Adam how does inerited sin and /or guilt vary between souls unless God created them with different qualities (being partial?).

Jai Sriman Narayana: The reality is that there is an inclination and tendency in every human nature to do something thats not right.NO ONE NEEDS A BOOK TO SAY THAT THAT SIN IS REAL WITHIN US AND AROUND US. So, what you are telling is every human inherently knows what a is a sin and what is not. So, is illicit sex a sin? If nobody had looked at any religious basis everyone would have thought its not sin with justifications like "I am young, I have the sexual desire, and I have the sex organs, so why not have sex as much as I want?, Got would'nt have given me the facility if he did'nt want me to do that". As per this logic, everything we do can be categorized as "right acts". So, please dont say that human beings know the entire vocabulary of all sins and all non-sins and dont need any religious books to tell us. If that is so, nobody would need any books at all, forget religious books / guidelines.

Jai Sriman Narayana: On the other hand, suppose a person of Varna Brahmin, behaves out of Rajo guna, he may not become a Kshatriya but just a non-brahmin or may be even an out-caste. Not sure if this is correct. People with knowledge on this please respond.

Jai Sriman Narayana: Thanks for all your replies! So, Gotra cant change in one lifetime, right? If so, Varna doesnt change too or does it change for example if a Kshatriya gets initiated from a Brahmin Aacarya into a particular lineage?

Jai Sriman Narayana: http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm http://www.stephen-knapp.com/recent_archeological_finds_confirming_Vedic_history.htm You many find more articles on the home page of the site. It is interesting because in most cases concrete proof (sometimes photographs) is given.

Jai Sriman Narayana: Does Gotra determine one's varna in a varnashrama dharma? If so, then does it mean at brahmins will all belong to a set of Gothra, Kshatriya will belong to another set, similarly Vaishyas and Sudras? Can there be an overlap here?

Jai Sriman Narayana: Could it be that souls of Hanuman, Sugriva etc (except Jambavan) are different although the characters are the same? The link is not working bcos of the full-stop was part of it... try this http://www.indiadivine.org/hinduism-stories.htm

Jai Sriman Narayana: Incidentally, I was reading some articles at http://www.indiadivine.org/hinduism-stories.htm. I will quote some statements here from the various stories. One of the things that aroused my mind was "Jambavan". It is said that he was the 1st created being with Brahma and has survived various creation/dissolution cycles. It is also said that each time he was the witness to Ramayana and so he had to play the same role each time with prior knowledge. Does this mean "history repeats itself exactly as it was in the previous cycle?" Some quote: Angada said, "Then you will meet your death," and he flew back. When he came back, Jambavan came to him, and asked him, "They couldn't move your toe?" He was seeing Ramayana over and over. So then Angada said, "How do you know this?" Jambavan said, "I am Jambavan. I have been here for a long time." More such quotes are available from the web site.

1]'You must realize that Ram and Sita are both god, if Ram doubted Sita's safety, he would not have sent her, but she is god, nobody is going to be able to do anything' Ravan did kidnap Sita despite your argument & the whole trouble started from there.Why did our God allow this?If he did allow this to kill Ravana then why should Sita suffer for lofty aims of God Ram. Ram and Sita were both God but they incarnated as Human to show people how to live a good life as Grhasta, how to rule kingdom as king, how to live a life in the forest, how to tackle enemies etc. I dont think Ram showed traces that he was God to common people at his time. Ravana had to be killed and Sita was the way to get to him. You might have lot of ideas on how to do this, please go ahead and enact it and show your way, no problem. Till then understand the fact (you would say story!) in the right sense. Sita suffered because she wanted the Golden Deer although Rama politely advised her against it. Rama went to get one for her after getting Laxman to take care of Sita who Laxman himself respected like his mother. Rama DID NOT DUMP Sita. 2]'Ram was not forsaking his wife, the people of the kingdom were doubting her, Ram fully trusted Sita.' To my simple mind dumping one's wife through a third person i.e. Laxman in a forest constitutes forsaking her. If you have any other definition I am at a loss to understand it.Ram never even informed Sita that he was going to dump her,like he left the unpleasant job to Laxman who revered Sita like a mother.People of kingdom were doubting her so he dumped her.My god ,don't you realise what an example this is going to give to the future generations. Wrong. Rama DID NOT DUMP SITA. Sita wanted the Deer. She wanted Rama to get one, why? She also sent Laxman to go in search of Rama when he did not return for a long time. Laxman did whatever was possible to secure her safefy (Laxmanrekha). Now, Ravana tricked her. So, Sita as a common human wife to Rama is not at fault. Now, who is at fault?...Only people who misunderstood and people with their corrupt minds... not inquisitive minds, only people who follow spirituality randomly by reading literature here and there as just like any other story book or novel (especially western style novels). 3] If people of his kingdom so idolised Ram they would accepted that Sita is pure.One Dhobi or rather maybe a small group of people were gossiping unnecessarily and doubting Ram & Sita ,the purest souls or Bhagwan .What did Ram do? He succumbed to such malicious people. Rama had 2 Dharmas. He chose the bigger one. Many in the forum have said the same thing. But you still do not understand. Either you do not basic spiritual knowledge or have ulterior motives (as already pointed to by many). 4] A society which does not value a woman's sacrifice and dignity needs to be changed by the God that Ram was.Can you please enlighten me about the deeper lesson being taught.I am not doubting Ram,We should analyse their conduct say if something was wrong with their conduct.Gods can also be wrong.[Example Indra's seduction of Ahilya] Contact an Aacharya and ask politely. Only when basic meanings are understood should detailed meanings be expected. I know you will now keep asking the same questions without thinking!

Jai Sriman Narayana: Sex, like hunger, is a physiological impulse. We don't condemn hunger but we do sex. There is a difference between necessity and desire. Sexual urge isn't a desire (you don't desire it way you'd desire a million bucks), it is a human need. It is a necessity. Why condemn it? Sex is not being condenmed. ONLY Illicit /Excessive sex is condemned. That is what we have a grahasta stage in life where you marry and regulate your sex life. Same in case of hunger. ONLY Excessive eating and eating without offering to God is condenmed. Even if we aren't free from sexual urges, it shouldn't matter to spirituality; after all, we aren't trying to free ourselves from hunger to become spiritual. Why the double standards? The various ashramas (brahmacharya, grihasta etc.) in sanatana dharma would have no meaning if people from all ashramas follow a sanyasi lifestyle. Both Illicit/Excessive sex and Excessive/Food rich in Rajo & Tamo gunas do matter to sprituality. Thats why they need to be controlled as advised in the Vedas to become spiritually clean. All people should become Sanyasi before death.. after 50 Vanaprashtha, after 70/75 Sanyasa. Nobody said that a person should become Sanyasi at a young age. Some people with some special benediction do so at an early age but these are only exceptions not to be generalized. Thus it is concluded that sex isn't a bar to spiritual progress, and I do not know why it has been included in the 4 regs.

Jai Sriman Narayana: It is all the more disturbing when the term Moksha (that supposedly has no single-word equivalent in English) is deliberately equated to Christian Salvation and all sorts of things are said abou that.

Jai Sriman Narayana: Seems like a reasonably good idea but got to think what sort of reaction this will receive from secularists, christians, muslims, politicians, press etc. Need to thoroughly think of any negative repercussions. Will wait for others to respond.

Jai Sriman Narayana: What about the soul as per christianity? Was it created by God? Is it eternal? Were Adam and Eve the 1st created souls? Why did they disobey? Was it because of ignorance? If so, can I say that human beings will always be ignorant because they inherited that from Adam and Eve? And the only way to become non-ignorant is live with the hope that Christ already died for this sin (in ignorance)?

Jai Sriman Narayana: Self is the soul and when you say self-realization (atma saakshaatkaara) it means to realize that you are not the body (hands, legs, eyes, stomach, mind etc) but the soul. When you have realized the self you have only crossed the 1st step in spiritual development. The second and most important step is paramatma saakshaatkaara) i.e Super-Soul / God realization. Hope this helps.

Jai Sriman Narayana: I got this question from another thread and it seems to convey one major difference between Hinduism and Christianity / Islam. Are Moksha as referred in Hinduism and Salvation as referred in Christianity the same? In my opinion they are not. Salvation as per christianity is deliverance from sin and then the soul reaches heaven. If not delivered, it goes to hell. Moksha as per hinduism is freedom from rebirth i.e may be we can say freedom from Karma (both Good and Bad). The soul is not reborn but reaches God. Any thoughts?

Jai Sriman Narayana: Moksha as spoken of in Hinduism and Salvation as spoken in christianity are different. Salavation is deliverance from Sin and may be this means if you get delivered from Sin you reach heaven and if not hell for eternity. Moksha is freedom from rebirth (in very simple terms) that Christians dont believe in. Heaven and Hell are not eternal in Hinduism. Please dont confuse the two. FYI, Moksha is not even a word in the English dictionary, so dont take the Hindu word, assume your own meanings and then make your own theories out of it. Lastly, in my opinion Christ himself had lot of knowledge but he never did complete his teachings.. was killed before he could do that (may be because he spoke of rebirth and was killed just like some great Philosphers (Socrates? sorry..dont remember their names!)). If he had completed his teachings, may be he would have preached whatever was already there in Hinduism. Today most Christ followers are busy advertising, marketing their religion just like a commodity or business service. Anyway, it doesnt matter whether Christ lived or not, it more matters whether he completed his teachings fully or not. It appears not as most Catholic Priests, Pastors etc are actually scared to even debate about simple topics with our great Aacharya's. They just want to keep away from the truth and increase numbers.