Guest guest Posted December 29, 2003 Report Share Posted December 29, 2003 Haribol! I find that I'm just the opposite. In times of great happiness I tend to ignore the divine. However, in great distress I find solace in an all loving divinity who has provided such a nice playground for this child-soul. Both attitudes I believe (mine with k.s.krishna moorthy's) are the same. It is always the world (maya) that clouds our perception. Peace, Stephen --- " k.s.krishna moorthy " <ksksat27 wrote: > Dear Devotees, > > Here is a question that is applicable to many of > us,I > believe. > > I love devotional topics very much and whenever I am > free from material worries I think and talk of > transcendental topics.But as soon as a problem, > slightest of its kind arises, I simply become an > ordinary ignorant and get disturbed. > > I think of Rama and joyfully sing his glories when > material success comes, but when sorrow arises I > simply become exhausted and cry to Rama to relieve > me > from material pain. > > How to maintain a perfect balance and unalloyed > devotion during times of difficuty? ===== What man makes let man prescribe. What God makes let God prescribe. Hare Krishna,Hare Krishna,Krishna Krishna,Hare Hare Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard http://antispam./whatsnewfree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2003 Report Share Posted December 30, 2003 Dear Friends, --- Keith Johnson <omegananda wrote: > > > Here is a way to accomplish your goal. Take up > the > > name of Rama. Keep the name of Rama with every > > breath. Keep the name of Rama during every waking > > moment--no matter what. > > SNIP > This intuitively seems to be the reason > why this master > said to recite " Rama " . I myself prefer the sacred > syllable OM, which > is all inclusive for all forms of God (e.g. deities) > as well as > formless. SNIP OM is a most wonderful mantra. But the gentleman who initiated this thread had already been chanting the name of Rama. There is no need for him to switch from Rama to OM. Love, michael Find out what made the Top Searches of 2003 http://search./top2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2003 Report Share Posted December 30, 2003 Here is a doha(couplet) from Kabir Das, the famous Indian saint of the 15th century, on this topic " Dukh mein simran sab karen, sukh mein karay na koye Jo sukh mein simran karay, to dukh kahay ko hoye. " Idea: Everyone worships God during sorrow, but none during happiness, If one worships God during happiness, why would sorrow even come? Obviously taking the God's name at all times is one of the solutions. Here's a line from Theodore Tilton that can help you maintain your balance. " Even this shall pass away " The entire poem of Tilton is available here. http://poetryarchive.bravepages.com/RSTU/tilton-t.html Regards, Harish. ------------------- Stephen <bummer1962 Material men and Spiritualism Haribol! I find that I'm just the opposite. In times of great happiness I tend to ignore the divine. However, in great distress I find solace in an all loving divinity who has provided such a nice playground for this child-soul. Both attitudes I believe (mine with k.s.krishna moorthy's) are the same. It is always the world (maya) that clouds our perception. Peace, Stephen --- " k.s.krishna moorthy " <ksksat27 wrote: > Dear Devotees, > > I think of Rama and joyfully sing his glories when > material success comes, but when sorrow arises I > simply become exhausted and cry to Rama to relieve > me > from material pain. > > How to maintain a perfect balance and unalloyed > devotion during times of difficuty? ===== Find out what made the Top Searches of 2003 http://search./top2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2003 Report Share Posted December 31, 2003 Namaste Good and bad is relative. How true! And hence " Gita " doesn't talk about good or bad; instead talks about " Dharma " and " Adharma " . But, ultimately who decides what's Dharma or Adharma? On the battlefield of Mahabharata, Lord Krishna told Arjuna the following – (a) See the people across the enemy line as enemies and not as relatives, friends or Guru (b) Go ahead and kill them for they are not alive in the first place since I've already killed them and what's standing in front of you are mere bodies © Kill, for by killing bodies the soul cannot be killed and thus you will be actually killing no one. But, most people consider killing animals and eating meat as bad. Why does the teaching of Lord Krishna to Arjuna doesn't apply to non- vegetarian people? On asking this question most teachers had same answer – Arjuna's killing human beings on battlefield was `Dharma', (though the battle was to gain material benefits like acquiring lost kingdom and revenge of Draupadi's insult, which was again due to Pandawa's own mistake of betting wife in gambling). But killing of animals for eating meat is `Adharma' and the discussion ends there. However, this is not very convincing to me and I still wonder as to who decides what's dharma and what's adharma? Any light on this doubt is highly appreciated. Om Peace Pradip Ramakrishna , " Keith Johnson " <omegananda> wrote: > > > Here is a way to accomplish your goal. Take up the > > name of Rama. Keep the name of Rama with every > > breath. Keep the name of Rama during every waking > > moment--no matter what. > > > The challenge of become God or Self Realized is that, especially for > many, God is related to " good " and the " devil " is the culprit > for " the bad. " But we need to remember that good and bad are all > relative. So, when we chant a mantra always, we begin to associate > all things with God, or Brahman, thereby breaking the false illusion > of duality. This intuitively seems to be the reason why this master > said to recite " Rama " . I myself prefer the sacred syllable OM, which > is all inclusive for all forms of God (e.g. deities) as well as > formless. Nonetheless, we need to realize that there is nothing > besides the Self. Whether it be a tiger, a butterfly, a criminal, or > a saint, it is the Self only that exists. Comments welcome. > Om shanti. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2003 Report Share Posted December 31, 2003 Dear Pradip, My teacher Swami Chetanananda once told a story about this subject. He said that someone was asking Swami Brahmananda whether it was wrong to eat meat since the animal was killed. Swami Brahmananda took a grain of rice and said that the rice also had life and that it could be planted and live. He said that either a plant or an animal has to die when we eat. Many years ago I read a book entitled, " The Secret Life of Plants " . It was written by Peter Tomkins and Christopher Byrd. I don't know if the book is still in print; but it is one of the most amazing books that I have ever read. After reading this book a person can never again look upon plants as " dumb " vegetation. They are aware and conscious and maybe more so than most humans. My point is that Life comes only from Life. And if there is a God, this God has preordained that every physical thing that lives shall also die. This is God's way. If God has so ordained then is death wrong? Love, michael --- narenpm <narenpm wrote: > Namaste > SNIP > But, most people consider killing animals and eating > meat as bad. > Why does the teaching of Lord Krishna to Arjuna > doesn't apply to non- > vegetarian people? SNIP Find out what made the Top Searches of 2003 http://search./top2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2003 Report Share Posted December 31, 2003 Hello Naren, nice thought. one can also view that Mahabharata war was not owing to ONLY lost kingdom or Draupadis' insult. there had been accumulation of sins (if you will) from the side of Kaurawas. there is one more point of view. if one considers interaction of a specie within itself (humanbeings with humans) then there has to be certain protocol which one has to follow. it is necessary for continuation of existance of that specie. one can also see this amongst animals. the existance of a specie is endangered only with interaction with some other specie. human being having superior brains are capable of self distruction as well as endangering other PEACEFUL and HELPFUL beings. this can exactly be the reason why killing Kaurawas was 'dharma' and killing animals is 'adharma'. kindly pardon me for my immature thoughts. take care, dhananjay. ===== __ " Learning " is finding out what you already know " Doing " is demonstrating that you know " Teaching " is reminding others that they know just as well as you. -Bach Find out what made the Top Searches of 2003 http://search./top2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 Dear Dhananjya, Who am I to pardon your immature thoughts? First of all I don't even have right to decide whether your thought (below) are mature or immature. In fact from my original email you might have noticed that I'm myself struggling to find out as to who has right to decide what's 'dharma' and what's 'adharma'. Who are we to decide what species should live or not live? Are we the ones who decided that the dinosaurs should cease to exist millions of years back? Are we the ones who created carnivorous animals, whose own species will be extinguished if they don't eat other animals? For every fish that human beings catch from ocean to eat there are million fish being eaten by larger fish or dying in the ocean. We (human beings) might not know even one percent of the total number of species that God has created or creating and destroying everyday. And in that case why be so sympathetic to animals alone. Dr. Jagdish Chandra Bose and other scientists proved that plants have life too. They too feel the pain when they are cut or killed. Poor plants they can't run away to save their lives or shout that would be audible to us, so should we consider that eating vegetables is no or lesser crime then eating animal flesh? I would be very happy if you or anybody could help me understand as to how eating vegetable is any better than eating flesh. Plants to me are like mentally retarded human beings to me that cannot shout or run away for life when we cut them to fill our stomach. So does that mean that attacking `mentally retarded people' is not a sin? If it makes any sense then why should we eat vegetable in the first place? Don't they have right to be left alone as is where is? Best regards, Pradip Ramakrishna , dhananjay <dhananjaytambe> wrote: > Hello Naren, > > nice thought. one can also view that Mahabharata war > was not owing to ONLY lost kingdom or Draupadis' > insult. there had been accumulation of sins (if you > will) from the side of Kaurawas. > > there is one more point of view. if one considers > interaction of a specie within itself (humanbeings > with humans) then there has to be certain protocol > which one has to follow. it is necessary for > continuation of existance of that specie. one can also > see this amongst animals. the existance of a specie is > endangered only with interaction with some other > specie. human being having superior brains are capable > of self distruction as well as endangering other > PEACEFUL and HELPFUL beings. > > this can exactly be the reason why killing Kaurawas > was 'dharma' and killing animals is 'adharma'. > > kindly pardon me for my immature thoughts. > > take care, > dhananjay. > > ===== > __ > " Learning " is finding out what you already know > " Doing " is demonstrating that you know > " Teaching " is reminding others that they know just as well as you. > -Bach > > > > Find out what made the Top Searches of 2003 > http://search./top2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 Hi Pradip, Your question is very valid and deserves a better answer than mine but I want to post what I understood after reading various books. It is said that whatever pain consciousness of the jiva feels is result of magnitude of its identification in the emotional dimension. So more a being is developed emotionally , more the amount of consciousness is identified in that dimension. (say if consciousness is like a stream of water the more space you give to it the more volume of it comes in). The same applies for intelligence or thoughts. Humans have more consciousness expressed in the dimension of thoughts and intelligence, and so do they have in case of emotions etc etc. Animals as compared to this have far less evolutuion in this regard and In case of plants it is still there but even more less. So while killing a plant the pain it incurs is there but negligible as compared to animals and humans. So if you cannot survive without killing something we try to give less pain in the process of procuring food. The 'why' for this can be taken from shastras as " paropakaraya punyaya papayaya parapeedanam " - meaning " doing good to other beings is virtue and afflicting pain to them is sin " . I hope I am able to convey my understanding on this and am also waiting for corrections! Pranams, sriram. Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard http://antispam./whatsnewfree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Dear Pradip and others, Namskar. I dont know much what Shastras say about eating meat etc...But, there is evidence that Sri Rama and Pandavas were meat-eaters. However if this would be a good reason to eat meat is debatable. On the other hand we have Gautama Buddha, Mahavira etc. who proclaimed non-killing of animals. Also Sri Adi Shankaracharya himself cleansed Hinduism of many ills of animal-sacrifice. Hinduism in those days degenerated and Buddhism which proclaimed non-killing of animals was on an ascent.....Even Jesus was loving to animals, but we see most of the Christians have beef as staple food. Well in Islam I guess there is no vegeteraniasm at all.... So what this shows is eating meat or not doesn not matter. We can realize God irrespective of what we eat. Are not most of the Islam Sufi saints and Christian mystics who realised God meat eaters? At the same time there are many vegetarian Swamis and monks in Hinduism and Buddhism who are also realised people. Its one's own choice whether to eat or not. If one feels guilty about eating it then they better stop eating it. If one doesnt then let them continue eating until they would like to stop if at all... But, one thing is certain, most of the meat-eaters are able to eat meat just because they dont see how it was procured. One goes to super-market and just lifts a packet of meat ane enjoys it not sparing a thought of what form(body of animal) it was earlier and what happened to that form and how it ended up on his platter (after excruciating pain). If the same person were told to go on his own in killing the animal and procuring the meat from the dead body, not many spiritually inclined people can ever do it. Also, most of the animals are tortured even before they are killed. A visit to any abattoirs or slaughter-houses is enough to check that. Animals are half-dead, with broken legs (they are carelessly thrown from trucks on to ground), diseased, cramped together in rooms without much food/water/space/light etc....only death would be a relief for them....So it is encouraging to stop such torutre before death atleast by being vegetarian. Also in science we have seen for 1 kg of meat of an animal say a deer, hectares of greenery is lost. So by eating 1 kg of meat, we are actually finishing areas of greenery on earth....Thats another big worthy consideration to make... Hence for practical reasons it is good to stop eating meat.... Ofcourse God-realization is not denied to anyone including meat-eaters. Regards, Srikanth. India Mobile: Ringtones, Wallpapers, Picture Messages and more. Download now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Dear Pradip, In God's creation, nothing can get it's food without killing another being. You're right that plant also have life and they do suffer if we pluck or kill them. But we can't see their suffering with our naked eyes. We need microscopes and other equipment to prove that. But in case of animals, which have a nervous systems comparable to humans, you see their suffering with your eyes and their crying for life with your ears. You need to shut the eyes and ears of your consciousness to satisfy the desire to enjoy its flesh. So, your consciousness is not expanding, but degrading. Moreover, if killing is necessary to live, then why not limit it to the killing of species that we can't perceive with our existing nervous systems. If we reach a state as Thakur has reached, where he could identify himself with the consciousness of a grass beed, then may be we will think twice before walking on it. Jai Sri Ramakrisha, Prasad. Hotjobs: Enter the " Signing Bonus " Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes./signingbonus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Dear Sriram, Your explanation seems very interesting and scientific. May be it in other words is the same as that - man is the only being who is capable to know God because he is reasonable, capable to feel being. And animals are also capable to feel beings, closer in their manifestation to man (and also to God) than plants. I think your explanation for "giving less pain" is also very good. Dear Pradip, In your mail you say: "In fact from my original email you might have noticed that I'm myself struggling to find out as to who has right to decide what's 'dharma' and what's 'adharma'". As far as I have read, "dharma" is translated as good, righteous deed an "adharma" is the contrary - unrighteous deed. I think nobody has the right to decide what is "dharma" for anybody else - the only right to decide that is the conscience and the heart of a man if in this way he does not injure others. Even if one's conscience tells something different from an authority, he must listen to his inner voice. But at the same time, I think, a man must do his very best, must put all his powers - emotional and mental - in that, to understand and feel as if they are his, all other points of view - of people he meets, of authorities and great teachers. With best wishes,Milena Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes 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.