Arjuna Haridas

To be a Smarta formally, you must have been born into a caste. Non-Smarta Hindus will say that the caste system of the Sruti ("Revealed") Scriptures are based on characteristics (this is called Varna), but Smartas (who follow Smriti or "Remembered" Scriptures) will say that caste is purely based on birth (this is called Jati). This is why no Smarta would initiate a low-caste/no-caste Hindu; because their Smriti scriptures forbid it. You can follow Smartism, but you can't formally be one. To be an "Informal" Hindu is to be an unititiated Hindu and to be a "Formal" Hindu is to be an initiated Hindu. Remember that Brahman-Shakti could care less whether or not mantras were recited over you than if you followed The Supreme and pleased It (Brahman-Shakti is gender neutral, Brahman is Male, and Shakti is Female so to speak).

If I live and sleep in the same place where I pay homage to Mother, then my home is holy. Islam is a whole different subject. I have trouble believing that the place where women are raped, people are killed, places of worship are bombed, rivers are polluted, and nuclear weapons are being built is automatically holy. Should this country we call India expand to include China, then would China be holy? Incarnations appeared in places such as Kurukshetra and Kailasha. They did not appear in Manipur. So why is Manipur holy? Because it is part of the same country where there are holy places? How can you say that I don't accept India as the SOLE holy place on Earth that I am somehow jealous? If it was up to me, I wouldn't wish that I lived in India; I'd wish that I was already liberated. India-centrism is a result of the Indianization of Hinduism, and this India-centrism is manifest in the sentence "India is the only holy land on Earth". What will happen when Kalki comes and takes over the world? Will you then finally agree that the whole world is Holy and not just the land that is governed by the Rashtrapati Pratibha Patil?

If you can point to your soul, then you have found Heaven.

Smartism has the right idea (I.E. Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, Ganesha, and Surya are manifestations of Brahman-Shakti), but they are too conservative and they take the Manusmriti (a scripture many Hindus reject) as fact. So, I can't be a Smarta because I'm not India, for example. At the same time, they acknowledge that all bodies have the chakras and have a soul and thus have the ability for moksha. So I can achieve liberation because I have a soul and a conscience, but I can't achieve it because I wasn't born with the last name "Sharma". Right ideas, bad execution.

Why is meat such a big issue? Eat it or don't, it doesn't matter. The vegetarian can connect with his/her Ishtadevi/Ishtadevi and so can the meat eater. I have no doubt that vegetarian Gaudiya Vaishnavas connect with Krishna and have a loving, indescribable relationship with him. I have the same relationship with Durga Maa, and I eat meat. Let's focus on how to improve the world and how to progress ourselves and our brothers and sisters spiritually. Let's focus on getting the whole world to accept the fact of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the World is a Family). Let's put dogma aside.

I'm not a Vaishnava (I'm a Shakta), but that's how I believed things when I was a Vaishnava. Vaishnavism is based on their Puranas, as is Shaivism (for some parts). So to find evidence for anything Vaishnava, you would have to look at their sattvika puranas. But, you're right; Vaishnavism has a more dogmatic approach while Shaivism and Shaktism have a more experiential approach (with Shaktism being 99.9% experiential). Sometimes, dogma is good and sometimes experience is good.

I'm interested in the ideas of moksha in the different Hindu sects. Shaktism, Shaivism, Smartism, and the secular sects (eg. Buddhism) all share the same idea of moksha (union), but Vaishnavism has a different approach. I understand this approach, but the question of love has never been answered in any of the explanations I've read.

Maybe this is why I'm not Vaishnava - there seems to be a loss of personal thought and love. But my question still hasn't been answered; will there be love in Goloka/Vrindavana/Vaikunta?

Is true love bound by any religion?

Sex is a symbol of love between two. Not to sound perverted, but the orgasm is a spiritual experience that goes beyond physicial description - it's comparable to the ecstasy of devotion. It is part of the "Making-the-one-you-love-happy" priority of true love. Sex for the gratification of the senses and sex out of love are two different things seperated by a fine line. But, I'm talking more like a relationship. Will there be a relationship between two souls that is like the relationship of Brahma-Shakti (Krishna-Radha)?

To quote myself:

Namaste. Will there be love in Goloka? Will there be marriage? To get to the core, will there be gender differences in Goloka?

Few Vaishnavas realize that Krishna is the equivalent to Shiva of Shaivism and that Radha is equivalent to Devi of Shaktism. Krishna is Brahman and Radha is Shakti; both are equal and are two aspects of the Divine. The Vaishnava knows this, but unfortunately the Vaishnava associated the Supreme Lord Krishna as the equal with Vishnu. In reality, it's more like: Bhagavan Krishna Radharani Devi Durga Kali etc. Brahma Vishnu Matsya Kurma Varaha etc. Shiva Krishna (Brahman) incarnates as the Trimurti Who in turn incarnate as Matsya, etc. Radha (Shakti) incarnates as Devi Who in turn incarnates as Durga Maa, Dasmahavidyas, etc. This is why Vaishnavism IS Shaivism and the two ARE Shaktism. It is because the 3 sects are just one, but they give different names to Brahman-Shakti, the Supreme Divine. Unfortunately, only the Smartas realize this and so we have blatent sectarianism between Vaishnavas and Shaivas that manifest themselves in the various denominations of the two religions.

The point I'm trying to make is that Hindus are saying that India is the ONLY holy land on Earth. I'm not denying that India is holy, I'm just saying that India isn't the ONLY holy land (for the umpteenth time). Why is India holy but my land isn't? I'm a Hindu, also, correct? And I pray in my own home. But what does land have to do with anything? If I pray here or there, does it really matter? Every atom has the Supreme residing in it, and the same for every soul. Since this makes every atom and soul a Divine Abode for the Divine Brahma-Shakti, then this makes every atom and soul sacred and holy, and not just the atoms that make up the land called "India". Only after learning about the philosophy of others' from their perspective can a man truly say that he follows Sanatana Dharma.

Most Muslims, Christians, and Jews live in the West, but they don't call the West holy. I know that some places in India is holy (Varanasi, Kurukshetra, etc.), but why is that one span of land from Gujarat to Manipur and from Kashmir to Tamil Nadu the ONLY holy land? Hindu history didn't happen in some of those cities/towns. What about the land where Rama walked - Sri Lanka? Or, the land where any Paramahamsa walked? Scriptures state that the land where a Paramahansa walks/walked is holy, and many Paramahansa have walked in Western lands (Swami Vivekananda is a great example here). I have no problem with Indians (the government of India, however...), but remember that Hinduism isn't Indian at all. Hinduism (or Sanatana Dharma) is purely spiritual, and souls don't come from and don't end up in India. When I die, I won't be asked "Where you Indian?" and then have to be reincarnated because I wasn't. When the Western Paramahamsa dies, he won't be asked the same question, either. When a bloodthirsty immoral Indian man dies, he won't automatically acheieve moksha because he was Indian.

Namaste. I say this with all due respect, but please do NOT say that India is "land of the Hindus" or that India is somehow holy. If the Ganga dried up and began flowing in China, would China then be holy? If every Hindu migrated to Europe and North America, would India still be holy? If a god or goddess incarnates in the United States of America, then wouldn't America be holy? Don't say "India is holy" because you are simply denouncing the rest of the land that Durga Maa has made inhabitable for us. Nothing in the material world is holy, since everything has its faults. The only thing that is holy is Durga Maa Who resides inside of us - inside of every atom, beautiful and ugly, and inside every soul, beautiful and ugly. Sure, Varanasi is holy, and maybe the Ganga. But how does this make the land from Gujarat to Manipur the only holy land on Earth? Shouldn't China be more holy than India since it houses the holiest spot on Earth (Mt. Kailasha)? The land I walk on is holy. The land you walk on is holy - regardless if the land is in Iraq, Pakistan, India, Russia, the USA, Canada, or Panama. We are all blessed by Mother, and we are all given life and have Her reside in everything. This makes every atom Holy because every atom is Her Abode. I kiss the ground next to my house and I call this ground holy. You kiss the ground next to your home and you should call it holy, also. Because the whole of Bhuloka (and every atom and jiva) is not only the Abode of Durga Maa, but it is also personified as a Goddess. If India is holy, then why is Makkah and Madinah not where there a man (Muhammad) who preached submittance to God walked? Why isn't Karbala considered sacred when there, another holy man (Imam Hussein bin Ali) layed down his life for his God? What about Afghanistan, where Abdul-Rahman was about to lay down his life for his God? Or maybe even Uhud, where at least 100 men layed down their lives for their God, lost the battle, and yet had stronger faith in Him afterwards? Or, how about Badr where 300 men defeated 1000 men in order to make Arabia safe for those who rejected polytheism? I hope you get the point.

The Devi Bhagavatam, the Markendaya Purana (one of the major 18 Puranas), and the Devi Sloka of the Rig Veda. "Violent" stories in the Devi Bhagavatam? Besides stories of Divine Justice (eg. Maa Durga killing demons), then what can you find? It really has nothing to do with violence. It has to do with contradicting the Vedas and itself and promoting evil while calling it "good". Ultimately, it comes down to which Puranas you choose, which Upanishads you choose, and how you interpret the Vedas. But to call a Purana "Tamasic" or "Rajasic" simply because it says that another God[dess] is Supreme is just blatent sectarianism, as this "classification system" is found nowhere else but in the Vaishnava Upanishads. All other sects accept all of the Puranas, keeping in mind that the Inner Power of the gods are really being praised, and not the gods themselves (be is Shakti for Shaktas or Shiva for Shaivas or generic Brahman for Smartas). The sectarianism is also blatent in the Dvaita Sampradaya. Did you not read how they underminded the Gaudiya Vaishnava sub-Sampradaya on their website and ultimately called it "bogus" and called Prabhupada a false guru? Or how they call Vishishtadvaitins outright "wrong" (this was directed towards every Vishishtadvaitin that hung around a Dvaitin forum)? Sectarianism will never finish until people know the Truth; and the Vedas surely claim that from Shakti, or more generically, Brahman, comes the Powers which make all of these gods (Shiva, Indra, Vishnu, Agni, Vaayu, Varuna, etc.) great. I don't agree with Muhammad's philosophy which was written in the Qur'an and Ahadith, but he makes a great point in the Qur'an; that people who disagree should come to common grounds and let each other be.

Namaste. I posted this on another forum, but I also want to share this experience with you. This is a true story that happened to me only yesterday (October 27 2007, in my timezone).

The same Purana which states that you can commit sin in the name of God and it will be worship? Meaning that I you could come to my house, kill my family, say it was "in the name of God", and then it'll be more pious than chanting 20 rounds of japa. I'm more of a Shakta, then a Shaiva. However, I feel my need to support the Shaiva position (as my philosophy is Shaiva-like, replacing "Shiva-Shakti" with just "Shakti"). Narayana = Brahman Shiva = Brahman When will the forever arch-nemeses realize this? Shiva is another name for Brahman, and it means "The Benevolent One". Narayana is another name for Brahman, and it means "The Never-Ending One". I reject the Shiva Purana, also. Ganesha isn't hailed in the Rudram (He was part of my example). Rather, we should go grind it down to the bone. Who gives Brahma, Shiva, and even Vishnu their powers? Who is it that is the Supreme Soul, immanent in everything beautiful and ugly? Who is the Supreme Soul that causes Vishnu to eternally sleep (until this Reality lifts it from Him), Shiva to become angry, and Brahma to desire only to create? Who is the Supreme Soul hailed in all the Vedas? Who is it that allows Ganesha to remove obstacles, Brahma to create, Vishnu to preserve, Shiva to destroy, Indra to win his battles, and Agni to manipulate fire? Once you can discover this, then you'll see that only this Supreme Soul is worthy of worship, and that by worshiping Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma, Surya, Ganesha, or whoever else, you are ultimately worshiping this Supreme Absolute. This Supreme Absolute is Nirguna (without attributes) and Saguna (with attributes). This Supreme Absolute is She Who is Shakti, the Divine, Eternal, All-Powerful Energy. She Who incarnates as Maa Parvati, Maa Lakshmi, and Maa Saraswati. She Who incarnates as Maa Durga, and from this Beautiful incarnation incarnates as Maa Kali. The Divine Mother Who is always with us, and Who holds our hands even when it seems all hope is lost. She Who is powerful enough to make even Shiva bow at His knees, and yat the same time is She Who is compassionate enough to make Shiva cry. Without Her love, what are we? If I were hated by Her, I would rather be banished out of existence, at least. With Her love, She can even elevate us to be the object of worship by the Suprme Trimurti, if She so Wills it. This Supreme Soul is Maa Devi, the Divine Mother. She is so compassionate that even the likes of Gandhi called Her "Mommy". When the world is harsh to me, I silently cry to Maa Devi, Who resides in my soul, and She comforts me and sometimes gently guides me, telling me "Do this, my child". In Hinduism - or rather, in life - you can only tell others the truth; you can't force them to accept it. However, through ups and downs, thick and thin, She's always with you, residing in your soul, sitting on that Thousand-petaled lotus, allowing all of your action as part of Her Divine Play (and She is Called "Lalitha" - She Who Plays). Even in rejecting Her is She there. Even after I spit in Her face (literally), She still held my hand to this day, where I recite Her Glories to you. May She stop Her Play on you and guide you to the same position that even Vishnu Himself is at - as Her devotee, and hopefully up to Divine Eternal Union with Her; the Supreme Joy.

Vishnu and "Shiva" (Rudra, the Destroyer God) are just two different forms of Brahman (Whom the Shaivas call "Shiva" and the Vaishnavas call "Narayana").

Namaste, and I believe that what you quoted was from the Bhagavata Purana/Srimad Bhagavatam. That Scripture is a Scripture that Shaivas reject on various bases that I don't want to get into (I don't want to outright deny and pick out faults in a Scripture of another devotee of Brahman). There is something I forgot to state in my last post. "Shiva" is the Name given to Brahman in the Shvestashvatara Upanishad. "Shiva" translates to "The Benevolent One", so there is no sectarianism (even though it seems like there is) in the Name "Shiva".

It doesn't hail Lord Narasimha. Would it make sense if I said: "Praise be to Lord Ganesha! Ganapati The Supreme Remover of Obstacles To Agni I bow!" No, it wouldn't. Shri Rudram Chamakam is clearly directed to Rudra, and it is the source of the beautiful "Om Namah Shivaya" mantra. <dl><dd>namo bhavāya ca rudrāya ca namaḥ śarvāya ca paśupataye ca</dd><dd>namo nīlagrīvāya ca śitikaṇṭhāya ca</dd><dd>namaḥ kapardine ca vyuptakeshāya ca</dd><dd>namaḥ sahasrākṣāya cha śatadhanvane ca</dd><dd>namo giriśāya ca śipiviṣṭāya ca</dd></dl>The meaning is here: http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/series/shri_rudram/shri_rudram_top.htm By reading the meaning, you can see that it is obviously adressed to Rudra. Let me tell you that Rudra is a Form of Shiva, and that Rudra is the God of Destruction. "Shiva" is simply the Name given to Brahman in the Shvetashvatara Upanishad. So, it would make more sense if I called Shiva "Brahman", as many get "Shiva" mixed up with Rudra. So if you were to ask me to "prove" that Shiva is Supreme, then I'll just point you to the Vedas in which the Supreme is called "Brahman" and then I'll point you to the Shvestashvatara Upanishad where "Brahman" is called "Shiva". And yes, the Shvestashvatara Upanishad is authentic; ask any non-sectarian Hindu. I was trying to prove a point. The fact that the Vedas states that the Supreme Gods (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) are just forms of One God (Brahman, as stated in the Vedas) vs. the Bhagavata Purana and such claiming that Krishna and Vishnu are Supreme (interchangably) would show that Vedavyasa doesn't know the books that he compiled (the Vedas). This is saying that the Vedas are the Truth and are to be taken before Puranas; any guru will tell you this. And who decides which Purana is "Sattvika", "Rajasika", and "Tamasika"? The Vaishnava scholar, of course. Where does he base this off of? Not the Bhagavad Gita, nor any Upanishad, nor any epic, nor even the Vedas. However, he takes this from the Padma Purana; the same Purana which states that one can commit sin in the name of Vishnu in and it will be a pious deed.

If this is so then Vedavyasa doesn't even know the very Holy Books he compiled (the Vedas). Do you not know that Vedavyasa also created the Bhavishya Purana, the Purana of Prophecy, and in that Purana he declares Brahma as the Supreme God?

Why is it so hard to accept that Shiva and Vishnu are the same god? The Vaishnava will say that Shiva is subordinate. However, this position is EXTREMELY ignorant. Om Tryambakam Yajaamahe Sugandhim Pushti Vardhanam Urvaarukamiva Bandhanaat Mrityor Muksheeya Ma-Amritaat (Taittiriya Upanishad 2.7) TRANSLATION: Let us worship Shiva (the three-eyed One), who is sacred (fragrant) and who nourishes all beings. Just as the ripe cucumber is automatically released from its attachment to the creeper, may we be liberated from death (our mortal body and personality) and be granted immortality. This is from the Taittiriya Upanishad; an Upanishad that all Vaishnavas accept as "Sattvika" (their classification system is plagued with sectarianism anyway). This quote alone should prove that Shiva is Mahadeva. Now, to take this fact home, I'll use a quote from the Bhagavata Purana/Srimad Bhagavatam: "To those unaware of Your position understanding it the material way do You, by Yourself expanding Your maya, appear for the matters of creation as Me (Brahma), as Yourself for the purpose of maintenance and as Lord Trinetra (Shiva) in the end." (Bhagavata Purana 10.14.19) Emphasis mine. Now, when it comes to trying to prove to Shaivas that Vishnu is equal to Shiva, there is no need. ALL Shaivas believe in a set of "Laws" (for lack of a better word). Among these "Laws" is the fact that Shiva is real, that moksha is merging into Shiva, etc. Also among these "Laws" is the fact that Shiva incarnates as Brahma, Vishnu, and Rudra to Create, Preserve, and Destroy respectively. This is proven in the HOLY VEDAS which is why every self-realized person will tell you that there is no difference between Shiva and Vishnu (and Brahma for that matter); they are all forms of the same Supreme Deity whom Shaivas call "Shiva" (this Shiva is different from the Destroyer God Shiva, Who is called Rudra in the Vedas) and Vaishnavas call "Narayana". For ANYBODY to say that the Trimurti are 3 seperate gods with one of them being supreme over the other is to reject the Holy Vedas themselves. I'm a Shaiva, by the way.

Didn't you read my post?