[Infellgedq]

Mr.Vijiseshji,

There is a small upanishad called Isa upanishad, but rich in content. It
provides the fundamental theme of our Vedantic thought.

It says God is in everything. It proclaims the divinity of man and nature
and the spiritual oneness of all existence.

The beginning verse says ' Isa vasyam idam sarvam '. Verses 6 and 7
are important to us ;- He who sees all beings in the Self and the Self
in all beings, feels no hatred by the realization. Such a realized man has
no reason for delusion or sorrow.'

If one sees himself in others and others in him, then there is pure love !

Any better teaching than this sir ?

[Flefebleaft]

Dear Mr.Vijisesh,

Man thinks that he gets happiness from external sensory objects. But all the
worldly things themselves are not permanent. They are subject to decay and
extinction. Man himself has to die someday. The hands of death will strike
him at any moment. It is a pity that we do not know this fact or are afraid
to face this truth.

What gives us happiness today may not give happiness tomorrow; again, we
do not get the same happiness with excess of it. It is our mind which is the
cause for happiness or sorrow. It is this mind which goes after the earthly
things. With aging, our sensory organs lose their vigour and strength and
have therefore to stop hankering after the external objects, but this mind
never stops. It is here this moment, and in the next it travels to US, then
to our village and it hopes and despairs. The mischief is being done by this
mind.

Due to the karmas of the numerous past births, tendencies ( vasanas
or impressions ) accumulate and it envelops the mind. These vasanas
are like sustained-release tablets. Moved by these vasanas, our mind
acts. When both the vasanas and the mind are extinguished, man gets
liberation.

Mano-nasa and vasanakshaya occur almost simultaneously. In order to
get to that stage, first of all we have to get our mind purified of the malas.
This purification of mind or chitta-suddhi is done by performing the karmas
as ordained by our Vedas. Chitta-suddhi is the fruit of doing the karmas.

That is why our ancestors and rishis want us to do the karmas as
ordained by our Vedas.

[nasxbrtyol]

I said something about doing karmas in my earlier post in this column.

The law of karma is the application of law of cause and effect in the moral
world. No action is exhausted without producing its effect , either in this
birth or in the next following. According to satapatha brahmana, ' every man
is born in the world fashioned by himself'. Good visits him if he does good
deeds and he who does evil will be born as evil. It is said in Brihadaranyaka
upanishad that ' Man is altogether and throughout composed of desire (kama);
in proportion to his desire, so is his discretion( kratu );in proportion
to his discretion he performs acts ( karma ); in proportion to his acts ,so
does it result to him.'

Hinduism tells us that the good and the evil tendencies ( vasanas )of this
life, and a man's happiness and suffering are the inevitable consequences
of the actions of his previous life, and the actions performed in this life
determine those of the next. This conviction has taught us to accept
the pain of the life as self-inflicted and take it with calmness . It is also
an incentive to do right action.

Good or evil action binds you with a golden chain or an iron chain respec-
tively. In order that the chain does not bind you, the scriptures tell us
to do karmas as offering to Iswara - kayena vacha.....

With chitta-suddhi, the groundwork is prepared. Bakthi infuses life into
everything. If any thing is done is without bakthi, it is something dry,
just a skeleton. Bakthi gives one chitta-eikagraham. According to sri
Adi Sankara, ' swaraswaroopa anusanthanam is bakthi '- this is a lofty
ideal.

Then the sadhaka in pursuit of Truth is exhorted to practise four
disciplines, known in vedantic parlance as sadhanacatutaya. They are:
1. Viveka or discrimination between the Real and the unreal. Brahman
alone is real. 2. vairagya or renunciation. That is utter disregard of
pleasures of this and the netherworld. 3. satsampatti . This consists of
six basics which form form the ethical foundation of spiritual life. They
are (a) sama or calmness (b) dama or self-control (c) uparati or self-
settledness (d) titksa or forbearance (e) samadhana or complete
concentration (f) sraddha or faith. And finally the fourth qualification
is Mumuksutvam or longing for liberation.

And now the aspirant is ready for the final exercises needed to get
liberation. He seeks a Guru, who gives upadesa. The disciple has not
only to understand it intellectually , which is called paroksha gnanam,
but he has to experience it , he has to experience the knowledge of
Brahman directly and clearly " like a fruit on the palm of one's hand".
For this, Vedanta prescribes certain disciplines known as sravanam
( hearing ), mananam (reflecting ) and nididhyasanam ( meditating )
and finally samadhi ( absorption in Brahman ).

When he does this intensely and without anything else in mind, he
drops everything, mind, ego and all. Awareness dawns on him.

This is vichara marga or gnana marga.

Then there is Bakthi marga. Bakthi is total surrender. You do not retain
anything . You yourself are not there. About this , later.

[unsamiSlini]

I am starting this thread to highlight different aspects of Hinduism which affect us. I had posted about the different aspects in some of the other forums. I intend copying these posts here.

There are a number of posts in other forums which could be consolidated here.

I will be posting only about Hinduism in general.

I am sure many members would be glad to contribute.

[Evsltkzl]

Vijisesh had written about the shortest path to God. Since most of us are familiar with Chennai, I would like to quote an example.

Suppose you have to go to Central from Nungambakkam. Not a long distance. You can go by your own vehicle, Taxi, Auto, Bus and by foot also. Now if you go by taxi or auto there is no standard route. Every auto guy has his own preferred route and he tells you that this is the shortest or the best route. Of course if you are new to Chennai he will take you via Anna Nagar.

Now when there are so many ways of reaching Central from Nungambakkam, how do you expect a single way to the long destination of reaching God. There are ever so many ways, and like the auto guys everyone swears that his way is the shortest.

You are not even sure of your exact destination. Are you sure about exactly what you want? You want to be a Yogi/Siddha and get Ashtama siddhis? or do you want to be a Sannyasi and become a wandering monk? Or is your way of Suddha Advaita of Bagavan Ramana Maharishi?

There are no readymade answers. We are all seekers one way or the other. Seek and you shall find the answers. No instant Samadhi or instant Kundalini. I believe only in instant coffee.

Again talking about salvation, if God appears before you today and asks you whether you want Moksha immediately, almost all of us would reject the offer talking about son's education, daughter's marriage or great grand son's seemandham.

[kHy87gPC]

We have been talking about karma in many threads. There is a lot of confusion about Karma.

Karma is defined or clarified in

1. Vedas - Karma kanda
2. Vedas - Jnana kanda
3. Mahabharata
4. Ramayana
5. Dharma Sashthras.

The definition and clarifications regarding karma differs and are many times contradictory in all the above scriptures.

Without going into mind boggling details, there are three Karma theories.

1. The results of Karma has to be reaped by all. There is no escape from it.

2. The transfer of effects of Karma. Karma of a parent affecting the child and the Karma of the child affects the parents. In effect karma of one person affecting others like wife/husband, brother/sister and so on. ( I am not going into this).

3. The effects of karma is to be decided by God. God can nullify the effect of any Karma. God also decides when the effect of any karma should fructify.

Now what you believe depends on the philosophy you follow. Again this is a bit of a problem as the practice of religion does not follow one particular philosophy.

Still we can discern the philosophical background in our beliefs.

1. The belief in Nityakarama, karma anushtana and such other terms are basically Purva Mimansa from the karma Kanda of the Vedas. You reap the benefit according to your karmas. No Godly intervention. Ritualistic religion is based on this.

People who follow Advaita, Vishishta Advaita, still follow Purva Mimansa when it comes to basic rituals. Purava Mimansa is Karma Kanda of the Vedas. It does not believe in God. So you do your Nityakarmas and other rituals and you will reap the benefit.

2. This is the basis of shraddhas.

3. This is the basis of Bhakti. This contradicts the belief of Purva Mimansa. Nityaanushtana and other rituals do not play a major role. Devotion is the key.

Our daily religion is a combination of all the philosophies. Purva Mimansa by ritual, Vedanta in belief and Bhakti in practice.

In Kali Yuga, Bhakti is the best marga for attaining salvation.

[Vikonbarius]

Someone had written in this forum that our Dharma is rooted in the Veda. This clearly reveals his lack of knowledge of both Dharma as well as Veda. Indeed our Veda talks of Dharma as much as it talks of Brahman. But to say that Brahman or indeed Dharma has origin in Veda is to solve the puzzle of which is first: the egg or the chicken!

Yudhishtira the ever persistent student of Dharma asks his Pithaamaha Bhishma who is lying on his deathbed of arrows: "Ko Dharma: Sarva Dharmaanaam?" (Which Dharma would constitute 'all Dharma'?). Pat comes the reply in one word: "Pundareekaakshan"!

This clearly indicates that Dharma is beginningless. No wonder it is called "Sanaathana Dharma".!

Veda, by the way, tells us what is known and what is knowable. It doesn't invent anything!

[emupsMaispubs]

Dear Sri Ram Ji,

If you are arguing some other poster's point of view, please give him the dignity of addressing him directly. This roundabout anonymous way of arguing against someone else's posting is not correct.

By the way, I am totally befuddled by your argument.

Dharma while existing forever from the begining is described in the Vedas. So, are you arguing that just because Dharma existed forever, how it is described in the Vedas is wrong, or are you arguing that just because one says that Dharma is rooted in Vedas means that person refutes the existence of Dharma from the begining? I do not understand.

While the 'Sun' has existed for a long time, for the humans to understand what it is they are referring to with other humans, they must give it a name, and thus the word 'Sun' was born (of course different labels within different languages for the same thing). So, are you arguing that when one utters the word 'Sun' referring to a piece of writing, they do not really understand the true 'Sun'?

Appreciate if you would elaborate, because I for one can not grasp the meaning of your posting.

Pranams,
KRS

Someone had written in this forum that our Dharma is rooted in the Veda. This clearly reveals his lack of knowledge of both Dharma as well as Veda. Indeed our Veda talks of Dharma as much as it talks of Brahman. But to say that Brahman or indeed Dharma has origin in Veda is to solve the puzzle of which is first: the egg or the chicken!

Yudhishtira the ever persistent student of Dharma asks his Pithaamaha Bhishma who is lying on his deathbed of arrows: "Ko Dharma: Sarva Dharmaanaam?" (Which Dharma would constitute 'all Dharma'?). Pat comes the reply in one word: "Pundareekaakshan"!

This clearly indicates that Dharma is beginningless. No wonder it is called "Sanaathana Dharma".!

Veda, by the way, tells us what is known and what is knowable. It doesn't invent anything!

[slimsex]

Dear Sri KRS,

You are more anonymous than me in this forum, after all I use my real name and have at the outset explained why I am posting as 'Ramaa'. Yet we are all two dimensional people with the sacrosanctity of being anonymous! I do not have any special attachment to these IDs in the forums. We just come here to give our views and assimilate others' views that are worth in our opinion. There is no copyright to our postings!

After I have read your postings and mine a couple of times I have come to the conclusion that I have no ability to explain to your satisfaction what I consider my posting as plain and simple. Sorry!

[jojocomok]

Whoa! Dear Sri Ram Ji,

I did not post to get you this upset!

Because you were aiming your posting to someone else's posting, saying that that person neither understands Dharma nor the Vedas, I tried to ask you whose posting you are referring to, in what context. If it is one of my postings (I don't know which one) then I plead guilty. I don't know much about Dharma nor Vedas like perhaps yourself.

Postings in a Forum like this elicit responses, to share different points of view. So, I did genuinely ask about something in your posting I did not understand. This took time and effort on my part to read your posting carefully, think about it and craft a response.

Now it is clear, you are targeting your posting only to a certain audience in this Forum. Had I known that, I would not have cared to respond. Now that it is clear, I will not respond to your postings anymore.

I still however hold the view that one must at least directly address someone else's posting, if one says that that person is ignorant!

Having said this, my good wishes to you. No foul, no harm done.

Pranams,
KRS

Dear Sri KRS,

You are more anonymous than me in this forum, after all I use my real name and have at the outset explained why I am posting as 'Ramaa'. Yet we are all two dimensional people with the sacrosanctity of being anonymous! I do not have any special attachment to these IDs in the forums. We just come here to give our views and assimilate others' views that are worth in our opinion. There is no copyright to our postings!

After I have read your postings and mine a couple of times I have come to the conclusion that I have no ability to explain to your satisfaction what I consider my posting as plain and simple. Sorry!

[beenBinybelia]

Dear KRS,
Now it is clear, you are targeting your posting only to a certain audience in this Forum. There are perhaps a total of a dozen people reading these postings. I don't know who among them would constitute a 'certain audience'.

I understand others' postings to the best of my ability and convey my own also to the best of my ability. From what you say, I SUPPOSE, if I understand what you say then I am your audience and vice versa!

[RerRibreLok]

All the Hindu philosophical systems believe in the theory of rebirth or metempsychosis to call it by the correct name. It is the basis of Hinduism. The ultimate goal of all religious practices is to reach a stage where you have no more rebirths.

This is what is called salvation/Moksha/ Mukti.

The question arises as to what is Swarga, Sivaloka etc. These are places where the soul reaches as a result of the good deeds done. At this stage you have no sorrows. It is unadulterated happiness. The equivalent in other religions is Heaven.

But this stage is not permanent. When the accumulated result of the Good deeds is over, the soul takes rebirth.

The early Vedic seers who wrote the Karma Kanda of the Vedas considered this to be highest stage to attain for.

But Moksha is beyond this stage. This stage was defined in the Jnana Kanda of the Vedas. This stage is permanent as the soul no longer takes another birth.

[Dxwlxqvg]

Dear Ramaaji,

In all fairness, you must draw the attention of the member whose posting
is being commented upon. If you desire, you can send a private mail to
him. Either he convinces you or you convince him on the correctness or
otherwise of the statement referred to in your message. Thanks and regards,

[Quick$bux]

Dear Moderatorji,

It seems 'picking on the opinion' have become the focus and seems to have become an issue and not the content of my posting. I therefore would like the moderator to delete such a reference of mine or even my entire posting for it seems my purpose has not been served.

All I said was just as the existence of Paramaathman as pointed out by our Vedas is not a sanction of the Vedas of Paramaathma's existence but imparting of knowledge by the Vedas of His existence, Dharma exists not as a sanction of the Veda when one would say 'rooted in Veda', but despite the Veda though Veda is in comformity pleasantly to such an existence of Dharma. Also that Dharma is synonymous with Paramaathma.

If the above statement is not understood it is no problem with me. If this posting creates a problem I request this also be removed.

Regards,

[gardeniyas]

As I said in my earlier post, the best way to attain Moksha/Mukti/Salvation in Kali Yuga is considered to be Bhakthi.

Bhakthi is considered the best way for the following reasons.

1. There are no pre-requisites for this Marga. Neither the accident of birth in a community nor social status is necessary for this path. It is open to all human beings irrespective of gender, race, community etc.

2. There are no elaborate rituals. In fact there need not be any rituals. You need not learn any Mantras or slokas. You do not need a Guru.

The Puranas are full of stories of Bhaktas. We have all read stories of great Bhaktas. From Hanuman, Narada and others in the Puranas to Nayanmars and Alwars. They belonged to all communities and came from different strata of society.

Most of the other paths also include the element of Bhakti. Our community is known for children learning गजाननं .... or/and कायेनवचा .... before ABC. So we are all familiar with Bhakti right from childhood.

We will look into the evolution of this Marga and its different aspects.

[icedrakona]

Dear Sri Nacchinarkiniyan Ji,

What about Gnana Yoga? Especially as espoused by the direct vichara method of Sri Bhagawan Ramana Maharishi?

Pranams,
KRS

As I said in my earlier post, the best way to attain Moksha/Mukti/Salvation in Kali Yuga is considered to be Bhakthi.

Bhakthi is considered the best way for the following reasons.

1. There are no pre-requisites for this Marga. Neither the accident of birth in a community nor social status is necessary for this path. It is open to all human beings irrespective of gender, race, community etc.

2. There are no elaborate rituals. In fact there need not be any rituals. You need not learn any Mantras or slokas. You do not need a Guru.

The Puranas are full of stories of Bhaktas. We have all read stories of great Bhaktas. From Hanuman, Narada and others in the Puranas to Nayanmars and Alwars. They belonged to all communities and came from different strata of society.

Most of the other paths also include the element of Bhakti. Our community is known for children learning गजाननं .... or/and कायेनवचा .... before ABC. So we are all familiar with Bhakti right from childhood.

We will look into the evolution of this Marga and its different aspects.

[tsaaapla]

Dear Sri Ramaa, Sri KRS & Sri Ranganathan,

After going through your exchanges I came to the following conclusion:

Sri Ramaa, when he said, "Someone had written in this forum that our Dharma is rooted in the Veda" I think he did not remember who had written it or in which thread he read it. This kind of a memory slip can happen to anyone. I don't believe this was a veiled attack on you, Sri KRS.

Sri KRS, I understand why you responded - you thought this idea might have been from one of your own postings. Perhaps - we don't know. From his postings, Sri Ramaa meant to comment on the view, not on the person.

Also Sri Ramaa said that Dharma was beginingless. The Vedas did not invent it. That's all.

He did not specify or imply that the way it is described in the Vedas is wrong.

You have also asked Sri Ramaa another question - As to Dharma being rooted in the Vedas: if this is a yes, does it mean the person saying yes does not acknowledge the existence of dharma before vedas?

To me the answer was, "yeah...". If you say that A is rooted in B then A stems/springs from B. That is the meaning.

According to Sri Ramaa A and B have a correlation that's all. It doesnt mean one came from the other.

Sri KRS, I thought your response was rather complicated to a comparatively simple statement that Sri Ramaa made.

As to "targeting certain audiences" - dear posters, can we please refrain from being too quick to decipher an agenda in others? Malicious intentions usually have a pattern. But anybody can make a mistake or post an improperly formed statement/opinion. We mustn't be too quick to ascribe an agenda to those individuals.

Sri Ranganathan, as your views are those of an observer I don't have any specific comment for you.

Best Regards,
Chintana

Dear Moderatorji,

It seems 'picking on the opinion' have become the focus and seems to have become an issue and not the content of my posting. I therefore would like the moderator to delete such a reference of mine or even my entire posting for it seems my purpose has not been served.

All I said was just as the existence of Paramaathman as pointed out by our Vedas is not a sanction of the Vedas of Paramaathma's existence but imparting of knowledge by the Vedas of His existence, Dharma exists not as a sanction of the Veda when one would say 'rooted in Veda', but despite the Veda though Veda is in comformity pleasantly to such an existence of Dharma. Also that Dharma is synonymous with Paramaathma.

If the above statement is not understood it is no problem with me. If this posting creates a problem I request this also be removed.

Regards,

[Oswczrdz]

Dear Sowbhagyavathi Chinatana Ji,

No, I did not take Sri Ram Ji's posting as an attack on myself. I was mainly writing to say that one should quote the referenced posting, otherwise the context is lost. Only when Sri Ram Ji did not say that he didn't remember who posted, I believe Sri N.R, Ranganathan jumped in.

I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression - I made the comment about addressing a different set of audience (excluding myself) only after Sri Ram Ji said that he did not understand my POSTINGS (in plural). Since I have posted only once to ask him a question about this particular posting, I took it to mean that he was talking about my responses to his other postings. Hence my response.

As I said, no foul, no harm.

Pranams,
KRS

[FrassyLap]

Dear Sri Vijisesh,
Lord Krishna talks of ' Kama and Krodha ' as one. If our desire is not fulfilled
or if some hurdle comes in the way, we get angry ( krodha ). So, if desire
can be avoided, there is no question of krodha. ஆசையை அறவே ஒழிக்-
கவேண்டும்.

The easiest way to do is to have a different type of ஆசை. Love of God.
This is what Saint Tiruvalluvar tells us. Have love of God to get rid of our
desire for worldly things, which are ephemeral and transient. I am not
suggesting that you must do it now- throw them lock,stock and barrel.
Start with worship of some ishtadevata. Chant ' Om Namasivaya' or
' Ram, Ram ' or something like that. I have seen many 0ffice-going people
doing namajapa while travelling in the train or even while at work. It is easy.

We have before us the examples of Nayanmars, Azhwars and maharashtrian
saints who have reached the exalted status one could wish for through
bakthi . You can read the life-history of these great men, and you will
understand it better.

Good luck.

[valentinesdayyy]

Dear Mr. Hariharan,

Excellent. The kural runs like this :
இறந்தார் இறந்தார் அணையர் சினத்தைத்
துறந்தார் துறந்தார் துனை.

சினத்தை அடியோடு துறந்தவர் துறந்தவர்க்கு ஒப்பாவர். It is quite true.
But, Lord Krishna says that an unfulfilled desire bounces back as krodha and
hence desire is the root cause. Please see Srimad Bhagavath Gita :
காம ஏஷ க்ரோத ஏஷ ரஜோகுண ஸமுத்பவ
மஹாசனோ மஹாபாப்மா வித்த்யேனமிஹ வைரினம். (3-37 )

உலகத்தவர்களுக்கு பரம சத்ருவாக இருப்பது ஆசை. இந்த ஆசைக்கு
தடை ஏற்படும்போது அது கோபமாக பரிணமளிக்கிறது. ஆகையால்
பகவான் இவ்விரண்டையும் ஒன்றாகவே சொல்கிறார்.

You have rightly quoted Saint Thirumoolar. The full verse is :

ஆசை யறுமின்கள் ஆசை யறுமின்கள்
ஈச்னோ டாயினும் ஆசை யறுமின்கள்
ஆசைப் படப்பட ஆய்வருந் துன்பங்கள்
ஆசை விடவிட ஆனந்த மாகுமே.

இன்னொரு திருமந்திரம் ;
........
........
ஆசையும் அன்பும் அறுமின் அறுத்தபின்
ஈசன் இருந்த இடம் எளி தாமே.

ஆசைகள் உண்டாக உண்டாக பெருந் துன்பங்கள் வந்து வருத்தும்.
முக்தி வேண்டும் என்று கூட ஆசைப் படாதே என்கிறார்.

திருவள்ளுவர் சொல்வது :

யாதனின் யாதனின் நீங்கியான் நோதல்
அதனின் அதனின் இலன்.

ஒருவன் எந்தப் பொருளிலிருந்து எந்தப் பொருளிலிருந்து பற்று நீங்கிய
வனாக இருக்கிறானோ அந்தந்தப் பொருளிலிருந்து அவன் துன்பம்
அடைவதில்லை.

Mr.Hariharan, I did not want to present a full thesis on this subject,
but just wanted to convey the gist and that was the reason for giving
a concise summary in my earlier post.

Furthermore, Saint Thirumoolar's composition is aimed at the highest
level and therefore i refrained myself from quoting him.

thanks and regards,