[quote="Sudarshang"]I will be out on Audit work for the next two weeks with limited access to computers...will resume posting to this thread from March 9th. Sorry for the inconvenience (or respite?) [/quote]
What A coincidence You are going to audit & I am going to be audited.Now i understood why you are audting all gods.Generaly auditors are nit pickers they think only they are right .To keep these auditors ego happy I always answer them "I dont know any thing sir please teach me", they become happy. I always (every 3 months) get good report from auditors.
Here I pray to Shiva because he is auditor general ,for those auditees to them you are going to audit .
"'O' Lord Shiva protect them to whom sudarshan is going to audit."
I imagine if auditees worshiping Shiva then there will be several big debates & sudarshan will forget to audit & start never ending debate or may be arument.
Ravana did not go to Moksha right away, if you know the story, Ravana and Kumbhkarna are none other than Jaya and Vijaya the dwar-palaka of Vishnu cursed by Sanat Kumaras. They went on to take birth as Sishupala and Dantavaktra in Dwaparyuga, and thereafter went back to their jobs. However, maha-gyanis such as yourself ....I am humbled by your humility sir ...
AS for the question you asked, sir, I did not miss that it was hypothetical - that is why I stated that there cannot be Hypotheticity in this matter. When He is "Ekohavai Narayana Aseet" there is no room to even think hypothetically of another. He is the akaara of the pranavam - He is the sarva shabda vachyan. The real question you asked - where does this Bhakti emerge from, is a really good one. I will definitely have to reflect on that to answer ...Thank you for the excellent question. From my heart, I know the source of that Bhakti is HE. He is like a spring, a fountain of love flowing in all directions, uniformly, and indiscriminately.
More later ...
Apologies. Just tried little humour as i have tried in many other ways but could not see any opening in heart.
It is still "Scissors,Scissors" only
As I see, it is all because of too much reliance given to intellectual understanding. True intellectually we have to at first, but after years we have to go beyond it. How? by testing it in our life,our relationships.
If we are not serious,then understanding may not happen.
Also in my understanding, any path will give good results at first, then a huge layer of our karma will cover up that and we will be back to pavilion!
So we fed up, think that the path we followed was wrong, change to another path.But who is following? The thief will be back in the form of policeman
Just one pointed concentration is what is necessary. Let it be Narayana, Shiva,Krishna,jesus. Names donot matter at all!
If you still continue quoting and quoting and quoting, then it is neither Bhakthi marg, nor Surrender nor Acharya service but 'Sudarshan Marg"
I had shared in other thread where extremes will lead, just one more.
'Caliph Omar,was spreading Islam. He conquered egypt and went to Alexandria, where a vast library as big as a village,containing all the best scriptures and literatures existed.
He went with Quran in one hand and a burning torch in another. He asked the Chief librarian " Tell me is there anything in these books, which is not mentioned in Quran"?
The chief librarian was a wise man. He knows if he says "no it is more, then he will be angry, so he answered '" Whatever contained in Quran in a seed form, is in a eloborated way in these books".
He gave a wise answer hoping that library will be saved. But he could not understand how a extreme mind functions!
Caliph omar replied 'Then when Quran is there, these books are not necessary"! and burned the whole library. It is reported that it took 6 months for the fire to cool down.
Just some humour! If I were the libraraian, my answer would be different
I would say, ' Whatever answer, i would give, it won't suffice, because you had already decided to destroy the library! So do it first, why ask me even?
That was the work of an extremist who burnt down a library with so much of information.
But I dont think that kind of extremism exists in Hinduism though I am secular and have lots of muslim friends too.
Anyway I dont know if you are referring to Sudharshan but I can only say that he is immensely knowledgable in spirituality and philosophy and is very well read.
From what I read, he has mentioned that texts say that Vishnu alone is the giver of Moksha and he has not undermined Shiva.
In fact most people believe that for moksha purpose, Vishnu is the giver but for everything else, and for all material comforts Shiva as well as Vishnu can give. So that does not make Shiva less powerful at all. He is capable of giving everything like Vishnu except moksha, this is what I understand from what he wrote.
I dont think he has asked anyone to stop worshipping Siva and anyway most of us if not all are not so realised that we crave for moksha. So it becomes immaterial.
Extremism does exist not only in muslims but everywhere. Infact it exists in everyone's heart, just percentage varies!
Yes, I agree, but when it turns violent like in the case of burning a library or even hurting others sentiments severely without putting forth the theories in a mild form for others to agree or disagree, then it is not good at all.
Just to see it is enough, there is no condemanation in it nor justification in it.
This is what I am pointing to. To see false paves the way for truth. This truth exists in everyone including Sudharshan Ji, me and you....And scholorship, Hmm, Have you ever heard God is close to scholors or old experienced persons are close?Only child is close to God I have heard, and also God runs away from scholors and pandits
Yes, God likes innocence and so he likes children. Knowledge is great but then it can lead to arguments but then it should never turn violent or severe, I would say, as far as we put forth our arguments mildly and try to understand the truth, we need not fear.
Every individual has ista devata and that does not mean ranking. Even I have heard people say, I love Krishna more than Rama or Rama more than Krishna and so on. It does not mean they are ranking them.
It only pertains to the duties performed by them.
Everyone is free to put forth his views for others to agree or disagree. That can be on any matter.
For eg: I am against construction of many small small temples here and there and everywhere. Instead those funds could be used for preserving the old traditional temples. Moreover our respect for God would go away if we have temple next door. Of course God does not live in temples alone but is everywhere is not for the common people who only think he is in the temple.
Why I say is I have seen people urinating in front of the temples and in fact many of them were Hindus themselves. So I dont like this. Others may have different views.
Yes, everyone is free to put forth views to agree or disagree.
Now let me try this way.
Pl. tell me about your Ista devta and I will say he is not realised fully or waiting in queue
what will happen? Without knowing, in no time you will find yourself biting your teeth, face would change,anger would grip your system!
But it wont happen if you are not attached! For example, if i hear Mother teresa is not realised or she has to have some papa karma to realise Moksha, then it won't affect me. Same way about jesus and others...But if I hear Ramana is not realised then I will react, is it not?
So reactions are bound to come from everyone when something close to them are criticised. It shows the sincerity. Masters/mystics know this but still do it because they have the authority from God.
And if we do that, we are bound to be in misery!!
Now Sudarshan ji, would take this statement, and say "inspite of misery or criticisms, i will continue because my acharya has said so as i surrendered to him!
Hmm, All these talks of surrender is like is like pinching jaggery from the jaggery image of Lord and offering it as naivedya to the same Lord
Pl. tell me about your Ista devta and I will say he is not realised fully or waiting in queue
what will happen? Without knowing, in no time you will find yourself biting your teeth, face would change,anger would grip your system!
But it wont happen if you are not attached! For example, if i hear Mother teresa is not realised or she has to have some papa karma to realise Moksha, then it won't affect me. Same way about jesus and others...But if I hear Ramana is not realised then I will react, is it not?
Yes, they are all realised souls no doubt since they shed their ego and did selfless service.
So reactions are bound to come from everyone when something close to them are criticised. It shows the sincerity. Masters/mystics know this but still do it because they have the authority from God.
Yes, criticism should not be there. Whoever does it it is not good. I can say my istadevata is best but I cannot say your istadevata is not good. I have no right to change your likings unless I am able to convince.
Now Sudarshan ji, would take this statement, and say "inspite of misery or criticisms, i will continue because my acharya has said so as i surrendered to him!
Hmm, All these talks of surrender is like is like pinching jaggery from the jaggery image of Lord and offering it as naivedya to the same Lord
Actually Vaishnavism as I understand has never criticised Shiva but considers Vishnu as supreme. Anyway, as I said, each one have their own ista devata whom they think will give them everything they want.
So it may be difficult for anyone to enter and make them come out of that zone unless they are able to totally convince them.
I have no comments to make on Sudarshan but as I know, he has read lots of books and listened to lots of discourses and has lots of love for Mahavishnu.
Yes, Sudarshang is a good man, that is why i decided to comment on him!
I don't know if you are aware or not, there was one Dattaswami who was posting as per his guru's instructions, some time before. you can verify it in this thread. Quotes upon quotes, but I never entered into it.
Yes, Sudarshang is a good man, that is why i decided to comment on him!
Yes, I feel so.
I don't know if you are aware or not, there was one Dattaswami who was posting as per his guru's instructions, some time before. you can verify it in this thread. Quotes upon quotes, but I never entered into it.
No, I dont know, I will check.
So many threads are being posted everyday and if u dont read it then and there u lose track and most times I dont have patience and time to pick out threads of the past but still I will give it a try when I find time.
Prakriti is called Bhagavad Swaroopa Tirodaanakari - That which hides the Brahman's swaroopa from us. This human body (and achit thattva) is governed by the laws of nature. The Jeevatma (chit tattva) is governed by laws of Karma. Paramatma (Ishwara tattva) is Nirankusha Swatantran - Not governed by any law. That in itself shows that there is Jeeva - Para Bhedam - Jeevatma is different and Paramatma is different. They are not the same, and they never become one.
Vedas are composed of Shrutis. Based on what they say about Jeevatma and Paramatma, there are three types of shrutis. ABheda Shruti - that which seem to say Jeevatma and Paramatma are the same; Behda Shruti - that which say the Jeevatma and Paramatma are different; and the Ghataka Shruti - that which bridge the Bheda and Abedha shrutis.
The Advaita schools - The 6 mahavakyas including Tattvam Asi etc. are Abedha Shruti. The Advaita schools (all 4) took only these vakyas as pramana to establish Jeeva-Para "Aikyam". The Advaita schools position was to willfully ignore the other two categories of shruti vakya saying that they are contrary to the maha-vakyas.
The Dvaita School took the Bedha shruti and established total Jeeva/Para Bhedam. Swami Madhvacharya and his followers belonged to this school.
The Visishtaadvaitam school took Ghataka Shrutis, and made sense of how the Bedha Shruti and Abedha shruti all make sense together! Therefore the Visishtaadvaitam school of Swami Raamaanuja (it existed long before him, but he merely popularized it). Therefore as far as Visishtaadvaitam is concerned "shrutis" in entirity need to understood collectively by understanding the fuzziness behind them, and how they are all connected together. The primary shruti pramana "yasa aatma sharira:" is a Ghataka shruti that establishes the "Sharira-Atma Bhavam" - something the other two schools completely ignored.
Despite these differences, there was NO CONFLICT whatsoever in the three schools that Sriman Narayana was the supreme Brahman. This was accepted by Adishankara Bhagavadpaadal, Swami Madhvacharya, and Swami Raamaanuja.
Because of the Jeeva-Para Bheda, there exists two kinds of knowledge one has to acquire - and this must be first hand knowledge and not bookish knowledge. This is what Narayanan has been calling "Experience" in all his posts. "Seeing is believing" therefore, "Experience" means, "Seeing the Jeevatma and Paramatma".
The first experience is of the Jeevatma Swaroopa. "Self-Realization" it is called. Jeeva Swaroopa Aavirbhavam happens when the shariram goes away. Shariram exists because Karma exists. When balance of karma becomes zero, we first get freedom from prakriti. What I mean by shariram is stoola (physical) and sookshma (unseeable). Stoola Shariram everybody knows - we all can see each other. Sookshma shariram is the body the Jeevatma takes on when it leaves the physical body. It cannot travel to other worlds - hell or heaven or srivaikuntha by itself without this sookshma sharira.
Swaroopa Aavirbhavam happens when the Jeevatma goes to Srivaikuntha and takes bath in the Viraja River. The loses the sookshma sharira and acquires a shuddha-sattva sharira - It is an apraakrita sharira that is not bound by the laws of nature. In fact, the world of Sri Vaikuntha itself is apraakrita - i.e not bound by laws of nature. That entire world is made of Suddha-sattva - therefore it is full of knowledge - it is timeless - and devoid of the defects we see in the "natural world".
The second realization is that of "Brahma Swaroopam". Brahma Swaroopa AAvirbhavam happens when the Jeevatma goes to Meet the Lord of Sri Vaikuntha, Sriman Narayana, the Supreme Brahman.
Having realized Sva-swaroopam and Bhagavad-swaroopam, the mukta-atma now becomes a Legal Permanent Resident of Sri Vaikuntha - remaining ever in the service of the Lord. Not merely his Shanka, Chakra, and Adisesha paryankam, - in Sri Vaikuntha even the vattil from which you offer the Lord Arghya, Padya, Aachamaneeya are real and existing.
Gyana as we know in this sharira cannot help you exhaust karma! True, the shastras say "Gyaannan moksha:" - that knowledge it talks about is what I described in the previous post - the Jeeva Swaroopa Aavirbhavam and Brahma Swaroopa Aavirbhavam. That happens when you have exhausted your karma - the booking knowledge we acquire does not help you exhaust your Karma. Prarabdha karma and sanchita karma can be exhausted only by - 1. Karma Yoga 2. Bhakti Yoga. In both these yogas, you do not exhaust your karma by yourself! The Lord who is pleased by your karma yoga and bhakti yoga, cancels a part of your karma.
99.99% of the world is born with prarabdha karma that does not allow you to start your bhakti right away. Initial practice of karma yoga helps remove some of that prarabdha karma to start Bhakti. Therefore whether you are bhakti yoga nishta or a karma yoga nishta, doing your karma as per your varnaashrama dharma is absolutely important. Knowledge grows automatically as you perform your nitya karma that makes you bhakti firm.
But if I hear Ramana is not realised then I will react, is it not?
So reactions are bound to come from everyone when something close to them are criticised. So i retire.
KG1968-ji
Firstly, I did not say Ramana is not realized. I am not denying that Ramana had some "bodily experiences". But, is that realization + bodily experiences = "Moksha" as described in the shastras?
If you read my posts, from what I know, Moksha is clearly not an "in-body" experience. In the sampradayam that I follow, we do not wait for any "in-body" experiences knowing clearly well that what has to happen is going to happen in a place called "Sri Vaikuntha". That experience, my gurus have told me, happens purely at the Lord's discretion. That is the Moksha, as told by the shastras we are told. Swami Nammazhwar is the only person to whom the Lord gave this "knowledge" (and not the experience) "in-body" and therefore that was the source with which sang the 10 pasurams "soozh visumbu ani mugil ..." in Thiruvaimozhi. These 10 verses describe the journey to Sri Vaikuntha. Based on this and other shastra proofs, Swami Ramanuja wrote the "Sri Vaikuntha Gadyam" in which he has given more graphic description of the Sri Vaikuntha Loka. Similarly, Swami Koorathazhan has also described Sri Vaikuntham in his Sri Vaikuntha Stavam.
From what I have read in these, the experiences and therefore the words of wisdom spoken by Ramana do not match. I am not denying that Ramana had "some experience". What He experienced He knows. I know I am not "Waiting for such an experience to happen to me". Because, according to me, Moksha is not an IN-Body experience. It is a "Place to Go to" - like Swarga Loka, Satya Loka, Patala-Loka etc. This also is not MY Opinions - it is what the shastras say - it calls it "Vishno: paramam padam." Therefore it is not something abstract.
As you know, before Moksha, there are three purusharthas viz, Dharma, Artha and Kama. If any one of them is in pending status, it becomes difficult for the fourth state of not coming back anymore.
Only a very few goes to the fourth state straight away without touching the other three. In such cases, the above thing is exceptional.
Please do not characterize this dummy and fake person as real as I am that only, but the only above person is the real authority, sitting all of above without moving.
As i have already stated , why shall we bother about Ramana enlightened or other etc? let us see our realisation and asked you to share anecdotes/stories from scriptures. You said 'point noted" , but still continue quoting and affirming only " Vaikunta" and 'Narayana"
Why I said that when ramana was criticised, i am bound to react, is just an example. I am neither attached to ramana or osho, any enlightened ones.
I mean not attached,to their shadow, their words but not to their light. That light is there in everyone's heart.
If we have even a slight trace of light, that light realises other light instantaneously.
All conflicts arise because when shadows assume they are light and fight with another shadow
You have studied, discussed more and more. Where they land you finally? Still more and more study? The very word "more" belongs to "mind"!
The holy scripture says “Akinchitkarasya Seshatva anupapatti:”
"A Jivatman’s (soul’s) essential nature and identity is its ‘seshatvam’ – absolute servitude. Without serving the Almighty and His devotees with its little mite, an atman loses its identity of absolute servitude"
The self illuminates itself without the medium of consciousness. It is said to be svayamprakāsa as opposed to jaḍa. In thick darkness you are not able to see the books and pencils placed on your table. The books and pencils do not shine forth for you; they do not manifest themselves to you. If you bring a lamp, its light makes them appear to you. The books and pencils thus depend upon the light for their appearance. They are, therefore, objects depending on other things for our cognizing them. The lamp-light does not require any other light or any other object for our cognizing it. The lamp-light not only makes other objects such as books etc., manifest themselves to us, but, at the same time, it manifests itself to us without any medium. This analogy may, to a certain extent, help us to understand the expression svayaṁprakāsa or self-luminous object. Only 'to a certain extent', for the analogy is not quite apt and is not on all fours, because, the lamp-light or, for that matter, any visible worldly object is not svayaṁprakāsa. Śāstras say that the self, the Supreme Being and the Divine world, aprākṛtaloka, are the only svayaṁprakāsa objects. Strictly speaking, even a lighted lamp does not possess illuminating quality, for its light does not make objects manifest themselves.
In every instance, it is our consciousness, jñāna that makes objects appear to us. In spite of the presence of the lamp-light, the objects will not appear to us in the absence of jñāna or consciousness. Even the senses do not illumine objects. The senses only cause the origination of consciousness. The function of the brilliant light, such as that of an electric lamp, is only to help the senses which originate consciousness, by removing the obstacle for such origination, namely, darkness. In ordinary parlance, we say that a lamp illumines objects having regard to the help rendered to the organ of sight in the production of consciousness. Merely because the light removes the obstacle for the origination of consciousness, it cannot be said to illumine the object. That, which is really conducive to vyavahāra or talk, does illumine objects, and that is, jñāna or consciousness. Therefore, consciousness alone illumines objects. Mere light does not illumine objects. Therefore, light is not, strictly speaking, luminous; and much less, is it self-luminous. We shall deal with the attribute-consciousness at length later on. The self does not require even this attribute consciousness for its illumination. It illumines itself. Therefore, the self is said to be self-luminous. The upaniṣad says: “The puruṣa or self is self-luminous”.
[/quote]
