The link between karma and the planets

[sachinwadhwa]

Respected Anupam ji,

1.
“It does not come it is already there because before coming she was in the world where nothing is created but it already exists instead of coming from somewhere. Even knowing and realizing that she is the part of God comes in the arena of ego but of course it is the subtlest part of ego.”
“If there would not be any creation what God will know because there is nothing to know except endless sea of energy without parts which he is in all reality. “

Most of this discussion went as a bouncer to me. I read it few times, but it is still not very clear. Is it possible to explain the life cycle with a help of an example. I think it is difficult to understand the concept theoretically, however, when a person experiences / sees such things with divine eye, it would be more absorbing / convincing.

2.
“He is not doing anything in this regard. Do you think child rapes, kidnaps, murders are happening according to his wish?”
“So, this creation is nothing but his play. He is playing, he is weeping through every eye, he is eating through every mouth, he is killing, he is getting punished, he is crying in pain, he is dancing jubilantly. He is doing everything. Remember only 'he' nobody else. Now tell me who separates and to whom at all? Nobody is separating from him.”

In one example we have learnt that it is free will of the soul which is doing all the killing, kidnaps etc.
In second example, we have learnt that this creation is nothing but his play, he is playing crying, weeping, killing, dancing, etc. This means that eventually, what is happening is his wish, which contradicts our first example.
I am not sure if I have understood this completely. But personally I agree with your second example. I believe everything good or bad is his wish. Even though, we may think that the results are based on the free will of the soul, but in reality it his wish. He is running this play the way he wants to run it.

Regards

[sachinwadhwa]

Respected Anupam ji,

I will write what I have understood. Please correct me if I am wrong. I will take my example:

I am a soul which knows that I am part of god. I have existed in this world when nothing was there. The ego I had was of being part of god and knowing that feeling. I didn’t have the knowledge of how it feels not being god. Going by the principle of duality, I wanted to experience how it feels to be unlike god. Now, this thought gave birth to other thoughts of happiness, sadness, etc. These thoughts also existed in the form of duality. To experience those mass of thoughts, the world is created, with duality of all emotions, so world is nothing more than the mass of thoughts. In order for souls to experience their thoughts, these souls start descending on earth. Once these souls land on earth they forget the very fact that they are part of god. So they start behaving like mortal creatures and get grossed in to material world. This means I came in satyuga on this planet based on my initial thought. The birth I took was based on the thoughts which came across to me initially. Now I am in an environment where I would realize almost all the repercussions of every desire or thought related to me. Then all my subsequent births were outcome of my initial birth and the karmas I did in Satyuga / Treta / Dwapur etc. I continue to live mortal life one after another till the time all my thoughts have been experienced. My thirst of all emotions has been quenched and I start realizing that I was a soul who was separated from the master and now I should get back to my master. So I start meditating, find a guru who helps me in coming out of this material world in to the divine spiritual world. Through this process I get realization. (However, even if I have achieved realization in one of my previous births, still on the wish of almighty I may descend on earth again to achieve his tasks and objectives.)
Now, when I go back and merge with almighty, all my thirst of various emotions has been quenched. I know how it feels in various situations. Now I have the knowledge, and no emotions left, thus no ego, therefore I become parmatma.

Thus, it is the soul which is travelling and undergoing all those thoughts and experiences till the time all the thoughts have been experienced.
I guess now I have understood that it is not gods wish to kill, murder, rape people. This is the free will of the soul to do all those acts which strikes it. However, as the soul is nothing but extension of god, thus this journey is of god himself in innumerous forms.

Coming to the 3 clues you gave Mahesh ji. Let me try to decipher it based on my example above:

“Yogananda says that even after getting salvation and merges into him a part of your ego never dies means memory is never lost even after final emancipation. In other words your individuality is eternal you never lose it. This is the first clue for unfolding the mystery.”
The experiences I have gained through my journey of being the soul always remains with me, even after merging into parmatma. I know what those thoughts are and how it feels. Thus this soul carries those experiences which provides complete knowledge to the soul and now there is no desire or ego.

“Vedas say this creation is nothing but the mass of thoughts. This is the second clue.”
As I have descended on earth to experience my thoughts, so have so many other souls. All of us collectively are mass of thoughts which became the seed for origination of earth.

“In Geeta Srikrishna says that everything is in him but he is not part of any. This is the final clue.”
The soul before starting its journey was part of god and after completing its journey it is part of god " Aaham Brahamasami". The thoughts which different souls had come across (souls are part of god, so god himself had come across), were being experienced and then soul returns back after the ego is fulfilled. Once the ego is fulfilled, soul gets complete knowledge and thus there is no desire so no principle of duality. It merges in to the endless ocean of god. This is the purest form of god.

If I have understood your earlier post correctly, request you to continue further with our discussion.

Regards

[sachinwadhwa]

Respected Anupam ji,

1.
“That is why Krishna in Geeta says that "everything is in him but he is not part of any". Now have you understand the difference between purest form of God without any desires, beyond time, space, gunas and the soul that is part of him???”

I have understood the origin completely. Regarding the above para, I will write what I have understood, to confirm my understanding. God in the purest form is without any desires. The purest form has complete knowledge of all desires and there is no desire left. Thus “everything is in him”.

However, when the soul which is part of god gets any thought / ego / desire, then the soul leaves parmatma to come down to earth to experience those desires. The soul even though originated from god has now left the purest form to experience those desires. Thus it is no more part of the purest form of god or we can say that parmatma is not in that soul because that soul has desires. Therefore “he is not part of any”.

I hope I have understood the complete cycle now. Please let me know if I am still missing anything.

2.
Anupam ji, after writing everything a thought came across my mind. What about when Lord Krishna comes down to bhuloka? Lord Krishna still continues to be parmatma. This means that he has not separated himself from the superconscious. But the purest form of god is without desires and only souls with desires come down to earth. Thus, parmatma being purest form of god coming down to bhuloka contradicts the very definition of parmatma.
Need your inputs on the above.

3.
Since a child I used to think Mother is above everyone including god. Also, between Guru and God, Guru gets first preference. So, my order of priority was 1. Mother 2. Guru 3. God. However, after our discussion, I don’t think this holds good anymore on spiritual plane.

Can you please share your thoughts both on physical and spiritual plane?

Regards

[sachinwadhwa]

[quote="anupam1968"]
Rest I will write to you later once you have understood it completely.[/quote]

Thank you Anupam ji for sharing your knowledge. Things are much clear now.

Request you to proceed further with our discussion.

Regards

[sachinwadhwa]

Respected Anupam ji,

I have few more questions. I have fairly understood your posts on parmatma, however, I still require more conceptual clarity.

1.
If parmatma is one, then are Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma all part of the same parmatma (endless energy)? Only difference may be that they are known by different names and doing the divine objective given by parmatma (endless energy).

2.
What was the need to create different lokas – swarg loka, gau loka etc. Is it for the same objective for which bhuloka has been created?

3.
The endless energy will never come to stand still, but till how long do you think bhuloka will continue and what after that? What is the next phase of bhuloka (Earth)?

Regards

[sachinwadhwa]

“Since August, 2005 whatever you have been seeing around you and world by and large projected by him.”

Respected Anupam ji,

The Venus transit happened in mid 2004. Is it anyways related to it?
There is one more transit expected in 2012.

Regards

[Basab]

[quote="rajitha"]I have been away for some time but during this time, I read around 60 pages of the book Autobiography of a Yogi.[/quote]

'Autobiography of a Yogi' is a fascinating read. It just takes us to another world--the spiritual world--which I didn't know much about before reading it.

[lovacrs]

Thanks Anupamji,

[quote]First of all I want to know according to you when divine intervention should come?[/quote]

I feel the evil forces should be large enough to affect the whole population and not just a family. This was the case in respect of all other avataars. And as I said earlier, even in Sri Krishna's case the scale of evil unleashed by Kamsa or Jarasandha was probably a better justification for divine intervention than the dispute between Kauravaas and Paandavaas.

As for the current situation I can certainly say that Kauravaas of Dwapara would pass off as saints or even Rishis compared to some of the politicians of today. Does this warrant divine intervention? I am not sure, because neither the exploiters nor the exploited are today interested in path of dharma. Both are just selfish and are complaining against each other essentially because the other camp is preventing them from achieving their selfish ends. I will be surprised if the God deems it fit to intervene to ensure that one camp's selfish intent succeeds over that of others.

CRS

[lovacrs]

Thanks Anupamji,

[quote]Vivekanada said in the past that "this country needs the dictatorship of saints unless nobody can rectify the system". Whenever any true saint proclaims anything be sure it is going to happen because unlimited divine energy is working behing his every word. [/quote]

I hope it happens.

The real problem is for every true saint there are thousands of bogus ones. Usually a true saint never proclaims. In any case for those of us ordinary mortals, we have no way of identifying a genuine saint. But divine intervention whenever it happens solves all these problems.

Mahatma was in fact closest to a saint and he passed by. The less said the better about the fate of his ideals today.


CRS

[lovacrs]

Thanks Anupamji.

[quote]The aim of Ved vyasa while he wrote Mahabharta was to show the struggle between individual dharma and the dharma of spirit.[/quote]

Looking at Mahabharath as a work of literature of a creative mind and as a narration of a divine incarnation are two different matters altogethar. In the former case, the need for justification can simply be the creativity of the Kavi.

In fact this is exactly the question that some writers have discussed in their version of Mahabharath.

[quote]Do you see this kind of struggle in Ramayana or Dev-Daanav yudhas in satyuga? I think no. Most of the characters of Mahabharta have their hearts on one side and mind on another and this dichotomy was erased by Krishna in the war of Mahabharta through his Geeta.[/quote]

I see Vibheeshana in a similar predicament in Ramayan or for that matter Rama himself when he killed Vaali clandestinely. Situation of Prahalad was also not very different. Probably people in those ages did not need the kind of preaching that Sri Krishna did to Arjuna.

[quote]But we get a hint in Mahabharta about the condition of the subjects under the rulership of Dhritrashtra.[/quote]

True. But it is depicted more as due to inaction on the part of rulers as against "ruler driven" evil.

CRS

[sachinwadhwa]

Respected Anupam ji,

1.

“Sounds almost unbelievable Mahesh Ji? Seems like a complete mythological tale?”

I have written the below question a few times and erased it, thinking that I may offend you or Parseshwara. However, my intent is to gain knowledge and not to offend.

I want to know what makes him write all such divine experiences to the audience of this forum. Does he want to connect with few persons interacting on this forum or does he wants to pass on a message to the audience of this forum? If he wants to convey something to us, he can do it directly in spiritual form, what benefit is he foreseeing in conveying this in physical form. You also say that there is a reason to everything.

So, I think there is something more to it. Can you please ask him – I am really curious to know


2.

Request – when you edit any of your posts especially on previous pages, please let us know. We don’t want to miss any fraction of divine knowledge.

Regards

[lovacrs]

Thanks Anupamji,

[quote]But of course the modern historians may only locate the historical facts in the Mahabharta and may term it as mere literary work without considering the fact that Ved Vyasa wrote it who was a sage rather historian. Every mind is different and only by understanding it ,without being prejudiced, we can understand what he really wrote [/quote]

I agree that Ved Vyas had lofty intentions when he wrote Mahabharath. Most, if not all, of what is written in Geetha was already there in other scriptures though not as succinctly as in Geetha. Now, for a moment if you were to look at Mahabharath in complete isolation from the rest of Sri Krishna's life, it would appear that the role performed by Sri Krishna in Mahabharath could have been done by any person with exceptional (still human) intelligence, diplomacy, knowledge (of multiple things like warfare, dharma, astrology, management etc..). Coupled with the fact that it was a mere family dispute (agred that there were questions of dharma embedded in the dispute. But such family disputes are as old as mankind and every dispute invariably has dharma juxtoposed against adharma), there are enough logical grounds to question whether it was a divine intervention at all unless we go by the story that Ved Vyas just wrote what Lord Ganesh narrated.

I am of-course not belittling Mahabharath. Even as a work of literature it is one amongst the best if not the best. But these questions, I notice are not plausible in respect of other epics where the scale of evil was far higher and divine intervention showed up in a way that it would have been impossible for ordinary mortals to do what was done.

[quote]Rama also killed Bali without any grudges on his part. According to him Bali deserved that retribution because he used to rape the wife of his younger brother Sugriv. So, honestly speaking I really don't know how you are bringing these characters whereas I am talking about tremendouns struggle between mind and the spirit which was the hallmark of Dwapara yuga.[/quote]

Many philosophers have pointed out that marriage is not a valud institution amongst animals (vaanaras in this case). In fact Sri Ram is supposed to have admitted it as a folly and given a boon to Vaali that he will kill him a similar way as a hunter in Dwapara yuga in his Krishnaavataar.

I see parallels between Vibhishana and Arjuna. Both had to fight against their kinsmen to protect dharma. In fact Ravana was own brother for Vibhishana while kauravaas were cousins for Arjuna. I am sure the creative mind of a Kavi would have found a Guru like Drona etc, in Ravana's camp fighting for him though they were quite convinced that he was an adharmi. In fact I have read some versions of Ramayan where Indrajeet himself advises Ravana that he is deviating from Dharma but finally opts to stay with him.

As for Prahlad, it was his own father that he was pitted against.

Essentialy, if the writer had desired he could have unravelled divine knowledge using these situations much the same way as Ved Vyaas did in Mahabharath.
As such Mahabharath is just one amongst the many Dharma Yuddhs that have happenned.

All this takes me back to my central question: Is Mahabharath a story of divine intervention at all and if so what is the reason for HIM to choose such an ordinary (in comparison to other epics) situation for intervention.

CRS

PS: I am sorry if I sound argumentative. But unfortunately I am limited by logic, though I have the humility to accept that things that are not logical can still be true.

[Basab]

[quote="rajitha"]I liked reading the miracles done by sages.[/quote]

Rajitha,

That too, definitely, was one of the reasons I liked the book.

[sachinwadhwa]

Respected Anupam ji,

Thanks again for sharing divine knowledge. I will always be thankful to you for igniting the divine thought, providing clarity around soul’s journey to its final abode and showing the right direction. Like I always say that we are truly blessed to have you with us on this forum.

Waiting for his majesty (master) to completely manifest

Regards

[lovacrs]

Thanks Anupamji.

Before making any other assertion I wish to categorically say that my faith is with the philosophy and thinking that lies hidden in these epics and scriptures. I fully subscribe to the soul soothing philosophy expounded in Geetha and Mahabharath and I really dont care whether it actually happened or not.

But the journey from a state of mind controlled by intellect/logic into that controlled by faith invariably encounters the question "Am I entering the territory of divine faith or a blind belief?". There are no easy answers to such questions. Faith by definition demands zero tolerance within one's own mind (of-course a person bound to a faith can still be at peace with someone who subscribes to a different faith) to other possibilities.

I also agree fully that truth has its own absolute existence independent of logic/intellect or for that matter, faith.

My intention behind quoting Vibhishan and Prahlad was not to question their faith in their Ishta Devatha. They are indeed blessed souls to have been raised to that level and unfortunately I am not. My purpose was to point out that divine intervention did not happen to solve their dilemmas which they must have had ( and the epics also say that they indeed had) though at the end they went by their faith.

Divine intervention in Ramayan happenned (as per my understanding based on little rading that I have done of currently available versions) because right from Ayodhya upto Lanka (vast geogrphical coverage) lot of things were going wrong and Rishis were being prevented from performing yagnas and tapas (which I understand as pursuit of knowledge that is useful for mankind). That it is divine intervention is demonstrated by super human deeds (building Rama Sethu or killing a great parakrami like Ravana and Vaali. Here again I really dont care whether Ramayan actually happened or not. There are fine lessons to be learnt from it anyway.

I fully agree that inaction on the part of a ruler is perhaps as much a sin as active participation in evil deeds. But my point was completely different. As I have been mentioning, these evils are unlikely to have been rare. If we go by historians account, there must have been hundreds of such Hastinapurs in what we call as India today.

One possibility is that in many such states the state of ruling was as bad as in Hastinapur in which case either Hastinapur was the chosen one for divine intervention or there were multiple such interventions and the one that happenned at Hastinapur is chronicled.If Hastinapur was the chosen one why so?

The other possibility is that all other states other than Hastinapur were exceptionally well ruled (Utopian or Rama Raajya) which again means that GOD can set right a delinquent Hastinapur by normal means (whatever means were applied in these well ruled states) without his personal intervention.

CRS

[lovacrs]

Thanks Anupamji.

[quote]Believe me there is nothing like divine faith or blind belief. This is the path for the people who have different frame of mind. They just put the reason aside and start treading upon their path of Bhakti. [/quote]

I have to admit I am not convinced about this. There are quite a few Godmen around some of whom have claimed that they are the 10th avataar of Lord Vishnu. Many have faith in them and have become their Bhaktas. But I could not persuade myself to do that (of-course with the help of logic).

If these people still reach their spiritual goals despite these Godmen not actually being God's incarnations, I will consider that an accident (a result that was not natual for the given set of actions) which could happen anyway.

[quote]Rama killed Bali clandestinely. Now Bali was not such a spiritual soul even if he was his life did not appear to be like that according to Ramayana. [/quote]

According to what I have read, he was a great Shiv Bhakt and used to perform Abhishek to Shiv Ling with waters collected from seven oceans. He apparently used to "fly" and collect these waters himself. In one such "flight" he apparently had Ravana clutched in his arms because he did not want to be distracted till completion of his pooja.

On the contrary there are no such virtues that are talked of Sugreev.

CRS

[lovacrs]

Thanks Anupamji.

[quote]I would very humbly say you are reading too much but not filtering at all. Spirituality does not mean to do Abhishek or flying into the air or creating laddoos out of the wind. Most of these things can be done by a good magician but can we term him as spiritual? Spirituality means saatwik qualities or your inner search. [/quote]

Doing abhishek/pooja shows that the being (avoiding "person" since Vaali was a vaanara) recognises someone other than itself as supreme. Humulity is not just the first step but the very foundation of spirituality. Based on whatever little descriptions of Vaali and Sugreev are there in the epics, we have reasonable ground to conclude that Vaali was spiritually more advanced than Sugreev.

As I mentioned earlier Vaanars are animals and there is nothing like "someone else's wife". If we were to screen them from the standpoint of human beings, abandoning the dead body of his elder brother in the caves without performing final rites is even greater sin committed by Sugreev. But then was Vaali right in punishing sugreev by another sin? May not be. But unfortunately that is exactly what Lord Rama also did by breaking his dharma by killing someone who was not fighting him and that too clandestinely.

As I said earlier, none of these are my original thoughts. They have been written upon and discussed at length by many writers. Unless we persevere and debate hidden messages in the epics will go unnoticed.

[quote]In all reality when I talk about bhakti marga I have Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Meera, Prabhupad, Ramakrishna Paramhansa and even Prahalad in my mind. As far as these God men are concerned I would say every person drags towards a mind which is more powerful than him. It is a natural process. The best way to see the real guru is to see their sishyas. The quality of disciple can make you understand what kind of Guru he has accepted. As in Sanskrit it is said " Yatha guru tatha shisya'.[/quote]

The fundamental question is how do I make out whether the person in front of me is Chaitanya or a current day Kalki? Do I do this using logic or faith?
If I cant assess the authenticity of a Guru how do I verify the goodness of his shishyaas?

What I am trying to drive at indirectly has answers to Rajithaji's question "Why dont we see such great saints today?". In my view the simple answer is, a great saint never advertises himself, not now and not in the past. But earlier people used to be less busy in their material pursuits and ended up spending some time in hanging around such people and actually validate whether the person is a saint.

On the contrary today, hypothetically, we read about existence of such a saint in any media, none of us (or may be very few of us) rush to the place to "try him out". We dont mind rushing to a mall to "try out" a dress that we finally dont buy and not consider it a waste of time.

CRS

[sachinwadhwa]

Hi Rajitha ji,

“Also, can you tell me what you meant by SRF in your previous post to me?”

I think Anupam ji meant “Self-Realization Fellowship” when he said SRF. This was founded by Paramahansa Yogananda in 1920 to make available the universal teachings of Kriya Yoga.

Dear Lovacrs,

Sorry for jumping in, but I wanted to share my thoughts also.

“As I mentioned earlier Vaanars are animals and there is nothing like "someone else's wife".”

You are right to an extent that for animals there is no concept of husband and wife, but when you specifically say that they were husband and wife and they had elder brothers, sisters, mother, father, then you cannot treat them as animals. There is a king and there is a praja who follows the king. Will you still say that they are only animals? When they have super human (Lord Shiva in form of hanuman also born as vanar)…will you still say that they are animals only.

The basic difference between animal and human being is the ability to decide what is right and what is wrong. When they have it, they cannot be treated as animals only. When Bali knows that there is shiva and he is praying to him, then he is not just an animal.

“we have reasonable ground to conclude that Vaali was spiritually more advanced than Sugreev.”

Bali may have been more actively praying to lord, however, it is very important to imbibe the good characteristics and do good deeds. I will give a very strange comparison..Bali and Sai…both of them pray to god day and night…with divine grace they have accumulated powers..now one of them works for welfare or society and other works for his own selfish deeds. Whom do you think is spiritual and whom do you think is materialistic? It is the way you use your divine energy, decides whether you are spiritual or materialistic.

If this example does not work, I will give you a contemporary example. There is person who swindles money of poor people who applied for his listed stocks. Middle and lower class people invested all their savings in his issue of shares. He takes their money ..does a fraud for lakhs / crores and then manipulates books to show bankruptcy. However, he is a great follower of lord Krishna and iscon and spent lakhs in the name of god. However, he thinks both his stands are correct because these 2 are different things – one is spiritual and other is mere business strategy.
Then there is another person who earns his basic living and gives a small percentage of his salary in the name of god. He spends it in building temples, for basic needs of poor people. He does not actively participate in Iscon or any other institution. Does not do lot of pooja and lives normal life.

Whom do you think is a better person – one who swindles crores, donates lakhs..or the one who earns thousands and donates a part of it. Whose karmas would be better?
In this case it is not only the way the money is spent is important, but it is also important to know through which means it was earned. If bali would have been spiritual, then he would have treated sugreev’s wife as a mother. Even Chanakya mentioned the 5 types of ladies who should be treated as mothers – your mother who gave you birth, the one who raised you, wife’s mother, Brother / friend’s wife, guru’s wife.

Also, what has been written in books / epics is not complete end to end of how everything was during that time. The only way you can see the true picture is through your own divine eye.


“In my view the simple answer is, a great saint never advertises himself, not now and not in the past. But earlier people used to be less busy in their material pursuits and ended up spending some time in hanging around such people and actually validate whether the person is a saint.”

I echo your thoughts on this one. A true saint will only do things which the lord himself will ask the saint to do. Regarding how to identify whether a person is a true saint or not, I will share my approach on this. When you want to see whether the person is a true saint or a materialistic person, check the way he collects donation and the way the donations are spent. Is the money spent on his own development or is spent on welfare of society? Whether donations are collected by encouraging people to donate or even by grabbing a piece of land owned by government? A true saint will have a totally non materialistic approach to things. He will live a very down-to-earth life.

However, I would differ on the thoughts that the true saints are no more there like they were in the past. I am sure that they still exist in today’s date. The only difference is that they are maintaining a low profile and that too as directed by the master. One of the biggest boon to all of us is that all of us are born in India. I think that I am truly blessed to be an Indian, the land where spirituality evolved, where majority of the religions were born. Lord has taken birth in form of Rama Krishna on this soil. As life takes a full circle, I think it is matter of time when lord will direct the true saints to appear.

Regards

[sachinwadhwa]

Respected Anupamji,

“Ramakrishna got married but did not have normal relations with his wife since he accepted her as mother at the wedding night.”

I haven’t understood this one as this is a pattern different from the Ram and Krishna. If the intent was to accept as a mother, what was the need to marry?

Also, they would not have any children, which is again a different pattern.

Regards

[lovacrs]

Anupamji, Rajithaji,Sachinji and Maheshji

I think the discussions have moved away from my original question "Does the situation in Mahabharath deserve divine intervention and secondly was it a case of divine intervention at all?"

All the discussions we have had clearly indicate that there were in Ramayan too questions of philosophy as deep as were those discussed and answered in Mahabharath. I do agree that our measurement of spirituality of the characters involved may vary widely. But the fact remains that they are as deep as they can come. In fact it is common place for scholars to quote a verse from Mahabharath to validate some action in Ramayan.

So what do we have now? No super human deeds are done in Mahabharath (ecluding rest of Sri Krishna's life) to indicate it is divine intervention nor the extent of disorder is big enough or serious enough.

I will still like to our forth my views are questions raised on earlier posts.

Rajithaji
-----------
[quote]Ravana is the best example. He was the biggest devotee of Shiva and he had the power to lift Mount Kailas with his hands, he had all the planets on his steps of his throne. [/quote]

When he did his pennce he was on the path of Arohan. After getting his boon he started his avarohan. Any person (includes a human, God's incarnation and A Rakshasa can not be completely spiritual or non-spiritual.

From the perspective of my original question even if he was not spiritual will Vibheeshana not have the same kind of dilemma in warring with him as Arjuna had? I will say yes.

[quote]So, I think this is what Anupamji was trying to convey. The intention is the most important in any karma.[/quote]

Human mind is ingenious to assume intentions in other's actions that are suited to the opinions that we are already sold to. For e.g, Sri Krishna apparently stopped narrating the technique of successfully breaking a Chakra Vyuha as soon as "HE REALIZED" that the foetus in Subhadra's uterus was listening to it.

What was his intetnion instopping it and was it a righteous intention? Our responses will be diverse If I am an ardent devotee of Sri Krishna and his infallibility, I will "read" many good intentions in this action.

Bottomline is, faith subverts logic and prevents you understanding the hidden message in this episode. And as Anupamji has rightly pointed out logic also peverts faith. We are caught between the devil and deep sea !


Sachinji
--------

[quote]The basic difference between animal and human being is the ability to decide what is right and what is wrong. When they have it, they cannot be treated as animals only. When Bali knows that there is shiva and he is praying to him, then he is not just an animal.[/quote]

Even animals make a choice between right and wrong. But the rules are not the same. Worshipping God is by no means the excluive provelege of human beings. Our epics have umpteen number of stories on animals (snakes, Cows...) worshipping Gods.

I think in the discussions we have mixed up the stories and subequent interpretations by later generation humans. In the "original" story Vaali is supposed to have demanded an explanation from Ram for his inapropriate action. Ram is said to have agreed that his action was not above board and hence gave him a boon. Is this not a soul stirring episode that deserves unravelling of Geetha like philosophy from the Divine incarnation himself?

While many points have been raised on Vaali's bad deeds, the story does not say anything about any good deed that Sugreev had done. Other than his own words there is nothing (in the story) to suggest that Vaalis' accusation of trying to impound him in the cave with an intent to usurp the throne is wrong. Also how did he treat Vaalis wife when he was the king? If he had already admitted that he was incapable of fighting the Rakshahas (which is aprently the reason why he shut off the cave with big boulder) what right did he have to ascend the throne? Why did he not choose someone more powerful like Hanuman to be the king?

As I said earlier, if we stray from the stories in the epic into our own interpretations, our prejudices will easily hijack our logic. As per the story, Ram and Sugreev took oaths to be friends and to help each other. Both kept their words. As is natural between friends, Ram trusted the story given by Sugreev but felt sorry when he heard what Vaali had to say in his final moments.

[quote]I would differ on the thoughts that the true saints are no more there like they were in the past.[/quote]

I agree. I only said that they dont advertise even today. But this does not help us poor souls. Those who advertise are not real saints and the saints who dont cant be found.

Anupamji
---------

[quote]Every Raksasha surely had been very humble when he was worshipping Shiva for getting divine powers. However, in all actuality what was the intention working behind his so called 'Humility'.[/quote]

When he was worshipping he was really spiritual. I am sure Shiva cant be deceived by pretentions. He gave up the path of spirituality after getting the boon. When we assess a person we will have to take everything and not a snapshot of his personality at some point in his life. If we do this, we will be tempted to select a snapshot that is most appropriate to justify our views.
As you have yourself said earlier, we have a stereotype of what a Rakshasa is in our mind.

[quote]In one book it is written that Vanars were mere animals,.....[/quote]

I think you missed my point. I was just pointing out that what is adharma for humans need not be adharma for non-humans. Does not matter whether it is a Vaanara or a Yaksha or a Deva or a monkey. I have already pointed out the fallacy of this approach. Our prejudices will make us apply rules of Kshatriyas for Vaali's treatment of Sugreev's wife and non-kshatriya rules for assessing Ram's action of clandestinely killing Vaali.

Whatever be the yardstick of measuring righteousness, Vaali's scores over Sugreev. After all the Sugreev as he himself admits was unable to perform the most important role of a ruler, protecting his subjects from enemies.

I will also humbly add that while I am reading so many stories and versions, the questions that I have raised are based on my attempt to validate all of them.

[quote]Sugreev ran away due to fear. He was not as brave and powerful as Bali. His intention was not wrong. [/quote]

This is all the more reason why he did not deserve to be a king. That his intetnion was not wrong is his own claim. Vaali's claim was different. The epics dont talk of any validation that Sri Ram did to verify this. You will notice that the approach taken in Mahabharath was entirely different. Sri Krishna himself went as an ambassodor of peace to Kauravas. Obviously the principle of natural justice (hearing both sides) seems to have been violated by Sri Ram before he promised support to Sugreev.

Maheshji
---------

[quote]Just doing tapasya for hundreds of years and getting boons does not mean some one is a bhakta. Their bhakti has a purpose of selfish desires. [/quote]

Who do you think is a little more spiritual - One who has selfish desires and does not spend any time in pooja or tapasya (Sugreev) or someone who is also selfish but spends some time in pooja (Vaali). I will go for the latter since atleast for the duration of pooja the world stands protected from his selfishness

[quote]But one thing you notice. Why most of these cruel people are bhaktas of Shiva only. Why not of Vishnu? [/quote]

Just in a lighter vein, may be astrology can help us answer. Vishnu Bhakatas very often have a well placed Mercury which makes them diplomatic. They may just be sounding more satvik than they actually are

[quote]So, just like Bali followed dharma his sects, Sri Rama, as a king fulfilled his dharma. [/quote]

But the reason for his killing was not because he was troubling Ayodhya's subjects, but because he usurped his bother's wife. You will realise that we tend to apply an yardstick that is convenient!

CRS

[sachinwadhwa]

Dear lovacrs

“Those who advertise are not real saints and the saints who dont cant be found. ”

A person needs to be blessed to find a guru / saints. The saints do exist very much in India. I know people who are divine. However, you can approach them only if they want, and not when you want.

If you ask me, I am sure that you are blessed. You need to wait for the right time to realize that you are blessed. Till that time I will happily continue our normal discussions on physical plane.


“Is this not a soul stirring episode that deserves unravelling of Geetha like philosophy from the Divine incarnation himself?”

I believe if it would have been of that stature which required a philosophy like Geeta, then his majesty (master) would have given it.

Regards

[lovacrs]

Thanks Sachinji, Anupamji and Maheshji.

Anupamji
---------

It appears that my posts have offended you, which was not my intent.

I am a theist and certainly have respect for Sri Krishna and Sri Rama as they are portrayed in the epics.

But I dont believe that the incarnations were flawless. If Lord Vishnu were to come to earth in his original flawless form earth would not sustain that and the very need for an incarnation ceases to exist. As the story goes, Ravana had to be killed by a human because of the boon. A human form even of a divine incarnation can not be flawless. It is subject to the rules of Mrityuloka with the attendant karma phal. I dont see any reason to invent reasons to justify these actions through our interpretations that are not apparent from the epics themselves. I also dont think the flaws make them less godly either.

While doing tapasya and pooja may not be the core attributes of a spiritual person, it would be unreasonable to say that these actions have no place at all in spirituality. If it was so useless why, as you rightly pointed out, so many saints would recommend these.

As for your question on why Shiva granted the boon to Ravana, following possibilities appear to me form a logical perspective:

1. He could not discern the true intention which need not be interpreted as his inability to discern. Atleast for us human beings all events that our sensory organs are exposed are not necessarily perceived. We end up calling this absent mindedness.
2. He did discern and advised Ravan to use it judiciously and expected him to abide and failed to discern whether he would actually comply or not.
3. He did discern that Ravan would use it maliciously but could not help since that was the phal that a tapasvi could not be denied. This will indirectly mean that even God's freewill is limited.

And finally, as long as we have a desire in us we are selfish even if the desire is for salvation or helping others. There is nothing like a good desire. A desire may look good or bad for people who are affected by the desire. In Geetha Sri Krishna has commanded us to act without desires without distinguishing the good from the bad.

To give an example, If I have a desire to pick up Rs.100 without authority from your pocket and give it as alms to a needy person it will probably a bad desire from your perspective and a good one from the other's.

In Ravan's case he was using the boon to further the interests of the Rakshasa clan to the detriment of others.

As regards faith and logic - We cant be 100% of either. All of try to have a "healthy" mix of the two and the composition of the mix may not be the same for two individuals.

CRS

[lovacrs]

Thanks Anupamji.

CRS

[Narayan]

Dear Rajithaji:

No...From the time when Four Vedas came out from the mouth of Brahma, as it is said, "Aham Brahmamasi" is there. Even before it is there bcoz It is Lord Mahavishnu who churned out brahma from his stomach part. But, Brahma after coming out of Mahavishnu's stomach asks Lord Mahavishnu who are you? with ignorance, but since Mahavishnu did not reply anything, he starts searching for the beginning and end of Mahavishnu and hence Brahma starts searching all over patal and swarga loka and virtually in every place...but brahma cannot find a beginning nor an End existence of mahavishnu.

Vishnu Sahrasanama says "Atma Yonih Swayam Jato Vaigayanah Samagayanah" means I am the one who came from the Yoni called "Atma" We are all part of that "Atma" Called Parabrahma, but since the Maya Power is so much, that recognizing it is pretty tough. When we get joined back to that Parabrahma, we will be in eternal bliss.

Regards,


Narayan

[Narayan]

Dear Anupam ji:

My D.O.B. is 22.1.1979....Time of birth 9:20 a.m. Place of birth Palghat, State Kerala.

I have been trying very hard to realize myself, but I have not been able to see myself for some years now. Please kindly tell me after looking my horo. when I will be able to reach that state, I mean at what time?

I am also very tired after doing pujas etc...for long long time, as it is not helping me to get that eternal bliss at all...it is taking me nowhere.

So, please kindly tell me the time, when I will be able to reach that state? To me, I do need nothing else, virtually nothing else other than eternal bliss.

Expecting your kind reply,

Narayan