[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: God and Demigods-is Ganesha demigod?
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: God and Demigods-is Ganesha demigod?
-
From: srinivas@Glue.umd.edu (Nagulapalli Srinivas)
-
Date: 11 Jan 1995 10:39:12 -0500
-
From srinivas@Glue.umd.edu Wed Jan 11 10: 29:16 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Project Glue, University of Maryland, College Park
In article 1859 susarla@great-gray.owlnet.rice.edu (H. Krishna Susarla) writes:
: 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?
Good question. I know we know, but just let us remind ourselves that our
scriptures are not simple elementary like textbooks where questions and answers
are given side by side. Also the profundity of scriptures can be seen only
by plumbing to their depths and not by just superficial examination. Before we
discuss "Kailas" let us see what "Shiva" is, as "Kailas is nothing but the
Abode of Shiva". Scriptures describe "Shiva" as "Shubham Karoti Iti Shiva".
Meaning whatever that does Auspiciousness is "Shiva". Now what are all capable
of doing Auspiciousness?? Now if a person is contemplating only noble thoughts,
selfless thoughts which bring good and help to the world around, is it not true
to say that mental state is doing Auspiciousness and the Abode of those
thoughts, does it not become Kailas?? Now you analyse.
: 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.
Good, so far no difference! Also let me add that there is no need for us
to feel arrogant or proud of being just exposed to Vedas and denigrate the
rest of the mankind. If we consider Vedas as the words of God, God is
equally capable of speaking more than one language and other people got
His words in different languages, be it in the poems of St. Francis of Assisi
or the words of Moses. Truth remains the same eventhough He expresses
using different instruments. Just because we study Vedas does not mean we
need to become fanatical and condemn the rest who adore Him in different
tongues as any less.
>You are the one who is trying to say that every view is okay, because
>the Truth is One.
Well I did not say that every view is okay, I only said that Truth is One.
If you think I did not make it clear already, atleast you can see I did it now!
: 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.
Well, if you see the differences, so be it, what is the big deal? After all
no two people have same idea of about what Lord itself means!! But regarding
calling Vivekananda's philosophy as nonsense, it is being too simplistic.
Contempt before investigation is unscientific. You are not willing to
investigate Vivekananda just because on certain occasions he ate fish to
survive, and smoked. I have no business nor did I take any contract from
anyone to convert you to believe Vivekananda!!! I dont lose anything if you
do not consider him and will not gain anything if you adore him!! But I want to
tell you that if that is all the reason for you not to consider, how about this!
It is like complaining that one does not want to listen to Krishna because
the great Lord who slept in the milky ocean, stole milk from other farmers
pettily and lied about it!! Also Valmiki was a murderer, a flesh-eater and
torturer of innocent pilgrims and so let us dump the Ramayana he wrote!!
: 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.
Well said. But the problem is how do you recognize one?? I am sorry but
I want to repeat what you only said as I think it is really important.
"One who is well versed in Vedic literature and capable of transmitting.."
Let us note that here "well versed" means not just scholarly masterliness
as we find in secular sciences. A person who knows by heart all the Vedas
is well versed according to secular sciences and can be given a certificate
of MV (Master of Vedas) but, in spirituality "well versed" means NOT just
intellectual knowing, but spiritual establishment. Now the second aspect,
you mentioned - "capable of transmitting" - does not mean like a loudspeaker
just rolling out whatever one memorised, or not just having the ToastMaster's
skills to conduct spectacular meetings and giving talks!! Spirituality by
its very nature is of that of our experience and not just intellectual
cognizance. Hence here "capable of transmitting" means enabling the seekers
to realize or experience the Spiritual Truths themselves.
Now, if you disagree with me, and think "well versed" means just like in
spiritual fields - "knowing by memory and ability to quote any verse etc.,"
and think "capable of transmitting" means just ability to talk and sell the
ideas and hold the audiences and be a crowd-puller, please do me the
favor of informing. I will rest my discussion here itself. As the Spirituality
that I learnt and experienced has nothing to with being secular-wise
scholarliness, nor has it anything to do with ability to pull crowds.
: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)
Patiently analyse what you only quoted and see if we still disagree. What is
the goal of the "self-realized souls imparting knowledge unto you because
they have seen the truth"?? Only that we in _our experience_ see the same
Truth, isn't it??? Finally to extablish the Truths in our own subjective
experiences is the goal isn't it?? So where is the difference??
>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?
I do not know whether Rajneesh was relatively advanced or not, as I do not
know him and did not read his works. Also regarding the question "Is he better
for the neophyte spiritual inquirer", I can answer if I rephrase the question
as "Is he better for me?". Now that depends on what I take myself as! If I
think I am a guy who is satisfied with the approach he recommends and think
that gives me best benefit, I will go for it. I may be right or wrong at this
point. But even after I begin practising his approaches, if I still feel I am
gaining more and that gives me the Peace and Joy that I want, I can continue
and if at any point I think it is not doing what I wanted, I will stop. Of
course not always I have to test it myself this way. If I am inspired by him,
probably I can go over his works and step further only if I am still inspired
by it. God gave me ability to think and analyse not to pack it and keep it
unused, but ANALYSE every experience of mine with those He-given sacred
instruments. After all even Arjuna asked and questioned Krishna UNTIL he got
convinced and ONLY after that did he act out what Lord said. Vedanta IS
Science and as such there is no obligation for any blind faith or fanatical
belief in any one or in any thing. Also personally, he did not inspire me so far
and there is no reason for me to continue my search in that direction. I hope
I answered you as specifically as you wanted.
>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.
What is this business of eating words?? When we discuss ordinary Systems Engg.
we discuss so violently and yet, I never heard anyone say "eat your own words"!!
If Vedanta is SCIENCE and that too Universal Science, what is there so personal
about it?? Also, YES, even murderer, looter, flesh eater like Valmiki was
also at some level of spiritual realization and I do not think why we have
any doubts regarding that. I do'nt get it.
-Srinivas Nagulapalli
