REASWARAN

Kriya Yoga has several connotations. One common one is associated with Swami Yogananda Paramahansa- and the addresses I have given is in that connection. Another commonly used connection is that of the Bihar School of Yoga- founded by Swami Satyananda Saraswati- Kriya Yoga has a different meaning in this context. The traditional Hatha Yoga tradition also deals with Kriya but that is generally limited to the Shatkarma. (six actions) which are body cleansing processes. As to whether it has any special meaning in ISKCON I have no idea, since I am not a follower of the ISCKON school.

That's precisely the point. when Krishna said "I" that I was the Brahman since Krishna himself was a human manifestation of the brahman. I've noticed that the word formless seems to bug people in this forum and I have yet to understand why. By definition a being which prevades the entire living and non living world has to be formless in nature. Why is there so much aversion to that concept ?

Not being an ISKCON member, I am not familiar with Prabhupada's teachings. However, the Gita has several eminent teachers in India- and what I have stated is the gist of those teachings. If you want more information on this you could try to read Swami Chinmayananda's comments on the BG or the contemporary Swami Anubhavananda's comments.

Small problem here. The mind itself. The trouble seems to be that one who wants to recognise reality has to ensure that his mind is made non functional. But the instrument to make the mind non functional is the mind itself. Which is why we all tie ourselves in knots.

The Bhavgad gita is part of the mahabharat- elsewhere in the epic it is clearly stated that the Lord has taken human form (Krishna) for a specific purpose :" yada yada hi dharamasiya ..etc" The Mahabharat also end up with the Lord giving up his human body, the purpose having been acheived. Nevertheless, krishna is worshipped because he was a full avatar , and aware of his divine birth. Nevertheless, it would not be very enlightened on our part to deny the existence of the Lord's other births..Rama for example or even Jesus. It is worth mentioning here that the pinnacle of Hindu scriptures- the Vedanta ie the Upanishad's do not talk about specific Gods..Vishnu, Brahma, shive , krishna etc. They only talk about Brahman- which is a generic name for the Lord of the Universe. It is egoism of which only mankind is capable to think of such a God only in human form. -this is the form to which we relate and that is how he has shown himself to us. In the millions of planets which he has created, there may be other forms of life totally different in physical structure to us- I daresay he would show himself in other forms to such life forms. As in all forms of spirituality, it is the end which is more important than the path. Let us not deride any path that a seeker takes-to each his own - for in the end all of us are made of the same cast and will ultimately return to the same source.

I dont claim to be a pundit- but I have read a bit and have had the privilege of being at lectures on the B Gita by several eminent swami's. My understanding is that the "attachment" to the sense objects is seen as being undesirable for a person who is seeking realisation. To put it more clearly, it is not the act of sex that becomes an obstacle -but it is the attachment to that act. If a seeker were to engage in an act of sex (hopefully with his legally wedded partner) and then carry on with his worldly work WITHOUT thinking more about the act, ie relliving the experience, expecting that the next time would be as pleasurable etc, then my understanding is that he is not faced by an obstacle as he is constantly living in the present -"mindfulness" as the buddhists call it. The moment you are living only in the present your mind does not take into cognizance past memories and future expectations- you have achieved the mental state that the Geeta mandates. The error therefore lies not in the acts themselves but in attachment to the acts.

All very erudite stuff - but nevertheless opinions of others. I stand by my own experience and I dont find any damage in my kids I must say. I would have been interested in the expereince of other people not just cut and paste jobs- no offence meant to anyone .

Perhaps you would like to refer to my posts- Nowhere have I mentioned Krishna as the formless one. Krishna is the human manifestation of the universal power- known as Brahman or The supreme being if you will - beyond nama and rupa - names and forms. Personal Gods are only a destination which you pass enroute to being merged with the formless.

Let me put things in perspective- Yes there are cases of abortions of female fetuses in India. and No - there is no blanket legality accorded to such acts. Abortion is legal in India upto the time the fetus is three months old I think. Why ? Because unfortunately, several Indians still carry the old mental framework of wanting a male child- to carry on the dynasty you see-never mind if the dynasty is worth a tuppeny. Anyway if the first child is a female , they go onto the second and if also a female onto the third and so on until the woman collapses or the male child is born. Which leaves us with a host of little girls who get no care from their parents 'cause they finally have a son- never mind he may a good for nothing' . With legalised abortion, at least such children will not come into the world and suffer nor will a woman be made to go through the tyranny of unwanted birhs- sure it is not the pefect solution - but the woman should have the choice of having a child or not - she's the one who bears the brunt after all.

Not dead at I assure you, my friend- there are classes in sanskrit springing all over in India

I have a TV at home- have had one ever since I can remember- I had these same doubts when my daughter was born- My parents repeated Sai Baba's words to me "TV stands for tele vasham - vasham meaning poison. However, I decided to watch what would happen- My kid was generally glued to the TV for a few hours initially - but soon it began to wear off. Today the TV stands as an epitah to this decision of mine- we use the TV for some purposes - watch cricket, watch a bhajan session or a spiritual discourse etc I'd say all depends on what values your kids perceive in you- but remember the TV may help them be a bit more comfortable with peer pressure

Truly has it been said that the devil may quote the scriptures for his own purpose. Let us not forget that the verse quoted are not the words of the Lord but those of Arjun, who admittedly is in a state of major mental disarray and is advancing arguments to defend his stance of avoiding battle.

"This is the meaning of 'without form', 'formless'. He is beyond this world of form and time. His arms and legs stretch everywhere. He can eat anything anywhere. His unborn spiritual form of eternity, knowledge and bliss is not bound by the laws of the world of mundane form" Would you like to explain how this is different from the definition I gave ? In two simple lines please ?

There is a difference between God (Brahman if you wish) and the manfestation of Brahman in human form. I do not see how this could be confused and hence am not able to understand why my statment that God has no form has aroused so much ire. Would someone please explain ?

Shri Haridham. Your point is taken. It is not my intention to upset anyone. The only point I was making is that Hinduism, in the final analysis, moves away from the concrete to the formless. But I do appreciate that it encompasses in its fold the entire spectrum of devotees according to their needs. No quarrel there.

The true import of the statement I have referenced above has to be correctly understood. The pronoun "He" is used due to the inadequacies of human language-our mode of communication. Perhaps "Impersonal" also does not do justice to the Lord. This is one of the reasons we are not able to conceive him properly since conception is constrained by our world of experiences. Whatever you have quoted therefore does not take away from the line of argumement I have advanced.

Entitled here should be taken to mean worthy of. Possibly it means that you need to undergo a process of purification thru Karma yoga before you will experience Bhakti

I have not heard this in Hindu Thought- though Jainism does prohibit the use of leather and Jain temples prohibit leather in thier premises.

A really beautiful post. Thanks

Very True. I was trying to explain without reference to any quotes from the scriptures. Thank you.

I could not agree more. There are documented cases of humans having died with no organic damage to their bodies. If it was only that degenerating or diceased cells that cause thebody to die, these deaths cannot be explained. This is understood in totality by leading physicists today who see all too clearly that given the limited tools (senses_)that we have for seeking knowledge, it requires a jump beyond these senses to even begin to understand total reality.

The vedantic theme, you must admit, is brilliantly woven into the movie. That you live in the unreal world, and that to be able to escape, you need to step outside the world you live in.

I passed thru a phase where I felt that my life was going nowhere- this used to lead me to depression, fits of anger and so on. Once I started regular yoga practice and meditation, my problems disappeared and I feel calm and serene most times now. Perhaps you could try meditation -start with half an hour a day.

Although we are all human beings, we have a huge variety of mental imprints and tendencies. Some people have very positive tendencies, whereas other people are naturally inclined to non-virtue. Some of these differences can be accounted for by differences in upbringing and other experiences in this life, but by no means can all be explained in this way. Two children with the same parents can have totally different mental tendencies, which they can display at a very early age. One child, for example, may have a cruel and angry disposition and take delight in torturing animals and bullying other children, whereas the other child has a good heart and a gentle nature. This can be the case even if the children have been brought up in a very similar way, and even, sometimes, apply in the case of identical twins, who have exactly the same genetic make-up. How can we explain these differences? A mental tendency is a habit of mind, and habits are created by repeated actions over a long period of time. The fact that children are born with varying mental tendencies indicates that at some time prior to their birth - that is, in a previous life - they performed different actions, creating different mental habits. One child is naturally positive because in a previous life he or she repeatedly performed positive actions of body, speech, and mind, and thus created strong positive pathways in his mind; and the other child is naturally negative because through his repeated negative actions in a previous life he created negative pathways in his mind. Adults too clearly have varying mental tendencies. Some people for no apparent reason hate religion as if it were poison, whereas others are naturally attracted to spiritual teachings. What causes these different ways of thinking? The simplest explanation is that the person who instinctively dislikes religion in this life disliked religion in previous lives, whereas the person who naturally likes religion has the virtuous imprints of valuing religion in a previous life. Some people are able to learn a particular foreign language very easily, even though they are no more intelligent than someone else who has far greater difficulty in learning that language. The reason for this may well be that the first person used to speak that language in a previous life. Amongst those who enter the spiritual path, some gain spiritual realizations very easily, whereas others, no less sincere or skilful, need to apply great effort for many years before their mind changes and they develop realizations. This clearly indicates that spiritual realizations are the fruit not only of our effort in this life, but also of the effort we made and tendencies we created in previous lives. Since we cannot see the past directly, to understand it we need to infer past actions and events from present effects. Geologists infer past geographical events from the present structure of land, and archaeologists build up a picture of previous cultures through making inferences from their remains. In a similar way, by observing present mental tendencies and predispositions we can infer their causes in previous lives.

You persist in the delusion that God is on the plane as we are, acting, reacting, getting offended (!) Have it you way. You continue in the search for your God who is a super being. I shall continue with my search. End of this debate.