Food habits of a devotee

[Guest guest]

Why, if there is only a Supreme God and It is in fact the

Rudraksha , does one need more than a single bead?

 

Why not one bead - If you are drawn to one - wear one - if you are

drawn to more - wear more - or wear none - must we be led by the

hand. If you are not drawn to a scripture - this is your lot in

life - if you are drawn to a scripture this is your lot in life -

some love God with form and some are drawn to God with out form -

they are both right for themselves, but they have no right to force

or require others to follow their chosen path.

 

 

Based on above question why should one wear the beads in more than

one part of the body?

 

By the spiritual pull that directs them to do so - they will not be

able to stop themselves - for God is the doer of all this - your

body will play it's part in this Lila, no matter what you think.

 

 

 

 

Different texts have different numbers regarding wearing and body

placement, why?

 

Which of these scriptures are you drawn to follow - follow those!

 

 

 

Were these merely advertisements of an ancient rudraksha industry?

 

 

I sell nothing - I ask for nothing - My knowledge on this subject

comes from the Devi Bhagavatam, Book 11, Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, and

chapter 7 - I am but a simple monk living in a complex sea called

America!

 

Love baba

 

 

 

 

 

, "Kirk" <kirk_bernhardt@c...>

wrote:

> 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.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Parden me for being the one lone clueless female in Discussions, but I'm

confused.

I thought original statements in question were not made by Tomji but by

Vinayakji

in Posting #368 in response to one of Tomji's postings and just today Tomji

was responding back and quoting from Vinayakji. ???????

 

Or am I totally confused ????

 

Now that I'm here I'll add my 2 cents worth.

>From careful study of scriptures and making malas myself, I don't recall ever

seeing wording that a rudraksha could not be worn on wrist.

 

Some of the higher faced beads should be worn near heart or throat or

forehead, but I see no reason if a devotee, say of Lord Krishna could not

wear an additional mala of 10 mukhi on wrist as well as a reminder of his

Bhav for the Lord. Have found after living in New York City for over 20

years, wrist malas are a practical way to do japa in public.

 

Same scriptures also state 4 and 6 mukhis should be worn on right wrist and 9

mukhi on left wrist. Wearing on wrist signifies power I was taught.

 

Body placement appears to be simply a matter of rudrakshas' interaction with

body based on electromagnetic properties.

 

Kanti