animesh

I want to ask something about the famous Gayatri mantra which is taken from Rg Veda (3.62.10). There are many mantras in vedas, but I find that this particular mantra is the most well known. In fact, I have seen houses where even children known this mantra by heart even if they do not know any other verse from all scriptures. My question is: Why is this particular mantra considered so significant?

I want to ask something about the famous Gayatri mantra which is taken from Rg Veda (3.62.10). There are many mantras in vedas, but I find that this particular mantra is the most well known. In fact, I have seen houses where even children known this mantra by heart even if they do not know any other verse from all scriptures. My question is: Why is this particular mantra considered so significant?

Oops, I want to kill this it. After I had typed a lot, it crashed. Well, I am talking about my computer. Anyway, I'll type again. Viji ji, I agree that Bhagwat Gita is a great scripture if somebody reads it attentively. The teachings are really great and also soothing. I read it daily. A few weeks back, I also started reading Bhagwatam. Don't know what I will take up next. May be Ramayan. Earlier I used to think that I would not find time to read all these because of my profession and other works. But now I find that if one really wants, he can always find time, and it is worth it. If you remember, in another thread I had talked about my Sri Lankan sister (for the last about two months she is studying in Australia), who wants to know more and more about Hinduism. I was hesitating to explain to her anything about Hinduism because of two reasons. One that I did not know where to begin. Second I myself do not have good knowledge of this subject because it is so vast and I did not want to explain to her any wrong things. Anyway, finally I decided to explain. First I told her briefly what are vedas, upanishads, puranas, samhitas and Gita. Now I am sending her emails explaining teachings of Gita. Well, I am not just giving tranlations of all the verses of Gita, because it will take time and also she may not be able to understand many things. I am giving essential teachings from each chapter. You (and many others on this forum) know far more on Hinduism than I do. Do you think it is correct way to explain Hinduism to somebody? Or, would you suggest some other way?

jndas ji, Thanks for the answer to my doubt. One more thing: I wrote that I had read somewhere about no. of puranas having more than 1000. That was a mistake. I should have written more than 1000 upanishads and not puranas. Sorry.

jndas ji, Just one doubt. You have written: Siva is the Supreme controller within the material realm of existence. As Shambhu he creates the entire material creation by interacting with Shakti. Now my doubt is: If Siva is the author of material creation, then why is Brahmaa called as creator?

Hi Sushil, More on what Viji ji has said: If you read Bhagwatam, you will find that Lord Narayan(or Hari or call Him by any of His many other names) incarnated on earth as Krishna. Krishna was complete incarnation i.e. He was Lord Hari Himself.

I have read somewhere that there are more than 1000 puranas. Only 18 of these (at least original form of these 18) are said to have been authored by Ved Vyasa. The others must be latter additions.

It is surprising that in some of the puranas, Ved Vyasa has considered Siva as supreme and in some Vishnu as supreme. Are we sure that all of these 18 puranas have been written by the same person?

It is not that all those on Pandavas side were good and all those on Kauravas side were bad. There were good and bad on both sides. If we select one person from Pandavas' side and one from Kauravas' side and then ask, "who was better?", the answer would depend on who those two people are.

It is true that Karna was on the side of Kauravas and not Pandavas. But, in my opinion, Pandavas are themselves to be blamed for this. When Pandavas were making fun of Karna by calling him shudra-putra and were not willing to allow him to participate in competition, then Duryodhana made him king. So, it would have been treachery on the part of Karna to fight opposite of Duryodhana in Mahabharat war. When we read Mahabharat, then very often we have the tendency to consider every act of all those on Pandavas' side as good and of all those on Kauravas' side as bad.

Hi Shvu, Even though I am not associated with ISKCON, I agree with Dasha that the dream will be found bitter by the followers of Sri Prabhupada. If I have understood your post correctly, then you are trying to make the following points: - 1)It is not a good idea to think that God wants to delude people by wrong teachings. 2)Just by reading some books by ISKCON, one should not assume that he has learnt everything about scriptures. 3)It is not a good idea to criticize Mayavada without knowing what it is. Well, I agree with all of these points. But, in my heart, I feel that it is quite natural for the followers of Sri Prabhupada to consider your post as sattire and not as enjoyable.

Hi Love, ______ From all that I have read under this thread of discussion, I once again feel that we are all very good at blaming Hinduism for everything that is going wrong in India. ________ No, none of us is blaming Hinduism as such but some of us are blaming many vice in society that are being done in the name of religion. One more thing. You have mentioned that many vice became prevalent in India due to Islam invasion. I accept that. But were not Hindus also responsible for this to some extent? Now also some people are trying to spread bad deeds and it is not that they are all Muslisms; most of them are Hindus. As a simple example, now also you will find some people who claim that Sati system is good and that it is sanctioned by our shastras.

Hi Shvu, I had replied to you, but now I see that my reply is not there. Oops, I think I had got disconnected that time. Anyway, I agree that Yudhistira etc. are not comparable to Harishchandra so far truthfulness is concerned. It is said that Yudhistira was a great sacrificer. But Karna was far bigger sacrificer than Yudhistira. But what I was trying to say is that we can not make a fixed list of good and bad deeds. Depending on situation the same thing can be good or bad. Sometimes we are having a fixed set of options and each of these is bad. But since these are the only options, we have to choose one of them. Take an example. Suppose that I am standing somehwhere. Suddenly I see one person running and hiding somewhere. Then I see another person. On seeing the other person, I understand that he is planning to do some harm to the first one. This second person asks me if I have seen the first one. Of course, telling truth is good. But should I tell truth in this case?

Well, there is nothing bad if someone does not believe in Advaita philosphy. Everyone is entitled to have his opinion. But I do not like the argument made that Shankaracharya intentionally preached wrong things in order to delude atheists. According to the article, even somebody who is no less an authority than an incarnation of Lord Siva can lie. It can be claimed that this kind of lie was not bad because it was intended to delude atheists. But are there only atheists at that time? Were there no theists? There were all the three - theists, atheists and agnostics. Now also there are all the three. If we say that Shankara wanted to delude people, then this may be true regarding whoever tries to preach anything. Why can't we say that all the great acharyas including even Ramanujacharya and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu intentionally preached wrong things in order to delude people. I read another article in which it is claimed that Gautam Buddha was Himself an incarnation of God, but He intentionally preached wrong things to make sure that atheists believe in Him and then go straight to hell. This indicates that God preaches people something and if they believe in Him, then they go to hell. But it is also claimed that oe should always follow God's wish. So, how is one going to know when God is saying correct things and when He is not? How do we know that God did not preach wrong things to Arjuna? How do we know that Vedas which are claimed to be first spoken by God are not all wrong? If somebody says that Gautam Buddha was himself an incarnation of God, but did not talk about God because many wrong deeds were prevalent in society, then I can agree with him. But, making a statement that He intentionally taught wrong things so that all those who believed in Him could go to hell, is not proper. At the end, I would like to make one clarification. Some of reader may think that I am trying to call Ramanujacharya and Chaitanya as liars. No, I have no such intention. In fact, I have great regard for them not because they were incarnations of God, but becase they did not distinguish between people on the basis of caste and status in society. All I am trying to argue is that it is not proper to say that an incarnation of Siva or an incarnation of Hari can intentionally try to preach wrong things to people. Because, then the contents of all the scriptures become doubtful, though not necessarily false.

I left one sentence incomplete. I wrote "...that would mean making the boon given to Vaali that if he sees the one fighting him, then half of the strength of Vaali's adversary will be reduced and will get added to the strength of Vaali." The sentence should read "...that would mean making the boon given to Vaali that if he sees the one fighting him, then half of the strength of Vaali's adversary will be reduced and will get added to the strength of Vaali, as false."

Hi Shvu, I also do not like that Rama sent Sita to forrest knowing fully well that She was innocent. But I do not find anything wrong in killing Vaali hiding behind a tree. Because there was no way Vaali could have been killed if he had seen Rama. Of course, someone may claim that since Raama was Himself God, it should have been possible, but that would mean making the boon given to Vaali that if he sees the one fighting him, then half of the strength of Vaali's adversary will be reduced and will get added to the strength of Vaali. Raama killed Vaali by hiding behind a tree. This can be considered as bad because it is not the seen of a true Kshatriya. But if He had not done so, then it would not have been possible to save Sugriva from Vaali which would have been much worse. In Mahabharata also we find such example. Someone may say that Krishna did bad by asking Yudhistira to lie to Dronacharya that Ashwathama had been killed. But if Guru Drona had not been killed by some means, then it would not have been possible for Pandavas to win and thereby stop the evil deeds of Kauravas. Many times in our lives we are faced with a situation in which if we do some particular thing, then it is bad. If we do not do, then also it is bad. But we have to choose one of these two options because there is no third option. So, we have to choose the one which is less bad among the two.

I agree that Ramayana is really a great epic as it teaches us how to be an ideal person. (The only thing which I do not like is the part of Ramayana in which Sita is asked to leave the palace). The verses in Gita are also worth reciting and pondering over.

Advaitism states that the real, essential identity of the individual self, is nothing Brahm Itself. Enlightenment is to understand this identity. Brahm dwells in all beings. Brahm is said to be essentially nirgun, but all gunas equally belong to It. Because of illusion (maya) or ignorance (avidya), a person feel the difference between his real self and Brahm. Vedas are considered to be eternally valid and other scriptures are valid only so long they do not conflict with teachings in vedas.

Dear viji, We do not know why exactly he is dark complexioned, but I really like the way you have interpreted it.

________ My concern is not with people believing in God or not, but, rather with a universally dismissal of all the feelings one may have about God and treating them as conditioning of mind and so on. ________ As I wrote, there may be people who have really realized God. So, both kinds of people are possible. Those who have really realized and those who think that they have but have not. But I agree that one should not universally dismiss the feelings of all the devotees as conditioning of mind. _________ The simple fact is, that no one knows what other person feels (relationship with God) or to what degree. Knowing God (unfortunately or fortunately) happens to be a spiritual matter. _________ That is correct. Nobody denied that. _________ People may put forward their theories based on experiments or logic, that is fine as long as they understand it is only a theory and not a conclusive fact. _________ I don't know if I should agree with this because every knowledge is based on experiments and logic, though the details of experiments and logic vary from person to person. So, in this sense, every knowledge should be considered as theory and not a conclusive fact. If putting some arguments, somebody says that there is God, it is only a theory. If somebody says that there is no God, then also it is a theory. _________ Faith is not blind to a person who has established relationship with God. __________ Correct. And such a person really deserves respect, because his way of living and attitude towards other beings must be very very great and praiseworthy. But, unfortunately, we find that many wrong deeds are also done in the name of God. I find this problem in all religions. There are people who, in the name of God, preach good habits like universal love, unselfishness, etc. etc. But, we also find instances when, in the name of God, some try to spread bad practices in society. It is really unfortunate that many are affected by that because they think that these practices must be good even if they seem bad. In fact, my post was related to this only. My post was not at all related to "whether or not belief in God is correct". Personally, whenever I am alone and contemplate on such topics, then I also feel as if some such almighty force is present. Though I am not sure if that force is exactly the same as our scriptures describe. When I say that sometimes I feel that there has to be some almighty, then I do not mean to say that I have realized God. Honsetly speaking, I have not. So, if someone says that my feeling may be because of some conditioning of mind, then it is a possibility.

Dear Shvu, This is a really very nice topic. I think that rather than discussing why the article "What is Mayavada?" not good, we should discuss what Mayavada (or better Advaita doctrine) really is.

Dear ggohil, I wrote "Many people do not belive in God whole-heartedly." What I mean to say is that they think that there is God, but they do not feel (mark this word) in their hearts that there is God. When somebody eats food that is bad for him, then he thinks "OK Ok chalta hai'. What will happen if I eat little bit of these things? I'll take some medicine. Nothing will happen to me" etc. etc. But can one think like that with respect to God or w.r.t. heaven and hell?

Hi ggohil, There are many people who claim that they believe in God, but a large no. of them do not really believe. You will find many people who say with full confidence that there is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God, but still they do something wrong. That wrong thing may be wrong in the eyes of law or society or both. If they find that they have taken every care not to leave any proof, then they do that wrong thing. If they really believe in God, why do they do this? After all, how can one take care that he has not left any proof for God to find out their wrong deeds? You will find people who will claim that there is existence of heaven and hell. But why are they not afraid of going to hell when they do something wrong? Well, there are people who have real faith in God, as you can see by their righteous way of living, but their no. is very little. On the other hand, there are many who will say very firmly that they believe in God, in heaven and hell, in deities, in soul etc. etc. But they do not believe in all these WHOLE-HEARTEDLY.

It is true that everybody has got blind faith at some level. So long as one's faith does not do anything bad to others, they are entitled to cling to their faith. But, the moment it starts affecting other people's lives in a negative way, then others have got the right to question their faith. Unfortunately, many times we find that one person tries to force his belief upon others. The situation becomes specially worse if the person forcing his belief has got some kind of position power. Example can be given of statues being broken in Taliban. According to them, if Islam asks one not to do idol worship, then nobody should do idol worship.

Hi Shvu, You have mentioned that it is amazing that even though many temples were destroyed during Mughal rule, hinduism has still survived. That really indicates that there is something good about hinduism. If there is any religion which teaches people love and respect for each other and, at the same time, allows them to live a happy life, then it is bound to survive. There have been instances when many brahmans misinterpreted scriptures and spreaded many bad practices in society. But at the same time, there have been very good people (most of them again brahman), who instilled good habits in people. Fortunately, many of the earlier bad practices have been over or have reduced, but still some are left. Hopefully, they will also be over.