PDA

View Full Version : Devotion to Vaishnavas



orlando
29 June 2006, 11:56 AM
Namaste all.
In the Padma Purana,which is a vaishnava purana,there is a nice statement praising the service of the Vaisnavas.In that scripture Lord Siva tells Parvati:My dear Parvati, there are different methods of worship, and out of all such methods the worship of the Supreme Person is considered to be the highest. But even higher than the worship of the Lord is the worship of the Lord's devotees.

In the Adi Purana there is the following statement by Lord Krsna Himself, addressed to Arjuna:My dear Partha, one who claims to be My devotee is not so. Only a person who claims to be the devotee of My devotee is actually My devotee.

In the Skanda Purana it is said: Persons whose bodies are marked with tilaka, symbolizing the conchshell, wheel, club and lotus--and who keep the leaves of tulasi on their heads, and whose bodies are always decorated with gopi-candana--even seen once, can help the seer be relieved from all sinful activities.

Regads,
Orlando.

Sudarshan
29 June 2006, 12:39 PM
Namaste all.
In the Padma Purana,which is a vaishnava purana,there is a nice statement praising the service of the Vaisnavas.In that scripture Lord Siva tells Parvati:My dear Parvati, there are different methods of worship, and out of all such methods the worship of the Supreme Person is considered to be the highest. But even higher than the worship of the Lord is the worship of the Lord's devotees.

In the Adi Purana there is the following statement by Lord Krsna Himself, addressed to Arjuna:My dear Partha, one who claims to be My devotee is not so. Only a person who claims to be the devotee of My devotee is actually My devotee.

In the Skanda Purana it is said: Persons whose bodies are marked with tilaka, symbolizing the conchshell, wheel, club and lotus--and who keep the leaves of tulasi on their heads, and whose bodies are always decorated with gopi-candana--even seen once, can help the seer be relieved from all sinful activities.

Regads,
Orlando.

Namaste Orlando,

These are all exagarations aimed at promoting mutual unity, love and respect amongst devotees and must not be taken as "facts". There is nothing superior to being a devotee of the supreme being. Dont beleive otherwise even if the supreme being says so.;)

Use some common sense. Why is Srivaishnavism so much emphasising devotion only to Vishnu instead of parama Vaishnavas like Hanuman, Garuda or Shiva?

Znanna
29 June 2006, 05:29 PM
But even higher than the worship of the Lord is the worship of the Lord's devotees.

Or, to paraphrase, love thy brother as thyself ;)


ZN

orlando
30 June 2006, 09:36 AM
Namaste Orlando,

These are all exagarations aimed at promoting mutual unity, love and respect amongst devotees and must not be taken as "facts". There is nothing superior to being a devotee of the supreme being. Dont beleive otherwise even if the supreme being says so.;)

Use some common sense. Why is Srivaishnavism so much emphasising devotion only to Vishnu instead of parama Vaishnavas like Hanuman, Garuda or Shiva?

Of course Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna refer to human devotes that live in the earth along with us.Those are not exageratios at all!

I request you to take the literal (I would say direct) of the shastras and to interpretate them in the right manner.
Thanks.
Regards,
Orlando.

Sudarshan
30 June 2006, 11:56 AM
Of course Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna refer to human devotes that live in the earth along with us.Those are not exageratios at all!

I request you to take the literal (I would say direct) of the shastras and to interpretate them in the right manner.
Thanks.
Regards,
Orlando.

What?!!! Do you want me do literal interpretation of "Aham Brahmasmi" which contradicts with the rest of the scripture? If I take direct meaning, then there is no need of interpretation either - it stands itself.

BTW, Lord Krishna is not a human, where are you getting that info from? He has nothing in him that can be called as related to the material world, and includes his body.

The meaning of the verses you cited is very clear as Znanna beautifully pointed out.:)

Who is superior, God or the devotee? The devotee is a void without the Lord indwelling inside him, so any importance to him is solely due to the Lord there. In no way, can the worship of the devotee can be superior to Bhagavan.

satay
30 June 2006, 12:03 PM
Who is superior, God or the devotee? The devotee is a void without the Lord indwelling inside him, so any importance to him is solely due to the Lord there. In no way, can the worship of the devotee can be superior to Bhagavan.

Please read the appropriate shloka in Bhagwan Ovaccha. He clearly tells us that he is the devotee of those who are his devotees!

The real question is 'who is this real devotee'? let's answer that first.

orlando
30 June 2006, 12:17 PM
What?!!! Do you want me do literal interpretation of "Aham Brahmasmi" which contradicts with the rest of the scripture? If I take direct meaning, then there is no need of interpretation either - it stands itself.

BTW, Lord Krishna is not a human, where are you getting that info from? He has nothing in him that can be called as related to the material world, and includes his body.

The meaning of the verses you cited is very clear as Znanna beautifully pointed out.:)

Who is superior, God or the devotee? The devotee is a void without the Lord indwelling inside him, so any importance to him is solely due to the Lord there. In no way, can the worship of the devotee can be superior to Bhagavan.

Shri Sudarshan Maharaja,I am afraid that you misunderstood my words.I wrote that Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna were talking about human beings.I didn't say that Lord Shiva and Lord Krishna are human beings!:eek:

By http://www.srivaishnavan.com/faq_prapatti.html

23.What is the importance to be given to doing service to the Lord's devotees?

By http://www.srivaishnavan.com/ans_prapatti.html#23
23.Service to the devotees is even more important than service to the Lord. The Lord himself feels happy, if His devotees are served and honoured by others. Serving the devotees is like this. If we want to please a person, we fondle his children. The person becomes happier, if his children are praised and fondled by others. Similarly, the Lord becomes happier, when His children, namely His devotees, are praised and served by others.

Niow please read Srimad Bhagavata Purana,Canto 9,Chapter 4:
(63) The Supreme Lord said: 'Precisely o twice-born one, I am not self-willed, I indeed am fully committed to My bhaktas; it is because they are devotees that My heart is controlled by the saintly and by those that hold those bhaktas dear. (64) I as their ultimate destination am, without My saintly devotees, not for the blissful essence or the Supreme of My opulences [see om prnam].

And read again what Lord Shiva says in Padma Purana:
My dear Parvati, there are different methods of worship, and out of all such methods the worship of the Supreme Person is considered to be the highest. But even higher than the worship of the Lord is the worship of the Lord's devotees.


You should be already aware that Lord Shiva is the greatest vaishnava.

And read again what Lord Krishna tells to Arjuna in the Adi Purana there:My dear Partha, one who claims to be My devotee is not so. Only a person who claims to be the devotee of My devotee is actually My devotee.

How can you (or someone else,even me) argue with the Supreme Lord?His words are law!

Regards,
Orlando.

Sudarshan
30 June 2006, 12:26 PM
You should be already aware that Lord Shiva is the greatest vaishnava.


Then you should worship only Lord Shiva and not Lord Vishnu, according to your quotes.;)

orlando
30 June 2006, 12:32 PM
Then you should worship only Lord Shiva and not Lord Vishnu, according to your quotes.;)

Shri Sudarshan,please note that worship a vaishnava doesn't mean do puja to a vaishnava.We should shw high respect to vaishnavas,the devotes of Lord Vishnu.
Worship a deva nullifys prapatti.We Sri Vaishnavas should not worship devas.I have a great admiration toward Lord Shiva (who is the greatest vaishnava) and if I saw Him of course I would use very sweet words toward Him.I repeat the worship a vaishnava doesn't mean do puja to him or her.
And then don't we Sri Vaishnava treat our acharyas like Lord Him-self?

Sudarshan
30 June 2006, 12:39 PM
Shri Sudarshan,please note that worship a vaishnava doesn't mean do puja to a vaishnava.We should shw high respect to vaishnavas,the devotes of Lord Vishnu.
Worship a deva nullifys prapatti.We Sri Vaishnavas should not worship devas.I have a great admiration toward Lord Shiva (who is the greatest vaishnava) and if I saw Him of course I would use very sweet words toward Him.I repeat the worship a vaishnava doesn't mean do puja to him or her.
And then don't we Sri Vaishnava treat our acharyas like Lord Him-self?

I am sorry I dont get you - Is Lord Shiva greater or your Acharya? Vaishnavas worship and offer puja to their Acharyas, so I do not see any reason why Lord Shiva should not be treated like that. I dont equate Shiva to Vishnu, but I dont like this.

orlando
30 June 2006, 12:52 PM
Namaste Shri Sudarshan.
I think that my acharya (when I will have an acharya!) is more important than Lord Shankara.
Lord Shiva will not save me from samsara.But an acharya will connect me with Sriman-Narayana.
Please read what Lord Krishna says in Srimad Bhagavata Purana,Canto 11,Chapter 17,verse 27.

ācāryaḿ māḿ vijānīyān
nāvanmanyeta karhicit
na martya-buddhyāsūyeta
sarva-deva-mayo guruḥ

Now read the translation at http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto11/chapter17.html
(27) The teacher of example [the crya] one should know as Me; he should never at any time enviously be disrespected with the idea of him being a mortal being, for the guru is the representative of all the gods [see also heuristic and compare e.g. 7.14: 17, 10 81: 39 , 10.45: 32 and 11.15: 27].

And now read the translation at http://www.srimadbhagavatam.com/11/17/27/en
One should know the ācārya as Myself and never disrespect him in any way. One should not envy him, thinking him an ordinary man, for he is the representative of all the demigods.

Now I have to go.I will can reply after 2 days.
Have a nice week end.

Regards,
Orlando.

satay
30 June 2006, 01:11 PM
Lord Shiva will not save me from samsara.

:) amazing...

Jai Shiv Shambu! Please forgive orlando for this insult. Prabhu this is not his fault and stop playing leela on him. Please bless him with your vision.

Sudarshan
30 June 2006, 03:04 PM
:) amazing...

Jai Shiv Shambu! Please forgive orlando for this insult. Prabhu this is not his fault and stop playing leela on him. Please bless him with your vision.

At the risk of getting some brickbats from other Vaishnavas I say this: I personally dont think Shiva cant save someone in samsara, and Shiva can certainly recommend salvation on the behalf of his devotee to Vishnu, and Shiva being a param Vaishnava and a pUrna Jnani, his request will always be accepted. After all, it is Shiva who teaches the Rama mantra to eligible devotees of Vishnu at Kashi. This is sheer politics to humilate Shiva to the extreme.

atanu
24 July 2006, 05:15 AM
Namaste Shri Sudarshan.
-----Lord Shiva will not save me from samsara.------Regards,
Orlando.


Om Tryambakam Yajaamahe
Sugandhim Pushti Vardhanam
Urvaarukamiva Bandhanaat
Mrityor Muksheeya Ma-Amritaat
(Taittiriya Upanishad 2.7)


Let us worship Shiva (the three-eyed One), who is sacred (fragrant) and who nourishes all beings. Just as the ripe cucumber is automatically released from its attachment to the creeper, may we be liberated from death (our mortal body and personality) and be granted immortality.


This is Mrityunjaya mantra of Rig Vedic origin dear Orlando. You are a foreigner so no problems. But I see some others, claiming to be Vedic and Vedantic, ignore Vedas and dwell in their ignorance on account of ego.

atanu
24 July 2006, 05:20 AM
---- This is sheer politics to humilate Shiva to the extreme.



Does Shiva have an ego that He can be insulted? Shiva being the indweller Mahesvara, some people intent upon insulting themselves, try to say small things -- under delusion.

atanu
24 July 2006, 05:26 AM
Feel free to e-mail me!
lingabhakta@yahoo.it
Regards,
Orlando.


Orlando, you have taken up a peculiar e-mail name?

orlando
24 July 2006, 09:37 AM
Orlando, you have taken up a peculiar e-mail name?

Once,before I became a vaishnava,I was a shaivite.Of course you already know that Linga is the sacred symbol of Lord Shiva.

atanu
24 July 2006, 12:09 PM
Once,before I became a vaishnava,I was a shaivite.Of course you already know that Linga is the sacred symbol of Lord Shiva.

I see.

Shriyash21
27 July 2006, 08:18 AM
.I have a great admiration toward Lord Shiva (who is the greatest vaishnava) and if I saw Him of course I would use very sweet words toward Him.I repeat the worship a vaishnava doesn't mean do puja to him or her.
pffft, wake up and get your foot out of your mouth already. You continue to show your ignorance with such statements, i for one dont know why you arent banned.

TruthSeeker
16 August 2006, 07:28 AM
In that case there should be no forum for Christianity here, whose fundamental doctrine calls Shiva and Krishna as Satan. Having allowed these forums, why should we consider the views of fellow Hindus to be ignorant ones?

Let us advaitins be clear on this :- We believe only in the Self and consider all names and forms of other dieties as only a symbolic representation of the Self. This idea is rejected by most Vaishnavas who consider Vishnu to be the supreme Self and consider other dieties to be souls only and have their own reasons and logic for doing so. From Advaita's perspective there is no such soul apart from the Self.

So viewing these statements from within the framework of Advaita and then considering the views to be ignorance is another type of ignorance only. If someone is so serious he should read their literature and refute it, before calling for ban or labelling as ignorant.

if you think all dieties to be the same, then why are you getting irritated when one if them labelled superior to the other? It should not mean anything to you at all, unless you hold an opposite view, in that case you have probably no right to make an accusation. It is just like someone tells me that they like my father in his business attire and do not like him in casuals! What more can such statements mean to Advaitins?

True Advaitins aren't bothered with politics related to name, form and qualities - all these names are quite interchangeable at will, unless you have some addiction, a product of ignorance( for an advaitin). Yet many of us keep meddling in this type of discussions and get furious - a clear sign of having the same ignorance in the post itself.:)

Shriyash21
18 August 2006, 01:08 AM
this isint about christianity.
im not a 'advaitin', and its just another label to me.

you are also 'believing' in the 'Self' as you yourself have said, its not a realization onyour part.
so its still a belief, wouldnt you agree?

i have no issue with devotees of God Vishnu saying that he is the Supreme Self, in fact i would prefer that, than reading some jazz about 'no such soul apart from Self'.
there is no 'ras' in that statement, it is dead.

atleast devotees know what true 'ras' there is in bhakti,there is estacy in worship of God, in whatever form, poor advaitins devoid themseves of that too. advaitins need to feel the magic of love, the magic of the heart.

just as true bhaktas of God Shiva will never concieve of making crazy statements against God Vishnu, similar holds true for bhaktas of God Vishnu. that is all i meant.

TruthSeeker
18 August 2006, 01:43 AM
just as true bhaktas of God Shiva will never concieve of making crazy statements against God Vishnu, similar holds true for bhaktas of God Vishnu. that is all i meant.

On the other hand, true Bhaktas will not mind these "crazy" statements and ignore them. After all it cant be insulting God, can it? Is that what that makes you irritated? The true Bhaktas that you mentioned are relatively rare, so a Bhakta is entitled to make some crazy statements until it is resolved by Bhakti itself in the end.:)

satay
18 August 2006, 02:57 AM
what or who is a true bhakta? :headscratch:

TS you are true bhakta of 'self' and I am true bhakta of what?
:)

TruthSeeker
18 August 2006, 02:59 AM
Shriyash21,



you are also 'believing' in the 'Self' as you yourself have said, its not a realization onyour part.
so its still a belief, wouldnt you agree?


Obviously!



i have no issue with devotees of God Vishnu saying that he is the Supreme Self, in fact i would prefer that, than reading some jazz about 'no such soul apart from Self'.
there is no 'ras' in that statement, it is dead.

atleast devotees know what true 'ras' there is in bhakti,there is estacy in worship of God, in whatever form, poor advaitins devoid themseves of that too. advaitins need to feel the magic of love, the magic of the heart.


Not easy to answer your charges, because it stems from too many statements made by some Advaitins irresponsibly without regards to the phenomenal reality. In particular, you have assumed that Advaita is such and such - and that alone is Advaita.

The "ras" you are talking about is a concept of the world and its suburbs. It is very much alive in Advaita, and is in as much effect as any other religion in the world.

The only thing Advaita commits to is that the entire plane of existance stands contained in the Self, which others call as God. So everything must arise from within the Self and die out within the Self, while no external modifications suggested by Dualism take place. That is to say, that, from the ultimate perspective there is no individual God anywhere in space, time or beyond. The existance itself is God. That is super-theism, though some people tend to think that it negates a God. How can advaitins be responsible for people misunderstanding this and raising arguments and hue and cry?

If the concept is not understood or presented falsely by some Advaitins, it could appear to be devoid of any "ras" or perhaps without a God too. Advaita stands for the super-set of all existance, which includes all beleifs in the world, and there is nothing that could be classified as wrong - the apparent contradictions are resolved fully in it. There is a Vishnu, Shiva or anything in it, and they are all as much valid as your very existance and will remain so until you desire it. The standard advaitin dogma of "all this is illusion" has given rise to so much confusion as no other system in India and has pushed out "ras" into the background. But that is not quite true - the phenomenal reality should never be mixed with the absolute until such knowledge is attained, and I have pointed out many times in this forum. If you so desire to live with Vishnu or Shiva for eternity, that is a perfectly valid goal within Advaita. Where is the "ras" missing? However the "ras" in Advaita's absolute sense would be such existance without the notion of this body, this mind etc - which are finite superimpositions which can be (optionally) transcended. The soul is a svatantra, being himself of divine origin, and it is his sole desire that governs his fate - whatever he wants, he shall have it. Some souls may choose to live independently for ever - if that is God's wish. Dont be misled into beleiving that Advaitins dont beleive in "ras" or God - their definition for these terms are not quite yours for every Advaitin. If you personaly ask me, I would be an Advaitin with definite theistic inclinations of a dualist - I know very well what "ras" means.;)

satay
18 August 2006, 03:12 AM
If you personaly ask me, I would be an Advaitin with definite theistic inclinations of a dualist - I know very well what "ras" means.;)

Same here. :Cool:

Yet, when I meditate on hari I feel he is separate and superior to me and when I meditate on shiv I feel that I am shiva! Strange...do they only exist in my head?

TruthSeeker
18 August 2006, 03:15 AM
what or who is a true bhakta? :headscratch:

TS you are true bhakta of 'self' and I am true bhakta of what?
:)

Self!

Bhakti is of two kinds - apara and para.

Apara Bhakti is the common known devotion, faith, love, surrender or whatever terms you normally associate with. Here, there is an association with God, without any knowledge of God whatsoever. He believes in God, because somebody told him, or some books teach him - but personally never verified.

Para Bhakti is the higher Bhakti where this love for God comes from knowing what or who God is. It has so many grades, as God is not a monolithic substance to be known fully in an instant. In the initial stages, God is known through visions, which progressively increase in depth and intensity, until Isvara is completely known. That is the complete goal of Dualism.

In Qualified Monism, the above stage further expands to the stage when this external vision actually becomes more advanced, and one knows onself to be in true relationship or communion with God and connected intimately and an inseparable aspect of God. This is technically the highest form of Bhakti possible, knowing onself to be part and parcel of the divine.

In Advaita, the above condition is not the final stage of existance. There is a stage beyond realizing that one is part and parcel of the divine, and that is by completely merging into the divine with no individual existance intact. Bhakti per se would be meaningless in such a context when judged by wordly logic, but if you can understand that you love yourself, you could understand that Bhakti is not lost even in such non dual existance.

satay
18 August 2006, 03:21 AM
Para Bhakti is the higher Bhakti where this love for God comes from knowing what or who God is. It has so many grades, as God is not a monolithic substance to be known fully in an instant. In the initial stages, God is known through visions, which progressively increase in depth and intensity, until Isvara is completely known. That is the complete goal of Dualism.


Any comments on how or who can achive such a level of bhakti? How do the visions progress? How do I know if it is a vision or my mind playing tricks?



In Qualified Monism, the above stage further expands to the stage when this external vision actually becomes more advanced, and one knows onself to be in true relationship or communion with God and connected intimately and an inseparable aspect of God. This is technically the highest form of Bhakti possible, knowing onself to be part and parcel of the divine.


So this stage gives yet more experience? a higher experience so to speak?



In Advaita, the above condition is not the final stage of existance. There is a stage beyond realizing that one is part and parcel of the divine, and that is by completely merging into the divine with no individual existance intact. Bhakti per se would be meaningless in such a context when judged by wordly logic, but if you can understand that you love yourself, you could understand that Bhakti is not lost even in such non dual existance.

and this is why advaita is the ultimate truth yet so confusing and many simple folk like myself can't begin to comprehend it. For me I choose to stay in maya and hang my head in shiva noose...

TruthSeeker
18 August 2006, 03:37 AM
Same here. :Cool:

Yet, when I meditate on hari I feel he is separate and superior to me and when I meditate on shiv I feel that I am shiva! Strange...do they only exist in my head?

Yes, that is quite logical.

Hari being the supreme controller of the universe is superior to anything inside it. No one can worship Hari assuming onself to be Hari. Did Arjuna ever feel that he was Krishna? He saw Krishna external to him even while viewing the universal form.

But Shiva being your very Self, you feel that you are Shiva. Nothing is inferior or superior to Shiva - he stands alone.

TruthSeeker
18 August 2006, 04:17 AM
Any comments on how or who can achive such a level of bhakti? How do the visions progress? How do I know if it is a vision or my mind playing tricks?


There are no systematic ways going about this, else it would all be too easy. One could simply start out by cutting down worldly desires and spending more time in doing divine service. The time will run its course, and of course, it is the inevitable destiny of every soul to have these expereinces at some point. When you have attained a great deal of mental purity with reduced worldly thoughts, and established in the twin dharma of Yama and Niyama, it is only a matter of time. The Lord who abides within is always awake, and when you have met his requirements, the vision is spontaneous. This vision cannot be taken to be the end of spiritual life, but rather the starting point. Without such a personal revelation, no one in the world would be motivated to pursue God alone as their goal in life. There are many people who take to sanyasa, but if they started out without a personal vision, there is always going to be frustration in sAdhana. In spirituality, things do not happen as and when we wish, and when Shiva is controlling things from outside - there is nothing that you can will to happen. So it is all his will. Sometimes, there may be no spiritual progress made in this birth, and for a sanyasin several years without such experience can cause depression and loose faith in God. Therefore, it is said that Bhakti and Karma Yoga must be practised for several years until God reveals himself and gives you instruction. After that, one should practice Yoga as instructed by God. Many people cannot access God so readily, so they will need some enlightened master to take them to higher spiritual realizations.

The ultimate realization of God cannot be in the forms of visions of any kinds. It is this attitude that people think that Bhakti is not present in Advaita. It has to be known only in samAdhi. A guru (human or divine) is certainly needed to attain the state of samAdhi, and can happen only by his grace. But the grace should be earned and is never given free - else one single God realized soul can liberate all of us in a trice. The grace is obtained only by placing full trust in his words, and completely obeying his commands without questions. The Lord may put up any number of challenges in life to see if you are worthy of his grace - it could mean driving you through abject poverty, disease and other miseries. One should show resilence by showing the spirit and faith in God and the sense of surrender under all these adverse conditions.





So this stage gives yet more experience? a higher experience so to speak?


That stage is actual liberation from all worldly bonds. One who thinks that he is different from God will never escape this wheel of life and death. A mere beleif is not sufficient, but the fact should be known in samAdhi.





and this is why advaita is the ultimate truth yet so confusing and many simple folk like myself can't begin to comprehend it. For me I choose to stay in maya and hang my head in shiva noose...

I would not put up my hands and say that Advaita is the ultimate truth because no one has such rights to make claims without experiencing it himself. It is known that in Advaita there can be no experience in a worldly sense, or even in a supernatural sense. Even super-perception is not Advaita - that is only Vishistadvaita. The experience of Advaita goes beyond any imaginable perception, even the so called third-eye vision cannot be Advaita.(third-eye is Visisstadvaita's stage ).

It is safe to state that those jivanmuktas or God realized souls have probably never experienced Advaita during their physical embodiment. Even if they did, they had no individuality to testify it. With this in mind, one could say that we could never know the truth except from experience alone. Unfortunately, Hindus of today are more interesting in proving things by logic and scripture, with no emphasis on verifying their claims. This resulted due to the influence of Abrahamic religions where faith=realization.

I even like Buddhism over some Hindu sects because it fully practical oriented and rid of "scriptural" dogma. Who said Buddhist cannot find God? The rules are the same for everyone - one with a purified mind will always get there irrespective of one's beleif in God.

Shriyash21
19 August 2006, 02:54 PM
On the other hand, true Bhaktas will not mind these "crazy" statements and ignore them. i'll ignore it when it is written in invisible ink.


After all it cant be insulting God, can it? so according to you, an arrogant and egoistic person can say anything and everything to God, and its all ok, and will be ignored, and he can expect that there will be no karmic consequences?
is that a right example to set?
what can be more ignorant than that, to think that one can do anything and everything, and not be punished if the action is bad, and be rewarded if the action is good.


....so a Bhakta is entitled to make some crazy statements until it is resolved by Bhakti itself in the end. i agree completely.
i also agree that one should have the capacity to learn from ones mistakes.

TruthSeeker
20 August 2006, 01:37 AM
so according to you, an arrogant and egoistic person can say anything and everything to God, and its all ok, and will be ignored, and he can expect that there will be no karmic consequences?
is that a right example to set?


Yes, an individual has all rights to do anything with God, because it is his very Self. Contrary to many religions, you must be knowing that Hinduism even considers hate and anger towards God to be direct means of liberation - for eg, take the example of Kamsa and Sisupala. Kamsa was so filled with fear of Krishna that he kept thinking of Krishna and spent twelve sleepless years - even devotees cannot reach such levels of constant God thought. That is the power of fear - such fear is a terrible Karmic affliction, but in his case it was directed at Krishna, hence it worked towards liberation. Similarly, Sisupala had nothing but hate and all through his life he had only one thought in life - to humilate and kill Krishna.

What is really wrong is to show such emotions agianst his devotees. But those against God cannot have any consequences ever. However, something done in ignorance is never a big sin.

Again all this is all drama. The same poster who wrote this earlier, now calls himself Shiva Upasaka, and said Vishnu isn't an ishta devata! Cant you see how God works?:)

atanu
13 September 2006, 07:00 AM
Yes, that is quite logical.

Hari being the supreme controller of the universe is superior to anything inside it. No one can worship Hari assuming onself to be Hari. Did Arjuna ever feel that he was Krishna? He saw Krishna external to him even while viewing the universal form.

But Shiva being your very Self, you feel that you are Shiva. Nothing is inferior or superior to Shiva - he stands alone.

Namaskar TS,

Nicely put. Although,

YV ii. 1. 3.

The gods and the Asuras strove for these worlds; Visnu saw this dwarf, he offered it to its own deity; then he conquered these worlds. One who is engaged in a struggle should offer the dwarf (beast) to Visnu; then he becomes like Visnu and conquers these worlds.

YV i. 7. 5.

------ Headed by Visnu the gods won these worlds by the metres so as to be irrecoverable; in that he takes the steps of Visnu the sacrificer becoming like Visnu wins these worlds by the metres so as to be irrecoverable.



AUM

atanu
13 September 2006, 08:05 AM
-----

atleast devotees know what true 'ras' there is in bhakti,there is estacy in worship of God, in whatever form, poor advaitins devoid themseves of that too. advaitins need to feel the magic of love, the magic of the heart.

------



Dear Shriyash,


The goal of advaita is the heart (not the physical one of course). Advaita teaches that true ras is in heart. How can you assume that advaita is without ras?

Have you investigated the reality of happiness? Happiness is always your real nature, present as shushupti. Any happiness you get from fulfillment of a desire is also happiness of the Self, since on fulfillment of a desire the mind abides in Self for a short time and imbibes the bliss of the Self. The moment a new desire develops the happiness vanishes, since mind is no more in the Self.

Shushupti is known as a mass of bliss. Only you do not know it.

On the hand, the ras you are talking about is not a permanent bliss, untill the source of ras -- the contact with God, is permanent. And external God vision is not a constant link. The constant link is your own heart.


Advaita does not prohibit or denigrate God worship in external form and seek ras therefrom. Very far from it. It only tells us that the real bliss is Brahman, which is nothing but the Self.


I will agree that in the beginning I often felt bored with the advaitic statements -- but no more when the true purport sunk in. And I do not think that external god lovers have the ras continously. In fact they have severe emotional ups and downs.


Om Namah Shivayya

vedanta_learner
01 February 2007, 07:24 AM
Self!

Bhakti is of two kinds - apara and para.

Apara Bhakti is the common known devotion, faith, love, surrender or whatever terms you normally associate with. Here, there is an association with God, without any knowledge of God whatsoever. He believes in God, because somebody told him, or some books teach him - but personally never verified.

Para Bhakti is the higher Bhakti where this love for God comes from knowing what or who God is. It has so many grades, as God is not a monolithic substance to be known fully in an instant. In the initial stages, God is known through visions, which progressively increase in depth and intensity, until Isvara is completely known. That is the complete goal of Dualism.

In Qualified Monism, the above stage further expands to the stage when this external vision actually becomes more advanced, and one knows onself to be in true relationship or communion with God and connected intimately and an inseparable aspect of God. This is technically the highest form of Bhakti possible, knowing onself to be part and parcel of the divine.

In Advaita, the above condition is not the final stage of existance. There is a stage beyond realizing that one is part and parcel of the divine, and that is by completely merging into the divine with no individual existance intact. Bhakti per se would be meaningless in such a context when judged by wordly logic, but if you can understand that you love yourself, you could understand that Bhakti is not lost even in such non dual existance.

nice post TS.

I am trying to understand Advaita concept slowly from your posts.

From some of our Advitin friends' posts I came to know that the "self" is the ultimate reality, but because of "Avidya" I am thinking "I am this , I am that".
I want to know what is the "self" or "I" ? what is its actual nature ? why we are here in this Maya? like this many number of doubts..if you think my questions can be considered to answer..please enlighten me.

Thank you.