Guest guest Posted May 22, 2006 Report Share Posted May 22, 2006 When the students of Adi Sankara uttered Aham Brahma Asmi (I am Brahman), Sankara tolerated but when Sankara told Sivoham (I am Eswara), the disciples also told Sivoham. Then Sankara swallowed the molten lead and showed his controlling power. The disciples could not do so. Then Sankara told Sivah Kevaloham (Only I am the Siva). The simple argument of Advaita scholars is that the Lord wished to create this world. The life or simple awareness is essential to have a wish. Therefore, the Lord is awareness. The same awareness is in every human being. Every human being is also wishing just like the Lord created this world by His Wish, which is His imagination only. Similarly the human being is also creating its own imaginary world. But there is lot of difference between a hill present in this real world, which is the imagination of the Lord and the hill present in the imaginary world of the human being. If the same awareness is present in the Lord and the human being, both the hills should not have any difference. Since the hills are totally different, there is total difference between the awareness of the Lord and the awareness in the human being. Infact the Lord gave the faculty of imagination to the human being so that he will understand the process of imagination of the Lord in creating the world. But this foolish human being extends the concept into the model and thinks that the model itself is the concept. A model or example cannot be the original concept. Therefore you have to withdraw the attraction or the bond not only from the seven external circles, but also from yourself because you are thinking that you are the Lord and you are attracted towards yourself. Thus finally this self-bond which is also an illusion should be broken and the total attraction should be shifted towards the external super soul or the Lord. Are you greater than Hanuman in any angle? Did He not know Aham Brahmasmi? Are you greater scholar than Hanuman, who always told Daasoham, which means that He is the servant of Rama, who is the then Human Incarnation? If you put these questions to yourself, your illusion of self-bond also disappears. at the lotus feet of shri datta swami surya www.universal-spirituality.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 **************************** > Did He not know Aham Brahmasmi? Are you greater scholar than > Hanuman, who always told Daasoham, which means that He is the > servant of Rama, who is the then Human Incarnation? If you put these > questions to yourself, your illusion of self-bond also disappears. **************************** :-) Yesterday, It was Hanuman jayanti. A nice article was published in Eenadu Amtaryami column. If you go thru that article, then you will understand what actually mean " Aham brahmasmi ". Here is the link which is in telugu script. http://www.eenadu.net/antaryami/antarmain.asp?qry=2205anta Briefly about that article : When Rama asked once Hanuma that " whom you think you are ? " The Answer from Hanuma is : If you see me physically : " I am your servant. " As a living being : " I am a part of your whole. " But spiritually(with Atma buddhi) : " You and me are one "(Because of the Lord's soul is same in both) So, if we exclude the physical differences what finally remains is the SOUL, which is an Amsa of Paramatma. With Regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 advaitin, "hindugroups" <hindugroups> wrote: > > > :-) Yesterday, It was Hanuman jayanti. Will you please explain which calendar you are following?!!! Hanuman Jayanti was on Chaitra Pournima, Apr. 12th, 2006. [Ram Navami was on Apr. 6th]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 "hindugroups" <hindugroups> wrote: > Briefly about that article : > > When Rama asked once Hanuma that " whom you think you are ? " > The Answer from Hanuma is : > If you see me physically : " I am your servant. " As a living being : " I am a part of your whole. " > But spiritually(with Atma buddhi) : " You and me are one "(Because > of the Lord's soul is same in both) So, if we exclude the physical differences what finally remains is the SOUL, which is an Amsa of Paramatma. > With Regards. Sankara lived in the world and did lot of work. He never sat idle thinking Aham Brahmasmi like the present Advaita Philosophers. Patanjali wrote Yoga Sutras and fixed Eeswara as the final goal. We remember Sankara today as the divine hero but not the other Advaita philosophers. Sankara sacrificed His mother and earning of money for the sake of the mission of the Lord. But the Advaita Philosophers sit in their houses and roll with their family bonds and simply say Aham Brahmasmi. One should become a divine hero like Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Swami Vivekananda etc.; they were dynamic doing the Karma Yoga, which was without any selfishness. Their Karma Yoga was the propagation of the divine knowledge, which is Jnana Yoga but today the Advaita Philosopher is doing Karma Yoga with selfishness for his family bonds only. What is the use of their Jnana Yoga? The Universe indicates the existence of God but neither gives the information of God nor the experience of God. After realising the existence of God, you can experience God through some item of the creation into which God entered. The best item of the Universe is the human being through which you can experience God and also clarify your doubts with God directly. If God exist in every human being, every human being should clarify your doubts. Infact since you are also one of the human beings and since God is in yourself also, you should clarify your own doubts, which means that you should not get any doubt and therefore no human being should have any doubt. Therefore, God enters into a specific human being only like Krishna or Jesus etc., who can alone clarify all your doubts and through whom alone you can experience God. If God exists in space, this means God is existing in this Universe. If God is present in the Universe, the Universe cannot be a separate object of entertainment to God. Veda says that this Universe is created for His entertainment (Ekaki Na …..). If you are present in the cinema and become the cinema by pervading all over the cinema, the cinema is not a separate object for you and therefore cannot give entertainment to you. If you are the spectator of the cinema, you should be separate from the cinema. You are the separate subject and the cinema is separate object. If the subject and object are one and the same, there is no existence of object at all. It means God did not create this universe. If the creation is absent, there is no entertainment to God. This leads to the inability of God to create a separate object for His entertainment. Such inability makes God impotent and then God cannot be omnipotent. Therefore, the separate existence of the Universe in which God is not present, must be accepted to avoid all these contradictions. at the lotus feet of shri datta swami surya www.universal-spirituality.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 namaskaram to shri Suryaji and all ar Suryaji seems to be too unhappy to read the postings at this site.. but then he is such a nice man that he has positively done some punya and he is doing punya and that is the reason he is reading the postings here and commenting on them. very nice and thanks for that. now he has made many statments....normal course one will ignore them as they look more emotional than objective to my limited knowledge. pardon me for my (mis) understanding. I have no idea how many people shri Surya ji has seen, communicated, observed in life so far. it will be interesting if one spare a few minutes and check on this and the results will be most shocking... with hardly meeting a few, reading so many articles or seeing somethings on TV etc, or even coming across a few , we jump into conclusion.. seemingly that seems to be the reason for shri suryaji's comments. When the Advitins say "Shankara" no one for sure knows which "Shankara" they refer to since from that time every one in that position was addressed as " Shankara". However the important point to be noted is more than the name "Shankara" it is the knowledge that he has tried to impart to us that is more important and we are all trying to understand that and there is every possibility that we may misunderstand that too. that is why it is said that we need GURU to guide us and even if it is Shri Suryaji, it does not matter, Suryaji too could be a GURU as long as he is able to guide us giving logical reasonings to his interprettations. But it seems Suryaji has preferred to emotionally state somethings which atleast i am not able to understand clearly. It is a matter to be noticed that none of the great yogis has ever said that they are divine or anything like that, it is the people who followed them said that and so one never know some one who follow shri Suryaji some day may say the same thing about him...but we being students ...primary or kg students ( even that is not known to us now) we could be pardoned if we write something which does not sound right, but kindly do explain why one feel that it is not in tune with VEDANTA etc.. It takes time for us students to differentiate and understand what is KARMA and what is KARMA YOGA. It would have been nice if only shri Suryaji had taken a little extra time to elucidate this so that it would have possibly helped us in bettering our understanding. Shri Suryaji also says something about jnana yoga...sorry could not understant anything...wish if he can kindly write more on that subject. finally, he writes about the God, cinema etc...and separation of God from man or universe etc. about subject object etc.....There will not be any one in here who would stand against shri Suryaji if he wish to believe in what he states...he has absolute freedom to think whatever he wish to think, do whatever he wish to do etc...that is the beauty of HINDUISM... simply because, every action performed is a conscious decision by the person who decides to perform it. What is being pursued in here is a process of trying to understand "I" and that sure needs some study....some uncovering of knowledge. quoting one sentence from any of the scritptures without studying that whole will misguide and that is why it is said that GURU helps - guides- and same goes with SATSANG...and this site is a place of SATSANG.. finally, it is nice to have people like Suryaji around as sure that will light up our discussions more namskaram surya <dattapr2000 > wrote: Sankara lived in the world and did lot of work. He never sat idle thinking Aham [1] Brahmasmi like the present Advaita Philosophers. Patanjali wrote Yoga Sutras and fixed Eeswara as the final goal {2} We remember Sankara today as the divine hero but not the other Advaita philosophers. Sankara sacrificed His mother and earning of money for the sake of the mission of the Lord. [3} But the Advaita Philosophers sit in their houses and roll with their family bonds and simply say Aham Brahmasmi. [4] One should become a divine hero like Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, Swami Vivekananda etc.; they were dynamic doing [5]. Their Karma Yoga was the propagation of the divine knowledge, which is Jnana Yoga but today the Advaita Philosopher is doing Karma Yoga with selfishness for his family bonds only. What is the use of their Jnana Yoga? The Universe indicates the existence of God but neither gives the information of God nor the experience of God. After realising the existence of God, you can experience God through some item of the creation into which God entered. The best item of the Universe is the human being through which you can experience God and also clarify your doubts with God directly. If God exist in every human being, every human being should clarify your doubts. Infact since you are also one of the human beings and since God is in yourself also, you should clarify your own doubts, which means that you should not get any doubt and therefore no human being should have any doubt. Therefore, God enters into a specific human being only like Krishna or Jesus etc., who can alone clarify all your doubts and through whom alone you can experience God. If God exists in space, this means God is existing in this Universe. If God is present in the Universe, the Universe cannot be a separate object of entertainment to God. Veda says that this Universe is created for His entertainment (Ekaki Na …..). If you are present in the cinema and become the cinema by pervading all over the cinema, the cinema is not a separate object for you and therefore cannot give entertainment to you. If you are the spectator of the cinema, you should be separate from the cinema. You are the separate subject and the cinema is separate object. If the subject and object are one and the same, there is no existence of object at all. It means God did not create this universe. If the creation is absent, there is no entertainment to God. This leads to the inability of God to create a separate object for His entertainment. Such inability makes God impotent and then God cannot be omnipotent. Therefore, the separate existence of the Universe in which God is not present, must be accepted to avoid all these contradictions. at the lotus feet of shri datta swami surya www.universal-spirituality.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 --- surya <dattapr2000 > wrote: > > Sankara lived in the world and did lot of work. He never sat idle > thinking Aham Brahmasmi like the present Advaita Philosophers. Sir - I have read couple of your mails - I do not know how many advaita philosophers you know to claim that they just sit idle, thinking ‘aham brahmaasmi’. Who are the present advaita philosophers, whom you claim that they do nothing other than sit idle thinking Aham Brahmaasmi?. > Patanjali wrote Yoga Sutras and fixed Eeswara as the final goal. We > remember Sankara today as the divine hero but not the other Advaita > philosophers. On what basis you make that statement, sir. Patanjali yoga suutra does not lead to advaitic knowledge. Please study the scripture properly. There are great advaitic masters in every generation that contributed more than the others that complain or complaining. >Sankara sacrificed His mother and earning of money for > the sake of the mission of the Lord. Shankara took up sanyaasa - and you claim that he earned money for the sake of the mission of the Lord! Where did you get this information? >But the Advaita Philosophers > sit in their houses and roll with their family bonds and simply say > Aham Brahmasmi. Please provide some evidence of whom you call advaita philosophers who roll their family bond and sit idle? In contrast, who are the others, who do differently to be glorified by you? One should become a divine hero like Shankara, > Ramanuja, Madhva, Swami Vivekananda etc.; they were dynamic doing > the Karma Yoga, which was without any selfishness. And how do you think one can become divine hero like Shankara etc. Therefore, you think one who does karma yoga is not sitting idly and doing something concrete. Sir what you think constitute karma yoga - which the idle advaita followers are not doing? Does great masters in the last century – Bhagavaan Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta maharaj, Swami Chinmayanandaji, come under idle advaita philosophers for you? >Their Karma Yoga > was the propagation of the divine knowledge, which is JnAna Yoga but > today the Advaita Philosopher is doing Karma Yoga with selfishness > for his family bonds only. What is the use of their Jnana Yoga? What are you doing instead of preaching this new philosophy - instead of criticizing some imaginary advaita philosophers? Please stop accusing others and tell us what is karma yoga in your opinion in contrast to teachings of some advaita philosophers that you are accusing. > The Universe indicates the existence of God but neither gives the > information of God nor the experience of God. And who says that? Is God different from Universe? Where did get this philosophy from? After realising the > existence of God, you can experience God through some item of the > creation into which God entered. Why should god enter into some item? How do you realize God who is not there in the universe? Vishnu sahasra naama starts with vishvam - the universe itself is Lord Narayana. He entered into the whole universe not selecting some item. There is no item that he is not present to point out some items only where he is present- antar bahischa tat sarvam vyaapta narayanaH sthitaH| He is inside and outside everywhere. Every item in the creation is He only including the advaita philosophers whom you criticize. There is no dvaita anywhere. If they claim that they are aham brahmaasmi they seem to know the truth more than what is said in your writings. >The best item of the Universe is > the human being through which you can experience God and also > clarify your doubts with God directly. Except in the advaita philosophers who sit according to you idly- right? Since God is in them, they should be able to clarify your statements directly, if you approach them with proper attitude. >If God exist in every human > being, every human being should clarify your doubts. Sir study the Vedanta philosophy properly before you misinterpret. God exits in every being. The Jesus you mentioned declared that Kingdom of God is in you. One has to recognize that – and that is all the sadhana for. The one who claim ‘aham brahmaasmi’ are able to identify that source of life from which everything springs forth. God exists in every being as the very life force that enlivens the matter. If your statement is true, there is no need to clarify any doubts either since God already exists. Who is that you that has doubts - different from God or same as god? Are there two things or one thing - you and the God or God alone? If you are different from God then how are going to ask the God in you about your doubts. How are going to listen and follow? If you are god then who is the guy that has doubts for him to get clarified. If God himself has doubts, who can clarify for Him? Please understand when one says you are god from what outlook one is saying. If one recognizes that one is god – where are the doubts. All the doubts cease at that knowledge. Please think what you wright. You have criticized advaita philosophers and glorified Shankara and but not studied what Shankara taught - did you? Is your glorification of Shankara is purely for your political purposes here so that you can propagate some philosophy, which is meaningless? >Infact since > you are also one of the human beings and since God is in yourself > also, you should clarify your own doubts, which means that you > should not get any doubt and therefore no human being should have > any doubt. How did this conclusion from 'infact ...'follows. Please tell us what God really means. A guy sitting in the heavens and enter into some things when and where he wants? If he is omnipresent how can he sit somewhere and not present everywhere? Then who is the subject and who is the object here? Advaita philosophers do not teach nonsense, and it is not illogical like your statements here. >Therefore, God enters into a specific human being only > like Krishna or Jesus etc., who can alone clarify all your doubts > and through whom alone you can experience God. If God is everywhere, where can he enter and exit? In addition, do advaita philosophers teach something different from what Krishna taught? > > If God exists in space, this means God is existing in this Universe. > If God is present in the Universe, the Universe cannot be a separate > object of entertainment to God. Veda says that this Universe is > created for His entertainment (Ekaki Na …..). Why does God need entertainment? - Does he get bored otherwise? Is He a sadistic person who creates for his entertainment while all the jiivas are suffering? What kind of entertainment is that? In addition, you want us to pray Him. Vedanta does not teach that kind of philosophy- neither advaita philosophers sitting idly teach that kind of non-sense. >If you are present in > the cinema and become the cinema by pervading all over the cinema, > the cinema is not a separate object for you and therefore cannot > give entertainment to you. Who is having this cinema show and who are the actors playing the roles for you to watch this cinema? If you are the spectator of the cinema, > you should be separate from the cinema. You are the separate subject > and the cinema is separate object. If the subject and object are one > and the same, there is no existence of object at all. In addition, where do you see the subject and object - out there on the screen or in there in your mind? Where does the subject - object distinction arise - on the screen or in your mind. Is not one mind splitting into the subject I and the object, seen? How can mind see something without the enlivening factor what Vedanta calls God? Advaita is not nonsense - it is the truth of all experiences where the subject-objects distinctions arise, sustain and go back into. Please understand correctly before you criticize. It means God > did not create this universe. If the creation is absent, there is no > entertainment to God. This leads to the inability of God to create a > separate object for His entertainment. Why should god create separate object for his entertainment? Why should god need entertainment at all? >Such inability makes God > impotent and then God cannot be omnipotent. The God that requires entertainment for his happiness is also not omniscient and omnipotent and omnipresent god either since in objects he is creating he is not there - it makes him impotent too for not able to be present in everything and everywhere. > Therefore, the separate > existence of the Universe in which God is not present, must be > accepted to avoid all these contradictions. No, to avoid all these confusions and contradictions one should approach a proper advaita teacher, who are sitting idly according to you, and request them to teach you at least some basic Vedanta in terms what really God means before they go back to their contemplation of aham brahmaasmi. > > at the lotus feet of shri datta swami I am not sure how is this datta swami - and I have no interest to know him either since I find many active not idly sitting advaita masters who can explain the Vedanta properly. I may not respond to your reply since I would prefer to sit idly and contemplate on aham brahmaamsi. I just want to make sure that we do not take blank statments on adviata in advaitin list. Please study the adviata propely before you start criticizing the philosophy. I have no disrespect for your teacher. Every student deserves what they get. - I am only objecting to your statements without proper understanding. Hari OM! Sadananda > surya > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 ************************* > Will you please explain which calendar you are following?!!! > > Hanuman Jayanti was on Chaitra Pournima, Apr. 12th, 2006. [Ram Navami > was on Apr. 6th]. ******************************* How could the people in Bhadrachala Rama Temple celebrated it on 21st May 2006 ? Don't the Staff and Priests know, it is on Chaitra Pounima ? http://www.eenadu.net/story.asp?qry1=13&reccount=22 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 my replies are given in Blue colour. kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada > wrote: Shankara took up sanyaasa - and you claim that he earned money for the sake of the mission of the Lord! Where did you get this information? you misunderstood the statement written in English. Sankara sacrificed both His mother and also earning of money.I did not say that He earned money. what you think constitute karma yoga - which the idle advaita followers are not doing? Does great masters in the last century – Bhagavaan Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta maharaj, Swami Chinmayanandaji, come under idle advaita philosophers for you? From your above statements and when you say that everybody is Lord, you are equalising every common man with Rama Maharshi. Will that carry any meaning? If everybody is Lord Krishna, why Lord Krishna only preached Gita? why not Duryodhana? If everybody is Lord, why people worship only Lord Krishna, why not Duryodhana? To understand this basic point, even scriptures are also not required. We can simply understand from the tradition being followed. Lord Krishna clearly stated that the soul is a part of creation and it is the modification of His Paraprakruti or Parasakti or Maya.. His Maya is modified as this creation and maintains the creation (Yayedam Dharyate—Gita). Thus He is not the soul, which is a part of the creation.. In the second chapter He said that the soul is permanent with reference to the gross body. By this statement people have misunderstood that the soul is eternal and so it is Parabrahman. People have slipped here in not noting the permanency of soul with respect temporary gross body (Hanyamane Sarire—Gita). Lord Krishna created the souls again when the Prajapati (A representative of Brahma) stole His friends along with the cows. If the soul is eternal, its duplicate cannot be created with the same characteristics. If the soul comes under the category of Prakruti, the Lord is denoted by the word Purusha (Prakritim Purusham—Gita). If you call the soul as Purusha the Lord is denoted by the word Purushottama (Yasmat Ksharat—Gita). The Maya is the direct cause of the creation but Parabrahman being the cause of Maya is the indirect cause of creation. Thus both the statements are given in Gita. Parabrahman says that He is maintaining the creation (Mayi Sarvamidam—Gita). It is also said that the Maya maintains the creation (Dharyate Jagat—Gita). Parabrahman maintains Maya and the Maya maintains the creation. The mind is based on the dreamer and the dream is based on mind. Thus the ultimate substratum is Parabrahman or Lord only. If everybody is God, what is the meaning of spiritual effort? God needs Spiritual Effort to reach God? God created the universe consisting of animate and inanimate objects. He preaches divine knowledge and does miracles also, if required. If anybody claims to be Lord or God, he should be able to do all these things. Greatest devotees never claimed themselves as Lord, they always love to serve the Lord in human form. Satguru (lord in human form) has to be identified by His divine knowledge and serve that Satguru only not any guru. Satguru only can clear all doubts of all disciples. Gurus are devotees having some divine knowledge. So they may sometimes clarify some doubts. Their knowledge is limited only. Only Satguru (lord in human form) will only have the infinite knowledge and clarifies all the doubts of all disciples. Like the studies in our materialistic life, one has to pass through elementary, higher, college and should finally enter university. After studies in University one will join job to serve the country. Like wise, one should serve Lord in human form. In spiritual effort three important things are there. 1) knowing about self 2) Knowing the destination 3) the path to reach the destination. Regarding knowing about self, it is sufficient if you know that you are not the destination. Regarding knowing the destination, you should identify the Lord in human form and He is our destination. the identification is by His true infinite spiritual knowledge. Path is the most essential part of spiritual journey. The path leading to Lord is full of sacrifice only, which is only the real indication of our true love towards Him. That is why Jesus told the path leading to kingdom of Lord is very narrow filled with thorns. Because practical sacrifice nobody enjoys. Sacrificing words, mind and intelligence can be done without botheration as Lord has already given them freely. antar bahischa tat sarvam vyaapta narayanaH sthitaH| He is inside and outside everywhere. This statement refers to the case of human incarnation like Lord Krishna in whom Lord occupies inside and outside i.e, everywhere in all the three bodies (causal body, subtle body and gross body). Your wrong interpretation says Lord occupied even Duryodhana also and did the bad deeds. Is your glorification of Shankara is purely for your political purposes here so that you can propagate some philosophy, which is meaningless? the people (other than human incarnation) who are in the illusion that 'all are Lord' are the Advaita Philosophers. If you say that Lord is within you and by this, if you conclude that you are the Lord, then there is no requirement of any spiritual effort to please the Lord separately. You eat and do whatever pleases you and say that Lord is pleased with you. Now if any trouble comes, we should not ask any help from any external Lord and enjoy the trouble saying that Lord is enjoying the trouble. But invariably we pray to the external Lord. Infact, if your logic is true, why so many people are worshipping Jesus, Krishna as Lord external to them? Are they fools? Actually Lord comes in human form in every generation. We do not accept Him because of our jealousy and egoism. When we worship such lord in human form only, it is true worship. If you offer food, idol is not eating and finally you are only eating the entire food. But if you offer it to Lord in human form, He will eat it. So our real colour comes out. Divine knowledge itself means the knowledge required to identify the Lord in human form, then attain Him by your devotion and then please Him with your service (karma yoga). Service or karma yoga consists of sacrifice of money and physical service. Why does God need entertainment? - Does he get bored otherwise? Is He a sadistic person who creates for his entertainment while all the jiivas are suffering? What kind of entertainment is that? Infact the Lord is satisfied by Himself as said in the Brahma Sutra (Lokavattu Leela Kaivalyam). The Lord gets satisfaction when His devotee gets satisfied. The essential aim of this creation for the God is only the sweetness of love. The Lord enjoys the sweetness in the love of His devotees to Him. The Devotees enjoy the same sweetness of love of God to them. Therefore, the devotees who are satisfied with such sweet love will not put this question. Only the devotees who could not get such love which flows to both sides are subjected to this question. Such devotees love these unreal bonds in this world. They do not get satisfaction because when such love is analyzed, the inner selfishness comes out. When the essence of such love is realized, this question comes to the mind and the creation looks waste. They have seen only the false love of the world but have not seen the true love of God. If they enter the spiritual line and experience the true love of the Lord, they will certainly find the necessity of this wonderful creation. Without this creation the existence of such divine love is not possible. Therefore, on realizing the false love in this world one has to turn towards God to experience the real love. When they experience the divine love they will appreciate the Creator, the Creation and the aim of the Creation. Thus the game, which is the aim of the Creation, is not just for the selfish satisfaction of the Lord. In fact the divine love is more enjoyed by the soul than the Lord. The reason is that the Lord Himself is an infinite ocean of bliss and does not require any more enjoyment. It is actually the soul, which is an infinite ocean of worry and misery enjoys the divine love, which contains bliss. Sri Rama Krishna Paramahamsa told that He likes to be the ant to enjoy the sugar than to be the sugar itself. The ant, which is not sugar, enjoys more the sugar.. The sugar being itself the sugar cannot enjoy the sweetness. at the lotus feet of shri datta swami surya www.universal-spirituality.org Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Messenger with Voice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 ******************** > Will you please explain which calendar you are following?!!! > > Hanuman Jayanti was on Chaitra Pournima, Apr. 12th, 2006. [Ram Navami > was on Apr. 6th]. ****************************** Hanuman Jayanti is On Vaisakha Dasami which is on 21 night to 22nd May 2006. http://www.eenadu.net/archives/archive-22-5- 2006/antaryami/antarmain.asp?qry=2105anta Regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2006 Report Share Posted May 23, 2006 > It is a matter to be noticed that none of the great yogis has ever >said that they are divine or anything like that, it is the people who >followed them said that ........ Mohanji, this is not exactly correct. It depends on whom you are referring to by these "great yogis". The shirdi and satya sai babas have claimed that they are divine. They are considered great by many people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 namaskaram may be i am wrong and if i am wrong, pardon me for my ignorance. but atleast i have not come across any discourse or speech delivered by Satya Sai where in SHRI SATYA SAI BABA claims that he is devine. many people have experienced his special powers and so it is those people who said about his divinity. this is what u are also stating in the last sentence of your note." they are considered great by many people" i am sure every one will agree with this statement pranam narayana_kl_71 <narayana_kl_71 > wrote: > It is a matter to be noticed that none of the great yogis has ever >said that they are divine or anything like that, it is the people who >followed them said that ........ Mohanji, this is not exactly correct. It depends on whom you are referring to by these "great yogis". The shirdi and satya sai babas have claimed that they are divine. They are considered great by many people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 prakki surya <dattapr2000 > wrote: my replies are given in Blue colour. [1] you misunderstood the statement written in English. Sankara sacrificed both His mother and also earning of money.I did not say that He earned money. [1] sorry that we misunderstood the language....may be our mistake.. [2]what you think constitute karma yoga - which the idle advaita followers are not doing? Does great masters in the last century – Bhagavaan Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta maharaj, Swami Chinmayanandaji, come under idle advaita philosophers for you? [2] afraid there is no reply fr this... [3] From your above statements and when you say that everybody is Lord, you are equalising every common man with Rama Maharshi. Will that carry any meaning? {3} Ramana Maharshi also born as a common man reached the hights and was imparting the same knowledge.. [4] If everybody is Lord Krishna, why Lord Krishna only preached Gita? why not Duryodhana? If everybody is Lord, why people worship only Lord Krishna, why not Duryodhana? To understand this basic point, even scriptures are also not required. We can simply understand from the tradition being followed. {4} " to understand this basic point, even the scriptures are also not required....we can simply understand from the tradition being followed..." and then what u do is to write with quotations from GITA... is GITA part of scripture? Lord Krishna clearly stated that the soul is a part of creation and it is the modification of His Paraprakruti or Parasakti or Maya.. His Maya is modified as this creation and maintains the creation (Yayedam Dharyate—Gita). Thus He is not the soul, which is a part of the creation.. In the second chapter He said that the soul is permanent with reference to the gross body. By this statement people have misunderstood that the soul is eternal and so it is Parabrahman. People have slipped here in not noting the permanency of soul with respect temporary gross body (Hanyamane Sarire—Gita). Lord Krishna created the souls again when the Prajapati (A representative of Brahma) stole His friends along with the cows. If the soul is eternal, its duplicate cannot be created with the same characteristics. If the soul comes under the category of Prakruti, the Lord is denoted by the word Purusha (Prakritim Purusham—Gita). If you call the soul as Purusha the Lord is denoted by the word Purushottama (Yasmat Ksharat—Gita). The Maya is the direct cause of the creation but Parabrahman being the cause of Maya is the indirect cause of creation. Thus both the statements are given in Gita. Parabrahman says that He is maintaining the creation (Mayi Sarvamidam—Gita). It is also said that the Maya maintains the creation (Dharyate Jagat—Gita). Parabrahman maintains Maya and the Maya maintains the creation. The mind is based on the dreamer and the dream is based on mind. Thus the ultimate substratum is Parabrahman or Lord only. If everybody is God, what is the meaning of spiritual effort? God needs Spiritual Effort to reach God? God created the universe consisting of animate and inanimate objects. He preaches divine knowledge and does miracles also, if required. If anybody claims to be Lord or God, he should be able to do all these things. Greatest devotees never claimed themselves as Lord, they always love to serve the Lord in human form. Satguru (lord in human form) has to be identified by His divine knowledge and serve that Satguru only not any guru. Satguru only can clear all doubts of all disciples. Gurus are devotees having some divine knowledge. So they may sometimes clarify some doubts. Their knowledge is limited only. Only Satguru (lord in human form) will only have the infinite knowledge and clarifies all the doubts of all disciples. Like the studies in our materialistic life, one has to pass through elementary, higher, college and should finally enter university. After studies in University one will join job to serve the country. Like wise, one should serve Lord in human form. [5] In spiritual effort three important things are there. 1) knowing about self 2) Knowing the destination 3) the path to reach the destination. Regarding knowing about self, it is sufficient if you know that you are not the destination. Regarding knowing the destination, you should identify the Lord in human form and He is our destination. the identification is by His true infinite spiritual knowledge. {5} you yourself say that three important things..self, destination and path....then u say to know the self it is sufficient to know that u are not destination....this sounds very odd... to know something, one need to know that...to know an apple, will knowing that apple is not mango is good enough? afraid there is too much confusion. once a person takes upon the study in a systematic way, step by step, then one is able to understand what it is all about and once one gets to the ultimate knowledge about "I" then there will not be the "I" to talk about... we are all students, learning from GURU, satsang, friends like Suryaji included.. [6] Path is the most essential part of spiritual journey. The path leading to Lord is full of sacrifice only, which is only the real indication of our true love towards Him. {6} do we know the path? what is sacrifice? what is indication of true love towards HIM ? can we have more specific information so that we can understand what it is? [7] That is why Jesus told the path leading to kingdom of Lord is very narrow filled with thorns. {7}here by " narrow" and "thorns"...interpretations are given as they do not mean the literal meaning...now these interpretations can be explained by different people in different ways.. would u like to interpret this in more clear terms? [8] Because practical sacrifice nobody enjoys. {8} if we look at this statment, it is more of a projection or judgement about "nobody" which normally means others...( sometimes including me).. the point however is trying to understand "I" help us in overcoming all these IGNORANCE COVERED situation...revealing , lighting up the true " I " [9] Sacrificing words, mind and intelligence can be done without botheration as Lord has already given them freely. {9} initially we consider that LORD has given us everything...this life, this beautiful earth, people around us, nature around us, sentient and insentient things...everything... But the ignorant "I" which is EGO has so many complexes that "I" like your hight, but not your looks, like your colour but not the way you walk etc... GITA is there for every one to study, understand, assimilate etc...but though BHAGAVAN gave the GITOPADESAM - even though it is available for all of us, we do not understand that or we separate it out as "spirituality" and do not see if it could be applied in our this life.. [10] lord is thereinside,outside,every where in all the three bodies (causal body, subtle body and gross body). Your wrong interpretation says Lord occupied even Duryodhana also and did the bad deeds. {10} hope you have come across the term " free will" what differentiates human being from other living creatures.. ification of Shankara is purely for your political purposes here so that you can propagate some philosophy, which is meaningless? {11} indeed shri Suryaji thinks that we are propagaing some philosophy..why shoud we propagate any philosophy? no one is forcing any one to be in here...any one who is here because he or she has consciously chosen to visit this site..that includes shri SURYAji also. like it was stated earlier, Shankara was a GURU who brought to the notice of the people at that time the meaning of scriptues and many understood that and decided to take him as GURU after they understood his reasonings, and dicided to pursue with the study. and every one of them was called Shankara as no one for sure knows the correctness of the history. BUT MORE IMPORTANT IS - IT IS NOT THE NAME - IT WHAT IS SAID, WHAT IS EXPLAINED - that we are trying to understand..learn. there are too many blind men around and they all explain the elephant... SATSANG, DISCUSSION GROUPS help in listening to various views , and using ones own intellect, means of knowledge that he has etc one is able to get a better understanding of it....it could still be wrong, but it could be more accurate that what otherwise one would have understood and since this is a process of learning, one does not loose anything, but gains a lot.. remaining points we shall discuss later as it has gone too long now itself to end, a SATSANGI, does not think any one is a fool. there is lot to learn ...there is KARMA, there is KARMA PHALA, there is BIRTH AND REBIRTH....there is PRALAYA.. there is a lot to learn and the process of study continues...in this birth and in the next birth - as and when it takesplace.. the bebatable points though- stated in ADVAITA sounds more reasonable and meaningful ...for those who understand that...or who want to understand that... we have all the freedom to fo consciously decide what we wish to do.... so ENJOY namaskaram he people (other than human incarnation) who are in the illusion that 'all are Lord' are the Advaita Philosophers. If you say that Lord is within you and by this, if you conclude that you are the Lord, then there is no requirement of any spiritual effort to please the Lord separately. You eat and do whatever pleases you and say that Lord is pleased with you. Now if any trouble comes, we should not ask any help from any external Lord and enjoy the trouble saying that Lord is enjoying the trouble. But invariably we pray to the external Lord. Infact, if your logic is true, why so many people are worshipping Jesus, Krishna as Lord external to them? Are they fools? Actually Lord comes in human form in every generation. We do not accept Him because of our jealousy and egoism. When we worship such lord in human form only, it is true worship. If you offer food, idol is not eating and finally you are only eating the entire food. But if you offer it to Lord in human form, He will eat it. So our real colour comes out. Divine knowledge itself means the knowledge required to identify the Lord in human form, then attain Him by your devotion and then please Him with your service (karma yoga). Service or karma yoga consists of sacrifice of money and physical service. Why does God need entertainment? - Does he get bored otherwise? Is He a sadistic person who creates for his entertainment while all the jiivas are suffering? What kind of entertainment is that? Infact the Lord is satisfied by Himself as said in the Brahma Sutra (Lokavattu Leela Kaivalyam). The Lord gets satisfaction when His devotee gets satisfied. The essential aim of this creation for the God is only the sweetness of love. The Lord enjoys the sweetness in the love of His devotees to Him. The Devotees enjoy the same sweetness of love of God to them. Therefore, the devotees who are satisfied with such sweet love will not put this question. Only the devotees who could not get such love which flows to both sides are subjected to this question. Such devotees love these unreal bonds in this world. They do not get satisfaction because when such love is analyzed, the inner selfishness comes out. When the essence of such love is realized, this question comes to the mind and the creation looks waste. They have seen only the false love of the world but have not seen the true love of God. If they enter the spiritual line and experience the true love of the Lord, they will certainly find the necessity of this wonderful creation. Without this creation the existence of such divine love is not possible. Therefore, on realizing the false love in this world one has to turn towards God to experience the real love. When they experience the divine love they will appreciate the Creator, the Creation and the aim of the Creation. Thus the game, which is the aim of the Creation, is not just for the selfish satisfaction of the Lord. In fact the divine love is more enjoyed by the soul than the Lord. The reason is that the Lord Himself is an infinite ocean of bliss and does not require any more enjoyment. It is actually the soul, which is an infinite ocean of worry and misery enjoys the divine love, which contains bliss. Sri Rama Krishna Paramahamsa told that He likes to be the ant to enjoy the sugar than to be the sugar itself. The ant, which is not sugar, enjoys more the sugar.. The sugar being itself the sugar cannot enjoy the sweetness. at the lotus feet of shri datta swami surya www.universal-spirituality.org Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Messenger with Voice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 > may be i am wrong and if i am wrong, pardon me for my ignorance. >but atleast i have not come across any discourse or speech delivered by >Satya Sai where in SHRI SATYA SAI BABA claims that he is devine. (Being wrong is not a crime. Most of us are wrong at some point of time). Regarding the claims of satya sai baba, please see the article - (The neutrality of the article is disputed, but the claims of omnipotence... have specific references) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 namaskaram with due respct i still feel it is his followers who are writing about the claims. i am yet to read any of his speeches where in he has stated such things.. by the way, does this warrant a discussion - seriously- if one claims or not? what is more important? what they say about what is affecting " I " or what they claim ? in my humble view, we are to read, listen, consider, ignore etc...after our study of what ever we come across. namaskaram narayana_kl_71 <narayana_kl_71 > wrote: > may be i am wrong and if i am wrong, pardon me for my ignorance. >but atleast i have not come across any discourse or speech delivered by >Satya Sai where in SHRI SATYA SAI BABA claims that he is devine. (Being wrong is not a crime. Most of us are wrong at some point of time). Regarding the claims of satya sai baba, please see the article - (The neutrality of the article is disputed, but the claims of omnipotence... have specific references) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 narayana_kl_71 <narayana_kl_71 > wrote: > may be i am wrong and if i am wrong, pardon me for my ignorance. >but atleast i have not come across any discourse or speech delivered by >Satya Sai where in SHRI SATYA SAI BABA claims that he is devine. Dear Sir, Without offence to any guru, speaking the facts objectively, I may state that Baba's talks and discourses are full of claim about his divinity, and not only that his divinity being superior to all the other previous manifestations. You will all be surprised and pained to note that in a very early book of Saibaba, he made a statement to the following effect at the time Bhaghavan attained siddhi: "At last Ramana has attained my holy feet." Since I am at Chennai, I do not have access to the particular book, which is available in Ramanashram library. Saibaba also claims that he is lokanath as against Aurobindo who is only vyaktinath. These statements are not made to belittle him. But they are hard truths. None of the followers of saibaba accept the greatness of Bhaghavan because he did not make any miracle. yours truthfully, Sankarraman Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 Namaste Sri Sankarraman: Subjectively speaking, we are all Divine! The only thing that we need to do is to invoke the Divine within and recognize our True Divine Nature. Symbolically our religion does this invocation of Divine in all rituals so that we can recognize our True Divine Nature. We can never be 'Divine' by just saying "I am Divine," but our way life should reflect our Divine Nature. There is a beautiful episode in Tulasi Das's Ramayan when Sri Ram visits Sage Vishwamithra's Ashram to safeguard the yajnas conducted by the Rishis. At that time, every Rishi from the Ashram expressed that Sri Ram should reside with them. Tulasi Das describes where Sri Ram will reside beautifully in Ramayana. Essentially, Tulasidas tells the Rishis Sri Ram's residence is always in the hearts of those who possess Divine Virtues! The message is quite subtle but Tulasidas most effectively communicates why we need to purify our heart before we can invoke the Divine within. When impurities such as Kama, Krodha and Lopa takes residence in our heart, there is no space left for the Divine. In order for us to invite Sri Ram to stay in our heart, we do need to vacate all the impurites! Sri Hanumanji who vactated all impurites was able to keep Sri Ram always in His Heart and Sri Ram never wants to leave from Hanumanji. Whether Divinity is ever present in a Mahatma can be easily verified by looking into how the Mahatma's presence serves the humanity. Since there is only one Divinity and the question of comparison between Divinities can never provide any objective answer. Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran> wrote: > > Dear Sir, > Without offence to any guru, speaking the facts objectively, I may state that Baba's talks and discourses are full of claim about his divinity, and not only that his divinity being superior to all the other previous manifestations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 Ram Chandran <ramvchandran > wrote: Namaste Sri Sankarraman: Subjectively speaking, we are all Divine! The only thing that we need to do is to invoke the Divine within and recognize our True Divine Nature. Symbolically our religion does this invocation of Divine in all rituals so that we can recognize our True Divine Nature. Dear Ramachandran, I am not honestly able to understand the import of your relply. Do you mean to suggest in a veiled manner that my unsavoury reference to the guru contained some element of undivinity in my gesture and utterance, which if it is so, let me introspect and correct myself? If you find something unpleasant, untruthful, or unethical, or dishonest in my way of conducting, you can straight away point out, and not fight shy of it, and talk in a general, religious way. Let me correct myself. I personally endeavor not to hold on to any image about myself. So you can be frank with me. yours truthfully, Sankarraman Feel free to call! Free PC-to-PC calls. Low rates on PC-to-Phone. Get Messenger with Voice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 Krishna, Hanuman and Ravana lifted big mountains. Krishna declared Himself as the Lord. But He declared only to Arjuna, a deserving devotee and not to public. Duryodhana did not agree the lifting of the mountain by Krishna and said that Krishna lifted a small stone and the story was propagated as a mountain. Hanuman lifted the mountain and also carried on it but He said that He could lift due to Rama, the God. Ravana lifted the mountain and declared to the public that he is God. Hanuman did not accept Ravana as god even though Ravana had special super powers. Hanuman did not see any miracle performed by Rama. He never saw any vision given by Rama. He never heard any preaching like the Gita from Rama. He believed Rama as the God in the first instance of the meeting itself and rendered the final form of service straightly. This shows the strength of the previous samskara and the strength of divine knowledge of Hanuman. Thus Hanuman is the highest guru for any human being in this world. God Himself came down in that form to show the part of Nivrutti for a spiritual aspirant. Rama can be a practical guide in Pravrutti, Krishna is a theoretical guide in Nivrutti but Hanuman is a practical guide in Nivrutti or spiritual path. Therefore for all the spiritual aspirants, only Hanuman can be the real and complete guide. at the lotus feet of shri datta swami surya www.universal-spirituality.org ram mohan anantha pai <pairamblr > wrote: with due respct i still feel it is his followers who are writing about the claims. i am yet to read any of his speeches where in he has stated such things.. by the way, does this warrant a discussion - seriously- if one claims or not? what is more important? what they say about what is affecting " I " or what they claim ? in my humble view, we are to read, listen, consider, ignore etc...after our study of what ever we come across. How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 In the spiritual path all your effort must be concentrated in acquiring the knowledge of God day by day. Once this knowledge based Bhakti (devotion) is achieved, your qualities good or bad are immaterial. Whatever may be the vessel, the drink in it is important. The value paid in a hotel is for the drink only. If you have taken a cup of coffee, you are paying the cost of the coffee only whether the cup is made of glass or metal. Similarly, God gives value only for your Bhakthi and not for your quality. I will give a beautiful example here. “Sabari” is with good qualities and offered fruits to the Lord Rama who is Vishnu. A hunter called “Kannappa” gave flesh to the Lord Siva. Sabari reached the ‘World of Vishnu and Kannappa reached the World of Shiva”. Both have reached the same Lord because Veda says, “Shiva is Narayana”. Both of them have been given the similar value by the Lord because in both cases, the intensity of the devotion is the same as both gave even their food without eating. Therefore, this proves clearly that the Lord has no objection for your bad qualities. Hence, all the effort should be only to achieve and increase the intensity of love devotion or Bhakthi on God. It is not necessary to bother about your qualities that are inherent coming from millions of births. They are the born qualities. The tail of the dog is curved. Any effort cannot make it straight. By force, we can keep it straight but it has not become straight. Similarly you can control your bad qualities for not disturbing peace of the world by some force. When you come to God, you come in your natural state because you can deceive the world showing that your banded tail is straight but not the God. Whether the river comes in straight path or curved path, the ocean receives only the water with equality. Similarly, God receives your love irrespective of your quality. He received “Sabari” and ‘Kannappa” equally. Sabari with good qualities and Kannappa with bad qualities reached the same Lord, as their devotion is of same intensity. A piece of gold is wrapped in an old cloth. A stone is wrapped with a metallic foil. Which has more total value? Similarly, the love with high intensity covered even by a bad quality has more total value than the love with lesser intensity covered by a good quality. When the blood flew from the eye of the Lord, the Priest who is a person with good qualities is trying to apply the medicine. But, his devotion is less. In the same situation, “Kannappa” plucked his eyes and donated to the Lord. Kannappa is a person with bad qualities but his devotion is the highest. Devotion is the highest good quality. Now let us evaluate the total cost of the priest and Kannappa. The devotion in Kannappa is +100. The bad qualities in Kannappa are –10. The total cost is +90. The priest with good qualities is +10. The devotion in him is +20. The total cost is +30. So, of the two who is good? Obviously it is Kannappa. Gita says, that, “Even the worst is best by Bhakthi” (Api chet….). at the lotus feet of shri datta swami surya www.universal-spirituality.org Ram Chandran <ramvchandran > wrote: Sri Hanumanji who vactated all impurites was able to keep Sri Ram always in His Heart and Sri Ram never wants to leave from Hanumanji. Whether Divinity is ever present in a Mahatma can be easily verified by looking into how the Mahatma's presence serves the humanity. Since there is only one Divinity and the question of comparison between Divinities can never provide any objective answer. Warmest regards, Ram Chandran Sneak preview the all-new .com. It's not radically different. Just radically better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 please, refer to advaitin/message/31506 advaitin/message/31510 for the uncovering of hidden motives... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 Please refer to: advaitin/message/31506 advaitin/message/31510 for the uncovering of hidden motives... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 Namaste Sri Sankarraman: Please do not attempt to understand beyond what I have verbally stated in my earlier posting. Divinity is only the 'subject' and it is never an object and consequently if we attempt any objective analysis of the presence or absence of divinity will be a futile exercise. Believers just believe and they don't ask questions, where as nonbelievers will never stop asking questions! Honestly, I do not mean to suggest you anything specific except that I stated my thoughts, just the same way you stated your thoughts. At the vyavaharika level, we are likely to have more than one opinion and that is an integral part of relative reality! Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran> wrote: > > > Dear Ramachandran, > I am not honestly able to understand the import of your relply. Do you mean to suggest in a veiled manner that my unsavoury reference to the guru contained some element of undivinity in my gesture and utterance, which if it is so, let me introspect and correct myself? If you find something unpleasant, untruthful, or unethical, or dishonest in my way of conducting, you can straight away point out, and not fight shy of it, and talk in a general, religious way. Let me correct myself. I personally endeavor not to hold on to any image about myself. So you can be frank with me. > > yours truthfully, > Sankarraman > > > > Feel free to call! Free PC-to-PC calls. Low rates on PC-to-Phone. Get Messenger with Voice > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2006 Report Share Posted May 24, 2006 namaste: Thanks for watching and the moderators also are watching and future messages will be stopped appropriately! Hairh Om! Ram Chandran advaitin, "Felipe" <fcrema> wrote: > > Please refer to: > > advaitin/message/31506 > > advaitin/message/31510 > > for the uncovering of hidden motives... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran> wrote: > > > > narayana_kl_71 <narayana_kl_71> wrote: > > may be i am wrong and if i am wrong, pardon me for my ignorance. > >but atleast i have not come across any discourse or speech delivered > by >Satya Sai where in SHRI SATYA SAI BABA claims that he is devine. > You will all be surprised and pained to note that in a very early book of Saibaba, he made a statement to the following effect at the time Bhaghavan attained siddhi: "At last Ramana has attained my holy feet." Since I am at Chennai, I do not have access to the particular book, which is available in Ramanashram library. Saibaba also claims that he is lokanath as against Aurobindo who is only vyaktinath. These statements are not made to belittle him. But they are hard truths. None of the followers of saibaba accept the greatness of Bhaghavan because he did not make any miracle. Dear Sir, A devotee out of his love and reverence to the guru elivates or sees in him none other than the God Himself. Followers of Sri Ramakrishna call him Bhagavan Ramakrishna an incarnation of lord, same is the case with the Sri Ramana Maharshi whom their followers address him as Bhagavan. Acharya Shankara is considered to be none other than the lord Shiva himself on earth but some people whom out of their devotion to their chosen guru proclaim that he is not an incarnation but only an acharya. There is no end to all these discussions. I feel it is wrong for ordinary people like us to opine about these matters. But we can get the glimpse of their greatness by certain factors like universal acceptability of their teachings, their catholicity and world view and their compassion, selflessness, character etc. Swami Vivekananda says that when the sun raises we do not need candle to show it. When the lord descends on earth people will intutively know him as divine and will worship him. Universal acceptence of the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna, Sri Ramana Maharshi by one and all and the beautiful advaita doctrine propogated by Sri Shankara Bahgavatpada which has stood the test of time of nearly 12-13 centuries which is even attracting the attention of best scientists and the intellectuals of the west and the east alike indicate that they were not ordinary mortanls. I feel we are not fit to and it is not necessary for us to compare the se great personages. Ofcourse we can choose among these as one of our ishta and follow their teachings honestly. Yours in the lord, Br. Vinayaka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2006 Report Share Posted May 25, 2006 namaskaram may be shri Vinayakji has a very important point in his message and may be it is better for us to focus on the subject that is understanding, learning , assimilating of advaita than on personalities since that is more a subjective position than objective and has really no impact on the process of our study.. thanks shri Vinayakji for bringing us back to the subject pranam Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns > wrote: advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran> wrote: > > > > narayana_kl_71 <narayana_kl_71> wrote: > > may be i am wrong and if i am wrong, pardon me for my ignorance. > >but atleast i have not come across any discourse or speech delivered > by >Satya Sai where in SHRI SATYA SAI BABA claims that he is devine. > You will all be surprised and pained to note that in a very early book of Saibaba, he made a statement to the following effect at the time Bhaghavan attained siddhi: "At last Ramana has attained my holy feet." Since I am at Chennai, I do not have access to the particular book, which is available in Ramanashram library. Saibaba also claims that he is lokanath as against Aurobindo who is only vyaktinath. These statements are not made to belittle him. But they are hard truths. None of the followers of saibaba accept the greatness of Bhaghavan because he did not make any miracle. Dear Sir, A devotee out of his love and reverence to the guru elivates or sees in him none other than the God Himself. Followers of Sri Ramakrishna call him Bhagavan Ramakrishna an incarnation of lord, same is the case with the Sri Ramana Maharshi whom their followers address him as Bhagavan. Acharya Shankara is considered to be none other than the lord Shiva himself on earth but some people whom out of their devotion to their chosen guru proclaim that he is not an incarnation but only an acharya. There is no end to all these discussions. I feel it is wrong for ordinary people like us to opine about these matters. But we can get the glimpse of their greatness by certain factors like universal acceptability of their teachings, their catholicity and world view and their compassion, selflessness, character etc. Swami Vivekananda says that when the sun raises we do not need candle to show it. When the lord descends on earth people will intutively know him as divine and will worship him. Universal acceptence of the teachings of Sri Ramakrishna, Sri Ramana Maharshi by one and all and the beautiful advaita doctrine propogated by Sri Shankara Bahgavatpada which has stood the test of time of nearly 12-13 centuries which is even attracting the attention of best scientists and the intellectuals of the west and the east alike indicate that they were not ordinary mortanls. I feel we are not fit to and it is not necessary for us to compare the se great personages. Ofcourse we can choose among these as one of our ishta and follow their teachings honestly. Yours in the lord, Br. Vinayaka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.