Vrindavana Das
Active Member
Wisdom is the ability to use knowledge in a beneficial way. So, when I say that I observe much wisdom, I am saying that I read many teachings that are potentially very beneficial.
Besides, how can a book be transcendental? They were written by humans.
There may be many readings that are potentially very beneficial like you say. Still, there is difference between material and spiritual deeds. Unless you share the 'wisdom' I can only assume and may be way off-mark.
Besides, anything spiritual is transcendental. In the spiritual world there is no difference between the name and the named. Meaning - a 'mango' and 'word' mange are non-different in the spiritual world. It is the Absolute platform. So, even the book with Lordṣ pastimes is transcendental (spiritual).
I thought Vaishnavism was the largest sect of Hinduism in India.
No. It is the smallest.
But even still, just because the events may not be exact history, that does not make them any less valuable; if anything, them being more mythological makes them FAR more rich.
Rāmāyan, Mahābhārata etc. are facts, not fiction. Although it is not needed, still I will say; there are places where Mahābhārata says temples existed/were built, river was etc. and we find they are either there or they were there at some point. If it was mythology, how could the so called 'novelist' know what exists in Sri Lanka or South India or North...and write a 'novel' with everything coming together perfectly...even write a scripture like the Bhagavad Gītā to validate a novel like Mahābhārata...that too thousands of years back!
The source of science is observation. That is timeless.
What science observes is 'material'. Source of material is 'spiritual'. Thus, what is spiritual cannot be known by material observations, till the source makes itself known.
Something like - if all the torches and lights of the world are used at night to see the Sun, can one see the sun? Sun can be seen only through it's mercy (own rays). No other way to see the sun is possible.
I disagree. Not all sex is pure sense satisfaction. It can also be a huge expression of deep love, and a way to build connection. While I don't really adhere to the notion of sex and sexuality being a path to the Supreme, it's not necessarily a hindrance, either.
Sex is sense gratification. I love you because you give pleasure to my senses and vice-verse. This is the way of material love. This is not love - it is lust.
Sex is not a hindrance when it is engaged in, for the purpose of raising God conscious children. Not for sense gratification.
Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita:
balaḿ balavatāḿ cāhaḿ
kāma-rāga-vivarjitam
dharmāviruddho bhūteṣu
kāmo 'smi bharatarṣabha
kāma-rāga-vivarjitam
dharmāviruddho bhūteṣu
kāmo 'smi bharatarṣabha
I am the strength of the strong, devoid of passion and desire. I am sex life which is not contrary to religious principles, O lord of the Bhāratas [Arjuna].[B.G. 7.11]
That doesn't answer my question.
Spiritual field exists. The proof is there in the scriptures with method to progressing on the spiritual field clearly shown. You have to walk the path to know. Something like - proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Can't inquire without doubt of the established state of things. Spirit of doubting is not disbelief. I don't know who told you that, but he/she is misinformed in this matter.
There are 4 kinds of people who inquire into the Absolute Truth. It is stated as follows in the Bhagavad Gita by Lord Krishna:
catur-vidhā bhajante māḿ
janāḥ sukṛtino 'rjuna
ārto jijñāsur arthārthī
jñānī ca bharatarṣabha
janāḥ sukṛtino 'rjuna
ārto jijñāsur arthārthī
jñānī ca bharatarṣabha
O best among the Bhāratas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute.[B.G. 7.16]
As for doubt, I have already provided the verse earlier:
ajñaś cāśraddadhānaś ca
saḿśayātmā vinaśyati
nāyaḿ loko 'sti na paro
na sukhaḿ saḿśayātmanaḥ
saḿśayātmā vinaśyati
nāyaḿ loko 'sti na paro
na sukhaḿ saḿśayātmanaḥ
But ignorant and faithless persons who doubt the revealed scriptures do not attain God consciousness; they fall down. For the doubting soul there is happiness neither in this world nor in the next.[B.G. 4.40]
Therefore I say, one should inquire and not doubt.
Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, a Great Shaiva Sage, has taught that the highest level of understanding is qualified non-dualism, which is the recognition of both paths being necessary, with the first step being dualism, and the next being non-dualism.
What the scripture say is as under:
vadanti tat tattva-vidas
tattvaḿ yaj jñānam advayam
brahmeti paramātmeti
bhagavān iti śabdyate
tattvaḿ yaj jñānam advayam
brahmeti paramātmeti
bhagavān iti śabdyate
"The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding by the knower of the Absolute Truth, and all of them are identical. Such phases of the Absolute Truth are expressed as Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān."[S.B. 1.2.11]
Brahman = Formless feature of Supreme Lord - the all pervading light
Paramātmā = localized feature of Supreme Lord in all our hearts - the four armed Viśnu.
Bhagavān = The original fountainhead Personality of Godhead - Kṛṣṇa.
Those Scriptures were written at one point, before which they did not exist. The Puranas are not timeless.
All knowledge has been derived from the Vedās. Vedās are timeless and as they are not authored by anyone, they are called apauroshaya. Puranas were derived from the Vedic wisdom by Srila Vyasadeva. Vyasadeva is the literary incarnation of Supreme Lord. He is not a conditioned soul like you and me.
Argumentum ad numerum: argument from the number of people who believe it, is logically fallacious. Just because a large amount of people believe something to be true, does not make it true. But just because they may be wrong, does not make them mad and foolish. So, yes, they may be wrong, and no, I do not think they're necessarily mad and foolish for it.
Besides, I don't think Yoga and Ayurveda are completely invalid. Both are great modes of everyday living, and could almost certainly help cut down the visits to the hospital. But they aren't infallible, and there's much they don't have that modern science does. They should supplement each other, rather than working against each other.
Ayurveda is a science. It is derived from the infallible Vedās and therefore is infallible. So, half the world is not wrong. Also, Ayurveda is not working against modern science. What makes you say so?
So, you have read all 18 Puranas?
Besides, I have also done research, and I am not convinced of anything beyond the existence of Gods. We shall see what further research will bring, because there's always going to be that one small bit of information that could potentially change one's entire paradigm about the way things are.
What convinces me need not necessarily convince you and vice-verse.
I did my research and am convinced.
I think we somewhat disagree as to what the English word "Spirituality" refers to. It means, to increase one's spirit, which in this case is somewhat related in concept to the word "attitude."
...if that's not further proof as to how much English as a language sucks, when the same word can have two completely different meanings, I don't know what is.
I am speaking of spirituality from the Hindu religion perspective.
Inquiry cannot exist without doubt.
Please see my reply above.
Why won't you answer the question? Is there no reason?
I felt the question did not qualify for a reply, so I did not answer. Had Lord Krishna not spoken the Bhagvad Gītā, it would have got detected over the last 5,000 years (after Lord Krishna wound up His pastimes and left). It is a scripture accepted by all traditions of Hindu Religion.
It seems that there's a lot of fluff in that word-by-word translation. Again, based on some research, the word "ajnah" simply means one without knowledge, without specifying what that knowledge entails.
There is no fluff. If you see the context of the discussion, you will understand the specifics of knowledge being spoken of. It is no rocket science.
So, whoever wrote that worked in a personal interpretation into the translation. Though considering how poorly Sanskrit translates into English, that's almost impossible to avoid. That's why multiple translations from multiple viewpoints are vital.
If it is a word-to-word, it will be the same in 'spirit', even if worded differently in different translations and languages.
Besides, the word "samshaya" may literally translate into "doubt", but that doesn't mean the concept is actually the same. The word might have had different connotations when that verse was composed.
Samshaya DOES mean doubt. You can read the other verses or the whole of Bhagavad Gita to understand that it means what it is saying.
And if the word is meant to be the same, then that part of the verse is wrong.
Lol! What makes you think you are an authority to decide that?
Seems yours is 'half-a-hen' theory. You will accept the portions which suit you (like egg giving back portion of a hen), and will reject the mouth which needs to be fed. See for yourself the irrational approach you are taking in 'inquiring' into something. This is 'doubt', not inquiry.
Then how is "real" happiness defined?
Real happiness is the eternal bliss the soul experiences after reviving it's forgotten eternal relationship with Supreme Lord. We seek happiness in the material relations, this is a perverted reflection of our spiritual relation with the Supreme Lord, which we are seeking here in the material world.