[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: God and Demigods-is Ganesha demigod?
-
To: alt-hindu@cis.ohio-state.edu
-
Subject: Re: God and Demigods-is Ganesha demigod?
-
From: susarla@great-gray.owlnet.rice.edu (H. Krishna Susarla)
-
Date: 9 Jan 1995 00:04:57 GMT
-
Distribution: world
-
From news@larry.rice.edu Mon Jan 9 20: 32:37 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
-
References: <3ei7hr$jv0@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
Nagulapalli Srinivas (srinivas@Glue.umd.edu) wrote:
: Oh really??? "More conducive" is relative and how do you know it applies
: to everyone???!! Hey, all the saints like Tukaram, Tyagaraja, Meera,
: Ramdas all of them attained the highest spiritual advancements only on
: earth itself, and so what makes you think that "Kailasa" is not a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: place on earth itself, or more is not a "mental state" itself????
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Where in scripture does it say anything like this?
: Hey buddy, listen a little carefully. I know you want to kill my argument
: and proclaim yourself as the hero of the Prabhupada sect. I have nothing
: against anything, including you. But I humbly submit, it is impossible
: to deny that "Truth is One", just because it IS Truth. There CANNOT be
: two laws of gravitation, it IS a universal LAW. Why? Purely, because
: the moment there is "another Truth". it ceases to be Truth!!.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Exactly. So the Vedas, which are the words of God, are the Truth. There
is no other Truth.
You are the one who is trying to say that every view is okay, because
the Truth is One.
: IS Truth. Do you think Truth suffers a little, if you deny it or some
: one decries it??? Do you think Truth needs the patronage of any sect
: or person??? I hope you see the difference between what Truth is and
: what our convictions are.
I can certainly tell the difference between Vedic philosophy and
Vivekananda's impersonalist nonsense.
: make the discussion focussed on the issue rather that what I am because
: I dont care a damn as to what you think of me. I am more interested in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: knowing what your thoughts are on the issue rather.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Of course you are. That's why you started ridiculing my post, right? I
mentioned that Kailasa was a higher planetary system. Based on my admittedly
limited readings of the works of Vedic scholars, this is what I understand
to be the Vedic conception. If this is wrong, I would not mind being
corrected, but I prefer scriptural reference to the speculations of another
conditioned soul.
However, you were not interested in the idea itself. You wanted to push forward
your own, personal speculation that Kailasa is a "state of mind" and were
not ready to hear another opinion. So be it, but I did not see a single
scriptural reference to back this claim. If the Vedic literature says that
Kailasa is a higher planet, then this is the Truth. Surely you are not
saying that your own opinion constitutes another truth which must be held
on the same level?
: What do you mean authority man??
A spiritual master. One who is well versed in the Vedic literature
and is capable of transmitting spiritual knowledge for the benefit
of the devotees. You don't learn physics by picking up a book and
figuring it out on your own. Similarly, you don't learn the spiritual
science from anyone other than one who is well versed in it.
Experience is your own best authority.
No. This is your own opinion. It is not Lord Krsna's:
"Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire
from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized
souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth."
(BG 4.34)
: does not care a hoot if you staunchly follow Prabhupada. What does
: it matter?? Also what is this childishness of yourness to keep on
: harping on what I read rather than what I say. I will be grateful
You were the one who started criticizing childishly, with little
rhyme or reason other than to advance your own personal opinions.
: to your criticism however stinging it is, as long as it is on the
: issue. I think it is a weakness in argument if someone resorts to
: mud-slinging than pointing fallacies or adding inputs to the issue
Then do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you didn't
want to take any flak, why did you start dishing it out?
: >You are right about one thing; we can't use our tiny brains to understand
: >God. This is why we should refrain from the sort of mundane speculation
: >you just displayed here and simply accept what the Lord has told us.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: Sincerely, I cannot tell you how greatly I cherish and value that.
: The problem is we won't and that is the ego. It is the Lord who said
: "Mayaa Sarva Midam Sarvam, Jagadavyaktha moorthinaa,
: Matsthaani sarva bhoothanii..." in Gita. Can we ever accept
: that statement of Lord that He is "sarva bhoothaani" ??? Can
: we really accept that true to our heart??? Tell me what did Lord
This is what happens when you read from a mayavaadi translation. Here
is the translation of a bona fide spiritual master in the line of
disciplic succession:
Bhagavad-Gita 9.4
maya tatam idam sarvam
jagad avyakta-murtina
mat-sthani sarva-bhutani
na caham tesv avasthitah
maya - by Me; tatam -pervaded; idam - this; sarvam - all;
jagat- cosmic manifestation; avyakta-murtina - by the unmanifested
form; mat-sthani - in Me; sarva-bhutani - all living entities;
na - not; ca - also; aham - I; tesu - in them; avasthitah - situated
By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded.
All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.
Please note, Srinivas, that the Lord never says that he is
sarva-bhutani, only that sarva-bhutani are situated in Him.
Swami Prabhupada further explains in the purport to this verse that
the Lord is pervading the entire cosmic manifestation because
everything is made of His two energies - the material and the
spiritual. This is not the same thing as saying that everything
is one, which implies that you can have any opinion you want and
conseuently do anything you want. It means exactly what this verse says:
that everything is made up of the Lord's energies, so the Lord pervades
everything.
For example, meat is certainly made up of the Lord's material energy, but
this is not to say that it is therefore acceptable to consume meat, which
is what the Ramakrishna types preach. When you get right down to it,
all sinful activities are those which are exploiting the material energy
for a purpose other than to serve the Lord. This does not mean that
those sinful activities are okay. Our false ego is one of the Lord's
material energies, but this does not mean that we can hang on to it and
change what the Lord has told us in Bhagavad-Gita.
: forgot to include in that verse, where He is not?? Tell me what or
: where He is not?? You may NOT like it, and may hate that verse
: but that is a different issue. But, did or didn't Lord say Himself
: that, and did or did not Lord Himself show that in His mighty
: Vishwaroopa??? - THAT IS the point.
Please read the above. Krsna is in everything, but all things are not
Krsna. A material object is at most a part of Krsna. Similarly, though
Krsna may be the origin of false ego which generates all sorts of
atheistic theories about religion, this does not mean that all
religions are Krsna. Therefore, you cannot make up your own truth and
say "Truth is One" therefore my opinion is as good as yours. This is
nonsense.
: : No one ought to be ridiculed by dear friend. We are all understanding Him
: :at different levels, that is all. Lord is smarter than us and without His grace
: : we would not even blink. We understand Lord's words and profundity of His
: : teachings only to the extent and maturity of our own inner development. I had
: >The great Bhagavan Sri Rajneesh, who advocated free sex and machine gunned
: >down any follower who tried to leave his congregation, had his own
: >understanding of the Truth. What level of understanding of the Truth was
: >he at?
: Yes, I agree, that was his conviction and the society also responded with its
: own conviction. There are even more brutal and vulgar things done in the
You didn't answer my question. You said:
We are all understanding Him
at different levels, that is all
Then I asked:
: >The great Bhagavan Sri Rajneesh, who advocated free sex and machine gunned
: >down any follower who tried to leave his congregation, had his own
: >understanding of the Truth. What level of understanding of the Truth was
: >he at?
If everyone is understanding of God at different levels, as you claim,
then what level of understanding was Rajneesh at? Just give me a general
answer, I don't need you to quantify it. Was Rajneesh relatively advanced,
or is he better for the neophyte spiritual inquirer?
You may think this to be an obnoxious question, and you would be right.
I took your Vivekanandaesque opinions to their logical conclusion. Now
you have to eat your words or tell me that Rajneesh, too, is at some
level of spiritual realization.
[irrelevant, off the subject banter deleted]
Haribol,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Hari Krishna Susarla - "Engage your mind always in thinking of Me, -
- susarla@owlnet.rice.edu - become My devotee, offer obeisances to Me -
- Rice University - and worship Me. Being completely absorbed -
- Class of 1995 - in Me, surely you will come to Me." -
- Biochemistry - -- Bhagavad-Gita 9.34 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARER NAMA HARER NAMA
HARER NAMAIVA KEVALAM
KALAU NASTY EVA NASTY EVA
NASTY EVA GATIR ANYATHA
"IN THIS AGE OF QUARREL AND HYPOCRISY THE ONLY MEANS OF DELIVERANCE IS
CHANTING THE HOLY NAME OF LORD KRSNA. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY. THERE IS
NO OTHER WAY. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY."
-- Brhan-naradiya purana 38.126
