shvu Posted April 11, 2002 Report Share Posted April 11, 2002 Why do those who hold the view that this world is false, and that ultimately there are no individual souls, bother opening up mathas and preach etc.? To enlighten those who haven't realized this truth. I imagine Sankara was considered jivanmukta, so who was he writing his bhasya on the Vedanta sutra for? Same answer. Was that effort just considered the winding down of his prarabdha-karma or something? Yes. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted April 11, 2002 Report Share Posted April 11, 2002 Shvu, I'm trying to understand this but am a bit slow, so please be a little patient. My question is why would a liberated impersonalist even perceive of others in need of enlightenment? And being liberated according to their conception of the term, what conception of the world would even remain to label as false? Is it that what we perceive as someone preaching and writing etc. is just our perception of the matter and in fact no individual soul is really active there, having already been absorbed in the Brahman? Is this the impersonalist position? I had trouble wording that.I hope the question is clear. Thanks, theist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted April 11, 2002 Report Share Posted April 11, 2002 Is it that what we perceive as someone preaching and writing etc. is just our perception of the matter and in fact no individual soul is really active there, having already been absorbed in the Brahman? Exactly. I could not have put in better words. The world, the Mathas, the preacher and the preaching is only for the onlooker. For the realized person, everything is the same or there is no duality. The body is simply carrying out the activites it was born for. This is what Ramana said too. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audarya lila Posted April 11, 2002 Report Share Posted April 11, 2002 Dear Rati, As far as anyone within the lineage of Bhaktisiddhanta saying that it is a vaidhi lineage I have my serious doubts. If someone did say this they are ill informed and certainly not representing the lineage. Here is a link that will clarify this issue properly for you and for any other Audarya fellowship members who are not clear on this issue. http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/nmj_articles/raganuga-bhakti/raganuga-bhakti.html The method of natural family planning that the Catholic church is currently teaching has the most solid scientific basis and has had the most rigorous scientific testing of any method. It is called the Billings Ovulation Method. You can read about it at: http://www.woomb.org/bom/science/science.shtml Your servant, Audarya lila dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karthik_v Posted April 11, 2002 Report Share Posted April 11, 2002 Since there is a discussion on natural family planning going on here, I thought adding my own thoughts. Till the 17th century India's estimated population was just around 50 million. Unlike Europe, there is no historical record that India ever faced epidemics that wiped out populations. This only gives raise to the possibility that there was some kind of natural contraception in vogue, which is now either forgotten or not being paid attention to. I am sure that the Ayurvedic texts must have something on this. It will be nice if some knowledgeable member can shed some light on this. I have read parts of Kamasutra, but I don't know if it talks of natural methods of contraception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2002 Report Share Posted April 11, 2002 The Bhagavad-Gita was spoken to address this issue: Arjuna asks,if the outcome has allready been decided,why should I act?,Why shouldn't I retreat to the mountain,and attempt to attain Moksa? Here Krishna get's to the heart of the matter,Why?he say's,for you,for your enhancement,for your pleasure,to see you, my friend, recieve the adulation,and glory. This is Bhakti,God's devotion to his friends,God is everything,yet within that totatllity,that oneness,God has the desire to have friends and lovers. Higher then going to the hermitage,and meditating on the oneness,the highest siddha is engaged in rasa,the relationship of love,with the supreme. Yes,everything is going on as planned by the Absolute,free will is not unlimited,it is minute,you have the choice to be egocentric,or not,the rest is happening like dominoes,after the first dominoe is pushed the rest inevitable. For the participants on the field at Kuruksetra,their actions were inevitable,but they were of two types. For the friend of Krishna,the experience was transcendental,beyond Karma,happening in the realm of Vaikuntha,the land of ecstacy. For others they were caught in the Karmic cycle,experiencing the activities from another plane of consciouness,the temporary,the mundane. This is the message of the Gita,although your life has been decided,by renouncing action,in favor of contemplation,you are incomplete,there is a higher reality,To be Krishna's associate,to experience the glory,the love,he has to offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abhi_the_great Posted April 11, 2002 Report Share Posted April 11, 2002 sex!! wallah!! My frank opinion is there are many people who are sex fanatics and anti-sex fanatics. Both of them meditate so much abt sex. When the mosquito bites, smash it and itch it. Life goes on. If the desire of sex is there, get married have sex, enjoy it. Don't pretend. don't pretend to be liberated. This itch is there, and enjoy the itch. I do not see any easy way out of this. Neither am I pretending to be far away from this itch. But when I read SP's words that it shd be avoided, once a month etc., certainly I do feel guilty. In this guilt, I pray to Krishna. "Dear Lord, my master has adviced me, but somehow, I feel unable to control this itch, pls pls be merciful give me the strength. I am very fallen, a useless wretch. KRISHNAAAAAAAAAAA" These words from SP makes me feel very humble and utterly useless as a disciple. And that is the proof of an Acarya's word. It brings one in the right frame of mind to engage in devotional service. The breaking of his words are not due to arrogance or a rebelious attitude, but due to certain inabilities that one is bound by the material modes one has aquired. But its no reason to go away from the lotus feet of Guru, nor to stop devotional service - its all helpful in developing ones consciousness if understood in the right spirit under able guidance. Why are people so much adamant on finding fault in my Master? You have to accept a spiritual master, and like him and serve him, if you have to understand the worth of his words, and how it can act on a disciple. Theoretical understanding can help in finding faults. Though I do admit that I am still theoretical in many concepts and activities of SP, I beleive that its relevance will be revealed at the right time. Different peole have different capacities. One has to take to spiritual life, with a lot of patience. What one person can easily acheive easily might not be so easy for others. So, I might shout on the top of my voice, everyone shd listen to SP and have no more sex. Sex is an itch, its a guarantee of half way to Goloka. But what is practical, what is the majority? The majority are people with a deep craving for sex life. If we want to see all our god-brothers and nephews and neices advance gradually, it wd be good to encourage them to get married. Excessive preaching to control sex-life is a hindrance, but mature understanding of sex life needs to be given. This is my 2cents on so much of SEX SEX SEX talk. We cannot reach a conclusion as in many cases like arguing against Advaitha. Hare Krishna Dandavats Sorry, if I talked more than a nephew shd. Abhi [This message has been edited by abhi_the_great (edited 04-11-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 karthik, I appreciated Shiva's comments on free will.Another point is free will is the very border of our individual beings.Which leads in to my next question to Shvuji. Shvuji, Who are we that are left perceiving the jivan-mukta's prarabdha's karma playing itself out? If our individual self is not eternal and marked by free will, then how does Sankara account for the Brahman becoming covered in the first place, and then liberated piece by piece? It's an old question, but I'm not familiar with the impersonalist answer. Thanks for keeping it simple as I don't know sanskrit. theist [This message has been edited by theist (edited 04-12-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 Ooops [This message has been edited by theist (edited 04-12-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 <h2><center><font color=blue>tapasya</font></center></h2> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 I dislike quoting random and stray verses from anywhere to prove my point. I find it very silly, for other people can (and will)pull out their own set of verses to prove their point and finally we will all be back on square one. To understand Shankara or anyone's position, their teachings have to be studied in depth. Else, it is of no use and the confusion will remain as before. So I will attempt to answer your questions without going into details. Who are we that are left perceiving the jivan-mukta's prarabdha's karma playing itself out? We are the deluded souls who perceive duality. The reality is, there is only Brahman and nothing else, implying all souls are Brahman. The difference in the case of the Jivanmukta is, there is no more individual there to perceive duality [there is no I] and since there is no I, there is nothing else either. Liberation according to Shankara, is the realization of the nature of one' self as nothing but Brahman. If our individual self is not eternal and marked by free will, then how does Sankara account for the Brahman becoming covered in the first place, and then liberated piece by piece? Brahman is not *covered* by anything, for there is nothing else. This is the effect of Maya, which is inexplicable. There is no piece by piece liberation. Liberation is immediate, complete and happens when one realizes Brahman is all there is and there is no duality. It has to be an actual realization. Mere knowledge is not sufficient. To make it more clear, a person *cannot* be liberated and then decide to help people to find what he found, etc, for there is no person there anymore. Hence, Prarabdha karma is why these people preach and teach. Not everyone teaches, however. There are stories of people just isolating themselves from humans and living in solitude after Liberation and many others who were/are unknown and unrecognized. Only those, whose Prarabdha karma was to be a Guru, will teach and usually they are the ones who become known. Cheers [This message has been edited by shvu (edited 04-12-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 Since there is a discussion on natural family planning going on here, I thought adding my own thoughts. Till the 17th century India's estimated population was just around 50 million. Unlike Europe, there is no historical record that India ever faced epidemics that wiped out populations. In general, life expectancy improves with education and better standards of living. Life expectancy has increased in the last century as people are becoming more aware of health, sanitation, etc and also with improvements in living standards. For instance, we received a map of Afghanistan from National Geographic last night and we spent some time looking at it. The % of literacy and life expectancy was given for Afghanistan and it's bordering countries, and they were matching. Lesser the literacy, lesser the life expectance. (Literacy for Afghanistan - 32%, Life expectancy - 46 years) This is why the world's population has been pretty low until the last century when it started increasing rapidly. Life expectancy in most countries is higher than before. Cheers [This message has been edited by shvu (edited 04-12-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citta Hari Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 Shvu wrote: "We are the deluded souls who perceive duality. The reality is, there is only Brahman and nothing else, implying all souls are Brahman. The difference in the case of the Jivanmukta is, there is no more individual there to perceive duality [there is no I] and since there is no I, there is nothing else either. Liberation according to Shankara, is the realization of the nature of one' self as nothing but Brahman." I have some questions about the idea that the jiva, although identical with Brahman, becomes deluded and thus perceives duality. How does Brahman become deluded into thinking itself to be a separate jiva in the first place? What is the support (asraya) of the deluding influence? It can't be the jiva, since the jiva is the product of ajnana. The only thing left is Brahman, but if Brahman is the support, then its essential nature as jnana (jnanasvarupa) is compromised. How can this be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citta Hari Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 Shvu wrote: "We are the deluded souls who perceive duality. The reality is, there is only Brahman and nothing else, implying all souls are Brahman. The difference in the case of the Jivanmukta is, there is no more individual there to perceive duality [there is no I] and since there is no I, there is nothing else either. Liberation according to Shankara, is the realization of the nature of one' self as nothing but Brahman." I have some questions about the idea that the jiva, although identical with Brahman, becomes deluded and thus perceives duality. How does Brahman become deluded into thinking itself to be a separate jiva in the first place? What is the support (asraya) of the deluding influence? It can't be the jiva, since the jiva is the product of ajnana. The only thing left is Brahman, but if Brahman is the support, then its essential nature as jnana (jnanasvarupa) is compromised. How can this be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 Citta Hari, you have stated essentially my question in a clearer way.I wait with interest Shvu's answer. Shvu, I understood your answer on prarabdha-karma.No problem there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 How does Brahman become deluded into thinking itself to be a separate jiva in the first place? The short answer is, there is no How and there is no becoming (No why either). I will try to give you the long answer tonight. What is the support (asraya) of the deluding influence? It can't be the jiva, since the jiva is the product of ajnana. The only thing left is Brahman, but if Brahman is the support, then its essential nature as jnana (jnanasvarupa) is compromised. How can this be? This is the effect of Maya. Again, will give you a long answer tonight. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karthik_v Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 Hare Krishna Abhi the great, Very nice post from you. I agree that if we are attracted to sex and other material pleasures, it is because we are spiritually less advanced. So, we should pray to Krishna and the guru for advancement. I was not rebelling against SP. I am not even fit enough to be intiated by any guru, leave alone rebelling against SP. I was just pointing out the excessive emphasis placed on repressing sex, often leading to deleterious effect. Second, I am also interested in knowing the shastric basis for sex only once a month. If no acarya such as Ramanuja or Sankara has ever stated anything to that effect, one should certainly seek the reasons for such pramanas. I am still not convinced that there should be any restriction on sex between married couples. By their very nature, people in grahastha asrama are less evolved spiritually. That is the primary reason they are into that asrama. The moment they transcend the desire for material things, they take to vanaprastha or sannyasa. So, my contention is, so long as you are in the grahastha asrama, live like a grahastha - and sex is very much a part of it. So, I am not rebelling. I am just questioning. I am certainly puzzled that speaker after speaker in ISKCON/GV attacks Sankara and Advaita in a derogatory manner. Shvu: Liberation according to Shankara, is the realization of the nature of one' self as nothing but Brahman. He gives a nice anology too. If you have 4 pots filled with water, then you will see 4 reflections of the sun. If you smash the pots, all that remains is the Only real Sun. What remained earlier was a mere perception in the structural context. As per Sankara, any dichotomy between the jiva and the Brahman is purely a phenomenon that has relevance only when you look at it from the framework of the structural world. Smash the pots and the dichotomy is gone. But, so long as you are attached to the pot, you won't accept that the reflection is not the real sun. To make it more clear, a person *cannot* be liberated and then decide to help people to find what he found, etc, for there is no person there anymore. I don't get this. How do you explain the concept of Jeevan Mukta, which is very much accepted in Advaita? In general, life expectancy improves with education and better standards of living. Has the life expectancy in India improved so much as to allow a geometric progression of population growth rate? I don't think so. Further, there is little data to actually show that the life expectancy really has increased beyond a few years. Even assuming that till the 17th century Indians died young [say at 40], since they also married early [20 for men, 16 for women], they still had enough years to produce many progeny. If there had been so contraceptive, then each couple should have had 20 children. Assuming 50% died, still they should have been left with 10 each. That means that each generation gives birth to the next that is 10 times as large. Yet, that didn't happen. Further, we have many literary sources that talk of smaller families of just 3 or 4 children. Sometimes just 1. I am not saying that we should blindly accept that there were contraceptives in Ayurveda. But, blind rejection is even worse. It is worth investigating. More so, when there were no epidemics in India, unlike Europe, till the 17th century. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jijaji Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rati Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 I think the numbers of infant and childhood mortality were probably much like they were in the west, seven out of ten children dying at an early age. Problem solved. Re: The Billings ovulation link - the results of a single study are questionable, which is why follow up studies have to be there to back it up. It is what is know as reproducible results. Otherwise, the research data is not necessarily objective, because the outcome can be affected by the researchers aiming for a predetermined effect. If you are looking for something specific, then you might see it in the data even if it is not really there. So, are there other studies that were done to back this up? [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 04-12-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karthik_v Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 Originally posted by Rati: I think the numbers of infant and childhood mortality were probably much like they were in the west, seven out of ten children dying at an early age. Problem solved. I think that could be an exaggeration. My great grand parents and grand parents lived in remote rural Tamilnadu. they never had any access to vaccines, hospitals or doctors. Yet, even they didn't face such a high child mortality rate. 20% may be. When we talk of much remote past, preceding 17th century, we are talking of an era free from industrial effluents etc. So, the mortality couldn't have been higher. Also, we should seriously look at the literature that describe 2 or 3 children - not a dozen every time. Even at your suggested 70% child mortality rate, still each family gets to see 3 children surviving. That should have still made the popu;ation reach the critical mass to bust at the seam. It didn't happen. Could it be thta most families had just one child? Or could it be that the phased out 2 children by several years? I am not taking a dogmatic stance, but this is one area hardly researched. Modern medicine would be very hesitant to admit that old timers had certain skills which our medical folks just acquired. Wasn't there a big opposition to Chinese system of medicine till 2 decades ago? Isn't there still a stiff opposition to chiropractic [though less vocal]? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 First about the population discussion,regardless of birth control,or no control,disease,or no disease,the population is always under the control of God. Couples today,with nothing wrong with them,try for many years,unsuccessfully to have children,this is due to the plan of God. The idea that the Jiva,when he attains liberation,realizes there is only Brahman,and loses his identity,is foolish. This will never happen,Brahman is not an unintelligent entity,it is not devoid of consciousness,consciousness means identity. Your identity is singular,although your consciousness is part of the larger universal Self,it remains always a part,never the whole.That is impossible,the whole,Brahman, is infinite,omniscient,and omnipotent,it is never subject to illusion,it is in control of matter,which is in fact,the transformation of itself. You cannot become infinite,that is never lost,by the infinite,that is the very meaning of infinite,it cannot end,it is forever endless,and it never stop's,or becomes entrapped by anything. The jiva, all to easily, becomes trapped by the self conceit, of being something that it is not.That is not the nature of infinite omniscience,that is the nature of finite dependence,when we see ourselves as being the infinite,immediately we are delusional,the infinite is always infinite,that is the nature of infinity,eternal cognizance of itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rati Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 Maybe I was thinking about the mortality rate for European pioneers in the frontier of North America, with the harsh conditions. Exrapolating that to include all of the societies on all continents could lead to something higher than reality. Also, there was a period of time when doctors used to go from the autopsy room to the delivery room without washing their hands, which infected the newborns. This went on for quite some time until Louis Pasteur noticed the practice and told them to wash their hands before delivering babies. The statistic is that malaria (which is just one of many diseases) has killed more soldiers in all of the wars throughout history than actual fatal wounds from battle. It probably played a major role in keeping down the numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audarya lila Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 Dear Rati, Regarding the B.O.M. - did you read the information given at the web page that I provided the link for? The B.O.M. has been studied extensively over a very long period of time. The method is not based on the outcome of one 'biased' study. At any rate, whether you believe the 'science' or not is irrelevant. The main reason I brought it up in the context of the discussion is that there is really a very small window of opportunity in terms of days each month that a woman can actually get pregnant. Sex on days outside that window will never result in pregnancy. So if the idea is adopted that a couple wants to engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of child bearing, then the sexual intercourse will be limited by the biological restrictions. Your servant, Audarya lila dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jijaji Posted April 13, 2002 Report Share Posted April 13, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jijaji Posted April 14, 2002 Report Share Posted April 14, 2002 [This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 04-14-2002).] 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.