kidvisions Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Hello everyone, Philosophy makes us think about, I would say, everything important to human being. It gives answers, more likely to be logical and convincing. It doesn't semm though to be satisfactory, that is why we turn to religions and spirituality. I'm wondering if it isn't enough? Why do we need spirituality if philosophy gives more logical answers, ones that the mind can easily accept most of the time? Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncientMariner Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 My understanding of the Vedic literature is that the philosophical approach to the absolute truth is pretty difficult. In Vedic literature it seems they seem to emphasize bhakti or devotional service over the philosphical method of discovering the divine person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidvisions Posted May 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 But here again, such conceptions do not challange the human mind. We hide behind a very subjective contentment, one that is not valid for every human being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncientMariner Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 But here again, such conceptions do not challange the human mind.We hide behind a very subjective contentment, one that is not valid for every human being. I guess it takes many many births in the material world to get to the point where one is attracted to bhakti. The jnani's or philosophical speculators I guess they just keep on speculating and speculating for lifetime after lifetime until they finally get tired and take up bhakti but I guess it is also possible to philosophically realize that God is a person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidvisions Posted May 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 But there are so many conceptions of God. And it is unfair to judge others who never had the chance to learn what we know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visnujana Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Good question. A living entity's inherent nature is that he always strives for happiness. Mind (which is usually considered in one group with the senses) is how we perceive reality and receive our pleasures. However, the mind is not independent. It is controlled by intelligence. For example, if I see an ice cream, in my mind I will want it, but my intelligence might say: "Hey, don't eat ice cream now, your cold will get worse." Intelligence is also not independent. It depends on the ego, which sets a range, a field of activity for intelligence and mind. So, our ability of enjoyment is limited. For example, there is also a spiritual enjoyment, but being conditioned (under the false ego) we may not see this potential - our mind and senses can not detect spiritual objects of the spiritual pleasures (God's Holy names, God's beautiful form, His sweet pastimes, etc.). There is an instrument to try to break this limitation (material conditioning) from within. We use some of our intelligence to analyze the external boundaries. This is called neti-neti (elimination of material boundaries by analyzing and negation of material qualities). This is the process of impersonal liberation and this is also generally referred to as philosophy, although sometimes mere a process of some adjustments within the material realm also passes as philosophy. The problem with this impersonal liberation is that although it is capable of destroying the false ego, it is not capable of creating the true one. Thus the real spiritual objects of the spiritual senses and mind are still unavailable... although the material ones don't bother any longer. So, it's not an ultimate solution, but this is as much as philosophy can do. In other to go beyond that we need to know and recognize yet another layer in the structure of our conscious self, which is even above the ego. That is our true self, the soul. The soul is eternally bound with the Super Soul, God. But the soul is also a person. Thus he has some freedom. The soul can choose how exactly to be bound with God. He can choose to love God, or to forget Him and feel independent. According to this choice the soul makes, he receives either true or false ego, which are basically the very fact that he is already bound in a certain way, he has chosen. So, even being under the false ago in the conditioned state, the soul can still 'change his spiritual mind', i.e. re-choose how to be bound with God. This happens deep on the level of the soul and at first hardly can be noticed outwardly on the level of mind and intelligence (material personality). The material person is still completely engaged in the chains of karma, i.e. he can be poor or rich, smart or stupid, etc. but something interesting will start happening. Even if the soul is currently in an animal's body he will start receive chances to come in contact with things and times connected to the Lord: get some remnants from a saintly person, hear some God's names etc. These all even when taken unconsciously create nitya-sukriti, spiritual pious credits. When sukriti is accumulated to a certain amount it turns into faith - natural attraction or interest for God. That is how a person starts on a the path to God which will lead him way beyond moksa (impersonal liberation) and to the ultimate destination. On the spiritual path there is also a philosophy. But that philosophy is different because it is basically some degree of the pure spiritual knowledge, whereas the impersonal philosophy is just freedom from material conceptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 The problem with this impersonal liberation is that although it is capable of destroying the false ego, it is not capable of creating the true one. only bhakti yogis and the neo vedantins of modern times accept the importance of this 'true ego' . but orthodox advaita discards both false ego( i , mine ours etc) and true ego(im god's servant,im his eternal part , everything is god's will etc) to reach the spiritual state as per their conception . they do not attach any importance to this true ego . they want to transcend ego altogether , whether good or bad . therefore it cannot be termed as a 'problem' of the gyanis . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 spirituality is not something exclusive from philosophy . where science ends spirituality begins . and the base of this spirituality is philosophy itself . we turn religious because we want material gain . we turn spiritual because of the sublime philosophy it contains . if there is no philosophy there is no spirituality either .............what would be the ideal to accomplish ?............why would we need to turn spiritual ? both of them are interlinked ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visnujana Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 therefore it cannot be termed as a 'problem' of the gyanis . Very true. Moksa was their goal and they have achieved that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kali_Upasaka Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Message deleted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visnujana Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 When we pray to GOD, do we think about the concept of Saguna Brahman? None of the great Bhakthas bothered about philosophy. Yet they did border to leave us tons of philosophical literature. Was it for no reason? Understanding of saguna-brahman and the general process of its attainment is actually very important for bhaktas. Otherwsie it would not have been mentioned in the very definition shloka of bhakti (anyabhilasita-sunyam gyana-karmaanavritam..) Gyana here indicates that we should give up any endevours for monistis liberation. If our hearts were pure of those, there would be nothing to give up and therefore those lines would not have been there. Now if some inclination for monistic liberation is there in my heart I need to be able to spot it. Emotions in my heart are not labeled. So, it's easy to mistake ones that are actually gyana with bhakti if I don't know exactly the characteristics of those. So, I do need to know philosophy very well, and that's why it all has been given to us by our acariyas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Very true. Moksa was their goal and they have achieved that. yes !! moksha had been their goal and the end also . it the end not just for gyanis for also for bhaktas !! how ? true bhaktas do not want moksha or gyana for sure but it comes automatically as an end result . theres no denying that !! bhakti yogis dont crave for mksha but dont deny it ! without moksha the entire concept of preaching and delivering the souls through krishna -naam would be useless . why would jivas turn to KC ??? what is it that creates the need to be liberated ? why do we need to chant ? to come out of this material existence and get back to god head ..........moksha again . ha ha !! but yes , the concept of moksha varies . for advaitins it union with god and for bhaktas it is sayujya etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 You are a Bhaktha. Does it really matter what category of Bhaktha you are or what category is your Bhakthi? Bhakti to god and bhakti to demigod are not the same or do you think they are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Bhakti to god and bhakti to demigod are not the same or do you think they are? who is god and who are demigods , sant ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 krishna is god and others including kali and ganesh are demigods.THats not mine but but the opinion of scriptures and great jagadgurus. Yes vishnu and all his forms also before you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 what about mahavira of the jains , guru granth of the sikhs , ahura mazda of parsees , father of the christians and allah of the muslims . are they demi gods as well . answer expected with revelent explanation and causes !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kali_Upasaka Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Message deleted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Yet they did bother to leave us tons of philosophical literature. Was it for no reason? Of course they left tons of thoughts for the inquiring mind.For the less intelligent with closed minds there is always blind faith(mooda bhakthi).What Prahlada demonstrated is Strong faith not blind faith.Strong faith is the hall mark of enlightened souls.Strong faith cannot be equated with blind faith. Just my thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 An ounce of practice is more valuable than tonnes of theories. Spiritual progress depends entirely on practice and not on knowledge of Philosophy. When we pray to GOD, do we think about the concept of Saguna Brahman? None of the great Bhakthas bothered about philosophy. Knowledge of Philosophy is not a pre-requisite for spiritual progress. No.This is a very wrong notion. Siddhanta bali aa chitte na kor alas. -Gauranga Mahaprabhu. You should never be lazy in understanding Philosophy.Again and Agian you should hear about it and make your beliefs firm. Sri Narada states that,"Bhakti performed without the sastric support or sastric injunction following is absolute nonsense as it leads to offenses." So knowing philosophy is a must. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 None of the Bhakthas I have been inspired by like Prahlada, Saint Mira, Sant Tukaram, Ram Prasad Sen, the Nayanmars, the Azhwars had any grounding in Philosophy. I do not think Prahlada or Sant Tukaram was inspired by reading some Sloka on Bhakthi. This is only my point of view. Prahlada maharaja,when he was in the womb of Kayadhu...Sri Narada imparted vedic knowledge to his mother.He heard it then. His mind was so attrcted by the Supreme Truth that he immediately had it fixed it in his mind.This is obviously due to his previous sanskars. He had completely hung on to that supreme Knowledge imparted by Narada and Surrendered to The Lord. Thus- siddhanta bali aa chitte na kor alas. When you know 100% that the bank which is going to keep your savings,is reputable,only THEN do you surrender all your wealth and trust the bank will keep it safe. This is complete surrender. *** Meera...She was the disciple of Swmi Haridas,who himself was from the Nimbarka Sampradaya and thus established in Siddhanta. Besides,Meera was the epitome of Raganuga Bhakti.Raga bhakti is summed up in one word : GREED. She had Greed for the attainment of the Lord.The Bhakti like that is perfected from previous lives and is thus spontaneous. When she was small,her mum pointed out to a deity form of Sri Krsna and said,"Look,There's your husband." Meera held on to that notion with her whole life.She surrendered completely impelled by her previous devotion. Thus - Siddhanta bali aa chitte na kor aalas. *** Sant Tukaram- His works only reflect his unending knowledge of sastras and Vedas. *** The alwars- they were divine personalities all descended from Pravyoma,where the vedas personified are attendants of the Lord. So there..there is no chance of even understanding Krsna Tattva/Rama tattva/Visnu tattva without knowing sastra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 what about mahavira of the jains , guru granth of the sikhs , ahura mazda of parsees , father of the christians and allah of the muslims . are they demi gods as well . answer expected with revelent explanation and causes !! Allah,Jehovah,Yahweh....refer to the 'Lord God In the Heavens'.THus it is understood to be Sri Krsna in goloka. If you say that why is it that their theory of God is not accepted, you need to simply compare the Bhagavatam with the Bible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidvisions Posted May 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 spirituality is not something exclusive from philosophy . where science ends spirituality begins . and the base of this spirituality is philosophy itself . we turn religious because we want material gain . we turn spiritual because of the sublime philosophy it contains . if there is no philosophy there is no spirituality either .............what would be the ideal to accomplish ?............why would we need to turn spiritual ? both of them are interlinked ! Very well said. I can't possibly disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kali_Upasaka Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 I have always been fascinated by Chaitanya Maha Prabhu. I thought his mission was to spread Bhakthi. Again Panduranga in Pandarpur is my favorite Krishna temple. Saints like Tukaram and bhakthas like Korakumba encouraged me. Korakumaba was a potter who was devoted to Panduranga. Panduranga gave him Dharshan and helped even in solving his family problems. The moral of Korakumba's story is that if you are devoted to Panduranga, he will help you. To me Bhakthi is total surrender to GOD. I was under the impression that the Hare Krishna movement was all about chanting the Lord's name. I am surprised to know that you can not become a Bhaktha if you do not know the scriptures and philosophies. Bhakthi movement spread like wild fire in India because it did away with the caste restrictions. GOD was accessible to all Hindus irrespective of caste. If the Bhakthi movement had insisted on a knowledge of scriptures and philosophies, it would have never become popular. The reason is that only the Brahmins were allowed to study the scriptures. I would like to continue to believe that the Hare Krishna movement is all about chanting the name of the Lord. I do not to the view that "a MOODA can not attain the lotus feet of the Lord." And I believe that Sri Chithanya Maha Prabhu, Tukaram and other saints whom I revere never said such a thing. I have deleted my earlier posts. I remain A MOODA Bhaktha/Upasaka I am happy to join the Gopis of Brindavan in Mooda Bhakthi. http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/dec96/0022.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 I do not to the view that "a MOODA can not attain the lotus feet of the Lord." I don't either to that view. And I believe that Sri Chithanya Maha Prabhu, Tukaram and other saints whom I revere never said such a thing. Correct, if that bhakti is restricted to pursuit of bhakthi alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 what about mahavira of the jains , guru granth of the sikhs , ahura mazda of parsees , father of the christians and allah of the muslims . are they demi gods as well . answer expected with revelent explanation and causes !! So do you think mahavir is considered as god, no read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahavira#Mahavira.27s_philosophy, as for guru granth sahib i dont think sikhs refer it to as god. Its a book cmon do some research before asking. christians pray to vishnu as i have posted it earlier from bhavishya puraan. Ahura mazda is a name just like god. even allah is.It refers to god as lord of universe,all pervading etc. and so this can be attributed to vishnu and even shiva . Besides the brahman and all pervading energy of god is everywhere. 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.