[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Siva as yogi?
On Fri, 5 Jan 1996 18:34:50 +0000, you wrote:
>The All-Pervasive, Indestructible One (in the form of Ken Stuart) quoted
>himself saying (as Krishna Susarla) the following:
>
>>>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.
>>
>to which the All-Pervasive One (in the form of Ken Stuart) responded:
>
>>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.
>
>And to which the All-Pervasive One again responds (but this time as Krishna
>Susarla):
>
>That's no excuse. If they don't teach the prerequisites for spirituality,
>then how can they expect anyone to take up spiritual life? Spiritual life by
>definition concerns matters not of this body. Real spiritual education
>requires that one be instructed to avoid specific material vices.
>
>It is dishonest to say that one can be spiritual and still be engrossed in
>materialistic vices.
Once again, a straw man.
No one is saying "One can be spiritual and still be engrossed in
materialistic vices".
Also, you seem to feel that if you happened to know one person in a
spiritual group who does something, then that proves that the
teachers of the group don't teach morality.
Do I have to post explicit details of what a handful of ISKCON members
have been convicted by the law of doing?
Do those instances prove the Srila Prahbupada did not teach morality?
>>>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."
>
>If sex is natural, so is having children.
>
>On the other hand, I don't see condoms growing on trees.
Huh ??
What does "natural" have to do with this??
>>Furthermore, your paraphrasing above is incorrect, as the quote
>>specifically refers to Saiva Siddhanta NOT Hinduism in general.
>
>I don't remember the quote saying anything about Saiva Siddhanta. What I
>remember it saying was "Hinduism takes a liberated view towards
>sexuality...." with no indication that he was referring to a specific sect.
Talk about going out on a limb ! Without a copy of the book ! :-)
"liberated view" occurs nowhere in the book and is 100% your
interpretation of what you read, which actually was:
"Q: What is the law pertaining to abortion, birth control,
sterilization, divorce, remarriage, masturbation, homosexuality,
petting and polygamy?
A: These are neither condoned nor condemned. Our religion does not
arbitrate all matters of sexuality for its members. The only rigid
rule is wisdom, guided by tradition and virtue."
Their use of the phrase 'Our religion' very clearly refers to
Shaivism, the back cover reads:
"This is a rare catechism about spirituality as practiced by those who
know and worship God as Siva, roughly half of the world's one billion
Hindus."
>>Again, you should recognize that what is preached to newcomers is not
>>the same as what is preached to committed devotees.
>
>I do recognize that, but I am talking about the presence of numerous
>long-standing followers of a particular group who never adopt certain moral
>standards. Clearly, the fault is in the teachers.
Well, there probably are groups with teachers who are lax about
teaching morality to their disciples.
However, I also know at least one major group where there are a few
long-standing followers who are simply very slow learners ("wet
logs"), the teacher is well aware of what they do, but the alternative
would simply alienate them and they would leave the group.
Not everything is what it seems from first glance.
>>I've never said this. I said all religions bring one to God.
>
>So, if "all religions bring one to God," then that means the religion of
>Satanism, which requires animal sacrifices and devil-worship also brings one
>to God. And fundamentalist Islam, which involves terrorism, hostage-taking,
>and torture of Jews, also brings one to God.
Well, I've never seen Satanism considered a religion. Religion is
worship of God. Satanism specifically recognizes God (Jehovah/Yahweh
of Judaism & Christianity) and then specifically rejects Him in favor
of Satan.
Most of the other Vaishnavas on the net consider "fundamentalist" to
be a positive term. Fundamentalism involves the same strict
adherence to morality that you strongly advocate.
Within Islam there are groups that advocate actions that are
considered, by the majority of Moslems, to be against the Koran.
There are, of course, plenty of despicable actions committed by those
who call themselves Hindus as well.
>>>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.
>>
>
>Ken, you are talking about God. God is not subordinate to dharma. He is the
>one who gives dharma to us. He is not bound by the rules which we must
>follow. Try to understand this.
>
>Bringing up the example of Krishna and Rama only indicates that the Lord is
>devoted to His devotees. But nevertheless He is not obliged to them; in one
>pastime with the gopis, Krishna left them all when He sensed that they were
>getting proud of their association with Him. In fact, His rasa-lila with
>married women was hardly dharmic. It's not supposed to be, since the Lord's
>relationships with His devotees transcends ordinary regulations of dharma.
>
>>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."
>
>Ken, you seem really confused. This verse supports what I have been saying
>all along. Lord Krishna served Sandipani with devotion to set the example
>that we should also accept and serve a genuine guru with similar reverence.
>So, if Lord Siva is worshipping Vishnu to set an example, then does that not
>mean that we should all also worship Vishnu?
Absolutely !
>>So, your argument that it is contradictory for the Supreme Being to be
>>devoted to someone else doesn't hold water.
>
>Ken, I didn't say that it was contradictory for the Supreme Being to be
>devoted to someone else. I said that it was contradictory for Siva to be
>God, and also to *WORSHIP* Vishnu as God.
If they are both God, then why would it be contradictory for each to
see God in the other and to thus feel worshipful?
What would happen if Krishna and Rama were to meet?
>Chanting on japa beads and
>meditation are indications that one is trying to achieve a higher platform
>of consciousness.
OR else it is an indication, of -- to quote you:
>to set the example that we should also.....
>Thus far, you have not been able to explain how it is that Siva can be God,
>and yet worship someone else as God.
And you have been unable to give a convincing reason why not....
>You want to believe that all forms of worship are the same
Not only do I NOT want to believe that, I also have never said that !
>You were not prepared to justify how a personality whom the Bhagavatam
>describes as a devotee could be God, yet it did not stop you from responding
>initially with the premise that there was such a basis. The Vedic
>literatures do sometimes present Siva for worship, but they are nonetheless
>clear that it is NaaraayaNa who is Supreme. Your initial response in this
>tread was condescending to this idea, suggesting that it was merely valid
>for some sects but not others, and that we should simply understand that
>that both understandings are equally valid. But you are completely unable to
>demonstrate how both understandings can be in harmony.
In the same way that Krishna and Ram are different, yet both are
Vishnu.
>>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".
>
>So, if one worships a painting of Beavis and Butt-head with the
>understanding that it is God, then that is just as good as "deity images."
>If one worships Adolf Hitler with the understanding that he is God, then
>that is as good as worship in the temple. If one worships... well, you get
>the idea.
To look at a picture of Beavis and Butt-head while thinking of
Krishna, is FAR better than to do a puja to deity images in the temple
while thinking of Beavis and Butt-head !
>>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'..."
>
>Yes, everything is contiguous with Lord Vishnu's energies. In that sense
>only, can you say things like vaasudeva sarvam iti. But God is also the
>source of all energies. He is janmady asya yataH (SB 1.1.1): that from which
>all else is emanated, maintained, and destroyed. So, what you are saying is
>that everything is the source of everything, and naturally it makes no sense.
And this "no sense" is exactly the basis of the Bengal School of
Vaishnavism, namely Acintya-bhedabheda "Inconceivable
Identity-in-difference".
What is occurring here is that your own "common sense" puts you far
away from Gaudiya Vaishnavism, into a sort of extreme Sri Madhvacarya
Dvaita with no reference to Sri Ramanuja, Sri Vallbhacarya, or Sri
Krishna Caitanya at all.
>Here is another understanding. God is the source of all energies, and
>everything we see is a result of God's energies. Therefore, they are the
>same in the sense that the product has the quality of its source, but they
>are distinct in the sense that the energy is different from the energetic.
>
>I will leave it to intelligent netters to decide which of these two seems
>more sensible.
They are certainly *both* true representations of reality.
>>>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.
>
>Oh boy, I can't wait to read this...
>
>>
>>The whole lila of the world is that everything is Narayana.
>
>I have already addressed this point.
>
>> Narayana,
>>to amuse himself, becomes all the jivas, who by the power of maya, do
>>not think they are parts of Narayana.
>
>Conclusion: jivas are the ENERGY of Narayana. They are not each individually
>the same as Narayana, otherwise there would be no question of them being
>deluded by maya.
I didn't say they were " the same as " Narayana.
>I note also that you use jivas in the plural sense. And this too, after
>trying to convince me in a previous post that there was no plurality of the
>jivas, but instead only one being inhabiting many different bodies (and
>idols, and temples, and TV sets, etc.).
There is a plurality of jivas.
AND there is only one being inhabiting many different bodies.
This is THE TEACHING OF THE VEDAS.
Ramanuja frequently quoted from the Antaryami Brahmana of the
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad (3.7):
"... He who dwells in all beings but is within them, whom none of the
beings knows, whose body is all beings, and who controls all beings
from within, is the inner controller, your own self,and immortal... He
is never seen but is the Seer, He is never heard, but is the
Hearer..."
Okay -- are you ready now, here it comes.... (B.U. 3.7 cont'd):
"There is no other Seer than He, there is no other hearer than He,
there is no other thinker than He, there is no other knower than He.
He is the Inner Controller -- of our self and immortal. All else but
He is perishable."
SO, no eternal jivatmas. Just He and perishable jivas.
OR you can say that there are eternal jivatmas -- but in that case,
they MUST also be "He".
And actually there is a perspective from which both of those are the
same.
For example, let's say one has an ice cube.
>From one perspective, the ice cube is perishable -- a short time at
room temperature and no more ice cube.
But from another perspective, the ice cube is still there, it has just
changed state from solid to liquid.
So, it depends what you mean by "ice cube".
>>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".
>
>Why don't you try distinguishing between the two, and I will work with your
>definitions.
In this case, they are not my own definitions, rather they are (like
"Hindu") the common usage, like "Self" [which I've never liked as a
word] for atman.
I think we mean the same thing when we say the Supreme Personality of
Godhead.
However, God is usually used these days by spiritually inclined people
to mean "the substance of divinity". The next paragraph makes this
more comprehensible......
"Everyone is already God" is meant in the same sense as Srila
Prahbupada's statement:
"It is, however, understood here that the living entity,
being the fragmental part and parcel of the Supreme Lord, is
qualitatively one with the Lord, just as the parts and parcels of gold
are also gold."
Namaskar,
Ken
kstuart@snowcrest.net
References:
- Re: Siva as yogi?
- From: susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu (H. Krishna Susarla)
