[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Siva as yogi?
Ken Stuart writes:
>On 8 Dec 1995 20:19:58 GMT, Hari Krishna Susarla wrote in
>soc.religion.hindu:
>
>>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).
>
It's not a fitting definition. Buddhism and Jainism are not based on the
Vedas, and yet the HSC home page labels them both as sects of Hinduism.
Furthermore, there are many modern day Hindu groups (most in fact) who claim
to follow the Vedas but do not.
vedais' ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedaanta-kRd veda-vid eva caaham
"By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedaanta,
and I am the knower of the Vedas." (Gita 15.15)
Therefore, those who are actually followers of the Vedas are those who seek
to know the Supreme Personality of Godhead as He is is to be known by the
Vedas. People who claim that they have become God are not followers of the
Vedaanta, however much they might like to use that title to lure the
innocent. Nowhere in the Vedanta do we see this sentiment about being God.
>>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).
I know of many such groups. In Vivekananda Vedanta society, no effort is
made to encourage members to become vegetarians (indeed, the founder is
himself a nonvegetarian). I had one friend who was with Chinmaya mission for
7 years, and never during that time did it occur to him to give up eating
meat (he even ate beef!). In fact, he became a student instructor, and he
still carries on with his bad habits. I knew another Indian girl who went to
Chinmaya mission regularly, but who saw absolutely nothing wrong with
premarital sex. Having myself been to Chinmaya mission on a number of
occasions, I found that the reason for this immorality was because the
mission never taught morality in any of the classes i ever went to.
Then there is the Hinduism Today group, in whose book _Dancing with Shiva_,
we find the following definition of sex: (paraphrase) "Hinduism takes no
stance on such issues as petting, polygamy, pornography, masturbation, birth
control, etc, neither condemning nor condoning them." This is exactly what
materialistic people want to hear. In Vedic culture, sex is restricted to
marriage only, and then only for procreation. This is so because the married
couple is meant to live a spiritual life, regulating material desires so
that they don't get in the way of spiritual living. But materialistic people
don't want to hear this. They want to indulge in their material desires and
still feel religious. And thus, the attitude given by HT is very appealing
to them.
And how about born-again Christianity? It is a well known fact that the
born-agains often state that they don't really have to practice any kind of
austerity. Just believe in jesus, and you will be saved. And thus it is no
surprise that many of them do indulge in meat-eating and intoxication.
>
>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 ].
The point is not that there are members who fall down. The point is, that
the standards themselves were at fault. If people like Vivekananda had been
very adamant that others become vegetarian, then I would have been forgiving
if some of his followers could not be, knowing that he did his best to
promote it. But if the leaders make no effort to teach morality, then it is
certainly their fault.
>The Supreme Personality of Godhead resides in everyone's heart.
Yes, but He is not only residing there.
mat-sthaani sarva-bhuutaani
na caaham' tes.v avasthitah.
"All beings are in Me, but I am not in them" (Gita 9.4)
vadanti tat tattva-vidas
tattvam' yaj jn~aanam advayam
brahmeti paramaatmeti
bhagavaan iti s'abdyate
"Learned transcedentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual
substance Brahman, Paramaatmaa, or Bhagavaan." (Bhagavatam 1.2.11)
The form of the Lord residing within the heart is known as Paramaatmaa, the
Supreme Soul, and He resides there to witness the actions of the conditioned
living entity and eventually inspire him to come back home, back to Godhead,
where Bhagavaan is residing. The fact that the Lord resides in the hearts of
all living beings is not an indication that He is dependent on them. Rather,
as Gita 9.4 and SB 1.2.11 indicate, there is a higher realization.
>
>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."
Very good. At least you are trying to quote saastra, rather than making up
your own opinions. Most people on this group seem to have more faith in
their speculations than in the Gita.
This verse that you quoted is better translated as follows:
sarva-bhuutes'u yenaikam'
bhaavam avyayam iiks.ate
avibhaktam' vibhaktes.u
taj jn~aanam' viddhi saatvikam
sarva-bhuutes.u - in all living entities; yena - by which; ekam - one;
bhaavam - situation; avyayam - imperishable; iiks.ate -- one sees;
avibhaktam - undivided; vibhaktes.u - in the numberless divided; tat - that;
jn~aanam - knowledge; viddhi - know; saatvikam - in the mode of goodness
The key difference between your translation and this one is the word
bhaavam. It does not indicate one imperishable being of which everyone and
everything is a part, but rather one spiritual nature. In other words, it
means that one must see the spirit souls in all other living entities, even
animals and plants. It means that everything must be seen in relation to
Lord Krishna's energies. As confirmed in chapter 7, nothing exists that is
not of the Lord's energies.
The translation you quoted implies that everything is ultimately one
spiritual being. But this is not possible, because earlier in the Gita Lord
Krishna refuted that idea:
na tv evaaham' jaatu naasam'
na tvam' neme janaadhipaah.
na caiva na bhavis'yaamah.
sarve vayam atah. param
"Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings;
nor in the future shall any of us cease to be." (Gita 2.12)
The verse clearly indicates that our individuality has always been so and
always will be so.
>
>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.
>
[deleted]
I have already dealt with this point earlier. The Paramaatmaa is only one
feature of the Absolute Truth, but it is not the complete realization. Srila
Prabhupada has also clearly stated in his Bhagavatam purports that realizing
the Supreme Personality of Godhead as Bhagavaan is complete realization,
while the other two are incomplete.
>
>Anyone who says "I will become God" is sadly mistaken, because God is
>already attained. He is the very center of one's being.
>
I don't think you really know what you are saying here. Yes, God is seated
in the hearts of all living entities, but He is there WITH the conditioned
living entity. It seems to me that you are using the various references to
the Supersoul to prove that the soul in the heart is the Supersoul. This is
not correct. In the Bhagavatam and the Upanishads, the Supersoul and the
ordinary soul in the heart are compared to two birds sitting on the same
tree. One bird is busy trying to enjoy the fruits of the tree, while the
other simply watches. If the first bird merely turns to the second, then he
can be relieved of the dualities of pain and pleasure in exploiting the
material nature. The same is said of the jivatma and Paramatma.
The point is, they are not the same soul.
>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.
What the Bhagavans are teaching is not what is taught by the verse you just
quoted. The unscrupulous "Bhagavans" are teaching that the jivatama and
Paramatma are one and the same. This idea has no basis in the Gita or the
Vedic literatures.
>
>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."
>
This is referring to the Supersoul, not the individual jivaatma. Try again.
>> 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.
Surrendering to the Lord means acknowledging that He is a person and that we
are eternally distinct from Him. It means putting oneself completely at His
mercy. In contemporary Hinduism however, the character of Lord Krishna is
taken to be quaint mythology that is meant to direct our minds to some
impersonal Truth. If Krishna is a myth, then there can be no question of
surrendering to Him.
Of course, the impersonalist "Bhagavans" will claim that merging into God,
or realizing oneness with Him, is actually surrendering. But this is bogus.
Surrendering means putting oneself in the position of eternal service to
Him. This is confirmed in Gita 18.54: mad-bhaktim labhate paraam "when he
attains the supreme Brahman, he attains pure devotional service to Me."
>
>Of course, there have always been false Gurus who muddy the waters [ I
>can think of one whose name started with "Bhagawan" :-) ].
Oh, but I thought all interpretations were the same. You mean there is such
a thing as a false Guru? I'm shocked!
>>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".
He had 16,108 wives, and it is not contradictory. The Supreme Lord can be in
multiple places and enjoy multiple relationships simultaneously. That is due
to His inconceivable potencies, which is something the many false Godmen of
today cannot do. It may seem contradictory to someone who imposes his own
mundane material limitations on God.
>
>- Krishna was the Supreme Personality of Godhead *and* at the same
>time, he was a very naughty boy (among other things).
Again, not a contradiction. Your assumption is that being the Supreme
Godhead means always being in a position of absolute awe and majesty. But
the whole sweetness associated with Krishna is that He remains the Supreme
Godhead despite the childhood activities He performs, which only *seems* to
be material. Furthermore, as a child, He enjoys these pastimes, as do His
devotees.
>
>- 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.
The Supreme Godhead has innumerable forms, and He also enjoys many different
relationships with His devotees, such as friendship, parenthood,
master-servant, and so on. There is no contradiction here.
>
>I think you get the idea (I could come up with a few thousand more if
>I had the time).
Nice try Ken. All you did was cite instances of the inconceivable potencies
of the Lord, but none of them have anything to do with the contradiction I
pointed out.
My point is that Shiva is clearly depicted to be a devotee of Vishnu in
saastra. And yet you and others maintain that Shiva is God. If Shiva is God,
then why is he worshipping Vishnu? You try to sidestep the question by
citing the instances of the inconceivable potencies of Krishna. Your
assumption is that if Krishna can do things which we cannot understand by
our limited senses, then Shiva must also. But Krishna's pastimes in this
regard can be understood only by understanding Him to be the Supreme Lord.
However, the same cannot necessarily be said of Shiva. If you understand
Shiva to be God, then how is it that he is also a devotee of Vishnu? Just
answer the question directly.
>
>>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.
So, in other words, my TV is also the absolute truth. So why go to the
temple? Am I not worshipping the absolute truth by watching TV? I am also
the absolute truth. So why should I surrender to Krishna? I am Krishna, so
there is no need for me to worship Him. In fact, since all of the material
sense objects I enjoy are each the Absolute Truth, then there is no reason
for me to give any of them up.
These are a few of the sticky complications that result from your philosophy.
>
>In fact, Sage Suka says in Book 12, Chapter 4 (or 5?) of Srimad
>Bhagavatam:
[deleted]
I can't respond to this until I see the exact verse and purport. I'm not
sure whose translation you are quoting from, nor am I sure if you are taking
the statement out of context. Please provide the verse number.
>
>> 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).
A religion which takes a deity to be both a devotee of God and God Himself,
without explaining how this can be so, is neither consistent nor logical.
>
>>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.
>
Most Hindu missionary groups are impersonalists. Just pick any one at random
and 99% of the time you will hit an impersonalist group.
Impersonalists are people who believe that God is ultimately without form,
qualities, emotions, or, in short, personality. They may take personality to
be a mere manifestation of God, but they don't acknowledge that God always
has personality in the spiritual realm. In other words, they don't accept
that the Lord has a spiritual personality or that He has loving exchanges in
the spiritual world.
People who say that they are already God are impersonalists, because they
deny the idea of having a relationship with God. If you are God, then you
can't have a loving relationship with yourself, right? As I said, most Hindu
groups believe in this way.
>Certainly, there are no impersonalist Shaivites, and none of the
>authentic "Bhagawans" were impersonalists.
The HT group are impersonalist Shaivites. I don't know who you refer to when
you say "authentic Bhagavans."
>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.
The litmus test for finding an impersonalist is to ask them who or what God
is. You say you see no impersonalists on the net. In that case, pose the
question: who is God? (on a separate thread) and see the kinds of answers
you get. After you do, if you still do not see, then I will explain to you
why the people who answered are impersonalists.
>>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?
>
Anyone who condones meat-eating condones cruelty and the degradation of the
environment. The meat industry is the #1 polluter in the USA. Furthermore,
the Gita clearly states that the animals also have souls. So meat-eaters
inflict cruelty on other living beings.
Previously you mentioned that all religions are the same. I responded that
if this was so, then what about fundamentalist Islam with its terrorism, or
Satanism with its blood sacrifices. You never responded to that. Because if
you do respond, then you have to admit that there is some standard for
distinguishing between a true religion and a false one. And eventually, you
would be forced to admit that scripture should be the standard for
distinguishing between the real religion and and a false interpretation.
>Vaishnavism says that even Impersonalism has a purpose in attracting
>people to God.
Lord Shiva never said that. In the Padma Purana, he tells Mother Parvati
that it is "impious, inauspicious, and covered Buddhism." This post was on
ARV a while back, and may still be in the archives somewhere. In any case,
advaita was preached to attract Buddhists to the Vedas. But in that same
Purana, it is also stated that a person in the mode of goodness who hears
advaita philosophy will fall down.
Impersonalists religions like advaita and Buddhism were meant to cheat
atheistic people into performing austerities so that they would not fall
further down into reckless materialism. But if impersonalists do not
continue to follow these regulations, then the whole point of the religion
is lost. And even if it is followed purely, it is supposed to lead one to
Vaishnavism. Therefore, the impersonalists should give up their attempts to
realize some artificial oneness with God, and instead strive to be devotees
of 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"
They say the former because it reflects their mentality. They say the latter
to maintain their image as devotees, so that innocent people will be lured
to them.
As I have already pointed out, trying to equate oneself with God is exactly
the opposite of surrendering to God.
>
>>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
Technically, our births and deaths are only for the body. The soul is never
born, nor does it every die, because it is distinct from the body. Being
immortal does not mean being God.
>projections of this maya. Remain established in this truth: "I am
>Brahman the infinite, the supreme abode, I am Brahman the highest
>goal."
I note once again that no verse number was provided. Are you afraid that I
will discover that this also is a mistranslation? The living entites are all
Brahman, but as the Gita confirms, only Krishna is the param Brahman - the
Supreme Brahman. And He has clearly stated that he highest goal is pure
devotional service to Him (Gita 18.54).
People who say that the living entities are God because they are described
as Brahman have misunderstood the meaning of Brahman. It is like an Indian
prisoner who says he is the prime minister. After all, he thinks, I am
Indian, and the prime minister is also Indian. Therefore, I must be the
prime minister.
This is obviously absurd.
Both the jivas and Bhagavan are Brahman. But only Bhagavan is the Supreme
Brahman.
param' brahma pram' dhaama etc. (10.12)
yours,
-- HKS
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Follow-Ups:
