What is Vedic Culture?

[Guest guest]

We are here in Canada in this Vedic Cultural Center. Actually, we should know what is Vedic culture. We think we know, but really we have many misconceptions. What is Veda? Veda means knowledge. Knowledge of what? Where did this world come from, who are we, and what is this universe? Why do we become old and why do we die? We don't want to become old, but still we become old. We don't want to die, but still we die. We want to be happy, but still we are unhappy. Why are we born? A person may not want to be blind or lame from birth, but still it is so. Why is a person born in that family? Why is someone born in the family of the president of America and someone else is born in the family of a very poor beggar? Even though someone may study for sixteen years, still every year he fails his exams. Why does he have no intelligence? Some are dumb. Why?

 

Buddhism and all other religions cannot give complete explanations. Vedic culture, sanatana-dharma, however, has the answers that completely satisfy these inquiries. Vedic culture means to know the answers to all these questions: why do we become old and who created this world? After death, what becomes of us? Why is one very happy throughout his life and someone else is suffering since birth? Veda has explained everything completely. Not a single question remains unexplained. Everything is solved.

 

Who spoke the Vedas? Bhagavan Krsna Himself. There are no faults in the Vedas, Whatever has been spoken in Veda is correct to the fullest extent. Previously there was only one Veda, and that was Atharva Veda. Vyasadeva realized that the people of kali-yuga would not be able to understand the language of this Veda, and he therefore divided it into four: Rg Veda, Sama Veda, Yajur Veda, and the remaining portion was again called Atharva Veda. In this way, four Vedas were created. What is the subject matter of these Vedas?

 

The four Vedas were again divided into two: Brahmana Veda and Upanisad Veda. The Brahmana Veda describes fire sacrifices which can fulfill any earthly desire, as well as any heavenly attainment. Even the desire to attain Brahmaloka could be fulfilled by fire sacrifice. A person who had no sons could, by fire sacrifice, have many sons. Someone who was ill could become very healthy. Someone could have ten heads like Ravana. By fire sacrifice, someone could also become like Hiranyakasipu. Hiranyakasipu could not be killed in the day or in the night, in the sky or on land, inside or outside, nor in any month of the year. He attained all these by the power of fire sacrifice. This is Brahmana Veda.

 

Who can perform such sacrifice? What qualities are required?

 

[1) One who invokes the particular deities (devatas) to be present in the

sacrifice by reciting the mantras of Rg-Veda, and thus performs the sacrifice, is called hota.

2) One who sings aloud the hymns of Sama-Veda in adoration of invoked deities is called udgata.

3) The adharvyu murmurs the prosaic section of the Yajur-Veda, and performs his specific duties. His participation in yajna is quite prominent.

4) Protecting the yajna from external obstacles, rectifying possible mistakes in recitation, and removal of various types of discrepancies arising in the detailed performances related to yajna, is the function of brahma. He is the chief priest of yajna. He supervises the over-all functioning of yajna and rectifies the faults. So this brahma is considered superior to all other rtviks, priests. Hence, it is imperative for the brahma, who undertakes the main responsibility to supervise the whole sacrifice, to have complete knowledge of all three Vedas (Rg, Sama, Yajur)." (True Conception of Guru-Tattva)]

 

They should all be qualified by knowing and following the rules and regulations of Brahmana Veda. However, the desires that are fulfilled in this way are all for worldly desires.

 

Upanishad Veda is comprised of transcendental knowledge, and it is also called Vedanta-the essence and conclusion of all the Vedas' knowledge. What is this jagat? Who is Brahma? Who is the creator? What happens to the living being after death? The Upanishad has all conclusions. Upanishad Veda has many divisions, such as Aranyaka, and so on, for those in household life, and also for others who have given up everything and gone to the forest to remember the Supreme Personality of Godhead-Parabrahma.

 

In the land of Bharata (India) there were, and still are, people who can recite all the slokas of the Gita from memory. Vyasadeva kept all the mantras of the Vedas in his heart and could speak them. As this age advances, however, there is no real brahmacarya - all are becoming lusty. There is no proper food, and no proper air or water. Now, in so many parts of the world, you have to buy mineral water. Nowadays there are practically no uncontaminated vegetables or foods in this world, and this is a very big problem.

 

For those of this age who have less intelligence, Srila Vyasadeva wrote a very useful book called Vedanta Sutra, Upanisad Sutra, or Brahma Sutra. Therein Vyasadeva reconciled all the teachings of the Vedas and Upanishads and compiled the essence of that into 550 sutras.

 

Sometimes in the Vedas and Upanishads it seems to indicate that Brahma is nirakara - brahma-nirvisesa-nirakara.avyakta anadi - without form or qualities. The actual teaching of Veda is that Bhagavan has form, but people today will not believe it. Vyasadeva has reconciled everything. Modern people won't believe in Krsna, but they will believe in impersonalism. Especially now I am seeing that everywhere in the world Buddhists are preaching so much, but they don't acknowledge or accept the form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Either they don't recognize or they don't tell - that Brahma has form.

 

We see that Christians are also not properly accepting the form of God, although it is written in the first chapter of the Bible that God created man after His own image. They cannot deny this statement from their own scriptures. Why are they not admitting the form of God? If He is Father and Jesus is His Son, and if His Son has some shape, the Father must also have some shape. Surely. they cannot deny this. But they are ignorant of the deep philosophy within the Bible.

 

Muslims also don't accept that God has form. They also deny it, but in their Koran it has been written that God has made man in His image. So this also cannot be denied. The Buddhists don't have any faith in God at all. Why, therefore, are there so many Buddhist murtis? I have seen some deities of Buddha that are more then 25 feet high. Why are there so many forms of Buddha throughout the world? Why are they doing this? Where has this form come from? They cannot reconcile these truths.

 

We must have faith that God has form. The first instruction in the Veda is that God has a form-Bhagavan has shape. He has so many attributes and qualities. He is so powerful. He can create, in a second, lakhs and lakhs of universes. Then, in a second, He can destroy them. He can make a dry straw the master of the whole world, and he can turn a master of the whole world into straw. The word impossible does not exist for Him. He can do everything - He is God: G-Generator, O-Operator, D-Destroyer. So many qualities are there - all qualities are there.

 

Vedic culture insists that you should give all honor to your guru, be very respectful to your Vedic culture, and give up your wicked ways. A man may ask, "Why do you worship so many demigods and gods like Ramacandra, Varahadeva, Nrsimha, Siva, Sankara, Ganesa, Kali, and Durga?" We actually have only one God. However, if there is a king, a queen must be with him. If one is king, a kingdom must be there with many officials and generals. In the same way Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, has multiple energies and deputed servants.

 

After compiling Vedanta Sutra, Vyasadeva saw that no one would be able to understand it and reconcile it, and therefore he wrote a bhasya, commentary. What is that bhasya? Srimad Bhagavatam is the complete commentary on Vedanta Sutra. Whatever was in the Vedas, Upanisads, Aranya, etc., he put in Vedanta Sutra. Then, again he explained it, first in Gita and then in Srimad Bhagavatam. The essence of all Upanishads was given by Sri Krsna in Bhagavad-gita, and the essence of all Vedas, all Vedic literature, is Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

nigama-kalpa-taror galitam phalam / suka-mukhad amrta-drava-samyutam

pibata bhagavatam rasam alayam / muhur aho rasika bhuvi bhavukah

 

["O expert and thoughtful men, relish Srimad-Bhagavatam, the mature fruit of the desire tree of Vedic literatures. It emanated from the lips of Sri Sukadeva Gosvami. Therefore this fruit has become even more tasteful, although its nectarine juice was already relishable for all, including liberated souls." (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.1.3)]

 

Buddhists say that this world is false, but it is not false. We see that Rama has come here, Krsna has come, and Sankara has also come to this world. How can this world be false? It is never false. You are not this physical body. To think that this physical body is you or your spiritual body is false. The conception of this physical body as oneself is quite false. My relations - this is my father, this is my mother - are all false. They will one day die and be put into a cremation ground.

 

At one time we were very beautiful. In our youth, when we were about sixteen years of age, we were very beautiful. But how will the most beautiful teenage girl talk when her teeth are gone? What will became of one's beautiful hair when it is white? You cannot take anything from this world at the time of death. To identify with the body is to be like the dogs. These are not my words. Veda is telling these things. Dharmena hinah pasubhih samanah. Having this human body, when there is a chance to realize, they are not realizing who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Who am I?

 

Vyasa divided the Vedas. He made Brahma Sutra, he wrote Mahabharata, and he compiled 54 Puranas. He wrote so many things and he was perfect. Still, he was lamenting, "It is not perfect. Why am I worried? Why am I not happy with this?"

 

In the meantime his transcendental guru, Narada, came and said to him, "Oh, you look very sad. Why are you sad? Any doctor can tell what disease is there. "You have written Vedanta Sutra, Mahabharata, and all the Puranas. You have written everything, but have you written the very sweet glory and pastimes of Krsna? Have you written that the Supreme Lord has become the son of Yasoda and Nanda? Have you written that He is the maidservant of all the gopis?"

 

"Oh, how can I write this? I cannot write this. I have no realization and no power to write like this."

 

Krsna can take the shoes of Nanda Baba on His head. Dancing, He is comes to His father and says, "O father, here are your wooden sandals. This is Vedic sanscrti - love and affection. God is love and love is God, and this has only been proved in the Srimad Bhagavatam - not anywhere else. This is Vedic culture, that Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Ete camsa kala pumsah. Though He is God, He is a baby, taking the milk of His mother. His mother is chastising Him, "Oh, I don't want to give my milk to You. You are a very naughty boy."

 

Who can say this? Can Brahma say this? Can any realized soul say this? No one can say. Can Vyasa say this? Even Valmiki and Vasista cannot say this. Only the gopis can, and Krsna's friends can. They can defeat the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and Krsna will be very happy by being defeated. This is Indian culture, Vedic culture - that quality of love and affection.

 

In Srimad Bhagavatam Vyasa was able to write all these things. How? He took shelter of Narada Rsi. Narada told him, "Take shelter of bhakti." At first Vyasa said, "I cannot do anything, I cannot realize anything."

 

sarva-dharman parityajya / mam ekam saranam vraja

aham tvam sarva-papebhyo / moksayisyami ma sucah

 

["Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear." (Bhagavad-gita: 18.66)]

 

Mam eka eva. Who is telling this? Krsna. Not only one time, but several times in Gita He has spoken like this.

 

daivi hy esa guna-mayi / mama maya duratyaya

mam eva ye prapadyante / mayam etam taranti te

 

["This divine energy of Mine, consisting of the three modes of material

nature, is difficult to overcome. But those who have surrendered unto Me

can easily cross beyond it." (Bhagavad-gita 7.14)]

 

Rama, Nrsingha, Kalki, and Vamana are not separate gods. Krsna is the only God. He is manifesting Himself sometimes as Rama, sometimes as Himself, Krsna, and sometimes as others. There are not many different supreme Gods. The one supreme God is Krsna.

 

Who is Sankara? Who is Hanuman, Durga, and Kali? Muslims or Westerners sometimes say, "You Hindus are worshippers of so many gods and goddesses." But we can never ever worship others as God. The only God is Krsna.

 

Sankara must be followed as guru, Parvati, as guru, and Hanuman as guru. In the service of Rama, only one very small monkey came flying in the air from India, he entered Lanka, and in a moment he destroyed and burnt the whole city. How? Sankara had become Hanuman. There are so many examples in sastra which explain how Sankara is the subordinate servant of Krsna. Bhasmasura wanted to burn Sankara. He had a boon from him, but Krsna came and saved him Otherwise, Sankara was in great danger.

 

Vedic culture says that you should honor your mother and father. Honor the guru. This is our duty. Speak the truth. Be nonviolent. These are ordinary matters. However, if your mother and father go against God, you should leave them. Bharata's mother was Kaikeyi. When Ramachandra was ordered to go into the forest for fourteen years by the influence of Kaikeyi, Bharata told her, "Our relation is cut. Now you should not call me son and I will not call you mother." Bharata was a very high class of devotee, and he left his mother. Mirabai's husband and family were opposed to her bhakti. She wrote to Tulasidasa for advice, and he wrote back to immediately leave them. Even Bali Maharaja rejected his guru, Sukracarya, because he was opposed to giving anything to Vamanadeva. We see that all the gopis left their husbands. Why? This is our dharma. This is Vedic Culture.

 

Etavan eva loke'smin Who is the Supreme God? Krsna Himself. Rama Himself. In this iron-age of Kali, the only kirtana is: Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare, Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare. This is Vedic culture, especially in this age.

 

You cannot concentrate your mind, even for a moment. It is very hard. You have no time to worship. From morning until the next morning you are always absorbed. When will you do arcana? Also, you cannot do arcana. You can, however, chant the name even while you are driving a car, Hare Krsna, walking, Hare Krsna, in the day, Hare Krsna, and in the night, Hare Krsna.

 

You can chant, "Govinda Damodara Madhaveti" when you are doing anything. While driving the car, why not chant? Using the steering wheel to keep time, you can chant, "Govinda Damodara Madhaveti." While walking in a good park, why not take your mala and chant, "Govinda Damodara Madhaveti"? When your son is weeping, you should not tell him to sleep. Tell him instead, "You should chant, 'Govinda Damodara Madhaveti.'" At the birth of your sons and daughters, you should chant, "Govinda Damodara Madhaveti." Even at the death of your father, mother, wife, or any relative, you can take them on your shoulder and tell them, "Govinda Damodara Madhaveti." You can quarrel with anyone and chant. You should chant while you are quarreling, "Govinda Damodara Madhaveti" - and be happy forever, eternally.

 

This is the essence of Vedic culture. If this culture is not there, it means there is no Vedic culture. Try to have love and affection for all, even for an ant. If you want to realize yourself, if you want to realize the Supreme Personality of Godhead, if you want to realize this maya and this whole universe, what should you do? Chant, "Govinda Damodara Madhaveti."

 

Tridandisvami Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja 20 April 2001 (evening).

Vedic Cultural Center: Vancouver, Canada

 

[animesh]

Muslims also don't accept that God has form. They also deny it, but in their Koran it has been written that God has made man in His image.

 

This is completely wrong. I have read Quran. Koran says that God created man in best image. It does not say "His image". Some people may argue that God's image should only be the best image. But this explanation may not be correct. It is possible that here best means the best among all creeatures on Earth. Lest somebody should think that according to Quran, man has been made in God's image, Quran clearly says that one can never say how God looks: -

 

"Invent not similitudes for Allah. for Allah knoweth, and ye know not. (16.74)"

 

The following verse says that no-one including man looks like Allah

 

"(He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle: by this means does He multiply you: there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things)." (42.11)

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Originally posted by animesh:

Quran clearly says that one can never say how God looks: -

 

"Invent not similitudes for Allah. for Allah knoweth, and ye know not. (16.74)"

I don't know much about Quran, but this verse seems to rule out "inventing" an image, making something up. I would consider that different from a "revealed" image shown by God.

 

The following verse says that no-one including man looks like Allah

 

"...there is nothing whatever like unto Him..." (42.11)

 

I see this as saying God is incomparable, or asamaurdhva - no one equal and no one above. It doesn't seem tp refer to his form.

 

I dont know much about Quran, but there are statements like "the good will be at his right hand..." etc. which could imply a conception of form.

 

 

[animesh]

There are verses in Quran which say that Allah is either formless or even if He has a form, the form is beyond anyone's imagination. And therefore He man's form can not be Allah's form.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

I should probably spend some time reading the Quran.

 

[Guest guest]

The Qur'an states that the Supreme Entity has a divine form which is all-conscious. However it does not accept an image of Allah made of material elements and imagined by a man, that is called bhut. The worship of a bhut is not the worship of the Supreme Being.

 

The same is fond in Gitopanisad (9.25):

 

bhutani yanti bhutejya - "Those who worship matter go to matter."

 

But the mahajanas through their trance of unalloyed jñana-yoga meditate on that divine form]/b], and they unanimous reveal that Sri Bhagavan's divine form is human like, in spite of being cinmaya.

 

This is confirmed in Srimad Bhagavatam (11.14.26):

 

yatha yathatma parimrjyate 'sau / mat-punya-gatha-sravanabhidhanaih

tatha tatha pasyati vastu suksmam / caksu yathaivajana-samprayuktam

 

"O Uddhava, as the eyes which are treated with therapeutic ointment can see very minute objects, the heart which is cleansed of material contamination by hearing and reciting the narratives of My supremely pure activities can see My subtle transcendental form which is beyond the purview of matter."

 

And by the way, Qur'an states that it was Satan who introduced the human-like form to Allah and its worship.

 

But we believe that the Supreme is one without a second; He has no rival, a living entity like Satan cannot do anything that is opposed to the will of God, he cannot be independent of the Lord. So, one may argue, what is the origin of this belief? What is its basis? However, Qur'an gives such God-like powers to Satan!

 

Qur'an states that Allah has a form, a divine form, that He is not formless. And Satan states that His form is human-like. As Qur'an gives Satan an attribute of being God's opposite in all aspects, Qur'an admits that Allah has a human-like form.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[animesh]

Qur'an states that Allah has a form, a divine form, that He is not formless. And Satan states that His form is human-like. As Qur'an gives Satan an attribute of being God's opposite in all aspects, Qur'an admits that Allah has a human-like form.

 

This did not become clear to me. Could you explain what you are trying to say? How come Satan sating that he is human-like proves that Allah is human-like?

Please try talking to some Islam scholar on the form of Allah.

 

Very often, the difference between formless and having form is a matter of semantics. As an example, some will consider air as formless because you keep it in a jar of any shape and it will take that shape. Some will say that it has form, because it consists of molecules which have form.

[Love]

Vedic culture I think was that which allowed for the search of Truth at all levels of existence and was clear in knowing the difference between the separate levels of existence of human being - annamaykosh, gyaanmaykosh, manomaykosh, anandamaykosh. It also clearly believed that sages did not have any place in the cities. In fact, followers of the spiritual path left the human dwellings and went to forest. The reason for this was that they were not meant to corrupt the worldly life with their spiritual knowledge. Besides, if someone wanted to gain insight into spiritual truth, they would rather go to them in the forest to hear sermon.

It is only the democracy of the vedic culture that many branches of vedic culture sprouted - like Buddhism, Jainism, etc. where the philosophical thought may have been different but the culture was the same.

[Guest guest]

Besides, if someone wanted to gain insight into spiritual truth, they would rather go to them in the forest to hear sermon.

 

Yes, that is true. But sages are like monkeys. It is said that the monkeys were inhabitants of the forests. But the cities grow up and destroy forests. Now monkeys are urbanoid creatures, specially in India. Similarly sages have no more forests to live, and now they are living in cities.

 

If some other urbanoids have some spiritual insight they can go hear from sages by taking a riksha.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Love]

The point is that people who have decided to live in this world have to find a way first towards liberation of their somatic-self, the physical body. If we bring in an atmosphere of spirituality in a mudane environment, it is going to be like the poison that was produced during amrit-manthan. I am only condemning the need of the various spiritualists today to reach out to the audiences through TV, radio, newspapers, etc. Why do they feel that they have to reach out to the masses? Is it not the same as greed for fame and establishment of the self in the mundane world? Or kali-yuga has blinded them also to their dharma? Have they forgotten the dharma that is older than they can remember which tells that a spiritualist path is alone and no guru can alos guide on the path of spirituality. A guru is required to help clear up the webs along the path where the self evolves at somatic, psychological and rational selfs. However, believe me that a spiritual path is completely isolated for each indivdual. There is no way on the spiritual path where tow could hold hands together and continue with their journey. Thus, it comes to the same question that when spiritualist try and impress us with their spiritual learning goading us to follow that path, is it not denying the simplest of the facts that the spiritual journey is a lonely one and he or I cannot help each other on that. A spiritualist really engrossed in sadhana would not have time to waste on the masses. He would first find a way to liberate hinself and only then perhaps give a sermon. When a saint appears on the TV in the morning and tells that all this is maya, and that we need to grow out of it he is giving a confusing message to the poeple living in the real world. It is so because these poeple are not yet ready to leave the mundane world and yet are disturbed by the pure rhetoric of the sadhu on the TV (for instance) enough to feel themselves as sinners. However, they do not have the courage to give up everything of the material world and so they now under confusion applied by spiritual level on somatic level live a miserable life, cursing themselves. I am only talking of poeple who are sensitive enough to take life to be something more than just life. If someone does not bother about this he will not be affected and he will any way not be liberated. There are various ways to evolve. Surely applying spirituality to somatic existence of this world is not one of them. That is the ideal state of the world when philosophers be kings. That will be the time whent he entire (almost) world or a race (like ancient Hindus) evolve at the lower levels. Such a situation will itself produce the tranquility of spirituality in the air. Today,s cries for spirituality only create disturbances.

I apologise if I have hurt any body's sentiments but I equally believe in what I have written and consider it my duty to share my somatic level experiences with others.

[Guest guest]

Today,s cries for spirituality only create disturbances.

 

Actually it is said that spirituality is older than material existence. Once jiva was in a supra-mundane realm and he was transferred to a material platform to mature his spiritual emotions. So, today's cries for spirituality is not really a new fashion.

 

We may agree with you that cries for spirituality create disturbances. Most of jivas placed in the material world are very happy with their situation and completely deluded by maya. Anything that makes them to recall their spiritual origin and the precarious condition that they have to support in this world will create a disturbance. But is not the material existence itself a disturbance?

 

In Sanskrit the word 'sadhu' also means knife. The knife employed in sacrifices to kill a goat, for example, offered in sacrifice. In the old Vedic sacrifices when brahmanins killed an animal, they had the desire to give this animal a new live, in an upper specie of life, maybe as a human being. They did not want to relish the animal's flesh only.

 

The real sadhu is one who can kill ours animal realm, by hurting very deeply our mundane conceptions, changing our lives for an upper platform. He is acting just like the knife in the old Vedic sacrifices. Real sadhus don't want to relish the material facilities offered by their followers, or to live on the blood of their disciples.

 

We agree that there are sadhus and sadhus, and real sadhus are very rare, as there are pollution all over and in some rare places where one may find pure air and water. But even if the populace is being cheated by so-called sadhus, aren't they being cheated by politicians also? Can an ignorant avoid to be cheated? Don't the politicians cause a lot of disturbances all over too?

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Love]

I apologize for not being very clear when using the word disturbance. The correct word perhaps to use is confusion. When common men themselves go to spiritualist, it is a desire in them to learn fo something higher. When a spiritualist of his own accord comes to the city and start preaching, we cannot deny his statements are also heard by people who are not very interested in higher life. Now, as these people are still not evolved at their somatic, intellectual and psychological selves, the spiritual knowledge confuses them. That must have been the reson in ancient India sages used to live in the forests and people who were interested in spiritual discourses would go to them. None-the-less it does not deny the fact that a spiritual journey is a lonely one and no guru can help on this path. A guru can only help in the clearing up on the way at somatic, psychological and intellectual levels. So, it would be correct if the spiritualists were teaching of removing cobwebs in our somatic, psychological and intellectual levels and help us in integrating them before we attempt the spiritual path.

[Guest guest]

 

None-the-less it does not deny the fact that a spiritual journey is a lonely one and no guru can help on this path. A guru can only help in the clearing up on the way at somatic, psychological and intellectual levels

 

That is a very strange statement and it is against all sastra. In Gitopanisad is clearly stated that one should seek after a tattva-darsini, a preceptor who is conversant on the Truth.

 

If someone needs any material instruction such how to be a doctor, he should have a master, or even many masters in this discipline. Similarly if one is intending to advance in spiritual life he should opt to seek shelter in a expert in this topic.

 

We do not consider a guru as a psychologist or as an erudite professor. We consider guru as someone who can lead us in all levels of spirituality. If one observe the discipline of yoga for certain he will attain samadhi. Guru will give the preliminary instructions on how to attain this realm.

 

Imagine one has attained this stage of samadhi. The 4th state of conscience. How to swim in these waters? It will be a very different world for you. Without Sri Guru direction you will be lost and your samadhi will be broken.

 

And samadhi is only a preliminary stage, you should develop it until will get your final aspiration. Even thereafter you will be under instructions. Jiva has only a very minute self will and independence. Here he is controlled by guna and karma, hereafter he will be controlled by Yogamaya.

 

Known that Sri Guru is Sri Hari Himself!!! Can one live any part of his life without Sri Hari's mercy?

 

For certain one should not mistaken a Guru with a Kan-guru, or someone who only put your money in his pocket. Sadhus have their symptoms and Kan-gurus have different ones.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Guest guest]

So, it would be correct if the spiritualists were teaching of removing cobwebs in our somatic, psychological and intellectual levels and help us in integrating them before we attempt the spiritual path.

 

Spiritualists do teach on how to remove material plagues. But we really want to be freed of them?

 

It is said in Gita; first saranagati (surrender yourself) and thereafter guru-pada-asraya (take shelter at the lotus feet of a sad-guru).

 

A sad-guru will say: "Now you should try to control your senses and your mind, otherwise you will never attain samadhi. Stop eating any kind of foodstuff, never drink liquors, stop to go after woman, just seat down here and listen." Can we do it? For certain we cannot. We aren't surrendered yet.

 

So, it is common some sad-gurus to give instructions on material topics, only to increase the adhikara of the populace. What is wrong in that activity? You think that it is better to hear from politicians?

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Love]

Quote: That is a very strange statement and it is against all sastra. In Gitopanisad is clearly stated that one should seek after a tattva-darsini, a preceptor who is conversant on the Truth. (tell me how you put it in bold).

 

Buddha upon the spiritual journey was alone. Mahavira was alone too. Shankaracharya left his guru when he started on his spiritual path. My understanding is that on this path one is all alone. However, I will try and find the references for this and quote them later. Guru can only show you the way but it is oneself that has to walk on that path alone. Guru in that case cannot walk with you because he cannot attain nirvana for you. It is you who has to attain niravana and so on the psiritual path one has to walk alone. Of course, when I say alone it never meant without God. How can that ever be inferred? I meant a guru,as is meant in the usual sense of a teacher becomes irrelevant. At that stage of our personal journey God is the guru. And let's not twist words and say that guru is God.

 

Quote: If someone needs any material instruction such how to be a doctor, he should have a master, or even many masters in this discipline.

 

When I am saying clearing up cobwebs in the somatic level or intellectual level I am not talking of learning skills at this level to survive. I am talking of evolving at these levels to become free of the archetypes that plague us as humans and to come out of the riddles that Mother Nature puts to us in her tamasik form. This is a knowledge that is pretty much common to all men and solutonis are also nearly the same. However at the spiritual level the riddles presented to each one on that path are unique and one's own personal riddles created by God for that one person. Have we heard of someone attaining nirvana under a certain guru. I donlt think so. If that were the case wouldn;t the guru himself attain nirvana. Think about it. For me the spiritual path whose aim is to attain nirvana. I have to go now. I will write about other points later.

Thanks

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

To make bold text, use [ b ] before the text and [ /b ] after the text. It will appear as this.

 

To make a quote, use [ quote ] and [ /quote ] following the text.

 

It will appear like this.