Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 185

Thread: Is Vamachara marga Dharmic ?

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by rkannan1
    Scriptures are very clear, that only by brahmacarya and sense control can one gain Brahma Jnana.
    If you are going to make such a claim, please cite your sources. What scripture and what section?

    Quote Originally Posted by rkannan1
    The discussion is on Vama marga. Islam is ofcourse anti-Vedic because it presribes blind violence. But so is Kaula Marga that prescribes sex as a way to achieve Moksha, just as islam thinks violence is a way to achieve moksha.
    Again, you make a claim without citing your source. Where in the Qur'an, is "blind violence" prescribed? Muslims also don't believe in Moksha.

    Quote Originally Posted by rkannan1
    One need not pratcise Islam to know it is wrong. We know it is wrong because it promotes violence and bigotry. Similarly sexual union is no way for attaining Bhagavaan for scriptures prescribe control of senses in all ashramas with a reason.
    Again, please back up your claims with evidence. I don't know if I missed something in this discussion, but since when did someone claim that one can practice sex as the sole path to mukti? I would consider such a path absurd and ridiculous. On the other hand, if we are talking about a spiritual lifestyle where sex is also used in moderation, I don't find a problem with that. Sex can be spiritual despite what some claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by rkannan1
    It is ridiculous to ask for explicit verses condemning vamachara, for one cannot find explicit verse for Islam too. Vedas have clear instructions against murder and also clear instructions for attaining Brahma Jnana, which is sense control. Sense control automatically prescludes sensual enjoyments of any kind including sexual activities, sexual thoughts and sexual indulgence. Hence vamachara is automatically rejected just as islam is rejected as per Vedas.
    No it is NOT ridiculous. It is ridiculous to assert that something is or is not required in the practice of dharma and then not be expected to at least quote one shloka backing up your claim. Imagine in a courtroom if the prosecutor made a claim that the defendant broke the law but told the judge and jury it would be ridiculous for them to cite the exact law that was broken. Your second point also doesn't make sense. Where does sense control ban sense enjoyment? Sense control means controlling the senses. It does not mean not using the senses. It would be absurd to say that traffic control means that you cannot have any traffic. Sense control logically means that you control your senses--and that your senses do not control you. As long as you are in the material world, your senses will enjoy at times and suffer at other times. Managing them is a logical path to Self-Realization. You cannot turn off your senses as long as you are in a physical body.

    Enough said. ~BYS~

  2. #22
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Bhakti Yoga Seeker
    Again, please back up your claims with evidence. I don't know if I missed something in this discussion, but since when did someone claim that one can practice sex as the sole path to mukti? I would consider such a path absurd and ridiculous. On the other hand, if we are talking about a spiritual lifestyle where sex is also used in moderation, I don't find a problem with that. Sex can be spiritual despite what some claim.
    Of course, no such claim was made (about sex being sole path).
    Tantras never say this. Any action, be it yogic kriya, some ritual (including Tantric), meditation practice or whatsoever cannot be put as a "sole path to Mukti", since it is GOD who gives Mukti as He/She wills. Salvation is a result of Shiva-anugraha only (called in Tantras "Shakti-nipata", or downward flow of Kundalini), never of any technique.

    Sexual practice has two basic reasons in Kaula-mata:
    1. It is a means to develop bhakti-bhava and achieve Shakti-jnana, which are conditions for the Grace to manifest.
    Of course it is not physical sex only, but LOVE which includes sexual side. And perfect Love should include it, since it is total.
    2. Sex is a natural way to manifest Ananda, bliss of Brahman as it is present in the world and body. Thus it is a part of Kaulika brahmacharya.

    But for sure simple f###ing (as well as murmuring of mantras or doing havana) is never a way to Mukti.
    As Kularnava-tantra says, "Only Love saves".

  3. #23
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    48
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Shri Arjuna
    All paths which are really to God, are valid and proper for certain groups of people
    Your submissions since does not contradict much of my submissions, this leads us to discussion than a debate. I like this. However, I would like to point the difference here in.

    In Gita, Shri Krishna procceds by saying, those who worship demi-gods and follow different paths established for demi-gods, gets limited & adequate fruits entitled through the demi-gods by my (Shri Krishna's) grace.

    This explains, though all paths for established by god, not all leads to god for limited and adequate applicable for that demi-god is offered by supreme being through that demi-god. If you consider reaching demi-god as reaching god himself, then this should be OK, otherwise, it is not. The phrase you had quoted becomes obselete with the second premise.

    What i wanted to say is that murti-puja is not Vedic in origin
    This deals with historic dates. I want know from you what your ideas are. Do you see vedic era is different from Puranic periods or do you assume, Veda along with Purana form the same age

  4. #24
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    mrityuloka
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,729
    Rep Power
    337
    Did Bhagwan outline who "demi-gods" are? By the way, what is a "demi-god"?
    satay

  5. #25
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    48
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by satay
    Did Bhagwan outline who "demi-gods" are? By the way, what is a "demi-god"?
    The outline offered by Lord Shri Krishna is other devatas - meaning devatas other than himself.

    The word Demi-god is recently coined and widely used in english translations, hence I went with the word. The word for Hindus is "Devatas"

    yo yo yaam yaam tanum bhaktha shradha yaarschitum ischate |
    tasya tasya chalaam sharadhaam taameva vitataamyaham ||

    I uphold the shradha of the bhaktha on whom so ever he wants to show his shradha - the words YO YO YAAM YAAM usage though refers to whom so ever, is pulled by all commentators to the next verse to indicate the meaning

    I understand you intentions in making this query. All I want to submit is though the names are different as we say aakasaath patitam doyam yatha gachaathi saagaram, sarva deva namaskaarah kesavam prati gachaathi, it reaches the same god, you use one name and I use another, but vedaantinonir vachaniyam ekam

    The contradictions we have is with the rupa and not with the guna, hence I feel this does not bars

  6. #26
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    Your submissions since does not contradict much of my submissions, this leads us to discussion than a debate. I like this. However, I would like to point the difference here in.
    Thank U.

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    In Gita, Shri Krishna procceds by saying, those who worship demi-gods and follow different paths established for demi-gods, gets limited & adequate fruits entitled through the demi-gods by my (Shri Krishna's) grace.
    I assume the word "demi-god" was invented by Prabhupada in the course of his sectarian preaching of vaishnavism.

    In fact, whether one worships God or "demi-god" depends on his intention and understanding, his faith (shraddhA), not of the name of particular deity. If one strives to the Absolute (Anuttara or Brahman, Parashiva/Parashakti), it is a path to God. Whether he calls IT "Kalika", "Krishna", "Shankara" or "Chandayogeshvari" doesn't make much difference. And if one worships "Krishna", "Kali" or whosoever for mere selfish reasons or due to custom, it is not a way to God but a worldy activity (laukika-karma).

    Of course i was speaking about ways to GOD, that One (and at the same time 0, 2 and 3), who is Ultimate Truth and Absolute Love.
    Not each and every religious method directly leads to Shiva-vyapti. For sure there is an hierarchy of paths, some being more straight and pure. But again, in any case it is God who is giving Mukti to us. Thus, it is wrong to say that one cannot reach the Highest Abode even being indulged in "lower doctrines", such as dvaita philosophies or "technical" yoga practice.

    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    This deals with historic dates. I want know from you what your ideas are. Do you see vedic era is different from Puranic periods or do you assume, Veda along with Purana form the same age
    Puranas were written much much later than Vedas, it is a historical fact. I did not study chronology in detail, but i doubt any Purana can be traced to B.C.E. period, while Vedas, some Upanishads, Gita etc surely belong to it.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by ramkish42
    The outline offered by Lord Shri Krishna is other devatas - meaning devatas other than himself.
    But this clearly refers to Anuttara, GOD, and not to Krishna as a historical personage, "man".
    For in Vedas and early Upanishads God is never called "Krishna", and in most Agamas God is called by another names.

    So this shloka is to be understood in the sense i underlined in previous post, and not as a sectarian claim or "krishnaism" being superior to other sampradayas.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    April 2006
    Age
    48
    Posts
    371
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Shri Arjuna
    In fact, whether one worships God or "demi-god" depends on his intention and understanding, his faith (shraddhA), not of the name of particular deity. If one strives to the Absolute (Anuttara or Brahman, Parashiva/Parashakti), it is a path to God. Whether he calls IT "Kalika", "Krishna", "Shankara" or "Chandayogeshvari" doesn't make much difference. And if one worships "Krishna", "Kali" or whosoever for mere selfish reasons or due to custom, it is not a way to God but a worldy activity (laukika-karma).
    On the contrary, in Hinduism, God is treated as King of him kingdom, and he has ministers who will take care of administration. Thus the emergence of devatas described as person in-charge of particular activity. It is not our wish to assign different names and forms to god, but lord assumed different names and forms for us.

    When I say this, many ask me, why so?, isn't that god alone is enough to do this? etc, and I used to respond, this creation work, as per our religion is explained as child's play of god - god wants to play and now he plays - and when a child starts playing, it is not bound by his own rules, but child makes rules then and there as per his wish and many a times it might break the previously said rule - Who am I to say this is unfair

    To your submission, even if we pray a pot to offer moksha, it could offer provided you see the god in the pot. This has sruthi samhatham provided proper invocation process is done. Hence this does not bares any other devata worshiped in the very name of lord or in different name.

    sarva deva namaskaarah kesavam prathi gachaathi.

    Important aspect to demand moksha from god is purusha nirnaya without this seeking moksha is shooting arrows in dark. Unless you are a master, it will not hit the target

    Quote Originally Posted by Shri Arjuna
    Puranas were written much much later than Vedas, it is a historical fact. I did not study chronology in detail, but i doubt any Purana can be traced to B.C.E. period, while Vedas, some Upanishads, Gita etc surely belong to it
    Nice observation.

    Purana, the very name implies it is old, even at the time it is told, it is told as purana, hence this should be as old as veda. My point here is when vedas are classified by Shri Ved Vyasa, this choronological problems arised. In the same way. Shri Ved Vyasa, classified Puranas also. As we know, we hear, Shri Ved Vyasa classfied Vedas first and then came to puranas, it is younger to Veda, no doubt, but it cannot be in 1000 years span, for the very classification activity shows that it existed even before such classification

    Let me clarify you how historians date a book. Shrimad Bhagavat Gita as citations on Arjuna. Say, you are king some time in 11 AD, then historians reasonably assume, age of Bhavat Gita could be 11 AD, if it corrborates events depicted has some relevance to happenings in and around you in 11 AD. Though this may not be correct, possibilites are more. For that fact, there could be king even in 200 BC by the same name whose records not found yet, till it is found books date is 11 AD, once a new records are found, it is the duty of the historians to change the assigned date, if it deems fit. In many occasions the very historian who has dated a book does not survive to change the date, for archealogical findings takes time. In short, I can say dating business is not science but a hypothesis. Let us curtail it at the level of hypothesis itself.

    However, there are certain texts whose dates are very clear - say for example - works of Kalidasa is clearly dated. There will changes but only few year but not in centuries.

    When we consider Veda and Purana, such dating is not possible. Rig veda not mentioning Ganga does not mean exactly, people were travelling hence, rig came before yajur. But the possibility survives. It is the classification done by Shri Ved Vyasa in such manner - this view also survives

    For the faith, Vedas does not refer puranas for vedas are primary texts, hence if it refers to any purana, and in turn purana refer veda, it becomes cyclic fallacy, hence such references are avoided. Having understood that vedas are written anywhere previously, and has such clarity is astounding fact. This does not negate the possiblity of presense of purana along with veda. Even when the difference of veda and purana be in 1000 / 10000 years or even more makes no difference for we still do not know when this universe is created - we still say this is begining less. We are bothered about date of classification done by Shri Ved Vyasa. At that time, puranas and veda existed simultaneously. (I do not agree though all puranas existed at that time, some are compiled later - note compilation does not amount to written, but in few instances yes. This is confusing but the past 10 years spent on this I am still confused - sorry for that)

    My point is - when we say vedic marga, it includes puranas and other shaastras, hence, reference need not be only in veda, even if it in purana, it is highly adorable on par with veda

    It is clearly pointed out by many aacharyas, that puranas exist to explain veda clearly, hence indication given in purana is equivalent to indication given in Veda

  9. #29
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    mrityuloka
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,729
    Rep Power
    337
    personally, I "dislike" the word demi.

    I think "devtas" should be used instead of demi. demi was coined by shri prabhupada and though I have the utmost respect for him as I do for any acharya of our tradition, I choose to use the word 'devta' instead of demi to uderstand that sholka in gita.
    satay

  10. #30
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71
    I do not want to enter into disputation about chronology of Puranas, since i think it is rather irrelevant to the issue discussed. Of course we cannot put any exact date to oral tradition, be it of Puranas or Tantras. But those texts of Puranas which exist nowadays are not very ancient.
    In any case, pauranika authority is very much secondary one, while Vedas (Upanishads included) and Agamas are of primary importance.

    Regarding the first point about God-worship vs gods-worship, Tantrism holds on to absolutist monistic view. Though in relative sense we can say there are "demi-gods" as particular powers (shaktis) of the Anuttara, God is one and only. Shakta-tantras call Him/Her as Shiva/Kali, Shaivagamas as Shiva or Rudra, Vaishnavagamas as Vishnu or Krishna — but Godhead is one.

    Of course, cults of kshudra-devatas and alike are not God-worship and do not lead to Mukti.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •