jijaji

He didn't give direct Gaudiya Vaishnava diksha to the Buddhists. Now Nityananda is said to have given diksha to something like 1500 outcaste buddhist nuns and priests. (that act is claimed by some to be the origins of the Vaishnav Sahajiya order) This gained Nityananda some criticism from other Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

Of Mahayana origin no doubt...

Very good article... http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jerusalem/Jerusalem_Jewish_and_Moslem_Claims_to_the_Holy_City.asp

Sri Chaitanya was too absorbed internally to give diksha to anyone externally!

The Buddha and the Upanishads The origin of the Buddha's philosophy is a heavily debated topic in Indian philosophy. In the section on his teachings we've stated that the Buddha's teaching is derived from the Upanishads and this opinion is shared by a thinker as orthodox as the great Mimaamsaka Kumaarilla Bhatta himself. But this claim has been subjected to criticism by scholars, since it is perceived that while the central doctrine of the Upanishadic schools is the Atman or the Self, Buddhism has always stood in opposition to Atman theory with its doctrine of nairaatmaya (non-Self). So it is asserted that the Buddha's doctrine is not only original but also the exact opposite of the teaching of the Upanishads! So we shall discuss here the relevant details and see for ourselves the veracity of the rival claims. First let's look at the similarities. The goal of both the Upanishads and the Buddha is escape from the cycle of birth and death - samsaara - from this world of suffering. Both believe that it is desire that is at the origin of suffering and state that we should overcome desire to put an end to suffering. Both are against Vedic sacrifices as a means to salvation. And both stress ethical improvement and knowledge as the true means. For ethical improvement both are in agreement that control, charity and compassion should be practiced. But it is with respect to knowledge that there seems to be a difference between the two. The Upanishads teach of an unchangable reality - which it says is supersensible - beyond the mind, the intellect and the senses. It terms this reality as brahman. Then it also defines the Self of man (Atman) as unchangable and supersensible. And in some Upanishads (Brhadaaranyaka, Chaandogya) the Atman is equated with brahman. Hence the Self is the Reality and salvation is attained when the non-dual (advaita) identity of the Atman and the brahman are realized by intuition. But is this Self our "I" sense - the Ego? The Upanishads assert that the Ego is the false "I" which feeds on the sensual pleasures of the world, while the true "I", the Self, is the changeless reality (Mundaaka Upanishad). It's due to the false identification of the Self with the false "I" that there's suffering. To know the Self, we must let go of all individuality - literally erase the Ego - and when we gradually, through self control and virtue transcend our false identification of ourselves with the senses-body-mind-Ego, that which is left - the residue - is the Self which is characterized as knowledge, existence and bliss - satchitaananda. The Buddha was silent on the subject of nirvaana. He does not advocate prayer or worship, but ethical development and meditation which would lead to knowledge - nirvaana - which is escape from the cycle of birth and death. It's obvious that he believed that Reality was inherent in man. But again, this is where he differs from the Upanishads. Though he didn't deny the Atman, neither did he endorse it. In some of his teachings he even comes across as hostile to the concept of the Self. So did the Buddha not believe in the Upanishadic Self? In the Majjhima Nikhaaya the brahmin samnyaasin of the Vatsa gotra (Vacchagotha) asks the Buddha whether the saint after deliverance is reborn, or not reborn, or both reborn and not reborn, or neither reborn nor not reborn? The Buddha replies that, like the fire when running out of fuel becomes extinct, all form, feeling, perception, predispositions and consciousness (the five skandhas) by which one can predicate the existance of the saint, all that has been abandoned, uprooted, pulled out of ground like the palmyra tree and become non existant and not liable to spring up again in the future. The saint who's been released from what's styled form, feeling, perception, predispositions and consciousness, is deep, immeasurable, unfathomable like the mighty ocean. To say he is reborn, or not reborn, or both reborn and not reborn, or neither reborn nor not reborn, would not fit the case! Simply put the Buddha was echoing the Upanishadic sentiment that reality was beyond intellectual comprehension. Also though the Upanishads define the reality as Self - but being devoid of individuality it is actually not the Self. But that doesn't mean that the Self is totally different or an other to the "I" consciousness. For then ethical improvement and meditation would make no sense. So the Self is neither the "I", nor is it the not "I" - it is beyond logic and reason (The entire philosophical effort of the Vedic schools and the early Buddhist schools point to the futility of trying to reconcile with logic, a changeless Self underlying a changing Ego or empirical life without a Self). Though beyond logical comprehension, it is that due to which even the Ego exists. This is why the Buddha says to the brahmin Badari in the Kshudragama that the Self is infact not of the nature of the self. But so as not to confuse or discourage the aspirant the Upanishads define it as Self. The Upanishads and the Buddha are pointing to the same thing, but from different standpoints - one from the positive viewpoint of the Self (Atman) and the other from the negative viewpoint of the non-Self (anaatman). But why did they preach the doctrine in different ways? We consider the following factors as the reasons that made the anatta doctrine a central feature of the Buddha's teaching in contrast to the Atman doctrine of the Upanishads : For the Buddha all effort at philosophy - to know about reality is fundamentally a waste of time and it would only serve to distract the seeker from what was really essential - to be that reality - to attain nirvaana. That's the reason he clearly states that his is not a school of philosophy but a yaana or a vehicle to liberation. All use of the intellect is worthwhile only to structure the most effective path towards liberation and not to keep speculating about the nature of reality. Though there's an unchanging reality in man and it is the essence of his identity, still the greatest obstacle towards realizing this reality is the phenomenal self. To confuse the true self in man with his phenomenal self i.e, the ego, would totally counter productive in spiritual effort. So the teaching of anatta is not meant as a metaphysical doctrine, but as a psychological teaching - a blow to the phenomenal self whose existence is the greatest hindrance to liberation. Another factor which might have given rise to the anatta doctrine is that the Buddha taught to all people. While a learned brahmin living a semi ascetic life might have little problem with ego or arrogance, for the normal man these manifestation of the phenomenal self pose the greatest hurdle towards liberation. Hence the utility of the anatta doctrine when the teaching is disseminated to the masses. It should also be noted that traditionally the Vedic religion is world enveloping in philosophy. True, that renunciation is a part of the tradition - but that's only after the stages of student and householder have been successfully completed. It accepts artha (wealth) and kaama (desire) as two of the primary needs of life, but eventually subordinates them to dharma (virtue) and moksha (liberation). Though the Vedic doctrine preaches a Self to accommodate the first two stages of life, it eventually works towards erasing it in the last two stages of vaanaprastham (forest dweller) and samnyaasin (wandering mendicant). But the Buddha's fundamental goal is the cessation of suffering. Artha and kaama are evil as they cause suffering. Hence worldly life is rejected. One should vigilantly practice dharma to achieve moksha. Buddhism in contrast is essentially a monastic religion and since it didn't have to accomodate artha or kaama in its world view, the first step in its discipline is suppression of the Ego - hence the doctrine of anatta or non-Self. Nandakumar Chandran

From Kriya forum.. Other groups having the same types of discussions..'Oh My' "In SRF we have an over simplification of so many subjects -- the meditation posture, how to deal with our own mind, sexual life, marriage, how to get along with others, concentration, and yes, balance too. There is a tendency in SRF to oversimplify subjects so much that it becomes eventually hilarious to read about those subjects in the teachings. Balance is not a simple matter at all. So, I hope that with patience we will all contribute little by little to create a better understanding of the issue -- for all of us. Let me just say a few things for now: 1) Balance is unique for each one. What may be balance for one individual may be a complete imbalance for another. 2) What feels balance now may feel completely imbalance later -- we need to trust our energy. At some moment our energy may be very extroverted, later may become introverted. The first is good for karma Yoga, the second for meditation -- both are good of course. 3) There will be years that we will hardly be able to meditate and we will need to do a lot of service (action) and little meditation. Then years may come, that we will be able to go within. This is not a matter of FORCING HABITS -- that's ignorance! 4) Balance is an internal experience. But, obviously, it has also to do with attending our most fundamental needs in a balance way -- money, sexual needs, need for power, success (need for recognition), self-esteem, human love, universal love, creativity, transcendence and union with spirit. There is a correlation between these fundamental needs and the chakras. When the monastic renounces to the lower chakras takes the vows of poverty, obedience, and chastity. These are the symbols of renouncing to the three and one half lower chakras (human love is in the heart chakra too -- this is an individual and universal chakra at the same time). Monastics cut themselves at the waist! And, then they preach the householders to do the same! But, the householder needs to pay bills, lives in a world hungry for success and sex and so on. The householder does not have the shelter of the ashram, so is finally crushed by inner contradictions with the monastic paradigm. Painful conflicts arise in the mind sooner or later. Furthermore, the monastic rarely succeeds at controlling his lower impulses, or experiences success only for a while only, and then...... I highly recommend the book "Chakras for Beginners" by "Pond" It gave me incredible insights into why the SRF paradigm does not work for the householder -- at least in the way is being communicated now; full of monasticistic thinking! In this book you will see a balanced, non judgemental, paradigm for the householder -- it is a small book. I have complained to the monastics about this and I have found receptivity among the new generation of monks! So, there is hope that one day our paradigm will be balanced and not contaminated by the monastic paradigm. In that book you will clearly see that the path of the monastic and that of the householder are from two different planets! The first is about renunciation, and the second is about integration." [This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-15-2002).]

I'm sure he was right..!

I have gone back and forth on the animal/human sacrifice as well myself as you know...and have tried to get as much objective info as possible. It seems much of the information out there is from anti-hindu groups who post exaggerated material of which I'm just plain unsure of its authenticity The Swami here does give another persective which does not seem to smear anyone at least. The postings you see on human sacrifice in the Vedas out there are by the same groups that post stories of Queens and horses and all kinds of bizarre stuff.. I question it's authenticity. One thing more.. I am more like an advaitavadin in that I do not take all the Puranas as seriously or literally as I once did. I'll catch hell for that I bet..

Purusha-Medha Yagna As described in Vedic literature during the Purusha Medha Yaqna the captured men were not to be killed, they were only to be tied to a stake and a piece of burning wood was to be waved before them and they were then set to work. confused..?

I guess you don't know who His Holiness Sri Sri Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi MahaSwamiji was? interesting responce though!

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-14-2002).]

This is cool as well!

from deepak's forum... Topic: Celibacy and Enlightenment Member Deepak Chopra Member # 865 posted 03-07-2002 05:31 PM -- Question: Is it true that one cannot attain enlightenment unless one is celibate? My friend was telling me that all the enlightened masters have been celibate and that with celibacy, sexual energy gets stored and without that you can’t be enlightened. Do you recommend celibacy? Answer: I do not generally recommend the practice of celibacy because it is not necessary for enlightenment, and for most people, it only produces strain. The goal of celibacy is to raise the ojas, the subtle essence of sexual energy, up from the base chakra to the crown chakra where the male and female energies unite and create an illuminated divine awakening. However, sexual abstinence does not guarantee that you are transmuting sexual energy into divine love. Too often I have seen the ideal of celibacy become a stalking horse for submerged judgements that sex itself is bad, and people remain intrenched in obsolete beliefs. Instead of elevating consciousness to perfect love, all you are doing is engaging in a struggle between your ideal self and your desire nature leaving you tired and frustrated. If one is naturally absorbed in the love of God without any thought of sex, that is wonderful, and that kind of nature is sometimes found in those rare souls who become enlightened masters. Celibacy in that case is a state of awareness, not a practice. For most of us, our natures lead us to share love through intimate relationships, and not just with God or humanity as a whole, and this path also leads to enlightenment. I certainly don’t advocate sexual promiscuity or indulgence, but I believe sexual pleasure is a wonderful gift from God. In the context of awakening divine love, sex is not an impediment, but rather, it can serve to raise our ojas up to the crown chakra for our enlightenment. When two people use sex to experience the divine within each other, then sex itself becomes a gateway to spiritual illumination. Love, Deepak jijaji

Is Sacrificial Killing Justified? (HinduDharma: The Vedas) From the discourses of His Holiness Sri Sri Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi MahaSwamiji A yaga or sacrifice takes shape with the chanting of the mantras, the invoking of the deity and the offering of havis (oblation). The mantras are chanted (orally) and the deity is meditated upon (mentally). The most important material required for homa is the havis offered in the sacrificial fire-- in this "work" the body is involved. So, altogether, in a sacrificial offering mind, speech and body (mano-vak-kaya) are brought together. Ghee (clarified butter) is an important ingredient of the oblation. While ghee by itself is offered as an oblation, it is also used to purify other sacrificial materials - in fact this is obligatory. In a number of sacrifices the vapa(fat or marrow) of animals is offered. Is the performance of a sacrifice sinful, or is it meritorius? Or is it both? Madvacharya was against the killing of any pasu for a sacrifice. In his compassion he said that a substitute for the vapa must be made with flour and offered in the fire. ("Pasu" does not necessarily mean a cow. In Sanskrit any animal is called a "pasu". ) In his Brahmasutra, Vyasa has expounded the nature of the Atman as found expressed in the Upanishads which constitute the jnanakanda of the Vedas. The actual conduct of sacrifices is dealt with in the Purvamimamsa which is the karmakanda of the Vedas. The true purpose of sacrifices is explained in the Uttaramimamsa, that is the jnanakanda. What is this purposse or goal? It is the cleansing of the consciousness and such cleansing is essential to lead a man to the path of jnana. The Brahmasutra says: "Asuddhamiti cen na sabdat". The performance of sacrifices is based on scriptural authority and it is part of the quest for Self realisation. So how can it be called an impure act? How do we determine whether or not an object or an act is impure or whether it is good or bad? We do so by judging it according to the authority of of the sastras. Vyasa goes on to state in his Brahmasutra that animal sacrifice is not sinful since the act is permeated by the sound of the Vedas. What is pure or impure is to be known by the authority provided by the Vedas or rather their sound called Sabdapramana. If sacrifices were impure acts according to the Vedas, they would not have accepted them as part of the Atmic quest. Even if the sacrificial animal is made of flour (the substitute according to Madhvacharya) it is imbued with life by the chanting of the Vedic mantras. Would it not then be like a living animal and would not offering it in a sacrifice be taken as an act of violence? Tiruvalluvar says in his Tirukkural that not to kill an animal and eat it is better than performing a thousand sacrifices in which the oblation is consigned to the fire. You should not take this to mean that the poet speaks ill of sacrifices. What is in accordance or in pursuance of dharma must be practised howsoever or whatsoever it be. Here questions of violence must be disregarded. The Tirukkural says that it is better not to kill an animal than perform a thousand sacrifices. From this statement it is made out that Tiruvalluvar condemns sacrifices. According to Manu himself conducting one asvamedha (horse sacrifice) is superior to performing a thousand other sacrifices. At the same time, he declares that higher than a thousand horse sacrifices is the fact of one truth. If we say that one thing is better than another, the implication is that both are good. If the performance of a sacrifice were sinful, would it be claimed that one meritorious act is superior to a thousand sinful deeds? You may state that fasting on one Sivaratri is superior to fasting on a hundred Ekadasis. But would you say that the same is better than running a hundred butcheries? When you remark that "this rite is better than that rite or another", it means that the comparison is among two or more meritorious observances. In the concluding passage of the Chandogya Upanishad whwre ahimsa or non-violence is extolled you find these words, "Anyatra tirthebhyah". It means ahimsa must be practised except with regard to Vedic rites. Considerations of violence have no place in sacrifices and the conduct of war. If the ideal of non-violence were superior to the performance of sacrifices, it would mean that "sacrifices are good but non-violence is better". The performance of a thousand sacrifices must be spoken of highly but the practice of non-violence is to be regarded as even higher: It is in this sense that the Kural stanza concerning sacrifices is to be interpreted. We must not also forget that it occurs in the section on renunciation. What the poet want to convey is that a sanyasin does better by abstaining from killing than a householder does by conducting a thousand sacrifices. According to the sastras also a sanyasin has no right to perform sacrifices. There are several types of sacrifices. I shall speak about them later when I deal with "Kalpa" (an Anga or limb of the Vedas) aaand "Grihasthasrama" (the stage of the householder). What I wish to state here is that animals are not killed in all sacrifices. There are a number of yagnas in which only ghee (ajya) is offered in the fire. In some, havisyanna (rice mixed with ghee) is offered and in some the cooked grains called "caru" or "purodasa", a kind of baked cake. In agnihotri milk is poured into the fire; in aupasana unbroken rice grains (aksata) are used; and in samidadhana the sticks of the palasa (flame of the forest). In sacrifices in which the vapa of animals is offered, only a tiny bit of the remains of the burnt offering is partaken of - and of course in the form of prasada. One is enjoined to perform twenty-one sacrifices. These are of three types akayajna, haviryajna and somayajna. In each category there are seven subdivisions. In all the seven pakayajnas as well as in the first five haviryajnas there is no animal sacrifice. It is only from the sixth haviryajna onwards (it is called "nirudhapasubandha") that animals are sacrificed. "Brahmins sacrificed herds and herds of animals and gorged themselves on their meat. The Buddha saved such herds when they were being taken to the sacrificial altar, " we often read such accounts in books. To tell the truth, there is no sacrifice in which a large number of animals are killed. For vajapeya which is the highest type of yajna performed by Brahmins, only twenty-three animals are mentioned. For asvamedha (horse sacrifice), the biggest of the sacrifices conducted by imperial rulers, one hundred animals are mentioned. It is totally false to state that Brahmins performed sacrifices only to satisfy their appetite for meat and that the talk of pleasing the deities was only a pretext. There are rules regarding the meat to be carved out from a sacrificial animal, the part of the body from which it is to be taken and the quantity each rtvik can partake of as prasada (idavatarana). This is not more than the size of a pigeon-pea and it is to be swallowed without anything added to taste. There may be various reasons for you to attack the system of sacrifices but it would be preposterous to do so on the score that Brahmins practised deception by making them a pretext to eat meat. Nowadays a large number of animals are slaughtered in the laboratories as guinea-pigs. Animal sacrifices must be regarded as a little hurt caused in the cause of a great ideal, the welfare of mankind. As a matter of fact there is no hurt caused since the animal sacrificed attains to an elevated state. There is another falsehood spread these days, that Brahmins performed the somayajnas only as a pretext to drink somarasa (the essence of the soma plant). Those who propagate this lie add that drinking somarasa is akin to imbibing liquor or wine. As a matter of fact somarasa is not an intoxicating drink. There is a reference in the Vedas to Indra killing his foe when he was "intoxicated" with somarasa. People who spread the above falsehoods have recourse to " arthavada" and base their perverse views on this passage. The principle on which the physiology of deities is based is superior to that of humans. That apart, to say that the priests drank bottle after bottle of somarasa or pot after pot is to betray gross ignorance of the Vedic dharma. The soma plant is pounded and crushed in a small mortar called "graha". There are rules with regard to the quantity of essence to be offered to the gods. The small portion that remains after the oblation has been made, "huta-sesa", which is drunk drop by drop, does not add up to more than an ounce. No one has been knocked out by such drinking. They say that somarasa is not very palatable. . The preposterous suggestion is made that somarasa was the coffee of those times. There are Vedic mantras which speak about the joy aroused by drinking it. This has been misinterpreted. While coffee is injurious to the mind, somarasa cleanses it. It is absurd to equate the two. The soma plant was available in plenty in ancient times. Now it is becoming more and more scarce: this indeed is in keeping with the decline of Vedic dharma. In recent years, the Raja of Kollengode made it a point to supply the soma plant for the soma sacrifice wherever it was held.

Israel Says Hundreds of Palestinians Killed JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The Israeli army said on Friday it had apparently killed hundreds of Palestinians in fierce fighting earlier in the week in the Jenin refugee camp. "There were apparently hundreds of dead," the army's chief spokesman, Brigadier-General Ron Kitrey, told Army Radio. Palestinians have called on the United Nations to investigate the killings of Palestinians in the camp and accused Israel of carrying out massacres. Kitrey denied Israeli soldiers had carried out massacres in the camp during the army's West Bank offensive to root out militants. But his estimate of hundreds of dead sharply revised upwards the army's previous figure of some 100 Palestinian fighters killed in Jenin. Jenin, like other West Bank areas, has been declared a closed military area, and journalists have been barred from obtaining their own independent accounts.

I was reading a Q & A FAQ on an advaitin site and came across an interesting responce to the question regarding if the advaita school advocates the teaching of thinking oneself as "GOD'. The answer was that an an adept on the path of advaita should not think oneself the supreme that would be 'arrogant' but one should see that 'ALL' everything (including the individual) are expansions of 'God' or the Advaitin 'Brahman'. But still we are 'Brahman' but like the little brahman the little 'Pond' whereas the 'BIG BRAHMAN' is our souce The Ocean! Aham Brahmasmi

Veda Maha Vakya ( The four Great Vedic statements) The identity of Brahman (God) and Atman (Individual Soul) has been expressed in these four maha vakyas. This unity was directly experienced by Vedic Rishis (Seers) and have been explained and experienced by all the Saints and Philosophers. In fact, Saints from other religions also corroborate this principle of Unity. TAT TVAM ASI (THAT THOU ART). From Samaveda - Chandogyopanisad AHAM BRAHMASMI (I AM BRAHMAN). From Yajurveda - Brhadaranyakopanisad AYAM ATMA BRAHMAN (THIS SELF IS BRAHMAN). From Atharva Veda - Mandukyopanisad PRAGNANAM BRAHMAN (BRAHMAN IS CONSCIOUSNESS). From Rgveda-Aitareyopanisad

Very well said indeed Sannyassins/brahmacharis who are constantly condemming sex are making their inner goings on known. They are comdemming externally because they are on 'FIRE' internally and cannot contain it. The sex they condemm and try and put out within themselves is leaking out their very pores (so to speak)in the form of anger and in worse (we have seen). Celibacy is an attainment not an WAR against one's self. Again I say..All these hyper-masculine celibate repressives are against 'GOD' because 'GOD" is the one who has given me the tendency to live a good life and love the women and children that have been brought to me. GOD showers man with 'Gifts' Women and children being one of them and vice versa for women. If we respect women we have relationships with healthy 'Lovemaking' that nutures us both in our Lives. If we disrespect women and have animal sex just to reproduce with no loving emotion and we miss out on 'Love' and the beauty of it and it's norishment of it in our lives. Yea I am of the school we can have it all..and not be 'uptight'about natural human desires such as being intimate with your wife. Now let me point out that I am NOT for promiscuity..I believe in this day and age man and women should be married or at least consider the partner to be ones significant other. I do not advocate 'Free-Love or Orgies'. I believe in being responsible and loving with your partner. a candle once in a while is nice also! [This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-10-2002).]

The Egyptians referred to eggs as 'Liquid Flesh'... yuck dude,

your all good people...

The 'Soma' is gone and jijaji is 'Happy' sorry no extra today guys! namaskar, jijaji somawala

I'm gonna brew up some 'SOMA' my friends, back soon!

If you read the Rig Veda you will see that much is said about the process of 'Making' SOMA. It is obviously a drink/beverage of sorts. I mean there ae verses and verses devoted to 'Pressing the Green stalks etc to extract the Juice.' it is just to blatant in it's detail of how to make the 'Some-Drink' itself. Some pretty lofty speculations here that border Star-Trek ...maybe its the third eye maybe Mahabharata happened on a more subtle plane are all just guesses and yes it goes against the traditional stance that 'Bharata is sacred because it was Blessed with the sacred pastimes of 'God'. Krishna himself in 'Geeta' says. "I incarnate in every age" The Kurushetra battle was betweem those who were descendents from he whom the name 'Bharata was given! Balaram went on tour along the 'Saraswati' not participating in the battle! Are all those places he visited on 'Another Plane'as well..? ********************************************* How are people to determine what it is they have faith in, when so many loose ended questions are there and they have to guess and develope intricate theories that really exist in the mind only... sorry karthik_v your one of the smartest dudes here..but your theory sounds like .. 'Sorta, Kinda, maybe...' [This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-10-2002).]

Indeed