[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Siva as yogi?
The omniscient, all-pervasive One in the form of Ken Stuart writes:
>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.
to which the omniscient, all-pervasive One in the form of Krishna Susarla
responds:
Yes, that has been my experience as well. But the HSC (Hindu Students
Council) has links to Jain Dharma and Buddha Dharma from their home page.
The implication is obvious. They are saying that Jains and Buddhists are
also Hindus. Of course, Ajay will deny it, but then one might wonder why
their page has no links to Christianity or Islam. Hmmmm....
This fits in well with the overall program of the Hindu nationalists, who
want to rally together as many people as possible under the "Hindu"
umbrella. I have previously seen well-known VHP members trying to argue that
Sikhism is also part of Hinduism, even though Sikhs generally make no such
claim, and even have very incompatible beliefs with those of the Vedas.
The All-Pervasive, Indesctructible One (in the form of Ken Stuart) continues:
>
>>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.
To which the same All-Pervading, Indestructible One (in the form of Krishna
Susarla) responds:
I'm talking about the philosophy, Ken, not the adherence of the followers to
the rules and regulations. For example, the Gita clearly states that we
should surrender to Lord Krishna, and that worship of other demigods is
misguided. Nevertheless, many Hindu groups gloss over such statements and
insist that all forms of worship are the same, even though the Gita clearly
says otherwise. These people say they follow the Vedas and the Gita, but
clearly they do not.
So, to define Hinduism by adherence to Vedic philosophy is problematic for
you, because most people who claim to uphold Vedic philosophy (which is
theistic) in fact do not do so.
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.
>>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.
>
>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.
>
>The HT Saiva Siddhanta group is very anti-materialist and takes a lot
>of moral stands.
And they are better about it than other, less worthy predecessors, such as
VVS. Nevertheless the HT group falls short with its stance on sexuality,
since such a stance misrepresents other groups which are commonly considered
by the masses as Hindu (Orthodox Vaishnavas don't believe that sex for
carnal pleasures only is acceptable), and because it implies that this is
the standard accepted in the Vedic literatures. Quite the contrary, sexual
restraint is very clearly inferred from the Vedic regulations. Lord Krishna
states in the Gita, "I am sexlife that is not opposed to religious
principles." What He refers to is the use of the sexual act within marriage
to produce progeny, who are subsequently brought up as devotees of the Lord.
Any other sex is karmic. It distracts us from spiritual life because it
makes us identify with the body.
>
>But "Just believe in Krishna and you will be saved" is exactly what is
>stated in the Gita, such as in 18.65:
Not quite, Ken. Krishna says in Gita 4.34 that one should accept a spiritual
master and serve him. The genuine spiritual master ensures that his disciple
practices morality, such as vegetarianism and brahmacarya.
So if you believe in Krishna, then you will follow all of His instructions,
which includes a number of things, such as vegetarianism. This is in
contrast to the born-again Christian mentality, where one will say that he
simply accepts Jesus, but then ignores many of the inconvenient regulations
spoken by Jesus himself.
>Whereas morality is important, devotion to God is paramount, and in
Morality is a prerequisite to developing devotion to God. I grow weary of
all these dime-a-dozen spiritual groups (some Hindu, others not) trying to
make their particular sect look attractive by saying what you just did.
Before you can develop devotion to God, you have to understand that you are
not this material body. But before you can really understand that, you have
to give up sense enjoyment.
The Bhaagavatam says:
janmais'varya-s'ruta-s'ribhir
edhamaana-madaH pumaan
naivaarhaty abhidhaatum' vai
tvaam akin~cana-gocaram
"My Lord, Your Lordship can easily be approaced, but only by those who are
materiall exausted. One who is on the path of [material] progress, trying to
improve himself with respectable parentage, great opulence, high education
and bodily beauty, cannot approach You with sincere feeling." (SB 1.8.26)
>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.)
I have already dealt with this in a previous posting. To recap, there is
plenty of reason to believe that the New Testament does NOT sanction such
activities. But in any case, I am more interested in the message of the
Vedas, so I do not intend to dwell on the Christian understanding here.
>
>I'm a vegetarian, but I'm sorry, vegetarianism is not equivalent to
>morality.
There is more to morality than being a vegetarian. But being moral includes
being vegetarian. One who eats meat for sense pleasure is just as bad as one
who commits murder, because animals also have souls.
>
>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.
>
>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.
At least they practice some preliminary austerity. Nevertheless, they should
teach these things publicly. People are destroying themselves by engaging in
such vices, because they earn bad karma and must suffer in a future life. It
behooves the merciful spiritualist to educate others.
>>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.
Ken, you missed the point. The point of the verse above is that we are not
God, but rather we maintain our individual identity even on the
transcendental platform. The verse says that when we get to the Supreme
Platform, we get devotional service to the Lord. That means we are NOT God,
but are eternally the devotees of God.
It is also stated in Gita 11.54 that the only way to attain this state is by
pure devotional service, not by jn~aana or any other process.
>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.
>>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?
>
>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. Chanting on japa beads and
meditation are indications that one is trying to achieve a higher platform
of consciousness. But there is nothing higher than God.
Thus far, you have not been able to explain how it is that Siva can be God,
and yet worship someone else as God. Therefore, your faith in this idea is
simply blind.
Actually, I do know how to resolve it (from the Gaudiya perspective), but I
have purposely been witholding that information to see if you could support
your theories rationally. Instead, you jumped in and stated that Siva is
also God, but you find yourself completely unable to defend that position.
You want to believe that all forms of worship are the same, even though Lord
Krishna clearly states in the Gita that one result is derived from
worshipping the other gods and liberation is derived from worshipping Him.
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.
>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.
Here is the profound truth, ladies and genetlemen. I am not going to bother
with it further, other than to say that if you really believe this
philosophy, then you deserve this philosophy.
I will say this. After trying to convince me that you don't actually believe
it's all one and that you are not an advaitist, you come out posting the
same advaitist propaganda. You are certainly not a visistadvaitist. I think
you need to figure out what you believe, before you post to SRH.
>
>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.
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.
>>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 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.).
>
>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.
>
>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.
No, because I know of people who are not Vaishnavas but are still
personalists. Nevertheless, most religion these days is impersonalist,
because that's what people want to hear.
>
>>>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.
Okay, Ken. Before I respond to this I request you to distinguish between
"God," and "Supreme Personality of Godhead." I would also like you to take
note (before you proceed to reinterpret BG As It Is to your fancy), that
Srila Prabhupada used the two interchangeably, although he preferred the latter.
>
>>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".
>
I am waiting to hear what their meaning for the word God is.
-- HKS
Follow-Ups:
