PDA

View Full Version : Hinduism and India's Decline



suresh
31 January 2008, 11:10 AM
Friends,

How is everyone?:) It's been a while since I've posted here.

I want to post something regarding Hinduism and its influence, if any, on India's decline. This may sound rather controversial and even anti-Hindu, but trust me, it is not. It's pretty straightforward.

That said, let's see if some aspects of Hinduism have been responsible for India's problems.

#1 Vague and Abstract Philosophical Ideas, which only produce confused individuals with zero practicality.

#2 Ahimsa, Tolerance, and the rest, which perhaps resulted in weakness, collective apathy to pressing problems.

#3 Too much idealism, far less realistic and practical. Concepts like 'oneness', 'illusion' etc. have done more harm than good.

#4 Karma, often leading to a fatalistic outlook, inertia.

#5 Emphasis on Dharma, ethics etc. that are irrelevant to the real world in which we're living. This has made Hindus gift everything away to invaders, including land, property etc. No wonder, India happens to be the only nation in the world that seeks presidential pardon on behalf of terrorists!:o

#6 Totally disorganized: No centralized command, no proper organizational structure. Makes Hindus easy targets.

#7 Lack of Political Ideology: Proper governance is based on a political ideology, and because Hindus lack one, they have no clue as to how to rule over a nation. Not surprising that India has been ruled by foreigners, and even today in a so-called independent India, people don't mind a foreigner ruling the nation. This is clearly because Hinduism is divorced from the real world, of which politics is an important component.

These are some of the flaws I can think of. Let's discuss this rationally, and without getting upset. It's not my intent to bash Hinduism. I just feel these are the areas where Hinduism needs to improve.

Suresh

TatTvamAsi
31 January 2008, 03:40 PM
Friends,

How is everyone?:) It's been a while since I've posted here.

I want to post something regarding Hinduism and its influence, if any, on India's decline. This may sound rather controversial and even anti-Hindu, but trust me, it is not. It's pretty straightforward.

That said, let's see if some aspects of Hinduism have been responsible for India's problems.

#1 Vague and Abstract Philosophical Ideas, which only produce confused individuals with zero practicality.

#2 Ahimsa, Tolerance, and the rest, which perhaps resulted in weakness, collective apathy to pressing problems.

#3 Too much idealism, far less realistic and practical. Concepts like 'oneness', 'illusion' etc. have done more harm than good.

#4 Karma, often leading to a fatalistic outlook, inertia.

#5 Emphasis on Dharma, ethics etc. that are irrelevant to the real world in which we're living. This has made Hindus gift everything away to invaders, including land, property etc. No wonder, India happens to be the only nation in the world that seeks presidential pardon on behalf of terrorists!:o

#6 Totally disorganized: No centralized command, no proper organizational structure. Makes Hindus easy targets.

#7 Lack of Political Ideology: Proper governance is based on a political ideology, and because Hindus lack one, they have no clue as to how to rule over a nation. Not surprising that India has been ruled by foreigners, and even today in a so-called independent India, people don't mind a foreigner ruling the nation. This is clearly because Hinduism is divorced from the real world, of which politics is an important component.

These are some of the flaws I can think of. Let's discuss this rationally, and without getting upset. It's not my intent to bash Hinduism. I just feel these are the areas where Hinduism needs to improve.

Suresh

Namaste Suresh,

#1. Understanding Sanathana Dharma is difficult for 99% of people (duffers). It talks about the nature of reality in philosophical terms however there have been a myriad of interpretations for the last 2 centuries that help the layman understand it better. The only principle a 'non-Hindu' needs to know about "Hinduism" is that Brahman IS! There is nothing else that has absolute reality. End of story. The ten arms and five heads part comes after that. :D

#2. Ahimsa: This is again highly misinterpreted and grossly misunderstood by most Hindus themselves! Ahimsa does NOT mean putting up with constant aggression, denigration, and blatant attack on one's culture and identity! That is cowardice. Ahimsa is avoidance of violence voluntarily! Meaning, avoid causing harm intentionally physically, emotionally, and mentally! Most Hindus think it means show your left cheek if you get slapped on your right! Your notion of collective apathy is absolutely correct! I would go further and add that most Hindus are indifferent to what's happening to their society, culture, 'religion' etc. by external forces.

#3. Idealism: Sanathana Dharma is very practical and gives an optimistic and descriptive 'manual' on how one should go about one's duties not only in this life, but for the future as well! Varnashrama Dharma is integral to Sanathana Dharma and therefore it beautifully describes how one should live one's life; regardless of where & when one is born. The philosophical principles are deep, however Sanathana Dharma, unlike Buddhism, doesn't ask you to go sit under a tree and do tapasya for the rest of your life; unless you are ready! It is so pluralistic that it incorporates people at all levels of spirituality; ritualistic, intellectual, philosophical, practical (Karma Yoga), devotional, and even atheists! Therefore, it caters to people from different walks of life. An investment banker @ Goldman Sachs does not need to throw away his Gucci suit and donate his Ferrari to practice "Hinduism". An avadhUta does not need to shave and have matted hair to practice tapasya!

#4. Karma: The current interpretation of the word in the Western world is distorting the real meaning and purpose. For example, the significance of karma is invalid if you believe that you live only one life. Of course, if you are someone like Uday Hussein murdering many people and taking pleasure in causing harm, it may come back in the same lifetime; as it did for him! This is only the practical understanding of karma. The cycle of 'apparent causation', as I like to call it, involves karma and actually an integral part of the atman's evolutionary journey. I think karma beautifully describes the effects of cause and effect and its implications on one's life, a practical aspect, and is far from having a 'fatalistic approach' etc.

#5. Dharma: The notion of dharma is very complex and can have several nuancial differences. Dharma is integral to Sanathana Dharma as well because it talks about the underlying order of the nature of reality! How one should be in accordance to that order is what is described as Svadharma! The goings on in India are based on gross misinterpretations and lack of understanding of the principle of dharma! Dharma does not ever mention 'gifting away everything to invaders' or 'pardoning terrorists' or any such thing. The fact is, the common Hindu of today has become such a scapegoat and target for attack that it is extremely difficult and a steep uphill battle to defend onself on even simple ideas, let alone in politics etc. Due to the Kali Yuga, most people are leading quite adharmic lives and therefore that could be a reason why many problems are arising throughout the world.

#6. Organization: One of the great things about Sanathana Dharma is that it IS disorganized from an external viewpoint! It seems like anyone can believe what they want to and can pretty much act without following a 'book' of rules and code of conduct etc. However, nothing is farther from the truth! This is because, in accordance with one's Svadharma, the organization of one's philosophical beliefs comes from within! If we had a centralized system akin to Christianity & Islam, heaven forbid, "Hinduism" will be an Abrahamic faith with multi-armed deities! The 'beliefs', after supposedly reading the scriptures (Vedas & Upanishads) will soon become a realization than a set of quirky 'faith-based' nonsense! The quest to realize one's true nature is what "Hinduism" is about. The last thing it needs is for some doddering old coot to tell people what to do and how to behave etc. All of that comes from within; depending on what level one is at!

#7. Political Ideology: Please tell me you have al least heard of Chanakya's Arthashasthra? From antiquarian times, followers of Sanathana Dharma led and lived in accordance to dharma; and what was good for their kingdom(s). The monarchical system was the norm because as per Sanathana Dharma, those in power and wealth should protect the helpless and innocent in their kingdoms. Most kings were dharmic and lived according to strict adherence of Varnashrama Dharma! When everyone lives according to their Svadharma, the society as a whole benefits. This is a far cry nowadays with Brahmins drinking alcohol and eating meat but at least the principles were laid down long ago. Since Rama was the epitome of enforcing dharma in his kingdom, his subjects never saw suffering and pain! Furthermore, this is why when kings waged wars and 'took over' other kingdoms through the Aswamedha, dharma was always adhered to; meaning they didn't take unfair advantage or kill anyone unnecessarily. With the advent of the muslims in the 8th Century CE, this type of dharmic warfare was mistaken as weakness by the invaders and therefore they were able to easily defeat the Hindu 'enemy'.

The most important problem, in my opinion, with "Hinduism" is that most Hindus know very little or nothing about their 'religion'! This is recipe for disaster when any 'outsider' attacks or even questions any principles of Sanathana Dharma. The pseudo-secular Hindus, along with Christians and Muslims are mostly anti-Hindu as they know that many Hindus are 'weak' (read: PUSSIES) and will not react violently! Take this example: M.F.Hussein (I wonder what "MF" stands for ;)), drew a naked painting of Durga and was given an award by the PM of Andhra Pradesh; a dalit anti-Hindu blackguard! Can you imagine ANYONE, even Christians, drawing a naked picture of Allah or Muhammad and being left alive, let alone being given an award; and that too by a Muslim Country?? This sort of scant regard and blatant indifference of Hindus is appalling and disturbing.

However, regardless of all of that, once anyone who open-mindedly reads about "Hinduism" sees the profundity of the philosophy behind it and has nothing but praise towards Sanathana Dharma and India! Many of the great thinkers of the past few centuries are good examples; Einstein, Jung, etc.

Subham.

sarabhanga
31 January 2008, 05:36 PM
namaH aste !



Vague and Abstract Philosophical Ideas, which only produce confused individuals with zero practicality.

Too much idealism, far less realistic and practical. Concepts like 'oneness', 'illusion' etc. have done more harm than good.

Emphasis on Dharma, ethics etc. that are irrelevant to the real world in which we're living.

Lack of Political Ideology.

Abstract philosophical ideas are only vague for those who do not understand them, and abstract philosophy represents the discourse of philosophers, which was never intended for unmediated transmission to the general public. And that is a major purpose of the guru, who explains the abstraction in practical terms that apply specifically to the individual. There is only one ultimate abstraction, but its practical application is infinite (only becoming zero in the absence of a guru). And Hindu dharma is replete with arthashAstra and smRti which are certainly not irrelevant to the real world!



Ahimsa, Tolerance, and the rest, which perhaps resulted in weakness, collective apathy to pressing problems.

ahiMsA is only half of the yama, which is fully realized as ahiMsAsatyAste ~ and this remains unknown without correct yoga dIkshA, which can only be obtained from yama. And yama, being generally regarded as “death”, is avoided by all but the vAnaprasthin (who seeks only yama) and the saMnyAsin (who knows only yama).



Karma, often leading to a fatalistic outlook, inertia.

karma is dharma for all, and the essence of good karma is only kAma. And only the avadhUta has no karma, for his karma has been resolved to its source. There is no excuse for inertia.



Totally disorganized: No centralized command, no proper organizational structure.

You are totally forgetting the shaÑkarAcAryAs and their maThAs, and the nAgAs and their mADIs !


And the solution to all such perceived flaws is found in just one word ~ sadguru, which assumes the affirmation of pañcaguru (which is the dIkshA of saMnyAsAshrama).


ahiMsA satyA aste !

sarabhanga
31 January 2008, 06:59 PM
It is a rare student who will approach a guru for knowledge of yama, with almost all requests being made for siddhi or moksha. But the preliminary wisdom is absolutely required for the final understanding, so the guru has only two choices. He could remain silent, or he could obligingly give his graduation speech, as the ultimate conclusion of his own life’s striving and the holy grail of every spiritual quest.

Graduation cannot be had without initiation, and it is the initiating speech of yama which should be requested from the sadguru before any thought of siddhi or moksha. And anyone who sincerely approaches a sadguru with the proper question will receive the full answer to all questions once he truly knows yama (which demands saMnyAsa).

suresh
01 February 2008, 03:15 AM
Namaste TTA and Sarabhanga,

Both of you say (in different words):

#1 Hinduism is 99% misunderstood
#2 This misunderstanding is the real culprit

Granted misunderstanding of Hinduism is the real problem, rather than Hinduism itself. But the fact that Hinduism gives such wide scope for misunderstanding can be treated as a fundamental flaw within Hinduism. Which again makes Hinduism the culprit, rather than its alleged misunderstanding.

sarabhanga
01 February 2008, 04:14 AM
The fact that Hinduism gives such wide scope for misunderstanding can be treated as a fundamental flaw within Hinduism. Which again makes Hinduism the culprit, rather than its alleged misunderstanding.

Namaste Suresh,

There is no scope for persistent misunderstanding when one has an appropriate guru. And in every case of misunderstanding the most likely culprit is either the lack of a guru or inattention to the words of one’s guru.

gurorvAkyam sadAsatyam satyam ekam parampadam

sm78
01 February 2008, 06:45 AM
Namaste TTA and Sarabhanga,

Both of you say (in different words):

#1 Hinduism is 99% misunderstood
#2 This misunderstanding is the real culprit

Granted misunderstanding of Hinduism is the real problem, rather than Hinduism itself.

So lets work towards removing these misunderstandings rather than having misgivings about dharma.

The history and politics of bhArata has not been really in control of its well wishers for variety of reasons. But since now we are supposedly independent we can atleast try to rectify the past.

Bob G
01 February 2008, 11:31 AM
Hello Suresh,

"But the fact that Hinduism gives such wide scope for misunderstanding can be treated as a fundamental flaw within Hinduism. Which again makes Hinduism the culprit, rather than its alleged misunderstanding"

Replacing the word Hinduism with (Supreme)-Mahadeva in your text above we then have the text below:

But the fact that (Supreme)-Mahadeva gives such wide scope for misunderstanding can be treated as a fundamental flaw within Mahadeva. Which again makes Mahadeva the culprit, rather than His alleged misunderstanding...
Is this an aspect of your pov or belief? To me, such could be logically extrapolated from what you are apparently saying. (?)

Om

Nuno Matos
01 February 2008, 04:02 PM
Namaste Bob

"
But the fact that (Supreme)-Mahadeva gives such wide scope for misunderstanding can be treated as a fundamental flaw within Mahadeva "

Mahadeva has no flaws as it is the supreme god. It is Brahma that make mistakes including Shiva mistake of wanting to eradicate mistakes.

" Which again makes Mahadeva the culprit, rather than His alleged misunderstanding..."

Well I cant agree with that as Shiva penance for cutting the fifth head of Brahma is well know.

sarabhanga
01 February 2008, 05:40 PM
Namaste Nuno,

brahma is flawless, but brahmA (from the unborn perspective of brahma) is fatally flawed. brahma is nara (rudra or shiva) and brahmA is nArAyaNa (rudrA or bhairava); and brahma is pañcamukha, while brahmA is caturmukha.

The mAyA of jA (the illusion of creation) is avidyA from the perspective of aja. Indeed, both avidyA and vidyA become “avidyA” from that ultimate perspective ~ which makes any discussion ultimately futile. But bhairava has sole responsibility for his own creation, which he carries as the fifth head of brahma (figuratively severed in the very process of creation) for so long as he wanders (i.e. for all of time). And he can only be relieved of this burden when he wakes from the virtual sleep-walking of his prAjña state.

bhairava measures the earth for as long as it lasts, but in the end he returns (with the essence of his creation in his hand) to the aja realm of shiva’s kAshi. And at the extremity of pralaya he offers his fruition (figured as a human skull) into the pool of his own dissolution (kapAlamocanam).

The brahmahatyA of bhairava is the origin sin of division, which is creation itself. And after the bhairavayAtanA (self-inflicted by the will of shiva) the sin is absolved and the purified creation becomes resolved to its source.

yama is banished from kAshi, for his services are no longer required, and bhairava takes his rightful place.

suresh
02 February 2008, 08:45 AM
So lets work towards removing these misunderstandings rather than having misgivings about dharma.


That's the problem, there are too many different versions of Hinduism. So how does one choose the right one, because not all of them can fit into a political ideology that's required to guide a nation's progress?

Bob G
02 February 2008, 09:12 AM
Hello Nuno,

My post #8 was a "for instance if" type of question to Suresh - to see if his pov as he saw it would extrapolate to and still apply if the words Hinduism and Mahadeva were swapped in his original sentences. It was not my pov or a definition based on Hinduism.

Om

Bob G
02 February 2008, 09:23 AM
Hello Sarabhanga,

You stated:
"brahma is flawless, but brahmA (from the unborn perspective of brahma) is fatally flawed"

Could your meaning above also translate to: Brahman is flawless, but Lord Brahma (from the unborn perspective of Brahman) is fatally flawed?

...If so I do not agree with that school of thought. To me Lord Brahma is doing exactly as Lord Brahma should be doing - perfectly.

Om

Ganeshprasad
02 February 2008, 10:47 AM
Pranam


That's the problem, there are too many different versions of Hinduism. So how does one choose the right one, because not all of them can fit into a political ideology that's required to guide a nation's progress?


Dharma is not about progress of a nation although it is not mutually exclusive. It is about individual choice and orientation. So many different concepts that do exist is not the problem, infect it is healthy for the progress of any society were views are varied and respected. Problem is the lack of dharma and greed of politician that impedes the progress of the nation.

Vedic (Hindu) Dharma goal, is to achieve Moksa, to move from darkness in to light, to transcend the material existence in to spiritual bliss, non of this can be realised without the basic rules, like truthfulness cleanliness purity ahimsa. These are common within all Hindu society.
of course Raj niti is a complex matter but within the Dharma it will always make progress.

Jai Shree Krishna

sarabhanga
02 February 2008, 08:05 PM
Namaste Bob,

brahman gives no indication of gender, but implies BOTH neuter and masculine forms.

The neuter brahman NEVER actually appears as brahman ~ with the vocative, nominative and accusative cases ALL being brahma.

And the ONLY appearance of brahman is as the vocative case of the gendered nominative brahmA.

brahma is flawless, but brahmA (from the unborn perspective of brahma) is fatally flawed.

And by presenting brahma only as brahman, and assuming that ajAtivAda is merely a “school of thought” (rather than the uttama satyam of advaitam, which may be expressed as brahma, but not as brahman), advaitam is discarded and only dvaitAdvaitam is possible, and there was never a point at which time began, which denies the ultimate creation event (which is otherwise accepted by science and by the vedAs).

And without knowing brahma, it will always appear that brahmA is unflawed and doing exactly as he should. But those who truly know advaitam understand that brahmA (praised as brahman) is the seed of all mAyA ~ as the son of a barren/virgin woman (which by definition and logic cannot truly exist).

I cannot agree with your school of thought, since it raises nArAyaNa to unborn eternity while dismissing nara as non-existent.

Those who know only the mAyA of jA remain ignorant of the uttama satyam, which is aja sadAshivam.

shAtanam is the destruction (of mAyA), which is sadAshiva, and the satAnakam is the shmashAnam of advaitam, the very possibility of which is discarded merely by ignorance of brahma. And those who have ultimate faith in the virgin birth of mAyA would cast sadAshiva into eternal oblivion.

In the very beginning, brahmA was born, and in the very end brahmA must die; whereas brahma, unborn and eternal, always exists.

atanu
03 February 2008, 12:32 AM
Namaste Suresh,

There is no scope for persistent misunderstanding when one has an appropriate guru. And in every case of misunderstanding the most likely culprit is either the lack of a guru or inattention to the words of one’s guru.

gurorvAkyam sadAsatyam satyam ekam parampadam

Namaskar Suresh,

In the above quote is hidden the Sat. Yes, problems are truly traceable to lack of knowledge or due to apparent absence of Guru himself.

But when Guru imparts knowledge whose misunderstandings will go? Misunderstandings of the realist will go or misunderstandings of the so-called 'problem ridden Hindu philosophy and Hindu world' will go? Is it logical to think that the world (which is inert) will get rid of its ignorance?

The realist has his own image of reality but this realist is in real need of knowledge of the reality called Sat --That is perfect and this is perfect.
----------------------

Not seeing perfection is lack of Jnana and this Ajnana cannot be of the Universe, which is inert. Seach for the realist takes one to Jnana and Jnani.

Om

sarabhanga
03 February 2008, 01:09 AM
Namaste Atanu and Suresh,

If everyone is lost, then suffering will increase and productive society will fail.

If everyone is found, then pleasure will increase but productive society will fail.

But if everyone is either on the way or at the destination (with nobody lost), then suffering will be minimized, pleasure will be maximized, and productive society will endure ad infinitum.

Bob G
03 February 2008, 10:18 AM
Hello Sarabhanga,

Thanks for putting together the reply you posted to me.

"In the very beginning, brahmA was born, and in the very end brahmA must die; whereas brahma, unborn and eternal, always exists"

I think this last sentence of yours was the clearest to me. I'll have to consider the meanings to the rest.

Anyway, I'd like to ask you this: If the Being (and or soul if you will) of Lord Brahma is "fatally flawed" then how about your soul, is it also fatally flawed? And if so how could it ever become purified through the Yogas and Grace to attain enlightenment? Thus if such was the case there would never be any resulting True gurus giving true teachings...for all souls would be condemned and fatally flawed, not unlike the idea of the "Vanity of vanities"!

Further, in my pov there is no dichotomy between "brahma" and "brahmA',
although brahma is transcendent.

Btw., I think Lord Brahma is a far more respectful term for the First and the Last Being that contains all other forms of Beings.

Om

sarabhanga
03 February 2008, 06:13 PM
If the Being (and or soul if you will) of Lord Brahma is "fatally flawed" then how about your soul, is it also fatally flawed?

In dvaitam, ALL souls are divided and all such division must pass.

dvaitam was born and dvaitam will die, and only advaitam is unborn and eternal.

And “my soul” (as you have so dualistically regarded it) was forgotten years ago, through the saMskAra of saMnyAsa and the wisdom of vedAnta.

In dvaitavAda there is no yoga and no shiva (grace) and no moksha (liberation from re-birth) ~ all of which is avidyA and mAyA.

And since Isha and brahmA are absolutely synonymous terms, I have not particularly distinguished the Isha as brahmA or the brahmA as Isha. But IshabrahmA could be used if you prefer.

nara = brahma = hara = shiva
IshanArAyaNa = IshabrahmA = Ishahari = IshaviSNu

And adding “lord” to every divine conception gets even more cumbersome when the twin is considered.

Ishau = IshanaranArAyaNau = Ishaharihare

Or perhaps IshAna (lord) could be used; in which case, would the respectful term IshAnanaranArAyaNa improve anyone’s comprehension??

If the discussion was regarding mythology, then “lord” would certainly apply, but when dvaita-vAda and bhakti-mArga lords it over all conversations then a simple discussion of saMskRta grammar and meaning becomes very difficult.

I have stopped using bold type to distinguish saMskRta words (apparently they are already frightening enough in normal type), and now you suggest that IshAna should be used before every reference to brahmA!

Bob G
04 February 2008, 09:45 AM
originally posted by Sarabhanga:

"I have stopped using bold type to distinguish saMskRta words (apparently they are already frightening enough in normal type), and now you suggest that IshAna should be used before every reference to brahmA!"

It's not frightening, but the underlined text above is a dubious aside since you have already used it in other posts yet you continue to harp on about it?...so feel free (if you don't already) to do as you will whether using giant type, bold type, colored type, capitals, etc., such doesn't really matter because your state of being is evident regardless of grammer, font, or knowledge.

Om

sarabhanga
04 February 2008, 06:47 PM
Namaste Bob (and all others),

Hindu dharma absolutely depends on the dharma cakram.

There is one main reason for my involvement with the internet. And that reason is the promotion of sanAtana dharma. Perhaps my single-minded effort to turn the wheel of dharma here on HDF has crushed a few toes along the way, but I am quite sure that the direction is true and that in the end the benefits (to all) should outweigh any trivial costs.

I began harping on the same theme 10 years ago, and (after endless interruption and circular discussion on the HinduNet forums) when Satay established this new forum I transferred my internet alliance to HDF, where the effort to inspire and correctly inform has continued.

Now, after two years of similar discussion (and similar objections) here on HDF, the momentum of my focus, which sees only the destination, makes it difficult to avoid occasional offense as unnecessary obstacles suddenly appear in the way. And sometimes I am compelled to overly dramatic language or apparently harsh words, as a teacher or a parent must sometimes scold an unruly child, or as a coachman at speed must sometimes simply yell “Get out of the way!”.

I may seem at times like “a man on a mission”, and that is indeed what I am. But I honestly mean no personal offence. And I trust that my strenuous objection to the idea (often repeated by those who understand very little of sanAtana dharma) that the varNAshrama system should be scrapped, is now understandable to all.

Here are just a few posts that follow this obsession from the very beginning of HDF until now:

dharmacakram (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=138&postcount=4)

dharmacakram (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=780&postcount=30)

nArIcakram (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=145&postcount=5)

cakram (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=259&postcount=21)

pañcakram (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=6031&postcount=32)

svacakram (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2291)

SaTcakram (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=15461&postcount=131)

cakramAtRkA (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=19979&postcount=49)

sahasrAracakram (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=15542&postcount=143)

aSTAÑgacakram (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=19744&postcount=55)

kAshI (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=6159&postcount=48)

bhairava (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=20634&postcount=10)

yama (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=8374&postcount=6)

saMyama (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=19702&postcount=48)

turIyAtIta (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=15539&postcount=141)

turIyAtIta (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=19954&postcount=39)

dharmabhRtyA (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=19296#post19296)

varNAshramadharmacakram (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=20714#post20714)

atanu
05 February 2008, 12:38 AM
Namaste All,

Om Namah Narayana

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=594&highlight=hridaya

A Vedic Consecration to the Spiritual Heart

By Vamadeva

Published in the Mountain Path
The heart (hridaya) is the seat of the Self or Atman in Vedantic thought. Realization of the Self in the heart is the main Vedantic formulation of Moksha or liberation. The Upanishads laud the Self in the heart in many verses and make it the object of many vidyas (ways of knowledge). -------

Yet the heart is not just the seat of the Self; as such, it is also the source of all the main aspects and faculties of our entire nature as embodied souls. It is the seat of the mind (chitta) as the Yoga Sutras indicate. By this is meant not the outer mind but the inner, core or source mind, the source of all our karmas and samskaras. The heart is similarly the source of Prana or our life energy, the force that animates our various bodies from birth to birth, not merely as the breath but as the power behind all that we can do or think. The heart is also the ultimate source of speech and when we speak truly we speak from the heart.

The heart is the source of our entire being. All our different faculties are like different rays branching out from the central light of the heart which is like the Sun. All our energies are conduits of the energy of the heart, however far they may wander from it. In deep sleep we return to this inner light for peace and renewal, showing that we cannot remain apart from it even for a day.

Yet the heart is not just the source of our individual existence. It is also our place of unity and connection with the cosmic existence (Brahman). It spreads not just through our entire individual beingness but throughout the entire universe. In the heart resides our main connection with the Devatas, the great cosmic powers, the Gods and Goddesses which rule the universe, its evolution and its different planes of existence. Each one of our individual faculties arising from the heart has its corresponding cosmic Deva ruling a corresponding power of nature and the greater universe. The sun, the moon, the stars, the earth and all aspects of the cosmic creative force dwell within the heart.

This heart or hridaya is obviously not the mere physical organ. Nor is it simply the heart center, the anahata chakra of the subtle body, though it is closely related to it. This heart is the core of our being, which is the core of Being itself. The heart is where we experience our own self-being and through it contact the nature of all things. This hridaya could be better called the ‘spiritual heart’ in distinction to the physical and subtle heart centers.

The following is a beautiful prayer of consecration to heart from the Krishna Yajur Veda (Taittiriya Brahmana). It is still commonly chanted in ashrams and temples today, though not everyone contemplates its true meaning. It is often included in the greater Rudram chant sacred to Lord Shiva. It consists of a consecration of all of our faculties, along with their cosmic counterparts, into the heart and the Supreme Being within that. In this way, this heart prayer reconstructs the Cosmic Person (Purusha), the universal Self that is our true Being and is the Brahman, the being of the entire universe. Only when we place the cosmic powers into our individual faculties can we return them to our true heart that is universal.

Such a consecration in the heart is true Pratyahara in the Yogic sense, withdrawing all our faculties for the highest meditation. It is the reintegration of our scattered energy and attention into the Supreme Self, which is the supreme Yoga, the Yoga of the spiritual heart. It can be performed as preliminary to or along with Self-inquiry in order to make it more effective. It can be done along with any other Yoga practices as well.

1.May fire (Agni) be placed in my speech (Vak), my speech in the heart (hridaya), the heart in me (mayi), the I (aham) in the immortal (amritam), the immortal in Brahman.

2.May the Wind (Vayu) be placed in my breath (Prana), my breath in the heart, the heart in me, the I in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman.

3.May the Sun be placed in my eye, my eye in the heart, the heart in me, the I in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman.

4.May the Moon be placed in my mind, my mind in the heart, the heart in me, the I in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman.

5.May the Directions be placed in my hearing, my hearing in the heart, the heart in me, the I in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman.

6.May the Waters be placed in my generative fluid, my generative fluid in the heart, the heart in me, the I in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman.

7.May the Earth be placed in my body, my body in the heart, the heart in me, the I in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman.

8.May herbs and trees be placed in my hair, my hair in the heart, the heart in me, the I in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman.

9.May Indra be placed in my strength, my strength in the heart, the heart in me, the I in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman.

10.May Parjanya be placed in my head, my head in the heart, the heart in me, the I in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman.

11.May Rudra be placed in my spirit, my spirit in the heart, the heart in me, the I in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman.

12.May my self be placed in the Self, the Self in the heart, the heart in me, the I in the immortal, the immortal in Brahman.
-----

Lord Rudra is the first born and the last to go into Himself. Dwelling in brain chakra is dwelling in Soma and in Maya creation. From Hridaya, which is Self, sprouts the awareness I and then the mind "I am this". The pure I, the immortal (self) and Brahman are one. "I am this" is a created artefact -- a thought.


Atman/Brahman is atiasrami and so is pure I. And so is a Jnani. Terming a Jnani as belonging to an Asrama is fatally flawed. Sannayasi is not one who merely lives in a forest or who has taken a Diksha but a Sannyasi is one who has renounced everything (and everything is included in Aham). A true Sannyasi (a Jnani) cannot have alliances.

Regards to all.

Om Shanti Om.

Om Namah Shivaya

sm78
05 February 2008, 12:50 AM
Terming a Jnani as belonging to an Asrama is fatally flawed

As long a jnani lives in the world his purpose (for serving of the rest) is best served in a particular ashrama (as a vedic sannyasi or tantric kulavadhoota)

atanu
05 February 2008, 01:15 AM
As long a jnani lives in the world his purpose (for serving of the rest) is best served in a particular ashrama (as a vedic sannyasi or tantric kulavadhoota)

Namaste SM,

Sure. i do not deny it, since i am an asrami.

Asrama is from the view of Asrami. Jnani being ALL, is atiasrami. Jnani is a form of Rudra -- who is the Self as well as the Guru.

RV Book 10 HYMN XCII. Visvedevas.

9 With humble adoration show this day your song of praise to mighty Rudra, Ruler of the brave: With whom, the Eager Ones, going their ordered course, he comes from heaven Self-bright, auspicious, strong to guard.
----------------

Jnani is a form of Guru who is not two and who is not different from Shivoadvaita atman. (And the Jiva and then jivas are also not different from Shivoadvaita atman.)

If we go by the Karma Kanda, it is obligatory for a Brahmana (or Khatrya) to perform various Yagnas. Who is performing Soma Yajna today and who can? Who is doing Asvamedha and who can? Shankaracharya and Lord Krishna have taught that there is nothing more purifying than Jnana and the Pratyahara into the Self is the highest Yajna, since it is Yajna of the small self into the Self. And all activities: breathing, eating, reading scripture etc. all these are yagnas for one who knows these activities to be so.


Om Namah Shivaya

sarabhanga
05 February 2008, 07:12 AM
Namaste Atanu,

A jñAnI is a knower of brahman, the perfect brAhmaNa.

A jñAnI is (by definition) a brAhmaNa.

And such a brAhmaNa must have renounced all attachment.

And such a renunciate is (by definition) a saMnyAsI.

And a perfect saMnyAsI is an avadhUta.

And an avadhUta is a veritable rudrA, with absolute alliance to the one rudra.

But the perfect avadhUta is beyond physical incarnation, and any saMnyAsI still in possession of a mortal body is not yet relieved of responsibility to dharma.

The avadhUta, who is inspired and informed only by rudra, wanders as bhairava himself, inspiring and informing both the saMnyAsI and the shUdra.

The saMnyAsI has no varNa and no Ashrama.

The vAnaprastha is certainly of dvija varNa and (yet retaining attachment to place) certainly remains in isolated hermitage (i.e. in vAnaprasthAshrama).

Every RSi is vAnaprastha, but NOT a saMnyAsI.

Every RSi is forever associated with manifest eternity (generally as a sacred mountain).

And ramaNa is synonymous with aruNa (the solar charioteer, the fiery mount). So the rAmaNa RSi is the eternal guardian of aruNAcala, who is surely vAnaprastha, but without the dIkshA of saMnyAsa.

A saMnyAsI has no fixed Ashrama (except during the monsoon), freely moving from place to place, for any attachment to physical location has been renounced, and there is only one last item to discard. And, for so long as the immortal soul remains yoked to a mortal carriage, the vow of yama and rule of dharma still apply.

Every saMnyAsI was so named by a saMnyAsI, who was named by another, and another, and another, back to the very first example. And that naming can ONLY be done by a living saMnyAsI guru.

Anyone can name themselves anything they like, but a true name can only be given by another. And not even lord rudra has the authority to name himself! Likewise, anyone can proclaim themselves “Hindu”, but until a Hindu guru names the aspirant as a Hindu the name has no proper authority. The whole idea of “self-naming” is an ultimate vanity, which is fatally flawed and without any basis in dharma!

And pratyAhAra is NOT the “highest yajña”. The ultimate yajña occurs only in samAdhi.

Bob G
05 February 2008, 07:39 AM
Hello Sarabhanga,

When you state, "as unnecessary obstacles suddenly appear in the way"

I tend to wonder about the help of Lord Ganesha, ...which is the Hindu teaching that I've heard given regarding such matters. I'm not qualified to give advice along such lines since I'm looking at the religious aspects of Hindusim from the outside, whereas your peers are looking at it from the pov of being inside of it.

Anyway, I wonder how Lord Ganesha Himself handles the anguish and or frustration you speak of since He has been with and part of the Dharma teachings for a very, very long time! Does He as a key Mahadeva of Hinduism step "on toes" as needed so to speak? What is His example and how does He instruct human beings to deal with these issues?
I have not met Him but I have heard that many have direct connection with Him - that is more than only beliefs or hopes, although beliefs and hopes are also part of the way.

Om

sarabhanga
05 February 2008, 08:44 AM
the anguish and or frustration you speak of

Namaste Bob,

What anguish and/or frustration have I mentioned?

I have only spoken of “unnecessary obstacles”, and changing course around them or occasionally rolling over them if they don’t heed an initial warning to get out of the way.

And similarly, shrI gaNesha would most likely give a clear warning before simply sweeping the obstacle away.

atanu
05 February 2008, 09:46 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

The spiritual definitions:

divyam jnanam yato dadyat kuryat papasya sanksayam
tasmad dikseti sa prokta desikais tattva-kovidaih

"The process that bestows divyam jnanam (transcendental, spiritual knowledge) and destroys papa, the seed of sin and ignorance, is called diksha by the spiritual persons who have seen the Truth (desikais tattva-kovidaih)."

From Gita (Chapter 18)

Arjuna Uvaacha:
Sannyaasasya mahaabaaho tattwamicchaami veditum;
Tyaagasya cha hrisheekesha prithak keshinishoodana.

Arjuna said:
1. I desire to know severally, O mighty-armed, the essence or truth of renunciation, O Hrishikesa, as also of abandonment, O slayer of Kesi!

Sri Bhagavaan Uvaacha:
Kaamyaanaam karmanaam nyaasam sannyaasam kavayoviduh;
Sarvakarmaphalatyaagam praahustyaagam vichakshanaah.

The Blessed Lord said:
2. The sages understand Sannyas to be the renunciation of action with desire; the wise declare the abandonment of the fruits of all actions as Tyaga.
------------------------------------


Namaste Atanu,
---Every RSi is forever associated with manifest eternity (generally as a sacred mountain).

So the rAmaNa RSi is the eternal guardian of aruNAcala, who is surely vAnaprastha, but without the dIkshA of saMnyAsa.
----


Very well said. May be the eternity is attained without Jnana? And possibly Rudro Maharishi, the eternal seer, may not be Jnani?

Shiva directly is the Guru of such eternal Giri. It is no use assuming that what we see of a guru in our life is all that there is. Sat Guru is not a self coined title but it was bestowed by hundreds of sannyasins, including Shankaracharya of Kanchi. And thousands and thousands of Sannyasins have worshipped Arunachala as Shiva himself.



Anyone can name themselves anything they like, ----The whole idea of “self-naming” is an ultimate vanity, which is fatally flawed and without any basis in dharma!

I agree whole heartedly. It is the ultimate vanity. We see many people calling themselves Guru, Avadhuta etc. It has no basis in dharma. I agree.



And pratyAhAra is NOT the “highest yajña”. The ultimate yajña occurs only in samAdhi.


No problems, though I wonder, in Samadhi, what can be sacrificed, by whom, and to whom ?
-----------------------------

I do not say that Guru Diksha is not absolutely essential. It is absolutely essential. But a mortal like me can hardly comprehend how a Guru received His own Diksha. Then Dattatreya himself had no living Guru but the whole world as the Guru. Shiva is the true living Guru. And Diksha can be by touch, by sight, or by thought.


I sincerely wish that we desist from judging the ashrama status of Hindu Gurus, since there is no end to such judgements and no way to prove anything.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Bob G
05 February 2008, 10:27 AM
Hello Sarabhanga,

Your post #21 (and certain others) sounded like your shared and or given reflections related to personal anguish and or frustrations, (?) at least to me.

Anyway, is there some fairly easy to see or well known evidence that Lord Ganesha does "crush toes" in the ways you allude to? ...In other words with His power and vast abilities why hasn't he crushed a whole bunch of the enemies of Hinduism that are out there right now?

Om

Nuno Matos
05 February 2008, 01:40 PM
Namaste Bob and Friends

Lord Ganesha doesn't crush Hinduism enemy's as he is the united underworld i.e. the friend of the Self in the Being as he works for the prosperity of all sadhakas . I think Ganesha is or at least for me is a personal deity.
To have such a Ganesha capable of destroying Hinduism enemy's is like having a hounded elephant on the battle field and Ganesha must be inverted with all Dharmic purity lost.

Putting apart recent western nationalist and hegemonic ideas that have infected Hinduism. All Dharma religions are historically know for not creating many animosity's.

sarabhanga
05 February 2008, 08:05 PM
The spiritual definition:

divyam jnanam yato dadyat kuryat papasya sanksayam
tasmad dikseti sa prokta desikais tattva-kovidaih

"The process that bestows divyam jnanam (transcendental, spiritual knowledge) and destroys papa, the seed of sin and ignorance, is called diksha by the spiritual persons who have seen the Truth (desikais tattva-kovidaih)."

Regarding the definition of dIkshA:

In the bhaktisaMdarbha (anucch. 283) shrIla jIva gosvAmI defines dIkshA as follows:

“Learned exponents of the absolute truth declare that the process by which the spiritual master imparts divyajñAnam to the disciple and eradicates all sins is known as dIkshA.”

And divyajñAnam is further defined:

“divyajñAnam is transcendental knowledge of the lord’s form and one’s specific relationship with the lord contained within a mantra.”

And dIkshA must involve guruvAkyam.

According to the haribhaktivilAsa of shrIla sanAtana gosvAmI (quoted from the viSNuyAmalam):

“For a person who is not properly initiated, all of his activities become fruitless. Such an uninitiated person can take birth in the animal kingdom in the future.”

And according to the bhaktisaMdarbha (anucch. 298) and the haribhaktivilAsa (quoted from the tattvasAgara):

“As bell-metal is turned into gold when mixed with mercury in an alchemical process, so in that very way, by the process of initiation by guru, a person becomes a brAhmaNa.”

Bob G
05 February 2008, 09:49 PM
Namaste Nuno,

Thanks for the feedback and your pov.. Best Regards.

339

Om

atanu
05 February 2008, 10:24 PM
Regarding the definition of dIkshA:

In the bhaktisaMdarbha (anucch. 283) shrIla jIva gosvAmI defines dIkshA as follows:
And dIkshA must involve guruvAkyam.

-“As bell-metal is turned into gold when mixed with mercury in an alchemical process, so in that very way, by the process of initiation by guru, a person becomes a brAhmaNa.”

Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,


So the rAmaNa RSi is the eternal guardian of aruNAcala

If that is bell metal then I bow to you, Avadhuta Sir.

Guruvakyam of Dakshinamurti is silence. It can be a whisper. It can be touch. It can be a look.

Pranam

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
06 February 2008, 06:17 AM
"The Swami spoke at great length saying that every head of a religious organisation has to observe established traditions while one who is an Athyasramite (one transcending the four stages of life prescribed by the Dharma Sastras) has no such inhibitions... (To) attain that state is very difficult and that had been possible only for a great soul like Ramana Maharishi."
----
Jagadguru Sri Sankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham was now (end of Oct. 1947) camping near Tiruvannamalai. Someone asked whether His Holiness and Sri Bhagavan ever met. Sri Bhagavan replied: "When were we separate that we should not meet? We are always together."

http://www.kamakoti.org/souv/5-58.html


Om

saidevo
06 February 2008, 10:53 AM
Ramana's Guru

Amazing are the lIlAs (sports) of Lord Shiva when He plays the part of a Guru, initiating and instantly bestowing the highest state of jnAna to his chosen disciples! Even more amazing is the fact that these chosen disciples have an intimate connection with Arunachala!

Siva himself lovingly promises Brahma and Vishnu (in 'Skandapurana' and 'Lingapurana'), "Let this sacred Arunachala which has been blessed by Me for your sake become a place where man can attain liberation. I ordain that those who live within a distance of three yojanas (about thirty miles) from this place shall become one with Me even without any kind of initiation or formalities."

And Arunachala is the place where Shiva and Gowri are joined in one form as Ardhanareeswara, serving as the first gurus of every seeker in the form of his/her father and mother.

Ramana's initiation follows the line of the direct and personal dIkshA that Arunachala Shiva gave to the four chief Nayanmar saints--Appar, Sambandar, Sundarar and Manickavachagar:

Tirujnanasambandar was born to Sivapada Hrudayar and Bagawathy Amma in Thiru Thonipuram which is also known as Sirkazhi and he was christened as Aludaya Pillai. At the age of three he had a vision of Siva and Parvati and was fed the milk of spiritual knowledge by the divine consort. The child of three sang verses describing the vision he had. He then visited many holy places and went to Arakanda Nallur near Tiruvannamalai from where he had the first darshan of the distant holy hill of Arunachala, and with overflowing love he danced and sang in divine ecstasy. He then went to Arunachala with his disciples.

Jnanasambandar composed poems called 'padhigams' (group of ten or eleven stanzas) and later these became part of the celebrated Thevaram. In the ninth stanza of every one of his 'padhigams' he alludes to Arunachana.

In Appar's hymns we can see his deep love and piety for Arunachala. Appar whose real name was Tirunavukkarasar, embraced Jainism due to his previous karma. Appar's sister Tilakavathi, an ardent devotee of Siva, prayed to her Lord to entice Appar unto His fold. Accordingly the Lord claimed him as His own and Appar became a saivite. When they realized that Appar had abandoned them, the Jains treated him cruelly but with the Lord's grace he escaped unscathingly from all the tests he was put into by the Jains and after visiting many holy places came to Arunachala. Appar has hailed Arunachala in four of his Thevara padhigams and in two Thiruthandaka panns.

They say that of the four ways, namely, devotion, yoga, action and knowledge, Sundarar followed the yogic way in his spiritual life. He regarded the divine as his friend and enjoyed His blessings fully. When Sundarar was about to be married, Lord Shiva played the role of an old man who claimed Sundarar to be his slave, won the case in the TiruveNNainallur panchayat, took Sundarar to the Shiva temple of that place and revealed his glory and said that Sundarar himself in his previous birth wanted the Lord to take charge of him in this way. When he knew the truth about the old man, Sundarar was aghast that he had called the old man 'pitthA' (a madman), but Shiva asked him to sing his first hymn using the very same word, and Sundarar sang his famous song, 'pitthA, piraisUdi' (O madman who wears the moon in his hair)!

It is said that he wrote more than 3000 padhigams but only a few hundred are traceable now. He has sung in glorious terms about Arunachala in some of his songs. There is no evidence that Sundarar visited Arunachala, nevertheless Arunachala did not spare him and residing in his heart made him sing His glory.

Manickavachakar was also a great devotee of Siva and he prayed that the Lord alone should be his Guru and give him initiation.

Of the four saints, Manickavachakar alone visited just seven places sacred to Siva and sang in glorious terms about Lord Siva presiding in these holy places. Of these, Arunachala stands foremost, for, here he composed Tiruvembavai, the most popular of his compositions. Though the four poet-saints have sung about the Lord residing at various shrines, yet when they praise Arunachala, they reach the summit of devotion and take the reader along with them. It is thrilling to read Manickavachakar’s songs wherein he speaks of Arunachala as a lover would of his beloved.

And Bhagavan Ramana was initiated when he first heard the sacred word Arunachala at the age of sixteen. Shiva drew his child direct to his holy abode and gave him the highest state of 'jnAna' when Ramana was in firece and incessant meditation for weeks together at Arunachala. Realizing his unity with Shiva, Ramana became Arunachala himself.

No wonder then that Ramana says, "One must not look upon the Guru as a person; he is not anything else than the real Self of the disciple. When that Self is realized, then there is neither Guru nor disciple."

And again: "To put it in a nut-shell," he wound up, "to some He reveals Himself as an outer Guru, to others as an inner one. But the function of either is the same: the outer Guru pushes you inside while the inner Guru draws you in so that in the end it comes to the same thing. So why then all this wrangling about Guruvad?"

Sources:
1. Ramana's Arunachala by his devotees
2. Ramanasramam: Golden Jubilee Souvenir

atanu
07 February 2008, 02:35 AM
Ramana's Guru

Amazing are the lIlAs (sports) of Lord Shiva when He plays the part of a Guru, initiating and instantly bestowing the highest state of jnAna to his chosen disciples! Even more amazing is the fact that these chosen disciples have an intimate connection with Arunachala!

-And Bhagavan Ramana was initiated when he first heard the sacred word Arunachala at the age of sixteen. Shiva drew his child direct to his holy abode and gave him the highest state of 'jnAna' when Ramana was in firece and incessant meditation for weeks together at Arunachala. Realizing his unity with Shiva, Ramana became Arunachala himself.

-

Namaste Saidevoji,

Thank you for your masterly post. Truly amazing are the ways of Shiva.

Normally, one would expect a lingering tinge of bitterness with such disagreements. But that was not the case. I cannot explain it properly since it is in the realm of indescribable emotions. Those haunting eyes issued a loving reminder and have become more haunting now. I am sure that Sarabhanga Ji has also not remained ungraced, since through him, He worked.

Pranam Sarabhanga Ji. Pranam Saidevo ji.

Om

atanu
07 February 2008, 02:41 AM
"Jnana is given neither from outside nor from another person. It can be realised by each and everyone in his own Heart. The jnana Guru of everyone is only the Supreme Self that is always revealing its own truth in every Heart through the being-conciousness 'I am, I am.' The granting of true knowledge by him is initiation into jnana. The grace of the Guru is only that Self-awareness that is one's own true nature. It is the inner conciousness by which he is unceasingly revealing his existence. This divine upadesa is always going on naturally in everyone."

-Sri Ramana Maharshi

The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi (selected excerpts in the context of the subject ‘Guru’).

Questioner: Sri Aurobindo and others refer to you as having had no Guru.

Sri Ramana Maharshi: It all depends on what you call a Guru. He need not be in a human form. Dattatreya had twenty-four Gurus including the five elements- earth, water, etc. Every object in this world was his Guru.

The Guru is absolutely necessary. The Upanishads say that none but a Guru can take a man out of the jungle of intellect and sense perceptions. So there must be a Guru.

Questioner: I mean a human Guru- Maharshi did not have one.

Sri Ramana Maharshi: I might have had one at one time or other. But did I not sing hymns to Arunachala? What is a Guru? Guru is God or the Self. First a man prays to God to fulfil his desires. A time comes when he will no more pray for the fulfilment of material desires but for God Himself. God then appears to him in some form or other, human or non-human, to guide him to Himself in answer to his prayer and according to his needs.

Question: Is success not dependent on the Guru’s grace?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes, it is. Is not your practice itself due to such grace? The fruits are the result of the practice and follow it automatically. There is a stanza in Kaivalya which says, ‘O Guru! You have been always with me, watching me through several incarnations, and ordaining my course until I was liberated.’ The Self manifests externally as the Guru when the occasion arises, otherwise he is always within, doing what is necessary.

Question: Is it absolutely necessary to have a Guru if one is seeking Self-realisation?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: So long as you seek Self-realisation the Guru is necessary. Guru is the Self. Take Guru to be the real Self and your self as the individual self. The disappearance of this sense of duality is the removal of ignorance. So long as duality persists in you the Guru is necessary. Because you identify yourself with the body, you think that the Guru is also a body.
You are not the body, nor is the Guru. You are the Self and so is the Guru. This knowledge is gained by what you call Self-realisation.

Question: What is the significance of the saying that the nature of the real Guru is that of the Supreme Lord (Sarvesvara)?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: First, the individual soul, which desires to attain the state of Godhood, or the state of true knowledge, practices incessant devotion. When the individual’s devotion has reached a mature stage, the Lord, who is the witness of the individual soul and identical with it, manifests. He appears in human form with the help of Sat-Chit-Ananda (Existence, Consciousness and Bliss Absolute), his three natural features, and form the name, which he also graciously assumes. In the guise of blessing the disciple, he absorbs him in Himself. According to this doctrine, the Guru can truly be called the Lord.

Question: How then some great persons attain knowledge without a Guru?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: To a few mature persons the Lord shines as the formless light of knowledge and imparts awareness of the truth.


Question: What is Guru’s grace? How does it lead to Self-realisation?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Guru is the Self. Sometimes in his life a man becomes dissatisfied and not content with what he has, he seeks the satisfaction of his desires through prayer to God. His mind is gradually purified until he longs to know God, more to obtain his grace than to satisfy his worldly desires. Then, God’s grace begins to manifest. God takes the form of a Guru and appears to the devotee, teaches him the truth and, more over, purifies his mind by association. The devotee’s mind gains strength and is then able to turn inward. By meditation it is further purified and it remains still without the least ripple. That calm expanse is the Self.

The Guru is both external and internal. From the exterior he gives a push to the mind to turn it inwards. From the interior he pulls the mind towards the Self and helps in the quietening of the mind. That is Guru’s grace. There is no difference between God, Guru and the Self.

Questioner: In the Theosophical Society they meditate in order to seek masters to guide them.

Sri Ramana Maharshi: The master is within; meditation is meant to remove the ignorant idea that he is only outside. If he is a stranger whom you await, he is bound to disappear also. What is the use of a transient being like that? But so long as you think you are separate or that you are the body, an external master is also necessary and he will appear to have a body. When the wrong identification of oneself with the body ceases, the master will be found to be none other than the Self.

Question: Will the Guru help us to know the Self through initiation?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Does the Guru hold you by the hand and whisper in the ear? You may imagine him to be what you are yourself. Because you think you are with a body, you think he also has a body and that he will do something tangible to you. His work lies within, in the spiritual realm.

Question: How is a Guru found?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: God, who is immanent, in His grace takes pity on the loving devotee and manifests himself according to the devotee’s development. The devotee thinks that he is a man and expects a relationship between two physical bodies. But the Guru, who is a God or the Self incarnate works from within, helps the man to see the error of his ways and guides him on the right path until he realises the Self within.


Om

atanu
07 February 2008, 02:58 AM
Self by the Self

Lord Shri Krishna

When a man completely casts off, O Arjuna, all the desires of the mind and is satisfied in the Self by the Self, then is he said to be one of steady wisdom!

Thus, knowing Him who is superior to the intellect and restraining the self by the Self, slay thou, O mighty-armed Arjuna, the enemy in the form of desire, hard to conquer!

The self is the friend of the self for him who has conquered himself by the Self, but to the unconquered self, this self stands in the position of an enemy like the (external) foe.

When the mind, restrained by the practice of Yoga, attains to quietude, and when, seeing the Self by the Self, he is satisfied in his own Self.

Some by meditation behold the Self in the Self by the Self, others by the Yoga of knowledge, and others by the Yoga of action.

Because he who sees the same Lord dwelling equally everywhere does not destroy the Self by the self, he goes to the highest goal.


Om

sarabhanga
07 February 2008, 03:26 AM
Regarding the definitions of varNAshrama dharma:

arjuna said:


O mahAbAhu, O hRSIkesha, O keshiniSUdana, I wish to know the truth of sannyAsa, and of tyAga. [15.1]

shrIbhagavan said:


The wise sages understand sannyAsa as kAmyAnAM karmaNAM nyAsam, and declare tyAga as sarva-karma-phala-tyAgam. [15.2]

And tyAga is trividha (of three kinds). [15.4]

Prescribed duties should never be renounced. Such abandonment is declared as tAmasa. [15.7]

trividha (welcome, unwelcome, and mixed) is the fruit that accrues hereafter for the atyAginA (those who are unrenouncing). But for the sannyAsinA (those who are renounced) there is no such fruit. [15.12]




May be the eternity is attained without Jnana? And possibly Rudro Maharishi, the eternal seer, may not be Jnani?

Has there been any suggestion that a vAnaprastha cannot be a jñAnI ???




Sat Guru is not a self coined title but it was bestowed by hundreds of sannyasins, including Shankaracharya of Kanchi.

Has there been any suggestion that a vAnaprastha cannot be a sadguru ???




And thousands and thousands of Sannyasins have worshipped Arunachala as Shiva himself.

Has there been any suggestion that aruNAcalam is not a shivaliÑgam ???




We see many people calling themselves Guru, Avadhuta etc. It has no basis in dharma. I agree whole heartedly. It is the ultimate vanity.

There are some people known as guru or avadhUta (etc.) who have actually been named as such by another guru or avadhUta (etc.). And in such cases there is only dharma involved, and no question of vanity should arise !!! For example, should those who have been named as a Doctor or a Professor by their preceptors never mention the title because those without such accepted qualifications might consider it “the ultimate vanity” ???




I wonder, in Samadhi, what can be sacrificed, by whom, and to whom ?

In samAdhi, the offering is nArAyaNa, whose ultimate self sacrifice is made unto nara ~ and the yajña is atikAla.

And dattAtreya mahArAja is nArAyaNa, whose manifest guru is prakRti (who is tryambaka) ~ and his unobserved guru is nara (who is atri).

Without proper recognition of Ashrama, the varNAshramadharma cakram stops turning on the earth, and the resulting varNadharma musalam tends to stagnate and discriminate rather than inspiring and liberating. And the prevalent “black and white” misunderstanding of varNAshrama dharma is surely a mleccha corruption of the Arya ideal.

atanu
07 February 2008, 03:49 AM
"The Swami spoke at great length saying that every head of a religious organisation has to observe established traditions while one who is an Athyasramite (one transcending the four stages of life prescribed by the Dharma Sastras) has no such inhibitions... (To) attain that state is very difficult and that had been possible only for a great soul like Ramana Maharishi."
----
Jagadguru Sri Sankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham was now (end of Oct. 1947) camping near Tiruvannamalai. Someone asked whether His Holiness and Sri Bhagavan ever met. Sri Bhagavan replied: "When were we separate that we should not meet? We are always together."

http://www.kamakoti.org/souv/5-58.html


Om

Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

My only point is given above. Atiasrami, Maharshi and other names were not self coined. And this I shared because of the following.



From Sarabhanga
Anyone can name themselves anything they like, but a true name can only be given by another. And not even lord rudra has the authority to name himself! Likewise, anyone can proclaim themselves “Hindu”, but until a Hindu guru names the aspirant as a Hindu the name has no proper authority. The whole idea of “self-naming” is an ultimate vanity, which is fatally flawed and without any basis in dharma!


Pranam.

Om

sarabhanga
07 February 2008, 04:55 AM
I offer my profound salutations to the auspicious guru, who is an embodiment of dakSiNAmUrti, and whose grace is responsible for the illumination. To that dakSiNAmUrti, who is embodied in the auspicious guru, I offer my profound salutations.

[dakSiNAmUrtistotram]


If these truths have been told to a high-souled one, who has supreme devotion to god and as much devotion to his guru, only then will they shine forth, only then will they shine forth indeed.

[shvetAshvataropaniSad 6.23]

atanu
07 February 2008, 05:25 AM
I offer my profound salutations to the auspicious guru, who is an embodiment of dakSiNAmUrti, and whose grace is responsible for the illumination. To that dakSiNAmUrti, who is embodied in the auspicious guru, I offer my profound salutations.

[dakSiNAmUrtistotram]

If these truths have been told to a high-souled one, who has supreme devotion to god and as much devotion to his guru, only then will they shine forth, only then will they shine forth indeed.


[shvetAshvataropaniSad 6.23]


Namaskar. Sure.



Here comes something antipodal between the Maha-Svami and the Maharishi. the former stood foremost in strictly observing all the distinction laid out by the Dharma sastras and orthodox traditions, whereas the latter stood foremost in practicing equality. Even to merit the glance of the Maha-Svami one had to fulfil conditions; a millionaires Brahmin widow was disqualified if she was not tonsured! On the other hand, even an untouchable beggar could sit right by the side of the Maharishi and eat along with him. Nay, if he so felt, there was no restriction to his feeding the Maharishi from out of the alms in his begging bowl! How rude, crude and cruel does the one appear and how suave, soft and sweet the other? How is it that the Sweet gives his nod of approval to the Cruel?

But there is a world of difference here. Whereas the Maha-Svami's path of the Dharma Sastras is for the world at large, the Maharishi's Jnana and Sri Aurobindo's Yoga are only for the little minority with the required competence and inclination. Such people also have the antenna to discover their master even if they live in the distant corner of the world, and also the diligence to steadfastly follow the master's path to the end. But the masses are very hard to reclaim, and the more so, to a path to which they are not attracted by native choice.

High souled ones truly know: Thy will be done. This knowing is not automatic. Hating the laid down dharmic requirements is not good karma.

Development of the said 'Native choice' for this minority path (highlighted above with blue fonts) cannot also be automatic, though it may seem so.

Om

(Maharshi once commented to one sadhu: your ability to meditate for hours together is fruit of good karma).

Om

sarabhanga
07 February 2008, 06:33 AM
The “kshatriya vAnaprastha” and the “avadhUta” are both atyAshramI, but only the vAnaprastha has the title of RSi.

And a svAmI is a saMnyAsI, but not an avadhUta.

And the svAmI cannot have contact with the shUdra, while the avadhUta and the kshatriya vAnaprastha are free to do so.



For the kshatriya in vAnaprastha there is no final saMnyAsAshrama, which is assumed only for the brAhmaNa, but the perfect kshatriya vAnaprastha becomes a virtual immortal.

And the final stage of saMnyAsa is avadhUta, where there is only ajAtivAda and both karma and dharma are dissolved.

It is saMskAra, vidyA, dIkshA, yoga, and ultimately yama, that truly determine the varNa and Ashrama of an individual Hindu.

The brahmacaryAs are inspired and informed by the saMnyAsI.
And the shUdrAs are inspired and informed by the avadhUta.


shUdra ~ [avadhUta]
vaishya brahmacarya ~ brAhmaNa saMnyAsa
vaishya gRhastha ~ brAhmaNa vAnaprastha
kshatriya brahmacarya ~ brAhmaNa gRhastha
kshatriya gRhastha ~ brAhmaNa brahmacarya
[kshatriya vAnaprastha]

sarabhanga
07 February 2008, 06:44 AM
Here comes something antipodal between the Maha-Svami and the Maharishi. the former stood foremost in strictly observing all the distinction laid out by the Dharma sastras and orthodox traditions, whereas the latter stood foremost in practicing equality. Even to merit the glance of the Maha-Svami one had to fulfil conditions; a millionaires Brahmin widow was disqualified if she was not tonsured! On the other hand, even an untouchable beggar could sit right by the side of the Maharishi and eat along with him. Nay, if he so felt, there was no restriction to his feeding the Maharishi from out of the alms in his begging bowl! How rude, crude and cruel does the one appear and how suave, soft and sweet the other? How is it that the Sweet gives his nod of approval to the Cruel?

But there is a world of difference here. Whereas the Maha-Svami's path of the Dharma Sastras is for the world at large, the Maharishi's Jnana and Sri Aurobindo's Yoga are only for the little minority with the required competence and inclination. Such people also have the antenna to discover their master even if they live in the distant corner of the world, and also the diligence to steadfastly follow the master's path to the end. But the masses are very hard to reclaim, and the more so, to a path to which they are not attracted by native choice.

Namaste Atanu,

Who are you quoting here?

atanu
07 February 2008, 06:51 AM
Namaste Atanu,

Who are you quoting here?

Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

I thought that you have read it by now. http://www.kamakoti.org/souv/5-58.html


Om.

Bob G
07 February 2008, 07:29 AM
All the dharmas which have limits can be jumped over (so to speak) but only by the unlimited power which is by the Supreme Law of Love which does not "crush toes" but uplifts and enlivens souls.

Om

sarabhanga
07 February 2008, 08:12 AM
I thought that you have read it by now.

Some important lines have been omitted from your deliberately misleading quote!




The mahAsvAmI, ever bubbling with wit and witticism had a unique way of saying things. He said he did not want to give the same judgment on both reports and so would call one of them as pEttal (incoherent talk or meaningless speech) and the other as uLaRal (incoherent speaking).

To come to the two reports: One of them was when the mahAsvAmI was circumambulating the Holy Hill during his camp at tiruvaNNAmalai.

Even as I heard it I could write it off.

But, human nature being what it is, respect gives way to remonstration when personally pricked. That happened with the rAmaNa Ashraminas too.

We come to the second of the reports, the uLaRal one.

Even as I heard it, it struck me as stark absurd. But when I saw even knowledgeable people believing in it, I took the matter to the mahAsvAmI’s ears.

And he just dismissed it as ulaRal (anger or rage).

atanu
07 February 2008, 11:36 AM
Some important lines have been omitted from your deliberately misleading quote!

Namaste Sarabhanga Ji,

I have not omitted anything. I have given the full reference for every one to read. You have deliberately pasted separate unconnected lines. Either you are out of mind or possessed by Ramana.

You have not understood the passage at all. What Maha Swamy dismissed as pEttal (incoherent talk or meaningless speech) and the other as uLaRal (incoherent speaking) are the feelings and sayings of both sides -- of Ramanashramites and of Math friends. Both paragraphs are reproduced below.

Example of Ramana Asahramites anger calmed:

"But human nature being what it is, respect gives way to remonstration when personally picked. That happened with the Ramana-asramites too. But the Maharishi, who had no person to be pricked, dissolved it by counseling sympathetic acceptance."

(My note: It is very normal that egos Bhakta's are pricked. That happens with Shiva bhaktas and Vishnu bhaktas also. That does not mean that Shiva or Vishnu are defective.)


Example of Matha superiority dismissed as uLaRal:

"But my Math friends belonged to a different world, the world of the Maha Svami's one-up manship over all other holymen! So their Maharishi sent word to their Maha-Svami about his protracted suffering, asking why it should be so. (Thank God the friends did not go to the extent of saying that the Maharishi prayed for the Maha-Svami's grace for relief) the Maha-Svami in return sent the message, "It is will known to you that the body is not you. (It was gracious of the friends to accept this!) Then what is there except keeping on to it?"

Even as I heard it, it struck me as stark absurd. But when I saw even knowledgeable people believing in it, I took the matter t the Maha-Svami's ears.
And he just dismissed it as ularal. "


On the other hand, Maha Swamy actually said as below:


He went on, brimming with his admiration for the Maharishi. "We have read in the books about the Atma Nishthas (those absorbed in the Self), Braha-Jnanis (knowers of Brahman) and Jivan-Muktas (those liberated even while living in the body), to whom the existence and extinction of the body made no difference and who, fully one (with the Self) did not have an inkling of desire to see or hear anything. Ramana Rishi was among the few extra-ordinary (apurva) persons of the recent times who have demonstrated all that as true. He is the one who has brought, for the world to see, the hoary Jnani-tradition down to the present day."

"Authentic saint?" I said, partly in the affirmative, partly as a question.
"And a jnani at that. Authentic jnani" he amended.

Another incident


"Smt. Kanakamma was born in a family deeply attached to the Kanchi Math and its Acharya. But she took to the Maharishi with fervour. Her relatives were against it. Her grand-mother took her to the Acharya, made the complaint and petitioned to him to wean her from the Maharishi and take her into his fold.
Pat, yet soft, came his reply: "What if it is here or there?'
The judgement from their very Court silenced the members of the family. "


---------------------------------

Any calm person can go through the full article and make their own judgement.


I again paste the link here: . http://www.kamakoti.org/souv/5-58.html (http://www.kamakoti.org/souv/5-58.html)

Om Namah Bhagavate Shri Ramanaya

atanu
07 February 2008, 01:05 PM
The full article from the Kamakoti Peetham (recommended as a must read by the Peetham) is pasted below. Please note that the two instances of pettal and ularal referred in the article are what the author heard from servitors of Maha Svami. And the author relates these two to creative artistry of math servitors to elevate Maha Svami over all other holy men. Where as Maha Svami himself says something different.

The Maha-Svami and The Maharishi

Ra. Ganapati


Two reports I heard from the servitors of the Maha-Svami relating him to Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharishi I could myself easily attribute to their creative artistry in elevating their own Master over every other holy man. Yet I wanted to get confirmation from His Holiness himself for certain reasons.

The Maha-Svami, ever bubbling with wit and witticism had a unique way of saying things. He said he did not want to give the same judgment on both reports and so would call one of them as pettal (colloquial for pitatral) and the other as ularal. The fun of it si that both the words mean the same, viz., talking nonsense!

To come to the two reports. One of them was that when the Maha-Svami was circumambulating the Holy Hill during his camp at Tiruvannamalai, Sri Ramana Maharishi purposely came out of his living room in the Ramana-Asrama and walked to a particular spot from where he could see the Maha-Svami at a distance.

Even as I heard it I could write it off, because Maharishi was to me surely one to whom the triad of the seer, seen and sight had dissolved in the oneness of the only Self. (So it was to His Holiness. But he donned the role of the Teacher exemplifying the ideal to the humans, and therefore was ever on the move to see people and holy places.)

Decades back, a lad of sixteen, the Maharishi fled home to Tirvannamalai, afire with the raging ardor to see the Fire-Linga of lord Arunachalesvara. He took darsan, just one darsan, and with that the very idea of an object to be seen apart from the self was burnt out! Though he lived in the very temple precincts for the next five or six months, he did not visit the sanctum sanctorum again. To assert that, contrary to what the Asrama sources say, he did come out to see that Maha-Svami is, as the Svami himself said, nothing but pettal (nonsense).

Our Acharya Maha-Svami visited Tiruvannamalai twice, once in 1929 and again in 1944, both for the Kartika Deepam festival (when the holy beacon is lighted atop the Hill). On both the occasions he also made the customary Giri-pradakshinam (circumambulation of the Hill). The Ramanasraman lies on the route. I have heard reports from two very reliable and respected persons attached to the Asramam, Sri Kunju Svamigal and Mme. Suri Nagmma about what transpired when the Maha-Svami passed along the route. Kunju Svami must have been present on both the occasions and Nagamma on the latter one.

Bhagavan had already prepared the asramites not to take it amiss if the Acharya did not enter into the Asramam and see him; because, according to one tradition, one in the Jagadguru Peetham (Seat of the World-teacher) must not call on another holy man on his own. As for himself, though he did not say it, he would not extend an invitation to anyone for the simple reason that he did not have any desire or need to see any body, anything. As for the asramites, they could, if they so wished, gather outside and have darsan of the Acharya as he moved along.
And most of them did.

The asramites had great respect for the Acharya, especially by the forties, because it was he who almost compelled Paul Brunton the Maharishi's feet, and it was Brunton's soulful account of the Maharishi that threw open the window of the West of the light of the Illumined Master. The book clearly shows that the Acharya considered the Maharishi as "a high master" who can give "initiation into the real yoga of the higher kind".
In one of his discourses in Madras in the early thirties, the Acharya had raked the Maharishi, whom he referred to as Ramana Svamigal, among the jivan-muktas (liberated even while living in a body). The asramites were naturally happy that the respected head of a Sankara Math, uncompromising in such matters, gave such praise to the Maharishi in public.

On both the occasions of his visit to Tiruvanna malai, the Acharya turned his eyes towards the entrance of the Asrama, stopped for a few seconds looking round and continued to walk, a still picture in motion!
Reminiscing the second visit Nagamma said, while all the other asramites went out and waited at the gate for His Holiness, she alone was left with the Maharishi.
"Why have you not joined them?" he asked her.
"Because the Svami does not see Brahmin widows who have not shaved their heads", Nagamma replied.
Though mature and tolerant not to denounce the orthodox custom, she felt a tinge of sadness.
The Maharishi just nodded his head and looked at her with compassion, The compassion assuaged her sadness. The simple nod too conveyed a lot to the discerning disciple. It signified the Maharishi's acceptance of both the Acharya's adherence to the institutional customs, and Nagamma's wisdom in not following the other such windows who used to peep at the Acharya from a hidden place.

Here comes something antipodal between the Maha-Svami and the Maharishi. the former stood foremost in strictly observing all the distinction laid out by the Dharma sastras and orthodox traditions, whereas the latter stood foremost in practicing equality. Even to merit the glance of the Maha-Svami one had to fulfil conditions; a millionaires Brahmin widow was disqualified if she was not tonsured! On the other hand, even an untouchable beggar could sit right by the side of the Maharishi and eat along with him. Nay, if he so felt, there was no restriction to his feeding the Maharishi from out of the alms in his begging bowl! How rude, crude and cruel does the one appear and how suave, soft and sweet the other? How is it that the Sweet gives his nod of approval to the Cruel?

If the Sweet cannot appreciate the Cruel, equally true is the vice versa. But whereas the Sweet's appreciation of the Cruel came out in `just nodding,' the Cruel's appreciation of the Sweet came out in a verbal flow. That was in the public discourse given by the Maha-Svami the very night. To quote Nagamma, "The Swami spoke at great length saying that every head of a religious organisation has to observe established traditions while one who is an Athyasramite (one transcending the four stages of life prescribed by the Dharma Sastras) has no such inhibitions... (To) attain that state is very difficult and that had been possible only for a great soul like Ramana Maharishi."

The devotees of the Maharishi exulted at this unstinted tribute the Acharya paid to their Master in their home-town.
But close on it wake the Acharya gave a rude shock to them. They felt that he had dealt a direct blow on what they held in worshipful respect in the Asrama, viz., the temple over the spot where the body of the mother of the Maharishi was buried. When she passed away, the Maharishi favoured the idea of putting up such a structure because in his view (which was not just a view, but perception of truth) she was a Sannyasini who attained the Jnani's liberation of Oneness. Vedic priests offered their chants and ritualistic services at the temple as they did in any other `regular' temple. But, to their dismay when they went after one such service there to participate in the evening Puja at the Acharya's Math, they were asked to enter only after taking a purificatory bath. Because, first of all opinion was divided among the orthodoxy on first of all, opinion was divided among the orthodoxy on the very question of the eligibility of women for sannyasa; and even if that was accepted, the mother of Maharishi was not initiated to that order in the formal, scriptural way. So the place of her burial was just a grave-yard (which pollutes the entrants).

The directive of the Acharya to the priests struck the asramites as a bigoted, book-learnt judgement over the intuitive judgment of their enlightened master. As most of the priests were also devoted to the Maharishi, they were deeply perturbed when the Pontiff, who was the bulwark of the priestly tradition in the changing world, pronounced the stricture.

Early next morning the asramites and priests went to the Maharishi. In spite of the asramites' efforts to restrain themselves before their august Master, they could not keep their tempers. They complained about what all `that Svami' was doing with his differentiating outlook in contrast to what `this Bhagavan' was doing in his all-embracing outlook. "The priests want to give a reply to him. (They actually wanted to teach him a lesson!) Bhagavan should give the reply."

As ever unruffled, the Maharishi heard it all and in his stately composure gave his judgement on the judgement of the Svami on his previous judgment. It was Neutrality itself that spoke! "Why say that person, this person? Say there, here. That is the correct expression. Viewed so, what all has happened will also be understood as correct. (For the benefit of the Tamil-knowing readers, let me give the original simple, concise and powerful words of the Maharishi as faithfully conveyed by Sri Kunju Svami: That is an orthodox Peetham, and this an independent ashram. Who ever is here would be like this. So long as that svami is the head of that Peetham he must only follow (more precisely, `demonstrate', because the Maharishi said not the ways and rules of the Peetham. He had therefore issued that directive.
"Why reply? Then there will be a counter to it, a counter to the counter and it will go on like that. (Looking at the asramites) Let us carry on in our way silently here, come. The others may withdraw. let not anybody raise questions and arguments."

Is it not clear that Maharishi considered the Maha-svami to be a Brahma-jnani in reality who was just `demonstrating' certain ways because he happened to be in a certain place! The Brahma-jnani alone can take the colour of any surroundings. Chameleon-like? But the chameleon does that to save itself; the jnani, to save the surrounding! The particular surrounding of our Brahma-jnani conferred on him the uniqueness of being the only Maha-Purusha of the recent times to apparently bind his state of unbound freedom with shackles of the strictest codes of the orthodox tradition. Much in it would be rude, crude and cruel in the eyes of the changing free world. But in Nature's order freedom too must be balanced by discipline, which is another name for restraint. When almost the whole world plumbed in for freedom and its consequent break from the past to its rude, crude and cruel extreme, it was as though Nature threw up the Single Entity on the Acharya to counter balance it by his total adherence to the past tradition in its extreme form. Though noble motives and ideals are not lacking in the Modern Movements, in actually it has only `helped its adherents in self-pampering in various ways. In contrast, however base orthodoxy appeared to be, people saw with open eyes in its Ace-adherent the living example of self-paupering. They realised that he was more `cruel' in his self-denial than in denying them the many rights they clamoured for. It was the power of this self-abnegation, added to that of his unbounded love deep within, which knew no differentiation, that gained universal respect for him.

But human nature being what it is, respect gives way to remonstration when personally picked. That happened with the Ramana-asramites too. But the Maharishi, who had no person to be pricked, dissolved it by counseling sympathetic acceptance.

These are various systems of medicine. In the Unani system we have sweet and soft drugs, in the Ayurveda bitter and pungent ones. Does that mean the hakim only is kind an the vaidya cruel? Whatever the patient may think, the hakim and vaidya, if open-hearted, will acknowledge the merit of each other. That was what our vaidya Maha-Swami and hakim Maharishi did. That was the secret of the mutual appreciation between the `Cruel' and the `Sweet'.

(It is also generally accepted by the Masters that when we are in the initial stages of cleansing the mind the Ayurveda of (the Karma-marga of) the Dharma Sastras is more called or, and only afterwards the Unani of Jnana Marga.)

According to my sure understanding, the orthodox interpretation the Maha-Svami gave of touching the place of burial of Maharishi's mother must have changed later on.

For nearly a decade from the early seventies I often felt an irresistible urge to visit Ramanasrama. At that time I had asked the Maha-svami about my going to what was said to be the Mother's temple there.
He said with a smile, "I think you say `what is said to be' because you have heard about my pronouncement (uttravu) on that", he continued, "That was before the Kumbhabishekam (formal consecration of the structure as a temple) was performed there quite elaborately. Among the many santi karmas (expiatory rites) in that, what was necessary in the particular matter was also carried out, perhaps without the knowledge of the people of the Asramam themselves."

Though this may appear rather scrappy to the readers, the eloquent sannidhya (divine personal radiation) of the Maha-Svami added to his verbal statement gave me, personally, the full answer. I could construe with certainty that by `what was necessary in this particular matter was carried out' he meant that what was scripturally ordained for conferring the status of a temple to a structure that had come up in a burial ground was carried into effect. "Perhaps without the knowledge of the people of the Asramam themselves": my sure guess is that somebody on behalf of the priests to perform the Kumbhabishekam, evidently having in mind the Maha-Svami's previous stricture, had independently sought his advice before taking up the consecration and the Maha-svami must have told him to see if any rite to formally authorise a temple that had come up in a graveyard was given in the Sastras, and if found, that must be carried out in the present case. Actually finding some such, the priests must have duly fulfilled that. Not a raise any unpleasant thoughts among the asramites, the Maha Svami must have, in his abounding sympathy, advised the priests to keep this back from them.

Apart from this `sure guess', it is a fact that the Maha-Svami permitted me, who may be said to be on the side of the orthodox, to visit the place as a temple. That applies to all others of the same persuasion.
Deep within, the sweet water and tender pulp of love and compassion, but on the outside, the hard shell and the husky rind of the orthodox cannons and customs such a coconut the Acharya was. If we acknowledge that he did also partake of the dualism of the world in this Avataric semblance to humanity, we will realise that his loving heart would have undergone more pain than the `victims' of his stringent strictures - as in the present had to veto the verdict of the very person whom he respected as the perfect example of non-dual perfection. Who knows the number of times something akin to the episode of Sri Rama banishing his beloved and spotless Sita for the sake of upholding his dharmic duty happened in the life of the Acharya! The imperceptible influence of this spirit of sacrifice enhanced the unexceptional respect he elicited.

We come to the second of the reports, the ularal one.

What the whole world came to know as the unique `aspect' of the Maharishi was his total indifference to whatsoever happened to the body. Even in his teens he was thoroughly obvious of the worms and insects eating into his thighs and nates when he was absorbed in the Self in a subterranean cavern. When at the end of his life, sarcoma was perforating his arm, the world wondered at his perfect unconcern over it. But my Math friends belonged to a different world, the world of the Maha Svami's one-up manship over all other holymen! So their Maharishi sent word to their Maha-Svami about his protracted suffering, asking why it should be so. (Thank God the friends did not go to the extent of saying that the Maharishi prayed for the Maha-Svami's grace for relief) the Maha-Svami in return sent the message, "It is will known to you that the body is not you. (It was gracious of the friends to accept this!) Then what is there except keeping on to it?"

Even as I heard it, it struck me as stark absurd. But when I saw even knowledgeable people believing in it, I took the matter t the Maha-Svami's ears.

And he just dismissed it as ularal.

He went on, brimming with his admiration for the Maharishi. "We have read in the books about the Atma Nishthas (those absorbed in the Self), Braha-Jnanis (knowers of Brahman) and Jivan-Muktas (those liberated even while living in the body), to whom the existence and extinction of the body made no difference and who, fully one (with the Self) did not have an inkling of desire to see or hear anything. Ramana Rishi was among the few extra-ordinary (apurva) persons of the recent times who have demonstrated all that as true. He is the one who has brought, for the world to see, the hoary Jnani-tradition down to the present day."

"Authentic saint?" I said, partly in the affirmative, partly as a question.

"And a jnani at that. Authentic jnani" he amended.
(Many, perhaps most, of the saints do not have the non-dual realisation of the jnani.)

On another occasion the Maha-Svami said that it was a matter of pride for us (of Tamilnadu) that such one as Ramana Rishi lived among us in the present (degenerate) day. This was in private.

But there was a public occasion when he lauded the Maharishi's spiritual power in a moving way in his staggering humility. That was at the farewell gathering at the end of his eighteen-month-long stay in Madras, from Sep. 1957 to March 1959. He said that though he moved from place to place and lived in the midst of the people them back to the sastraic way of life. In contrast, he cited the Maharishi and Sri Aurobindo who did not move out of their asramas and yet drew even foreigners to their respective paths.

But there is a world of difference here. Whereas the Maha-Svami's path of the Dharma Sastras is for the world at large, the Maharishi's Jnana and Sri Aurobindo's Yoga are only for the little minority with the required competence and inclination. Such people also have the antenna to discover their master even if they live in the distant corner of the world, and also the diligence to steadfastly follow the master's path to the end. But the masses are very hard to reclaim, and the more so, to a path to which they are not attracted by native choice.

Though in his humility Maha-Svami under-rated his influence, we must underscore the fact that he too had turned many a mod and agnostic to the sastraic path, sometimes even in a instant. Not only that. He has turned many to the paths of Jnana and Yoga too. Especially in the last decades of his life his influence spread the world over and drew considerable number of foreigners to the paths of Jnana and Yoga, which included the initiates of Paul Brunton himself.

It did not end up with the mutual esteem each had for the other. Higher above each has unmistakably indicated his very identify with the other.
Smt. Kanakamma was born in a family deeply attached to the Kanchi Math and its Acharya. But she took to the Maharishi with fervour. Her relatives were against it. Her grand-mother took her to the Acharya, made the complaint and petitioned to him to wean her from the Maharishi and take her into his fold.

Pat, yet soft, came his reply: "What if it is here or there?'

The judgement from their very Court silenced the members of the family.

We saw before the Maharishi saying that the different prescriptions were due only to the two places and not to the two persons. Even there, the perceptive reader would have heard in undertone a hint to the non-difference between the two persons. Now, when the Maha-Svami referred by `here' and `there' not the two places, but the two persons, we have a more audible indication of their non-differences. We are blessed to have a more explicit expression of this identity from the lips of the Maharishi. I quote from Sri. G.V. Subbaramayya*:

Jagadguru Sri Sankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham was now (end of Oct. 1947) camping near Tiruvannamalai. Someone asked whether His Holiness and Sri Bhagavan ever met. Sri Bhagavan replied:

"When were we separate that we should not meet? We are always together."

Actually, `togetherness' was only `oneness to that Advaita Jnani. Their unity in the sublimity of Advaita may be out of our comprehension. Both are identical in their utter simplicity born of that very sublimity. Here we can certainly understand, admire and adore the oneness of the Maha-Svami and the Maharishi and exclaim "O sancta simplicitas ! (O holy simplicity!)"

Om

sarabhanga
07 February 2008, 04:20 PM
Namaskar. Sure.

Here comes something antipodal between the Maha-Svami and the Maharishi. the former stood foremost in strictly observing all the distinction laid out by the Dharma sastras and orthodox traditions, whereas the latter stood foremost in practicing equality.

Even to merit the glance of the Maha-Svami one had to fulfill conditions; a millionaires Brahmin widow was disqualified if she was not tonsured!

On the other hand, even an untouchable beggar could sit right by the side of the Maharishi and eat along with him. Nay, if he so felt, there was no restriction to his feeding the Maharishi from out of the alms in his begging bowl!

How rude, crude and cruel does the one appear and how suave, soft and sweet the other?

How is it that the Sweet gives his nod of approval to the Cruel ?

Was there any reason behind selecting this particular extract from the link previously given? What is especially important in these lines that deserve special notice in the context of this discussion??

atanu
07 February 2008, 10:39 PM
Pray Vigneswara remove the obstacles to knowledge. May Vishnu the owner of Dharma Chakra be propitiated.

Om Namah Shivaya

suresh
10 February 2008, 09:57 AM
Guys, we've digressed. Let's stop this fist fight, and focus on the issue at hand.

Few more points....

Hinduism advocates renunciation, the single most dangerous concept not only for an individual but for the nation. Desire, rather than necessity, is the mother of invention. Without desire, no individual or nation can progress. The concept of renunciation results in satisfaction, which is why this nation is satisfied with poor living conditions, dirty environment, and so on. This concept also leads to tolerance, tolerance of corruption, terrorism, and the like.

Only capitalist policies will make a country prosperous, and the main feature of capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. A religion that subscribes to the abandonment of wealth and pleasures....how can that religion complement this important feature of capitalism? Rather, this indifference of the society and its people can only result in the accumulation of wealth in the govt.'s hands.

Meaning, Hinduism invariably leads to a stultifying socialist system of governance, where state controls production, distribution etc. It isn't therefore surprising that most govt.s in India have been socialist, even when they claim otherwise. Thanks to Hinduism, socialist thinking has become part of the nation's psyche now and not merely an economic policy. Even so-called capitalists speak the socialist language, use their terminology, which shows its wide range of influence. Needless to say, this has kept the nation poor.

Q is, must Hinduism do away with this concept, so it could be more compatible with capitalism?

sarabhanga
10 February 2008, 07:02 PM
Guys, we've digressed.

Namaste Suresh,

Hinduism advocates renunciation, but the appropriate meaning(s) of this “renunciation” must be properly understood. And when renunciation is rationally considered as it variously applies to each particular Ashrama there is no danger.

karma is dharma for all, and the essence of good karma is only kAma. And only the avadhUta has no karma, for his karma has been resolved to its source. There is no excuse for inertia.

If everyone is lost, then suffering will increase and productive society will fail.
If everyone is found, then pleasure will increase but productive society will fail.
But if everyone is either on the way or at the destination (with nobody lost), then suffering will be minimized, pleasure will be maximized, and productive society will endure ad infinitum.

Hindu dharma absolutely depends on the dharma cakram.
The dharmacakram is the ancient sign of the saura ~ the sign of sUrya, and the vaidika ideal of brahman.
The dharmacakram is the symbol of time (both kAla and akala).
The dharmacakram is the weapon (power or shakti) of mahAkAla.
And the dharmacakram is the very form of shrI kRSNa.
The dharmacakram is the veritable instruction of arjuna by kRSNa.
The dharmacakram is shrI kRSNa, and kRSNa is the very sudarshanacakram of viSNu.

The dharmacakram is integral to trayIvidyA, and the dharmacakram is the essential emblem of all vaidika Arya dharma (i.e. true sanAtana dharma).

The non-existence of dharma is a reality only for the highest yogin (e.g. the avadhUta guru dattAtreya).

The non-existence of variety in personal dharma is a reality for every serious sAdhaka; however, the acceptance of internal diversity in the context of sanAtana dharma is an important lesson of the dharmacakram, and that is one of the essential themes of ashoka maurya’s unifying message.

The co-existence of different paths should not disturb the single-pointed devotion of true aspirants, whose chosen path is for them the only way forward. The only people who might be confused are those who as yet have no set path of their own ~ and they are surely without any guru.

The dharmacakram may be confusing (even fearsome) for those who are not already riding on its eternal carriage. But the world would be a much more peaceful place if only more people could understand that apparently quite divergent paths can actually lead straight to the same aim. Not “all paths are one”, but there certainly are many (equally valid) paths to god; and that is the point of a guru (i.e. to lead you to where you wish to go, by a way that he knows well and which he trusts that you will be able to follow).

All desires (no matter how subtle or apparently trivial) create unnecessary attachments. And the proper attitude for sAdhanA is selfless resignation to one’s sacred duty, willingly performed but with no implication of personal desire ~ (i.e. with the bonds of yama and the vows of dIkshA ensuring that personal desire does not enter into the equation of any true sAdhanA).

And yoga depends on pratyAhAra ~ “withdrawal of the senses from external objects”, “dissolution of the world”, or “abstraction” ~ but such yoga is certainly not intended for continuous practice by all humans.

Every limb of yoga is individually beneficial (in dvaitam), but the true yoga of sage patañjali requires the simultaneous application of ALL limbs. And this unified approach leads directly to moksha and the ultimate siddhi ~ but this is the aim only for those who (having completed their normal worldly obligations) are vAnaprastha or sannyAsa.

advaitavAda presumes saMnyAsa and aims for prajñA and moksha; while dvaitavAda (and dvaitAdvaitavAda) is vAnaprastha and kshatriya dharma, aiming for AjñA (command and control) and prajana (begetting and growth) and amRta (salvation and non-death) and transcendence to bhuvarloka (in the air), but not the final step of moksha (liberation) and ajana (dissolution and non-birth).

The “magic” of siddha yoga in dvaitam is the satisfaction of all desires as they arise, but the root cause of those recurring desires (i.e. dvaitam) is never extinguished; while the full discipline of aSTAÑga yoga renounces any personal desire from the outset, and aims for moksha and kaivalyam (“absolute unity, perfect abstraction, detachment from all other connections, detachment of the soul from its bondage to matter and thus from its duty of further transmigrations”, or simply “beatitude”) which is advaitam.

A vividiSu-saMnyAsin is “desirous of knowing or learning”, and vividiSu-saMnyAsa is “renunciation while living in the world”. And a vidvat-saMnyAsin is “one who knows” (“a wise man, sage, or seer”), who has totally exhausted all desires, including the desire for self-realization, and this is the highest order of saMnyAsa ~ the turIyAtIta.

In dvaitam there is no end in seeking the ultimate truth, but in advaitam the truth is already found! dvaitavAdins are always on the move, progressing towards an unattainable goal (ultimate satisfaction and final rest in perfect unity of self ~ i.e. advaitam). And so, societies with a generally dualistic understanding have always been striving for perceived progress, development, and expansion.

On the other hand, a society or culture that is governed by an essentially monistic view will generally have a much more relaxed attitude progress and growth, which are subtle interior matters requiring no particular effort or action.

Indeed, advaitavAda and dvaitavAda are quite divergent paths, with the latter leading to endless conflict and suffering and environmental destruction, and the former leading only to eternal blissful existence and peace, in complete harmony with nature and ultimate reality.

The perfection of advaitam is unborn and immortal, whereas dvaitam is born of division and fatally flawed!

Those who do not understand that there is only one ultimate truth are shUdra.

A shUdra is entirely without dharma, which includes all children under 5 years and all humans without the brahmacaryadIkshA (i.e. without yama).

The vidyA of brahmacarya (5-24 years) is dvaitavAda, with three levels of dIkshA. Starting with brahmacarya I (5-11 years) where the presentation of dharma is shAkta, then brahmacarya II (11-18 years) where the presentation of dharma is vaishnava, and finishing with brahmacarya III (18-24 years) where the presentation is shaiva.

It is admission to brahmacarya that first raises a shUdra to become vaishya, and the level of graduation will color all subsequent perspectives.

The vaishya has no formal requirement beyond brahmacarya I, while the kshatriya should attain brahmacarya II, and the brAhmaNa should graduate with honors from brahmacarya III.

And after brahmacarya there is the gRhasthAshrama (24-48 years) which is common to every varNa, but with the shUdra gRhasthin having no vidyA and no particular dharma, the vaishya gRhasthin following dvaitavAda (most likely shAkta), the kshatriya gRhasthin following dvaitAdvaitavAda (most likely vaishnava), and the brAhmaNa gRhasthin following dvaitAdvaitavAda (most likely shaiva).

For the shUdra and vaishya, there is no Ashrama beyond gRhastha.

But after gRhastha there is the vAnaprasthAshrama (48-72 years), and only the kshatriya and brAhmaNa varNa resort to this Ashrama, but only when their offspring have themselves become gRhastha. With the kshatriya vAnaprasthin following dvaitAdvaitavAda, and the brAhmaNa vAnaprasthin following adviatavAda.

For the kshatriya in vAnaprastha there is no final saMnyAsAshrama (72 years and beyond), which is assumed only for the brAhmaNa, but the perfect kshatriya vAnaprasthin becomes a virtual immortal (such as Arthur, the once and future king, presumed now to be hidden in a mountain, as is the case for every eternal RSi).

And the final stage of saMnyAsa is avadhUta (96-120 years) where there is only ajAtivAda and both karma and dharma are dissolved.


shUdra = kuvAda & ayAma
vaishya brahmacarya = dvaitavAda & yama
vaishya gRhastha = dvaitavAda & yamAniyama
kshatriya brahmacarya = dvaitavAda & yamAniyama
kshatriya gRhastha = dvaitAdvaitavAda & sAdhana
kshatriya vAnaprastha = dvaitAdvaitavAda & saMyama
brAhmaNa brahmacarya = dvaitavAda & yamAniyama
brAhmaNa gRhastha = dvaitAdvaitavAda & sAdhana
brAhmaNa vAnaprastha = advaitavAda & saMyama
brAhmaNa saMnyAsa = ajAtivAda & samAdhi
avadhUta = nirvAda & yAma


Of course this is an ideal, but the ancient varNAshrama system considers genetic inheritance, maturity (both physical and mental), education, experience, and saMskAra, before the determination of an individual’s most appropriate karma and dharma.

The vocational classes are often mentioned, and parentage and employment have become the major determinants of varNa, and thus the determinants of social status and spiritual purity (with darker skin indicating a darker more tAmasika soul, and lighter skin indicating a lighter more sAttvika soul).

However, it is saMskAra, vidyA, dIkshA, yoga, and ultimately yama, that truly determine the varNa and Ashrama of an individual Hindu, and thus (secondarily) the appropriate social status and most suitable social relations, and the most satisfying and productive field of employment, may be deduced.


shUdra ~ avadhUta
vaishya brahmacarya ~ brAhmaNa saMnyAsa
vaishya gRhastha ~ brAhmaNa vAnaprastha
kshatriya brahmacarya ~ brAhmaNa gRhastha
kshatriya gRhastha ~ brAhmaNa brahmacarya
[kshatriya vAnaprastha]


When the varNAshramadharmacakram in set in motion (as is the prerogative of the mysterious immortalized kshatriya vAnaprastha ~ the siddha, the nAtha, the nAgA, the jina, the buddha) the following noble actions ensue:

The shUdrAs are inspired and informed by the vaishyAs and by the avadhUta.
The vaishya brahmacaryAs are inspired and informed by the vaishya gRhasthI and by the saMnyAsI.
The vaishya gRhasthAs are inspired and informed by the kshatriyAs and by the brAhmaNa vAnaprastha.
The kshatriya brahmacaryAs are inspired and informed by the kshatriya gRhasthI and by the brAhmaNa gRhasthI.
The kshatriya gRhasthAs are inspired and informed by the kshatriya vAnaprastha and by the brAhmaNAs.
The brAhmaNa brahmacaryAs are inspired and informed by the brAhmaNa gRhasthI and by the kshatriya vAnaprastha.
The brAhmaNa gRhasthAs are inspired and informed by the brAhmaNa vAnaprastha.
The brAhmaNa vAnaprasthAs are inspired and informed by the saMnyAsI.
The saMnyAsAs are inspired and informed by the avadhUta.
And the avadhUtAs are inspired and informed only by shiva.

The shUdrAs are continuously born from the earth (as fallen rays of sunlight), and the dharmacakram raises them up and returns them all purified to the source (and beyond).

A jñAnI is a knower of brahman, the perfect brAhmaNa.
And such a brAhmaNa must have renounced all attachment.
And such a renunciate is (by definition) a saMnyAsI.
And a perfect saMnyAsI is an avadhUta.
And an avadhUta is a veritable rudrA, with absolute alliance to the one rudra.

But the perfect avadhUta is beyond physical incarnation, and any saMnyAsI still in possession of a mortal body is not yet relieved of responsibility to dharma.

The avadhUta, who is inspired and informed only by rudra, wanders as bhairava himself, inspiring and informing both the saMnyAsI and the shUdra.

The saMnyAsI has no varNa and no Ashrama.

The vAnaprastha is certainly of dvija varNa and (yet retaining attachment to place) certainly remains in isolated hermitage (i.e. in vAnaprasthAshrama). And every RSi is vAnaprastha, but not a saMnyAsI.

Every RSi is forever associated with manifest eternity.

A saMnyAsI has no fixed Ashrama (except during the monsoon), freely moving from place to place, for any attachment to physical location has been renounced, and there is only one last item to discard. And, for so long as the immortal soul remains yoked to a mortal carriage, the vow of yama and rule of dharma still apply.

For a person who is not properly initiated, all of his activities become fruitless. Such an uninitiated person can take birth in the animal kingdom in the future. And, as bell-metal is turned into gold when mixed with mercury in an alchemical process, so in that very way, by the process of initiation by guru, a person becomes a brAhmaNa.

The wise sages understand sannyAsa as kAmyAnAM karmaNAM nyAsam, and declare tyAga as sarva-karma-phala-tyAgam. [15.2] And tyAga is trividha (of three kinds). [15.4] Prescribed duties should never be renounced. Such abandonment is declared as tAmasa. [15.7] trividha (welcome, unwelcome, and mixed) is the fruit that accrues hereafter for the atyAginA (those who are unrenouncing). But for the sannyAsinA (those who are renounced) there is no such fruit. [15.12]

Without proper recognition of Ashrama, the varNAshramadharma cakram stops turning on the earth, and the resulting varNadharma musalam tends to stagnate and discriminate rather than inspiring and liberating. And the prevalent “black and white” misunderstanding of varNAshrama dharma is surely a mleccha corruption of the Arya ideal.

Hinduism advocates renunciation, but the appropriate meaning(s) of this “renunciation” must be properly understood. And when renunciation is rationally considered as it variously applies to each particular Ashrama there is no danger!

Degradation of the environment (which is satI, the first mother of every Hindu) should never be tolerated. Effort towards self-improvement should never cease until perfection is attained. asatyam and hiMsA should not be tolerated by anyone committed to yama (i.e. by any true Arya).

It has NEVER been suggested that every Hindu should abandon wealth or pleasure, so your biased comparison with capitalist values makes no sense.

varNAshramadharma is NOT a “stultifying socialist system of governance”, but when Ashrama is ignored, the cakram becomes a musalam, which agrees with your description.

When varNAshrama dharma was properly applied (i.e. before about 1,000 AD), India was the most prosperous country in the world. But ever since the musalam version of simplistic varNadharma, fixed by “caste” alone, with no expectation of social or spiritual progression, the dharmacakram has been making difficult progress against foreign capitalist raiders (informed by islam or christianity and bent only on personal gain at the expense of Hindu society and Hindu dharma).

atanu
11 February 2008, 12:17 AM
Guys, we've digressed. Let's stop this fist fight, and focus on the issue at hand.

Few more points....

Hinduism advocates renunciation, the single most dangerous concept not only for an individual but for the nation. --

Namaste Suresh,

You reflect an anguish, which IMO is noble. And you have proposed the above but I say that this is your opinion and perception. In this manner it is not possible to measure how much the nation's ills stem from teachings like the below:

Yasya sarve samaarambhaah kaamasankalpa varjitaah;
Jnaanaagni dagdhakarmaanam tam aahuh panditam budhaah.

19. He whose undertakings are all devoid of desires and (selfish) purposes, and whose actions have been burnt by the fire of knowledge,—him the wise call a sage.

----------------

And like you have given your opinion, I will also give one. A preponderance of sage rulers in a country cannot be detrimental to a nation. Resilience and equilibrium will be inbuilt.

On the other hand, it is loss of faith in Atman and reliance on a Dvaita power (as God) or naked individual profit making at the expense of Prakriti and Society that will maim a society beyond repair.

Loss of faith in the Good is the ultimate failure.

Om

Bob G
11 February 2008, 03:27 AM
...renunciation is the path for the monks or renunciates, and not the path of householders, yet both help one another. Also, karma yoga (and other forms of yoga!) works with and or is used in both paths.

Om

sarabhanga
11 February 2008, 04:42 AM
yoga depends on pratyAhAra ~ “withdrawal of the senses from external objects”, “dissolution of the world”, or “abstraction” ~ but such yoga is certainly not intended for continuous practice by all humans.

Every limb of yoga is individually beneficial, but the full yoga of sage patañjali requires the simultaneous application of ALL limbs. And this unified approach leads directly to moksha and the ultimate siddhi ~ but this is the immediate intention proper only to those who (having completed their normal worldly obligations) are in vAnaprastha or sannyAsa.

And karmayoga is quite proper for all individuals, being included in niyama (the second limb in patañjali’s eight-limbed yogasUtram) as essential dharma for every brahmacArI.

RamaRaksha
19 April 2008, 10:00 PM
Good thread. I agree with suresh and others that we should discuss this issue respectfully.

Does it seem like Suresh, that you are looking at the present environment and applying them to the faith? India is a poor country with a lot of problems, are you implying them on the faith? India was once a very rich country, about 200 years ago, India and China combined, amounted to 50% of world GDP. It is easy to overlook the faults of a faith like christianity because all you see is the money.

Take for example karma. karma says that if I take something without earning it, then I have to be reborn and pay it back. If every hindu believed in it, then India would be free of corruption!

Or take present day Islamic countries, Which is the right one, the one practiced by Indonesians, Turks or the one by Afghans? The fact is people are different, they change, they forget some values, they cling to others. Let's not blame religion for everything that goes wrong.

RamaRaksha
19 April 2008, 10:35 PM
Let me ask you the opposite, what about the good things that hinduism has brought us? Hinduism is a tolerant, inclusive, liberal and democratic faith. A lot of people say that the english brought us democracy, I differ, hinduism gave us a democratic thinking long ago. Take a look at pakistan! Born on the same day, with a shared history, whereas they lurch from one despot to another, we are a shining democracy!

What are these democratic values and how do they differ from abrahamic islam? We are taught to respect all faiths, ie all points of view. We are told that all good people enter heaven, there is room for even athiests. IMHO they will be the first in line to enter heaven, if there is one such line. We do not abuse others by calling them pagans and infedels. We do not threaten them with hell if they don't belong to our faith. These are modern democratic values. While the british still cling to their king, we got rid of all our kings once we got independence.

What would have happened if the Buddha were to be born in Europe, say in the middle ages? He would have been tortured and put to death, like many who dared to criticize the church. His teachings burnt and lost forever! It is only in Hindu India that faiths like Sikhism, Jainism etc were allowed to be taught and flourish. Persecuted people like the Parsees, Bohras, jews found safe refuge in Hindu India!

The pope recently came out and said God can never be a woman. While Islam doesn't allow an image of God, they always refer to him as Him, a man. Hinduism is the only major faith that prays to a female form of God. Is it just a coincidence that we have now had 2 female leaders whereas the US, the great democracy, is still fighting the idea of a female leader?

My Pakistani aquaintence once told me, proudly in fact, that only a muslim can become the prime minister or president of pakistan. Arnold Schwarznegger, the present governor of california, is not eligible to become the US president because he was born outside the US! And what do we do? We give the keys to our country to an Italian Christian! Our PM belongs to a minority faith! Our president was a muslim! These are hindu values, my friend.

Taipan
24 April 2008, 10:57 PM
Friends,

How is everyone?:) It's been a while since I've posted here.

I want to post something regarding Hinduism and its influence, if any, on India's decline. This may sound rather controversial and even anti-Hindu, but trust me, it is not. It's pretty straightforward.

Namaste

I put it down to Kali Yuga.

Look at Israel,Tibet,Burma,Nepal,etc.

We are surrounded by antagonistic forces crushed from every direction like plutonium in a warhead.

Tantra yantra mantra Maha