|
|  |
| |
|
| | The Chennai Network Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts | | SaNaDaNa Dharma | Views: 7506 | | Dec 06, 2005 10:10 am | | SaNaDaNa Dharma | # | 
Gyro | | "SaNaDaNa Dharma" is the combination of two Sanskrit word ‘Sanadana’ and ‘Dharma’. Sanadana means ‘Consistent for ever” and meaning of Dharma is known to all. (Sanskrit is the language used by Hindu rishis to communicate many things in the form of slogans). It was not called as religion as there were no other principles followed by entire group of people other than this. ‘Hindu’ is the name given by the Persians to the people living beyond the Indus river. Whatever culture, beliefs, traditions and customs followed by the people was named as ‘Hinduism’ by them and the place as India (The actual name of India is ‘Bharath’, name of the brother of Lord Ram). So, it is evident that the original name of Hinduism is Sanadana Dharma.
Science is what you see, practice, prove, conclude and than believe. But in case of GOD it is other way round. First, we believe, practice and than see. What could have been there beyond Big bang or Multiverse. Modern Science does not have answer for it. But we can imagine that beyond big bang or before cosmic evolution there could be only Vacuum ( Soonyam). Lord SHIVA represents this vacuum who is always seen in the penance pose (Silent like Vacuum) in the portraits. As per science, the characteristic of any thing in the world will change if it remain in the same position for millions of years ( like carbon changes to Diamond) and so when vacuum remained so many years some pressure developed in it which is called as SAKTHI. When Pressure mingled with Vacuum or Sakthi mixed with Shiva, five elements such as Air, Land, Fire, Sky, water born due to Chemical reactions. That five nature elements are represented as Ganapathi ( Athipathi for 5 ganangal). Then to magnetic power that is represented as Kandan ( Lord Murugan). It evolved up to human beings from Ameba.
(Interestingly the computer codings has this principle. '0' is Sivam and '1' is Sakthi. Rest of all other things such as text, graphics, animation, sounds and motions are being formulated based on this only. These five elements can be considered as 'Ganangal'. Then to Internet like magnetic power in the universe which represents lord Muruga).
Besides two great epics to the world, the Ramayana and Mahabarata, Hinduism has many scriptures such as Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharva Vedas, Upanishads, Gita, Jothisya, Ayurvedha, Arthasasthra, Danur Vedha (Ayudha Sasthra), Gandharva Vedha ( Deals with 64 arts), Puranas ………and much more.
Today's science has found that there are so many universes and galaxies, which our rishis have learned & viewed in 'Gnathristy' and quoted as 'Andasarasarangal'. Whatever scientists accepts or proves today are discovered by our saints much more earlier, before the birth of science.
So, it is quite natural if people rave about Hinduism.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Dec 06, 2005 12:05 pm | | re: SaNaDaNa Dharma | # | 
Abhishek Kumar | | Quite true.
We have an amazing history. From the age old scriptures to the birth of Buddhism. From the benevolent rule of Asoka and Akbar to Taj Mahal and the Khajuraho temples.
It is interesting to note that everyone is indeed raving about the rich Indian culture and tradition.Private Reply to Abhishek Kumar | | Dec 06, 2005 2:50 pm | | re: SaNaDaNa Dharma | # | 
Ganesh Ram | | To say science came into existence after "GOD" is like saying ,a baby ran first and then learn to stand.
Since time immemorial, languages have been used to highlight once own prefrences,inclination and to bring about social cohesiveness.
For example,I can go to say, Science is derived from the root word "Scire" which means knowledge. To understand and explain to others the science of Nature is what sandana dharma is all about. Those things that could not be explained were put under "it existed/exists because of a creator".A common man would never question that.
When it comes to gods in hinduism, Shiva, and all other gods we talk about are what I would classify under later gods.The earliest known method of communication never talked about them. IMO, the earliest talked about god is/was prajapathi.
One should not forget that the idea of mass communication through vedas and upanishads started only after nomads became settlers.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Dec 07, 2005 5:08 am | | re: re: SaNaDaNa Dharma | # |
Gyro | | Dealing with Science of Nature is one of the aspect in Hinduism alias Sanadana Dharma (the eternal faith). But that is not all about it. It deals with many as listed by me. Science was existed prior to god, without the name of it what we call now. The concept of God was created by human beings (rishis) to simplify the concept. Rishis came to world after the five elements of nature. Most of our gods are symbolic representation. But ‘Brammam’ ( nor creator lord Bramha) was existed prior to science, that is the supreme god of all gods, which does not have any shape.
The episode of Ramayana (Threatha Yuga) happened prior to Mahabaradha (Dvapara yuga). In Ramayana it is said that Ravana is a great devotee of Lord Shiva. So, Lord Shiva and other gods are not later gods.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Dec 07, 2005 9:37 am | | re: re: re: SaNaDaNa Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | Hi Ramanathan
Interesting to note that what I tried to communicate in the earlier debate is what you have highlighted and also contradicting the same :-)
When I said there was no Hinduism in original, what I meant was -- as a religion there was no religion NAMED as HINDUISM and you also agree to it when u say that Persians called us as Hindus because we settled near INDUS. In which case we are using a borrowed persian terminology to identify our religion... thats the irony what i wanna highlight to probably one of the oldest civilisations of this world - NO ORIGINAL NAME. how strange!!!
Anyway the details of Shiva and Shakthi does not approve of HINDUISM being existant. They are just details - though interesting data, except for one - India was not named as Bharat after Rama's brother.
As per mythology, our country was named as Bharat after Bharat - the son of Shakuntala and Dushyant(king of Hastinapur) much before Ramayana came into existance. He was a very brave child and ruled Hastinapur for very many years after his father - all this in mythology, so to say!
Cheers
ColaPrivate Reply to Bharath Cola | | Dec 07, 2005 9:42 am | | re: re: re: SaNaDaNa Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | I also wanna add to the above statement of mine. that when i say "why people rave about hinduism, its not because i dont respect our age old culture, infact i have great respect for the culture - but, what i am dissapointed is loads of people rave about hinduism without even knowing the orginality of the terminology - SaNaDaNa Dharma and the essence of the fact - the purpose of any PATH/RELIGION is to reach the all pervading source. Instead most people get ego involved with the PATh (their religion) and defeat the purpose of why their learned people laid the path in the 1st place.
cheers
bharath Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Dec 07, 2005 12:21 pm | | re: re: re: re: SaNaDaNa Dharma | # |
Gyro | | Hi Cola,
Pl. read your previous mail once again. You had mentioned that "SaNaDaNa Dharma" was the mother of many religions that has emerged today in the world. You were trying to create a picture as if Hinduism is the child of Sanadana Dharma, like any other religion in the world. Hence I had to prove that Hinduism and Sanadana Dharma are not two different things and both are same.
Siddhartha Gautama is now known as Buddha, Yeshua is now known as Jesus, Bal Gopal is now known as Lord Krishna, Bombay is now known as Mumbai, Madras is now known as Chennai……….not in its original name. Likewise one more name was given to Sanadana Dharama as Hinduism. What is so strange about it? As the Persians find it difficult to pronounce the name Sanadana one more nickname was given which was easy to spell out for them.
As you rightly said the name Bharath is associated with our nation (India) right from Vedic age. The name of son of Rik is also Bhrath. So, some people say that the name of the country derived from him. Some say that Bharath ( Lord Rama’s brother) used to pull the tiger and drink its milk directly so the name was given to our nation as Bharath. Another incident is what you have mentioned. Bharath of Ramayana is known to everyone so I took that example. Like Ramayanas known as Kamba Ramayana, Valmiki Ramayana, Tulsidas Ramayana there are few Bhraths behind our country name. THE POINT IS THAT EVERYONE IS BRAVE. So, to symbolically represent the heroic of our country it is named as Bharth.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Dec 07, 2005 1:03 pm | | re: re: re: SaNaDaNa Dharma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | I simply am surprized when people attribute and define something that can neither be attributed (read as cannot have any attribute) nor be defined(read as that which cannot be defined).
I also feel the very idea of attributing depends on the degree of macroness or microness one uses to look at things.
At the most micro level or at the macro level one does see uniformity. It is the in-betweens that shows different levels/degree of attributes and therefore various interpretations.
BhArat as for as I know came from shakuntala's son. Also we simply do not know how far and wide was bhArat at those time. probably the so called hinduism should be attributed to places in now afghanistAn.
Siva , shakti all are later gods compared to prajApati. If I am correct, Shiva came into existence when prajApati tried to "go" with the celestial star Rohini.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Dec 07, 2005 1:21 pm | | re: re: re: re: SaNaDaNa Dharma | # |
Gyro | | You are right. You had mentioned in your reply that the earliest known method of communication never talked about them. That is why I had to quote example from Ramayana for the worship of Lord Shiva by Ravana.
(Lord Bramha is considered as Prajapathi in Vedas.)
V.K.L. RaamanathanPrivate Reply to Gyro | | Dec 07, 2005 2:44 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: SaNaDaNa Dharma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | But structured hinduism itself is a very young religion when compared to the "existence".
I also wonder what is that good about Ramayana and MahAbArathA.
I might tread on people's feelings.But I mean no harm. I am just taking the two stories as just that,stories.
for one Ramayana,casted a great warrior,southerner, highly pious, old man as a sinner.And raised a normal human being who did not do anything by himself(read as with his own thoughts)as a hero.We should not forget,that Rama trespassed into RavanA's kingdom.
And mahabArathA was typically a feud between two kingdoms.A war won by cheating.Had it not for Krishna to hide the sun, Karna would have won the battle and the story would have been something else. Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Dec 08, 2005 6:07 am | | re: re: re: re: re: SaNaDaNa Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | Ramanathan : Appreciate your effort to prove that Sanadana and Hinduism is the same, but its an assumtion that Sanadana Dharma was later called as Hinduism.
The word Hindu does not reflect anywhere in any of the ramayanas or mahabarata editions that i have read. Even in the latest book by bangar - there is no mention of hindus.
so in my opinion hindus as a terminology must have come in the last 1000 or lesser years... a period when sanadana dharma almost was consumed in time and its essence was reflecting in more codified religions like - budhism, jainism, adi shakara chariya's teaching, jesus's preachings and the likes of mahabarata and ramayana.
So today to come and say bombay-mumbai and sanadana- hinduism is not acceptable.
The sad fact is NOT many who follows this religion even know it, but they keep hailing for hinduism! Ignorance of one's true roots is what sadly the state!
When I said Sanadana dharma is the mother of various religions - You assumed that I meant Hinduism was an off shoot!!! I didnt say that! I firmly beleive many religions formed in the last 2500 years and that are thriving today where formed as off shoots of Sanadana Dharma.
You have missed the essence of what I had writted on the earlier posting.
they are
1. Ignorance of one's roots leads to ignorance of the purpose of religion.
2. The true essence of any religion is to merge with the source. To be able to stirve to experience the presence of the divine in each of us.. only man has the ability to be concious of the divine's presence in us, other beings cannot. so its our only priviledge to experience the divinity in our self and stay connected with the all pervading existancial force as much as possible...
3. most people are not even aware of the above - leave alone striving to understand and live by it. but these ignorants rave for their religion, without understanding the purpose.
the above is the essence of my earlier posting - that was missed and details are highlighted in this topic.
I have my endevour to do my bit in this lifetime to educate the society as much as i can to bring the essence of any religion and guide people thru my writing on why "spirituality is not for a select few - but is a way of life". In this life time, i will play my role in educating a segment of this society with my writing to dispel the above mentioned ignorance. will need some years to pen my thoughts on this subject ...
cheers
cola Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Dec 08, 2005 6:16 am | | Our epics are NOT stories | # |
Gyro | | Ramayana & Mahabaratha are not stories. No story will talk of good character of main villain and negative part of hero. Ramayana talks so much good about Ravana like he is an expert in musical instrument Veena, A great singer, A great devotee of Lord Shiva, unanimously powerful etc., which is why later Ravana was symbolically represented with ten heads because he was like an emperor for all the 8 directions & 2 logams ( North, East, South, West, North East, North West, South East, South West & bathala logam and deva logam). It also talks the negative side of Rama like he has killed vali by hiding, He was too much depressed when Sita was kidnapped, He asked Sita to set fire herself to prove her Pavithra etc. Further, No story will be analysed by three great peoples like Kambar, Valmiki and Tulsidas. They never mentioned anywhere in the epic that it is a story. Saints will talk only truth.
For a common man it is very difficult to understand the essence of Mahabaratha. So, when people started giving lecture for the benefit of society stories were added in line with the message that is originally in Mahabaratha for better understanding. Initially it had only 10,000 slogans. Now it has 1,20,000 slogans. If you consider Mahabaratha is a story, then Bagvat Gita is a part of story. No story will be taken for research or considered as curriculum. Gita is analysed so much all over the world by all spiritual leaders, irrespective of their religion. Though Lord Krishna is the main hero, it talks about Saguni, Duriyodana, Karna and all pandavas in great details. It also talks about the injustice of Lord Krishna in too many places. A hero (Lord Krishna here), who is considered as equivalent to God, will never be described as cunning fellow in stories.
There are still so many evidences that these are not stories.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Dec 08, 2005 6:23 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: SaNaDaNa Dharma | # |
Gyro | | Cola,
Ramayana & Mahabaratha happened in different yugas. The name Hindu came in Kaliyuga. If you serch the name of Hindu in Kritha Yuga & Dwapara Yuga you will obviously not find it. The name India also you will not find it in epics. Will you tomorrow say that there are no such evidences, so it is an assumption. Just becasue I do not have the photograph of my forefather's forefather I can not come to conclusion that they were not existing.
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | Dec 08, 2005 6:40 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: SaNaDaNa Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | Friend,
To me what matters is not - if these epics of ramayana and mahabharata are stories or not! Its my beleif vs yours!!! thats a debate and neither of us can prove if its real or not!!!
You have a point in the good example that you highlighted that lack of forefathers pics does not mean that they did not exist! You may even be right that they did exist...
Why! even i have read stuff - which says some research is being done in the geographical position of where mahabharata war happened, since researchers find a faint neclear reaction in the atomosphere of that area, so they have a chance to ponder if all those heavy wars of highly distructive astras where neuclear astras!!! buts its all in nacent stages of research - with no concreate proof, yet.. maybe time will tell or it never will tell.
The point I wish to make is - not if these epics where true or false, but
the point is - ARE WE LIVING TO STRIVE WITH THE RIGHTFULL PURPOSE OF OUR RESPECTIVE RELIGIONS???
TO MERGE WITH THE SOURCE - THATS MY INTEREST, WOULD APPRECIATE IF WE CAN DISCUSS THIS SUBJECT, WHICH INTERSTS ME MORE THAN IF THESE EPICS WHERE TRUE ARE FALSE.
Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Dec 08, 2005 8:24 am | | The Purpose of Life | # |
Gyro | | Hi Cola,
Mr. Ganeshram mentioned in his posting that Ramayana & Mahabaratha are just stories. So, I had to clarify that part.
Now you have come to the main point by raising a question about the purpose of life.
The purpose of life is to discover oneself without considering the external factors and internal factors. External factors are Blood relations, Friends, Enemies, Relatives, Place of birth, Circumstance and Environment in which we have brought up. Internal factors are inbuilt talent that is transferred through forefathers in the form of genes and the present comfort level due to monitory support of parents. You will know the origin once you discover yourself so you can start traveling back to your destination. Otherwise you will be taking rebirth until you discover yourself or attain self realisation. Religions will help to achieve this.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Dec 08, 2005 11:29 am | | re: The Purpose of Life | # |
Bharath Cola | | Why does the quintessence of this purpose of life, not reflecting the understanding of the common man?
the common man seems to cling till the very end of his life in making ends meet in this material world than understanding the purpose of realising his true self within... why is it that not too many focus on passing this message, rather I see the common man spending more time all his life only in worshipping... than realising the divine in him or even attempt in realising the divine in him.
the common man - rather beleives that if he does ritual/prayer or the likes - then he will be taken care off by his god...
why this predominantly prevailing ignorance in this evolved world?
bharatPrivate Reply to Bharath Cola | | Dec 08, 2005 12:20 pm | | re: re: The Purpose of Life | # |
Gyro | | Your concern is cent percent right. But in the present world it is not possible for all the people to understand theology to the core. Going to temple is some thing like studying physics in 10th std. But people struck to that. The next stage is doing Parayanam, third stage doing parayanam without idol and so on. Yoga & meditation will help the common man atleast to go to next level. The awareness is slowly coming now. In couple of years of time people will be in right path and aim high rather than simply going to temple.
V.K.L. RaamanathanPrivate Reply to Gyro | | Dec 08, 2005 8:34 pm | | re: re: re: The Purpose of Life | # |
Ganesh Ram | | At some point of time in my early life, I had a problem in going to temple.But I am not anymore.
What changed me is the social integrity that temples brought in countries outside India.
I am a firm believer of the simple single "existence". And therefore temples sounded very artificial.
I guess my question is why is a place of social gathering should be related only to the abode of "god"(s)? Why not these places of worship be places where social cohesiveness be given importance? But then to do that one would need to get away from worship.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Dec 09, 2005 5:55 am | | re: re: re: re: The Purpose of Life | # |
Gyro | | As you have accepted now, temples are not artificial. It has the purpose. One can’t do PhD before studying or understanding the basics. Normally in temples slogans are told frequently while doing pooja to god or goddess, so a kind of circumstance is created that makes the temple as holy place. By going to temples, we pierce into a kind of vibration that helps us to enter into spiritual world. So, temples are very much essential being a stepping-stone. However, born saints or gurus (like born intelligent peoples today) are enlightened before they go to temple. (May be in their previous births they would have done all this to the highest degree).
When a frequency of like-minded people assembles together in a place that increase the effect of what masses believes.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Dec 09, 2005 3:33 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: The Purpose of Life | # | 
Nithya Raghunathan | | Was getting along with the passages and the conversation of many big people around there.. many many information, about the relgion,, which the second larget poputlated country belives in.....
Puropse of life.. as the topic stands for........ was there any answer for the question.. or put it right.. was that a question????
Rgs Private Reply to Nithya Raghunathan | | Dec 09, 2005 7:08 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: The Purpose of Life | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam,
From where I stand, I look at the temples ( for that matter all places where worship is done) to become social meeting places.
And thereby get back to our roots.
To answer Nitya, and that is the purpose of life. TO understand that we are in a kind of cycle of life. We move away from where we started only to get back to the same place.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Dec 10, 2005 10:32 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: The Purpose of Life | # |
Gyro | | Nithya,
The answer is already given by me. I once again produce the same for your referene.
The purpose of life is to discover oneself without considering the external factors and internal factors. External factors are Blood relations, Friends, Enemies, Relatives, Place of birth, Circumstance and Environment in which we have brought up. Internal factors are inbuilt talent that is transferred through forefathers in the form of genes and the present comfort level due to monitory support of parents. You will know the origin once you discover yourself so you can start traveling back to your destination. Otherwise you will be taking rebirth until you discover yourself or attain self realisation. Religions will help to achieve this.
I am searching for better one than this.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Dec 10, 2005 6:02 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: The Purpose of Life | # |
Nithya Raghunathan | | Fine.. to be frank... vats self realisation.. probly its the mostly used word acroos.. but i have not understood the meaning as such.....for that matter,, what is need for me to get myself realised.....when i feel better in the way i'm;;;
R v searching something.??...happiness... serinity or vat.... At the end of self realisation what am i going to get???
snake eating its own tail Private Reply to Nithya Raghunathan | | Dec 11, 2005 1:54 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: The Purpose of Life | # |
Prakash | | If I have to travel back to my original destination after coming to the world they why come???????
Private Reply to Prakash | | Dec 12, 2005 5:19 am | | Nithya, you are NOT Nithya | # |
Gyro | | Nithya,
You have raised an interesting question. If you are convinced that you are NOT Nithya Raghunathan, the key to open the lock of gateway is with you to attain self realization.
Let me explain.
When you dress suitable to your appearance, the dress is yours but you are not the “dress”. When you put lots of effort to maintain the physique, the physique is yours but you are not the “physique”. You have cultivated the habit of reading thereby increasing the bandwidth of your knowledge. The Knowledge is yours but you are not the knowledge. When you are happy, the happiness is yours but you are not the “happy”. When you give cheerful smile to your fellows the “smile” is yours but you are not the “smile”. When you shower love to your little child, the love is yours but you are not “Love”. When you think, the thoughts are yours but you are not the “thought”. In the similar way your name is Nithya Ranganathan but you are not Nithya Raghunathan.
If your body is not yours, knowledge is not yours, breath is not yours, mind is not yours, soul is not yours, name is not yours, IF YOU ARE NOT YOU, who are you? then. If your thinking happens in these lines, at one point of time you may realize the real meaning of self realisation.
When we pour sugar in milk it will go and settle in the bottom of glass until we stir it firmly. The holiness of a person is sleeping in our body like a sugar in the milk. The quality of divinity is hidden in our body like a sculpture is hidden in the stone. With our endeavor we should remove our ignorance to see the divinity within us like an artist shapes a sculpture.
So, if you know the “TRUE” form of you, that is self-realization. OK what is after that? You will reach the status of ‘Paramanandam’ (Ultimate satisfaction or happiness) and the soul will mingle with Paramathma. After that ‘you’ will not take rebirth and come to this suffering world.
But this is very very difficult. If we start our journey in this path, after several birth we may come to this position.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Dec 12, 2005 5:20 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: The Purpose of Life | # |
Gyro | | Hi,
We have come to this world to nullify the sin and virtue that is done in our previous birth. We know what is good and bad, universally. We have the freedom to choose any action. Our present action will become future Karma based on which life is planned. Good actions are like depositing amount in bank, which will be returned to us with interest over a period of time. Bad actions are like lending money which we have to pay back with due interest. This is the reason for having taken birth, blessings and sufferings in today’s life.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Dec 12, 2005 6:46 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: The Purpose of Life | # |
Abhishek Kumar | | It is interesting to hear you talk about Universal good and bad.
Please answer one simple question...
Do you think pre marital sex is bad universally? Why or why not?
You have also espoused certain other beliefs about why we come into this world and who we are, what our purpose is.
I would appreciate it if you add that these are *your* judgments based on *your* body of knowledge. You state them almost as if they are absolute truths that only you are privy to and that us lesser mortals seem to have missed.
Thank you,
Warm Regards,
Abhishek KumarPrivate Reply to Abhishek Kumar | | Dec 12, 2005 8:13 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: The Purpose of Life | # |
Gyro | | AIDS is prevailing all over the world, that itself is the proof that undisciplined sex is bad universally. Science proved that the root cause of this decease is mainly due to having sex with multiple partners. Even a perfect driver who knows the rules and regulations of traffic and safety precautions of driving to the core must have a license universally.
I have clarified many times by giving several examples that these all are not my own judgments or belief, when identical questions were asked to me in different styles.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Dec 12, 2005 9:12 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: The Purpose of Life | # |
Abhishek Kumar | | First, AIDS does not spread due to having sex with multiple partners. AIDS spreads due to transfusion of contaminated blood, through intercourse with someone who is infected or from mother to child.
Second, AIDS is a relatively new disease.
So, universally - was pre marital sex okay in the pre-AIDS days?
Third, please clarify whether you think pre-marital sex is a bad idea (because of AIDS, unwanted pregnancies etc...) or do you think it is immoral, an absolute wrong - universally?Private Reply to Abhishek Kumar | | Dec 12, 2005 9:35 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: The Purpose of Life | # |
Gyro | | How the first one got infected with AIDS?
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | Dec 12, 2005 9:55 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: The Purpose of Life | # |
Abhishek Kumar | | The difference Mr. Raam is that if one has sex with multiple partners and none of them is infected - AIDS will not be transmitted.
Therefore, having sex with multiple partners itself is not responsible for AIDS, as your post seems to suggest. Having indiscriminate multiple partners therefore - increases the risk. That is all. It increases the risk. It does not cause the diease.
This is what scientists agree on. Hope you would agree.
I also notice you have ignored other questions, so I am posting them again...
AIDS is a relatively new disease.
So, universally - was pre marital sex okay in the pre-AIDS days?
Please clarify whether you think pre-marital sex is a bad idea (because of AIDS, unwanted pregnancies etc...) or do you think it is immoral, an absolute wrong - universally?Private Reply to Abhishek Kumar | | Dec 12, 2005 10:11 am | | re: The Purpose of Life | # | 
Bharat P | | Ram ,
Nobody really knows how AIDS first came to man, but it is suspected that it came from the Rhesus monkey... how that happened, I leave to your imagination.
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Dec 12, 2005 10:17 am | | How AIDS evolved? | # |
Gyro | | Boss, please answer my primary question asked to you. I am not asking how the transmission happens. I would like to know from beginning how the decease evolved.
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | Dec 12, 2005 10:27 am | | re: re: The Purpose of Life | # |
Gyro | | Bharat,
So, atleast there is some information that if we behave like an animal we are prone to get AIDS.
V.K.L. RaamanathanPrivate Reply to Gyro | | Dec 12, 2005 10:32 am | | re: How AIDS evolved? | # | 
Brinda Aiyar | | Hi:
AIDS spreads. It need not be because of sex alone. PLEASE understand, there are other modes by which AIDS spreads - blood transfusion, using the same needle as an infected person, mother to child and unsafe sex. So the first AIDS patients can have spread this inadvertantly through any of these modes. And he could have got it from the blood of any creature whichj is the carrier of AIDS. Sex need not be the only reason.Private Reply to Brinda Aiyar | | Dec 12, 2005 10:45 am | | re: re: re: The Purpose of Life | # |
Bharat P | | I said --> "it is suspected we got it from a monkey". I didnt say we got it because we behaved like a monkey ;-)
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Dec 12, 2005 10:57 am | | Specific questions for Mr. Raam | # |
Abhishek Kumar | | Specific questions for Mr. Raam
1. Are you saying that having pre marital sex is behaviour similar to having intercourse with a monkey?
2. Do you agree that AIDS is not caused by having multiple partners but by spread of the virus through blood, pregnancy or sex?
I notice you have ignored the earlier questions, so I am posting them yet again.
3. Universally - was pre marital sex okay in the pre-AIDS days?
4. Please clarify whether you think pre-marital sex is a bad idea (because of AIDS, unwanted pregnancies etc...) or do you think it is immoral, an absolute wrong - universally?Private Reply to Abhishek Kumar | | Dec 12, 2005 11:00 am | | re: re: How AIDS evolved? | # |
Gyro | | Agreed, through other modes also AIDS spread and physcial contact is not the only reason.
From kinky-African-sex theory we could understand that AIDS became prominent due to that.
V.K.L. RaamanthanPrivate Reply to Gyro | | Dec 12, 2005 11:26 am | | re: re: re: How AIDS evolved? | # |
Abhishek Kumar | | LOL...
It is most interesting to note your lack of response to my questions...
:-)
I rest my case.Private Reply to Abhishek Kumar | | Dec 12, 2005 11:29 am | | re: re: re: re: The Purpose of Life | # |
Brinda Aiyar | | Bharat - there was somebody who got it from somewhere! Even the poor Rhesus monkey need to have had some source from where it got its AIDS! :) Private Reply to Brinda Aiyar | | Dec 12, 2005 11:50 am | | re: How AIDS evolved? | # | 
Riya | |
Serious Topic, some of us here talked about Aids Awareness day etc on December 1st....it is only good to be aware....
I had worked on an anti-aids campaign group few years back and thought of sharing the little information, i had gathered....
Its true that some theories say, HIV virus came from the Chimpanzees, there is a "Hunter" theory as well..the hunters who killed the Chimps, they say, either the blood from the wound or the meat eaten sometimes may have caused the spread. But this defies the current theory of spreading of AIDS.
In 1978 - for the first time, this disease came to light (it was not called AIDS then). Gay men from US and Sweden were the first to be diagnosed. The disease was called Gay Related Immune Disorder - or GRID. Then Hetrosexualsin other countries as well got similar symptoms.
In 1982, the name AIDS was acquired and made known to the world, but still it was not considered serious...it passed as a subject for jokes.
Three years later, the US government under the Presidentship of Reagan, took the matter serious on this disease and began larger research. Maybe the news of the film star Rock Hudson dying of AIDS in 1985 may have triggered further discussion
I guess in the early 90s, there were runours abuzz that even kissing could cause AIDS etc...infact many celebrities like Magic Johnson etc, came out in the open to announce that they are infected by the disease...
In India, i guess it was diagonised amongst the sex-workers in 1986. It is also told its predominant amongst truck drivers who have an extended stay away from their families and hence sexual contacts with multiple partners may be a cause.
After South Africa, i guess India is the second largest affected country (not too sure of this though). I hope people come together really abolish the world's oldest profession, apart from the awareness and prevention campaigns.
Unfortunately, i could not work further on that campaign that i worked earlier. However, am glad, my memory has not failed me, am able to share few facts.
Private Reply to Riya | | Dec 12, 2005 11:53 am | | re: re: re: re: How AIDS evolved? | # |
Gyro | | 1. Are you saying that having pre marital sex is behaviour similar to having intercourse with a monkey?
I was talking of attitude and not the actual action please.
2. Do you agree that AIDS is not caused by having multiple partners but by spread of the virus through blood, pregnancy or sex?
Pl. read kinky-African-sex theory.
I notice you have ignored the earlier questions, so I am posting them yet again.
3. Universally - was pre marital sex okay in the pre-AIDS days?
pre - AIDS days also AIDS was existing but scientists did not have the advanced scientifical equipment to identify HIV. We know science just few centuries before. It does not mean that sciece was not existing prior to that.
4. Please clarify whether you think pre-marital sex is a bad idea (because of AIDS, unwanted pregnancies etc...) or do you think it is immoral, an absolute wrog - universally?
Pre-marital sex is very good idea, and it is moral and absolutely right. We will communicate this message to our current generation and also pass it on to our future generation too. Abishek, we analysed so much in the earlier discussion about it, again you are asking this question to me.
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | Dec 12, 2005 12:37 pm | | re: re: re: re: How AIDS evolved? | # |
Bharath Cola | | This topic is interesting... it was 1st SaNaDaNa Dharma, a topic started by Raam, as a responce to my posting on SaNaDaNa Dharma in the earlier topic,
it subsequently evolved into "purpose of Life" by someone else
and from there - its moved to "How AIDS evolved" !!!!
SaNaDaNa to AIDS - WOW!!!
maybe this how aids evolved from one to another, by sheer confusion - LOL, just kiddin ;-)
I wish to address the primary subject where in 'Nithya Raghunathan" and "Life is Beautiful" came up with interesting questions which I wish to answer ( rather attempt to answer)
Nithya' question :
vats self realisation.. probly its the mostly used word acroos.. but i have not understood the meaning as such.....for that matter,, what is need for me to get myself realised.....when i feel better in the way i'm;;;
R v searching something.??...happiness... serinity or vat.... At the end of self realisation what am i going to get???
Life is Beautiful's question :
If I have to travel back to my original destination after coming to the world they why come???????
You folks are in for a bookish sermon from me - so beg your pardon, but your questions cannot be answered in simple one-lines, its needs the following
1. preparation of the mind
2. Your intellectual acceptance and
3. finally, experiencial adaption to comprehend the same.
So here I go ----
Why do I need spiritual realisation? If I have anyways come from there, then why go back to experience it again?
today our intelligence and mind needs confirmation and validation to accept anything.. so here is my answer to the mind-intellect of your good selves.
Human being can be classified into 5 personalities
body - the physical matter
mind - the place where "thoughts" occur from our consumption of the external world thro our senses (seeing, touching, smelling, hearing and tasting)
emotions - the feeling domain
intellect - the place where we use our discreation of right-worng, independent will, conscience, creativity exist.
spirit - the beyond, which enlivins our life. the minute the spirit leaves us - we DIE.
OK - HOPE THE ABOVE IS CLEAR
one practical reason why we should explore the spiritual self can be explained better with the below anology.
if u have a car, which has full tank petrol and you want to reach bangalore safely, smoothly, with optimum fuel consumption and as soon as possible - what is the best way to travel?
idealistically - if traffic permits - if you can drive in the 5th gear from chennai to bangalore without interuption in the road at a steady speed which does not strain the engine too much - you will get the best of all the above, right??
thats the same with your life too.
if one is aligned to the 5th gear - the 5th personality called SPIRITUAL SELF, then one can use the FUEL called LIFE optimumly and reach any destination in this life with the smoothest and best possible manner.
alligned to the intellegence - is like being aligned to the 4th gear - what most successful people achieve in this life time. this is the 2nd best way to operate on life
aligned to emotions is the 3rd best way like driving in the 3rd gear, but its not the greatest way to traves in life, because emotions are dominated by others. our emotional state need constant feeding of our feelings from others, which in a way is dependent on others.
aligned to the mind is catostropic - because the external world will keep on feeding us with inputs and distractions and we will never be able to smoothly reach our destination, most likely we will stop at every possible distraction of our sences - this is like travelling in the 2nd gear from chennai to bangalore - u need more than 2 full tanks of petrol - thats like more than 2 life times to reach your destinations and goals.
aligned to the body is fatal - its like travelling by 1st gear - u will go nowhere and will never reach anywhere from chennai.. this willsuck up all your fuel called life.
these are people who live by the demands of their body - Lazy people.
so u see - spiritual allignment is first of all, the BEST way to maximise your life and living
so i sound interesting - but why is it that what i say is true????
here we go again -
the world works in an order, you and i form part of the inexplicable order of the mass energy. the energy which holds this universe in tandem with its workings - i dont understand how it works, but i KNOW and HAVE FAITH in the fact that IT Goddam works... have had glimpses of its experience in my many attempts to be concious of it, one needs to experience it to beleive it.
if you align yourself to the order and release your desire with intensity in that moment of allignment to the source by meditation or by intensity of being invovled in your work - your desire will be the wish of the universe. it may sound like a joke but, it works! The existancial force makes your environment suitable to enable your desire, but ultimately you also have to work to make it possible ( you still need to press the accelarator of the car even if the road is smooth, trafic free, car full of fuel and in 5th gear). But the relevent efforts from your are much lesser than otherwise.
thats what i have heard people stating as the the vedas say - "least effort, maximum result"
this can be achieved only when aligned to the spiritual self.
being aligned to the spiritual self constantly and not as the glimpses that i had mentioned as personal experience is possible ONLY on self realisation. thats when its permanent.
i wish to stop here for your consumption - further questions from your end, i will go deeper into the subject.
I have attempted to answer the questions that you have posted, thought the actual purpose of experiencing the SELF includes the above and MORE.
cheers
Bharath Cola Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Dec 12, 2005 12:58 pm | | Thanks Bharath Cola | # |
Gyro | | Hi Bharath Cola,
Thank you very much for steering this discussion once again to the main topic.
Thanks lot.
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | Dec 12, 2005 1:10 pm | | re: How AIDS evolved? | # | 
yaka michi | | a very enlightening conversation. at the risk of being excommunicated for jumping in into a topic and whatever else follows on from there, here's my totally unsolicited two cents (or paise, if you wish to be politically correct!)
00. viruses mutate. immutable fact. that's how they survive.
01. viruses jump species. lots of other things do, too. again, that's how they survive.
02. originated from a simian species, the rhesus monkey.
03. at that time, probably not very killing-oriented.
04. jumped species to homo sapiens somehow. don't ask me how.
05. infected large numbers of people, called a disease, while in truth it's nothing but a simple(?) epidemic.
now, the above points may NOT be entirely true, but that's just how i view the story. maybe we went wrong somewhere, and this is just another example of how nature fights back. there's got to be a goodly amount of balance between left / right, good / bad, plus / minus (add your favorite antonyms here), and if this balance goes wrong, good ole' mom nature knows how to rectify stuff. if this means that people need to be killed, so be it. nature doesn't discriminate between an elephant and a fly, or a human and simian for that matter.
in jest: one question, why is this thread worried about aids in a conversation where dharma (or the right way to do things, in my humble opinion) is the primary driver? there are a thousand items out there that demand a rightfully-thinking hominid's brain power, aren't there?
and seriously: do keep the thoughts flowing, and forgive this newbie's intrusion. welcome or not, here i am!
cheers,
yak. Private Reply to yaka michi | | Dec 12, 2005 1:19 pm | | spirituality, anyone? | # |
yaka michi | | again, my thoughts here are entirely my own, and i guess that they're in variance with the majority of this group, but here goes, anyway:
01. i believe in god.
02. not in any god, or an idol, or a face, or a name, or a concept.
03. i believe in myself, first and foremost.
04. to me, i AM god. my own, personal, favorite, best-friend, god.
05. if anything needs to be done that are beyond my personal powers, i can count on my own god to help me out.
06. this personal guy is myself, there's nobody else out there.
in effect, god helps those who help themselves, and who better to do it than self? look in the mirror, people, and you'll see god. he's (or she's, depending on the context) where you want him / her to be, not necessarily sitting in one corner of a temple. your personal god doesn't need any maintenance, all that he / she asks is this:
"look into your mirror and smile. if you can see the glint in the reflection's eyes, and your smile is returned in full (or better) force, there - you've done good. your job is done. you can sleep well now."
simple, really, isn't it? all that we do - dharma, artha, kama... it's entirely to ensure that your family is well fed, educated and so on, just for the concept of a continuous loop of life and death. preferably, GOOD life and a GOOD death.
whatever makes sense of this post, please go ahead and take it. i really couldn't find anything illuminating here, but i'll sleep better today. guaranteed.
and with me / my god firmly comfortable, too.
cheers,
yak.Private Reply to yaka michi | | Dec 12, 2005 1:22 pm | | re: re: How AIDS evolved? | # |
Bharath Cola | | yaka michi - pls read my posting which attempts to bring the subject back to its original subject :-)))))
cheers
Bharath ColaPrivate Reply to Bharath Cola | | Dec 12, 2005 2:09 pm | | sandAna DarmA | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam,
in the hindu custom( at least in one sect), there is this ritual of using a porcupine needle( I have been literally pounded each time I give this example) at the time of seemandham( I think this is done before the first child is born). The reason for this was explained as such.The father to be ascertains that he is "The Father" of the child to be born. Hmmm... I think this is a practice that started in the days of polyandry. This is just to show that like polygamy, ployandry was prevelant in those early days. This concept of marriage as a custom is only something happened in the last 500 so years.
I am not here to justify either side on the premarital sex issue. All I can say is it was there in every religion and epic. And that the society by itself due to reasons known at a period of time said it is bad/good. We are at the stage where we going to redefine the rules I think.Probably it is a periodic thing. At every certain number of years we relook at things and do some course correction.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Dec 12, 2005 2:55 pm | | re: The Purpose of Life | # |
Bharat P | | Brinda and everyone else, please read up on Viruses before you do guesswork on how AIDS came about.
VIRUSES --> Mutate!
Since they mutate, they always take up different characterestics. Now, This isnt always dangerous, but can sometimes be. Mutation is the Virus's mehtod of escaping the body's immunity system.
Aids is peculiar in that it attacks our immunity system and disables. So we dont die of AIDS virus, we die of all other diseases because our immunity is down.
So the answer to where the Monkeys got Aids from is almost impossible. They could have evolved on some other species and then jumped to Monkeys or could have mutated when they came to man... no idea.
How about everyone here researches AIDS and becomes more aware of the disease?
Bharat
Private Reply to Bharat P | | Dec 13, 2005 5:52 am | | re: re: re: re: re: How AIDS evolved? | # |
Abhishek Kumar | | >>I was talking of attitude and not the actual action please.
I am also talking of the attitude. That is why I used the word "similar". Attitudinally, do you think both are similar.
>>2. Do you agree that AIDS is not caused by having multiple partners but by spread of the virus through blood, pregnancy or sex?
>>Pl. read kinky-African-sex theory.
I have done so Mr. Raam. And what is implied by that? Please google "How AIDS is transmitted"
>>pre - AIDS days also AIDS was existing but scientists did not have the advanced scientifical equipment to identify HIV. We know science just few centuries before. It does not mean that sciece was not existing prior to that.
This is rather interesting. You seem to have a very interesting relationship with Science. When science seems to be helping you (mostly through misinformation) prove a point, you make sweeping statements like "Scientists agree...." but otherwise you seem to have a special body of knowledge that scientists are completely unaware of. According to everything we know, AIDS is a recent disease. But you differ, and unlike poor scientists...who have to prove everything... you can just make any statement that suits you and say "Science didn't know about this!!"
And that is not even my questions.
My question is and you seem to be answering everything except what I am asking "In the days where there was no AIDS, would pre-marital sex have been okay?"
>>>>4. Please clarify whether you think pre-marital sex is a bad idea (because of AIDS, unwanted pregnancies etc...) or do you think it is immoral, an absolute wrog - universally?
>>Pre-marital sex is very good idea, and it is moral and absolutely right. We will communicate this message to our current generation and also pass it on to our future generation too. Abishek, we analysed so much in the earlier discussion about it, again you are asking this question to me.
I am glad you agree. If you are being sarcastic or funny... well, I seem to have missed the point.
In absolute terms, in absolute reality, as far as universal truths are concerned... do you consider pre-marital sex to be a sin, immoral.
Or, do you think that it is a bad idea because of its social implications.
You have an open mind, Sir... your page says so. Are you judging others? Is judging spiritual? Is judging the path to self realization? Private Reply to Abhishek Kumar | | Dec 13, 2005 8:23 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: How AIDS evolved? | # |
N K nayak | | How is the evolution of AIDS connected to Sanathana Dharma?
Should we not have separate boards for each ?(one already exists for AIDS)
As regds any Dharma or religion or spirituality it is good to remember the saying
For the believer ,no proof is necessary
For the skeptic no aaount of proof is sufficient !!
Birth and death seem to be the only universally proven
truths so far -all before and beyond that including the path to selfrealisation is in the realm of belief .May all these streams of belief coexist peacefully !
Private Reply to N K nayak | | Dec 13, 2005 10:50 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: How AIDS evolved? | # |
Gyro | | Abishek,
If my mind is open dustbin then I can accept good and also bad. What I meant in my web page is unbiased status of mind. ( I have given a lead to your next question).
If you feel that premarital sex is very well accepted culture worldwide and you would follow that principle, well I have no issues. Because that is purely your personal as long as it is well within four walls. No one can poke their nose in it. May be you are courageous enough to meet such people in your personal life. But then tomorrow you come to street and make an open statement that ‘Premarital sex is no harm’, it takes social form from personal. People like me will object things like that.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Dec 13, 2005 10:56 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: How AIDS evolved? | # |
Gyro | | Hi Nayak,
As you have rightly said, AIDS should have been discussed under seperate board which is there already. But the question was asked in connection with one word which I had mentioned in my previous post. Then the main topic started diluting. So, I am the culprit.
V.K.L. RaamanathanPrivate Reply to Gyro | | Dec 13, 2005 10:57 am | | re: sandAna DarmA | # |
Gyro | | Ganesh Ram,
After civilization, our life style was changing from one to another. The very big revolution in that is a family set-up. There were days where there is no concept of marriage. (In country like Austrlia, people do not want to get married and produce childrens. The couples want to live without any bonding. The govt is worried. Beucase, if this trend continues there will be no younger generation after couple of years. Then who will bring economy to country and serve the nation.) So, when we drive we should look front, and some times rear mirror also helps.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Dec 13, 2005 11:02 am | | Thanks Radhika | # |
Gyro | | Thanks Radhiks, for your datas regarding AIDS. When I was suffocating to answer questions related to AIDS, your reply served as a kind of relief to me.
V.K.L. Raamathan
PS: This message I posted yesterday itself, but I understood from the message board today that somehow it is not reached. Private Reply to Gyro | | Dec 13, 2005 2:55 pm | | re: re: sandAna DarmA | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam,
regarding the govt. needs us to have children, did they say how?
Before anyone reads the next paragraph, please do not assume I am abusing any religion or anyone. I am doing neither. All I am trying to do is to state that whatever the present society deems unfit are\were very much touted as godly.
In fact the religion that is followed by many in India have stories in which there is talk about children either born before marriage or out of wedlock or by artificial and cloning methods.We tend to accept all of these and raise them to a godly manner. And yet seem to accuse when questioned about the so called present day ethics governing the society.
Did sandAna DarmA talk about virtues of this kind.If yes then it was not followed by our godly earthlings either.
Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Dec 13, 2005 4:32 pm | | re: re: re: summary of what stood out until now | # |
Bharat P | | Here is a list of statements which stood out in this enlightening discussion until now....
Is cool and fun to follow this thread.
Here is my list of things that i noticed -->
1. Evolution from nothing to life
2. To say science came into existence after "GOD" is like saying ,a baby ran first and then learn to stand.
3. Ramayana & Mahabaratha are not stories. No story will talk of good character of main villain and negative part of hero.
4. Just becasue I do not have the photograph of my forefather's forefather I can not come to conclusion that they were not existing
5. R v searching something.??...happiness... serinity or vat.... At the end of self realisation what am i going to get??? snake eating its own tail
6. If I have to travel back to my original destination after coming to the world they why come???????
7. We know what is good and bad, universally.
8. AIDS etc..
9. The Car+gears definition of life...
10.Pearls of wisdom on virus mutation
11.How is the evolution of AIDS connected to Sanathana Dharma?
12.If my mind is open dustbin then I can accept good and also bad.
Way to go dudes... let me hear some more interesting ideas and thoughts on here...
Bharat Private Reply to Bharat P | | Dec 13, 2005 5:09 pm | | re: re: re: re: summary of what stood out until now | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Bharat,
thanks for placing my rambling second on the list.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Dec 13, 2005 6:26 pm | | re: Thanks Radhika | # |
Riya | |
You are Welcome, Ram. Am glad that my Post saved you some sweat...the topic seem to be diversifying from the subject of "How AIDS evolved"...however, if anyone took pains to be aware, its good and spread the awareness, particularly the myths associated with AIDS...
Radhika Private Reply to Riya | | Dec 13, 2005 6:48 pm | | re: re: Thanks Radhika -Topic was "anything and everything" | # |
Ganesh Ram | | A general thing I noticed ,probably some communication expert can throw some light. Why is that the topic in this thread keeps on changing. Or oh software experts, is this what is called as "Multi-process" single thread. ;-) Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Dec 14, 2005 6:25 am | | re: re: re: Thanks Radhika -Topic was "anything and everything" | # |
Bharat P | | I guess that if the topic is Sanadana Dharma, and the goal is "God" or enlightenment as is said, then that is a target so big, it includes everything, nothing and anything else apart from that.
So I guess you can pretty much talk about anything out here.
;-)
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Dec 14, 2005 9:55 am | | re: re: re: sandAna DarmA | # |
Gyro | | Ganesh Ram,
You are right. But then I would say that your analysis has not gone to the next stage. If you want to swim in sea, no need to go deeper. If your aim is pearl you may have to go deeper. If you want to kiss the see bed of Indian Ocean you may have to travel deepest. If you want to dig the seabed to extract the resources then imagine the kind of effort that is required. Similar kind of effort is required to understand Hinduism alias Sanadana Dharama. By seeing the gem floats and waves if we come to conclusion that this what is see all about then that will reveal our ignorance.
I hope you are aware of Maharish Vyasa from whom the entire episode of Mahabarath is known. Sage Vyasa is a child of a rishi and fisherwomen. His creation was through premarital sex. Some people go up to this and say ‘Oh, premarital sex was existing even with rishis’. Because human beings are more interested in knowing lighter part of it rather than understanding the essence of it. As the rishi came to know from the planet positions through his ‘gnathristy’ that if a lady gets conceived in that particular time, the born baby would be a great Mahrishi who will know the past, present and future. So, while crossing the river in the boat that was sailed by fisherwomen, he created a fog and had intercourse with her after full permission from her. If sexual pleasure is his aim, he could not have done with this lady who smelled like rotten fish. Here the time & creation is important rather then sex activities. The rishi wanted to create Vyasa through natural process. There are many incidents like this.
The wife of Lord Bramha is Saraswathi ( knowledge) because a creator of world requires knowledge about it. The wife of Lord shiva is Sakthi (Power), because power is required to destroy the devil force in the world. The wife of Vishnu is Lakshmi (Wealth) because to protect others and ourselves we need wealth. Each and everything in Sanadana Dharma conveys some meaning and it is not there just for the sake of it.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Dec 14, 2005 9:56 am | | re: re: re: re: summary of what stood out until now | # |
Gyro | | Bharat,
Summed up well. After all this vertical & horizontal discussions I feel now that once again we are square back to original topic.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Dec 14, 2005 9:58 am | | re: re: re: re: Thanks Radhika -Topic was "anything and everything" | # |
Gyro | | Yes Bharat, the target is very big. Initially when started this topic that was not the idea. It basically started with existance of Hinduism in the name of Sanadana Dharma.
V.K.L. RaamanathanPrivate Reply to Gyro | | Dec 14, 2005 10:15 am | | re: Big Targets | # |
Bharat P | | Ram,
What I meant was that the Target is so BIG that you cannot ever miss. Whatever you hit will be God/ enlightenment/ whatever.
:-)
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Dec 14, 2005 12:49 pm | | re: re: re: re: sandAna DarmA | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam,
thanks for the story of vyAsA. This is the time my mind itches me to write in "Tamglish" but I will restrain.
Let us take the examples in all the stories(epics) that we know.
1. VyasA - born out of premarital sex.
2. Rama and brothers - probably artificial insemination.Also a kshatriya(AryA) being dark
3. PandavAs and KauravAs and others in that epic - a mixture of premarital, extramarital, out of wedlock
4. Muruga or kArthikeyA - foster moms, assuming that shiva was married to parvathi at that time
5. KrishnA - only person born to mortals with no gimmicks
6. Ganesha - Cloning
7. Ayappa - born to two males
8. Janaki/Sita - orphaned girl brought up by a single father
9. vAlmiki - a bandit turned storyteller
Now, pray tell me what is the deeper meaning that you want me to understand. All I see is the fact that as a common denominator our stories(epics) never said what is wrong and what is correct. They just gave a historical perspective of what was prevailing\possible in those period.
And the epics are just stories, why because I have heard that, for instance in RamAyaNA, rAvaNA was the father of Sita and because he was told that she will bring down his empire she let her off.But still could not stand her living in a forest and therefore brought her to lanka.(ManOhar's drama cites this).Similar is the case of duruyOdhanA.
As I said earlier in one of my prev posts, langauge and communication allow one to extrapolate and explain things to suit their needs at a particular time period. If it is convinicing for a mass, they accept it as the fact.
Gods in religion are just that. They are the tool to make a society conform to certain rules. Either suited to the upliftment of the society at that time or to force the commoners to follow them thus creating a "forced" harmony in a society.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Dec 14, 2005 4:45 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: sandAna DarmA | # |
Bharath Cola | | Bharat Pat & Ganesh Ram - you folks have a cool sense of humour :-))
Raamanadhan - the mythology that you depicted about various gods did not form part of SaNaDaNa dharma. they where later formulated. infact SaNaDaNa dharma did not speak about GOD or GODs. It just annalysised human living in the fullest possible manner and then highlighted man to identify his true self.
GODs where later created as characters by generations post the phase of formulating SaNaDaNa Dharma by the subsequent generation of enlightened souls -- with purpose to simplify the essence of SaNaDaNa Dharma for the common man.
Cheers
Bharath Cola Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Dec 14, 2005 5:08 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: sandAna DarmA | # |
Ganesh Ram | | ah other than my ramblings I completely forgot to add my exception to Raam's description of the fisherwoman as a woman with rotten fish smell. And if I accept this then I would say the Rishi did only for pleasure and cheated the young damsel. or he was smelling rather awfully worse than the fisherwoman.
In a man's world things done against a woman can be easily justified. VyAsA's father is one classic example to that.
We can have hundreds of poets like Bharathi. But even the present society finds it difficult to change the attitudes towards women.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Dec 15, 2005 12:52 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: sandAna Darma | # |
Gyro | | Dear All,
I have signed with a project from a Singapore company which I was working for the past three months. So, I may not be as active as was. Will communicate whenever I devote my time.
Happy ryzing.
Thanks & Best Regards.
V.K.L. Raamanthan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Dec 16, 2005 2:57 pm | | re: sandAna DarmA | # |
Bharat P | | Ganesh,
I think this had nothing to do with someone who smelled of fish... ;-)
That was just her name "MatsyaGandha".. which means smelling of fish.... I guess later on people added that she smelt of fish...
Bharat Private Reply to Bharat P | | Dec 16, 2005 3:58 pm | | re: re: sandAna DarmA | # |
Ganesh Ram | | probably from the word Gandha which the northerners use for obnoxiuos smell( foul smell).
Just proves my point,that language as an art of communication can foul mouth anyone without hurting. ;-)Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Dec 16, 2005 4:08 pm | | re: re: re: sandAna DarmA | # |
Bharat P | | Yeah.
Language is quite a tricky thing
Which is why I believe that we should have one language on this planet.
I also dont believe any book of any kind - reality or fiction - written before Gutenberg invented the printing press. Mass circulation usually means people tend to keep things "HONEST" and tend to write less lies in there.
Either what I have said above is correct or the following are correct:
1. until about 2000 years ago, there were various unknown species like elves, demons, flying horses etc which mysteriously disappeared suddenly.
2. people could actually walk on water, be in 25 different places at the same time, transmute one element into another, travel in flying chariots etc, but about 2000 years back, suddenly every such skill vanished without trace.
Ok, I dont want to elaborate on the above, but I guess I will stick to books written after the 16th century. After all I have read plenty of inspiring books written by Osho, Ramakrishna mission, RAmana Maharshi, J. Krishnamurthy, Aurobindo et al... about time we buried those 3000 year old books.
Bharat
Private Reply to Bharat P | | Dec 16, 2005 4:16 pm | | re: re: re: re: sandAna DarmA | # |
Ganesh Ram | | How about "vymAnika ShastrA"? that talked a good amount about aircrafts(flying chariots you say).It is a old book Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Dec 17, 2005 10:51 am | | Indians & Elephant (Sanadana Darma) | # |
Gyro | | When elephant is small the left backside leg will be tighten by elephant guard with thick chain to a small pillar so when try to escape it can’t move due to the strong hold of the chain. The elephant will try many times to escape but will fail every time. So, the brain of elephant would be formatted in such a way that it can never be free when it is tightened. After the elephant grow & matured with full strength the same leg will be tightened with very thin chain, not with thick one. If the elephant try now it can very easily escape. But it will not do so due to inferiority complex that is injected in its brain right from childhood.
Present Indians are like that elephant. Without knowing the real strength of our ancestors, language (Sanskrit), history, science, math we will simply accept westerners theories & their concepts. When Mugalayars & British government invaded India, this kind of inferiority complex is injected in our brains for centuries like one done for elephant. So, today it requires no times for us to talk ill of our culture, scriptures and the concepts. Infact, we feel very pride of being against our Vedas, Ithihas and our scriptures. We don’t have faith in our Maharishis, we hesitate to acknowledge their achievements, we do not appreciate the management principle that was developed, we forget the invention of zero by an Indian, We spit ourselves when someone praise the capabilities that was demonstrated by our munis who did astronomical studies without an advanced equipment, We close our ears when research tells that Sanskrit is the most suitable language for computer software. But all our senses will be immediately awaken when some one from somewhere in the corner talks negative or ill or gives falls information about Indian scriptures or its strength. When British government portray our freedom fighter Veerapandiaya Kattabomman as thief just because he did not obey them we will catch hold of this false information and start believing that Bomman is a culprit. Even good also (Yoga) will be accepted by us after foreigner acknowledge it. To that extent our inferiority complex is working.
Just by looking at the glance of first page of book Chicken Soup written by Osho if we come to conclusion that he is talking of soups that is served in multi cuisine restaurant, that will refrain us from learning process.
All big countries today are playing international politics with India. Their aim is that Indians should never feel proud of their own culture or scriptures or the achievements. So, all measures will be taken directly or indirectly, which a common man will not understand, to see that Indians are always slave like that elephant. Because, if a self confident of Indians improves they will treat white skin people at par with them, which the foreigners cannot digest. Besides they can’t expand their business in India if Indians are awaken.
If the same trend continues, our future generations are the great losers, as they will also have similar attitude, which will be learnt from us.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Dec 26, 2005 2:06 pm | | re: Indians & Elephant (Sanadana Darma) | # |
Bharat P | | Some notes -->
1. Yeah, most indians are not self-confident, but that is changing fast, especially since lots of young indians especially in the IT sector deal with lots of europeans and americans.... so this is slowly dying out.
2. Ram, we dont forget old inventions or discoveries. Sure, our ancestors kicked ass and were cool! But so what? What are we today and where are we today? What have we achieved today? We can't keep living on the greatness of our ancestors... Success is constant achievement. And Indians stopped achieving about 1500 years back and started living on past glory.
3. you assume that all countries are afraid of India. Yes, to a certain extent.... but the scare is of both India and China, because most developed countries are scared Indian and China will take away all the manufacturing and service sector jobs. This has nothing whatsover to do with culture or scriptures. I think you have a strongly biased view that all that is old and ancient in India is gospel truth.
Regards
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Jan 11, 2006 11:09 am | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | My my! A culture and religion more than 5000-6000 years old as far as records go and all we could manage was 75 messages?
Come on guys... Let us get this thread started again with some new fresh insights into Sanadana Dharma...
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Jan 11, 2006 3:22 pm | | re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | On ancient dharma being scientific, We know to some extent that the whole context of sandana dharma was to explain the science of living(the art of living came later IMO).
Now that we(as Indians) have developed and tested the SCRAMJET(Yahoo news) which will be in full swing production in 10 years from now, Are we reinventing what we already had (vymAnika shAstrA)?Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Jan 12, 2006 6:33 am | | Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Ram,
I am not too sure I have a copy of Vymanika Shastra to read and figure out whether we are reinventing the wheel. ;-)
But from a good reading of mythology, I can figure out that even in those days, flying technology was not available to everyone... it was a privilege enjoyed by a select few --> e.g: Ravana. So I suspect flying around either had something to do with personal powers or was just an exagerated story.
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Jan 12, 2006 7:16 pm | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | None of the ancient aircrafts had wheels at least the pictures did not show them. That will put my "re inventing the wheel" to a back seat.
And then I was looking for some details on Myths and then stumbled on a work saying that vikramadityA's reign extended till arabia. It seems there are artifacts in Turkey that talks about vikramAdityA.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Jan 16, 2006 5:02 am | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | I think you are all set to do a new serial on Sun TV, their Vikramadityan just finished...
;-) You can show him hanging around with arabian dudes in an arabian pub..
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Jan 20, 2006 6:21 am | | re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Ok, since nobody is posting on here for a while, I though I would post something which will step of plenty of toes.
I think that apart from the Upanishads (which contain some wisdom), most of the rest of indian writings are filled with more fiction than fact.
Comments please...
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Jan 21, 2006 4:38 am | | re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Upanishads seem to show wisdom NOW, but did it when it was written? That will be difficult to answer. All the rest are pretty new and not aged as yet. Only now we have slowly started accepting vatsayana and ramayaNa ( to show two oppsites). A time will come when we will find wisdom in other scriptures too. I think the gestation period is not over yet. Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Jan 23, 2006 2:06 pm | | Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Thanks Ganesh Ram. You sure keep a topic going with your observations.
Besides, I said, Upanishads "SEEM" to show wisdom. So that itself is debatable.
I agree, the older a religion and the more obscure its writings(wierd language, multiple meanings etc..), the better it sounds.
Bharat Private Reply to Bharat P | | Jan 24, 2006 2:35 am | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | a Pat on my back!
Thanks Bharath.
I am yet to find a convincing view for all our religious beliefs. I am for one who thinks that the beliefs were needed to form a cohesiveness and inter dependence when the nomadic life became a static stay put life.
Everything should have had a reason.
I do not know if it is applicable today or to any other society other than the Indian societies(I am saying this in plural because there are different rules , regulations ,forms of the same rule,sanadana darma, in different parts of India).
I understand we were capable of, and have done a lot in every field known/unknown in this present day. But why did we not continue and expand in them? Rather we lost it only to be found by some others. From where I stand, I think it is because, what was/is a common man's POV slowly was moved towards eltist POV and was simply taken away from a layman's understanding ability.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Jan 24, 2006 5:59 am | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | Dear Ganesh Ram,
I hope that I can convince you for all our religious beliefs. The problem is because, we think that Science has frame work to arrive at some decision logically whatever it proves. On the other said we believe there is no via media to check that religious matters are true.
Eventhough the number goes up to infinity, the basic numbers are only from 0 to 9. So, even you see multiple Indian societies (which follows SaNaDaNa Dharma) they all come under whatever Mathvachariyar, Adisankarar and Ramujum analysed and conveyed.
Science teaches us that human beings are evolved from monkey. Have any one ever observed the evolution with their own eyes, about the process? Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, should we come to conclusion that there would be no truth in it? This was found out based on observations, assumptions and human intelligence. Our Indian science is based on this kind of framework.
Science has developed a technique (Tentrocnology) to find out age of trees, with the pieces of it, that is thousands of years old. With this they decide the age of tree. But what is the concrete proof that their finding is right? Similar to carbon dating and radio metric dating also.
According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol of science there is no such things as cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, just the absence of it. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold.
Similarly, Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light.... But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?
In the similar manner, our rishis have found that Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. And it will again have a life (rebirth). But we will consider this as ‘mystics’. It is because Present generation of Indians are put in to modern school of science where there is no opportunity to study Vedas. Right from childhood our brain is formatted in such way that only modern science and its inventions are much more superior than what is said in our Upanishads. And there is no opportunity for us to learn Sanskrit in Schools as curriculum to appreciate and understand our scriptures to the core.
Today's modern science doing lots of research on Quantum mechanics that was practiced by our ancient rishis much earlier. Our physical body emits certain frequency based on our thoughts, accumulated knowledge and willpower. Those frequency will be received by like minded people and disturbed by opposite people. This is how our rishis were able to make happen certain things sitting in one place with highly channalised concentration power (plus mantra power - that is again one more big subject). You could have heard even today some people say that Saibaba is seen in many place in the same time. If I think of Namitha while watching cricket in my house, I am partially in my house (may be 50%), partially in cricket ground (40%) and partially with Namitha (10%). This is how a single person is seen in different places. I gave this just as an example as layman explanation to quantum physics.
Indian Science is mainly based on faiths, beliefs, and meditative power. As we all study only Modern Science we seek for logical explanation and proofs for each and everything. Our brain can't accept knowledge transfer of Vedas and source of it, which is the root cause of all knowledge, when we say that it was learned by us naturally from sky. Science will say that mind does not exist, because it can't be proved. We measure Indian science with the available resources of today's scientific techniques and knowledge. If our scientist find out some modern equipments to communicate with nature (which mind does), then it would be quite possible that Indian science would be accepted worldwide
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Jan 24, 2006 6:15 am | | re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Ram,
I dont think we were hinting that modern science was superior or inferior to our vedas.
Just that aparently, our ancients always hinted that we should believe in nothing and find out for ourselves. Atleast from a reading of most of our upanishads, that is the message I got. Forget all that books or society have taught you and try to find out for yourself. Whatever truth you discover is the truth for you.
I am ok with modern science in this one aspect... it aims to find out all the answers (even though it doesnt have explanations for many questions).
I think both Science and religion are trying to find the answer to the same fundamental questions of consciousness, existence, time and space. All other questions are pretty much derived from these questions.
Thanks for your explanations on quantum mechanics --> but please note that much like philosophy, most of quantum physics cannot be proved right or wrong. They are just theories.. trying to explain how the quantum world works.
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Jan 24, 2006 12:59 pm | | re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam,
excellent arguement from your side. I tend to go with Bharat's reply.
Like I have said before, science means knowledge. It need not be nobel prized all the time. And there is no end in explaining a phnom at all.
In Science, each step stops at a micro or macro level and tend to say that is the answer. Each generation of scientist go a little more micro than the previous and explain things. Each micro level tends to become macro with further investigation and proofs. Or tend to go a different route to explain things.
So is with our religious belief\philosophy. That is why we needed a Adi Sankara, and a madhvachAriar and other siddhars and sAdhus.The Ramas and The Krishnas.
It is just that one tends to side whichever gives more comfort. For example, you tend to be in a comfort zone with religious beliefs and sanadana darma as the "Know it all" philosophy, while I tend to believe neither the philosophy nor the science is whole yet. When will it be the wholesome? IMO, it never will.
I think you are looking at a purposeful life as digital and discrete tri state concept. That is in the sense one follows "the philosophy" or "the science" or both. I think I am for one take Nature as the ground state and think the philosophy and science are trying to explain how these things happen and such are analog state, they just mix and match.
Sometime philosophy\practices explains science better, the other times science explains philosophy\practices better. Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Jan 25, 2006 5:48 am | | Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Ganesh,
I actually find a lot of "New Age" gurus having inspiring messages. In recent times, I did find Ramana, Osho, J. Krishnamurthy inspiring.
I guess there is no paucity of gurus or godmen in India.
So inspiring messages are not a monopoly of our old epics or books.
Also, just because science doesnt have all the answers today doesnt mean it wont have them forever. I have noticed knowledge grows in quantum leaps... I guess it will be interesting to see how much our knowledge of our universe grows in our lifetime.
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Jan 26, 2006 12:21 pm | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | And I feel it is the quantum leap of knowledge that has diluted the substance that were in the old texts(epics, upanishads and what not).
My whole stand is if you see philosophy as a science then one would micro and macro it the same way as done to "Science". The same can be said about science too.
The biggest problem I see between these two communities is that while the end result of both the routes are the same, each party does not want to treat the other the at the same level, if you know what I mean.
For me,
Philosophy is Science, Science is philosophy.
As the old saying goes ,
"kallai kandAl nAyai kANum, nAyai kandAl kallai kANum",
many of us still see only one of the two in a sculpture. I for one want to see both at the same time.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Jan 27, 2006 1:31 pm | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Yup. I think it is more like Scientists and Philosophers do not want to see eye-to-eye with each other.
Funnily, in the olden days, the philosophers were also scientists....
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Jan 30, 2006 9:32 am | | Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Ganesh,
I found that one interesting --> ""kallai kandAl nAyai kANum, nAyai kandAl kallai kANum""
I have heard another interesting one --> ""kandavar vindadhillai. Vindavar Kandadhillai."" This is with respect to enlightenment or the truth and it means that one who knows does not talk about it, and one who talks does not know it. ;-)
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Jan 30, 2006 3:47 pm | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | So Bharat, you are trying to say , these vedas,upanishads and all sorts of things are present because the author(s) did not see the enlightment, from your quote, "... vindavar kandlilar".
I have lot more to go on this... Will do so after I get some work done for today.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Jan 30, 2006 4:46 pm | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Ya Ganesh,
Something like "Empty vessals make a lot of noise". I look forward to your comments on this.
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Jan 30, 2006 10:08 pm | | re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Bharat,
the same if a full vessel does, it becomes empty.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Jan 31, 2006 9:36 am | | Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Assuming
full = Infinity and
Empty = 0,
there are no full or empty vessels. All of them are always half full (or half empty).
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Jan 31, 2006 6:23 pm | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | IMHO, Full can never be infinity. By saying full one quantifies. That which is quantified will always be finite.
And that is why IMO our philosophy (Sanadana Darma) talked about
"that which that neither can be qualified nor can be quantified"
had to bring back our talk relevant to the subject ;-)
Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Feb 01, 2006 5:46 am | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | By saying "that which that neither can be qualified nor can be quantified", you are placing a limitation.... a huge limitation in fact.
Why would someone want to achieve a state or learn something which was limited? Did someone goof up when they started writing about Sanadana Dharma?
I hope our topic is relevant now. :-)
Bharat Private Reply to Bharat P | | Feb 01, 2006 9:16 pm | | re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | How can one discuss about such a thing that is limitationless and about those with no attributes at all?
BTW, there cannot exist theorie(s) based on things that are limitationless at all.
What I can do is, In order to say my thoughts in an acceptable manner I would talk of something that is bigger than limitations that exists and are seen/felt.
This in my opinion is where science extends itself to philosophy. One theorizes, without proof or by taking the proof from one aspect of science in such a manner it convinces the common man. That's probably where sandana darma or other religions and sectorial practices started.
PS .
Bharat only 3 more to go to have this as a longest thread in Chennai Network hitting a centuryPrivate Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Feb 03, 2006 5:11 am | | re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Ganesh,
I think language has severe limitations when we discuss what we are discussing at the moment.
BTW. Sanadana Dharma wasnt theorising without proof. It used the mind for conducting various experiments (much like Einstein's thought experiments).
And yeah, I kinda like our epics, Puranas et al and quite like the ease with which the common man gives control of his life to Deities like Anjaneya or Durga...
Cheers
Bharat Private Reply to Bharat P | | Feb 03, 2006 5:46 am | | re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | Few clarifications........
Naya kandal kallai kanom...kallai kandal Naya kanom:
When an sculpure of dog was created in the stone very naturally by a sirpi (creator), it looked very real. So, when people see it by assuming that it is a real dog, they did not see stone there and When they see as stone they could not see the dog. The message is that when we pray god with full deveotion the stone disappears and if we see as stone god disappears.
Kandavar Vindilar..vindavar Kandilar:
It means, those who have seen it has not explained it and those who have explained it has not seen it.
You go and ask a person if he loves his parents. He will say yes. Ask him how much he loves his parents and if he can prove his love towards his parents. I don't think he will be able to tell or explain how much he loves his parents or prove his love. He would most likely say "I can't talk about it, you will have to experience it for yourself"
Kurai kudam koothadum....Nirai kudam thalumbadhu:
Deep sea is very calm. But shallow water (low sea depth) always creates waves. Half knowledge people always behave as if they know each & every thing of particular subject. Fully knowledgable people would always admit that "katradhu kai man alavu, kalladadhu ulagalavu". Nirai kudam people keep their eye & ear open but close their mouth most of the times but kurai kudam people are just reverse. Keep their mouth open always and talk about things without proper analysis. Private Reply to Gyro | | Feb 03, 2006 6:51 am | | Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Excellent explanation and translation Ramanathan.
I couldnt have done any better than that...
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Feb 03, 2006 3:00 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Deep sea is always calm
said Raam
we now know that is not true. What we thought of as a calm sea had a huge destructive wave running under it. It took only a miniscule of a time to create a wrath.
On Kallai kandAl.......
What I tried to do was find a middle ground between science and philosophy, Raam does it in a micro level within philosophy. I could apply that to Heisenberg's uncertainity principle too from a science angle.
On kandavar vindilar..
so where does the authors of our vedas and upanishads and epics stand? Are they kandavars or vindilars?
Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Feb 06, 2006 9:52 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | Ganesh Ram,
About deep sea:
Only during Tsunami huge destructive wave will be running under water and that travels very long. OR during low tide and high tide. But in general deep sea is calm. Further this is quoted as an exapmple to explain things better.
Middle ground between science and philosophy:
We will never find such middle ground between science and philosophy where each and everything of science and philosophy meets 1:1. Philosophy deals more on mind & its will power and Science is more on brain. Science can never prove or acknowledge mind and its achievements and philosophy will not accept that Brain's capability is ultimate. Modern science became prominent only from 16th century. But the period of Indian science is much earlier, the exact time unknown. What was told in Pragaladhan & Abimanyu parts in our epics are scientifically proved now. 'Bramasthram' proved as Atom Bom which will go thousand miles away and destroy objects that is aimed. 'Gnathristy' as sateelite channels. Let it be imagination or stories. But they were able to think about it much in advance. This is what makes me feel very great about Hinduism.
I hope you are aware of P.C. Sarkar who made Calcutta's Victoria Memorial disappear, an aircraft vanish in Japan and Taj Mahal disappear under magic spell. He brings elephant and lion in stage at no time. Can a top scientist of world could do this kind of magic by applying all proved scientific method as done by P.C. Sarkar? But it is possible by Mind and its willpower with little science. (without the help of this science also our ancients could demonstrate this kind of things with their manthra power. If I start narrating that, it would be too long.) Western Scinece is in the elementry stage when compare to our Indian science (or Philosphy). So, no middle ground is possible, at this juncture, between a superior and inferior.
Kandavar Vindilar....vindavar Kandilar:
First of all there is no author of our vedas and upanishads. It was only heard by our rishis from the sky through their meditative power. Lateron it was compiled by muni Veda vyas.
The ultimate leader is 'Brammam' ( not lord Brahma) which is shapeless. This can't be seen through naked eye, so can't be expressed in words. ie Kandavar Vindilar. So, the 'kandavar' (Ramakrishna Paramahamsar, Abirami battar, Mathvachariyar, Adishankarar, Ramanujar to quote few) can only enlight peoples (tranformation) like us when we reach at that high level by focusing our mind and completely dedicating our life into theology. Bhagavad Gita teaches how can we reach or realize the Supreme.
Who all conduct Bagavath Gita classes and teaches our scriptures and puranas as discourse are 'Vindavars'. They are in the path to reach the status of 'Kandavar' and striving hard for that. So, Vindavar kandilar.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Feb 06, 2006 12:41 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam,
the Calmness as I have heard is only in the surface, we do have (again I have heard) portions of sea where there are huge volcanoes spewing very hot water. There has to be huge ocean currents flowing under water.
on
middle ground
I think many of your statments are viewed from within philosophy and therefore the middle ground itself is far away from where you stand.
For example when you say there were no authors to vedas and it was got by meditation, you are looking at the end product of a scientific experiment.
The philosophy behind meditation itself is science. Why? One should linearize( if there is such a word, kind of english equivalent to Tamil's "orungNaindhu")all senses into one to meditate. Math plays an important role in all of this.
Then about the vedas themselves. The first one never talked about god and the later ones identified and discussed god.This is probably because, they were experienced(not written, i better be careful this time) and different Times and by different society (advanced from the previous).
I am in no dispute with philosophy's existence and its place on Time, what is disputed is the stickyness of people to either of the two, that is science and philosophy, and the claims that one is superior than the other.
Magic is something that is done by a single person to make others believe. If vedas and upanishads and our epics are equated to this,which I hope you are not doing, that is more of trivializing them.
And about the Atom bomb thingy, well you are arguing on my side, Isn't thought process highly scientific?
on the Kandavar vindilar thingy. If one has seen it, he does not need to explain. If such is the case, then none of the religious guys who went around proposing and arguing with other religions to uplift theirs is a kandavar. From what I have heard, RamaNa maharishi comes to my mind. I have heard that he never talked about anything.
Bhagavad gita has a lot of nice things, but it also is supposed to have been said by a person, who practically cheated and won a war and also claimed "HE IS" and everything is "HIM". It is more like the leg teaches the hand how to walk. or the ears teaches the eye how to hear.
And about who all conduct bagavad gita classes, they try to manipulate it to make them popular among a set of people. For example, I have always loved this about Ramayana.
Most of us will know the way Rama met Sita, but then there was this person who wrote about Kamaba RamayaNam and asked
why did the author put Sita on a balcony and Rama as walking on the street on that scene?
And the explanation was that the Indian woman always had there head bowed while the Indian men had there head "held High", and that is why Kamban wrote it thus.
When I first heard this, I was simply amazed how well and convincing the narrator justifies the rendition of the author. He went on with "aNalum nOkinAL, avaLum nOkinAL.." in a similar way.
Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Feb 06, 2006 2:58 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Ramana Maharshi did talk, though not too much. :-) Private Reply to Bharat P | | Feb 06, 2006 9:38 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam and about the Bhramam, you wrote,
The ultimate leader is 'Brammam' ( not lord Brahma) which is shapeless. This can't be seen through naked eye, so can't be expressed in words.
Rather than saying shapeless which is not true,because you and I are part of it and we are shaped, I would agree it is multi faceted.Since you and I are different and yet same, Bhramam has attributes.
The reason why , IMHO, it is said as shapeless or attributeless is because it is difficult to find the sum of all attributes where the limit tends to infinity.
Then how did our rishis talk about it? From my POV, since we know Bhramam is all engulfed into one, and since each one of us are different within it, one could generalize saying Bhramam is inattributable( probably the first time in history this word exist)
Things become more simpler to common man if one takes the definition of Bhramam as what Swami Vivekananda said,
that which exists everywhere; people call it by different name Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Feb 06, 2006 9:39 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Bharat,
Not to the extent of other religious leaders/heads/gods, I suppose.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Feb 08, 2006 8:50 am | | Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Yeah, he didnt talk much.
As regards Brahma or Brahmam, whats in a name?
Yeah Ganesh, I understand Brahmam / Brahman... That is the name of the ultimate in the Vedas.
Bharat Private Reply to Bharat P | | Feb 10, 2006 6:43 am | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | I guess it would include "That which can be described", "That which cannot be described" and "everything beyond both" and "nothing". I would also describe everything beyond the above.... and would also involve everything beyond the above.... and ....
yeah.. something like that... but I guess using one word "Brahmam" is an improvement.
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Feb 10, 2006 12:17 pm | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | The concept of Brahmam is like infinity. There is no such thing like "beyond infinity". Everything including the nothing is inside it. Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Feb 11, 2006 9:23 am | | re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Ganesh,
If there is nothing beyond infinity, that is a limitation of infinity, and anything limited cannot be brahmam as you have yourself said.
Besides, I would say that everything is inside nothing. Because even by a scientific big bang theory, everything came from nothing.
Cheers and a great weekend.
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Feb 11, 2006 11:57 am | | re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | hmmm... Bharat, I guess I will have to get back to the blackboard and start allover again. ;-)
Have a nice weekend.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Feb 13, 2006 12:14 pm | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Sure, let us start from the very beginning... I think we were kinda talking about Time and Space in some way...
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Feb 13, 2006 10:19 pm | | re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | It all depends on what "Nothing" really is.
For example when we hear big bang or our own vedas which starts as "First there was Nothing", and if we have to assume the nothingness in its literal form then we are bound to accept the concept of a superior form that brought something from nothing.
But if we go with "compared to what you see (now), the ones that existed was nothing (equivalent to inertness and attributelessness)", then you will fall easily into evolution theory ( which of course is true).
And that is what Nothing is all about. Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Feb 14, 2006 4:07 am | | re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Why do we need a superior form to bring something from nothing? Something just popped out of nothing... ;-)
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Feb 14, 2006 6:01 am | | re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Bharat wrote:
Why do we need a superior form to bring something from nothing? Something just popped out of nothing... ;-)
I know this would be coming. The key phrase in my post is "literal form". If we take it thus, ie in literal form,it looks like conjuring something out of nothing(of course, if you have read Da Vinci Code and CERN related things that is a different matter).
But if you take nothing as an inerted medium,with "ordered chaos" which when you look from "a distance away"/ "deep within" (something like an eye of a storm) is calm but is in an immense chaos within itself then the theory would extend itself to evolutionary concepts. Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Feb 14, 2006 7:08 am | | Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Ganesh,
I think you are confusing "Space" with "Nothing"...
Yeah, Space looks like nothing as aptly quoted by you "But if you take nothing as an inerted medium,with "ordered chaos" which when you look from "a distance away"/ "deep within" (something like an eye of a storm) is calm but is in an immense chaos within itself then the theory would extend itself to evolutionary concepts."
This is what quantum physics says when it describes the quantum turmoil at infinitesemal spaces...
But nothing is totally different ;-) Of course the only way of describing this would be to describe something and then say this is not nothing ... very much like the vendantins of the old days who used to say "Neti" (not this) of whatever they perceived....
Or we could revert to calling it Brahmam...
Bharat Private Reply to Bharat P | | Feb 15, 2006 12:52 pm | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | But doesn't "Neti" falls into what I gave as my definition for nothing?
When we say dark is devoid of light, it means different at different points of time. For example for a layman it is only the visible spectrum that he is concerned about. While for a inquiring mind, the question is what if there is UV light existing, for a naked eye it will still look dark. How can we call that as nothing?
Then we would extend "neti" to dark is a place which is devoid of "UV" also. For which the layman would ask, if I cannot see it then what is the use of including UV into the definition?
hmmm.... BtBB again I guess. ;-)Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Feb 16, 2006 9:55 am | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | The never ending story. Private Reply to Bharat P | | Feb 16, 2006 10:23 am | | re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | extending from my prev post...
And therefore "nothing" or "neti" is only an attribute. why? because it is relative to the person who talks about it and the person who is talked into it, in relation to something.
As an attribute, it does not exist by itself. A closer downtoearth example is like saying,
"poovOdu seArndhu nArum maNapadhu pOla"
I am equating "neti" to "nAru" here, and the "poo" being the singular entity(call it what you may).
yengaiyO idikkudhu... but I will hold on to my explanation....
will continue... Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Feb 16, 2006 1:09 pm | | re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharath Cola | | this is evolution and realisation.... constructive discussion :-)
Cheers
Bharath Cola Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Feb 21, 2006 12:04 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Ganesh,
Everything is relative... even an absolute is so only in relation to the relative... :p
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Feb 21, 2006 6:47 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Bharat, looks like you are calling for trouble ;-) with your last statement.
Everything is relative... even an absolute is so only in relation to the relative
which would mean both Adi Shankara and mAdhvAchAriar ( just to reach both singular and dual forms) would be correct only related to something when they opined about the Absolute.
The good thing about the whole Sandana Dharma is that it allows one to discuss\view\see\feel\realize it in anyway one wants. And therefore there is nothing wrong in how accept IT(the absolute)is accepted.
That would bring back Raam into this discussion ;-)(he has been silent here for ions now).Was he correct? Was he incorrect? are there differences between correctness and incorrectness? Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Feb 22, 2006 7:23 am | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | To my knowledge there are as many religions as there are people on this planet. So that makes it 6 billion religions. I call them different religions because two people even if they are from the same religion have a different understanding/belief/faith of the same religion.
Looks like Ram is busy with work... havent heard him for ages.
Bharat
p.s.: I stick to my theory of "Relativity" :pPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Feb 22, 2006 11:46 am | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | Though the approaches of Dvaitham, or Advaitham are different the ultimate aim is to reach the supreme.
Dvaitham - All human beings are Jeevas & Sriman Narayana is Paramathma
Advaitham - Supreme God & the Athma are same
To Bharat : Like the faces of all the people all over the world are different, there are as many religions as there are people on this planet according to you. But all people come under one single term called ‘Human Beings’. Likewise, Religion teaches us that there is only one supreme whatever belief we have.
Like a single man called as father, son, brother, friend, uncle based on different relations, routs in Hinduism are different but leads to ultimate supreme. There are different Philosophies, existent in India. Although their postulates are different, they all are centered at the "Bhraman" or Wisdom , preach "Ahimsa" ,& the Ways to attain Salvation or "Mukthi".
Private Reply to Gyro | | Feb 22, 2006 12:53 pm | | re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam, welcome back to this thread.
Just like you have said many thories describe the same goal, so are there about the co-existence of science and philosophy. and that is why in a prev. post I had said, science leads to philosophy leads to scince( not in the same order) and so on. Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Feb 23, 2006 5:59 am | | re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | Hi Ganesh Ram,
You are right. That's why I described our scriputres or Vedas or SaNaDaNa Dharma as INDIAN SCIENCE. But we differ because I am saying that Indian Science is far superior than the Western Science (Current modern science which we all study in school/colleges). Let me explain.
when Stephen Speilberg makes the film 'Back to the future' showing a car that can go back into the past or into the future, we appreciate the idea and say, this is what is called the future science...though its application is far from truth. Stephen Hawkins has written in his book 'The Breif History of time' that it is possible to go back into the past or into the future, theoretically. But practically we cannot go with this human body, because we have to travel faster than the speed of light.
It is described in our Indian scriptrues that our Rishis transported the mind and the thought power to see the past and the future. (one will not get this power unless he has the full control of his mind not to tamper with whatever he sees in the past or the future.). So, it proves the fact that whatever is considered as advanced thinking (by today's scientists) was very much demonstrated our rishish much more earlier before the birth of modern science.
In Mahabharatha, Dhronacharya was the guru of both the Kauravas and the Pandavas. He was a Trikala Gnani, who could see past, present and the future. When Dhrishtadhyumna, son of Dhrupada, came to him to join as a student, he knew very well that he has taken birth only for killing him (Dhronacharya). Even after knowing this fact he taught him all the aspects of warfare. (Veda Vyasa Muni also trikala Gnani).
There is an incident in Kanda Puranam where Agasthiya muni will me be made to see the marriage of Lord Shiva as picture when the marraige happens in North and Agasthiya muni will be in south. (direct telecast in today's language). Infact, Agasthiya muni will be purposefully sent to South by Lord Shiva to balance the weight of earth as majority of people had assemled to grace the occasion, when Agasthiya muni also visited Kailaya Malai (North) to be present in the marriage. This confirms that Satellite channel concept was thought by Indians well in advance.
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | Feb 23, 2006 6:39 am | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Interesting observations Ram.. and welcome back...
Yeah, I guess the west has to learn how to lift mountains, fly around using the mind, traverse space & time, view far away events without paying for Cable TV etc ;-)
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Feb 23, 2006 1:07 pm | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam,
again I am not discussing the west and east or the north and the south. All I am saying is whatever puranas and ithihAsAs and vedas and upanishads we hear, are all part of explaining the Nature.
As for the flying machines and astral travels, We really do not know if they were practical, for there is no proof, residues to relate to that other than a poets' rendition of what he/she has heard.
Coming to your way of discussing, why would you put drONA or vyAsA or anyone else as INDIAN? we know there was no INDIA at the time. Why couldn't they have been from USofA and had flown into INDIA just to help those whom they believed to be righteous. And since they came and recite and did things here the scriptures got "Stuck" to the now Indians. Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Feb 24, 2006 11:31 am | | re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | Ganesh,
The following links will clarify your doubt about the origin of Muni Vyasa and Duronocharyar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata (Background and History)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdoms_of_Ancient_India
V.K.L. RaamanathanPrivate Reply to Gyro | | Feb 24, 2006 12:24 pm | | re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
N K nayak | | In a lighter vein hope this is a discussion on
"sanadana dharma " and not
" Sandai than enn dharmam" ?
Cheers Private Reply to N K nayak | | Feb 24, 2006 5:28 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | It(the sandai) is a part and parcel of Sanadana dharmA.
Like the complan ad goes,
Not just vAi chandai but a complete planned theru chandai and sandai between the so called good and the so called evil
Not just once but at least 10 times
If not that, Adi sankara had to do a lot of "vAi sandai" to establish his theory. Remember the defeat he had when the lady of the house questoined him?
Hopefully mAdhvAchAriAr would have done that too.
About the wikipedia thingys, I will opine after I read them. Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 01, 2006 7:04 am | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Ganesh, Ram,
Has been a great discussion so far. I just went through all the messages from the beginning.
One interesting fact I noticed is that there are only 2 divergent strong opinions --> Modern science kicks ass (or) Sanadana Dharma kicks ass. There is no middle way.
Actually, in some ways Sanadana Dharma is ultra cool and in other ways Western science is cool.
Wonder if we can come at a consensus middle path before we continue on our war or words. :-)
Regards
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Mar 02, 2006 6:47 pm | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | They, the science and the philosophy, look divergent because we have accepted that philosophy and science talk about the same thing but are poles apart in a straight line. And therefore the middle ground is difficult to see/reach, if one stands at the periphery.
For those of us who claim to be in the middle ground( I for one), we tend to forget that standing in one place while the line is expanding at both ends distances us, the middle guys, away from both categories.
Bharat, it looked like this topic is overly ignored, and wanted to bump it (bubble it) up again. Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 03, 2006 5:51 am | | re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | Bharat,
In olden days, the females are stronger enough to carry & deliver multiple childs (more than 8) one after another and be healthy at their olden age also. But today’s modern physique (ladies) has become very weak after delivery of two or three baby. My grandma (Father’s mother) delivered 12 childs and still she is very healthy at her 95. The reason for this, I could see, is the highly energetic food from the healthy land. Over a period of time, the land lost all its energy because of scientific treatment to land and the present vegetable does not give us much strength as it is grown from pesticide & urea land. Whenever science brings some good to our society it also transport problem alognwith that. Science found equipments to dig the ocean and land to extract the resources. Earthquake and natural calamities are happening now when nature try to adjust itself. Science brought many processing industry, which finally damaged our ozone layer due to pollution. Aspirin cured what required nothing to cure a normal fever. The same aspirin was replaced by antibiotics lateron and then to multiple doses.
Science prevents us from being natural that finally brings much decease to human beings. At the same time science brings many comforts too. Otherwise, our communication through net could not be possible. By considering the pros and cons of science, what decision we come, when it spoils our basic needs by contaminating food, air and water?
So, when you say that ‘Modern Science kick ass’ I could understand it (but not in the literal meaning as you mentioned)
But about ‘Sanadana Dharma kick ass’ – you might enlighten me.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 03, 2006 12:49 pm | | re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | But Raam had we not used science there would not have been vedas and upanishads.
Let me explain with the little knowledge I know.
AgnirvA poorvA apa mAyathanam,
AyathanAvAm bhavathi
and
yA devi sarva bhudhaeshu,
shakti roopaeNa samasthithA,
the above two, aren't they trying to explain science philosophically?
Had it not been for science, we would not have fire or the wheel.
Had it not been for science there would not be RamayaNa and mahabArathA.
On the subject of living to a ripe age, let us take some examples ,
Dasratha lived for 100s of years but none of his children did
Buddha lived till ripe old age of at least 60, Adi sankara did not
My point is neither Science nor philosophy has got anyhing to do with it or did it?Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 03, 2006 1:35 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | If Science had not been, we would not have fire on the wheel but HORSE on car. So, we would have moved ahead without pollution.
I really don't understand on what ground you inform that MaHabaratha & Ramayana may not be there, if science is not there. Both are happened thousands of year before, prior to the evoluation of modern science. Even today we would have come to know both the epics by way of plam (written) and through verbal communication, without the help of any modern equipments.
With regard to quality of life, I am referring to common peoples, who are neither chathriyas nor saints. Secondly, I am talking of healthy life and not duration of life. Once the purpose of one's life ('janma' for ordinary peoples or 'avthar' for sages) is over, the soul will leave from the physical body.
Indian science brings advancement without any side effect. That is evident even today by Homeopathy and ayervedic. It is also proved that the exercise of yoga is far superior than the physical exercises that is done with modern gymnasiam equipments. It is proven that vegearian foods are best for health, which was the practice of our ancient Indians.
Modern science brings comfort (with much side effects) to our life , but Indian science strived always for better solution without any damage to nature. Indian science has done lot more to our society.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 03, 2006 8:33 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Had to do some editing....
Raam, I think you are taking the discussion to a different level.
We were discussing, Science and Philosophy. Now you are granularizing Science alone, and saying Indian science, modern science,western science and others.
on how RamayaNa and mahabarthA came out of science,
- the birth of Rama and his brothers is a classic example.
- Using a Flying chariot to abduct is a classic example
- Proving your strength by piercing 8(?) trees is a classic example
- Building a bridge across the ocean is a classic example
- Jumping into fire and coming out without physical hurt is a classic example, (eventhough her dignity might have been hurt)
- Opening your chest to show the picture of your Master and Lady is a classic example
- Karna's birth is a classic example.
- Having 100s of brothers is a classic example.
- Seeing the war, sitting in a faraway safe land is a classic example.
- bringing the chariot down to make your subject survive is a classic example
- gigantasizing onself, not once but twice is a classic example
and the list goes on....
On the discussion on age, what are we discussing the quality of life or the quantity of life?
If quality of life of Buddha and Adi sankra is same then it only means that it took Buddha so much pain to get what Sankara did in 32 years.
Also on the verbal communication and palm leaf writing, aren’t they science? The art of written communication itself is a science is it not? The form of verbal communication itself arises from the science of making sound,listening and make the brain able to understand sounds of similar nature with the context. Is it not?
Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 04, 2006 5:26 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | Ganesh,
The whole discussion is about 'SaNaDaNa Dharma' and its foresee that includes the capabilities of ancient Indians too. We are not discussing about all the religions (Philosophis) that is existing in the world.
Indian Science - Forecast and symbolic representation of what all invention can happen in future, throug mind power by our munis or saints or sages who practiced SaNaDaNa Dharma. SaNaDaNa deals with not only science but also maths, arts, management, war strategigs, law & justice, Jothisya and so many other things.
Modern Science or Western Science - The research & invention must be accepted by all scientist all over the world. Simple beliefs are insufficient to be accepted as science in this area. So, whatever you have listed will not be accepted as 'science' by world. Hence, I say that those all are based on Indian Science which is part of our subject discussion.
Energetic food bring healthy physique, but the will power is based on individuals strong desire and capabilities and not only on food alone. Swami Vivekananda also died very young. But his guru Ramakrishna Paramahamsar lived long. Is the will power of both are diffent in degrees, as both lived in the same period? No. Within the short span of life Swami Vivekandan delivered his messages to world that is equal to life period of his guru. So, both achievements are identical.
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 04, 2006 3:29 pm | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Ram, Interesting things to say in favour of Organic food. (food from the healthy land)...
;-)
Ram, on a serious note, from what you write, I understand the following:
1. Indian science stopped growing some 5000 years back.
2. It is totally complete and has no scope to change and is superior to all other forms of science or philosophy.
Nothing wrong with that especially if it means lesser pollution... but I think every science or philosophy is bound to evolve and has scope to improve...
I also think that Ramakrishna also lived long because he was waiting for Vivekananda to come along....
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Mar 05, 2006 9:07 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam,
the reason we had difference of opinion was that you said philosophy came before science and I said, science is something that happens all the time. You placed philosophy above science and I said I disagree with it.
Now I never discussed which of the science is better than the other. All I am saying the science related stories in our vedas and upanishads came as philosophies.
If we start dissecting science, we would see differences.it is obvious
So would we when we dissect our philosophies. And that is why we have dvaita and advaita, 4 different vedas , shastras, smrithis etc.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 06, 2006 4:05 am | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Yeah, also depends on what you see as science. To me, philosophy is also a science, so is religion.
Both Philosophy are religion are trying to answer similar questions --> those of existence... of space and time...
Only the approach is different.
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Mar 06, 2006 12:26 pm | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | bharat, that is why in one of my earlier post i had talked about the dog and stone. ;-) Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 06, 2006 2:29 pm | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharath Cola | | folks- this topic is like a mega serial and i had stopped by in the middle, so whats the current discussion under this topic about, will one of u care to reply with a synopsis? will appreciate that, so i can join in now!
bharath colaPrivate Reply to Bharath Cola | | Mar 06, 2006 5:22 pm | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Edited for spelling....
BC, in a synopsis, it is war again since Raam has come back. Join in.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 07, 2006 6:39 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | Bharat,
Philosophy : Gita - It deals with philosophy & Psychology.
Philosopical Part : Lord Krishna says "Hey Arjuna, Whatever you do, it is not you are doing, whether good or bad. I am responsible for each and everything" - just one example.
Pyschological part : Lord Krishna says " Hey Arjuna, If you do not fight now in the battelfield, the future world will quote you as a coward " when arjuna was confused to see all his belived against him. Here Krishna stimulate the subconcisious mind of Arjuna - preparing him to make fight - Just one example.
When philosophy says that "Jesus is going to come to earth again" - reincarnation theory, the empirical, testable, protocol of science will not accept this under "Science". (I am sure you are aware of the latest court case in Rome - Europe, where a Christian priest has to prove to the world that a person called Jesus really lived.)
Science is based mainly on proofs, logics, formulas and principles. Philosophys are mainly based on beliefs. So, can I say that the approach of both Science & Philosophy are entirely different?
Secondly, you say that Indian Science stopped growing is some thing like Maths stopped growing becasue after from 0 - 9 there is no additional new number and English stopped growing because after Z no new letter was found. SaNaDaNa Dharma attained its saturation.
Indian Science has given all the 'basics' to the world. With the permutation combination of these root causes, present & future science will perform.
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 07, 2006 6:40 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | Ganesh,
As you rightly says Science is something that happens all the time. Like gravitation was there in past (without its name ), it is there in Present and it will be in future too until the end of this holy world. Air, Land, Sky, Water, Fire (Heat or Sun), Gravitation force, Magnetic field, etc is existing in this world naturaly right from beginning.
I place SaNaDaNa Dharma above today's modern science for two reasons:
1. All the predictions were done well in advance without depending anything from outside (instruments). All the practices were done within (Meditation and penanace) and it did not harm any living creatures of world in the process.
2. Whatever was achived by mind power (told in the form of epics) are relevant even today.
'Thoonilum iruppan, Thruimbilum iruppan - Quantum Physics'
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 07, 2006 12:34 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam,
you are debating on my side. But here are some points which I would like to make to emphasize that our epics and philosophies were done to explain the science of Nature. The explanations differed/varied based on place,time and audience.
The vedas talked about the "ONE", let us call it "ether" for this discussion, in
- a feminine form
yA dEvi sarva bhudeshu....
- in a masculine form,
the rudrams<\ol>
- an uni gender form,
- agnirvA poorvA apa mAyathanam...
These were at the start of civilization when men moved away from nomadic life to settled life.
When the people from other places started settling/encroaching the aboriginal places in India, there needed to be a superiority and heirarchy issue to govern/set rules for the society.
The best tactics is fear tactics to overpower and encouragement to establish one's clan.
for example, I tell you about what I observe in Nature, with a story that encourages my own people beacuse they are shown as good men and scar(e) the aborigins by casting them as villains.
When we moved on there were lots of inter racial and inter cste marriages giving rise to new clans who were neither aborigins nor were they settlers.To control them came later stories which cast the villian as a pious ,learned person yet he makes mistakes, classic examples for these are Hiranyan,Ravanan,MahaBali.
And now for your thooNilum iruppAn.. thingy. How is it a quantum physics? Isn't the energy in a pillar more than energy in a smallest visible particle?
They both contain energy, no doubt but the amount is different.
I have always escaped plucking flowers from plants,by asking this question,
if the so called god is in the plant that has the flower, what happens when I pluck the flower out?
- is he/she in the flower?
- is he/she in the plant?
- did I cut a god into pieces?
- is the god in the plant and the flower same?
- .... and much more
Private Reply to Ganesh Ram
| | Mar 07, 2006 1:30 pm | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharath Cola | | Hey Ganesh - So the game is "i contradict whatever Raam says", right? is that my role in the game? :-)))))
Cheers
Bharath colaPrivate Reply to Bharath Cola | | Mar 07, 2006 2:24 pm | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Not just contradiction BC, but to question whatever is said. After all isn't questioning and reasoning a part of SD? Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 08, 2006 10:34 am | | re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Bharath,
Actually contradiction is a nice game to play. Though on here, you have to not only contradict Ram, but everyone else, and once they agree, contradict them again.
And if no one is found to be contradicted, you can contradict yourself
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Mar 08, 2006 10:53 am | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharath Cola | | I like it Mr.Pat!
Ganesh SD is a good topic to discuss, will join u in full swing
Cheers
Bharath Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Mar 08, 2006 2:38 pm | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | More on the thooNilum iruppAn.. thingy
IMO is more to highlight the singularity in plurality. That is eventhough matter can be visible in different forms and sizes, it is made out of energy. In other words, energy can exist in differnt forms and sizes.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 08, 2006 4:02 pm | | re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Here is something I understand from a recent reading of quantum physics....
All of basic matter is made of "Strings" and "wormholes". Incidentally, strings looks like "1" and wormholes look like "0".
Now according to quantum physics, a string can pass through a wormhole and reach any other part of the universe in any time-space in ZERO seconds. (Yeah, that is what they say).
From this what I understood:
1. To create this whole damn universe from the infinite past to the infinite future to the present, YOU NEED ONLY ONE "STRING" AND ONE "WORMHOLE".
2. The String+wormhole looks like a Shivalingam to me (Lingam+Yoni... Ram, please provide your gyan here...)
3. All time, past or present or future already exists now. So my posting on this forum in the future already exists HERE AND NOW. :-)
4. If you destroy either the one string or the one wormhole, you destroy the whole universe. ;-) Shakti(wormhole) cant do a damn without shiva (string) and shiva cant do a damn without shakti.
So I guess our ancestors figured out "superstring theory" 10000 years back... atleast my version of superstring theory. ;-)
Bharat
Private Reply to Bharat P | | Mar 09, 2006 6:05 am | | re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharath Cola | | Raam - I was jus kiddin, why this hibernation. pls join in.
cheers Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Mar 09, 2006 6:28 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | Ganesh,
If you feel that I am debating on your side, it is of no wonder bcoz that itself proves Sanadana Dharma travels each and every direction (Panoramic view) :-D. Avan unnilim irrukiran, ennilum irukkiran.
Today's Science discuss only about science, But SaNaDaNa Dharma discuss also about Science, that is the difference. Which means Science is one of the part of SD, Nature is another part, and so on. It covers all the subjects that is present today.
Noramally, all the flowers that is fell down naturally should be picked for making garland while offering to god. In earlier days, the cows milk will spill automatticaly due to overflow that is caught in the vessel and used as food. Milking by hand/machine was not considered as right practice then. That is the reason, Vegans won't consume honey if obtained from beehive by killing bees . So, striclty speaking, Pluking flowers from plants is killing the life of it.
Isn't the energy in a pillar more than energy in a smallest visible particle? Yes, you are right. But human beings are evolved from a single cell. This single cell splits into two and grows. But the origin is 'Singale cell' that gives life. So, Scientifically you can say that single cell has less enery than a growing human being. Sanadana Dharma gives more importance to origin and basics.
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 09, 2006 6:33 am | | re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | Thanks BC. You seem to be bringing good discussions to the message board. Keep it up.
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 09, 2006 7:14 am | | re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | Bharat Pat,
Excellent findings from your side.
In the beginning of this discussion I would have written that '1' is Sakthi and '0' is sivam. I related that to basic comuputer codings (binary). By correlating String and wormhole to shivalingam, you have brought one more additional and interesting view. Thanks.
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 09, 2006 12:39 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam, excellent.
But now you are trying to pull me to your side. You still have not accepted the fact that all our pholosophies, our scriptures, the magic in them and the science in them were to "explain" a process that occur naturally.
If energy can neither be created nor be destroyed, since bhramam is a single entity, how can the energy in a thurumbu be different from energy in the thooN. Also, if you say the single cell had less energy from what it evolves as a multi-cell organism, then this proves energy is being created. Which is against the concept of bhramam.
If you say plucking flowers is killing, aren't all of us who use flowers for worship and for decor merciless killers, killers of God?
Unnilum ,yennilum iruppavan oruvan yendrAl, ramAn thannaiyae kondrAn yendru thAne poRuL. Mahabaradhathil kannan idhai solli thappithu kondAn, AnAl raman appadiyillayae, munnindrum, pinnidrum konAnae, idhai yeppadi othuKoLvadhu?
The concept of linga was not very Indian, the ancient greeks, mesapotomians and all others had menhirs and other forms of the same structure. Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 10, 2006 9:44 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | Ganesh,
You have raised nice logical questions.
The science and magic in our scriptures is very much explained under the term 'Manthra Power'. This manthra was attained with full devotion and concentration power. Without any sexual intercourse Pandu, Viduran, Dhrudarastan born through eye contact due to manthra power (by muni Vyasa). How to believe that 'Mahthra' will have power? I can explain this with an example. Assume that the present world ends and new world starts right from scratch. If the future man comes to know in the beginning of the new world that people were able to see lively something that happens thousands of miles away sitting in their living room, his brain can never accept this in the initial stage. Because it would be beyond his imagination for that time. He may consider that as magic or miracle, but we are living in that world today. Like that future man, we today consider our ancient achievements are magic or miracle.
I think you are bit confused with 'soul' and 'energy'. It is said in our scriptures that soul can neither be created nor be destroyed. Only through food single cell evolves as multicell with the mechanism of our body. But that food can't create any single cell by itself. The concept 'Thoonilum iruppan, thurimbilim iruppan' advise us to treat every human being as equal and not to differentiate based on their status. May be I can redefine your question as follows: " If soul is eternal which can't be destroyed or created than from where new 'souls' are being generated when each living has got a single soul and the population of world is increasing every day & night? As per this logic shouldn't the numbers of birth & death of world nullify?"
Actually the purpose of flower is to bring pleasant to the world. By plucking it if the purpose is served, the flower feel happy as it has made his life meaningful and done its duty to the society. That is the reason it spreads very pleasant smell even after it is removed from the plant.
The soul of Rama and Ravana are same. There is no doubt about that. When it is told that souls are considered as equal it doesn't mean that the treatment given to physical body also should be equal. When Ravana is killed, it is a kind of love that is offered to Ravana by Rama, a great soul, in order to prevent him from doing more sins. According to Bema, Duriyodhana is well qualified to be killed but from the point of view of Karna he is the best in world. This is how a single soul is recognized different way by the same cadre people but not by god.
I can prove that the concept of linga is very much by our ancients. Ramayana happened in Threatha yuga ie before Mahabaratha period. After killing Ravana, Rama goes to Rameswaram to do pooja to sivalingam to get releived from the dhosam he had by killing Ravana. So, it is evident that Lingam was ours. Like Thiruvempavai and Thirupavai went to Thailand from here, lingam concept would have been adopted by ancient greeks or mesapotomians. (you can find this concept in bible also)
V.K.L. RaamanathanPrivate Reply to Gyro | | Mar 10, 2006 12:30 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam,
I do know you will try explaining the Magic. Keep it coming.
Here are my counter args.
1)If vyasA muni did with eye contact, why did he create three different type of person? Was it to get the mahabarathA rolling?
2)we do now know cloning is possible,but by eye contact hmmm.. who knows?
3)There was no pralayam after Rama avatAr or for that matter any of the avatArs.Therefore, the question of world ended and started from scratch is more figurative than what had actually happened.
4)Why is that none of our epics are mentioned in AshokA's time? he became a buddhist, so he ought to have known about buddhism but ramayana and mahabaratha? zilch
5)The thooNilum iruppAn ... thingy, IMHO, does not talk about humans at all. AFAIK, it was supposed to have said by prahalad, when his father Hiranyan asked him, if the so called narayana will be in the pillar, that hiranyan built. To which prahaladan said thus. which would mean,
unnilum , yennilum irukkum iravain, maNilum, marathilum
irupavanae.
6) The sum total of all packets of energy is a constant. And that is why you do see that eventhough the births and deaths do not nullify the Brahmam is one. if there are ten human deaths that does not mean there should be ten human births. It means that the portion of energy from these 10 deaths have transformed itself into some other form so as to balance.
7) Since the plants existed in this world before existence of Man, how is man defining the purpose of flower?
8) on Ravana, but who is rama to decide, ravana committed sin? Rama had his own set of misgivings. Ravana would have been at least 30 years older than rama if not more? The only mistake ravana had done, if at all, is to abduct Sita for his pleasure(which is debatable).
9)If god is within you and me and bema and karna and duruyodhana, how could anyone think different from other?Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 10, 2006 1:38 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | Ganesh,
Muni Vyasa created 3 child one after another because during first time, the lady afraid by looking at the appearance of Vyasa, so he predicted that weak child will born (Pandu), Second time another lady closed her eye during the process by looking at the appearance so it was a blind child (Dhridhrastrar), third lady was very co-operative so highly intelligent child born (Vidhuran). That is why he had to create three childs. Fish increases their population through eye-contact (intercourse). So, the concept is there by nature.
If you question about different yugas and its evolution, I don't think I can help it. The Yuga was classified as Gritha, Thretha, Thuvabara and Kaliyugha and life style of people in each yuga was predicted well in advance. Gritha Yuga - People of exact opposite charcters ( Devers and Asurars) were lived in two different world called ‘Devalogam’ and ‘Asuralogam’. Thretha yuga – People of opposite characters lived in one world but in different place ( Rama and Ravana ). Thuvabara Yuga - People of opposite characters lived in one house ( Pandavas & Duriyodhanas). In Kaliyugam, Opposite characters living within one person. That is why today’s person is a mix of good and bad (Rama & Ravana in one body).
By birth Lord budha is a Hindu, that itself is the proof that SaNaDaNa Dharama existed during his period. So, if you do not find our epics during the period of Ashoka, that is the mistake of history.
For understanding the purpose of flower, we need not have to go toepics & historys. If we understand the nature that is sufficient. There is a reason why Lord Laksmi is found sitting with lotus.....
Ravana was killed during war. Many people advised him to release Sita devi. But he refused to do so. Sita herself could have got releived from Ravana with her pathiviratha. But she wanted Rama to come for rescue to prove his strength to the world. I don't understand how do you take kidnapping other's wife very lightly and say that 'who is rama to decide, ravana committed sin?'. What Ravana did is a crime and not sin. If not Rama, who else will take action?
When we pour sugar in milk it will go and settle in the bottom of glass until we stir it firmly. The holiness of a person is sleeping in our body like a sugar in the milk. The quality of divinity is hidden in our body like a sculpture is hidden in the stone. With our endeavor we should remove our ignorance to see the divinity within us like an artist shapes a sculpture. So, everyperson has the holiness in him, but the percentage varies. Everyone's aim is to reach the maximum or ultumim. Otherwise there is no meaning in our life.Asking how could anyone think different from other? is like asking how come there is a difference in person appearance, if almost all the human beings are having one head, two eyes, two ears, one nose, two hands, two legs.....
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 10, 2006 3:59 pm | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Wow. I dont look at Ryze for 1 day and there are tons of messages on this string...
will write something tomorrow or on monday.
Have a great weekend guys and gals.
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Mar 10, 2006 6:37 pm | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Different Strokes | | A week to go for 100 days and this topic still going strong making each day a good learning lesson frm Raam, Ganesh &co. Collars up to be a part of this network.
Mala Private Reply to Different Strokes | | Mar 10, 2006 7:23 pm | | re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Thanks Mala.
Raam, the reasoning I have about Ravana was not after Sita are:
- Sita was an orphan. There is a story that says she was born to Ravana but due to astrological evidences,ravana had to part with her as a baby.(Late R S Manohar's drama)
- He did come to the swayamvaram,had he wanted, he could have abducted her then. He did not.
- Had he still wanted her, waging a war against Ayodhya would have been an easy victory. He did not.
- Rama had trespassed into Ravana's land.
- Sita did not heed to her instructions.So she could not have done anything at Ravana's place either.
- His rule was peaceful, hanuman himself says this. For a ruler of that nature, the thought of marrying a child(when compared to him) would be a big no no.
- assuming sita was Ravana's daughter, there are enough human nature in Ravana to bring his daughter home. MandOdhari and soorpanaka might have been against this and hence the ashoka vanam for sita.
Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 10, 2006 9:38 pm | | re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Forgot to add this link
Ravana's Daughter Sita 1
Ravana's Daughter Sita 2
Ravana's Daughter Sita 3 Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 10, 2006 9:57 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | and a version from the perspective of Sita,
about Ramayana in philipines Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 11, 2006 11:24 am | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Not to forget the Indonesian version of Ramayana. Aparently Rama was an Indonesian king. And yea, there were 2 of Sita -twin sisters, one married Ram, and another married Hanuman.
:-)
I know what I will do. I will get drunk and write about all kind of weapons, mental powers, spirituality and stuff.. and 2000 years later, someone writing on a forum (like we are doing now) will claim that 2000 years back, people were great and their philosophy was fantastic... ;-)
Kidding, but I think a lot of sages 2000 years back were on dope or were having severe delusions...
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Mar 13, 2006 7:22 am | | re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | Ganesh,
Astrology was propounded by eighteen eminent rishis. Asuraras are always against rishis. Ravana is Asurar of Asurars. So, it proves the fact that Ravana went by astrological predictions is mere an imagination.
If Sita devi is daughter of Ravana, any one Kambar or Tulsidas or Vaalmigi would have written that ‘truth’ in the Ramayana. None of them did so. There are some differences here and there when we analyse all the three Ramayana. But about Sita & core subject there is absolutely no contradictory among them. Are they liars?
If Sita devi is daughter of Ravana, will he try to separate her from husband by kidnapping her? As a father of her will he not approach his Son-in-law Rama & Sita and try to explain in convincing/pleasing manner that Sita is his own daughter?
If Sita devi is daughter of Ravana, will he participate in suyamvaram to marry his own daughter? (or) Will he not declare during Suyamvaram that Sita is his own daughter and ask King Janagar to handover her to him?
If Sita devi is daughter of Ravana, what is the ultimate message that is given to our society through that story. Are they trying to tell that ‘Astrology’ or ‘Jothisya’ is too strong that will even destroy someone even if he is powerful king?
It is agreed all over the world that Cigarette smoking is injurious to health and that is printed in the cigarette pocket too. But I wrote an article ‘Cigarette as Medicine’ and posted in ryze some time back that was appreciated by few who read it. Just to be contradictory and to make the article interesting & fun I proved that Cigarette smoking is very good for health. By quoting my imaginative article as proof, if someone says that smoking is good habit are we going consider that also as fact?
Similarly, saying Sita is daughter of Ravana is more of fun to me.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 13, 2006 7:35 am | | re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | Hi Manimala,
I thought only Ganesh, Bharat Pat and myself are showing interest in this thread. I understand from your note that others too are viewing this.
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 13, 2006 7:44 am | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | Bharat,
To the human eye, Pattinathar & Abirami bhattar look like mental disorder persons. Bharathiyar was not at all accepted even by their own community people during his period. But their sayings are having value today.
Similarly, we can write something today and that will be considered as great and fantastic after 2000 years provided ALL THE FINDINGS THAT IS WRITTEN BECOMES TRUE.
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 13, 2006 9:42 am | | Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | yes Ram,
Lots of people seem to be viewing it (The last count I saw was 949 views) but only a few of them are actually writing.
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Mar 13, 2006 9:55 am | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Ram,
Agreed, some of the Upanishads make very interesting reading and have some pertinent learnings. BUT.. doesnt mean they are correct or true.
Which writings written 2000 years back have become true? It isnt difficult to predict that in the future, people will be more advanced, have more stress, have more pollution (or less pollution), travel into space etc... Also not very difficult to predict things like corruption, failing human values etc.
It is not like only today, values are failing. I am sure 2000 years back people were as good or as bad. Only, nowadays, information spreads more easily and records kept are of more permanent nature...
It is unlikely that people 2000 or 5000 or 10000 years back were any better or any worse than we were...
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Mar 13, 2006 10:55 am | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | Bharat,
Just to quote few examples.
Plastic surgery (repair of nose surgeon by the skind flap on forehead) found in 1968 was told in Sushruta around 4000 years before by our ancinet.
Artificial Limb is been told in RigVed (1-116-15), which was found in 20th century.
Embryology was given thought in Eitereya Upanishad (6000 BCE),that was found by modern science in 19th century.
16 Functions of the Brain told in Eitereya Upanishad, was researched and found by modern science in 19-20th century.
Temporary Bridge on Sea is told in Ramayana.
Phythagorus theorm was found by our ancients as Sulbha Sootra (800 BC).
Atom Bomb as Brahm-Astra told in Mahabharath (5500 B.C)
The concept of Robot is been thought in Samarangan Sootradhara.
Bejan Daruwalla predicted Sanjay Gandhi's accident, Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, the Gujarat earthquake (and many more) by using astrology the concept of which is given by our ancients thousands of year before.
As you have written there are good and also bad people in those periods too. ( Devars and Asuraras). It is written in Arthshasthra about the punishment given for getting bribe.
In vedas, upanishads, epics and scriputres the basics of the modern advancement (Present inventions) are given thought well in advance.
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 13, 2006 6:31 pm | | re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam,
Ravanar(just want to give respect for his age and experience) ;-) was a Asura, a local. The very idea of oppressing the locals started when people from other lands started settling down( this is not about the aryan invasion).
there is a lot of side stories in each Ramayana according to time, place and to whom it was written. I hope when Kamban wrote the lines of Ramayana, he would made sita a south india look a like, and Rama the same. I do not know if valmiki had written the equivalent of ,
- Kandaen seethaiyai ( hanuman tells this to Rama)
- Annalum nOkinan avaLum nOkinAL(in that order)
- ninudan aruvarAnOm ( Rama to vibeeshana)
In a similar fashion, there is this bhajan,I think it is from Tulsidas ramayan, sung by Anoop JalOta,
- Gugan refuses Rama to set foot on his boat, instead asked Rama to put his foot on guga's palm.
- Gugan also have said to Rama, when Rama offered to pay him, People of same status do not accept payment. Explaining that while Rama is the Captain of the Earth, gugan is the captain of his boat
The reason I am citing these are, just because Valmiki did not write it does not mean the Epic did not take different forms within India.
Ravana was son of a Rishi. Why should he not believe in Astrology and predictions?
I clearly have given my side on the swayamvaram. Had it been a story without a proof, RS Manohar would not have staged the drama for nearly 20 years. Again,and again and again.
And I do not understand, When I say, all of these scriptures, upanishads and philosophies are science or materials that explain things that happen in "Nature", you seem to sideline my argument, but when you answer Bharat Pat, you seem to take up my side.
Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 13, 2006 6:33 pm | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Bharat, on your drunk and 2000 years.
One should be in "ecstasy" to write such great poems. Valmiki is a northerner and a dacoit, Chances are he would have had lot of "naturally occuring leaves" he he he
Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 13, 2006 7:12 pm | | re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | forgot to add an interesting Link,
Rama's childhood Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 14, 2006 5:50 am | | re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | Ganesh,
Based on the Kavithuvam (poetic nature), Kambar, Tulsisdas or Valmiki will narate the situation according to their imagination. If the style of writing (of the same subject) were not different, it would be of no interest to readers. But none of them have deviated from the main subject. Even in Ramanand Sagar's Ramayan telecasted all over India, & the DVD is famous all over the world we find no difference.
May be Director Manirathnam will direct Ramayan entirely different, where he will say that Rama is son of Ravana, and we will believe that too :)).
The objective of Rama avatar is to live like an ordinary human being. ( In Mahabaratha, Krishna will claim that he is the supreme and he is the god. But in Ramanayna, Rama will never say that he is god due to that particular avatharam). So, it is obvious that he has hurdles and difficulties throughout his lifetime.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 14, 2006 9:07 am | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharath Cola | | Hi Folks - If you need the latest perspective of Ramayana, read Ashok K. Banker's sequal of Ramayana which begins with PRINCE OF AYODHYA. Its realistic and gives a great clarity to many a myths that we have heard over the years about this great epic.
Its an astoundingly admirable writing by Ashok Bankar... he is yet to release his last book, which will finish the sequal.Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Mar 14, 2006 10:59 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | And if Rama did not claim himself as a god, why are we doing it? What is that he did that made people in Ayodhya think that he is more than Human or for that matter humane?
Ayodhya was never tortured by RavanA or his clan even before Rama was born.His brother, lakshmaNa had to commit suicide(or)killed by Rama in Rama rAjya. His wife left him. He had to fight his own sons to know that they were his.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 14, 2006 12:38 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Also,Rama did not kill ravana by himself.
Infact if not for vibeeshana, Rama could not have killed Ravana at all. For that matter, Rama never did anything by himself.
He was instructed by vishwamitra on how to kill the demons while doing yagna.
He was instructed by vishwamitra to step on the stone for AhalyA mOksham.
He was instructed by vishwamitra to break the siva bow. I think this is the start of vaishnavism trying to dominate shaivism.
He had no clue about vAli. Sugriva needed to test him to make sure rama can.
He was always waiting for someone to tell him what to do. Does this make him a good leader then?Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 15, 2006 7:04 am | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Ram,
You have pertinent points, but you have no clue of the difference between "Fact" and "Faith".
Events recorded by the victor, thousands of years back are hardly hard facts. To accept them, you have to have "faith" --> the same faith you need for religions.
Faith in something doesnt make it a hard fact. Even fictions written today have plenty of facts and truth in them. This doesnt make them facts...
It is the same with anything written before "mass circulation" of books started and communication improved. It is therefore difficult to believe anything written before the printing press was invented.
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Mar 15, 2006 11:55 am | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | Hi
will join in tomorrow.
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 15, 2006 12:14 pm | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Bharat, interesting indeed. I was watching a show late last night in our cable here. I do not if you get "comedy central" in India. Each night there is a world news show hosted by Jon Stewart. It is a satire of everyday world happening. Yesterday he interviewed an Author of a book titled "misquoting Jesus".
It seems , in this book the author claims, many side stories in today's bible were never there in the oldest known copy of the Bible.
That's brings me to today's point, which is,
Ramayana is more a story than anything else.
Probably valmiki did not portray Rama as an avatAr at all. These would have been later added by the Narayana and Vishu cults.
As years went by, we have been given the juice of valmiki ramayana, without knowing that the fiber in the fruit is also "good for life".
Just like how the vedas, were squeezed and the later scriptures came out of them, so did Ramayana and Mahabaratha.
As years went by, and the story travelled from place to place, some local events were added to the story to popularize it. Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 16, 2006 6:19 am | | re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Gyro | | Ganesh & Bharat,
After 184 replies and more than thousands of views we are now back to pavilion. We have reached the place from where we started ie epics are stories, vedas & scriputures only faiths and no facts, etc. This is what our pranava manthram also says. The world started from Soonyam, all sorts of life in the middle and going to be silence at the end (like soonyam). It is simply described as 'OHM'.
If we split tamil OM, it will be O + M. If we again split O, it will be Aa + Vu (first letter & fifth letter in tamil). So, it is Aa + Vu + Mm. Aa - Arooba nilai (Vaccum), Vu - Vuyir nilai (Life stage) and Mm - Mouna Nilai (Silence).
Like circle starts from single point and ends at the same point, our discussion has attained completeness. This is the beauty of SaNaDaNa Dharma.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 16, 2006 8:14 am | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharath Cola | | I see a Koravan's kalandha sadam of Theory and Knowledge in this discussion. No authority of authenticity in information flow...
SANADANA DHARMA is not about Knowledge, its about WISDOM born out of KNOWLEDGE... revolving round GNANA YOGA.
Gentle men - its time to gain WISDOM :-) Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Mar 16, 2006 9:29 am | | Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Wisdom itself is subjective and relative...
So what is wisdom anyways?
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Mar 16, 2006 10:56 am | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharath Cola | | Bull's EYE : Wisdom is subjective and relative!!!
Agreed!
Thats exactly what Sanadana wanted man to achieve, man to have his own Wisdom on LIFE.
Each individual, to have his own understanding of life, thereby have his own realisations from those understandings and
Apply them on his own, in his unique way to his living!!!
thats the glory of originality that each man should achieve finally, thereby fulfilling the creator's glory of having created each of us, so uniquely!!! ( do we realise that never in the history of this world, has there been anyone like you/me/or any other person. nor in the infinite of times, will there be another person like you/me/any-other-person, thats the uniqueness with which we are created by the creator)
So, why would existance create common wisdom???
Knowledge can be common...
but, Wisdom is individualistic, whcih is achieved, when the gained knowledge from he world outside, is understood and a NEW realisation is dawned in the intellect of that person.
This realisation is best realised when applied into that person's own life. On application when it translates into the physical world.... the world calls it as creativity!!!! becasue they are able to admire it for its beauty for they have never seen anything like it before. Its new, its original, its unique... just like you are unique and original!!!!
Thats Wisdom ;-)
:-))))) Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Mar 16, 2006 2:32 pm | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | How can wisdom be personal or for that matter relative? The idea of wiseness can be relative and personal. But Wisdom is a defined attribute of a society.
In a society wise is relative. The keyword is relative. Compared to something/someone you or I or elephant is wise.
If each of us feel we are wise then there will not be a cohesiveness in the society. And that's what Ramayana and Mahabaratha and all our epics and Jataka tales and what not gave us.
And that is why we had vedas and upanishads.
But Wisdom changes with time too. What is conceived/perceived as wisdom might not be the same at all times.
Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 21, 2006 8:40 am | | re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | Anyone who wants to read more on what faith is and what science is and should be, I suggest they read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear".
Regards
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Mar 22, 2006 5:16 am | | re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharath Cola | | HI ganesh - Been on a sabatical. Will come back to share thoughts on your comments.
I have read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear", its an amazing book!Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Mar 22, 2006 11:19 am | | re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | BC, borrowed from the pblic library ashok baners Prince of Ayodhya book one. Have to start my reading while commuting. Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 22, 2006 2:41 pm | | re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Bharat P | | If you find the eBook version of Prince of Ayodhya, let me know.
Will buy it.
bharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Mar 22, 2006 4:07 pm | | re: re: re: re: Indians & Sanadana Darma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Read few pages in the first chapter. yet to get used to ashok's style of writing. Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 23, 2006 5:12 am | | What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Bharat P | | sanAtana
1. eternal
2. perpetual
3. permanent
4. everlasting
5. primeval
6. ancient
7. Name of Brahma, of Vishnu and of Siva
8. a guest of deceased ancestors , one who must always be fed whenever he attends Sraddhas
9. Name of a Rishi (in Mahabharatha and later `" a mind-born son of Brahma "')
10.Name of Durga, of Lakshmi or Sarasvati
I believe there are many other meanings too... anybody knows any others, please shoot
Bharat Private Reply to Bharat P | | Mar 24, 2006 4:42 am | | re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Gyro | | Sanatana Dharma by Srila Bhakti Ballabh Tirtha Goswami Maharaja :
Due to the lack of real knowledge about the subject matter of Sanatana Dharma', now-a-days asanatana dharma is being spread as sanatana dharma. People, lacking the knowledge of the real meaning of sanatana dharma, are considering sanatana dharma as the religion of Hindus only; which is very limited conception. What is the real meaning of sanatana dharma? Following is an excerpt from a lecture given by the president-acharya of Sree Caitanya Gaudiya Math, Sree Srimad Bhakti Ballabha Tirtha Goswami Maharaj on the topic of sanatana dharma. One thing is dharma' and another is religion'. Both do not convey same meaning. We do not find any other word in English, so we use religion. In the oxford dictionary the meaning of religion is, "A system of faith, especially personal God entitled to obedience." Therefore religion' word is not a proper translation of the word dharma'.
We should understand it very well that performing rituals alone is not dharma. Upasana (worship) is the method. Mind will get purified by the remembrance of Supreme Lord (Bhagavan). Pure mind will result into love for Supreme Lord and love for Supreme Lord will cause the development of love for all the living beings related to Him. There will not be any violence towards anybody. Therefore love for Supreme Lord is the highest dharma.
Srila Sacidananda Thakur speaking in relation to the word dharma' mentions that the meaning of dharma' is nature'. Whatever the nature of each, is their dharama. In reality, dharma is of two types: Naimittik dharma (temporary dharma) and Nitya dharma. (eternal religion). For example, the nature of water is liquidity. However due to excess cold it takes the form of ice, and on getting heat, again change to water. The cold was the cause for the water to become ice, so ice is the naimittik dharma of water and liquidity is eternal dharma.
Similarly, two kinds of dharma have been seen for the jivas (living entities). Naimittik and Nitya. But before understanding these, we must understand what is the nature of jiva. Because only when the knowledge of the nature is there, it can be better understood which dharma of jiva is Naimittik and which is nitya dharma?
Now let's try to understand who is jiva in nature? Normally we understand body as the person, but do not tell body as person. We use the following terminology in our daily use - my body, my mind, my intelligence etc. Nobody says I am body, I am mind'. This explains that the speaker of I' is different from body.
Even if we see externally, nobody identifies body as the person. Whether it's an atheistic country or theistic, everywhere until the body has the conscious principle it is considered as a person. On loosing conscious principle, nobody calls the dead body as a person. So burning the dead body, giving it to animals or birds, does not cause any punishment. And nowhere the dead body has the right to cast vote.
Until the body has conscious principle, which is also called as atma or soul in the scriptural language, it is identified as a person and not a body. Until the atomic soul, the energy of the eternally existing, eternally blissful, eternally knowledgeable Supreme Lord, remains in the body, it is identified as a person. By the existence of that principle, I' remains and by the absence of that principle, I' do not remain; that is my nature (means, I am a soul). Soul is eternal, body is not eternal.
Now let's think about the real position of the living entities (jivas). Where from the living entities came? What is it's dharma? Lord Sri Krishna tells about it at one place in Gita that living entities are parts of His energy. However, at another place he says that they are His own parts. On the basis of second statement, some say that jiva is part of Bhagavan, so he is also Bhagavan. However this is not correct. The jivas are not mentioned as Bhagavan here. Both of the Gita's statements should be taken. Lord Krishna says, "apareyam itas tv anyam prakrtim viddhi me param! jiva-bhutam maha-baho yayedam dharyate jagat!! (O mighty-armed Arjuna! There is another, superior energy of Mine, which comprises the living entities). According to Gita, living entities are not part of Supreme Lord, a part of His energy. Because the part of the Lord is Lord only. Every part of infinite is infinite. The part of Lord is called as svamsa, all incarnations are Lord Krishna's svamsa. Every part of infinite is infinite, but part of the energy of infinite cannot be infinite. For example, the part of sun will be sun, however his light rays cannot be called sun. Even all the light rays collected together cannot be called sun. Similarly living entity (jiva) is part of Lord's energy, not of Lord's.
The jnanis explain tattvamasi' as You are that'. However Vaisnava teachers refute it and explain it as, tasya tvam asi, you are His or you are His (Lord's) servant.
Sun is 14,00,000 times the size of earth. If the sun's light is coming to my room by window, then I cannot say that sun has come to my room. Sun is 14,00,000 times of the size of whole earth, how can it come? It is the light rays of sun or the part of sun's energy. Even all the light rays collected together cannot make sun. Sun gives light, light does not become sun.
Lord has infinite potencies or energies, Gita talks about two of those, superior' and inferior' potency. Living entities (jivas) are superior energy. Material and subtle bodies are inferior energy. Sri Chaitanya Maharprabhu made it more clear that jiva is the part of Lord's marginal potency, atomic conscious. Jiva is from Bhagavan, in Bhagavan, from Bhagavan and therefore for Bhagavan. For example, if one asks the finger of hand, who are you?' and finger were to reply I am the person'. If we take the photo of finger, someone may get misunderstanding about person, because that is not a person. Similarly, if we consider jiva as Bhagavan, then we will be misunderstanding Bhagavan.
Just like, finger is a small part of body, jiva is also a small part of Lord's potency, not the complete Lord. Some people also say that we were Lord earlier, however became jiva by the influence of maya and we will become Lord again by chanting Soham! Soham!. This is completely wrong. This is not scriptural injunction. Because Lord can never become Jiva, Absolute is always Absolute.
Therefore Lord is eternal. Lord's potency is eternal. Jiva, the part of Lord's potency, is also eternal. Their relationship is also eternal and their dharma is also eternal. This is called as eternal dharma or Santana Dharma'. The meaning of Sanatana is, whatever existed in past, is existing and will remain to exist. However the dharma of body is not sanatana, because the body is destructible. Mind. The subtle body made of mind, intelligence and ego, is also not eternal. When one's tendency for sensual enjoyment ends, his subtle body also ends. Therefore the dharma of destructible thing cannot be Sanatana Dharma'. This is called as Naimittik Dharma'. Due to the influence of maya, soul has got two coverings, first is material covering and second is subtle covering. Both of these bodies have different nature. How many different types of material dharmas we have in our India?
Geographical barriers, Social barriers, National barriers! But the soul is superior to mind and body. It is eternal. Therefore it's dharma is also eternal. Sanatana dharma is dharma for not only India, but it is the dharma for all the living entities, who are in innumerable universes. The essence is that soul is eternal, body is destructible. Therefore all body related dharmas are destructible and only soul's dharma is eternal. Living entities are part and parcel of Lord's potency. Potency is always under the control of potent and serves the potent. Similarly the service of Lord is the highest duty of living entity. This dharma of soul is known as Bhagavat dharma, Sanatana dharma or Vaishnav Dharama. This is natural dharma of the living entities.
(This is available in http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0304/ET05-7960.html)
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 24, 2006 4:51 am | | re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Bharath Cola | | Ramm – on Dec 07, 2005 7:21 am you said….
…..Hence I had to prove that Hinduism and Sanadana Dharma are not two different things and both are same
Now you are stating
………People, lacking the knowledge of the real meaning of sanatana dharma, are considering sanatana dharma as the religion of Hindus only; which is very limited conception.
Your present statement is what I had stated in the beginning itself sir!
Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Mar 24, 2006 6:09 am | | re: re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Gyro | | Bharath,
During the time of existance of Sanatana Dharma there were no other religion. So, this is the one followed by all the people. Lateron when other religions formed, this Sanatana Dharma was renamed as Hinduism and considered as religion. Even the message posted does not tell that Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma is two diffrent things. It says that the rules derived under Sanatana applies to everyone in the world and need not to have to confied only to Hindus.
V.K.L. RaamanathanPrivate Reply to Gyro | | Mar 24, 2006 8:53 am | | re: re: re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Bharat P | | Ramanathan,
There is no real proof that Sanathana Dharma existed before all other religions, except from our Puranas and Itihasas.
Agreed, SD or Hinduism or whatever is quite an old religion/ way of life, but doesnt mean other places on the planet did not have other ways of life or religions
The Mayans, Aztecs and Incas did have their own religions, and so did the Egyptians, Babylonians, Sumerians and the Old Jews... except for Islam or Christianity, it is really difficult to state what the age of any way of life / religion is.
Bharat
p.s.: not to forget the Chinese - another ancient civilization.Private Reply to Bharat P | | Mar 24, 2006 9:23 am | | re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Bharath Cola | | correct!!!
It will be strange to state that SD was the 1st atom of all religions...
i could relate that all religions that arose from this part of the world and its neighbourhood, can be off shoots of SD - like, Buddism, Jainism, Sikhism etc Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Mar 24, 2006 12:35 pm | | re: re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Gyro | | Bharat and BC,
The early phase of the vedic tradition of Sanatana Dharma is dated between 10,000 - 7,000 BCE (approx.), based on the
current technolgy (Carbon dating and tentrochnology)prevailing. These technology has limitations and could not go further. So, even assuming the age of Sanatana as 1000 BCE, no other living tradition can cliam scriptures as numerous or an ancient as Hinduism. That is the reason why Sir William Jones, Professor Klaus K. Klostermaier and Max Muller had to praise about Hinduism.
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 24, 2006 12:39 pm | | re: re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam,
your explanation is in detail but comes from those who were god believers.
The reason why,
tat tvam asi
is not accepted by vaishnavites, is simply because they are dvaitists,while the saying itself was from an advaitist point of view.
Vaishnavism predominantly painted the god as "HE" while Shaivism accepted the "SHE" and "IT" part. That is why in vedas and upanishads we do see the "SHE" and "IT" part. that is why we have "You art thou" belief with shaivitic cults rather than vaishnavitic cults.
That which those(the early settlers from nomaidc life) accepted or wanted to be accepted in a society came as sanatana dharma. That does not mean other things did not exist.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 24, 2006 1:28 pm | | re: re: re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Gyro | | I understand that Srila Bhakti Ballabh Tirtha Goswami Maharaja has explained from the point of view of dvaitham. But on the bottom line if we see he talks about sanatana dharma.
If other thing did exist prior to SD kindly let me know. It will be helpful for my study.
V.K.L. RaamanathanPrivate Reply to Gyro | | Mar 24, 2006 2:40 pm | | re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Bharath Cola | | lets use simple logic Raam.
its beleived that aryans where the founders of Sanadana..
aryans where netherlanders who settled in india 1000s of yrs ago(netherlanders are from today's germany or europeans)
now - if they where( some of us being their decendents) so intelligent to form this, why not their peers who lived in netherland itself (central europe) or who also settled down meditteraian ( who also spoke a language called hebrew or romans) - form similar WAYs of LIFE or PATHS like Sanadana in a different manner, 1000s of yrs back. afterall they also possessed the same intellegence..
wat say? logic? Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Mar 24, 2006 6:09 pm | | re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Hot Seat, thAnga mudiyala. irukkattum, nadakattum.
Raam, sanadana dharma is only a composition of Nature's behaviour. How could you say the behaviour of Nature did not exist before this?
For example, when the animals of prey hunted, they did only to feed their own house. Not a pound more , not a pound less.Is this not one of the greatest facets of dharma? they were\are doing it even before we(humans) realized sanadana dharma. Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 25, 2006 1:10 pm | | re: re: re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Bharat P | | Ram,
The egyptian civilization was around 9000 BCE... just for your information.... Just because there are no scriptures means nothing really. Succeeding cultures could have destroyed older scriptures...
Secondly, you say that SD was around sometime from 10000-7000 BCE. But just go through most of your scriptures, and they talk about something more like "313 Trillion years" from one pralaya to another or something similar... The 4 Yugas are aparently something --> 25 lakh years....
IS it fair therefore to say that most of our scriptures are full of factual errors?
Regards
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Mar 25, 2006 1:38 pm | | re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Bharath Cola | | Bharat Pat
Awesome I say ... the last line especially!!!
ROFLMAO Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Mar 27, 2006 6:32 am | | re: re: re: re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Gyro | | Bharat,
Our scientist measured and revealed the size of earth, sun and the distance between earth and moon. Do they go all over the earth to really measure those sizes with inch-tape in their hand? They have some method and formulas to calculate the solar system which can't be done physically.
(We 'believe' those informations are right because we have 'faith' is their system. It is because our brain is formatted in such a way right from childhood that only the invention of present science is right as we stydy those scinces in our syllabus in schools. So, our brain finds it difficult to accept something that is beyond modern science).
In the similar way our rishis have transported their mind and found the details of yugas eventhough they are not physically present during that period. (However, their souls could have been there during that period in different forms.) Like peoples have faith in modern science inventions, I have faith in this. Otherwise the life of all maharishis, munis, saints, hermits, sages who dedicated throughout their life to SD would become meaningless.
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 27, 2006 6:33 am | | re: re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Gyro | | Ganesh,
I asked that prior to SD, is there any concept that studied nature, mankind, mind, willpower etc. and reported their outcome professionaly to the world like our vedas & upanishads.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 27, 2006 12:02 pm | | re: re: re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam,
my point was that, SD took things that were suitable from actions of nature and composed it into what we think it is. But the "practicing" part was there in Nature for a long time.
Also, like Mr.Pat has said, there were civilizations, even before SD was composed. They would have follow some dharma as well. SD could be the essence of those too.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 27, 2006 1:33 pm | | re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Bharath Cola | | Ganesh - My logic is also valid ma!! ;-) Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Mar 27, 2006 6:09 pm | | re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Hot Seat,
your logic is valid if only we agree on Aryan invasion. But that theory itself is a "big bongu".
Raam,
I wonder why these sages who went back in time( our epics are historical in nature) did not go forward in time to say what is it that the humanity going to expect. I think they found nothing pretty much substatial to write about.
I am reading Ramayana by Ashok Banker. His rendition is full of sorcery and magic. I have done only 100 pages. A good book for people who like action. But it looses the divinity touch.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 28, 2006 5:29 am | | What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Bharat P | | Ram,
It is fairly easy to replicate what our scientists have "claimed". You can do it if you undergo some training. So, even though you repose faith in them, you can quite easily replicate what the scientists have done.
I cannot say the same for the methods used by sages. The known age of the age is about 5 billion years and the know time life has existed on this earth is about 1 billion years. This I agree is a claim made by science... a claim based on radio carbon dating which tends to be inaccurate. However, not to the extent that it differs from 1 billion to 300 trillion years.
Also, the methods used to date stuff is known in public domain and can be tested by anyone before accepting. The same is true for most physical laws on earth.
So please read up on your 12th class physics and check out if Isaac Newton was right or not...
Regards
Bharat
Private Reply to Bharat P | | Mar 28, 2006 6:13 am | | re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Bharath Cola | | ganesh
not sure if we are now debating if sanadana was the work of aryans or not... can neither prove or disprove this.
bangar's book is not about divinity, infact neither mahabarata or ramayana are about it.
the book is supposed to reveal the true STORY written without the falsifications associated today with the same story... so its about experiencing the real story, rather than anything else. Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Mar 28, 2006 2:46 pm | | re: re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Gyro | | Ganesh,
Pl. read my posting dt. Mar 13, 2006 5:55 am, wherein I have given the list of future prediction of our sages. The basic root of (researh going on now) singularity you can find it in our vedic maths.
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 28, 2006 2:59 pm | | re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Gyro | | Bharat,
What I say is when you belive science and its inventions and it is proven I am saying that the concept taught in SD is also proven provided we dedicate our life to Vedas, upanishads and its core concepts, for which we need to lead a very high quality spritual life. If it is not possible we can go by people like Swami Vivekananda who did so.
V.K.L. RaamanathanPrivate Reply to Gyro | | Mar 28, 2006 3:22 pm | | re: re: re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam,
Where is there a place in any of our epics or scriptures that they point to a time in future to say this is going to happen. It is always historical.
Vedic math or vedic science is only a compilation of sequences or actions of Nature that suited the said crowd at that point of time. This does not mean that the writers of SD conjured them. They observed and compiled.
BC Alias HS alias PH, Ashok Banker's narration seems to assume that Ramayana happened in an hindi speaking time. Which would put it after Ashoka's period.
Not that I want divinity to attached to either of the epic. Infact attaching divinity is what I am against in these cases.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 29, 2006 6:40 am | | re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Bharat P | | Yeah Ganesh,
The should be right up there amongst the best fictional works of our times - Ramayana, Mahabharatha, Bible et al - alongwith Shakesphere. ;-)
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Mar 30, 2006 5:43 am | | re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Bharath Cola | | thats interesting ganesh, i didnt abserve the same... why would u state that its hindi speaking period? Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Mar 30, 2006 6:49 am | | re: re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Gyro | |
Tons of proof is available in the following link. But you need to have patient to read it completely.
http://www.spiritual-teachers.com/AmazingScience.htm
V.K.L. Raamanthan Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 30, 2006 9:08 am | | re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Bharat P | | Ram,
To learn SD for sure and prove it Correct beyond doubt, it takes a lifetime. (this is a claim, I am unable to believe)
To prove the distance between the earth and sun, it doesnt take a lifetime figuring out if I use the tools created by others. Same with any other thing which has claim to being "Scientific".
And yeah, I dont need to go by anyone's word, I can always replicate an experiment with ease AND I can also believe a scientist if I want to...... The choice of believing or figuring out is in my hands.... unlike so called religions, philosophies et al...
There is some truth in what SD or anyone else says, but to say it is 100% truth is foolishness... just like believing any scientist 100% is foolish.
We are always in a process of continuous discovery and invention and we continue to find out greater realities which encompass the present limited reality we are aware of scientifically...
Bharat
>Bharat,
>
>What I say is when you belive science and its inventions
>and it is proven I am saying that the concept taught in SD
>is also proven provided we dedicate our life to Vedas,
>upanishads and its core concepts, for which we need to
>lead a very high quality spritual life. If it is not
>possible we can go by people like Swami Vivekananda who
>did so.
>
>V.K.L. Raamanathan
>Private Reply to Bharat P | | Mar 30, 2006 12:09 pm | | re: re: re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam, went through the whole text in the link. None of that seems to have been a point of discussion. They all seem to have been an excellent achievements done in those times. None of them talked about future. They all say these were already invented/discovered/created/compiled. And modern science is simply finding them again.
Here are some questions
if panini's time is around 5 bce then how's our epics dated before that?
the idea of HelioCentric concept was proved incorrect in astronomy. So the achievements and calculations ...hmmm?
BC, on Ashok Bankers rendition, the princes are supposed to have been speaking a local language that sounds more Hindi and celebrating Holi. We do know that both of these are very young when compared what we usually know as Ramayana.
Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 30, 2006 1:41 pm | | re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Bharath Cola | | Dude as for as mythology goes, Holi is associated with the following aspects.
1. Harvest seasion in spring.
2. Mythology about Hiranyakashipu's sister dying in trying to kill Prahlad
3. Mythology about Krishna playing with gopikas.
all the above are before ramayana
also hindi is a off shoot of our old languages - sanskrit?Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Mar 30, 2006 2:34 pm | | re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Ganesh Ram | | W3 ,
Krishna before Rama!!!! I do not know about the wild and wind, but wacko, that you are.
What about his mention of samosas, betel leaf and paan?
The idea of immense sorcery and magic is another point to look at.
But happy that he had mentioned a tamil coconut vendor in his earlier chapter.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Mar 31, 2006 7:23 am | | re: re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Gyro | | Bharat,
You are right in what you are saying. SD never ask us to believe anything 100%. It encourageous us to question before accepting anything. Only in Hinduism we can discuss or argue about the existence of god. Swami Vivekananda is a practical man. He advised not to believe any thing in the world until we see or realise. We have such realistic scholars in our religion. Atheism is allowed only in Hindusim. It provides opportunity to debate and brings out fruitful results. This approach helps the people to achieve self realisation. In other religions the messages are unquestioned and accepted blindly. It creates a kind of mental block ( or brain wash) in the devotees mind, which Hinduism never does.
'Contradiction' are the great asset of Hinduisam. Without contradiction there is no debate. Without debate no self growth. Without self-growth no self realisation. Without self-realisation no realisation of GOD. Satsang is been given great importance in SD.
You say that we can use the tools created by others to prove anything under science. But what is the concrete proof that the 'tools' or formulas developed by others is foolproof method to benchmark anything? we have faith in our mind that those methodoloty are undoubtfully right. This is a mindset in us as explained by me in my earlier post. A hundred years ago nobody had heard of the Big Bang. The idea of the universe being suddenly created, all at once, out of nothing, was discredited fairy tale from chapter I of the book of Genesis. Where is the proof to belive that there was big bang? A T.V interviewer asked Stephen Hawking, author of A brief History of time, 'What existed before the universe began ? and was snubbed. 'That’s a meaningless question' - replied by Hawking. No question is meaningless if it is prompted by a genuine thirst for knowledge. Physicists expect us to believe their claim that the whole of matter came into existence at a single instant, about 14 billion years ago, is such a way that not merely something but everything was created out of nothing, thus breaking fundamental laws of Physics.
So, it is of no wonder if we do not believe or follow 100% what is said in SD. This is steppting stone and that is how I started my journey in this path. You are in the right direction.
Until 10th standard, we study all the subjects. Then we select particular subject ie. Science or Maths. There are further subdivision in Science as Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Zoology etc. In our higher study we select particular branch and study deeply. Finally Ph.D is done. In the similar way we pray all gods until we become matured. Then, we choose either duvaitham or advaitam. Again deep into particular branch and become master to it. But, both duvaitham or advaitam will lead to the ultimate aim. That is SURRENDERING to god, 100%, like done by Mathvachariyar, Ramanujar, Adisankarar, Swami Ragavendrar, Shri Ramakrishna Paramahamsar and many saints in this series.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 31, 2006 7:24 am | | re: re: re: re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Gyro | | Ganesh,
Thanks for acknowledging that excellent achievements done by our ancients those time. But at the same time you say that none of them talked about future. Both are contradictory. Today is yesterday's future and Yesterday is day-before-yearsterday's future. When it is found something thousand's of year before that is happening today (or few years before), is it not futuristic?
Secondly I had written in my previous post that our Vedas have discussed basics and the core aspects. When tomorrow some new invention happens, the R&D will be done with the logical sequences. The base for those algorithms is mathematics. The basic root of mathematics is already discussed in our Vedas much earlier. This is how we have to look at it and funnel down to understand the strength of our Vedas and Upanishads. The field of psychology developed in the recent timing. The method followed by Krishna to Arjuna in Gita, which is considered as fifth veda, is pured human psychology, when Arjuna refused to fight with Pithamagar, Drona and Gauravas.
I also had quoted the example of Bejan Daruwalla, a human being like us, who is able to predict the future life of key persons (their death in advance) by using astrology, which is one of the feathers in the cap of SD.
Mahabharata war happened during Dwaparyug. That was the biggest war ever happened where many kingdoms participated and died during the war. None of the king and their soldiers could save their life, except the people who went to war place just to serve the people. So, there was no much communication to outside world. This is described as dark period. After dwarparyug, kaliyuga started. And in Kaliyug the language Sanskrit would have evolved again from Panini, that is dated about 520 BC, approx.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Mar 31, 2006 12:30 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Ganesh Ram | | oops what a grave error on my last post on heliocentric. In fact it was heliocentric that is true. What I meant to say was the earthcentric solar system that the Raam's link was suggesting is a concept that was not true.
Raam, so you mean to say that mahabaratha happened before panini. It was all in sanskrit then. After panini's sanskrit grammar, mahabaratha was written/rewritten?
Also, self realization does not lead to god in my opinion. But the other way around. Believing in God is one way of self realization.
"KadavuL yendrAlae nammai kadandhu uL irupavadhu" patriyadhe.
So if you believe in god, you are already following the path to self realization.
But this is not the only way. Like I have said before, if I realize that you,me,yAnai,maram, thooN, thurumbu are all portions of the same energy , differing only by quantity and not by quality then I have acheived self realization. But this comes with lot more other questions that have to be answered.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Apr 01, 2006 9:36 am | | re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Bharat P | | Ram,
I do respect Swami Vivekananda, but only because he really had no message except goading us to find out for ourselves and not believe anything and everything which was thrown at us. The same is true for Osho, J. Krishnamurthy, Ramana or any of the other ancient sages.
I remember reading a book called "Ashtavakra Gita" which talks about exactly the same thing... find out for yourself what your reality is.. and stick to that. :-)
That is exactly what I am trying to say. I have no necessicity to believe any of the religion, philosophy or other stuff of either Hinduism, or for that matter any other religion. Whatever I find out, I will stick to that truth.
There is no need for a "God" or "Realisation" or similar concepts... all these concepts are but figments of the imagination of the mind...
In case you dont like or agree with what I just said above, please do check out a few upanishads, or the Ashtavakra Gita, or the Yoga VAshishta etc....
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Apr 04, 2006 9:37 am | | re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Bharat P | | Cant believe no one wrote on this thread for 3 full days...
HAs everyone gone into hibernation?
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Apr 05, 2006 5:47 am | | re: re: What exactly does Sanatana mean? | # |
Gyro | | Bharat,
I fully agree with you that ......." find out for yourself what your reality is......& Whatever I find out, I will stick to that truth ". This is the ultimate aim of being discussed about SD.
V.K.L. Raamanthan Private Reply to Gyro | | Apr 06, 2006 10:13 am | | Some interesting facts of Vedas by Swami Sunirmalanada | # |
Gyro | | Some facts of Vedas by Swami Sunirmalanada:
The Vedas we know contain eternal truths, and of all the truths, the knowledge of god or Atman is the most important one. Swami Vivekananda says ' the Vedas should be studied through the eyeglass of evolution. They contain the whole history of the progress of religious consciousness, untill religion has reached perfection in unity.' So the Vedas contain everything. The question is how did the Vedic truth appear in verse form? Who brought them to us?
An interesting incident happened some years ago. We shall not say whether the repercussions were good or bad; that's not our concern. But our concern is the incident itself. A revered monk sat as the president in some meeting. A musician started singing some Mantras from the Vedas set to her tunes. Unfortunately, the lady belonged to a race that finds it difficult to pronounce Sanskrit correctly. To this race, so becomes sho, ksha becomes sko. They pronounce daksha as dakko, Om becomes ong; sati as shoti, sahana vavatu as shohono bhobotu. She began singing the Mantras with the pronunciation characteristic of her race. This troubled the monk and he walked away. Immediately, there was an uproar that it was an insult to humanity; that woman were being insulted, that the monk had to be condemned. Perhaps, the monk was pained over something else. And what was that?
Imagine those bygone days of thousands and thousands of years ago when there was no writing imagine those days when there was no other civilization but the Aryan. Imagine the river and the sunrise and the trees. And the sages repeating Vedic truths to their disciples. And then the disciples memorizing them. For tens of thousands of years, this tradition of the teacher repeating mantras and the students memorizing them went on. It went on and on until writing was introduced. Suppose you could record the chants of two sages ten thousands years apart on two different cassettes-one sage of 15000 BC and another of 5000 BC and suppose you played both the cassettes simultaneously. You would not find any disharmony in the chants at all. Both sages, though thousands of years apart, would repeat the mantras in the same way, in the same tune, in the same rhythm and style. That was the wonder and greatness of our sages! So have truths, discovered some twenty thousands years back, come down to us today in their pristine purity, as they were! Only in modern times they have changed the tunes etc. but how did our Rishis achieve such a wonder?
The Vedic sages had scientific methods to propagate Vedic knowledge. They had the vedangas.
1. Siksha meant that Vedas had to be recited compulsorily every day in a systematic manner. The mantras had to be chanted in a methodical, scientific way. For this, there was jata-patha had two forms : ayvakrita jata-patha or 'reversed recitation'. To repeat ishavasyam, as it is was termed avyakrita and to reverse it as vasyam isha meant it was vyakrita. This system was so complex and so scientific those modern scientific minds would be bewildered at their own haphazard ways of training! Then there was ghana-patha, and so on. This was the grand style of teaching so that not a single letter was lost.
2. Vyakarana or grammar helped teachers teach the rules of conjunction and interjunction, sandhis and samasas, the lingas and vibhaktis etc., so that no truth or mantra was distorted.
3. Chandas was meant to give tunes to the Vedic mantras. Suppose students were to repeat mantras in a dry mode. They would become bored. So, the wonderful tunes of mantras, especially of the Sama chants.
4. Nirukta was meant to serve the purpose of a thesaurus. Sage yaska used the dictionary. Nighantu, to develop this system.
5. Jyotisha. The sages were not parrots, just keeping the mantras in memory had they been parrots, the mantras would have been powerless and useless and Hinduism would not have had its vitality today. So, each sage performed sacrifices described in the Vedas, practiced sadhana as described everyone could not perform all the sacrifices and all the sadhanas mentioned, they were divided into schools and institutions, and each independent schools and institutions, and each independent school became a custodian of a particular sacrifice rite and portion of the Veda. In order to follow Vedic injunction at the right time and at the right season, the science of astrology or Jyotisha was developed. Calculating the Zodiacal positions, the nature, position, effects etc, of the stars and planets was a wonderful science that was developed independently to help humanity. I generally ask this question to those physicists who decry Jyotisha as nonsense: How many centuries ago did modern science discover that the sun is in the Centre and there are nine planets revolving around it? How many aeons ago did Indian scientists of old discover this truth? Just because Galileo Galilee said that sun was the centre, priests tortured him and Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 AD! The problem with the scientists is what's available to the five senses and to the instruments that bring knowledge to these senses, alone is true. The rest is simply false. And every day a scientific theory is tumbling out. If science were everything, why did they fool people all these years with their big bang theory? Now they say that was a mistake!
6. Kalpa is the science of performing sacrifices, composed in the form of aphorisms. There are four Kalpas: Shrauta Sutras, Grihya Sutras, Dharma Sutras and Sulba Sutras. These Sutras guided the sages in their lifestyles and activities.
We can clearly see from this simple introduction itself how great the Indian science of the Vedas was! It was not a cock-and-bull story written by fools. It was a wonderful system developed over millenniums! Just one challenge to modern scientific people: Please show us one single case of grammar in any other language of the world which has a Sutra system like that of Panini. Please show us a single dictionary in the worlds in verse form like that of our Amarakosha. It's simply impossible to imagine how our ancient scientist thought of such systems. India is great; Indian history is great; Indian thoughts are great. Let's bow down in all humility to Indian thought and learn from it. Let's study the Vedas. The Vedas are not terrific Sanskrit things. Anyone can read them using transaction. And there are wonderful translations. If foreigners can study them and do such a lot of work on them, why not we? Our ancient knowledge has come to us after much difficulty and tremendous sacrifice. Millions have died in the hands of invaders to save Hinduism. Let's not forget their sacrifice.
You may ask: If Indian Vedas are so great, if it is such a perfect science, why did India suffer so much? Why is there no development at all here? The reason is this: Exactly one thousands years ago, gold was sold on the streets of India like we sell groundnuts! The world envied Indian progress. Indian scientist taught the whole world! Nalanda, Taxila and other universities were the oxford and Cambridge of the world! We lost everything because of Muslim invaders and the subsequent occupations. Now, once again there is interest in the Vedas and we shall rise once again there is interest in the Vedas and we shall rise once again, Swamiji has declared time and again: 'India will be raised, not with the power of the flesh, but with the power of the spirit; not with the flag of destruction, but with the flag of peace and love….'. ' I see in my mind's eye the future perfect India rising out of this chaos and strife…'.
From Guru to disciple, from disciple to disciple-the river of Vedic knowledge flowed in this way. And now we have every gadget under the Sun. But today we don't follow the metres and Chandas that the Rishis have followed. We want to set film tunes to Mantras and sing them in such a way that the deergha becomes a hrasva, a word becomes three words, a sentence becomes meaningless and the pronunciation is simply preposterous. This we call modernity! Modernity indeed! To preserve knowledge through all the vicissitudes without changing even a single letter for thousands of years is not a joke. Reporters can't report what they see the previous day correctly, not to speak of thousands of years!
Let's memorize this sentence from Vivekananda: 'There is no new religious idea preached anywhere which is not found in the Vedas.'
( This is from the link http://vedic.indastro.com/learn-astrology/howto-vedas.php) Private Reply to Gyro | | Apr 06, 2006 11:39 am | | re: Some interesting facts of Vedas by Swami Sunirmalanada | # |
Ganesh Ram | | The key factor in reciting vedas in a particular fashion arises from the fact that the verses were to be memorized without having a written script. It has nothing to do with anything else. But the pattern for reciting is an excellent art/science we had while reciting them. That is why I think the grammar written for sanskrit came from the way vedas were recited.
This would not have happened in a single day, that is why each of our vedas have a different up and low tones, different methodical repeats and other forms.
Vedas can be credited for one of the first formal verbal communication. For example, imagine, in the caves when man started to lead a "stay put" life, he started sitting around the fire and talking. The first of the communications would have been one of the says something and the others repeat and say the same. Some others repeat the same words but in different order. IMHO,These were the starting of our vedas.
When understandable words started featuring into these verses, then it became one person leads and the rest chorus one of the lines. A good example for this would be,
-- the lead person recites
Agnirva poorva mAyathanam, AyathanAvAm bhavathi
-- the chorus
ya yaaevam veda, yOpa mAyatham veda
AyathanaVAm bhavathi
You would still see this when yagnas are done at hindu places, one priests leads and a bunch of others only finish the line. Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Apr 06, 2006 5:25 pm | | re: re: Some interesting facts of Vedas by Swami Sunirmalanada | # |
Ganesh Ram | | The chorus thingy did not gel well. The chorus line was
AyathanavAm bhavathi
alone, the rest by the lead reciter.
Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Apr 07, 2006 9:41 am | | re: re: re: Some interesting facts of Vedas by Swami Sunirmalanada | # |
Bharat P | | Ram,
Interesting things to say.
However, to say that script was discovered only 4 or 5000 years back isnt exactly right, is it? Atleast the Devnagri script, it is claimed is as old as creation and civilization.
So then, why werent the vedas and everything else actually written down and handed along by repeating them everyday?
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Apr 07, 2006 10:51 am | | re: re: re: re: Some interesting facts of Vedas by Swami Sunirmalanada | # |
Gyro | | Bharat,
Thousands of years ago, yogis meditating in the utter silence of caves or mountains, were able to withdraw their minds not only from external sounds, but from the noises of the physical body as well. They could then focus their minds on centres of subtle energy inside them. Along the spine and in the brain, there are seven psychic energy centres or chakras which control the functioning of mind and body. Most human beings are unaware of these chakras, but when the mind and body become more refined through meditation, these subtle energy centres can be perceived and controlled.
Those ancient yogis who directed their inner ear toward these energy centres, were able to hear the subtle vibrations emanating from each of them - 49 different vibrations in all. Then they spoke them aloud, and each of these subtle inner sounds became one letter of the Sanskrit alphabet.
Thus, the Sanskrit language - sometimes called "the mother of all languages" - was developed from the externalised sounds of our subtle internal energies. It is the human body's eternal song.
Rythm in which it is told is very important. That's the reason it was taught through verbal communication to disciple or students from Guru. The script came lateron.
Hearing Skanda sasti kavasam in voice form would be different from text form if we read it from the book, though it is a tamil song.
V.K.L. RaamanathanPrivate Reply to Gyro | | Apr 10, 2006 3:13 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: Some interesting facts of Vedas by Swami Sunirmalanada | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Excellent description of origin of sanskrit. But origin of ancient languages like tamil or other tribal languages would start the same way, is it not? After all sanskrit would have started as a tribal one too until the tribe was able to propogate the same across other tribes and communitites. Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Apr 12, 2006 6:27 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: Some interesting facts of Vedas by Swami Sunirmalanada | # |
Gyro | | Sanskrit is not used in daily conversation (except in certain families) although sizable number of words in vernacular languages have originated from Sanskrit. As a high level Indo-European language, one time, it had widespread influence on the people in Asia and Northern regions (including part of Russia.) Unfortunately, over long time period, due to conquests and expansionist attitudes of certain beliefs and societies, it stayed concentrated mainly in India/Nepal region. For example, there is an original word "sthaana" in Sanskrit meaning place, which is now changed to stan (Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Turkministan, Afganistan, etc ) indicating that the language was circulated in these regions.
More importantly, a huge number of Sanskrit works, reaching back in time to the oldest Vedic hymns, have also been preserved without the use of any writing, through careful memorization and oral recitation. And we know from the detailed testimony of ancient phoneticians that the pronunciation of Sanskrit has remained remarkably similar over a period of thousands of years.
If we go in to deep of origin of languages, I feel that that would deviate from our subject. From the school days syllabus I remember that
tamil grammer was formed by Tholkappier. Compared to Sanskrit, Tamil is also a admirable language which has Thevaram, Thiruvasakam, Thirkural and other ilakkiyams.
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | Apr 12, 2006 10:24 am | | re: Some interesting facts of Vedas by Swami Sunirmalanada | # |
Bharath Cola | | Not just sanskrit - a host of other languages was also formed on the same basis - like Hebrew and Arabic, they are also based on the sounds that enable the activiation of the 7 Chakras.
The super significance of the word AUM is its pronouced as Hhaaa-ohhhh-mmmmm
1. the sound of "HHAAA", eminates from the gullet thus knocking to open the energy clots of the 3 chakras of Muladara, shvadisthana, and manipura.
2. the sound of "Ohhhh", eminates from the region of one's chest knocking to open the energy clots of 2 Chakras - Anahat and Vishuddha
3. the sound of "hmmm", eminates from throat/head, knocking to open the energy clots of the 2 chakras of Ajna and Sahasrara.
The significance of AUM is, its the only word from which all the important sounds emerge and from that ONE word, we can tap the enternal pool of energy from each of these 7 chakras.
The same is implimented in Christainity and in Islam with the words - AMEN and AMIN, if your pronounce these words like AUM, they will also address the above 7 chakras. just that it needs to be constantly repeated with the right connotations and voice modulations to get the best results.
Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Apr 12, 2006 2:32 pm | | re: re: Some interesting facts of Vedas by Swami Sunirmalanada | # |
Bharat P | | Talking about Chakras, and Om's effect on them ... arent we getting into the realm of the "unprovable" here?
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Apr 12, 2006 7:20 pm | | re: re: re: Some interesting facts of Vedas by Swami Sunirmalanada | # |
Ganesh Ram | | on chakras and Aum and languages
kandavar vindilar
vindavar kandilar
;-)
Had to bring back the topic to a post somewhere in betweenPrivate Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Apr 13, 2006 9:20 am | | re: Some interesting facts of Vedas by Swami Sunirmalanada | # |
Bharath Cola | | are we discussing only provable aspects, here?
or
are we discussing possible ways-of-living with logical acceptance which when practiced can only be self realised??
Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Apr 27, 2006 5:40 pm | | re: re: Some interesting facts of Vedas by Swami Sunirmalanada | # |
Ganesh Ram | | If self-realization is the only thing then where is the question of discussing? Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Apr 28, 2006 4:17 am | | re: re: re: Some interesting facts of Vedas by Swami Sunirmalanada | # |
Gyro | | Self realisation is not the only thing, though it is the ultimate goal. To attain self realisation we need to understand the concept which values are eternal. Otherwise we can't develope faith in the system. IF there is no faith we can't move ahead. That is the reason it is required to discuss 'what', 'why', 'how' of SR.
The whole purpose of studying acccounts is to analyse the Balance sheet of a company. But to reach that level Trading account is prepared first followed by P&L account where many adjustments have to be done to know the net profit and so on to complete the process. When we discuss about self realisation we are in the first step like studing debit & credit of accounts and its golden rules.
V.K.L. RaamanathanPrivate Reply to Gyro | | Apr 28, 2006 7:05 am | | re: re: re: re: Some interesting facts of Vedas by Swami Sunirmalanada | # |
Bharat P | | On self-realisation, everything else doesnt matter... so why does it matter now...
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Apr 28, 2006 5:38 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: Some interesting facts of Vedas by Swami Sunirmalanada | # |
Ganesh Ram | | If all the self-realization ideas were created by people who self-relaized why did they ever do it? Doesn't that put them on a "under self realized" category? Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | Apr 29, 2006 4:46 am | | re: re: re: re: re: Some interesting facts of Vedas by Swami Sunirmalanada | # |
Gyro | | Bharat - Yes, for the one who attained self-realisation, everything else does not matter including the status of self-realisation. But for ordinary people like us it matters lot to understand & practice it as we are not exposed much to this concept.
V.K.L. RaamanathanPrivate Reply to Gyro | | Apr 29, 2006 4:49 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: Some interesting facts of Vedas by Swami Sunirmalanada | # |
Gyro | | Ganesh Ram - The idea of self realisation is not created by some people, the knowledge is given by super natural power through vedas and upanishads. Some people practice it and get enlightened. Some enlightened people by birth try to educate the concepts to human society. So, we can't put Mathvachariyar, Ramanujar and Adhisankarar under 'under self realised category'. The ultimate aim is to merge our soul with Paramathma.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | Apr 29, 2006 10:55 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Some interesting facts of Vedas by Swami Sunirmalanada | # |
Bharath Cola | | """"If self-realization is the only thing then where is the question of discussing?""""
Self Realistion is the end... the path is in discussing, sharing, learning, guiding one another... there is a day, when all answers to the questions of the mind are filled and the Vessel of Mind is FULL to the brim, its then - the final journey of self realistion starts... till then its imperative the mind seeks answers, clarifications, validations and the likes.
Talking about Faith :
THis has to happen from within and not enthrusted from the outside world, what ever is enthrusted from outside world would be blind-belief. True faith is born out of Self Realisation.
Cheers
Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | May 01, 2006 11:51 am | | Sanadana Dharma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | To all participants,
I changed the subject back to Sanadana dharma
Raam, How can one ever say that someone is "self realized" if that someone still have an urge to make people follow his /her/its philosophy?
MadvachAriar and AdhiShankarar were poles apart in their teaching. Weren't they? Had they not preached, common man would have been more nascent in his belief. Wouldn't he?
The great gurus of each cult in hinduism were only doing what the political parties are doing now(Crowd gathering). I probably would need better set of words to explain what I mean, but then I assume you understand.
If self-realization is the end, w3, isn't that mean anyone who had died has self-realized?
Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | May 01, 2006 3:20 pm | | re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | Gamesh Ram -
I didnt know the usage of the word "end" could be understood as the end of life!
In the process of the quest towards reality, the end "process" is self realisation. That is what I had meant, by using the word - "end". Hope it clarifies.
Also wish to share my 2 cents on the point raised to Raam...
When one is truly enlightened ( Self realised), there can only be 2 potential possibilities of their physical existance thereafter..
1. To withdraw from the materialistic world and live in optimum solitude and blissfully keep experiencing the SELF within.
or
2. To have a sence of gratidude towards this humanity, for it contributed to him/her right from birth till date in the form of parents, teachers, friends, relatives etc... and a sence of compassion towards humanity to dispel their ignorance and suffering, the way he/she had dispelled it and make them also experience the same joy and bliss... in that gratidute and compassion, they genuienly reach out to the society and help them realise their true self.. atleast that is what they attemtp to do... to spiritually enlighten the masses
So i beg to differ from the statement that these earnest self realised contributors are equvalent to political parties!
on the contrary - some low moralled individuals, knowing that masses at large get attracted to these spiritual self realised individuals, for their personal gains have capitalised on the masses ignorance and possed as such self realised individuals and garnish - power, wealth and status... its these low moraled individuals who spoil the good work of the self realised induviduals...
thats my 2 cents.
cheers
bharath cola Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | May 01, 2006 4:50 pm | | re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | w3, If end does not mean end of life, then every person will be a, "klingon", clinging to his breath and wanting to live more. if not by himself, his followers will induce him to be.
Adi Sankara, for example, had to live a life of a married man and had to comeback to do the final rites for his mother because he had promised. The mutts he had established, esp the sringeri mutt, the head of the mutt or the Acharya has gold worn ( is this materialistic?).
The above is just an example. We do know the business side of operation of many religious sects.
To run a mutt money is needed for day to day operation, so how can we talk about anyone in these sects as unmaterialistic.
To put in another way, should one be unmaterialistic if he is self realized?
Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | May 01, 2006 4:51 pm | | re: SaNaDaNa Dharma | # | 
Raajeish Shah | | Hi
Check out this web site:
www.vri.dhamma.org
Raajeish
Network Leader: http://fengshui15-network.ryze.com/
Feng Shu, Vaastu, Astrology, Numerology, & Lecher Therapy, Consultant.
Reconstructing Old Dilapidated Buildings, Eco Housing, Wind Mills, etc...Private Reply to Raajeish Shah | | May 02, 2006 6:21 am | | re: re: SaNaDaNa Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | Ganesh - End of a paragraph in a book, does not mean refering to end of life. my usage of the word end in this context was with a different relevance and not end of life...
************************************************************
Need of Money for a noble cause and Materialistic Needs are two different things.
Mother Teresa needed money to feed the needy, that is not her materialistic needs, right?
Bharath Cola needs money to upgrade his Sony Flat TV into a Sony Plasma TV, this is materialistic needs, right?!
So if some noble organisations need money one cannot classify those as materialistic needs.
************************************************************
w.r.t some Matt personal having gold what ever - dont wish to comment about them here - cause I dont validate their actions. this is an interesting point, I wish to start a new topic due to your observation... will do :-)
************************************************************
With your last question - should one be unmaterialistic when one is self realised? thats a very interesting question...
what is said about Self Realised personal is, they dont have a natural urge towards materialistic desires, when they reach the stage of self realisation.
its not about if one "should be unmaterialistic" when one is self realised, it is said that one "would be unmaterialistic" when one is self realised. so its not forced, its a natural state of being.
my views on this subject is...
I beleive in Krishnahood!! thats the way to be, ideally thats my way of self realised life. Krishna means celebration, abundance, realisation, riches, vibrance, and life. He lived life King Sized though he was born in a jail, bought up by foster parents, grew up as a cow herd and finally LIVED a KING and he was GOd himself. who is the source and destination - all in one.
Thats how i think each should aspire to live - a self realised person, but still live live to its fullest in king size and be the source of inspiration and strength that he was to the pandavas - to other people and help humanity the way he helped..
thats my aspiration of living life.... krishnahood!
Cheers
bharath ColaPrivate Reply to Bharath Cola | | May 02, 2006 9:02 am | | re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Gyro | | Ganesh Ram,
Here are my views addressing to your points, though many were already covered by W3.
Self-realisation is for mind & soul and not for physique. Body is used as one of the tool to achieve SR and that tool is not all in all. Soul in body is like body covered with dress. So, at the end of life the dress is removed but the soul still lives in piece, which we pray when we go to their samadhis. The saints share the information (like 'art of living' by Sri Sri Ravisankarji) what they learnt during their life but they do not ask us to follow their path. It is our desire to further deep into subject or to find our own way of life. That's the reason various concepts were tried & practiced by our Mahans.
The leaders of SD are least interested in crowd gathering. Otherwise, the population of Hindus would have been much more than other religions. The saints always want to be isolated from the crowd and for the benefit of society they go to places to preach the concepts of SD. Even the purpose of Adishankara to establish mutt was not for crowd gathering. To have a right source of information from the right channel these institutions were formed for those who would like to practice religious matters systematically. Adisankarar did not live life a married man (like Ramakrishna Paramahamsar). Sankara promised his mother to come back to do the final rites when he Got his mother's permission to enter the Holy Order of Sanyasa. The person who strictly follow SD should not deviate from the path of truth. So, when he did his final rites to his mother (as a fulfilment of his promise) that is also part of SD. There was no such rule formed by Adisankara that during Kanagabishegam the sankaracharyas should be respected with gold worn. These kind of later practices are due to the desires of disciples (like lord shiva accepted meat from Kannapanayanar when served with true love) to see acharyas in that fashion. However, it should not make any difference for the acharyas whether it is gold, copper or iron.
To achieve self realisation, one can practice attached detachment. To live life consciously without affected with the positive and negative effects of it. As a net result we will feel complete peace in our mind, as we don't see differences in any thing. So, one can also be materialistic to attain SR provided the results of his endeavors/duties in his life do not affect him. This is what Gita also teaches us.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | May 02, 2006 10:15 am | | re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharat P | | Interesting arguements.
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | May 02, 2006 2:38 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam, W3,
get going excellent.
But it still remains the fact that Adi sankara and Ramanuja talked about entirely different forms of self-realization. And were very much part of pulling the common man to either one of them.
It is also true that Adi sankara had to bow out in his debate to one of his disciple's wife before the disciple became one of his.If I am correct this is the time, when she asked him about married life.
A self realized person, IMHO, would not preach, teach or get involved in any activity. For this person there is no good or bad, evil or good(what is the opposite of evil BTW? English is so deprived), the correct and incorrect, right and wrong, hunger and full(in all aspects),doesnot ask nor tell. Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | May 03, 2006 8:24 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Gyro | | Ganesh,
The doctrinal differences between one or the other of these three systems, Advaita, Visishtadvaita and Dwaita, have an underlying unity in them that irrespective of the diversity in their approach and application they all lead to one final Destination or Source, both being one and the same, which is the Vedic Brahman.
Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva all hold very similar standpoints in dharmic matters. They agree on how to live the everyday life as per SD, the importance of living in tune with ones dharma, the importance of devotion, prayers and things like that. The differences are in their descriptions of reality and our way to realization of the
Absolute.
When Adisanakara engaged in a deabate with Mandana Mishra, Bharati Devi wife of Mandana Mishra asked him to answer about physical relationship of a husband and wife, and how that is related to Nirvana, before declaring him as winner. Shankara being a sanyasi does not know the answer to this and requests for some time to find the appropriate answer. With the super natural powers of Shankara he enters the dead body of king Amaruka to experience the life of a married man and comes back with satisfactory answer for the question asked to him.
If we agree that self realised person would not preach, teach or get involved in any activity then we can't brand Lord Krishna as self ralised as he preached & taught Arjun during war and also engaged in many other activities. (Infact, lord Krishna is cause for Guruchethra war). A self realised person, like Swami Vivekananda, would preach, teach and also involve in other activities (subject to Dharma)but not bothered about the outcome of results.
V.K.L. RaamanathanPrivate Reply to Gyro | | May 03, 2006 10:06 am | | re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | Folks,
My Understanding of SD is - it helps ONE lead a HOLISTIC life. Havnt had the authority to state its contents - since I dont have any documented data of its contents... its been hear say from trustworthy sources.
My understanding of SD in today's relevance is - for one to lead a holistic life, one should live by his/her conscience(value system, priciples). Today's common man has a far more developed intellect that probably the common man 2500 years ago.. with the globalisation effect perculating to the nook and corner of the world, its clear that one's value system is relatively generic and universal on aspects of life, death and living.. so I may dare state that today's common man if chooses to practise his living purely by his Conscience, that in itself will lead him to a humanitarian living and will pave way for compassion and service towards fellowing humans and other living beings... if one can achieve this, then comes the stage of self realisation - because I dont beleive a human being to be able to achieve self realisation, with a SPLIT between his Conscience and his Actions.
So Stage 1, Scene 1 on the path of Self Realisation ... is to align our actions to our conscience...
Cheers
WWW Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | May 03, 2006 12:05 pm | | re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharat P | | Like I said before, someone should print all this in a book --> "The chronicles of SD on Ryze".
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | May 03, 2006 12:30 pm | | re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | and hey - we should hold the rights of the book...!!!
WWW Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | May 03, 2006 1:45 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | If Krishna and Vivekananda are self realized persons then what constitutes self-realization? if Self-realization is to understand "I AM IT" as you are then what is the reason to inculcate,preach,teach, impart this knowledge to the other person? Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | May 03, 2006 1:56 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | Ganesh Ram - Pls re-read my post on May 01, 2006 11:20 am....POINT number 2. it answers your question.
WWWPrivate Reply to Bharath Cola | | May 10, 2006 10:12 am | | re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharat P | | Ganesh, your post reminds me of an extract I read several years ago from one of the biographies of Ramana Maharshi.
Maharshi was asked why he did not go around and try bringing enlightenment to all the people of the world. to which he said --> "When we have a dream, we interact with several people in this dream. When we wake up, do we go back to the dream and try to wake up all those people in the dream?"
Bharat
> If Krishna and Vivekananda are self realized persons then
> what constitutes self-realization? if Self-realization is
> to understand "I AM IT" as you are then what is the
> reason to inculcate,preach,teach, impart this knowledge
>to the other person?
Private Reply to Bharat P | | May 10, 2006 4:10 pm | | re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | ahA. Then what RM was saying was it is your action\inaction that should make people follow, Just like the bees fly to the flower that has nectar. But the flower does entice the bees by showing themselves bright and vibrant. Would the bees fly to a less colored flower? Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | May 11, 2006 5:39 am | | re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Gyro | | When one become self realised he needs not have to be a leader to lead a team of whoever wants to acheieve the status of same. However, they can share their experiences if they desire so. Though the goal of Ramakrishna Paramahamsar and Swami Vivekanandha was same their route was entirely diffrent. Swami vivekanadha wanted to go to places and teach the concept of SD whereas Ramakrishna Paramahamsar did not do so. He wanted to preech whoever come to him. SD opens door for all category people but leads to a centre common point. ie purifying the mind to the maximum possible level and merging the soul with Paramathma.
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | May 11, 2006 1:21 pm | | re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | Compassion & Gratitude are the reason to reach out to others.
Compassion :
When one really feels ONE with IT, then he realises if he is so, then so is others - but they suffer in ignorance of it.. that's when compassion takes over to reach out and help others reach there possibilily.
Gratitude :
I remember a true story - when a man was lost with no money he bumped into George Bernard Shaw and requested 10 bucks for his transporation to reach his home town and assured of sending back the money by post. George Bernard Shaw gave him the 10 bucks and his address... promptly after a few days George received a thank you note and the money... but he sent the money back to that young man with a note - saying, "instead of returning my money, pls help someone else the same way that I did for you".
Guess its the same feeling for these enlightened lot, on their path to enlightenment - their ignorance and questions would have been answered by many learned lot and in the end, when reach they reached to the state of IT, it would be their way to thank the lot who helped them initailly, by helping others!!! Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | May 16, 2006 4:43 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharat P | | So what exactly is SD? There is aparently no definition as everything and anything comes under it.;-)
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | May 16, 2006 8:25 pm | | re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam, if I am self realized why would I have a desire? Or in other words if I have desire(any form of) Am I self realized? Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | May 16, 2006 8:28 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | W3, if compassion is still a part of your heart then how could one say you have realised It? After all knowledge or the devoid of , should mean no difference to a realized person is it not?
Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | May 16, 2006 8:32 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | BPat,
kandavar vindilar, vindavar kandilar
read
vinduvadhu as definePrivate Reply to Ganesh Ram | | May 17, 2006 4:17 am | | re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharat P | | Point is --> Until you know for yourself, everything is speculation.
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | May 17, 2006 7:28 am | | re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Gyro | | Ganesh,
Just because you have food in front of you, it will not fulfill your ungry until you consume it. It will have following seqences.
Consuming the food
Relishing it
Digesting it
Converting into required energy
Outing the waste
In the similar way first we should read the contends of SD, enjoying the breadth and length of its acumen, understanding the real meaning of it and practicing the same in our life by neglecting the unwated desires. So, just having desire is not self-realised.
The status of self- realisation is achieved only when there is zeroness of desires among one. So, no question of Whether a self realised person will have any desire.
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | May 17, 2006 8:00 am | | re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | Ganesh Ram -
What makes you say that a self realised person cannot feel "compassionate"?
I am sure that ONLY a Self Realised Person can truly feel compassionate with One and All.
WWWPrivate Reply to Bharath Cola | | May 17, 2006 9:36 am | | re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | Comman Man like you and me, cannot sustain compassion or even the traces of it for too long, for our Ego's needs will be served by us sooner than later, forgetting the compassion towards others. Its only a self realised man, whose slave is his Ego, can sustain compassion towards fellow beings in continuity. Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | May 17, 2006 2:02 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam,
my take against the example is, does filling my hunger, need all of these step with food?
Do I need to relish food to fill my hunger?
Am I consuming the food or the food gets consumed?
Am I digesting the food or the food gets digested?
Am I converting it to required energy or it gets converted?
I guess my take is , there are certain things that happen by Nature. Having born and living, Hunger is a part of it, consuming food is an auto reaction of Hunger. Do we have to relish? My answer is NO. I can eat for my hunger without relishing.
Similarly, SD is something that is automatic, there is NO finite aspect for IT. Those who have realized never speak about it. Like how a plant's(kept in a box devoid of light but for a small hole) shoot gets directed to the source of light, so will those who seek IT. The source of Light does not require the plant to follow it.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | May 18, 2006 9:09 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Gyro | | Ganesh,
I agree with you. Digestion & other process occur naturally or automatically. But eating the food is mechanical that will happen only with our effort. That bare minimum initiative is required from our side to allow rest of the other things happen. Once we have interest in the subject (of Self realisation), like consuming the food with our effort, automatically we start going to spiritual discourses, try to build relation with people of similar nature, start reading books with comparable subject, engaging ourselves with satsang, start doing meditation etc.
About relishing of food: Assume that the food is served in the form of capsule (like the one supplied to space goers in rocket) that compensates all required energies of our body. BUT the capsule won’t reimburse the satisfaction of relishing the food. Becoz satisfaction is realised only by mind. ( I am citing this example coz mind has been given great importance in SD). In the similar way it is of no use just reading the concepts of SD and memorising it. It has to be imbibed by relishing it.
If those who have realized never speak about self-realisation, a question will arise as from whom the concept of SR got emerged. Lord Ramanujar is consided as Avtar of Lord Vishnu's mate. He went to the top tower of temple and propounded loudly the mantras open to all (which was considered as wrong practice then as it was taught only to uppercaste people) so that even an ordinary people can get to learn about it and identify their path. Deoing strong penance in dense forest in silence mode by sages is not self realisation as there is a purpose doing so. A self realised personality will not see you as Ganesh and me as Ram or we as ryzers. He/She will see everything as soul. His/her inner mind will treat King and begger as equal. To bring the people from poor (spritual status) to rich, a self realised people will defintely make an attempt, whether they succeed or not.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | May 18, 2006 11:41 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | Hi Ganesh - Looking forward to your thoughts on Compassion ... Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | May 18, 2006 1:31 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | W3, compassion is something that is very social.
If I am self realized would I mingle into the society? Or even if I do will call anything as an atrocity?
For me there will be no religions and also no castes. L
ike I said earlier, a stage will come where I have realized you, I, elephant,amoeba or forthat matter living and non-living, enity and non-entity all are one. There neither is correct nor incorrect.
If that is so, how can I say what I do is correct and the others incorrect. If I say that then, 'thAn yendra Agandhai", couldn't find an equivalent for this phrase in english, surrounds me and therefore I am not self realized. Am I?
Tell me, If I go into a crowd and say, if you want your life to be full, then you have to follow my teaching, am I self realized? or Am I a social thinker, imparting knowledge onto those, who I think, are "devoid of "?Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | May 18, 2006 3:27 pm | | re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharat P | | First let realisation (or whatever else) come.
Then we will determine if there is a society after this.
Then we will think of compassion. Compassion is just another definition which sounds "cool" in new-age terms.
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | May 19, 2006 3:01 am | | re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | INteresting...
"Compassion" a new age term - hmm? This word has been around for aeons... so not too sure.
Than Yendra Agandai -
I dont see anything wrong if one such enlightened person walks up to the masses and says "I have a better way, for you folks to live, to lead your lives a more happier, contended and fulfilling life and for that you need to follow my messages"... I dont see THAN YENDRA AGANDAI in this.
on the Contrary if anyone walks up to the masses and says "ONLY I have a better way and if you follow anyone else's way then its of no use, Follow ONLY my way".. it is here I see the AGANDAI playing a role.
my 2 pence remains as "compassion will be the only expression and purpose of living post self realisation"
Cheers
WWWPrivate Reply to Bharath Cola | | May 19, 2006 5:16 am | | re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | w.r.t the aspects which contribute for someone in the path of self realisation, SD has mentioned 3 paths, these time tested and proven methodologies,which most of us would be aware off, are
1. Bakthi Yoga - thru faith, surrender and devotion
2. Karma Yoga - thru physical labour and execution of duties
3. Gyana Yoga - thru intellectual quest
The religious choose the 1st one - Bakthi
and the one who understands his responsibilities and dedicates himself to it, adopts the 2nd one - Karma
our current discussion in this network is in the direction of Gyana Yoga.
If this grp agrees and accepts the above, I wish to post this question for further exploration.
We as social being with our family commitments today, if we aspire to reach the destination, which in your opinion is the suitable one amongst the above three to take up as a means... ?
the logical asnwer seems - Karma Yoga, but the intellual being that we are, tend to pull ourselves to Gyana Yoga, our deep rooted mythological back ground may drive some of us to Bakthi Yoga.
But with a bit of everthing, we stand in cross roads, so is it the right way to mix match a part of each or is it ideal to select one way and progress. if so which one - bakthi, karma, gyana?????
Looking forward to inputs.
WWW Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | May 19, 2006 7:51 am | | re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Gyro | | It is very complex to define which would be better way for Salvation, whether Bakthi (Way of devotion) or Karma (way of action) or Gyana (way of knowledge) as the path leads to central common point ie Moksha (Mukthi).
Karma Yoga praises action (Karman), without attachment to the fruit of action. Karma yoga helps to fight greed, anger, non-discrimination, lust, pride and jealousy within us and take us to the stage of mukthi finally. In the concept of karma yoga, one gain considerable merit (punya) through their action they may enter heaven (swarga) on death. Equally they may be punished in hell for evil deeds. This, however, is seen as only a temporary condition and these souls will eventually re-enter the cycle of reincarnation.
Gyana Yoga seeks the secret of what moves us, the secret of what we call the soul. The Vedanta praises the human intellect as one of the greatest gifts of God. All the tools of our consciousness are examined one by one, and one by one it is recognized: I am not this, nor that. And thus, at last we arrive at the core of our being, recognizing it as the "I". In Gyana yoga the mind and body is cotrolled with the help of meditation to realise the 'athman' within us. It is some what difficult path.
Bhakti is the easiest and most natural way to reach the great divine. It grows gradually just as flower or a tree grow in a garden. Bhakti Yoga leaves to each of us the choice of the image of God most comfortable to our inner nature. It is the surrender of the whole self by private acts of devotion and temple worship, as personal bondage is the greatest of all barrier that prevents us to attain mukthi. There two most popular god Bhakthi Yoga are Vishnu and Siva. Bakthi yoga can be followed by any category of people in the world, whether Sudra, Vaisiya, Chathriya or Bramin. Karma yoga or Gyana yoga can be followed only by a selective people and not by all. In bhakti we find the concept of the grace of God. The act of bhakti prepares the worshipper to receive and encourages the deity to grant a blessing.
So Bakthi yoga is the best one among all the three.
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | May 19, 2006 8:39 am | | re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | Thanx for elaboration Raam...
I would request you to relook at my question, its not about amongst the 3 which is right... but the question is,
Yesteryears when man made these 3 processes as a means to self realisation, probably man could comfortably fit in one of them..
the men of today are more intellecually sharper (i mean the average man ) in comparision of yesteryear men, and today's man is also got the deep rooted religious background and he constantly fights between his beliefs and need for proof of these beleifs.
to top it all today's man is that much more hard working (we all do work 10+ hours a day and also spend 1-2 hours travelling) then yesteryear men -- apart from ryzing :-)
in this circumstances, which is the best and why?
WWW Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | May 19, 2006 9:24 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Gyro | | The laws changes proportionately when the yuga changes. SD understands the pattern of human being living in different yugas. As dharma could be seen seldom in kaliyuga, even a little good thing offer more benefits. The goodwill that takes 10 years to achieve in Gritha yuga would be equivalent of One year in Threatha yuga, One month in Dwapara yuga and one day in Kaliyuga. (This is narrated in Naradha Puranam). So, even little amount of prayer from our side, let say half an hour a day to do jabam in the name of lord Vishnu, will have much more impact in this yuga. Rest of the other day we can be loyal in each & everything of our act, that itself is a great devotion. So, even in the present circumstance Bakthi yoga is best.
V.K.L. Raamanathan Private Reply to Gyro | | May 19, 2006 10:12 am | | re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | Raam - This kinda beats me, your writings are based on mythology.. can we have a pragmatic discussion.
Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | May 19, 2006 11:54 am | | re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | no offence meant though.. but its hard to base discussion on these terminologies... Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | May 19, 2006 12:50 pm | | re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Gyro | | Hi cool man. This is not based on my mythology. Lord krishna says in Gita that Bakthi Yoga is best way to attain Mukthi (Like Radha bakthi towards Krishna). That one was missing in my previous post.
Happy weekend.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | May 19, 2006 1:09 pm | | re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | Ok, I will put it like this.. Bakthi Yoga is not possible because, surrender is not happeneing. Though proof of Bagavat Gita may be there, this is the situation.
Kindly explore solutions.
Happy weekend too..
BharathPrivate Reply to Bharath Cola | | May 19, 2006 2:47 pm | | re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | W3,
the time I say I have the solution that you do not, I shroud from all others in the first place .
My question is if I see you and me as the same then where and why would I discriminate anyone? Rather, I would be living my days that will appeal to others to follow. I do not live for others nor for IT. I live because of IT. If death comes it comes without much ado or fanfare.Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | May 20, 2006 6:47 am | | re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Gyro | | Bakthi yoga is not possible for ordinary human beings like us. Because so many small small sacrifices have to be done by us which we are not ready to do. Even a simple thing in our life we can not compromise like refrain from eating non-veg, thinking sex in bad sense, showcasing our knowledge whenever it is possible, differentiating people based on their intellectual level etc. We always want to win in life rather than lead the life. If we consider full surrendering is PHD than starting our life with simple bakthi towards god is LKG. The bakthi starts with idol, then Jabam, then Parayanam in temple, then parayanam without idol (by just thinking of god in our mind), next Getting 'Deetchai' and then try to merge our soul with paramathma. Once we plan our life in this manner (if we desire) in the present life, during next birth we start our life from the place where we left. So, surrendering will happen after we ourselves qualified to that degree in the previous births.
When our thoughts are happening in those lines (theology) that itself is the good steping stone to realise god, which not many people can even think of it.
Just because not many people practice Bakthi yoga or the people whom we mingle do not have that calibre or we don't come across such people in our life we can't come to conclusion that Bakthi yoga is not possible or surrendering is not happening. Secondly, people like farmer or fishermen can not follow Karma yoga or Gyana yoga. They can only follow Bakthi yoga with simple prayer.
( In our case or atleast for me, I can't follow bakthi yoga. I can choose only Gyana yoga. I hope the same would be applicable for you too and other ryzers.)
V.K.L. Raamanathan
PS : Cola, I understand that my writtings in general are not as smooth as others. So, whatever just crops in my mind to the suject I simply write that. If it appears as if I try to challenge the ego of othrs I sincerely apology for that.
Private Reply to Gyro | | May 22, 2006 4:56 am | | re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | My question is if I see you and me as the same then where and why would I discriminate anyone? Rather, I would be living my days that will appeal to others to follow. I do not live for others nor for IT. I live because of IT. If death comes it comes without much ado or fanfare..
Ganesh Ram the above statement is in agreement or disagreement of what??? Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | May 22, 2006 4:57 am | | re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | no apologies sir, just ramble ur thougths thru.. in a way ordinary mortals like me can understand! Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | May 22, 2006 11:20 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | w3 said,
if I see you and me as the same then where and why would I discriminate anyone?
You would not is my point. And therefore you/me would not ask people to follow. which leads to the next line of yours.
Rather, I would be living my days that will appeal to others to follow.
But this is where I look myself at crossroads.
That is why I gave two ideas that were opposites in my prev. posts.
-
When I talked about bees and flowers, it looked like the flower should show itself bright and pretty for the bees to come.
-
When I talked about the plant in a dark box and source of light, I looked at how a person will be attracted towards IT without IT have to advt. itself
I do not live for others nor for IT. I live because of IT. If death comes it comes without much ado or fanfare
I accept. Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | May 22, 2006 2:55 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam said ,
my response inline
Bakthi yoga is not possible for ordinary human beings like us.
if it is not for us then who else?
Because so many small small sacrifices have to be done by us which we are not ready to do. Even a simple thing in our life we can not compromise like refrain from eating non-veg, thinking sex in bad sense, showcasing our knowledge whenever it is possible, differentiating people based on their intellectual level etc.
why is eating non-veg a problem with bhakti yoga?
ThiNan kaNappa nAyanAr Ana kadhai nammku theriyum allavA?
We always want to win in life rather than lead the life.
To have a want as leading the life itself is a part of winning. is it not?
If we consider full surrendering is PHD than starting our life with simple bakthi towards god is LKG.
I have nothing to say since - I do not have a phd
- Neither I have a god
The bakthi starts with idol, then Jabam, then Parayanam in temple, then parayanam without idol (by just thinking of god in our mind), next Getting 'Deetchai' and then try to merge our soul with paramathma.
There can be no such detailed "single" path towards realization is my opinion
for there might have been lesser number of idols in the days of "suryavamsh" and yet we had great souls.
When our thoughts are happening in those lines (theology) that itself is the good steping stone to realise god, which not many people can even think of it.
But realizing god is not bhakti. or is it the only thing for bhakti?
Secondly, people like farmer or fishermen can not follow Karma yoga or Gyana yoga.
AdhanlathAn yenavO, andhaNanin thalai ganam veLathil adithu sendradhu.
Those are the two professionals of many who have knowledge of Nature.
They can only follow Bakthi yoga with simple prayer.
The very fact of life that these provide food for others is much more than any of the yoga that is mentioned here.
Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | May 23, 2006 11:56 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Gyro | | 1. An ordinary human being becomes extraordinary when he gets rid of greed, anger, non-discrimination, lust, pride and jealousy. Then one can attain his goal through bakthi yoga.
2. Mind of non-veg eater can't get allinged with spritual link that easily. That is the reason all our religious superiors refrain from eating non-veg. Kannapa Nayanar was prepared to hallow out his own eye through the arrow and replace it to shiva's eye when he saw it was bleeding. His bakthi was to that level of dedication. As his life style and eating habit was different from that of Brahmins, his surrendering plays the major role here. Being a nonveg eater, would we go to that extent to sacrifice any of our body part through bakthi yoga?
3. Leading life is not winning life. To win in life cunningness and selfishness also required besides hardworking. The meaning of leading the life in this context is just to accept whatever that occurs to us.
If we have high fever we should not get worried and seek for immediate remedy by swalloying aspirin. We shoud wait until it gets cured automatically. This is what I mean.
4. Idol is just a tool to train our mind. Even by meditating pravana manthra one can purify his soul and get merged with Paramathama. What important here is the degree of bakthi.
5. I quoted fishermen and farmer as an example coz they maximum number of them may not understand the concept of soul, Karma thoery in the deepest sense as their exposure is limited. So, when there are three ways to atting the god that is discussed here, the suitable way I told for them is bakthi yoga. This is applicable for other group of people also who has less or no knowledge about the concept of super natural power.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | May 23, 2006 1:52 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | When the mortal form(s) of the god(s) that we revere is/are by themself(ves) meat eater(s) then why is that a mortal human cannot be one? Meat eating has nothing to do with bakthi.
Like you accepted, Kannappa nAyanAr is one.
On the other end of spectrum we see Shibi and Karna who were ready to take the pain for others.
In the matter of Karna, he was much more into bakthi(dedication) than anyone ever seen or lived, that is why you see Krishna had to take a promises (through kunti) from Karna, took his shield out and also asked him for alms when Karna was dying.
These also teach us a very important thing, going to temple and idol worship is not the only thing.
Unconditional, non reciprocatory love is the start. It is inborn. Acquiring Knowledge hides it. How?
Show your hand to a child when it has a bowl of eatables. The child does not think twice before giving it to you. Do the same to a 4 year old, the reluctance sets in. Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | May 24, 2006 5:56 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Gyro | | What happens to us if we eat Non-vegetarian foods? NV foods consume a large amount of energy while being digested. Tamasic food is said to withdraw our energy, make us more lethargic and vulnerable to disease. Our mind also becomes more negative. Emotions such as anger and greed are said to take hold if we eat overcooked (NV) foods. The sattvic foods bring calmness, peaceful and clear energy to achieve the goal through bakthi yoga.
When we are child we do not know which is right and wrong. The kids eat the food that is prepared in the house. Lateron if the kid, after grow, realises that he can never try bakthi yoga as he/she was meat eater that should not stop him growing further in the spiritual line and hence incidents like Kannapa Nayanar will help him to eliminate such reservations from his mind. Whenever we read purana and our scriptures we should understand the core messages in it. So, from Kanappa Nayananar episode we learn the importance of bakthi rather than he offered meat to god and worshiped by spurting water from his mouth.
I have no doubt of Karna's bakthi. But the same karna only provokes Duchandhan to humiliate Dhrowpathy and ask him to remove the clothes from her body. Actually there are four types of negative human beings:
1. Saguni - This type of people can think negative with their own intelligence & poisonous in mind to the core.
2. Duriyodhana - This type of people are basically good but when suggested/provoked by people like Saguni they will involve in negative activities.
3. Karna - Will involve in negative activities when gathered with supported group of peoples.
4. Duchadhana - Will not initiate any negative action on their own but they can do so (without analyzing whether it is good or bad) when ordered.
As Karna being 3rd catagory he is mix of good and bad. Though Karna was too good his charter was spoiled when mingled with bad peoples and thoguh Vibhishnan belong to Ravana's group he became good when mingled with good people (Lord Ram).
As per nature eagle should eat dove. And a duty of king is to preserve whatever is surrendered to him. Hence sibi chakravarthy decides to offer his own flesh to eagle to the weight of dove so that he does his duty without deviating from nature law. This is the good example for karma yoga bcoz the king thinks and executes the action based on justice.
Temple and idol worship helps the masses to take-off from material life to spiritual life. Once they start flying (with spiritual energy) temple and idol worship becomes less importance.
V.K.L. Raamanathan
Private Reply to Gyro | | May 25, 2006 8:59 am | | re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharat P | | As I mentioned before.
First realize (or whatever else is claimed)
Then talk. :-)
Else the existance of a state(or non-state) like realization is itself a futile discussion.
Every emotion is at some point what the society and thousands of years of learning "condition" us to do or react.
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | May 25, 2006 1:48 pm | | re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Bharat, my whole point is if you have realized you will not talk ;)
Kandavar vindilar......
vinnuvadhu - to brag about
another meaning from ganesh's dictionaryPrivate Reply to Ganesh Ram | | May 25, 2006 1:55 pm | | re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharat P | | Ganesh, even that is debatable.
I am saying that until you "realize", you dont know if there is such a thing as "realize" or it is just the imagination of lots of people who were drunk...
Essentially you are trying to achieve something, which you dont even know whether it is true or not.
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | May 25, 2006 2:21 pm | | re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Thanks for giving me the honor of touchbasing the 300.
That is how all experiments starts. including drinking and joints don't they?Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | May 26, 2006 5:14 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharat P | | Yeah, every realized person was on a joint.
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | May 29, 2006 9:45 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | My point is "to realise, I explore and when I explore - I debate and to debate I need to talk"
Talk I will, till i realise, dont know if I will continue talking after realise, for I dont have a right in stating if I will or will not talk when I realise IT, for I havnt been there yet ....
but talk i will till then :-)
talk to myself and to others who are interested in it for in that alone ONE's quest gets answered!
******************************************************
Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | May 29, 2006 10:11 am | | re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharat P | | I love talking and making a lot of noise...
And I have heard that empty vessels make a lot of noise... so here's to more emptiness... ;-)
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | May 29, 2006 1:05 pm | | re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | | The world is what it is today due to the power of human voice... every revolution began because someone Voiced the thoughts and pain of a collective set of people... every leader of a human revolutions TALKED
Jesus did, Buddha did, Gandhi did, Terasa did, Mandela did, Martin Luther King did.. why even Hitler did!!!
Thats some bunch of empty vessels - eh!
;-) Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | May 30, 2006 10:42 am | | re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharat P | | Ram,
Do you have a list of foods which can be considered Sattvic, Rajasic and Tamasic?
Regards
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | May 30, 2006 4:53 pm | | re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharat P | | Ram,
You should consider opening a new SD page with a link to the old page.
This one has too many messages and takes time to open up.
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | May 30, 2006 5:41 pm | | re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | W3,
The ones you listed did not stop with talk.
They walked their talk or talked their walk.
Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | May 30, 2006 5:58 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Ganesh Ram | | Raam said:
What happens to us if we eat Non-vegetarian foods? NV foods consume a large amount of energy while being digested. Tamasic food is said to withdraw our energy, make us more lethargic and vulnerable to disease. Our mind also becomes more negative. Emotions such as anger and greed are said to take hold if we eat overcooked (NV) foods. The sattvic foods bring calmness, peaceful and clear energy to achieve the goal through bakthi yoga
But isn't it true the gods we worship manifested themselves as non-vegetarians?
Also, if that is the case King Shibi, being a kshatriya and a greate warrior would have had Non-veg food.
Does that mean people who eat vegetarian food never steal/kill do anything that is bad (as defined by the society at a period of time)?
So, from Kanappa Nayananar episode we learn the importance of bakthi rather than he offered meat to god and worshiped by spurting water from his mouth
My point there was to show that bakthi (dedication) has nothing to do with what you eat or offer. It should be unconditional and irreciprocal(pls.. someone get me an english dictionary).
But the same karna only provokes Duchandhan to humiliate Dhrowpathy and ask him to remove the clothes from her body.
But for a woman who had to accept five husbands, just because a lady(Kunti) who by herself had her own misgivings(did she) when she bore Karna said so, what more humiliation can Karna's action would have done? Also is there not a story that she laughed at duryodhan and karna in the "Arakku mALigai"( what is english for Arakku) in front of the ladies?
Temple and idol worship helps the masses to take-off from material life to spiritual life. Once they start flying (with spiritual energy) temple and idol worship becomes less importance
Do they?
"uLirkkum kadavuLaiyae alangarithAl thAnae koilil kuttam koodugiradhu?" idhu materialistic thAnae, where will spiritual come here. Private Reply to Ganesh Ram | | May 31, 2006 3:53 am | | re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharat P | | Good comments Ganesh.
Now, Ram, do you have a list of Sattvic, Rajasic and Tamasic foods?
BharatPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | May 31, 2006 6:20 am | | re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Gyro | | The continuation of this topic is availabale in the following link
http://www.ryze.com/posttopic.php?topicid=692228&confid=660
as part II. Thanks to Bharat for the suggestion.
V.K.L. RaamanthanPrivate Reply to Gyro | | May 31, 2006 8:08 am | | re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharath Cola | |
Ganesh on the below 2 statements you have said that someone who is self realized will not TALK.
But now you state that the ones who talked also walked their talk. How come you have changed your stance here? Pls clarify.
“May 01, 2006 7:51 am
Raam, How can one ever say that someone is "self realized" if that someone still have an urge to make people follow his /her/its philosophy?
May 25, 2006 9:48 am
Bharat, my whole point is if you have realized you will not talk ;)
May 30, 2006 1:41 pm
W3,
The ones you listed did not stop with talk.
They walked their talk or talked their walk.
Private Reply to Bharath Cola | | Aug 07, 2006 3:18 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharat P | | Interesting comments those...
Yeah, can hardly walk the talk, if you dont talk, unless you mean the path which cannot be walked or seen. ;-)
BratPrivate Reply to Bharat P | | Oct 25, 2006 11:09 pm | | re: Sanadana Dharma | # |
Bharat P | | Just in case anyone wonders how this thread started, you can go and read up the original thread which got too big and fat and threw up slow response times....
http://www.ryze.com/posttopic.php?topicid=598540&confid=660
Cheers
Bharat Private Reply to Bharat P | | |
| |
| |
