Materialisitic vs. Religious People

[kaisersose]

Starting a new thread as this topic digresses from the original topic of the other thread.

 

 

lol,I like this point : "The materialistic people consider Us(Bhagavan and prema bhakta) mad and

We consider the materialistic people mad."

 

Ranjeet, your post makes me curious. We will try to do this without getting into the usual mud-slinging.

 

1. Do you watch Television?

2. Do you use Computers?

3. When you need to travel, do you always walk or do you also ride/drive/fly as appropriate?

4. Do you enjoy eating Rasmalai?

5. Do you live a frugal life, keeping the bare minimum for yourself and give away the rest of your earnings to people lacking basic facilities?

6. Do you have a savings account and/or investments or have you left your future entirely to Krishna and have no financial investments?

7. Do you love your family?

8. Do you have career aspirations?

 

I ask all these questions because these are what a materialistic person does – eat Rasagullas, seek a comfortable life and save for the future as circumstances permit (cannot rely on Krishna or Rama for money), generally love one’s family, seek better career prospects, etc.

 

Your comment makes me wonder how you are different from this. You may say, you do all this, but the difference is you love Krishna. Why does that make the material person “mad”? Just like you he is doing whatever makes him happy and as long as he is happy, what is the problem? Now you may say, his happiness is short-lived, etc. But the problem is, you have no way of measuring the other person’s happiness and classify it as short-lived or long-lived, etc.

 

I think you get what I am asking. I am curious to know how different you are from the stereotype material person and what makes him mad. Everyone is welcome to add and please refrain from quoting religious books. This is one question you can answer with your own intelligence; without falling back on someone else’s wisdom.

 

Cheers

 

[ranjeetmore]

lol,I like this point(stated/indicated by Sri Gauranga ) : "Materialistic people consider Us mad and We consider the materialistic people mad"

 

I simply do not understand why you thought i was referring to myself when i actually never closed the quotes...

 

the We in the above statement refers only to Bhagavan and His associates.Not me.

[ranjeetmore]

its good you didn't resort to mud slinging...otherwise (no offense) you'd have made a great fool of yourself.

[kaisersose]

 

the We in the above statement refers only to Bhagavan and His associates.Not me.

 

Thanks for clarifying.

 

Cheers

[Kali_Upasaka]

This is a good topic for discussion. I would like to suggest changing the topic to Materialistic Vs Religious Vs Spiritual people. All of us would have seen very religious people who are quite materialistic. Being religious does not make one spiritual. Especially in a ritual oriented religion like Hinduism, one is considered religious when you perform the necessary rituals.

 

Our aim is to become spiritual. I am not talking about the different definitions of spirituality in the various schools of thought. Mukthi, Kaivalyam, Shivaloka, Vaikundam, merging with the lord or serving Krishna or what ever you believe in. All these are spiritual goals.

 

How do we define a Materialistic person? He is one who has not even thought of any of the above things. He is only bothered about Wealth, Success, Fame etc.

 

The moment one starts thinking about any spiritual goal, his journey starts. He ceases to be a purely materialistic person.

 

Is the topic worth a discussion?

[sambya]

I feel good natured soft hearted material people are far better than overtly religious people .

 

there are religious people here in india that would feed the crows everyday and then go on to exploit poor people the very next moment . just think of how 'religious' these marwari shets are , as an example !!

 

its better to lead a moral and just life than be religious .

 

but if someone is spiritual in a true sense , or at least tires to be so , then that individual is surely a boon to the society .

 

i think its a sense of egoism that makes us proclaim that we are spiritual . we are all very material except that we spend some amount of time in thinking about matters of spirit . that might be the only difference from the so called material persons .

 

moreover i dont think anyone can be truly spiritual without realising god himself . before that we are all trying to be spiritual !

[sant]

wiki

Spirituality is matters of the spirit, a concept tied to a spirit world, a multidimensional reality and one or more deities. Spiritual matters regard humankind's ultimate nature and purpose, not as material biological organisms, but as spirits with an eternal relationship beyond the bodily senses, time and the material world. Spirituality implies the mind-body dichotomy, which indicates a separation between the body and soul.

 

 

 

Another

adj.

 

1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material.
   
2. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
   
3. Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
   
4. Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
   
5. Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.

Swami chidanand

Spirituality is the essence of life.It is the light that shines on our lives,illuminating our paths,bringing light light to darkness,joy to the sorrow, and meaning to the incomprehensible.And the essense of spirituality?Essence of spirituality is service.As one goes deeper on a spiritual path and one gets closer and closer to realisation and elightenment,one realises That the divine resides in everythin.One begins to see Gods presence in every person,animal and every plant.

 

end.

 

 

Sambya youre trying to explain your own definition of spiritual.Is it one from vivekanadas books.

 

One who has started enquiring about his existense and is living in such a way is considered to be spiritual.

 

 

There are different ways people take spirituality to be.

[Kali_Upasaka]

I do not understand why we have to go to Wikipedia or any of the Swamijis for finding out what Spirituality is. There can never be a standard definition which is applicable in all cases.

 

For example take the case of

 

1. A social aware individual who is committed to the welfare of the poor and spends his entire life working for their benefit. There are many whom we have never heard of because they shun publicity. They are not religious. But they do not care for creature comforts and spend their life time in tribal areas and shanty colonies. I have met some of them.

 

Are they not spiritual? They are.

 

2. A person who talks a lot about spirituality, gives lectures on scriptures, can quote from scriptures. But travels only in an air conditioned car. Wears clothes, slippers and other personal things which only the very rich can afford. They stay in the best hotels and have the best food. Many a time these are Sannyasis also. Very publicity conscious.

 

All of us would have met at least one such individual. Hinduism seem to be proliferated with such people.

 

Are these individuals spiritual? NO. By no stretch of imagination can they be called spiritual.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

 

Are these individuals spiritual? NO. By no stretch of imagination can they be called spiritual.

Well, actually, with a little stretch of the imagination they can be.

Because, the spiritual teachers from India know that the western world does not have the same respect and admiration for old men wearing tattered rags and living in grass and dung huts, as in India.

 

So, when they come to teach in the western countries they prefer to show that one does not have to wear tattered rags, live in grass huts and beg for food to make spiritual advancement.

 

There were many Rajarsis in India who lived lives of spectacular opulence and wealth but who were the most advanced spiritual sages.

 

The notion that one must wear rags, beg and live in poverty to be a spiritual person is a false conception born from ignorance of the Vedic culture.

 

Even great kings of India who lived in fabulous wealth have been known and respected as great sages and yogis.

 

Wealth and comfort is only bad if it causes you to forget about the purpose and meaning of life.

 

There have been many great souls in the past who have attained spirituality while in the midst of material opulence.

 

But, that doesn't apply to me, because I am poor by western standards.

[sant]

 

There can never be a standard definition which is applicable in all cases

I simply said that different people can have different views about spiriutality.

 

 

2. A person who talks a lot about spirituality, gives lectures on scriptures, can quote from scriptures. But travels only in an air conditioned car. Wears clothes, slippers and other personal things which only the very rich can afford. They stay in the best hotels and have the best food. Many a time these are Sannyasis also

You simply dont know about working without attachment.

Such things happen hwen you simply ignore the gita and think those are karam yogis to be non spiritual.Nonsense tantric texts have corrupted your mind.

The vedas Mostly talk about living a life as a karam yogi and that is why the yagnas etc.if you think that going to the forest or going to the himalyas just is spritual then youre not fully correct.of course such things do have an impact but what kind of yog will you do if you dont have vairaagya.Vairaagya doesnt necessarily come by going to the forest.

[Kali_Upasaka]

Janaka Maharaja is the only individual who has been mentioned specifically as a person who was a Raja but a Rishi in spirituality. He was an exception rather than a rule. Therein lies his greatness.

 

We do not expect our Swamijis to go in tatters. The disciples would feel very bad if their Gurus went around in tatters. But you need not have a fleet of Rolls Royces or wear designer wear.

 

Attachment. Just see the the reaction of the Swamijis when the promised amount for the lecture is not delivered. Or when the lose their Omega watch.

[sant]

 

We do not expect our Swamijis to go in tatters. The disciples would feel very bad if their Gurus went around in tatters. But you need not have a fleet of Rolls Royces or wear designer wear.

 

Attachment. Just see the the reaction of the Swamijis when the promised amount for the lecture is not delivered. Or when the lose their Omega watch.

 

 

Yes such things do happen.That is why people are losing faith.

But not all are like that.How would you feel if i said ramakrishna was hungry to eat meat that is why he went on to follow the vaman marg.

no this is wrong.

[Kali_Upasaka]

Forget about Swamijis. This raises a question whether you can be spiritual while living in the material world.

 

Yes. We can. Then how do we go about it? That should be the central point of this discussion.

 

All of us know Gita and what it teaches. But how do we apply it in our lives? Not by quoting the Gita. But by applying the basics.

[sant]

 

Forget about Swamijis. This raises a question whether you can be spiritual while living in the material world.

 

Yes. We can. Then how do we go about it? That should be the central point of this discussion.

 

All of us know Gita and what it teaches. But how do we apply it in our lives? Not by quoting the Gita. But by applying the basics.

 

what are the basics sir.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

 

Attachment. Just see the the reaction of the Swamijis when the promised amount for the lecture is not delivered. Or when the lose their Omega watch.

 

I don't know what "swamijis" you are talking about, but that would in fact be an excess.

I know several Gaudiya swamis and none of them are that materialistic.

[Kali_Upasaka]

I also know many Swamijis of Gowdiya and other sects who are not at all materialistic. I have the highest reverence for them. I was quoting the example of Swamijis only to stress the point about not being spiritual even while being a Sannyasi/Swamiji.

 

What are the basics in Spirituality?

 

1. It is something which is not materialistic.

 

2. It does not confer on you money, fame and other worldly possessions.

 

I am sure there is more. So let us put on our thinking caps and post. No quotes please. Some original thinking.

[Kali_Upasaka]

What are the basics in Spirituality?

 

1. It is something which is not materialistic.

 

2. It does not confer on you money, fame and other worldly possessions.

 

Then why do people turn toward Spirituality?

 

The most basic emotion of any human being is FEAR. As Bhatruhari put it

 

1. In wealth is the fear of poverty,

 

2. In knowledge the fear of ignorance,

 

3. In beauty the fear of age,

 

4. In fame the fear of backbiters,

 

5. In success the fear of jealousy,

 

6. In body is the fear of death.

 

Everything in this earth is fraught with fear.

 

We can always add more fears like losing the loved ones etc.

 

Fear and Love are the two basic emotions.

 

There could be human beings who do not know the emotion of Love, but there is no human being who does not know fear.

 

Sorrow and other feelings are only derivatives of Love and Fear.

 

That is why we always emphasize the Abhaya Mudra or giving relief from Fear.

 

The concept of Nishkamya Karma and Saranagatha Bhakthi which is the main message of Bhagavad Gita shows us how to conquer FEAR.

[hindustani]

Beautiful thread indeed.

I agree with Sambya again,many times this old song turns true-bholi surat dil ke......naam bade aur darshan chhote.Or mukh me raam bagal me chhuri etc.

 

I feel good natured soft hearted material people are far better than overtly religious people

Spirituality should come from within,it should be simple one and not complex type.I know many simple people who are religious but find tuff to tackle some normal problems in their life where there are some materialistic people who can handle same problems with ease!

Showing to others that I am religious is as good as showing my all cars to public marked with my status symbol on them,very thin line is there with a pendulam howering around which is tuff to balance and those who can do this win the race of their life.

[ranjeetmore]

 

Janaka Maharaja is the only individual who has been mentioned specifically as a person who was a Raja but a Rishi in spirituality. He was an exception rather than a rule. Therein lies his greatness.

 

.

 

huh????

 

90% of Gauranga's associates were grhastas.

 

You have heard of Prahlada maharaja.He ruled the universe but he was one of the greatest mahatmas-a mahajana infact...best among the mahatmas.

 

Dhruva maharaja,etc.. all these people are kings and emperors who rule the world yet remain engrossed in Hari.

The mind is the main factor.

 

In the muktikopanishad etc. it is clearly stated that the mind is the sole cause for conditioning and for liberation.

 

So all the associates of Gauranga who were grhastas were top class mahatamas which even the so called sannyasis can never measure up to.This is because their minds were in Sri Krsna.

 

 

***

 

this good nature...soft hearted people...who are these ???

 

These are people in sattva guna...

 

Sri KRsna says in geeta...don't attch your minds to such people...you will only enjoy Brahmaloka at the most...

 

You simply attach your minds to Me and My chelas.We both are beyond sattva guna also...

 

So the mahatmas,are by default situated in divya sattva.They may have a 5 billion dollar mansion,but he is a mahatma if he attached to Sri Krsna completely.

 

This is the proof of mahatma.His mind should be attached to God.Money,it's absence and presence has nothing to do with it.The mahatma should be selfless and that's that.

 

His organisation may be the richest in the world.Only his conduct matters for it reflects his inner,pure nature.

 

Even the gyanis were accepted as mahatmas.The brahmgyanis had their mind attached to Brahm.

[ranjeetmore]

 

Forget about Swamijis. This raises a question whether you can be spiritual while living in the material world.

 

Yes. We can. Then how do we go about it? That should be the central point of this discussion.

 

All of us know Gita and what it teaches. But how do we apply it in our lives? Not by quoting the Gita. But by applying the basics.

 

 

What you say about the basics is right.But it is also very important to know the most confidential knowledge.

 

At the end of the Geeta,Sri Krsna told Arjuna,"Till now I have given you knowledge of the six darshan sastras.Still your mind doesn't budge.You are still eating My head, "paap! paap! I will incur sin if i kill them".So now,I will tell you the most confidential knowledge."

 

Arjuna sat up straight.

 

Sarva guhyatamam guhya.

 

guhya-means secretive.

 

Only guhya was enough.But He used SARVA GUHYATAMAM GUHYA.

 

tHE MOST private of private of private fact.

 

 

Arjuna: Wat is it ?

Sri Krsna: Sarva dharman parityajya mam ekam sharnam vraja.

 

Arjuna was about to sigh,"Thousands of times you have told this to me to surrender my mind to You,Madhusudana !"

 

but Sri KRsna quickly proceeded,"Aham tvam sarva paapebhyo mokshashyami."

 

 

Haa.Now Arjuna's brain lit up.He felt like shouting at Sri Krsna,"Why couldn't You tell this at the starting when i told You that I am competely at Your disposal and will do anything You say ?? If You would've told me that You'll take away all my sins,I would have immediately put my mind in You and killed them."

 

(the karma-sanchit karma,etc. is the main cause for bondage of the soul.Only when this karma/sins/paapa/punya evrything is destroyed by Bhagavat-kripa,only then the soul can be said to be liberated.)

 

Bhagavan chuckled,"How would the geeta be delivered for the mankind ?"

 

 

So the most secretive,the most confidential,the most important knowledge,the summary of the summary of the upanishads is this:

 

Surrender the mind to Sri Krsna.Attach it to Him.Mahatmas are identified after inspecting them against this fact.

 

Everything else follows automatically.There is

 

NO CHANCE IN HELL THAT THE MIND CAN DETACH FROM THE WORLD JUST LIKE THAT.IT HAS TO BE ATTACHED TO BHAGAVAN IN ORDER TO DETACH FROM THE WORLD.

 

aND naturally,if the mind is detached from the world,the person is pure and moreover,if the mind is attached to the most auspicious Person,his mind is purest of the purest...just like bhagavan.

[sant]

 

aND naturally,if the mind is detached from the world,the person is pure and moreover,if the mind is attached to the most auspicious Person,his mind is purest of the purest...just like bhagavan.

 

If that was true then what about adi shankaracharya and all the advaitins they dont have attachment for anything not even sri krishan still they were detached werent they.

[ranjeetmore]

quoting from geeta is not a crime.

 

Many people-almost all have read the geeta...But not even a percent of them know the most important message of the Geeta.And if they do(me,for instance),they hardly apply it in their lives and do rigorous sadhana of the above said nature.

 

(attaching the mind to Sri Krsna).

[ranjeetmore]

santji,have you heard about the niraakar brahm ?

[sant]

yes ranjeetmoreji

[Kali_Upasaka]

The most basic emotion of any human being is FEAR. Bhatruhari has also classified it in his Vairagya sathakam.

 

Now how do we go about conquering these fears? It is by conditioning the mind. The soldiers are taught to face death every day. Their training make them lose the fear of death. Not complete but almost.

 

Hinduism uses the word detachment for this conditioning.

 

Jnana Yoga - Advocates renunciation. Unfortunately this path is not suitable for most of us in the modern times. Instead of developing Vairagya one might end up developing Virakthi.

 

Karma Yoga _ Nishkamya Karma is basically detachment. You do your Karma without anticipating the results of your Karma because you are not attached to it.

 

Bhakthi Yoga - It is here that we see the perfect solution to the problem. Surrender to GOD. Saranagathi is an easy concept to understand, but a difficult one to practice.

 

When something bad happens in our life, are we able to accept it as Divine Will? Are we able to say that everything happens for the Good?

 

A couple of examples how apparently good things could end up by wrecking our lives.

 

You want a jump in your career. So you pray to GOD for that. But here you are thinking that you know what is good for you. You get the promotion. But it involves relocating to a far off place and you are forced by circumstances to leave your family behind. And then you start facing many problems in your new location. You start wondering whether the jump in the career was all that good for you. Happens to many people.

 

A colleague of mine was working in a particular city far from his home town where his family was staying. He approached me for a transfer. Since this involved creating a new position just to accommodate him, the earlier incumbents were not willing. I created the position and posted him to his home town.

 

Unfortunately he met with an accident and died a couple of months later. When I conveyed this news to my Boss he said "You are responsible for his death. Had you not posted him to his home town, he would not have died. I also share the responsibility because I endorsed your action."

 

Saranagatha means leaving GOD to decide what is good and bad for you. Prayer without asking for anything. In Hindu pujas we have a sankalpam ( an undertaking). Here we ask for something. But the highest form of prayer is when you have no sankalpa. Nissankalpa. Many of the Sanskrit prayers have at least a cuple of stanzas called Phalasthudi where the benefit of the prayer is give. I had asked my Guru whether I can give up reciting the Phalasthudi because I did not want any of the material benefits.

 

You pray only for GOD's blessings. Nothing else. Even asking for Mukthi, Swarga or even an opportunity to serve him is ultimately selfish. Let GOD decide.

 

matsamah pataki nasti papaghni tvatsama na hi

evam jnatva mahadevi yatha-yogyam tatha kuru

 

O, Mahadevi, Great Goddess, there is no sinner like me on the earth

and there is no other person condoning the sins except you. Knowing

all this, you do whatever you think is reasonable. (Give me what I deserve.)