Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Good point. And in front of these kinds of people, the ordinary devotee is vivaza and vidatha cannot help much. Even Sage Viswamithra needed the help of Lord Rama to get rid of the unwanted elemens and attain a peaceful environment where he could practice his devotion and tapasya... Just a point though. I got a couple of emails directly and it seems I probably did not make myself clear in my previous posting. I am a Brahmin by birth and I am strongly in favor of the eating habits prescribed - no meat etc. Just because you have a good life does not mean the way you are living is good. Just because you are a vegetarian and are leading a devout and peaceful life does not mean everybody who follows your eating habits could get to lead a peaceful life. The scriptures prescribe different Rudrakshas for different types of people,White-Brahmins,Brown-Kshatrias,Red-Vaisyas and Black-Sudras. But prescribes only one menu for all of them :-), this is what I was confused about ... The whole and sole reason for raising those points was to get knowledgeable replies that would further my learning. Most learned men in this group will understand it, My humble apologies to the rest. Regards, -Vinayak , "Kirk" <kirk_bernhardt@c...> wrote: > Some of us are naturally vamacharya and vira and life wouldn't mean anything any other way. > > > > > - > vs_raghuvamshi > > Thursday, September 05, 2002 7:33 AM > Re: Food habits of a devotee > > > Thanks for the translated texts. Made interesting reading. > > First of all, I am not sure how authentic this text is and find it > quite baseless. Unfortunately, Hindus by nature tend to believe in > anything that is said to be a "Scripture".... > > These are my reflections : > > 1. This scripture says that a Rudraksha represents the supreme GOD > himeself. In that case, why does it prescribe those fancy numbers of > Rudrakshas to be worn on all parts of the body. If a Rudraksha is a > form of the Supreme, then just one should do. One GOD, one Rudraksha. > > 2. The numbers presented are so wierd, and contradict many other > texts that forbid wearing the Rudraksha on the wrists. > This "scripture" looks more like a sales pitch for the Rudraksha > Industry :-) > > 3. About the eating habits, I agree with another poster, the Chef > friend's views. The scriptures were written in a different age for a > totally different life scenario. We need some Guru and some Modern > day scriptures to guide us through this Kali Yugh. We cannot survive > by just eating Sattvic food because every body, including Brahmins > have to compete with all types of people and work hard to just > survive. This is not the age where one can eat just sattvic food, > and spend time only on devotion - the other animals will eat you in > no time... Unless ofcourse, you are either famous or very rich and > dont have to worry about monetary things. > > We need some guidance on how to be a devotee and at the same time, > maintain our ability to survive in this earth. > > Regards, > -Vinayak > , "Tomgull" <tomgull@e...> > wrote: > > These guidelines are for more of a devotee of Rudrakshas and > Shiva, > > not necessarily devotees of God, to clarify. I'm pasting this > from > > the file I've uploaded that I took from Sw. Sivananda's > translation > > of the Rudraksha Jabala Upanishad: > > > > "One who wears Rudrakshas, should not use intoxicants, meat, > garlic, > > onions, carrots and all such prohibited things. By wearing > Rudrakshas > > during eclipses, Vishusankranti (the end of Mina and beginning of > > Mesha Masa), new moon, full moon and other such auspicious days, > > one is freed of all sins." > > > > Remember that things like garlic, onions, and meat are > > mostly "rajasic" foods that support/create passion and > > animal characteristics (sex, aggressions, etc.). > > While this is usually not good for a sadhak, who ideally > > would eat sattvic food to encourage peace and truth, etc. > > I can say from experience, that eating rajasic food helps > > me to deal with a rajasic world, that is, I live and work > > among people who are very animal like, and I know I'd be > > overwhelmed if I played the peaceful tranquil, having eaten > > only sattvic food. It's a jungle out there for some of us. > > If I had the ideal conditions, sure I would eat only > > vegetarian, but I do what I must. However, due to my > > continuous sadhana, there are times when I involuntarily > > refrain from eating meat or certain foods. > > > > tom > > check the FILES section for the full text or search the > > web for lordsiva.pdf > > > > > > > > Sponsor > > > > > > - > > > > Terms of Service. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Dear Tomji The relationship between the Holy Rudraksa and the Mankind is personal and specific to each individual meaning your experience at any given time may or may not match anothers so there is no use intellectually cerebralizeing the possibilities of the experience of Rudraksa and trying to generalize the experience because it doesnt work this way. In addition to this it is important to note you have not discovered this The effect of the Holy Rudraksa are experiential and extremely powerful for each individual person specific to thier Dharma and Karma. All you have to do is wear in silence and experience. So to repeat this then All you have to do is wear in silence and experience your good fortune Noticed some of your observations of the world dont match mine or what I know to be true so was thinking you might reconsider some of the statemtents you are makeing regarding how the world is according to what your specific experience has been so far in this physical life Have been watching how you are expressing yourself in some of your messages in generalized statements and then makeing conclusions from generalized statements and presenting them to others. Please understand and statement made from conclusions based in generalized understanding cancel themselves out as you speak. They are basicly worthless as a means of communication The way you see some parts of this world is a little difficult to understand from a reasonable logical point of view................. sometimes............... and although I dont have time to devote to any discussion point by point with at this stage of your growth I would like to give a couple of examples to see how you formulate your response In the same sentence you say you are unsure about how authentic this text is and then at the same time have come to a conclusion based in your unsureness that you find the text baseless This is an unreasonable statement on your part because you have based your conclusion of the text being baseless........................... on your being unsure............. that is again based on your lack of knowledge So why would you even comment on this in a public forum if you have not researched what is needed to be sure that would enable you to make a proper conclusion that can reasonably accepted in public I know the answer to this however there may be others here who would like to hear you explain your intent and purpose here since you are rambling about all this Another general statement that is incorrect and totally wrong and inappropriate is your statement that Hindus..........by nature........tend to believe anything that is said to be "Scripture" This is actually one of the more senseless things I have heard anybody say and leads me to believe you have grown up in an Angol Saxon Protestant Society and have yet to actually see what you are looking at with eyes closed Would be good for you to actually go to India for an extended time to see what the People there in the countryside and in the cities actually believe because from the way you talk you know nothing of what Hindus believe or dont believe Please think about why you continue to make statements like this in public that are based in ignorance. This is a common part of the Human Condition however it would be good for you to realize why you are doing this because realizeing this will give you more control over your life and a great deal more happiness Have made my point here however would like to leave with one last comment You state that all Dieties are the Supreme God himself You are not understanding the most basic concept of Life. Almighty God is not a Man nor is Almighty God only Male. In fact there is no himself or herself attatched to Almighty God Lord Siva. In fact there is no physical form to Almighty God Lord Siva Some of the statements in your messages reflect your inablility to comment on what you are saying because you are not a Hindu and you are not reading the Siva Puran the Padma Puran and the Srimaddevibhagavat to try and understand and learn more from the original texts What you are doing is labeled as makeing ignorant statements in a public forum and telling the World All You Dont Know in order to attract attention to you and feed on the energy of the responses you are able to manipulate This is OK to do because we have freedom of expression in public forums so please enjoy yourself here at any time however am sure this is not health behaviour and after this message on the club site no one here will be interested in listening to you seriously until you actually present something that is based in thorough research that promotes positive pro active Happy Statements May Lord Siva Bless you with all that is needed for you to go forward and turn this situation around for you No need to comment less you feel you need to because am not attached to replying till you are able to make specific statements backed up by research and reading the Holy Books Wishing you all the Best of Health and Happiness and Success in the World Aum NamaSivaya Sivaya Nama Aum Aum Namo Bhagavate Rudraya Nama S R DharmaDeva Arya Tomgull <tomgull <> Friday, September 06, 2002 9:10 AM Re: Food habits of a devotee For the point of discussion, here are my responses: > First of all, I am not sure how authentic this text is and find it > quite baseless. Unfortunately, Hindus by nature tend to believe in > anything that is said to be a "Scripture".... Many psuedo-Hindus (Includes New Age, Metaphysics, etc.) tend to discredit "scriptures" rather quickly, too. No offense to you. > 1. This scripture says that a Rudraksha represents the supreme GOD > himeself. In that case, why does it prescribe those fancy numbers of > Rudrakshas to be worn on all parts of the body. If a Rudraksha is a > form of the Supreme, then just one should do. One GOD, one Rudraksha. All deities are the Supreme God himself, but usually aren't worshipped as such except when the deity is seen as the ishta- devata. In most of your major divisions (Vaishnavas, Shaivites, Shaktas, etc.) each proclaim their god to be the most supreme over the others. The numbers just show their effects. I'm sure in the old days, there wasn't so much of a choice or market for them. > 2. The numbers presented are so wierd, and contradict many other > texts that forbid wearing the Rudraksha on the wrists. > This "scripture" looks more like a sales pitch for the Rudraksha > Industry :-) What are the other texts about the wearing of Rudraksha? Please give some examples of the differences. About the sales pitch, this scripture seems to have been around before the modern increased interest in the beads. Remember that the scripture is designed for Rudra worshippers, hence the prescribed daily reading of it in the phalasruti, like any other stotra. I didn't see where it said wear them on the wrists, so I'm assuming it's referring to wearing them where you'd wear the armlets (just above the elbow, and just below topmost muscle on the arm). On another website, I saw talk about wearing 3 4-mukhi beads on the right wrist for intelligence. The right wrist is also specificed for yantra wearing, as an alternative to around the neck, for Tantriks. > 3. About the eating habits, I agree with another poster, the Chef > friend's views. The scriptures were written in a different age for a > totally different life scenario. We need some Guru and some Modern > day scriptures to guide us through this Kali Yugh. We cannot survive > by just eating Sattvic food because every body, including Brahmins > have to compete with all types of people and work hard to just > survive. This is not the age where one can eat just sattvic food, > and spend time only on devotion - the other animals will eat you in > no time... Unless ofcourse, you are either famous or very rich and > dont have to worry about monetary things. > I agree, but there is credit to eating sattvic food for focusing on God or attaining a calm mind. In an ashram setting even in America, there really is no need to eat meat or rajasic foods, and meat and garlic, etc. does increase heat in the body and can create restlessness, and increase the sex drive. Try eating only vegetarian food that you yourself have cooked for a few weeks, then eat out or eat some meat. You'll see the difference. Eating habits also depend on your geographic area and climate, and general lifestyle. Scriptures just give the ideal to strive for, not to adopt strictly for the rest of your life. > We need some guidance on how to be a devotee and at the same time, > maintain our ability to survive in this earth. I've gotten most of my advice from Ammachi (Mata Amritanandamayi), who encourages vegetarian eating, but understands the exceptions. Not all of her devotees do, however. Being a devotee of God doesn't require any diet restrictions at all. It does matter what path you choose to practice, and whether or not your desire is simply to be a devotee or to reach Realization, liberation, etc. It comes down to your diet affecting your mind set, not necessarily a sin. The times when I can't eat meat, I don't because even seeing it, I feel like it's still alive. Other times my mindset determines whether I eat something bland like MooGoo Gai Pan (chinese food) or if I'm having problems with co-workers, it may be something sour like Lemon Chicken (no vegetables). There are ideal diets for each path and even deities. For example, eating meat would seemingly be ok for a worshipper of left-hand Tantric deities like Dhumavati or Bagalamukhi who eat meat. Eating meat as a Krishna devotee wouldn't be "ideal" (especially to a Vaishnavite traditionalist), but would still be ok depending on your reasons for eating meat and/or the depth of your devotion (how much your mind is towards God during the day). I've also never seen any other color rudrakshas than the common reddish-brown variety, however there are some that I have that appear blackish. I'm tempted to string some in white thread as it says, just to see if I like it. just my thoughts, tom Sponsor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Srimad Dog, down boy! Ruff! as owner of the group you have all rights to lombast who you see fit too, and perhaps you are right to protect the more strictured Hindus who frequent this group. Recently someone said they were Brahmin caste and even though I strongly am against caste, I still respect someone of any Rishi blood line and would like to hear their views, in other words, I don't wish for them to be frightened away by negative people. However, perhaps you're a bit hard on Tomgull who is merely as analitical as much of Western society and the questions he raise will represent those of many people, so lassez faire, I would like to suggest. Often despite wording, some of the best questions can come out of the most acute discussions. Here's a few questions I think Tomgull asked which might lead to good discussions. Why, if there is only a Supreme God and It is in fact the Rudraksha , does one need more than a single bead? This question goes to the very heart of Hinduism. I must say that I think that Hinduism, as such, is not a definite religion, but a collection of religions. While one group cannot even touch a working class man, another will have sex on corpses in cretation grounds. Which one reflects Hinduism would you say? The British in order to belittle the vast array of peoples in the Indias gave a term to all their belief wholesale and sundry, "Oh, they're just Hindus." Pat, finished, needs no extraordinary thought, kind of like how everybody to a Christian is a heathen. End of thought, can sit back and smoke a cigar and waste the Middle East now because they are heathens. Labels blind more than enlighten. But more direct to the question, my answer is that just as there are many humans there are many gods, and all are supreme. They have a type of council, to which we can look and listen if we are able to look with the third eye, and listen with the third ear. So it becomes us to make a display of the power of some one or another devata by wearing a grand assortment of their particular beads. Devi devotees might love to wear many beads of nine face, Sivaites might feel particularly clean and blessed by wearing many one faced. When one pokes one hole in black paper and holds it to the light you may not see the beam shining through for all the darkness, but when one pokes many holes then you see stars. So also there are chants called kavacham, usually accompanied with focus on body parts, then called nyasas, which are performed for each devata. Each deva has its own kavacham. These are many names and descriptions of the deity. It is the value of the many qualities which is the same as wearing many beads. Wearing two twos has a four quality, etc. There is no end to the ramifications of wearing assortments of rudraksha. Moreover, these holy beads are themselves kavachams and the forms of nyasas. Based on above question why should one wear the beads in more than one part of the body? The human body is a replica of the cosmos. This is the message of great philosophers, and is the source of magick. We can change the outer through the inner which we control. Wearing rudraksha at various places is passive form of ritual magick requiring little specific thought and yet it can change specific impulses of our bodys and minds in the long run enhancing our best karmas, and negating our bad. Diferent texts have different numbers regarding wearing and body placement, why? Difference of experience and/or opinion. Kevin and I both love rudraksha but we prescribe dirrent items, I like single strands of beads, he likes combinations. Who is right or wrong? Probably me. Were these merely advertisements of an ancient rudraksha industry? Maybe, but maybe scriptures were also advertisements for the divine. We all know that religion eventually overreaches into people's lives and tries to control everything. But rudraksha surely are a least offensive type of control? With a great payoff. If the body is the temple, then rudraksha are scritures on the altar of the flesh. Tom makes some good comments on tantras and food, and describes some of his rudraksha experiences. I don't see besides some slightly agressive language too much that was offbeat in Tom's language. Sorry AryaDharmaDev that I must say you spoke a bit harshly. Though I understand that you love your Hindu brothers and sisters and took offense to Tom's crack about them. At issue here should be whether the Hindus love of scripture (which more likely than not refers to pundits, and especially the ganapatis lifelong practice of recitation) in fact gave us the greatest scriptures of this planet, in which case I emphatically must say without a doubt, yes, yes, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.