PDA

View Full Version : jnana yoga



billcu
15 November 2012, 03:19 PM
This is a new yoga I've never heard of and I have a question. It is taught in chrsitianity that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Is there sin in Hinduism? I've also read it's not the act it's the attachment. Is it possible to do this without sinning and begin unattached?

B

Kalicharan Tuvij
16 November 2012, 06:04 AM
There are two languages: Language of Morality and Language of Immortality. Language of Morality is a language in progress, while Immortal Language is eternal, sanatan.

Language of Morality is required, for a time being, when the seeker is still evolving. But to make that language into a permanent form, i.e., religion, would be like conceding that Evil also exists, is also real.

So when in Rig-Veda Varun, the God of Life & Desire, extends his kingdom, starting from Earth, up to Heaven, an "expansion" is implied rather than a "contraction" or a "denial". Marriage itself, in its real essence, is more than a ceremony.

Eastern Mind
16 November 2012, 08:20 AM
This is a new yoga I've never heard of and I have a question. It is taught in chrsitianity that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Is there sin in Hinduism? I've also read it's not the act it's the attachment. Is it possible to do this without sinning and begin unattached?

B

Vannakkam: If you google jnana yoga, you'll get a lot of hits. Opinions vary on the nature of jnana yoga, moetly in where this intelligence comes from. There is no 'sin' in Hinduism in the same way there is in other faiths. There is dharmic and adharmic. Adultery would be considered adharmic, yes, and in that sense you are accruing 'bad'' karma. The marriage samskara is considered a vow for life.

It is not possible to do it without attachment. You may intellectually convince yourself its okay somehow, but that's just anava.

Perhaps you'll get different opinions on this, though.

Aum Namasivaya

charitra
16 November 2012, 10:22 AM
This is a new yoga I've never heard of and I have a question. It is taught in chrsitianity that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Is there sin in Hinduism? I've also read it's not the act it's the attachment. Is it possible to do this without sinning and begin unattached?

B
if you are not attached and not looking for some form of gain you wouldnt even go there, would you? Namaste and welcome.

billcu
16 November 2012, 03:30 PM
if you are not attached and not looking for some form of gain you wouldnt even go there, would you? Namaste and welcome.

lol I don't suppose. But then again I haven't reached satva much lesss enlightenment.

Bill

yajvan
16 November 2012, 06:53 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namastÚ


J˝āna yoga is that which erases the ~sin~ of moha (delusion, wrong perceptions, etc.).
J˝āna is defined as knowing , becoming acquainted with , knowledge , especially higher knowledge. Yet this knowledge is not that of 2+2 = 4, or knowing all 7 continents. It is that knowledge that aligns one's self to one's SELF. It is that knowledge that removes ignorance.

Within the kaśmiri śaivism ~ in general~ ignorance or āvidya comes in two forms: pauruṣa aj˝āna and bauddha aj˝āna i.e. spiritual and intellectual ignorance. When properly applied, j˝āna yoga is that ointment that helps rid oneself of these blemishes. The keyword is 'helps' , as in the final analysis it is the grace of the Supreme that brings the final stroke.

praṇām

yajvan
16 November 2012, 07:10 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~


namastÚ



Within the kaśmiri śaivism ~ in general~ ignorance or āvidya comes in two forms: pauruṣa aj˝āna and bauddha aj˝āna i.e. spiritual and intellectual ignorance. When properly applied, j˝āna yoga is that ointment that helps rid oneself of these blemishes. The keyword is 'helps' , as in the final analysis it is the grace of the Supreme that brings the final stroke.
Within vedānta, and within what is found in the upaniṣad-s╣ , We would say it this way... the Self (ātman) is svatāsiddha is self-revealed, self-known on a personal -subjective -intimate level. The Self reveals itSelf to itSelf, so says the upaniṣad-s.

What then is our responsibility ? to prepare, make ready.


praṇām



1. Two upaniṣad-s call this out : kaṭhopaniṣad (1.2.23) & muṇḍukopaniṣad (3.2.2)

billcu
16 November 2012, 07:57 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~


namastÚ


Within vedānta, and within what is found in the upaniṣad-s╣ , We would say it this way... the Self (ātman) is svatāsiddha is self-revealed, self-known on a personal -subjective -intimate level. The Self reveals itSelf to itSelf, so says the upaniṣad-s.

What then is our responsibility ? to prepare, make ready.


praṇām



1. Two upaniṣad-s call this out : kaṭhopaniṣad (1.2.23) & muṇḍukopaniṣad (3.2.2)

I have never read the upanishads. What can I do then to erase sin? In the catholic church they have absolution. I don't think that erases karma. That takes a long time.

Bill

devotee
16 November 2012, 10:03 PM
Namaste billcu,

Your question shows your lack of knowledge of both Jnan Yoga and Karma Yoga. Though both are not mutually exclusive, I would recommend that you should first try to understand the concept of Karma Yoga as your question belongs to that.

First of all the concept of sin in Hinduism is completely different from that in other religions. The whole universe is created and maintained under very strict laws of nature. There are right and wrong actions and there are mixed. Your actions are judged by your motives. What is right and what is wrong ? If an action takes you towards God, it is right. If it takes you away from God it is wrong.

I try to consolidate some of the teachings pertinent to our actions and fruits of actions i.e. laws of Karma :

a) Your actions are judged by your motive and not by just the mechanical action. If you kill your enemies (even thousands of them) in a war to safeguard your country ... you are not punished but rewarded with your place in heaven. (Ref : Bhagwad Gita)

b) Indulging in any act for sensual pleasure will lead to misery in the long run as it is taking you away from God. Any distance from God will push you into misery. So, sex outside marriage surely will lead to misery and sufferings. In fact, sex with spouse too should be checked and controlled ... otherwise, this would also lead to unhappiness and sufferings. Too much focusing on sex in marital relations makes the marriage strained and makes the bonding superficial limited to physical level which creates occasions for psychological and spiritual conflicts.

c) Please remember that God doesn't punish us for our wrong acts. It is the ever applicable Laws of Nature (also called the Laws of Karma) which automatically come into play to create sufferings for us for our wrong actions. The same laws work to create beneficial opportunities for fulfilling our desires if we perform the Right Actions. Sincere prayer to God can alleviate sufferings and can also show us path out of our sufferings.

d) Laws of Karma are applicable to us only till we are not Self-realised. Self-realisation roasts all seeds of Karma and doesn't allow bearing Karmaphala (fruits of actions).

OM

billcu
17 November 2012, 01:40 PM
Namaste billcu,

Your question shows your lack of knowledge of both Jnan Yoga and Karma Yoga. Though both are not mutually exclusive, I would recommend that you should first try to understand the concept of Karma Yoga as your question belongs to that.

First of all the concept of sin in Hinduism is completely different from that in other religions. The whole universe is created and maintained under very strict laws of nature. There are right and wrong actions and there are mixed. Your actions are judged by your motives. What is right and what is wrong ? If an action takes you towards God, it is right. If it takes you away from God it is wrong.

I try to consolidate some of the teachings pertinent to our actions and fruits of actions i.e. laws of Karma :

a) Your actions are judged by your motive and not by just the mechanical action. If you kill your enemies (even thousands of them) in a war to safeguard your country ... you are not punished but rewarded with your place in heaven. (Ref : Bhagwad Gita)

b) Indulging in any act for sensual pleasure will lead to misery in the long run as it is taking you away from God. Any distance from God will push you into misery. So, sex outside marriage surely will lead to misery and sufferings. In fact, sex with spouse too should be checked and controlled ... otherwise, this would also lead to unhappiness and sufferings. Too much focusing on sex in marital relations makes the marriage strained and makes the bonding superficial limited to physical level which creates occasions for psychological and spiritual conflicts.

c) Please remember that God doesn't punish us for our wrong acts. It is the ever applicable Laws of Nature (also called the Laws of Karma) which automatically come into play to create sufferings for us for our wrong actions. The same laws work to create beneficial opportunities for fulfilling our desires if we perform the Right Actions. Sincere prayer to God can alleviate sufferings and can also show us path out of our sufferings.

d) Laws of Karma are applicable to us only till we are not Self-realised. Self-realisation roasts all seeds of Karma and doesn't allow bearing Karmaphala (fruits of actions).

OM

Thanks that clears up alot.

Bill

yajvan
17 November 2012, 03:06 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~


namastÚ

devotee writes,


Indulging in any act for sensual pleasure will lead to misery in the long run as it is taking you away from God.
I am going to ask the reader for their patience and some additional leaway for this next piece of information to develop.
It is a good place to talk of something that is a bit more subtle, a bit more hidden from view of one's daily experience. If this does not resonate with you at this time and place, not to worry. It will at some point in your life.


One must understand , at the end of the day , all interactions of the senses within the world, within the universe, is ~sensual~. It is how the Self (ātman), that which is infinite, experiences the finite.

Within kaśmir śaivism one might call this kāma-kalā - the conjunction of two. This conjunction of two can mean the eyes united with form (seeing an object), the fingers united with an object ( touch), the ear united with a sound ( hearing). Do you see this kāma-kalā - the conjunction of two ? As you see, we walk on this earth and within the human condition, we are in a continual state of sensual interaction. Many within the human condition seem to gravitate to the notion of sexual congress as the 'conjunction of two', yet even if one is on the path of the celibate, this conjunction of two occurs if we are engaged with the senses as the apparatus that is used ( by the Self) to experience the world.


But where is this misery that devotee points to in his post ? It is when there is no distinction between the senses and the ultimate perceiver, the Self (ātman) ; then one is caught up as it were in ignorance╣. This one thought has caused many a person to run away to a cave for the desire to rid one's self of all these ~sensual~ things. While a cave may give one the attention and solitude for spiritual practice this kāma-kalā - the conjunction of two , still persists in a cave or in a sub-way or a high-rise building if the Self is not personally experienced and within one's Being. How so ?

Because the senses act , they do as they are designed to do. To bring the world of form (rūpa), taste (rasa), sound (śabda), touch (sparśa) and smell (gandha) to the formless Self (ātman).

Well then , are we doomed to being locked in this world of the senses ? Not at all. In ignorance, they bind us , in freedom and enlightenment they are a joy.

praṇām

1. ignorance (moha) of what ? Not directly knowing one's true Self, one's true Being, that is non-different from the Supreme.

seekinganswers
17 November 2012, 09:41 PM
hari? o?
~~~~~~


namastÚ

devotee writes,


I am going to ask the reader for their patience and some additional leaway for this next piece of information to develop.
It is a good place to talk of something that is a bit more subtle, a bit more hidden from view of one's daily experience. If this does not resonate with you at this time and place, not to worry. It will at some point in your life.


One must understand , at the end of the day , all interactions of the senses within the world, within the universe, is ~sensual~. It is how the Self (?tman), that which is infinite, experiences the finite.

Within ka?mir ?aivism one might call this k?ma-kal? - the conjunction of two. This conjunction of two can mean the the eyes united with form (seeing an object), the fingers united with an object ( touch), the ear united with a sound ( hearing). Do you see this k?ma-kal? - the conjunction of two ? As you see, we walk on this earth and within the human condition, we are in a continual state of sensual interaction. Many within the human condition seem to gravitate to the notion of sexual congress as the 'conjunction of two', yet even if one is on the path of the celibate, this conjunction of two occurs if we are engaged with the senses as the apparatus that is used ( by the Self) to experience the world.


But where is this misery that devotee points to in his post ? It is when there is no distinction between the senses and the ultimate perceiver, the Self (?tman) ; then one is caught up as it were in ignorance╣. This one thought has caused many a person to run away to a cave for the desire to rid one's self of all these ~sensual~ things. While a cave may give one the attention and solitude for spiritual practice this k?ma-kal? - the conjunction of two , still persists in a cave or in a sub-way or a high-rise building if the Self is not personally experienced and within one's Being. How so ?

Because the senses act , they do as they are designed to do. To bring the world of form (r?pa), taste (rasa), sound (?abda), touch (spar?a) and smell (gandha) to the formless Self (?tman).

Well then , are we doomed to being locked in this world of the senses ? Not at all. In ignorance, they bind us , in freedom and enlightenment they are a joy.

pra??m

1. ignorance (moha) of what ? Not directly knowing one's true Self, one's true Being, that is non-different from the Supreme.

That is a wonderful post and I do have a question. The mind doesn't experience the Self, the mind clears wrong thoughts, cleanses itself and knowledge of the Self shines through. Is that correct? Because otherwise there would be two perceivers?

devotee
17 November 2012, 11:59 PM
Namaste Yajvan,

That is an excellent piece of post ... with rare deep insight conveyed in so few words !

I am tempted to again repeat some deep meaning statements made in the above post :

a)
all interactions of the senses within the world, within the universe, is ~sensual~.

b)
It (the suffering) is when there is no distinction between the senses and the ultimate perceiver, the Self (ātman); then one is caught up as it were in ignorance.

c)
In ignorance, they bind us , in freedom and enlightenment they are a joy.

OM

billcu
18 November 2012, 04:09 PM
There are two languages: Language of Morality and Language of Immortality. Language of Morality is a language in progress, while Immortal Language is eternal, sanatan.

Language of Morality is required, for a time being, when the seeker is still evolving. But to make that language into a permanent form, i.e., religion, would be like conceding that Evil also exists, is also real.

So when in Rig-Veda Varun, the God of Life & Desire, extends his kingdom, starting from Earth, up to Heaven, an "expansion" is implied rather than a "contraction" or a "denial". Marriage itself, in its real essence, is more than a ceremony.

I've never heard of the language or "morality and immorality" in progress. Could you eloborate a little or on that if you can?

Bill

billcu
18 November 2012, 08:06 PM
Namaste Yajvan,

That is an excellent piece of post ... with rare deep insight conveyed in so few words !

I am tempted to again repeat some deep meaning statements made in the above post :

a)

b)

c)

OM

I know Krishna is called the supreme enjoyer. He knew the 64 forms of making love when it came to Radha. Of course he was not attached and not detached.

Bill

Kalicharan Tuvij
20 November 2012, 06:25 AM
I've never heard of the language or "morality and immorality" in progress. Could you eloborate a little or on that if you can?

Bill

Agni, or the Vaisvanara, is the universal Man, and represents our spiritual self. He is therefore also called Jata Veda, that is, the knower or root of people. It is his struggle to become everything, become Aditi. Aditi is Immortality (not to be misread immorality).

That struggle is a moral one: when one uses images of "good" and "bad". But that is an incomplete language because the journey is incomplete. Even though the language may look like unchanging, may give comfort.

Immortal language on the other hand looks like constantly changing, and capable of innumerable forms. But this is also not true; for it is eternal, Sanatana.

To use other form, Church belongs to morality, Christ to immortality.

Or, as the famous Gayatri mantra of Rig Veda suggests, there are four realms: Aum (Brahamnaspati), Bhu (Pusan), Bhuvah (Savitar) and Svah (Soma), and the winning of the four is Immortality. Aditi is the sum of the four.

I think this stuff will be of interest to you. :)

jopmala
20 November 2012, 12:40 PM
Dear billcu

May I know in what sense you have made this remark "I know Krishna is called the supreme enjoyer" I would also like to know from my advaitin friends as to how they identify Sri Krishna is he Iswara ( sagun brahma with maya) or is he nirgun nirvishes ultimate brahma itself. Do they think that reaching to sri krishna is reaching in turiya state ?

billcu
20 November 2012, 06:19 PM
I am most familiar with the gita. I know he and Radha had love interests. And all things beautiful like sunrise and set and so on. I guess Krishna would be the "supreme enjoyer"? I'm not quite sure what the gita means. My gita is from Swami Prabupada.

Bill

devotee
20 November 2012, 07:34 PM
Namaste Japmala,


I would also like to know from my advaitin friends as to how they identify Sri Krishna is he Iswara ( sagun brahma with maya) or is he nirgun nirvishes ultimate brahma itself. Do they think that reaching to sri krishna is reaching in turiya state ?

Nirguna Brahman when perceived from the state of MAyA is Ishvara. It depends on how the seeker identifies Krishna in his devotion. In Nirguna state, Krishna is called as Krishna only for the sake of convenience for the seeker, as He cannot be called by any name in that state. He is beyond all attributes and forms and even formlessness. He just can't be described or be perceived by mind in his Nirguna state. The Upsnishad says, "From where the words return" ===> which shows the incapability of the words to describe Self/Nirguna Brahman.

Even if you worship Lord Krishna in form and rupa, his grace one day may take to beyond his form and attributes. It depends upon your bhakti. Ramkrishna Paramhansa was a great devotee of Mother Kaali in he form. Mother Kaali was so real to him that he used to feed her with his own hands and until took food from his hands, he won't eat. However, a stage came when he got stagnated on his spiritual path due to strong attachment to the form and attributes of Mother Kaali. Then he came into contact of Swami Totapuri, a Self-realised monk from Puri order of Shankaracharya. Totapuri taught him the essence of Advaita and asked him to go beyond form of Mother Kaali. However, the same form of Kaali who was everything for him became a hurdle for the time being. Totapuri told him firmly : You must cut the form of Kaali to pieces with the sword of your viveka if it comes on the way to Realisation. That is what Ramkrishna did and he attained Nirvikalpa SamAdhi.

OM

Kalicharan Tuvij
21 November 2012, 04:11 AM
I've never heard of the language or "morality and immorality" in progress. Could you eloborate a little or on that if you can?

Bill

Agni, or the Vaisvanara, is the universal Man, and represents our spiritual self. He is therefore also called Jata Veda, that is, the knower or root of people. It is his struggle to become everything, become Aditi. Aditi is Immortality (not to be misread immorality).

That struggle is a moral one: when one uses images of "good" and "bad". But that is an incomplete language because the journey is incomplete. Even though the language may look like unchanging, may give comfort.

Immortal language on the other hand looks like constantly changing, and capable of innumerable forms. But this is also not true; for it is eternal, Sanatana.

To use other form, Church belongs to morality, Christ to immortality.

Or, as the famous Gayatri mantra of Rig Veda suggests, there are four realms: Aum (Brahamnaspati), Bhu (Pusan), Bhuvah (Savitar) and Svah (Soma), and the winning of the four is Immortality. Aditi is the sum of the four.

I think this stuff will be of interest to you. :)

billcu
21 November 2012, 02:29 PM
Agni, or the Vaisvanara, is the universal Man, and represents our spiritual self. He is therefore also called Jata Veda, that is, the knower or root of people. It is his struggle to become everything, become Aditi. Aditi is Immortality (not to be misread immorality).

That struggle is a moral one: when one uses images of "good" and "bad". But that is an incomplete language because the journey is incomplete. Even though the language may look like unchanging, may give comfort.

Immortal language on the other hand looks like constantly changing, and capable of innumerable forms. But this is also not true; for it is eternal, Sanatana.

To use other form, Church belongs to morality, Christ to immortality.

Or, as the famous Gayatri mantra of Rig Veda suggests, there are four realms: Aum (Brahamnaspati), Bhu (Pusan), Bhuvah (Savitar) and Svah (Soma), and the winning of the four is Immortality. Aditi is the sum of the four.

I think this stuff will be of interest to you. :)

This sounds like what the Jews call "Adam Kadmon". The original soul that shattered into so many and that process has continued. Yes this fascinates me.

How do we obtain Krishna's grace? Does a teacher have to give you a sadhanna or something. Must one visit an Ashram to meet the teacher in person?

Bill

R Gitananda
21 November 2012, 02:30 PM
I know Krishna is called the supreme enjoyer. He knew the 64 forms of making love when it came to Radha. ...



I'm not quite sure what the gita means.

Namaste

Bill, I am very devoted the Bhagavad Gita but it is not a beginners text and is proscribed for those who are not advanced in devotion.
That may be the source of your confusion. I recommend you start with a nice version of Valmiki's Ramayana.
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=92575#post92575

Hari Aum

Kalicharan Tuvij
22 November 2012, 04:56 AM
This sounds like what the Jews call "Adam Kadmon". The original soul that shattered into so many and that process has continued. Yes this fascinates me.

How do we obtain Krishna's grace? Does a teacher have to give you a sadhanna or something. Must one visit an Ashram to meet the teacher in person?

Bill

No, it is not theology. Agni, means literally, "fire", and he himself is a mighty God.

A Deity chooses his own devotee, it is hardly the other way round!

Krishna is an incarnation, of a Deity. So either one can directly connect (via Vedic study and chants) to that particular Deity (called "Aditya", Sarasvati in this case) and become him/her, or one can make some hearty reading of that incarnate's life-story (Mahabharata and Gita in this case).

Beyond this, I guess, we are on our own!

jopmala
22 November 2012, 10:06 AM
Namaskar devoteeji

Knowing very well that in nirgun state brahma has no attributes or forms , you are saying that for the sake of the convenience of the seeker even in nirgun state brahma may be called as Krishna. Being incapable to describe by Upanishad how you put any name in nirgun nirakar state for any one sake which obviously carries form also .Is this acceptable to your advaitin friends as well ? . Actually I understand your problem with the name sri Krishna . Once you say Krishna is itself nirgun brahma then you shift and say krishna is sagun iswara. I think you should remember when we talk of sri Krishna , it is all about a particular form ( rupa) and Name with full of attributes which is real and not apparent as evident from Mahabharata and Gita. If Krishna is apparent then Gita is also apparent. Is Vedas apparent ?

I have read your posts in other threads where you mentioned “Iswara is apparent , reflection of the nirgun brahma. Nirgun brahma is achintya and can not be perceived by the power of mind. So mind sees the same nirgun brahma as the iswara. Iswara is unreal from the point of view of Absolute ( turiya).” etc etc .

In this context I am quite eager to know whether you treat sri Krishna as ultimate brahma (turiya) or sagun brahma in the third leaving fourth for ultimate brahma but unfortunately you have not answered straight way. My question is whether advaitin accepts sri Krishna as ultimate brahma ( in turiya) or not .

When I read you it seems to me that brahma is mere mind business only and nothing else. You do not keep both nirgun brahma and sagun brahma ( iswara) at the same level that is to you nirgun brahma is real, ultimate and sagun brahma is apparent and reflection . One is real and another is apparent. I think this is not acceptable to those who respect Gita which put much importance on sagun aspect and less importance on nirgun aspect .
In sloka 2 to 5 of chapter 12 of Gita Sri Krishna says “ Those who fix their minds on me and worship me with complete faith, them I regard the most disciplined ( yuktatama )” , “ The exertion of those whose minds are attached to the unmanifest is greater for the unmanifest state is difficult to reach by embodied beings” . Therefore worshiping of sagun sakar brahma is regarded superior to that of nirgun nirakar brahma

You know very well than me how Krishna has been depicted in Gita and after reading the following slokas in particular and whole Gita in general I do not have any confusion to accept that Krishna is ultimate brahma. Nigun nirakar aspect is meant for tattwa only and sagun sakar aspect is lila where bhakta desires to enjoy the seva-phal through prem bhakti. . Therefore to me sri krishna is nirgun nirakar nirvishes in tattva and sagun sakar savishes in lila and nothing remain beyond his form and attributes. It is his form and attributes which attract me towards him.

I request you to share your opinion on these slokas of Gita in regard to sri Krishna being ultimate and absolute authority as sagun sakar

1) Gita sloka 7 of chap-7 “ there is nothing higher than me”( mattah paratarang nanyata ),
2) Sloka 9 of chap-4 “ One who is conversant with the divine nature of my birth and action is not born again when he leaves his body he comes to me”
3) Sloka 11 of chap-9 –“ the deluded despise me when I dwell in a human body not knowing my higher nature as the ultimate controller of beings”
4) Sloka 19 of chap-9- “ I am the existent and non existent”( sadasachaham)
5) Sloka 27 of chap-14- “ I am the original foundation of the brahma , of the immortal and the imperishable, of the eternal law and of the absolute bliss”
6) sloka 18 of chap 15- “ Because I transcend the mutable and am higher than the immutable I am celebrated in the world and in the Vedas as supreme ( Purushottam)”
7)Sloka 65 of chap 18-“ just think of me be my devotee worship me offer obeisance unto me certainly you will come to me I promise this in truth to you being dear to me”

I do not know whether Ram Krishna cut his Maa (Kali, a hurdle ! ) into pieces but I shall definitely confirm myself about it. But I like to remind you that during the ages of vaishnab achariya ( Yamunachariya, Ramanujachariya, Madhvachariya, Nimbarkachriya and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu) many great advaita preachers left advaita and began to follow vaishnab prem bhakti marg and attained their desired destination.

yajvan
22 November 2012, 11:32 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namastÚ


Agni, means literally, "fire", and he himself is a mighty God.
A Deity chooses his own devotee, it is hardly the other way round!

If we look to the great seer/ṛṣi śunaḥṣepaḥ ājīgartiḥ and his hymn 1.24.1 and 1.24.2 of the ṛg ved he asks,

1.24.1
' Being in doubt I ask, among the immortals (amṛta - immortal, imperishable) which deva/deity with an auspicious name shall we call? Who is that God who will restore us to the mighty aditi (the Infinite, wholeness, fullness) so I may behold again the father and the mother ( i.e. spiritual parents) '

1.24.2 śloka gives the answer:
'Agni, the first among the immortals - his auspicious name will we utter.'

For more on agni , please consider this HDF post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4743


praṇām

devotee
22 November 2012, 09:59 PM
Namaste Japmala,

I think I have already stated whatever I had to offer on the issue at hand. All your questions are repetitive in spite of my answering all of them. That shows only two things :

a) I am incapable of satisfying you with my answers
b) You don't want or are unable to see the way I see the Truth

Therefore, I have serious doubts if we can make any progress by discussing the same thing and repeating the same thing again and again. You may re-read my posts, if you so desire and try to understand or you may read Upanishads to understand the essence which is there in the Bhagwad Gita.

Again, I have no issues with any of the Vaishnava Acharyas. I have nowhere told that Bhakti is not a valid path ... so this reference was unnecessary. Please remember that I have also stated as has been told in Upanishads that JnAna Marg is not for everyone. Only after attaining a certain level in spirituality, this path can be suitable for the seeker.

Jai Sri Krishna !

OM

Guiding Thoughts
23 November 2012, 12:57 AM
Hi.

There are three streams of energies that an individual can generate through the process of Meditation ( known as Dhyaan Yoga in the Vedanta Philosophy). Dhyaan Yoga is meditation upon Sunlight( signifying Illumination and knowledge) and is done by meditating upon 3 primary centres of the Body ( the navel, the heart, and the Spot between the eyebrows, deep in the forehead). This meditation ( dhyaan) culminates in the development of three distinct qualities in an individual , described as :

1) Karma Yoga
2) Bhakti Yoga
3) Jnana Yoga or gyaan Yoga.

Karma Yoga : Is the yoga of the body- which means, that this yoga pertains to the worldly domains of your life and your deeds. One who meditates upon light in the navel region cannot sit idle. He will always be busy in good actions.
The deeds of worship, service, social welfare and the actions pertaining to transactions of responsibilities, adoption of moral ideals, etc fall under karma-yoga.It conveys that one who meditates upon light should not be lethargic, lazy or dishonest.

Jnana Yoga or Gyaan Yoga:nvolves meditating upon the light spot (of rising sun) in the center of your brain. The infusion of this light in your brain, in your mind, should inspire you to become a Gyana Yogi.
The first sign of this progress is that there should be nothing negative in your mind; your thoughts should be positive and constructive. In general, the human mind is flooded by strong currents of pell-mell thoughts and imaginations; the bedlam of passions and impulses keeps hovering around it like the fleas and mosquitoes around a drain. Sometimes your mind is boiling in anger; sometimes erotic thoughts perturb it; some moments you are thinking of a movie, soon you may begin to plan for the purchase of a lottery-ticket and dream about what you will do with the wealth gained thereby and what not! This way you keep recklessly wasting your mental energy in useless, purposeless and haphazard imaginations and thoughts.
In the practice of Gyana Yoga, we must inculcate the insight and courage to eliminate and prevent the base elements that keep intruding in our minds. Instead, if we adopt the kind of thinking that is positive, sane and noble and nurture it firmly in our mental field, our mind could become a grand reservoir of knowledge. Precious pearls of deep knowledge, ideas and inspirations would then be discovered in its inner recesses.

Bhakti Yoga : Qualities can be generated by meditating upon the centre of the Heart.
The feeling of "Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya" should emerge from the depths of your emotions while concentrating on the glow of rising sun in your heart. It implies emancipation of the soul, the inner self from the darkness of ignorance into the eternal light of pure knowledge and divine love. Deep and focused mental concentration is a major prerequisite for meditation.

To read this full article please click on the following link:
http://guidingthoughts.blogspot.com/2012/10/dhyaan-yoga-meditation-upon-light-its.html

Best regards
Guidingthoughts.blogspot.com

Kalicharan Tuvij
24 November 2012, 06:26 AM
Thank you, indeed, Yajvan!

I was in a way asking for getting thrown out of this forum, by for instance, saying that Krishna is an avatar of Sarasvati! Or that there is really no escape from Varun's nook, so the way forward is to expand!

And though I was true to my soul, it is your wisdom, intuition, and warmth that kept me engaged, every word published without editing, and ensured a hearty welcome for a newcomer.

Re: Krishna

Vishnu, no doubt, is a composite God, consisting of all Gods of Existence. Vishnu covers them in his three strides of Earth (Prithivi), Heaven (Dyo) and Antariks, before assuming his usual station in Non-existence. Sarasvati stands at the summit of Existence, and is the one to "have listened", that is, she is one who receives intimation from the realm of Non-existence.

This "connection" between Existence and Non-existence is Yama in Rig Veda and Shiva Lingam later. So many a time Krishna exhibited the duality of Yama. Hence the debate (genuine) over Krishna being saguna or nirguna in essence!

Though it is for everyone to see that Bharata has still not recovered from his Yama streak of distruction.:D

billcu
28 November 2012, 05:49 PM
No, it is not theology. Agni, means literally, "fire", and he himself is a mighty God.

A Deity chooses his own devotee, it is hardly the other way round!

Krishna is an incarnation, of a Deity. So either one can directly connect (via Vedic study and chants) to that particular Deity (called "Aditya", Sarasvati in this case) and become him/her, or one can make some hearty reading of that incarnate's life-story (Mahabharata and Gita in this case).

Beyond this, I guess, we are on our own!

I thought Krishna was an avatar of Vishnu.

B

Kalicharan Tuvij
04 December 2012, 05:36 AM
I thought Krishna was an avatar of Vishnu.

B

Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu. But then, who is Vishnu? For sure, Ram and Krishna or others are very different manifestations of Vishnu. Again, Vishnu is a God, and Krishna or Rama is an incarnation: this distinction should not be forgotten.

Vishnu is a living "column" starting over from Bhag, the God of matter, upto Sarasvati at the summit of Existence. So he is a composite God, like Agni, or Marut, of Veda. Yet his original source, as well as his final "rest", is in the realm of Brahamanaspati, or non-Existence, as Daksha.

It is not unusual to find "Daksha-pitara", i.e. having Dakha as their Father, applied to Gods of Existence ("world") in the Rig-Veda.

jopmala
05 December 2012, 06:15 AM
Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu. But then, who is Vishnu? For sure, Ram and Krishna or others are very different manifestations of Vishnu. Again, Vishnu is a God, and Krishna or Rama is an incarnation: this distinction should not be forgotten.
Dear Tuvij
Can you quote the scripture where you have found this information please ?

Kalicharan Tuvij
05 December 2012, 10:29 AM
Dear Tuvij
Can you quote the scripture where you have found this information please ?

Dear Shri Jopmala
Pranam!

my "smriti" goes back to grandma's stories; bedtime stories are the greatest of all smriti's.

And as a child I felt overjoyed at knowing that Krishna, God incarnate, is my ancestor. Even today I believe that he walked the earth around 3000 BC.

Kindly forgive my mistakes.

R Gitananda
05 December 2012, 11:59 AM
... Again, Vishnu is a God, and Krishna or Rama is an incarnation: this distinction should not be forgotten. ...


Namaste

I find it hard to understand such an assertion in light of chapter 11 of the Bhagavad Gita.

Hari Aum

Kalicharan Tuvij
06 December 2012, 04:31 AM
Namaste

I find it hard to understand such an assertion in light of chapter 11 of the Bhagavad Gita.

Hari Aum

An incarnation of Vishnu always knows that he is one. So Krishna shows his Vishnu chaturbhuj form to Arjun.

But it is only an Aditya, "pure one", who can expand, in Virat form, and show all Adityas (including himself) inside himself; that is, to show Aditi in himself!
That is how a God becomes supreme in different contexts.

It is this Virat form, immortal, that is implied regarding the "expansion of Varun", who is one of the Adityas. Expansion is evolutionary.

So in chapter 11, what Arjun describes is Aditi herself, though Krishna, on his part, is still conscious of his purpose. Arjun is elevated to Sarasvati plane of intuition, and sees Aditi through this window, sees through immortally expanded Sarasvati.

Gita, though, should be best approached through devotion; it describes some serious, real, stuff but the language used is that of Kaliyuga. Rig-Vedic language was already lost.

Krishna demands Knowledge in Devotion, and Devotion in Knowledge.

yajvan
06 December 2012, 07:42 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namastÚ

What does one think of the proper pronunciation of this j˝āna yoga ? It is ja + ˝ā as the key components╣.

Some say this ja sounds like 'ga' as in gate, others contend it is 'ja' that is found in john. This ˝ā, some suggest sounds like that sound found in bunch , others say it sounds like the sound in numb.

Any opinions here ?

iti śivaṁ

1. j˝ā - knowledge; to know as , know or perceive that ; to recognize as one's own;

j˝apayati - to teach any one
jij˝āsate - to wish to know or become acquainted with or learn , investigate , examine

devotee
06 December 2012, 10:10 PM
Namaste Yajvan,


Some say this ja sounds like 'ga' as in gate, others contend it is 'ja' that is found in john. This ˝ā, some suggest sounds like that sound found in bunch , others say it sounds like the sound in numb.

It is neither. It is mixture of "g" as in gate (but it is only half sound of Ga) followed by a sound similar to "y˝ā" is stressed upon while pronouncing this letter. Please note that it is not the sound of "N" as in "No". The sound of 'N" comes from touching tongue to the teeth whereas this sound slightly nasal while touching the back upper side of mouth by tongue.

OM

jopmala
14 December 2012, 08:28 PM
my "smriti" goes back to grandma's stories; bedtime stories are the greatest of all smriti's.
And as a child I felt overjoyed at knowing that Krishna, God incarnate, is my ancestor. Even today I believe that he walked the earth around 3000 BC. In sloka 21 of chapter X of Gita , sri krishna while describing manifestation of his divine power ( vibhuti) says " Among the Adityas , I am the Vishnu, among the luminaries I am the sun etc etc ". Here it does not mean the krishna is a incarnation of the sun then how can he be a incarnation of vishnu ?

Sloka 7 of chapter VII of Gita sri krishna says " Mattah parataram na nyat"
which means that there is nothing whatever that excels him ( sri krishna).

Therefore so far Gita is concerned , it is wrong to say that sri krishna is the incarnation of vishnu. For your information , how and why sri krishna incarnate can be found in Gita itself .

Kalicharan Tuvij
16 December 2012, 06:13 AM
" Among the Adityas , I am the Vishnu, among the luminaries I am the sun etc etc ". Here it does not mean the krishna is a incarnation of the sun then how can he be a incarnation of vishnu ?

Sloka 7 of chapter VII of Gita sri krishna says " Mattah parataram na nyat"
which means that there is nothing whatever that excels him ( sri krishna).



The formula is one and same as "naditame devitame ambitame Sarasvati".

Krishna is the best of Everything, not Everything (Aditi) herself.

jopmala
21 December 2012, 12:54 PM
The formula is one and same as "naditame devitame ambitame Sarasvati".

Krishna is the best of Everything, not Everything (Aditi) herself.
My only point is that it is not correct to say that krishna is a incarnation of vishnu rather vishnu is one of the vibhuti of krishna.

billcu
22 December 2012, 03:01 PM
My only point is that it is not correct to say that krishna is a incarnation of vishnu rather vishnu is one of the vibhuti of krishna.

I have read that KRSNA is an avatar of vishnu and he explained to Arjuna in BG I don't believe an incarnation if referring to reincarnation is the same as an avatar.

R Gitananda
23 December 2012, 02:18 AM
My only point is that it is not correct to say that krishna is a incarnation of vishnu rather vishnu is one of the vibhuti of krishna.

Namaste

This is a very complex subject:


Lord Kṛṣṇa offered homage to Himself in this boundless form, and Arjuna, astonished at the sight of Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu,
bowed down as well. Then, as the two of them stood before Him with joined palms, the almighty Mahā-Viṣṇu,
supreme master of all rulers of the universe, smiled and spoke to them in a voice full of solemn authority.

[Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu said:] I brought the brāhmaṇa’s sons here because I wanted to see the two of you, My expansions,
who have descended to the earth to save the principles of religion. As soon as you finish killing the demons
who burden the earth, quickly come back here to Me.

Although all your desires are completely fulfilled, O best of exalted personalities, for the benefit of the
people in general you should continue to exemplify religious behavior as the sages Nara and Nārāyaṇa.

Thus instructed by the Supreme Lord of the topmost planet, Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna assented by chanting om,
and then they bowed down to almighty Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu. Taking the brāhmaṇa’s sons with them, they
returned with great delight to Dvārakā by the same path along which they had come. There they
presented the brāhmaṇa with his sons, who were in the same infant bodies in which they had been lost.
SB 10.89.57 - SB 10.89.61

Hari Aum

Amrut
23 December 2012, 02:54 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namastÚ

What does one think of the proper pronunciation of this j˝āna yoga ? It is ja + ˝ā as the key components╣.

Some say this ja sounds like 'ga' as in gate, others contend it is 'ja' that is found in john. This ˝ā, some suggest sounds like that sound found in bunch , others say it sounds like the sound in numb.

Any opinions here ?

iti śivaṁ

1. j˝ā - knowledge; to know as , know or perceive that ; to recognize as one's own;

j˝apayati - to teach any one
jij˝āsate - to wish to know or become acquainted with or learn , investigate , examine

Namaste Yajvan ji,

Saints of different region speaking different language have different pronunciation of same word in sanskrit

e.g. a tamil or a south Indian accent when speaking Sanskrit is different from A gujarati and Hindi speaking saint speaking Sanskrit. The problem is that SAnskrit is the complete language with 40 syllables, whereas others languages may be complete or may not. Brahmi derived scripts like Gujarati, hindi, marathi, etc may be complete, but tamil sometimes does not have some character

e.g. Instead of pronouncing Sita, they pronounce Sitha or spell Seetha, since they write in the same way as they are short of characters. I was told his to my tamil professor during my research days.

The word 'ज्ञ ' is pronounced in different accent.

I have heard by a Gujarati Saint Saying GNA (ग्न )and some others speaking JYA (ज्य ) and others pronounce as GYA (ग्य ). the word


Aum

Kalicharan Tuvij
23 December 2012, 08:12 AM
My only point is that it is not correct to say that krishna is a incarnation of vishnu rather vishnu is one of the vibhuti of krishna.

Let us rephrase it:
"My only point is that it is not correct to say that krishna is an incarnation (Avatar) of Daksha rather Daksha is one of the vibhutis of Vishnu (krishna)."

The problem is kaliyugic language (of morality) of Gita. Indeed, Vishnu has totally replaced Daksha (Daksha assuming an unflattering role as Dakhsa Prajapati) and thus has "banished" himself into his rest in the realm of non-existence, instead of being his real composite, all-encompassing nature, the "living column" that I talked about earlier.

And Gita is still truthful if it addresses Vishnu in the sense of Daksha; for example, Dakhsa is an Aditya, but Vishnu is called one. Because Gita respects the prevailing understanding of Rig-Vedic terms. Gita has to work through the language of the Present.

Knowledge can be recovered by Faith. If we are discussing these things here, surely, this is a proof enough for me. I particularly wish to thank Sri Jopmala and Sri Gitananda.
:)