Guest guest Posted August 17, 2008 Report Share Posted August 17, 2008 Namaste Sir, There is no need for either Sri or Ji in addressing me. Hoping you won't mind, I am sending this reply to some that may have some interested people. When I was meditating before replying to you, a really beautiful and meaningful analogy came to me and I think it is worth sharing with more people than just you. To ensure your anonymity, I removed references in the quoted mail below that may help one identify you. * * * First I will answer your first question in detail, because that can automatically answer other questions. > 1. Are Vedic (Pure Vaithika rituals) different from Mantra Shastras > (people explain that mantra shastra does not originate from the vedas, > but classified under tantra). Did Mantra shastras not originate from vedas? * * * When people say what is in Veda and what is not, honestly I can only laugh. They are only fooling themselves. Reciting Veda with perfect swara or mastering a celebrated commentary does not help one understand Veda. In fact, understanding each single verse in Veda requires great tapascharya. Understanding a verse in Veda is neither possible with energy flowing in Ida nadi (intuition) nor in Pingala nadi (logic and analysis). It is possible only with energy flowing in Sushumna nadi. It is possible with neither intuition nor logic, but only with *revelation* and simply, for the lack of a better expression, direct knowledge. When one meditates long enough on a verse, the verse may simply be revealed to the yogi. THAT is the only way to understand a Vedic verse. For most people, it is not possible to decipher even a single verse in an entire life, let alone a passage. Bottomoline is: Almost nobody understands Veda today. What are considered "pure vaidika rituals" are merely another variety of rituals created by someone at some point of time. From the point of view of authenticity as granted by Veda, there is no difference between them and other aagamic rituals, though people ignorantly believe otherwise. * * * A simple analogy may help clarify a lot of things related to this complicated issue a little. What the thing in the analogy represents is shown here and there in square brackets . Once there were many people who lived near the sea [brahman/Aatman]. They regularly sat by the sea and enjoyed the sight and sound of the sea [experienced Brahman]. They described the sea in some nice cryptic poems [Veda]. As people started living a little away from the sea [less spiritually evolved], someone had to put together some instructions on how to reach the sea. He said, "keep walking towards east" and the instructions grew with time. People faithfully followed the instructions [rituals]. People started moving further and further inland and started living in a landlocked desert far away from the sea. This generation had never seen a pool of water like a lake, let alone a sea. They faithfully performed the ritual of walking towards east, but did not find sea. They debated endlessly whether one had to walk one mile or two miles or three miles and formed different schools of thought. Some walked their chosen distance, found a tree or a building or some interesting object and even became satisfied that that was sea! Then came some great person, whose instincts led him to take a horse instead of walking and ride it for a long distance [use of other tools]. He did find the sea after a few months. He put together newer instructions to reach the sea, which included riding a horse [new aagamas]. People performing the old rituals objected to this and said "but then this horse thing is not granted by the book of sea. This is a new path and different from the "pure" sea ritual" ["pure" Vedic ritual]. By now, people did not even understand what the cryptic poems of the original "book of sea" mean, but they simply believed that those poems taught the old "pure" sea rituals that they were used to. They were blissfully unaware that the original instructions were meant for someone already close to sea and the newer instructions came from someone who actually saw the sea and knew where they currently lived and how to get to the sea from there! Slowly many new sets of instructions involving horses, chariots etc were taught and many new paths to the sea were outlined instead of just instructing people to walk towards east [evolution of mantra/tantra/yantras]. One particular path through jungles was dangerous [aghora and other dark tantric paths involving practice of sex, meat, wine etc]. Though the distance to sea was much shorter through that jungle, it was just too dangerous and only the bravest and strongest could make it. There were cruel dacoits and wild animals [chance of a fall in a risky ritual] and many weak people travelling to sea via that path were killed. A wise man who knew the entire territory well came forward, condemned that path and discouraged people from trying that path. Since then, even people who were strong enough to successfully make it in that path desisted from it. As time progressed, people started fighting too much about whose path was superior. They were foolish, not smart enough to adopt the original instructions, of either the so-called "pure" sea path or the so-called "new" path or other variations, for the changed geography and changed times. Many followed the instructions blindly, hit roadblocks and did not reach sea. Many did not even know that "reaching the sea" was the actual goal of all their joirneys. They only thought they were supposed to follow the instructions faithfully and there was no need to adopt to the changed geographical territory and time. They even condemned those who actually went to sea, came back and gave updated directions for their place and time, for violating tradition. * * * In case the analogy is not clear, here is a brief summary of its points. Veda is about realizing self. Veda describes various aspects of the state of self-realization. That is why it is considered the highest knowledge. Other allied subjects throw some light on possible ways to reach that state. While definitive statements can be made on the actual state of self-realization itself, no definitive statements can be made on how to reach it. The path depends on one's current position! Great men in many spiritual paths, within Hinduism as well as outside of it, came, experienced that state, understood the current state of people around them and gave specific instructions on how to reach that state from the current state. Some followed the instructions and experienced the state. Some instead kept arguing about the contradictions between paths. Please re-read the story and try to understand what each part of the story represents. If you understand this analogy well, this can really clarify the meaningless nature of so many debates that people waste time with! * * * > 2. I read from somewhere that Sri Sri Adi Sankara has condemned > Tantrik practices. But I also hear and read that he is a great Sri Vidya > Upasaka himself. If Sri Vidya has its roots from Tantra, what did > Sri Adi Sankara condemn? He did condemn some vaamaachaara (left-hand) practices of tantra like the use of sex, alcohol, meat etc. However, please go back to my analogy. A great man may condemn the use of a short path to reach the sea if it has a lot of wild animals and dacoits and many travellers through that path recently lost their lives. It does not mean that path is totally unusable. It only means that too many people incapable of travelling on that path are using it of late and so the great man was compelled to stop the practice. If the same great man is reincarnated at a different time when several adept souls he has a rina with are about to be reincarnated, he may not condemn the path and instead write on travelling that jungle path carefully! The words of great masters need to be interpreted within the context of their desa, kaala and paatra and within the context of the purpose of that particular birth. * * * > 3. What is vamachara? if it is the left hand method - sex, drinks etc, > why must it be practiced at all? Suppose one's house is close to the market and the market noise reaches one's house. Suppose that noise is disturbing one's meditation, i.e. one is unable to focus on god amid all the noise. There are two approaches one can take - (1) run away from the noise, find a place of solitude and meditate there. (2) rise to the challenge, meditate right there and develop the ability to turn off the sensory input to the mind, i.e. get mastery and control over the part of the mind that is making one vulnerable to this disturbance. After all, the noise from outside is NOT the problem - the problem is the *inability* of one's mind to turn off that sensory input. By controlling one's mind, one can focus attention on god irrespective of what is happening outside. Approach (1) is not bad. If one is weak-minded and has a decent chance of failure with approach (2), then approach (1) is definitely prudent and worthwhile. But, if one has a strong mind and can succeed with approach (2), it is great. It hastens one's progress. * * * Vaamaachaara is also like that, but a more extreme form of testing one's self-control by rising to the challenge. Please realize that vaamaachaara/aghora is not about the use of sex, wine etc for the kick of it. It is about their use to test oneself with the toughest challenges and hone one's self-control. Self-realization comes when self-control is perfect and one's mind can always be focussed on god no matter what is going on around one. If one is either attracted or averse to any one thing, that is enough to block self-realization. However, if one is weak, it is better to stay away from vaamaachaara. One needs to do other practices and strengthen oneself. If a really pure yogi with perfect self-control is able to focus on god with all his mind even when he is drunk and sitting naked with a beautiful naked woman tightly embracing him, then he can try that to test his self-control and hone it. But, if that is going to tempt one, get the mind away from god and onto a physical enjoyment, then one better not try that path! Just as one who does not have a strong mind to meditate amid noise should meditate in solitude and hone one's self-control, one who does not have a strong mind to keep the focus on god in the middle of normally depriving practices such as wine, meat and sex should stay away from those. * * * In my analogy before, the short jungle path to the sea having the danger of wild animals and dacoits represents the vaamaachaara path of aghora. If one not having the wherewithal to battle and kill the wild animals and dacoits tries that path, one may be killed. Similarly, one who wants self-realization using this path will fall if one does not have perfect self-control. If one takes this path because it sounds cool or exciting, one is likely to fall. It is only for the fittest and bravest. If there is ANY weakness in one's self-control, one can NOT follow this path. Just as there are many paths from the desert to the sea in my analogy, there are many paths to self-realization. One should follow the path that is appropriate for one based on previous samskaras, strengths and weaknesses. * * * > Is it not a fact that Sri Ambal lies above all these? :-) Sri Ambal (the Divine Mother) does not lie above or below anything. She lies everywhere! All knowledge, all desires and all actions of all beings are Her own different manifestations. If a yogi with perfect self-control drinks wine and sits naked with a beautiful naked woman tightly embracing him and yet keeps his mind fully focussed on god, his self-control, his focus on god are all different manifestations of the Divine Mother only. As a matter of fact, even if one gives in to base instincts and pursues carnal pleasures, his desires and actions are also different manifestations of Divine Mother only. The Mother gives rise to so many lower level forms with specific domains of responsibility. The Mother takes the form of Lakshmi and Alakshmi as well. She takes the form of Vidya and Avidya as well. All opposites and polarities are actually Her manifestations only. However, those who are more comfortable with Lakshmi and Vidya and uncomfortable with Alakshmi and Avidya will look at only the former pair as manifestation of Divine Mother and remain in duality. That is a valid point of view. However, the *ultimate* reality is that She is All. I need to sleep now. I will stop here. Hope that put a few things in perspective. You can send further questions to the or to me privately. Best regards,NarasimhaDo a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpanaSpirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org Sri Sri NarasimhaJI Namaskarams. Hope you remember me. I am a friend of <deleted> of <deleted> temple, brother of <deleted>. We met a couple of years ago in <deleted> temple. I have a few doubts. I would like to hear your opinion on the same. 1. Are Vedic (Pure Vaithika rituals) different from Mantra Shastras (people explain that mantra shastra does not originate from the vedas, but classified under tantra). Did Mantra shastras not originate from vedas? 2. I read from somewhere that Sri Sri Adi Sankara has condemned Tantrik practices. But I also hear and read that he is a great Sri Vidya Upasaka himself. If Sri Vidya has its roots from Tantra, what did Sri Adi Sankara condemn? 3. What is vamachara? if it is the left hand method - sex, drinks etc, why must it be practiced at all? Is it not a fact that Sri Ambal lies above all these? I am a little (totally) confused. Hope your reply takes me out of the well to ask you more questions Namaskarams Venkat-- Regards<deleted> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008  Namaste, I am a fool with neither "depth" nor "solidity" of knowledge. But I may have been chosen by some gurus for an expression of some knowledge and ideas they wanted to get out into the world. So sometimes some nice words may end up coming from me. If you like any writings, please do feel free to share them with other interested people. There is no need for my permission, as I am not the real owner of the writings. Best regards,NarasimhaDo a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpanaSpirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org - rajarshi nandy Monday, August 18, 2008 1:50 AM Re: Analogy: Veda, Aagama, Tantra, Aghora etc Respected Sir, That is one amazing mail you have send. Honestly, I appreciate the depth and solidity of your knowledge. It just could not have been put in better and more effective words. Without your permission, I forwarded your mail and send it to some of my friends to read (along with your name of course!).. I am sorry if i have acted wrongly by distributing your mail without taking prior permission. I sincerely apologize. -Regards Rajarshi "This above all: to thine own self be true!" - Hamlet--- On Mon, 18/8/08, Narasimha P.V.R. Rao <pvr wrote: Narasimha P.V.R. Rao <pvr Analogy: Veda, Aagama, Tantra, Aghora etc , sivacharya , sohamsa Date: Monday, 18 August, 2008, 10:13 AM Namaste Sir, There is no need for either Sri or Ji in addressing me. Hoping you won't mind, I am sending this reply to some that may have some interested people. When I was meditating before replying to you, a really beautiful and meaningful analogy came to me and I think it is worth sharing with more people than just you. To ensure your anonymity, I removed references in the quoted mail below that may help one identify you. * * * First I will answer your first question in detail, because that can automatically answer other questions. > 1. Are Vedic (Pure Vaithika rituals) different from Mantra Shastras > (people explain that mantra shastra does not originate from the vedas, > but classified under tantra). Did Mantra shastras not originate from vedas? * * * When people say what is in Veda and what is not, honestly I can only laugh. They are only fooling themselves. Reciting Veda with perfect swara or mastering a celebrated commentary does not help one understand Veda. In fact, understanding each single verse in Veda requires great tapascharya. Understanding a verse in Veda is neither possible with energy flowing in Ida nadi (intuition) nor in Pingala nadi (logic and analysis). It is possible only with energy flowing in Sushumna nadi. It is possible with neither intuition nor logic, but only with *revelation* and simply, for the lack of a better expression, direct knowledge. When one meditates long enough on a verse, the verse may simply be revealed to the yogi. THAT is the only way to understand a Vedic verse. For most people, it is not possible to decipher even a single verse in an entire life, let alone a passage. Bottomoline is: Almost nobody understands Veda today. What are considered "pure vaidika rituals" are merely another variety of rituals created by someone at some point of time. From the point of view of authenticity as granted by Veda, there is no difference between them and other aagamic rituals, though people ignorantly believe otherwise. * * * A simple analogy may help clarify a lot of things related to this complicated issue a little. What the thing in the analogy represents is shown here and there in square brackets . Once there were many people who lived near the sea [brahman/Aatman] . They regularly sat by the sea and enjoyed the sight and sound of the sea [experienced Brahman]. They described the sea in some nice cryptic poems [Veda]. As people started living a little away from the sea [less spiritually evolved], someone had to put together some instructions on how to reach the sea. He said, "keep walking towards east" and the instructions grew with time. People faithfully followed the instructions [rituals]. People started moving further and further inland and started living in a landlocked desert far away from the sea. This generation had never seen a pool of water like a lake, let alone a sea. They faithfully performed the ritual of walking towards east, but did not find sea. They debated endlessly whether one had to walk one mile or two miles or three miles and formed different schools of thought. Some walked their chosen distance, found a tree or a building or some interesting object and even became satisfied that that was sea! Then came some great person, whose instincts led him to take a horse instead of walking and ride it for a long distance [use of other tools]. He did find the sea after a few months. He put together newer instructions to reach the sea, which included riding a horse [new aagamas]. People performing the old rituals objected to this and said "but then this horse thing is not granted by the book of sea. This is a new path and different from the "pure" sea ritual" ["pure" Vedic ritual]. By now, people did not even understand what the cryptic poems of the original "book of sea" mean, but they simply believed that those poems taught the old "pure" sea rituals that they were used to. They were blissfully unaware that the original instructions were meant for someone already close to sea and the newer instructions came from someone who actually saw the sea and knew where they currently lived and how to get to the sea from there! Slowly many new sets of instructions involving horses, chariots etc were taught and many new paths to the sea were outlined instead of just instructing people to walk towards east [evolution of mantra/tantra/ yantras]. One particular path through jungles was dangerous [aghora and other dark tantric paths involving practice of sex, meat, wine etc]. Though the distance to sea was much shorter through that jungle, it was just too dangerous and only the bravest and strongest could make it. There were cruel dacoits and wild animals [chance of a fall in a risky ritual] and many weak people travelling to sea via that path were killed. A wise man who knew the entire territory well came forward, condemned that path and discouraged people from trying that path. Since then, even people who were strong enough to successfully make it in that path desisted from it. As time progressed, people started fighting too much about whose path was superior. They were foolish, not smart enough to adopt the original instructions, of either the so-called "pure" sea path or the so-called "new" path or other variations, for the changed geography and changed times. Many followed the instructions blindly, hit roadblocks and did not reach sea. Many did not even know that "reaching the sea" was the actual goal of all their joirneys. They only thought they were supposed to follow the instructions faithfully and there was no need to adopt to the changed geographical territory and time. They even condemned those who actually went to sea, came back and gave updated directions for their place and time, for violating tradition. * * * In case the analogy is not clear, here is a brief summary of its points. Veda is about realizing self. Veda describes various aspects of the state of self-realization. That is why it is considered the highest knowledge. Other allied subjects throw some light on possible ways to reach that state. While definitive statements can be made on the actual state of self-realization itself, no definitive statements can be made on how to reach it. The path depends on one's current position! Great men in many spiritual paths, within Hinduism as well as outside of it, came, experienced that state, understood the current state of people around them and gave specific instructions on how to reach that state from the current state. Some followed the instructions and experienced the state. Some instead kept arguing about the contradictions between paths. Please re-read the story and try to understand what each part of the story represents. If you understand this analogy well, this can really clarify the meaningless nature of so many debates that people waste time with! * * * > 2. I read from somewhere that Sri Sri Adi Sankara has condemned > Tantrik practices. But I also hear and read that he is a great Sri Vidya > Upasaka himself. If Sri Vidya has its roots from Tantra, what did > Sri Adi Sankara condemn? He did condemn some vaamaachaara (left-hand) practices of tantra like the use of sex, alcohol, meat etc. However, please go back to my analogy. A great man may condemn the use of a short path to reach the sea if it has a lot of wild animals and dacoits and many travellers through that path recently lost their lives. It does not mean that path is totally unusable. It only means that too many people incapable of travelling on that path are using it of late and so the great man was compelled to stop the practice. If the same great man is reincarnated at a different time when several adept souls he has a rina with are about to be reincarnated, he may not condemn the path and instead write on travelling that jungle path carefully! The words of great masters need to be interpreted within the context of their desa, kaala and paatra and within the context of the purpose of that particular birth. * * * > 3. What is vamachara? if it is the left hand method - sex, drinks etc, > why must it be practiced at all? Suppose one's house is close to the market and the market noise reaches one's house. Suppose that noise is disturbing one's meditation, i.e. one is unable to focus on god amid all the noise. There are two approaches one can take - (1) run away from the noise, find a place of solitude and meditate there. (2) rise to the challenge, meditate right there and develop the ability to turn off the sensory input to the mind, i.e. get mastery and control over the part of the mind that is making one vulnerable to this disturbance. After all, the noise from outside is NOT the problem - the problem is the *inability* of one's mind to turn off that sensory input. By controlling one's mind, one can focus attention on god irrespective of what is happening outside. Approach (1) is not bad. If one is weak-minded and has a decent chance of failure with approach (2), then approach (1) is definitely prudent and worthwhile. But, if one has a strong mind and can succeed with approach (2), it is great. It hastens one's progress. * * * Vaamaachaara is also like that, but a more extreme form of testing one's self-control by rising to the challenge. Please realize that vaamaachaara/ aghora is not about the use of sex, wine etc for the kick of it. It is about their use to test oneself with the toughest challenges and hone one's self-control. Self-realization comes when self-control is perfect and one's mind can always be focussed on god no matter what is going on around one. If one is either attracted or averse to any one thing, that is enough to block self-realization. However, if one is weak, it is better to stay away from vaamaachaara. One needs to do other practices and strengthen oneself. If a really pure yogi with perfect self-control is able to focus on god with all his mind even when he is drunk and sitting naked with a beautiful naked woman tightly embracing him, then he can try that to test his self-control and hone it. But, if that is going to tempt one, get the mind away from god and onto a physical enjoyment, then one better not try that path! Just as one who does not have a strong mind to meditate amid noise should meditate in solitude and hone one's self-control, one who does not have a strong mind to keep the focus on god in the middle of normally depriving practices such as wine, meat and sex should stay away from those. * * * In my analogy before, the short jungle path to the sea having the danger of wild animals and dacoits represents the vaamaachaara path of aghora. If one not having the wherewithal to battle and kill the wild animals and dacoits tries that path, one may be killed. Similarly, one who wants self-realization using this path will fall if one does not have perfect self-control. If one takes this path because it sounds cool or exciting, one is likely to fall. It is only for the fittest and bravest. If there is ANY weakness in one's self-control, one can NOT follow this path. Just as there are many paths from the desert to the sea in my analogy, there are many paths to self-realization. One should follow the path that is appropriate for one based on previous samskaras, strengths and weaknesses. * * * > Is it not a fact that Sri Ambal lies above all these? :-) Sri Ambal (the Divine Mother) does not lie above or below anything. She lies everywhere! All knowledge, all desires and all actions of all beings are Her own different manifestations. If a yogi with perfect self-control drinks wine and sits naked with a beautiful naked woman tightly embracing him and yet keeps his mind fully focussed on god, his self-control, his focus on god are all different manifestations of the Divine Mother only. As a matter of fact, even if one gives in to base instincts and pursues carnal pleasures, his desires and actions are also different manifestations of Divine Mother only. The Mother gives rise to so many lower level forms with specific domains of responsibility. The Mother takes the form of Lakshmi and Alakshmi as well. She takes the form of Vidya and Avidya as well. All opposites and polarities are actually Her manifestations only. However, those who are more comfortable with Lakshmi and Vidya and uncomfortable with Alakshmi and Avidya will look at only the former pair as manifestation of Divine Mother and remain in duality. That is a valid point of view. However, the *ultimate* reality is that She is All. I need to sleep now. I will stop here. Hope that put a few things in perspective. You can send further questions to the or to me privately. Best regards,Narasimha------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpanaSpirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdomFree Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro. home.comcast. netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAst rologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagan nath.org------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- Sri Sri NarasimhaJI Namaskarams. Hope you remember me. I am a friend of <deleted> of <deleted> temple, brother of <deleted>. We met a couple of years ago in <deleted> temple. I have a few doubts. I would like to hear your opinion on the same. 1. Are Vedic (Pure Vaithika rituals) different from Mantra Shastras (people explain that mantra shastra does not originate from the vedas, but classified under tantra). Did Mantra shastras not originate from vedas? 2. I read from somewhere that Sri Sri Adi Sankara has condemned Tantrik practices. But I also hear and read that he is a great Sri Vidya Upasaka himself. If Sri Vidya has its roots from Tantra, what did Sri Adi Sankara condemn? 3. What is vamachara? if it is the left hand method - sex, drinks etc, why must it be practiced at all? Is it not a fact that Sri Ambal lies above all these? I am a little (totally) confused. Hope your reply takes me out of the well to ask you more questions Namaskarams Venkat-- Regards<deleted> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2008 Report Share Posted August 18, 2008 Adarniya PVR Narasimha Guruji Namaskar, Your explaination was really excellent & enlightening & definitely can be given only by a person of your calibre. I have a doubt since long which I request you please shed some light on. I was curious to know about vedas & thus purchased the books on vedas. It is said that VEDA contains all the knowledge & there are six body's of vedas of which Jyotish is the eye of vedas. When I looked at the pages in the Veda book I find that there are Praises to Agni & other gods but do not find jyotish or other knowledge in it. Could you please elaborate the content of the four vedas & say jyotish is part of which veda(Rig/Sama/Yajur). Regards Vinayak P Tandle--- On Mon, 8/18/08, Narasimha P.V.R. Rao <pvr wrote: Narasimha P.V.R. Rao <pvr Analogy: Veda, Aagama, Tantra, Aghora etc , sivacharya , sohamsa Date: Monday, August 18, 2008, 10:13 AM Namaste Sir, There is no need for either Sri or Ji in addressing me. Hoping you won't mind, I am sending this reply to some that may have some interested people. When I was meditating before replying to you, a really beautiful and meaningful analogy came to me and I think it is worth sharing with more people than just you. To ensure your anonymity, I removed references in the quoted mail below that may help one identify you. * * * First I will answer your first question in detail, because that can automatically answer other questions. > 1. Are Vedic (Pure Vaithika rituals) different from Mantra Shastras > (people explain that mantra shastra does not originate from the vedas, > but classified under tantra). Did Mantra shastras not originate from vedas? * * * When people say what is in Veda and what is not, honestly I can only laugh. They are only fooling themselves. Reciting Veda with perfect swara or mastering a celebrated commentary does not help one understand Veda. In fact, understanding each single verse in Veda requires great tapascharya. Understanding a verse in Veda is neither possible with energy flowing in Ida nadi (intuition) nor in Pingala nadi (logic and analysis). It is possible only with energy flowing in Sushumna nadi. It is possible with neither intuition nor logic, but only with *revelation* and simply, for the lack of a better expression, direct knowledge. When one meditates long enough on a verse, the verse may simply be revealed to the yogi. THAT is the only way to understand a Vedic verse. For most people, it is not possible to decipher even a single verse in an entire life, let alone a passage. Bottomoline is: Almost nobody understands Veda today. What are considered "pure vaidika rituals" are merely another variety of rituals created by someone at some point of time. From the point of view of authenticity as granted by Veda, there is no difference between them and other aagamic rituals, though people ignorantly believe otherwise. * * * A simple analogy may help clarify a lot of things related to this complicated issue a little. What the thing in the analogy represents is shown here and there in square brackets . Once there were many people who lived near the sea [brahman/Aatman] . They regularly sat by the sea and enjoyed the sight and sound of the sea [experienced Brahman]. They described the sea in some nice cryptic poems [Veda]. As people started living a little away from the sea [less spiritually evolved], someone had to put together some instructions on how to reach the sea. He said, "keep walking towards east" and the instructions grew with time. People faithfully followed the instructions [rituals]. People started moving further and further inland and started living in a landlocked desert far away from the sea. This generation had never seen a pool of water like a lake, let alone a sea. They faithfully performed the ritual of walking towards east, but did not find sea. They debated endlessly whether one had to walk one mile or two miles or three miles and formed different schools of thought. Some walked their chosen distance, found a tree or a building or some interesting object and even became satisfied that that was sea! Then came some great person, whose instincts led him to take a horse instead of walking and ride it for a long distance [use of other tools]. He did find the sea after a few months. He put together newer instructions to reach the sea, which included riding a horse [new aagamas]. People performing the old rituals objected to this and said "but then this horse thing is not granted by the book of sea. This is a new path and different from the "pure" sea ritual" ["pure" Vedic ritual]. By now, people did not even understand what the cryptic poems of the original "book of sea" mean, but they simply believed that those poems taught the old "pure" sea rituals that they were used to. They were blissfully unaware that the original instructions were meant for someone already close to sea and the newer instructions came from someone who actually saw the sea and knew where they currently lived and how to get to the sea from there! Slowly many new sets of instructions involving horses, chariots etc were taught and many new paths to the sea were outlined instead of just instructing people to walk towards east [evolution of mantra/tantra/ yantras]. One particular path through jungles was dangerous [aghora and other dark tantric paths involving practice of sex, meat, wine etc]. Though the distance to sea was much shorter through that jungle, it was just too dangerous and only the bravest and strongest could make it. There were cruel dacoits and wild animals [chance of a fall in a risky ritual] and many weak people travelling to sea via that path were killed. A wise man who knew the entire territory well came forward, condemned that path and discouraged people from trying that path. Since then, even people who were strong enough to successfully make it in that path desisted from it. As time progressed, people started fighting too much about whose path was superior. They were foolish, not smart enough to adopt the original instructions, of either the so-called "pure" sea path or the so-called "new" path or other variations, for the changed geography and changed times. Many followed the instructions blindly, hit roadblocks and did not reach sea. Many did not even know that "reaching the sea" was the actual goal of all their joirneys. They only thought they were supposed to follow the instructions faithfully and there was no need to adopt to the changed geographical territory and time. They even condemned those who actually went to sea, came back and gave updated directions for their place and time, for violating tradition. * * * In case the analogy is not clear, here is a brief summary of its points. Veda is about realizing self. Veda describes various aspects of the state of self-realization. That is why it is considered the highest knowledge. Other allied subjects throw some light on possible ways to reach that state. While definitive statements can be made on the actual state of self-realization itself, no definitive statements can be made on how to reach it. The path depends on one's current position! Great men in many spiritual paths, within Hinduism as well as outside of it, came, experienced that state, understood the current state of people around them and gave specific instructions on how to reach that state from the current state. Some followed the instructions and experienced the state. Some instead kept arguing about the contradictions between paths. Please re-read the story and try to understand what each part of the story represents. If you understand this analogy well, this can really clarify the meaningless nature of so many debates that people waste time with! * * * > 2. I read from somewhere that Sri Sri Adi Sankara has condemned > Tantrik practices. But I also hear and read that he is a great Sri Vidya > Upasaka himself. If Sri Vidya has its roots from Tantra, what did > Sri Adi Sankara condemn? He did condemn some vaamaachaara (left-hand) practices of tantra like the use of sex, alcohol, meat etc. However, please go back to my analogy. A great man may condemn the use of a short path to reach the sea if it has a lot of wild animals and dacoits and many travellers through that path recently lost their lives. It does not mean that path is totally unusable. It only means that too many people incapable of travelling on that path are using it of late and so the great man was compelled to stop the practice. If the same great man is reincarnated at a different time when several adept souls he has a rina with are about to be reincarnated, he may not condemn the path and instead write on travelling that jungle path carefully! The words of great masters need to be interpreted within the context of their desa, kaala and paatra and within the context of the purpose of that particular birth. * * * > 3. What is vamachara? if it is the left hand method - sex, drinks etc, > why must it be practiced at all? Suppose one's house is close to the market and the market noise reaches one's house. Suppose that noise is disturbing one's meditation, i.e. one is unable to focus on god amid all the noise. There are two approaches one can take - (1) run away from the noise, find a place of solitude and meditate there. (2) rise to the challenge, meditate right there and develop the ability to turn off the sensory input to the mind, i.e. get mastery and control over the part of the mind that is making one vulnerable to this disturbance. After all, the noise from outside is NOT the problem - the problem is the *inability* of one's mind to turn off that sensory input. By controlling one's mind, one can focus attention on god irrespective of what is happening outside. Approach (1) is not bad. If one is weak-minded and has a decent chance of failure with approach (2), then approach (1) is definitely prudent and worthwhile. But, if one has a strong mind and can succeed with approach (2), it is great. It hastens one's progress. * * * Vaamaachaara is also like that, but a more extreme form of testing one's self-control by rising to the challenge. Please realize that vaamaachaara/ aghora is not about the use of sex, wine etc for the kick of it. It is about their use to test oneself with the toughest challenges and hone one's self-control. Self-realization comes when self-control is perfect and one's mind can always be focussed on god no matter what is going on around one. If one is either attracted or averse to any one thing, that is enough to block self-realization. However, if one is weak, it is better to stay away from vaamaachaara. One needs to do other practices and strengthen oneself. If a really pure yogi with perfect self-control is able to focus on god with all his mind even when he is drunk and sitting naked with a beautiful naked woman tightly embracing him, then he can try that to test his self-control and hone it. But, if that is going to tempt one, get the mind away from god and onto a physical enjoyment, then one better not try that path! Just as one who does not have a strong mind to meditate amid noise should meditate in solitude and hone one's self-control, one who does not have a strong mind to keep the focus on god in the middle of normally depriving practices such as wine, meat and sex should stay away from those. * * * In my analogy before, the short jungle path to the sea having the danger of wild animals and dacoits represents the vaamaachaara path of aghora. If one not having the wherewithal to battle and kill the wild animals and dacoits tries that path, one may be killed. Similarly, one who wants self-realization using this path will fall if one does not have perfect self-control. If one takes this path because it sounds cool or exciting, one is likely to fall. It is only for the fittest and bravest. If there is ANY weakness in one's self-control, one can NOT follow this path. Just as there are many paths from the desert to the sea in my analogy, there are many paths to self-realization. One should follow the path that is appropriate for one based on previous samskaras, strengths and weaknesses. * * * > Is it not a fact that Sri Ambal lies above all these? :-) Sri Ambal (the Divine Mother) does not lie above or below anything. She lies everywhere! All knowledge, all desires and all actions of all beings are Her own different manifestations. If a yogi with perfect self-control drinks wine and sits naked with a beautiful naked woman tightly embracing him and yet keeps his mind fully focussed on god, his self-control, his focus on god are all different manifestations of the Divine Mother only. As a matter of fact, even if one gives in to base instincts and pursues carnal pleasures, his desires and actions are also different manifestations of Divine Mother only. The Mother gives rise to so many lower level forms with specific domains of responsibility. The Mother takes the form of Lakshmi and Alakshmi as well. She takes the form of Vidya and Avidya as well. All opposites and polarities are actually Her manifestations only. However, those who are more comfortable with Lakshmi and Vidya and uncomfortable with Alakshmi and Avidya will look at only the former pair as manifestation of Divine Mother and remain in duality. That is a valid point of view. However, the *ultimate* reality is that She is All. I need to sleep now. I will stop here. Hope that put a few things in perspective. You can send further questions to the or to me privately. Best regards,Narasimha------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpanaSpirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdomFree Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro. home.comcast. netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAst rologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagan nath.org------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- Sri Sri NarasimhaJI Namaskarams. Hope you remember me. I am a friend of <deleted> of <deleted> temple, brother of <deleted>. We met a couple of years ago in <deleted> temple. I have a few doubts. I would like to hear your opinion on the same. 1. Are Vedic (Pure Vaithika rituals) different from Mantra Shastras (people explain that mantra shastra does not originate from the vedas, but classified under tantra). Did Mantra shastras not originate from vedas? 2. I read from somewhere that Sri Sri Adi Sankara has condemned Tantrik practices. But I also hear and read that he is a great Sri Vidya Upasaka himself. If Sri Vidya has its roots from Tantra, what did Sri Adi Sankara condemn? 3. What is vamachara? if it is the left hand method - sex, drinks etc, why must it be practiced at all? Is it not a fact that Sri Ambal lies above all these? I am a little (totally) confused. Hope your reply takes me out of the well to ask you more questions Namaskarams Venkat-- Regards<deleted> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2008 Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 Namaste Jyothi ji, > Now, I would like to reply to the 3rd comment of yours:> "(3) Actually, more than others, feel sorry for yourself. Who are we .. > to worry about others? They, their god and their gurus will feel > sorry for them and do something about them. Apne ko kya lena dena? We > are first responsible for ourselves. When one cannot change self and > focus attention on god fully within oneself, what is the point in > lamenting about the spirituality or lack of it in other people? ..."> > Here you made me feel as if I did a mistake in responding to my > cousin as well as asking you the questions. I might be wrong in both. > But what I feel is though it might be irritating and meaningless to > answer the queries of an agnostic; we cannot override the chance of > us being instrumental in their path to know the truth. I didn't mean to make you feel bad or to suggest that one should not try to help others and focus on oneself. If I thought so, I would not be doing so many things I do, like replying to mails, putting together homam manuals etc. My comment 3 came after the first 2. I was just trying to bring in another angle after the first two. One cannot stop focussing inwards and correcting oneself ever. Even a yogi who is able to change the spiritual lives of millions cannot drop guard and has to be looking inwards. That was my point. It is good to help others and try to be "instrumental in their path to know the truth". However, after engaging in action that one's judgment says one should engage in, one should earnestly surrender the doership to the Lord and move on. It is not worthwhile to cling on to the ownership of too many actions for too long as people normally do. In fact, it is a big problem. People don't realize it. One getting used to cancer and living with it for 50 years may forget how it is to live without that disease. Similarly, a being used to living with this cancer (of persistent mental ownership of many many many actions) for many lives may forget how it is to live without that disease! After all rituals like pooja and homam, we do say "sarvam sree krishnaarpanamastu". Though people say it without understanding, it means that you surrender the action finished just now to Krishna. After that, you are not the owner. You should really feel that way. One can adopt that attitude to everything in life, do the action as perfectly as one can and then surrender the doership to the Lord. Unfortunately, many people do good things and cling on to the ownership within their mind for too long. This causes many problems and also binds one. Pride that they did something good or sadness that they missed something or happiness that a good result came from that action or sadness that the intended result did not happen start eating one's mind later on and stop the mind from acting optimally on *future actions*. If one truly surrenders the ownership of every action after the action finishes, one forms a distance between oneself and the results that the actions may bring later on. That distance is really needed for a stable and blissful state of mind and optimum output from one's mind. > I remember reading in Scott Peck's book -The Roads Less Travelled, > that to lose ones ego and to realize oneself, an ego must be present > in the first place. I liked that statement very much because it is > from his book that I am first reading a statement in that line of > thought. Everywhere people condemn ego and speak of losing ego as the > way to realize God. But nobody has ever said that an ego is necessary > to lose it. Quite honestly, ego IS present in all beings by default, including the lowest beings like amoeba and bacteria. A discussion of the necessity of ego to be present is superfluous, as ego IS present anyway in all beings. By the way, ego in our literature does not mean "egotism" or self-importance or pride (which are the meaning in which the word is used these days). Ego simply means self-consciousness and self-awareness. They are always there in all beings and it is an uphill climb to lose them by introspecting each thought, word and action of oneself. Best regards,NarasimhaDo a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpanaSpirituality: Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org sohamsa , "jyothi_b_lakshmi" <jyothi_b_lakshmi wrote:>> Respected Narasimhji,> > First of all let me thank you for spending some time to reply to my > questions.> > I specifically liked the below comments of yours:> "A mind is a mind is a mind. Mind creates the world, not necessarily > a human mind. All minds can create a world. However, a human mind is > more capable than other minds to break down that created world and > return to the source. THAT is the point."> > May be the world we perceive now is the creation of human mind, and > as you said, there may be many other worlds created by many other > minds other than that of humans and since we are not the creators we > are unable to see/comprehend them. > > "Your question is kind of an oxymoron. Can good aghoris become "well-> known" and come to limelight? :-)"> > (I did not know the meaning of oxymoron. Had to look dictionary (. > Well, I understand your point. Aghoris cannot be well-known for > obvious reasons. May be Aghoris know that people who are not as much > evolved as them will not be able to understand their path and hence > stay away from publicity. > > I am least interested in Vamamarga. I just had a curiosity to know if > any body was successful in that path. (Your reference to Vamamarga > and its dangers made me think of the success rate of that path and if > really such people existed. That's all. (Personally, I DO NOT want > any Aghori to appear as my Guru, though I would wish a saint from > Right hand path to appear before me IFF and when I am eligible (if > not in this birth, in any future birth)!!. This is not biasing, just > a personal taste. > > I enjoyed reading Aghora –Kundalini- so well written and genuine. But > as you said, the other book on Left Hand Path by Swaboda was a kind > of shock to me, initially. And it was good to know that such paths > also existed. But after that it didn't affect me at all because I > understood it is just another path. Why should I bother about how and > why it is so when we have a more acceptable and beautiful path? > > Now, I would like to reply to the 3rd comment of yours:> "(3) Actually, more than others, feel sorry for yourself. Who are we > to worry about others? They, their god and their gurus will feel > sorry for them and do something about them. Apne ko kya lena dena? We > are first responsible for ourselves. When one cannot change self and > focus attention on god fully within oneself, what is the point in > lamenting about the spirituality or lack of it in other people? So, > we should all try to look inward and take a critical look at > ourselves, given that we got a very very very valuable life as a > human being."> > Here you made me feel as if I did a mistake in responding to my > cousin as well as asking you the questions. I might be wrong in both. > But what I feel is though it might be irritating and meaningless to > answer the queries of an agnostic; we cannot override the chance of > us being instrumental in their path to know the truth. Every person, > who has a quest to find the truth, be it spiritually or > scientifically (as my cousin who says he will try to solve the > mystery of life in a scientific way) will have to under go a lot of > conflicts at the initial stages. Since we are all accustomed to find > answers through reasoning, everybody initially starts thinking > logically to get an answer which ultimately leads to a dead end. Once > that way ends, one starts looking within, and after a lot of practice > finally realizes that what logic couldn't find, could be found by > practice of concentrating within. This realization that nobody can > answer ones questions, but only oneself, is achieved after a lot of > queries which may be directed to oneself and to many. To my cousin, I > may be a part of that `many'. It is not that I worry about others > spirituality, but I feel, just as many people acted as catalyst in my > spiritual journey, I too might act a as a catalyst, to others, even > if I don't have anything worthwhile to share, and even if I might not > be aware of my role. My inability to answer his question might be one > reason that will catalyze his thoughts further to know more about > other ways and may be, he will ultimately realize the truth. But till > then, the path and people on that path are important. I am saying > this from my experience, when I was tortured by many spiritual quests > and many people's answers (be it satisfactory or unsatisfactory) > helped me to advance. So I feel it might be the same with others. > > I remember reading in Scott Peck's book -The Roads Less Travelled, > that to lose ones ego and to realize oneself, an ego must be present > in the first place. I liked that statement very much because it is > from his book that I am first reading a statement in that line of > thought. Everywhere people condemn ego and speak of losing ego as the > way to realize God. But nobody has ever said that an ego is necessary > to lose it. Nobody ever spoke of the `necessity' and importance of > ego to realize God. Scott Peck made it very clear that if not having > an ego is a sign of realization, then all children should be self-> realized yogis, but in fact they are not. They become yogis when they > develop an ego and then lose it. May be this is the way Divine Mother > wants it to happen. Someway, I liked what Scott Peck said. > > > With Respects,> Jyothi> > sohamsa , "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" <pvr@> > wrote:> >> > Namaste Jyothi ji,> > > > > Secondly, can you please help me with a question? ..snip..> > > He was asking me if yoga, be it jnana yoga, bhakti yoga > > > or any one, is the only way to attain moksha/realisation, then > what > > > will other living organisms like ameoba, bacteria and all will do > to > > > attain moksha? Arent they also living organisms? > > > ..snip.. He said, if what I am saying is correct, only human > beings > > > will be evolved and other organisms will never attain moksha. I > was > > > breathless for a moment and did not know how to answer him. I > really > > > felt sad (and ashamed, because I thought I could answer all > questions > > > related to the mystery of life) that I couldnt answer > him. ..snip..> > > > Well, sadhana (effort) is what a being does. Phala (fruits) are > decided by the Lord. If God wants, a bacteria can get moksha too. > However, *usually* god has some rules of action and reaction to > uphold and hence does not act out of order. So the chance of a > baterium to get moksha is negligible (except at the end of this > creation cycle).> > > > It is indeed true that amoeba or bacteria have very very small > chance of moksha in THAT life. However, nobody stops them from doing > some good karma (possibly by *chance*), get a higher birth and > eventually be born as a human and do some sadhana.> > > > When I wrote "by chance", it may make some uncomfortable. But that > is the fact. Whatever action we perform with a sense of *I-ness* > behind that action becomes a karma (action) and an equal and opposite > phala (fruit/reaction) will come. Suppose one donates one's eyes and > feels good about the noble act and the person getting the eyes uses > the newly gotten vision to look at some beautiful women, be tempted > and rape them, the donor will get part of that karma! The laws of > karma are complex. Thinking like "this is a noble karma. So it is > good only" is incorrect. Each action results in a series of > developments and begets some karma for the person. Of course, if an > act is with committed with ego but not an intention to affect a > particular development, the part of the karma begotten from that > development is smaller (than it would be if that development was > intended). Thus, even bacteria and amoeba can beget karma from the > results of their actions. But it is very small and accumulates > slowly. Highly taamasik beings such as trees, amoeba and bacteria > take a looooong time to make progress on the ladder of kaarmik > evolution.> > > > I want to make three comments:> > > > (1) One need not feel sorry for the amoeba and bacteria because > they are mostly a long way from moksha. Not all beings need to get > moksha right away. If that is needed, god did not need to create this > world. If there is unmanifested Brahman and nothing else in this > universe, that will solve all problems. But the fact is that > manifested Brahman with infinite objects at varying levels of karmic > evolution is not really a problem! That is exactly what is needed for > the Lila to unfold.> > > > (2) If you want to feel sorry, feel sorry not for amoeba and > bacteria, but for those who got the valuable human birth and yet act > like amoeba and bacteria spiritually. Pity those who are stuck in the > cycle of happiness and sadness, elation and depression, hopes and > despairs etc, without realizing that the play will end soon and what > birth one will get next is uncertain!!> > > > (3) Actually, more than others, feel sorry for yourself. Who are we > to worry about others? They, their god and their gurus will feel > sorry for them and do something about them. Apne ko kya lena dena? We > are first responsible for ourselves. When one cannot change self and > focus attention on god fully within oneself, what is the point in > lamenting about the spirituality or lack of it in other people? So, > we should all try to look inward and take a critical look at > ourselves, given that we got a very very very valuable life as a > human being.> > > > > His question gave me a sleepless night. I thought a lot about it. > If > > > the whole world as a maya exist only in human's mind (as per my > > > understanding, our mind creates this world, when through yoga, > > > mind/ego collapse happens, there is no world or anything and we > > > submerge as oneness in the omnipotent power), if it is a creation > of > > > mind, then there should not be any world when the human species > is > > > extinct. Right? > > > > A mind is a mind is a mind. Mind creates the world, not necessarily > a human mind. All minds can create a world. However, a human mind is > more capable than other minds to break down that created world and > return to the source. THAT is the point.> > > > > (I am asking you because, you were instrumental (though > unknowingly) > > > in opening the wide horizon of spiritual knowledge to me years > back > > > through just one reply to one of my questions related to > Kundalini. I > > > am always indebted to you for that and now I realise how stupid > my > > > questions were at that time.) > > > > I am glad to know that. I am actually a fool who does not know much > and cannot help anyone. But the blessings of my gurus may work > through me sometimes and benefit some.> > > > > First: > > > I would like to know if you have heard of any vamacharis in India > who > > > followed Vama Marga successfully and realised God. All true > saints I > > > have heard are followers of the Satwik path/right hand tantra. So > > > always wonder, did any body succeed in the other way? Anybody who > was > > > well-known as a Vamamarga saint?> > > > Your question is kind of an oxymoron. Can good aghoris become "well-> known" and come to limelight? :-)> > > > I know one masterly aghori reasonably well. However, he is not > restricted to one path. All paths are his own and he does not > distinguish. He does aghora sadhanas in smashana and also Vedic > sadhanas like Vedic homas with the same attitude. He chants Vedic > mantras too. For example, when he chants Sri Rudram, it produces > amazing energy all around. He is a bhakti yogi too. When he thinks of > Krishna, he melts in devotion. When he discusses upanishads and other > Vedanta texts such as Yoga Vaasishtham and BhagavadGita, his keen > intellect shines forth like a Sun and illuminates the thinking of a > ready audience. I have never seen anyone who has such a perfect > understanding of the essence of Upanishads and exudes it in thoughts, > words and actions. He has wife and children, has a full-time job and > engages in several external activities and is never idle. But his > level of detachment with the work he does so expertly is far higher > than even ascetics who renounce everything and *try* to develop some > detachment.> > > > Bottomline is that he is an aghori, but he is also a jnaana yogi, > bhakti yogi, karma yogi and raaja yogi. He is a vaidika and he is an > aghori. All paths are his and he views all the same way. I don't know > if all really good aghoris are like that or just he.> > > > In any case, it is irrelevant to you if any aghori succeeded or > not. If YOU are meant to succeed in aghota, you will. If not, you > will not. To be safe, until the right time and right person comes, > one should not venture into aghora. I want people to appreciate > different things for what they are and not have unhealthy biases, but > it does not mean everybody should try everything. Nuclear engineers > hating politicians, politicians hating lawyers and lawyers hating > doctors is bad. But one should become what one is supposed to!> > > > > A few years back, I had read AGHORA -Kundalini by Robert Svoboda. > In > > > that book one Aghori Vimalananda is mentioned. But except in that > > > book, I couldnt find any references to this person anywhere. Not > even > > > in net. (The only references were the ones related to Robert > > > Swaboda's book and as his Guru). > > > > Well, he guarded his privacy and made sure that the books came out > only after he left the body. Moreover, his real name was not that. > Also, he led his spiritual life in relative seclusion and not many > knew him. No wonder you can't find info on him.> > > > Bottomline is: Whether he is real or not, one can benefit from > teachings attributed to him. The knowledge present in the aghora > series of books is nothing short of amazing. It may shock you, but it > can change your thinking from inside out and give you a clearer > understanding. Vimalananda not only managed to impart great > understanding to Svoboda, but also ensure that Mother Taaraa Herself > would speak through Svoboda and the knowledge would come out perfect. > Other books authored by Svoboda may not have the same brilliance, but > those books came out just as Vimalananda intended.> > > > There are many things in the book which could not have come from a > normal person. They came from someone who had a perfect, steady and > unwavering understanding of the absolute truth.> > > > BTW, you cannot meet a good and genuine aghori unless there is a > rina and *he* wants you to meet him.> > > > Best regards,> > Narasimha> > > > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam> > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana> > Spirituality: > > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net> > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org> > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org> > > > > > sohamsa , "jyothi_b_lakshmi" > <jyothi_b_lakshmi@> wrote:> > >> > > Namaste Narasimhji,> > > > > > > > > Enjoyed reading both your mails. This reminds me of a koan riddle:> > > > > > A MASTER was asked the question, "What is the Way?" by a curious> > > monk.> > > "It is right before your eyes," said the master.> > > Monk: "Why do I not see it for myself?"> > > Master: "Because you are thinking of yourself."> > > Monk: "What about you? Do you see it?"> > > Master: "So long as you see double, saying I don't and you do, > and so > > > on, your eyes are clouded,"> > > Monk: "When there is neither 'I' nor 'You' can one see it?"> > > Master: "When there is neither 'I' nor 'You,' who is the one that > > > wants to see it?"> > > > > > Can I request two favours from you?> > > > > > First: > > > I would like to know if you have heard of any vamacharis in India > who > > > followed Vama Marga successfully and realised God. All true > saints I > > > have heard are followers of the Satwik path/right hand tantra. So > > > always wonder, did any body succeed in the other way? Anybody who > was > > > well-known as a Vamamarga saint?> > > > > > A few years back, I had read AGHORA -Kundalini by Robert Svoboda. > In > > > that book one Aghori Vimalananda is mentioned. But except in that > > > book, I couldnt find any references to this person anywhere. Not > even > > > in net. (The only references were the ones related to Robert > > > Swaboda's book and as his Guru). > > > > > > Secondly, can you please help me with a question?> > > A week back, I was elaborating about realisation and yoga, > meditation > > > and all such to one of my cousins who did not actually understand > all > > > what I said. He was asking me if yoga, be it jnana yoga, bhakti > yoga > > > or any one, is the only way to attain moksha/realisation, then > what > > > will other living organisms like ameoba, bacteria and all will do > to > > > attain moksha? Arent they also living organisms? (He has done his > > > research in Bio Informatics, hence his priority to bacteria and > > > ameoba). He said, if what I am saying is correct, only human > beings > > > will be evolved and other organisms will never attain moksha. I > was > > > breathless for a moment and did not know how to answer him. I > really > > > felt sad (and ashamed, because I thought I could answer all > questions > > > related to the mystery of life) that I couldnt answer him. His > > > question seemed stupid, but when I thought of it, isnt that a > valid > > > question?> > > > > > His question gave me a sleepless night. I thought a lot about it. > If > > > the whole world as a maya exist only in human's mind (as per my > > > understanding, our mind creates this world, when through yoga, > > > mind/ego collapse happens, there is no world or anything and we > > > submerge as oneness in the omnipotent power), if it is a creation > of > > > mind, then there should not be any world when the human species > is > > > extinct. Right? > > > > > > I dont know if I have convey my doubt clearly. > > > > > > Would you be able to share your knowledge on this? > > > > > > (I am asking you because, you were instrumental (though > unknowingly) > > > in opening the wide horizon of spiritual knowledge to me years > back > > > through just one reply to one of my questions related to > Kundalini. I > > > am always indebted to you for that and now I realise how stupid > my > > > questions were at that time.) > > > > > > With Respects,> > > Jyothi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Adarniya Guruji Namaskar, I kindly you to please write books on Vedic Astrology & Vedic Wisdom. Your presentation of matter is excellent. Although I am not a Astrologer but became interested in it since 1.1/2 year & collected many books(whole volumes of B V Raman, Bhojraj dwivedi, KP, etc). Did not study any of them in detail. I happened to Purchase your book "Integrated approach to Vedic Astrology" just by chance. But once I began reading it & learned about your software, SJC, books by Pandit Rath ji etc I was set in motion & since then in free time I study books only from SJC. Of the many books I browsed till now, your's is the excellent & I am indebted to you. By now have you completed any book? if yes what is the title. I am writing this mail so that if not now(due to your busy schedule) in future atleast but at the earliest you will write more books and enlighten us. Regards Vinayak P Tandle--- On Fri, 8/22/08, Narasimha P.V.R. Rao <pvr wrote: Narasimha P.V.R. Rao <pvr Re: Analogy: Veda, Aagama, Tantra, Aghora etcsohamsa , , sivacharya Date: Friday, August 22, 2008, 6:47 AM Namaste Jyothi ji, > Now, I would like to reply to the 3rd comment of yours:> "(3) Actually, more than others, feel sorry for yourself. Who are we .. > to worry about others? They, their god and their gurus will feel > sorry for them and do something about them. Apne ko kya lena dena? We > are first responsible for ourselves. When one cannot change self and > focus attention on god fully within oneself, what is the point in > lamenting about the spirituality or lack of it in other people? ..."> > Here you made me feel as if I did a mistake in responding to my > cousin as well as asking you the questions. I might be wrong in both. > But what I feel is though it might be irritating and meaningless to > answer the queries of an agnostic; we cannot override the chance of > us being instrumental in their path to know the truth. I didn't mean to make you feel bad or to suggest that one should not try to help others and focus on oneself. If I thought so, I would not be doing so many things I do, like replying to mails, putting together homam manuals etc. My comment 3 came after the first 2. I was just trying to bring in another angle after the first two. One cannot stop focussing inwards and correcting oneself ever. Even a yogi who is able to change the spiritual lives of millions cannot drop guard and has to be looking inwards. That was my point. It is good to help others and try to be "instrumental in their path to know the truth". However, after engaging in action that one's judgment says one should engage in, one should earnestly surrender the doership to the Lord and move on. It is not worthwhile to cling on to the ownership of too many actions for too long as people normally do. In fact, it is a big problem. People don't realize it. One getting used to cancer and living with it for 50 years may forget how it is to live without that disease. Similarly, a being used to living with this cancer (of persistent mental ownership of many many many actions) for many lives may forget how it is to live without that disease! After all rituals like pooja and homam, we do say "sarvam sree krishnaarpanamastu" . Though people say it without understanding, it means that you surrender the action finished just now to Krishna. After that, you are not the owner. You should really feel that way. One can adopt that attitude to everything in life, do the action as perfectly as one can and then surrender the doership to the Lord. Unfortunately, many people do good things and cling on to the ownership within their mind for too long. This causes many problems and also binds one. Pride that they did something good or sadness that they missed something or happiness that a good result came from that action or sadness that the intended result did not happen start eating one's mind later on and stop the mind from acting optimally on *future actions*. If one truly surrenders the ownership of every action after the action finishes, one forms a distance between oneself and the results that the actions may bring later on. That distance is really needed for a stable and blissful state of mind and optimum output from one's mind. > I remember reading in Scott Peck's book -The Roads Less Travelled, > that to lose ones ego and to realize oneself, an ego must be present > in the first place. I liked that statement very much because it is > from his book that I am first reading a statement in that line of > thought. Everywhere people condemn ego and speak of losing ego as the > way to realize God. But nobody has ever said that an ego is necessary > to lose it. Quite honestly, ego IS present in all beings by default, including the lowest beings like amoeba and bacteria. A discussion of the necessity of ego to be present is superfluous, as ego IS present anyway in all beings. By the way, ego in our literature does not mean "egotism" or self-importance or pride (which are the meaning in which the word is used these days). Ego simply means self-consciousness and self-awareness. They are always there in all beings and it is an uphill climb to lose them by introspecting each thought, word and action of oneself. Best regards,Narasimha------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homamDo Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpanaSpirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdomFree Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro. home.comcast. netFree Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAst rologer.orgSri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagan nath.org------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- sohamsa@ .com, "jyothi_b_lakshmi" <jyothi_b_lakshmi@ ...> wrote:>> Respected Narasimhji,> > First of all let me thank you for spending some time to reply to my > questions.> > I specifically liked the below comments of yours:> "A mind is a mind is a mind. Mind creates the world, not necessarily > a human mind. All minds can create a world. However, a human mind is > more capable than other minds to break down that created world and > return to the source. THAT is the point."> > May be the world we perceive now is the creation of human mind, and > as you said, there may be many other worlds created by many other > minds other than that of humans and since we are not the creators we > are unable to see/comprehend them. > > "Your question is kind of an oxymoron. Can good aghoris become "well-> known" and come to limelight? :-)"> > (I did not know the meaning of oxymoron. Had to look dictionary (. > Well, I understand your point. Aghoris cannot be well-known for > obvious reasons. May be Aghoris know that people who are not as much > evolved as them will not be able to understand their path and hence > stay away from publicity. > > I am least interested in Vamamarga. I just had a curiosity to know if > any body was successful in that path. (Your reference to Vamamarga > and its dangers made me think of the success rate of that path and if > really such people existed. That's all. (Personally, I DO NOT want > any Aghori to appear as my Guru, though I would wish a saint from > Right hand path to appear before me IFF and when I am eligible (if > not in this birth, in any future birth)!!. This is not biasing, just > a personal taste. > > I enjoyed reading Aghora –Kundalini- so well written and genuine. But > as you said, the other book on Left Hand Path by Swaboda was a kind > of shock to me, initially. And it was good to know that such paths > also existed. But after that it didn't affect me at all because I > understood it is just another path. Why should I bother about how and > why it is so when we have a more acceptable and beautiful path? > > Now, I would like to reply to the 3rd comment of yours:> "(3) Actually, more than others, feel sorry for yourself. Who are we > to worry about others? They, their god and their gurus will feel > sorry for them and do something about them. Apne ko kya lena dena? We > are first responsible for ourselves. When one cannot change self and > focus attention on god fully within oneself, what is the point in > lamenting about the spirituality or lack of it in other people? So, > we should all try to look inward and take a critical look at > ourselves, given that we got a very very very valuable life as a > human being."> > Here you made me feel as if I did a mistake in responding to my > cousin as well as asking you the questions. I might be wrong in both. > But what I feel is though it might be irritating and meaningless to > answer the queries of an agnostic; we cannot override the chance of > us being instrumental in their path to know the truth. Every person, > who has a quest to find the truth, be it spiritually or > scientifically (as my cousin who says he will try to solve the > mystery of life in a scientific way) will have to under go a lot of > conflicts at the initial stages. Since we are all accustomed to find > answers through reasoning, everybody initially starts thinking > logically to get an answer which ultimately leads to a dead end. Once > that way ends, one starts looking within, and after a lot of practice > finally realizes that what logic couldn't find, could be found by > practice of concentrating within. This realization that nobody can > answer ones questions, but only oneself, is achieved after a lot of > queries which may be directed to oneself and to many. To my cousin, I > may be a part of that `many'. It is not that I worry about others > spirituality, but I feel, just as many people acted as catalyst in my > spiritual journey, I too might act a as a catalyst, to others, even > if I don't have anything worthwhile to share, and even if I might not > be aware of my role. My inability to answer his question might be one > reason that will catalyze his thoughts further to know more about > other ways and may be, he will ultimately realize the truth. But till > then, the path and people on that path are important. I am saying > this from my experience, when I was tortured by many spiritual quests > and many people's answers (be it satisfactory or unsatisfactory) > helped me to advance. So I feel it might be the same with others. > > I remember reading in Scott Peck's book -The Roads Less Travelled, > that to lose ones ego and to realize oneself, an ego must be present > in the first place. I liked that statement very much because it is > from his book that I am first reading a statement in that line of > thought. Everywhere people condemn ego and speak of losing ego as the > way to realize God. But nobody has ever said that an ego is necessary > to lose it. Nobody ever spoke of the `necessity' and importance of > ego to realize God. Scott Peck made it very clear that if not having > an ego is a sign of realization, then all children should be self-> realized yogis, but in fact they are not. They become yogis when they > develop an ego and then lose it. May be this is the way Divine Mother > wants it to happen. Someway, I liked what Scott Peck said. > > > With Respects,> Jyothi> > sohamsa@ .com, "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" <pvr@> > wrote:> >> > Namaste Jyothi ji,> > > > > Secondly, can you please help me with a question? ..snip..> > > He was asking me if yoga, be it jnana yoga, bhakti yoga > > > or any one, is the only way to attain moksha/realisation, then > what > > > will other living organisms like ameoba, bacteria and all will do > to > > > attain moksha? Arent they also living organisms? > > > ..snip.. He said, if what I am saying is correct, only human > beings > > > will be evolved and other organisms will never attain moksha. I > was > > > breathless for a moment and did not know how to answer him. I > really > > > felt sad (and ashamed, because I thought I could answer all > questions > > > related to the mystery of life) that I couldnt answer > him. ..snip..> > > > Well, sadhana (effort) is what a being does. Phala (fruits) are > decided by the Lord. If God wants, a bacteria can get moksha too. > However, *usually* god has some rules of action and reaction to > uphold and hence does not act out of order. So the chance of a > baterium to get moksha is negligible (except at the end of this > creation cycle).> > > > It is indeed true that amoeba or bacteria have very very small > chance of moksha in THAT life. However, nobody stops them from doing > some good karma (possibly by *chance*), get a higher birth and > eventually be born as a human and do some sadhana.> > > > When I wrote "by chance", it may make some uncomfortable. But that > is the fact. Whatever action we perform with a sense of *I-ness* > behind that action becomes a karma (action) and an equal and opposite > phala (fruit/reaction) will come. Suppose one donates one's eyes and > feels good about the noble act and the person getting the eyes uses > the newly gotten vision to look at some beautiful women, be tempted > and rape them, the donor will get part of that karma! The laws of > karma are complex. Thinking like "this is a noble karma. So it is > good only" is incorrect. Each action results in a series of > developments and begets some karma for the person. Of course, if an > act is with committed with ego but not an intention to affect a > particular development, the part of the karma begotten from that > development is smaller (than it would be if that development was > intended). Thus, even bacteria and amoeba can beget karma from the > results of their actions. But it is very small and accumulates > slowly. Highly taamasik beings such as trees, amoeba and bacteria > take a looooong time to make progress on the ladder of kaarmik > evolution.> > > > I want to make three comments:> > > > (1) One need not feel sorry for the amoeba and bacteria because > they are mostly a long way from moksha. Not all beings need to get > moksha right away. If that is needed, god did not need to create this > world. If there is unmanifested Brahman and nothing else in this > universe, that will solve all problems. But the fact is that > manifested Brahman with infinite objects at varying levels of karmic > evolution is not really a problem! That is exactly what is needed for > the Lila to unfold.> > > > (2) If you want to feel sorry, feel sorry not for amoeba and > bacteria, but for those who got the valuable human birth and yet act > like amoeba and bacteria spiritually. Pity those who are stuck in the > cycle of happiness and sadness, elation and depression, hopes and > despairs etc, without realizing that the play will end soon and what > birth one will get next is uncertain!!> > > > (3) Actually, more than others, feel sorry for yourself. Who are we > to worry about others? They, their god and their gurus will feel > sorry for them and do something about them. Apne ko kya lena dena? We > are first responsible for ourselves. When one cannot change self and > focus attention on god fully within oneself, what is the point in > lamenting about the spirituality or lack of it in other people? So, > we should all try to look inward and take a critical look at > ourselves, given that we got a very very very valuable life as a > human being.> > > > > His question gave me a sleepless night. I thought a lot about it. > If > > > the whole world as a maya exist only in human's mind (as per my > > > understanding, our mind creates this world, when through yoga, > > > mind/ego collapse happens, there is no world or anything and we > > > submerge as oneness in the omnipotent power), if it is a creation > of > > > mind, then there should not be any world when the human species > is > > > extinct. Right? > > > > A mind is a mind is a mind. Mind creates the world, not necessarily > a human mind. All minds can create a world. However, a human mind is > more capable than other minds to break down that created world and > return to the source. THAT is the point.> > > > > (I am asking you because, you were instrumental (though > unknowingly) > > > in opening the wide horizon of spiritual knowledge to me years > back > > > through just one reply to one of my questions related to > Kundalini. I > > > am always indebted to you for that and now I realise how stupid > my > > > questions were at that time.) > > > > I am glad to know that. I am actually a fool who does not know much > and cannot help anyone. But the blessings of my gurus may work > through me sometimes and benefit some.> > > > > First: > > > I would like to know if you have heard of any vamacharis in India > who > > > followed Vama Marga successfully and realised God. All true > saints I > > > have heard are followers of the Satwik path/right hand tantra. So > > > always wonder, did any body succeed in the other way? Anybody who > was > > > well-known as a Vamamarga saint?> > > > Your question is kind of an oxymoron. Can good aghoris become "well-> known" and come to limelight? :-)> > > > I know one masterly aghori reasonably well. However, he is not > restricted to one path. All paths are his own and he does not > distinguish. He does aghora sadhanas in smashana and also Vedic > sadhanas like Vedic homas with the same attitude. He chants Vedic > mantras too. For example, when he chants Sri Rudram, it produces > amazing energy all around. He is a bhakti yogi too. When he thinks of > Krishna, he melts in devotion. When he discusses upanishads and other > Vedanta texts such as Yoga Vaasishtham and BhagavadGita, his keen > intellect shines forth like a Sun and illuminates the thinking of a > ready audience. I have never seen anyone who has such a perfect > understanding of the essence of Upanishads and exudes it in thoughts, > words and actions. He has wife and children, has a full-time job and > engages in several external activities and is never idle. But his > level of detachment with the work he does so expertly is far higher > than even ascetics who renounce everything and *try* to develop some > detachment.> > > > Bottomline is that he is an aghori, but he is also a jnaana yogi, > bhakti yogi, karma yogi and raaja yogi. He is a vaidika and he is an > aghori. All paths are his and he views all the same way. I don't know > if all really good aghoris are like that or just he.> > > > In any case, it is irrelevant to you if any aghori succeeded or > not. If YOU are meant to succeed in aghota, you will. If not, you > will not. To be safe, until the right time and right person comes, > one should not venture into aghora. I want people to appreciate > different things for what they are and not have unhealthy biases, but > it does not mean everybody should try everything. Nuclear engineers > hating politicians, politicians hating lawyers and lawyers hating > doctors is bad. But one should become what one is supposed to!> > > > > A few years back, I had read AGHORA -Kundalini by Robert Svoboda. > In > > > that book one Aghori Vimalananda is mentioned. But except in that > > > book, I couldnt find any references to this person anywhere. Not > even > > > in net. (The only references were the ones related to Robert > > > Swaboda's book and as his Guru). > > > > Well, he guarded his privacy and made sure that the books came out > only after he left the body. Moreover, his real name was not that. > Also, he led his spiritual life in relative seclusion and not many > knew him. No wonder you can't find info on him.> > > > Bottomline is: Whether he is real or not, one can benefit from > teachings attributed to him. The knowledge present in the aghora > series of books is nothing short of amazing. It may shock you, but it > can change your thinking from inside out and give you a clearer > understanding. Vimalananda not only managed to impart great > understanding to Svoboda, but also ensure that Mother Taaraa Herself > would speak through Svoboda and the knowledge would come out perfect. > Other books authored by Svoboda may not have the same brilliance, but > those books came out just as Vimalananda intended.> > > > There are many things in the book which could not have come from a > normal person. They came from someone who had a perfect, steady and > unwavering understanding of the absolute truth.> > > > BTW, you cannot meet a good and genuine aghori unless there is a > rina and *he* wants you to meet him.> > > > Best regards,> > Narasimha> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------> > Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homam> > Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpana> > Spirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom> > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro. home.comcast. net> > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAst rologer.org> > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagan nath.org> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- > > > > sohamsa@ .com, "jyothi_b_lakshmi" > <jyothi_b_lakshmi@> wrote:> > >> > > Namaste Narasimhji,> > > > > > > > > Enjoyed reading both your mails. This reminds me of a koan riddle:> > > > > > A MASTER was asked the question, "What is the Way?" by a curious> > > monk.> > > "It is right before your eyes," said the master.> > > Monk: "Why do I not see it for myself?"> > > Master: "Because you are thinking of yourself."> > > Monk: "What about you? Do you see it?"> > > Master: "So long as you see double, saying I don't and you do, > and so > > > on, your eyes are clouded,"> > > Monk: "When there is neither 'I' nor 'You' can one see it?"> > > Master: "When there is neither 'I' nor 'You,' who is the one that > > > wants to see it?"> > > > > > Can I request two favours from you?> > > > > > First: > > > I would like to know if you have heard of any vamacharis in India > who > > > followed Vama Marga successfully and realised God. All true > saints I > > > have heard are followers of the Satwik path/right hand tantra. So > > > always wonder, did any body succeed in the other way? Anybody who > was > > > well-known as a Vamamarga saint?> > > > > > A few years back, I had read AGHORA -Kundalini by Robert Svoboda. > In > > > that book one Aghori Vimalananda is mentioned. But except in that > > > book, I couldnt find any references to this person anywhere. Not > even > > > in net. (The only references were the ones related to Robert > > > Swaboda's book and as his Guru). > > > > > > Secondly, can you please help me with a question?> > > A week back, I was elaborating about realisation and yoga, > meditation > > > and all such to one of my cousins who did not actually understand > all > > > what I said. He was asking me if yoga, be it jnana yoga, bhakti > yoga > > > or any one, is the only way to attain moksha/realisation, then > what > > > will other living organisms like ameoba, bacteria and all will do > to > > > attain moksha? Arent they also living organisms? (He has done his > > > research in Bio Informatics, hence his priority to bacteria and > > > ameoba). He said, if what I am saying is correct, only human > beings > > > will be evolved and other organisms will never attain moksha. I > was > > > breathless for a moment and did not know how to answer him. I > really > > > felt sad (and ashamed, because I thought I could answer all > questions > > > related to the mystery of life) that I couldnt answer him. His > > > question seemed stupid, but when I thought of it, isnt that a > valid > > > question?> > > > > > His question gave me a sleepless night. I thought a lot about it. > If > > > the whole world as a maya exist only in human's mind (as per my > > > understanding, our mind creates this world, when through yoga, > > > mind/ego collapse happens, there is no world or anything and we > > > submerge as oneness in the omnipotent power), if it is a creation > of > > > mind, then there should not be any world when the human species > is > > > extinct. Right? > > > > > > I dont know if I have convey my doubt clearly. > > > > > > Would you be able to share your knowledge on this? > > > > > > (I am asking you because, you were instrumental (though > unknowingly) > > > in opening the wide horizon of spiritual knowledge to me years > back > > > through just one reply to one of my questions related to > Kundalini. I > > > am always indebted to you for that and now I realise how stupid > my > > > questions were at that time.) > > > > > > With Respects,> > > Jyothi 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.