Nitin Sridhar's Blogs (Advaita and General)

[Amrut]

Really? What would you gain from peeking into their sexual life?
P.S. This is a joke, don't take it seriously

Humour Helps. It brought smile on my face.

Thanks.

[Jaskaran Singh]

I'll repeat, yes we do have the responsibility to call out the perversion. Irrespective of the fact that we are reasonably familiar about "Shakta" or not.

This statement sounds awfully Abrahamic. It reminds me of those Muslim gangs in Britain claiming that they must "enjoin what is good, and forbid what is evil":
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04...r-eggs-in-u-k/
Absolutes are rather Abrahamic concepts in my view. I say some things which are much more false and ignorant than your comment, usually in frustration, so I'm more guilty of thinking in absolutes than you are. From an unbiased perspective, however, isn't good and evil ultimately relative? Why was shishupAla granted instantaneous mokSham by bhagavAn, despite being evil even in his previous births (rAvaNa, hiraNyakashipu, etc.). This is something which did not happen even to his close devotees (nArada, shuka, uddhava, etc.), right? Similarly, why was draupadI saved by the same "dharma" which states that someone who has more than four husbands is a whore?
Furthermore, arjunaH was devoted to bhagavAn from dAsyabhAva, as is evident by the way he addressed kRiShNa when he saw his virATarUpam (dRiShTvAlokAHpravyathitAstathAham), but why did he get sent to svargaloka, whereas the gopIjana, who worshiped with mAdhuryabhAva, go to vaikuNTha? arjuna was self absorbed in the consequences of his own actions, whereas the gopIjana were constantly focused on their detachment from kRiShNa (even when they were angry at him), so they were more selfless. Similarly with shishupAla, he was always thinking of kRiShNa, even though he was only ridiculing him. Similarly with draupadI. Even though karNa was trying to urge duHshAsana to tear off draupadI's clothes using a quote from a dharmashAstram, it was the same dharmaH which protected her and instead the shApa was directed against the entire kaurav kul and caused bhIm to kill duHshAsana in the most disgusting way. Why? Because all the kaurava-s and their sakhA-s were self absorbed. dhRitarAShTra, shakuni, etc. were obsessed with getting revenge, the pANDavas were obsessed not with draupadI's being or safety, but her "honor." Out of all of them, it was draupadI who was selfless. It was only when she let go of her clothes and surrendered to govinda that more cloths started appearing (the reason why in South India, they sometimes use govinda to describe a loss, is derived from that vastraharaNa story). I don't suggest anyone to do that in such a scenario, but it's the underlying tAtparyam which is important. In fact, mIrAbAI also referred to draupadI as a gaNikA (whore) who was the beloved of puruSha (kRiShNa). By that, mIrAbAI meant that draupadI had been called gaNikA by the populace and even by the smRiti-s and shAstra-s, but that didn't matter, since she was loved by bhagvAn (so how can aupadhikapApam-s define her charater?). She was actually by character an excellent karmatyAgI/sannyAsI (after all, what "shuddhi" is greater than chittashuddhi?). Even when her children were killed by ashwatthAma, her first regret was that they died without her entering the name of hari into their ears, such was her selflessness.
Anyway, I'm not trying to say that telling others what to do or not to do is bad (I do so all the time, especially when it comes to meat eating or animal slaughter), just giving you something to think about.

[Amrut]

Namaste Jaskaran,

In a book "The True History and the Religion of India: An Encyclopedia of Authentic Hinduism" by dharm Chakravarti H. D. Swami Prakashanand Saraswati, the author gives explanation about Draupadi's marriage to 5 persons.

Draupadi was always pure as was born out of yanga Fire and is daughter of pAvaka (agnideva), who is always pure and angideva purifies whatever comes in contact with him.

In past live, she meditated (don't know on which God) and asked for a boon to marry a person with 5 qualities. The Lord said that there is no such human endowed with 5 qualities but in next life you will find 5 person having one quality and you will marry them all.

this boon worried her and she asked Lord that how she could remain pure having contact with more than one person. The Lord replied that after every morning bath she will become pure and virgin.

Do you know the reference of this story?

Regarding Arjuna, in a discourse I have heard that somewhere SrI Adi SankarAcArya ji has written in his gItA bhASya that arjuna was used as 'representative of common man' and so, though he didnt quality for GYAna mArga, questions were put into his mouth to give directions to qualified meditators. I cannot pin point exact verse no. Maybe someone else may have ready reference

OM

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Namaste Jaskaran,

This statement sounds awfully Abrahamic. It reminds me of those Muslim gangs in Britain claiming that they must "enjoin what is good, and forbid what is evil":

I am sorry if I did, guess I am prone to exaggeration and overkill.

Anyway, I'm not trying to say that telling others what to do or not to do is bad (I do so all the time, especially when it comes to meat eating or animal slaughter), just giving you something to think about.

I agree, but sometimes I do it to provoke an answer from the other side. Often the result is that there is a chance for further exploration of relevant ideas.

For instance, I feel Amrut has made a finer point here. You raised the example of Draupadi, but Amrut has shown how Draupadi achieved greatness by RESOLUTION of things (5 qualities => 5 perfect people), for the resolution was first achieved within her own consciousness (due to her past karma and tapa).

On the other hand, in the mentioned pervert practice of some, they are MIXING up things (sex, spirituality, etc). This has the opposite result. Spiritual practices do encompass sexuality, I don't deny that. But the effect is to RESOLVE desire from other things, and understand (once and for all) it as it is.

Once a new adoptee (in the Shakta forum) put forth his realisations in this regard: he said (as I remember) that all desire is due to duality (not in an Advaitic sense). Now, that is Resolution, this is where correct understanding stands. I wanted to share with him that this is what I learnt from Chinnamasta Ma.

Though I am thankful to you (and hope) for pointing out a certain flaw.

[Jaskaran Singh]

Regarding Arjuna, in a discourse I have heard that somewhere SrI Adi SankarAcArya ji has written in his gItA bhASya that arjuna was used as 'representative of common man' and so, though he didnt quality for GYAna mArga, questions were put into his mouth to give directions to qualified meditators. I cannot pin point exact verse no. Maybe someone else may have ready reference

OM

That puts a whole new spin on the nAra in nAra nArAyaNa...

[Amrut]

That puts a whole new spin on the nAra in nAra nArAyaNa...

nAra would feel all pain, sorrow and happiness, while nArAyaNa will be unattached to them I remember these from arjunopAkhyAna (bhagavad gItA according to yOga vASisTha i.e. gItA to be told in the next yuga by kruShNa is foretold by yoga vAsisTha.

OM

[palmcorpoise]

Namaste,

Thank you Jaskaran and KT for comments.

I agree with KT. Bhairava tantra-s which are other than 28 Saiva-Agama-s are generally rejected by all including Saiva-s. But as our dharma was the only dharma in the world, and there are all kinds of people, there is bound to be perverted interpretation.

It is said that Sri Adi Sankara converted the fierce aspect of devatA-s into benign (like kAlI mA). So he too and I feel all AcArya-s rejected vAmcArI marg as there are convoluted interpretations in vaiShNava Agama-s too (Not sure about it but I heard it).

Obviously we have to oppose such practice.

OM

The 'convoluted interpretations in Vaishnava agamas you are referring followed by Sahajiya Vaishnavas.They are viciously condemned as heretics by Orthodox Gaudiya Vaishnavas of all Parivaras,most famously by the Parivara of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur.