[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Siva as yogi?
-
Subject: Re: Siva as yogi?
-
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu>
-
Date: 8 Dec 1995 20:23:36 GMT
-
Approved: srh <srh@rbhatnagar>
-
Article: 685 of soc.religion.hindu
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: none
>Ken Stuart <kstuart@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Nov 95 23:43:23 GMT, Hari Krishna Susarala wrote:
My apologies to Ken, for changing the header of his posting. I changed the "you
" in his attribution above, to Hari Krishna Susarala so that attributions don't
get confused.
>
>>In article <48obma$c61@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
>> Ken Stuart <kstuart@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>
>>>Ultimately, you have your authorities who declare your scriptures to
>>>be authentic, and they have their authorities who declare their
>>>scriptures to be authentic.
>>>
>>>Of course, the Jews, Christians and Moslems all say their scriptures
>>>came from God Himself through the authorized disciplic succession.
>>
>>It is possible. However, none of these groups ever refer to such a disciplic
>>succession these days. It is quite possible that the major sects of these
>>faiths are coming in a broken parampara, and that would explain why there is
>>so much disagreement within them as to whose ideas are correct.
>The Roman Catholic Church easily traces its lineage of succession back
>to Jesus Christ, who was himself initiated by John the Baptist, and
>then you get into the Jewish succession, most of which is detailed
>very boringly in the Bible itself, back to Moses who received the
>scriptures directly from God.
>
>>>In fact, it is hard to find a religious group that doesn't say that.
>>
>>I can think of many religious groups which do not say that. I never heard a
>>Christian, Muslim, or Jew of the present day say that he could trace his
>>spiritual lineage all the way back to their respective prophets.
>>
>>In fact, I have certainly not heard this idea from the majority of Hindu
>>groups represented here.
>
>Siddha Yoga claims this, as does the Hinduism Today group (I can never
>remember the name of the group). Plenty of Buddhists claim this,
>including all the major Tibetan schools.
>
Here's some proof for Ken's statements . First the Buddhists, (Source - A zen
home page).
Lineage from "Transmission of Light"
Shakyamuni Buddha
Ancestors in India
1.Mahakashyapa , 2.Ananda, 3.Shanavasin, 4.Upagupta, 5.Dhitika, 6.Mishaka,
7.Vasumitra, 8.Buddhanandi, 9.Buddhamitra, 10.Parshva, 11.Punyayasha,
12.Anabodhi, 13.Kipimala, 14.Nagarjuna, 15.Kanadeva, 16.Rahulabhadra,
17.Samghanandi, 18.Samghayathata, 19.Kumaralata, 20.Shayata, 21.Vasubandhu,
22.Manorata, 23.Haklenayasha, 24.Simhabodhi, 25.Bashashita, 26.Punyamitra,
27.Prajnadhara, 28.Bhodhidharma
Ancestors in China
1.Bhodhidharma, 2.Hui-k'o, 3.Seng-ts'an, 4.Tao-hsin, 5.Hung-jen, 6.Hui-neng,
and
Ch'ing-yuan, Shih-t'ou, Yueh-shan, Yun-yen, Tung-shan, Yun-chu, Daopi, Tongan,
Liang-shan, Dayang, Tousi, Daokai, Danxia, Wkong, Zongjue, Zhijian, Rujing,
Dogen, Ejo
Of-course, the example of Sankara. Sankara<----Govinda<----Gaudapada<-----Suka
(born realized). The spiritual lineage of Sankara can be easily traced from the
records of one of the 4 mutts.
Next, Mohammed received instructions from God. His spiritual descendants (ex.
the Caliphs) have received reasonable documentation.
As Ken pointed out, the Siddha school in Tamil Nadu has similar claims. Siva
instructed every one (including Vishnu, Skanda, Parvati, Nandi, Brahma etc).
Unfortunately I don't have the book here (It's back home). If you are REALLY
desperate I can get the details and post it.
Of-course, one has to look beyond the comic books supplied by the ISKCON to
find all this. As a side-note I suggest that the readers of srh read the
ISKCON-pretation (meaning, gross distortion of facts and simple statements and
simple good old bigotry) of the Gita. It will prove a valuable supplement to
your copy of "The treasure House of World humor". The bhasya-kara(s) seem to
have mis-interpreted Einstein's quote "Imagination is more important than
intelligence" :-).
Of course I have quoted only from the Tamsic puranas (unfortunate) :-(. People
who don't know what this concept(!!) is should consult a recent post by another
gentleman on this topic. I assure you that you'll get a good laugh out of it.
[lot of the usual verbiage of Hari Krishna Susarala deleted]
>Krishna was a devotee of Sandapani (sp?).
Indeed he was. I even posted a verse from the Bavishya Purana in support of
this.
>
>>If Shiva is a real person as you have admitted, then there must be a method
>>for obtaining correct information about him.
>
>Probably the best way would be to ask him.
An admirably direct method Ken. But why not use the same kind of sources that
Hari Krishna Susarala has used for getting the correct information about
Vishnu. We can look at the puranas and quote selectively, prove Shiva is the
greatest and dismiss the rest (ex. the Bhagavatam) as Tamasic literature,
and voila, QED.
>Cheers,
>Ken
Ramakrishnan.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator: Ajay Shah Submissions: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Administrivia: srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Archives: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
