animesh
-
Posts
553 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Gallery
Events
Store
Everything posted by animesh
-
Hi Sushil, I agree that Hindu scriptures do not support the contents of the article mentioned by pundit27 but I don't think pundit27 should be blamed for this. After all, he did not write that article. As you have yourself written "BETTER TO GET IT CONFIRMED, BEFORE YOU WRITE ANYTHING." Getting the opinion of people in this forum is one of the ways to get it confirmed.
-
Hi Bhakta Shakta ji, Uddalaka wanted to prove that even if something is not seen, it can be present. Salt is not seen because it is dissolved in water. According to Uddalaka, Sar is not perceived because of worldly attachment. So, using figurative language, you can say that it gets dissolved by worldly attachment.
-
Bhawgat Puran says that Kaliki avatar will appear on Earth near the end of Kali yuga. Those who call Prophet Mohammed as Kalki Avatar, do they want to say that Kali yuga has ended or going to end soon?
-
<HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="Microsoft Word 97"> <TITLE>Book VII from the Chandogya Upanishad </TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY LINK="#0000ff" VLINK="#800080"> <FONT FACE="Arial"><H3 ALIGN="CENTER">From Book VII of Chandogya Upanishad </H3> </FONT><FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE=2> Here is a dialog between Devarshi Narad and the great sage Sanatkumar.</P> Narad: Give me knowledge, Sir. Sanatkumar: Tell me what you know and I will then develop it further for you.</P> Narad: I know the four vedas, ithihasas and puranas, grammar, arithmetic, divination, chronometry, politics, logic, the devavidya and brahmavidya of the scriptures, archery, rule, astronomy, the art of dealing with snakes, and the fine arts. I am conversant with mantras, but I do not know the Self (atman) well. But I have heard that any man who knows the Self transcends unhappiness; and I am unhappy. Would you then enable me to transcend unhappiness?</P> Sanatkumar: Everything that you have been studying is no more than a name. Revere the name.</P> Narad: Is there anything greater than name? Santkumar: Speech is greater than the name; for speech makes the Vedas and all the other books you have mentioned. Also heaven and earth, wind and space, water and fire, gods and men, beasts and birds, grasses and trees, animals right down to worms, moths and ants, right (dharma) and wrong, truth and falsehood, good and evil, pleasant and unpleasant - these are all made known by speech. Revere speech.</P> Narad: Is there anything greater than speech? Sanatkumar: Mind is greater than speech. Mind contains both speech and name. If a man has a mind to study mantras, he studies them; if he has a mind to perform sacred actions, he performs them; if he has a mind to wish for sons and cattle, he then wishes for them; if he has a mind to wish for this world and the next, he then wishes for them. Revere mind.</P> Narad: Is there anything greater than mind? Sanatkumar: Will is greater than mind. When a man wills something, then he has it in mind, then he utters speech and formulates it in a name. All these meet in the will. Will is their foundation. Heaven and earth were willed into existence; wind and space were willed into existence; water and fire (tejas) were willed into existence. Because these were willed into existence, rain was willed into existence. Because rain was willed into existence, food was willed into existence. Because food was willed into existence, prana was willed into existence. Because prana was willed into existence, the sacred formulas were willed into existence. Because the sacred formulas were willed into existence, sacred actions (karma) were willed into existence. Because sacred actions were willed into existence, the world was willed into existence. Because the world was willed into existence, all is willed into existence. Revere will.</P> Narad: Is there anything greater than will? Sanatkumar: Thought is greater than will. When a man thinks, then he wills, then he has it in mind, then he utters speech and formulates it in a name. All these meet in thought. Tought is their foundation. If a man knows a great deal, but is unthinking, people say of him: 'He is nothing. On the other hand, if even if a man knows only a little, but knows how to think, people are anxious to listen to him. Revere thought.</P> Narad: Is there anything greater than thought? Sanatkumar: Meditation (dhyana) is greater than thought. Whenever men achieve greatness on earth, they may be said to have received their due portion of the fruits of meditation. So while small men are quarrelsome, do slanderous gossips, the great men may be said to have received their due portion of the fruits of meditation. Revere meditation.</P> Narad: Is there anything greater than meditation? Sanatkumar: Understanding (vijnana) is greater than meditation. For it is with understanding that one understands the Vedas, stories, grammar, arithmetic, divination, chronometry, politics, logic, devavidya and brahmavidya of the scriptures, the way to approach disembodied spirits, archery, rule, astronomy, the art of dealing with snakes, and the fine arts. It is with undersatnding that one understands heaven and earth, wind and space, water and fire (tejas), gods and men, beasts and birds, grasses and trees, animals right down to worms, moths and ants, right (dharma) and wrong, truth and falsehood, good and evil, pleasant and unpleasant, this world and the next. Revere the understanding.</P> Narad: Is there anything greater than understanding? Sanatkumar: Strength is greater than understanding. If a man is strong, he will engage in manly effort; and, so engaged, he will serve the wise. Serving the wise, he will become familiar with them. He will become one who truly sees, hears, thinks, is aware, acts and understands. It is by strength alone that the earth and sky and atmosphere subsist, that the mountains subsist, that gods and men subsist, that beasts and birds subsist, that grasses and trees subsist, that animals right down to worms, moths and ants subsist, that the world itself subsists. Revere strength.</P> Narad: Is there anything greater than strength? Sanatkumar: Food is greater than strength. If a man abstains from food, although he might still live, he would not be able to see, hear, think, be aware of anything, act or understand. Once he starts to eat again, however, he will be able to see, hear, think, be aware of things, act and understand. Revere food.</P> Narad: Is there anything greater than food? Sanatkumar: Water is greater than food. If the rains are deficient, living creatures become ill, thinking that there will be a decrease in food; but if the rains are abundant, living creatures will be over-joyed, thinking that there will be plenty of food. Earth and atmosphere and sky are nothing but water transmuted into different forms; the mountains, gods and men, beasts and birds, grasses and trees, animals right down to worms, moths and ants are nothing but water transmuted into different forms. Revere water.</P> Narad: Is there anything greater than water? Sanatkumar: Heat (tejas)is greater than water. For heat seizes hold of the wind and warms up space. Then with lightning flashing upwards and sideways, the thunder roars. And so people say: 'There is thunder and lightning; it is going to rain.' It is heat that gives the first indication of coming rains and that pours down water. Revere heat.</P> Narad: Is there anything greater than heat? Sanatkumar: Space is greater than heat. For in space are the Sun and moon, lightning, stars and fire (tejas). Through space, a man calls, through space he hears, and through space he answers. In space does a man take his pleasure, and in space is he distressed: in space is he born and for space is he born. Revere space.</P> Narad: Is there anything greater than space? Sanatkumar: Memory is greater than space. If there were a crowd of people who had no memory, they would hear nothing, have a mind to nothing, and recognize nothing. But if their memory was intact, then they would hear, have a mind to do something, and recognize people and things; for it is by memory that one recognizes one's sons and cattle. Revere memory!</P> Narad: Is there anything greater than memory? Sanatkumar: Hope is greater than memory. For it is only that when kindled by hope that memory learns the sacred formulas, performs sacred actions, wishes for sons and cattle, wishes for this world and the next. Revere hope.</P> Narad: Is there anything greater than hope? Sanatkumar: Brahman is greater than hope. It is the breath of life. Everything is fixed in this breath of life. By life does life itself go on; life gives life, - gives it back to life. </P> And so if a man is harsh towards his father or mother, brother or sister, teacher or a priest, people will curse him. But if, when the breath of life has left some people, then if someone were burn them up completely, no one would say to him, 'You have killed your father,' or 'You have killed your mother,' - or your brother or sister or teacher or a priest. For truly the breath of life (brahman) is all these things; and the man who sees that it is so has it thus in mind and understands that it is so, and becomes enlightened and closer to Brahman.</P></FONT></BODY> </HTML>
-
Not considering somebody as an incarnation of God can not be considered as an insult to that person. There have been many great people on Earth, but not all of them are considered as incarnations. I have talked to some buddhists (esp. the followers of Theravada philosphy) who just do not like the idea of considering Gautam Buddha as an incarnation. But, it does not mean that they do not respect him. They respect him a lot. They consider him as an ideal. They consider him as a human being who, by his struggles, could get enlightenment.
-
Not considering somebody as an incarnation of God can not be considered as an insult to that person. There have been many great people on Earth, but not all of them are considered as incarnations. I have talked to some buddhists (esp. the followers of Theravada philosphy) who just do not like the idea of considering Gautam Buddha as an incarnation. But, it does not mean that they do not respect him. They respect him a lot. They consider him as an ideal. They consider him as a human being who, by his struggles, could get enlightenment.
-
I request others also to contribute to this thread. I know that many others on this forum have got far more knowledge of vedas and upanishads than I have got. Esp., you jndas ji.
-
Is it necessary for a person to be an avatar to be great? I do not know whether or not Gautam Buddha was an incarnation of God. But, even if he wasn't, he still remains respectable by everyone.
-
Is it necessary for a person to be an avatar to be great? I do not know whether or not Gautam Buddha was an incarnation of God. But, even if he wasn't, he still remains respectable by everyone.
-
Sorry for posting twice. When I clicked on "Submit Reply" button, I got "Can not find server" error. So, I thought that my post had not been added and posted again.
-
<HTML> <BODY> In the sixth chapter of Chandogya Upanishad, it is written that the cause of this universe was Sat which means Being with Consciousness. Svetaketu has his doubts in this matter. He wants his father Uddalaka to clarify the doubts. </P> Swetaketu: How can this vast universe with its multitudinous variety be produced in this simple way? </P> Uddalaka: Fetch a fruit of the big fig tree </P> Swetaketu: Here it is. </P> Uddalaka: Break it. What do you see? </P> Swetaketu: These little seeds. </P> Uddalaka : Crush one of the little seeds. What do you see inside? </P> Swetaketu Nothing </P> Uddalaka Yet in the subtle substance inside that little seed, which your eye does not even perceive, existed all this big branching tree. Do you wonder at it? Likewise all that exists, this universe, was in that Sat which thou too art. Believe it, dear child, thou art that." </P> Swetaketu: If the Sat is all pervading, why is it not perceived clearly? </P> Uddalaka asks Swetaketu to put a lump of salt in some water. After some time: </P> Uddalaka: Do you see salt? </P> Swetaketu: No </P> Uddalaka: Taste the water. Does it taste salty? </P> Swetaketu: Yes. </P> Uddalaka: So the salt is present even if it is not seen. In the same way, Sat is not seen though it is immanent in everything in the universe. </P> Swetaketu: How are we to gain knowledge of the Sat which is imperceptible? </P> Uddalaka: Attachment is like a cloth over one's eyes. When this cloth is removed, Sat can be perceived. </P> </BODY> </HTML>
-
<HTML> <BODY> In the sixth chapter of Chandogya Upanishad, it is written that the cause of this universe was Sat which means Being with Consciousness. Svetaketu has his doubts in this matter. He wants his father Uddalaka to clarify the doubts. </P> Swetaketu: How can this vast universe with its multitudinous variety be produced in this simple way? </P> Uddalaka: Fetch a fruit of the big fig tree </P> Swetaketu: Here it is. </P> Uddalaka: Break it. What do you see? </P> Swetaketu: These little seeds. </P> Uddalaka : Crush one of the little seeds. What do you see inside? </P> Swetaketu Nothing </P> Uddalaka Yet in the subtle substance inside that little seed, which your eye does not even perceive, existed all this big branching tree. Do you wonder at it? Likewise all that exists, this universe, was in that Sat which thou too art. Believe it, dear child, thou art that." </P> Swetaketu: If the Sat is all pervading, why is it not perceived clearly? </P> Uddalaka asks Swetaketu to put a lump of salt in some water. After some time: </P> Uddalaka: Do you see salt? </P> Swetaketu: No </P> Uddalaka: Taste the water. Does it taste salty? </P> Swetaketu: Yes. </P> Uddalaka: So the salt is present even if it is not seen. In the same way, Sat is not seen though it is immanent in everything in the universe. </P> Swetaketu: How are we to gain knowledge of the Sat which is imperceptible? </P> Uddalaka: Attachment is like a cloth over one's eyes. When this cloth is removed, Sat can be perceived. </P> </BODY> </HTML>
-
Viji ji, In Bhagwat Puran 1.3.24 Suta Swami tells Saunak about God's incarnation as Buddha in Kali yuga.
-
Viji ji, In Bhagwat Puran 1.3.24 Suta Swami tells Saunak about God's incarnation as Buddha in Kali yuga.
-
When I read Bhagwat Puran, it is difficult to say who should be considered as the author of Bhagwat Puran. Ved Vyas? Suka Swami? Suta Swami? Maharshi Matreya? Narad? Sanat Kumar and his brothers? Brahma? Or ...
-
When I read Bhagwat Puran, it is difficult to say who should be considered as the author of Bhagwat Puran. Ved Vyas? Suka Swami? Suta Swami? Maharshi Matreya? Narad? Sanat Kumar and his brothers? Brahma? Or ...
-
I was reading Bhagwat Puran. In that, it is mentioned that Lord will be born as Buddha in Kali yuga. His mother's name will be Ajana. But the name of Gautam Buddha's mother was Mahamayadevi. Is it possible that God is yet to incarnate as Buddha?
-
I was reading Bhagwat Puran. In that, it is mentioned that Lord will be born as Buddha in Kali yuga. His mother's name will be Ajana. But the name of Gautam Buddha's mother was Mahamayadevi. Is it possible that God is yet to incarnate as Buddha?
-
Doubts related to contents of scriptures
animesh replied to animesh's topic in Spiritual Discussions
Using search engines, I have found the answer. It is Rig Veda 10.129 -
Using search engines, I have found the answer. It is Rig Veda 10.129
-
Doubts related to contents of scriptures
animesh replied to animesh's topic in Spiritual Discussions
There is a creation hymna in Rig Veda. Which book, stanza contains this? -
There is a creation hymna in Rig Veda. Which book, stanza contains this?
-
Oops, why did I make this mistake? My previous post should have been addressed to Sushil and not Shvu.
-
Hi Shvu, Siva may be supreme among demigods and not the Supreme Personality of Godhead. But the argument given by you is not proper. You have mentioned that Siva served Rama as Hanuman. This does not prove anything. Krishna was Arjuna's charioteer. Will you say that Arjuna is supreme and not Krishna? Rama once worshipped Siva. Will you say that Rama is not supreme but Siva is? You have cited some examples from scriptures which indicate Vishnu to be supreme and not Siva. But, you will also find examples which show Siva to be supreme and not Vishnu. Please note: I am not trying to say that Siva is greater than Krishna. All I am trying to say is that if scriptures show one person to be serving another, then it does not prove (though it may be true) that the one who is served is more supreme than the one who is serving.
-
One remarkable thing about Gita is the way it is presented. Sometimes when I read some shlokas, I find them confusing because it seems that Krishna makes contradictory statements. But after that I find another shloka in which Arjun asks Krishna to clarify and Krishna does that.