How do we know we are on right path?

[Guest guest]

there are many paths to truth and no single path is for all the people.

 

Now a person who is fit to be a bhakta is trying to do karma yoga or

janana yoga or vice versa.

 

Is there a way to find out that we are on right path ?

 

 

jaya

[Guest guest]

, jaya_sundram <no_reply wrote:

 

Hello Jayaji,

 

Namaste!

 

Here is what i have read.

 

WHEN THE LORD IS ONE AND WHEN HE IS WITHIN US AND SINCE HE HAS

MADE ALL OF US EQUAL HOW CAN THERE BE DIFFERENT PATH FOR DIFFERENT

PEOPLE. IT IS BOUND TO BE SAME WHICH IS WITHIN US.

 

With warm wishes,

 

Sudhakar

HARI OM TAT SAT! Cheers! )

 

 

> there are many paths to truth and no single path is for all the

people.

[Guest guest]

, jaya_sundram <no_reply wrote:

 

> Is there a way to find out that we are on right path ?

 

jayaji, there is no right or wrong path.

 

Instead, ask this: The path that I follow, does it have a heart? Does

it make me happy, blissful, & at ease?

 

The spiritual journey is long & hard. You want to follow a path that

has a heart, feeling for you personally, that you can enjoy. Not one

that everyone else thinks is glamourous(like Kundalni Yoga has become

nowdays).

 

All paths lead to the same place: nowhere. You cannot get

enlightenment by following any path or technique. All the paths do is,

prepare the mind/body. Enlightenment is given as a gift, a grace of

God. Following a path doesnt gurantee it, it merely gives us a chance

of a chance.

 

Thats why, all that matters is the Path has a heart.

 

love

Shantnu

[Guest guest]

HARE KRISHAN ,HARE RAM

 

 

>

> Now a person who is fit to be a bhakta is trying to do karma yoga or

> janana yoga or vice versa.

>

> Is there a way to find out that we are on right path ?

>

 

Madem Ji

 

if a person is FIT to be a BHAKTA , and if He knows what is Bhakti

and Bhakti Yoga than whatever He does karmas , whatever He do jnan

Yoga or whatever everything is Bhakti for Him .

 

if a person is doing Karmas only than it is not Necessary that He is

doing Bhakti .

 

Bhakti is to be realized and also Lord Sri Krishan explained in Sri

Mad Bhagwad Geeta .

 

a person is on the right path where He can concentrate wholly whatever

path He has choosen certainly that must be Dharmic. that is only the

way , only that person can understand that where He is able to

concentrate wholly .

 

for that purpose a person should study Himself first . what was His

activities in life what hapened with Him , what are his

desires,....................bla bla bla ................ than He

should plan firstly that what is to be removed FIRST and

How .............. i think everybody in this universe has different

set of coordinates for his self .

 

HARE KRISHAN , HARE KRISHAN ,KRISHAN KRISHAN ,HARE HARE ,HARE

RAM ,HARE RAM ,RAM RAM ,HARE HARE

[Guest guest]

, jaya_sundram <no_reply wrote:

>

> Is there a way to find out that we are on right path ?

>

 

While at higher levels it is true that paths lose value, but for a

bigginer, path is quite important. It is not correct to say that

there will be no progress on chosing wrong path, still the progress

may be low if a logical man goes for bhakti or an emotional person

goes for Gyan yoga.

 

Correct path, correct sadhna and correct initiation is very

important in the beginning. Even you have to see that you have

taken Diksha from correct guru, who rightly understood your psyche

and gave you attuned mantra/sadhna.

 

There are certain indicators which confirm that you are on the right

path and progressing fast. Sudden change in eating patterns,

sleeping patterns, change in friends circle are clear cut indicators

to confirm that a fast change is taking place in you.

 

The first effect of the energies working in you and removing the old

complexes, or negative energies, always have a direct impact on our

body and mind

 

For example, the dream patterns change drastically. One may start

seeing many dreams, most of them horrifying like dragons chasing

you, or falling from sky, or fighting the demons etc. These dreams

do indicate that Positive forces are working in you.

 

Some time back I had written a detailed post on the symptoms which

indicate progress in sadhna.... if you go through that post, it will

give deep understanding of the changes, one undergoes on the right

path.

 

The progress may be slow on chosing the incorrect path, and thus may

not bring such drastic changes in psyche

 

love

 

Aum

[Guest guest]

i beleive that God has a definite plan for every soul. It is just our I-

ness that create problems. As shantnu ji said there is no right or

wrong path. Right and wrong are again a product of this I-ness or our

limited perception and knowledge. If God wants you to develop Bhakti,

He will provide you a loving heart. In the same way he will provide a

basis to succeed by Gyana or Rajyog. Jitendra ji nicely said whichever

path is followed by you, it has got an integration with other paths.

whatever we know, whatever are our believes , we should do it

wholeheartedly and with full awareness. If we are sincere to ourselves,

we will be sincere to God.We must do our duty and leave everything to

Him. I beleive He is more concerned about it then us to purify us.

 

so hum...

[Guest guest]

Pranaam to all the respected Members,

 

The moment such type of questions start coming in one's mind, you can be rest

assured that you are on the right path. But, since a Soul started his journey,

it is on a path, a path towards Evolution which ultimately leads to

Enlightenment. One should not worry about path and all when HE, THE SUPREME

POWER, GOD HIMSELF IS THE GUIDE. HE GUIDES ALL THE SOULS TOWARDS HIM. I would

also like to quote that " TRUTH IS A PATHLESS LAND. "

 

With Regards,

Prabhat

 

 

Bring your gang together. Do your thing. Find your favourite group

at http://in.promos./groups/

[Guest guest]

Dear Aumji and So hum,

 

 

I do believe that its only an eternal love for the lord

almighty which will lead you throughout.

Aumji, if you can forward me the post which you are reffering to on the symptoms

which

indicate progress in sadhna, it would be great.

 

thanks and warm regards,

Amit Arora

 

 

 

 

aumji <no_reply >

 

@ s.com, jaya_sundram <no_reply@.. .> wrote:

>

> Is there a way to find out that we are on right path ?

>

 

While at higher levels it is true that paths lose value, but for a

[Guest guest]

Dear Aumji,

 

Thanks for introducing signs of progress in sadhana,I was a bit

startled to see that, some of it I felt familiar. What a clear

behavioural signs you have given. Please post your earlier/full

version or give reference, I am eager to see.

 

Regards,

 

M.S.Thimmappa

 

 

, aumji <no_reply wrote:

>

> , jaya_sundram <no_reply@> wrote:

> >

> > Is there a way to find out that we are on right path ?

> >

>

> While at higher levels it is true that paths lose value, but for a

[Guest guest]

> a person is on the right path where He can concentrate wholly

whatever

> path He has choosen certainly that must be Dharmic. that is only the

> way , only that person can understand that where He is able to

> concentrate wholly .

 

Dear Jitendra ji,

 

If you say, we have to follow dharmic, which is true. But one doubt.

In Ramanuja, He left his wife and went in the path of god. Don't you

think that a husband duty is to take care of his wife. Then it means

that ramanuja didn't follow dharmic.Sorry, i didn;t mean to hurt

ramanuja's name. I just want to make it clear myself.

 

Sarvamaatha.

[Guest guest]

, sarvamaatha <no_reply wrote:

>

> If you say, we have to follow dharmic, which is true. But one doubt.

> In Ramanuja, He left his wife and went in the path of god. Don't you

> think that a husband duty is to take care of his wife. Then it means

> that ramanuja didn't follow dharmic.Sorry, i didn;t mean to hurt

> ramanuja's name. I just want to make it clear myself.

 

Sarvamaathaji, this was the problem with the old school of Yogis;

rather I should say the medieval school, as in the Vedic times they

didnt have this problem.

 

In the medieval times, Shankaracharya, Ramajunam etc believed life in

the world & moskha were not compatible & you had to choose one or the

other. Of course this is wrong, & represented their poor thinking. But

their thoughts so grabbed Indians that even now, thousands years

later, we still believe we have to run away to some jungles to get

moksha, & people who do their duty are made to feel guilty.

 

Of course its possible that Ma Shakti doesnt want you to waste time in

marriage etc- in which case, like Vivekananda, she will make you

Brahmchari. Circumstances will be arranged in such a way that you wont

be able to marry even if you want to. A good way to know this is to

have a good Guru- like Ramakrishna told Vivekananda that he didnt have

to marry as he was only born for a specific reason.

 

But if you have married, means God wants you to fulfil your duties in

the world.

 

But the medieval scholars(I call them scholars, not Rishis, as they

spent all their time debtaing & arguing, & no time meditating) like

Shankaracharya, Ramajunacharya etc belived this world was Maya, so

they felt any action done here was useless. Shankar went further &

said action itself was useless, contradicting the Gita, something he

did by cleverly claiming that part of Gita was only for " normal "

people, not Yogis.

 

This is another thing the medieval scholars did - they divided the

teachings into an " us " vs " them " . " Them " were ordinary people who were

happy only with heaven, while " us " are the great Yogis who will get

Moskha. Of course, no one wants to be considered ordinary, with the

result people started neglecting their duty & running away from this

" maya " to get Moksha. This is against the Vedic teachings, which said

each man must follow his Dharma, even if it feels inferior. This meant

we should all do what we were born to do. But this was replaced by -

we should all run away from the world.

 

This is the reason I dont like these medieval scholars, even though

they are still very popular in India. I think they destroyed the Vedic

civilisation more than any invader into India. The whole slavery of

India by foreigners was like a lesson to us, that you cannot forget

this world while running after God. You cannot attack MaShakti who

runs teh world, & then expect her to help you. India paid a very

violent price to learn this lesson, & Im not sure we have learnt it

completely yet.

 

with love

Shantnu

[Guest guest]

, sarvamaatha <no_reply wrote:

>

Welcome back Mayandi, I was eagrly waiting for your return. We are

having great discussions here and hope you will come up with your

valuable questions / suggestions/ answers

 

Aum

[Guest guest]

>HARE KRISHAN ,HARE RAM

 

If you say, we have to follow dharmic, which is true. But one doubt.

> In Ramanuja, He left his wife and went in the path of god. Don't you

> think that a husband duty is to take care of his wife. Then it means

> that ramanuja didn't follow dharmic.Sorry, i didn;t mean to hurt

> ramanuja's name. I just want to make it clear myself.

 

THANKS FOR A VERY GREAT QUESTION . THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION .

THANKS A LOT MADEM JI

 

Even Lord Buddha did the same i think

 

 

leaving wife is not Adharmic in following cases

1st Case .

 

a. what are financial conditions . if it is enough to survive or

Husband has some property which could be used for wife and Childrens

b. wife understand that if my Husband would be releived from misery

than i would also be releived if i would be Pativrata Patni Hence to

have faith in Husband that He is saying for Her good ness too . ie in

Future i would be with the husband , if husband gets Moksha than i

would also accompany Him . Hence if wife is agree and she is in favour

of the same .

 

if above two condition are satisfied than it is not adharmic to leave

the wife.

 

2nd Case

 

wife is too much against of husband thoughts . ie she does not want

to live with husband ,but she is living just because of social

boundation . She does not get the happiness from her husband because

her desires are just opposite of husbands desires . She often

complain others about her husband.

 

in above 2 cases it is not Adharmic

 

 

it is Adharmic in the following two cases

3rd case . if wife is too much attached with Husband .

4th Case

She may not be too much attached with her Husband but she is

completely dependent on Husband earnings and Husband do not have

property for her survival.

 

but the micro knowledge says that if a person leaves wife in 3rd and

4th case which are Adharmic could be changed to Dharmic by History if

He attains the Truth .BUT IT IS THE MOST DIFFICULT BECAUSE IT

INVOLVES A GREAT RISK IF THAT PERSON WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CONCENTRATE

ON SADHANA THAN HE CAN NOT ATTAIN THE TRUTH AND HENCE HE WOULD BE

tretaed as ADHARMIC BY HISTORIANS ALSO HENCE HE WOULD BE SINNER

 

 

HARE KRISHAN ,HARE KRISHAN ,KRISHAN KRISHAN ,HARE HARE ,HARE RAM ,HARE

RAM ,RAM RAM, HARE HARE

[Guest guest]

Dear Shantnuji,

 

I fully agree with you that the interpreters of Vedas, including the

great acharyas, have created havoc in the understanding of Vedas!

Moreover, the Sayana's version of Vedas which is in wide circulation

is mostly ritualistic in nature. Whereas, Yaska's version is wholly

spiritual in nature worthy to be emulated by all for the good of all.

Vedas is for partaking in Creation and for fulfillment of all the

purusharthas - dharma, artha, kama and moksha - in full measure in

different stages and positions in life. It is time that we rise boldly

to the real glory of the Vedas. I am very glad about your statement on it.

 

Regards,

 

M.S.Thimmappa.

 

 

 

 

, shanracer <no_reply wrote:

> civilisation more than any invader into India. The whole slavery of

> India by foreigners was like a lesson to us, that you cannot forget

> this world while running after God. You cannot attack MaShakti who

> runs teh world, & then expect her to help you. India paid a very

> violent price to learn this lesson, & Im not sure we have learnt it

> completely yet.

>

> with love

> Shantnu

>

[Guest guest]

, shanracer <no_reply wrote:

 

Dear Shantanuji,

 

Namaste!

 

I liked those wordings, " I called them scholars, not Rishis,

as they spent all their time debating and arguing and no time

meditating " , this is because many think all these so called

Rishis were perfect and above everything.

Thanks for the post.

 

With warm wishes,

 

Sudhakar

HARI OM TAT SAT! Cheers! )

 

 

> , sarvamaatha <no_reply@> wrote:

> >

> > If you say, we have to follow dharmic, which is true. But one

doubt.

> > In Ramanuja, He left his wife and went in the path of god. Don't

you

>

[Guest guest]

, " jitendra kumar " <jtin_ja wrote:

 

Dear JeetuBhai,

 

Namaste!

 

Thanks for the post, i was under the impression no matter what, you

should not abandon your wife and kids, whether you leave money,

property etc., or not, she has her other needs as well and those

needs only husbands can provide (ofcourse it is another matter if

the husband dies but here abandonment is unforgivable) so my doubt

is cannot husband stay in the family and try for God realisation.

I read somewhere a Zen master saying that he likes Sansari aadmi

better than monks as he is vulnerable from all sides and still finds

time to give to God while monks live a protected environment so

doing meditation by them is different than a householder. In fact

the zen master says householder is superior to a monk? Any

comments on this.

 

With warm wishes,

 

Sudhakar

HARI OM TAT SAT! Cheers! )

 

 

> leaving wife is not Adharmic in following cases

> 1st Case .

>

> a. what are financial conditions . if it is enough to survive or

> Husband has some property which could be used for wife and

Childrens

> b. wife understand that if my Husband would be releived from misery

[Guest guest]

, " spbyoga9 " <spbyoga9 wrote:

> time to give to God while monks live a protected environment so

> doing meditation by them is different than a householder. In fact

> the zen master says householder is superior to a monk? Any

> comments on this.

 

 

Respected Sudhakarji, I fully agree with you on this. It is very

easy to run away in jungles and be a sanyasi...but it is very

difficult to be spiritual among the world with relatives, friends

and family.

 

If nature has given us a family, there is no need to run away

before fulfilling the karmic debts. That z why our religion always

talk of four Ashrams viz Brahmcharya, Grihasthha, Vaanprasthha and

finally sanyas.

 

Hindu religion no where advocated leaving the world. Rather Shri

Krishna affirmed in gita that we must fulfil our Dharma where ever

we are.

 

Tantra on the other hand is completely for those who are in the

world, and into even domestic life.

 

love always

 

Aum

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Shantnu ji

 

 

, shanracer <no_reply wrote:

> Sarvamaathaji, this was the problem with the old school of Yogis;

 

========================================================================\

====

 

Partly Yes ! Sankara , Maddhwa and Ramanuja did not resurrect Vedism.

They erected Vedanta and made the Prasthana Trayi - Brahma Sutra,

Upanishad and the Gita as the touch stone of all religious arguments.

 

There were many reasons. The Vedic culture had almost died out. Swamy

Dayananda of Arya Samaj says, the Vedic culture started its decay 1000

years before Mahabharata war !

 

To these acharyas, the resurrection of such a tradition was a huge task.

Plus, they were limited by their own 'isms'. Another very important

reason was to retrieve Hinduism from the clutches of Buddhism and

Jainism. I think they were totally exhausting their life in the last

mentioned task. And Vedanta was such short ans sweet.

 

Nowhere they mentioned that the Upanishads were Aranyakas. It is for him

who has lived his life as per the Vedas and who wants to spend his last

years in spiritual contemplations. Vedanta was prematurely fed to young

people. Even Swamy Vivekananda was also saying the same thing - that he

wanted to propel Vedantic religion.

 

A good thousand years on, 95 % of the population is still temple going

and lead a Bhakti filled life whereas Vedanta knows no Bhakti. It was

the Gita that incorporated Bhakti into Yogic thought and elevated it to

at par with Dhyana, Sankhya , Karma and Gnana margas. But even here how

many know Gita ?

 

We need to go beyond our Puranas and take a look at our Vedas. We should

at least know what they say.

 

Venkat

[Guest guest]

HARE KRISHAN ,HARE RAM

 

 

> so my doubt

> is cannot husband stay in the family and try for God realisation.

> I read somewhere a Zen master saying that he likes Sansari aadmi

> better than monks as he is vulnerable from all sides and still

finds

> time to give to God while monks live a protected environment so

> doing meditation by them is different than a householder. In fact

> the zen master says householder is superior to a monk? Any

> comments on this.

 

Sir ji Thanks for comment which i always wanted

 

 

Sir Ji , in fact i had written that line in my posting that

 

Madem you allready understood that it is not necessary that leaving

wife is not necessary for Sadhana

 

but it was deleted in the last in fact i had forgoten to write in

the end as it was not necessary to write for the question .

 

i just answered Madem's question just i concentrated on that

portion only ie on the question of the Sarvamaata . weather it was

adharmic or not for the case of Ramanujacharya ,..... Lord Buddha i

added ...........

 

No doubt at all Sir Ji that there are so many paths of Sadhana .

 

and i can not say that who is more superior a monk or a

householder . it all depends upon their sadhana ie progress of their

sadhana . one who has strong dedication in his sadhana would

progress faster . path may be different ....................

 

even i think it is not any rule that a householder would surely

progress faster than a renuntiator . because both have their own

obstacles to clear . who clears first depends upon their intensity ,

dedication , efforts ,......................................... so

many things are required in the begining .

 

even one can see that two sadhakas have started at the same time in

the Same PATH , BUT one has progressed faster even He has put less

efforts than other . because in that case He could have done

sadhana in the last so many births .

 

Sir Ji , yes definetely it can be said that that one would progress

faster who has more CHAHAT to GO BACK TO PERMANANT HOME and i can

not compare the particular householder or renuntiator .

 

That is why i have written in reply of Jaya Madem's Question that "

one should opt that path in which He can concentrate wholly ,

certainly it should be Dharmic " .

 

 

HARE KRISHAN ,HARE KRISHAN ,KRISHAN KRISHAN ,HARE HARE , HARE

RAM ,HARE RAM ,RAM RAM ,HARE HARE

 

>

>

[Guest guest]

HARE KRISHAN , HARE RAM

 

Rather Shri Krishna affirmed in Sri Mad Bhagwad gita that we must

fulfil our Dharma where ever

 

and AUM Sir Ji

 

also Lord Sri Krishan said that

 

" sabhi dharmon ka tyag kar mujhe samarpan kar " teri nishchit roop se

main mukti kar doonga

 

Sir JI why Lord Sri Krishan said two opposite statements.

 

HARE KRISHAN ,HARE KRISHAN ,KRISHAN KRISHAN ,HARE HARE ,HARE

RAM ,HARE RAM ,RAM RAM, HARE HARE

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadhakas

 

I was thinking about this recently. In the long run, do you think it

can be beneficial to spend some time on the 'wrong path?'

 

With love

 

Farah

[Guest guest]

, " jitendra kumar " <jtin_ja

wrote:

 

> Rather Shri Krishna affirmed in Sri Mad Bhagwad gita that we must

> fulfil our Dharma where ever

>

> and AUM Sir Ji

>

> also Lord Sri Krishan said that

>

> " sabhi dharmon ka tyag kar mujhe samarpan kar " teri nishchit roop

se

> main mukti kar doonga

>

>

 

No dear Jitinder...shri krishna is not contradicting his statement.

In gita we have to see it very carefuly in the right concept.

 

Shri Krishna means here that one should always be fixed in his

Dharma and should follow his dharma dutifully. This is a part of

karam yoga

 

The second shloka is for surrender that if we surrender to shri

Krishna and leave all our karmas and dharmas to Krishna then we need

not worry for anything. HE will then take care of our karma and

Dharma

 

 

Good question though

 

Love

 

Aum

[Guest guest]

HARE KRISHAN , HARE RAM

'

> The second shloka is for surrender that if we surrender to shri

> Krishna and leave all our karmas and dharmas to Krishna then we need

> not worry for anything. HE will then take care of our karma and

> Dharma

 

Yes Sir exactly

 

and Hence Sir ji if Sri Ramanujacharya and Lord Gautam Budhha had

surrendered his Pati Dharma to the God and than they started Sadhana

 

what wrong they had done .WHAT is wrong with this path .HOW CAN YOU

SAY THAT

 

AND MOST IMPORTANTALY IS IT EASY TO SURRENDER DHARMAS AND KARMAS TO

THE LORD SRI KRISHAN . IF NO

 

than Sir Ji How can you say as per last posting

 

It is very easy to run away in jungles and be a sanyasi...but it is

very

difficult to be spiritual among the world with relatives, friends

and family.

 

 

i do not have any thing in my mind against you or your postings and i

always learn something that is true. but i want to clearify the

things . AND THIS QUESTION IS VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION .

 

HARE KRISHAN ,HARE KRISHAN ,KRISHAN KRISHAN ,HARE HARE ,HARE RAM ,HARE

RAM ,RAM RAM ,HARE HARE

[Guest guest]

, " jitendra kumar " <jtin_ja wrote:

 

> " sabhi dharmon ka tyag kar mujhe samarpan kar " teri nishchit roop se

> main mukti kar doonga

>

> Sir JI why Lord Sri Krishan said two opposite statements.

 

Jitendarji, this is a good question.

 

We have to do our duty in the world- that is absolutely required. If

we try to run away, Nature grabs us by the throat & forces us to work

anyway.

 

But we can also do our duty willingly, no matter how tough or painful

it is, by surrendering to God all out actions. This way we dont fight

nature, & we also go beyond Karma, by using Karma.

 

This is the key.

 

love

Shantnu

[Guest guest]

Dear Venkatji,

 

Happy to 'see' you after a long time! I agree with you that

historically, Acharya had to play a role and he did it with such

brilliance, we are ever grateful to him for some of the clarity he

brought in. There is also a view with some justification that it is

more than him,his four close disciples who went on interpreting thei

r master, attributing many things which perhaps Acharya never

meant.For instance, Acharya mentions only twice, I believe, the word

'maya' in his treatise and it is the discilples who made it/

interpreted as huge and the only thing! What is more, those days

there were no claim of authorship and copyright as it is today and

many a time the disciple assuming that it would be of great respect

to surrender his writing and put the masters name to his writing!

Hence, some of the writing bearing Shankaracharya's name may in fact

written by his disciple!

Yet the fact remains that the glory of Vedas/Upanishads is so huge

and magnanimous ( - my heart just sank! -)that it is not captured as

a whole by any acharyas.

 

Best wishes and regards,

 

M.S.Thimmappa.

 

, " J.venkatasubramanian "

<apexpreci2000 wrote:

>

> Namaskar Shantnu ji

>