[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Siva as yogi?

On Tue, 12 Dec 1995 12:25:32 +0000, you wrote:

>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.

I'm not sure what the HSC is, but any listing of religions that I've
seen lists Buddhism and Jainism as entirely separate religions from
Hinduism.

>Furthermore, there are many modern day Hindu groups (most in fact) who claim
>to follow the Vedas but do not. 

So what?   You are confusing the defintion of a religion with the
behavior of its current followers.

>>>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. 

There is a difference between sanctioning material desires and failing
to teach morality.   Many of these groups teach that spirituality is
preferable to material desires, without going down a laundry list of
what constitutes material desires.

>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.

Amazingly, you missed the page previous to the one you quoted from the
HT book, which states:

"Q: Should only a husband and wife have sexual intercourse?
A: Yes, wisdom and experience demand the intimacies of sexual
intercourse be confined to marriage."

Furthermore, your paraphrasing above is incorrect, as the quote
specifically refers to Saiva Siddhanta NOT Hinduism in general.

The HT Saiva Siddhanta group is very anti-materialist and takes a lot
of moral stands.

>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.

But "Just believe in Krishna and you will be saved" is exactly what is
stated in the Gita, such as in 18.65:

"Fix thy mind on Me, worshipping Me,
Sacrificing to Me, made reverence to Me;
In this way thou shalt go truly to Me,
I promise, for thou art dear to Me."

Whereas morality is important, devotion to God is paramount, and in
fact, one sees that true devotees lose their taste for getting drunk,
eating meat, etc.

(And, to be accurate, one should note that the New Testament
specifically allows meat eating and alcohol.)

>>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.

I'm a vegetarian, but I'm sorry, vegetarianism is not equivalent to
morality.

Again, you should recognize that what is preached to newcomers is not
the same as what is preached to committed devotees.

I know plenty of groups that don't preach vegetarianism and sobriety
in those teachings which they publish worldwide, but nevertheless in
their ashrams, no meat, alcohol or gambling is allowed.

>>> 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."

Amazingly, you have ignored the grammar of this sentence.

It starts with "When".   "When A occurs, then B".

So WHEN someone attains Brahman (there is no occurence of "Supreme" in
the verse), bramabhutah, becoming absorbed in Brahman, THEN he 
ttains pure devotional service to Krishna.

>>
>>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. 

I've never said this.    I said all religions bring one to God.

>You mean there is such a thing as a false Guru? I'm shocked!

Please don't ascribe to me all the viewpoints of every deluded person
you've met.....

>>>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.
>>
>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.

Because that is his dharma, just as Krishna's dharma was to be devoted
to his guru, Sandipani (and, of course, his parents and wives as
well).  And Ram was devoted to his guru, Vasishta, and his parents and
wife as well.   

Srimad Bhagavatam, Book 10 Chapter 45:

"They [Krishna and Balarama] served the guru [Sandipani] with the
utmost devotion, thus exemplifying the ideal of devotion to one's
preceptor."

So, your argument that it is contradictory for the Supreme Being to be
devoted to someone else doesn't hold water.

>>>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.

No complications at all.

All that you left out was "with the understanding that all is God".

If you worship the TV with the thought and feeling "This TV is
Krishna", then that is as good as any puja to deity images.

However, if you just watch TV with your mind focused on material
reality, then you do not have the understanding that "all is God".

The basis of spirituality is devotion and understanding; the true fact
that Krishna resides in the heart of materialists as well, does not
make any difference UNTIL they realize that.

Srimad Bhagavatam, Book 10, Chapter 12:

"The Lord demonstrated the scriptural declaration: 'All this is indeed
Vishnu'..."

>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. 

Correct.

>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? 

Wrong - even from the Vaishnava point of view.

The whole lila of the world is that everything is Narayana.  Narayana,
to amuse himself, becomes all the jivas, who by the power of maya, do
not think they are parts of Narayana.

I also think there is a slight difference in the usage of the word
God, between you and those people who say that everyone is already
God.  They are not saying "everyone is already The Supreme Personality
of Godhead".

I think you are trying to make everyone who is not a Vaishnava into an
impersonalist, in order to easily and conveniently discredit what they
are doing.

>>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. 

Just the opposite!  They say the * latter * because it reflects their
mentality.   They say the * former *  to attract people to dharma.

>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. 

>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. 

Or, as I stated above, they have a different meaning for the word
"God".


Cheers,

Ken

kstuart@snowcrest.net
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.