[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Siva as yogi?
On 8 Dec 1995 20:19:58 GMT, Hari Krishna Susarla wrote in
soc.religion.hindu:
>rbalasub@culbertson.ecn.purdue.edu (Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian) wrote:
>
>>susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu wrote:
>>
>>>rbalasub@engibous.ecn.purdue.edu (Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian) wrote:
>>>Please reread my message, and not your own interpretations of it. If you had
>>>bothered to consider the context, you would note that I was pointing out that
>>>what Ken labeled as a "sect" was in fact not so.
>>
>>Of course it is a sect of Hinduism, as Catholicism is a sect of Christianity.
>
>In order to say that something is a sect of Hinduism, you have to first
>understand what Hinduism is. There is no such thing as a religion called
>Hinduism. Nowhere in the scriptures do you see this term mentioned or defined.
>It was invented by foreign invaders to describe the various indigenous
>religious systems on the other side of the Indus river, nothing more.
>Therefore, people who state that Vaishnavism is a "sect" of Hinduism are
>certainly begging the question. Certainly no one has been courageous enough to
>define the term, as any such definition would naturally exclude some group.
>Even the SRH charter contains no meaningful definition of Hindu dharma.
How about: Hinduism is that group of religions based on the Vedas
(just as Christianity is that group of religions based on the Bible).
>>You clearly stated that since so many people have adopted Vaishnavism it must
>>have some merit on its own. It was quite obvious. In fact you again say the
>>same thing in your following sentences.
>
>I wish you would take my statement in context, rather than trying to start
>trouble. I stated that because so many people from non-"Hindu" cultures were
>taking to Vaishnavism (and practicing the austerities required therein), that
>this was evidence of its nonsectarian appeal. I have heard of many Jews,
>Christians, Muslims, and other non-Vaishnava Hindus becoming Vaishnavas,
>whereas I don't see this happening in any other religion. The only other
>religions that get so many followers from different cultures are those which
>appeal to them by sanctioning their material desires (and hence, the appeal is
>materialistic, not spiritual).
This is a pretty silly statement. I don't know of any religions that
sanction material desires (maybe some New Age groups, but I don't call
them religions, since all they worship is the ego).
All religions have members who continue to indulge their material
desires. Look up the biographies of the 11 who took over in 1977,
for example [ not all of them succumbed, but some definitely did ].
> *Most* of what is called Buddhism today is
>appealing because it allows people to think that they don't have to surrender
>to any God and/or perform any austerities.
Sadly true. These days, Buddhism has become the home for those who
want their ego to run their sadhana.
>As the Lord Himself states, the
>goal of religion is "sarva dharman parityajya maam ekam s`aranam vraja" (Gita
>18.66), which means that the devotee must eventually place himself completely
>at the mercy of the Lord. But people don't want to do that. They may think,
>"why should I surrender? I will become God. I am so prominent, etc." and then
>they make up all kinds of philosophies which take the Supreme Personality of
>Godhead out of the equation and artificially put themselves in positions of
>high spiritual importance. These kinds of things have materialistic appeal.
The Supreme Personality of Godhead resides in everyone's heart.
Gita 18.20 says:
"That knowlege by which one sees
One imperishable being in all beings,
Undivided in the divided;
Know that knowledge to be sattvic."
Gita 18.61 says:
isvarah sarva-bhutanam
hrd-dese 'rjuna tisthati
bhramayan sarva-bhutani
yantrarudhani mayaya
isvarah--the Supreme Lord; sarva-bhutanam--of all living entities;
hrt-dese--in the location of the heart; arjuna--O Arjuna;
tisthati--resides; bhramayan--causing to travel; sarva-bhutani--all
living entities; yantra--on a machine; arudhani--being placed;
mayaya--under the spell of material energy.
TRANSLATION
The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and
is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as
on a machine, made of the material energy.
PURPORT
Arjuna was not the supreme knower, and his decision to fight or
not to fight was confined to his limited discretion. Lord Krsna
instructed that the individual is not all in all. The Supreme
Personality of Godhead, or He Himself, Krsna, as the localized
Supersoul, sits in the heart directing the living being. After
changing bodies, the living entity forgets his past deeds, but the
Supersoul, as the knower of the past, present and future, remains the
witness of all his activities. Therefore all the activities of living
entities are directed by this Supersoul. The living entity gets what
he deserves and is carried by the material body, which is created in
the material energy under the direction of the Supersoul. As soon as a
living entity is placed in a particular type of body, he has to work
under the spell of that bodily situation. A person seated in a
high-speed motorcar goes faster than one seated in a slower car,
though the living entities, the drivers, may be the same. Similarly,
by the order of the Supreme Soul, material nature fashions a
particular type of body to a particular type of living entity so that
he may work according to his past desires. The living entity is not
independent. One should not think himself independent of the Supreme
Personality of Godhead. The individual is always under the Lord's
control. Therefore one's duty is to surrender, and that is the
injunction of the next verse. - Srila Prahbupada (c)1991, BBT
----
Anyone who says "I will become God" is sadly mistaken, because God is
already attained. He is the very center of one's being.
What is taught by the "Bhagawans" so despised by a few Vaishnavites in
this newsgroup, is that everyone is God in exactly the sense described
above. However, they also teach that we are ignorant of this fact,
and that we need exactly the spiritual practices described in the Gita
(karma yoga, bhakti yoga, jnana yoga, dhyana yoga) to banish the
samskaras (habitual tendencies that follow us from lifetime to
lifetime) that keep us from living in 24 hour communion with the
Supreme Personality of Godhead who resides in our heart.
Gita 10.20:
"I am the atman, Arjuna,
Abiding in the hearts of all beings;
And I am the beginning and the middle
of beings, and the end as well."
> Only the various practitioners of Hinduism who watered down his philosophy do not
>accept it, because due to envy they do not want to surrender to the Supreme
>Personality of Godhead. The desire to be known as a great philosopher,
>devotee, political leader, karmi, or yogi is incompatible with surrendering to
>the Lord, which requires that one be free of such mundane desires for power
>and prestige.
None of the "Bhagawans" desired to do anything other than surrender to
the Lord, it was those around them who made a big deal about their
activities. Just the same as Srila Prabhupada.
Of course, there have always been false Gurus who muddy the waters [ I
can think of one whose name started with "Bhagawan" :-) ].
>By the way, I noticed that no one ever really addressed the point I made
>originally in this thread. It was asked why Shiva is always depicted as a yogi
>(which implies that he is a devotee of someone, an idea which runs contrary to
> contemporary Hinduism which considers him to be equal to Vishnu). I quoted
>saastra to show that he is the greatest devotee of Visnu, and that is why he
>meditates on japa beads. Other than the standard accusations of bigotry,
>sectarianism, etc no one has been able to conclusively explain how it is Shiva
>can be both the supreme God and a devotee of God.
>So, I guess it's really a question of sanctioned faith vs. blind faith. One
>side is free of personal speculation, and is based on scripture. The other
>side states that somehow or other (no explanation offered) two totally
>contradictory ideas can both be true.
It's only contradictory from a very limited view of God.
>From that very limited view of God, here are some more
"contradictions".
- Krishna had 20,000 wives and was with all of them simultaneously.
Your scientist friends [ joke :-) ] would find that "contradictory".
- Krishna was the Supreme Personality of Godhead *and* at the same
time, he was a very naughty boy (among other things).
- Krishna one moment appeared to Arjuna as a human being and then a
moment later as the immense Cosmic Form and then as a human being
again.
I think you get the idea (I could come up with a few thousand more if
I had the time).
>The rationale for finding out what the Absolute Truth is is that we should be able
>to correctly describe what it is and what it is not.
You can't find that in the Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam or any of
Srila Prahbupada's writings.
Because there is nothing that is not Absolute Truth.
In fact, Sage Suka says in Book 12, Chapter 4 (or 5?) of Srimad
Bhagavatam:
"Whatever is, has been and will be, is cosmic consciousness alone.
There is nothing apart from it."
> The problem we have here is that there is one group of people, the theists,
>who insist on basing religion on scriptural authority, and coming up with a
>very consistent and logical system of belief as a result.
There is a *big* difference between a consistent system (which almost
all religious systems are) and a logical system (which is only true of
a few branches of mathematics and that's about it).
>The other group, the
>impersonalists, insist (in the name of Hinduism) that completely contradictory
>ideas about the Absolute Truth are both acceptable.
There has been months and months of haranguing about "impersonalists"
on the Internet, yet I rarely find them - with the major exception, of
course, of the Buddhists.
Certainly, there are no impersonalist Shaivites, and none of the
authentic "Bhagawans" were impersonalists.
Of course, there are lots of people these days who don't really have
the foggiest notion of what spirituality is about, they are just
looking for something to gratify their ego, "self-improvement",
they're materialists of the subtle body. These people really are
impersonalists, and they're attracted to Buddhism, because they are
afraid that the Universe might really be alive after all (which would
mean that they would have to accept ideas that might not be convenient
to their lifestyle). Another name for these people are "relativists"
-- Vaishnavite writer Swami Tripurari very eloquently describes their
foibles in his books and articles.
But none of them are Shaivites or Hindus of any sort -- except perhaps
in India itself, where the modern self-improvement types might choose
to retain their birth religion (they probably enjoyed Diwali fireworks
and sweets as a child) and overlay their impersonalist outlook on it.
However, I haven't seen any of them on the net, nor have I seen any
international Hindu organizations with that outlook.
>If completely contradictory ideas are both true, then this is the same as
>saying that we really don't know what the Absolute Truth is.
Not. [ One of the few modern expressions I like. :-) ]
>Therefore, we can all hold hands, have touchy-feely group hugs,
You know, I really don't think our outlooks are very far apart -
I understand exactly what you mean here!
>and say that all religions are good and fine (regardless of the
>fact that some may have very destructive belief systems).
Which ones are those?
Vaishnavism says that even Impersonalism has a purpose in attracting
people to God.
>It's easier to say that Vishnu is
>God, but so is Shiva, so is Indra, so is Bill Clinton, so is X-Baba and
>Y-Baba, so am I, etc.
> It's easier to say that there is no absolute
>definition of God, because that way we don't have to bother ourselves with the
>troublesome issue of surrendering to Him.
People like to over-dramatise this "I am God" stuff. I've never found
an "X-Baba" or "Y-Baba" who said "You are God" who didn't also say
"You should surrender to the Supreme Personality of Godhead"
>One follower of a very famous Hindu Godman in India even
>told me recently that Madonna, the American queen of rock, was God for some
>people, and that we should just accept this without question.
Actually everyone is God -- except Bill Clinton and Madonna. :-) :-)
I just found another reference that more clearly describes what the
"Bhagawans" and "X-Babas" mean by "You are God".
In Srimad Bhagavatam, Book Twelve, Chapter 5, Sage Suka states:
"Give up the foolish notion that you were born and that you will die.
All this takes place in the dream state of the ignorant jiva, not in
truth. Mind alone creates, perpetuates and dissolves; and mind is a
product of maya. The body, its birth and its death are all illusory
projections of this maya. Remain established in this truth: "I am
Brahman the infinite, the supreme abode, I am Brahman the highest
goal."
Cheers,
Ken
kstuart@snowcrest.net
(if messages to me are retuned,
send the error messages/bounced messages to ken@macshasta.com)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
References:
- Re: Siva as yogi?
- From: rbalasub@culbertson.ecn.purdue.edu (Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian)
- Re: Siva as yogi?
- From: susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu (Hari Krishna Susarla)
