Our Goal is Love

[ranjeetmore]

 

as with many other things sant and ranjeet both have a confusing stand on ramakrishna .

 

on one hand he is a great saint and on the other he misleads people !

he is a mahtama(as per kripaluji) and again he taught wrong things !

 

both cannot be simultaneously correct ! if he is a saint all his teachings must be correct ( although it might not suit you or may not be your path) . and if his teachings are wrong then he cannot be called a saint . this is so obvious .

 

i think both of you are actually in disagreement with his veiws and also have certain sunconscious hatred towards him and at the same time cannot deny the popularity of the person . that is why you take this confusing stand .

 

 

i am fully situated in the fact that ramakrishna's teachings are misleading...reflections of these are clearly visible in the life of vivekananda.

 

Ramakrshna often quoted from Bhagavata,more often than anything else,and he twisted it's meaning.

 

Mayavada and bhakti are on the same level-this teaching is grossly misleading.

 

at other times he said,"I spit on Brahmananda"

 

 

Shankaracharya and Buddha were two such misleading figures.While one was a perfect prema bhakta,the other was Bhagavan.

 

 

 

***

 

i nurture hatred for him subconsciously ???

 

You seem to know my mind better than i do .

[melvin]

Glad you came back as the real you, Ranjeetmore!

 

While it`s true Sankaracarya preached (Sivaism), I don`t think Buddha`s Buddhism is non-different from Sankaracarya`s Mayavadism. Both said the same thing( advaita), " Me and God are One." So, comparing Sankaracarya and Buddha makes no sense. Was it Krsna Himself who said, " ... I`m Lord Siva."? So, while Buddha to you is Bhagavan, I think, Sankaracarya ( Siva) is a Bhagavan, too. Sankaracarya is an incarnation of Lord Siva. Just like Buddha is an incarnation of Krsna. Both are simultaneously One and yet different( integral monism).

[Kali_Upasaka]

 

Glad you came back as the real you, Ranjeetmore!

 

While it`s true Sankaracarya preached (Sivaism), I don`t think Buddha`s Buddhism is non-different from Sankaracarya`s Mayavadism. Both said the same thing( advaita), " Me and God are One." So, comparing Sankaracarya and Buddha makes no sense. Was it Krsna Himself who said, " ... I`m Lord Siva."? So, while Buddha to you is Bhagavan, I think, Sankaracarya ( Siva) is a Bhagavan, too. Sankaracarya is an incarnation of Lord Siva. Just like Buddha is an incarnation of Krsna. Both are simultaneously One and yet different( integral monism).

Nothing that matters. But I would request the members to remember that Sankaracharya did not preach Saivism, nor is he accepted as one of the Acharyas of Saivism.

[sambya]

 

i am fully situated in the fact that ramakrishna's teachings are misleading...reflections of these are clearly visible in the life of vivekananda.

 

i think you will understand that evaluating someone on the basis of another person is not very meaningful to a sane mind !

 

..............with respect to your personal opinion .

 

 

i nurture hatred for him subconsciously ???

 

You seem to know my mind better than i do .

 

the mind of the author is clearly reflected in his writings ....didnt you know that ? i think not ..............for if you had , then perhaps you would have been more carefull !

[melvin]

 

Nothing that matters. But I would request the members to remember that Sankaracharya did not preach Saivism, nor is he accepted as one of the Acharyas of Saivism.

 

But how come Sankaracarya was able to compose Sivanandalahari a devotional hymn on Siva if he did not preach Sivaism? AST Sivanandalahin literally means Wave of Auspicious Bliss. It consists of 100 stanzas in various chandas(metres). He wrote it while staying in Srisailam. It begins with an ode to Mallikarjuna and Brahmarambika, the deities at Srisailam.

[Kali_Upasaka]

He also composed Bhaja Govindam and many other Vishnu/Krishna sthudhis. The Saivas do not accept him as one of their acharyas. Sankaracharya is the founder of organized Smartha religion.

 

Talking about worship and composition of poems, Guru Gobind Singh conducted thousands of Chandi Yagnas and composed a couple of poems on Chandi. That does not make him a Saktha.

 

Here is a site which seeks to explain this.

 

http://www.info-sikh.com/PageDurga.html

[melvin]

 

He also composed Bhaja Govindam and many other Vishnu/Krishna sthudhis. The Saivas do not accept him as one of their acharyas. Sankaracharya is the founder of organized Smartha religion.

 

Talking about worship and composition of poems, Guru Gobind Singh conducted thousands of Chandi Yagnas and composed a couple of poems on Chandi. That does not make him a Saktha.

 

Here is a site which seeks to explain this.

 

http://www.info-sikh.com/PageDurga.html

 

But Lord Caitanya established that Sankaracarya was deputed to teach by the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He even quoted a verse from Padma Puran(62.31) in which it is stated that the Lord ordered Mahadeva, Lord Siva, to present some imaginary interpretation of Vedic literatures in order to divert people from the actual purpose of the Vedas. " by doing so you will attempt to make them atheists, " the Lord said. " After that, they can produce more population."

[Kali_Upasaka]

There is no Saivism in Bengal. Has never been there for thousands of years. You have only Smarthas, Sakthas and Vaishnavas.

 

Sankaracharya is the founder of Advaita.

 

Saivas believe in one of the three schools of Hindu philosophy, namely Advaita (monism), Vishishtadvaita (qualified monism) and Dvaita (dualism) depending on the sect.

 

Surprised. But true.

[sant]

 

Saivas believe in one of the three schools of Hindu philosophy, namely Advaita (monism), Vishishtadvaita (qualified monism) and Dvaita (dualism) depending on the sect.

 

OK tell one dvaita shaiva.

[melvin]

It says here that Sankaracarya`s real religion was Vedantism. Though not compatible with sectarian worship is predisposed to be impartial. The legend says that when summoned by his mother`s death bed, he spoke 1st of Vedanta philosophy. But when she bade him to give her some consolation which she could understand, he recited a hymn to Siva but when the attendants of Siva appeared she was frightened. Sankaracarya then recited a hymn to Visnu. and when her gentler messengers came to her bedside, she gave her son her blessing and allowed them to take her willing soul. At the present day, the Smartas have a preference for the worship of Lord Siva but the basis of their faith is not Sivaism but the recognition of the great Indian traditions known as Smrti. That next to Vedantism was the essence of Sankaracarya`s teachings. That he hoped to correct extravagant and impartial views and to lead to those heights whence it is seen that all is one, " without a difference." This story implies that Sankaracarya was ready to sanction any reputable worship with a slight bias towards Visnuism. Maybe this why he didn`t preach Sivaism ( Sankaracarya is an incarnation of Siva) but Mayavadism.

[Kali_Upasaka]

 

OK tell one dvaita shaiva.

 

The Tamil Saiva saint Meykandar formulated a dualistic school of Saiva Siddhanta in approx. 900 ce. Meykandar and the dualists content that the world and soul are eternal, were never created, and are inherently flawed. These views are completely counter to the monistic school.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaiva_Siddhanta

 

Meykandar lived before Madhavacharya.

 

The other schools are

 

Veera Saivas

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veerashaivas

 

Kashmiri Saivism

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_%C5%9Aaivism

 

Goraknath Sampradhaya

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorakshanath

 

Again these have sub sects.

 

Except for the worship of Shiva it would be very difficult to find any common Philosophy in these sects.

 

Another noteworthy feature is that all of them reject the Brahmin caste. In fact except Kashmiri Saivism which has only a very small following, all the others are almost entirely non-Brahmin.

[sant]

Quote:

The Tamil Saiva saint Meykandar formulated a dualistic school of Saiva Siddhanta in approx. 900 ce. Meykandar and the dualists content that the world and soul are eternal, were never created, and are inherently flawed. These views are completely counter to the monistic school

 

Ok this means that soul and parmatma is considered differnt here.

As for your other wiki sources i dont think anyone mentions shaiv being dualistic.Check again.

 

 

 

Gorakshanath (who Osho called Gorakh) originated the search for "methods and techniques of sadhana

Do you see waht is show you here?The word sadhna as in the hindi one started with gorakhnath.

[Kali_Upasaka]

None of the Saiva sects are bothered much about Philosophy. The sources are very scarce. You can believe in any one of the schools. In Tamil Nadu where most of the Tamil Siddhanta followers live, they leave these philosophies to the Smartas and Vaishnavas.

 

Again in Saivism the emphasis is on Agamas.

[Kali_Upasaka]

 

Quote:

The Tamil Saiva saint Meykandar formulated a dualistic school of Saiva Siddhanta in approx. 900 ce. Meykandar and the dualists content that the world and soul are eternal, were never created, and are inherently flawed. These views are completely counter to the monistic school

 

Ok this means that soul and parmatma is considered differnt here.

As for your other wiki sources i dont think anyone mentions shaiv being dualistic.Check again.

 

 

 

Do you see waht is show you here?The word sadhna as in the hindi one started with gorakhnath.

I do not bother about the finer aspects of dualism. I am bothered only about Bhakthi. Meykandar preached Bhakthi. The Saivite Bhakthi movement started before that of the Vaishnavites. They also advocated complete surrender.

 

That is all it matters to me. Bhakthi. You call it Dualistic, Non-Dualistic or any other name you fancy.

[ranjeetmore]

bhakti is done for a reason.If i tell a person in his ear,"Sri Krsna is the Supreme Lord Worship Him."

 

He will never worship even for a second.

 

I have to go further than that"Worship Him becoz He is ananda and when you attain Him you will be forever blissful."

 

Then he will consider.He might say a prayer or two to Sri Krsna.But the next day,a new movie will come and he will forget about it.

 

So i've to go even further,"His bliss is infinite and increases with every second.The dukha you get in this world is completely absent ther."

 

This goes on building.

 

Bhakti,the purest bhakti of Prema bhakti-bhakti which rejects mukti and bhukti is established carefully by the mahatmas.They have eliminated,and rightly so,the need for ever desiring bhukti and mukti thus.

 

you cannot view all bhaktas as the same.

 

some desire women,some wealth,some beauty.

 

Others desire mukti.

 

Still others desire to have a body like the lord,live in His blissful dhama,etc.

 

But the highest bhaktas,who are unconditional and selfless are only those who follow the footsteps of Chaitanya etc.

[ranjeetmore]

there is absolutely no way around it,i'm afraid.

[melvin]

 

there is absolutely no way around it,i'm afraid.

 

 

There is. That`s when the Deity leaves the temple accompanied by devotees from all walks of life, chanting, praying, humming and glorifying God at every step of the way passing through narrow streets, winding roads until they`re back again in the temple.

[melvin]

This procession and walking side by side with the Deity and visiting other temples is what we call here as Visita Eglesia. Is this what you call in Hindu Parikrama? This is was what Srila Prabhuipad desired before he departed to Vrndavan but did not materialize. Thus I believed hastened his departure.