what is hinduisms highest priority

[kaisersose]

Bhakti does lead to liberation through devotion. It is only one of the paths.

That is the Hare Krishna position. They rank paths and consider Bhakti as the most superior.

 

[atmarama]

Bhakti does lead to liberation through devotion. It is only one of the paths.

No. Desire for liberation is an impediment on the path of Bhakti. Read chapter 12 of Gita carefully. Krishna very clearly explains that Bhakti (Devotional service) to Lord Krishna is superior to the impersonalistic conception.(12.1-4) Then goes on to say advancement is very troublesome for those whose minds are attached to the impersonal feature of the Lord (12.5) Then verses 9 - 12 Krishna gives a breakdown. Best is to fix the mind on personal Krishna. If thats not possible, then follow regulative principles of bhakti. If thats too difficult, then try work for Krishna(Karma Yoga),if not that, then offer the results to the Lord. If that is too hard, then engage in the cultivation of knowledge. (12.9-12)

Krishna later explains that: "Those who follow this imperishable path of devotional service (bhakti) and who completely engage themselves with faith, making Me the supreme goal, are very, very dear to me" (12.20)

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Where then is the question of loving relationship? This oneness sounds pretty boring to be the final goal to me... Lord Caitanya's superior philosophy of "Actyuta Bed abed" - inconceivable oneness and difference. Yes we are all part of the same energy, but within that energy there is variegatedness and variety. Love and personal relationship. Spiritual form :yes:

I bow to the path that the Lord Chaitanya has set down to show people the way.
It works great many people, but not all. There are many types of people so many paths. Why not say Chaitanya path is superior for me and renounce all bigotry. Other traditions have produced many Great Jivamuktis and lovers of God.

I believe that religious bigotry rots and saps the purity and strength from any spiritual tradition. It limits all closeness to God and cuts off love to our fellow humans. I think this is one of the reasons that many traditions have had such horrific scandals. (child molesting and other crimes) That Iskcon and others have been guilty of committing. In course of time all traditions will have problems but producing religious bigots only speeds up the corruption of teachings in any samparda.

 

[atmarama]

That is the Hare Krishna position. They rank paths and consider Bhakti as the most superior.

Not really - Krishna does that in Gita... We just listen to Him...

 

[atmarama]

There are many types of people so many paths. Other traditions have produced many Great Jivamuktis and lovers of God.

This is true. But I am just quoting Gita - If one accepts Krishna as authority in Gita then surely we should accept what He says?

Actually I am very liberal in this regard - was just replying to the thread topic according to my understanding. Ultimately we are all children of the one supreme Lord and have dynamic individual relationships, each a little different. The Lord is so wonderful

Blessed Be Brother

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

No. Desire for liberation is an impediment on the path of Bhakti. Read chapter 12 of Gita carefully. Krishna very clearly explains that Bhakti (Devotional service) to Lord Krishna is superior to the impersonalistic conception.(12.1-4)

Who is telling you to desire anything. My view is that we should not love to get liberation or even the proximity of God. That is the consciousness of business. You give something to get things in return. The highest love is the Love of the gopis, love just for the sake of LOVE no other reason.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

That is the Hare Krishna position. They rank paths and consider Bhakti as the most superior.

I have no problem with folks thinking "my path is best" some people seem to need this to engage in the discipline of their path. The Hare Krishna's have went way to far with this type of thinking. I do not see it as healthy.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

In my opinion, there is really no way to be sure that someone is liberated.

Very true it has been said only the liberated can see liberation.

No objective criteria exists to identify a liberated person. In the absence of such criteria, it comes down to subjective,

This is a key point for me. If you are looking for a Guru you should test Her to see if she lives like she explains to others. All you can judge does that person have what I want. Then organize your life around being how you want to be.

 

[atanu]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, Satsangi, but I'm reminded of the huge debate back in the '60s and '70s about the validity of mystical or religious experiences with reference to the methods used to induce them.

Purists argued that only the insights produced by meditation and other traditional yogas were the real deal, whilst others argued that drug, exercise, medical, injury or other hallucinogenic etiologies produced states indistinguishable from those of traditional methodologies and were, therefore, genuine mystical experiences.

Remember that Ram Das gave megadoses of LSD to a number of Indian Sadhus. Some were overwhelmed and asked where they could get some more, but in others there was no apparent effect, or they reported meditation superior.

Namaste Seyorni

I do not understand it. Is a drug addict an adept yogi? Yoga is the result of extremely fine tuned and disciplined practice of concentration. Whereas addicts have no control on themselves even.

 

[kaisersose]

This is true. But I am just quoting Gita - If one accepts Krishna as authority in Gita then surely we should accept what He says?

The Hare Krishna interpretation of the Gita is just one of several different interpretations. So the person who says Bhakti is just one among several paths is following Krishna's words too!

If Bhakti was superior than other paths, then why would Krishna even bother to talk about other paths? Would it not make sense to simply talk about the one "superior" path - especially when you have thousands of people in the battlefield, waiting for you to finish talking so they could get on with the battle?

 

[atmarama]

The Hare Krishna interpretation of the Gita is just one of several different interpretations. So the person who says Bhakti is just one among several paths is following Krishna's words too!

If Bhakti was superior than other paths, then why would Krishna even bother to talk about other paths? Would it not make sense to simply talk about the one "superior" path - especially when you have thousands of people in the battlefield, waiting for you to finish talking so they could get on with the battle?

:thud: Actually the meaning is quite clear. No need for interpretation.... Please refer to my previous post about why Krishna spoke of other paths.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

:thud: Actually the meaning is quite clear. No need for interpretation.... Please refer to my previous post about why Krishna spoke of other paths.

Much of the time the problem with with the Translation.

 

[Bhagavata]

The Hare Krishna interpretation of the Gita is just one of several different interpretations. So the person who says Bhakti is just one among several paths is following Krishna's words too!

If Bhakti was superior than other paths, then why would Krishna even bother to talk about other paths? Would it not make sense to simply talk about the one "superior" path - especially when you have thousands of people in the battlefield, waiting for you to finish talking so they could get on with the battle?

Chapter 12 verse 2

Krishna Replied:
Those who worship me singlemindedly and those who have unshakable faith, are for me the most learned in yoga​

Chapter 12 verse 3 and 4

(3) But those who worship the deathless Brahman, the imperishable, unnameable, the invisible, the immutable, unshakable,and eternal-​

(4) They subdue their senses, and seek the welfare of all, they also finally find me.​

It appears to me, Krishna thinks devotion to Him is the best Yoga.

But, in the end, Krishna says to drop all Dharmas and simply surrender to Him (18.66)

Whether you seek God threw Bhakti, Dhyana, Karma, or any other Yoga, you will in the end get to God. That is how I see it.

I am thinking about converting to Gaudiya Vaishnavism, if I do I will be very very liberal. Doesnt Sri Caitanya say that the only religious principal in this day and age is Chanting? Yes, He does in the Caitanya Caritamrita. He does not say, go out and look superior! He doesnt say, put down others. Srila Prabhupada even said that a devotee of Krishna should think of Himself as most fallen, not an elitist. Sri Caitanya just wants us to love God and His process is Chanting, thats all! I really dislike how ISKCON went down hill and has turned into what it is, but it shouldnt pull down all of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I have great respect for Srila Prabhupada, without Him I would not know what Gaudiya Vaishnavism is, but I dont like what ISKCON has become. I believe that Gaudiya Vaishnavism is apart of Hinduism, unlike ISKCON-ites believe. I dont believe that Krishna is the only way, like the followers of ISKCON believe. To me, just love God either threw meditation, chanting, or however you feel is right, and God will accept. He wants your LOVE! Not for you to call others names and put them down, we are all sons and daughters of God, we should love eachother like so too!

 

[Gaura Priya]

I am thinking about converting to Gaudiya Vaishnavism, if I do I will be very very liberal. Doesnt Sri Caitanya say that the only religious principal in this day and age is Chanting? Yes, He does in the Caitanya Caritamrita. He does not say, go out and look superior! He doesnt say, put down others. Srila Prabhupada even said that a devotee of Krishna should think of Himself as most fallen, not an elitist. Sri Caitanya just wants us to love God and His process is Chanting, thats all! I really dislike how ISKCON went down hill and has turned into what it is, but it shouldnt pull down all of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I have great respect for Srila Prabhupada, without Him I would not know what Gaudiya Vaishnavism is, but I dont like what ISKCON has become. I believe that Gaudiya Vaishnavism is apart of Hinduism, unlike ISKCON-ites believe. I dont believe that Krishna is the only way, like the followers of ISKCON believe. To me, just love God either threw meditation, chanting, or however you feel is right, and God will accept. He wants your LOVE! Not for you to call others names and put them down, we are all sons and daughters of God, we should love eachother like so too!

Just to tell you, there are Gaudiya Vaishnavas outside of ISKCON. I am part of the organisation known as Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math, or SCS Math. You can find it at www.scsmath.com, but there is also the group of disciples from Narayana Maharaja, and the Sri Chaitanya Sanga by Tripurari Swami. You may like Tripurari Swami's newsletter, which gives opinions of modern-day issues in a Gaudiya Vaishnava light. http://harmonist.us/ Tripurari Swami has the reputation of being erudite and perceptive.

ISKCON just happens to be the biggest. But Gaudiya Vaishnavism, in terms of conservatism, is part of the 'Vaishnava' religion, which means that we only accept Lord Vishnu/Narayana or Krishna (or Lord Ramachandra and any other vishnu-tattva) as the God Himself.

Even if I were not part of SCS Math, and even a Gaudiya Vaishnava, I still will stick to Vaishnava Dharma. Why? Because it is the only one that teaches that bhakti is the ultimate, the supreme, and the way to have a loving relationship with the Lord (Vishnu/Krishna), who is the God of gods, the King of kings and the Lord of lords.

Besides, Mahaprabhu not only established the supremacy of Vaishnava Dharma, he also rebuked the pharasees of the older Vaishnavas who were completely caste-conscious brahmanas. Mahaprabhu, as the pure incarnation of Radha-Krishna Himself, brought the original teachings of Vaishnavism in their proper perspective; that of a liberal religion, in which all peoples can come to Krishna, no matter how saintly or sinful they may be, and develop their love for Him as the Supreme Lord.

if you want to understand Vaishnavism in a liberal light, I strongly encourage and invite you to read the writings of Bhaktivinod Thakur: http://bvml.org/SBTP/index.htm Here is an excerpt from his essay, "The Bhagavata"

As far as we can understand, no enemy of Vaishnavism will find any beauty in the Bhagavata. The true critic is a generous judge, void of prejudices and party spirit. One who is at heart the follower of Mohammed will certainly find the doctrines of the New Testament to be a forgery by the fallen angel. A Trinitarian Christian, on the other hand, will denounce the precepts of Mohammed as those of an ambitious reformer. The reason simply is, that the critic should be of the same disposition of mind as that of the author, whose merits he is required judge. Thoughts have different ways. One, who is trained up in the thoughts of the Unitarian Society or of the Vedanta of the Benares School, will scarcely find piety in the faith of Vaishnavas. An ignorant Vaishnava, on the other hand whose business it is to beg from door to door in the name of Nityananda will find no piety in the Christian. This is because, the Vaishnava does not think in the way in which the Christian thinks of his own religion. It may be, that both the Christian and the Vaisnava will utter the same sentiment, but they will never stop their fight with each other only because they have arrived at their common conclusion by different ways of thought. Thus it is, that a great deal of ungenerousness enters, into the arguments of the pious Christians when they pass their imperfect opinion on the religion of the Vaishnavas.

Subjects of philosophy and theology are like the peaks of large towering and inaccessible mountains standing in the midst of our planet inviting attention and investigation. Thinkers and men of deep speculation take their observations through the instruments of reason and consciousness. But they take different points when they carry on their work. These points are positions chalked out by the circumstances of their social and philosophical life, different as they are in the different parts of the world. Plato looked at the peak of the Spiritual question from the West and Vyasa made the observation from the East; so Confucius did it from further East, and Schlegel, Spinoza, Kant and Goethe from further West. These observations were made at different times and by different means, but the conclusion is all the same in as much as the object of observation was one and the same. They all hunted after the Great Spirit, the unconditioned Soul of the Universe.

They could not but get an insight into it. Their words and expressions are different but their import is the same. They tried to find out the absolute religion and their labors were crowned with success, for God gives all that He has to His children if they want to have it. It requires a candid, generous, pious, and holy heart to feel the beauties of their conclusions. Party-spirit - that great enemy of' truth - will always baffle the attempt of the inquirer who tries to gather truth from religious work of their nations, and will make him believe that absolute truth is nowhere except in his old religious book. What better example could be adduced than the fact that the great philosopher of Benares will find no truth in the universal brother-hood of man and the common father-hood of God? The philosopher, thinking in his own way of thought, can never see the beauty of the Christian faith. The way, in which Christ thought of his own father, was love absolute and so long as the philosopher will not adopt that way of thinking he will ever remain deprived of the absolute faith preached by the western Savior. In a similar manner the Christian needs adopt the way of thought which the Vedantist pursued before he can love the conclusions of the philosopher. The critic, therefore, should have a comprehensive, good, generous, candid, impartial and a sympathetic soul.

But I also accept Muhammad, Jesus, Zoroaster, and even Bahaullah as shakyavesh-avatars, or empowered Messengers of the Lord. And that the Bible, the Qur'an, the Gathas, and Bahaullah's Writings can be considered Scripture, although of a lesser value to the Vedas, which are eternal.

Surely, we are all children of God, but that does not make me want to start doing pujas to Durgadevi or anything like that. I firmly believe in Vaishnava Dharma, but you can follow any Dharma you wish.

 

[Riverwolf]

(12.1)
Arjuna inquired: Which is considered to be more perfect, those who are properly engaged in Your devotional service, or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?

(12.2)

The Blessed Lord said: He whose mind is fixed on My personal form, always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith, is considered by Me to be most perfect.

You mean these verses?

Arjuna said:
"There are Thy ever-steadfast devotees who love and worship Thee in the above way (as the Divine Person); there are again others who contemplate on Thee as the Imperishable Unmanifest (Impersonal Absolute) - which of these has a greater understanding of Yoga?"

The Blessed Lord said:
"Those I consider as the most perfect in Yoga, who, with their minds fixed intently on Me in steadfast love, worship Me with absolute faith."
-Swami Tapasyananda translation


Arjuna:
Of those steadfast devotees who love you and those who seek you as the eternal formless Reality, who are the most established in yoga?"

Sri Krishna:
Those who set their hearts on me and worship me with unfailing devotion and faith are more established in yoga.
-Eknath Easwaran translation


Arjuna:
Some worship you with steadfast love. Others worshiop God the unmanifest and changeless. Which kind of devotee has the greater understanding of yoga?

Shri Krishna:
Those whose minds are fixed on me in steadfast love, worshiping me with absolute faith. I consider them to have the greater understanding of yoga.
-Swami Prabhavanada/Christopher Isherwood translation


It looks to me like simple Bhakta love is what's most important, not necessarily on the personal form of Krishna.

I will point out, however, this other translation that I have, which is a Gaudiya Vaishnava translation.

Arjuna said: According to Your earlier instructions, there are bhaktas endowed with nistha, who continuously engage in bhajana to Your Syamasundara form, and there are also those who worship nirvisesa aksara-brahma. Of these two, who is the best type of yogi?

Sri Bhagavan said: Those yogis, who with transcendental faith, fix their minds on My Syamasundara form, and constantly worship Me with ananya bhakti, are the best amont those who know yoga. This is My opinion.

This translation mentions the Syamasundara form of Krishna, which a quick glance at the glossary, translates as "The supremely beautiful form of Sri Krsna, whose complextion is like a fresh, dark rain cloud and who plays sweetly on His flute.

Okay, so it looks at first like the other translations I provided are wrong. However, a look at the verses in the original Sanskrit reveals something:

arjuna uvaca
evam satata-yukta ye | bhaktas tvam paryupasate
ye capy aksaram avyaktam | tesam ke yoga-vittamah

sri bhagavan uvaca
mayy avesya mano ye mam | nitya-yukta upasate
ssraddhaya parayopetas | te me yuktatama matah

The word "Syamasundara" doesn't appear anywhere. The word-by-word translation of the first verse does imply that it was gotten from a previous verse, but I can't find it earlier, either. Not to mention, the second verse doesn't have it at all; in fact, that word-by-word translation is more in line with the earlier translations I provided.

So, it doesn't look like Krishna was necessarily talking about that particular Personal Form.

 

[zenzero]

Friend atmarama,

Thank you and understand what it means.
Personally it simply means one's interaction with everyone and everything else as parts of Brahman in personalized forms and this is never denied.
However like to add that Personalized forms too change and one should not be attached to any particular form as any attachment is a barrier.
Am sure that you understand that humans evolved and that the form of human including Krishna's will not be there in future as evolution will change that.
The choice is individual's own and if one wishes to be attached with the form of Krishna and be devoted to that form is fine as long the individual knows that he himself is not a separated form.

Love & rgds

 

[Valjean]

Namaste Seyorni

I do not understand it. Is a drug addict an adept yogi? Yoga is the result of extremely fine tuned and disciplined practice of concentration. Whereas addicts have no control on themselves even.

You would be of the traditionalist school, then.

First, I don't understand your usage of the term "drug addict." Drug addiction has nothing to do with the usage of a hallucinogen as a sacrament in a religious setting.

I argree that Union can be the result of a finely tuned and disciplined practice of concentration (though meditative non-concentration is the more traditional practice).
But you ignore the fact that identical states of expanded consciousness/union have been reported by practitioners of various physical (hatha) or breathing (pranayam) exercises, as well as the usage of various pharmaceuticals -- peyote, soma, ayahuasca, psilocybin, &c.

 

[Satsangi]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, Satsangi, but I'm reminded of the huge debate back in the '60s and '70s about the validity of mystical or religious experiences with reference to the methods used to induce them.

Purists argued that only the insights produced by meditation and other traditional yogas were the real deal, whilst others argued that drug, exercise, medical, injury or other hallucinogenic etiologies produced states indistinguishable from those of traditional methodologies and were, therefore, genuine mystical experiences.

Remember that Ram Das gave megadoses of LSD to a number of Indian Sadhus. Some were overwhelmed and asked where they could get some more, but in others there was no apparent effect, or they reported meditation superior.

What I tried to imply was that as per the Saints and Scriptures, Brahman is supposed to be "Neti... Neti...." which is above the mind/body/intellect. The hallucinogens by definition alter the mind and hence that experience cannot be the Nirvikalpa Samadhi experience- which is above the mind/body/intellect.

Regards,

 

[atmarama]

Besides, Mahaprabhu not only established the supremacy of Vaishnava Dharma, he also rebuked the pharasees of the older Vaishnavas who were completely caste-conscious brahmanas. Mahaprabhu, as the pure incarnation of Radha-Krishna Himself, brought the original teachings of Vaishnavism in their proper perspective; that of a liberal religion, in which all peoples can come to Krishna, no matter how saintly or sinful they may be, and develop their love for Him as the Supreme Lord.

if you want to understand Vaishnavism in a liberal light, I strongly encourage and invite you to read the writings of Bhaktivinod Thakur: Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura Prabhupada Here is an excerpt from his essay, "The Bhagavata"



But I also accept Muhammad, Jesus, Zoroaster, and even Bahaullah as shakyavesh-avatars, or empowered Messengers of the Lord. And that the Bible, the Qur'an, the Gathas, and Bahaullah's Writings can be considered Scripture, although of a lesser value to the Vedas, which are eternal.

Surely, we are all children of God, but that does not make me want to start doing pujas to Durgadevi or anything like that. I firmly believe in Vaishnava Dharma, but you can follow any Dharma you wish.

Wow! Thank you for that prabhu! Wonderful...

 

[atmarama]

You mean these verses?

Arjuna said:
"There are Thy ever-steadfast devotees who love and worship Thee in the above way (as the Divine Person); there are again others who contemplate on Thee as the Imperishable Unmanifest (Impersonal Absolute) - which of these has a greater understanding of Yoga?"

The Blessed Lord said:
"Those I consider as the most perfect in Yoga, who, with their minds fixed intently on Me in steadfast love, worship Me with absolute faith."
-Swami Tapasyananda translation


Arjuna:
Of those steadfast devotees who love you and those who seek you as the eternal formless Reality, who are the most established in yoga?"

Sri Krishna:
Those who set their hearts on me and worship me with unfailing devotion and faith are more established in yoga.
-Eknath Easwaran translation


Arjuna:
Some worship you with steadfast love. Others worshiop God the unmanifest and changeless. Which kind of devotee has the greater understanding of yoga?

Shri Krishna:
Those whose minds are fixed on me in steadfast love, worshiping me with absolute faith. I consider them to have the greater understanding of yoga.
-Swami Prabhavanada/Christopher Isherwood translation


It looks to me like simple Bhakta love is what's most important, not necessarily on the personal form of Krishna.

The Blessed Lord said:
"Those I consider as the most perfect in Yoga, who, with their minds fixed intently on Me in steadfast love, worship Me with absolute faith."
-Swami Tapasyananda translation

Sri Krishna:
Those who set their hearts on me and worship me with unfailing devotion and faith are more established in yoga.
-Eknath Easwaran translation

Shri Krishna:
Those whose minds are fixed on me in steadfast love, worshiping me with absolute faith. I consider them to have the greater understanding of yoga.
-Swami Prabhavanada/Christopher Isherwood translation

Yet in all these translations Krishna Himself refers to "Me". If Krishna says Me surely He means Himself personally??? Sure He goes on to say that those who worship the impersonal feature will finally/eventually get to Him. But the question here is what is the highest goal...