mystic_seeker

Dear shvu, I thank you for joining this discussion, but all you have done is denied my conclusion. You have not addressed my original question which was to explain how "the webmaster of advaita-vedanta.org [can] maintain that: "This doctrine of advaita should not be misinterpreted to mean that the human self is in and of itself God, without any qualification whatsoever" I gave 2 equations: Argument: (1) Bob (Jiva) = Atman (Self) (2) Atman (Self) = Brahman (God) Therefore Bob (Jiva) = Brahman (God). You said, regarding my 2 equations: I find this very hard to believe. As Arjuna Haridas has mentioned below Sri Madhwacharya (Madhva) denies the 2 equations I mentioned. Consider the comments of Professor B.A. Krishnaswamy Rao: Ramanuja also denied the complete identity of Brahman and Atman, holding that there was some difference between God and devotee. Swami Tapasyananda notes: The webpage I gave you has no forum. Do you know a good Advaita forum I should go to?

Dear Arjuna Haridas, I like Ramanuja too. If you have not read Swami Tapasyananda's book on Ramanuja you should get it. On page 11 he says Gostipurna initiated Ramanuja into the Vaisnava Mantra and told him not to impart it to others. Soon afterward Ramanuja told many people. I don't know the words of the mantra however. Let me, however, give you a few words of advice from one spiritual seeker to another. What should matter most to you now is your relationship with God. Pray to God everyday with all the sincerity of your heart. Meditate everyday and ask God to fill you with his light and wisdom. This is a sure path to wisdom. It does not matter if the prayer is a mantra or the prayer is with rosary beads. If you pour out your heart to God sincerely and surrender to Him you are on the right path. This is the path of bhakti (devotion), which is in harmony with Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita Vedanta. I am sorry I cannot answer your other questions but I am still learning about Hinduism too. You should also check out http://www.ramanuja.org/

Dear Suchandra, While I agree that Hinduism has a superior understanding of the soul and reincarnation, etc, please permit me to kindly correct some of your statements. The Bible at the very least implies, if not states, there is a soul distinct from the body, that the soul (or spirit) is immortal and will spend eternity either in heaven or hell, as the following Scripture makes clear: 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Saint Paul says: "May the God of peace himself make you perfectly holy and may you entirely, spirit, soul, and body, be preserved blameless for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." Matthew 10:28, Jesus says: "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul." Galatians: 6:7-8, Saint Paul says: "Don't delude yourself: God is not to be fooled; whatever someone sows, that is what he will reap. If his sowing is in the field of self-indulgence, then his harvest from it will be corruption; if his sowing is in the Spirit, then his harvest from the Spirit will be eternal life. Matthew 6:19-20, Jesus says: "Do not store up treasures for yourselves on earth, where moth and woodworm destroy them and thieves can break in and steal. But store up treasures for yourselves in heaven, where neither moth nor woodworm destroys them and thieves cannot break in and steal." Matthew 22:23-33: "That day some Sadducees-who deny that there is a resurrection-approached him [Jesus] and they put this question to him, 'Master, Moses said that if a man dies childless, his brother is to marry the widow, his sister-in-law, to raise children for his brother. Now we had a case involving seven brothers; the first married and then died without children, leaving his wife to his brother; the same thing happened with the second and third and so on to the seventh, and then last of all the woman herself died. Now at the resurrection, whose wife among the seven will she be, since she had been married to them all?' Jesus answered them, 'You are wrong, because you understand neither the scriptures nor the power of God. For at the resurrection men and women do not marry; no, they are like the angels in heaven. (Christians believe in Heaven our soul continues to exist but is given a glorified body that is not corruptible like the fleshly human body we have on planet earth. To be resurrected is to be given a new body not a new soul, the soul is immortal.) Matthew 25: 31-46: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, escorted by all the angels, then he will take his seat on his throne of glory. All nations will be assembled before him and he will separate people one from another as the shepherd separates sheep from goats. He will place the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right hand, "Come, you whom my Father has blessed, take as your heritage the kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you made me welcome, lacking clothes and you clothed me, sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me." Then the upright will say to him in reply, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and make you welcome, lacking clothes and clothe you? When did we find you sick or in prison and go to see you?" And the King will answer, "In truth I tell you, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me." Then he will say to those on his left hand, "Go away from me, with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you never gave me food, I was thirsty and you never gave me anything to drink, I was a stranger and you never made me welcome, lacking clothes and you never clothed me, sick and in prison and you never visited me." Then it will be their turn to ask, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty, a stranger or lacking clothes, sick or in prison, and did not come to your help?" Then he will answer, "In truth I tell you, in so far as you neglected to do this to one of the least of these, you neglected to do it to me." And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the upright to eternal life.' Finally, let me say that many Christians reject the theory of evolution and the theory of Abiogenesis (life coming from non-living chemicals). Catholics are allowed to accept part of the theory of evolution but must hold that God creates the spiritual soul immediately: Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 36: “Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.” If you are interested in more on the Catholic position see: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm

Dear Arjuna Haridas, As one who was raised in an Abrahamic faith (Christianity), I know what you mean when you say "Comming from an Abrahamic religion (Islam) to Hinduism thrusts me into certainty of what to do into confusion." But consider this. Even if it were possible for everything about ethics to be written into Scripture (and I don't think this is possible) then people would be constantly going to the Scripture instead of going to God in prayer and meditation. Not having all the answers in Scripture forces us to think deeply on our own and to go to God for answers, both of which are helpful to our ethical and spiritual growth. I have seen first hand what happens when "Scripture alone" is pursued in Christianity. Many Christians I know think that all non-Christians are going to hell because of Scriptural passages. Had they gone to God in the first place for guidance they would have realized that this is not true. So the "confusion" of which you speak is actually a liberating freedom. It saves us from error and encourages us to grow instead of remaining like children. Namaste.

I just checked adherents.com and they say that Shaivism is not included in the 70% statistic: Hindus: 70% Vaishnavites, 25% Shaivites, 2% new-Hindus and reform Hindus. http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_314.html That only adds up to 97% though and it is an old statistic from: The World Almanac & Book of Facts 1998 (K-111 Reference Corp.: Mahwah, NJ), [source: 1997 Encyc. Britannica Book of the Year]; pg. 654.

Dear Guruvani, Thanks! Its good to know that Personalism is more popular than monism. Personally, I have always had an attraction to Ramanuja and Madhva myself.

Dear Sanatan, Thanks for your help. Would you happen to know, roughly speaking, what percentage of Hindus accept Advaita Vedanta? I would image since Vaishnavas constitute approximately 70% of all Hindus and since much of Vaishnavism is non-Advaita (namely Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita, Dvaitadvaita) that the dominant interpretation among Hindus is not Advaita Vedanta. Am I wrong?

In my spiritual quest for truth, I have become puzzled by some of the teachings of Advaita Vedanta: Contrary to the last sentence of the quote (which I underlined), it seems to me that Advaita Vedanta logically implies that a human person, like me (Bob), would be identical with God. Argument: (1) Bob (Jiva) = Atman (Self) (2) Atman (Self) = Brahman (God) Therefore Bob (Jiva) = Brahman (God). The only wiggle-room would be if there is a type of reality besides Brahman, but the doctrine of maya and non-duality of the Advaita Vedanta preclude this. So how can the webmaster of advaita-vedanta.org maintain that: "This doctrine of advaita should not be misinterpreted to mean that the human self is in and of itself God, without any qualification whatsoever" ??? Any help is appreciated.

Now it worked!

Is that true? Hillarious!

The youtube video works fine on my screen

Hang out here anyway! This is a nice group and you can talk about Buddhism.

didn't work

Thanks for the ringtones!

Forgive my ignorance of Yugas in general but I have a question about the Kali Yuga, which, by many accounts, we are presently in. The Kali yuga is noted for moral decline among humans. So my question is: Are humans themselves responsible for this moral decline or does the Kali yuga make (force) humans to behave immoraly just like winter makes the air cold? Put another way, if God makes the Yugas happen like the seasons (winter, spring, summer, fall) then humans are not responsible (at least not fully) for the moral decline in the Kali Yuga. What is the dominant Hindu view on this? Namaste

Does anyone happen to know a good book that discusses in depth the Third Eye (Ajna)? If not, I'll take a good book on all the chakras. I would prefer that the book be written by a Swami. Thanks!

I just found this: "The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could not possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source which, perhaps, no longer exists; there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanskrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family...". --Sir William Jones

I am a westerner with a Ph.D. in philosophy, who knows and translates medieval Latin. I can tell you in my academic circle Sanskrit is well respected and regarded as a very precise language. Ancient Greek, in constrast, is given to ambiguity. I have spoken with Ancient Greek Scholars and they lament that as much a genius as Aristotle was, his Greek suffers from more unclarity than they would like. Latin, in my opinion is superior to Greek for philosophy and theology, though thinkers like Duns Scotus and William of Ockham will still bring you to tears with their Latin. The strength of Latin is that its grammar is simple (compared to the complexities of something like French) and very logical (Latin has few exceptions unlike French where there are so many irregular forms.) My own personal critique of Latin would be that some of the noun declensions have the same endings. For example, consider the noun puella (young girl). When it is singular and the direct object of a sentence (accusative) it is puellam. Puellam is unique so once you see it you know it is the direct object, case closed. However the nominative and vocative plural and the genitive and dative singular are all the same: puellae. This makes Latin less precise and more confusing than it should be in my opinion. Assuming I live long enough, and the world does not end, I hope to learn Sanskrit one day. Concluding question: Scholars give 13 years as a benchmark to become fluent in Ancient Greek, and 7 years for Latin. How many years, roughly speaking, would it take for Sanskrit? (Obviously only people who have a good command of Sanskrit should answer this question.) Peace.

Thanks a lot for your help. I didn't realize that Shiva had so many names. I found a website that explained some of them in the mantra, but I don't know if they are correct: Shambhu: One Who Bestows Prosperity Shankara: One Who Gives Happiness Girijapati: Consort Of Girija** **apparently Girija in the mantra is a shortened form of Girijapati Arunaachala: appears to be Shiva manifested as a mountain I think all of that is correct, right?

Hello Everybody, I am new to this forum. I suppose I should introduce myself a little bit before I ask my question about sanskrit. Although I was raised Roman Catholic, I have always felt drawn to Hinduism. Meditation was something that came naturally to me, as did belief in reincarnation. Over time, as I prayed more and more, I found my third eye (Ajna) pulsating. I have had other interesting experiences in my search for truth and have a special place in my heart for Hindu and Christian mystics such as Ramakrishna and St. John of the Cross. I also feel a connection to sanskrit. Recently, I was listening to a Krishna Das CD and I felt a strong connection to the "Om Namah Shivaaya" mantra. I consulted Krishna Das' website and this is the translation he offered: Om Namah Shivaaya Shivaaya namaha, Shivaaya namah om Shivaaya namaha, namaha Shivaaya Shambhu Shankara namah Shivaaya, Girijaa Shankara namah Shivaaya Arunaachala Shiva namah Shivaaya I bow to the Soul of all. I bow to my Self. I don't know who I am, so I bow to you, Shiva, my own true Self. I bow to my teachers who loved me with Love. Who took care of me when I couldn't take care of myself. I owe everything to them. How can I repay them? They have everything in the world. Only my love is mine to give, but in giving I find that it is their love flowing through me back to the world...I have nothing. I have everything. I want nothing. Only let it flow to you, my love... sing! It seems pretty obvious to me that his translation is loose and fast since the mantra only has about 7 or 8 unique words and he has dozens. So does anyone know what a better (or at least more literal) translation would be? Any help is appreciated. Peace.

test

this is a just a test Bold stuff