-
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!
what is hinduisms highest priority
- Thread starter evane123
- Start date
I am trying to find the justification from my justifications.
I see.
Would you be so kind as to provide for me the passage where he says that the highest priority of Hinduism is pleasure?
And I'm trying to understand what you're talking about.
I think that most philosophy of religions goes into my own philosophy at some point. I have stopped pain and pleasure from having effects on me. I think the reason i stopped pain and pleasure from having effects on me was because of the hope of the ending of suffering. I think one hope is that theres a possiblity of a different posiblity that could be correct and improve the circumstance. I think hope of not feeling pain is increased if i improve the universe. I think improving the statistics that i am living in a improving universe improves myself. I think that if i improve the universe the chances of rewards that will improve myself increases.
pain and pleasure do not effect me and i was wondering if my ideas fit into the mold of what the person was talking about.
Status epilepticus is a seizure resistant to treatment; a permanent state of seizure.
I refer specifically to temporal status because seizures of this type are known to produce
states of consciousness and experiences of alternate reality identical to those described by mystics and held to be the goal of Hinduism.
If Status epilepticus implies samadhi I feel inclined to point out that it is not every person's goal.
Samadhi, is not considered the goal but a way of coming to recognise that thought is temporal and limited. Samadhi by its very nature cannot be sustained and so it is not the goal in my opinion.
Samadhi, is not considered the goal but a way of coming to recognise that thought is temporal and limited. Samadhi by its very nature cannot be sustained and so it is not the goal in my opinion.
Arav
Jain
What about Sahaja Samadhi? Ramana Maharshi speaks of it as the main goal for one who practices Atma-Vicara or Self-Inquiry. Sahaja means spontaneous or natural. Samadhi, well I know you know what that means. So Sahaja Samadhi is a natural samadhi that you are in all of the time. I would say that according to many Advaita Vedantists, that Sahaja Samadhi is the goal and is what makes one a Jivanmukta.
Samadhi, Enlightenment, Moksha, Nirvana -- it's all about expanded awareness, Oneness, Unity. That's what Eastern religion is all about.
Sure there are hierarchical "goals," but ultimately the cosmic consciousness, as described by Yogis, hallucinogen users and epileptics, is The Goal.
Sure there are hierarchical "goals," but ultimately the cosmic consciousness, as described by Yogis, hallucinogen users and epileptics, is The Goal.
Then hallucinogen users and epileptics and possibly some psychotics are already liberated people!!??? If that is the conclusion, is the reverse true too??!
Regards,
Last edited:
This world is said to be the divine person - ever peaceful and auspicious. Our nature is said to be the unbroken samadhi -- immortal existence, intelligence, and bliss. This however, is not the common experience, as the reality is covered over by objects of senses. Tearing away the veil is said to be the ultimate goal of teachings of sanatana dharma. However, this is only one way of saying it.
Om Namah Shivaya
Om Namah Shivaya
kaisersose
Active Member
In my opinion, there is really no way to be sure that someone is liberated. No objective criteria exists to identify a liberated person. In the absence of such criteria, it comes down to subjective, individual views and therefore it is no surprise that the same Ramana is liberated according to some and not liberated acording to some others.
We can never know.
In my opinion, there is no need for any judgement. If a guru's proximity imparts a lasting freedom from anguish to a mind, then that is what matters for most of us who cannot help but follow the sensual dictates in one or the other form. Of what consequences are the opinions? But, it is said that a mukta (free) can only recognise another mukta (though 'one' and 'another' are only manner of speech and refer to sense perceivable forms).
In Katha Upanishad, student Nachiketa, when offered unlimited riches, power, and means of sensual gratification by Yama (Lord of Death), rejects all these because as per Nachiketa these boons did not free one from the clutches of Lord of Death. The Upanishad spells out the highest goal (for all humans).
Om Namah Shivaya
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, Satsangi, but I'm reminded of the huge debate back in the '60s and '70s about the validity of mystical or religious experiences with reference to the methods used to induce them.
Purists argued that only the insights produced by meditation and other traditional yogas were the real deal, whilst others argued that drug, exercise, medical, injury or other hallucinogenic etiologies produced states indistinguishable from those of traditional methodologies and were, therefore, genuine mystical experiences.
Remember that Ram Das gave megadoses of LSD to a number of Indian Sadhus. Some were overwhelmed and asked where they could get some more, but in others there was no apparent effect, or they reported meditation superior.
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friends,
Personal understanding:
Each individual needs to understand that the form [human] or any other is nothing but that ONE [energy] and since the MIND makes /creates the difference/gap between the forms and not the underlining oneness of the same energy and makes each one feel as separated from that Oneness and so the goal becomes to get back to that original state and dharma is that what needs to be done to get back to that original state be it that which is labelled *sanatan* or any other.
If one were to pin point the point where the differences arises or that creator of that illusion of separation is simply the MIND and just by stilling the mind the oneness remains and so efforts of all dharma eventually remains to still the mind which lifts that curtain of illusion and the original form or that oneness remains.
Love & rgds
Personal understanding:
Each individual needs to understand that the form [human] or any other is nothing but that ONE [energy] and since the MIND makes /creates the difference/gap between the forms and not the underlining oneness of the same energy and makes each one feel as separated from that Oneness and so the goal becomes to get back to that original state and dharma is that what needs to be done to get back to that original state be it that which is labelled *sanatan* or any other.
If one were to pin point the point where the differences arises or that creator of that illusion of separation is simply the MIND and just by stilling the mind the oneness remains and so efforts of all dharma eventually remains to still the mind which lifts that curtain of illusion and the original form or that oneness remains.
Love & rgds
atmarama
Struggling Spiritualist
Where then is the question of loving relationship? This oneness sounds pretty boring to be the final goal to me... Lord Caitanya's superior philosophy of "Actyuta Bed abed" - inconceivable oneness and difference. Yes we are all part of the same energy, but within that energy there is variegatedness and variety. Love and personal relationship. Spiritual form :yes:
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
Bhakti does lead to liberation through devotion. It is only one of the paths.
atmarama
Struggling Spiritualist
Transcendental form dear friend. The Lord has a purely spiritual form ie Krsna & Balarama. This personal form of Krishna is superior to the impersonal (oneness) aspect of the Absolute Truth.
Krishna explains in the beginning of the 12th chapter of Gita:
(12.1)
Arjuna inquired: Which is considered to be more perfect, those who are properly engaged in Your devotional service, or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?
(12.2)
The Blessed Lord said: He whose mind is fixed on My personal form, always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith, is considered by Me to be most perfect.
Here is a link to the commentaries of four vaisnava sampradaya's: Bhagavad-Gita: Chapter 12, Verse 1
All agree that exclusive loving devotion to the personal form of Lord Krishna is superior to the unmanifest, impersonal and imperishable brahman or the spiritual substratum pervading all existence. I refer once again to Lord Caitanya's superior philosophy of "Achyuta bedabed Tattva" ie inconceivable oneness and difference. :yes: