why we need to pray to GOD

[Guest guest]

Namaste

People pray to God for their selfish benefits and

such prayers are not real worship. If one loves God

for some need only, it is worst. Apply your logic to

your children also. You love your child without any

need. When you can do this for your momentary blood

bond of this birth, how much needless love you have to

pour down on God, who is related to you by your

permanent soul since millions of births! The sea

with its wave-hands is always warning the people not

to kill the poor harmless aquatic creatures like fish

etc., for the sake of food. God created lot of

vegetable food, which is the best even according to

present science of health. The sea represents the

Lord and finally kills the sinners with his own wave –

hands. Goddess earth kills the sinners through quakes

since these sinners kill the innocent creatures on the

earth. Tsunami is the result of combined anger of

father – sea and mother – earth. These innocent

creatures have no advocate and even cannot file a

criminal case in our courts. Such formalities are not

necessary for His all-pervading court. One sees the

punishment only and not the sin, which is the cause.

One sympathizes the human beings affected in other

countries also since all human beings are one. But

one should broaden his mind and should feel that all

the living beings are one and sympathize every living

being. The natural calamities will then disappear.

 

______________________

Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"

your friends today! Download Messenger Now

http://uk.messenger./download/index.html

[Guest guest]

Namaste Gayathry,

 

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says that there are for types of devotees, namely:

 

1. Artha : thinks about lord only in distress

2. Artharthi: thinks about the lord when he/she wants secure some

wealth or selfish needs

3. Jijnasu: seeks lord to know the lord

4. Jnani: he knows that he himself is the Lord

 

The lord does not say that only one of the above four is a devotee

although he mentions that the dearest is the Jnani. But he does not

say that the artha or the artharthi is not a devotee. All of them are

the Lord's devotees even if they be an artha or artharthi. All of us

will gradually attain the 4th gradually with varying rate of spiritual

progress. We need to accomodate each other and help us grow together.

 

 

 

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:27:51 +0000 (GMT), Gayathry <agayathry wrote:

>

>

> Namaste

> People pray to God for their selfish benefits and

> such prayers are not real worship. If one loves God

> for some need only, it is worst. Apply your logic to

> your children also. You love your child without any

> need. When you can do this for your momentary blood

> bond of this birth, how much needless love you have to

> pour down on God, who is related to you by your

> permanent soul since millions of births! The sea

> with its wave-hands is always warning the people not

> to kill the poor harmless aquatic creatures like fish

> etc., for the sake of food. God created lot of

> vegetable food, which is the best even according to

> present science of health. The sea represents the

> Lord and finally kills the sinners with his own wave –

> hands. Goddess earth kills the sinners through quakes

> since these sinners kill the innocent creatures on the

> earth. Tsunami is the result of combined anger of

> father – sea and mother – earth. These innocent

> creatures have no advocate and even cannot file a

> criminal case in our courts. Such formalities are not

> necessary for His all-pervading court. One sees the

> punishment only and not the sin, which is the cause.

> One sympathizes the human beings affected in other

> countries also since all human beings are one. But

> one should broaden his mind and should feel that all

> the living beings are one and sympathize every living

> being. The natural calamities will then disappear.

>

> ______________________

> Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"

> your friends today! Download Messenger Now

> http://uk.messenger./download/index.html

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

> Links

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Gayathriji

 

One reason why I was drawn to the spiritual approach of hinduism is

that there is no labelling of the aspirant as a confirmed sinner with

hellfire and damnation awaiting him from a 'god' 'out there'

alternatively 'rewarding' and 'punishing'. I seem to read a lot of

that in your expression making a case for praying to God.

To portray natural calamities like Tsunamai ( they are just that -

natural calamities) as the anger of a larger power on erring humans

does not really appeal - something seems to be jarring.

I may have read you wrongly...in which case do accept my apologies

Many namaskarams to all

Sridhar

-- In advaitin, Gayathry <agayathry> wrote:

>

> Namaste

> People pray to God for their selfish benefits and

Snip

> present science of health. The sea represents the

> Lord and finally kills the sinners with his own wave –

> hands. Goddess earth kills the sinners through quakes

> since these sinners kill the innocent creatures on the

> earth. Tsunami is the result of combined anger of

> father – sea and mother – earth. These innocent

> creatures have no advocate and even cannot file a

> criminal case in our courts. Such formalities are not

> necessary for His all-pervading court. One sees the

> punishment only and not the sin, which is the cause.

> One sympathizes the human beings affected in other

> countries also since all human beings are one. But

> one should broaden his mind and should feel that all

> the living beings are one and sympathize every living

> being. The natural calamities will then disappear.

>

> ______________________

> Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"

> your friends today! Download Messenger Now

> http://uk.messenger./download/index.html

[Guest guest]

sridhaar19 <asridhar19 wrote:To portray natural calamities like

Tsunamai ( they are just that - natural calamities) as the anger of a larger

power on erring humans does not really appeal - something seems to be jarring.

 

 

Sridharji, The keyword in your sentence above is natural. What is natural ?

Gita 5:14 says

 

14. Neither agency nor actions does the Lord create for the world, nor union

with the fruits of actions. But it is Nature that acts.

 

So the question is - What is nature ? Krishna says Prakriti is his lower

nature. Gita chapter 7 :

 

4. Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intellect, egoism --- these are My

eight-fold PRAKRITI.

 

5. This is the "lower" PRAKRITI; different from it, know thou, O mighty-armed,

My "Higher' ' PRAKRITI , the very Life-element, by which this world is upheld.

 

In other words, Tsunami is due to Ishwar but Advaita also says Ishwar is part

of Maya. So this is more Maya of the Mayapati ? I am not sure. IS that why Maya

is anirvachaniya ?

 

confused,

Shailendra

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - You care about security. So do we.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shailendraji

Quite like your sign off... confused is what happens to me when I try

to understand any cause- cause of creation or Tsunami.

It seems much easier to believe that If I can Understand who I am,

that is, do away with all the wrong identification then all the

answers will automatically fall in place.

With the limited BMI equipment how can one fathom the workings of

Ishvara? The answers, it would appear are in the realm of 'knowing

that' knowing which all else is known.

just to get the focus back, my original observations were triggered

out of a concern that it does not help to tell fellow seekers that the

lord is wreaking revenge on mere mortals on account of their sins! But

then, now I wonder if it matters at all.

Many namaskarams to all

Sridhar

 

advaitin, Shailendra Bhatnagar

<bhatnagar_shailendra> wrote:

> sridhaar19 <asridhar19> wrote:To portray natural calamities

>

> In other words, Tsunami is due to Ishwar but Advaita also says

Ishwar is part of Maya. So this is more Maya of the Mayapati ? I am

not sure. IS that why Maya is anirvachaniya ?

>

> confused,

> Shailendra

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Mail - You care about security. So do we.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sahilendraji.

 

Hope this complements our off-List exchange of mail on the topic of

the alleged dual nature of Brahman. In your last mail to me, as in

your current reply to Sreedharji under reference, you have quoted BG

to point out that Bh. Krishna has in fact meant an inadvaitic dual

nature for Brahman.

 

I went to bed with a very full and upset stomach. The rumblings and

discomfort in the bowels caused a dream – a dream in which I was

running downhill at break-beck speed and panting.

 

Another dream – I am blind or have great difficulty opening my eyes

due to sore eye. Reason – I am half awake, my eyes are perhaps half

open and there is a lot of light falling on them.

 

The relative truths in the above examples are stomach discomfort and

light falling on the eyes. If I were fully conscious, they would

have been known as such. However, in the dreams, the subconscious

was in operation and, hence, the misinterpretations. In other words,

the subconscious is not fully qualified or doesn't possess the

ability to understand the relative truths as they really are.

 

Taking these two examples as an advaitic tool (without stretching

them too far, of course), we can now say that our so-called conscious

state is not fully qualified to understand the real Truth that we

are. Therefore, the truth is misinterpreted. This is the

misapprehension of Reality we talk about in advaita. Instead of

seeing the Real One, we end up seeing a multiplicity of hills, run

down them scared and panting, suffer from fearful eye conditions

including blindness. What is the solution? Waking was the solution

to escape the clutches of the nightmares. Waking therefore to the

Truth is the only solution we have to escape the incubus called

ignorance, which erects a life of misery. That means sAdhana,

chittashuddhi and knowledge.

 

The `process' by which misapprehension of reality is caused and the

One and only One seemingly `splits up' into several is called mAyA.

Actually, when the misapprehension is undone and when the One shines

as One, what is realized is not the absence of a past misapprehension

but the fact that there was *never ever* any misapprehension at

all. Why? Because *never* and *ever* are temporal. Truth has no

place for time.

 

So, from the point of view of the Absolute, there is no

misapprehension or creation of a world at all. This should be borne

in mind when we take up Bh. Krishna's statements in BG such as the

ones quoted by Shri Shaliendraji. In the scenario of BG, where

Bhagwan teaches the Truth to an ignorant Arjuna, such statements and

expressions are unavoidable. We can understand this better if we

make equations out of the scenarios that are possible in the quest

for Truth:

 

1. TRUTH (BRAHMAN) = TRUTH (BRAHMAN)

[The Absolute scenario. Both sides being equal, there actually is no

LHS or RHS. There is in fact nothing other than TRUTH (BRAHMAN).]

 

2. "I" (the perceiving, isolated me) + all that is perceived = mAya

[This is the quest where I go about alone on the road of Self-

enquiry. Brahman is understood as the essential substratum of this

equation.]

 

3. I (Bh. Krishna) + you (Arjuna, or the perceiving, isolated me –

the reader of BG), + all this (this perceived world) = mAyA

[The BG situation highlighted by Shailendraji where Lord as a

mediate has been brought into the quest, where again Brahman remains

the essential substratum.]

 

If the world were a misapprehension of reality, then the RHS of

equations 2 and 3 should have been Brahman. Although that conclusion

is quite right, we don't say so because, if we do, we would be

compromising our Advaita by admitting that indivisible Brahman has

undergone a split or saying that the total of certan limited entities

is limitlessness. So, as I pointed out above, from the absolute

advaitic standpoint, there is *never ever* any misapprehension at

all. However, in the realm of vyAvahArika where the misapprehension

is fully operational with temporal/spatial elements thrown in and

where we confront the split, all of us and even Bh. Krishna have to

necessarily mouth certain expressions and explanations. In Self-

Realization, however, all the ingredients of these expressions and

explanations which constitute the LHS and RHS of both equations 2 and

3 or, in one word, mAyA, resolve or sublate into 1. Thus, 1 is the

One and Only Truth. 2 and 3 are fully mAyA. Although 2 and 3 are 1,

to be really advaitic we have to necessarily assert that there is

only 1.

 

Well, you may ask: Why all this advaitic labour? Can't we accept

the world as it appears as science seems to be doing? Well, science

is not staying put. It is asking unending questions and getting

unending answers in a vain search for an End which it intuits

exists. No quest is justified without an intuited end. This means

that science cannot put up with situations of infinite regress – non-

situations - although that is what it is getting day in and day out

with questions finding answers and answers generating questions ad

infinitum. These non-situations are mAyA. Advaita in contrast

puts an end to all non-situations by pointing at the Final Reality

that pervades and sustains all non-situations. An advaitin thus

accepts the world for what it is while fully abiding in what he

really is. That is not saying Brahman has dual nature. An advaitin

shouldn't see such a meaning in the quoted BG references through a

literal understanding.

 

Thus, tsunami is mAyA. Advaitically, I pervade and sustain tsunamis

and calamities. Does that mean that I have multiple natures as

Brahman, tsunami and calamities? I am Brahman and that is no nature

at all!

 

An advaitin shall not shiver when calamities express their

devastating fury. Standing firm, he chants: "Om shAntih, shAntih,

shAntihi" to keep the usually dreaded three, viz. AdyAtmika,

Adibhoutika and AdidaivIka away. But, it doesn't matter a wee bit

to him whether they are away or around.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

______________________

 

 

advaitin, Shailendra Bhatnagar

<bhatnagar_shailendra> wrote:

> Sridharji, The keyword in your sentence above is natural. What is

natural ? Gita 5:14 says

>

> 14. Neither agency nor actions does the Lord create for the world,

nor union with the fruits of actions. But it is Nature that acts.

>

> So the question is - What is nature ? Krishna says Prakriti is his

lower nature. Gita chapter 7 :

>

> 4. Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intellect, egoism ---

these are My eight-fold PRAKRITI.

>

> 5. This is the "lower" PRAKRITI; different from it, know thou, O

mighty-armed, My "Higher' ' PRAKRITI , the very Life-element, by

which this world is upheld.

>

> In other words, Tsunami is due to Ishwar but Advaita also says

Ishwar is part of Maya. So this is more Maya of the Mayapati ? I am

not sure. IS that why Maya is anirvachaniya ?

>

> confused,

> Shailendra

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji, Thank you for your timely help in this matter. This issue of the

so called dual nature of Brahman has been troubling me ever since I heard Gita

and another list member had recommended the Brahm Sutra bhashya but I never got

a chance to read it. I think after reading your email, using google and thinking

about it, I came to a reasonably steady point. Vyasji knew about the events that

would unfold on the first day of the battle and that is why he provided divine

vision to Sanjay. So, Krishna was addressing Arjun and all generations to come.

He is addressing people at different stages of spiritual growth and

understanding and in anticipation of the possible questions, he talks about 3

contradictory levels. Check out

 

http://www.geocities.com/neovedanta/gitac.html

 

He talks about so called Jivatman, he talks about creation and PRakriti , and

goes on to talk about the one Paramatman in every Kshetra and Nirguna Brahman in

Chapter 13 and says in Chapter 15 that the world is not how it appears .

 

3. Its form is not perceived here as such, neither its end, nor its origin, nor

its foundation, nor its resting-place; having cut asunder this firm-rooted

ASHWATTHA -tree with the strong axe of non-attachment. . .

 

In my humble opinion, Advaita is the highest level of understanding or absolute

monism/absolute nonduality preached in Gita. There are probably other

philosophies which are more at the material plane or which consider the reality

of material world and a spiritual Brahman distinct from it (they might also base

their philosophy on Gita).

 

regards,

Shailendra

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Shailendra:

 

I am happy to know that you have no quarrel with Gita or Sage Vyasa!

Gandhiji had the following observation - "I used to think that there

inconsistencies in different parts of Gita; but later on, I found

thatthe inconsistences were due to my incorrect understanding of

Gita." Gandhiji's observation is quite accurate. There are no

inconsistencies in the scriptures and/or the writings of the sages

for those take time to contemplate before jumping into making

assertions and conclusions.

 

Prayer is an integral part of true Bhakti. One of the nine forms of

Bhakti is called 'Dasya'(Service with total dedication without ego).

Hanuman is the greatest example for this form of Bhakti. Ramakrishna

Paramahamsa gave a beautiful example to illustrate Hanuman's Bhakti

toward Shri Ram. The Lord once asked Hanuman, "What is your attitude

toward men? How do you look upon, think of and worship me?" Hanuman

replied, " O Rama, I am conscious of my body when I feel that I am

this visible body and then I have the conviction that thou art the

Lord and I am thy servant. Thou art to be served and I am the one to

serve. When I am conscious of my self as the individual self, one

with the mind, the intellect and the soul, I have the conviction that

thou art the whole and I am thy part. When again, I remain in

samadhi, in the mood that I am the pure Self without all qualifying

adjuncts, I have the conviction that I am also verily that which Thou

art. Thou and I are one. There is no difference whatsoever."

 

Hanumanji description of his attitude at different time explains the

different stages of spiritual development. When we are conscious of

our body and seeks the guidance of the Lord, our attitude exhibits

dwaitam. With spiritual growth, we learn to use our Vivekam and learn

to understand that we are part of the Cosmos and this attitude

exhibits Visitadwaitam. Finally, with the realization of the Self,

our attitude ultimately superimposes with the Supreme. This is

advaitam.

 

Your observation that people with different stages of spiritual

growth have different understanding of the same Gita is quite

correct. I would also add everyone of us also get a better

understanding of Gita as we spiritually mature! When we reach the

supremum level of spiritual growth like Hanumanji, our ego

completely can get dissolved and we will be observe like Hanumanji!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Shailendra Bhatnagar

<bhatnagar_shailendra> wrote:

>...... He is addressing people at different stages of spiritual

> growth and understanding and in anticipation of the possible

> questions, he talks about 3 contradictory levels. ......

>

> In my humble opinion, Advaita is the highest level of understanding

or absolute monism/absolute nonduality preached in Gita. There are

probably other philosophies which are more at the material plane or

which consider the reality of material world and a spiritual Brahman

distinct from it (they might also base their philosophy on Gita).

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste RamChandranji, I discovered Hinduisim and Gita very recently. I used to

think that Hinduism is a bunch of materialistic rituals to please Gods and

Goddesses and had no inkling about the contents of Gita. Having experienced the

benevolent influence of Gita, I was perturbed by the statements about a so

called "lower nature of Brahman". I think I have a reasonable explanation in my

mind now although it is still not clear if Maya is a power of Brahman or not.

That is probably a complex topic and I won't rake that for now.

 

best regards,

Shailendra

 

Ram Chandran <RamChandran wrote:

 

Namaste Sri Shailendra:

 

I am happy to know that you have no quarrel with Gita or Sage Vyasa!

Gandhiji had the following observation - "I used to think that there

inconsistencies in different parts of Gita; but later on, I found

thatthe inconsistences were due to my incorrect understanding of

Gita." Gandhiji's observation is quite accurate. There are no

inconsistencies in the scriptures and/or the writings of the sages

for those take time to contemplate before jumping into making

assertions and conclusions.

 

 

 

 

 

Take Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shailendraji:

 

When we know the tricks of the Magician, the magical power

disappears! Similarly, for the students who are not exposed to many

scientific principles, the experments demonstrated by the teacher

appears like a magic! From the Vedantic point of view,

our 'ignorance' is the root cause of our incorrect assertions! Maya

could be summarized as the "sum total of our ignorance" and this is a

gross simplification of the complex Maya. All our doubts, questioning

the validity of scriptures, validity of vedanta, etc., can also be

attributable due to Maya. The Upanishad provides the solution to our

problem with a powerful simple statement, "The Brahaman knows the

Brahman!" If we contemplate on this statement with a one-track mind,

we may able to see and understand the answer!!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Shailendra Bhatnagar

<bhatnagar_shailendra> wrote:

I think I have a reasonable explanation in my mind now although it

is still not clear if Maya is a power of Brahman or not. That is

probably a complex topic and I won't rake that for now.

>

> best regards,

> Shailendra

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste

>>I would also add everyone of us also get a better

understanding of Gita as we spiritually mature! When we reach the

supremum level of spiritual growth like Hanumanji, our ego

completely can get dissolved and we will be observe like Hanumanji!

<<<

 

Well said Ramchandran-Ji:

 

In advocating the principles of ananyabhakti associated with the

daasyabhaava. There is wonderful statement in "raamacaritamaanasa" -

 

Here prabhu raamacandra is says (explains) to hanumaana what make a

real bhakta, which goes beynd the conventional concept of "bhakta &

bhagavaana" as individual separate identities, although such

relation is observed and practiced by these two entities.

 

so ananya jaake asi mati na Tarai hanumanta |

mai sevaka sacaraacara ruupa svaami bhagavanta || kiShkindhaakaa.nDa

3 ||

 

Overall Meaning - my anaya bhakta is the one who worships everything

in this universe as if it were the bagavanta (GOD).

 

Here this operative principle of advaita is to be practiced after

understanding.

 

Thank you for your wonderful thoughts.

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

wrote:

>

 

 

 

One of the nine forms of

> Bhakti is called 'Dasya'(Service with total dedication without

ego).

> Hanuman is the greatest example for this form of Bhakti.

Ramakrishna

> Paramahamsa gave a beautiful example to illustrate Hanuman's

Bhakti

> toward Shri Ram. The Lord once asked Hanuman, "What is your

attitude

> toward men? How do you look upon, think of and worship me?"

Hanuman

> replied, " O Rama, I am conscious of my body when I feel that I am

> this visible body and then I have the conviction that thou art the

> Lord and I am thy servant. Thou art to be served and I am the one

to

> serve. When I am conscious of my self as the individual self, one

> with the mind, the intellect and the soul, I have the conviction

that

> thou art the whole and I am thy part. When again, I remain in

> samadhi, in the mood that I am the pure Self without all

qualifying

> adjuncts, I have the conviction that I am also verily that which

Thou

> art. Thou and I are one. There is no difference whatsoever."

>

> Hanumanji description of his attitude at different time explains

the

> different stages of spiritual development. When we are conscious

of

> our body and seeks the guidance of the Lord, our attitude exhibits

> dwaitam. With spiritual growth, we learn to use our Vivekam and

learn

> to understand that we are part of the Cosmos and this attitude

> exhibits Visitadwaitam. Finally, with the realization of the

Self,

> our attitude ultimately superimposes with the Supreme. This is

> advaitam.

>

 

> Warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

> advaitin, Shailendra Bhatnagar

> <bhatnagar_shailendra> wrote:

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

excuse me to join the conversation....

 

Maya seem to be a "mysterious power"...

 

Ram Chandran wrote:

"Maya

> could be summarized as the "sum total of our ignorance"

 

Shailendraji wrote:

"I think I have a reasonable explanation in my mind now although it

> is still not clear if Maya is a power of Brahman or not."

 

Maybe the sum total of everything is Brahman.

Maya could be described so as following:

The sum total of our non-identifaction with Brahman is Maya.

Brahman can't be "understood" as a Whole by our knowledge or

intellect...i think.

Brahman can be "experienced" by liberation or realization.

As long this didn't happen....there must be Maya having influence on

the perception of things.

 

Why Brahman don't let "disappear" Maya easily?....why Brahman include

the "power of Maya?"

Maybe nothing is ever different to Brahman.

 

the question if "Maya is a power of Brahman or not" could be compared

with the question:

It's by the power of Brahman that one feel to be hungry?

 

only few words for the discussion....

maybe we find the right "food" to get satisfaction in the concept

of "Maya".

 

don't know if this words are food for the heart....or the ego-

mind.....or Brahman....or Maya......

 

praying to Brahman....our heart....and home.....to find out

 

 

love and peace

 

Marc

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

wrote:

>

> Namaste Shailendraji:

>

> When we know the tricks of the Magician, the magical power

> disappears! Similarly, for the students who are not exposed to many

> scientific principles, the experments demonstrated by the teacher

> appears like a magic! From the Vedantic point of view,

> our 'ignorance' is the root cause of our incorrect assertions!

Maya

> could be summarized as the "sum total of our ignorance" and this is

a

> gross simplification of the complex Maya. All our doubts,

questioning

> the validity of scriptures, validity of vedanta, etc., can also be

> attributable due to Maya. The Upanishad provides the solution to

our

> problem with a powerful simple statement, "The Brahaman knows the

> Brahman!" If we contemplate on this statement with a one-track

mind,

> we may able to see and understand the answer!!

>

> Warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

> advaitin, Shailendra Bhatnagar

> <bhatnagar_shailendra> wrote:

> I think I have a reasonable explanation in my mind now although

it

> is still not clear if Maya is a power of Brahman or not. That is

> probably a complex topic and I won't rake that for now.

> >

> > best regards,

> > Shailendra

> >

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

I tend to agree with "Ram Chandran" when he says -

> From the Vedantic point of view, our 'ignorance' is the root cause

> of our incorrect assertions! Maya could be summarized as the "sum

> total of our ignorance" and this is a gross simplification of the

> complex Maya. All our doubts, questioning the validity of

> scriptures, validity of vedanta, etc., can also be attributable

> due to Maya.

 

Also, Maya alone can ensure that our struggle for the immortal bliss

of knowledge and self-realization is persistent and sincere. Maya

tests our determination towards self realization. Knowledge alone

can help us see beyond what our ignorance filled souls see now.

 

Regards,

Jayaram

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

wrote:

>

> Namaste Shailendraji:

>

> When we know the tricks of the Magician, the magical power

> disappears! Similarly, for the students who are not exposed to

many

> scientific principles, the experments demonstrated by the teacher

> appears like a magic! From the Vedantic point of view,

> our 'ignorance' is the root cause of our incorrect assertions!

Maya

> could be summarized as the "sum total of our ignorance" and this

is a

> gross simplification of the complex Maya. All our doubts,

questioning

> the validity of scriptures, validity of vedanta, etc., can also be

> attributable due to Maya. The Upanishad provides the solution to

our

> problem with a powerful simple statement, "The Brahaman knows the

> Brahman!" If we contemplate on this statement with a one-track

mind,

> we may able to see and understand the answer!!

>

> Warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

> advaitin, Shailendra Bhatnagar

> <bhatnagar_shailendra> wrote:

> I think I have a reasonable explanation in my mind now although

it

> is still not clear if Maya is a power of Brahman or not. That is

> probably a complex topic and I won't rake that for now.

> >

> > best regards,

> > Shailendra

> >

[Guest guest]

Sridhar-ji,

 

 

You say -

> One reason why I was drawn to the spiritual approach of hinduism is

> that there is no labelling of the aspirant as a confirmed sinner

with

> hellfire and damnation awaiting him from a 'god' 'out there'

> alternatively 'rewarding' and 'punishing'.

 

 

What you said above is mostly true for advaita vedAnta and some

other hindu schools, but not for hinduism in general. There is a

vivid description of various kinds of hells, punishments, and

rewards in some hindu scriptures. Even the bhagavad gIta talks of

eternal damnation in one of the verses, though I dont know what

exactly is advaita's explanation of this verse.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Narayana,

 

Hinduism does have scriptures containing descriptions of hell and

punishments. But in general, Hinduism differs from the other

religions primarily in one aspect - non-believers are not

necessarily sinners.... Also, such punishments and hell are always

explained by equations of Karma in our scriptures.

 

Hinduism appeals more as a way of life than as a religion.

Practically, one can lead a very righteous life using the Bhagavath

Gita without wearing the outlook of a Hindu in any manner. Hinduism

is very flexible and adaptable. The Manusmrithi and the bhavath gita

are about enough scriptures for someone to lead a very righteous,

civilized life.

 

Should the learned people in this forum find anything wrong, please

let me know.

 

Regards,

Jayaram

 

advaitin, "narayana_kl_71"

<narayana_kl_71> wrote:

>

> Sridhar-ji,

>

>

> You say -

>

> > One reason why I was drawn to the spiritual approach of hinduism

is

> > that there is no labelling of the aspirant as a confirmed sinner

> with

> > hellfire and damnation awaiting him from a 'god' 'out there'

> > alternatively 'rewarding' and 'punishing'.

>

>

> What you said above is mostly true for advaita vedAnta and some

> other hindu schools, but not for hinduism in general. There is a

> vivid description of various kinds of hells, punishments, and

> rewards in some hindu scriptures. Even the bhagavad gIta talks of

> eternal damnation in one of the verses, though I dont know what

> exactly is advaita's explanation of this verse.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Gayathriji.

 

Reference of your post:-

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m25096.html

>People pray to God for their selfish benefits

>and such prayers are not real worship.

>If one loves God for some need only, it is worst.

 

Shree Kathirasan-Ji pointed out a wonderful quote

from the Gita on the types of devotees and each of

whose rightful places as devotees.

 

As the learned say, if all the most sweetest things

in all the gross and subtle universes are extracted

into one small container, their sum total of sweetness

will be like a small mustard seed, compared

to the mountain of sweetness that is God.

Please refer to Narada-Sutras and of Tulasidas.

 

Thus, one cannot help praying to catch a glimpse of

it.

 

As we know, the Goddess accompanied Shree Sankara

everywhere wherever he travelled.

Did he ask her to accopnay him ? or, did She

accompany him on her own ?

As they say, when one makes one step towards God, God

in turn moves forward 10 steps; thus explaining why

she accompanied Shree Sankara. Many beautiful

compositions also resulted, is secondary.

 

Those who thus pray are like sweet ponds in

hot deserts, emanating cool breeze even to others.

 

Kind Regards,

Raghava

 

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Raghavarao Kaluri

<raghavakaluri> wrote:

> Namaste Gayathriji.

>

> Reference of your post:-

> http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m25096.html

>

> >People pray to God for their selfish benefits

> >and such prayers are not real worship.

> >If one loves God for some need only, it is worst.

>

>

> As we know, the Goddess accompanied Shree Sankara

> everywhere wherever he travelled.

> Did he ask her to accopnay him ? or, did She

> accompany him on her own ?

>>

> Kind Regards,

> Raghava

>

 

Namaste Raghava-Ji:

 

This problem arises only when we regard the GOD as being separate

for the BHAKTA.

 

The fundamental advaita principle - Shanakara and Goddess and US we

are part and parcel of the same it us our ignorance that we try to

keep separate the tow entities. By saying the SHE accompanied HIM

on her own we are identifying them as being separate.

 

In this context saint tukaraam says :

 

devaasii avataara bhaktaa.nsii sa.nsaara | dohii.ncaa vicaara

ekapaNe.n | bhaktaa.nsii sohaLe devaciyaa a.nge.n | deva

bhaktaa.nsage sukha bhogii | ekaa a.ngii.n donhii jaalii.n hii.n

nirmaaNa | devabhaktapaNa svaamiisevaa | tukaamhaNe yethe.n naahii.n

bhinnabhaava | bhakta toci deva deva bhakta || tu. gaathaa abha.nga

# 3324 ||

 

Over all meaning and take home message was that there is not

difference between bhakta and bhagavaana. That is a the concept of

ananya bhakti is so important.

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dr. Yadu Ji,

 

Raghava:-

>> As we know, the Goddess accompanied Shree Sankara

>> everywhere wherever he travelled.

>> Did he ask her to accopnay him ? or, did She

>> accompany him on her own ?

 

Dr.Yadu Ji:-

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m25124.html

>This problem arises only when we regard the GOD as

>being separate for the BHAKTA.

>The fundamental advaita principle - Shanakara and

>Goddess and US we are part and parcel of the same it

>us our ignorance that we try to keep separate the tow

>entities. By saying the SHE accompanied HIM on her

>own we are identifying them as being separate.

 

Any two are different as well as part and parcel of

the same consciousness in the lines of Tukaram's

ananya bhakti, as was pointed out by you.

 

In spite of the many, one has to see the unity.

 

Love & Regards,

Raghava

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Raghavarao Kaluri

<raghavakaluri> wrote:

>

>

> In spite of the many, one has to see the unity.

>

> Love & Regards,

> Raghava

>

 

Namaste Raghava-Ji:

 

That is precisely what I have been trying to say.

 

But, not realizing this fundamental advaitic principle of unity,

and/or not implementing it within our society we have lost a lot.

 

We rested the responsibility of our salvation on "others" rather

than controlling the bridles of responsibility in our own hands.

 

I will stop here because further discussion on this subject will be

beyond the scope of "advaitin Group".

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dr. Yadu Ji,

>>>>Raghava:-

>>>> As we know, the Goddess accompanied Shree Sankara

>>>> everywhere wherever he travelled.

>>> Dr.Yadu Ji:-

>>>http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m25124.html

>>>This problem arises only when we regard the GOD

>>>as being separate for the BHAKTA....

>>>By saying the SHE accompanied HIM on her

>>>own we are identifying them as being separate.

>>Raghava:-

>> In spite of the many, one has to see the unity.

>Dr.Yadu Ji

>That is precisely what I have been trying to say.

 

Raghava:-

Spiritual quest follows a natural evolutionary path

and each of the aspects under the 'many' have their

rightful places in the all-encompassing advaita.

 

Kabir said, "The formless Absolute is my Father, and

God with form is my Mother".

Srimad Bhagavad Geetha 12:1-5 conveys about Personal

God and Impersonal God.

 

Thus, if two people can talk in material plane (one

talking and the other listening vice-versa) while they

are one in Brahman, Goddess, the Personal, can also

physically follow Shree Sankara everywhere he went.

 

Love & Regards,

Raghava

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/