PDA

View Full Version : An hindu tradition suitable for me



orlando
31 July 2006, 10:49 AM
Namaste all.
I decided to leave Sri Vaishnavism.This religion doesn't appel to me.And I am really disappointend.
In Christianity you can see that a person is saved thanks to God's grace.Some Sri Vaishnavas told me that I can obtain moksha only by God'grace.
I think that the truth is very different.It seems that I must save my-self only though my own effort and thought the destruction of my humanity.
A Sri Vaishnava even told me that Lord Vishnu would be "forced" to punish me in order to destroy that karma accrued tought sins.And with the words "sins" that person was referring to material desires and not to sins like killing,etc.
In Catholicism God gives salvation both to a chaste priest and to married people that have a normal sexual life and satisfy material pleasure like go to the bar,go out in the evening,etc.
I noted that in Sri Vaishnava God gives Mokshna and judge you by what yo don't do.I did read about a woman that leaved Hare Krishna and became a christian for this same reason.
I mean that a person could living an austere life (not watching tv,sex only for procreation,etc) and yet to be a wicked person.Someone could be materialistic and yet to be a good person.
I consider Sri Vaishnava rules too extreme rules,particularly when one looks at other religions like Christianity.
I don't understand why after some hourses spended daily in spiritual activities I can't watch a film in the evening or play videogames,or listen to musics.
I considered the rule "sex only for procreation" an extreme rule.I feel that there is something wrong in the path I followed until some days ago.I am not insulting Sri Vaishnavism at all.And I am not saying that his rules are wrong.I am saying that in my heart I feel that there is something wrong.
I am not able to understand how Lord Vishnu may be mercyful while he doesn't give moksha unless a vaishnava reject all material pleasure.
This kind of life gave me mental problem.The psycologist where I go told me that in order to not "lose" my mind I need to go out with my friends.
In this time a friend of mine is very busy.But when I will see him,I will ask him if I can go go out in the evening with him and his friends.
As Sri Vaishnava I only builded an house of cards!THis spiritual path doesn't appeal to me.
I really understand that woman who leaved Hare Krishna and became a christian.She said the in Hare Krishsna religion one is judged by what one doesn't.I must say that this is true even in Sri Vaishnavism.I repeat that Sri Vaishnavism and general Vaishnavism really disappointed me.I am not sure that it is its fault.Probabily it is just a problem of mine.
Very probabily I will become a Shivaite.
I appreciated what Arjuna quoted about Shaivi Siddhanta.
Here is what Sri Subramunia Swami, a Guru of Shaiva-siddhanta's Nandinatha-parampara, writes:

"The purpose of sexual union is to express and foster love's beautiful intimacy and to draw husband and wife together for procreation. While offering community guidance, Hinduism does not legislate sexual matters. Aum.
Sexual intercourse is a natural reproductive function, a part of the instinctive nature, and its pleasures draw man and woman together that a child may be conceived. It also serves through its intimacy to express and nurture love. It is love which endows sexual intercourse with its higher qualities, transforming it from an animal function to a human fulfillment. Intensely personal matters of sex as they affect the family or individual are not legislated, but left to the judgment of those involved, subject to community laws and customs. Hinduism neither condones nor condemns birth control, sterilization, masturbation, homosexuality, petting, polygamy or pornography. It does not exclude or draw harsh conclusions against any part of human nature, though scripture prohibits adultery and forbids abortion except to save a mother's life. Advice in such matters should be sought from parents, elders and spiritual leaders. The only rigid rule is wisdom, guided by tradition and virtue. The Vedas beseech, "May all the divine powers together with the waters join our two hearts in one! May the Messenger, the Creator and holy Obedience unite us." Aum Namah Sivaya."

http://www.himalayanacademy.com/reso...andala-15.html

In Tirumantiram, a Shaiva-siddhanta Tamil holy text, it is written:

"19 PARIYANGA YOGA

825: Pleasures of Sex Union Will Abide
If Breath Control is Properly Practiced
Anointing her body with unguents diverse
Bedecking her tresses with flowers fragrant
Do you enjoy the damsel in passion's union;
If you but know how to shoot
Prana breath through the Spinal Cavity
Your enjoyment never ceases.
826: If Breath is Controlled Delicious Enjoyment
For Partners in Sex Union Results
When they seek enjoyment
The breath stands still;
The full breasted damsel and the goodly man
Stand in union exalted;
As liquid silver and gold
Their passion's emissions
In rapture commingles.
827: Duration of Enjoyment Lengthens
If Breath is Controlled
In the copulatory yoga that is practised
By the hero and the heroine
Upward they drive the coach of breath
That has its wheels in regions right and left;
There they collect the waters of the heaven
And never the organs tiring know."

http://www.himalayanacademy.com/reso...ntraThree.html

These quoted of course show that Shaivi-siddhanta spiritual lifestyle is more moderate that Sri Vaishnavism'lifestyle.

I consider right what Shri Bhakti yoga Seeker wrote in the thread procreation.
Passion CAN be an evil force for some but it can also be beneficial to others as well. I believe (through my OWN experiences) that you can combine material and spiritual energy and have positive results. I believe you can also use material enjoyment for spiritual purposes as well. Passion as with anything (good or bad) should be checked and balanced. As to the comment that sexual pleasure is no pleasure at all, this is completely delusional.

By http://www.hinduism.it/zzinduismo.htm
Purushartha , the four purposes of life
The principles which regulate the man's life in its becoming :
Their attainment aims at the realisation of a happy existence, satisfying the material and spiritual needs in harmony with the etich laws and in consideration of the ultimate purpose.

Dharma, the universal ethic order
The principle which harmonises the other purposes of life and represents the universal ethic laws which rule all the manifest universe.

Artha, the welfare
The realisation of the general welfare, related also to the material conditions and to the means necessary to maintain a good health and a satisfying social condition.

Kama, the desire
The desire which supports any action corresponding to dharma and an harmonious enjoyment of the sensory pleasures and the goods available.

Moksha, the liberation
The liberation from the cycle of incarnations and from the slavery of the ego, to recognise what we have always been, one in God and one with God.
The ultimate aim of life and achievement of a long journey of development is the recognition, which will be reached by all human beings, of their own divine nature or better that the only Reality beyond the illusoriness of the world, is God.

These internet quoted combine harmoniously the material and spiritual life.
I consider wrong the fact that after some hourses spended daily in spiritual activities I can't watch a film in the evening or play videogames,or listen to music.Sri Vaishnavism say that "lust" is very dangerous.The problem is that according to Sri Vaishnavism even making love (which is different from making sex) between married person and masturbation are "lust".These doctrine sounds a lot words spoken from zelous christian from mediaval age.!!
I am surprised to see that Sri Vaishnava didn't tell me that I will go to hell!!!
http://game.china.com/zh_cn/hotspot/E32001/pic/images/Soul%20Reaver%202/Raziel_angel.jpg
I can't continue to follow Sri Vaishnavism.
I repeat that in Catholicism God gives salvation both to a chaste priest and to married people that have a normal sexual life and satisfy material pleasure like go to the bar,go out in the evening,etc.
Sri Vaishnava's view are too much different.I hope the reades did understand what kind of hindu spiritual tradition I am looking for.
Please could someone tell me if Shaivism is suitable for me?
And exactly what shaivite tradiction should I follow?
Please note that I am not interested in monistic shaivism like Kashmir shivaism.I want to follow a devotional tradiction like Vira-Shaiva and Shaiva-Siddhanta.
Regards,
Orlando.

satay
31 July 2006, 04:43 PM
Namaste all.
I decided to leave Sri Vaishnavism.This religion doesn't appel to me.And I am really disappointend.
Orlando.

namaste Orlando!

I am surprised to read your post and must admit that I am also sad to read it. Not sure why as it is all Bhagwan's leela.

You have to follow what your heart says. Sanatana Dharma is not a dogma; it is a way of life. I know it sounds like a cliche but it truly is a way of life.

You are being too hard on yourself and talking matters too seriously. Just apply the dharma to your life without all the nonsense and follow your heart. Don't worry about what others have to say (including me)...

sarabhanga
31 July 2006, 07:59 PM
Namaste,

A great deal of confusion arises from the misunderstanding (and consequent rejection) of Varna or “Caste”. There is only one ultimate Truth, but Dharma is certainly not “one size fits all”.

Ahimsa and Brahmacarya are good examples, with some arguing from a Brahmana perspective, others from a Kshatriya perspective, and others from a general Vaishya perspective. And of course, all of these views are valid in their appropriate place and conditions.

Brahmana Dharma is rather strict, because a Brahman is supposed to have a high degree of understanding, and someone who surely knows the right way and yet turns away from that knowledge and follows the wrong path is the greatest “sinner” who will suffer for his foolish Adharma.

Shri Vaishnava is the most orthodox of all Vaishnava sects, and the perfect Shri Vaishnava is supposed to be the absolutely perfect Man. Of course perfection is the aim, and that is where scripture is trying to lead us.

If Moksha is defined as release from material attachment, how can one possibly attain Moksha while holding fast to material desires? :rolleyes:

But if you remain attached to life and all its pleasures, what is the problem if you are NEVER released from the cycle of life? Surely that is what you would most desire! And so long as you remain attached you will repeatedly return to your beloved worldly existence. :)

All that is born, however, must necessarily die, and repeated birth (with all of its enjoyment) must involve repeated death (with all of its suffering). And, from a Hindu perspective, that endless cycle alone is the only “Hell”. ;)

sarabhanga
01 August 2006, 12:31 AM
And, of course, then we have added confusion that arises from misunderstanding of Ashrama and Samskara (i.e. the various stages of life and the defining moments between them).

With the opposition of married life vs unmarried life comes the consideration of sexual actions, which again provides two quite different perspectives for Dharma ~ and much more confusion for those who reject all of the ancient Hindu traditions of Varna and Ashrama and Samskara!

1. There is only one simple Dharma for all those of the Shudra Varna.
2. There are two stages of Dharma for the Vaishya ~ unmarried student and married householder ~ each with their own particular spiritual and social expectations.
3. There are three stages for the Kshatriya, with an additional expectation of final seclusion from worldly affairs as a Vanaprasthin.
4. And for the Brahmana Varna only there are four defined stages of life, culminating in Sannyasa.

And 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10 :)

So that Sanatana Dharma has always encompassed TEN different modes of Dharma ~ one for each of those 10 Lords of Airavata ~ and this fundamental diversity should always be remembered in any consideration of Dharma in practice.

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
01 August 2006, 02:31 AM
Namaste all.
I decided to leave Sri Vaishnavism.This religion doesn't appel to me.And I am really disappointend.
In Christianity you can see that a person is saved thanks to God's grace.Some Sri Vaishnavas told me that I can obtain moksha only by God'grace.
I think that the truth is very different.It seems that I must save my-self only though my own effort and thought the destruction of my humanity.
A Sri Vaishnava even told me that Lord Vishnu would be "forced" to punish me in order to destroy that karma accrued tought sins.And with the words "sins" that person was referring to material desires and not to sins like killing,etc.
In Catholicism God gives salvation both to a chaste priest and to married people that have a normal sexual life and satisfy material pleasure like go to the bar,go out in the evening,etc.
I noted that in Sri Vaishnava God gives Mokshna and judge you by what yo don't do.I did read about a woman that leaved Hare Krishna and became a christian for this same reason.
I mean that a person could living an austere life (not watching tv,sex only for procreation,etc) and yet to be a wicked person.Someone could be materialistic and yet to be a good person.
I consider Sri Vaishnava rules too extreme rules,particularly when one looks at other religions like Christianity.
I don't understand why after some hourses spended daily in spiritual activities I can't watch a film in the evening or play videogames,or listen to musics.
I considered the rule "sex only for procreation" an extreme rule.I feel that there is something wrong in the path I followed until some days ago.I am not insulting Sri Vaishnavism at all.And I am not saying that his rules are wrong.I am saying that in my heart I feel that there is something wrong.
I am not able to understand how Lord Vishnu may be mercyful while he doesn't give moksha unless a vaishnava reject all material pleasure.
This kind of life gave me mental problem.The psycologist where I go told me that in order to not "lose" my mind I need to go out with my friends.
In this time a friend of mine is very busy.But when I will see him,I will ask him if I can go go out in the evening with him and his friends.
As Sri Vaishnava I only builded an house of cards!THis spiritual path doesn't appeal to me.
I really understand that woman who leaved Hare Krishna and became a christian.She said the in Hare Krishsna religion one is judged by what one doesn't.I must say that this is true even in Sri Vaishnavism.I repeat that Sri Vaishnavism and general Vaishnavism really disappointed me.I am not sure that it is its fault.Probabily it is just a problem of mine.
Very probabily I will become a Shivaite.
I appreciated what Arjuna quoted about Shaivi Siddhanta.

[...]

These internet quoted combine harmoniously the material and spiritual life.
I consider wrong the fact that after some hourses spended daily in spiritual activities I can't watch a film in the evening or play videogames,or listen to music.Sri Vaishnavism say that "lust" is very dangerous.The problem is that according to Sri Vaishnavism even making love (which is different from making sex) between married person and masturbation are "lust".These doctrine sounds a lot words spoken from zelous christian from mediaval age.!!
I am surprised to see that Sri Vaishnava didn't tell me that I will go to hell!!!

[...]

I can't continue to follow Sri Vaishnavism.
I repeat that in Catholicism God gives salvation both to a chaste priest and to married people that have a normal sexual life and satisfy material pleasure like go to the bar,go out in the evening,etc.
Sri Vaishnava's view are too much different.I hope the reades did understand what kind of hindu spiritual tradition I am looking for.
Please could someone tell me if Shaivism is suitable for me?
And exactly what shaivite tradiction should I follow?
Please note that I am not interested in monistic shaivism like Kashmir shivaism.I want to follow a devotional tradiction like Vira-Shaiva and Shaiva-Siddhanta.
Regards,
Orlando.


I am glad you have seen that moderation is the key to spiritual life. It is entirely your choice which spiritual path to follow as well as make up your own. You don't have to follow a particular tradition. I think part of the problem with religion when it tries to separate the spiritual and the material is that it fails to understand what they really are. They view such things on a one-dimensional surface. Certain key activities will be "material" while others will be "spiritual" and others are in between. This is not the case because anything that exists on the physical plane in the universe is by definition material. What makes something spiritual is how one sees, understands, uses, and appreciates the material.

Such understanding is dangerous to society and organized religion because it quickly breaks down barriers. It is difficult to explain in words but it is something you feel and know in your heart. It is not what you see and experience but the way that you see it and how you absorb your experience. Certain aspects of the material world can be seen as higher or lower but that doesn't make them wrong. Sex, intoxicants, and entertainment are seen as lower desires but if done from a higher perspective, they can have more value than when done by those from a lower perspective. It is still hard to explain in words but it is not so much the "what" of the things you do but instead is the "why" and the "how." I think the key word here is consciousness. One million people can all do the same activity but they will each be doing it from higher or lower consciousnesses. The higher the consciousness the more you are able to see the truth and falsehoods of what you witness and experience as well as understand how valuable and bogus things are depending on what these activities are.

I consider myself a spiritually-oriented person yet most people fail to understand where I come from on even the most basic things. That is because people are so saturated and brainwashed by labels. They see chanting as religion and alcohol as fun, movies as entertainment and labor for a paycheck, sex for instant enjoyment and meditation as a sleep-inducing agent. Such understandings are not right or wrong but they are incredibly limited and are on a first-grade level so to speak. So when one person engages in a number of activites that people see as direct opposites, they cannot understand. That is because people generally do not understand what moderation means. It is really annoying because it is difficult surviving in a society where people are so overwhelmingly controlled by labels, barriers, and limitations that when a myth-buster and truth-seeker such as me comes along, it forces them to re-evaluate themselves. I think that probably one of the best ways to find the truth, realize your self, and know God is to clear and free your mind. Our minds are overcluttered by what society is and is not and what is right and wrong.

Imagine that suddenly society just disappeared and the only living thing on the planet was you and you could not be physically killed for a temporary amount of time. Essentially you would be fully in control of your thoughts, feelings, and physical state. Nobody or nothing could tell you what was right or wrong or deny what you were experiencing. The fact is that people can still choose what they believe and what is best for them but instead they allow themselves to be manipulated by other people through large institutions such as religion, government, and culture. I didn't mean to go on so much but I was surprised by your article which was a sudden change in you. In order to give you more of an idea on how I feel on these matters, I will reveal some personal information about myself which others with small minds and who are victims of society-induced mind control may hold against me on these forums.

I have been a caring person for as long as I can remember. I am not trying to brag that I have some kind of virtues but I have always had a deep empathy for people who I have felt are oppressed in one way or another. I have also tried to assist these people endlessly and mostly by just lending a listening ear and providing the best words of wisdom that I can think of at the time. On the other hand I have been a fighter and a rebel for many years, not in the violent sense but in that I have had a passion for seeking and speaking the truth and busting falsehoods and destroying myths. Unfortunately but not surprisingly I will often be in the minority due to the fact that it is apparent that most people don't want the truth and would prefer to live in the illusory and superficial world they built based on fear. I have little fear over "fitting in" and will continue to think for myself and make up my own mind unlike most people and live what I believe is the truth regardless of the fact that millions or even billions may disagree.

I also believe strongly in ahimsa and ahimsa in the real sense. People have a duty to treat others decently and fairly and oppose oppression and injustice wherever it is found. It is a duty to spread love around and do the right thing. Supporting ahimsa also means that I support peace as well as violence in their proper contexts. This is something most people fail to understand. Ahimsa doesn't mean "peace" and it doesn't oppose "violence." It essentially means learning to do the right thing to others so that people can suffer less and experience more.

I also chant regularly and do meditation. I also go for walks late and night for excersize and to clear my mind from the day's garbage usually filled up by others around me who have a poor understanding on who they are and why they are here. I am also a vegetarian, I watch movies from time to time, I give to the needy, I hold a typical 40-hour per week job, go to bars occasionally with friends for a little relaxation and silliness, and I also regularly smoke ganja mostly for meditative and spiritual purposes. Most people cannot figure me out because all these apparent contrasting lifestyles. Such people have a mental failure because they don't understand that I am not the body, not the material world, and most of all none of these things or my very existence on this planet define who I am. In other words, none of those things define who I am.

If this post means anything to you, it is that only you can figure out who you are and what the truth is that you wish to live by. People will come and go by the millions eager to tell you what is right and wrong, how to live your life, what you should and should not do. You have to remember though that the life you live on this planet and everything you do here does NOT define who you are. Life is a moving theater and you are the stage. The characters come and go, the costumes change, the lighting gets brighter and darker, moods change, and a multitude of events pass on from one scene to the next but the stage remains the same nonetheless. Even though the entire play is just an act and that it is not real, it appears real to the audience and almost seems real to the actors. I believe that it is our goal to use what is on life's stage in the proper manners to find out who we really are, to know God, and to realize the Truth. Obviously what is proper for one person will not necessarily be proper for another. There is no such thing as one shoe that fits all despite what popular opinion says.

Namaskaar and good luck. :) ~BYS~

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
01 August 2006, 02:48 AM
namaste Orlando!

I am surprised to read your post and must admit that I am also sad to read it. Not sure why as it is all Bhagwan's leela.

You have to follow what your heart says. Sanatana Dharma is not a dogma; it is a way of life. I know it sounds like a cliche but it truly is a way of life.

You are being too hard on yourself and talking matters too seriously. Just apply the dharma to your life without all the nonsense and follow your heart. Don't worry about what others have to say (including me)...

The problem arises when other people interfere with your spiritual progress. You cannot always ignore people and this is the problem that I run into. People are often downright demonic and sinister and ever ready to crucify others at any cost. The second you live a lifestyle different from others, sooner or later someone sends their attack dogs on you. I am speaking metaphorically of course. Basically what I am saying is that even though Sanatana Dharma is a way of life, institutions such as temples and other congregations of people will impose their values on you and attempt to manipulate, control, and criticize you to their liking. For instance just recently I visited an ISKCON temple. I am the kind of person that still gives people the benefit of the doubt no matter how many times they do something wrong. The madness with kids screaming, etc. was there as usual and when I finally did meditate, a number of people interrupted and asked if I could do some seva. When I asked them if they would be willing to spend 10 minutes of their time answering some scriptural questions I had in exchange for one hour of mopping the floor and washing the dishes, they basically explained that it doesn't work that way and went on about how one must chant, read Prabhupada's books, and refrain from sex, drugs, etc. In other words just more control and manipulation over your private life without actually helping you.

So how does someone such as Orlando live a spiritual lifestyle that works for him and fit into Hindu society at the same time? That is something I am still struggling with. If I tell group A that I go out and drink, they accept me but when I tell them I'm a vegetarian, they jump back. Then I tell group B that I'm a vegetarian and they tell me how "enlightened" I am until I mention the alcohol and they have mysteriously vanished. So how can Orlando find that spiritual path and live by it when everyone tells him to dance and sing just like everyone else? ~BYS~

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
01 August 2006, 03:08 AM
Namaste,

A great deal of confusion arises from the misunderstanding (and consequent rejection) of Varna or “Caste”. There is only one ultimate Truth, but Dharma is certainly not “one size fits all”.

Ahimsa and Brahmacarya are good examples, with some arguing from a Brahmana perspective, others from a Kshatriya perspective, and others from a general Vaishya perspective. And of course, all of these views are valid in their appropriate place and conditions.

Brahmana Dharma is rather strict, because a Brahman is supposed to have a high degree of understanding, and someone who surely knows the right way and yet turns away from that knowledge and follows the wrong path is the greatest “sinner” who will suffer for his foolish Adharma.

Shri Vaishnava is the most orthodox of all Vaishnava sects, and the perfect Shri Vaishnava is supposed to be the absolutely perfect Man. Of course perfection is the aim, and that is where scripture is trying to lead us.

If Moksha is defined as release from material attachment, how can one possibly attain Moksha while holding fast to material desires? :rolleyes:

But if you remain attached to life and all its pleasures, what is the problem if you are NEVER released from the cycle of life? Surely that is what you would most desire! And so long as you remain attached you will repeatedly return to your beloved worldly existence. :)

All that is born, however, must necessarily die, and repeated birth (with all of its enjoyment) must involve repeated death (with all of its suffering). And, from a Hindu perspective, that endless cycle alone is the only “Hell”. ;)

I generally disagree. This still comes down to forcing spiritual seekers into various groups for the purpose of controlling what they can and cannot do with their lives. Obviously I think that group think can have its benefits because people are social creatures and people need positive association from other people. I just don't understand why spiritual seekers have to constantly be boxed in groups and have their behavior and beliefs modulated. You mentioned four specific groups (in past posts) and described what behavior Groups A, B, C, and D should and should not do. In today's case you also referred to material attachment but left out the concept of the possibility of people engaging in materialistic activities without being attached to them. Again, I don't understand this group and label think where you can either do activity A or activity B and nobody can grasp the possibility of other activites that don't fit into either A or B. Either you are spiritual and refrain from all material activites or you engage in material activites and avoid spiritual life. What if Orlando wishes to use both and without being attached to the materialism?

I responded this way because it sounds like Orlando is trying to progress spiritually and has found barriers, labels, and group modulation to be inhibitors. Your response started out immediately imposing more of those barriers, labels, and group-control with the mention of the varna system. I don't know why I didn't realize this stuff myself earlier but it seems to me that it is all wrong. The real progress comes when you stop blindly doing what everyone else wants you to do and start making up your own mind and thinking for yourself. Maybe what will work best for Orlando would be a blend of all four castes or varnas instead of just forcing himself into one particular group of mind control. ~BYS~

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
01 August 2006, 03:25 AM
And, of course, then we have added confusion that arises from misunderstanding of Ashrama and Samskara (i.e. the various stages of life and the defining moments between them).

With the opposition of married life vs unmarried life comes the consideration of sexual actions, which again provides two quite different perspectives for Dharma ~ and much more confusion for those who reject all of the ancient Hindu traditions of Varna and Ashrama and Samskara!

1. There is only one simple Dharma for all those of the Shudra Varna.
2. There are two stages of Dharma for the Vaishya ~ unmarried student and married householder ~ each with their own particular spiritual and social expectations.
3. There are three stages for the Kshatriya, with an additional expectation of final seclusion from worldly affairs as a Vanaprasthin.
4. And for the Brahmana Varna only there are four defined stages of life, culminating in Sannyasa.

And 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10 :)

So that Sanatana Dharma has always encompassed TEN different modes of Dharma ~ one for each of those 10 Lords of Airavata ~ and this fundamental diversity should always be remembered in any consideration of Dharma in practice.

If Sanatana Dharma is indeed a way of life and not a dogmatic religion, then you are incorrect. You mention about people who reject ancient traditions as being "confused." What confuses me is why otherwise intelligent people are incapable of living a spiritual life and having a moral foundation that is independently formed and free from group think and mind control. You mention how married and unmarried life has two different perspectives. Why only two? Why not millions of different perspectives? Then you mention the varnas and how they each have 1, 2, 3, and 4 different dharmic paths respectively. I wasn't aware that all of human civilization and particularly those seeking a spiritual lifestyle have to do what everyone else does. I thought that we had enough brains to think for ourselves and make up our own minds. You can repeat yourself if you wish but you are incorrect. Imposing limitations on how people can live life, what they can believe, and assigning labels based on what system of group think and behavior they match closest to is not helping anyone spiritually progress. There are not ten dharmic paths as you say. There are unlimited dharmic paths. Sanatana Dharma is not like Christianity where it is my way or the highway. One person's spiritual path and lifestyle can be different from another person's and they can still reach the goal.

It is time to see Hindus and others trying to expand their horizons rather than limiting them. :( ~BYS~

Sudarshan
01 August 2006, 09:30 AM
Namaste Orlando,

Not a bad decision. It is not easy to be a true Srivaishnava, and yes it does expect perfection to be referred so. It is always better to follow one's own instincts than to follow something that you are not capable of.

But dont get under the false impression that any religion or path can lead easily to moksha than any other. Sri Sarabhanga mentioned that clearly - the total absence of material desires alone lead to moksha - rest lead only to mundane existance. Dont take that lightly just because you "beleive" differently.

Whichever religions encourage any form of materialism are not directed at the highest goal of life, but at some intermediate goal like heaven or some rich kingly births which do not have permanent value. And that is what you will get.

God's grace is paramount, dont underestimate it. Even those enlightened souls will tell you that - never think you can do anything by efforts alone, though an effort is certainly needed.

Christianity may appeal to offer some easy tickets but who told you they are aimed at the goal of moksha the Hindu way? They only lead to svarga - which is a place of return to embodied existance. Since Christianity does not preach reincarnation, they either have to condemn people to hell or push the rest to heaven - no middle ground. In Hinduism, perfection alone leads to moksha irrespective of what one beleives. The rest will grow in stages over many incarnations until they reach there one day. No excuses or short cuts for anybody.

This material world will give you NOTHING even in the short run(leave alone the long run). Dont turn away from real spiritualism for satisfying a few material desires of yours. Dont mix much with materialistic people as they will lead you further away - mix a lot of other devotees and they will instill you with the strength and show you the right way. Dont even listen to those people who encourage you with some materialism because they are doing the worst possible thing to you. Do you know that smokers always entice others to smole? Alcoholcs entice others with it? Materialist people wil take you down along with them. Be fore warred!

Good luck to you! Srivaishnavas have no reason to force people to follow it and you cannot be a true Srivaishnavite easily. But they do not have to dilute laws to entice people like Christianity. That does not mean there is any short cut available anywhere else. You may follow whatvever you want, but the path must be devoid of materialsm and God only faith - else liberation is not possible, no matter what you think or beleive in. Material desires lead only to material existance!

orlando
01 August 2006, 09:36 AM
namaste Orlando!

I am surprised to read your post and must admit that I am also sad to read it. Not sure why as it is all Bhagwan's leela.

You have to follow what your heart says. Sanatana Dharma is not a dogma; it is a way of life. I know it sounds like a cliche but it truly is a way of life.

You are being too hard on yourself and talking matters too seriously. Just apply the dharma to your life without all the nonsense and follow your heart. Don't worry about what others have to say (including me)...

Namaste Satay.
My heart say that Sri Vaishnava lifestyle ruined my mind.That psycologosit helped me to understand this.
I talked about this even with my mother.
Regards,
Orlando.

orlando
01 August 2006, 09:43 AM
Namaste Orlando,

Not a bad decision. It is not easy to be a true Srivaishnava, and yes it does expect perfection to be referred so. It is always better to follow one's own instincts than to follow something that you are not capable of.

But dont get under the false impression that any religion or path can lead easily to moksha than any other. Sri Sarabhanga mentioned that clearly - the total absence of material desires alone lead to moksha - rest lead only to mundane existance. Dont take that lightly just because you "beleive" differently.

Whichever religions encourage any form of materialism are not directed at the highest goal of life, but at some intermediate goal like heaven or some rich kingly births which do not have permanent value. And that is what you will get.

God's grace is paramount, dont underestimate it. Even those enlightened souls will tell you that - never think you can do anything by efforts alone, though an effort is certainly needed.

Christianity may appeal to offer some easy tickets but who told you they are aimed at the goal of moksha the Hindu way? They only lead to svarga - which is a place of return to embodied existance. Since Christianity does not preach reincarnation, they either have to condemn people to hell or push the rest to heaven - no middle ground. In Hinduism, perfection alone leads to moksha irrespective of what one beleives. The rest will grow in stages over many incarnations until they reach there one day. No excuses or short cuts for anybody.

This material world will give you NOTHING even in the short run(leave alone the long run). Dont turn away from real spiritualism for satisfying a few material desires of yours. Dont mix much with materialistic people as they will lead you further away - mix a lot of other devotees and they will instill you with the strength and show you the right way. Dont even listen to those people who encourage you with some materialism because they are doing the worst possible thing to you. Do you know that smokers always entice others to smole? Alcoholcs entice others with it? Materialist people wil take you down along with them. Be fore warred!

Good luck to you! Srivaishnavas have no reason to force people to follow it and you cannot be a true Srivaishnavite easily. But they do not have to dilute laws to entice people like Christianity. That does not mean there is any short cut available anywhere else. You may follow whatvever you want, but the path must be devoid of materialsm and God only faith - else liberation is not possible, no matter what you think or beleive in. Material desires lead only to material existance!

Namaste Sudarshan.
Your words helped me to understand more that leaving Sri Vaishnavism has really been a good decision.Your words show a big sectarism.However Lord Vishnu is not anymore my Ista-Devata.
I don't care even about the words of Shri Sarabhanga,altough I respesct very much him,who is a sannyasi.
Sorry Sudarshan,your words will not able to do brainwashing to me.

orlando
01 August 2006, 09:51 AM
I am glad you have seen that moderation is the key to spiritual life. It is entirely your choice which spiritual path to follow as well as make up your own. You don't have to follow a particular tradition.

Namaste Shri Bhakti Yoga Seeker.
I appreciated very much your comments.You are right.I don't need necessarly follow a particular tradition.I could be a smarta ir general hindu.
Regards,
Orlando.

orlando
01 August 2006, 10:11 AM
Dont mix much with materialistic people as they will lead you further away - mix a lot of other devotees and they will instill you with the strength and show you the right way. Dont even listen to those people who encourage you with some materialism because they are doing the worst possible thing to you. Do you know that smokers always entice others to smole? Alcoholcs entice others with it? Materialist people wil take you down along with them. Be fore warred!


Do you mean that all materialist people smoke and drik alcohol?
This is not true at all.
Shri Vedanta Desika wrote in Rahasya Traya Saram that people who are neither Bhaktas nor opposed to Lord Vishnu should be ignored as "dirt".
Saying that a non vaishnava has to be considered as "dirt" is a big sectarism.The sectarims and a not-moderate spiritual lifestyle lead to this.When some friends of mine asked me to go out with them in the evening I answered "no".I didn't want go out with them because I was sectarian and I tough that they would have take me astray.
A behavior like this is not good at all.
By divine grace,I met that psycologist.I went to her this morning.I will go to her again the next week.
Regards,
Orlando.

Sudarshan
01 August 2006, 10:12 AM
I must save my-self only though my own effort and thought the destruction of my humanity.


Perhaps you do not realize that it is only by God's grace that you are even born in favourable conditions for making a self effort? What will do you if you are born as a bird or an animal? And if you are born as a cannibal? Own effort is not even possible - it is a thought born of ignorance.



A Sri Vaishnava even told me that Lord Vishnu would be "forced" to punish me in order to destroy that karma accrued tought sins.And with the words "sins" that person was referring to material desires and not to sins like killing,etc.


Dear Orlando, there are many Yogis who have dedicated their lives solely for God realization, conquered all their material desires, God realized and have no worldly thoughts. How could anyone even dream that salvation is possible for anyone who does not meet the above criterion? Certainly God could be accused of being partial if salvation is granted to a serial killer, a pure materialist, a so called spiritualist who chants a few rounds every day, or some who desires only God.

If you are a spiritualist with material desires intact, then the Karma attached to such materialism would have to be certainly paid for to entertain any hope of liberation. Else anyone could get liberated without any desire on his part or no effort on his part - we do not need any scripture, any moral guidelines, any teachers either. No God beleif is needed either.



In Catholicism God gives salvation both to a chaste priest and to married people that have a normal sexual life and satisfy material pleasure like go to the bar,go out in the evening,etc.
I noted that in Sri Vaishnava God gives Mokshna and judge you by what yo don't do.I did read about a woman that leaved Hare Krishna and became a christian for this same reason.



I doubt it is the official version of Catholicism or if it an advertised strategy to build mor numbers. In any case, such a religion cannot lead to moskha. Reality does not change on changing religions.



I mean that a person could living an austere life (not watching tv,sex only for procreation,etc) and yet to be a wicked person.Someone could be materialistic and yet to be a good person.


A wicked person is materilsitic regardless of even if he is a sanyasin, so your point does not count.




consider Sri Vaishnava rules too extreme rules,particularly when one looks at other religions like Christianity.
I don't understand why after some hourses spended daily in spiritual activities I can't watch a film in the evening or play videogames,or listen to musics.
I considered the rule "sex only for procreation" an extreme rule.I feel that there is something wrong in the path I followed until some days ago.I am not insulting Sri Vaishnavism at all.And I am not saying that his rules are wrong.I am saying that in my heart I feel that there is something wrong.
I am not able to understand how Lord Vishnu may be mercyful while he doesn't give moksha unless a vaishnava reject all material pleasure.
This kind of life gave me mental problem.The psycologist where I go told me that in order to not "lose" my mind I need to go out with my friends.
In this time a friend of mine is very busy.But when I will see him,I will ask him if I can go go out in the evening with him and his friends.
As Sri Vaishnava I only builded an house of cards!THis spiritual path doesn't appeal to me.
I really understand that woman who leaved Hare Krishna and became a christian.She said the in Hare Krishsna religion one is judged by what one doesn't.I must say that this is true even in Sri Vaishnavism.I repeat that Sri Vaishnavism and general Vaishnavism really disappointed me.I am not sure that it is its fault.Probabily it is just a problem of mine.
Very probabily I will become a Shivaite.


So tell me why should not all atheists be granted mukti. Why should any one need to beleive in God even? Being "good" is a purely relative term. If you are good but a good materialist, you will get good material life in future birth - why do you deserve to be with God? God gives you what you wants. If want God alone you get God - what is logically wrong? If you like kingly riches, better be a king!


All I can tell you is, you are seeking something that fits your desires. In Katha Upanishad, the situation has been discussed, the issue is always between choosing the good and the pleasant. If you choose the good, you go up. If you choose the plesant you go down. The world, with all its charm in various ways is always waiting to pounce on you with plesantaries. The true spiritualist will discriminate and go up. DISCRIMINATION is the key.
Anyone who teaches you otherwise is pulling you down - the choice is yours!

orlando
01 August 2006, 10:18 AM
DISCRIMINATION is the key.
Anyone who teaches you otherwise is pulling you down - the choice is yours!

What a sectarian answer!!!
By reading your posts I become more and more convinced that leaving Sri Vaishnavism has been really a good decision.
Moderation is the true key,my lord.
Regards,
Orlando.

Sudarshan
01 August 2006, 10:28 AM
Do you mean that all materialist people smoke and drik alcohol?
This is not true at all.


I think you did not undersstand the analogy. You always inherit the begaviour of those with whom you mix.



Shri Vedanta Desika wrote in Rahasya Traya Saram that people who are neither Bhaktas nor opposed to Lord Vishnu should be ignored as "dirt".
Saying that a non vaishnava has to be considered as "dirt" is a big sectarism.The sectarims and a not-moderate spiritual lifestyle lead to this.When some friends of mine asked me to go out with them in the evening I answered "no".I didn't want go out with them because I was sectarian and I tough that they would have take me astray.
A behavior like this is not good at all.
By divine grace,I met that psycologist.I went to her this morning.I will go to her again the next week.
Regards,
Orlando.

Having seen and known you over a year(?), I see that you have been jumping here and there, and hurling abuses on your ex-religion( I beleive you have been a Gaudiya, a Smarta, A Shiavite and a Srivaishnava in the past). What was so sacred to you yesterday is today unholy to you. And in some of your older posts, you have hurled abuses at other religions, and it should not take me long to locate your posts directed at Atanu. This is the typical attitute of ex-religionists.

You expect religion to be your material taste, and I doubt if any specific belief will fit you except Christinaity where in the promoted form you can be a serial killer and be saved.

I repeat that anyone with real interest in you will never preach you to follow your heart. Does a father ever tell his kid to follow its own intincts? He will scold or beat it whenever it goes wrong - that does not make him a bad father. Shastras and Acharyas are like that - mistaking them for trying to control you is like the child imagining the scolding father as a demon. In the end , you will have yourself to blame.

A child ignored his father's advice to spend two hours of studytime everyday and when he was sixtrenn he became jobless and became a beggar and a thief. This is the fate of the child if the father were indifferent. In matters of spirituality, shastras and acharyas have been strict in exactly the same way. The choice to follow them is entirely ours, and no one is responsible for you.

Sudarshan
01 August 2006, 10:32 AM
What a sectarian answer!!!
By reading your posts I become more and more convinced that leaving Sri Vaishnavism has been really a good decision.
Moderation is the true key,my lord.
Regards,
Orlando.

I agree. You cannot be a Srivaishnavite.;)

BTW, you have ignored all my comments and taken the last word out of context. This is the central teaching of Katha Upanishad, of Lord Yama to Nachiketas. This has nothing to do with Srivaishnavism.

Oh, you no longer beleive in Upanishads because they dont meet your expectations, eh?:rolleyes:

orlando
01 August 2006, 10:40 AM
You expect religion to be your material taste, and I doubt if any specific belief will fit you except Christinaity where in the promoted form you can be a serial killer and be saved.

Only in "promoted form".Christianity isn't the only belief that,according to you,fits me.There is even Wicca religion.
http://www.beginnerwicca.com/Ivy%20Pent.jpg


I repeat that anyone with real interest in you will never preach you to follow your heart.

Anyone with sectarian interest (like you) will never preach me to follow my heart.
Regards,
Orlando.

orlando
01 August 2006, 10:50 AM
I agree. You cannot be a Srivaishnavite.;)

BTW, you have ignored all my comments and taken the last word out of context. This is the central teaching of Katha Upanishad, of Lord Yama to Nachiketas. This has nothing to do with Srivaishnavism.

Oh, you no longer beleive in Upanishads because they dont meet your expectations, eh?:rolleyes:

My lord,I have to ask you a questions:should I believe in the scientific explanation of eclipese or in the story of Rahu?
By http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto5/chapter24.html
(1) S'rî S'uka said: 'There is the one [the moon] eclipsing the sun [and then is called 'Râhu'] that just like the sun comes around and of which some learned ones say that it, countless yojana's ['ten-thousand'] below the sun, for the lifetime of the demigods occupies a position as a leading planet. About the birth and activities of the lowest of the ignorant, the son of Simhikâ, who personally won the grace of the Supreme Lord, but who indeed is not qualified for the position [of being the ruler over this 'planet'], I shall explain later. (2) They estimate that the sun has a width of ten thousand yojana's, that the moon is twenty thousand yojana's wide and that Râhu is thirty thousand yojana's large [compare 5.21.15] and that it on occasion, with inimical intentions overruling the sun- and moongod their influence, obstructs the distribution of the moon- and sunshine. (3) The Supreme Lord around for the protection of both operates by the supreme presence of the wheel of time [the Sudars'ana Cakra] which is deemed the dearmost devoted and most favorite weapon that by its power and unbearable heat makes Râhu, with its fearful mind and frightened heart, flee away from that position of being around for almost an hour and of which the people thus speak of a solar eclipse.

Of course I believe in the scientific explanation.
In the same way I believe more in the words of a psycologist than your words.

I tender my apologicies if I have hurted your feelings.
Regards,
Orlando.

Sudarshan
01 August 2006, 11:15 AM
OK, let us end here on this topic.

Your question was "Is it allowed for a Srivaishnava to live the way he wants?"
The straight answer would be "No, it is not allowed so" ( The same is the case for every religion, though their way of life maybe different)

Your question is "What would happen if I trangress?"
Answer - "No one knows, God alone knows." (people leave you at your fate, and this fate has been shared by all of us over countless incarnations so far, so anyone who understands this fact tries to understand the significance of Dharma and how a small slip is so costly!)

Q: "So what happens if I live by the rules of the religion?"
A: "The specified goals are met for sure. By loving God, surrendering to God and by living to the dictates of Dharma you reach the goal".

It is very easy to choose the pleasant over the good. Bhoga is much more appealing than Yoga, and that is what ninety nine out of hundred do! No Srivaishnavite says that there is no moksha outside it, but the rules are the same to anybody regardless of religion or beleif.

You should probably learn to post such questions on forums not dealing with religion, where very few people ( except the few degenerate ones) will approve. The goal of religion is God realization and anything that is an obstacle is not worth paying attention to, if you are serious about it. If you are not serious about, it does not matter to follow any religion at all. A psychologist's answer is certainly much better than a spiritualist in matters of materialsm. So you decision in meeting a psychologist was a good one. Certainly we go to a doctor when we get sick, not a guruji.;)

You think I am hurt by your words? A Srivaishnava is never hurt by any abuse, physical or mental. His life is solely dedicated to the Lord alonem which is what I have been trying to tell you all the while.;) .

orlando
01 August 2006, 11:24 AM
A Srivaishnava is never hurt by any abuse, physical or mental.

If this is true,of course I have never been a (true) Srivaishnava.:eek: :dunno:

Sudarshan
01 August 2006, 11:48 AM
Orlando - this is one major reason why Hindus do not like to communicate with western Hindus. You all have a "Do it yourself Hinduism" (copyright Sarabhanga), and are easily prone to mix and distort Hinduism with your predominnatly materialistic culure. Sanatana Dharma cannot change for the individual, you have change for it.

If you cannot follow this religion, you are free to follow anything that your heart follows. But let this Dharma be preserved in its pristine purity - in its Upanishadic glory! We already have had so many false gurus who have converted Yoga to Bhoga.

orlando
01 August 2006, 12:36 PM
We already have had so many false gurus who have converted Yoga to Bhoga.
Dear Dharma Guardian,are you talking even about Osho?

Sudarshan
01 August 2006, 12:49 PM
This is what Sanatana Dharma says regarding after life.

1. Those who have been very wicked and have greviously harmed others will usually go to hell, and will suffer for a while until they have repented for their past deeds.

2. Those who have been attached very much with material desires and their own bodies would reincarnate back on this earth in a short while after death. (perhaps spend some time in Pitri Loka)

3. Those who have done good deeds, charities, performed sacrifices and austerities will go to one of the higher heaven beyond the Pitri Loka and enjoy great bliss. After a long time depending on the merit of his deeds, he will be born again on this earth and the cycle continues.(back to square one!)

4. Those have been true Karma Yogis ( those who see action in inaction and inaction in action), true Bhakti Yogis ( those who desire nothing but God in life), true Jnana Yogis( those who know God), and true prapannas ( those who are truly surendered to God in every respect) will cross over these temporary worlds of existance into the world of Brahman.

This is the law of God, and is probably uniformly applicable to everybody.( of course, God is free to change laws, but why would he do it?)


Do you think Sanatana Dharma could change because some one thought otherwise? You must set the goal for yourself and choose from one amongst these four options.

Ablaze
01 August 2006, 12:52 PM
Orlando - this is one major reason why Hindus do not like to communicate with western Hindus. You all have a "Do it yourself Hinduism" (copyright Sarabhanga), and are easily prone to mix and distort Hinduism with your predominnatly materialistic culure.

I know all too well about western materalistic culture - but Please do not broadbrush all western Hindus as bhogis; for this leads to unnecessary discrimination and prejudice. Certainly there are many western Hindus that are very sincere and dedicated in their sadhana.

We can easily many find eastern Hindus, who are prone to compromise, or other adharmic behavior. And then we can find western converts like sarabhanga, who are uncompromising, and put many eastern Hindus (even born Brahmins) to shame in their sadhana.

Personally, I'd prefer to not have labels like western Hindu or eastern Hindu. Each person is an individual, Indian and non-Indian. And they should be judged accordingly.

Sanatana Dharma is not about racialism. Mother India has preserved the Dharma and is the most sacred land to every Hindu. Still, Sanatana Dharma is the Eternal Way for every jiva - whether that jiva is presently incarnated in India or Timbuktu. So no one should be discouraged from the Path, or made to feel less, because of their race or where they are born.

Sudarshan
01 August 2006, 01:17 PM
I know all too well about western materalistic culture - but Please do not broadbrush all western Hindus as bhogis; for this leads to unnecessary discrimination and prejudice. Certainly there are many western Hindus that are very sincere and dedicated in their sadhana.

We can easily many find eastern Hindus, who are prone to compromise, or other adharmic behavior. And then we can find western converts like sarabhanga, who are uncompromising, and put many eastern Hindus (even born Brahmins) to shame in their sadhana.

Personally, I'd prefer to not have labels like western Hindu or eastern Hindu. Each person is an individual, Indian and non-Indian. And they should be judged accordingly.

Sanatana Dharma is not about racialism. Mother India has preserved the Dharma and is the most sacred land to every Hindu. Still, Sanatana Dharma is the Eternal Way for every jiva - whether that jiva is presently incarnated in India or Timbuktu. So no one should be discouraged from the Path, or made to feel less, because of their race or where they are born.

I agree. The generalization is not correct, but it is irritating to see somebody new to the religion start forming a new idea of Hinduism and forcing it on others or shouting at other Hindus.:)

There are an equal number of materialstic Hindus in India as well, thanks to the modern world. That is not a problem for anybody but the problem comes when these Hindus create a "new" version of Hinduism based on their fallen ideals, and that religion sells like hot cakes( for obvious reasons).:)

When Yoga is equated with Bhoga, the religion is an instant hit!;)

Sudarshan
01 August 2006, 01:58 PM
Dear Dharma Guardian,are you talking even about Osho?

Yes, Osho could be one, provided the charges on him are valid. Many people say his image was deliberately tarnished by some jealous people. So we cant be sure.

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
01 August 2006, 03:10 PM
I would like to request the moderators to take action against Sudarshan's off-topic and racist posts. If this tirade were seen on Hindunet by me, I would have banned this user. I am extremely offended by Sudarshan's racist comments and I believe that this violates the TOS. It is also obvious that his purposes in responding to Orlando are not to help him or provide "positive Hindu presentation" but instead to rebuke him against his decision, fault find, and engage in personal attacks on his character. Regardless, almost all of his posts are off-topic. ~BYS~

Sudarshan
01 August 2006, 03:11 PM
I am surprised to see that Sri Vaishnava didn't tell me that I will go to hell!!!


The biggest hell is there in this material existance. Anyone who is still longing for all the material things here does not even need punishment. There is no punishment worse than this existance. The ignorance of oneself and one's relationship with God and false identification with this perishable body is the biggest possible hell. Why should anyone talk about a special hell like christianity?

Every birth is a suffering. Ask anyone who suffers. Those who does not strive for liberation are indeed fools.(irrespective of any material intelligence they may have)

satay
01 August 2006, 03:14 PM
Admin Note:

A lot has been said here from diluting hinduism to westerners corrupting dharma the religion of upanishads!

I ask you all to stop now. This discussion is over. orlando has chosen another path and sudharshan even though saying that he doesn't want to impose his sect on others is trying to harras and belittle Orlando.

Last warning!

Orlando and Sudharshan if you must continue this then you are welcomed to go the 'other' forum on the net where perhaps other vaishnavas can join sudharshan in brainwashing orlando.

Orlando: once again, Follow your heart if it leads to wicca or even christianity or islam so be it. You might also want to read about Tao.

Sanatana dharma is not interested in numbers.

thanks,

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
01 August 2006, 03:23 PM
Admin Note:

A lot has been said here from diluting hinduism to westerners corrupting dharma the religion of upanishads!

I ask you all to stop now. This discussion is over. orlando has chosen another path and sudharshan even though saying that he doesn't want to impose his sect on others is trying to harras and belittle Orlando.

Last warning!

Orlando and Sudharshan if you must continue this then you are welcomed to go the 'other' forum on the net where perhaps other vaishnavas can join sudharshan in brainwashing orlando.

Orlando: once again, Follow your heart if it leads to wicca or even christianity or islam so be it. You might also want to read about Tao.

Sanatana dharma is not interested in numbers.

thanks,

Apparently you don't have the facts correct. Please avoid mass management when it is only the fault of one individual. I have read every post on this thread and there is no such thing as "you all" or "everyone" that is causing the problem here. The discussion was going fine until one individual who calls himself Sudarshan started the tirade. I think it is wrong of you if you are going to punish the group by closing the discussion and blaming all parties (known as mass management) instead of doing the right and dharmic thing and actually punishing the people that actually ARE responsible. I'll repeat it again: Sudarshan is the only person here causing a problem and I strongly request that you deal with him and not blame the rest of us who were (and would still like to) have a decent and inspiring discussion. Thank you. ~BYS~

Sudarshan
01 August 2006, 03:27 PM
I would like to request the moderators to take action against Sudarshan's off-topic and racist posts. If this tirade were seen on Hindunet by me, I would have banned this user. I am extremely offended by Sudarshan's racist comments and I believe that this violates the TOS. It is also obvious that his purposes in responding to Orlando are not to help him or provide "positive Hindu presentation" but instead to rebuke him against his decision, fault find, and engage in personal attacks on his character. Regardless, almost all of his posts are off-topic. ~BYS~

The term "west" is not racist, and western materialsm is too well known.

If there is any user who needs to be banned, I think you are first on the queue, who keeps encouraging degeneration of Hinduism as if it is your ancestral property. I have not mentioned anything that is not in accordance with Hindu scripture.

Which post was offtopic? The poster is an ex-Srivaishnavite and could have simply walked off if he wanted. There was no need to make a big issue of it. The questioned asked was "does materalism coexist with Srivaishnavism?". The answer given was no. That prompted the concerned person to change his faith and then levy charges on it. That was on another forum and there was probably no need to carry it over somewhere else.

I have even apologized for my unwarranted generalization, which you have conveniently ignored. I guess I have to stick on to this forum ( I had thought of quitting because of lack of time) because of people like you who mislead other Hindus by offering answers from your DIY Hinduism.

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
01 August 2006, 03:30 PM
A second request to the moderator: This abuse is not going to stop until you do ban Sudarshan. He is now engaging in personal attacks against me despite your request and mine and I ask that it stops. ~BYS~

Sudarshan
01 August 2006, 03:54 PM
Sanatana dharma is not interested in numbers.


That is right. That is my whole point. Srivaishnavism does not need numbers either.:D
Islam and Christianity are very suitable religions for those who seek "quick" salvation, as these people never reincarnate since they dont beleive in it..:D

Sudarshan
01 August 2006, 04:07 PM
A second request to the moderator: This abuse is not going to stop until you do ban Sudarshan. He is now engaging in personal attacks against me despite your request and mine and I ask that it stops. ~BYS~

I thought I was on your Ignore list. Now I know you are still very interested in reading my posts. Thank you.;)

There has been no belittling of Orlando as misconstructed here. If your child asks you shall I put my hand into fire, will you say yes? Dont you see all the suffering people around you? The blind, the lame, the sick, the idiot etc? All these are result of not seeking proper ways of salvation due to connection with materialism. It is the duty of every religeous minded person only to lead other people towards that end, and not show anyway that leads to bondage after bondage. People will be somewhat materialistic even when they are given strict advice, so what happens when they are preached "a bit of materalism"? I just hope Orlando gets the message and stop seeking material pleasures and also stop seeking siddhis through prana control - all which lead to bondage. The label of Srivaishnavism is not necessary for this, but loss of the label does not help you in anyway either if the idea is to find a "short cut".

Materialism is not a good topic to be discussed on a forum on religion, and might even mislead spiritually minded people. What did even Adi Shankara preach? He taught that this material world is an illusion and of no importance, which is the highest possible form of detachment.(right or wrong)

Sudarshan
01 August 2006, 05:31 PM
I don't care even about the words of Shri Sarabhanga,altough I respesct very much him,who is a sannyasi.
Sorry Sudarshan,your words will not able to do brainwashing to me.

Who tried to brainwash you Orlando? If I wanted to brainwash you into Srivaishnavism I would have said point blank that it is perfect to live like how you want, and God is there to take care of your sins. Brainwashing is done to make people "stay" in the religion and not to dissuade them. Brainwashing is to make numbers. Brainwashers never tell you the truth.

You asked on the other forum whether "activity A" was allowed according to Srivaishnavism. You were told that Srivaishnavism did not allow that. It was unacceptable to you, and so you want to move on, just like you have moved from Gaudiya, Smarta and Shaiva in the past.

There is no way anyone can brainwash people with truth though it is possible through deciet. It is still perfectly possible to follow Srivaishnavism or any religion without following all its ideals, as none of us are perfect. You were just told that one should strive atleast for that (if not followed now) and you felt uncomfortable. I dont personally care what religion you belong to as long as you are faithful to the teachings of the religion.

The higher the ideals of the religion, the higher will its potential be, and at the same time it will be more dificult to follow. Sanyasa is very difficult to follow, but we know that true Sanyasins are always liberated. Srivaishnavas are supposed to be as close to sanyasins( except procreation allowed) as possible by tradition, and hence is not the suitable way for everybody. It is still always possible to follow any religion without fully following it, but constantly striving for it. ( Are all sanyasins true sanyasins?)

satay
01 August 2006, 08:50 PM
Admin Note:
Sudharshan your id is being banned for a period of one month for continously breaking the following site rules:
Site Rule 1, 2 and 4.

I asked you to stop but still you continued so ...

here is one example....


Orlando - this is one major reason why Hindus do not like to communicate with western Hindus.

This above comment is a generalization and in clear violation of rules 2 and 4.

Action is also taken on other user(s) who are involved in personal attacks on this thread.

Thanks,

satay
01 August 2006, 11:19 PM
Apparently you don't have the facts correct. Please avoid mass management when it is only the fault of one individual. I have read every post on this thread and there is no such thing as "you all" or "everyone" that is causing the problem here. The discussion was going fine until one individual who calls himself Sudarshan started the tirade. I think it is wrong of you if you are going to punish the group by closing the discussion and blaming all parties (known as mass management) instead of doing the right and dharmic thing and actually punishing the people that actually ARE responsible. I'll repeat it again: Sudarshan is the only person here causing a problem and I strongly request that you deal with him and not blame the rest of us who were (and would still like to) have a decent and inspiring discussion. Thank you. ~BYS~

namaste,
Appraently what I requested of you last time is not clear to you so I will repeat here again.

And this applies to all members...

If you see a post that might be breaking some site rules please use the 'report this post' button and report those posts. Please avoid taking matters in your own hands by engaging in dialogue with the member(s) that might be breaking the rule. Engaging yourself with the other member(s) accomplishes nothing and contributes to breaking of rule 2 of the site.

Thanks,

satay
01 August 2006, 11:38 PM
Basically what I am saying is that even though Sanatana Dharma is a way of life, institutions such as temples and other congregations of people will impose their values on you and attempt to manipulate, control, and criticize you to their liking.

I disagree. Temples are needed to do satsang and to make direct contact with the murti present in the mandir.



For instance just recently I visited an ISKCON temple. I am the kind of person that still gives people the benefit of the doubt no matter how many times they do something wrong. The madness with kids screaming, etc. was there as usual and when I finally did meditate, a number of people interrupted and asked if I could do some seva. When I asked them if they would be willing to spend 10 minutes of their time answering some scriptural questions I had in exchange for one hour of mopping the floor and washing the dishes, they basically explained that it doesn't work that way


Correct. What they told is correct. Seva done in 'exchange' of something is not nishkama seva. Hare Krishna's encourage nishkama seva...

Next time, try to perform seva in the mandir without asking anything in exchange and see what happens... It is my guarantee that you will meet someone that will answer your questions (perhaps not at the same temple or not even on the same day).




and went on about how one must chant, read Prabhupada's books, and refrain from sex, drugs, etc. In other words just more control and manipulation over your private life without actually helping you.


I fail to see how doing these activities are 'mind control.' Do you know what mind control is?



So how does someone such as Orlando live a spiritual lifestyle that works for him and fit into Hindu society at the same time? That is something I am still struggling with. If I tell group A that I go out and drink, they accept me but when I tell them I'm a vegetarian, they jump back. Then I tell group B that I'm a vegetarian and they tell me how "enlightened" I am until I mention the alcohol and they have mysteriously vanished. So how can Orlando find that spiritual path and live by it when everyone tells him to dance and sing just like everyone else? ~BYS~

Who cares about what other people say and think? We have a brain to think for ourselves isn't it? Orlando has a brain too and quite capable of using it from what I can gather.

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
02 August 2006, 02:27 AM
I disagree. Temples are needed to do satsang and to make direct contact with the murti present in the mandir.


I never did say that there is anything wrong with temples or that they don't have beneficial value. Since temples, however, just like other institutions such as schools and workplaces consist of large groups of people, there is a natural tendency for group think and all of its consequences. That is why it is extremely important to have bonafide leadership with as saintly people as possible running the temple. What I am pointing out is that in today's world, this is usually not the case as I have also described in detail in past posts. Money and numbers tend to be the leadership's dominating purpose. This results in the temple having little to no spirituality and using manipulation and brainwashing to control the masses and keep them coming. Such "mind control" that I'm referring to is not tin-foil hat conspiracy theories that we see in movies. It is actually very subtle. Give the congregation a large meal every time they come along with lots of singing, dancing, and other enjoyable activites and it is not hard to obtain a steady base of people along with a steady base of money. These activities aren't wrong unless they take away from the real mission which is to further spiritual growth. I didn't mean to change the subject but felt that clarification was necessary. Yes these temples are valuable for people to come to for genuine spirituality but it becomes very difficult and nearly impossible when the mission turns to large crowds, lots of noise, profits, and irrelevant dogma.



Correct. What they told is correct. Seva done in 'exchange' of something is not nishkama seva. Hare Krishna's encourage nishkama seva...


I know what seva is but apparently you misunderstood my comments. It is one thing to do something without expecations of results and it is another thing when after doing it thousands of times no results come. Seva is a very important duty in my opinion of all people. When done without expectation of results, it destroys karma and helps spiritual growth. However, there is a difference between asking someone to do some seva and using people. When you ask someone to do something for you dozens and hundreds of times and yet never find the time to do anything for them, that is by definition as using people. Another term I use to describe it is mooching. Someone that always wants you to do a favor for them but who never will do a favor for you is using you. Being a devotee includes doing seva but it does not include being a doormat for someone else's laziness. I have seen it multiple times where they ask you to do something for them and you happily do it yet they demonstrate absolutely zero interest in ever doing anything for you. Seva is a two way street. Using people is absuive and aharmic. In case you do happen to disagree, let me put it this way. The leadership of a temple has an obligation to set an example of what is right and what is wrong. They should practice what they preach. So if they ask you to serve them they should also serve you as well.



Next time, try to perform seva in the mandir without asking anything in exchange and see what happens... It is my guarantee that you will meet someone that will answer your questions (perhaps not at the same temple or not even on the same day).


I've been going to different temples for years and it never has happened. Almost constantly the temple managements will literally do absolutely nothing while expecting all the devotees to do all of the work. Even resident devotees will suffer lack of sleep to do so many tasks while the managment won't even lift a finger. I've seen it too many times. I will state it again. Seva is when someone volunteers to do something for pious purposes only, without expectations of results, and free from self-importance. Seva is NOT about letting other people use you as a doormat or cheap labor. Again, you ask them to answer a question and they always refer you to someone else who them refers you on to someone else, etc. You never get the question answered because the management is too busy doing nothing and looking busy. The best response you receive is "chant more, read more, etc."

It is really entirely bogus. Crowd gatherings with lots of prasad, music, and other noisy activites are good once in a while. However, when this is ALL that ever goes on at temples and there is never any genuine spiritual instruction to accompy it, then the temple is not a temple at all but instead is merely a tax-exempt non-profit circus. This is what a lot of Hinduism is sadly turning into. It is either one extreme or the other. Lots of entertainment and no substance or lots of talk but no action. I am trying to change it but I can't change it alone. If Hindus don't take Hinduism or at least "personal spiritual growth" seriously, then you won't find anything serious. As they say what you put in is what you get out.



I fail to see how doing these activities are 'mind control.' Do you know what mind control is?


Mind control is generally manipulation of another person's thoughts in an attempt to alther what they think, feel, and believe. It can be extreme or subtle. For instance, excessive amounts of violence on TV have a tendency to desensitize a person from violence since they see something real that isn't real. That is a subtle form of mind control. Some people are easily duped while others aren't. Another example is the bombardment of entertainment to make people feel good when there isn't really a reason to feel any more good than normal. For instance people don't have to fear the monthly bills when they have movies and bars to "get their mind off of them." These are very sbulte forms but they are mind manipulation nonetheless. The more a person or group encourages superficial feelings and thoughts instead of genuine thoughts and feelings, the more manipulative it is.

Back on the sujbect, group think and collective consciousness which is what is seen in schools, workplaces, and religious institutions is a more extreme form of control. If everyone else is having fun even when there isn't really anything real fun going on, you are conditioned not to do a reality check and instead just "have fun" like everyone else. So when these temples give people loud singing and dancing and big meals and call it spirituality when in reality it is just another form of entertainment, and you criticize it by telling the truth when everyone else is "having fun" they attack you. Since these weekly or even daily gatherings are usually identical and repetitious in nature, people become so used to that again they cannot take criticism or stating the truth. This is what I am trying to get at here. They are just trying to make everyone feel good and have a great time without actually providing any real value on an individual basis.

Maybe this is hard to explain but it seems like you can never actually be an individual in these temples. Every time you try to meditate, there are loud people talking and kids running around and usually always some group activity going on. When a group activity is constantly in progress (from one group to the next), this is a form of manipulation. You are always asked to do what the group is doing. The way temples should work is that group activites should be minimal and no talking should be allowed in the puja rooms and the focus should be more on helping the individual grow and not making the masses feel good.



Who cares about what other people say and think? We have a brain to think for ourselves isn't it? Orlando has a brain too and quite capable of using it from what I can gather.

I fully understand what you are saying but it doesn't always work this way. People are so heavily brainwashed to think and feel like everyone else that even if you ignore them they will still try to manipulate you. An example is Sudarshan's recent behavior here. They have done psychological studies on this. For instance, if you stand in an elevator facing the wall instead of facing the door, everyone would start activing nervous and all focusing in on the person defying the group. Even though there is nothing inherently wrong with facing a different way, people apparently can't handle others being different. Back to temples, I've noticed that if you chant in the corner when everyone else is not chanting (but just waiting for the group service to begin) all eyes are on you. They don't mean it intentionally but it happens. Or, if the temple promotes one particular mantra and you chant a different one (even though no one else is chanting at the time) they actually will have a problem with it. It happened to me. So yes to a certain point you shouldn't care what other people think but the problem is they don't always just "think." After awhile, they start bothering you for being different.

I have always believed that Sanatana Dharma was more of an individual way of life and less of a group religion like Christianity. It seems as if our entire human civilization as a whole in this century is focused on group think and crowds. This is something I have dealt with the best I can for years. I have always liked doing my own thing when it comes to spiritualism to a large degree. Yet you cannot even walk down the street and chant without people giving you weird looks, dogs in yards barking like crazy, and police officers coming and asking you what you are doing. Then you go to the temple and they still bother your meditation. In the middle of a round, they ask you to do seva, participate in the group activity, or start talking to you and instead of answering your questions tell you what to believe. The concept that you are meditating doesn't cross their mind. Again this is because you are doing an individual activity which apparently is a threat to those who prefer to have no individuality and just be like everyone else.

Sorry to go on and on but I hope I clarified what I'm talking about. ~BYS~

sarabhanga
02 August 2006, 06:57 AM
Namaste Satay,

Perhaps for the first time, I agree with all of Sudarshan's comments here! And we agree because (despite Orlando's protestations) this discussion goes beyond any sectarian differences and straight to some of the fundamental principles of Hindu Dharma.

It is clear that Orlando and BYS have completely missed the basic point of my earlier posts, and all of Sudarshan's comments in this thread seem to have been (almost deliberately) misinterpreted.

Sudarshan quickly apologized for his one rash generalization, and the basic point of that comment (which is given as the official reason for his one month ban) is actually quite true! Many Indian Hindus certainly DO have difficulty in relating with the strange version of "Hinduism" that is imagined by many non-Indian devotees.

orlando
02 August 2006, 10:06 AM
Many Indian Hindus certainly DO have difficulty in relating with the strange version of "Hinduism" that is imagined by many non-Indian devotees.

Namaste Shri Sarabhanga.
You should be aware that Hinduism is very general word.It means many religions:shaktism,shaivism,vaishnavism,etc.
You should also be aware that Kamasutra is considered an hindu sacred text.And of course Kamasutra is an indian book and not a western book!
However I am sure that I can be a good Shaiva-siddhanta's follower.
Please browse http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/dws_mandala-15.html and read the slokas 74,75 and their bhasyas (purport).
My view of sexuality agree fully with Shaiva-siddhanta view.
Om Namah Shivaya!
Hara Hara Mahadeva!
Regards,
Orlando.

orlando
02 August 2006, 12:11 PM
Orlando: once again, Follow your heart if it leads to wicca or even christianity or islam so be it. You might also want to read about Tao.


Namaste Satay.
I will stil be an hindu.I opted for Shaivism.Maybe I will a Shaiva Siddhanta's follower.
Regards,
Orlando.

satay
02 August 2006, 02:10 PM
I never did say that there is anything wrong with temples or that they don't have beneficial value. Since temples, however, just like other institutions such as schools and workplaces consist of large groups of people, there is a natural tendency for group think and all of its consequences.

You seem to have some general problem with 'group thinking' or at least that's my impression of it. Is this correct?

You go to temple to do group activities. I am not sure which temples are you going to but the temple here in our city doesn't bother anyone meditating...it is a general hindu temple and not affiliated with one particular sect or organization. I have seen many people many times sitting towards the back of the temple or side of the murti doing their own prayers or japa. Yes, people look at them so what?

No one has to participate in group activities though we do go to temple for 'satsang'. I fail to see why you go to temple then if group activities bother you so much.

'The meals' as you put it are parsada. In the temple here in our city, the sunday lunch is always donated by a family. What's wrong with that?

The temple management has to 'manage' they are not spirtualists or gurus. They are just people like anyone else trying to do something for hinduism but in this 'trying' they have to manage all the **** that comes with it. Instead of appreciating what they do you are accusing them of not being spirituals. I think your expectations of temples and temple management is all wrong.

Also, temples here in the west work a little differently than they do in India. For example, in India you can walk in the temple during the day anytime for a personal contact with the murthi or personal time for meditation anytime during the day. No one will bother you there. Here in the west, the temples usually open only on sundays like a church. And also these temples are a meeting place for hindus to meet etc. just like church. This model of temples copied after sunday church is not very pleasant but at least it provides some opprotunities for some new comers to meet others etc. it has its own benefits.

I don't understand how temples are doing mind control over us. If you don't want to go there who invited you to begin with? No one. For years, I have chosen not to go to the temple here because I gained nothing spiritual. Choice is always ours. We can choose to do something e.g. follow group activity or not. I think your exposure is to temples of one specific org, can you try another 'general' hindu temple? or you have already?

Temples are for satsang...if you don't want to do satsang and do group activities and chant and sing in a group then you should not go to the temple just like me.

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
02 August 2006, 04:26 PM
You seem to have some general problem with 'group thinking' or at least that's my impression of it. Is this correct?


Yes I do. Groups are fine for activities and naturally people have to reasonably conform so that you actually have a group. That does not mean that all individuals within the group lose their individuality, however. Groups are usually formed by individuals with something in common. However, such groups should encourage a balance between conformity only on the particular activites or ideas that form the group while encouraging individuality on the other things. "Group think" is essentially when all members of the group are expected to be the same. This includes same beliefs, ideas, lifestyles, habits, emotions, behavior, etc. not only within the group but often even outside of the group's meetings.



You go to temple to do group activities. I am not sure which temples are you going to but the temple here in our city doesn't bother anyone meditating...it is a general hindu temple and not affiliated with one particular sect or organization. I have seen many people many times sitting towards the back of the temple or side of the murti doing their own prayers or japa. Yes, people look at them so what?


There are only three temples in my entire state so I guess I don't have much to choose from. I wasn't aware that temples were for the purpose of "group activites." I thought they were community centers designed to further the spiritual growth of all individuals that come. This may also include group activites but I don't see why group activites should be the dominating force. Just because crowds of people come to the temples (and naturally so) doesn't mean that group think should be installed at all times. Besides, temples in general are a form of modern Hinduism as none of the scriptures seem to mention them. At least with the temples I've been to in my area, you pretty much come for the sole group activites they have or you don't come at all. There is nothing 'evil' about groups. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that when these group activites are so dominant in the institution that there is no chance whatsoever of focusing on the spiritual growth of the individual, then it is not correct. It seemed to me that temples in India are different. People in groups come but pray and meditate as individuals and then go home. I don't recall any "group think" in any of the temples I have been to there. People pray, meditate, talk briefly, and leave. It appears that this group congregational thing is more of a Western thing similar to Christian churches.



No one has to participate in group activities though we do go to temple for 'satsang'. I fail to see why you go to temple then if group activities bother you so much.


Again, in India people go to the temples to pray to the murtis, take prasadam, and go home. They may or may not receive spiritual instruction depending on the presence of the pujaris there at the time. This is something I do not see in the States. Here it seems that all the temple is is group satsang. I'm not sure why this contrast exists but perhaps it is due to culture. I don't mean to repeat myself but I want to make myself extra clear. I disagree that temples are just for satsang or group activites considering that temples in India for the most part appear to center around the individual. The individual comes, prays, meditates, talks briefly, and goes home. They aren't continuously bombarded with group activites. It also appears that it is rare for Hindus that show up to such temples to be given spiritual advice unless they ask for it. In other words, they don't go around telling you to chant or join the group unless you ask what you can do to help. Not the case here in the U.S. where everything again is all about keeping the crowd happy and extinguishing individuality.



'The meals' as you put it are parsada. In the temple here in our city, the sunday lunch is always donated by a family. What's wrong with that?


Yes, I am aware that it is prasadam. There is nothing wrong with it. I think it is a wonderful idea. Where did you get the idea that I was against prasad? I only said that big meals should be accompanied by spiritual instruction or some kind of space for spiritual growth.



The temple management has to 'manage' they are not spirtualists or gurus. They are just people like anyone else trying to do something for hinduism but in this 'trying' they have to manage all the **** that comes with it. Instead of appreciating what they do you are accusing them of not being spirituals. I think your expectations of temples and temple management is all wrong.


Maybe part of the problem is that you haven't witnessed the same thing that I have so we wouldn't have the same perspectives. If you have seen differently at temples than I have then you probably would have a hard time picturing what I am talking about. I am not asking the management to be sages. I am asking that they do practice what they preach. They should not be telling us to chant, be vegetarian, and do seva when they themselves are eating meat, not chanting, and failing to serve the devotees. Asking temple management not to be blatant hypocrites shouldn't be too much to ask for.



Also, temples here in the west work a little differently than they do in India. For example, in India you can walk in the temple during the day anytime for a personal contact with the murthi or personal time for meditation anytime during the day. No one will bother you there. Here in the west, the temples usually open only on sundays like a church. And also these temples are a meeting place for hindus to meet etc. just like church. This model of temples copied after sunday church is not very pleasant but at least it provides some opprotunities for some new comers to meet others etc. it has its own benefits.


Bingo! That is exactly what I am disputing! They should be more like what we see in India! Not that the temples there are perfect either but it does seem like to a large degree you can do your own thing as long as you are respectful and dharmic. Besides this Sunday church behavior of temples is actually incorrect. Installed deities are supposed to receive the relevant daily pujas and aartis and sadly many of these temple that run like churches don't do these activities correctly. I have seen this myself so I'm not just making this up. I am not just trying to attack anything here; I am trying to encourage a higher form of Hindu religion in the temples than we see. I don't think that the minimum standards that I am setting are really hard to reach. The reason they aren't met is because the managements of such temples as well as a large number of the devotees have other motivations.



I don't understand how temples are doing mind control over us. If you don't want to go there who invited you to begin with? No one. For years, I have chosen not to go to the temple here because I gained nothing spiritual. Choice is always ours. We can choose to do something e.g. follow group activity or not. I think your exposure is to temples of one specific org, can you try another 'general' hindu temple? or you have already?


It is true that you don't have to go which is why I am very selective about where and when I go. I usually show up when I know in advance that something beneficial will be going on. Otherwise I don't waste the time and money. More importantly, I do go because there is always some positive association that I can receive as well as hopefully give to others. There is almost always at least one person who attends on a given day who is inspiring and helpful. I already described how group think is a form of mind control. When people fail to make up their own minds for themselves because they are led by the group, that is a form of control. They still have a choice just like a person who drinks alcohol can choose to allow the mind to control the drink or the drink to control them. Christian churches have been having the same format for hundreds of years as well as the same hymns for more centuries than even the U.S. was founded. They change little by little because they are so conditioned by the repetition that if someone tries to suddenly change it, the group won't allow it. This is known as conditioning. As to temples, apparently they allow parents to act obnoxious and kids to run around and this has been going for years if not for decades or even centuries. People are so conditioned by it that they fail to change it even though they know it is wrong. Their minds tell them that it is wrong but the group's approval of it becomes a trump card over their individual values.



Temples are for satsang...if you don't want to do satsang and do group activities and chant and sing in a group then you should not go to the temple just like me.

As stated previously, temples should be for more than just satsang. Instead of trying to be the best we can be, I don't understand why it is acceptable for Hindus to accept the lowest common denominator of spirituality. Again, they tell you not to drink, smoke, eat meat, etc. at these places yet they won't spread any wisdom, love, selflessness, and caring around. That is bogus. This is why I don't like Christianity. Christianity focuses more on refraining from the vices than engaging in the virtues. It appears that Hinduism is gradually doing this as well with more concern over vices than virtues. Enough said. ~BYS~

willie
02 August 2006, 09:42 PM
Well it is some discussion. And it bring to mind a line for the show " The Music Man" where one of the characters was talking about the state of Iowa. He said it was a place where two men could stand nose to nose and never see eye to eye. Seem like temple experiences are about the same. Send two people to one and they come back with different stories.

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
03 August 2006, 02:11 AM
Many Indian Hindus certainly DO have difficulty in relating with the strange version of "Hinduism" that is imagined by many non-Indian devotees.

I'm not exactly sure what is strange with Hinduism practiced by non-Desis that isn't strange with the so-called version practiced by Desis. I'd really like to know what it is and perhaps you can elaborate. Maybe part of the problem is that non-Indian Hindus tend to become smartas wheras Indian Hindus tend to be of a particular tradition and the reason this happens is because the Indian Hindus are exclusive and racist towards the non-Indians. Strange how when someone of any race wishes to enter Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or even Sikhism, they seem to have an entire process for welcoming and initiation wheras I don't seem to see this with Hinduism. This is no fault of Hinduism but apparently the fault of those who have racist tendencies.

If I walked into a mosque and said I was interested in becoming a Muslim, someone if not multiple people would go out of their way to spend time figuring out what I believed and answering my questions as well as going through the process of conversion. Yet when a non-Indian walks into the temples, they will be accepted in the social and religious sense in general but when they mention becoming Hindus, the typical response is "you don't need to convert to be a Hindu" and no one is interested in answering any questions or helping in the process. Maybe this isn't happening everywhere but everywhere I have seen it has been the case. I went to a mosque several times not to participate in any of their services but simply to drop off or pick up Muslim friends and aquaintances that lived in my neighborhood. Regardless, people were overwhelmingly nice, unbiased, and told me that if I had any questions they would be happy to answer them. After I dropped in a few times I told them I have an open mind and took them up on their offer and they handed me a free Qur'an to read yet never pressured me to convert. I would really like to know why this is not the case with Hindu temples.

So before you (Sarabhanga) or others start criticizing the Western Hindus, please look in the mirror. The reason Western Hindus are often different than Indian Hindus is because of the way they are treated. These temples should behave like that mosque that I mentioned. They should be unbiased and non-racist and when a non-Indian walks in they should offer that same respect and assistance. I don't agree with the teachings of Islam but now I know why they are a growing religion. When you treat others the way you want to be treated, people take it positively. If a mosque can go out of their way to show kindness to a Hindu (not even another Abrahamic religion) and even give them a free Qur'an, I'm not sure why a temple cannot do the same and then charges the person $5 for the Gita instead of just giving it to them.

So again before you criticize "Western Hinduism" understand that most Westerners that want to find out more about Hinduism feel lost and are actually rejected in a subtle manner by the Indians at these institutions. They don't get their questions answered and generally have to force themselves to fit in instead of just automatically being accepted. The fact is that this is wrong and adharmic because Sanatana Dharma is not just for one group of people that share a common nationality and ethnicity.

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
03 August 2006, 02:29 AM
Maybe it seems like I'm getting off topic but I really feel a lot like Bhakta of God. On one hand I don't like this "group think" I mentioned earlier but yet on the other hand you cannot even fit into the group in the first place. It is almost as if the Indian Hindus at a lot of these temples don't even want Westerners there. I have seen a general hatred that many Hindus have towards Muslims yet why is it that Muslims have even invited me to their prayers yet when a Westerner walks in the door at a mandir, most people ignore them?

Like Bhakta of God, it is hard to know what tradition is suitable or if there even is a tradition that is suitable. A lot of people I know believe in God yet have no religion other than their own. They also seem more enlightened and spiritual as well because they are forced to think for themselves instead of having to fit in with a group that may not even want them in in the first place. If they do fit in they have to be carbon copies of everyone else anyway.

I wonder what God must think looking down at this miserable planet seeing all these masses of people fighting over what to believe and which path is the correct one, accepting some people and rejecting others, when all God wants to see is love and compassion and for them to surrender.

So I still say that Sarabhanga and Sudarshan's comments are incorrect for the most part. Forget following all of these traditions when you cannot even show love, compassion, and treat people fairly. I don't understand why following so many ritualistic requirements are so important when simple virtues like the ones above apparently aren't considered important.

A lot of you probably think I am exaggerating or only seeing one side of the story. Whether you see it or not, I know what I see and I know it is the truth. Of course the truth hurts and not everyone wants to see it. Few people want to admit that our entire human civilization and most of its institutions including religion are bogus because it is painful. The fact is that when people lack those basic virtues, everything is bogus. ~BYS~

indianx
03 August 2006, 06:31 AM
I think I agree with BYS's sentiments. The word 'tradition' seems to resonate with stagnation for me. There is no element of 'aliveness' or growth.

willie
03 August 2006, 09:31 PM
It seems to me that religions change over time and this is true of all religions. Hinduism is no exception to the rule either.

There seems to be a mindset that religion should never change and the usual excuse if that god never changes so religion should not change. Well that cannot be right for if it were then after the first holybook was written there would not be any later. Think of all that would have been missed if no other books were ever written.

Another problem is that when a religion leaves its native land it changes some because the people in the new land have their own ideas and this happens to all religions.

You can compare the worship of christanity to that of 5oo years ago and seen a lot of changes. Islam has under gone te same thing, look a islam in iran, saudi arabia and morrocco all pertty much different from each other but all use the quran.

The reason that there is no talk of god , brahman or allah at most holysites, where people gather, is that such talks generate fights among the members and lead to more division than unification. In churches I have seen this happen and so the ministers go easy on the talk about what god is like because it is playing with fire.

Sure there is a group mentality and to some extent you have to have a group mentality to get anything done. To do most good you have to have people working together on a problem. You either have to go along to get out in most cases.

Another interesting thing is that a lot of christian ministers don't really get the term spiritual. They think that a spiritual person has to belong to some religious organization.

sarabhanga
03 August 2006, 11:04 PM
There is no talk of god at most holy sites where people gather.

The vast majority of Hindu holy-sites are in India, and at the majority of those sites the majority of people are certainly preoccupied with talk of God and matters of Hindu Dharma.

You comments are quite inappropriate for Indian Hinduism, but they may well reflect the actual condition of Hinduism beyond the limits of Bharatavarsha. :(

satay
04 August 2006, 09:14 AM
Admin Note:

namaste,

BYS your id is being banned for a period of 3 months for breaking the following site rules:

1, 2 and 4

Since this forum started your posts have been generally negative about hinduism and hindus in general. You have failed to keep your points balanced and repeatedly engaged in personal attacks with other members with whom you seem to have some personal problems.

I am sorry it had to come to this but you like others leave me no choice.

thanks,
ps: you are free to ban my id from the HinduNet if you wish.

TruthSeeker
15 August 2006, 03:47 PM
Namaste All,

First of all kudos to Sarabhanga and Sudarshan for "upholding" Dharma under pressure from others, mod included. The liberalism of Hinduism is in accepting the views of others and tolerating their views. But such liberalism within Hindu Dharma is what has been warned to happen in Kali Yuga and one can see very few supporters in this regard.

To Mr.Orlando this is my two cents:

1. Materialism is not against the nature of man. It is not a sin. But spiritualism brings big rewards!! Materialism brings material rewards and only true spiritualism leads to last spiritual rewards. However happy ones life maybe now, there is no guarantee it will be like that in next birth. A king of now maybe a pauper next time, and perhaps a sick diseased man too. So for the truly wise, materialsim has to be shed in toto. That does not mean one should immediately become a wandering monk, but the idea is to be content with what one has.

2. I beleive you trust in human effort and not God's grace? Pray, which Hindu scripture preaches such an idea? Which "self " in you is going to make that effort? The two false selfs that you have cannot take you to the supreme being. Their role is quite limited. The final stages of liberation is solely at the discretion of the Almighty, Lord Shiva. Even the Yoga shastra in which Isvara is not the all supreme diety, states that Isvara pranidana is absolutely essential. Self effort can never lead to liberation because the Self you are associating with now do not really exist!

3. Regarding effort, no effort can lead to liberation because what is needed ultimately is absence of effort or action - COMPLETE. To be actionless or effortless is the true nature of Self. That is so hard to accomplish that we make all these "effort". The objective of making this effort to become effortless!! So how will self-effort lead to moksha? How will you achieve this state without the grace of God?

4. Some people have gotten into the habit of thinking that God is all merciful and he takes care of all your needs, and you can simply enjoy life! Be warned, Shiva does not have such sympathy else we do not exist here!

I will try to put into a figurative speech of how things work, atleast in my beleifs:

You see Bhagavan Shiva got bored oneday, by just sporting with his consort Shakti. He thought - and he became many through his Shakti. He and his wife created a chessboard of infinite dimensions and filled these squares with a lot of tasty tidbits to eat. Then he created the chess pieces, you and me, and put us into one of the squares. We looked at the tasty meal and felt contented and went to sleep. When you wake up you are in a new square with new food. Again, you eat it and this goes on. Shankar is just toying with you dear Orlando, dont fall into his leela. He has no easy plans to stop his game.

He holds the universe by its threads and moves it to his whims and fancies. If he moves the world moves, else not. Thise who dont move to his tunes are left with broken bones and jared teeth. Beware of Nataraja, the cosmic dancer who keeps dancing to keep this going. We keep fooling ourselves with the little morsels we find. Beyond this chess board are huge vats of ambrosia, nectar of immortality. When you drink this, you take part in all this sport with his consort, and no longer wandering here and there. That is the final secret. Since his laws are just and he sees everybody equally, the rules are the same to all of us. He does not insist on worshipping him, but he assumes any form you like. He wants you to love him beyond anything, and also give up your false ego and stop searching inside the squares, but outside them. The moment you do this, the divine grace is spontaneous! The grace does not act without this much effort on our part, and failing to do so, we get only the tasty food, and sometimes bitter ones too.

Why is there evil in the world? Why does Bhagavan like this suffering? If he gave you total freedom, you will start oscillating in a diverging infnite series and get totally lost. God cannot allow it - there are bounds to your freedom so that the freedom maybe used to find him oneday. Yet some people are completely deluded by his Maya and take a long time to figure this out. Dont be one amongst them!

TruthSeeker
16 August 2006, 10:54 AM
Namaste Satay,

Perhaps for the first time, I agree with all of Sudarshan's comments here! And we agree because (despite Orlando's protestations) this discussion goes beyond any sectarian differences and straight to some of the fundamental principles of Hindu Dharma.

It is clear that Orlando and BYS have completely missed the basic point of my earlier posts, and all of Sudarshan's comments in this thread seem to have been (almost deliberately) misinterpreted.

Sudarshan quickly apologized for his one rash generalization, and the basic point of that comment (which is given as the official reason for his one month ban) is actually quite true! Many Indian Hindus certainly DO have difficulty in relating with the strange version of "Hinduism" that is imagined by many non-Indian devotees.

There is some truth in it. It is also true that the westerner who is drawn to follow Dharma cannot be given the same label as that of the typical westerner.

A typical westerner who gets interested in Hinduism of any form is possibly a religeous person usually following Christianity, and who got disappointed with this religion either because he found it illogical, too restrictive or too dogmatic. He must also have investigated other religions due to this change of attitude and many get impressed with Hinduism or Buddhism because of their more tolerant nature and universal appeal.

Unfortunately for some of these people migrating to Hinduism, the initial source of knowledge happens to be some websites which always portray Hindu Dharma as all accomodating and all accepting. This confusion has given rise to the impression that one could quickly become a Hindu and yet do whatever one wants.

The real truth remains that Hindu Dharma is not a single religion, but a multifarious collection with hundreds of beleif systems. None of our Hindu websites ever point this out, and openly lie that all these religions accept and fully tolerate each other. To the Christian missionary, this is enough to label Hinduism as a bunch of mutually contradicting beleifs.

Once this impression has been formed in the mind of the new convert, he now creates his own version of Sanatana Dharma, and assumes that it can be passed off as any other tradition. Unfortunately for him, only a handful of people will accept such a stripped down version of Dharma, because each Dharma has its traditional flavour which no one wants to dilute.

Very few practising Hindus will compromize the fundamental teachings of their own sect, which is quite logical. Self consistancy is needed for everyone than to adopt bits and pieces out of every faith.

It is certainly a myth that a Hindu can lead a life free from any fear like the one Christianity threatens with. If one chooses to become the disciple of a truly enlightened master, one will know how difficult it is to be a Hindu and how enlightening the experience is. The guru-sishya relationship is truly unique and has no parallels in the world, but the guru is usually strict and shows no mercy in many situations for the sole welfare of his student. It is ironic that some people feel that this is controlling their minds and life.

Where there is no individual guru like this, who does not guide properly, Dharma is all about confusion with clash between one's outward flowing senses and one's interest in religion, and whichever is stronger will prevail in the end. The guru's place is taken up by some sampradaya in this situation which has its own sets of rules. All traditions are governed by some dogmas - just like Christianity. So one cannot escape this aspect anywhere. If one cannot stand this, he could still practice the religion of his imagination, but certainly cannot expect his views to be accepted everywhere.

In the west, it is quite possible that the teachers dilute the message of Hinduism so that it could attract people. Who likes to hear that hours of systematic meditation under the guidance of a guru everyday is the traditional Hindu Dharma? So the new teachers, in fear of loosng out numbers offer a stripped down version to please them, and also relax the way of life to be compliant with materialsim. And often sold in a commercial form - like the Yoga.:)

Meditate, Meditate, Meditate - until you find the divine light shining in your heart. Remove any obstacle that stands in the way. That is the final message of Dharma. The rest are just pathways preparing you for it. Any other form of Dharma is only a diluted version.

orlando
16 August 2006, 11:07 AM
Namaste TruthSeeker.
Please don't call me mr.Orlando.Orlando suffices.
I am only 19 years old.
Even if now I am Lord Shiva upasaka,since I am sometimes tempted to worship other hindu deities (like Divine Mother Kali and Ganesha) I dediced to be a smarta hindu.
I also wish to be a raja-yoga follower.So I am trying to develop more and more the five yamas and the five niyamas.
Regards,
Orlando.

TruthSeeker
17 August 2006, 09:52 AM
Namaste Orlando,

I appreciate your sincerity in approach. There is no special effort need to practice Yama and Niyamas as these are rather hypothetical ones - and only people in the range of paramahamsas follow them to set examples for others, and they have no need for that. For others, it is only a goal to strive for, and keep consciously striving for perfection. Rest of this is left to God.

For Raja Yoga, I doubt if anyone could ever succeed in it, without great commitment and also the affectionate guidance of an accomplished guru. The stage upto Pratyahara is the only real practicable goal for an amateur Yogi. Pratyahara is achieved only by a small fraction of the practicising Yogis and mastery at that decides if Yoga leads to self realization or just gives some peace of mind.

Regarding worship and meditation of multiple dieties, it is a good idea for a materialistic person, but for the spiritually inclined having one beloved diety is a superior thing. It helps you channelize your mind in exactly one form during meditation. Meditating on multiple forms is equivalent to digging many shallow wells while meditating single pointedly on one diety has the effect of digging a deep well which alone can reach water. So go for one Ishta Devata, whoever it maybe, and whatever form it may have. That is always certainly superior. There is no insult done to other dieties in this way because all forms rest on the same Self. I meditate only on Lord Krishna who is considered the spiritual guru in my tradition, and nobody else. Monotheistic religions are entitrely based on this aspect, and have inwardly no sectarianism. I find no sectarisnism in any monotheistic faith, but find them very practical oriented. Focussing you mind on one form helps in Saguna Dhyana of a high order. As you advance in meditation, the mental impression of the form becomes clearer and clearer, and at some stage it outshines the visible world. This is the stage where the beloved diety can appear in a live form in your meditation, and actually instruct you and guide your spiritual progress - we call this vision of God. The ultimate realization of Yoga is of course, the formless Brahman. It is possible to practise Yoga without a guru if one develops sufficient love for God, who is the only real guru, and if you can make this guru appear before you through your love - you need no physical guru.

I noted that you mentioned that Lord Vishnu is no longer an Ishta devata. I wonder how somebody could say this based on the actions of some Vaishnavas. Is our relationship with God based on the actions of some of their devotees? And it is totally inappropriate for someone calling onself to be a Smarta, for whom all dieties rest on the same Self.


I also noted that you were not willing to listen to genuine advices from Sarabhanga. Good and genuine advices can come only from practising Yogis, and some of the rather strict advices must never be percieved as controlling you - nobody gains anything from controlling a person sitting somewhere in a remote part of the globe.

orlando
21 August 2006, 12:18 PM
I also noted that you were not willing to listen to genuine advices from Sarabhanga. Good and genuine advices can come only from practising Yogis, and some of the rather strict advices must never be percieved as controlling you - nobody gains anything from controlling a person sitting somewhere in a remote part of the globe.

I suppose you are talking about my desire for siddhis (occult powers).
Now I will copy the Shri Sarabhanga's words from hindunetforum.
By http://www.hindunet.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=61120&page=7&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1


Namaste Orlando,
If you can regularly perform long pranayama, then you already have control of the physical breath. But without the foundation of Yama and Niyama, and without the ultimate aim of Samadhi, and with hidded desires for worldly power, you are building a house of cards ~ and you are sure to be disappointed (or worse). I cannot help you in this.


Shri Sarabhanga and TruthSeeker,I tell you that I have still intention to satisfy my lust for power.
Say one has not tasted milk throughout his life time and want to desist milk, if he comes across at some place about the taste of the milk or its sweet smell, one might be tempted. The analogy I am providing is that of Milk and not that of murder,drugs,pre-marital sex etc. which of course are bad and adharmic things.Hence,since these power are to be desisted in order to obtaing the samadhi called dharma-megha (the cloude of virtue) I wish to know how it feels to have them and then desist them based on my Vairagya.
Someone told me that "Desisting because of non availability of resources kills vairagya over a period of time".
However,I repeat that I still wish satisfy my lust for power.
I believe that siddhis can be compared to that thing that in Star Wars movies is called "force".In these movies the force has both a light side and a dark side.
Tough full of power a person can yet be totally humble and use these siddhis for good purposes.Such siddhi-yoga can be compared to a jedi like master Yoda
http://www.gamez.nl/upload/781358_610_1147440211262-yoda.jpg

http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/Episode-III-Yoda-L.jpg

http://www.upa.pdx.edu/USP/people/faculty/adler/yoda.jpg

and Obi-wan Kenobi
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~allenk/obi-wan/ewen2.jpg

orlando
21 August 2006, 12:19 PM
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-40954/reb/luke.jpg

and Luke Skywalker
http://img165.echo.cx/img165/2614/lukieishot2yt.jpg

Use siddhis for purpose of fame,pleasure and glory can be compared to the dark side of the force.
Anakyn Askywalker can be compared to a siddhi-yogi.
http://www.poster.net/star-wars/star-wars-episode-iii-anakin-skywalker-4900969.jpg

Once he used the light side of force.Then he became wicked and used the dark side of force.SO he became Darth Vader.
http://www.rebelscum.com/ToyFair/2005/ggs/Darth%20Vader%20Statue%20-%20Toy%20Fair%202.jpg

http://www.cswu.cz/characters/img/char/darth_vader/sote_1.jpg

I feel that one day I will gain siddhis.It's my destiny.I feel it.
But still don't know if they will lead me to ruin like first happened to the great sage Viswamitra.In the end sage Visvamitra became a true sage.

Regards,
Orlando.

sarabhanga
21 August 2006, 07:58 PM
There is no need to go to another forum to find your rejection of my advice ~ just read this thread!




I don't care even about the words of Shri Sarabhanga.

And I can assure you that no “Jedi Master” ever gained any Siddhis through lusting after power! Indeed, Darth Vader’s diversion to the “dark side of the force” comes only when his previously pure efforts (by which means any true Siddhi was initially gained) turned to a personal lust after worldly power and control ~ and he would likely not have been accepted for special Jedi (cf. Jina) training in the first place if he had shown any lust for such personal powers.




Without the foundation of Yama and Niyama, and without the ultimate aim of Samadhi, and with hidden desires for worldly power, you are building a house of cards ~ and you are sure to be disappointed (or worse).

After repeated attempts at constructive advice on this matter, your continuing puerile responses are unworthy of consideration.

TruthSeeker
22 August 2006, 07:08 AM
I feel that one day I will gain siddhis.It's my destiny.I feel it.
But still don't know if they will lead me to ruin like first happened to the great sage Viswamitra.In the end sage Visvamitra became a true sage.


The greatest siddhi lies within ~ the Atman. Somebody went in search of the treasure island and reached the shore waiting for the ship. He saw some shining pebbles there and then forgetting the treasure island, he picked these pebbles and went back home contented - that is where external siddhis stand in comparison to the siddhi within.

By the way, no one who lusted for power ever got them. I hope you have read the Yogasutras? You get things only when you spurn them. If you flee away from siddhis they will run behind you. If you go behind siddhis, they will flee from you - that is the nature of them.

Some of the pseudo Yogis who use these siddhis all have started with very noble intentions, and aimed solely at God. Else they would not cross even stage one, leave alone acquiring siddhis. When such great powers came after them through great merit, some of them simply could not resist them - they are exceptions. Very few Yogis ever fall a prey to siddhis.

Using siddhis for personal uses is forbidden by the Almighty. Else it would all be too easy for some wicked person to engage in Rajayoga and get some powers, and start ruling the world. Do you know of one such Yogi who did that?

Know that acquiring siddhis is impossible in Kali Yuga and if you still get them, and misuse them - that is the end of the spiritual journey for a long time. You might become a king, but even if one person in your kingdom goes hungry, you earn that bad Karma. Ever wonder what happens to these powerful politicians who forget these pre-poll promises? The king takes half the responsibility of all crime in his kingdom due to incompetency - so never become a king unless you are like King Janaka or Rama. The life of a pauper is the way of the Yogi ~ no room for hurting others.


Being a powerful person is not useful unless you are established in the Self and see inaction everywhere . Becoming powerful through mantra tantra are of no use whatsoever.

orlando
22 August 2006, 09:48 AM
There is no need to go to another forum to find your rejection of my advice ~ just read this thread!


And I can assure you that no “Jedi Master” ever gained any Siddhis through lusting after power! Indeed, Darth Vader’s diversion to the “dark side of the force” comes only when his previously pure efforts (by which means any true Siddhi was initially gained) turned to a personal lust after worldly power and control ~ and he would likely not have been accepted for special Jedi (cf. Jina) training in the first place if he had shown any lust for such personal powers.


After repeated attempts at constructive advice on this matter, your continuing puerile responses are unworthy of consideration.

The whole phrase was the following:

I don't care even about the words of Shri Sarabhanga,altough I respesct very much him,who is a sannyasi.


You said:

After repeated attempts at constructive advice on this matter, your continuing puerile responses are unworthy of consideration

Now I have to give you a constructive advice on matter of 5 yamas:because of these words you violated the first and most important yama,namely Ahimsa which means not-injury.

Himsa is to act against the spirit divine of the Vedas. It is to act against the dictates of dharma. Ahimsa is the understanding of the fundamental truth that the atman is imperishable, immutable and all-pervading.Suta Samhita, Skanda Purana, 4-5. FF, 113

ahimsa: "Noninjury," nonviolence or nonhurtfulness. Refraining from causing harm to others, physically, mentally or emotionally. Ahimsa is the first and most important of the yamas (restraints). It is the cardinal virtue upon which all others depend. See: yama-niyama.http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/dws_r9_glossary-A-F.html

Ahimsa is not causing pain to any living being at any time through the actions of one's mind, speech or body.Atharva Veda, Shandilya Upanishad, 1.3. UPA, P. 173

If we have injured space, the Earth or heaven, or if we have offended mother or father, from that may Agni, fire of the house, absolve us and guide us safely to the world of goodness.Atharva Veda 6.120.1. VE, 636

May the wind fan us with blissful breezes! May the Sun warm us with delightful rays! May the rain come to us with a pleasant roar! May days come and go for us with blessings! May nights approach us benignly! O earthen vessel, strengthen me. May all beings regard me with friendly eyes! May I look upon all creatures with friendly eyes! With a friend's eye may we regard each other!Shukla Yajur Veda 36.10, 11 & 8. VE, 342

No pain should be caused to any created being or thing.Devikalottara Agama, Jnana-achara-vichara 69-70. RM, 116

Regards,
Orlando.

orlando
22 August 2006, 10:22 AM
The greatest siddhi lies within ~ the Atman. Somebody went in search of the treasure island and reached the shore waiting for the ship. He saw some shining pebbles there and then forgetting the treasure island, he picked these pebbles and went back home contented - that is where external siddhis stand in comparison to the siddhi within.

By the way, no one who lusted for power ever got them. I hope you have read the Yogasutras? You get things only when you spurn them. If you flee away from siddhis they will run behind you. If you go behind siddhis, they will flee from you - that is the nature of them.

Some of the pseudo Yogis who use these siddhis all have started with very noble intentions, and aimed solely at God. Else they would not cross even stage one, leave alone acquiring siddhis. When such great powers came after them through great merit, some of them simply could not resist them - they are exceptions. Very few Yogis ever fall a prey to siddhis.

Using siddhis for personal uses is forbidden by the Almighty. Else it would all be too easy for some wicked person to engage in Rajayoga and get some powers, and start ruling the world. Do you know of one such Yogi who did that?

Know that acquiring siddhis is impossible in Kali Yuga and if you still get them, and misuse them - that is the end of the spiritual journey for a long time. You might become a king, but even if one person in your kingdom goes hungry, you earn that bad Karma. Ever wonder what happens to these powerful politicians who forget these pre-poll promises? The king takes half the responsibility of all crime in his kingdom due to incompetency - so never become a king unless you are like King Janaka or Rama. The life of a pauper is the way of the Yogi ~ no room for hurting others.


Being a powerful person is not useful unless you are established in the Self and see inaction everywhere . Becoming powerful through mantra tantra are of no use whatsoever.

Saying that acquiring siddhis is impossible in Kali Yuga isn't true at all.
Even today there are people,like Sai Baba,who have som siddhis.
And I don't wish to use siddhis to hurt people and conquer the world!:eek:
I already know that I would lose my powers.
By http://www.angelfire.com/realm/bodhisattva/siddhi.html

Sometimes it is very dangerous to have occult powers. The mysterious wandering monk Totapuri, recognized for bringing the full fruit of Awakening to Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, tells, it has been said, of the following:


There once was a great Siddha (a spiritual man possessing psychic powers) was sitting on the sea-shore when there came a great storm. The Siddha, being greatly distressed by it, exclaimed, ‘Let the storm cease!’ and his words were fulfilled. Just then a ship was going at a distance with all sails set, and as the wind suddenly died away, it capsized, drowning all who were on board the ship. Now the sin of causing the death of so many persons accrued to the Siddha, and for that reason he lost all his occult powers and had to suffer.

[...]
"During the days of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, a certain Sadhu approached him and showed two Siddhis: one was that he could roam about without being seen by anybody. The other was that light emanated from portions of his body when he walked.


This man, after some time, began misusing his power, entering the apartment of a lady unseen, fell in love with her and LOST his two powers.

And of course it is false to say that a person that wish siddhis can't get them.
The Buddha was cognizant of the fact that there are those who devote themselves to yogic exercises only to acquire supernatural powers as well.
Now please read the following.
By http://www.angelfire.com/realm/bodhisattva/siddhi.html
Thus said, the following, by Sri Swami Sivananda from his paper Satsanga and Svadhyaya, is being offered as a cautionary word of advice:


"Another great blunder people generally commit is that they judge the Enlightenment of Sadhus by the Siddhis they display. In the world generally, the common inclination is to judge the merits and ability of a Sadhu through his Siddhis. It is a blunder indeed. They should not judge the Enlightenment of a Sadhu in this way. Siddhis are by-products of concentration. Siddhis have nothing to do with Self-realization. A Sadhu may manifest Siddhis due to strong passions and intense desires, and if that be the case, he is undoubtedly a big householder only. You must believe me when I tell you that Siddhis are a great hindrance to spiritual progress, and so long as one is within the realm of Siddhis and does not try to rise above it and march onwards, there is not the least hope of God-realization for him. But, this does not mean that a person manifesting Siddhis is not a realized soul. There are several instances of such persons who have exhibited several Siddhis purely for the elevation and uplift of the world, but never for selfish motives.


Dear TruthSeeker and Shri Sarabhanga,do you really believe that I already don't know that siddhis have nothing to do with Enlightenment?And that I don't already know that a siddhi-yogi who uses his power for wicked purpose lose them?
I already know these things.And when I will become a powerful siddhi-yogi I will always tell to people that I am not a good yogi (or even person) at all.
I don't want controlling the people.
Regards,
Orlando.

satay
22 August 2006, 10:48 AM
Dear TruthSeeker and Shri Sarabhanga,do you really believe that I already don't know that siddhis have nothing to do with Enlightenment?And that I don't already know that a siddhi-yogi who uses his power for wicked purpose lose them?
I already know these things.And when I will become a powerful siddhi-yogi I will always tell to people that I am not a good yogi (or even person) at all.
I don't want controlling the people.
Regards,
Orlando.

namaste orlando,
I think you are missing the point. You should not have a 'want' to acquire anything! Removing this 'want' for 'all' things is the first step.

I am starting to be concerned about you...will pm you.

sarabhanga
22 August 2006, 07:52 PM
Namaste Orlando,

Please do not take offense, but you have been missing a very important point, which has been repeatedly stressed.

I can assure you that no Siddha ever gained that Siddhi through lusting after worldly power!




Indeed, Darth Vader’s diversion to the “dark side of the force” comes only when his previously pure efforts (by which means any true Siddhi was initially gained) turned to a personal lust after worldly power and control ~ and he would likely not have been accepted for special Jedi training in the first place if he had shown any lust for such personal powers.

In the practice of Yoga, any mortal judgement of “good desires” or “bad desires” is completely irrelevant. And desires for ANYTHING other than the ultimate goal of eternal union with God-head are the greatest obstacles to progress in Yoga!




If you flee away from siddhis they will run behind you. If you go behind siddhis, they will flee from you - that is the nature of them.

TruthSeeker
23 August 2006, 05:18 AM
Dear TruthSeeker and Shri Sarabhanga,do you really believe that I already don't know that siddhis have nothing to do with Enlightenment?And that I don't already know that a siddhi-yogi who uses his power for wicked purpose lose them?
I already know these things.And when I will become a powerful siddhi-yogi I will always tell to people that I am not a good yogi (or even person) at all.
I don't want controlling the people.
Regards,
Orlando.

Good that you know that....

However Yoga has nothing to do with "doing good for others". It is however true that, when the Yogi does something he will do only good as a natural consequence of the practice of Yoga.

Yoga's goal is the attainment of the ultimate and any other desires however noble they are by worldly standards are only obstacles. When one does reach the summit, one is free to "do good" if he feels so. You did not create the world, and hence its all wise creator knows how to set it right -- if need be he will incarnate for this purpose.

orlando
23 August 2006, 10:02 AM
In the practice of Yoga, any mortal judgement of “good desires” or “bad desires” is completely irrelevant. And desires for ANYTHING other than the ultimate goal of eternal union with God-head are the greatest obstacles to progress in Yoga!

Namaste Shri Sarabhanga.

IV-iv-5: That self is indeed Brahman, as also identified with the intellect, the Manas and the vital force, with the eyes and ears, with earth, water, air and the ether, with fire, and what is other than fire, with desire and the absence of desire, with anger and the absence of anger, with righteousness and unrighteousness, with everything -–identified, in fact, with this (what is perceived) and with that (what is inferred). As it does and acts, so it becomes; by doing good it becomes good, and by doing evil it becomes evil – it becomes virtuous through good acts and vicious through evil acts. Others, however, say, ‘The self is identified with desire alone. What it desires, it resolves; what it resolves, it works out; and what it works out, it attains.’
IV-iv-6: Regarding this there is the following pithy verse: ‘Being attached he, together with the work, attains that result to which his subtle body or mind is attached. Exhausting the results of whatever work he did in this life, he returns from that world to this for (fresh) work’. Thus does the man who desires (transmigrate). But the man who does not desire (never transmigrates). Of him who is without desires, who is free from desires, the objects of whose desire have been attained, and to whom all objects of desire are but the Self – the organs do not depart. Being but Brahman, he is merged in Brahman.
IV-iv-7: Regarding this there is this pithy verse: ‘When all the desires that dwell in his heart (mind) are gone, then he, having been mortal, becomes immortal, and attains Brahman in this very body’. Just as the lifeless Slough of a snake is cast off and lies in the ant-hill, so does this body lie. Then the self becomes disembodied and immortal, (becomes) the Prana (Supreme Self), Brahman, the Light. ‘I give you a thousand (cows), sir’, said Janaka, Emperor of Videha.
IV-iv-8: Regarding this there are the following pithy verses: the subtle, extensive, ancient way has touched (been reached by) me. (Nay) I have realised it myself. Through that sages – the knowers of Brahman – (also) go to the heavenly sphere (liberation) after the fall of this body, being freed (even while living).
IV-iv-9: Some speak of it as white, others as blue, grey, green, or red. This path is realised by a Brahmana (knower of Brahman). Any other knower of Brahman who has done good deeds and is identified with the Supreme Light, (also) treads this path.
IV-iv-10: Into blinding darkness (ignorance) enter those who worship ignorance (rites). Into greater darkness, as it were, than that enter those who are devoted to knowledge (the ceremonial portion of the Vedas).
IV-iv-11: Miserable are those worlds enveloped by (that) blinding darkness (ignorance). To them, after death, go those people who are ignorant and unwise.
IV-iv-12: If a man knows the Self as ‘I am this’, then desiring what and for whose sake will he suffer in the wake of the body ?Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

Regards,
Orlando

orlando
23 August 2006, 10:27 AM
Namaste all.
Now I really believe that I will never succeed in Patanjali's raja-yoga.I understand more and more that Bhakti-yoga (I am a Lord Shiva upasaka) is the only yoga that appeals to me and where I am sure that I can succed.
And I will (at least try to) develop more and more the Ten Classical Restraints and the Ten Classical Observances like explained at http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/dws_mandala-13.html
By the way,in general life of course I will wish always to be a good person.
The one who has not turned away from wickedness, who has no peace, who is not concentrated, whose mind is restless -- he cannot realize the atman, who is known by wisdom.Krishna Yajur Veda, Katha Upanishad 2.24. VE, 710

Regards,
Orlando.

satay
25 August 2006, 09:58 AM
Admin Note:
Folks,
Please stay away from making personal attacks on each other and familiarise yourself again with the site rules.

Thanks,

orlando
25 August 2006, 10:55 AM
Namaste Orlando,

Please do not take offense, but you have been missing a very important point, which has been repeatedly stressed.



Namaste Shri Sarabhanga.
You are right.I know that you have real interest in helping me.You are a very good person.Thank you very much for your useful posts,both here and in hindunetforum.
Thanks and regards,
Orlando.