PDA

View Full Version : Even Brahamans ate meat before jainism!



rajputistan
30 June 2010, 12:06 PM
Eating meat was never wrong in Hinduism! Just think why do we sacrifice an animal if we don't want to eat them?

A research tells that about 2000 years ago 80% of vegetarian food that we are eating was not available! So people ate mat.


It was because of effects of Jainism.

sambya
01 July 2010, 12:41 AM
The renowned author vankim chandra chatterjee(author of vande mataram , the national song of india) once met with the famous nineteenth century saint ramakrishna paramahamsa in dakshineshwar temple .

ramakrishna asked " you are very learned . what do you think is the goal of human life ? "

vankim----" if you ask me , i would say , finding food , sleep and sexual life are the pillars of human existence "

ramakrishna(in disgust) ------ " yuck ! you belch of what you eat ! you are such a high scholar and such a pandita . and to get this answer from you ! loving god and striving for self realization are the only aims of a human in this life . vultures(dry scholars) can soar very high in the sky , but their gaze remains fixed to the ground in search of rotting carcass "


so i say "YOU BELCH WHAT YOU EAT" :D

tell me are you a meat eater

MahaHrada
01 July 2010, 07:12 AM
The renowned author vankim chandra chatterjee(author of vande mataram , the national song of india) once met with the famous nineteenth century saint ramakrishna paramahamsa in dakshineshwar temple .

ramakrishna asked " you are very learned . what do you think is the goal of human life ? "

vankim----" if you ask me , i would say , finding food , sleep , protection and sexual life are the pillars of human existence "

ramakrishna(in disgust) ------ " yuck ! you belch of what you eat ! you are such a high scholar and such a pandita . and to get this answer from you ! loving god and striving for self realization are the only aims of a human in this life . vultures(dry scholars) can soar very high in the sky , but their gaze remains fixed to the ground in search of rotting carcass "



Dear Sambya,
What is the source of the stories about Ramakrishna that you often cite from? They are not really flattering for the saint, they depict him as a self centered, rude and unkind person ignorant of the shastras. Are you shure that the source is authentic?

According to shastras the 4 legitimate aims of humans are well defined. They are:

Dharma (duty which includes protection)

Artha (art and wealth) including of course as most vital elements, health, and procurement of food and shelter

Kama (Satisfaction of sensual pleasures and sexuality)

and Moksha (release form Rebirth)

The authors answer to R.´s Question is therefore is a very wise one and in accordance with the shastras, while the alleged answer of the so called "saint" that "loving god is the sole aim" is foolish ignorance, contrary to the shastras and there is no shastra pramana at all to be found for such a viewpoint, while the 3 of the 4 Purusharthas mentionend by the author, are exactly the destined aims of the humans, especially the grihastas, since moksha is not a priority for the average person. Therefore the aims Sri Bankim Chandra Chatterjee mentioned are those that are laid down in the shastras. This was a flawless answer and a very ignorant and rude alleged reply of the "saint".

In this story Bankim Chandra Chatterjee is my hero, protecting the dharma. I hope this story is just a hoax or a legend and this is not what Ramakrishna actually said to this great man. As a bengali you should know what the novel "Anandamath" and therefore also Bankim Chandra Chatterjee and his literary work stands for and not be told by a ferengi. What a disgrace!

sambya
01 July 2010, 08:59 AM
namaste mahahrada ji . yes its authentic .

taken from sri ramakrishna kathamrita or as it is known in english 'the gospel of ramakrishna' .

although the translation here was my own since i have the book in bengali .

personally i dont see anything wrong in this statement . as far as my limited knowledge goes realization of god is the ultimate goal in hindu way , something that ramakrishna always stressed to people around him .

when ramakrishna asked him about the aim of human birth bankim replied 'ahaar , nidra and maithuna' . to this ramakrishna made the aforesaid remark . it was not in his habit to be overtly diplomatic or a hypocrite so generally he expressed his feelings openly without thinking much of society or people around him . although in this particular incident ramakrishna later appologised to bankim in case he was offended . and the discussion between them went on as usuall .

now in my personal observation ahar nidra and maithuna doesnt exanctly correspond to dharma artha kama moksha . rather it corresponds to pashu dharma . and even within the four purusharthas doesnt moksha occupy the ultimate post ..........atleast theoritically( i agree that practically speaking for the majority it is not the goal) ? isnt the vedic ashramas(brahmacharya,grihasta,........etc) all ultimately directed to striving for moksha ?

i might require some time to find out the exact page number etc since the book has five volumes !

sambya
01 July 2010, 09:37 AM
part of that meeting . i couldnt find the online version . im translating the relevant parts --

RK - you are a great scholar , and have written so much . you tell me , what is the goal of this human birth ? what is the thing that will remain with us after death ...in next life ?

VANKIM - next life ? whats that ?

RK - yes . after gyana one needn't go to other lokas . there no rebirth then . but unless one gets god one has to come again and again to this material world . once the rice is boiled it wont germinate if sown in the soil . similarly once we are boiled in gyana-agni(the fire of knowledge) he cannot participate in this play of creation anymore . can a boiled rice grain ever germinate ?

VANKIM ( laughing ) -- mister ! a useless weed doesnt help anyone .

RK--a gyani is not a weed though ! one who has seen god has got the nectarian fruit , not petty pumpkins or gourds ! he doesnt come back to be born .

the talk goes on about the temporal nature of this world and the absolute nature of god -- the ultimate aim of human birth .

RK -- okay , you tell me what is the aim of human birth ?

VANKIM ( with a smile ) --- if you must ask me ........eating , sleeping and sex !

RK -- yuck ! you have such thoughts ! what you do day and night is coming out of your mouth . a man belches what he eats . you eat a radish and you belch of radish . you stay within lust and gold day and night and that is coming out of your mouth ! engaging in worldly thoughts makes one materialistic . people become narrow minded . ishwar chinta(contemplaying on god) makes a man simple . someone who has seen god can never utter such words . what will dry knowledge do , if there is no contemplations of god . a vulture can sore very high but his gaze remains fixed to the ground . a pandita can mumble a thousand slokas perfectly , has written many books but often remains engrossed in girls and money . is he a pandita ? without godly thoughts , what is his knowledge ?
but those who contemplate on god and pray to him to take away their material lust and acttraction towards money , for them material rasa(pleasure) tastes bitter . they become like swans . they take the milk and leave aside the water . they walk straight .
( softly towards vankim ) please dont take offense of my words !

VANKIM -- its okay . im prepared .



personally to me it exposes two characteristical traits of ramakrishna . his equal impartial view of human beings . at that time vankim was a renowned person . the prefix 'rishi' was used in front of his name , due to his psuedo relgious literary works .
but ramakrishna did not show any special favour to him . he spoke out whatever he had in his mind clearly.
and barely after he finished he is asking forgiveness from him like a child willing to patch up with his friend after their fights are over .

during that time ramakrishna was very respected too . yet he was humble enough to ask forgiveness in front of everyone .

and i cannot find any link between eating sleeping and sex with the four purushasrthas . as i have said before , they seems like pashu dharma to me . only one thing is missing -- atmaraksha !

yes anandamath remains my favorutie novel for its intense spirituality and intense patriotism . apart from that i am admirer of many other vankims works too like durgeshnandini and kapala kundala .

MahaHrada
01 July 2010, 10:16 AM
namaste mahahrada ji . yes its authentic .

taken from sri ramakrishna kathamrita or as it is known in english 'the gospel of ramakrishna' .

although the translation here was my own since i have the book in bengali .

personally i dont see anything wrong in this statement . as far as my limited knowledge goes realization of god is the ultimate goal in hindu way , something that ramakrishna always stressed to people around him .

when ramakrishna asked him about the aim of human birth bankim replied 'ahaar , nidra and maithuna' . to this ramakrishna made the aforesaid remark . it was not in his habit to be overtly diplomatic or a hypocrite so generally he expressed his feelings openly without thinking much of society or people around him . although in this particular incident ramakrishna later appologised to bankim in case he was offended . and the discussion between them went on as usuall .

now in my personal observation ahar nidra and maithuna doesnt exanctly correspond to dharma artha kama moksha . rather it corresponds to pashu dharma . and even within the four purusharthas doesnt moksha occupy the ultimate post ..........atleast theoritically( i agree that practically speaking for the majority it is not the goal) ? isnt the vedic ashramas(brahmacharya,grihasta,........etc) all ultimately directed to striving for moksha ?

i might require some time to find out the exact page number etc since the book has five volumes !

It is not wise to say that moksha is the highest or sole goal, propagation of such an idea is not good for human society and welfare of the state. Only Dharma and the nameless absolute are realities, the other Purusharthas are subjects of Maya. Only by following Dharma selfleslly as a result the other aims may ripen. For the sannyasin focus on Moksha is only a priority, because it is the Dharma of that ashrama. But even if Moksha would be considered the highest goal, which is a quite common error, it doesn´t apply here because Ramakrishna did not even mention moksha, "loving God" is a bhava only. How can cultivation of a single bhava be the sole aim for humans? This would only create imbalanced neurotic personalities. The alleged reply of Ramakrishna is ignorant and misleading from whatever angle you look at it, and Bankimchandra Chatterjee´s remark is not only realistic but even if simplified nonetheless an expression of the basic needs of humans, (as they are delineated in the Purusharthas) 3 of them are mentionend in the universal declaration of human rights. Food shelter and protection from harm are basic legitimate human rights, nothing any good person would deny to anyone, much less something a saint should criticise as being lowly like a carcass. Also a saint needs to eat and sleep and have some shelter from rain and cold which is usually provided to him free of charge by others why should he show contempt for these people? Without their desire for these basic needs and their kindness to share them he would shurely die, in case that it is really true that he is lacking self interest to acquire them by his own activity and desire, because "loving god" does not produce food.

sambya
01 July 2010, 10:35 AM
well , i have presented the facts as it is . its upto to you to view them in whichever way you like .

for me i still dont see any mistake with ramakrishna . the saint had a childlike nature , far from hypocrisy and self glorification . he said whatever came to him natrually . he was not rude , never impolite . but never a hypocrite . his rural so called unsophisticated ways might not suit to many . but it cant be helped . facts remains a fact . to me sophisticated social interaction as we see in a typical city life is actually indirect hypocrisy and hidden diplomacy . the statement of ramakrishna may appear as rude since we will be judging him by our standards -- namely western influenced sophisticated social mannerisms which teaches us not to speak out harsh truth and carry a plastic smile on face . such things were not known to him , more so due to his spiritual nature . he had no one to appease and no one to hate .

i dont blame vankim either , since he was an author not a sadhak in the first place . but perhaps after having a long discussion on the temporal nature of this world etc he should have been a little more carefull while answering .

as regards the purusharthas , i still believe that realization is the ultimate end word of it . nothing equals the desire to realize god , be it through path of bhakti or of gyana . judging by circumstancial evidence found in hindu scriptures i also think that moksha remains the ultimate goal . each human was advised to strive for moksha as per his individual capacity -- the adhikaari bheda . but the end goal was fixed in hindu society . all other goals converged in the struggle for self realization .

you said " other purusharthas are objects of maya " . i couldnt get that one . how can moksha be an object of maya ?

universal declarations on human rights ? good .....but irrelevant in hindu spirituality .


Also a saint needs to eat and sleep and have some shelter from rain and cold which is usually provided to him free of charge by others why should he show contempt for these people? Without their desire for these basic needs and their kindness to share them he would shurely die, in case that it is really true that he is lacking self interest to acquire them by his own activity and desire, because "loving god" does not produce food.


yes true . but ramakrishna did not say anything in this respect in the given example !!.

once he had expressedly said " what are the good uses of money ? it helps in deva-seva( serving gods) , sadhu-seva(serving the holy men) daridra-seva(serving the poor) and finding a shelter , basic clothing and food for oneself . apart from this all else are misuse of money "

he had also said " dharma is not for empty bellied ! "

then what was he saying actually ? he was reacting against the preoccupation of vankim with these basic activities . these activities are essential to ensure the sustainence of the body which can then be put to god realization . they are the means . but for some , like vankim in this example it becomes the goal . food ==== restuarant , dinners , banquets . shelter = bunglows , garden houses , clothing == expensive clothing etc .

here the basic ammenities have turned to goals in life . this is what has annoyed ramakrishna .

and vankim wasnt even speaking of shelter of clothing . the plain words that he used were " eat , sleep and sex " .

if you feel that eating , sleeping and sex are the cherishable aims of human existence i have no problems .
but to me they are means of human existence , not the goal .

the goal of human existence remains god realization , irrespective of whether i succeed in this birth or not .


by the way , when ramakrishna speaks of bhakti bhava he means realiziations too . he often used these words and others like 'ishwar darshan' , interchangebly .

thats it ! pranaam .

isavasya
01 July 2010, 10:48 AM
as regards the purusharthas , i still believe that realization is the ultimate end word of it . nothing equals the desire to realize god , be it through path of bhakti or of gyana . judging by circumstancial evidence found in hindu scriptures i also think that moksha remains the ultimate goal . each human was advised to strive for moksha as per his individual capacity -- the adhikaari bheda . but the end goal was fixed in hindu society . all other goals converged in the struggle for self realization .



thats it ! pranaam .

Hello sambya ji,

From my past experience, I can say that few advaitins and vaishnavas are hell bent on guiding everyone to whatever they think as ultimate thing. I believe there is no hurry, time will direct everyone to moksha, if any one is interested in 'finding food , sleep , protection and sexual life', ramkrishna ji should not make fun of others. In rig veda there is a conversation between sage agastya and his wife lopumudra, I think even they accept kaam and dharm as normal part of living, and absolute part of human existence. Even in epics you see so many people getting birth again and again, I don't think seeking moksha is ultimate purpose for everyone, but only for people who want it.

MahaHrada
01 July 2010, 11:01 AM
well , i have presented the facts as it is . its upto to you to view them in whichever way you like .

for me i still dont see any mistake with ramakrishna . the saint had a childlike nature , far from hypocrisy and self glorification . he said whatever came to him natrually . he was not rude , never impolite . but never a hypocrite . his rural so called unsophisticated ways might not suit to many . but it cant be helped . facts remains a fact . to me sophisticated social interaction as we see in a typical city life is actually indirect hypocrisy and hidden diplomacy . the statement of ramakrishna may appear as rude since we will be judging him by our standards -- namely western influenced sophisticated social mannerisms which teaches us not to speak out harsh truth and carry a plastic smile on face . such things were not known to him , more so due to his spiritual nature . he had no one to appease and no one to hate .

i dont blame vankim either , since he was an author not a sadhak in the first place . but perhaps after having a long discussion on the temporal nature of this world etc he should have been a little more carefull while answering .

as regards the purusharthas , i still believe that realization is the ultimate end word of it . nothing equals the desire to realize god , be it through path of bhakti or of gyana . judging by circumstancial evidence found in hindu scriptures i also think that moksha remains the ultimate goal . each human was advised to strive for moksha as per his individual capacity -- the adhikaari bheda . but the end goal was fixed in hindu society . all other goals converged in the struggle for self realization .

by the way , when ramakrishna speaks of bhakti bhava he means realiziations too . he often used these words and others like 'ishwar darshan' , interchangebly .

thats it ! pranaam .

If Moksha is perceived as an aim or goal that an individual can or even should desire how can anything good come from that? Since aversion and desires are the cause of avidya and ego how can cultivating a desire and striving for a goal be the cause for moksha? And what one is striving to achieve, is not even a real existing goal, it always remains only a personal limited idea or illusion about what moksha could be, based on descriptions. So how can one desire something which one does not know anything experiental about? Looking for a phantom of moksha that is a personal intellectual and emotional and therefore limited concept but usually conceived so insubstantial that is evading your grip , has destroyed the life of many people. Following ones svadharma is the aim moksha only a result, a siddhi, maybe you wouldn´t even like it if you eventually reached it, who knows?

sambya
01 July 2010, 11:18 AM
Hello sambya ji,

From my past experience, I can say that few advaitins and vaishnavas are hell bent on guiding everyone to whatever they think as ultimate thing. I believe there is no hurry, time will direct everyone to moksha, if any one is interested in 'finding food , sleep , protection and sexual life', ramkrishna ji should not make fun of others. In rig veda there is a conversation between sage agastya and his wife lopumudra, I think even they accept kaam and dharm as normal part of living, and absolute part of human existence. Even in epics you see so many people getting birth again and again, I don't think seeking moksha is ultimate purpose for everyone, but only for people who want it.


hi isavasya .

i agree with you that a few sages are indeed hellbent on forcing others to strive for moksha .

again i will qoute ramakrishna himself to clarify his stand on this issue !

ramakrishna said " when you have an injury its unwise to forcefully try and tear the scab from the wound . that results in bleeding and pain . when it dries off completely it would fall off naturally . no one should hurry in path of god . do what naturally comes to you ."

at another time he said " mother cooks different items with the same foodstuff for different children , each to their liking . she knows what suits whom best . "

personally he would instruct each one as per their own adhikaar . and he would never rush anyone . but he would be very particular to ensure that the end result remains god realization . he advised people to do what they do , but with the emotions turned towards god so that they too can reach the highest level gradually .

and he also said " having slow vairagya is not good . longing for god should be intense . that brings about realization . evryone should pray to god for that intense renuciation "

so we can see his perspective on the topics --- he advised people to stay on one's own path and yet devote some of him to god . and at the same time he advised each one to pray for intense vairagya and bhakti .

here too ramakrishna is NOT makin fun of others . he is just criticizing the outlook which places eating sleeping an sex as the aim of your life . they are not the aims . they are the means to sustainence . it is quite simple !!!

kaam IS a part of normal human existence . but kaam is not the aim of normal human existence . got it now ?

artha and kama temporal or illusionary ( from veiwpoints of dvaita and advaita respectively ) . desire of moksha also is material and within the scope for maya . but moksha in itself is beyond maya . its the only truth . our hindu way of life is designed in such a way that it encourages each individual in this path of self realization according to his own limits , by following his swadharma . a grihasta is supposed to renounce to sannysa in pursuit of truth . in olden days kings ( even historical kings like chadragupta maurya etc ) renounced after passing their kingdoms to their sons . monarchs bowed in reverence before sages . why do you think this is ? because the end goal of human birth was self realization . everyone was encouraged to think about the nature of truth in his own capabilities . so that in due time they all attain moksha . moksha is not something that can be obtained in one birth . its a gradual evolving process .

having said that , shastras also say that only a very few people will ever strive for realization . this is how the creation works . but that doesnt mean that the goal of human birth changes . and specially when someone has realised the sweetness of god wouldnt he want to share it with all others around him .

now its upto the people whether they accept or reject his invitations .

ramakrishna was doing just that . he directed every people he met( which i think is very natural and expected of a sadhu) to turn to god inwardly so that in due time they all have a taste of that sweet rasa .

i will give a story of ramakrishnas mouth before i end .

" there are three classes of gurus. like the doctors -- uttam vaidya , madhyam vaidya and adham vaidya . the adham(worst) doctor asks his patient to have the medicine and leaves . the madhyam(better) doctor comes back to ask his patient whether he is taking the medicine in due time . the uttam(best) doctor not only comes back but also forces the medicine down his patients throat . it is he who has the most concern for his patients "

we are all suffering the bhava roga -- the disease of materialistic existence.

sambya
01 July 2010, 11:50 AM
If Moksha is perceived as an aim or goal that an individual can or even should desire how can anything good come from that?

the concepts good and bad are relative concepts , as are everything else within this world . according to hindu spirituality , that which takes us towards towards realization are termed as good and that which takes us away from it are termed as bad .

when a certain individual starts craving for moksha he has already stepped onto the realm of comparative good . in stead of wealth or sex or self centered materialistic desires he has already focussed his attention on something bigger and closer to the actual realization . this will gradually lead him to the real realization .

it doesnt matter whether his conception of moksha is authentic or not . if his desire is intense and true he will gradually be directed to the correct path by the grace of god or the will of collective consciousness , call what you may .

the eternal all pervading god would read his feelings and giude him to the untimate truth in due time .
OR
the eternal all pervading collective consciousness would synchronize his thoughts with 'its' own thoughts and enable him to see the truth .

this way it can bring about good .


Since aversion and desires are the cause of avidya and ego how can cultivating a desire and striving for a goal be the cause for moksha?avidya and vidya are both cause of bondage . both have to be transcended before on can have self realization . but as with all other sadhana practices we begin by removing the more gross obstacles and then proceed to the finer aspects . the first thing to be removed here is avidya . avidya=attchment for material things or believing in the permanence of the temporal world or taking the asat as sat . so this is to be removed first . then as one progresses he realizes that the vidya is also a hindrance . by this time the soul is so advanced that the rest of the path is easy before him . he can 'glide' effortlessly through that stage . he transcends the vidya and then gets a glimpse of the truth .

ramakrishna ---- when a thorn(avidya) pricks your foot and gets lodged in it , you need another thorn(vidya) to remove the first . then you need to throw away both the thorns(vidya and avidya) to have a normal feet .


And what one is striving to achieve, is not even a real existing goal, it always remains only a personal limited idea or illusion about what moksha could be, based on descriptions. So how can one desire something which one does not know anything experiental about?he desires about what his guru and scriptures has taught him . the rest is seen by the supreme . i have already explained above .


Following ones svadharma is the aim moksha only a result, a siddhi, maybe you wouldn´t even like it if you eventually reached it, who knows?moksha a siddhi ?!!! i dont know . have never heard that . i have heard of anima laghima and other ashta siddhis though and moksha was clearly not one of them .

following one's swadharma is good and commendable . but it is a practice , a procedure . a practice cannot be an aim . an experience can be an aim . studying hard for exams cannot be an aim . it can be a duty . the experience when the results are out can be the aim .

yes . i dont know for certain( what it feels on moksha) . i dont know whether i can reach it in this birth . i just blabber what i read from my masters .
pranaam

isavasya
01 July 2010, 11:54 AM
Hello sambya ji,


hi isavasya .
kaam IS a part of normal human existence . but kaam is not the aim of normal human existence . got it now ?
.

No I dindn't got it at all. I will tell you a simple truth, I am a student right now, I want to be a millionaire, I want to do MBA from a good institute. All these things are not part of my life, they all are aim of my life. I see my religion Sanatan dharm in danger from adharmic religions, I am politically motivated fellow, in my present life I want to contribute to society too. All these things are samsarik and will keep me away from getting moksha, anyways moksha is something I don't aim for in this life. What's the hurry ? This is what I wanted to tell you in my previous post. What is aim of life is for individual to decide, unless his aims are adharmic. I believe dictating aim of human life according to limited understanding shastra can be very dangerous for society, particularly Hindu society which has taken dubious moral values from bullshit religions like islam and Christianity.



artha and kama temporal or illusionary ( from veiwpoints of dvaita and advaita respectively )why do you think this is ? because the end goal of human birth was self realization .







End goal of every jeeva is moksha for sure, but that doesn't means aim of everyone's present human birth. Dharm, Artha and kama are mithya from standpoint of nirgun brahm, it is very much relevant in process of getting moksha, and just suppressing these things against one's will, one can't get moksha. When time will come realization will descend.

MahaHrada
01 July 2010, 12:01 PM
Dear Sambya
I think it is very important not to mix up moksha with the absolute. Moksha needs a limited person who wants to achive it it. The absolute exists even if there is no human being or even any devata who can desire moksha. So how can love for a devata have anything to do with the absolute, the anama, when the absolute is still existing even when there is not a single devata or human present?

Moksha is as much an indivdual aim that appears atractive to the limited ego as artha and karma, only doing ones dharma is greater than desires and aversions avidya and ego , only dharma is selfless action, all other aims have motivations. Dharma is notdone because of a desire but is an inborn duty we are born with we do not strive for it because it is satisfying our desires. Thats why it is said in Kalika Purana that only two things are ultimately real, Dharma and the absolute.
The only way of achieving personal goals like moksha, artha and kama is by acting according to our inborn nature, our svadharma. If moksha is greater than dharma it would be like saying that the result is greater than its cause. You never achieve moksha without practice of your svadharma. On the contrary Dharma exists forever it does not depend on moksha, but there is no achivement of any goal like moksha without following of one´s dharma. This cannot be refuted.
Actually though it may sound peculiar, in my opinion as long as one considers moksha to be superior and artha and kama lowly one cannot possibly realise and truly cherish any of the 3. Or the other way around only a person who knows that kama artha moksha are only human aims but not the absolute, can be said to be a sage. If he differntiates between desires as higher and lower desires, he is not situated beyond the limitations of his ashrama. Therefore he is far away from the absolute the nameless, which is supposed to be situated beyond varna and ashrama.
P.S.
Yes, in the more ancient yoga shastras and agamas moksha or khechara or shivatva is the highest siddhi, high yes, but still it is a siddhi an accomplishment, that means a result of your actions, doing your svadharma or sadhana may lead to several results and one can be moksha. In later Vedanta Moksha became blown up out of proportion and now almost everyone is misunderstanding the relevancy. It is a siddhi, a human lifespan is or should be about much more than just folowing this single selfish desire for Moksha. A philosophy centerd around the desire for moksha or nirvana is in my experience often causing people to become very self centered and also sometimes arrogant and judgemental.

sambya
01 July 2010, 12:15 PM
Dear Sambya,
What is the source of the stories about Ramakrishna that you often cite from? They are not really flattering for the saint, they depict him as a self centered, rude and unkind person ignorant of the shastras.


mahahrda ji , i have a request since you have used the words 'they' .

i use the stories and parables since it has helped me significantly in understanding the basics of hinduisms . and i thought that the stories are very good in helping people understand the difficult concepts . i might have been completely wrong , since you didnt seem to like any of them .

tell me , whether you disliked this particular incident or all the other parables that i have quoted previously ?

i need the answer . i will have it in mind the next time i post .

thanks

sambya
01 July 2010, 12:49 PM
Dear Sambya
I think it is very important not to mix up moksha with the absolute. Moksha needs a limited person who wants to achive it it. The absolute exists even if there is no human being or even any devata who can desire moksha.

agreed


So how can love for a devata have anything to do with the absolute, the anama, when the absolute is still existing even when there is not a single devata or human present? i have learnt to deal with the topic of devata in another way . the way is symbolic and typical of advaita . we often come across places in shastras where devata upasana is frowned upon . why ? does that mean that only brahman is to be worshipped or meditated upon ?

one possible explanation is the way you pray to the deities .

suppose i am praying to ganesha for siddhi , for removing obstacles , having in mind that ganesha is the deity for removing obstacles . that is devata upasana .
again when im praying to the same ganesha as the supreme truth , as the causal force of the cosmos . as the god . as my ishta , it is brahman upasana . prayer to the absolute .

in this view it is the psychology of the person which determines what kind of upasana he is doing . this view solves the apprently conflicting and confusing shastric statement about devata upasana and doesnt say to others that their upasana is false . its my own view also .

so if someone loves his deity as THE GOD he can reach the absolute too .



only doing ones dharma is greater than desires and aversions avidya and ego , only dharma is selfless action, all other aims have motivations. Dharma is notdone because of a desire but is an inborn duty we are born with we do not strive for it because it is satisfying our desires.thats from the theoritical point of view . practically we all have baser instincts in varied levels which might not be in accordance with dharma
but at the same time refrain from harbouring such thoughts due to social sense of right and wrong as enshrined in dharmic codes . dharma doesnt always come instinctively . it comes as a result of obeying . many times following dharmic principle results out of desires of punya or fear of society .



If moksha is greater than dharma it would be like saying that the result is greater than its cause. You never achieve moksha without practice of your svadharma. On the contrary Dharma exists forever it does not depend on moksha, but there is no achivement of any goal like moksha without following of one´s dharma. This cannot be refuted.agreed . i never said moksha is greater than dharma . you said swadharma is the aim . i replied that moksha is the aim and swadharma is the path .



Actually though it may sound peculiar, in my opinion as long as one considers moksha to be superior to artha and kama one cannot possibly realise and truly cherish any of the 3.why ? and how ?
moksha , independent of anything else leads to atmagyan while kama and artha doesnt lead to atmagyan . why isnt moksha superior over artha and kama ?


Or the other way around only a person who knows that kama artha moksha are only human aims but not the absolute, can be said to be a sage. If he differntiates between desires as higher and lower desires, he is not situated beyond the limitations of his ashrama. Therefore he is far away from the absolute the nameless, which is supposed to be situated beyond varna and ashrama.yes , but when he sage is speaking to commoners he must speak in a laguage that is understandable to all . the sage understands that the stool lying in the street and the food item are the same . but he cannot preach that to the masses .

he knows that desire for moksha and can be as much a cause of bondage as others . but he cannot advice others to engage in free kama and expect to realize god . just as i said before you need the thorn of vidya to pull out the one of ignorance . then you can dispose both of them together .

he is not discriminating for himself , but for sake of others !!!!!!

if he doesnt discriminate between higher an lower desires then there's no point in him instructing about god to others . in fact if we dont discriminate we cannot progress in sadhana . all this discrimination is temporal , but necessary . viveka = discrimination !!!!!



Yes, in the more ancient yoga shastras and agamas moksha or khechara or shivatva is the highest siddhi, high yes, but still it is a siddhi an accomplishment, that means a result of your actions, douing your svadharma or sadhana may lead to several results and one can be moksha. In later Vedanta Moksha became blown up out of proportion and now almost everyone is misunderstanding the relevancy. It is only a siddhi, a human life is or should be about much more than just that.
new to me . might be . but thats not the view of most hindu spiritual practitioners .

what is the end result according to you ? what does the realization of self mean ?

MahaHrada
01 July 2010, 01:05 PM
mahahrda ji , i have a request since you have used the words 'they' .

i use the stories and parables since it has helped me significantly in understanding the basics of hinduisms . and i thought that the stories are very good in helping people understand the difficult concepts . i might have been completely wrong , since you didnt seem to like any of them .

tell me , whether you disliked this particular incident or all the other parables that i have quoted previously ?

i need the answer . i will have it in mind the next time i post .

thanks

I will look into all other stories at another time , i only remember one other it was about how Ramakrishna was disgusted by pashu bali but nonetheless he attended the pujas. If attending a puja or entering a temple it should be with respect or one should stay out, i also found this was not really a flattering incident. Of course if one is judgmental and discerns between good and evil acharas (like Vivekananda certainly did) this could be viewed differently. But i don´t know much about Ramakrishna therefore i am learning something, no matter whether i like the story or not.

sambya
01 July 2010, 01:09 PM
No I dindn't got it at all. I will tell you a simple truth, I am a student right now, I want to be a millionaire, I want to do MBA from a good institute. All these things are not part of my life, they all are aim of my life. I see my religion Sanatan dharm in danger from adharmic religions, I am politically motivated fellow, in my present life I want to contribute to society too. All these things are samsarik and will keep me away from getting moksha, anyways moksha is something I don't aim for in this life. What's the hurry ? This is what I wanted to tell you in my previous post. What is aim of life is for individual to decide, unless his aims are adharmic. I believe dictating aim of human life according to limited understanding shastra can be very dangerous for society, particularly Hindu society which has taken dubious moral values from bullshit religions like islam and Christianity.


good . nice aims . nothing wrong with it . however when i am speaking about ' aims ' im viewing things at macrocosmic levels while you are veiwing it at microcosmic levels .

your aim is upto you to decide . true .
im not speaking of your own aim . or aim of each individual man in this planet . im speaking of the aim of human race . the cause of human birth . the ultimate aim . whatever you aimed is temporary and impermanent . asat vastu . so what is THAT aim for which humans have evolved . the reason behind his human existence . the supreme aim . its that aim im speaking of .

and that aim is self realization . other aims come under its umbrella .


this IS the most common type of understanding of the shastras .

to add ,,,,,all these are not my personal conceptions . this is just what i have read from different scriptures , religious magazines , text books etc on hinduism . and not just of ramakrishna ! :)








End goal of every jeeva is moksha for sure, but that doesn't means aim of everyone's present human birth. Dharm, Artha and kama are mithya from standpoint of nirgun brahm, it is very much relevant in process of getting moksha, and just suppressing these things against one's will, one can't get moksha. When time will come realization will descend.

its evidently not the immediate aim for many people . but its the ultimate aim for mankind in general . so it rules over all other aims . since it is the ultimate aim , it is considered wiser if we slowly try to give this aim a room in our lives . not forcing anything . but trying to give the ultimate aim a chance . that's the reason why these householders go to satsang etc . so that inspite of their difficulties they can have a time for paramarth .

when time comes realization will descend for sure .

you have got my point !!! :)

sambya
01 July 2010, 01:36 PM
.... i only remember one other it was about how Ramakrishna was disgusted by pashu bali but nonetheless he attended the pujas. If attending a puja or entering a temple it should be with respect or one should stay out,


it was not disgust to be precise . he did not show disgust to any relgious practices of hinduism . he glorified some more than the others and mentioned suitablity of some in this age .

about bali he said " now my condition is such that i can't see balidaan . cant eat the 'maha'-prasad of mother also . so i just touch and wear a dot in forehead , lest she gets angry at me "

when someone asked him whether balidaan is permissible he replied " shastra tells us that in certain special situations balidaan can be made "

he did not decry any shastras nor express any disgust .

i was thinking that perhaps you could read a little about him and then form a opinion about him . that might help .
heres a link to the kathamrita , the book i have used for my now infamous quotations !

http://www.kathamrita.org/KathamritaMain.htm

unfotunately you wouldnt find the vankim episode in here as the fifth part is still being processed .

Ganeshprasad
01 July 2010, 02:56 PM
Pranam all

The thread opener would be forgiven to wonder if he was in the right thread.

As for the discussion that has stemmed from 'ahaar , nidra and maithuna',

Beggars belief that it can be equated with Dharma , arth kaam and moksa.
sex,sleeping and food are common to all pasu but to call it Purshartha is bit much.

I share Sambya’s pain(may be) in having to explain to fellow Hindus.

'ahaar , nidra and maithuna' what next the old cliché wine women and song the goal off human life! We can defend all this in the name off Dharma Arth kaam and Moksa or perhaps we can read chapter 16 of Bhagvat Gita to gain some perspective, or for that matter any other Shastra to refer as to what dharma is.

Off sex,
Lord Krishna says ‘I am the lust Kaama in human beings that is in accord with Dharma (for procreation), O Arjuna’ otherwise he says
The Supreme Lord said: It is Kaama and anger born of Rajo Guna. Kaama is insatiable and is a great devil. Know this as the enemy. (3.37)

Ahaar,
We can not compete with elephant or even a hog, so watch out if this is a goal, the Lord is very kind he fulfils our desires, we may very well be one off them.
And to be faithful to the thread if have liking for meat we can be sure to be born as a dog or a lion or what ever, our desires and Karma see to that we get appropriate body to enjoy that which we desire.

Otherwise it should be youkta ahaar viharsya

Nidra,
A bear or some other animal sleeps for a long time let us not be like Kumbhkaran and hanker to sleep or else that could be facilitated.

So what is the goal of human life
athato brahma jijnasa
 
The Vedanta-sutra (1.1.1) states, athato brahma jijnasa: "Now one should inquire about Brahman - The absolute truth, the transcendental, spiritual nature"

Jai Shree Krishna

MahaHrada
01 July 2010, 05:04 PM
Dear Sambya,

Some Vedantins say that a desire or craving for Moksha can end Samsara. This is illogical according to Tantra and Yoga shastras, it is only cessation of desire and anger that will help you to progress to a higher non dual state.

It is the desire itself that will bind you to Samsara not the object of desire and therefore it is not a very great difference at all what you desire whether it is Kama, Artha or Moksha. Unless you end the desire and anger or attachment and aversion itself you are devoid of access to higher Knowledge.

The only difference is that people who desire and crave for moksha tend to be more deluded than others, because while being tormented by desire for the state of moksha without even having experienced a taste of it, they nonetheless are deeming themselves to be somehow superior and holier than those that desire worldly comforts. This baseless superiority neurosis actually makes most of those vedantins more deluded and self centered and egotistical than anyone that innocently and humbly strives only for artha and kama. Of course someone who is trying to follow his svadharma, whatever that is, is way superior to these deluded souls that are craving for higher goals like moksha but do not understand that Dharma is the eternal ground on which all other aims have to rest. Moksha cannot even be imagined to exist without bondage. So how can a state that depends on samsara to even exist as a concept in your mind be the absolute? This is a delusion. Moksha Artha and Kama are all equally part of samsara or Maya, illusion since they depend on the existance of the desires of a jiva, desha and kala. Therefore ultimately cherishing any of the the fruits of dharma wheter it is Artha Kama or Moksha are equally pure acts, provided one follows ones svadharma. It is not the aim or object of a persons desire that is divine or lowly it is also not the object that is pure or impure, it is the person that is either knowledgable or deluded that makes the difference. For those that have an impure mind every act and object will be impure, for those sages with a pure mind every act is necessarly also pure.

Darji
01 July 2010, 05:16 PM
The thread opener would be forgiven to wonder if he was in the right thread.


Yeah, the focus did shift a slight bit :)

devotee
01 July 2010, 08:02 PM
Namaste,



No I dindn't got it at all. I will tell you a simple truth, I am a student right now, I want to be a millionaire, I want to do MBA from a good institute. All these things are not part of my life, they all are aim of my life. I see my religion Sanatan dharm in danger from adharmic religions, I am politically motivated fellow, in my present life I want to contribute to society too. All these things are samsarik and will keep me away from getting moksha, anyways moksha is something I don't aim for in this life. What's the hurry ? This is what I wanted to tell you in my previous post. What is aim of life is for individual to decide, unless his aims are adharmic. .......... End goal of every jeeva is moksha for sure, but that doesn't means aim of everyone's present human birth.

We are all moving towards Moksha & that is our aim whether "we" are aware of it or not, whether "we" want it or not .... the Kaala (time) is taking all of us towards that ultimate goal. Though you rightly said that it is not necessarily in this birth itself ... however let's not forget that the more we work against our goal of moksha the longer and more painful our journey becomes.

I agree with the views expressed by Sambya and GaneshPrasad ji in this thread. The Aratha and Kaam should take us towards Dharma (& it should be earned according to the dharma) & Dharma should take us towards Moksha. As long as we are not working towards Moksha as goal but for our carnal desires we are accumulating more and more fuel for the fire of sufferings for us.

OM

isavasya
02 July 2010, 01:09 AM
im not speaking of your own aim . or aim of each individual man in this planet . im speaking of the aim of human race . the cause of human birth . the ultimate aim . whatever you aimed is temporary and impermanent . asat vastu . so what is THAT aim for which humans have evolved . the reason behind his human existence . the supreme aim . its that aim im speaking of .


Namste sambya ji,

I feel You are a learned person with a compassionate heart, from here on, do not consider any of my post against sri ramkrishna ji, I am only speaking against the idea which I feel is not good for all.



Well you can also look at cause of human birth as leela of ishwara, we live in a world which is true at vyavharik level and we should accept that. Moksha is not aim of humanity but destiny of Humanity. To exclude dharm,arth, kaam as aims of Humanity is wrong concept. Aim of ksahtriye should be to protect dharm, get valour etc etc, aim of vasihya should be to earn money, do things to improve arthvyavastha of the country, Now by looking down at people who have these inspirations, you break the spirit of society itself, this is what has happened with Hindustan lately . Dharm is not same for everyone, a rickshaw puller's dharm is to work hard, a poor man's aim should be to feed his family. What amazes me most is that advaitins take everything at absolute level and don't want to live in present world and even set such values for others, they are absolutely unrealistic. By preaching things that dharm, arth, kaam are for materialists(in negative sense) you only confuse the general and common Hindus, most of whom are neither competent nor desirous of moksha. So what's next in moral policing ? Islamic economics like economy to combat monstrous aims of vaisyas ? Kubera should be butchered first! Hinduism has even Gods and Goddesses for many special purposes. If aim of humanity is only moksha, then all of them are cheating for humanity.




We are all moving towards Moksha & that is our aim whether "we" are aware of it or not, whether "we" want it or not .... the Kaala (time) is taking all of us towards that ultimate goal. Though you rightly said that it is not necessarily in this birth itself ... however let's not forget that the more we work against our goal of moksha the longer and more painful our journey becomes.

As long as we are not working towards Moksha as goal but for our carnal desires we are accumulating more and more fuel for the fire of sufferings for us.

Namaste devotee ji,

Your views have fragrance of buddhist values. The shastra say, great lord mahadeva creates this jagat with his maya, to portray this jagat and existence as suffering is a great insult to eshwara. world and jagat doesn't makes us suffer, selfish people and their selfish impositions makes the world suffer.

devotee
02 July 2010, 01:49 AM
Namaste Isa,


Your views have fragrance of buddhist values. The shastra say, great lord mahadeva creates this jagat with his maya, to portray this jagat and existence as suffering is a great insult to eshwara. world and jagat doesn't makes us suffer, selfish people and their selfish impositions makes the world suffer.

That are your views & I don't think what I said is exclusive to Buddhism. What I have said is based on what revered Advaita Saints have said. If you think it is Buddhism, that is upto you & I have no issues with that.

OM

sambya
02 July 2010, 02:54 AM
Some Vedantins say that a desire or craving or moksha can end Samsara. This is illogical according to Tantra and Yoga shastras, it is only cessation of desire and anger that will help you to progress to a higher non dual state.

namaskar ,

desire cannot end samsara . desires , no matter how useful they maybe , inevitable binds us to samsara ! that is not just a word of your tantra , but also of vedanta and of ramakrishna and of myself !!!

however , certain desires helps us proceed towards that ultimate cessation while certain desires cannot help us proceed towards that ultimate cessation.

that is all , this is precisely what i have been trying to explain all these while

if i take nidra as my aim of life and practice sleeping in all manners and in all possible ways . in quilt beds , in warm bedrooms with 10 pillows around etc etc etc . that can NEVER EVER lead me to the cessation of samsara . niether can eating and having sex !

BUT , if i make the 'desire of moksha' the aim of my life it will gradually draw me closer to god . i know that this 'desire of moksha' in itself is a mayic desire . but this is a desire that liberates . while desire to eat and sleep can NEVER liberate .

this is as clear as water .

if you still dont get my point , you explain to me how having sex or perfecting the art of sleeping and eating can lead me to the cessation of samsara .

also , i would like to know by what means is --
ahar nidra and maithuna = dharma artha kama moksha !!!



It is the desire itself that will bind you to Samsara not the object of desire and thereforer it is not a very great difference at all what you desire whether it is Kama, Artha or Moksha. Unless you end the desire and anger or attachment and aversion itself you are devoid of access to higher Knowledge.i agree and i have already provided an answer to this above . in short --

ALL DESIRES BINDS .
SOME DESIRES GRADUALLY UNBINDS .
SOME DESIRES NEVER UNBINDS .



The only difference is that people who desire and crave for moksha tend to be more deluded than others,.........................!!!!!

are you telling me that a person with brahmajigyasa(brahmajigyasa is also deisre of moksha) is more deluded than a person with sexual desires or desires to sleep and eat ??

if yes then by what authority ??


...............because while being tormented by desire for the state of moksha without even having experienced a taste of it, they nonetheless are deeming themselves to be somehow superior and holier than those that desire worldly comforts. This baseless superiority neurosis actually makes most of those vedantins more deluded and self centered and egotistical than anyone that innocently and humbly strives only for artha and kama.here you are talking of puffed up vedantins . they have already deviated from the true path of relaization . so lets not talk about such persons .
and lets us also not mix up psychology with our age old spiritual philosphy .



Moksha cannot even be imagined to exist without bondage. So how can a state that depends on samsara to even exist as a concept in your mind be the absolute? This is a delusion. Dharma moksha artha and kama are all equally part of samsara or Maya, illusion since they depend on the existance of a jiva, of desha and kala.as i have asked previously , what is the aim of human life according to you ? dont give multiple answers coz ultimate aim is always singular not plural .

what is cessation of samsara like in your understanding ?

i would like to know something completely new !




Therefore ultimately cherishing any of the the fruits of dharma wheter it is artha kama or moksha are equally pure acts when one follows ones svadharma.sadly this is not what spiritual teachers of india teach us .


It is not the aim or object of a persons desire that is divine or lowly it is also not the object that is pure and impure, it is the person that is either knowledgable or deluded that makes the difference. For those that have an impure mind every act and object will be impure, for those sages with a pure mind every act is necessarly also pure.again you are confusing the ideal state with sadhana stage !!!!!!!!!!

what you are speaking of is true in the final stages of realization . in the final stages of realization these differences ultimately vanish .

but untill one reaches that stage he HAS to discriminate between good and bad . and a realized saint instructing the common man also has to instruct them on discrimination ..


you tell me -- how can i attain realization without caring for discrimination ?

MahaHrada
02 July 2010, 04:01 AM
Dear Sambya

You have many questions and i cannot answer all now probabaly you look through my older postings i have written a lot about the differences between Advaita, Vedanta and other darshana.

The Question about the highest aim i have already answered several times of course it is dharma, it is the only aim that is selfless and that is done for the good of family and society. All other aims are selfish including the craving for moksha.

Maybe some follower of one of these modern "Gurus" can explain to me why it is so important that every poor wretched human should solely strive for moksha, loving god or any other of these otherworldly aims, when not even the devata merge into the absolute but seem quite content with enjoying the world and its pleasures in their respective lokas ?

sambya
02 July 2010, 04:04 AM
Namste sambya ji,

I feel You are a learned person with a compassionate heart, from here on, do not consider any of my post against sri ramkrishna ji, I am only speaking against the idea which I feel is not good for all.

thanks ! :)

i will explain my point in respect of you statements .


Well you can also look at cause of human birth as leela of ishwara, we live in a world which is true at vyavharik level and we should accept that.yes ofcourse it is the leela of lord . no one is expecting evryone to turn around and be realized . no one is being pressurized to renounce immediately . infact we owe our very existence to grihastas . had it not been for them i wouldnt have been born . even a sannyasis is dependant on a grihasta for his maintainence . grihasta dharma is not by any means lower than sannyasa dharma . out of millions of people only one will ever attain realization . all this is written in shastras itself . the world is so designed that it will continue with its creation .
shastras accept that
ramakrishna accepted that
i also accept that .




Moksha is not aim of humanity but destiny of Humanity. To exclude dharm,arth, kaam as aims of Humanity is wrong concept.dharma , artha , kaama and moksha are all four pillars of existence . all four are aims of human birth . but moksha is the supreme aim among them .

that is why our whole lifestyle is modelled on spiritual values , something that i have illustrated before .

brahma jigyasa is the highest aim of mankind in general . and ultimately we are all progressing towards it inch by inch . it is the destiny as well as the ultimate aim .

thats what the shastras and teachers have taught us for centuries .

you are free to differ ofcourse . i cannot have any problem with that .



Aim of ksahtriye should be to protect dharm, get valour etc etc, aim of vasihya should be to earn money, do things to improve arthvyavastha of the country,yes correct . you are speaking of swadharma which varies with different persons in different times and places .

however dharma is a practice . a practice cannot be an aim . a practice is always aimed towards something . what is that ultimate thing ? that is the knowledge of god .

once again , this is not my own view . this is what shastras and teachers teach us .




Now by looking down at people who have these inspirations, you break the spirit of society itself, this is what has happened with Hindustan lately .NO . I DID NOT look down upon any body . neither did ramakrishna paramahamsa .

in hindu way , each and every man is expected to act in search of brahmagyan to his individual capacity . why does a kshatriya need to follow his khsaatra dharma ? why does a brahmin need to follow his braahmanya dharma ? forget it . tell me what is the need of following dharma in the first place ? why cant i murder anyone i like ?

this question leads us to the answer . because our ultimate goal remains self realization . by choosing to not follow our swadharma we take ourselves further away from that ultimate goal . that's the reason we should follow dharma .

anyone can remain in his own work , but always have in mind that the aim of this life is realizing god . once again i quote ramakrishna( sorry respected mahahrda , i couldnt help it . you could skip reading this example)
" a maid works in a rich mans house in the city , nurses the kids and does all the household works . she calls the kids in affectionate names and nurses them . but deep within she knows that they are not her own . she has her own family in the village . "
" a lady involved in extra marital relation does all her household work perfectly , but her mind dwells on her paramour . "

this his how we should try to lead our lives . do everything but dont forget god . why ? because he's the ultimate refuge !! it is moksha that we are all ultimately heading for .
so can it be considered wise , if inspite of knowing that the end is in moksha , we do things that take us further away from it ?


its not the question of looking down upon someone . its the question of respecting someone who loves god more than someone who doesnt . ofcourse , when taken from spiritual perspective . since im spiritual , my perspective is always spiritual .

from perspective of society they are same . in fact from this perspective a sannyasi is a social parasite . i hope you step out of this socio-political viewpoint . it will help you understand the points quickly .



What amazes me most is that advaitins take everything at absolute level and don't want to live in present world and even set such values for others, they are absolutely unrealistic.again you are viewing things from social secular veiwpoints . that way you can never reach to the points im trying to make .

every spiritual man does not want to live in the present world , whether it is an advaitin or dvaitin . that is the essence of spirituality itself !! we want to come out of misery and sufferings . we want immortality . yes the fictional immortality . and we search for the same immortality in our scriptures , in our philsopshy , in our gods .

what do you mean by realistic ? neither you nor i have seen god . arent we believing in something which is 'unreal' ?
do you belive that western concepts of realism can neatly fit in in our soceity ? i dont think so .

from this viewpoint people who renounce the world early in life are the greatest sinners . most unrealistic . chaitanya mahaprabu and buddha must be hanged !! they left their mothers and wives in pursuit of a fictional dream that no one has ever seen .

but that is not the indian perspective on things .


By preaching things that dharm, arth, kaam are for materialists(in negative sense) you only confuse the general and common Hindus, most of whom are neither competent nor desirous of moksha.So what's next in moral policing ? compared to the highest realization , i.e moksha itself , even 'desire of moksha' is material . but when compared amongst each other moksha stands out .

i am no one's moral police . all these are there in shastras and words of the great teachers . you are always free to disagree .

you can even prove yourself correct by quoting from scriptures and teachers . then i can accept what you say as another alternate philosophy .



If aim of humanity is only moksha, then all of them are cheating for humanity.
can you elaborate please ?



There are innumerable Born Hindus who make fun of ramkrishna, even of shankaracharya,(to the extent of calling him demon). There are hindus like me who can insult gandhi too.what does this mean ? are you equating sankaracharya or ramakrishna with gandhi ?

once again i would humbly suggest you to step out of the viewpoint of secular sociology as propagated by westrners . it cannot help in understanding hindu life or philosophy .

read the lifestories of gandhi , ramakrishna and shankaracharya and see the differences yourself !

what has gandhi to do with hinduism ?!!!! this is a most common error that an average westerner makes--that gandhi was a spiritual leader . are you following that theory too ?!!!!

sambya
02 July 2010, 04:19 AM
Dear Sambya
You have many questions and i cannot answer all now probabaly you look through my older postings i have written a lot about the differences between Advaita, Vedanta and other darshana.

respected mahahrda ,

thanks for the suggestion , but i have enough knowledge already . im fixed firmly on what i have read in shastras , both tantric and vaidic , in manuals and books , in works of iskcon and ramakrishna / vivekananda . from the printings of gita press and divine life society . my head is already crowded with what i have learnt all these years .

now , i think , its time for me to devote a little more to sadhana than dry philosophical reading or flirting around different contradictory theories . thats precisely what i am trying at lately.

with a little more knowledge , im afraid that i might also turn into one of those carcass seeking vultures that ramakrishna was speaking off . i value my viveka(discrimination) and my bhakti immensely(whatever little i have) . i see no way to 'salvation' without viveka ! i think you know of such a way .......i have already requested you to show me the procedure to reach realization without viveka .

thanks :)


The Question about the highest aim i have already answered several times of course it is dharma,yeah , i know that . however i wanted to know the method through which dharma becomes the highest aim . to me dharma is the means , not the aim . i wanted to know how can a procedure become the end ?!!!


it is the only aim that is selfless and that is done for the good of family and societyahaa . you too are veiwing things from the viewpoint of secular society . i see that in previous posts too when you said --
It is not wise to say that moksha is the highest or sole goal, propagation of such an idea is not good for human society and welfare of the state.however im speaking , and always speak , from a purely spiritual perspective . pardon me !!

and welfare of state ? isnt that an entirely mleccha concept ?


anyways thanks for devoting time .

perhaps you can think of actually reading about ramakrishna , from the link that i have provided previously , before you form an opinion . good luck .

Ganeshprasad
02 July 2010, 05:11 AM
Pranam MahaHrada


Maybe some follower of one of these modern "Gurus" can explain to me why it is so important that every poor wretched human should solely strive for moksha, loving god or any other of these otherworldly aims, when not even the devata merge into the absolute but seem quite content with enjoying the world and its pleasures in their respective lokas ?

I tell you why, although i follow no particular Guru, we poor wretched human or otherwise should strive for Moksha or loving God because we have something the others dont have is the ability of vivek(discriminate).

otherwise as As Sakracharya says
Punarapi jananam punarapi maran`am
punarapi jananii jat`haree s`ayanam
iha samsaaree bahu dustaaree
Kripayaa paaree paahi Muraaree .. 22

to save us from repeated birth and death and from samsaar which is full of misery which Lord Krishna says it is Dukhalyam, so we should thank those Gurus who warn us from our futile attempt to enjoy this wretched unforgiving world, from just chewing the chewed.

Perhaps you can tell us what is the purpose of human life?

Jai Shree Krishna

MahaHrada
02 July 2010, 05:14 AM
respected mahahrda ,
.

Dear Sambya
I don´t want to evade any Questions but i don´t have the time for arguments. It should be clear to any Hindu that following your Dharma is the ultimate goal of your life. The universe and the existance of jivas, indivdual beings and their enjoyment of the world, is meaningful and good, there is nothing in the universe that is bad as such in Hinduism, it is made for enjoyment, the same thing also Isavasya tried to explain to you. Brahman is Ananda, therefore humans and devas can reach brahman by enjoyment as well.

Teachings that consider Moksha or "loving god" as the only goal for everybody, as the samanya dharma, regardless of the jivas svadharma, and harshly condemm other legitimate dharmic goals and pleasures, as inferior and lowly and that while using inappropriate insulting language in order to condem other darshanas, are not only foolish and ignorant of what is ordained in the Vedas and other shastras but are also a detrimental influence for Hindu dharma and the general welfare of the family and society.

MahaHrada
02 July 2010, 05:33 AM
Pranam MahaHrada



I tell you why, although i follow no particular Guru, we poor wretched human or otherwise should strive for Moksha or loving God because we have something the others dont have is the ability of vivek(discriminate).

otherwise as As Sakracharya says
Punarapi jananam punarapi maran`am
punarapi jananii jat`haree s`ayanam
iha samsaaree bahu dustaaree
Kripayaa paaree paahi Muraaree .. 22

to save us from repeated birth and death and from samsaar which is full of misery which Lord Krishna says it is Dukhalyam, so we should thank those Gurus who warn us from our futile attempt to enjoy this wretched unforgiving world, from just chewing the chewed.

Perhaps you can tell us what is the purpose of human life?

Jai Shree Krishna

Dear Ganeshprasad

No problem with moksha do i have, I promise i will consider merging into the absolute right after Shiva has left Parvati his beloved, and his residence at Kailash behind and both have merged in brahman :)

I said before that to follow ones Dharma is an universal task.

sambya
02 July 2010, 05:34 AM
Dear Sambya
I don´t want to evade any Questions but i don´t have the time for arguments.

oh !! i see .....


It should be clear to any Hindu that following your Dharma is the ultimate goal of your life.says who ?

i am an average hindu , born in punya bhumi bharatavarsha , in a brahmin family , just graduated in law , maintaining close touch with holy men and scriptures and i dont think dharma is the higest goal . i think it is the way to the highest goal .

and none of the holy men that i have come in touch with has said that the swadharma is the highest goal .

all said that self realization is the highest goal .

but as i always say , you are free to differ .


The universe and the existance of jivas, indivdual beings and their enjoyment of the world, is meaningful and good, there is nothing in the universe that is bad as such in Hinduism,tell me something i dont know !!

i have been repeating these very things right since the beginning .


Brahman is Ananda, therefore humans and devas can reach brahman by enjoyment as wellyes , possible , like as in vamachaar sexual rites , bhairavi chakras , pancha-ma-kara etc . but hard and difficult . not for masses .

and even here the goal must be god realization through the path of enjoyment . the goal CANNOT be just enjoyment . that is what im trying to say all along and you are failing to see !

once again thats what most teachers opine !!

isavasya
02 July 2010, 07:53 AM
Hello sambya ji,




however dharma is a practice . a practice cannot be an aim . a practice is always aimed towards something . what is that ultimate thing ? that is the knowledge of god '.


If dharm is not the aim, then why does bhagwan takes avataar ? If dharm is not aim why does being who is self realized comes in form of maryada purushottam and shows what should be a dharm of a king, son, brother, father etc. Dharm or correcting dharm is definitely a very high aim, and in context of time & situation, it may be highest aim for humanity.




'this question leads us to the answer . because our ultimate goal remains self realization . by choosing to not follow our swadharma we take ourselves further away from that ultimate goal . that's the reason we should follow dharma' .


True the final destiny is self realization, but self realisation is not a piece of cake, self realisation comes to great sages and pious people, who dont crave for it as a aim, but give up other aims.



what does this mean ? are you equating sankaracharya or ramakrishna with gandhi ?



once again i would humbly suggest you to step out of the viewpoint of secular sociology as propagated by westrners . it cannot help in understanding hindu life or philosophy .


Some of you seem to be absolutely obsessed by westerners. Did you even pay attention to what was context I used gandhi ?

'however im speaking , and always speak , from a purely spiritual perspective . pardon me !!'



Yes and it should be focus of purely spiritual person like you, not of every tom,dick and harry. A person who is not competent enough to get moksha, should be left to his dharm, else he will become a complete failure. A person who is not fit for moksha , if he indulges in such ambitious targets at because of impositions of moral values, might even be threat to himself and society at large.




'can you elaborate please ?'






I was saying, if only nirgun brahm was everything, we wouldn't have multitudes of devtas, sanatan dharm is complex, one should see things from all sides and not become totally engrossed in his own world view.





'and welfare of state ? isnt that an entirely mleccha concept '?



In your spiritual world may be, not in world of dharm, shri ram left his beloved wife, for happiness and satisfaction of few fools, that was his dharm as a king.


And please don't mind, do not use words like mleccha free of cost, it's a very derogatory word, in some local languages, it is has many other meanings. Spirituality does not means you will seek humour like this.

sambya
02 July 2010, 08:37 AM
Hello sambya ji,

If dharm is not the aim, then why does bhagwan takes avataar ? If dharm is not aim why does being who is self realized comes in form of maryada purushottam and shows what should be a dharm of a king, son, brother, father etc. Dharm or correcting dharm is definitely a very high aim, and in context of time & situation, it may be highest aim for humanity.


well isavasya .

i have said nowhere that dharma is not the aim . i said , dharma is not the highest aim .

god comes for dharma sthapana . and that sthapana is to help mankind follow the path of dharma so that in due time each one of them can attain realization .

well at this point im having a feeling of going round in circles . perhaps im unable to express myself or perhaps you are unable to understand .

whatever it may be . i wouldnt wish to take on each of your points once again and type the same answers . for the good of everyone --me , you and the poor readers !! hehe .

instead i would summarise the points where we disagree :

my view ----------

moksha is the ultimate goal and end of human existence .
dharma is the means to acheive this goal .
no one is being pressured upon to rush to moksha
everyone is instructed not to forget the goal of self realization or moksha.

where did i get these points ? well . as i have said before through readings of books magazines scriptures , and virtually any religious work that came in my hands .

nowhere did i come across a view which says that swadharma is the highest goal of human life .

since you are disagreeing with it , please be kind enough and provide suitable references which made you draw this conclusion . that will help me to understand your point better . which scriptures , which leaders say that swadharma is the end goal ?






A person who is not fit for moksha , if he indulges in such ambitious targets at because of impositions of moral values, might even be threat to himself and society at large.

that is not true . a person who is not competent for moksha woudltn even give a thought to it ! no matter how hard you 'preach' . hahaha........and even if he forcefully goes some way , he will get entangled in maya and get immersed in bhoga once more . sometimes even without his knowing .

SethDrebitko
02 July 2010, 12:37 PM
I agree with you that there is not necessarily anything wrong with eating meat, that said it is our responsibility to be stewards of gods flesh the lands, and blood the seas. I believe that 10 times the amount of meat given is consumed in vegetation to produce it. Just because you can does not mean you should.

satay
02 July 2010, 01:14 PM
Admin Note

Please refrain from making personal attacks on mystics.
Please do not make personal attacks on other members of HDF. Instead of making personal attacks on other members, please report the offending posts.

Thanks,

Ganeshprasad
03 July 2010, 06:26 AM
Pranam all

Thanks Satay to keep this thread open.


Dear Ganeshprasad

No problem with moksha do i have, I promise i will consider merging into the absolute right after Shiva has left Parvati his beloved, and his residence at Kailash behind and both have merged in brahman :)

.



Pranam MahaHrada

Now what need was there for your above statement ? The brazen way with which you talk about the Lord Krishna and Gopies and Lord Shiva, just because of your contempt of moksha in this discussion is uncalled for. and for the record not all think Moksha=merging.
 
 
 


I said before that to follow ones Dharma is an universal task.

Great answer, only it tells nothing, if it is Pashu samana do let us know, 'ahaar , nidra and maithuna',and let me add ‘Bhai’ these are certainly universal struggle and boy what a struggle, I notice my post no 19 remains unanswered.

but I like to think Hindu Dharma is much more then the universal struggle, suggest you check up
The thread Pillars http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=6033 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=6033) or contemplate on
Brahm sutra   The Vedanta-sutra (1.1.1) states, athato brahma jijnasa: "Now one should inquire about Brahman - The absolute truth, the transcendental, spiritual nature"

Jai Shree Krishna

MahaHrada
03 July 2010, 07:43 AM
Pranam MahaHrada

Now what need was there for your above statement ? The brazen way with which you talk about the Lord Krishna and Gopies and Lord Shiva, just because of your contempt of moksha in this discussion is uncalled for. and for the record not all think Moksha=merging.
 


Dear Ganeshaprasadji,
Please excuse if i do not go into details, i simply lack the time to indulge too much in posting. There are differnces w.r.t to the relevancy attributed to moksha in diverse darshanas. In early vedic history the Mimsakas practsing the shrauta dharma did not at all accept that moksha belongs to the Purusharthas and in the beginning solely accepted 3: Dharma Artha and Kama, and that for good reasons.

As regards the significance of Dharma vs the other Purusharthas my opinion has a long and continuing tradition within and without Vedanta in the history of Indian Darshanas. Of course i know that popular Advaita Vedanta differs from my opinion but please realise though this darshana is today widespread and influential it is by no means the sole darshana in Hinduism but a later addition.
If i find time i will prepare a posting that shows the significance of Karma and Dharma in other Darshanas besides Kevala advaita. But i cannot promise this since i have other pressing matters to do.

isavasya
03 July 2010, 03:00 PM
Namaste sambya ji,


well isavasya .
moksha is the ultimate goal and end of human existence .
dharma is the means to acheive this goal .
no one is being pressured upon to rush to moksha
everyone is instructed not to forget the goal of self realization or moksha.

where did i get these points ? well . as i have said before through readings of books magazines scriptures , and virtually any religious work that came in my hands .





Have you gone through jaimini purva mimamsa sutra ? The former purva pakshi's had aim of attaining heaven and not moksha, There whole aim was to follow the dharma day and night, I will quote some verses .


Jaimini purva mimamsa sutra 1.1.1:

athAto dharma jiGYAsA .

"Now, enquire into the correct dharma."

The verse doesn't says, athAtho brahm jigyasa like brahm sutra.

Further jaimini purva mimamsa sutra even says, the knowledge of absolute dharm comes from performing vedic rituals and vedic shabda ucharan and not from self enquiry.

autpattikaH tu shabdasya arthena saMbandhaH tasya GYAnaM upadeshaH (1.5)

The relationship between a word and its meaning is
unborn; consequently vedic injunction is the means of knowing dharma;

Jaimini purva mimamsa sutra is just as important for purva pakshi's as brahm sutra for vedantins. The earlier purva mimamsakas like jaimini ,sabara believed in heaven concept opposed to later ones like like kumaraila bhata. Remember mimamsa was also number one school of thought at one time, even many times, it was mimsakas who defeated buddhists. Also even later mimsakas believed only vedic rituals as ultimate goal , not self inquiry.



Apart from that moksha concept itself differs from school to school, in tattvavada of sri madhwacharya, there are many souls who have to live by their guna for ever and don't even get moksha. Some people go to vrindavan after moksha, some people become part of brahman, some people become absolute consciousness. All these diversities speaks something, I hope you get my point, Sanatan dharm is not like Islam etc, the concepts and views are more or less subjective







since you are disagreeing with it , please be kind enough and provide suitable references which made you draw this conclusion .


I don't understand do you want me to put certain verses to support my point, Well I don't derive understanding by taking out few verses. My point is also very clear, dharm and moksha are function of time, what is highest for one is dependent on time, yes destiny is moksha no doubt.



Apart from that you may have your own understanding, But i believe bhagwan takes avataar to teach dharm, from every point of view, and not just for dharm sthapana, by the way it's great to coin a term to refute other's points.

atanu
03 July 2010, 04:21 PM
Namaste sambya ji,

Have you gone through jaimini purva mimamsa sutra ? The former purva pakshi's had aim of attaining heaven and not moksha, There whole aim was to follow the dharma day and night, I will quote some verses .

Jaimini purva mimamsa sutra 1.1.1:
athAto dharma jiGYAsA .
"Now, enquire into the correct dharma."
The verse doesn't says, athAtho brahm jigyasa like brahm sutra.

Further jaimini purva mimamsa sutra even says, the knowledge of absolute dharm comes from performing vedic rituals and vedic shabda ucharan and not from self enquiry.
autpattikaH tu shabdasya arthena saMbandhaH tasya GYAnaM upadeshaH (1.5)
The relationship between a word and its meaning is
unborn; consequently vedic injunction is the means of knowing dharma;
Jaimini purva mimamsa sutra is just as important for purva pakshi's as brahm sutra for vedantins. The earlier purva mimamsakas like jaimini ,sabara believed in heaven concept opposed to later ones like like kumaraila bhata. Remember mimamsa was also number one school of thought at one time, even many times, it was mimsakas who defeated buddhists. Also even later mimsakas believed only vedic rituals as ultimate goal , not self inquiry.

Apart from that moksha concept itself differs from school to school, in tattvavada of sri madhwacharya, there are many souls who have to live by their guna for ever and don't even get moksha. Some people go to vrindavan after moksha, some people become part of brahman, some people become absolute consciousness. All these diversities speaks something, I hope you get my point, Sanatan dharm is not like Islam etc, the concepts and views are more or less subjective

I don't understand do you want me to put certain verses to support my point, Well I don't derive understanding by taking out few verses. My point is also very clear, dharm and moksha are function of time, what is highest for one is dependent on time, yes destiny is moksha no doubt.

Apart from that you may have your own understanding, But i believe bhagwan takes avataar to teach dharm, from every point of view, and not just for dharm sthapana, by the way it's great to coin a term to refute other's points.

Namaste isavasya

This is a good post. However, I think you are not fully correct.

First, Purva Mimamsa has no answer for Buddhism, which is only counterable by Uttara Mimamsa. Granted that all six darshanas have their respective sphere of influence, but it is futile to disagree that Vedanta occupies the crown and is accepted by advaita, visistaadvaita, and dvaita schools. Purva Mimamsa on its own cannot stand. Scriptures do say that the notion of "I am the doer" has to go. So, a karmi, without knowledge of Self is still ignorant. You will note that the sutras you provide still talk of DHARMA JIGYASA and point to VEDA as SOURCE OF that KNOWLEDGE as to what is DHARMA?

One must first know that for pure Karma Kandis, there is no Shiva and no Ishwara. According to this school, Karma is self propelled and gives moksha of its own. But that is not what Veda or Yoga say. Veda does talk of Ishwara. Further, indeed by Jigyasa (enquiry) through all the prescribed yagna-s of Veda, Upanishadic seers have arrived at Vedanta. One cannot banish the role of jigyasa from the whole spectrum of dharma, which is based on Veda.

Second, if striving for moksha is an ignorance because, as stated by another poster, it constutes only a limited goal of an individual, then what dharma means for an individual? Is follower of dharma not an individual?

Third, the realisation of Self remains the ultimate goal, since otherwise the ignorant notion of others and the universe as separate entity from 'me' does not die. An ignorant individual is hardly a good candidate for performing faultless karma.

Fourth, even if I grant that you are 100% correct that Purva Mimamsa is more valid in itself, then it remains to answer whether purva mimamsa prescribes Ahar-Nidra-Maithuna as the only goal of existence or not? Does Purva Mimamsa prescribe thus? If not, then isn't the whole argument ridiculous?

It does not mean that karma has no role but only means that karma, which is inert, is not the goal in itself neither it is the dispenser of the fruits. The Goal has to be that which is declared as one truth in Veda and that which is LIVING and INTELLIGENT.
---------------------------------------------------------

Now the original argument hinged on Shri Bankim's comment that man's sole aim is Nidra-Ahar-Maithuna (sleeping-eating-copulating). I think Bankim was sarcastic and indicating the nature time. If he was not doing so, then do you think that all men should be told "Yes, the sole aim of existence is Nidra-Ahara-Maithuna"?

Do you think that all men should be taught so? Or should they be taught that there is something more than sleeping-eating-copulating? I fail to understand why sleeping-eating-copulating is being compared to purushartha-s?
----------------------------------------------------------

Also, without reading Kathamrita in full one may not understand the childlike simplicity of the sage Ramakrishna who was without a trace of guile in him. A seer who had no sense of being clothed or being nude and who was mad with love of divine mother cannot be judged with our yardstick.

You are free and responsible with your own understanding. i only wish that you will weigh the above points impartially.

Om Namah Shivaya

The main question, which we forgot was did brahmanas eat flesh before advent of jainism?

Om Namah Shivaya

sambya
03 July 2010, 09:53 PM
Namaste sambya ji,

Have you gone through jaimini purva mimamsa sutra ? The former purva pakshi's had aim of attaining heaven and not moksha, There whole aim was to follow the dharma day and night, I will quote some verses .




namaste isavasya .

have i gone through jaimini purva mimansa sutra ? im afraid , i did not . as i have said previously , im scared that a little more of knowledge might also turn me into a carcass seeking vulture and these days i want to devote more time to sadhana than just scripture reading . coz the essence of scriptures lies in searching god .

and as i have said before , since i'm having this feeling of going round in circles i wouldnt want to analyze each of your statements one by one and type in the same answers .

if you go sloka hunting you might even find a sloka that says, sex is the sole aim of human life . because hinduism is so vast and diverse . thats not a remedy to the problem(of differences in opinion) . the major darshanas and major gurus of india has veiwed self realization as its highest aim . that is what im trying to point out . im not trying to suggest that there was no difference in opinion !


i was also thinking in amazement -- what exactly are you defending through all these posts ?!!!

...the unjustified bad words spoken about ramakrishna ?
or
...that , eating sleeping and sex are the sole aims of human life ?




if you are still inclined to believe that eating sleeping and sex are the higet goals of humanity then you are free to do it . you can certainly come up with many scriptural supportations in your favour . but hinduism proper or hinduism major would always choose to differ from you .

thanks and pranaam .

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

sambya
03 July 2010, 09:57 PM
to isavasya i would once again suggest the reading of atleast a few pages of kathamrita and see what kind of person ramakrishna was personally .

when you are reading purvamimansas , a few pages of a diary(kathamrita was originally a personal diary) can certainly do you no harm .

see for yourself , you are fighting against whom !!!

devotee
03 July 2010, 10:29 PM
i was also thinking in amazement -- what exactly are you defending through all these posts ?!!!

...the unjustified bad words spoken about ramakrishna ?
or
...that , eating sleeping and sex are the sole aims of human life ?

I too wonder what is being defended here & for what purpose. I respect Chaarvak too in Hinduism who gave a doctrine of Nastikya but I strongly differ with him.

I wonder if there is anyone who strongly believes only in Purva Mimaamsa today ? After Shankaracharya these schools are almost dead ... but I may be wrong ... I don't know. Does any spiritual Hindu really despise the idea of "Mukti" today ?

How many spiritual Hindus believe today that "Food, Sleep and Sex is the sole aim of life" ? I have not met any. I am not talking about people who have nothing or hardly anything to do with spirituality. May be my knowledge is too poor. Perhaps, I need my knowledge updated.

OM

Ganeshprasad
04 July 2010, 05:31 AM
Pranam MahaHrada

Thanks for your time so far, you may take all the time you need, if it pleases you, please answer this simple question that has been the bone of contention, and simple yes or no will do.

A lot off discussion has steamed from the statement of revered Bamkim Chandra 'ahaar , nidra and maithuna'which you termed as and I quote

According to shastras the 4 legitimate aims of humans are well defined. They are:

Dharma (duty which includes protection)

Artha (art and wealth) including of course as most vital elements, health, and procurement of food and shelter

Kama (Satisfaction of sensual pleasures and sexuality)

and Moksha (release form Rebirth)

The authors answer to R.´s Question is therefore is a very wise one and in accordance with the shastras, while the alleged answer of the so called "saint" that "loving god is the sole aim" is foolish ignorance, contrary to the shastras and there is no shastra pramana at all to be found for such a viewpoint, while the 3 of the 4 Purusharthas mentionend by the author, are exactly the destined aims of the humans

A lot of debate has gone on the subject of moksha but I like to concentrate on the other three, you had contended that nindra ahaar and maithuna which bamkim ji mentioned are in accordance with Shastra, now I like to know which Shastra speaks of nindra , maithuna and ahhar as are exactly the destined aims of the humans ?

You say there is no pramana for loving god as sole aim, if you like I can provide that evidence, but I along with Sambya ,Devotee and Atanu and lots of others would all like to know, how maithuna ahhar and nindra forms the part of 4 Purusharthas? Do you consider Pashu saman vaihvar(conduct) as purushharthas?

Jai Shree Krishna

MahaHrada
04 July 2010, 06:06 AM
Pranam MahaHrada

Thanks for your time so far, you may take all the time you need, if it pleases you, please answer this simple question that has been the bone of contention, and simple yes or no will do.

A lot off discussion has steamed from the statement of revered Bamkim Chandra 'ahaar , nidra and maithuna'which you termed as and I quote


A lot of debate has gone on the subject of moksha but I like to concentrate on the other three, you had contended that nindra ahaar and maithuna which bamkim ji mentioned are in accordance with Shastra, now I like to know which Shastra speaks of nindra , maithuna and ahhar as are exactly the destined aims of the humans ?

You say there is no pramana for loving god as sole aim, if you like I can provide that evidence, but I along with Sambya ,Devotee and Atanu and lots of others would all like to know, how maithuna ahhar and nindra forms the part of 4 Purusharthas? Do you consider Pashu saman vaihvar(conduct) as purushharthas?

Jai Shree Krishna

Dera Ganeshprasadji
I have already provided all the answers you need to understand my viewpoint. But here i go again:
Desire for protection and shelter, stilling of hunger and also delight in art and sensual pleasures or wealth and the pleasure of spiritual delight and fulfillment when based on dharma even though self centered and selfish are nonetheless sacred and divine legitimate acts when done in accordance with Dharma.

But the highest act is delight in doing solely one´s duty, the Dharma since it is not selfish, unlike the egotistical and selfish pleasures derived through wealth, or spiritual means like sadhanas, or sensual pleasure, done for oneself only, but Duty is done for no desires or only for the good of others. This is the highest svadharma the path of Rishis, Siddhas Sages and Saint, but only very few have the svadharma to find delight in selflessness, they naturally qualify for higher knowledge that is transpersonal. But following the other goals, Artha,Kama, Moksha when they do not contradict Dharma is a very sacred act as well, since in Hindu Dharm the Universe exists solely for the reason to allow jivas to reach Bliss each in their own way in acordance with Dharma. Only asuric religions introduce moral policing try to repress and destroy the diverisity of goals and aims and darshanas that allow each jiva to follow his own path.

When one is following a darshan which most Hindus do, that belive in Ishvara as the creator and overseer of all the trillion world systems, it would be an insult to Ishwara as Isavasya rightly observed to see the world and the delight it offers as suffering. Hinduism is not a Mleccha Dharma like Islam or Christianiaty that condemms delight and bliss as something that is unholy and satanic. It is also unlike Budhhism that opinions that Samsara is suffering.

In Hinduism evrything is sacred and can give bliss of brahman, when it is done in accordance with one´s svadharma and if it is only sweeping the floor.
It become an obstruction when a person aspires to goals that are beyond his inborn capacities, one´s svadharma.

Sadhu greets Sadhu with adesh in Nath panth, that means ajna "divine command" for a Siddha only eternal dharma remains, the akhand jyoti, the eternal dhun.

Sahasranama
04 July 2010, 06:18 AM
How do you know the difference between svadharma and paradharma?

Ganeshprasad
04 July 2010, 06:27 AM
Pranam MahaHrada

Thank you, for your effort, much better, a lot i can relate, a far cry from glorifying 'ahaar , nidra and maithuna' i see the emphasis on Dharma for which we can only refer to Shastra.
i am about to go out, perhaps i may come back on this bit later.

Jai Shree Krishna

sm78
04 July 2010, 07:48 AM
Dear Sambya,
What is the source of the stories about Ramakrishna that you often cite from? They are not really flattering for the saint, they depict him as a self centered, rude and unkind person ignorant of the shastras. Are you shure that the source is authentic?

These stories are celebrated in the gospel of ramakrishna and possibly fully true except for some extra enthusiasm demonstrated by the author (master mahasaya) to prove the man as an avatar.

Your observations would be normal deductions of any rational person who
knows a few things about bharat dharma. Unfortunately most bharatiya's don't and this man is regarded as one of the greatest saint and avatar. His only contribution is cementing non sense about religion and propagating the utterly stupid universalism which has been ruining hindus.

In many ways he is like Gandhi, an ordinary but cunning man who only cared for himself, made extraordinary by circumstances and brain damaged followers who managed the propaganda. For Ramakrishna, his claim to fame was Vivekanada and him going to west. In colonial india, that must have meant a great prestige.

devotee
04 July 2010, 08:14 AM
Namaste,

There are two things which are being proposed here :

a) The doctrine that this world is full of sufferings is ONLY a Buddhist concept.
b) That "Aahaar, Nidraa & Sex i.e. satisfaction of sensual pleasures is the ONLY aim of human life" is endorsed in Hindu Shastras.

I think we can trust Bhagwan Krishna on his knowledge & teachings on dharma. Let's see what he has to say in Bhagwad Gita :

Maamupetya punarjanma dukhaalayamashaasvatam |
Naapnuvanti mahaatmaanah sansiddhim parmaam gatim || BG 8.15

By attaining Me, the siddha holy men don't come back to this world which is perishable & full of sufferings.

So, is it really a completely Buddhist teaching that this world is full of suffering ?

Now what he has to say on indulging in sensual pleasures :

Ye hi sansparsajaa bhogaa dukhyonaya eva te |
Aadyantavanta kaunteya na teshu ramate budhah || BG 5.22

The sensual pleasures coming from contact of sense organs and the object of pleasures are the root cause of sufferings. They are with beginings and endings .... the wise men don't indulge in these activities.

So, why does God Himself says that this world is full of sufferings & we should not indulge in enjoyment of sensual pleasures if "It is insult to Ishvara" to say or think so ?

There are many verses in BG which can be quoted in support of what I have said above but I think the two quoted above should be sufficient.

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

Apart from that there are some enlightened members who are so great that they are feeling a sense of pride in using filthy language against Sri Ramkrishna. I prostrate to them for their greatness as anyone who can ridicule Ramkrishna must be certainly greater than Ramkrishna. I am simply dumbstruck !

OM

MahaHrada
04 July 2010, 09:36 AM
These stories are celebrated in the gospel of ramakrishna and possibly fully true except for some extra enthusiasm demonstrated by the author (master mahasaya) to prove the man as an avatar.

Your observations would be normal deductions of any rational person who
knows a few things about bharat dharma. Unfortunately most bharatiya's don't and this man is regarded as one of the greatest saint and avatar. His only contribution is cementing non sense about religion and propagating the utterly stupid universalism which has been ruining hindus.

In many ways he is like Gandhi, an ordinary but cunning man who only cared for himself, made extraordinary by circumstances and brain damaged followers who managed the propaganda. For Ramakrishna, his claim to fame was Vivekanada and him going to west. In colonial india, that must have meant a great prestige.


Very sad, fortunately many Hindus i met outside the internet in real life, know the significance of Dharma, and still stick to their samanya dharma and svadharma and selflessly care for their families, take pride in educating their children, care for their parents guests and society.

I am thankful that i was blessed to have stayed many times in India and Nepal to see for myself this great Hindu culture as it really is.

The most astonishing experience for me in this thread was that my effort to establish dharma for the welfare of family and society was cursed as a typical western secular idea. Can anything be more funny than that idea? Someone telling me if i assume the western egotistical mindset and give up selfless dharma, i will finally progress and understand the hindu culture?
I don´t know if this joke is still online or already deleted by satay.

sambya
04 July 2010, 10:51 AM
some more things i had to say :

Respected Mahahrda has posted his opinion as to the editing of this thread on the feedback forum . but there too there are some innaccurate statements about ramakrishna , which i look forward to correct .
why ?
because i a blessed follower of ramakrishna and vivekananda .
i hope this is not deleted again , coz im just clarifying !!


BY MAHAHRDA -

But not only one but at least three of the Ramakrishna stories posted by Sambya contained one or the other derogoratory remark about other acharas or hindu customs........


that is not possible . I have never come across ramakrishna using any derogatory remarks against anyone anywhere . this is wholly untrue .

i invite you to point me out the places or situations !


What about the other insulting remarks in some of these stories that were posted recently? I greatly respect Kaula Dharma and Vamachara and Aghor panth, in one of the stories someone who is a follower or Guru of that tradition is likened to a person that enters a house by using the toilet sewers by Ramakrishna.

that example was not made to derogate vamachaaris .

at one point of time a certain disciple of ramakrishna criticized the left handed path in front of the guru . to this , ramakrishna grew serious and instructed him not to say such words again . he said " know that it is also a pathway to god . many people have met god through that path . but its difficult and hazardous in this age . and chances of 'falldown' are high .

as you can see he is defending the same vamachaara from criticisms . however he personally asked his own disciples to stay out of such paths as they were , in his eyes , dirty paths .

this is not derogation . this personal advice based on personal experience . he didnt go about spreading leaflets on how 'wicked' vaamaachaara is !!!



by the way , thanks for helping us understand what exactly had been your cause of getting upset .



..........Ramakrishna and Vivekananda and also of their inappropriate language that divides Hindus into good and bad, lowly and evolved according to their doubtful standards.


doubtful standards ? the ball rolls again !!!

atanu
04 July 2010, 11:08 AM
Namaste,

There are two things which are being proposed here :

a) The doctrine that this world is full of sufferings is ONLY a Buddhist concept.
b) That "Aahaar, Nidraa & Sex i.e. satisfaction of sensual pleasures is the ONLY aim of human life" is endorsed in Hindu Shastras.

I think we can trust Bhagwan Krishna on his knowledge & teachings on dharma. Let's see what he has to say in Bhagwad Gita :

Maamupetya punarjanma dukhaalayamashaasvatam |
Naapnuvanti mahaatmaanah sansiddhim parmaam gatim || BG 8.15

By attaining Me, the siddha holy men don't come back to this world which is perishable & full of sufferings.

So, is it really a completely Buddhist teaching that this world is full of suffering ?

Now what he has to say on indulging in sensual pleasures :

Ye hi sansparsajaa bhogaa dukhyonaya eva te |
Aadyantavanta kaunteya na teshu ramate budhah || BG 5.22

The sensual pleasures coming from contact of sense organs and the object of pleasures are the root cause of sufferings. They are with beginings and endings .... the wise men don't indulge in these activities.

So, why does God Himself says that this world is full of sufferings & we should not indulge in enjoyment of sensual pleasures if "It is insult to Ishvara" to say or think so ?

There are many verses in BG which can be quoted in support of what I have said above but I think the two quoted above should be sufficient.

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

Apart from that there are some enlightened members who are so great that they are feeling a sense of pride in using filthy language against Sri Ramkrishna. I prostrate to them for their greatness as anyone who can ridicule Ramkrishna must be certainly greater than Ramkrishna. I am simply dumbstruck !

OM

Namaste Devotee

True. But these verses were shown earlier without any effect.

It seems that our respective teachers were/are all wrong. Patanjali who prescribed brahmcharya and austerity was wrong. Krishna was all wrong when he described the world as dukhaalayam. Veda, it seems, actually contains presriptions just for sleeping/eating/copulating. Also, anyone who teaches moksha is wrong and crude, ill mannered, and also cunning. These sanatana teachers were selfish and cared only for themselves. Vedanta and Vedantic teachers are all influenced by Christianity.

The new prescription says that striving for moksha is merely an individual desire and so limited. It is only the dharma that one must follow (though these teachers do not say exactly what is dharma). Now Sanatana Dharma adherants must get foreign teachers with novel ideas such as sleeping/eating/copulating is all that is needed for adhering to dharma. Since the Universe is Shiva's creation it thus cannot be full of suffering, as per these new teachers.

I, however, fail to understand that if this world is devoid of suffering and is perfect, what then is the anguish of these new teachers? Why they want to teach? Why they are not content in themselves and why they have to heap adjectives such as cunning or rude for teachers who teach differently? Why they see evil in anything other than in their thoughts -- in christians, in muslims, and in fact in Sanatana dharma gurus also.


Om Namah Shivaya

sambya
04 July 2010, 11:08 AM
These stories are celebrated in the gospel of ramakrishna and possibly fully true except for some extra enthusiasm demonstrated by the author (master mahasaya) to prove the man as an avatar.


welcome to the arena saikat . hahahahaha :D


agreed . and a very natural thing to do for any human . say , if i was convinced about the divinity of any man i would probably have done the same . and the same goes for others too , if they feel convinced about a man's divinity . just like nityananda made a god out of chaitanya after his demise .
nothing wrong in that . one is free to believe or reject .
god has given brains to the readers too .


Your observations would be normal deductions of any rational person who
knows a few things about bharat dharma. Unfortunately most bharatiya's don't and this man is regarded as one of the greatest saint and avatar.so you mean that others here in this forum who believes him as a saint are irrational and abnormal ?!!!!! hmmmmmmm ..............

by the way ....what makes you think that the majority of bharatiyas are abnormal and irrational while you are 'normal' and 'rational' ?
since you are a minority group(proved by your own words) , its you who stands a greater chance of being abnormal and irrational , by simple logic !



His only contribution is cementing non sense about religion and propagating the utterly stupid universalism which has been ruining hindus.
aha ! could you explain please ..........how hinduism was 'detroyed' by this man .


In many ways he is like Gandhi, an ordinary but cunning man who only cared for himself, made extraordinary by circumstances and brain damaged followers who managed the propaganda.brain damaged followers ?!!!! he inspired people like aurobindo , gandhi , sarvapalli radhakrishnan , max muller , nehru , aldous huxley , christopher isherwood , indira gandhi etc etc etc ....the list goes on .

they were all brain damaged and you have the correct brains ? right ?!!!


For Ramakrishna, his claim to fame was Vivekanada and him going to west. In colonial india, that must have meant a great prestige.
ofcourse . even now it is a great prestige . without his teachings none of the westerners who are coming here today , would have come ! hinduism wouldnt have reached the west .

MahaHrada
04 July 2010, 11:21 AM
this is not derogation . this personal advice based on personal experience . he didnt go about spreading leaflets on how 'wicked' vaamaachaara is !!!
!

Maybe not, maybe yes, But after he said that the disciples and Gurus of these acharas enter through the toilet sewer i.e they are full of dirt and faeces, apparently his disciple presented this idea in form of a "leaflet" to the general public, but without the gutter language, instead he was "only" criminalizing and marginalizing the shastras and the achara, the british where glad they had sepoys like that to divide and rule Hindu Culture. As Saikat already noted he was amply rewarded for this divisive propaganda, both first by the british and later by the americans. A common method of divide and rule used in all colonial politics. The message of universalism and moral policing, and condemnation of other acharas helped to quell problems the british had with the patriotic militant Shakta Kshatriya Dharma, that was political active in Bengal. Vamachara Tantra with its the realistic darshana, where the world is real and ultimately identical with the absolute Shakti and its emphasis on Power, Karma and Dharma backed it up. This spirit was weakened byVedanta and Bhakti, the otherworldly aims and emphasis on the idea that jagat is only mithya, unreal and temporarily and Kali only a loving mother but not also a fierce warrior. Blowing up the importance of Moksha recommending it for everyone, even Kshatriyas, while belittling Dharma fits like a glove with the goals of the foreign rulers. Interestingly Anandamath tradition belongs to the heroic Shakta Kshatriya Dharma that armend and violently due to the adesh of Kali ma, resisted the british raj, maybe another reason why inappropriate language was used to deride Bankim C. Chatterji.

When I see how much the Vamachara [Tantra] has entered our [Bengali] society, I find it a most disgraceful place, with all of its boast of culture. These Vamachara sects are honeycombing our society in Bengal. Those who come out in the daytime and preach most loudly about achara, it is they who carry on the horrible debauchery at night and are backed by the most dreadful books. They are ordered by the books to do these things. You who are of Bengal know of it. The Bengal Shastras are the Vamachara Tantras. They are published by the cart-load, and you poison the minds of your children with them instead of teaching them our Shrutis. Fathers of Calcutta, do you not feel ashamed that such horrible stuff as these Vamachara Tantras, with translations too, should be put into the hands of your boys and girls, and their minds poisoned, and that they should be brought up with the idea that these are the Shastras of the Hindus? If you are ashamed, take them away from your children and let them read the true Shastras - the Vedas, the Gita and the Upanishads.
Vivekananda Vol.3: The Vedanta in All Its Phases, pp.340-341.

atanu
04 July 2010, 11:37 AM
The most astonishing experience for me in this thread was that my effort to establish dharma for the welfare of family and society was cursed as a typical western secular idea. Can anything be more funny than that idea? Someone telling me if i assume the western egotistical mindset and give up selfless dharma, i will finally progress and understand the hindu culture?
I don´t know if this joke is still online or already deleted by satay.

Namaste

It is indeed astonishing how this sounds familiar --- selfless yet exerting effort to establish dharma. :) Best wishes.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
04 July 2010, 12:17 PM
Friends

I used to love posts of one Singhi Kaya. He had this to say:


If one is a grihi, one must keep his wife happy. In such circimstances if someone offers a way to even use his normal duties of kama as offering to god and progress in sadhna - I personally find it quite beautiful.

But at the sametime based on my param guru's writing I don't believe serious spiritual development or ultimate moksha can be obtained while still engaged in kama. Kaula's adovacte that one can. But that's a minor difference-I may not choose that path. End of Story.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=1976&postcount=13

Indeed Upanishads abound in examples of both ways. But before one can offer every act - whether prescribed or whether prohibited, as worship to the Supreme being, one has to have a pure mind that sees Supreme being in every act and in every being. Another name of this is surrender, which sounds simple but is not. One who is surrendered is fully contented.

Om Namah Shivaya

sambya
04 July 2010, 12:28 PM
Maybe not, maybe yes,....

what do you mean ? am i lying ?


....but after he said that the disciples and Gurus of these acharas enter through the toilet sewer i.e they are full of dirt and faeces,he did not mention ' the gurus acharyas ' . he did not make a personal remark .

he personally instructed his followers thus -- " do you know how these paths are like ? its like entering the house through sewers of feaces when there is a front door . its hazardous and chance of falldown is very high . such paths are not suitable in this age . bhakti is the yuga dharma now . "
etc etc


but apparently his disciple presentd this idea in form of a "leaflet" without the gutter language.

When I see how much the Vamachara [Tantra] has entered our [Bengali] society, I find it a most disgraceful place, with all of its boast of culture. These Vamachara sects are honeycombing our society in Bengal. Those who come out in the daytime and preach most loudly about achara, it is they who carry on the horrible debauchery at night and are backed by the most dreadful books. They are ordered by the books to do these things. You who are of Bengal know of it. The Bengal Shastras are the Vamachara Tantras. They are published by the cart-load, and you poison the minds of your children with them instead of teaching them our Shrutis. Fathers of Calcutta, do you not feel ashamed that such horrible stuff as these Vamachara Tantras, with translations too, should be put into the hands of your boys and girls, and their minds poisoned, and that they should be brought up with the idea that these are the Shastras of the Hindus? If you are ashamed, take them away from your children and let them read the true Shastras - the Vedas, the Gita and the Upanishads.
Vivekananda Vol.3: The Vedanta in All Its Phases, pp.340-341.
yes . vivekananda stood up against vamachaara . and rightfully too .

what can you know about the socio cultural conditions of bengal in the begnning of colonial era without having taken birth in india ?

i have read many books on that matter and i know that each and every word of this text is correct and much needed at those time . in your text vivekananda says " You who are of Bengal know of it " .

i am of bengal and i know it !
want to hear how bengal society was at that time ? here it goes to give you a very basic idea ----

vamachaar tantra speaks of kula-vadhu(girls of reputable families) for its sexual rites . prostitutes were not generally used for bhairavi chakras . and besides gaudiya vaishnavism the other dominant force in bengal was tantrik vamachaar , which , in opinion of some has its origin on buddhist tantra . in their quest for finding suitable girls they used to lure girls of reputated families into their sadhana procedures . needless to say these girls were reduced to religious prostitutes .


and what are the puja upachaaras in vamachaara ?

drona pushpa , vajra pushpa -------------what are these ? well types of blood to be offered to devi . menstrual blood , vaginal blood produced while intercourse etc .

and what did the vamaachaar teach us ? offering of kundagolodbhava . for those of you who dont know what kundagolodbhava is , it is the mixture of blood and semen produced during ritual copulation , which is an object of high value to be offered to devi .

vamachaar says that in absence of the right girl , vaginal blood obtained from having forcefull intercourse with any girl can be offered .

vaginal blood obtained from forcefull intercourse with a young virgin widow is also offerable !!!!!!


yes my friends !! vamachaara supports and preaches rape !!!!

this vamachaara had its influence on vaishnava rituals giving rise to sahajiya vaishnavas .vaishnavas started searching for " moner manush " -- the person of the heart . in other words the male/female partners for sexual religious art . infact this spread like wildfire and very soon almost the whole of gaudiya vaishnavism was under its grip . all GV meant at that time was kirtans about radha-krishna's sexual union and secret sahajiya sexual rites .

then there was kulin pratha .

about a 1000 year ago five learned brahmins were brought to bengal by the king of gaud , raja adisur . all modern bengali brahmins are descended from them . however very soon their descendents became decadent . then another king ballal sen devised a method of segregating the good ones from the bad ones . he called them to his court in early morning . the brahmins came in three groups . one in early dawn . the other at about 8'o clock . the third group came to meet him after noon . the group which came earliest came without doing their sandhya vandana . the second group came without doing it properly . the third group finished both their pratah and madhyanah sandhya vandanas and attended the court . the king declared these 12 brahmins kulin or one whose kula(race) is preserved . the rest were dismissed . these kulin brahmins became egoistic with their newly acuired title . so much so that inermarraige of kulin daughters with non-kulin brahmins were considered a crime and resulted in loss of kula .

over years the situation grew critical . there was many unmarried daughters in home , but no kulin grooms for them . each kulin brahmins began to marry in dozens and maintained record books of their marraige !!!! sometimes a youn g12 year old girl had to be marraied to a 60 year old man so that the kula of her family was spared .

so after a few more years the old man died and the wife , now in her 20's became a sati .

there are records of funeral pyres burning for more than 3 days with 30 wives joining in as sati !!

people went to pligrimage in ganga sagar which was then a diffcilut journey through forested lands of sunderbans filled with thugs and bengal tigers . many women who didnt have a baby used to pray to ganga that if they give birth , they shall donate the first born to ganga . and thus the first borns of many women were dropped in ganga at ganga sagar ! this was the level of superstition in bengal and india too at those times .

babies were thrown to crocodiles at triveni in bengal for superstitious reasons .

shastra says that death along the banks of ganges gives liberation . thats why people were brought near banks of ganga before death . this was called antarjali yatra . sometimes the patients survived for days without dying . and his sons , eager for the property of his parents used to leave him uncovered at night so that they could die quickly due to morning chill . sometimes the patients were fed with cold curd and bananas to fasten the death process !!!!! and sometimes jackals took a chunk out of the patients body at night !!! and for some lucky one who still survived , were carried away in the flash floods of ganga at night !!

why offering of bloods and semens ?
why not flowers , fruits or garlands ? why not incense or lamps ?

why chose for semen mixed with vaginal blood . why chose for sacrifice when you can offer a vegetable . why choose to destroy virginity of girls of reputed family when you can do without it ???????

isnt semen , vaginal blood or sacrifical blood inferior to flowers and fruits ?

i know ....sarvam khalidam brahman ............bla bla bla :blah: !!!

yes , at the end all is the same . but untill we really attain that stage can we say that all are same . if it indeed were the same why cant we survive with semen and blood instead of fruits and vegetable ?

we cannot !!! because we dont have the eyes to see the 'sameness' . to us semen is semen and fruits are fruits . this is how discrimination automatically comes in .


so very briefly this was the social condition of bengal .

and why was this degeneration ? because of two things--

forgetting the glorious past pf india

shifting the focus from veda, vedanta , upanishads to more regional folk relgions and social practices and texts of secondary importance .


what vivekananda tried to do is to shift the focus of the people from these practices to the more ancient ones , of vedas and upanishads . i dont see any wrong in his moves . what he did was for betterment of the society .

a man preaches with the whole soceity in mind . not for some isolated groups of people .

while theres no denying that vamachaara might be suitable for a few people , majority wouldnt like this path or cannot even go through this path .
vivekanands was not speaking to one man . he was speaking to the world . he asked to give up vamachaara on this reason . i dont see anything wrong with it .

and please let this post not be deleted . for education of evryone on what was ramakrishna calling dirty . i pray !!!!

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

MahaHrada
04 July 2010, 01:11 PM
Dear Sambya
The social condition in Bengal was such that the british where under fire by political Shakta activists, that where eager to offer some nice fresh bloody heads of ferengi rulers and army to Jagadhattri and Kali Ma who was hungry for that. So the cowardly british badly needed some Universalists,some vedantins, some lovers of the abrahamic religions and propagators of otherworldly aims like Moksha and Bhakti, who were willing to divide the Hindu Nationalists and would help by their propaganda against the path of Dharm and Karm to quell the riots, just like the fake Mahatma came in handy preaching ahimsa and helped thge british raj to further the destruction of the armend and violent resistance like that one that was posed by the dangerous and powerful Shakta Kshatriya Dharma in Bengal and other patriots. Thats why the money and support came flowing in from the ferengis like the Moonsoon rain.

Sahasranama
04 July 2010, 01:16 PM
Yes, but what do you say of the practice of rituals involving rape, prostitution, orgies, offering bodily fluids and widow burning in Bengal like sambya has described. To me, it sound justified to protest against these practices.

sambya
04 July 2010, 01:30 PM
Deras Sambya
The social condition in Bengal was such that the british where under fire by political Shakta activists, that where eager to offer some nice fresh bloody heads of ferengi rulers and army to Jagadhattri and Kali Ma. So the cowardly british badly needed some Universalists,some vedantins, some lovers of the abrahamic religions and propagators of otherworldly aims like Moksha and Bhakti, who were willing to divide the Hindu Nationalists and would help by by propaganda against the path of Dharm and Karm to quell the riots, just someone like the fake Mahatma preaching ahimsa and ndestroy the dangerous Shakta Kshatriya Dharma. Thats why the money and support came flowing in from the ferengis like the Moonsoon rain.

respected mahahrda .

political shakta activists !!? who were they ?!!

i dont know of any such thing even after studying on bengal and indian history from so many books !!! and why would shaktas in particular be angry towards british ?

shakta kaapalikas trapped innocent travellers and offered them as bali to the goddess . same goes for thugs . and with kaapalikas , the decapitated body of those helpless victims were then bathed , decorated with chandan and garlands and used as an asana to sit upon to do sadhana . the body was used for many days untill it was absolutely unusable due to decomposition and distortion !!!!

as we are speaking about vankim chandra chatterjee and you are his fan , let me ask you did you read kapalakundala ? there , im afraid , that your hero vankim didnt depict vamachaaris and kaapalikas in a very noble fashion either .

the story begins with how a well to do young brahmin man is abondoned in the sunderbans by his peers on their way to pilgrimage at ganga sagar . the man was offered shelter and comfort by an ill intentioned kaapaalika who lived in that desolate forest , with plans to offer him to the mother the upcoming amavasya night .
and the same kaapalika had also been nurturing a small abandoned baby girl so that when she grows up she could be put to use in sexual rites with him . this girl, kapalkundala saved the life of that brahmin and eloped together .

this was the kaapaalikaas !!!!

no shaktas were searching for british heads . in fact in those orthodox days a mleccha body wouldnt come in any use !!!!! what would they get by beheading a mleccha ? only papa . no punya !!!!!

you are making up stories to support your cause -- which is support of vamachaara and aghora practice at the cost of downplaying the glories of two of greatest saints of modern india . this is absolutely shameful .

MahaHrada
04 July 2010, 01:39 PM
Yes, but what do you say of the practice of rituals involving rape, prostitution, orgies, offering bodily fluids and widow burning in Bengal like sambya has described. To me, it sound justified to protest against these practices.

I think the british propaganda and hate campaign has been very sucessfull There is one good thing though, one posting ago there was nothing wrong with Vamachara, at least now he shows his love. Thank you i feel your love Sambya.

sambya
04 July 2010, 01:41 PM
Dear Sambya
The social condition in Bengal was such that the british where under fire by political Shakta activists, that where eager to offer some nice fresh bloody heads of ferengi rulers and army to Jagadhattri and Kali Ma who was hungry for that.



jagadhhatri and kali ma hungry for fresh bloody ferengi rulers heads ?

what are you saying ?

i thought you were a tantrik ? your ishta must be mother !!!!!!!!!!!!!

you see your mother in this fashion ?!!!!!!!!!!!???

satay
04 July 2010, 01:43 PM
Admin Note
Namaskar,

Please continue with the thread. But please keep in mind the forum rules. Do not make personal attacks on other members.

sm78
05 July 2010, 03:29 AM
Friends

I used to love posts of one Singhi Kaya. He had this to say:



http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=1976&postcount=13

Indeed Upanishads abound in examples of both ways. But before one can offer every act - whether prescribed or whether prohibited, as worship to the Supreme being, one has to have a pure mind that sees Supreme being in every act and in every being. Another name of this is surrender, which sounds simple but is not. One who is surrendered is fully contented.

Om Namah Shivaya

This surrender does not need to come only by stamping on or spitting at the pillars of existence which is includes ahar-nidra-maithun, like Ramakrishna preached - which seemed to be the point where this thread took a turn. Lets not bring upanishads or gita into this, for I don't remeber in them a phrase "yuck!", when confronted with basic engagements of human life.

atanu
05 July 2010, 04:04 AM
This surrender does not need to come only by stamping on or spitting at the pillars of existence which is includes ahar-nidra-maithun, like Ramakrishna preached - which seemed to be the point where this thread took a turn. Lets not bring upanishads or gita into this, for I don't remeber in them a phrase "yuck!", when confronted with basic engagements of human life.

Sorry Singhi

The pillar of existence does not include ahar-nidra-maithun, but the pillar, the substratum, which is entirely devoid of nidra-ahar-maithun, supports these phenomenon. Attachment to these phenomenom, being oblivious of the pillar, however, is worth an "yuck". You should remember that Turya does not slumber.

Om Namah Shivaya

sambya
05 July 2010, 04:33 AM
I think the british propaganda and hate campaign has been very sucessfull There is one good thing though, one posting ago there was nothing wrong with Vamachara, at least now he shows his love. Thank you i feel your love Sambya.


there is something wrong with vamachaara and also nothing wrong with vamachaara .

nothing wrong with vamachara--(explanation)

hinduism agrees about competency factor at play in this world while chosing ones own path -- the adhikaari bheda . so there must be some people out there for whom vamachara is THE path . such persons can only get spiritual success if they follow vamachaara and not otherwise . there is nothing wrong with this . each one is free to follow his instinct . he too can reach god in this way if
1>he has the genuine urge to know god
2> has god realization fixed as his aim
3> sincerely believes in his chosen path .

something wrong with vamachaara--(explanation)

when vamachaara is placed besides other systems of spiritual disciplines like meditation or bhakti yoga etc it appears that there is something wrong with it . why ?
why would someone favour offering of semen and menstrual blood over flowers and sandalwood paste ? if you say that it is because he has lost distinction of good and bad and such relative concepts and is now situated in highest knowledge then i would ask - ' can this person eat semen and menstrual blood instead of vegetables and fruits , for his survival ' ?

the answer would be a NO . this proves that the man has not yet attained perfection . which means discrimination between good and bad is still present in him . which also means that this man is liking the 'bad things' over 'good things' for his worship . which is not in accordance with the majority of people . which makes vamachara wrong !!! ( not complete wrong though )

it may be the path for one but not for most .

sambya
05 July 2010, 04:38 AM
.........for I don't remeber in them a phrase "yuck!", when confronted with basic engagements of human life.

the exact words were " eh !! tumi to boro chanchraa " .

the nearest word to the bengali 'eh' that i could imagine is yuck .

Ganeshprasad
05 July 2010, 04:48 AM
Pranam


Lets not bring upanishads or gita into this, for I don't remeber in them a phrase "yuck!", when confronted with basic engagements of human life.

I think you will find language much stronger then yuk if one analysis the Gita.

Pleasure that deludes a person in the beginning and in the end; which comes from sleep, laziness, and confusion; such pleasure is called Taamasika (18.39)

If we don't refer to Shastra and Sadhu, whats left? Pashu samna, pillar of life yes?

Jai Shree Krishna

isavasya
05 July 2010, 04:55 AM
Namaste isavasya

First, Purva Mimamsa has no answer for Buddhism, which is only counterable by Uttara Mimamsa.



Namaste atanu ji,

Wow, purva mimamsa has no answer for buddhism ? Who says that ? You say that,but History says something else!, initially it was mimamsakas who had defeated buddhists, but advaita gave the final punch . Every other advaitin knows why great kumaraila bhatta did not debated with shankaracharya! By the way, even advaita scholars believe that mimamsakas defeated buddhists. Here watch this video's first 5 mins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9Iw8uu8HHs

And just see your language, mimamasa has no answer, ONLY vedanata has!!

First of all mimamsa school was the one which proved the Apaurusheyatva of vedas, and many times, defeated buddhists on auspureshyetva of vedas itself. And mimamsa school also had some authentic smriti apart from vedas, and a set of logic too, to defeat others and champion for the cause of vedas.





but it is futile to disagree that Vedanta occupies the crown and is accepted by advaita, visistaadvaita, and dvaita schools.



wow so before vedanta , all the great scholars were deluded and you are now using the logic of showing vishistadvaita+advaita+dwaita negates mimamasa , so mimamasa has no validity, so to show A is wrong, the logic is to prove A is negated by B, C, D. In that case, B is also negated by A, C, D equally, yes do not live in imagination that according to madhwa or ramanuja advaita is seen in some different light, in fact all of these schools take advaita as even more wrong sampradaya than mimamsa.

My view – I am not a mimsaka, but i have respect for it, Unless some school of Hinduism tries to prove itself as only authetic school, I don't give a damm, but here people are hell bent on negating one 100% vedic darshan as wrong. I respect all vedic schools, unless and until one enforces his views. How the hell can I see the teachings of great brahmanas like jaimini, sabara, prabhakara and kumaraila bhatta etc as not valid ? I am not entitled for this arrogance.


namaste isavasya .

have i gone through jaimini purva mimansa sutra ? im afraid , i did not . as i have said previously , im scared that a little more of knowledge might also turn me into a carcass seeking vulture and these days i want to devote more time to sadhana than just scripture reading . coz the essence of scriptures lies in searching god .


Namaste sambya,

Oh so you haven't gone through ? That's bad. By the you were constantly asking me one proof, one verse, I have put belief and aim of one whole sampradaya. Now of course, you will go on mainline and this that......



i]if you are still inclined to believe that eating sleeping and sex are the higet goals of humanity then you are free to do it . you can certainly come up with many scriptural supportations in your favour . but hinduism proper or hinduism major would always choose to differ from you . [/i]



@sambya , satay ji and others

Note how sambya is directing my notion of dharm,arth, kaam as only sex, eating and women every time.

I said, we should look for Human welfare, sambya calls it as mleccha concept.

In my 2nd post itself, I had made it clear I see my religion getting attacked by other faiths, which hurts me. So If I want to help my poor Hindu brothers against crooked missionaries and aim for welfare of my poor and average Hindu brothers, this person calls my concept mleccha and he personally calls me secular.

But ramkrishna, who tried Islam for some time and then Christianity for some time, and later gave them certificate to all these faiths as equally valid paths, then it was not secular. No doubt, the notion of reducing Hinduism merely to some sort of spiritual exercise is rampant and many times, Hindus as a group have to pay for that.

I have nothing against adviata,unless an advaitin enforces a view that only advaita is correct. I am doing service for BJP/ RSS/ Sangh for past so many years, yet I am secular for these 'all paths are true' people. I feel pain of seeing my religion in trouble. Pakistan lost, bangladesh lost, kashmir lost, country facing all sorts of problems from Maoists, jihadis, missionaries, and yet if I talk about welfare of my society through economy, politics, My concept is labeled as mleccha.

what exactly are you defending through all these posts ?!!!

I was and will be defending dharm. I no where have to tried to negate other's view, I already accept for sages and great people Moksha is destiny and their lifestyle confirms it, but not for every other Hindu moksha is highest aim. In fact there will be majority among Hindu who wont even bother about moksha. Again this statement of mine should not be made, as I despise Moksha, it should be taken in right light, aim of person, society, or humanity itself is dependent on time, if your motherland is in trouble, at that time most people will see service to motherland as greatest aim.




I wonder if there is anyone who strongly believes only in Purva Mimaamsa today ? OM


yes there are many srauta namboodri in kerala, also few srauta spread here and there. It's very hard to be srauta brahmin, they do follow all routines of a brahmin as prescribed by shastra, my best wishes are always with such people. :)

sambya
05 July 2010, 06:12 AM
Note how sambya is directing my notion of dharm,arth, kaam as only sex, eating and women every time.


isavasya ,

i didnt raise the topic of dharma artha kama moksha . all i quoted was about ahaar nidra and maithuna . this was wrongfully linked with the purusharthas . as it was never the original point of discussion and since it has not yet been proved that purusharthas=ahar nidra maithuna , i chose to stay out of purusharthas .

lets talk about the original posts my original comments .


I said, we should look for Human welfare, sambya calls it as mleccha concept. human wefare as we know it today is quintessentialy a mleccha concept . human welfare also existed in india . but it was integrated into dharma palana . not seperated from relgion or dharma as the westerners did .


In my 2nd post itself, I had made it clear I see my religion getting attacked by other faiths, which hurts me. So If I want to help my poor Hindu brothers against crooked missionaries and aim for welfare of my poor and average Hindu brothers, this person calls my concept mleccha and he personally calls me secular.once again modern western concept of human welfare segregates itself from dharma and god and is secular indeed . our concepts of human welfare were far noble than those founded in the west . in west the human welfare is related to individual welfare . its a narrow self centered way of seeing things . typical to west. in india human welfare was and still is spread over not just my own self but over my families , my kin , my state and my enviornment around . indians are bound by laws of karma and dharmic principles . welfare is not just individual welfare in our case . in ancient india our people had enough welfare without anyone to think and plan about human welfare seperately . it was part of dharm .

even in adoption of sannyasa , which may be veiwed by some as ultimate act of selfishness , shastras opine that the seven generations of ancestors and future descendants are benefitted by this act . here again the welfare from true sannyasa is not limited to the person taking sannyasa alone . it was spread over his family .

but western human welfare and social upliftment , human resource developement etc are necessarily mleccha concepts .



But ramkrishna, who tried Islam for some time and then Christianity for some time, and later gave them certificate to all these faiths as equally valid paths, then it was not secular.it was universalism not secular . secular means something thats independent of religious thoughts .


I have nothing against adviata,unless an advaitin enforces a view that only advaita is correct. I am doing service for BJP/ RSS/ Sangh for past so many years, yet I am secular for these 'all paths are true' people. I feel pain of seeing my religion in trouble.thats strange . i thought BJP/RSS/Sangh supported and liked vivekananda and ramakrishna !!



I was and will be defending dharm.good .thats very noble of you . thanks in advance .

but do you remember how the original debate arose in this thread ?

ramakrishna called ahar nidra and mithuna inrrevalent things in a human life and he had also said(quoted by me previously in some other thread) how practising vamachar was akin to entering a house through the sewer . that irked respected mahahrda ( coz he respects/follows vamachaar) making him say that ramakrishna was of doubtfull standards , ignorant , without knowlegde of scriptures , villain , self centerd , egoistic etc .

now that i have provided the routine of a typical vamachari what do you think was unjustified in ramakrishna's statement ?

where do you think the dharma lies ?

-----in ramakrishna cautioning his followers with his personal advice ?

-----or in calling ill names to an established sage ?

more importantly where do you think social welfare lies ?

-----in abducting and raping girls and practising ahar nidra maithuna ?

-----or in leading a silent contemplative life on spiritual wisdom as wanted by ramakrishna ?

isavasya
05 July 2010, 07:00 AM
isavasya ,

i didnt raise the topic of dharma artha kama moksha . all i quoted was about ahaar nidra and maithuna . this was wrongfully linked with the purusharthas . as it was never the original point of discussion and since it has not yet been proved that purusharthas=ahar nidra maithuna , i chose to stay out of purusharthas .



sambya,

First of all your first post itself was a sarcasm on thread starter in which you made fun of samsaarik people, even in the above episode, ramkrishna apologized to chaterjee ji. I agree thread starter's tone was not that good, he should have written 'did brahmins ate meat before jainism' ? But all this debate was initiated by you, the tone was extremely sarcastic, second right from first you have kept justifying your points in exaggerated manners. Is sex , wealth etc to be taken in bad light always ? How will economy run, how will humans will be born without them. Apart from that My points have always been centered on dharm, and you personally relate other people's point in replying to me.




lets talk about the original posts my original comments .

human wefare as we know it today is quintessentialy a mleccha concept . human welfare also existed in india . but it was integrated into dharma palana . not seperated from relgion or dharma as the westerners did .

Human welfare as we know today ? Human welfare is a very straight forward term, all of our dharm shastra speaks about it, you speak something wrong and then give a philosophical point.



once again modern western concept of human welfare segregates itself from dharma and god and is secular indeed . our concepts of human welfare were far noble than those founded in the west . in west the human welfare is related to individual welfare . its a narrow self centered way of seeing things . typical to west. in india human welfare was and still is spread over not just my own self but over my families , my kin , my state and my enviornment around . indians are bound by laws of karma and dharmic principles . welfare is not just individual welfare in our case . in ancient india our people had enough welfare without anyone to think and plan about human welfare seperately . it was part of dharm .


when I was talking about human welfare of west ? it's all your fascination with west. Anything samsaarik is sick, mithya.





it was universalism not secular . secular means something thats independent of religious thoughts .

Wonderful ! So equating Islam , and Christianity with Hinduism is what you call universalism, what a big joke on santan dharm.



thats strange . i thought BJP/RSS/Sangh supported and liked vivekananda and ramakrishna !!

Thats where you are wrong, BJP/ RSS respects saints of India in general, but doesn't endorse all their ideas. Why does sangh talks about Hindu rashtra concept ? Though even I don't agree with Hindu rashtra concept of RSS.






now that i have provided the routine of a typical vamachari what do you think was unjustified in ramakrishna's statement ? where do you think the dharma lies ? ramakrishna cautioning his followers with his personal advice ? or calling ill names to an established sage ?

I am not learnt in tantra or any such sects, I won't support any act of dragging anyone cunningly into vamachar, whether condition of Bengal was really what you are telling about, I have no knowledge about that and it has nothing to do with me, these things as contexts of his speech and typical vamachari came later in this thread, my point was very clear from beginning, people follow dharm by their guna, and their highest aim is decided by many factors, Highest aims can be differnt for differnt type of person. This point of mine includes moksha as highest aim for some, but unfortunately most of you have excluded all other paths as highest aim for a time and keep on showing sansaar as mithya and full of suffering, i find this teaching not so good for a normal Hindu.

atanu
05 July 2010, 07:02 AM
Namaste atanu ji,

Wow, purva mimamsa has no answer for buddhism ? Who says that ? You say that,but History says something else!, initially it was mimamsakas who had defeated buddhists, but advaita gave the final punch . -----

:)
Namaste Isa

Then the final punch was not required. Do you see it?




wow so before vedanta , all the great scholars were deluded and enlightened atanu ji is now using the logic of showing ----

There is no before or after. 'anta' means 'the culmination' and also 'the heart'.



My view – I am not a mimsaka, but i have respect for it, Unless some school of Hinduism tries to prove itself as only authetic school, I don't give a damm, but here people are hell bent on negating one 100% vedic darshan as wrong. I respect all vedic schools, unless and until one enforces his views. How the hell can I see the teachings of great brahmanas like jaimini, sabara, prabhakara and kumaraila bhatta etc as not valid ? I am not entitled for this arrogance.

And you are pointing out that I am arrogant? Where did I say Purva Mimamsa is any less? Did I? Please do not jump to conclusions. What I said was Vedanta, by its name itself, is the concluding part and synthesis.

Kindly forget everything except the following:

I asked you whether Purva Mimamsa supports "Eating-Sleeping-Copulation" as life's only goal?

Om Namah Shivaya

sambya
05 July 2010, 07:22 AM
sambya,
First of all your first post itself was a sarcasm on thread starter in which you made fun of samsaarik people, even in the above episode, ramkrishna apologized to chaterjee ji. I agree thread starter's tone was not that good, he should have written 'did brahmins ate meat before jainism' ? But all this debate was initiated by you, the tone was extremely sarcastic,

true . i was sarcastic . you know why ?

i believe that meat eating was there in hinduism and not just as a minority practice .
but im opposed to any orthodoxy . what the fellow was trying to do here was to create a joke , a sacasm and impose his theories on others . thats why i made that sarcastic post .




Is sex , wealth etc to be taken in bad light always ? How will economy run, how will humans will be born without them. already answerd them long back . no point in going round in circles :)


Apart from that My points have always been centered on dharm, and you personally relate other people's point in replying to me.
yes becuase thats where the problem stemmed from and thats what the problem is all about .



Human welfare as we know today ? Human welfare is a very straight forward term, all of our dharm shastra speaks about it, you speak something wrong and then give a philosophical point.
i have already made myself clear on the topic of human welfare in my last post . :)

tell me what you did'nt understand and i will re explain it to you again .


when I was talking about human welfare of west ? it's all your fascination with west. Anything samsaarik is sick, mithya.
yes true . as i told you before i cannot think outside vedantic spirituality . its the dominating force in my life . anything samsarik is mithya or temporary . i believe in that . so did most other hindu gurus and teachers .

you are free to differ .

note -- anything samsarik is not sick . i dont subscribe to this !




Wonderful ! So equating Islam , and Christianity with Hinduism is what you call universalism, what a big joke on santan dharm. not equating . accepting ! no one equated . not me neither ramakrishna .


Thats where you are wrong, BJP/ RSS respects saints of India in general, but doesn't endorse all their ideas. Why does sangh talks about Hindu rashtra concept ? Though even I don't agree with Hindu rashtra concept of RSS.

i see . good .




I am not learnt in tantra or any such sects, I won't support any act of dragging anyone cunningly into vamachar, whether condition of Bengal was really what you are telling about, I have no knowledge about thati dont lie to justify my cause . unfortunately the maximum i can do is to find the books and send you a scanned pages . but the script is in bengali !!

nice to see you not supporting shastras of rape and sex though !


....and it has nothing to do with me, these things as contexts of his speech and typical vamachari came later in this thread,well, we are all linked with this topic . though it surfaced later it was the one that caused the intitial resentment .

going by your logic i can also stick to ramakrishna , the original quote , kathamrita , ahar nidra maithuna , vankim and nothing else .


This point of mine includes moksha as highest aim for some, but unfortunately most of you have excluded all other paths as highest aim for a time and keep on showing sansaar as mithya and full of suffering, i find this teaching not so good for a normal Hindu.
i would give you a credit for independent thought , whether relevant or not .

however you should also understand that hindus in general would not want to subscribe to your views over teachings of great teachers like sankaracharya and ramanuja . for most samsar would remain temporal or illusory .

that you find their teaching not good for a normal hindu is your own point of view . good luck with that in your personal life .

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

Ganeshprasad
05 July 2010, 10:50 AM
Pranam MahaHrada ji


Dera Ganeshprasadji
I have already provided all the answers you need to understand my viewpoint. But here i go again:
Desire for protection and shelter, stilling of hunger and also delight in art and sensual pleasures or wealth and the pleasure of spiritual delight and fulfillment when based on dharma even though self centered and selfish are nonetheless sacred and divine legitimate acts when done in accordance with Dharma.

.

We have been going on for a while, unfortunately I find your position untenable. You can not have it both ways.
 


But the highest act is delight in doing solely one´s duty, the Dharma since it is not selfish, unlike the egotistical and selfish pleasures derived through wealth, or spiritual means like sadhanas, or sensual pleasure, done for oneself only, but Duty is done for no desires or only for the good of others. This is the highest svadharma the path of Rishis, Siddhas Sages and Saint, but only very few have the svadharma to find delight in selflessness, they naturally qualify for higher knowledge that is transpersonal.

You seems to be condemning the selfish act of spiritual or a material pursuit or sensual pleasure yet ready to defend Ahaar, Nindra and Maituna, an answer, that just might be construed as wine women and song simply Pashu samana, how can anyone understand your point of view?
Weather an act is highest, in performing ones duty is debateable, one thing is clear duty done for no desire or for the benefit of others is commendable.

Lord Krishna says you have a right to do you duty but not the fruit Karmanyevadhikaaraste maa phaleshu kadaachan
Rishis have carved the path for us to trod but none tell us to be Pashu samana, and this is whole point of this debate, defend it and you are going against Dharma let alone selfless act without desires.




But following the other goals, Artha,Kama, Moksha when they do not contradict Dharma is a very sacred act as well, since in Hindu Dharm the Universe exists solely for the reason to allow jivas to reach Bliss each in their own way in acordance with Dharma. Only asuric religions introduce moral policing try to repress and destroy the diverisity of goals and aims and darshanas that allow each jiva to follow his own path.

Please let us not bring the other religions it only helps to muddy the water, if you think there is no moral values in Hindu dharma then you are wrong, it is not free for all there are yama and Niyam but unlike other religion it is self regulated by the knowledge of Karma, Jivas strive for bliss performing their duty it is inevitable but Dharma is the key as you rightly point out here we have no argument in fact there is no argument when you bring Dharma in Kaam.


 


When one is following a darshan which most Hindus do, that belive in Ishvara as the creator and overseer of all the trillion world systems, it would be an insult to Ishwara as Isavasya rightly observed to see the world and the delight it offers as suffering. Hinduism is not a Mleccha Dharma like Islam or Christianiaty that condemms delight and bliss as something that is unholy and satanic.

It certainly is an insult of the highest degree if such practices that Sambya described, practice of rituals involving rape, prostitution, orgies, offering bodily fluids and widow burning in Bengal what possible delight can one possible derive from it?

You are right it certainly is not like Islam where 72 Virgins are waiting.
 
 


It is also unlike Budhhism that opinions that Samsara is suffering.

You certainly are not witnessing the harsh condition and the struggle the jivas are subject to, if you find delight in chewing the chewed good luck,

if you think billions of animals being slaughter and suffering as a respect to Ishwar let alone millions of babies aborted as bliss all glories

As has already been pointed out before by me Devotee and Atanu Lord Krishna says in no uncertain terms that this sansar is full off Dukh and is temporary..
 
In Hinduism evrything is sacred and can give bliss of brahman, when it is done in accordance with one´s svadharma and if it is only sweeping the floor.
It become an obstruction when a person aspires to goals that are beyond his inborn capacities, one´s svadharma.[/quote]

Who says everything is sacred? One has to use vivek or else we are worse then animals.
You are making your own rules about goals otherwise Lord Krishna says and I quote

na rupam asyeha tathopalabhyate
nanto na cadir na ca sampratistha
asvattham enam su-virudha-mulam
asanga-sastrena drdhena chittva

tatah padam tat parimargitavyam
yasmin gata na nivartanti bhuyah
tam eva cadyam purusam prapadye
yatah pravrttih prasrta purani
 
The real form of this tree cannot be perceived in this world. No one can understand where it ends, where it begins, or where its foundation is. But with determination one must cut down this tree with the weapon of detachment. (15.03)

The goal (of nirvana) should be sought reaching which one does not come back; thus thinking: In that very primal spirit I take refuge from which this primal manifestation comes forth. (15.04)
 
 
 
 
 


Sadhu greets Sadhu with adesh in Nath panth, that means ajna "divine command" for a Siddha only eternal dharma remains, the akhand jyoti, the eternal dhun.


And what might that be?

Jai Shree Krishna

MahaHrada
05 July 2010, 11:09 AM
Pranam MahaHrada ji


Jai Shree Krishna
[/SIZE]

Dear Ganeshprasadji,
I cannot understand your objection, without Ahaar, Nindra and Maituna no single human, animal or even a blade of grass would exist. Therefore seeking satisfaction of basic needs is not only benefical but even a human right.

If there would be any general problem Ishwar has w.r.t. Maithuna why is there procreation using sexual organs at all? If it is wrong to eat why do we feel hunger? If it is wrong and lowly to sleep why are we tired? If it is wrong and lowly to seek protection for us and our family why do we build houses and delight in arranging them beautiful?

Why do we sacrifice our own wealth and welfare willingly and do our best and try to find a good Husband for our daughters and arrange a beautiful marriage to make her happy if it is so lowly to be delighted about our material welfare and a happy married life? Why do we care to educate our children that they may live a happy life without worries and pray for their health and material welfare? Why do all this if it is evil and lowly and only Moksha or Bhakti the sole aim? What kind of teaching is this? Hinduism?

P.S.

If someone beliefs that Vamachar or Kaulachar involves the raping of crocodiles or any other of that sort of thing what can i do ? Probably he also beliefs that the earth is a platter and carried by 4 Elephants? I could not care less about that.

http://www.silven.de/Grafiken/discworl.gif

Ganeshprasad
05 July 2010, 04:35 PM
Pranam MahaHrada ji

I don’t know what you are playing at, enough reason and backup from Shastra been provided yet you remain oblivious to it all. I try one more time, either refute it, if you can but don’t give me another statement please.


Dear Ganeshprasadji,
I cannot understand your objection, without Ahaar, Nindra and Maituna no single human, animal or even a blade of grass would exist. Therefore seeking satisfaction of basic needs is not only benefical but even a human right.

 
 
Please tell me something I don’t know. No one here is stopping anyone’s Human right far from it. Weather we can ever satisfy kaam remains the question? Lord Krishna has opined on it, which I had already quoted.


Human if he does not exercise it’s intelligence then he is only Pashu samana .Objection is not the actual practice but that being the only goal of life, as answered by Bankim and defence of that answer as 4 purusharth which you conveniently like to forget.
 


If there would be any general problem Ishwar has w.r.t. Maithuna why is there procreation using sexual organs at all? If it is wrong to eat why do we feel hunger? If it is wrong and lowly to sleep why are we tired? If it is wrong and lowly to seek protection for us and our family why do we build houses and delight in arranging them beautiful?

Who said sex for procreation is wrong or eat or sleep? But if you set that as a goal it is perpetual samsara.
If you spend your time doing all that and forget the purpose of life that is it then as Shankracharya says punarapi jananam punarapi maranam. Birth and death is this what you call bliss? Now your turn to answer was Shankacharya wrong? Is Lord Krishna wrong to say this sansar is full of dukh?
 


Why do we sacrifice our own wealth and welfare willingly and do our best and try to find a good Husband for our daughters and arrange a beautiful marriage to make her happy if it is so lowly to be delighted about our material welfare and a happy married life? Why do we care to educate our children that they may live a happy life without worries and pray for their health and material welfare? Why do all this if it is evil and lowly and only Moksha or Bhakti the sole aim? What kind of teaching is this? Hinduism?

Again you are putting words in my mouth who said it is evil?

And you will have to question Shankracharya and others like Madhvacharya or Ramanujacharya or Sri Chetanya Mahaprabhu ,Tulsidas Goswami they all stress bhakti or moksha if it is not Hinduism what is it?

Jai Shree Krishna

MahaHrada
05 July 2010, 06:29 PM
Pranam MahaHrada ji

I don’t know what you are playing at, enough reason and backup from Shastra been provided yet you remain oblivious to it all. I try one more time, either refute it, if you can but don’t give me another statement please. 
Please tell me something I don’t know. No one here is stopping anyone’s Human right far from it. Weather we can ever satisfy kaam remains the question? Lord Krishna has opined on it, which I had already quoted.
Human if he does not exercise it’s intelligence then he is only Pashu samana .Objection is not the actual practice but that being the only goal of life, as answered by Bankim and defence of that answer as 4 purusharth which you conveniently like to forget.
Who said sex for procreation is wrong or eat or sleep? But if you set that as a goal it is perpetual samsara.
If you spend your time doing all that and forget the purpose of life that is it then as Shankracharya says punarapi jananam punarapi maranam. Birth and death is this what you call bliss? Now your turn to answer was Shankacharya wrong? Is Lord Krishna wrong to say this sansar is full of dukh?
Again you are putting words in my mouth who said it is evil?

And you will have to question Shankracharya and others like Madhvacharya or Ramanujacharya or Sri Chetanya Mahaprabhu ,Tulsidas Goswami they all stress bhakti or moksha if it is not Hinduism what is it?

Jai Shree Krishna

Dear Ganeshprasadji
I still don´t understand what you object to, if you agree that satisfying these basic needs is not evil and lowly and that they are legitimate aims of a Hindu, besides Moksha, than you disagree with Ramakrishna who said that there is just one single aim Moksha and all others are lowly.

You also agree with me that doing ones Dharma selflessly is a higher goal than Artha and Kama.

You may not agree with my position that Moksha is lower than Dharma, but since i am a karmi and rather subscribe to the Purva Mimamsa or their agamic or tantric equivalent, than to the position of Vedanta or Uttara Mimamsa, this difference comes naturally. Nothing that can be done about that.

So therefore we both agree on the main points i tried to make in this thread and i have no idea where the big problem is.

Please keep in mind that i never defend myself when i am wrongly accused of any idea that i haven´t written. I simply ignore baseless and unjust accusations. Since you mention a lot of topics in your postings you or others unjustly assume are my viewpoints, for no apparent reason, you are having a major problem understanding me, due to my posting policy.

Of course i disagree with Shankaracharya Madhvacharya or Ramanujacharya or Sri Chetanya Mahaprabhu, Tulsidas Goswami and others since i am a karmi and not an advaitan or Vedantin in the modern sense or even a bhakta but have a very different approach. None of these sages have influenced me greatly. I disagree with most of their viewpoints even with the notion that Ishwar is the karta or the phaladata.

I am not here to present any special darshana to the public refuting other viewpoints, we do not accept the same shabda pramana so you cannot refute me.

But i said that so often i cannot count, please try to understand that Advaita Vedanta, or Vedanta as such is not the only Darshana, and that i do not subscribe to it, i am may be nearly the only one in this forum, but try to remember and get used to the fact that i will never ever in this life agree with Vedanta or even Kevaladvaita, which i think is of all varieties of Vedanta the most illogical and unacceptable.

I am not a Vedantin so it is wrong for me to agree to purely vedantic concepts and beliefs. I am not a monotheist, not even a theist. I do not belief that all gods are only aspect of one Brahman and other such doctrines from the Upanishads, Smriti and Puranas. The Gita was never an important shastra for me. Advaitans belief that Advaita Vedanta is the highest Knowledge. But naturally all other darshanas have the same opinion about their path.

According to the Kularnava Tantra "Higher than Vedachara is Vaishnavachara, higher than Vaishnavachara is Shaivachara, higher than Shaivachara is Dakshinachara, higher than Dakshinachara is Vamachara, higher than Vamachara is Siddhantachara, higher than Siddhantachara is Kaulachara after which there is nothing higher nor better." If i accept the tantras as shabda pramana i would not subscribe to knowledge of the lower order but to the highest which contains and exceeds the others.

Ganeshprasad
06 July 2010, 03:45 AM
Pranam mahaHrada ji

You would have saved us both a lot of trouble if you had made your position clear, I would not have quoted anything from Bhagvat Gita or Shankracharya. Yes Hinduism is vast but don’t be surprised that majority would not agree with you.

We may agree to disagree on what you say, you have wrongly concluded that we have common ground, no sir while I agree the animalistic instinct is not evil, it binds us to this sansara perpetually and it certainly is lowly, without the vivek that one must exercise, using the intelligence, that sets us apart from the other animals..

Nindra, ahhar and Maituna is certainly not my goal of life as such I do not agree with Mr Bankim but would side with Ramakrishna although I am no follower of him.

I certainly do not agree with you when you say Nindra etc forms the part of 4 Purshartha. It is not according to Shastra as you had alleged.

We may certainly agree on this, doing ones Dharma selflessly is a higher goal than Artha and Kama.

What I can't understand is if you consider sex as some sort of glories act, why would you object to nithyananda having a fling with a willing partner, that you were so disgusted, did he not fall victim to his animalistic instinct?
In another word you would agree with me that uncontrolled sex is detrimental to one self and society at large.

Jai Shree Krishna

MahaHrada
06 July 2010, 03:48 AM
Pranam mahaHrada ji

You would have saved us both a lot of trouble if you had made your position clear, I would not have quoted anything from Bhagvat Gita or Shankracharya. Yes Hinduism is vast but don’t be surprised that majority would not agree with you.

We may agree to disagree on what you say, you have wrongly concluded that we have common ground, no sir while I agree the animalistic instinct is not evil, it binds us to this sansara perpetually and it certainly is lowly, without the vivek that one must exercise, using the intelligence, that sets us apart from the other animals..

Nindra, ahhar and Maituna is certainly not my goal of life as such I do not agree with Mr Bankim but would side with Ramakrishna although I am no follower of him.

I certainly do not agree with you when you say Nindra etc forms the part of 4 Purshartha. It is not according to Shastra as you had alleged.

We may certainly agree on this, doing ones Dharma selflessly is a higher goal than Artha and Kama.

What I can't understand is if you consider sex as some sort of glories act, why would you object to nithyananda having a fling with a willing partner, that you were so disgusted, did he not fall victim to his animalistic instinct?
In another word you would agree with me that uncontrolled sex is detrimental to one self and society at large.

Jai Shree Krishna
Dear Ganeshprasadji
You waste your time i told you i simply ignore baseless and unjust accusations. You do not adress me, you talk to the mirror of your mind. Since you mention a lot of topics in your postings you or others unjustly assume are my viewpoints, for no apparent reason, you are having a major problem understanding my viewpoint, due to my posting policy. If you see any impurity please keep it, it is yours, I have no part in it.

Ganeshprasad
06 July 2010, 04:17 AM
Pranam MahaHrada ji


Dear Ganeshprasadji
You waste your time i told you i simply ignore baseless and unjust accusations. Since you mention a lot of topics in your postings you or others unjustly assume are my viewpoints, for no apparent reason, you are having a major problem understanding my viewpoint, due to my posting policy. If you see any impurity please keep it, it is yours, I will not take part in it.

Are you serious, am i responding to some phantom writer? My response was to your post no 77 but if you think that was someone else, i am sorry.
you can't say i agree with you and when i say NO, you allege i have a major problem understanding you. you can hide behind your posting policy all you like.

Jai Shree Krishna

atanu
06 July 2010, 04:20 AM
Facts:

Shri Bankim said (as per Sambya's translation) : "if you ask me , i would say , finding food , sleep , protection and sexual life are the pillars of human existence "

Ramakrishna said (as per Sambya's translation) : " yuck ! you belch of what you eat ! you are such a high scholar and such a pandita . and to get this answer from you ! loving god and striving for self realization are the only aims of a human in this life . vultures(dry scholars) can soar very high in the sky , but their gaze remains fixed to the ground in search of rotting carcass "

A member found this comment of Ramakrishna rude and said "----they depict him as a self centered, rude and unkind person ignorant of the shastras."

Further the same member opined: "The authors answer to R.´s Question is therefore is a very wise one and in accordance with the shastras, while the alleged answer of the so called "saint" that "loving god is the sole aim" is foolish ignorance, contrary to the shastras and there is no shastra pramana at all to be found for such a viewpoint, while the 3 of the 4 Purusharthas mentionend by the author, are exactly the destined aims of the humans, especially the grihastas, since moksha is not a priority for the average person. Therefore the aims Sri Bankim Chandra Chatterjee mentioned are those that are laid down in the shastras. This was a flawless answer and a very ignorant and rude alleged reply of the "saint".
--------------------------------

Which shastra says that Ahara-Nidra-Maithuna (Eating, Sleeping, and Copulating) are the three purushartha-s -- three pillars of existence (out of four Purushartha-s, which culminates in Moksha as the fourth)?

Which shastra says that Eating, Sleeping, and Copulating are the destined aims of existence?

Which shastra says that striving for Self Realization is foolish ignorance?

No emotions are involved. I am only asking for scriptural support for the opinions paraded as truth of shastra.



Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
06 July 2010, 04:46 AM
That the Self Realisation should be the urgent goal of all is noted in several Upanishads. One example is cited below from Brihadaraynaka Upanishad (whether all are ready or not is a different question) .

IV-iv-14: Being in this very body we have somehow known that (Brahman). If not, (I should have been) ignorant, (and) great destruction (would have taken place). Those who know It become immortal, while others attain misery alone.

If Bankim Ji prescribed 'eating, sleeping, copulating' as the goal and pillar of existence in earnest (and not cynically), then I would say that the prescription was for attaining misery -- as taught in Brihadaraynaka.

Om Namah Shivaya

Sahasranama
06 July 2010, 05:07 AM
Ahar, nidra and maithuna is common to all creatures, it doesn't make the human existence stand out. I see why Ramakrishna didn't expect this answer.

These are necessities for the survival of the species though, so I also understand the critisism against comparing these with rotten carcasses.

The necessities for survival do not cause misery. Abstaining from them would cause misery. Try not eating or sleeping for a month.

Shri Krishna says in the bhagavad gita.

yjuKtjhHhrivjHhrsyj yjuKtjcjeQZsyj kmj[sju
yjuKtjsvjpnjhvjbjoDjsyj yjogjo Bjvjitj du:xjHh ..6>17..

YOGA becomes the destroyer of pain for him who is moderate in eating and recreation, who is moderate in his exertion during his actions, who is moderate in sleep and wakefulness.




If we look at the purusharthas, they are partially leading to higher goals (dharma, moksha) and partially to wordly goals (artha, kama). Both are necessary to lead a complete human life.

MahaHrada
06 July 2010, 05:18 AM
Pranam MahaHrada ji



Are you serious, am i responding to some phantom writer? My response was to your post no 77 but if you think that was someone else, i am sorry.
you can't say i agree with you and when i say NO, you allege i have a major problem understanding you. you can hide behind your posting policy all you like.

Jai Shree Krishna

I feel with you but i am sorry, accusing me of all kind of vices, or beliefing that the world is a platter and i rape crocodiles daily, will not help you at all.

MahaHrada
06 July 2010, 05:29 AM
Ahar, nidra and maithuna is common to all creatures, it doesn't make the human existence stand out. I see why Ramakrishna didn't expect this answer.


He just was that blunt because he was as much sick of all this blown up hypocritical hot air and talk about Moksha and Bhakti and all otherworldy aims as i am, while the society lacked the basic needs but these "saints" did not care for the physical suffering and dire need of their fellow Hindus, their motherland, society and nation that was exploited and bent under the rule of the british raj. Of course he knew what Ramakrishna would expect him to say, he was no idiot but a great man who cared for his country. He probably was the great man that was sent by the devas to wake up Ramakrishna and make him become aware of the suffering of the society at that time. You Hindus should know that. He poked with his stick and he failed. It is a role reversal my friends. These Ramakrishan stories are not flattering. In a time were Hindu unity was needed he even divided Hindu against Hindu by inventing the evil image of the superstitous "vamachari". Authentic Hinduism of Bengal was set up by him versus his own invention of a true and pure vedic dharma, that was nothing else than a bad copy of christian victorian morals and goals blended with Vedanta and Bhakti, that were tried to be shoved down the throat of innocent hindus of that time and that is still being broadcasted as ancient and pure, but is in truth only a modern invention an universalist, monotheistic neo-vedanta that is only marketed as the "true vedic dharma " that existed since the beginning of time. "True vedic Dharma" depicting Muhammed and Jesus hand in hand with Kali and mother Mary. There where several such movements which were inspired by monotheistic sanitizers of Hindu dharma like swaminarayan movement and dayananda saraswati who tried to villify common Hindu Dharma as "primitive vamachari idolatry" internalising the british christian viewpoint on "barbaric" Hinduism.

Like Isavasya already said for each thing there is the right place and time, Kali does not ask the mother to strive for moksha and bhakti when her own children are starving from hunger, that is the time for Dharm and Karm. It is said in the Rudrayamal tantra that it is Adya shakti Kali herself that is the hunger in men, when you starve the basic needs of society and family but instead look for otherworldly aims then you let Kali herself starve that will make her angry and she will aask for your bloody head to still her hunger. As the proverb goes a hungry man is an angry man. This Chinnamasta is when Kali is shown with even her own head severed and sacrificing herself to offer her own bloodstream to feed her two hungry daughters then she is embodying the selfless path of Dharma and Karma.

Ganeshprasad
06 July 2010, 05:32 AM
Pranam


I feel with you but i am sorry, accusing me of all kind of vices, or beliefing that the world is a platter and i rape crocodiles daily, will not help you at all.

Now you really have lost me.
where i mean where have i accused you off any vices, the world a platter? i would not know what it means and rape crocodiles, your imagination is running wild. back it up and do not hide behind your posting policy.

have a nice day, i don't know what to think and feel for you.

Jai Shree Krishna

atanu
06 July 2010, 05:59 AM
----- He was the great man that was sent by the devas to to wake up Ramakrishna ---You Hindus should know that. ----- There where sevceral suich movements which were inspired by monotheistic sanitizers of Hindu dharma like swaminarayan movement and dayananda saraswati who trid to villify common Hindu Dharma as "primitive vamachari idolatry" internalising the british viewpoint on "barbaric" Hinduism.

:) :)

The following also internalised the british viewpoint perhaps.

IV-iv-14: Being in this very body we have somehow known that (Brahman). If not, (I should have been) ignorant, (and) great destruction (would have taken place). Those who know It become immortal, while others attain misery alone.

Om

MahaHrada
06 July 2010, 06:05 AM
Pranam



Now you really have lost me.
where i mean where have i accused you off any vices, the world a platter? i would not know what it means and rape crocodiles, your imagination is running wild. back it up and do not hide behind your posting policy.

have a nice day, i don't know what to think and feel for you.

Jai Shree Krishna

Dear Ganeshprasadji

What do you expect me to write, when your postings tell me again and again that i am full of praise for some lowly and bad behaviour and aims? While what i do is defend kindness, selfless sharing, protection of the family values and dharma? Compared to all these baseless assumptions it would be sane to belive that the world is a platter and i am raping crocodiles. Thats what i mean. A baseless accusation creates no sin except for the acussers, to belief the earth is a platter does not make people fall of the edge of the world.

Ganeshprasad
06 July 2010, 06:59 AM
Pranam MahaHarda ji


Dear Ganeshprasadji

What do you expect me to write,

The truth and nothing more



when your postings tell me again and again that i am full of praise for some lowly and bad behaviour and aims?

all you had to deny that, would have save us a lot of time. have i accused you of bad behavior?

the facts speak for it self, i need not go in to it any more, have a look at Atanu ji post 81. that was the debate all about.



While what i do is defend kindness, selfless sharing, protection of the family values and dharma?

you will not find me arguing on those values where it does not contradict the shastra, i appreciate we have a different take on shastra but don't let that stop us valuing Satya, Karuna, saucha(pavitrata) and tapas.



Compared to all these baseless assumptions it would be sane to belive that the world is a platter and i am raping crocodiles. Thats what i mean. A baseless accusation creates no sin except for the acussers, to belief the earth is a platter does not make people fall of the edge of the world.

however you may want to cover it up, facts remains i did not accuse you of all those things, i can not read your mind.
truth will always triumph.

Jai Shree Krishna

sm78
06 July 2010, 07:01 AM
:) :)

The following also internalised the british viewpoint perhaps.

IV-iv-14: Being in this very body we have somehow known that (Brahman). If not, (I should have been) ignorant, (and) great destruction (would have taken place). Those who know It become immortal, while others attain misery alone.

Om

yet, by the very same people ....



Food is with me,
The mind to give food is with me
Cleanliness is with me,
Enthusiasm is with me,
Capacity to protect is with me,
Capacity to earn food is with me,
Strength to chant manthras with out fault is with me,
Fame is with me
Strength to recite properly is with me,
.............
Fame is with me,
Capacity to head is with me,
Internal anger is with me,
External anger is with me,
Fathomless mid is with me,
Pure cold water is with me,
Capacity to win is with me,
Capacity to be honoured is with me,
Immovable assets are with me,
Sons and grand sons are with me,
Deathless progeny is with me,
Pleasure of wealth is with me,
Growth of knowledge is with me,
Truth is with me,
Attention to detail is with me,
Assets are with me,
Wealth is with me,
Capacity to attract is with me,
Luster of the body is with me,
Sports is with me,
Happiness coming out of that is with me,
Whatever has been made is with me,


The less dogmatic found that there was no contradiction between the two. The more dogmatic, possibly for political ends, found it necessary to belittle one in favour of the other.

But nonetheless, we are firing cannons when a slap would have sufficed.

We are discussing Ramakrishna, who hardly had any clue or insight into "knowing that". All he did was frequently pass into some sort of "Epileptic seizure", wake up and talk some emotional non sense, which
was propagated initially as " he knew that" to gradually "he was that". He became a grand master of all lines of sadhana he had ever heard of, completing all the sadhanas of 64 tantras in 3 nights from a dubious yogini who was quite jealous of his wife. Anybody who has read tantras a little know its a laughable proposition, o but wait, this was God himself. He found that muslims namaz and looking at a christ figure gave him same realizations as doing anything else for his brand of god realization.

As Mahahrada has pointed out, Mr Bankim was perhaves poking this self hypnotised god man to wake him up, but he was too full of himself and propaganda about his saint-hood to even understand the intent behind the answer.

I am making too stong a comment on a man who is regarded as next to God, if not God, but I think someone has to play the villain, nothing will change anyway. But I think it is insult to even true vedanta, if its followers cannot find a better example than Ramkrishna for their zeal for "that".

MahaHrada
06 July 2010, 07:17 AM
Want some shabda Pramana from the Veda achara for what i write ? Here you go:
Mahabharata and Taittiryaka good enough?

No of course not, i hear already the sqealing : blablehblahrhubarbaroinkoink

Do not denigrate food. Let that be the resolve. Life is because of food.
The body consumes food. Life is established in the body. The body is
established in life. Thus food is established in food. He who knows this,
becomes established in that knowledge. And then he becomes full with
food, with offspring, with cattle, with glory and with fame.
Do not show indifference to food. Let that be the resolve. Water is food.
Heat consumes water. Water is established in heat. Heat is established
in water. Thus food is established in food. He who knows this, becomes
established in that knowledge. And then he becomes full with food, with
offspring, with cattle, with glory and with fame.
Grow more food. Let that be the resolve. Earth is food. Space is food.
Earth is established in space. Space is established in earth. Thus food
is established in food. He who knows this, becomes established in that
knowledge. And then he becomes full with food, with offspring, with
cattle, with glory and with fame.
Do not treat a guest with indifference. Let that be the resolve. For that
reason gather plenty of food by all means. Say to the guest, ‘Food is
ready.’ The food that is prepared with the utmost attention and respect
is requited in the same manner. The food that is prepared with little
attention and respect is requited in the same manner. He who knows in
this manner.
Food is the primary substance. Food is considered as the manifestation
of all well-being. It is through food that the life force and its radiance and
its strength are nourished.
The universe with all that lives and moves in it is sustained by food. The
Primeval Being has described food as nectar.
That life is possible only through food is evident and there is no doubting it.
Food is a manifestation of the Primeval Being. Food is the source of
creation. Food is suffused with all creation; and all living beings are
suffused with food.
Offspring is born through food; sexual pleasure is possible because of
food; social and material prosperity are achieved through food;
and it is through food that disease is overcome.57
The absence of food makes the five principal elements of the body
disintegrate; and with the loss of food, the strength of even the strongest
is lost.
Food is man’s life; and it is through food that the living beings are born.
The whole world is based upon food. And, therefore, food is regarded as
the highest.
Because life is sustained by food, and food is life, to give food to others
is like giving life to them; and whoever gives food is known verily as the
giver of life.
There was not in the past, nor will there be in the future, a sharing
comparable to the sharing of food. Therefore, mostly it is the gift of food
that people wish to give.
The giving of food is one giving that brings visible satisfaction both to
the giver and the one to whom it is given. The results of all other giving
are invisible.
Should a brāhman. a, who is weak with hunger and thirst, his feet tired
from a long journey, come to one’s home and ask for food, he should
be honoured. Such a guest is an occasion for heaven,
and all gods are satisfied when he is satisfied.

Of all givings, the giving of water is a thing apart.

For that reason, knowing this, one should always offer water to the
thirsty.
In accordance with time and place, if the lowliest of low arrives as a
guest, the householder should welcome him too.
With a guest come all the gods and the manes. If a guest is honoured, so
are they; if he goes away disappointed, they go away disappointed too

Human beings are born on the earth, and to the Earth they return. All
species of life are suffused with the attributes and energy of the Earth.

To the world, the Earth is like mother and father. There is no other
material reality like the Earth.

If he diligently, day after day, keeps studying the Veda but does not show
utmost respect to the guest, then the life of such a brāhmana is in vain.

If one wishes to reap the fruits of ritual rites, then let one attend upon a
guest who arrives hungry, thirsty and tired, and offer him food with the
utmost respect.92

Should one’s enemy arrive at one’s doorstep, one should, and with
respect too, attend upon him. A tree does not withdraw its cooling shade
even from the one who has come to cut it.

bold mine

atanu
06 July 2010, 07:17 AM
yet, by the very same people ....

I am making too stong a comment on a man who is regarded as next to God, if not God, ---.


No no. Not at all. Certain things go towards irrelevance. What you consider strong and effective is irrelevant and ignorable.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
06 July 2010, 07:19 AM
Want some shabda Pramana from the Veda for what i write ? Here you go:
Mahabharata and Taittiryaka good enough?
Do not denigrate food. ----.
Do not show indifference to food. ----
bold mine


WRT to facts noted in:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=47193&postcount=81

Which shastra says that Ahara-Nidra-Maithuna (Eating, Sleeping, and Copulating) are the three purushartha-s -- three pillars of existence (out of four Purushartha-s, which culminates in Moksha as the fourth)?

Which shastra says that Eating, Sleeping, and Copulating are the destined aims of existence?

Which shastra says that striving for Self Realization is foolish ignorance?

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
06 July 2010, 07:31 AM
Should one’s enemy arrive at one’s doorstep, one should, and with
respect too, attend upon him. A tree does not withdraw its cooling shade even from the one who has come to cut it.
bold mine

Really? What about beheading phiringis?

MahaHrada
06 July 2010, 07:41 AM
Really? What about beheading phiringis?

....If i post for instance about the Bengal shakta Nationalist Movement and what they belive about Kali hungering for ferengi heads i cannot at all understand why someone could come to the conclusion that i run around with a chopper and offer ferengis to Kali or that i even approve of it or see Kali in the same way which i may or may not do, you simply don´t know that unless i tell you.

You waste your time i told you i simply ignore baseless and unjust accusations. You do not adress me, you talk to the mirror of your mind. Since you mention a lot of topics in your postings you or others unjustly assume are my viewpoints, for no apparent reason, you are having a major problem understanding my viewpoint, due to my posting policy. If you see any impurity please keep it, it is yours, I have no part in it.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=47120&postcount=97

sm78
06 July 2010, 07:50 AM
What you consider strong and effective is irrelevant and ignorable.

Om Namah Shivaya

sad, but true ... particularly ignoring what hurts has been a convinient habit for so long

atanu
06 July 2010, 08:37 AM
Something good comes out of every situation. The following citation of Sh Mahahrada, IMO, is the best of this thread.

Should one’s enemy arrive at one’s doorstep, one should, and with
respect too, attend upon him. A tree does not withdraw its cooling shade even from the one who has come to cut it.

However, it was also asserted: "----while the 3 (nidra, ahar, maithuna as per the author) of the 4 Purusharthas mentionend by the author, are exactly the destined aims of the humans -----", which we can simply ignore.


Om Namah Shivaya

Sahasranama
06 July 2010, 08:46 AM
He just was that blunt because he was as much sick of all this blown up hypocritical hot air and talk about Moksha and Bhakti and all otherworldy aims as i am, while the society lacked the basic needs but these "saints" did not care for the physical suffering and dire need of their fellow Hindus, their motherland, society and nation that was exploited and bent under the rule of the british raj.

The problem with India in that time was that all the gurus were sanyasis or at least pretending to follow sannyasa dharma. In ancient time the gurus that led the people were mostly grihastas who would not condemn wordly goals. For example dronacharya in the mahabharata, valmiki in the ramayana. But the neo Hindu gurus were all living like Christian monks. It's detrimental for the welfare of a society to follow the steps of such gurus. Sannyasis are not supposed to have a political agenda.


Of course he knew what Ramakrishna would expect him to say, he was no idiot but a great man who cared for his country. He probably was the great man that was sent by the devas to wake up Ramakrishna and make him become aware of the suffering of the society at that time. You Hindus should know that. He poked with his stick and he failed. It is a role reversal my friends.It was a provocative answer indeed, it seems that people who have renounced wordly goals also have superiority complexes.


These Ramakrishan stories are not flattering. In a time were Hindu unity was needed he even divided Hindu against Hindu by inventing the evil image of the superstitous "vamachari". Authentic Hinduism of Bengal was set up by him versus his own invention of a true and pure vedic dharma, that was nothing else than a bad copy of christian victorian morals and goals blended with Vedanta and Bhakti, that were tried to be shoved down the throat of innocent hindus of that time and that is still being broadcasted as ancient and pure, but is in truth only a modern invention an universalist, monotheistic neo-vedanta that is only marketed as the "true vedic dharma " that existed since the beginning of time. "True vedic Dharma" depicting Muhammed and Jesus hand in hand with Kali and mother Mary. There where several such movements which were inspired by monotheistic sanitizers of Hindu dharma like swaminarayan movement and dayananda saraswati who tried to villify common Hindu Dharma as "primitive vamachari idolatry" internalising the british christian viewpoint on "barbaric" Hinduism.I agree that the neo Hindu universalist movements are often more dogmatic
than the orthodox sects. Their only claim to fame is that they say that they fought for human welfare.

But on a larger scale it's true that Dayananda and Vivekananda have made Hindus insecure about their own culture. They had to edit Hinduism to make it presentable to the western world, so that they could overcompensate by saying "we are proud to be Hindus" in the face of the Americans. This has created more division amongst Hindus, all while Hinduism has been turning into guruism.


Like Isavasya already said for each thing there is the right place and time, Kali does not ask the mother to strive for moksha and bhakti when her own children are starving from hunger, that is the time for Dharm and Karm. It is said in the Rudrayamal tantra that it is Adya shakti Kali herself that is the hunger in men, when you starve the basic needs of society and family but instead look for otherworldly aims then you let Kali herself starve that will make her angry and she will aask for your bloody head to still her hunger. As the proverb goes a hungry man is an angry man. This Chinnamasta is when Kali is shown with even her own head severed and sacrificing herself to offer her own bloodstream to feed her two hungry daughters then she is embodying the selfless path of Dharma and Karma.A nice saying is "money is not root of all evil, the lack of money is." It's also said in the bhagavad gita that torturing ourselves with excessive hunger and other pains is a tamo guna form of tapah.

atanu
06 July 2010, 08:49 AM
sad, but true ... particularly ignoring what hurts has been a convinient habit for so long

That is life time of sadhana, but in this case common sense.

atanu
06 July 2010, 09:16 AM
The problem with India in that time ----.

Namaste Sahsranama

It is a good feeling that we have so many posters outlining the problems of India.

However, to me the only problem was the assertion : "----while the 3 (nidra, ahar, maithuna as per the author) of the 4 Purusharthas mentionend by the author, are exactly the destined aims of the humans -----",

What is exactly the destined goal of humans? Is it correct to say that nidra, ahar, maithuna are the 3 Purusharthas which are exactly the destined aims of the humans?

Why is it difficult to acknowldge that the statement is an over-reach? Answer honestly if you wish to answer.

Om Namah Shivaya

Ganeshprasad
06 July 2010, 09:23 AM
Pranam Atanu ji


Namaste Sahsranama

It is a good feeling that we have so many posters outlining the problems of India.

However, to me the only problem was the assertion : "----while the 3 (nidra, ahar, maithuna as per the author) of the 4 Purusharthas mentionend by the author, are exactly the destined aims of the humans -----",

What is exactly the destined goal of humans? Is it correct to say that nidra, ahar, maithuna are the 3 Purusharthas which are exactly the destined aims of the humans?

Why is it difficult to acknowldge that the statement is an over-reach? Answer honestly if you wish to answer.

Om Namah Shivaya


Thank you That is all we need to know.

people like to make their own straw-man and shoot it down,
i ask who here has suggested that we starve ourself?

Jai Shree Krishna

isavasya
06 July 2010, 09:32 AM
i believe that meat eating was there in hinduism and not just as a minority practice .
but im opposed to any orthodoxy . what the fellow was trying to do here was to create a joke , a sacasm and impose his theories on others . thats why i made that sarcastic post .


@sambya ji

Yes Even I didn't like the manner this thread was created, it was a propaganda no doubt. But even after that you have stuck to your belief that self realisation should be the highest aim of humanity, apart from that many times it has been attempted to prove worldly things as abominable (you are right when you point against specific wrong practices), I support you on that, but worldly things which includes everything like love, Compassion, daya, daan, grihasta jivan, duty , patriotism may be unworthy for jnani or sanyasi ,or some religious bhakt, but can be very important in evolution of other human beings, please try to see things from other persons heart. A great majority of humans are not interested in moksha , one shouldn't believe he is ignorant.



Then the final punch was not required. Do you see it?


@atanu ji,


Final punch simply meant advaita came later than mimamsa and it also defeated buddhism. You clearly wrote these lines.


First, Purva Mimamsa has no answer for Buddhism.

please do not form opinion about sampradayas which you dont subscribe too and don't know about.



Jaimini wrote tantravarttika a book which was specifically written for refuting buddhism, . Already i showed even kumarailla Bhata defeated buddhists. The book contained lots of logic of refuting buddhism.




I asked you whether Purva Mimamsa supports "Eating-Sleeping-Copulation" as life's only goal?


This amazes me most, I brought the topic of purva mimamsa as sambya was requesting me about one darshan which says dharm as highest, why people are finding eating sleeping copulation everywhere ?


Yes mimamsa preaches about ethics, tantravarttika also explains right ethics. By the way, I brought this purva mimamsa to prove dharma as highest aim, and not anything else, so I am not going to entertain your question at all. Next time you will post unnecessary questions. i will ignore you. Bye.

atanu
06 July 2010, 09:39 AM
I asked you whether Purva Mimamsa supports "Eating-Sleeping-Copulation" as life's only goal?

This amazes me most, I brought the topic of purva mimamsa as sambya was requesting me about one darshan which says dharm as highest, why people are finding eating sleeping copulation everywhere ?

Yes mimamsa preaches about ethics, tantravarttika also explains right ethics. By the way, I brought this purva mimamsa to prove dharma as highest aim, and not anything else, so I am not going to entertain your question at all. Next time you will post unnecessary questions. i will ignore you. Bye.

Namaste Isa

Ignore me if that gives you peace. I do not think that any part of scripture is before or after or lower or higher.


This thread erupted on a particular statement. I have pointed it out here.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=47220&postcount=100

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
06 July 2010, 10:32 AM
I agree that the neo Hindu universalist movements are often more dogmatic
than the orthodox sects. Their only claim to fame is that they say that they fought for human welfare.

But on a larger scale it's true that Dayananda and Vivekananda have made Hindus insecure about their own culture. They had to edit Hinduism to make it presentable to the western world, so that they could overcompensate by saying "we are proud to be Hindus" in the face of the Americans. This has created more division amongst Hindus, all while Hinduism has been turning into guruism.

A nice saying is "money is not root of all evil, the lack of money is." It's also said in the bhagavad gita that torturing ourselves with excessive hunger and other pains is a tamo guna form of tapah.

Yes exactly, i do not condemm neo hinduism in general, it was a source for hindu pride and national identity. There is no black and white, you can either say the glass is half full or half empty, it is an adaption to modern times where some aspects of Hindu dharma where preserved at the cost of others.

But today i think we we can begin to take a look at both, the contribution as well as the distortion,

British colonial times and victorian morals are a thing of the past, but the old appeasement of this long gone mindset and morals is still broadcasted and marketed as the only true ancient vedic dharma.

What i am asking for is an effort to decolonialize and dechristianize the Hindu dharma, a return to the roots so to say, and for that we need a polarized discussion about the past teachings and a reevaluation of the work of the saints.

Also Hindus can, if they wish so, reclaim the teachings of Yoga , Agama and Tantra or Shrauta dharma and also the folk and tribal traditions that have been criminalised and marginalized due to appeasement politics 200 years ago today there is no christian or muslim ruler that needs to be appeased anymore, and one can safely reevaluate the past revival of Hinduism that happened 200 years ago, criticising does not mean that we cannot also value the contribution if any,

Modern Gurus like Bhagavan Rajnesh "Osho" are as much part of an adaption or revival of hindu Identity using neo tantric inspirations rejecting christian and islamic influences, than Ramakrishna who glorified the abrahmic religions.

But definitly both are similar in that they are modern adaptions of Hinduism, a product of their respective historical situation which is not at all to be condemmend as such, since it shows that Hinduism can adapt and change and is not a "do it my way or die", Mleccha dharma. But India cannot be more christian than the west because they still stick to and practise teachings that have been adaptions of dubious christian morals that are 200 years old and long gone in the west, just because they cannot criticise their saints.

Actually i have seen and met many westerners that had already overcome and rejected the christian superstition and morals only to return to it, due to the influence of and exposure to writings of Yogananda and his glorification of Christianity. Yoganandas effect in the west was more like a kind of missionary for Christianity rather then anything else, he made people return to belief in Jesus Christ by making it acceptable to pray to jesus in circles who would have otherwise rejected that Religion.

MahaHrada
06 July 2010, 12:48 PM
Pranam MahaHarda ji

....all you had to deny that,

To ask me and also other posters and try to force us permanently to deny one and then the other lowly thing we have never mentioned (including things like burning widows and raping crocodiles or was it the other way around?) is a very insulting and illogical request and will be ignored. We do not stoop down to that level. If you discuss with me refer to something i have written if that is not asked too much.

Ganeshprasad
06 July 2010, 01:31 PM
Pranam


To ask me and also other posters and try to force us permanently to deny one and then the other lowly thing we have never mentioned (including things like burning widows and raping crocodiles or was it the other way around?) is a very insulting and illogical request and will be ignored. We do not stoop down to that level. If you discuss with me refer to something i have written if that is not asked too much.

Tell me in your post no 3 you did not endorse Bankim's view, and called those view as 3 of the 4 Purshartha, and you did not write, 'that loving God as sole aim is foolish ignorance, contrary to the shastras and there is no shastra pramana at all'.

then i will drop all this as a bad dream.


You have stooped so low that you are actually attributing to me that which you have put in the bracket, i am having to deny that again, you have no shame? or is that your tactic to deflect the real issue?


deny your post no three or answer Atanu ji's post no 81 that is all, i don't know why i bother because you find some excuse like not your posting policy.

Jai Shree Krishna

MahaHrada
06 July 2010, 04:57 PM
Pranam



Tell me in your post no 3 you did not endorse Bankim's view, and called those view as 3 of the 4 Purshartha, and you did not write, 'that loving God as sole aim is foolish ignorance, contrary to the shastras and there is no shastra pramana at all'.

then i will drop all this as a bad dream.




Lets talk just of one basic need, one of the three bodily needs that are defined as visaya, (Ahara nidra bhaya and maithuna) so that the impure and perverted imaginations that constantly revolve in the mind of our critics do not get in our way, Just let us talk about food.

Ramakrishna says if looking for any of these is your aim and not Moksha the only aim you are as if you are a vulture looking for a carcass. Therefore concentrating solely on one of these is sufficent to refute my critics and Ramakrishna.

But shastra praises food as being the highest, Brahman the primordial being itself, calling food or hunger lowly you insult the highest Brahman that is what the Veda has to say. You are free to consider Ramakrishnas teaching higher than the Vedas but all you critics cannot shov this down my throat by force and turn me into a vedabhrastha.

Do not denigrate food.

The universe with all that lives and moves in it is sustained by food. The
Primeval Being has described food as nectar.

Food is a manifestation of the Primeval Being.

social and material prosperity are achieved through food;
and it is through food that disease is overcome.

The whole world is based upon food. And, therefore, food is regarded as
the highest.

There was not in the past, nor will there be in the future, a sharing
comparable to the sharing of food.

Should a brāhmana, who is weak with hunger and thirst, his feet tired
from a long journey, come to one’s home and ask for food, he should
be honoured. Such a guest is an occasion for heaven,
and all gods are satisfied when he is satisfied.

You are free to have any opinion you like, this is a free world but the above is what the Vedas proclaim and what i have written in this thread.

"foolish ignorance, contrary to the shastras and there is no shastra pramana at all"

As you can see for yourself nothing is wrong with that statement. Everyone who can read and understand simple sentences like "The sky is blue" will have to acknowledge that Shastra strictly forbids to denigrate food. But of course one can say this is a faulty translation by some hindu hating western indologist and in reality food means something else, probably it denotes the "sacred bird that sustains himself by drinking the rays of the moon". Or the correct translation of anna is a "hare with horns"

Ganeshprasad
07 July 2010, 06:02 AM
Pranam

Finally we have an acknowledgement on the subject, I and others have been accused off making it up.


To ask me and also other posters and try to force us permanently to deny one and then the other lowly thing we have never mentioned (including things like burning widows and raping crocodiles or was it the other way around?) is a very insulting and illogical request and will be ignored. We do not stoop down to that level. If you discuss with me refer to something i have written if that is not asked too much.
What do you expect me to write, when your postings tell me again and again that i am full of praise for some lowly and bad behaviour and aims?


That which is lowly is your own words, I have consistently been debating, Ahhar Nindra and Maithuna, which you found insulting and even denied that was your view. Now suddenly when pinned down you are ready to defend it. It is nothing short of hypocrisy.

You have quoted Shastra Mahabharata and Taittiryaka but I fail to see what purpose it can serve because by your admittance we do not follow the same sabda pramana. For you Gita is not important yet you are happy quote from Mahabharata. Otherwise Gita has a similar take on food but it put things in perspective

Brahmaa, the creator, in the beginning created human beings together with Yajna and said: By Yajna you shall prosper and Yajna shall fulfill all your desires. (3.10)
Nourish the Devas with Yajna, and the Devas will nourish you. Thus nourishing one another you shall attain the Supreme goal. (3.11)
The Devas, nourished by Yajna, will give you the desired objects. One who enjoys the gift of the Devas without offering them (anything in return) is, indeed, a thief. (3.12)
The righteous who eat the remnants of the Yajna are freed from all sins, but the impious who cook food only for themselves (without sharing with others in charity) verily eat sin. (3.13)
The living beings are born from food, food is produced by rain, rain comes by performing Yajna. The Yajna is performed by doing Karma. (See also 4.32) (3.14)
The Karma or duty is prescribed in the Vedas. The Vedas come from Brahman. Thus the all-pervading Brahman is ever present in Yajna or service. (3.15)
The one who does not help to keep the wheel of creation in motion by sacrificial duty, and who rejoices in sense pleasures, that sinful person lives in vain, O Arjuna. (3.16)

No one can deny Food is important to keep this body and soul together so it is not surprising that it occupies very high place in this material world.
but we are not this body and therefore when it comes to atama the highest consideration would be moksha or love of God.

Lets face it most off us eat for pleasure, a hog delights in stool, that we should not make it as goal our life but it your choice.





"foolish ignorance, contrary to the shastras and there is no shastra pramana at all"

As you can see for yourself nothing is wrong with that statement. Everyone who can read and understand simple sentences like "The sky is blue" will have to acknowledge that Shastra strictly forbids to denigrate food. But of course one can say this is a faulty translation by some hindu hating western indologist and in reality food means something else, probably it denotes the "sacred bird that sustains himself by drinking the rays of the moon". Or the correct translation of anna is a "hare with horns"

Lets us wipe that sarcasm from that face it does not suit anyone
off course when we omit certain words the sentence takes a different meaning altogether. Even the ocean looks blue this is our sorry state, this world is a perverted reflection of true self.

Try compare your original quote highlighted in bold with above quote then you will see what’s wrong with it


The authors answer to R.´s Question is therefore is a very wise one and in accordance with the shastras, while the alleged answer of the so called "saint" that "loving god is the sole aim" is foolish ignorance, contrary to the shastras and there is no shastra pramana at all to be found for such a viewpoint


Are we going to see any evidence for the other two Nindra and Maithuna?

Jai Shree Krishna

MahaHrada
07 July 2010, 06:41 AM
Pranam

Nidra is only a necessity and Kama is considered very sacred in the vedas, it is even called the primal mover the origin of the universe, identical to the brahman, but according to tarka refuting the lowlyness of food is sufficent to show that my comment was true. I will not bother about the others therefore. You have been refuted, i close the case and ask you to please apologize for your continuing insults.

atanu
07 July 2010, 07:08 AM
"----they depict him as a self centered, rude and unkind person ignorant of the shastras."

"The authors answer to R.´s Question is therefore is a very wise one and in accordance with the shastras, while the alleged answer of the so called "saint" that "loving god is the sole aim" is foolish ignorance, contrary to the shastras and there is no shastra pramana at all to be found for such a viewpoint, while the 3 of the 4 Purusharthas mentionend by the author, are exactly the destined aims of the humans, especially the grihastas, since moksha is not a priority for the average person. Therefore the aims Sri Bankim Chandra Chatterjee mentioned are those that are laid down in the shastras. This was a flawless answer and a very ignorant and rude alleged reply of the "saint".


Which shastra says that Ahara-Nidra-Maithuna (Eating, Sleeping, and Copulating) are the destined aims of existence?

Which shastra says that striving for Self Realization is foolish ignorance?


No answers are required. I earnestly request Satay to consider locking the thread because nothing new can come up.


Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
07 July 2010, 07:14 AM
Which shastra says that Ahara-Nidra-Maithuna (Eating, Sleeping, and Copulating) are the destined aims of existence?

Which shastra says that striving for Self Realization is foolish ignorance?


You are right nobody but you have said that.

isavasya
07 July 2010, 07:51 AM
Your observations would be normal deductions of any rational person who
knows a few things about bharat dharma. .

Namaste sm78

yes but there are rational people who have made it clear in this thread ramkrishna 'accepted' Islam and Christianity as a path as valid as Hinduism. No doubt the moral values of Islam and christianity will also be part of such realised souls. Happy realization to great sanatanis. :)

Willliam wilberforce a British politician proclaimed in his speech in British parliament " We might have anticipated the moral condition of hindus by ascertaining the character of their deities , you may find every possible variety of every predictable crime, their deities are absolute injustice, wickedness and cruelty" In short their religious system is our grand abomination".
Richard temple expressed India represents greatest of all fields of Missionary exertion.

Lord palmerston then prime minister declared It is not only our duty but in our own interest to promote the diffusion of Christianity as far as possible throughout the length and breadth of India.

The british calculated that to subjugate India, They must undermine the soul of the people, it's faith in vedic gods, the temples and IDOLS, the texts and the language, in which those texts and everything sacred in that text was enshrined.

Also a few days ago I was reading history of varanasi riots of 18th century, there the christian megistrate defined our festival 'holi' as licentious (Holi is not a shakta festival) and sacrifice during Holi (which coincided with muhharam of Muslims) as defiling of sacred moharram procession of pious monotheistic Muislims by polytheistic monstrous Hindus. The same mullas who hallal and torture animals throughout the world.

Ganeshprasad
07 July 2010, 08:21 AM
Pranam


Nidra is only a necessity and Kama is considered very sacred in the vedas, -----.

Food as well as Nindra are mere necessity of life you have not proved that to be the goal of life neither is Kaam.

I don’t have to get any Shastra praman for it although I can provide many.
Fact of the matter is, you try all those three in excess and you will soon find your self in the hospital eventually.

If you still think, that is the only goal off life, you will find that this human body is not suitable for it, nature will provide a suitable body to enjoy all these without the necessity to work very hard for it.

Let me get this straight you did not accuse those who want to love god as foolish and what not? Yes

You see I have got nothing to apologies, I have not insulted anyone or called names or falsely attributed something I had not said. On the contrarily you have to search your soul and come up with your own answer.

Jai Shree Krishna

MahaHrada
07 July 2010, 08:27 AM
Pranam



Like i said before it is your choice to think Ramakrishnas teachings are greater than the shabda of the vedas, we are each free to choose our own way.

atanu
07 July 2010, 08:41 AM
You are right nobody but you have said that.

Is it?

Facts:

Shri Bankim said (as per Sambya's translation) : "if you ask me , i would say , finding food , sleep , protection and sexual life are the pillars of human existence "

Ramakrishna said (as per Sambya's translation) : " yuck ! you belch of what you eat ! you are such a high scholar and such a pandita . and to get this answer from you ! loving god and striving for self realization are the only aims of a human in this life . vultures(dry scholars) can soar very high in the sky , but their gaze remains fixed to the ground in search of rotting carcass "

A member found this comment of Ramakrishna rude and said "----they depict him as a self centered, rude and unkind person ignorant of the shastras."

Further the same member opined: "The authors answer to R.´s Question is therefore is a very wise one and in accordance with the shastras, while the alleged answer of the so called "saint" that "loving god is the sole aim" is foolish ignorance, contrary to the shastras and there is no shastra pramana at all to be found for such a viewpoint, while the 3 of the 4 Purusharthas mentionend by the author, are exactly the destined aims of the humans, especially the grihastas, since moksha is not a priority for the average person. Therefore the aims Sri Bankim Chandra Chatterjee mentioned are those that are laid down in the shastras. This was a flawless answer and a very ignorant and rude alleged reply of the "saint".
--------------------------------

Which shastra says that Ahara-Nidra-Maithuna (Eating, Sleeping, and Copulating) are the three purushartha-s -- three pillars of existence and the destined aims of existence?

Which shastra says that striving for Self Realization and loving God is foolish ignorance?



Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
07 July 2010, 08:45 AM
Is it?

Facts:

Shri Bankim said (as per Sambya's translation) : "if you ask me , i would say , finding food , sleep , protection and sexual life are the pillars of human existence "

Ramakrishna said (as per Sambya's translation) : " yuck ! you belch of what you eat ! you are such a high scholar and such a pandita . and to get this answer from you ! loving god and striving for self realization are the only aims of a human in this life . vultures(dry scholars) can soar very high in the sky , but their gaze remains fixed to the ground in search of rotting carcass "

A member found this comment of Ramakrishna rude and said "----they depict him as a self centered, rude and unkind person ignorant of the shastras."

Further the same member opined: "The authors answer to R.´s Question is therefore is a very wise one and in accordance with the shastras, while the alleged answer of the so called "saint" that "loving god is the sole aim" is foolish ignorance, contrary to the shastras and there is no shastra pramana at all to be found for such a viewpoint, while the 3 of the 4 Purusharthas mentionend by the author, are exactly the destined aims of the humans, especially the grihastas, since moksha is not a priority for the average person. Therefore the aims Sri Bankim Chandra Chatterjee mentioned are those that are laid down in the shastras. This was a flawless answer and a very ignorant and rude alleged reply of the "saint".
--------------------------------

Which shastra says that Ahara-Nidra-Maithuna (Eating, Sleeping, and Copulating) are the three purushartha-s -- three pillars of existence and the destined aims of existence?

Which shastra says that striving for Self Realization and loving God is foolish ignorance?



Om Namah Shivaya

You do not master the english language nor tarka." Pillars" means basic necessities since pillars support a house, but they are not the house. If there is no house or other construction you need no "Pillars" or "supports" Such an expression is called figurative language. Bankim C, Chatterji was a great author no fool. He knows how to use language in a proper way.
Please use tarka and try to understand english. There is nothing said about them being the sole aim. The only one who talks about a sole aim is Ramakrishna w.r.t. Moksha which is clearly against all shastra pramana.

atanu
07 July 2010, 08:55 AM
Friends

There can be many arguments as to which of two: the Goal of realisation of God/Self or following the dharma dilligently is greater? Actually both are same. Yet, DharmarAja Yudhistira faltered and without Lord Krishna would have perished. Without God, dharma is blind and inert. Karma does not bestow any fruit on its own.

Shri Krishna in Gita teaches that even if a lowly person -- a sinner, submits to Him, God ensures the sinner's protection and moksha.


It is easy to decide.

-------------------
But the vicious arguments (and the vicious language used here for revered sages) here is not about comparison of a path of dilligent dharma vs. Ishwara Bhakti/Self. But the argument here was worse.

It has been suggested by MahaHrada that Ahar, Nidra, Maithuna are the EXACT DESTINY OF HUMANS. It was also found out that love of God and striving for Self realisation as goal (as suggested by Shri Ramakrishna) was foolish ignorance.

If Ahar, Nidra, and Maithuna are the EXACT DESTINY OF HUMANS, then then rats, perhaps, will reach the destiny faster.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
07 July 2010, 09:00 AM
You do not master the english language nor tarka." Pillars" means basic necessities since pillars support a house, but they are not the house. If there is no house or other construction you need no "Pillars" Such an expression is called figurative language. Bankim C, Chatterji was a great author no fool. He knows how to use language in a proper way.
Please use tarka and try to understand english. There is nothing said about them being the sole aim. The only one who talks about a sole aim is Ramakrishna w.r.t. Moksha which is clearly against all shastra pramana.

I know that you are master of everything, including english and tarka.:bowdown:

I have no problem with Bankim or Ramakrishna. You said "----3 of the 4 Purusharthas mentionend by the author, are exactly the destined aims of the humans", and I am just repeating your words.

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
07 July 2010, 09:00 AM
It has been suggested by MahaHrada that Ahar, Nidra, Maithuna are the EXACT DESTINY OF HUMANS. It was also found out that love of God and striving for Self realisation as goal (as suggested by Shri Ramakrishna) was foolish ignorance.

If Ahar, Nidra, and Maithuna are the EXACT DESTINY OF HUMANS, then then rats, perhaps, will reach the destiny faster.

Om Namah Shivaya

...If i post for instance about the Bengal shakta Nationalist Movement and what they belive about Kali hungering for ferengi heads i cannot at all understand why someone could come to the conclusion that i run around with a chopper and offer ferengis to Kali or that i even approve of it or see Kali in the same way which i may or may not do, you simply don´t know that unless i tell you.

You waste your time i told you i simply ignore baseless and unjust accusations. You do not adress me, you talk to the mirror of your mind. Since you mention a lot of topics in your postings you or others unjustly assume are my viewpoints, for no apparent reason, you are having a major problem understanding my viewpoint, due to my posting policy. If you see any impurity please keep it, it is yours, I have no part in it.

Here are my posting policies, in the future i will simple ignore baseless accusations ,that have no reference to actual postings of mine, without any explantion or the link to my posting policies. Thank you for your kind attention.
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...0&postcount=97

atanu
07 July 2010, 09:12 AM
...If i post for instance about the Bengal shakta Nationalist Movement and what they belive about Kali hungering for ferengi heads i cannot at all understand why someone could come to the conclusion that i run around with a chopper and offer ferengis to Kali or that i even approve of it or see Kali in the same way which i may or may not do, you simply don´t know that unless i tell you.

You waste your time i told you i simply ignore baseless and unjust accusations. You do not adress me, you talk to the mirror of your mind. Since you mention a lot of topics in your postings you or others unjustly assume are my viewpoints, for no apparent reason, you are having a major problem understanding my viewpoint, due to my posting policy. If you see any impurity please keep it, it is yours, I have no part in it.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...0&postcount=97

I have no care whether you run around with a chopper or not?

I am just repeating only that which you wrote: "----3 of the 4 Purusharthas mentionend by the author, are exactly the destined aims of the humans",

I infer that these destined aims, namely ahar, nidra, maithuna are same in Rats. And I have said enough of what i had to say. Bye.

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
07 July 2010, 09:32 AM
I have no care whether you run around with a chopper or not?

I am just repeating only that which you wrote: "----3 of the 4 Purusharthas mentionend by the author, are exactly the destined aims of the humans",


Please learn to read english everything has been already explained a lot of times, i could simply refer you to post 3 but i will one last time explain it:

bhaya fear leads to the wish for protection, resulting in the procurement of shelter, houses cars, etc. and also to necessities like beds and sleeping rooms which falls under Artha wealth. So nidra is one of the basics requirements that need Artha to be satisfied. Any kind of protection required because of "bhaya" can also belong to Dharma, like the kshatriya that provides protection is doing his Dharma.

Maithuna is a basic necessity that comes under the heading of the Purushartha of "Kama" meaning pleasures and satisfaction of desires.

Food falls under all, Dharma, Kama and Artha, one reason why it is especially praised in the vedas, since it is part of Dharma to share and provide food, but of Artha to possess food it is Kama to feel pleasure and satisfaction of hunger while eating .

Moksha of course is no pillar or support of existence because it is possible to live without it, which is indeed the destiny of most of us, while all other purusharthas are necessities for life to continue on this earth Thats why Purva mimamsa in the beginning, quite logical did not include Moksha in the list of Purusharthas at all.

I have already said this in post count 3 if you can understand english language and tarka poses no problem for you, you can verify that for yourself:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=46779&postcount=3

Thats why the below disclaimer applies to your posting as well as to all your other postings in this thread.

You waste your time i told you i simply ignore baseless and unjust accusations. You do not adress me, you talk to the mirror of your mind. Since you mention a lot of topics in your postings you or others unjustly assume are my viewpoints, for no apparent reason, you are having a major problem understanding my viewpoint, due to my posting policy. If you see any impurity please keep it, it is yours, I have no part in it.

Here are my posting policies, in the future i will simple ignore baseless accusations ,that have no reference to actual postings of mine, without any explantion or the link to my posting policies. Thank you for your kind attention.
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...0&postcount=97

Ganeshprasad
07 July 2010, 10:51 AM
Pranam


Like i said before it is your choice to think Ramakrishnas teachings are greater than the shabda of the vedas, we are each free to choose our own way.

Yes choice is certainly our to make, the purpose of Vedas is to know Brahman or God that much is very clear to me so if Ramakrishna says that is the goal I choose him over you all the time, because I have seen the futility of chewing the chewed ie Nindra Ahar Maithuna and Bhai, these desires binds me perpetually to sansara.

If you term my choice as foolish, ignorant and out of tune with Shastra then that is your problem but don’t expect me to apologise if I don’t agree with you and don’t accuse me for the things I never said about you.

Jai Shree Krishna

MahaHrada
07 July 2010, 11:34 AM
Pranam

Yes choice is certainly our to make, the purpose of Vedas is to know Brahman or God that much is very clear to me so if Ramakrishna says that is the goal I choose him over you all the time, because I have seen the futility of chewing the chewed ie Nindra Ahar Maithuna and Bhai, these desires binds me perpetually to sansara.

If you term my choice as foolish, ignorant and out of tune with Shastra then that is your problem but don’t expect me to apologise if I don’t agree with you and don’t accuse me for the things I never said about you.

Jai Shree Krishna

Ramakrishna did not teach that to know Brahman is the Goal, nobody would object to that. What he did was to denigrate all the other Purusharthas including dharma , while using inappropriate language and blow Moksha up out of proportion and declare it as the only goal as if it is a samanya dharma and only goal for everyone. That is what is an avedic and adharmic teaching. He spoke negatively about all people who have other aims in life, therefore he is including even those Rishis and Sages that choose to follow Dharma as their sole aim, apparently so since he said the ONLY goal should be loving God or Moksha and therefore all other aims are like a rotten carcass. Sometimes i am asking myself if any of you are able to read and understand simple and plain english language? Why discuss with a person that does simply ignore words and their meaning in this case sole or only and vulture and rotten carcass?
Because of these words and their meaning the common Hindu is asked to seek moksha only, and if not he is compared to a vulture seeking "rotten carcass" even in case he does his duty his grihasta dharm, and provides food and protect his family. This hate towsrds the world and the pleasures and duty of men are christian teachings not vedic or hindu. What that implicates for the common man who is asked to follow this advice is something else as if he is told that Moksha eventually will be the ultimate goal of life for everyone. But Isavasya and I have said that so often why go on, if you don´t want to understand our viewpoint and see everywhere only evil, what can we do?

atanu
07 July 2010, 12:25 PM
Please learn to read english everything has been already explained a lot of times, i could simply refer you to post 3 but i will one last time explain it:



As usual. Truly i cannot write english like you. Please do not explain it. I agree that i cannot understand your english

Just show scripture that says: "----3 of the 4 Purusharthas mentionend by the author, are exactly the destined aims of the humans",

You are not able to fulfill this simple thing. Just cite the scripture.

For us food is Vishnu and the sexual act is sacrifice -- but only for those who know. No one has denied that Sleep, Food, Sex are the prime drivers of this life. But who has said that these are exactly the destined aims?

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
07 July 2010, 12:28 PM
Ramakrishna did not teach that to know Brahman is the Goal, nobody would object to that.

OMG.

Even according to sambya's translation, Shri Ramakrishna said: loving god and striving for self realization are the only aims of a human in this life .

In Sanatana dharma, Self realisation is Brahma jnana.

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
07 July 2010, 12:44 PM
-???-Since when it is the only Goal for instance of the shudra or kshatriya to seek Brahman-???-

atanu
07 July 2010, 01:17 PM
Yes thats what he said and thats what we object to.

;)

But you did not. You asserted without basis many things as below:


The authors answer to R.´s Question is therefore is a very wise one and in accordance with the shastras, while the alleged answer of the so called "saint" that "loving god is the sole aim" is foolish ignorance, contrary to the shastras and there is no shastra pramana at all to be found for such a viewpoint, while the 3 of the 4 Purusharthas mentionend by the author, are exactly the destined aims of the humans, especially the grihastas, since moksha is not a priority for the average person. Therefore the aims Sri Bankim Chandra Chatterjee mentioned are those that are laid down in the shastras. This was a flawless answer and a very ignorant and rude alleged reply of the "saint".

These are all mere assertions, which you fail to show support for from shastra and fail to cite scripture that says: "----3 of the 4 Purusharthas mentionend by the author, are exactly the destined aims of the humans"

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
07 July 2010, 01:26 PM
;)

But you did not. You asserted without basis many things as below:



These are all mere assertions, which you fail to show support for from shastra and fail to cite scripture that says: "----3 of the 4 Purusharthas mentionend by the author, are exactly the destined aims of the humans"

Om Namah Shivaya

You need shastra pramana that kama = Maithuna ? that acquistion of Food=artha and Dharma? protection and shelter= Dharma and Artha ? this is obvious.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=47309&postcount=121

atanu
07 July 2010, 01:32 PM
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=47309&postcount=121

The post does not show any citation from shahstra that "----3 of the 4 Purusharthas mentionend by the author, are exactly the destined aims of the humans"

Further Ramakrishna indeed said "Self Realisation is the goal of human life".

This I juxtapose against your sayings:



Ramakrishna did not teach that to know Brahman is the Goal, nobody would object to that.

and

-???-Since when it is the only Goal for instance of the shudra or kshatriya to seek Brahman-???-


Om Namah Shivaya

Note: You gave up on giving up. Isn't it?

MahaHrada
07 July 2010, 02:18 PM
The post does not show any citation from shahstra that "----3 of the 4 Purusharthas mentionend by the author, are exactly the destined aims of the humans"

Further Ramakrishna indeed said "Self Realisation is the goal of human life".

This I juxtapose against your sayings:



Om Namah Shivaya

Note: You gave up on giving up. Isn't it?


are you trying to fool me? your last postings can´t be serious. You are just having some fun teasing me. Admit it

isavasya
07 July 2010, 02:39 PM
Namaste mahaHrada ji


yuck ! you belch of what you eat ! you are such a high scholar and such a pandita . and to get this answer from you ! loving god and striving for self realization are the only aims of a human in this lifeJust look at the above statement, this was the first statement which began this argument, what surprises me is the firm negation of everything else except self realization for Everyone and that too in present life. Now even common sense will tell, for a revolutionary moksha can not be the only aim, for poor man moksha is absolutely secondary to his dharm of feeding and raising his family. for scientist research may be the highest aim. For a warrior even death for his country will be only aim. many great indians did have that during freedom struggle.

What is even more idiotic is that ramkrishna didn't even said self realization was HIGHEST aim, he said it was the only AIM. And we have people who are hell bent on forcing it on everyone, I think it's just like a mulla infusing jihadis as Islam is only truth. These type of extremist thought and such desperation to justify it is shame for humanity. Remember I personally do believe self realization can be destiny of many people who are possessive of that guna. I think some people who talk about giving up ego are most engrossed in that !!

If the self realisation is the only aim, then whoever good person in this world who is not realising his self but yet may be doing great work for humanity is in great ignorance. I feel now, it's universal nature of realization which includes islam and xianity has made some great impact !!

sm78
07 July 2010, 02:52 PM
I think some people who talk about giving up ego are most engrossed in that !!

That's the hard truth my friend.

And about the conversation between Ramakrishna and Bankim, we exactly don't know what happened, but looking at it now, I only see one possibility...the author was having good fun with an ego engrossed god-man.