Yoga Vashishtha is a dialogue between Sage Vashishtha and SriRama written by valmiki . The following is the refutation of the Vashishtha Yoga through its various chapters and aphorisms as put by various translators. The words in bracket are refutations ]
Chapter One
Dispassion
1. Salutations to that calm effulgence which is endless and unlimited by space, time etc., the pure consciousness which can be known by experience only.
[ Mangalacharana assumes an inanimate GOD]
2. Neither one who is totally ignorant nor one who knows it (i.e. Truth) is eligible to study this book. Only he who thinks ‘I am bound; I must become free’ is entitled to study it.
[ So ignorant is one who is not aware that he is bound ]
3. Until one is definitely blessed by the Supreme Lord he will not find either a proper Guru or the right scripture.
[ This is in direct contrast to the teachings , when ignorant is not eligible to study and there is No GOD other than self , then to study it requires a blessings , which is not in the hands of self , yet self is capable of finding its truth . What are the consequences or causes that leads to this blessing so that one can study this ? is it under self or other than self ? NO answer because all that is not self is unreal so how come this blessings is real? if it not real then the understanding that I am bound also becomes unreal]
4. Just as a steady boat, O Rama, is obtained from a boatman, so also the method of crossing the ocean of samsara is learnt by associating with great souls.
[ But all these souls are bound and yet in the states of unrealized and their states itself is unreal then their exercise must also be unreal]
5. The great remedy for the long-lasting disease of samsara is the enquiry, ‘Who am I?, to whom does this samsara belong?,’ which entirely cures it.
[whether the disease itself is real or unreal, in the following texts it is declared to be unreal ]
6. Not a day should be spent in a place which does not possess the tree of a wise knower of Truth with its good fruit and cool shade.
…………………………………..
12. The Lord cannot be seen with the help of the sacred texts or the Guru. The self is seen by the Self alone with the pure intellect.
[ this is again in contrast with previous line ,saying guru is a must to know the self , Now it says guru cannot help in seeing the Self ]
……………………………………………………….
16. That perverted man who, even after knowing that worldly objects are deceptive, still thinks of them, is an ass not a man.
[ this is again illusive , guru is a realsed man . Guru cannot show self yet Guru is a must to now we are bound , gurus do teach yoga vashishtha ! Are they not dealing with worldly object very well knowing that they cannot show self ie ALL those who preach Yoga Vashishtha are also ass because they are dealing with worldly object ie Yoga Vashishtha , is it not something in this world , about this word , if world is illusory so is this yoga vashishtha as it is part of this world ]
…………………………………………………………….
17. Even the slightest thought immerses a man in sorrow; when devoid of all thoughts he enjoys imperishable bliss.
[ This is refutable as Geeta says there cannot be a single moment without thought ]
……………………………………………………………………………
Chapter Two
Unreality of the World
6. O Rama, maya is such that it brings delight through its own destruction; its nature is inscrutable; it ceases to exist even while it is being observed.
7. Dear boy, wonderful indeed is this maya which deludes the entire world. It is on account of it that the Self is not perceived even though it pervades all the limbs of the body.
8. Whatever is seen does not truly exist. It is like the mythical city of Gandharvas (fata morgana) or a mirage.
[ Is this maya real or unreal ? It says unreal ; self is real , how can unreal bind a real ENTITY . if an unreal thing binds a real entity so much so that real is affected , if this effect is also real then binding agent has to be real , yet Vashishtha says agent is unreal .][ Self is all knowing Bramha yet it is bound by unreal maya , then maya must be powerful than Bramha , so what you are getting by destroying maya again the self . but self was already knowing then how come it was bound- No answer]
…………………………………………………………………
[Its strange that a REAL entity is bothered about a unreal samsara which also has unreal effect] Utterly illogical !
……………………………………………………………………….
11. This creation, which is a mere play of consciousness, rises up, like the delusion of a snake in a rope (when there is ignorance) and comes to an end when there is right knowledge.
12. Even though bondage does not really exist, it becomes strong through desire for worldly enjoyments; when this desire subsides bondage becomes weak.
[ if a rope is mistaken as snake , the fear that it has caused i the mind is real , yet the knowledge that it is not a snake but just a rope has to be real else the fact that we have mistaken a rope for snake also becomes unreal , so what is it that we have gained ? if it is accepted that knwoledge that it was rope and not a snake is real then existence of real knowledge which is other than self is proved , but then this kowledge is also part of this world , when world is unreal so also the knowledge and efforts that goes into realising that rope was mistaken as snake , becomes unreal]
[ Bondage does not exist at all yet it becomes powerfull /strong and subsequently becomes weak ! if it is not existent at all what is the efficacy of it becoming weak or strong ?if bondage is false so also its becoming strong or weak becomes false ] self contradictory statement
…………………………………………………………………………
15. This world, though unreal, appears to exist and is the cause of life-long suffering to an ignorant person, just as a (non-existent) ghost (is the cause of fear) to a boy.
[ isnt fear [world] of the boy a real entity , his fear is real although the cause of the fear may be due to ignorance but the fear is real , if fear itself is unreal as stated earlier then the effort to remove this fear also becomes unreal ]
16. One who has no idea of gold sees only the bracelet. He does not at all have the idea that it is merely gold.
[ The idea of gold [ bliss ] becomes real only when gold itself is taken as real without the object being real its idea cannot be real , if gold is real then the bracelet made out of it also becomes real]
21. He who reckons the rays as non-different from the sun and realizes that they are the sun itself is stated to be nirvikalpa (the undifferentiating man).
22. Just as the cloth, when investigated, is seen to be nothing but thread, so also this world, when enquired into, is (seen to be) merely the Self.
[ The rays are not as hot as sun so rays are not sun
Even more inspection gives that cloth is made up of thread and thread s made up of cotton , and cotton is a plant but plant is not cloth neither is each thread same as other nor the thread can be reversed to cotton such a thing is unheard of ] so cotton thread and cloth are distinct entities and essentially different]
24. Just as the foam, the waves, the dew and the bubbles are not different from water, even so this world which has come out of the Self is not different from the Self.
[ But the earlier statement was world is unreal and self is real , now since water is same as bubble , vahsishtha is saying [unreal]world has come out of [real] self and both are not different . this is self contradictory ]
27. The snake appears when one does not recognise the rope; it disappears when one recognises the rope. Even so this world appears when the Self is not recognised; it disappears when the Self is recognised.
[ this is illusory , The knowledge that rope is not snake preassumes knowledge of snake and rope in its real form , else such a distinction is not possible . so a real snake has to be known prior to understand that rope is not snake .
how we come to now that rope is not a snake . we have to know that snake is moving entity [conspicuous] and it makes hissing sound , its poisonous etc , it is this knowledge which has to be present beforehand , that rope is harmless should also be known beforehand , and all this knowledge should be real thus the inspection and analysis reasoning by mind has to be real only then the removal of fear of snake ,mistaken for rope becomes fruitfull , { but snake and rope both are illusory as they are part of world so their preknowledge also becomes illusory according to vashishtha } how come illusory knowledge lead to real self ] debatable ?
6. Wise men also, like foolish men, (occasionally) make others angry, (but they do so only) in order to test their ability to control their innate feelings (that is to say to see how far the anger of other persons will affect them).
7. Just as the trembling (of the body) caused by the (imaginary) snake persists (for some time) even after realising that there is no snake, so also the effect of delusion persists (for some time) even after getting rid of all delusions.
[ If delusion is got rid off , then how can it still remain , if it is reamaining means it is still not got rid off ] again a contradicting statement !
3. The knowers of truth declare that enquiry into the truth of the Self is knowledge. What is to be known is contained in it like sweetness in milk.
[ The sweetness of milk is an attribute of milk , but the SELF as preached by Vashishtha ihas no attributes ] wrong analogy !
4. To one who has realized the Self by enquiry Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are objects of compassion.
[here vashishtha is teaching this yoga so it should be assumed that he is realised soul else he will be lying . SO he is equating himself with RAMA whom he is teaching this . RAMA is already VISHNU ] either RAMA is object of compassion to Vashishtha [ self] . isnt the compassion an illusion , or RAMA is ignorant soul ? either way Vashishtha is not in realistic position ., Yet we see Vashishtha praying Lord RAM for removal of ignorance . in RAMAYANA . so which vashishtha is truth , the SELF who sees RAM as object of compassion or IGNORANT who seeks his blessings for MOKSHA .. RAMAYANA says the later .
Meditation on the Self
1. I, the pure, stainless and infinite Consciousness beyond maya, look upon this body in action like the body of another.
2. The mind, the intellect, the senses, etc. are all the play of Consciousness. They are unreal and seem to exist only due to lack of insight.
[ So the body of the other is same as ours and someonelses as well , there is no differenec among the bodies as all are unreal and exists only due to lack of insight ,
that means , a mother and wife and daughter all are delusive concepts and exist only because of delude or lack of insight in fact they are all same and any relations with them is unreall and any lack of relation is yet unreal so all the words of dharma as to what should be carried out in terms of mother , wife and daughter is also delusive as there is no difference in them ]
This message is has a very dangerous outfall and is not conducive and supported by Vedas as vedas clearly stress on the dharma and adharma and its strict adherence to ! but the above doctrine falsifies the scriptures it talks about world as unreal and efforts in the world as unreal and the acheivement of self is alreday there so nothing special is achieved after all this is known as SELF is already real . After mammoth exercise of going through this doctrine what we find is everything around us delusive and there is no real goal to be achieved .
it proposes inaction and Self praise as GOD which is definite road to HELL .
as it says
28. There is neither bondage nor liberation, neither duality nor non-duality. There is only Brahman always shining as Consciousness.
29. Awareness is Brahman; the world is Brahman; the various elements are Brahman; I am Brahman; my enemy is Brahman; my friends and relatives are Brahman.
[As there is only one bramha it mens enemy freinds realtives , wife daughter mother brother friends wife everyone is bramha and one only ,.so it makes literally no difference really as to what wand how we behave with them as such a distinction and thought is maya and ignorance .
it is encouraging sins]
NIRVANA
5. The belief in a knower and the known is called bondage. The knower is bound by the known; he is liberated when there is nothing to know.
So the entire trouble Vashishtha has taken to say that there is nothing to know . If there is nothing to know then even an ignorant is confident that there is nothing to know , and a Reaised Vashishtha also is confident that there is nothing to know , So what is the difference between the first state and second as both have same SELF which is one and all knowing ,
But this same self which is existing in Vashishtha and ignorant person simulataneously .knows itself itself as bliss in vashishtha and is suffering in ignorant ,. how come one soul is experiencing bliss asweel as ignorance and bondage at the hands of maya .
either it has to be two diferent entities else it cannot be blissful and ignorant at the same time .
NO ANSWER !
Posted by kishore on 12/10/2009 at 15:14
guruji
whats your suggestion regarding approaching tantriks for betterment of health or business improvement ? does it not disturb any of GOD’S RULE of KARMA !
about ANIL KUMAR JOSHI disciple of sri NARAYAN DUTT SRIMALI
Posted by kishore on 12/10/2009 at 15:16
guruji
whats your suggestion regarding approaching tantriks for betterment of health or business improvement ? does it not disturb any of GOD’S RULE of KARMA !
about ANIL KUMAR JOSHI disciple of sri NARAYAN DUTT SRIMALI ?
i am asking these questions may be its wrong or right. but for my concern once being your follower , its better to go in a way you show .
Posted by chiraan on 12/10/2009 at 16:01
One must not never approach tantriks .neither one must pray yaksha and other beings .
Posted by kishore on 12/10/2009 at 21:47
guruji
please tell which is favourable day and time for dhanvantri homa.
i will try to perform it within diwali or after festival due to personal prob.
Posted by chiraan on 12/10/2009 at 22:22
balipadyami
Posted by kishore on 12/10/2009 at 22:44
guruji
can i perform this homa at my home on BALIPADYAMI ?
homa must be done day time ? timings ?
Posted by chiraan on 12/10/2009 at 22:49
yes you can , during day
Posted by kumar on 18/10/2009 at 13:51
chiraan ji,
what vasishta has done is to bring the gist of advaita to rama from all points of reference with fererence to the doubts that arises in the mind of any common man.
it is only by complete submission to what is said by vasishta and thought over and meditated can the point be taken.
so, by refuting what is being said will cause much more confusion than the ideas given by vasishta to transcend the mind.
advaita is one which is not for the weak and people in kali yuga. but that does not mean that it doesn’t exsist as a branch of philosophy to experience the state of divinity or samadhi.
advaita is a state which transcends the dvaita state but cannot be reached without the consent from the dvaita deity or should be learnt from one who is already reached the advaita state.
my doubt is where your refutation helps a sadhaka.? or there is no point in following advaita philosophy?
kindly explain
thank you
kumar
kumar
Posted by chiraan on 19/10/2009 at 02:38
the very point of refutation is ADVAITA is not what vedas proclaim ,. There is no sin greater than calling self as BRAMHA . The refutation is what meant by that and is contradicting Vashishta and his views . [Rather real meaning of Vashishtha is not ADVAITA] It is a falacy to think that after DVAITA state there exists a ADVAITA state . The GOD whom we pray as SUPREME at no point can become same as the devotee . THEN in that case very prayer becomes a kind of deciet .because secretly the devotee is nurturing the idea of superceding his aradhya devata [ it is sin]
Posted by kumar on 22/10/2009 at 22:37
chiraan ji,
yeah , i agree that it is a sin to call the self as brahman.
but , my doubt is this – ” rama asked hanuman , ‘ with what attitude do you look upon me?’hanuman replied, rama when i have the feeling of ‘I’ , i look upon u as the whole and myself as your part; you are the master and i am your servant . and rama , when i attain the knowledge of the absolute , i see that you are i and i am you’ “.
please enlighten me on this statement as to what hanuman means by the absolute state, because what i infered from the above statement is that when one reaches the state of nivikalpa samadhi all upadhi’s disappear and everything becomes one. so, in that state where is the differentiation of god and man.
thank you
kumar
Posted by chiraan on 22/10/2009 at 23:58
the english translation of what hanuman says is misleading . the word So$ham does not mean , I am you , the state of Turia which shows that I am like you [ or as both are unique and at same place hence the name ATMA ] if one is servant he remains so even in Turia state . in the world there are only three states ” jagruta , swapna , sushupti” the fourth is turia .
But chandogya upanishad and aitereya clearly say that even in Turia there is dependence on GOD even though it is SO$ham the similarity is only in the form and not qualities , God is infinite and soul is finite even in turia. But So$ham if preconcieved as oneness , as it is not so and has been elaborated in upanishads , Hanuman says So$ham in turia stating I am still diferrent even in Turia . and ever your servant and dependent on you .
This is atmarpanam .
Posted by kumar on 23/10/2009 at 09:23
thank you very much chiraan ji.
Posted by chiraan on 21/10/2009 at 01:25
I must pity your tiny brain , complicated things do seem like distorted , it is the common excuse one gives when he is unable to answer questions ,
you have been not answering for almost days now suddenly you talk of debate , have you taken pain to read the answer to your post , for your convenience I have repeated it , kindly read it . it exposes your dimunitive grasp.
Posted by chiraan on 21/10/2009 at 01:40
This post shows you don’t even know YV properly , what exists in Yv and what not is also unknown to you . Yes it is quiet imperative because you have already confessed , you neither know Sanskrit or have ablity to know what is YV except your dependence[ miserable one at that] on translation which you feel is perhaps correct translation .
Do you really feel you are fit for debate , neither you know the subject you want to debate on completely [ you admit it] and then you doubt whether particular statement exists or not ,. then you make blunders like universe is old etc … and finally you exclaim who wrote this? ……………………………………………..pity……..
Posted by Here to learn REAL Hinduism on 21/10/2009 at 19:23
Summit
Any similarity between you and a true Hindu must be purely coincidental. You have given more comments with insults rather than answering questions or providing evidence.
You don’t understand anything on this site and you are not willing to learn. You can believe what ever you like, if your views don’t correspond here why do you still keep coming back on here? why dont you create your own site to teach other minded people like yourself.
“Open Mind”???? do you think everyone should have an open mind to transform and westernise Hinduism?
Quotes from Summit
“U have just written a whole lot of crap….i bet even u dont understand it…do u?”
You should think about betting before you regret it. Could put in big trouble oneday
“I can find so many flaws and contradictions within ur statements….and how safely u navigate away when u have no answer.”
Where is your evidence?
“I think the books u have been reading r defective….u dont sound like a person whose mind is set free.”
You think? You should know or shouldn’t, where is your evidence?
“Do u memorize verses or what?? Is that all u do the whole day to impress people….so that ppl think ..”he knows Sanskrit…must be a great Scholar”.
If you have gone through the blog, that isn’t what he does… and it is none of your business.
The rest of your comments show a sign of your insecurity. The way you are posting your comments it gives an impression of you being a grossly bizarre/unconventional or unusual being from a dodgy ashram (where you must be getting your teachings from) where you seem to think truthful beings are wrong.
Posted by Sonu on 22/10/2009 at 14:39
Summit
When someone gives you the taste of your own medicine you don’t like it.
Do you really think your family/teachers would be proud of your manners, morals, values and discipline?
Why do you keep coming back and keep saying it’s a waste of time to debate here bladdy bladdy blah? You seem to reply to Guru Chiraans posts! If I didn’t agree with something/views I wouldn’t come back to a particular place or site and cause arguments just for the sake of it. If you think here is a waste of time, you are better off using your time and sticking to your ashrams you may belong to and preach there, people might actually understand you and may agree with your views. Go and do something you think is useful for your community.
Posted by Anonymous on 21/10/2009 at 20:19
Get a life Summit and face the REAL facts! You disappear from debates and then reappear again when you must have thought alot about what you’re going to say next, your mind, mouth, etc needs a good clean and wash, no wonder you are not able to grasp real info. You are a disgrace, you started your useless debates on one page already and now you’re starting it on this page, is this how you spend your time all day long?? You should contain that cheap excitement of yours and keep it to yourself.
Posted by Sonu on 22/10/2009 at 14:49
Summit!
Any decent human being would not keep comming back to a site if they didnt agree with views, were totally against them, or if they felt ignored.
Regardless what culture, cultural beings are also better mannered and appropriate language.
Posted by Sonu on 22/10/2009 at 15:09
Summit
I had requested to talk about the following some weeks back, only there was no response, so why do you keep comming back to only argue with Guru Chiraan?
I thought you may have been full of Philosophy that the following would ave been very easy for you to answer.
The original topics have diverted and has become about beliefs and whose teachings are correct etc.
Lets flash out what is genuine and what is not
Interesting link I found, some of them seem to influence the west significantly.
http://www.indnav.com/servlet/Tour?mt=tourPage&tourId=387
On the page, the 1st names are the following so let’s start by taking about the following first, others can be discussed afterwards.
1. Sri Sathya Sai Baba
2. Osho “Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh”
I am interested in knowing the scriptures they are using to teach?
To what extent do they match the original Sanskrit scriptures?
Have they also reformed the original Hinduism?
Please continue the discussion on the following page
http://chiraan.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/tatvavada-tenets-of-dvaita-philosophy/#comment-6618
Posted by chiraan on 22/10/2009 at 19:45
LOOKING AT THE LAST POST SUMEET SEEMS TO BE A CHILD OR GIRL WRITING REPEATED LINES WHEN ACTUALLY CHALLENGED TO DEBATE IS CHILDISH . HIS CRY ALSO RESOUNDS THAT OF UNDERAGE JUVENILE .
HE ASKS THE QUESTIONS ELSEWHERE EVEN AFTER THIS HAS BEEN ANSWERED . bUT THIS IS COMMON WITH ALL NON dVAITA PHILOSOSPHERS WHEN THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DEBATE THEY START A SLANG MATCH .
ALL THE ACHARYAS HAVE FACED THIS ,EVEN SO CALLED EXPERTS IN ADVAITA BOUDHISM YV RESORTED TO SUCH ACTIVITIES OF SLANG SO SUMEET IS JUST AN EXTENSION . HE INFACT HAS REQUESTED ME TO STOP IN THE NAME OF MERCY . OKAY SUMEET I SHOW MERCY ON YOU , AND ALSO COMMEND YOU FOR ACCEPTING ITS NOT YOUR CUP OF TEA TO START THE DEBATE ON REFUTATION . SUMEET ALSO ACCEPTS THE ABOVE POINTS ARE PICKED UP CLEVERLY TO SHOW HIS WEAKNESS AND FAULTS .HE IS UNABLE TO DEFEND THEM . THIS ACCEPTANCE ITSELF SHOWS YV IS NOT ASCRIPTURE TO BE FOLLOWED .
YV IS NOT FIT SCRIPTURE BECAUSE OF THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE .
WHEN FACED WITH LOGIC ALL ADVAITIS RESORT TO THE STATEMENT ADVAITA IS BEYOND DVAITA AND IS NOT REALISABLE BY HOSE WHO ARE IN SAMSARA . IS SUMEET SANYASI TO HAVE UNDERSTOOD THIS . DEFINITELY NOT , ANGER ,FOUL MOUTHED ,BITTEN MIND , DECIETFUL APPEARANCE WITH DIFFERENT IDS ,USING THE FORUM TO MALIGN SCHOLARS ,CALLING DRUNKARDS TRUTHFUL ,ALL THESE QUALITIES ARE DEFINITELY NOT THAT OF SANYASI .
Posted by chiraan on 22/10/2009 at 09:13
Misconceptions of Sumeet :
Those who have read sanskrit are those who just read and memeorise but do not understand [ infact he has admitted he does not know sanskrit ] those who do not know sanskrit are unconditioned minds and yet they understand philosophy through translation .
Is the translator that he s relying on not a sanskrit scholar [ in that case how come this sanskrit scholar is not unconditioned and memorised ] so sumeets guru if he has learnt sanskrit is equally susceptible to conditioning , so his chel sumeet becomes more conditioned because he has onluy ventasaandanda to depend and no brain of his ]
2nd misconception Chiraan has no philosophy of his [ this hows poor sumeet is miserable even in English language , or has not gone through this blog , where it clearly shows we are DVAITA] it shows how poor analytics !
3rd misconception Chiraan makes money during diwali [ Again Sumeet has failed to read this blog in toto , there are thousands of comments which show this is a free service ] Yes we do not make money in the name YV and meditataion and unconditioning of mind like ventasananda and other ashrams to which sumeet belongs.
4th misconception Sumeet has set his mind free and is very well established in his mind Yet he is disturbed to such an extent that he resorts to the language which a YOGI of ventasananda SUMEET should be using .
5th misconception Geeta is a scripture BUt Mahabharata to which geeta belongs is a story Yoga vashishtha is scripture yet Ramayana to which it belongs is story [ again pitiable logic] if superset is story then subset has to be a story only .
6th misconception when a full refutation of YV is given . he is unable to discuss even a single point in the data.
for 90% of his post says something is crap , not philosophical but there is no debate at all.
7th misconception Chiraan is some soothsayers who loots people [ takes money in the name of astrology, perhaps it is chiraan's profession] . the only thing chiraan knows is some sanskrit verses Sumeet is here to save multitudes of ignorant people who have come here to seek advise to set their mind free . What credentials he has is , he has read ventasananda translation and has understood YV as vashishtha has to;d to RAMA so perfectly that he has been liberated from the world of sins and truth . He is so liberated that his mouth is foul speeched , a very good sign of yogi [ well realised YV] , he is so much realised person and truthful that he resorts to writing slang and abuse from the same ip[ Summit (IP: 119.160.168.8 , 119.160.168.8)]in another id . such decietful activities are signs of being free from sin
8th misconception Chiraan has read only two or three books [ such a blatant lie or poor display of intelligence is visible as this site shows variety of topics drawing from a ll aspects of life ]
9th misconception Chiraan does not understand what he writes ,Chiraan feels he is superior and has Ahankara [ Sumeet is feeling he is debating , yet we dont see any philosophy being discussed in his posts except some slang conversation ] He does not see wrong in opinions of drunkards as it is their truth [ Truth of drunkards is highly respectable , but words of Scholars is ahankara, ] this shows the pervert conception of folowers OF YV is as it is evident that they feel Thinking about sin is binding the mind . as one stops thinking of sin he is free . This is what has exactly been pointed out in refutation that this philosophy of YV encourages sins under the pretext of setting mind free . SUMEET is living example . he has all the more asserte my writings .
10th misconception He knows Yoga vashishtha [ if he knows it he should have recognised what has been written in this post , unfortunately he does not even know which line belongs to which chapter .This post has been written on 12 oct , its only today he has started commenting on this , so for past 8 days he was contemplating which line corresponds to which chapter and what translation , his poor brain, after failing to understand what has been written for over weeks’ deliberation all he understands it is distortion .
With so many inabilties pointed , we deem Sumeet unfit for debate . Though his posts need not be taken seriously , but as this forum is not for only scholars even lay man come and ask questions , to encourage such intercation we take every small querry seriously and address the issue . Sumeet claims to have open mind but fails to raise questions or answer our questions , his only intention seems to engage in malicious argument for the sake of argument .
Posted by kumar on 22/10/2009 at 22:53
hi summit,
come on yaar, why use such tough language on someone. what is it that one can gain by blindly hurting somebody. debate is one where each one tries to prove what he has understood from his learning and experience.what you see as truth may not be the same for the other. there are varying degrres of truths according to the state of the sadhaka. so blindly accepting or refuting someone is bad manners. either convey your viewpoint about advaita or refute dvaita but you are doing neither but blindly claim that chiraan is wrong. how is that acceptable? well, if you think you can see the flaws of others so clearly , explain it properly or you can just be quiet . why use such harsh language. it is not the qualities of a sadhaka who would have understood advaita.
kumar
Posted by chiraan on 23/10/2009 at 22:34
NOt knowing sanskrit and yet claiming complete understanding of philososphy . let me give analogy ,
there was a sumeet a villager , who happened to know only his mother toungue , one day he saw a book in in his mother tongue[ translated from english ] explaining some engineering phenomena , reading that book sumeet felt he has become a n engineer . he went to a conference and started talking in his language about engineering as he had read the book , people pointed certain terms he was quoting are not what original english meant , his understanding of concepts of stress straing and guage are faulty and do not enable him to build a construction properly . The gathering said your english is poor and undertanding of Engineering is faulty , sumeet got baffled [ how come engineering can be learnt only in english , why are you always talking about english , i know english you dont know english , well without knowing english why you cannot assume my engineering is not good ] you all are too conditioned in english , c’mon its ahankara only good english knowledge of terms of engineering can make good engineer .
My dera sumeet you are dependent on your translator who has transalted wrongly certain terms , and thus your understanding has gone wrong . Sumeet says , i have checked with all the translation in my village they all say same thing , you people of the world of english inconference are all faulty conditioned minds you are too engrossed in terms and dont know real engineering .
BUT THE FACT IS UNDERTANDING CANNOT BE COMPLETE WITHOUT KNOWING THE ORIGINATION
MODERN STUDIES ARE LARGELY IN ENGLISH AND OTHER CULTURES DERIVE FROM ENGLISH ITS TRANSLATION OF MODERN STUDIES . YET MANY TERMS ARE RETAINED TO KEEP THE MEANINGS AND CONCEPTS INTACT
jUST AS ENGLISH IS IMPORTANT TO MODERN STUDIES SANSKRIT IS IMPORTANT TO PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES . WHEN TERMINOOLOGY IS DEBATED , SANSKRIT HAS TO BE REFFERED AND NOT TRANSLATIONS . Just as today’s world does not take seriously any TOM harry who has not had formal education in a debate on serious scientific issues , so also non sanskrit , philosophers who did not have formal education in original philosophy cannot debate . its a reality .
Posted by veena sharma on 26/10/2009 at 01:35
respected guruji,
I have a question. During vaidic age , rishi’s used to yagna, and animal secrifise. Do they or brahmins used to eat nonvagetarian food, back then . because I have seen brahmins, they eat goat meat, they say they are vaidic brahmins, even they performs puja in a vaidic traditions. They themselfs do not know, when their family started eating nonvage. Though they are educated and well behaved people.
thanks
Posted by chiraan on 26/10/2009 at 04:07
only in krita yuga tretayuga Bramhins ate meat . Eating meat is prohibited for even kshatriyas in dwapar and kaliyuga .
Animal sacrifice is replaced by pishti yaga in these eras . ie , animal is formed out of wheat dough and then given in yagnya , animals are not slaughtered in kaliyuga , but in earlier yugas eating meat and yagnya both were allowed .
Allowed because , prana is in asti in krita , in mamsa in treta , in blood in dwapara and only in grains in Kali yuga . so what ever has parana is acceptable because Lord accepts naivedya only through prana , eating is naivedya to the lord inside our body . thus what is not acceptable to Lord is also not acceptable to self . Thus meat onions garlics etc are not acceptable .
Certain bramhins , from uttarakhand , bengal , maharashtra and kerala eat meat . These are original inhabitants of the land beyond kanyakubja [ kannoj] and sarayuparin . earlier Hinduism was everywhere , as kali dawned , slowly in europe and iran , hinduism stopped being practised , the bramhins there adjusted to new order of the world as they had no vedic duties allowed . slowly people moved towards India ie into mainland . yet their earlier habbits of eating non veg remained intact .when advaita became rampant .many shankaracharyas of north declared the north as dev bhumi and concept of sin or veg and nonveg should not bother them and they are alllowed to eat as their sins get washed off by being in the foot hills of himalayas . SO uttarachal himachal nepal . Also when Shakta mata became rampant people started offering meat to Durga as prescribed in tantric rituals , Kali tantra etc , thus bramhins of this cult started eating meat offered to diety .
Bengal and maharashtra kerala bramhins consider fish as jalachar and edible . But all these are non vedic culture adjusted by time . NON veg is prohibited as it is tamasic ahar . and Krishna in geeta says clearly one likes food according to his nature , and food in turn fortifies the nature .
Posted by veena sharma on 26/10/2009 at 06:18
Thank you guruji, for reply.
Posted by kumar on 03/11/2009 at 23:22
chiraan ji,
have you read the book ‘ prabodhasudhakara’ by adi sankara?
kumar
Posted by Vasu on 07/11/2009 at 11:55
2. The mind, the intellect, the senses, etc. are all the play of Consciousness. They are unreal and seem to exist only due to lack of insight.
[ So the body of the other is same as ours and someonelses as well , there is no differenec among the bodies as all are unreal and exists only due to lack of insight ,
that means , a mother and wife and daughter all are delusive concepts and exist only because of delude or lack of insight in fact they are all same and any relations with them is unreall and any lack of relation is yet unreal so all the words of dharma as to what should be carried out in terms of mother , wife and daughter is also delusive as there is no difference in them ]
This message is has a very dangerous outfall and is not conducive and supported by ===Vedas as vedas clearly stress on the dharma and adharma and its strict adherence to !===== but the above doctrine falsifies the scriptures it talks about world as unreal and efforts in the world as unreal and the acheivement of self is alreday there so nothing special is achieved after all this is known as SELF is already real . After mammoth exercise of going through this doctrine what we find is everything around us delusive and there is no real goal to be achieved .
it proposes inaction and Self praise as GOD which is definite road to HELL .
=========
Vedas on Guru :
!!! Guru Brahmaa Guru Vishnu, Guru Devo Maheswara
Guru Saaksaat Param Brahma, Tasmai Shri Guru dev Namaha !!!
Krishna in Gita :
Arjuna
Krishna, how can I fight
against Bhishma and Drona
with arrows
when they deserve my worship?
It is better in this world
to beg for scraps of food
than to eat meals
smeared with the blood
of elders I killed
at the height of their power
while their goals
were still desires.
We don’t know which weight
is worse to bear–
our conquering them
or them their conquering us.
We will not want to live
if we kill
the sons of Dhritarashtra
assembled before us.
The flaw of pity
blights my very being;
conflicting sacred duties.
confound my reason.
I ask you to tell me
decisively–Which is better?
I am your pupil.
Teach me what I seek!
I see nothing
that could drive away
the grief
that withers my senses;
even if I won kingdoms
of unrivaled wealth
on earth
and sovereignty over gods.
Krishna :
You grieve for those beyond grief,
and you speak words of insight;
but learned men do not grieve
for the dead or the living.
Never have I not existed,
nor you, nor these kings;
and never in the future
shall we cease to exist.
Just as the embodied self
enters childhood, youth, and old age,
so does it enter another body;
this does not confound a steadfast man.
Contacts with matter make us feel
heat and cold, pleasure and pain.
Arjuna, you must learn to endure
fleeting things–they come and go!
When these cannot torment a man,
when suffering and joy are equal
for him and he has courage,
he is fit for immortality.
Nothing of nonbeing comes to be,
nor does being cease to exist;
the boundary between these two
is seen by men who see reality.
Indestructible is the presence
that pervades all this;
no one can destroy
this unchanging reality.
Our bodies are known to end,
but the embodied self is enduring,
indestructible, and immeasurable;
therefore, Arjuna, fight the battle!
He who thinks this self a killer
and he who thinks it killed,
both fail to understand;
it does not kill, nor is it killed.
It is not born,
it does not die;
having been,
it will never not be;
unborn, enduring,
constant, and primordial,
it is not killed
when the body is killed.
Arjuna, when a man knows the self
to be indestructible, enduring and unborn,
unchanging, how does he kill
or cause anyone to kill?
As a man discards
worn-out clothes
to put on new
and different ones,
so the embodied self
discards
its worn-out bodies
to take on other new ones.
Weapons do not cut it,
fire does not burn it,
waters do not wet it,
wind does not wither it.
It cannot be cut or burned;
it cannot be wet or withered;
it is enduring, all-pervasive,
fixed, immovable, and timeless.
It is called unmanifest,
inconceivable, and immutable;
since you know that to be so,
you should not grieve!
If you think of its birth
and death as ever-recurring;
then too, Great Warrior,
you have no cause to grieve!
Death is certain for anyone born,
and birth is certain for the dead;
since the cycle is inevitable,
you have no cause to grieve!
Creatures are unmanifest in origin,
manifest in the midst of life,
and unmanifest again in the end.
Since this is so, why do you lament?
Rarely someone
sees it,
rarely another
speaks it,
rarely anyone
hears it–
even hearing it,
no one really knows it.
The self embodied in the body
of every being is indestructible;
you have no cause to grieve
for all these creatures, Arjuna!
=================
Krishna tell Arjun to fight his own Guru . What is Adharma or wat is Dharma ….who decides?? Krishnas whole life was anti – vedas. People do not understand that…but still dont dare to point a finger at him coz he was God.
Posted by chiraan on 07/11/2009 at 14:52
Vedas are mind of GOD , So GOD cannot contradict his own mind so your statement Krishna was against vedas seems far fetched , Infact Krishna asks to fight GURU shows extreme reverence to DHARMA , even if GURUis on the side of ADHARMA its not wrong to fight him for the sake of DHARMA.
That is the interpretation.
fighting against guru does not show there is no dharma or adharma .it shows on the contrary , Importance of Mukhya dharma of upholding Vedic way of life . Because Geeta is reply to ARJUN ’s vishaad that after war because of massacre vedic way of life will be disrupted due to loss of dharma . So krishn is replying that Dharma is in fighting . GEETA is about dharma and adharma in its sukshma swaroopa .
Guru bramha ……. this does not show equality of guru with God , it says all the dieties including god resides in guru and with their inspiration he imparts knowledge . even in practical world we dont see guru acting as god . neither athithi is deva himself ,. [ athithi devo bhava] , it means god directly partakes the food in the form, of athithi , any lapse should be considered lapse towards the diety . the word is indicative of ‘bhava ‘ and does not elevate guru or athithi to the level of god . this is faulty understanding . [ yet vasu says people dont understand, such a gross underestimation of people's intellect in the name of advaita] .
in English there is a figure of speech .similie , metaphor etc , where it can be written ‘ he is a lion when he fights ‘ does that mean one turns into a lion while fighting [ it is just a figure of speech in grammar] , he is leopard when he runs ‘ , does one become [ metamorhise into leopard ] taking recourse to vedas sanskrit for that matter any language without grammar shows faulty understanding ! SO is Advaita an unintelligent shastra!
Posted by kumar on 07/11/2009 at 23:00
chiraan ji,
have you read the book ‘ prabodhasudhakara’ by adi sankara?
kumar
Posted by chiraan on 08/11/2009 at 00:11
We have gone through all the writings of all the matas
Posted by Vasu on 07/11/2009 at 23:39
R u saying that God has a mind?? What kind of a mind does God have??
What do the Vedas say about attacking or fighting your own Guru?? Apart from the Geeta , has there ever been an instance where a Shishya has to attack his own Guru??
!!! Guru Brahmaa Guru Vishnu, Guru Devo Maheswara
Guru Saaksaat Param Brahma, Tasmai Shri Guru dev Namaha !!!
” Guru saaksaat Param Brahma” ….. What if sum1 does equate his Guru with Brahma?? Do the vedas overestimate the importance of a Guru??
If a persons village is attacked …..and his wife or sister is being taken away by bandits…..while his father is on his death bed asking for water….should sum1 do?? Save his sister or wife or give water to his father….only 1 of those that he can do?? Which Dharma should he follow then ?? What do the Vedas say about that??
Posted by chiraan on 08/11/2009 at 00:10
Bheeshma fighting parshuram , Shiva cutting the head of Bramha [ his teacher ] , Chandra fighting Brahaspati , Nemi cursing Vasishtha , Satyaki fighting ARJUN [his guru] .
there are numerous examples of pupil fighting his guru . Its not vedas that overestimate , its the faulty understanding and lack of complete info .
second part shows you have not read neeti shastra , it gives the duty of person in crystal clear terms in the event of conflicting scenarios , Mahabharata is also full of events where Two or more dharma overlap . Like ARJUN tying to kill Yudhisthir to carry out his pratignya etc etc . which dharma to follow carrying out of pratignya or not embracing sin of killing brother . Krishna gives a long discourse to which dharma to follow . Then Arjun decides to suicide for having defaulted pratignya [ not killing Yudhisthir ] here again Krishna gives another discourse to save Arjun fro suicide , of how not to suicide practically[ but praising oneself is equivalent to suicide] and yet get away from the sin of not adhering to DHarma . so dharma is different from Dharma sukshma . this is highlighted by Mahabharata, dharma is not in the superflous understanding but it is in the way as portrayed by Characters in Mahabharata.
Posted by chiraan on 08/11/2009 at 00:17
GURU means one who is great , bigger and worthy of respect . change your sentences to these context .
Posted by Suvarna on 13/11/2009 at 22:24
Namaste Chiraanji:
First of all Yoga Vashishta is not at all an authentic work according to scholars.
It has been proven to be a plagiarization of a budhist work by many German scholars.
It was probably written to counter buddhism in its time, but it is completely budhdhistic.
Fortunately, the real budhist version has been found and plagiarization scientifically proven.
It is also important for people to ask why Vashistha all of a sudden “imparts” knowledge to
Lord Raama [who is referred to as the supreme being in Yudhdha Kanda and else where)
Wouldn’t this knowledge of Raama counter the very purpose of his coming
here on earth? In no incarnation, bhagavan needs someone to impart knowledge to him.
Interestingly, original acharyas like Sankara haven’t commented on this work, but modern
advaitis have chosen to do so and obscuring the authenticity of the work.
(btw thank you for tirelessly answering questions and doing good to all, may bhagavan bless you)
Posted by Vasu on 17/11/2009 at 11:07
Chiraanji……..wat do u think about Paramhansa Yogananda ?? Cud explain Kriya Yoga to me?? What are ur thoughts on ” Mahavtaar Babaji”??
Posted by chiraan on 17/11/2009 at 18:16
it is not right to comment on others . I can only talk about philosophy not individuals because each individual has his own karma driven by Lord ,one cannot be judgemental about karma . but philosophy behind each karma can be debated.our philososphy does not accept anyone who preaches equality or oneness of God and soul