The link between karma and the planets

For discussion on any other astrology topics like birth rectification, prashna, muhurta, mundane astrology, etc.
Forum rules
READ Forum-Wide Rules and Guidelines NOTICE: OFFENSIVE POSTS WILL BE DELETED, AND OFFENDERS WILL HAVE ALL POSTS MODERATED.
Post Reply
Basab

Post by Basab » Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:41 pm

[quote="rajitha"]I have been away for some time but during this time, I read around 60 pages of the book Autobiography of a Yogi.[/quote]

'Autobiography of a Yogi' is a fascinating read. It just takes us to another world--the spiritual world--which I didn't know much about before reading it.

lovacrs
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:02 am

Post by lovacrs » Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:35 am

Thanks Anupamji,

[quote]First of all I want to know according to you when divine intervention should come?[/quote]

I feel the evil forces should be large enough to affect the whole population and not just a family. This was the case in respect of all other avataars. And as I said earlier, even in Sri Krishna's case the scale of evil unleashed by Kamsa or Jarasandha was probably a better justification for divine intervention than the dispute between Kauravaas and Paandavaas.

As for the current situation I can certainly say that Kauravaas of Dwapara would pass off as saints or even Rishis compared to some of the politicians of today. Does this warrant divine intervention? I am not sure, because neither the exploiters nor the exploited are today interested in path of dharma. Both are just selfish and are complaining against each other essentially because the other camp is preventing them from achieving their selfish ends. I will be surprised if the God deems it fit to intervene to ensure that one camp's selfish intent succeeds over that of others.

CRS

anupam1968
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:33 pm

Post by anupam1968 » Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:20 am

[quote]Both are just selfish and are complaining against each other essentially because the other camp is preventing them from achieving their selfish ends.[/quote]

God has nothing to do with both the sides. His work is to balance both the forces negative as well as positive that is all and nothing. That is what he does always. If he may come first of all he will cure the very source of power which are our leaders reigning over this country. Once the leaders become honest rest can be rectified easily. As we know Ganga comes from Gangotri and when the very source is corrupted how can you expect the subjects being honest and sincere. In sanskrit it is said " Yatha raja tatha praja".

There are lots of honest persons in our society but they become helpless due to the corruption at very higher levels. Gradually they reconcile with the general trend of manipulation because they have no way except to go with the flow. What they can do? What happened to Kiran Bedi? She was not selected as police commissioner of Delhi because the politicians knew what she could do after her coming.

Add to that in the democratic system every party has to compromise in someway or the other so how can the system be improved? Do you think this system can be ameliorated with democratic method? Vivekanada said in the past that "this country needs the dictatorship of saints unless nobody can rectify the system". Whenever any true saint proclaims anything be sure it is going to happen because unlimited divine energy is working behing his every word. Now are you understanding what I want to convey? That was what I saw and he projected in the ether.
Last edited by anupam1968 on Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:15 am, edited 2 times in total.

rajitha
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 981
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:03 am

Post by rajitha » Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:30 am

Anupamji,
What is SRF?

Basab,
No doubt it is a good book but when I was reading it, I liked the spiritual scenario given during those times. I liked reading the miracles done by sages. It just confirmed what I was reading all these days. I had read that mind travel is possible and entering into another's body, telepathy are all possible but never had heard about them in reality but this book just confirmed all these.

Lovearcs,
It is said that Krishna took birth to end the atrocities of Kamsa. Kamsa was a cruel king and he imprisoned his father and was very cruel to the people.
Krishna's main reason of birth was not Mahabharatha.
Also, in all these avataras, God accomplishes a lot of other stuff too.
In Rama avataara, His brother Lakshmana was actually Adisesha (the serpent on which Vishnu sleeps). He requested Vishnu that he wants to be born as his elder brother once and thus, he was born as Balaram in Dwapara.
Jarasandha was destined to be killed by Krishna.
Also, so many women had requested Ram to take them as his wife but Rama said that in his avataar, he had decided to have only one wife and thus in Krishna avataar, he obliged all these women.

lovacrs
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:02 am

Post by lovacrs » Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:39 am

Thanks Anupamji,

[quote]Vivekanada said in the past that "this country needs the dictatorship of saints unless nobody can rectify the system". Whenever any true saint proclaims anything be sure it is going to happen because unlimited divine energy is working behing his every word. [/quote]

I hope it happens.

The real problem is for every true saint there are thousands of bogus ones. Usually a true saint never proclaims. In any case for those of us ordinary mortals, we have no way of identifying a genuine saint. But divine intervention whenever it happens solves all these problems.

Mahatma was in fact closest to a saint and he passed by. The less said the better about the fate of his ideals today.


CRS

anupam1968
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:33 pm

Post by anupam1968 » Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:14 am

[quote]scale of evil unleashed by Kamsa or Jarasandha was probably a better justification for divine intervention than the dispute between Kauravaas and Paandavaas. [/quote]

Dear lovcrs,

According to me every writer has his own aim when he writes anything and here we are talking about an epic. The aim of Ved vyasa while he wrote Mahabharta was to show the struggle between individual dharma and the dharma of spirit. That is why Geeta is the integral part of Mahabharta. Do you see this kind of struggle in Ramayana or Dev-Daanav yudhas in satyuga? I think no. Most of the characters of Mahabharta have their hearts on one side and mind on another and this dichotomy was erased by Krishna in the war of Mahabharta through his Geeta. So, understand this bottom line. In all reality Mahabharta was written to validate Geeta instead of writing elaborately about the condition of the whole country under Kaurva's reign.

That was why lots of things might have not written. But we get a hint in Mahabharta about the condition of the subjects under the rulership of Dhritrashtra. Like when Pandvas were given Khandavprastha they came to know the kind of anarchy was going there. People were dying with hunger, they had no source of living, Dacoits (Dasyu) used to come and plunder because there was no administrative control over there. Nobody dared to come outside his home because their women were abducted and raped by Dasyus means Dacoits. That also when Khandavprastha was just 100 km away from Hastinapur. Now you can imagine what would be the condition of remote places.

On the other hand Duryodhana was more busy in his own selfish motives. As far as other parts of his kingdom were concerned of course Ved vyasa did not describe the plight of the people but the fact remains he also did not say that the subjects were happy under the reign of Dhritrashtra as Valmiki portrays the subjects of Ayodhaya who were weeping while Ram was going for exile. So, understand this.

In nutshell, it shows that the aim of Ved Vyasa was somewhat different rather Valmiki.

[quote]Usually a true saint never proclaims.[/quote]

In my view we can never bind any true saint in any of the ideologies. It makes us biased because we try to understand every saint with our mindset or the things which we read in various books. A saint can accpet any unconventional method if there is a will of God. This would be like imposing a condition that a saint can't proclaim. He can do anything. You know Ramakrishna used to say always that he is God who incarnated as Rama and Krishna respectively in Treta and Dwapara. Sometimes he loved to be worshipped as God of course when he was in the condition of divine ecstasy. So, he proclaimed many things in front of people still we worship him because we know he was a genuine saint.

As far as knowing the true saint is concerned. Different Sages laid different conditions and from there we can decide who is the real saint:

1. Vivekananda said the person who knows your past and furture is your guru or a true saint.

2. Yogananda said the person who blinks his eyes too much cannot be a saint, why, according to me it signifies chaotic or over-active mind. And over active mind cannot understand the creative mystery because it exhausts high amout of energy in wrong pursuits.

3. The third and the most foremost condition which was laid by Yogananda is to note what kind of changes you are feeling in your psyche after sitting close to a particular person. If the saint is genuine your inner psyche will start changing gradually. The reason is the spiritual vibrations emitting out of his body. Before that it would be better to remain skeptical.

lovacrs
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:02 am

Post by lovacrs » Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:47 am

Thanks Anupamji.

[quote]The aim of Ved vyasa while he wrote Mahabharta was to show the struggle between individual dharma and the dharma of spirit.[/quote]

Looking at Mahabharath as a work of literature of a creative mind and as a narration of a divine incarnation are two different matters altogethar. In the former case, the need for justification can simply be the creativity of the Kavi.

In fact this is exactly the question that some writers have discussed in their version of Mahabharath.

[quote]Do you see this kind of struggle in Ramayana or Dev-Daanav yudhas in satyuga? I think no. Most of the characters of Mahabharta have their hearts on one side and mind on another and this dichotomy was erased by Krishna in the war of Mahabharta through his Geeta.[/quote]

I see Vibheeshana in a similar predicament in Ramayan or for that matter Rama himself when he killed Vaali clandestinely. Situation of Prahalad was also not very different. Probably people in those ages did not need the kind of preaching that Sri Krishna did to Arjuna.

[quote]But we get a hint in Mahabharta about the condition of the subjects under the rulership of Dhritrashtra.[/quote]

True. But it is depicted more as due to inaction on the part of rulers as against "ruler driven" evil.

CRS

anupam1968
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:33 pm

Post by anupam1968 » Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:32 am

[quote]True. But it is depicted more as due to inaction on the part of rulers as against "ruler driven" evil. [/quote]

I must say you have very inquisitive and probing mind. That's the way we reach the truth in its complete naked form. Everytime you are putting forth a point where my mind did not reach. Yes, you are very right that it is depicted more as due to inaction on the part of rulers as against " ruler driven" evil.

Let me think then I will give you the answer.

[quote]Looking at Mahabharath as a work of literature of a creative mind and as a narration of a divine incarnation are two different matters altogethar.[/quote]

Here I would say that Ved Vyasa was the person who gave Geeta so we cannot accept his Mahabharta as mere creativity of modern writer or kavi. We have to understand the mind of the writer first in order to understand what he put forth in his writings. In that way we can conclude that mere narration of the story of Mahabharta never could be the aim of Ved Vyasa. It must outline some very important spiritual messages which he parted with in terms of Geeta, the crux of whole spiritual texts. A saint may always write saintly stories with lots of hidden meanings instead of mere showing his creative abilities. But of course the modern historians may only locate the historical facts in the Mahabharta and may term it as mere literary work without considering the fact that Ved Vyasa wrote it who was a sage rather historian. Every mind is different and only by understanding it ,without being prejudiced, we can understand what he really wrote. Now it is your turn to decide do you want to understand everything according to your mindset or you want to measure the depth of Ved Vyasa?

For understanding Ved Vyasa and his aim you have to connect yourself with the wave length of Vyasa by putting your mind aside only then the real truth can come in front of you before that everything is an intellectual discussion like historians and dogmatic scientists. Do you know in ancient times the guru or teacher would read a sloka in front of his disciples and then would order them to go and meditate and forget about their own identity of outer-self. Simply because till the time we do not leave our mind outside we can't understand what someone meant to say when he wrote something. This is called 'Dharna' according to Patanjali.

Dharna means to concentrate upon something and forget about everything especially about you. In the same way Yogananda presented the translation of Geeta with the name ' Krishna talks with Arjuna'. It is the most beautiful book on Geeta where Yogananda connects himself with the wave length of Vyasa in the ether and then goes on writing. In that way Vyasa uses your body to write what he meant to say in all reality instead you are outpouring your own thoughts.


[quote]I see Vibheeshana in a similar predicament in Ramayan or for that matter Rama himself when he killed Vaali clandestinely. Situation of Prahalad was also not very different.[/quote]

First of all I must say Vibheeshana cannot be compared with Mahabharta characters like Bhisma, Dronacharya, Arjuna etc.etc. where tremendous struggle had been going on between mind and the spirit. Vibhishana accepted Ram as God at the very first sight according to Ramayana. His heart and mind both were with Rama. So, I don't know from where you are comparing Vibhishana character with Mahabharata.

I also don't see such kind of dichotomy in Prahalad's character. Even if it might have been there you can't compare it with Dwapara yuga. Mahabharta war was the saturation point of this struggle which I do not see in Prahalad and Vibhishana. I would also say that by putting one or two characters from any yuga we cannot compare them with Mahabharta war where this struggle reached its zenith. To be more clearer I would say we can have demons in every yuga but an era comes when they rule the universe and leave no stone unturned to annihilate everything to realise their selfish aims. That makes all the difference instead of weighing every yuga in the same scale.

Rama also killed Bali without any grudges on his part. According to him Bali deserved that retribution because he used to rape the wife of his younger brother Sugriv. So, honestly speaking I really don't know how you are bringing these characters whereas I am talking about tremendouns struggle between mind and the spirit which was the hallmark of Dwapara yuga.
Last edited by anupam1968 on Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

sachinwadhwa
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:00 am

Post by sachinwadhwa » Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:26 pm

Respected Anupam ji,

1.

“Sounds almost unbelievable Mahesh Ji? Seems like a complete mythological tale?”

I have written the below question a few times and erased it, thinking that I may offend you or Parseshwara. However, my intent is to gain knowledge and not to offend.

I want to know what makes him write all such divine experiences to the audience of this forum. Does he want to connect with few persons interacting on this forum or does he wants to pass on a message to the audience of this forum? If he wants to convey something to us, he can do it directly in spiritual form, what benefit is he foreseeing in conveying this in physical form. You also say that there is a reason to everything.

So, I think there is something more to it. Can you please ask him – I am really curious to know


2.

Request – when you edit any of your posts especially on previous pages, please let us know. We don’t want to miss any fraction of divine knowledge.

Regards

anupam1968
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:33 pm

Post by anupam1968 » Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:11 pm

[quote]I want to know what makes him write all such divine experiences to the audience of this forum. Does he want to connect with few persons interacting on this forum or does he wants to pass on a message to the audience of this forum?[/quote]

Sachin Ji,

I am not offended at all. You know I go with the flow and when I go with the flow more or less I don't think about repercussions because I know this flow is coming from inside. But it is difficult to make anyone understand what feel or force is? Simply because something cannot be understood till the time you have your own personal experience in this regard. You can see now a days I am writing too much on this forum and I am sure a time would come I would disappear from here all of a sudden for a month or two or more than that once this flow stops. During that time I would lose every iota of interest of mine to write. This already have had happened to me in the past when I suddenly lost the whole inspiration even to write a single word here.

The second important point is do you think every person can come into this philosophical section? Can everybody has interest in reading metaphysical discussions till the time there is no divine spark inside that wants to manifest?? That also online which is a kind of very tiresome process and strain to eyes? Add to that I am sharing myself in a boundary not like as I shared with you or with another two ladies privately. You are the only three persons to whom I shared much of the things openly. But of course there I also dragged a line which must not be crossed. So, my boundary line comes from inside rather thinking intellectually.

I have understood one thing since almost one year that I am being controlled by some divine force so whatever I do it is his wish. Today many a time I don't ask his wish instead I just wait for that wish comes from inside. I also cant make it understand others how it comes and when it comes and how I can be sure is it his wish at all? However, still I know he wants it to share why future will tell? But till now whatever I did it's reason came to me after sometime.

Today there is one reason coming to my mind that whoever is reading these posts he is not here to do mundane tasks. I am damn sure he is for something else on this earth but he cant understand it at this juncture because he is in the illusion of this creation. You can take everybody in this regard whoever putting forth questions in front of me in regard to my posts so there is no need for taking their names.

I am only deleting a part of my post on the previous page where I talked about Indra taking the order because it is irritating me a bit since yesterday still I wrote it when the flow came to me.

[quote]he can do it directly in spiritual form, what benefit is he foreseeing in conveying this in physical form. You also say that there is a reason to everything. [/quote]

Sachin Ji if words have power and coming from inside they surely affect the inner psyche, if not now, they will give their impact in the future. Somebody may accept me as genuine some may just neglect me but for me it does not matter at all because I am not here to make my fan following. I am here to express whatever I feel inside and leave the rest upon god to decide. Honestly my aim is to prod people to go inside and search their reality because all the suffering loses its ground when you go to your real source.

My all sharing can appear to be cheap entertainment for some selected people who may read and go never to come here again in this section but be sure in the future they will start searching the very root of this entertainment to find is it real or mere outbursts of mind that has gone insane? So, where is the loss for me? I am being benefitted in both the ways. The persons who believe they start searching right now and who do not they will start it in the future since you know nothing go waste in this creation if it is really coming from inside.

lovacrs
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:02 am

Post by lovacrs » Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:08 pm

Thanks Anupamji,

[quote]But of course the modern historians may only locate the historical facts in the Mahabharta and may term it as mere literary work without considering the fact that Ved Vyasa wrote it who was a sage rather historian. Every mind is different and only by understanding it ,without being prejudiced, we can understand what he really wrote [/quote]

I agree that Ved Vyas had lofty intentions when he wrote Mahabharath. Most, if not all, of what is written in Geetha was already there in other scriptures though not as succinctly as in Geetha. Now, for a moment if you were to look at Mahabharath in complete isolation from the rest of Sri Krishna's life, it would appear that the role performed by Sri Krishna in Mahabharath could have been done by any person with exceptional (still human) intelligence, diplomacy, knowledge (of multiple things like warfare, dharma, astrology, management etc..). Coupled with the fact that it was a mere family dispute (agred that there were questions of dharma embedded in the dispute. But such family disputes are as old as mankind and every dispute invariably has dharma juxtoposed against adharma), there are enough logical grounds to question whether it was a divine intervention at all unless we go by the story that Ved Vyas just wrote what Lord Ganesh narrated.

I am of-course not belittling Mahabharath. Even as a work of literature it is one amongst the best if not the best. But these questions, I notice are not plausible in respect of other epics where the scale of evil was far higher and divine intervention showed up in a way that it would have been impossible for ordinary mortals to do what was done.

[quote]Rama also killed Bali without any grudges on his part. According to him Bali deserved that retribution because he used to rape the wife of his younger brother Sugriv. So, honestly speaking I really don't know how you are bringing these characters whereas I am talking about tremendouns struggle between mind and the spirit which was the hallmark of Dwapara yuga.[/quote]

Many philosophers have pointed out that marriage is not a valud institution amongst animals (vaanaras in this case). In fact Sri Ram is supposed to have admitted it as a folly and given a boon to Vaali that he will kill him a similar way as a hunter in Dwapara yuga in his Krishnaavataar.

I see parallels between Vibhishana and Arjuna. Both had to fight against their kinsmen to protect dharma. In fact Ravana was own brother for Vibhishana while kauravaas were cousins for Arjuna. I am sure the creative mind of a Kavi would have found a Guru like Drona etc, in Ravana's camp fighting for him though they were quite convinced that he was an adharmi. In fact I have read some versions of Ramayan where Indrajeet himself advises Ravana that he is deviating from Dharma but finally opts to stay with him.

As for Prahlad, it was his own father that he was pitted against.

Essentialy, if the writer had desired he could have unravelled divine knowledge using these situations much the same way as Ved Vyaas did in Mahabharath.
As such Mahabharath is just one amongst the many Dharma Yuddhs that have happenned.

All this takes me back to my central question: Is Mahabharath a story of divine intervention at all and if so what is the reason for HIM to choose such an ordinary (in comparison to other epics) situation for intervention.

CRS

PS: I am sorry if I sound argumentative. But unfortunately I am limited by logic, though I have the humility to accept that things that are not logical can still be true.

anupam1968
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:33 pm

Post by anupam1968 » Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:39 pm

delete
Last edited by anupam1968 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:01 am, edited 8 times in total.

Basab

Post by Basab » Sat Aug 15, 2009 1:08 am

[quote="rajitha"]I liked reading the miracles done by sages.[/quote]

Rajitha,

That too, definitely, was one of the reasons I liked the book.

anupam1968
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:33 pm

Post by anupam1968 » Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:12 am

[quote]if the writer had desired he could have unravelled divine knowledge using these situations much the same way as Ved Vyaas did in Mahabharath[/quote].

Yes, this is quite a possibility but in that case better understand the divine knowledge instead of thinking whether the story is real or unreal. Simply because in order to understand the reality, whether it actually happened, you have to do your own search by going inside. For me Mahabharta happened in exactly the way as it is described. I have not a least doubt about that because I have my subjective experience. I have seen more than substantial proof to believe that Mahabharta is a real story. As I explained in the previous page about the kind of mystical work I did relate with the Mahabharta.

[quote]Is Mahabharath a story of divine intervention at all and if so what is the reason for HIM to choose such an ordinary (in comparison to other epics) situation for intervention. [/quote]

Actually, I think you are intellectually trying to understand all this mystery. That is why you have lots of confusions. I never say leave the logic but I also say logic expands gradually as you evolve. Like there are so many events in this creation which seem to be entirely illogical on human plane but when you advance logic comes before you. Same happened to me when I had lots of questions but for searching their answers I went inside because I knew real guru is inside once it activates no question remains and also no need remain to believe anything blindly. Today more or less I have no questions or confusions.

Your problem is you are searching the answers outside that is why they are not coming to you. For example you said Duryodhna can be referred as inactive rather saying he was directly involved as far as the plight of his subjects are concerned. So, for you it is not such a great sin and he is far better than our today's politicians. And because it was not such a great sin divine intervention could not come into place.

And I said everything cannot be written because it is decided by the writer where he wants to focus. Even by going deep you can understand the contemporary situation in the country under the reign of Duryodhana. Like take a hypothetical situation and imagine a family in which the father is nothing but a drunkard. His family members are crying with hunger, daughters are selling their flesh to make their both ends meet. Precisely speaking they have been going through hell.

On the other hand father is all enjoying and spending his all money on his selfish pursuits without having a least care about his family. Now expand the same situation and the real picture may come before you. However, for you it is not such a great sin that warrants divine intervention. For you the father must actively involve in all these before that he is an innocent. Only then we can call him sinner not before that. Only then divine intervention should come not before that. I really don't know what you are upto? I find no difference between Kansa, Jarashandsa or Duryodhana. All are living the life for their selfish aims instead of understanding their responsiblity as the head of their kingdom. Subjects are nothing but like children and King is the father. If he does not care about his subjects he is a heavy sinner. Women are being raped or people are being plundered due to the consent of King or King does not care whatever taking place in his own country both the situations are same to me without a least difference. If I will not save my family as a father who will save. What is important for me? My own selfish interests or shouldering the responsiblity which is mine? So, try to understand the characters of the kings of that era then you may understand that there was not a least difference between bygone yugas and the Dwapara.

How can such kings can be allowed to reign for their whole life? I told you without leaving your mental frame you can't understand these divine things. For that try to understand what realised souls are? How they behave? You are trying to understand Ved Vyasa with human mind filled with his own set of reasons and logic according to his mental setup. For that you have to feel the soul of Vyasa only then you can understand the things in their true light.

Before that all is mere speculations nothings else. To understand Shakespeare is a different thing and to know Ved Vyasa by using the same set of human logic is a kind of highly illogical attitude. You are not expanding the horizon of your reasons instead you are working in a circle. You are not feeling anything deep in your heart instead you are locating only dry reasons. First feel then logic may come before you. Feel Krishna, Feel Vyasa, Feel every character of Mahabhara as a good actor does then it will be far better to pur forth your reasons and logic.

You can't understand Prahalada what he was thinking when he was supplicating his father to accept Vishnu as God. He was from Bhakti Marga and had immersed deep into the love for his God. Now have you ever felt this love even for some minutes for god. If you have felt that then surely you may not say that Prahalada was in the dichotomy of being son and bhakta of Vishnu. This dichotomy is only visible for you because you are working through human mind which is so limited. It has terrible limitations so as the logic of this mind.

Same can be told in regard to Vibhishana. Where you see him in the highly confused state of mind thinking about his brother and his god Ram? Even after the death of Ravana Vibhisana did not accept his throne and reigned under the name of Rama. This is the attitude of Bhakta who blindly follows his Ishta so how can you imagine him with your present mental set up without going into his mental state. You feel he was going through tremendous mental struggle because you are keeping yourself at his place. It would be better if you keep him at your place then you may understand what is the real truth.
Last edited by anupam1968 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

sachinwadhwa
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:00 am

Post by sachinwadhwa » Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:43 am

Respected Anupam ji,

Thanks again for sharing divine knowledge. I will always be thankful to you for igniting the divine thought, providing clarity around soul’s journey to its final abode and showing the right direction. Like I always say that we are truly blessed to have you with us on this forum.

Waiting for his majesty (master) to completely manifest

Regards

p.mahesh
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 1179
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 12:36 am

Post by p.mahesh » Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:37 pm

Rajithaji,

“If you are from AP, then you must have seen the movie of Veera Brahmam. I saw the movie many years ago and a lot of signs are mentioned which indicate the close of the yuga (The statue of Nandi coming to life and bellowing loudly, etc).”

No, I have not seen that movie. It came much latter. I know about him since my school days and his predictions through books and my friends around. They are in the form of poems. But, timing is not mentioned. Most of them came through. Like one line says people in future eat food in iron plates. Now it is common practice. He also mentions there would be floods and water up to one Goddess Durga temple on the hill in Vijayawada town.
-------------
Anupamji,

1. How did you come to know that there would be great changes (yuga end) in 2012 or 2013? Has he Specifically mentioned to you? Or is it that since He appeared to you again in this birth you are guessing like that?

2. How did you feel when you saw a super-human who has powers to control entire universe? Do you thing He has capacity to control or say blow-up entire universe with just one single command? Or is it just an exaggerated view of human beings?

3. “First he appeared as the ultimate form of Shiva who I regard as the chief protagonist of the whole story which has been running till now. His way of talking was more than blunt and highly arrogant.”
“According to him the desecration of the temple by Karna and Balandhara (the second wife of Bheema) in Dwapara caused that war which ultimately ended the yuga”

It is surprising to see that how a person of God’s stature gets angry and arrogant for a small issue of just one temple got mishandled. But, He advises people to get restraint and be a STITAPRAJNA? Where the so called unconditional love is has gone? After all is not it that it is He who created bad people, gave them power, keeps quite when they torture some good soft people? (affectively a divide and rule policy). Is it not that He created these so called present day nethas? A religion which supports terrorism, commit atrocities to convert people is His creation. Why He kept quite when so many temples were destroyed by non-Hindu rulers? But then what is difference between God and a powerful human being?

This prompts me towards one of my earlier questions: what is the difference between a God and a Godfather? A Godfather simply takes care of people who are obedient to him (we call them sycophants) and do not mind even crush some honest people to support his disciples (like Dronacharya cut the finger of Ekalavya; may be by thinking that he may dominate Arjuna, we see these kinds of mentors in many offices who just favors and even lift-up their sycophants).

But what about God? We know there is so much of injustice in the society that one person is lifted up and others not. For every thing we invoke karma theory which no body can verify. God is not transparent and acts behind the curtain. After your encounters, did you feel that God is really honest and unbiased as He claims? Does he really follow law of good and bad karma with out bias? Or does also favor His sycophants (who do His Bhajans etc). (I am putting down my spirit little bit down to question or hesitate the honesty and integrity of God. I have great respect to Him).

Regards,

Mahesh

anupam1968
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:33 pm

Post by anupam1968 » Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:53 pm

[quote]Or is it that since He appeared to you again in this birth you are guessing like that? [/quote]

Mahesh Ji,

I would very humbly say it will be futile to discuss this 2012 phenomena repeatedly. Just wait then everything will be clear for you before that we can go on argumenting unabatedly which will not help us anyway. I never keep on guessing. I only share what I have experienced in its more substantial form unless I have told you already.

[quote]Do you thing He has capacity to control or say blow-up entire universe with just one single command? [/quote]

It is again a point which may lead us nowhere because these truths only can be understood by going inside. Do your own search instead of following anyone blindly including me. Even if I may say 'yes' or 'no' new questions may start coming to me. So, better search because it is a personal journey of a soul. But before that innumerable doubts may start creeping in without any answer.

[quote]It is surprising to see that how a person of God’s stature gets angry and arrogant for a small issue of just one temple got mishandled.[/quote]

Nothing can be understood till the time you get the truth on your own that is what I have realised now. Even if you know it will not prove to be beneficial for you in any way till the time you get it from others instead of your subjective experience. I am seeing we are stuck at the same point from where we started our journey one and half year back. Whatever I wrote till now I would humbly say you have not understood them a bit that is why the same confusions are there. I talk a lot about thoughts in their grossest forms as well as in their subtlest but I don't know why you did not understand? Why you see god as separate from you. God is nothing but your own subtlest form. Do you have no agression? Do you have not love? Does nobody has no greed in someway or another including me? Every thought has to go to its subtlest form and then god comes in front of you. However, I think it is a herculian task to make others understand what I want to say. So, personal experience is all important.

[quote]After your encounters, did you feel that God is really honest and unbiased as He claims? Does he really follow law of good and bad karma with out bias?[/quote]

Mahesh ji do you follow law of good and bad karmas without any bias? If yes who is following it? Do you say your body and mind. But who is moving this body and mind? Simply energy? From where this energy is coming? Did you create it? If yes when? Has this energy been here all the time? If yes it means you are eternal if you are eternal what does that mean? It means you are not body or mind because it perishes after a phase is over. So, in all reality you are energy which you call atma or god. So, who is deciding the bad and good? Logically you are deciding.

I again and again said that soul comes here to experience and create his body as an instrument to move and mind to feel. What is this soul? Body is here only till the time soul or energy is there. So, why throw blames upon god? Everything is my reflection. Everywhere I am existing in the mirror or out of mirror. Both are me then why drag god in between as if he is a separate entity. He is separate entity till the time we are in the boundaries of mind because mind cannot see anything beyond duality. So, if you really want to understand this mystery first of all go beyond duality only then you can understand both the phases of 'soul with desires' and 'god with form', 'soul without desires' and 'formless god'. This formless god has nothing to do with your and mine creation.

I already explained this phenomena in my previous pages. On sixth page I discussed the relation among body, mind and spirit to you. On the 7-8th page I discussed the creation of this mystery with Sachin ji more than clearly. Then why you are putting the same questions? Mahesh ji first of all go through the previous mails as I am referring. Understand them thoroughly because without understanding them you may land nowhere. That is all I can say. If you find those mails skeptical then do your own search. I don't think there is any other way left.

lovacrs
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:02 am

Post by lovacrs » Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:28 pm

Thanks Anupamji.

Before making any other assertion I wish to categorically say that my faith is with the philosophy and thinking that lies hidden in these epics and scriptures. I fully subscribe to the soul soothing philosophy expounded in Geetha and Mahabharath and I really dont care whether it actually happened or not.

But the journey from a state of mind controlled by intellect/logic into that controlled by faith invariably encounters the question "Am I entering the territory of divine faith or a blind belief?". There are no easy answers to such questions. Faith by definition demands zero tolerance within one's own mind (of-course a person bound to a faith can still be at peace with someone who subscribes to a different faith) to other possibilities.

I also agree fully that truth has its own absolute existence independent of logic/intellect or for that matter, faith.

My intention behind quoting Vibhishan and Prahlad was not to question their faith in their Ishta Devatha. They are indeed blessed souls to have been raised to that level and unfortunately I am not. My purpose was to point out that divine intervention did not happen to solve their dilemmas which they must have had ( and the epics also say that they indeed had) though at the end they went by their faith.

Divine intervention in Ramayan happenned (as per my understanding based on little rading that I have done of currently available versions) because right from Ayodhya upto Lanka (vast geogrphical coverage) lot of things were going wrong and Rishis were being prevented from performing yagnas and tapas (which I understand as pursuit of knowledge that is useful for mankind). That it is divine intervention is demonstrated by super human deeds (building Rama Sethu or killing a great parakrami like Ravana and Vaali. Here again I really dont care whether Ramayan actually happened or not. There are fine lessons to be learnt from it anyway.

I fully agree that inaction on the part of a ruler is perhaps as much a sin as active participation in evil deeds. But my point was completely different. As I have been mentioning, these evils are unlikely to have been rare. If we go by historians account, there must have been hundreds of such Hastinapurs in what we call as India today.

One possibility is that in many such states the state of ruling was as bad as in Hastinapur in which case either Hastinapur was the chosen one for divine intervention or there were multiple such interventions and the one that happenned at Hastinapur is chronicled.If Hastinapur was the chosen one why so?

The other possibility is that all other states other than Hastinapur were exceptionally well ruled (Utopian or Rama Raajya) which again means that GOD can set right a delinquent Hastinapur by normal means (whatever means were applied in these well ruled states) without his personal intervention.

CRS

anupam1968
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:33 pm

Post by anupam1968 » Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:34 am

[quote]"Am I entering the territory of divine faith or a blind belief?". [/quote]

Believe me there is nothing like divine faith or blind belief. This is the path for the people who have different frame of mind. They just put the reason aside and start treading upon their path of Bhakti. But the people who have intellectual frame of mind they start from suspicion and logic. Logic and reason never end they just change their stages and at last they reach that state where they almost go out of the territory of mind. However, it is wrong to say that logic ends there.

Just imagine you are peeling an onion layer by layer and everytime the size of the onion is becoming small. The same applies to logic and reason. At last only the smell of an onion remains in your hand. That is called absolute without any form. You can describe the onion but not the smell. What would you call this smell sour, sweet or salty? You can only feel it but cant describe exactly through your mind what it is.

But it only happens when you reach the absolute not before that. Till the time form is there reason has been always with you just like peeling of an onion. So, you go on and on with your reason and logic till the time the balloon blasts to make you dumb. This is the stage where reason goes beyond the territory of mind but it never ends.

[quote]If Hastinapur was the chosen one why so? [/quote]

See, we have not the complete authentic history of that time so we can't reach anything substantial. Same goes with Ramayana. So, in my humble view it would be better to understand the hidden meanings and then keep aside the epics. For example there is no need to consider whether Rama really gave boon to Bali to die by his hands in the next birth. The thing which is worth considering is Krishna got unnatural death that also from the hands of hunter. Now understand why even if he was God? Boon was there but the fact remains that everything has a reason in this creation. Now start peeling the onion.

Rama killed Bali clandestinely. Now Bali was not such a spiritual soul even if he was his life did not appear to be like that according to Ramayana. But of course he had Herculean strength that was why he imprisoned Ravana in the past. Now the man of that stature naturally must have felt lots of frustration when he had to die without mutual combat. He died like an animal instead of getting so called Veer-Gati.

Now according to Valmiki Rama was God. So, god or guru naturally knew what kind of samskaras he was taking in the next birth. Every samskara has to be wiped off to advance the journey of soul. So, that was the reason of giving him the boon while he was leaving his mortal appendage. Now in the next birth Bali took birth of a hunter who used to kill innocent animals. And we should not forget he wanted to kill an animal but unfortunately the arrow pierced into Krishna. And he died in the forest.

Now go further and think why hunter did not kill Krishna much in the same way as he did in the last birth. Hunter did not want to kill Krishna but Rama killed Bali consciously. If nature runs upon the 'law of motion' why the event changed its psyche? In all reality this event tells us a very important law of this nature that 'intention decides the quality of karmic seed'. Now if we just accept Rama as god then why he chose to kill Bali clandestinely when he could kill him directly? The logic of Rama was the wife of Sugreeva which Bali kept forcibly in his palace. Now don't think about cultural aspects because everyone may say host of contradictory things. However, for us it would be better to understand what Valmiki wanted to say and for him it was sin to keep the wife of the younger brother as wife.

So, our whole aim is to understand the implied meaning instead of physical event. Running upon the same lines understand the anguish and unbearable frustration of Sugreev and feel it deeply. He surely had been feeling like the eunuch who had no enough strength to save his wife. The same amount of anguish and helplessness Rama returned to Bali by killing him behind the trees. Now on the subtlest aspect the aim of Rama was sublime that was why Bali could not kill him in the next birth consciously like Rama did in the past. However, still the desire surely had been there to kill Rama in the same way as he was killed by him. Therefore he took birth as a hunter and Rama as Krishna..That's how nature creates balance in karmic forces. Also remember that Bali belonged to tribal clan and in the next birth he came as hunter. This is what I call karmic pattern. At a point of time it breaks and the life takes new turn but this is not the matter of our discussion.

Now come to Mahabharta. Krishna killed so many on the ground of Kurukshetra for propounding dharma if we go by Vyasa. But what about innocent children and the wives of the warriors? They had nothing to do with the war. So, in a sense they all died without caressing physical death since they had nobody to care. That was why Krishna died in the forest without his knowing and his whole lineage came to an end in a kind of civil war in his own kingdom. However, he did not trap himself in the cycle of life and death because he did the karmas without being attached to fruits.

You say what is the evidence that Krishna was GOD? I may say everything has a reason in this creation. Krishna has become immortal now and millions of people have been worshipping him since thousands of years. Do you think it can be happened without accumulating tremendous amount of punyas simply because something cannot come out of nothing. Without seed there can be no tree. What about Newton 'law of motion'. Now the thing is if punyas are there who did that? There must be a man in the past who did that all. Was he a common man? But common man cannot accumulate such amount of punyas that for the coming thousands of years people may worship him.

Now logic says he was a rarest soul since only rarest soul can accumulate such amount of punyas. Now you would say it is quite possible that he was a normal man but Vyasa made him god by exaggerating a lot. However, the fact remains it could not be possible unless and until Krishna was destined to get such kind of fame of being divine. If there is destiny, there must be karmas behind it because karmas make destiny. Does not it prove that Krishna was not a normal man? He could be only god nobody else.

Once it confirms he was god don't you think Mahabharta becomes reality instead of mere mythological story? Last but not the least sometimes I also choose to have blind faith if I really find somebody of very high stature like Ramakrishna Paramhansa, the guru of Vivekananda. Ramakrishna always used to say to Vivekananda that "who was Rama in Treta and Krishna in Dwapara he is Ramakrishna today. That also not in your vedic terminology". However, Viveknanda had the intellectual frame of mind so he never ever able to accept that truth till the time Ramakrishna came to his last days. As Vivekananda says " One day my guru was lying on his bed crying in severe pain due to the cancer in his throat. I knew he was preparing to leave his mortal appendage very soon. But right that moment a thought came into mind that if in this condition he would utter the same words which he had been repeating since years in front of me then I would believe him unless not".

Right then Ramakrishna opened his eyes and said " How many times I have to repeat that who was Rama in Treta and Krishna in Dwapara he is Ramakrishna today. That also not in your vedic terminology". This made Vivekananda dumbfounded since he did not tell anything to Ramakrishna still he knew what was going in his disciple's mind. From that day onwards it is said that whenever anyone would talk about Ramakrishna tears would start flowing out of Vivekananda's eyes saying " I tortured too much to my guru by not believing him. I always had been suspicious about each of his words and went on putting lots of questions just to torment him but he did not show a least anger towards me anytime. I bow to him with deep gratitude and have realised one thing he was not guru but real God whose depth cannot be measured".

Add to that there is a karmic pattern to prove it. Rama died by offering him to Saryu, Krishna got unnatural death in the forest and Ramakrishna died due to cancer. They all are unnatural deaths. The another pattern is he never remained unmarried in any of his births. The third pattern is in all these births he never enjoyed domestic happiness in accordance with human terms. Rama left his wife and childern in the forest, Krishna had been always busy in wars and at last his whole lineage came to end, Ramakrishna got married but did not have normal relations with his wife since he accepted her as mother at the wedding night.

So, the same truth is echoing from every direction that Krishna was not a common man. He only could be god nobody else.
Last edited by anupam1968 on Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

p.mahesh
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 1179
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 12:36 am

Post by p.mahesh » Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:07 pm

Anupamji,

You might have misunderstood the intention behind my questions. Sorry for that. I was following your earlier posts and believe their content. In the perspective of individual soul, the meaning of God, as explained by you is clear. My intention of raising these questions is in the context of understanding the gap between unseen Gods and what we see on our earth in daily life. And how the mechanism works.

I think going too much detail about Ramayana / Mahabharata does not help the present days and future scenario. Past is past and they do not have much relevance now. Neither Krishna nor Rama is going to come now and change the present global issues (Though there is a possibility and hope that He may come in different form and does it in different way in future). Of course God helps people individually. The concept of God with respect to individual soul or Atma and its enlightenment are clear by the discussions on this forum.

But, globally, countries are facing problems like corruption, crimes, terrorism, religious bias and injustice. These are increasing day by day. I hope Gods are aware of it and all these are allowed by Them intentionally with a hidden plans which ultimately leads to good and justice (Dharma) not just in India but all over the world. After all every thing is His creation and nothing happens with some reason. Let us hope that Gods do not test the patience of good people too much and do some thing for it very soon. If that happens, the faith between God and humans will sustain. Otherwise there is no reason why it should.

Regards,

Mahesh

anupam1968
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:33 pm

Post by anupam1968 » Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:24 pm

Mahesh Ji,

When you try to understand God with human mind seeing all the conditions around you will get highly confused. So, in my humble opinion don't try to understand him with human mind. If you want to understand God the mind must be godly unless you cant fathom this mystery. Human mind has its terrible limitations. That is why we are told to meditate so that mind become spiritual and then the truth comes in front of us not before that. As Yogananda used to say that don't understand this creation with human mind unless you would feel like banging your head against the wall.

[quote]I think going too much detail about Ramayana / Mahabharata does not help the present days and future scenario. [/quote]

Without reading your past how can you understand the present and then future. Nothing is unimportant here. Everything is for learning so how you can term the past as insignicant? Rama and Krishna are not coming, okay, accepted but why they come and when they come is very important to know so that future can be understood in its true light.

Mahesh ji one thing I don't understand why you are waiting for kalki avtar or god to come upon earth and save you and me or this country and world. If you really want to do something for the larger good why not you activate your energy which is lying more or less dormant inside. The amount of energy decides the amount of work we can do. Why waiting for god and discussing 2012 that somebody would come and change the entire world in a trite. God is inside of everybody that is what said by every real saint. But instead of taking this god out of us we are waiting for god to appear from heaven. Don't you think we are living in a fairy world?? Who knows that kalki avtar is resting in one of the bodies waiting only for a light prod to come out?
Last edited by anupam1968 on Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:09 am, edited 4 times in total.

lovacrs
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:02 am

Post by lovacrs » Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:55 pm

Thanks Anupamji.

[quote]Believe me there is nothing like divine faith or blind belief. This is the path for the people who have different frame of mind. They just put the reason aside and start treading upon their path of Bhakti. [/quote]

I have to admit I am not convinced about this. There are quite a few Godmen around some of whom have claimed that they are the 10th avataar of Lord Vishnu. Many have faith in them and have become their Bhaktas. But I could not persuade myself to do that (of-course with the help of logic).

If these people still reach their spiritual goals despite these Godmen not actually being God's incarnations, I will consider that an accident (a result that was not natual for the given set of actions) which could happen anyway.

[quote]Rama killed Bali clandestinely. Now Bali was not such a spiritual soul even if he was his life did not appear to be like that according to Ramayana. [/quote]

According to what I have read, he was a great Shiv Bhakt and used to perform Abhishek to Shiv Ling with waters collected from seven oceans. He apparently used to "fly" and collect these waters himself. In one such "flight" he apparently had Ravana clutched in his arms because he did not want to be distracted till completion of his pooja.

On the contrary there are no such virtues that are talked of Sugreev.

CRS

anupam1968
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:33 pm

Post by anupam1968 » Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:25 am

[quote]According to what I have read, he was a great Shiv Bhakt and used to perform Abhishek to Shiv Ling with waters collected from seven oceans. He apparently used to "fly" and collect these waters himself.[/quote]

I would very humbly say you are reading too much but not filtering at all. Spirituality does not mean to do Abhishek or flying into the air or creating laddoos out of the wind. Most of these things can be done by a good magician but can we term him as spiritual? Spirituality means saatwik qualities or your inner search. If I may regard Bali as spiritual then I don't think you may find anyone who was not spiritual during those yugas. Even Raksashas who we condemn a lot were great bhaktas of Shiva. In nutshell getting divine siddhis has nothing to do with spirituality. The people who use them for the welfare of human kind they are of course spiritual like Sai of Shirdi used to cure people with his siddhis. So, as I said earlier understand the intention then you come to know who is spiritual or not.

As I said that attaining swarga does mean salvation same goes with spirituality. Real spirituality has nothing to do with Abhishek or sitting in Satsang or seeing the Astha channel or getting divine siddhis. It is a complete inner journey without being prejudiced. Now you say you have not read anything great about Sugriv but he was far better than Bali as far as human qualities are concerned. Undoubtely, he made him kill with the help of Ram but seeing his predicament he was not wrong. Bali did not leave any other path for him.

Having more than one wife is one thing but raping the wife of an younger brother is a kind of unpardonable sin unless Rama might not have killed him. So, I don't know what kind of spiritual qualities you are talking in Bali? Now if you would say raping a woman was a part of their trible culture, that was why it was not adharma, surely I would have no option except to become mute. Everything comes in a package instead of alone so if Bali had the tendency to misuse his power to crush the weak he of course might have so many vices to his credit. So, we can't call him spiritual at all. So, my humble suggestion is to read in between the lines instead of going through written text only. Filter everything. Synchronize everything to reach a coherent whole rather understanding the things in fragments. Of course last choice is yours. I am just putting my humble views.

[quote]Many have faith in them and have become their Bhaktas. But I could not persuade myself to do that[/quote]

When I talk about bhaktas or bhakti marga I have nothing to do with these kalki avtars of today or these so called god men. In all reality when I talk about bhakti marga I have Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Meera, Prabhupad, Ramakrishna Paramhansa and even Prahalad in my mind. As far as these God men are concerned I would say every person drags towards a mind which is more powerful than him. It is a natural process. The best way to see the real guru is to see their sishyas. The quality of disciple can make you understand what kind of Guru he has accepted. As in Sanskrit it is said " Yatha guru tatha shisya'.

lovacrs
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:02 am

Post by lovacrs » Mon Aug 17, 2009 4:57 am

Thanks Anupamji.

[quote]I would very humbly say you are reading too much but not filtering at all. Spirituality does not mean to do Abhishek or flying into the air or creating laddoos out of the wind. Most of these things can be done by a good magician but can we term him as spiritual? Spirituality means saatwik qualities or your inner search. [/quote]

Doing abhishek/pooja shows that the being (avoiding "person" since Vaali was a vaanara) recognises someone other than itself as supreme. Humulity is not just the first step but the very foundation of spirituality. Based on whatever little descriptions of Vaali and Sugreev are there in the epics, we have reasonable ground to conclude that Vaali was spiritually more advanced than Sugreev.

As I mentioned earlier Vaanars are animals and there is nothing like "someone else's wife". If we were to screen them from the standpoint of human beings, abandoning the dead body of his elder brother in the caves without performing final rites is even greater sin committed by Sugreev. But then was Vaali right in punishing sugreev by another sin? May not be. But unfortunately that is exactly what Lord Rama also did by breaking his dharma by killing someone who was not fighting him and that too clandestinely.

As I said earlier, none of these are my original thoughts. They have been written upon and discussed at length by many writers. Unless we persevere and debate hidden messages in the epics will go unnoticed.

[quote]In all reality when I talk about bhakti marga I have Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Meera, Prabhupad, Ramakrishna Paramhansa and even Prahalad in my mind. As far as these God men are concerned I would say every person drags towards a mind which is more powerful than him. It is a natural process. The best way to see the real guru is to see their sishyas. The quality of disciple can make you understand what kind of Guru he has accepted. As in Sanskrit it is said " Yatha guru tatha shisya'.[/quote]

The fundamental question is how do I make out whether the person in front of me is Chaitanya or a current day Kalki? Do I do this using logic or faith?
If I cant assess the authenticity of a Guru how do I verify the goodness of his shishyaas?

What I am trying to drive at indirectly has answers to Rajithaji's question "Why dont we see such great saints today?". In my view the simple answer is, a great saint never advertises himself, not now and not in the past. But earlier people used to be less busy in their material pursuits and ended up spending some time in hanging around such people and actually validate whether the person is a saint.

On the contrary today, hypothetically, we read about existence of such a saint in any media, none of us (or may be very few of us) rush to the place to "try him out". We dont mind rushing to a mall to "try out" a dress that we finally dont buy and not consider it a waste of time.

CRS

rajitha
Frequent Contributor
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 981
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:03 am

Post by rajitha » Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:14 am

Lovearcs,
I just wanted to put my thoughts for your questions (even though it was not addressed to me).

If you read our mythology, many Rakshasas got lot of powers with their penance (Bhasmasura got the power to burn anyone but just placing his finger on their head and he tried to use it on Lord Shiva itself).
Ravana is the best example. He was the biggest devotee of Shiva and he had the power to lift Mount Kailas with his hands, he had all the planets on his steps of his throne.
That does not make him spiritual since his mind's intent was to abuse the powers and siddhis.

Whether you want to become a devotee or not, that is up to you(the beauty of our Hindu religion). But, my experience has been that you inevitably get attracted to some God due to some thing at some suitable time (just like falling in love :-) )

So, I think this is what Anupamji was trying to convey. The intention is the most important in any karma.

Anupamji, please correct me if I am wrong. Also, can you tell me what you meant by SRF in your previous post to me?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests