The real cause of Islamic terrorism

[niranjan]

Here is an excerpt from the Indian spiritual genius and savant Swami Vivekananda’s (1863-1902) book ‘ Raja Yoga’.

 

" We find , in studying history, one fact held in common by all the great teachers of religion the world ever had . They all claim to have got their truths from beyond, only many of them did not know where they got them from. For instance, one would say that an angel came down in the form of a human being, with wings, and said to him, “Hear, O man, this is the message”.Another says that a Deva, a bright being, appeared to him. A third says he dreamed that his ancestor came and told him certain things. He did not know anything beyond that .But this is common that all claim that this knowledge has come to them from beyond, not through their reasoning power. What does the science of Yoga teach? It teaches that they were right in claiming that all this knowledge came to them from beyond reasoning, but that it came from within themselves.

The Yogi teaches that the mind itself has a higher state of existence, beyond reason, a superconscious state, and when the mind gets to that higher state,then this knowledge, beyond reasoning, comes to man . Metaphysical and transcendental knowledge comes to that man .This state of going beyond reason, transcending ordinary human nature, may sometimes come by chance to a man who does not understand its science; he , as it were, stumbles upon it. When he stumbles upon it, he generally interprets it as coming from outside. So this explains why an inspiration, or transcendental knowledge, may be the same in different countries, but in one country it will seem to come through an angel, and in another through a Deva, and in a third through God. What does it mean? It means that the mind brought the knowledge by its own nature, and that the finding of the knowledge was interpreted according to the belief and education of the person through whom it came. The real fact is that these various men, as it were, stumbled upon this superconscious state.

The Yogi says there is a great danger in stumbling upon this state. In a good many cases there is the danger of the brain being deranged, and , as a rule, you will find that all those men, however great they were, who had stumbled upon this superconscious state, without understanding it, groped in the dark, and generally had, along with their knowledge, some quaint superstition. They opened themselves to hallucinations. Mohammed claimed that the Angel Gabriel came to him in a cave one day and took him on the heavenly horse, Harak, and he visited the heavens. But with all that , Mohammed spoke some wonderful truths. If you read the Koran, you find the most wonderful truths mixed with superstitions. How will you explain it? That man was inspired, no doubt, but that inspiration was, as it were, stumbled upon. He was not a trained Yogi, and did not know the reason of what he was doing. Think of the good Mohammed did to the world, and think of the great evil that has been done through his fanaticism! Think of the millions massacred through his teachings, mothers bereft of their children, children made orphans, whole countries destroyed, millions upon millions of people killed!

So we see this danger by studying the lives of great teachers like Mohammed and others. Yet we find, at the same time , that they were all inspired. Whenever a prophet got into the superconscious state by heightening his emotional nature, he brought away from it not only some truths, but some fanaticism also, some superstition which injured the world as much as the greatness of the teaching helped. To get any reason out of the mass of incongruity we call human life, we have to transcend our reason, but we must do it scientifically , slowly, by regular practice, and we must cast off all superstition .We must take up the study of the superconscious state just as any other science. On reason we must have to lay our foundation, we must follow reason as far as it leads, and when reason fails, reason itself will show us the way to the highest plane. When you hear a man say, “I am inspired” , and then talk irrationally, reject it. Why? Because these three states-instinct, reason, and superconsciousness , or the unconscious, conscious, and superconscious states-belong to one and the same mind. There are not three minds in one man, but one state of it develops into the others. Instinct develops into reason, and reason into the transcendental consciousness; therefore, not one of the states contradicts the others. Real inspiration never contradicts reason, but fulfils it. Just as you find the great prophets saying, “ I come not to destroy but to fulfil” , so inspiration always comes to fulfil reason, and is in harmony with it."

[niranjan]

Here is an another excerpt from Swami Vivekananda's 'Raja Yoga' dealing with the subject of superconsciousness or enlightenment.

 

"When I eat food, I do it consciously; when I assimilate it, I do it unconsciously. When the food is manufactured into blood, it is done unconsciously.When out of the blood all the different parts of my body are strengthened , it is done unconsciously. And yet it is I who am doing all this; there cannot be twenty people in this one body. How do I know that I do it, and nobody else?It may be urged that my business is only in eating and assimilating the food, and that strengthening the body by the food is done for me by somebody else. That cannot be, because it can be demonstrated that almost every action of which we are now unconscious can be brought up to the plane of consciousness. The heart is beating apparently without our control. None of us here can control the heart; it goes on its own way. But by practice men can bring even the heart under control, until it will beat at will, slowly, or quickly, or almost stop. Nearly every part of the body can be brought under control. What does this show? That the functions which are beneath consciousness are also performed by us, only we are doing it unconsciously.

We have, then,two planes in which the human mind works. First is the conscious plane , in which all work is always accompanied with the feeling of egoism. Next comes the unconscious plane, where all work is unaccompanied by the feeling of egoism. That part of mind-work which is unaccompanied with the feeling of egoism is unconscious work, and that part which is accompanied with the feeling of egoism is conscious work. In the lower animals this unconscious work is called instinct. In higher animals, and in the highest of all animals, man, what is called conscious work prevails.

But it does not end here. There is a still higher plane upon which the mind can work. It can go beyond consciousness. Just as, unconscious work is beneath consciousnes, so there is another work which is above consciousness and which also is not accompanied with the feeling of egoism. The feeling of egoism is only on the middle plane. When the mind is above or below that plane, there is no feeling of "I", and yet the mind works. When the mind goes beyond this line of self-consciousness, it is called Samadhi, or superconsciousness. How , for instance, do we know that a man in Samadhi has not gone below consciousness, has not degenerated instead of going higher?In both cases the works are unaccompanied with egoism. The answer is, by the effects, by the results of the work, we know that which is below, and that which is above. When a man goes into deep sleep, he enters a plane beneath consciousness. He works the body all the time, he breathes , he moves the body, perhaps , in his sleep, without any unaccompanying feeling of ego; he is unconscious, and when he returns from his sleep, he is the same man who went into it. The sum total of the knowledge which he had before he went into the sleep remains the same; it does not increase at all. No enlightenment comes. But when a man goes into Samadhi, if he goes into it a fool, he comes out a sage.

What makes the difference? From one state a man comes out the very same man that he went in , and from another state the man comes out enlightened, a sage, a prophet, a saint, his whole character changed, his life changed, illumined. These are the two effects. Now the effects being different, the causes must be different. As this illumination with which a man comes back from Samadhi is much higher than can be got by reasoning in a conscious state, it must , therefore, be superconsciousness, and Samadhi is called the superconscious state."

[niranjan]

These prophets were not unique; they were men as you or I. They were great Yogis. They had gained this superconsciousness, and you and I can get the same. They were not peculiar people. The very fact that one man ever reached that state proves that it is possible for every man to do so. Not only is it possible, but every man must, eventually, get to that state, and that is religion.

--Swami Vivekananda

[Guruvani]

Some talk is about samadhi and some talk is samadhi.

The pure devotees talk in samadhi while the mental speculators talk about samadhi.

Talking of Krishna is samadhi.

Talking about universal oneness is just flowery words that captures the minds of the tortured souls seeking relief without giving them actual relief.

- Guruvani

[Guest guest]

I find Vivekananda's writings difficult to understand. Was there truth in what he said or was it just his speculation?

 

 

Some talk is about samadhi and some talk is samadhi.

The pure devotees talk in samadhi while the mental speculators talk about samadhi.

Talking of Krishna is samadhi.

Talking about universal oneness is just flowery words that captures the minds of the tortured souls seeking relief without giving them actual relief.

- Guruvani

[Guruvani]

 

I find Vivekananda's writings difficult to understand. Was there truth in what he said or was it just his speculation?

 

Vivekananda was a believer in Advaita Vedanta - Non-dualism.

His concept of the supreme absolute was that the impersonal brahman is the ultimate reality.

In simple terms, he believed that to become one with the light of the supreme spirit is the ultimate spiritual attainment.

 

So, he did not understand the spiritual realms of planets and personalities with spiritual forms.

 

His understanding only reached to the very outer strata of the spiritual dimension.

However, it is doubtful that he was actually a brahman realized soul.

He was a professional philosopher who spoke flowery Vedanta concepts as a carreer to get along in this world.

 

He is especially recognized for trying to show how Vedanta and socio-political issues are related.

Many people disagree with this concept.

 

He was not one of Indias great yogis or great ascetics.

He was principly a philosopher who used Vedanta in a socio-political context.

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the clarification Guruvani prabhu.

 

In answer to the thread title, I think the real cause is improper understanding of their faith. If they understood their religion correctly, they wouldn;t be doing such nonsensical things.

 

 

Vivekananda was a believer in Advaita Vedanta - Non-dualism.

His concept of the supreme absolute was that the impersonal brahman is the ultimate reality.

In simple terms, he believed that to become one with the light of the supreme spirit is the ultimate spiritual attainment.

 

So, he did not understand the spiritual realms of planets and personalities with spiritual forms.

 

His understanding only reached to the very outer strata of the spiritual dimension.

However, it is doubtful that he was actually a brahman realized soul.

He was a professional philosopher who spoke flowery Vedanta concepts as a carreer to get along in this world.

 

He is especially recognized for trying to show how Vedanta and socio-political issues are related.

Many people disagree with this concept.

 

He was not one of Indias great yogis or great ascetics.

He was principly a philosopher who used Vedanta in a socio-political context.

[Guest guest]

Totally disagree!!

Vivekananda was a stalwart philosopher and sadhak. In fact he condemned the prevailant in the society dogmas, superstitions and scriptural fears that the local pandas instilled in the minds of people. He believed a person can and must rise to the level of enlightenment. Prabhupada was a preacher, philosopher and translator.

As far as his non-understanding of forms is concerned, this is again untrue.

Just another closed minded Gaudiya vision.

In fact Vivekananda worshipped the form of Goddess Kali and meditated upon it in a cave for ten years and could have kali darshan only after shaktipaat initiation from Ramkrishna Paramhansa.

Advaitas see God in and behind everything. Gaudiyas see him perched on a planet up there, while he does the work with his energy expansion. They separate the energy and the Lord. Its is Bheda-bhed philosophy. Bhed bhav? Advaita is uniting. Seeing the one-ness. The one God in everything.

He was essentially a Sahkti sadhak. Nothing wrong with that eh?

There have been numerous highly accomplished sadhaks from the Advaita siddhanta. so was Shankracharya. And Shankaracharya's authority is recognized all over India. Even 'Vishvambhar Mishra' came to seek refuge under the feet of two Guru's who followed advaita Vedanta under the Shankaracharya's lineage who granted him initiation into the spiritual path that changed his life.

 

 

Vivekananda was a believer in Advaita Vedanta - Non-dualism.

His concept of the supreme absolute was that the impersonal brahman is the ultimate reality.

In simple terms, he believed that to become one with the light of the supreme spirit is the ultimate spiritual attainment.

 

So, he did not understand the spiritual realms of planets and personalities with spiritual forms.

 

His understanding only reached to the very outer strata of the spiritual dimension.

However, it is doubtful that he was actually a brahman realized soul.

He was a professional philosopher who spoke flowery Vedanta concepts as a carreer to get along in this world.

 

He is especially recognized for trying to show how Vedanta and socio-political issues are related.

Many people disagree with this concept.

 

He was not one of Indias great yogis or great ascetics.

He was principly a philosopher who used Vedanta in a socio-political context.

[niranjan]

Thanks for replying to that dogmatist post of his. It is such narrow-mindedness and fanaticism that is giving Iskcon a bad name.

[Guest guest]

New Guest ... I enjoyed reading your post but have to clarify a few things.

 

 

Advaitas see God in and behind everything. Gaudiyas see him perched on a planet up there, while he does the work with his energy expansion. They separate the energy and the Lord. Its is Bheda-bhed philosophy. Bhed bhav?

Vaisnavas also see Krishna (God) in and behind everything. Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita says-

 

yo man pasyati sarvatra

sarvan ca mayi pasyati

tasyaham na panasyami

sa ca me napanasyati

 

"One who sees Me everywhere and sees everything in Me, he is never lost to me not am I ever lost to him."

 

So He is everywhere and within all living entities as Paramatma and not just 'perched' on His planet. However, He does have his own planet called Goloka. As regards the second part of your quote, I'm not sure if the energy is one & different from the Lord. I thought the energy was always part of Him. Perhaps someone else can clarify that?

 

 

Advaita is uniting. Seeing the one-ness. The one God in everything.

Again, this conclusion is accepted by Vaisnava philosophy- Krishna being in everything. Am I correct in saying that Advaita proponents believe that ultimqtely one merges with God and becomes God? If so, that is an area of disagreement. The jiva can never become Krishna. The jiva is always an enternal servant of the Supreme Personality. Jiva tattva can ever become Visnu tattva.

 

Finally, I do not know much about Swami Vivekananda but the scriptures enjoin that worship of Lord Krishna or Visnu is the perfection of life. With that in view, it would appear that Vivenkananda had ways to go before he could be considered truly enlightened, in that he engaged in demi-god worship (information that I gleaned from your post) rather than surrender to the Supreme Lord.

[niranjan]

<<Finally, I do not know much about Swami Vivekananda but the scriptures enjoin that worship of Lord Krishna or Visnu is the perfection of life. With that in view, it would appear that Vivenkananda had ways to go before he could be considered truly enlightened, in that he engaged in demi-god worship (information that I gleaned from your post) rather than surrender to the Supreme Lord.>>

 

Swami Vivekananda was himself a devotee of Krishna as was his spiritual master Ramakrishna Paramahamsa , and at the same time he believed in monism.

 

<....e jiva can never become Krishna. The jiva is always an enternal servant of the Supreme Personality. Jiva tattva can ever become Visnu tattva>>

 

According to Ramanuja, the founder of Vishistadvaita or qualified monism,

Vishnu or Krishna and the Jiva is one and the same.

[niranjan]

[Finally, I do not know much about Swami Vivekananda but the scriptures enjoin that worship of Lord Krishna or Visnu is the perfection of life. With that in view, it would appear that Vivenkananda had ways to go before he could be considered truly enlightened, in that he engaged in demi-god worship (information that I gleaned from your post) rather than surrender to the Supreme Lord.]

 

<!-- / message --><<FINALLY, do Lord. Supreme the to surrender than rather post) your from gleaned I that (information worship demi-god in engaged he enlightened, truly considered be could before go ways had Vivenkananda appear would it view, With life. of perfection is Visnu or Krishna Lord enjoin scriptures but Vivekananda Swami about much know not>>

 

Swami Vivekananda was himself a devotee of Krishna as was his spiritual master Ramakrishna Paramahamsa , and at the same time he believed in monism.

 

<....e jiva can never become Krishna. The jiva is always an enternal servant of the Supreme Personality. Jiva tattva can ever become Visnu tattva>>

 

According to Ramanuja, the founder of Vishistadvaita or qualified monism,

Vishnu or Krishna and the Jiva is one and the same.

[Guest guest]

Niranjan ... you have likely misunderstood the teachings then. But since my knowledge of Sri Ramanujacarya's philosophy is very minimal, I will abstain from commenting. Can someone comment on this please? It doesn't seem like something that Sri Ramanuja could have said.

 

 

According to Ramanuja, the founder of Vishistadvaita or qualified monism, Vishnu or Krishna and the Jiva is one and the same.

[Guest guest]

Most people on this forum including the administrators are from an ISKCON background and in most cases were originally Christian. Consequently, there are two common patterns observed here

 

1. Due to past conditioning by Christianity, many people have a serious need to align their present ISKCON beliefs with Christianity. Concept of Christianity that do not align with ISKCON beliefs are dismissed as false understanding by present day Christians. The result? Christianity and ISKCON are perfectly in harmony with one another. This kind of rationale is very important to them and a number of discussions will be on this topic.

 

2. The other pattern is to play down other all traditions. It is not surprising therefore to find antagonism against Vivekananda here. There is a good chance that this post will be knocked off by an “impartial” administrator.

 

Be as it may, Hindus have a high regard for Vivekananda and it is best to not waste time quibbling over this with people from other factions.

 

Om

[Guest guest]

guestabc ... personally, I really don't think Vaisnavas have anything against anybody, much less renowned personalities such as Vivekananda. However, if you examine the Sastra carefully, you would acquire the ability to dscern the right from the wrong. It is a fact that Vivekananda preached something different from pure Bhakti, which alon can deliver one from the cycle of birth and death. Some have pointed it out, it's as simple as that. i don;t see how that could be construed as knocking Vivekananda.

 

By the way, I didn't know the admins were from ISKCON. I thought this was an independent forum.

 

 

Most people on this forum including the administrators are from an ISKCON background and in most cases were originally Christian. Consequently, there are two common patterns observed here

 

1. Due to past conditioning by Christianity, many people have a serious need to align their present ISKCON beliefs with Christianity. Concept of Christianity that do not align with ISKCON beliefs are dismissed as false understanding by present day Christians. The result? Christianity and ISKCON are perfectly in harmony with one another. This kind of rationale is very important to them and a number of discussions will be on this topic.

 

2. The other pattern is to play down other all traditions. It is not surprising therefore to find antagonism against Vivekananda here. There is a good chance that this post will be knocked off by an “impartial” administrator.

 

Be as it may, Hindus have a high regard for Vivekananda and it is best to not waste time quibbling over this with people from other factions.

 

Om

[Guest guest]

 

guestabc ... personally, I really don't think Vaisnavas have anything against anybody, much less renowned personalities such as Vivekananda. However, if you examine the Sastra carefully, you would acquire the ability to dscern the right from the wrong. It is a fact that Vivekananda preached something different from pure Bhakti, which alon can deliver one from the cycle of birth and death. Some have pointed it out, it's as simple as that. i don;t see how that could be construed as knocking Vivekananda.

 

Vivekananda was an Advaitin and naturally his beliefs are different from Vaishnava beliefs. A Vivekananda follower would point out that Vaishnava beliefs are wrong as they differ from Advaita which is the supreme truth. But these quibbles take one away from the original topic.

 

 

By the way, I didn't know the admins were from ISKCON. I thought this was an independent forum.

 

Correct. They are not from ISKCON, but from an ISKCON/Gaudiya background and I have seen them sometimes sway from the "impartial" chair and take sides by removing posts.

 

Om

[Guruvani]

Vivekananda thought that Krishna represents the Brahman.

He believed that Krishna came from the brahman, not that the brahman comes from Krishna.

He was not a bhakta, not a Vaishnava and you will find nothing about the supremecy of Krishna in his works.

 

He is typical "hodgepodge" Hindu miconception.

He would technically be classified as a jnani seeking mukti.

He was NOT a bhakta seeking bhakti.

 

the claim that Vivekananda was somehow a devotee of Krishna is not supported by any of his own works, writings or teachings.

 

Vivekananda was an impersonalist.

[Guest guest]

 

Vivekananda thought that Krishna represents the Brahman.

He believed that Krishna came from the brahman, not that the brahman comes from Krishna.

He was not a bhakta, not a Vaishnava and you will find nothing about the supremecy of Krishna in his works.

 

Wrong. By your own admission, Vivekananda saw no difference between Brahman and Krishna and therefore everything he writes about Brahman is the same as writing about Krishna. And he has written quite a lot on Brahman which makes you wrong.

 

 

He is typical "hodgepodge" Hindu miconception.

 

Hmm….Ignorance is bliss, they say. It is simpler for me to let you continue in your blissful state

 

 

He would technically be classified as a jnani seeking mukti.

He was NOT a bhakta seeking bhakti.

 

Both are one and the same for a Jnani...a concept difficult for neophytes to grasp. Go back, chant some more and try again after a while; you may just get it. If not, go back, chant some more...I am sure you get the idea.

 

 

the claim that Vivekananda was somehow a devotee of Krishna is not supported by any of his own works, writings or teachings.

 

Vivekananda was an impersonalist.

 

Wrong as clarified above. Devotee of Brahman = devotee of Krishna. If it were not for Vivekananda, there would be no ISKCON today and Guruvani would not be posting on audarya fellowship. There would no audarya fellowship either.

 

Om

[Guruvani]

 

 

 

Wrong as clarified above. Devotee of Brahman = devotee of Krishna. If it were not for Vivekananda, there would be no ISKCON today and Guruvani would not be posting on audarya fellowship. There would no audarya fellowship either.

 

Om

Now that we know you are a lunatic, then what use is there to discuss anything with you.

Vivekananda was a spiritual delinquent.

 

some of his writings and works are available...

 

http://www.frankreport.com/Vivekananda/BooksBySwami/JnanaYoga/JnanaYoga.html

[Guest guest]

 

Now that we know you are a lunatic, then what use is their to discuss anything with you.

Vivekananda was a spiritual delinquent.

 

some of his writings and works are available...

 

...... removed>

 

Guruvani,

 

I will let you continue on your cruise in wonderland.

 

But before that, out of frank curiosity, can you define "religious tolerance" in about 25 words or lesser for the benefit of myself and other interested parties? Since HKs vehemently deny accusations of intolerance, it makes me wonder if they do not understand the concept of tolerance.

 

In fact, this is a good time to tap the collective wisdom of the HK community on this forum. I invite all HKs to define "religious intolerance". Rest assured, I will not start an argument and will not disagree with your definition. This is simply out of curiosity and nothing else; just curious to know how Vivekananda bashing and Kundalini bashing do not qualify as intolerance.

 

Om

[Guruvani]

 

Guruvani,

 

I will let you continue on your cruise in wonderland.

 

But before that, out of frank curiosity, can you define "religious tolerance" in about 25 words or lesser for the benefit of myself and other interested parties? Since HKs vehemently deny accusations of intolerance, it makes me wonder if they do not understand the concept of tolerance.

 

In fact, this is a good time to tap the collective wisdom of the HK community on this forum. I invite all HKs to define "religious intolerance". Rest assured, I will not start an argument and will not disagree with your definition. This is simply out of curiosity and nothing else; just curious to know how Vivekananda bashing and Kundalini bashing do not qualify as intolerance.

 

Om

 

Bhakti Caru Swami has recalled:

 

 

Prabhupada started to criticise Ramakrishna and Vivekananda. He started to tell me how they actually have destroyed whole Bengali culture and the spiritual life of Bengal. It is because of their wrong propaganda that Mahaprabhu’s teachings have been covered over and the Bengali’s today are not really so well acquainted with Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and his teachings, what to speak of recognising Him as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Like all the Bengali’s have become so animate by Ramakrishna and Vivekananda who actually have nothing to say, they have no spiritual message whatsoever. Ramakrishna is just an illiterate pujari and Vivekananda was just a ruffian. That’s how Srila Prabhupada expressed, identifying those two so-called spiritual personalities. I got the message and I got the message that how Prabhupada wanted that their position must be smashed and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s glories must be established.

[Guruvani]

Famous quote of Vivekananda:

 

 

Even he who has seen only a spook is more spiritual than book-learned pundits.

 

So, Vivekananda believed that a person who sees a ghost is more learned than the Vedic scholars.

 

DUH.....

 

I guess he learned that from some illiterate pujari?

[Beggar]

One time when he was only in the Gaudiya Math for a few years one of Srila Sridhar Maharaja's college friends came to see him at a math. His friend asked him, "You have been wearing these red rags now for several years now, what have you learned?" Srila Sridhar Maharaja replied, "I have learned that everything that Vivekananda and Rama Krsna has taught is wrong". His friend was "mortified" and immediately left the math.

[Guest guest]

Bhakti Caru Swami says

 

I got the message and I got the message that how Prabhupada wanted that their position must be smashed and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s glories must be established

 

Very advanced thinking. In other words, I was wrong when I said HKs deny they are intolerant. Apparently, they are aware of their intolerance and are quite brazen about it. Hererafter if some HK denies his intolerance, I can point him to this message.

 

Guruvani says

 

So, Vivekananda believed that a person who sees a ghost is more learned than the Vedic scholars.

 

DUH.....

 

I guess he learned that from some illiterate pujari?

 

And now per the supreme saint Prabhupada's message to smash another system, you as a faithful HK are engaging in Vivekananda and Kundalini bashing. I got it. Thanks for the response.

 

Om

[suchandra]

Obviously Vivekananda was such a mundane character that all people just liked him and therefore he could teach whatever he wanted, people accepted everything from him. He must have a nice situation in this life however his future was surely samsara - for spiritually misleading people the most heavy karmas are waiting.