Spirituality, Astrology, Destiny, B. Geeta, Celibacy

[suniti]

\

but you still remain a staunch advaiti in your outlook.

i don't feel myself a staunch advaitin but
you are right sir conditionings are there
i do hope to one day be free of all conditionings of mind and "i'

suniti

You might want to try "jeeva-para ananyam" instead of "Aikyam"....through sharira-Atma Bhavam.
Jeevan=Shariram
Brahmam=Shariri
Shrutis will hold good that way also.

Add to it some Saguna Brahmam, create yourself a paint-book and color HIM as you please

Trust me it is easier than freeing yourself of all conditionings which itself could take lifetimes ...instead get conditioned to Love HIM unconditionally - simply because HE is the big-boss!

thanks
but
maybe you should try though for a minute to look at the idea of oneness
oneness does not mean athiesm, it means one thing thats all
i'm not saying believe it
but just look at it, without judging, rejecting or condemning
and see what rises in the mind
i believe that everyone is saying the same thing, its just semantics
what do you think?

suniti

[Sudarshang]

suniti[/quote]

You might want to try "jeeva-para ananyam" instead of "Aikyam"....through sharira-Atma Bhavam.
Jeevan=Shariram
Brahmam=Shariri
Shrutis will hold good that way also.

Add to it some Saguna Brahmam, create yourself a paint-book and color HIM as you please

Trust me it is easier than freeing yourself of all conditionings which itself could take lifetimes ...instead get conditioned to Love HIM unconditionally - simply because HE is the big-boss![/quote]

thanks
but
maybe you should try though for a minute to look at the idea of oneness
oneness does not mean athiesm, it means one thing thats all
i'm not saying believe it
but just look at it, without judging, rejecting or condemning
and see what rises in the mind
i believe that everyone is saying the same thing, its just semantics
what do you think?

suniti[/quote]

Suniti_ji

I have looked at one-ness very impartially - because for more than 20 long years I was an advaitin. But something was missing all the time during that period. one-ness never really explained a lot of questions I had. I found the answers in Vishishtadwaita. Again, there are lot of vishishtadwaitins that dont understand Swami Ramanuja's siddhanta that well.

No, I do not believe that everyone is saying the same thing - it is a matter of Moksha v. rebirth - its worth a lot more than beating Bill Gates in wealth accumulation! Believing in everybody and trying to rationalize everybody's teachings is recipe for getting derailed. My recipe is follow one school and stick to it. Let others alone...

[suniti]

Suniti_ji

I have looked at one-ness very impartially - because for more than 20 long years I was an advaitin. But something was missing all the time during that period. one-ness never really explained a lot of questions I had. I found the answers in Vishishtadwaita. Again, there are lot of vishishtadwaitins that dont understand Swami Ramanuja's siddhanta that well.

No, I do not believe that everyone is saying the same thing - it is a matter of Moksha v. rebirth - its worth a lot more than beating Bill Gates in wealth accumulation! Believing in everybody and trying to rationalize everybody's teachings is recipe for getting derailed. My recipe is follow one school and stick to it. Let others alone...

dear Sudarshanji

i'm only saying to look at it once more
i'm not saying to believe it
what is the harm in looking once more?
i am not comparing anything to Bill Gates
but as i am listening as well as many others to your views i'm saying can you look
for a minute, although you may have already looked, once more to this idea of one ness.


i don't see anything as getting "derailed" in spirituality, i think in sattvik way if we look, there is no fear of any other teaching
and no idea of one way for all.

thanks
suniti

[Sudarshang]

i'm only saying to look at it once more
i'm not saying to believe it
what is the harm in looking once more?
i am not comparing anything to Bill Gates
but as i am listening as well as many others to your views i'm saying can you look
for a minute, although you may have already looked, once more to this idea of one ness.

thanks
suniti

Suniti-ji

There are three types of shruti vakyas - Abheda, Bedha, and Gataka. Vedas cannot be wrong. Advaita was born from the perspective of holding Abedha shrutis are predominant, and rejecting the Bedha and Gataka as caused by Maya. Swami Ramanuja written an entire grantham pointing out the faultlines not only in Shankara's advaita, but also, Bhaskara, Yadavaprakasa, and Bhaatta schools of advaita. Swami Ramanuja's premise is based on making all three types of shruti vakyas make sense collectively. Not only has he been successful at that, but has gone beyond siddhanta to establish a practical side to it culminating in an authoritative acknowledgement from Sriman Narayana. Who showed him the way? Saakshaat Devaperumal of Kanchipuram through the six phrases He gave to Ramanuja's acharya - Thirukkacchi Nambi. The practical side of it is acknowledged by none other than Srirangam Namperumal in Saranagathi-gadyam. Swami Ramanuja even jokingly asks the Lord in that Gadyam - they say as Sri Krishna you used to tell lies - how am I to beleive you? The Lord says in response, "there is no second word to what I say". In Sri Vaikuntha Gadyam he gives a graphic description of the abode of Moksha - Sri Vaikuntha, and What happens to the mukta Aatma there. When such clear graphic (non-mayic) evidence is available, and when I have read all this, and know not only the faultlines in Shankara's theory of Jeeva-Brahma aikyam, but also what caused it, "looking back at one-ness again"?....

The Mukta-Atma in SriVaikuntha attains "Samyapatti" with the Lord in certain aspects - but does not Merge with him. Even even He and His Consorts are different, the Nityasooris including Adisesha, Garuda, Vishvaksena, etc are different, one-ness? Also, the theory of "Aikyam" cannot co-exist and mean the same thing as the theory of "Chetana-achetana visishta Brahmam"

[Sudarshang]

Hello Kasgan,

You mentioned that when a soul leaves the body it goes to another body with all its Karma. Is this preselected? Which body to choose?

Yes I think that in whose body a soul will enter is predestined by God. It depends on his karma. If he has strong karmic connections with her near and dear ones, then obviously, one will be reborn again in this family again. In earlier pages, I have given an example of how a daughter was again re born in the same family that we know very well.

Kaushik and Aseem

This is not pre-destined or pre-selected. Karma is only responsible for "prakirti Sambandam" - of the soul coming in contact with prakirti (nature). In nature there is lot of uncertainty. I recommnd reading the story of Jada Bharata in Srimad Bhagavatam for some insights.

[Sudarshang]

Now this law is much clearer to me. If one wants to have success, then always think positive to attract positive people in life. If one wants to make fast money, then one should always think only of money making.

Material successes dont mean anything in after-life. What you earn here you have to leave behind - except Karma.

[Sudarshang]

Based on my experience with Sri Agastya nadi reading, they correctly told about my father's name, profession. Regarding my own son and daughter (after marriage as told by them), they only told about when they will be born, the education they will recieve and timing of maariage but not specific dates and no names. I mean to say here that only general readings about a son can be made from the chart of his father. If 5th Lord is well placed and there is benefic aspect on 5th house, then one can confidently say that the son will lead a good life.

Now the relations with son and father can be gauged from the placement of 5th and 9th Lords. If they are in 6/8 axis, then there will be differences and they will prefer to live separately, if they are in 1/1/, 1/7, 3/11, 5/9 axis then it will be good and they will support each other.

Now coming to the particular question, yes, the father and his son/daughter has past connections. Let me cite an example- There is a mentally retarded person born in a particular family and their parent will have to face numerous problems in bringing him up. The karmic implications can be that the parents must have treated badly to someone in the past life and that the victim born in their life as their son for a lesson to be taught to them.

May be Sudarshan Ji can give more clear answers.

I dont believe in "Karmic implication" in the same way as you do - Karma is primarily responsible for the soul coming in contact with nature. This human body is achit - inanimate thing. Soul getting prakirti sambandam means, soul acquiring a body - it can be any body. Great king like Bharata (story from Srimad Bhagavatam) after performing exemplary Karma as a king, having performed great yagnas for public welfare, renounces the kingdom at the right age to go vanaprastha and perform penance to attain Moksha. However, at the time of death since he was thinking about a deer that he helped in his ashram takes birth as a deer. If there was any "Karmic Implication" I would have expected Bharata to have been born at least a human being... nevertheless, even as a deer he could remember his previous life. Again in the next life he was born as a human being, but as a "jada". His own brothers used to ill-treat him. Aatma of Bharata's calibre, if there were karmic implication I would have assumed to be born in a decent well-to-do family? The only thing that Bharata got in the life as a deer and the life as a "jada" - he could remember his previous birth - he realized his mistake and made sure he was always thinking about the Lord and Moksha.

[suniti]

namaste sudarshanji
i think you have misunderstood me
i am not debating the points of the Great Ramanuja Aachaarya, who i humbly salute,
my question was
without anything can you look at this idea of oneness
im not asking what others have said
or anything else
i myself can take the passages of upanishad and we can debate on what it means but i dont see the necessity of that
im asking you is it possible for you to look at this idea, once more and what are your thoughts?
as you are an advanced sadhaka its interesting to see your views and how we all see things once more...
what do you think?
suniti

[Dev]

Dear Sudarshan:
I dont believe in "Karmic implication" - Karma is only responsible for the soul coming in contact with nature. This human body is achit - inanimate thing. Soul getting prakirti sambandam means, soul acquiring a body - it can be any body. Great king like Bharata (story from Srimad Bhagavatam) after performing exemplary Karma as a king, having performed great yagnas for public welfare, renounces the kingdom at the right age to go vanaprastha and perform penance to attain Moksha. However, at the time of death since he was thinking about a deer that he helped in his ashram takes birth as a deer. If there was any "Karmic Implication" I would have expected Bharata to have been born at least a human being... nevertheless, even as a deer he could remember his previous life. Again in the next life he was born as a human being, but as a "jada". His own brothers used to ill-treat him. Aatma of Bharata's calibre, if there were karmic implication I would have assumed to be born in a decent well-to-do family? The only thing that Bharata got in the life as a deer and the life as a "jada" - he could remember his previous birth - he realized his mistake and made sure he was always thinking about the Lord and Moksha.

What about the case of a human who never chanted names of God but just before his death, called Narayana and attained Moksha.
In another case, a prostitute lives close to a saint. He thinks, how it would have been if I enjoyed pleasures like her and she on the other hand thought of him and thought how nice it would be if I were him.
And then the story of Valmiki, who tries to transfer his sins to his family but noone is willing to accept. Then he did tapas and went on to write Ramayana.
How do u explain all these?

Dev

[suniti]

m.
And then the story of Valmiki, who tries to transfer his sins to his family but noone is willing to accept. Then he did tapas and went on to write Ramayana.
How do u explain all these?

Dev

dear Devji
sorry to interrupt here but your point was beautiful and made me think about it
so i thought it must be that grace that i myself long for
i think it points to the compassion of that grace...
and the depth and inexplicable nature of That.
just a thought

suniti

[Sudarshang]

What about the case of a human who never chanted names of God but just before his death, called Narayana and attained Moksha.
In another case, a prostitute lives close to a saint. He thinks, how it would have been if I enjoyed pleasures like her and she on the other hand thought of him and thought how nice it would be if I were him.
And then the story of Valmiki, who tries to transfer his sins to his family but noone is willing to accept. Then he did tapas and went on to write Ramayana.
How do u explain all these?

Dev

I second Suniti-ji in this. Valmiki, Swmi Nammazhwar, (in fact all the Azhwars) were nothing but the grace of the Almighty. As for Ajamilan, there is a rule that you attain moksha if you call out the Lord's name at the time death (called Antima Smriti). (Note that this is not valid for certain people ...they attain moksha even if they cannot think of him at the time of death). Now this is no ordinary feat - at the time of the separation of the atma from the body - in majority cases the body has lost consciousness and there is no way we can remember him)

[Dev]

Thanks Suniti and Sudarshan for the answers.
Such mutual discussions helps a lot to all of us.
Dev

[Talib]

and a lot of readers as well

thanks all of you



Love

[Sudarshang]

namaste sudarshanji
i think you have misunderstood me
i am not debating the points of the Great Ramanuja Aachaarya, who i humbly salute,
my question was
without anything can you look at this idea of oneness
im not asking what others have said
or anything else
i myself can take the passages of upanishad and we can debate on what it means but i dont see the necessity of that
im asking you is it possible for you to look at this idea, once more and what are your thoughts?
as you are an advanced sadhaka its interesting to see your views and how we all see things once more...
what do you think?
suniti

Suniti-ji

What I think - in simple words - one-ness is impossible. He is up there - so high, so rich, so simple, yet so far, it is practically impossible for the human mind to visualize Him. If you cannot visualize Him, how can we become HIM?
Because He created this world for human beings, He made it simple for us to see him - by coming down to the temples in which we worship Him.
He is Rajati-Rajan - who is capable of taking Vishwaroop and measuring the 14 worlds in 2 feets. imagine when that feet touched earth - wouldnt I have been nothing more than a speck of dirt under it? Where is He, and Where am I?

Other so called Gods are are speck of dirt under that same feet - Imagine this scene - one God is lifting his feet up, one God is washing that feet, and another God is bearing that water on his head! So, who is the real God? In the Srirangam temple you will find an painting depicting this God swallowing the other two at the time of Pralaya. So, in final analysis only One God exists - ie Only one Brahmam. He is the only reality. We are also real - not maya. We are all (all Jevaatmas) are sub-servient to Him. Jeevo-brahamaiva na para: - no way - not what I can see in reality - imagine that feet that measured earth and me standing in front of it - can the two be the same? not in my wildest imagination.

Lets at least examine whether all Jeevatmas are one entity - practically we see around us - different types of people -so much difference - you are different from me in knowledge, and happiness - the two elements that make up the Jeevatma. How can even two Jeevatmas be one entity? Even there Aikyam is impossible. The only "similarity" we have is we are both Jeevatmas that are paratantran's to the Brahmam. Brahmam - Nirankusha Swatantran. The only Swatantran in existence. The community of Jeevatmas is Paratantran (ever dependent) to Him.

At the same time, let us examine whether the Jeevatma despite being separate, can it live without the Brahamam? No it cannot> That is why the Brahamam is called Narayana - Naaraanaam Ayanam (nothing can exist without Him). They are separate - but cannot exist without - therefore Advaita holds good. How, He is the life, the Jeevatma is the living. He is the Antar-atma, Jeevatma is the body to the Antar-atma, the human body is the external body to the Jeevatma. Jeevatma carries out instructions from the Lord, using this body.

The confusion actual arises with the interpretation of the word "A-dvaita" -> is it to be interpreted as "one and the same" or "without a second"? In the same context where it says Tat-Tvam Asi, Shrutis say "Ekameha Adviteeyam" more in the meaning of "there is no second to It". They also say "Ekohavai Narayana Aseet - Na Brahma, Na Esana:" (Only Narayana exists, not Brahma, No Esan)

[suniti]

dear Sudarshanji
thanks for your thoughts
pranaams

Thanks Suniti and Sudarshan for the answers.

Devji

i just wanted to say i dont have any answers,
maybe only the ones who Know have the answers
if there are even any questions (or dare i say a questioner)

like one of my favorite lines in Srimad Bhagavad Gita
"yah pashyati, sah pashyati"
he who sees, sees

pranaams to you sir
suniti

[Dev]

No Suniti. You have good knowledge of sanskrit and u also know spirituality, otherwise u cannot even ask questions. I am a beginner too, I dont know much spitituality.

Dev

[Sudarshang]

I dont believe in "Karmic implication" in the same way as you do - Karma is primarily responsible for the soul coming in contact with nature. This human body is achit - inanimate thing. Soul getting prakirti sambandam means, soul acquiring a body - it can be any body. Great king like Bharata (story from Srimad Bhagavatam) after performing exemplary Karma as a king, having performed great yagnas for public welfare, renounces the kingdom at the right age to go vanaprastha and perform penance to attain Moksha. However, at the time of death since he was thinking about a deer that he helped in his ashram takes birth as a deer. If there was any "Karmic Implication" I would have expected Bharata to have been born at least a human being... nevertheless, even as a deer he could remember his previous life. Again in the next life he was born as a human being, but as a "jada". His own brothers used to ill-treat him. Aatma of Bharata's calibre, if there were karmic implication I would ..

Sir, I have too heard the example of a deer and i agree with you.

When the time for death comes for me, I will fill my room with the Lords posters many years in advance and join spiritual organisations and will always think of God besides discharging wordly duties. Let me see If i am able to do that or not.

Antima swmiti is not applicable to certain people. Lke Swami Nammazhwar says, " For that day, I will tell your name right now ...." You dont know how your consciousness would be at the time of death. Devaperumal of Kanchi has said to Swami Ramanuja "Antima Smriti Varjanam" (Antima Smriti is not needed)...but only for those that have performed Sharanagati today!

[onlyhope]

I have heard that when the time of death comes, many think of all the Wrongs they have done in their lifetime. Like a serious sense of guilt sinks in anticipating punishment. At other times, many dont think of who they're hurting or cheating, etc. They think they can get away with it and God really doesnt even notice. It is said that these last thoughts are a reflection of their strongest feelings during their life, and it governs what they will be in their next birth.

Being a king who has only done punya makes one a realised soul, but he may Choose to be a deer in his next birth for Karmic learning. This funda is nicely explained in a book I read - Laws of the spirit world - it may not be 100% accurate, but it pretty much gives an idea.

I also heard some people die with their eyes open as if theyre in fear/shock. Others slowly close their eyes and pass peacefully.

Now some of us have a habit that we do jap ALL THE TIME. Like even if i am watching tv or reading or doing some work, on a parallel track in my mind - I try to remember God. Still I would imagine that the next birth will be based on what lesson my soul chooses to learn, along with karmic balancing.

About positive thinking, etc, its not enough to think positive, its more important to BELIEVE it. While meditating, if we try to visualise our problems, we notice all our patterns in this life are based on what we believe in our soul. Then these patterns are created in our real life too. Whether or not I may be able to create new positive patterns may be my destiny.

[Narayan]

Aseemji:

"Srila Sridhar Maharaj: We must try to cast ourselves at the divine feet of the Lord saying, “I am the lowest of the low. I am willing to believe that I am the most helpless. I want the shelter of your lotus feet. Please take charge of me. I am unfit to take any responsibility for my own good.” This should be our humble attitude. We should feel that, “I can’t tolerate this life of independence any longer. I can’t go on. I am disgusted with my life of independence. I want slavery, jivera svarupa haya krsnera nitya dasa.

Others may think themselves fit, but I do not think myself sufficiently developed to take responsibility for myself. I am the most reckless, mean, worthless and useless. Please accept me and give me any service at your feet. I can no longer rely on myself. I have come to take shelter of your holy feet. You are my Guardian.” This is sharanagati, to accept Krsna as one’s absolute Guardian. "


Extremely true, that such should be the attitude. One should cry before him as his own father and mother and also be humble and kind always from inner heart to everybody. One must always feel as a dasanu dasasoyamaham. But, such an attitude is difficult to get as in most, the ego plays as a big hindrance for the same. It also requires his grace to dent completely that ego and when that ego gets blemished, such an attitude will raise from inner heart, of pure love towards god and nothing else.

Regards,

Narayanan

[krishnagopal1968]

Dear Aseem Ji,

Sorry for interruption, i think you won't mind

you say

"When the time for death comes for me, I will fill my room with the Lords posters many years in advance and join spiritual organisations and will always think of God besides discharging wordly duties. Let me see If i am able to do that or not."

This is what every elderly man thinks of. But then no one seems to be able.

so the best answer for me, is why not now? who knows death? may be tomorrow or today or even now?

or, death may be a great shock and if mini=shocks which we all experience remind us of death, like when my loved father or mother or lover or child someone left me?

may be dev ji can tell us some xperience, wherein how he felt like, when his mother died?

or any deep xperience of sadness which u may remember? can u share some?

[krishnagopal1968]

Dear Aseem ji,

quote/"Other simple way to find out any karmic connection between father and son is through feelings i.e. If both of you are attached to each other without knowing why then it clearly shows strong karmic connections between them in the past."quote/

Wonderfull But i think all relationship is thro karmic connection.

Is it also apply to our other interactions like boss, friend,enemy.....

let your intelligence guide you..

[Sudarshang]

Srila Sridhar Maharaj: We must try to cast ourselves at the divine feet of the Lord saying, “I am the lowest of the low. I am willing to believe that I am the most helpless. I want the shelter of your lotus feet. Please take charge of me. I am unfit to take any responsibility for my own good.” This should be our humble attitude. We should feel that, “I can’t tolerate this life of independence any longer. I can’t go on. I am disgusted with my life of independence. I want slavery, jivera svarupa haya krsnera nitya dasa.

Others may think themselves fit, but I do not think myself sufficiently developed to take responsibility for myself. I am the most reckless, mean, worthless and useless. Please accept me and give me any service at your feet. I can no longer rely on myself. I have come to take shelter of your holy feet. You are my Guardian.” This is sharanagati, to accept Krsna as one’s absolute Guardian.

Aseem

That's a beautiful quote. Reminds of the two qualities a Sharangathan is expected to have - Aakinchanyam and Ananyagativam. This is very nicely stated by Swami Alavandar - the man that sought to make Ramanuja but did not live to meet him. His shloka is "Stotra Ratnam":

Na Dharma Nishtosmi Na chatma vedi
Na Bhaktiman tvat Charanaaravinde
Akinchano ananyagatitvo tvat paada Moolam
Sharan Prapadye

This shloka is nothing but a response to the shloka we have discussed here - "Sarva Dharman ...."

The Lord Says, "Sarva Dharmaan Parityajya" - meaning "After leaving all the dharmas very well ..." He could have simply said - after leaving all dharmas - why the "very well?" He could have said Sarva Dharman tyajya - why Pari-tyajya? He does not want us to hold on to any kind of dharma - whether it is an act of Karma, or bhakthi or anything whatsoever....

Swami Alavandar's shloka responds to that very clearly - Na Dharma - I have no Dharma, No Veda (No Knowledge), I am not a Bhakthiman - very clearly he negates the Karma, Gnana, Bhakthi yogas - and then seeks the Lord's feet - The Lord puts that as a precondition to Sharanagathi - leave everything else.

Akinchano - I have no investment from my side to make - my hands are empty (No accumulated good/bad karma, No Janana to carry over etc,)
Ananyagatitvo - I have nowhere else to go - I have no other God (devata) to seek, No Karma to do, No Janana to support me, No Bhakthi that can deliver me....

These two words - Aakinchanyam (no investment) and Ananyagatitvam (No place to go) is precisely what is communicated when we perform Shashtang Namaskar - Our hands are together above the head, and feet are together communicating - I have no investment in my hand, and I have nowhere else to go because my feet are stuck together right here ...

[krishnagopal1968]

Aseem ji,

Though you meant "scared" and not "sacred" , you must have done sacred acts

Anyother xperience like close accidents, sudden shock and how you felt in those moments?

[kasgan]

Hi Aseem

In Bengal we do Shashtanga Pranam to elders and God.

I think its more to show your respect, seek blessings and most importantly humbly beg forgiveness. I am not spiritual or versed in religious scriptures but I think the 2 most important things are:
Humility
You let go of your ego lying prostrate in the sense that you are ready to wallow in dust in respect of the person/God in front of you. This shows complete surrender to His Will.
Seek Blessings
Whenever we do this it is to seek blessing of the person.
kaushik

[suniti]

Sashtang Namaskar-

Namaste means "I bow to you" (Nama = bowing, te= you). It also means "Nothing is mine" (Na=nothing, mae=mine). Bringing both the hands at the chest and joining them, with a slight bow has been Indian way of greeting for centuries.

very well said
i just want to add (in all my nerdiness) about the etymology though you have covered it already
that namah is "na mama iti namah" like you said nothing is mine, or there is no me/mine.
A salutation is that where there is no "me'
that i think is true humility.

i really love these etymologies
if anyone is interested here is an awesome website about the declension of pop words it is on the word for "you" so it shows "te" as in namaste.
http://samskrutam.com/samskrit/studies/ ... rm_yuShmad
i find the etymology of our words has a lot of bearing on the philosophy that springs from it...

sorry for interrupting
but i got a bit excited about namaste
suniti

suniti