• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

True principles of Sanatana Dharma

Pleroma

philalethist
Nor can the flying Spaghetti monster and Santa clause ;)

Fine, you can worship the flying Spaghetti monster and Santa clause.

It is God who gives us omniscience and immortality. Let's see who achieves that. We indeed have well preserved methods to know God.

No this conclusion is not at all entailed. All it shows is that the brain and the mind are correlated to one another. It is possible to affect the mind through the brain and affect the brain through the mind. Why this is possible I have already explained to you in the other thread: The mind and the brain are both material substances, only mind is made out of finer matter than the physical brain.

As mind is a material substance, it can be studied like any kind of matter. This is what recent research also bears out. For example in experiments on OBE in order to isolate the subtle body, it has been shown the subtle body can actually be detected by electronic fields. When the subtle body enters into an electronic field it can be detected. Long time OBEs have also reported how during their OBE experiences if they encounter any kind of electric field, it can trap them.

As the matter that makes up the mind is incredibly fine, existing in another dimension higher than physical matter, current means of detection are not powerful enough. However, as soon we can find ways to actually enter into higher dimensions, we will also be able to directly interact with the subtle body and the subtle world.

Science can study all material phenomenon, and as the subtle body, reincarnation, mind, thoughts, intellect and gunas are all material phenomena, science can study them. All of this is what is called aparavidya.

You're talking BS. What you're talking is pesudo-science. Science and Religion are two separate things. Science deals with Brain and Religion deals with Mind. Religion doesn't speak of Brain and Science doesn't speak of Mind.

You're doing a great insult to both Science and Religion by mixing those too. They cannot be reconciled like that.

Yes science cannot study the absolute reality, the noumenon, because science is limited to only the material world. This is what is known as paravidya. In order to know the absolute reality an entirely different method is advocated: self-realization. Only those who are self-realized can know Brahman.

There is a world to know before you know Brahman. Its something you don't know.

There is no such thing as gods. The Upanishads do not tell us to know gods, they tell us to know the self. If there is any god, it is the self.

The Vedas are full of hymns praising the Gods and Upanishads is the ending message of the Vedas not the end of Vedas. Got it? If we didn't had Vedas then we wouldn't have had Upanishads. Both Vedas and Upanishads is what makes Hinduism.

If you deny one and accept the other, you're not a Hindu, not a Advaiti, not a Sanatana Dharmin. You're a pseudo-Advaiti.

We don't try to convert people to Hinduism. What we care about is the wisdom of those traditions and don't misrepresent it. We don't tolerate it. Advaita is purely theistic. You're burning the Vedas and Upanishads.
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
ou're talking BS. What you're talking is pesudo-science. Science and Religion are two separate things. Science deals with Brain and Religion deals with Mind. Religion doesn't speak of Brain and Science doesn't speak of Mind.

You're doing a great insult to both Science and Religion by mixing those too. They cannot be reconciled like that.

This is not a dharmic attitude at all. This is a Christian idea. Like I said mind-body dualism is a Christian dualism, known as Cartesian dualism. Cartesian dualism is not a real dualism, it is a political dualism, and is also called the Cartesian split. Descartes was a natural philosopher and scientist living in a Christian dominated society which was highly suspicious of scientists, so Descartes offered an apology of sorts to the Church by saying that because science deals only with the world of matter/body(res extensa) of that which is measurable, no threat is posed to the world of mind which the Church regulates. This Cartesian attitude then made way for science to continue unabated without persecution from the Church.

However, philosophers after Descartes challenged Descartes arbitrary split between mind and matter, posing what is known as the interaction problem that is that it was clear knowledge that the mind and body are constantly interacting with one another, and this is impossible if they were really two dual substances. Thus philosophers never really accepted Cartesian dualism, and nor did scientists, but politically the attitude become engrained in order to keep religion and science apart. However, it did not take long for the Cartesian split to be breached, because with the advent of the science of psychology, science started to encroach on what was erstwhile considered the domain of religion: mind. The science of psychology has developed considerably since then and developed into a full fledged science, being able to make accurate predictions about how the mind will behave under certain conditions/stimuli.

In India, there never has been a substance dualism between mind and body. Mind, which in the Indian tradition is known as the anthakarana is considered a product of matter(prakriti) It consists of chitta(memory) intellect(buddhi) ego(ahamkara) and deliberating mind(manas) Thus, mind has always been considered matter. Hence why in Yoga epistemology the mind is considered as something which can be studied, just as one can study a physical object. In Yoga this is done through mental phenomenology, where one directly watches the activities of their mind.

Samkhya-Yoga substance dualism is between matter and consciousness(purusha and prakrikti) This is a property dualism, because matter and consciousness are irreducible to one another having opposite properties(reformulated in modern times by Chambers as the hard problem of consciousness) In Advaita, even this dualism is denied, as Advaita is able to explain matter away in terms of consciousness.
 
Last edited:

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
The Vedas are full of hymns praising the Gods and Upanishads is the ending message of the Vedas not the end of Vedas. Got it? If we didn't had Vedas then we wouldn't have had Upanishads. Both Vedas and Upanishads is what makes Hinduism.

If you deny one and accept the other, you're not a Hindu, not a Advaiti, not a Sanatana Dharmin. You're a pseudo-Advaiti.

You behave like quite a fanatic. I would place you more as Abrahamic than dharmic in the kind of things you are saying and the attitude.

Hinduism is a religion that goes back approx 10,000 years to the Indus Valley civilisation, and basically charts and sums up the religious thought of the Indian people over thousands of years. Like all primitive cultures at this time in the world, the Indian people were polytheistic and animistic, they worshiped natural phenomenon like the sun, trees, water and animals and deified them as many gods. Again, like all primitive cultures they performed sacrifices to their gods to win their favour, some of the major sacrifices were animal sacrifices like horses and goats. This tradition continued for a long time, but as religious thought among the Indian people evolved, just as it did with other cultures on the planet, they moved from polytheistic to monothestic thought, reducing the number of gods into an abstract concept they called the ONE truth(ekam sat) and their attitudes became more philosophical. They started to question the spiritual efficacy of the rituals, and began to reinterpret the ritual as an inner-ritual, composing the Upanishads(eventually the later Upanishads even reject them altogether) which initially appeared at the end of the traditional ritual texts like the Brahmanas and Aranyakas, before the Upanishads developed into their own class of literature. This is the period where Vedanta begins and the Jnana portion of Hinduism is formulated. In the Upanishads all the key philosophical concepts of Hinduism appear: Brahman, Atman, Reincarnation, Karma, Tattvas, Yoga. These concepts are then organized and rationally elaborated in the Darsanas. Although these concepts are found in their germinal form in the Vedic Samhitas, it not until later in the philosophical period that they are formulated into concrete concepts.

This philosophical period of Hinduism, forms the bedrock from which rises new religious trafitions like Buddhism and Jainism and later the various religious traditions of Vaishnavism, Shiviaism and Shaktism, and they evolve their own class of literature known as Puranas, containing their own secetarian biases, beliefs and legends. The Shivaist and Shaktist tradition further develop their own class of literature, most of which is in Tamil known as the tantras/agamas.

Hinduism of course continues up until present day, in modern times the key developments within Hinduism have been due to exchanges with the West, a move towards synthesis of thought driven by Hindu visionaries like Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo and countless Yoga gurus. There has also been a development of Hindu nationalist thought to preserve Hindu identity from the onslaught of the West like the Arya Samaaj, Hare Krishna movement and VHP.

You lack a lot of historical context and are unable to appreciate how Hinduism has developed. Now as a Modern Hindu I am not forced to accept everything within Hinduism, as Hinduism represents a vast matrix of beliefs today. I can pick and choose what is acceptable to me. To me only the Jnana-khanda is acceptable. Everything else is dross.

I am only interested in Hindu philosophy, nothing else about Hinduism appeals to me. The knowledge and wisdom is the most important part to me. I don't care for the myths, traditions, gods and goddesses, caste system, nationalism.
 
Last edited:

Pleroma

philalethist
This is not a dharmic attitude at all. This is a Christian idea. Like I said mind-body dualism is a Christian dualism, known as Cartesian dualism. Cartesian dualism is not a real dualism, it is a political dualism, and is also called the Cartesian split. Descartes was a natural philosopher and scientist living in a Christian dominated society which was highly suspicious of scientists, so Descartes offered an apology of sorts to the Church by saying that because science deals only with the world of matter/body(res extensa) of that which is measurable, no threat is posed to the world of mind which the Church regulates. This Cartesian attitude then made way for science to continue unabated without persecution from the Church.

However, philosophers after Descartes challenged Descartes arbitrary split between mind and matter, posing what is known as the interaction problem that is that it was clear knowledge that the mind and body are constantly interacting with one another, and this is impossible if they were really two dual substances. Thus philosophers never really accepted Cartesian dualism, and nor did scientists, but politically the attitude become engrained in order to keep religion and science apart. However, it did not take long for the Cartesian split to be breached, because with the advent of the science of psychology, science started to encroach on what was erstwhile considered the domain of religion: mind. The science of psychology has developed considerably since then and developed into a full fledged science, being able to make accurate predictions about how the mind will behave under certain conditions/stimuli.

In India, there never has been a substance dualism between mind and body. Mind, which in the Indian tradition is known as the anthakarana is considered a product of matter(prakriti) It consists of chitta(memory) intellect(buddhi) ego(ahamkara) and deliberating mind(manas) Thus, mind has always been considered matter. Hence why in Yoga epistemology the mind is considered as something which can be studied, just as one can study a physical object. In Yoga this is done through mental phenomenology, where one directly watches the activities of their mind.

Samkhya-Yoga substance dualism is between matter and consciousness(purusha and prakrikti) This is a property dualism, because matter and consciousness are irreducible to one another having opposite properties(reformulated in modern times by Chambers as the hard problem of consciousness) In Advaita, even this dualism is denied, as Advaita is able to explain matter away in terms of consciousness.

Its not 'Chambers', its David Chalmers, he was the one who postulated the hard-problem of Consciousness.

Yoga and Hinduism says that scientific realism is false and this matter, brain and physical objects don't exist out there in the physical world, it exists only in our minds. Hinduism has nothing to do with science.

The idea of a personal God existing independent of mind and matter stands on its own. The idea of a God rejects the two extreme views of subjective idealism( the view that only mind exists) as well as naturalism( the view that only the things described by physics exists) and it also rejects objective idealism( a kind of dualism) and brings God has the fundamental reality saying everything is made up of something called a deity dust. Absolute idealism cannot be realised without first realising the reality of God.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

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

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

Neither Subjective idealism nor naturalism and objective idealsim have been proved beyond doubt and therefore the idea of God existing independent of mind and matter cannot be ruled out as a possibility. Ofcourse naturalism doesn't find God necessary now but when it has reached a state where it has to answer those big philosophical questions that's where its real test relies.

I am with Feyerabend. Science stands on its own and even all other schools of philosophical thought stands on its own.
 
Last edited:

Pleroma

philalethist
You behave like quite a fanatic. I would place you more as Abrahamic than dharmic in the kind of things you are saying and the attitude.

I guess you're anti-Semitic and Nazi then.

Hinduism is a religion that goes back approx 10,000 years to the Indus Valley civilisation, and basically charts and sums up the religious thought of the Indian people over thousands of years. Like all primitive cultures at this time in the world, the Indian people were polytheistic and animistic, they worshiped natural phenomenon like the sun, trees, water and animals and deified them as many gods. Again, like all primitive cultures they performed sacrifices to their gods to win their favour, some of the major sacrifices were animal sacrifices like horses and goats. This tradition continued for a long time, but as religious thought among the Indian people evolved, just as it did with other cultures on the planet, they moved from polytheistic to monothestic thought, reducing the number of gods into an abstract concept they called the ONE truth(ekam sat) and their attitudes became more philosophical. They started to question the spiritual efficacy of the rituals, and began to reinterpret the ritual as an inner-ritual, composing the Upanishads(eventually the later Upanishads even reject them altogether) which initially appeared at the end of the traditional ritual texts like the Brahmanas and Aranyakas, before the Upanishads developed into their own class of literature. This is the period where Vedanta begins and the Jnana portion of Hinduism is formulated. In the Upanishads all the key philosophical concepts of Hinduism appear: Brahman, Atman, Reincarnation, Karma, Tattvas, Yoga. These concepts are then organized and rationally elaborated in the Darsanas. Although these concepts are found in their germinal form in the Vedic Samhitas, it not until later in the philosophical period that they are formulated into concrete concepts.

This philosophical period of Hinduism, forms the bedrock from which rises new religious trafitions like Buddhism and Jainism and later the various religious traditions of Vaishnavism, Shiviaism and Shaktism, and they evolve their own class of literature known as Puranas, containing their own secetarian biases, beliefs and legends. The Shivaist and Shaktist tradition further develop their own class of literature, most of which is in Tamil known as the tantras/agamas.

Hinduism of course continues up until present day, in modern times the key developments within Hinduism have been due to exchanges with the West, a move towards synthesis of thought driven by Hindu visionaries like Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo and countless Yoga gurus. There has also been a development of Hindu nationalist thought to preserve Hindu identity from the onslaught of the West like the Arya Samaaj, Hare Krishna movement and VHP.

You lack a lot of historical context and are unable to appreciate how Hinduism has developed. Now as a Modern Hindu I am not forced to accept everything within Hinduism, as Hinduism represents a vast matrix of beliefs today. I can pick and choose what is acceptable to me. To me only the Jnana-khanda is acceptable. Everything else is dross.

I am only interested in Hindu philosophy, nothing else about Hinduism appeals to me. The knowledge and wisdom is the most important part to me. I don't care for the myths, traditions, gods and goddesses, caste system, nationalism.

If you understand Hinduism just from a historical perspective you won't understand anything about Sanatana Dharma. Hinduism is an esoteric religion and without a numinous access to the divine or the perennial philosophy you will never understand the truth behind Hinduism.
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
Its not 'Chambers', its David Chalmers, he was the one who postulated the hard-problem of Consciousness.

Yes, his name escaped me at the time of writing :)

Yoga and Hinduism says that scientific realism is false and this matter, brain and physical objects don't exist out there in the physical world, it exists only in our minds. Hinduism has nothing to do with science.

Science does not have any favored ontology. Although most scientists are realists and materialists, there are also many scientists who are idealists. Science isn't a philosophy or a system of beliefs, it is a method that knowledge can be arrived at through a valid methodology i.e., science is an epistemology. It is similar to the Hindu epistemology of pramana that knowledge must be arrived at through a valid means of knowledge. Most Hindu schools accept perception and inference as their main pramanas, in the same way science does.

The reason why Hindu philosophical truths are actually scientific and backed up by science is because they are based on valid means of knowledge.

If you understand Hinduism just from a historical perspective you won't understand anything about Sanatana Dharma. Hinduism is an esoteric religion and without a numinous access to the divine or the perennial philosophy you will never understand the truth behind Hinduism.

Knowing the history of Hinduism gives one historical perspective. I know for example why a certain philosophy or practice emerged, giving me a greater understanding about the Hindu mind. I can see the relevance of Vedanta, which lead to the Jnana tradition in Hinduism, as rational religion. The very first attempt in the history of this planet to approach religion rationally. The great idea Vedanta contributed, which Swami Vivekananda also covered, was the idea of a universal religion. The fact that there can be universal principles. Though philosophical analysis, using rational means the Risis were able to determine universal principles of religion. This is the universal religion I practice.

I don't really care for Indian traditions, Indian geography, Indian languages, Indian gods and goddesses because they are not universal. Traditions change, geography also changes, languages are numerous and change, gods and goddesses evolve over time, characteristics are added to them. A religion that is truly universal would not be specific to any single tradition, geography, language or mythology.

So sorry I reject all your gods and goddeses, you are never going to make me worship them.
 

Pleroma

philalethist
I don't really care for Indian traditions, Indian geography, Indian languages, Indian gods and goddesses because they are not universal. Traditions change, geography also changes, languages are numerous and change, gods and goddesses evolve over time, characteristics are added to them. A religion that is truly universal would not be specific to any single tradition, geography, language or mythology.

All religions can be reconciled into One and Gods are real and they do exist and its not specific to India, its universal.

"Gods are Real and they are pervaded everywhere, In all aspects of Human existence and in all aspects of Human life"

-James Hillman

So sorry I reject all your gods and goddeses, you are never going to make me worship them.

We don't try to convert anyone, many people come to India on their own will after being baffled by the wisdom and knowledge that this country provides and represents.

My concern is not that, for God's sake stop misrepresenting Hinduism and Advaita. You're a pesudo-Sanatana Dharmin, I have to say that because you've sort of extreme beliefs, I can understand that you're spiritually immature, you still have to understand a lot about Hinduism and you're here to debate not to learn about Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma and that's my main concern.
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
I can understand that you're spiritually immature

I can understand you are immature in general. Many of the things you say about me are damn right insulting and offensive and I am pretty sure against the terms and conditions of this forum.

By the way is it just me or are Hindus that come from India more fanatical? I have noticed a massive difference between those posting from the West and those posting from India.
 
Last edited:

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
The Hindus from India are more closer to actual Hinduism.

One example:

Mostly people from the west come to Hinduism because of varied reasons - like acceptance of homosexuality etc., which is not there in Abrahamic religions.

This is because of the false belief due to liberal approach of Hindus - like the ones in West as you say. However, in actual Hinduism, homosexuality is not acceptable. This can be seen as truth or it can be seen as fanaticism.

By this logic, Christianity also is a religion of fanatics. :)
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
Mostly people from the west come to Hinduism because of varied reasons - like acceptance of homosexuality etc., which is not there in Abrahamic religions.

This is because of the false belief due to liberal approach of Hindus - like the ones in West as you say. However, in actual Hinduism, homosexuality is not acceptable. This can be seen as truth or it can be seen as fanaticism.

Yeah I am starting to see the Hindus from India are pretty fanatical.

Hinduism does not disapprove of homosexuality. Hinduism is actually silent on homosexuality. In fact, they are not just silent, but don't mind homoerotic imagery, as we can find homoerotic imagery on temple murals and in Puranic stories, where male gods copulate with one another. There is also descriptions for homosexual sex in the Kamasutra, clearly evincing the liberal and open minded spirit in Hinduism. The god Shiva is depicted as the form of half man and half female, also clearly showing how liberal Hinduism is to others kinds of sexuality.

I think Hindus from India really paint a bad picture of Hinduism. No wonder I felt like disassociating from Hinduism after I returned from India.
 

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
Speaks volumes for your scriptural knowledge.

Read Manusamhita on punishments for acts of homosexuality. You will be enlightened.

There is 'speculation' of homosexuality depicted in Kamasutra.

It is better to be religious than to propagate irreligious behavior in the name of religion. :)
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Here we go again! :facepalm:

Homosexuality
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]On the subject of sex and life styles it needs to be mentioned that homosexuality which is a major obsession with the "Abrahamic coalition" (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and the focus of many social and politico-religious agendas in the West and which attracts endless invective and hatred is a non-event in Srivaishnavism. None of the acharyas have ever considered the topic important enough to discuss. So for a Srivaishnava position on the subject we need to take another look at the Scriptures which inform us that there are three types of births;-[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]"The jiva is blinded by ignorance; sometimes it is embodied as a man, sometimes as a woman, sometimes as a homosexual. According to its deeds and the nature it acquires thereby, it may be born as a deva, a human or a beast." [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Srimad Bhagavatam 4.29.29.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

The Handbook of Sri Vaishnavism, p. 41. I cannot see why, if citing the Srimad Bhagavatam, homosexuality is a non-issue in Sri Vaishnavism, any other sampradaya would have a problem with it.
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
Read Manusamhita on punishments for acts of homosexuality. You will be enlightened.

I don't care what the Manusmriti says. Most Hindus don't care for what this text says or follow it and nor is there any proof to show that historically the Manusmriti was followed by Hindus.

In Hinduism it is Sruti that is considered canonical, not Smriti.

The fact remains that homoerotic imagery appears all over Hinduism. In the Mahabharata, Sikhandhi, a gay character is treated with respect. Which goes to historically Hindu people did not care whether you were gay. I doubt it was encouraged, but there is no evidence to show gay people were persecuted.
 

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
Great!

Then you are speaking your mind and not the scriptures. In that case, you can choose to believe whatever...just don't ascribe your personal beliefs to Hinduism!
 

Vrindavana Das

Active Member
Here we go again! :facepalm:



The Handbook of Sri Vaishnavism, p. 41. I cannot see why, if citing the Srimad Bhagavatam, homosexuality is a non-issue in Sri Vaishnavism, any other sampradaya would have a problem with it.

Being born as a homosexual is not 'acceptance' of homosexuality. Please!:help:

There would not be punishments for homosexual behavior if it was acceptable.

But then, we have been through this earlier. Both know where the other stands. So, I suggest we do not discuss this topic any further.
 

Surya Deva

Well-Known Member
Hinduism has a vast collection of scriptures. There are hundreds of Upanishads, Puranas, Agamas, tantras, shastras, dharmasmritis. Not all scriptures carry the same weight, otherwise one would just be confused, because they all disagree with one another. There is a system of classifying scripture in Hinduism basesd on authority. The Vedas are considered the highest authority and canonical because they are sruti, revealed and directly heard by the Risis. All other texts in the Hindu tradition are Smriti, they carry less authority because they are authored by humans, remembered, recollected or commentaries.

Manusmriti is not canonical. A Hindu is free to reject it if they want. Most Hindus had not even heard of it until the British translated it.
 
Last edited:

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Being born as a homosexual is not 'acceptance' of homosexuality. Please!:help:

There would not be punishments for homosexual behavior if it was acceptable.

What punishments (and don't quote manusmrtis)? What part of None of the acharyas have ever considered the topic important enough to discuss did you miss?

But then, we have been through this earlier. Both know where the other stands. So, I suggest we do not discuss this topic any further.

Yes, because you've been resoundingly proven wrong multiple times by virtually everyone here. Yet YOU choose to bring it up to keep getting beaten down.
 

Pleroma

philalethist
I can understand you are immature in general. Many of the things you say about me are damn right insulting and offensive and I am pretty sure against the terms and conditions of this forum.

By the way is it just me or are Hindus that come from India more fanatical? I have noticed a massive difference between those posting from the West and those posting from India.

I can understand you because I have already passed all these stages. One day you will accept that I was right. That's all what I have to say to you. I am sure many intellectual people in India had experienced the same thing that's why there is so much difference between the thoughts of posters from the west and posters from the east. The beauty is the people from the east know both science as well as the deep truths about Hinduism.
 
Last edited:

ratikala

Istha gosthi
dear sureya deva

This is simply not true. One can attain self-realization without a guru, and history abounds in examples of people who have. More recently, Ramana Maharishi.

it would seem that you are so eager to find an arguement that you have missread what I have said , I did not say that one "can not" attain self realisation without a guru , I said that for such realisation one "generaly" needs the instruction and gentle guidance of a guru .
In Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, which is a Manuel for all yogis seeking self-realization, he does not mention absolutely any need for a guru. As long as one does the kriya yoga, which came to be known as Raja Yoga(the royal Yoga) one will attain self-realization. Thus self-realization depends upon how much effort you put in your practice, and not on whether you have a guru or not.
and in your opinion is it possible to learn raj yoga from a book ?


Again I have a very no-nonsense attitude to spirituality. I understand what spirituality really is, it is the silencing of the activities of your mind which obscure ones consciousness. This can be achieved through meditation, or through purification of the nervous system in Hatha Yoga,
yes , I too have a very no noncence approach as life is too short to waste holding wrong veiws , these methods of stilling the mind are allso techniques taught by the buddha , and concidered the preliminaries to ataining higher levels of understanding .

People who do not understand the science behind Yoga take to all these unnecessary austerities like self-mortification, fasting for days, elaborate rituals to gods and goddesses, and slaving after some guru.
buddha also taught on the science of yoga , and similarly taught against self mortification and excessive fasting . but he did permit moderate fasting and taught his deciples humility and dicipline and allowed his deciples to follow him as guru or master .
this whole idea of "slaving after some guru" shows a destinct lack of humility and inability to surrender , rather than a true understanding of the value of a spiritual master .
showing a love and respect for ones guru is not to be concidered to be an austerity but an act of gratitude .
 

ratikala

Istha gosthi
ok prabhus ,


may I remind you of the original question ?

I dont get it , ??? Too much debate on the nature of brahman , too much difference and rivalry between the veiw points of individual sects , not enough adherance to the principles of sanatana dharma ! what is going on ?
what trap are we falling into ?
is this the direction we should be going ?
well I still dont get it , where is all this arguing going to get anyone ?

apart from setting hindu against hindu ,

may I remind you of the principles of sanatana dharma ,

tapas; austerity
saucham; purity
danya; compassion , mercy
satyam ; truth


prehaps we could think about establishing the truth without with a little compassion and mercy ?
 
Top