The Mountain

[Tirisilex]

The top of the mountain is the goal.. There are many paths up the mountain..

I had always thought "Hinduism" held to this idea.. Am I wrong?

[mahak]

How about the sea refuses no river.

 

Some paths up the mountain end because the trail blazer dropped dead.

 

Only from the top of the mountain can one see how many trails led there. So, to avoid this mess, one approaches a sherpa (guru), or else he is insane.

 

Hindu refers to a culture, within which are many diametrically opposed religious systems.

 

If the mountain top is desired, hear from one who descends from the mountain, not the throngs crowded in confusion at the base camp.

 

mahak

[theist]

 

How about the sea refuses no river.

 

Some paths up the mountain end because the trail blazer dropped dead.

 

Only from the top of the mountain can one see how many trails led there. So, to avoid this mess, one approaches a sherpa (guru), or else he is insane.

 

Hindu refers to a culture, within which are many diametrically opposed religious systems.

 

If the mountain top is desired, hear from one who descends from the mountain, not the throngs crowded in confusion at the base camp.

 

mahak

 

Nice answer to an important question. Also it matters that one understand the goal is not liberation from matter it is Bhakti or loving devotion to Krsna that is the goal.

 

Bhakti is the top of the mountain.

[suchandra]

Highest mountain, "the mountain", is probably Mount Sumeru.

 

"Then all the demigods assembled and went together to the peak of Sumeru Mountain. There, in the assembly of Lord Brahmā, they fell down to offer Lord Brahmā their obeisances, and then they informed him of all the incidents that had taken place." (SB 8.5.17-18)

 

[Tirisilex]

So is Christianty considered a viable path up this mountain?

[mahak]

Christianity is a religion, and Krsna requires that we give up all varieties of religion in favor of surrendering your devotion to the Supreme Lord. Lord Jesus Christ also requires this as well.

 

Christianity is a perversion of Lord Jesus Christs teachings, it is a man-made religion. The only mountain such religions lead to is the man-occupied positions of power, prestiege, psuedo-spirituality, etc.

 

Now, if you were to ask if a christian who has been to the mountaintop comes down to lead to where he knows a being will be spiritually satisfied, to follow such a person may be viable. The path has been travelled, and thus, he is a sherpa. But some fool minister with a DD degree plastered on his wall is only familiar with the academic world from which he received such a degree.

 

Im not picking on christianity here, islam, hinduism, ISKCONism, all the words are interchangeable as religions we are required to abandon in favor of turning our full attention to the Supreme Lord, His Name, His Fame, His Glory.

 

haribol, ys, mahaksadasa

[Murali_Mohan_das]

"First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is"

 

--Donovan

[theist]

 

So is Christianty considered a viable path up this mountain?

 

Christ's teaching are. If we stick with those we are safe in our ascent but if we get diverted into the religon present day "Christianity' we will most likely be mislead.

[Guruvani]

God is on top of the mountain.

But he sends his messenger below

to spread the wonderful message

I'll beam you up when you're ready to go

[gHari]

One dharma; one path. But different settings and speeds depending on the current qualification, the acquired nature of the jiva. Trees can't ride bicycles, children can't ride motorcycles and most adults can't pilot jet planes. So we acquire different vehicles of differing speeds to get up that mountain. There is only one path up that mountain, but we travel it differently depending on our capability. One peak; one path. One God - and surrender.

 

Lord Krishna explains in the Bhagavad-gita verse 4.11 that everyone follows His path:

 

<center>

ye yathA mAM prapadyante

tAMs tathaiva bhajAmy aham

mama vartmAnuvartante

manuSyAH pArtha sarvazaH

</center>

ye--all who; yathA--as;

mAm--unto Me; prapadyante--surrender

; tAn--them; tathA--so; eva--certainly; bhajAmi--reward; aham--I;

mama--My; vartma--path; anuvartante--follow; manuSyAH--all men;

pArtha--O son of PRthA; sarvazaH--in all respects.

As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly.

Everyone follows My path in all respects

, O son of PRthA.

 

PURPORT

 

Everyone is searching for KRSNa in the different aspects of His manifestations. KRSNa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is partially realized in His impersonal brahmajyoti effulgence and as the all-pervading Supersoul dwelling within everything, including the particles of atoms. But KRSNa is fully realized only by His pure devotees.

 

 

Consequently, KRSNa is the object of everyone's realization, and thus anyone and everyone is satisfied according to one's desire to have Him. In the transcendental world also, KRSNa reciprocates with His pure devotees in the transcendental attitude, just as the devotee wants Him. One devotee may want KRSNa as supreme master, another as his personal friend, another as his son, and still another as his lover. KRSNa rewards all the devotees equally, according to their different intensities of love for Him. In the material world, the same reciprocations of feelings are there, and they are equally exchanged by the Lord with the different types of worshipers. The pure devotees both here and in the transcendental abode associate with Him in person and are able to render personal service to the Lord and thus derive transcendental bliss in His loving service.

 

 

As for those who are impersonalists and who want to commit spiritual suicide by annihilating the individual existence of the living entity, KRSNa helps also by absorbing them into His effulgence. Such impersonalists do not agree to accept the eternal, blissful Personality of Godhead; consequently they cannot relish the bliss of transcendental personal service to the Lord, having extinguished their individuality. Some of them, who are not firmly situated even in the impersonal existence, return to this material field to exhibit their dormant desires for activities. They are not admitted into the spiritual planets, but they are again given a chance to act on the material planets.

 

 

For those who are fruitive workers, the Lord awards the desired results of their prescribed duties, as the yajJezvara; and those who are yogIs seeking mystic powers are awarded such powers. In other words, <b><font color=blue>everyone is dependent for success upon His mercy alone, and all kinds of spiritual processes are but different degrees of success on the same path</b></font>. Unless, therefore, one comes to the highest perfection of KRSNa consciousness, all attempts remain imperfect, as is stated in the SrImad-BhAgavatam (2.3.10):

 

<center>

akAmaH sarva-kAmo vA

mokSa-kAma udAra-dhIH

tIvreNa bhakti-yogena

yajeta puruSaM param

</center>

"Whether one is without desire [the condition of the devotees], or is desirous of all fruitive results, or is after liberation, one should with all efforts try to worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead for complete perfection, culminating in KRSNa consciousness."

 

 

[gHari]

Atheism (Tamo Guna)

Mental Speculation

Mundane Religion

Karma Yoga

Astanga Yoga

Bhakti Yoga

SURRENDER

 

...... free of the earth's gravitational pull

 

 

 

 

[Laulyam]

Sannyasi Thakura said, “Prabhu! For a long time I have heard of the pre-eminence of dharma. On numerous occasions I have asked the question, ‘What is dharma?’ to so many people. It is a cause of distress to me that the answers those people have given contradict each other. So please tell me, what is the true constitutional dharma of the jivas? And why do different teachers explain the nature of dharma in such diverse ways? If dharma is one, why don’t all learned teachers cultivate that one universal dharma which is without a second?”

Paramahamsa Babaji meditated upon the lotus feet of Bhagavan Sri Krsna Caitanya, and began to speak: “O most fortunate one, I shall describe to you the principles of dharma as far as my knowledge allows. An object is called a vastu, and its eternal nature is known as its nitya-dharma. Nature arises from the elementary structure of an object (ghatana). By Krsna’s desire, when an object is formed, a particular nature is inherent in that structure as an eternal concomitant factor. This nature is the nitya-dharma of the object.

“The nature of a given object becomes altered or distorted when a change takes place within it, either by force of circumstance, or due to contact with other objects. With the passage of time, this distorted nature becomes fixed, and appears to be permanent, as if it were the eternal nature of that object. This distorted nature is not the svabhava (true nature); it is called nisarga, that nature which is acquired through long-term association. This nisarga occupies the place of the factual nature, and becomes identified as the svabhava.

“For example, water is an object and its svabhava is liquidity. When water solidifies, due to certain circumstances, and becomes ice, the acquired nature of solidity takes the place of its inherent nature. In reality, this acquired nature is not eternal; rather, it is occasional or temporary. It arises because of some cause, and when that cause is no longer effective, this acquired nature vanishes automatically. However, the svabhava is eternal. It may become distorted, but it still remains inseparably connected to its object, and the original nature will certainly become evident again when the proper time and circumstances arise.

“The svabhava of an object is its nitya-dharma (eternal function), while its acquired nature is its naimittika-dharma (occasional function). Those who have true knowledge of objects (vastu-jnana) can know the difference between eternal and occasional function, whereas those who lack this knowledge consider acquired nature to be true nature, and they consequently mistake the temporary dharma for eternal dharma.”

“What is it that is called vastu, and what is the meaning of svabhava?” asked Sannyasi Thakura.

Paramahamsa Babaji said, “The word vastu is derived from the Sanskrit verbal root vas, which means ‘to exist’, or ‘to dwell’. The verbal root becomes a noun when the suffix tu is added. Therefore, vastu means ‘that which has existence or which is self-evident’. There are two types of vastu: vastava and avastava. The term ‘truly abiding substance’, vastava-vastu, refers to that which is

grounded in transcendence. Temporary objects, avastava-vastu, are dravya (solid objects), guna (qualities), and so on. Real objects have eternal existence. Unreal objects only have a semblance of existence, which is sometimes real and sometimes unreal.

“It is said in the Srimad-Bhagavatam (1.1.2)

vedyam vastavam atra vastu sivadam

Only a truly abiding substance, which is related to the Supreme Absolute Truth and which yields supreme auspiciousnes is worthy of being known.

“From this statement it is clearly understood that the only real substance is that which is related to the Supreme Transcendence. Sri Bhagavan is the only real Entity (vastava-vastu). The living entity (jiva) is a distinct or individual part of that Entity, while maya—the potency that produces bewilderment—is the energy of that Entity. Therefore, the word vastu refers to three fundamental principles: Bhagavan, the jiva, and maya. Knowledge of the mutual relationship between these three principles is known as pure knowledge (suddha-jnana). There are innumerable apparent representations of these three principles, and they are all regarded as avastava-vastu, unreal substances. The classification of phenomena into various categories such as dravya (objects) and guna (qualities), which is undertaken by the Vaisesika school of philosophy, is merely a deliberation on the nature of avastava-vastu, temporary objects.

“The special characteristic (visesa-guna) of any truly abiding substance is its factual nature. The jiva is a real entity, and his eternal characteristic quality is his true nature.”

Sannyasi Maharaja said, “Prabhu, I want to understand this

topic very clearly.

Babaji Mahasaya replied, “Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami, who was an object of the mercy of Sri Nityananda Prabhu, showed me a manuscript that he had written with his own hand. Sriman Mahaprabhu has instructed us on this subject in the book named Sri Caitanya-caritamrta (Madhya 20.108) as follows:

 

 

 

jivera svarupa haya krsnera nitya-dasa

 

 

 

krsnera tatastha-sakti bhedabheda-prakasa

 

 

 

 

The constitutional nature of the jiva is to be an eternal servant of Sri Krsna. He is the marginal potency of Krsna, and is a manifestation simultaneously one with Him, and different from Him.

 

 

 

krsna bhuli sei jiva anadi-bahirmukha

 

 

 

ataeva maya tare deya samsara-duhkha

 

 

 

Caitanya-caritamrta, (Madhya 20.117)

 

 

 

 

The jiva who has forgotten Krsna has been preoccupied with the external potency since time without beginning. Consequently,Krsna’s illusory potency (maya) gives him miseryin the form of material existence.

“Krsna is the complete transcendental substance (cid-vastu). He is often compared to the sun of the spiritual realm, and the jivas are compared to the sun’s atomic particles of light. Jivas are innumerable. When it is said that they are individual parts of Krsna, it does not mean that they are like the pieces of stone that form a mountain. Although innumerable jiva portions emanate from Sri Krsna, He is not diminished by this in the slightest. For this reason,

the Vedas have compared the jivas in one respect to sparks emanating from a fire. In reality, no adequate comparison can be made. No comparison—whether to sparks of a blazing fire, atomic particles within the rays of the sun, or gold produced from powerful mystic jewels—is completely appropriate. The true nature of the jiva is easily revealed in the heart, but only when the mundane conception of these comparisons is given up.

[Kulapavana]

 

The top of the mountain is the goal.. There are many paths up the mountain..

I had always thought "Hinduism" held to this idea.. Am I wrong?

 

Actually, as you go up, higher and higher, you will see that it is not just one mountain but an entire mountain range up there.

 

Some will say: I want to reach the highest peak! While others are just happy to be walking the mountain trails enjoing the view... Anyway.. if you see a nice valley up these mountains that feels like home - go ahead and settle down there. Sometimes the desire to reach the highest peak is just a material ambition.

 

Another point: pick a path you can actually walk. Some trails may seem more direct but may be too hard for you. Better to get there later then to give up the trail and turn back because it is too hard. It is not a 100 meter dash but a marathon

[suchandra]

 

 

Another point: pick a path you can actually walk. Some trails may seem more direct but may be too hard for you. Better to get there later then to give up the trail and turn back because it is too hard. It is not a 100 meter dash but a marathon

Looks like this is the common understanding of quite a lot Vaishnavas - finally something what is agreed upon.

 

Harikes, posted November 2007:

The idea that an individual should decide to accept something that is personally acceptable and reject that which is not, is very good, but something that will certainly be objected to by organized religion which is more concerned with telling you what is best for you.

 

I would not accept any statement of Buddha on the basis that he would only say what is best for people. I would still examine it and see if it had relevance to me. It seems to me he would agree with this idea.

 

<center> <table class="quote-table" align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="90%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="quote-corner" height="19" width="19"></td> <td class="quote-header" align="left" width="100%">Quote:</td> </tr> <tr> <td class="quote-left"></td> <td class="quote-text">Also, I would say that the last sentence in the quote is slightly tricky. There are some things that don?t agree with my reason and I don?t see them as conducive to the good of all, but there is somebody else that does. So, are they then indeed for the good of all or not? According to Buddha I should have a right and power to make that decision for myself, even if not for others. </td> </tr> </tbody></table></center>

 

If someone says that a thing is good for all people and you do not think it is good for you, then either it is not really good for all people or you are wrong in thinking it is not good for you.

 

 

If you do not have enough faith in yourself to determine what is good for you or not, then you can experiment with doing what you were told is good for you. If after a longer period of time and enough experience with acting in this manner you see it is indeed good for you, then you will develop more faith in the concept that others know better what is good for you. If, however, you find acting according to other's ideas is not good for you, you will develop more confidence in yourself.

 

Either way, it is you who has decided what to believe and how to act. Ultimately, you have enough faith in your decisions to guide your actions. We always are in charge of what we believe and what we do. It is impossible to avoid this. Even those who enter into religions or other restrictive social or spiritual associations are doing so of their own free will and choice. When they later claim they are now simply following what they are told, they are actually continuing to do what they think is right when they follow. Therefore never forget that you are always in power and can choose as you like.

 

The problem is that it often takes far more courage to admit one's course of action is no longer relevant and make the appropriate changes. We often feel it would be against our other interests to do so.

 

Therefore it is essential that we understand our personal responsibility for our beliefs and our choices.

It is most dangerous when one becomes convinced that one is powerless to make changes when one feels one should. It is even worse when one avoids change by nullifying the capacity to feel due to being unable to deal with the conflict between one's faith and one's experience.