Discussion on Indian Epics, Texts, Treatises & Kathas

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Jul 2011 02:17

DNA slideshow:

8000 year old civilization on Konkan Coast

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Jul 2011 02:38

ramana wrote:DNA slideshow:

8000 year old civilization on Konkan Coast

The report tries to conflate it with IVC. IVC however has been pushed for the 3000 BCE peak. The earlier find across Gujarat was dated to a similar period, roughly 6000 BCE. The 6000 BCE period is significant because around 5700 BCE we have a very rapid rise of water level - probably decadal level, and which any human civilization would be at a loss to keep up with.

So IVC would be a follow up civilization.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 13 Jul 2011 04:28

Ramanaji, add to that the discovery of numerous relics and the ancient city after the tsunami. There are soo many miracles.

We are still in the early stages, but a start is being made for resurgence. However, the war needs to be won within first if you know what I mean.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 13 Jul 2011 05:50

It is said that re-birth occurs amongst the demi-gods also, after enjoying a specific duration of time in the heavens.They are born on earth and they do stuff which elevates them again and back to heavens.In the process they pull up others specially those who follow them.The important thing is to latch onto one specific personality - Krishna (as far as I am concerned) or Shiva, or according to one's preference, and then firmly follow. Arjuna latched onto Krishna, Bhima latched on to Shiva,Yudhishthir latched onto Yamaraja and so on.For us mere mortals and neophytes, accepting a spiritual master is a good option available,and perhaps many in this forum have their respective Gurus, my pranaams to them all.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 13 Jul 2011 06:47

Does not the guru lie inside? knowing the self cannot be detached from knowing the world, and knowing the world cannot be detached from knowing the self. Perception in all possible senses always leads to inseparability of self and non-self. A Guru has his or her own perceptions which may get encrusted on the process of your perceptions. Sometimes it can go badly wrong. Search for truth cannot be collective, but realization of truth always converges to same in all - and hence in the end it leads to a better collective.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 13 Jul 2011 06:52

Beautiful Bji.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 13 Jul 2011 19:21

Once Swami Chinmayananda related this story - A saint was to offer a garland to the Lord, so it was handed to the saint,and everyone stood up, waiting for him to place the garland at the feet of the deity present at the place. Swami Chinmayananda also stood up. The saint promptly placed the garland at Swamiji's feet, and asked for more garlands.He said "The feet of the Lord are everywhere, now give me more garlands so I can place them at the feet of all I see here, as all of them repesent the Lord". Such was the impact of Swami Chinmayananda's lectures during those days, I was fortunate to listen to him for a week, it changed my life.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 13 Jul 2011 19:34

There is a beautiful concept used in vaishnava teachings -the concept of Achintya Bheda Abheda. The living soul is intrinsically linked with the Supreme Lord, and yet at the same time is not the same as God - the exact nature of this relationship being inconceivable to the human mind, thus achintya bheda abheda. TO illustrate this further, let us consider what we can easily conceive - the individual self that we are, a limited,individual self, now let us try to see its link with the Supreme Lord, who is simultaneously linked to millions in fact infinite individual souls, and this linkage is almost impossible to conceive by the mind, as the mind is always individual specific. At this point, if we consider Sri Aurobindo's idea of the Supramental Mind, we can see that there is a Universal, supramental mind, the mind of god, of which our individual mind is just a miniscule fraction.A lot of this is mind twisting to follow,and the Vaishnava Acharyas declared that we must set aside speculations on how to understand these deep mysteries, and instead take to the simple path of Bhakti,by surrendering ourselves at the feet of the Guru. The inner Guru is always present within us,as Paramatma,the Supersoul,but how exactly, that is not conceiveable by our limited mind.In flashes of realisation,perhaps more easily in deep trances,such concepts can be realised.
I wikied for the term Achintya Bheda Abheda and here it is- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achintya_Bheda_Abheda

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 15 Jul 2011 00:26

http://s7.myradiostream.com/43330.htm Streaming spiritual music,bhajans,chants and lectures.Unattended stream,I might respond only when I wake up,stream will run all night hopefully, if server doesn't fail.

Sushupti · Post by **Sushupti** » 18 Jul 2011 00:09

Present King Of Ayodhya

http://yourlisten.com/channel/content/9 ... %20Ayodhya

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 18 Jul 2011 08:08

brihaspati wrote:Does not the guru lie inside? ......A Guru has his or her own perceptions which may get encrusted on the process of your perceptions.

This is an interesting point and speaks to a question I have. Within the hindu context, a guru is God. 'Guru Brahma Guru Vishnu Gurur devo Maheswara ....' we are taught. However, I have also read this statement which you mention above i.e. 'you are your own guru' (not sure where I read this line). This idea is at variance with the sloka, IMHO. I have a question from a very practical point of view. This thing about guru=Brahma/Vishnu brings up a little dilemma. It seems to me that the sloka implicitly moves the burden of learning/seeking knowledge from oneself to someone outside of oneself i.e. a guru. If addition, by exalting a guru to be equal to God, it forces a student to implicitly accept that the knowledge of the guru is supreme and all-encompassing. I have an issue with both.

If you are trying to learning something, and if your dominant thought is that Guru=God, chances are you will learn only as much as what your local guru knows, whether the local guru is your biology teacher or a spiritual baba. However, if you are taught to believe that first and foremost you are your own guru, then you are likely to drive yourself further to find the knowledge you seek, and will try multiple methods, paths and gurus. I think that if we believe we are own guru it gives us an entirely different mindset when seeking knowledge than if one believed in "Guru Brahma, Gurur Vishnu'. One would place less reliance on others and try to forge one's own way ahead. However, I have read some portion of Vivekananda's works, and he placed great emphasis on self-reliance, self-dependence and yet he spoke about the importance of finding the right guru. There seems to be a bit of a dichotomy here.

Perhaps, for worldly knowledge (science, math, economics, biology), you are your own guru first and always, but for issues in religion, God, truth, reality etc. you are not your own guru but rather need an outside guru. But this dichotomy does not feel right either. What do you think?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Jul 2011 07:56

SriKumar wrote:
brihaspati wrote:Does not the guru lie inside? ......A Guru has his or her own perceptions which may get encrusted on the process of your perceptions.
This is an interesting point and speaks to a question I have. Within the hindu context, a guru is God. 'Guru Brahma Guru Vishnu Gurur devo Maheswara ....' we are taught. However, I have also read this statement which you mention above i.e. 'you are your own guru' (not sure where I read this line). This idea is at variance with the sloka, IMHO. I have a question from a very practical point of view. This thing about guru=Brahma/Vishnu brings up a little dilemma. It seems to me that the sloka implicitly moves the burden of learning/seeking knowledge from oneself to someone outside of oneself i.e. a guru. If addition, by exalting a guru to be equal to God, it forces a student to implicitly accept that the knowledge of the guru is supreme and all-encompassing. I have an issue with both.

If you are trying to learning something, and if your dominant thought is that Guru=God, chances are you will learn only as much as what your local guru knows, whether the local guru is your biology teacher or a spiritual baba. However, if you are taught to believe that first and foremost you are your own guru, then you are likely to drive yourself further to find the knowledge you seek, and will try multiple methods, paths and gurus. I think that if we believe we are own guru it gives us an entirely different mindset when seeking knowledge than if one believed in "Guru Brahma, Gurur Vishnu'. One would place less reliance on others and try to forge one's own way ahead. However, I have read some portion of Vivekananda's works, and he placed great emphasis on self-reliance, self-dependence and yet he spoke about the importance of finding the right guru. There seems to be a bit of a dichotomy here.

Perhaps, for worldly knowledge (science, math, economics, biology), you are your own guru first and always, but for issues in religion, God, truth, reality etc. you are not your own guru but rather need an outside guru. But this dichotomy does not feel right either. What do you think?

Getting an "external guru" is like getting "grinds", or getting enrolled into a "coaching centre" under a "reputed tutor". It is a short-cut. Perhaps can manage "entry" level "courses", or admission into the first year. But to sustain to the final year, one needs that inner hunger to reach that final year and go even beyond.

Short cuts are dangerous where self-seeking is concerned.

I see the guru-shishya relationship as more of a continuity of quest, like the genetic continuity and flourishing of the "inherited" material from father to son. This is what I say to my own students every new year I meet them. That apart from formal uni rules where they apply - they should not think of me as their prof, the "guru" who delivers in one direction and they absorb. But that we - they and I - are jointly enegaged in furthering our individual quest for knowledge and understanding. My experience and pre-existing knowledge can enrich and inspire their own individual quests, while I gain inspiration from theirs. As a collective we move forward in our quest. Also I would like my understanding and knowledge to carry on sprouting more queries in them when I am physically no longer there. So its more a passing on of the "baton" from the elder to the younger.

Thinking of it as handing over of the lamp - helps perhaps get rid of the dichotomy you mention. In my student days I never had any grinds or tutors. I was quite openly harshly criticized by my maths teachers in particular - for my "independence" and stubborn use of methods different from what they showed wherever feasible. My language teachers were enthusiastic supporters of my explorations. I jumped ahead years in my own seeking of knowledge in both areas aside from other areas too. In this I got disconnected from the class material - but had no difficulty in exams. My language gurus recognized my quest and helped me by complementing me - they would throw rare passages at me hoping that I would reciprocate or identify, and the three languages we had to officially learn were all a joy for me. Maths was entirely different ball game - it wa slike every class I move into a battle field. I became combative there, trying to "show" them for what they were - etc. Ironically thats where I landed up later.

When I look back - I realize that a part of me was acting in pride. The pride that I can do it all alone. But more than that childhood ego was the sense of restrcition that my maths "gurus" sought to place over my quest - becaus they felt threatened on many occasions by the intuitive reaching of answers or speed. Even now I simply let my brain know the problem - forget it - and I know that all of a sudden I will know the answer. Then I would probably have to work back the method or steps. This was not acceptable for them . So in this - they as gurus- failed because of their strict self-constraint of their own methods or "experience". They were not in permanent quest. And they thought of themselves as "deliverers" of knowledge and not fellow yatris of their students.

On the other hand those others I acknowldge - like a son his father - were not all supreme "deliverers" but fellow yatris who trusted me with their confidence, love, encouragement and bits and pieces of pointers. I bow my head to them and have no shame in acknowledging myself as their students.

This is of course my personal POV. Maybe I still have a large degree of pride. I dont know. Hopefully over the many more lifes I wish to return to continue my quest for knowledge through human senses to know all that I want to know -I will get rid of that pride.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 19 Jul 2011 14:12

Swami Vivekanand on Guru : Courtesy Patanjali Yoga Sutra

स पूर्वेषाम अपि गुरु कालेनान अवछेदात || 1/26

He is the Teacher of even the ancient teachers, being not limited by time.

It is true that all knowledge is within ourselves, but this has to be called forth by another knowledge. Although the capacity to know is inside us, it must be called out, and that calling out of knowledge can only be done, a Yogi maintains, through another knowledge.

Dead, insentient matter never calls out knowledge, it is the action of knowledge that brings out knowledge. Knowing beings must be with us to call forth what is in us, so these teachers were always necessary. The world was never without them, and no knowledge can come without them.

God is the Teacher of all teachers, because these teachers, however great they may have been — gods or angels — were all bound and limited by time, while God is not. There are two peculiar deductions of the Yogis. The first is that in thinking of the limited, the mind must think of the unlimited; and that if one part of that perception is true, so also must the other be, for the reason that their value as perceptions of the mind is equal. The very fact that man has a little knowledge shows that God has unlimited knowledge. If I am to take one, why not the other?

Reason forces me to take both or reject both. If I believe that there is a man with a little knowledge, I must also admit that there is someone behind him with unlimited knowledge. The second deduction is that no knowledge can come without a teacher. It is true, as the modern philosophers say, that there is something in man which evolves out of him; all knowledge is in man, but certain environments are necessary to call it out.

We cannot find any knowledge without teachers. If there are men teachers, god teachers, or angel teachers, they are all limited; who was the teacher before them? We are forced to admit, as a last conclusion, one teacher who is not limited by time; and that One Teacher of infinite knowledge, without beginning or end, is called God.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Jul 2011 18:47

^^^There is another perception of this as that being part of the "undivided" every human has access to that knowledge posed within the "undivided" by properly looking into himself. So the task of seeking knowledge is to remove the "barriers" within that prevent accessing that repository deep inside. An external "guru" can help in removing the barriers - but the ultimate seeking ha sto be done from within and inside.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 19 Jul 2011 18:54

Each and every individual has to walk the last mile himself!

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 19 Jul 2011 22:19

As some one said, first its Guru's feet and Chela's head and then Chela's feet and Guru's head as there is no distinction left. GuruDakshina is taken before Brah Gyan arises within.

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 20 Jul 2011 04:40

brihaspati wrote: I see the guru-shishya relationship as more of a continuity of quest, like the genetic continuity and flourishing of the "inherited" material from father to son. ..... My experience and pre-existing knowledge can enrich and inspire their own individual quests, while I gain inspiration from theirs. As a collective we move forward in our quest. Also I would like my understanding and knowledge to carry on sprouting more queries in them when I am physically no longer there. So its more a passing on of the "baton" from the elder to the younger.

Sounds reasonable. One learns a lot during the act of teaching, from the people who are taught. Somehow, this aspect is not conveyed in the saying 'Guru Brahma...'. There is danger in a teacher (or even the student!) taking the saying seriously. This does not, IMHO, make for a healthy learning environment. I think our purvaj should perhaps have stopped with 'respect your teachers' and not gone much beyond that. (Matru devo bhavah- I agree with). This may be a bit reactionary but I believe that students should be first taught that 'you are your own guru'. That way, they know that the onus to learn falls squarely on themselves. Also, I could be wrong about this but I think this applies to temporal and spiritual learning.

Vivekananda wrote quite a bit about education and teaching. Here is one essay he wrote- (link below). Reading the bolded part in the excerpt below, one can sense the unease he had with equating guru with God.
The teacher and the taught

With the teacher our relationship is the same as that between an ancestor and his descendant. Without faith, humility, submission and veneration in our hearts towards the teacher, there cannot be any growth in us. In those countries which have neglected to keep up this kind of relation, the teacher has become a mere lecturer, the teacher expecting his five dollars and the person taught expecting his brain to be filled with the teacher's words and each going his own way after this much is done. But too much faith in personality has a tendency to produce weakness and idolatry. Worship your Guru as God, but do not obey him blindly. Love him all you will, but think for yourself

If you see the full article, one finds him placing a lot of conditions/burden on the disciple as well. Is zamane mein aisa shishya kahin nahin milega.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 20 Jul 2011 11:09

Why Sarus Cranes epitomize Karunarasa in Ramayana

If we are to believe western doctrine, all symbolism in indian epics can be traced to Siberian and Eurasian regions. Further, all indic literary styles can be extrapolated to proto-indo-european forms

But otherwise, the paper is an interesting collection of indian cultural vignettes - especially the notion that animals have bhava and rasa. Contrast it to western belief on superiority of human soul over all other animals' (if they ever concede animals have a soul at all).

PS: Cambridge journals of 2009/10 are freely available for download for a limited period.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 23 Jul 2011 13:59

One of the most effectively designed websites on the Gita - http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/
You have Audio of each verse, in 16 languages including Hindi and Bengali.Great effort, great source.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 23 Jul 2011 14:13

SriKumar wrote:
brihaspati wrote:Is zamane mein aisa shishya kahin nahin milega.

We often forget that the task at hand is incomplete.Swami Vievekananda never forgot that, he kept the focus all through.A perfect disciple indeed. At the age of 39, he was already so fed up of material existence, he sat down in meditation and quit the body. It is also claimed by some that he had developed cancer because he attempted to smoke, in order to see where it led him.It has been observed that a small trace of blood flowed out of his nostrils at the time he attained Samadhi.However, what happened to his body is not important, what is important is the inspiration we can derive from his life.

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 23 Jul 2011 16:14

sanjeevpunj wrote:
A perfect disciple indeed. At the age of 39, he was already so fed up of material existence, he sat down in meditation and quit the body.

I had actually meant my statement in the context of the ideal disciple as described by the Swamiji, and not to him directly, but yes, he no doubt he was an ideal student himself and hence could write with authority about the path to real learning and knowledge. I have not read his writings in detail but from little I read, it seems like he went through very strong trials and suffering in his search for knowledge, and he did not restrict himself to just philosophical knowledge and truth and all that, he was very much grounded in the reality of life (he spoke- in general terms about technology, science, and extensively on the social state in India, poverty, status of women etc) and hence I am more interested in his commentary than, say, the search for truth by other saints like Buddha, Adi Sankara etc. About 'Guru Brahma ...', it just occurred to me that in the ancient times, since there were no textbooks the student had to rely on the teacher to even get access to the material (vedas and whatever else was taught back then; related question- how was accounting and trade taught? How about war tactics?). So, without any other source of information other than the teacher's mouth, guru truly was the sole source of information and therefore the student had to rely heavily on finding a teacher to gain any knowledge at all. So, the sloka perhaps held more weight back then.

On a related note, there weren't too many counter-arguments to the point about who is the real/first guru. So, are people agreed that we are our own guru first, and then other gurus play a role

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 23 Jul 2011 17:42

I feel mothers are appropriately qualified to be first Gurus, as they impart knowledge at the pre-natal stage itself.After the mother guru, comes the father Guru, if alive, and then Shiksha Gurus, and finally the Diksha Guru.However, the real, first Guru is only the ONE, the Supreme Lord,the Paramatma, who is already existing before our individual personality comes into being.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 23 Jul 2011 17:45

This particular temple pictured here is at the said location (Sambhal) where Lord Kalki will take birth.It is in a place called Sambhal, in Moradabad district. A temple has already been dedicated before the Lord Kalki arrives, and regular prayers are offered here. Being an authenticated spot mentioned in Srimadbhagvatam, Sambhal is already being visited by those seeking inspiration from Lord Kalki, accepted name for the expected 10th incarnation of Lord Vishnu.

Here is a video of a speech given by an Acharya, at Kalkidham, during a special Yagna conducted in honor of the Lord Kalki.
http://www.totalbhakti.com/myvideo-hind ... p?vId=3062

There are many other Kalki temples already, specially one built by Raja Sawai Jai Singh in Rajasthan.

Below: A picture of the Kalki temple in Rajasthan, built by Raja Sawai Jai Singh in 1727 AD.

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 24 Jul 2011 17:37

The vimana/shikhara of the Kalki temple by Raja Sawai Jai Singh takes off from the Khajuraho Kandariya Mahadev temple. This is great. So, his architects chose to pick up that architecture vs. other options. Comparing the two, one could determine whether the 18th century sculptors/architects did a better job than the 10th century architects, in other words, was there any loss of architectural gyan during this timeframe.
http://www.greatmirror.com/index.cfm?co ... ize=medium

Temple architecture is off-topic for the thread but clearly a lot of Indian history and mythology is immanent in our temples.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 27 Jul 2011 05:24

There is no dearth of sacrifices made in ancient India,for the victory of Dharma.

5000 years ago, Lord Krishna was pondering on how to ensure the victory of the Pandavas against the Kauravas.
Shiva and Krishna together decided to do something unique, which would ensure this.
The sacrifice of Bheema's son Barbareek thus became important.Lord Shiva thus arranged the subsequent events.
First, an idea of what Barbareek was capable of, should be had. Barbareek,being the son of Bheema,
was a valiant, intelligent kid, and eager to learn the martial arts.He eventually found a perfect teacher,
and spent time guarding him from Asuras.The teacher was a mysterious brahmin, probably Lord Siva himself,
who can take many forms.Once Barbareek displayed great courage in fighting off Asuras that had come to disturb the brahmin.
Please at his service,the brahmin imparted Barbareek with all the knowledge possible, and sent him back.
Barbareek reached his hometown, and expressed to his mother the desire to fight.Bheema's wife Hidamba Devi,
did not object, and let him go.One his way,Shiva organised a meeting between Bheema and Barbareek.
It is said,Barbareek was about to attack Bheema for bathing in a water spot used for drinking purposes.
Shiva intervened and introduced the two to each other.Bheema was overjoyed to know that Barbareek
was his son! he had not seen him since birth, and was happy to see him,and blessed him.
Then Krishna appears along the path which Barbareek took to attend the Mahabharata war.
As Krishna was the supreme dispenser of results of Karma,he decided to first test the capabilities of Barbareek.
He asked Barbareek to shoot an arrow and pierce all the leaves of a Peepal tree to which he pointed.
Barbareek knew the art of archery so well, he shot his magic arrow, which pierced all the leaves and returned to him,
but on its way back,the arrow actually slipped under the feet of Krishna,making a small cut.
This led Barbareek to understand that Krishna's death lay at the toes of his own feet
(and exactly that's how Krishna left the world- an arrow pierced his Lotus Feet as he sat down in a forest.)
Barbareek realised it was the Lord testing him, and surrendered completely.Knowing well that Barbareek
would side only with the losing side during battle, Here the Lord takes a sacrifice - he asks Barbareek,
that to ensure the victory of the Pandavas, Barbareek must sacrifice himself.Barbareek offers his head,
as sacrifice, on a condition,that he should see the entire Mahabharata with his own eyes.
Krishna cuts off Barbareek's head,and takes it to a small mountain near Kurukshetra,
places it on a high point,and requests the heavenly denizens to keep the head alive, till the battle
ends and the head is returned to the lap of Barbareek's mother, his last wish.
Krishna took care of every desire of Barbareek, and thus the Pandavas won, because this sacrifice
was considered supreme by krishna,and in comparison the Kauravas did not sacrifice anything,
so the balance was tipped towards Pandavas!
Though Barbareek’s body lived no more,his devotion for Krishna showed its radiance.
Krishna asked Goddess Chandika to dip his devotee’s
head in nectar and immortalize it “like Rahu’s head.” Krishna blessed Barbareek,
“You will be remembered on earth forever, and your head will be worshipped by human beings in my name.”

Today, he is worshipped at a famous temple in Rajasthan,on Sikar-Jaipur route, as Khatu Shyamji.

Above,a Picture of the worshippable deity of Sri Khatushyamji, or Barbareek as he was known before.

Here is a picture of the temple in Rajasthan, of Barbareek.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 28 Jul 2011 06:48

Altars at a Vedic ceremony.

Vedas have been directly revealed and passed on through sound, and thus are called Shrutis. Even today,when the yagnas are conducted by expert priests, chanting of vedic verses is the only way used by the priests.They do not refer to any books, as most of the priests know their parts by heart.However the books are also there in print.One must see some of the Arya Samaj Vedic ritualists at a yagna, to understand this clearly.Sanatana Dharma and Arya Samaj are two arms of Hindu practice.Both are needed simultaneously to conduct rituals.When invocations are chanted,they refer directly to presiding deities, and request their presence.All the deities,including Siva,Brahma and Vishnu,along with the demi-gods,are propitiated through vedic practices.
Incidently vedic practices continue.People here will be happy to note,every year at a particular school in the middle east,a Yagna is conducted according to vedic rites and priests come from Kerala to perform these rituals.It is wonderful to attend these Yagnas, they result in strong healthy vibrations, which we all need. Yagnas give universal results. Vedas are the essence of Hindu practice.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 28 Jul 2011 23:29

sanjeevpunj wrote:....
Correction 1- Barbareek,being the grand-son of Bheema,and son of Ghatotkachh.
Correction 2.Bheema's son Ghatothkachh's wife

BajKhedawal · Post by **BajKhedawal** » 29 Jul 2011 00:04

I recently heard "Panchmukhi Hanuman Kavach" basically a prayer seeking protection form myrid evils, I was able to recognize characters from Mahabharat like Purush-Mrugani (the hybrid man beast) and Shardula (hybrid horse lion = leogryph)

But what is a gandh merunaa???

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jul 2011 09:24

The double headed eagle of the Karnataka kings thru the ages. Its also the state emblem. Its Ganda Berunda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandaberunda

BTW Pancha Mukha Anjenaya is a form worshiped in extreme sankat. Do read the description of how he assumed the form and when was it promoted.

BTW Harry Potter last movie has many Hindu themes.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 29 Jul 2011 17:54

ramana garu,

I watched the last HP movie. which themes are you talking about. I liked the movie but wasn't specifically paying attention on that perspective...

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 29 Jul 2011 19:19

Putting the soul of that guy in different places. Remember the sorcerist who put his soul/life in a bird behind 7 seas on a remote island etc...

BajKhedawal · Post by **BajKhedawal** » 29 Jul 2011 22:12

Thanks Ramana, that clears it up. Earlier I was searching for "Ganda Merunda" and I was frustrated with all the obscene suggestions and results in googly. You are correct, reading up on the background helps make innate sense out of such kavach especially for Sanskrit illiterate people.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 30 Jul 2011 07:30

In order to persuade a child to stop crying and calm down, we often relate a story suitable for its level of comprehension. In the same manner, the Jivi (individual), fascinated by the constant attraction of maya and bound by tendencies cultivated during many lives in the past, becomes lost in illusion and cries out ‘Why do I keep on suffering?’ The solution was provided when the sage-preceptor, Vasishta, instructed Lord Ramachandra. “Rama!” he said, “Rather than entangling Yourself in the inquiry regarding how ignorance entered man, put all Your effort into its removal.” This lesson is directed not only to Rama but to all humanity. It instructs everyone who does not realise the transcendental Truth behind the objective world. Simply be convinced that you have this basic ignorance, and give up struggli ng with all your suffering. You must learn how to overcome your ignorance by treading the path that will lead you to wisdom or Jnana. Wisdom is light. Ignorance is darkness. And darkness can persist only until light dawns.
- Sathya Sai Vahini, Ch 20: “The Primal Purpose”.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 31 Jul 2011 22:49

In Bhagvad Gita, Chapter 10, Text 4-5, Lord Krishna says-

buddhir jnanam asammohah
ksama satyam damah samah
sukham duhkham bhavo 'bhavo
bhayam cabhayam eva ca

ahimsa samata tustis
tapo danam yaso 'yasah
bhavanti bhava bhutanam
matta eva prthag-vidhah

Translation

Intelligence, knowledge, freedom from doubt and delusion, forgiveness, truthfulness, self-control and calmness, pleasure and pain, birth, death, fear, fearlessness, nonviolence, equanimity, satisfaction, austerity, charity, fame and infamy are created by Me alone.

Observations for discussion-
Herein, Krishna is taking responsibility for everything, good or bad. No scripture speaks with such authority as the Gita does,in my opinion. Gita is beyond Hinduism, is not restricted to Hindus,everyone can read it,and draw conclusions.The requirement is one has to approach the subject matter seriously,study it with regularity, and apply it in real life as it comes.It is the practical way out of the mess we find ourselves in, today.

With this verse, I intend to carry forward a discussion on Gita, if the admins permit.

ManishH · Post by **ManishH** » 01 Aug 2011 11:13

Interesting Sanjeev ji. I look forward to it. If possible, please post verses relevant to current events. I've often been struck by Gita's relevance to current events.

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 01 Aug 2011 16:19

Thanks Manish ji, I will focus on relevance to current events, and search for verses that apply. Just waiting for a nod from the mods.

I am using the translation by Srila Prabhupada, the founder of ISKCON. Though I have read some other versions, specially the one by Swami Chinmayananda, I found that the version by Srila Prabhupada is well presented, and contains relevant commentaries that suit the current times.The Gita is available at http://www.asitis.com and an Audio+text version in 12 different languages can be accessed at http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/

For beginners who have never laid their hands on this book, I recommend they read Chapter 2. Most people know about the introductory chapter 1,that introduces the battle-scene of Kurukshetra, and creates the ambience and sets the scenario of the Mahabharata. However chapter 2 starts with summarising the entire Gita with a distinct example of Arjuna's predicament, so it is a right place to start for beginners.

I am introducing a very relevant verse today,an inspiring one.I feel we need good discussion, so I will post the next verse only after a week, hoping some discussion will emanate from this verse.

Verse 38,Chapter 2.

sukha-duhkhe same krtva
labhalabhau jayajayau
tato yuddhaya yujyasva
naivam papam avapsyasi

SYNONYMS
sukha--happiness; duhkhe--in distress; same--in equanimity; krtva--doing so; labha-alabhau--both in loss and profit; jaya-ajayau--both in defeat and victory; tatah--thereafter; yuddhaya--for the sake of fighting; yujyasva--do fight; na--never; evam--in this way; papam--sinful reaction; avapsyasi--you will gain.

TRANSLATION
Do thou fight for the sake of fighting, without considering happiness or distress, loss or gain, victory or defeat--and, by so doing, you shall never incur sin.

Historical relevance.
This verse is a direct suggestion to fight, and is directed at Arjuna, who is very reluctant to fight due to various lame reasons. Why does Krishna say this, why does he want Arjuna to fight? A lot of misconceptions exist about this fact, and many pass off Krishna as someone who instigated the war, but history tells us that it is not so.In fact Krishna tried all possible means of finding a solution to the conflict, but neither was Duryodhana willing to step back and take a fresh look at things, nor were the Pandavas willing to give up their share of the kingdom. There were many verbal spats between Dhritarashtra and Vidura. Vidura was Krishna's emissary of peace in Dhritrashtra's kingdom.Shakuni ensured that peace should not happen, by constantly instigating Duryodhana.Eventually events kept pushing things to the brink,and it was decided to settle the matter with an all out war.Even then, Krishna stayed neutral,though he offered his Armies to Duryodhana on Duryodhana's request, he offered himself to Arjuna as charioteer.This was Arjuna's choice, and it brought him all the luck. Duryodhana's mind was under illusion, he was greedy, and he thought "I have the Armies of Krishna, so how can I ever be defeated"?

Relevance today.
In today's scenario, we have not yet reached a point of war after the 2001-2002 standoff, but nevertheless this verse applies to our soldiers, who are skilled, well trained,intelligent and always ready to sacrifice themselves for the country.There are always two options available to soldiers enlisted in the Armed Forces.Combat duties, or non-combative duties.Those who take up non-combative duties definitely have valid reason for that, and those who take up combat, have a passion for that.They join the forces to prove to themselves that they can fight and win.Opportunities also come along in due course.However I would like to point out,that there is an active lifespan for a warrior,and after that time goes by,the desire to fight just evaporates.Lethargy sets in, and a desire to enjoy fruits of action sets in.Desire to fight takes a back seat. We see that in all the Pakistani Generals, specially Musharraf, who stupidly instigated Kargil, then instead of fighting on, turned into a cowardly politician for the rest of his life,No glory in that.He keeps running back to mama UK and unkil USA and hides in Saudi. He cannot even return to Pakistan.All real soldiers would laugh at such people.All the BS about being rich and respectable makes no sense to soldiers, it only creates impotent images of them in the press.Anyway I am going OT with Musharraf so lets get back to India.

I really appreciate the guts of SAM - SHFJ Manekshaw,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Manekshaw who, after taking 33 bullets in the pit of his stomach in Burma,was still eager to fight.Hats off to such great warriors, he has earned a position of immortality in history of Indian warfare.There are thousands of others,hats off to all.They all understood the Gita well,they did their job with perfection,and thus got their due glory.India has no shortage of valour at all. Right from the Sikh Gurus, to the Marathas and Rajputs,Dogras and Gorkhas, we have had the bravest of the brave.I am sure they are just waiting for opportunities to come.

In the end of this verse, Krishna mentions the word "sin". It is important to understand this point. In case we do not fight, we eventually incur sin, because we end up compromising somewhere and that is considered cowardly.Even fighting has its own beauty in the fact that it decides who is right.So till the outcome is clear,it is a duty to fight. Not to fight is a loser's choice,deplorable,leads to returning back to the same situation that prevailed before the fight, a situation of impotence,weakness and cowardice.Not fighting can be seen as a sure sign of cowardice, and leads one back to a state of sinful activities again.As an example we can take up the case of Gaddafi.
This man, instead of fighting those who tried to mess with his country, turned against his own people, thus incurring sin. Thus he is now losing his own country, he has lost his son already.His followers still think he is brave.He did not launch a single missile on any of the French Ships near Libya. Cowardly indeed he has proven to be, running between gutters, hiding in underground shelters,being driven from place to place within his own country.Such is the plight of cowards.They run to hide. Another historical example was Osama Bin Laden.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 04 Aug 2011 20:21

The four internal instruments

manas: the mind, the doubting faculty in man. The scriptures say: samsayatmika manah—“the mind always doubts.” The mind loves confusion and the mind lives in confusion. The mind cannot decide what is good and what is bad. It is the first of the antar karana chatustaya, the four internal instruments.

buddhi: intellect. The scriptures define buddhi as nischayatmika buddhi—“the intellect (buddhi) is the deciding faculty of man.” Buddhi discriminates between what is good and what is bad, and decides what should be done. It is the second of the antar karana chatustaya, the four internal instruments.

ahamkara: ego. The scriptures define ahamkara as abhimanatmika ahamkara—“This egoistic faculty claims that ‘I am the doer, I am, I am.’” It is the third of the antar karana chatustaya, the four internal instruments.

chitta: memory. The Scriptures say that chitta is anusandhanatmika or smaranatmika—“The investigating faculty or the faculty of memory is chitta”. This chitta is born out of human experience through the mind and the mind becomes activated from memory or chitta. Chitta is the computerized memory of the brain. Chitta can be compared to the ocean, and the mind is compared to the waves. {Created by the egoistic perception of the world?} It is the fourth of the antar karana chatustaya,
the four internal instruments.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 05 Aug 2011 10:10

RamaY wrote:The four internal instruments

manas: the mind, the doubting faculty in man. The scriptures say: samsayatmika manah—“the mind always doubts.” The mind loves confusion and the mind lives in confusion. The mind cannot decide what is good and what is bad. It is the first of the antar karana chatustaya, the four internal instruments.

buddhi: intellect. The scriptures define buddhi as nischayatmika buddhi—“the intellect (buddhi) is the deciding faculty of man.” Buddhi discriminates between what is good and what is bad, and decides what should be done. It is the second of the antar karana chatustaya, the four internal instruments.

ahamkara: ego. The scriptures define ahamkara as abhimanatmika ahamkara—“This egoistic faculty claims that ‘I am the doer, I am, I am.’” It is the third of the antar karana chatustaya, the four internal instruments.

chitta: memory. The Scriptures say that chitta is anusandhanatmika or smaranatmika—“The investigating faculty or the faculty of memory is chitta”. This chitta is born out of human experience through the mind and the mind becomes activated from memory or chitta. Chitta is the computerized memory of the brain. Chitta can be compared to the ocean, and the mind is compared to the waves. {Created by the egoistic perception of the world?} It is the fourth of the antar karana chatustaya,
the four internal instruments.

RamaY ji, I have slight differences here. Please indulge me.

चित्त - Chitta - Derived from word root - चित् - Chit - to percieve.
Same word root forms the word - चेतना - Chetana which is power of perception.
चित्त - Chitta becomes faculty/tool of perception. Energy which makes perception possible is Chetana. It should be noted that there are two conditions for this. Perception is only possible in presence of
a) Subject (one who is percieving - self or "I")
b) Object (one which is being percieved - universe)

An energy which makes perception possible is the one which is responsible for existence of both a and b.

Is Chitta (चित्त) same as Maanas(मानस) or mind?
No... it is something which transcends mind... Perception is linked with ego ("I") OR ahamkar(अहंकार) OR aatman(आत्मा)... Without sense of 'I', there can be no perception... So, looking closely, chitta(चित्त) is that feature which enables perception, that is 'I' or the Aatman(आत्मा)... Chetana(चेतना) is power of perception which comes from 'Chitta'(चित्त) and enables us to 'Chit'(चित्) or to percieve.

Chetana is Power of Perception of "I". Chitta is a tool through which Chetana operates.

Buddhi (बुद्धी) on the other hand is made up of two roots Bud (बुद्) + Dhi (धी). Bud stands for information. Dhi stands for "reservoir". Jaladhi (जलधी) is ocean since it is reservoir (dhi) of Water (Jala). Similarly, reservoir of information is Buddhi, in other words, memory.

Viveka Buddhi is faculty to sort out relevant information from irrelevant information in given space and time from the reservoir of information in one's "self".

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 05 Aug 2011 19:18

^^^Viveka=the Word Viveka in Sanskrit means the ability to separate truth from untruth, in other words exactly what you meant - sorting out relevant information from irrelevant information.

You mentioned

Is Chitta same as Mind? You also answered No....it is transcendental to the mind.....

I would prefer the definition of RamaY ji, which is Chitta=memory.A term used by practising yogis is "Chitta Vritti Nirodha" or "destruction of Vrittis (thoughts) arising from the Chitta (memory)" leading to a state of acute awareness of the moment.

The Mind, which can be thought of as a superseding function that overrides latent memory (chitta) and is the active principle of Intelligence.

Swami Chinmayananda explained this to students at BITS Pilani in 1976,and I was fortunate to attend the class. He explained that The Body (with its five senses) feed the Mind (composed of samskaaras) that in turn is governmed by the Intelligence, over which the Atma - individual soul (through EGO) presides.Thus statements like "AHAM ATMA BRAHMA ASMI" arise from EGO, and return to it. At the apex of it all of course sits the Paramatma. Atma (soul) is inferior to Paramatma (Supersoul). This can be explained by "ONE SUPREME PARAMATMA(The SUPERSOUL) and INFINITE INDIVIDUAL ATMAS (SOULS)". the come the questions of "WHO is CONSCIOUS" it is the Individual Atma, that is merely CONSCIOUS, and "WHO is SUPERCONSCIOUS" It is the SUPERSOUL-PARAMATMA who is SUPERCONSCIOUS. Ramana Maharishi gave the famous question "WHO am I" to dwell upon, constantly,in devotion. The answer always lies within the heart and is revealed in deep silence.

BajKhedawal · Post by **BajKhedawal** » 05 Aug 2011 22:25

Slight OT but could someguru with sanskrit gyan explain the difference between:

Bhaktidharmatmaj

and

Bhaktidharmatmajay

does the first one mean the one born of bhakti and dharma, while the second one mean victory to bhakti and dharma?

Thanks!