Question - Page 6 | Mythological Masti

page

Posted: 9 years ago

This content was originally posted by-Surya_krsnbhakt
Hey, Dudkley was not such a wicked, cruel boy. You are exaggerating. He was a bully who was too dumb and insecure about himself, but deep down, actually cared for his relatives a little, though this was buried by layers of dumbness and bullying, and insecurity and fear.
Sorry. Got carried away.

So anyway, ya, blind faith.. actually blind faith is too strong a word for the Dursleys...
But I get your point.
Quite right. The Upanishads were born out of curiosity and doubts and questioning.. why, if Shevtaketu had not become egoistic, and if he did not have the doubt about God, we would have never got the "Tat Tvam Asi" episode of Chandogya Upanishad.

Ha ha ha..so now I m 'egoistic' too..lol.. just kidding..like I have mentioned b4 as well , I dont mind if m labelled unreasonable (or reasonable), egoistic , taamsic , lacking spirituality,lacking humility n what not..as long as streams of pure knowledge keeps flowing in , all such accusations ( or rather insinuations) r worth it!!

About Dudley ...umm..I beg to differ..I mean towards the end, he did show that he cared "a little" about harry "by shaking hands with him b4 departing" ( at which Mrs Dursley broke into tears owing to "kindness" ,"affection"& "sweetness" showed by Dudley towards Harry) but I do believe he was always very wicked ( mostly due to his parents fault since they never bothered to show him the difference between right n wrong; so he could have been a better person if he was raised by someone else, so there also somewhat potential for good) bcoz as a bully he did display his wicked tendency of deriving pleasure from bullying weaker kids n such a tendency requires an inherent evil aspect in a bully's personality..( something that he shares in common with voldermort..he was also a big bully as a boy (n also as an adult ) but very secretive n clever unlike dudley)

Did I use 'blind faith' for the Dursleys ??.. I thought I used "blind love"( which was almost devotion like)( m logged in through my smartphone, so going back one page n checking out my posts requires hell lot of time n patience )

Edited by Akash005 - 9 years ago

Quote

Frequent Posters

Surya Sundarraj Sriram

@Surya_krsnbhakt

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 9 years ago

This content was originally posted by-Akash005

Ha ha ha..so now I m 'egoistic' too..lol.. just kidding..like I have mentioned b4 as well , I dont mind if m labelled unreasonable (or reasonable), egoistic , taamsic , lacking spirituality,lacking humility n what not..as long as streams of pure knowledge keeps flowing in , all such accusations ( or rather insinuations) r worth it!!

No no, not you. I meant Shvetaketu. I don't think you are egoistic.

Quote

983175

Posted: 9 years ago

This content was originally posted by-Surya_krsnbhakt

No no, not you. I meant Shvetaketu. I don't think you are egoistic.

O m sure u dint mean like that..😆..but even if it was Shvetaketu (no idea who that is BTW) or me that's inconsequential n irrelevant here due to my previously mentioned reason.. I dont mind it !😊

Edited by Akash005 - 9 years ago

Quote

983175

Posted: 9 years ago

This content was originally posted by-varaali

@ red bold :So, now you are teaching Karma Yoga to Lord Rama? 😛 Just j/k.

Have some humility, buddy.

It is a humble request to anyone n everyone reading my posts to not to take my 'opinions'(n not judgements) out of context..

@ Bold and Underlined.. a classic case of taking things out of context ( in addition to luv-kush identity crisis).. I must request you to go through my post again especially the part highlighted in red..true , if the red part is taken out of the context, it would seem like I m trying to teach "karma yoga" to Sri Rama.. but if u connect it with what I have written just b4 n after the red highlight, it would become clear to anyone reading it that ''my personal brand of karma yoga" was directed towards us, the mere mortals n not Sri Rama; n the "karma yoga" was meant for 'fighting corruption in modern society' and 'not running a kingdom'..I drew a comparison of course but that was only in support of the argument of y I 'felt' like Sri Rama failed as a king ..true, u were only kidding but I thought I should clear it out nevertheless..

@Bold and Blue.. the sentence clearly starts with "the way I c it now".. so I c no reason for y people would consider it as me passing judgements, when clearly it is an individual's opinions and conclusions..

Edited by Akash005 - 9 years ago

Quote

983175

Posted: 9 years ago

This content was originally posted by-Akash005

I understand it is bit late to dig up this question again..but better late than never..first of all let me start by stating that I completely agree with ur n Surya_krsnbhakt's explanations, insights n detailed analysis regarding the same..as in Vaishnava sect per se never had anything to do with caste system n these were the direct consequences of "comprehensive butchering of 'varnashram' in the recent past" n unfavourable n harmful tactics used by foreign invaders to further strengthen such atrocities ..

But coming back to my main question..u stated that none of the Hindu sects had anything to with caste systems..but let's just consider Shiva-Vishnu each other's "Atmaroop" n not each others followers 4 the sake of convenience of discussion, then who would b regarded as the foremost human Vaishnava follower?.. I may b wrong but wouldn't that make prajapathi Daksh foremost human vaishnava?.. bcoz I belive daksh was brought into picture at the beginning of creation itself by Brahma..so I think its safe to say that daksh was the foremost human vaishnava follower.. n everybody is familiar with initial Shiva - Daksh equation.. which seemed a lot like caste bias..may not b so exclusively.. but definitely showed such traits..so wouldn't that mean that seeds for cast system were sown by foremost human vaishnava follower n thus traces its "origination" in Vaishnava sect..

If anybody has any insights, views or opinions on the above mentioned please feel free to post it..bcoz as of now, this seems to b the only tiny lingering doubt otherwise all of my questions n doubts have been sufficiently cleared out..the 'quest' is almost over!..

Quote

Surya Sundarraj Sriram

@Surya_krsnbhakt

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 9 years ago

This content was originally posted by-Akash005

But coming back to my main question..u stated that none of the Hindu sects had anything to with caste systems..but let's just consider Shiva-Vishnu each other's "Atmaroop" n not each others followers 4 the sake of convenience of discussion, then who would b regarded as the foremost human Vaishnava follower?.. I may b wrong but wouldn't that make prajapathi Daksh foremost human vaishnava?.. bcoz I belive daksh was brought into picture at the beginning of creation itself by Brahma..so I think its safe to say that daksh was the foremost human vaishnava follower.. n everybody is familiar with initial Shiva - Daksh equation.. which seemed a lot like caste bias..may not b so exclusively.. but definitely showed such traits..so wouldn't that mean that seeds for cast system were sown by foremost human vaishnava follower n thus traces its "origination" in Vaishnava sect..

You have been watching too much of DKDM's Sati Era.😆

So, Lord Shiva is the foremost Vaishnava. Agreed?

Daksha was one of the great devotees of Vishnu, but was not the greatest. Plus, he didn't HATE Shiva initially, he just thought that Shiva had not adhered to the norms of life as created by Lord Brahma, and by extension, Daksha.

His hatred began when SHiva failed to greet him at the Yagyasabha, but instead blessed him. He felt, as Lord Brahma's sons, both of them were equal in status, and he also thought that SHiva is his son-in-law. He failed to understand Siva's exalted position, and started criticising his habits, his followers, and his nature.

THis began a feud between Vaishnavas and SHaivas, but was by no means the start of caste bias. Daksha criticised Shiva for roaming in cemeteries, applying ash all over, having the goblins and Bhutas and Vinayakas for his followers. He didn't call Shiva as a low-caste person, but called him as a person who makes his own rules, unfit for society. All this in anger. But the caste system is actually a system to accomodate people into the society, not to throw them out.

YOu got your answer?😊

Quote

983175

Posted: 9 years ago

This content was originally posted by-Surya_krsnbhakt

You have been watching too much of DKDM's Sati Era.😆
So, Lord Shiva is the foremost Vaishnava. Agreed?
Daksha was one of the great devotees of Vishnu, but was not the greatest. Plus, he didn't HATE Shiva initially, he just thought that Shiva had not adhered to the norms of life as created by Lord Brahma, and by extension, Daksha.
His hatred began when SHiva failed to greet him at the Yagyasabha, but instead blessed him. He felt, as Lord Brahma's sons, both of them were equal in status, and he also thought that SHiva is his son-in-law. He failed to understand Siva's exalted position, and started criticising his habits, his followers, and his nature.

THis began a feud between Vaishnavas and SHaivas, but was by no means the start of caste bias. Daksha criticised Shiva for roaming in cemeteries, applying ash all over, having the goblins and Bhutas and Vinayakas for his followers. He didn't call Shiva as a low-caste person, but called him as a person who makes his own rules, unfit for society. All this in anger. But the caste system is actually a system to accomodate people into the society, not to throw them out.

YOu got your answer?😊

Quote

983175

Posted: 9 years ago

So now that EFFECTIVELY ends my quest here!

Question no.1 about 'Vishnu's partiality towards devas as compared to Shiva' was effectively put down to rest by Viper83 ( he gave examples of asur Vishnu devotee) and Surya_Krsnbhakt ( he effectively explained y the comparison of Shiva and Vishnu in this context can make one think like that with respect to Vishnu's role of god of preservation vis a vis Shiva's role)

Question no. 2 about caste system originating in Vaishnavism was effectively put down to rest by Sherlock ( comprehensive butchering of Varnashram in the recent past) and Surya_krshnbhakt ( effects of foreign invasion and explanation of initial Shiva-Daksh equation)

Question no. 3( the most difficult n painful of the 3 questions) about justifying Sri Ram's actions towards Devi Sita was put to rest by Varaali ( a beautiful post explaining the events) and Sherlock ( a post that led me to form my own interpretation, justification and conclusion of Sri Rama's actions towards the end of the Ramayana).. while people in general may not agree with me on the following, it perfectly makes sense for me

1. Sri Ram committed a grave mistake by separating from Devi Sita under societal pressure ( or to protect the sanctity of his throne according to the famous king dharma) , thereby causing immeasurable pain to his wife which led her to seek shelter in Bhumi Devi for all eternity.

2. The injustice done to Devi Sita caused immeasurable pain to Sri Rama , as a result he himself suffered a lot as a punishment because he is dedicated and committed to his wife for all eternity, truly a 'one woman one man' man in a day and age when kings used to take multiple queens.

3. This incident teaches us to always stand by what you believe is right or else the result would b life long guilt and suffering.

4. One must always b prepared to face the consequences of his actions; Sri Rama being a god's incarnation himself did not excuse himself from his punishment, prayaschit is the only way to liberation.

Quote

983175

Posted: 9 years ago

The 'quest' has already ended..but I felt that there r certain things that r important to share with everyone..the 'quest' did require a lot patience , understanding,me questioning my own intellect, my own spirituality, my own faith, my own humility, n what not..so in a nutshell it wasn't easy to arrive at an acceptable and satisfying conclusion for the 'quest'(especially the third question regarding justifying Sri Rama's actions towards Devi Sita).. but yes , what seemed to b an almost impossible task has been turned into perfectly easy task by the members of this forum..this just proves that even if people have a major difference of opinion, if they just bother to sit down n discuss it through, they can always always reach a middle ground with conclusions fairly acceptable to both the parties involved in the discussion.. take Varaali and me for instance, Varaali is of the opinion that " Sri Rama never committed any injustice/ anyaya towards Devi Sita and he had to do what he did to ensure the safety and well being of his wife and unborn children from evil gossipers as well as to protect the sanctity of his throne" whereas I am of the opinion that "Sri Rama did in fact commit a grave mistake by separating from his wife thereby committing an act of injustice towards his wife , children and as well as towards his subjects/ praja".. it also remains a fact that Varaali and I dont agree and may never agree on this front..but during the discussion, I did come across something that Varaali posted that makes perfect sense to me which is as follows:

This content was originally posted by-varaali

You are saying that Lord Rama should have never sent his wife away, because it sends a a wrong message to the society and in the name of following Rama, people since then have been committing atrocites on women.

This was never the msg which Rama wanted to put forth.As usual we humans with our little or no understanding have twisted it out of context.

Now what Rama wanted to tell his people was- "Look...if you can follow all the strict conditions which I follow, then, only then do you have the right to cast a doubt on your wife's character"

Now that perfectly makes to my argument and it definitely brought me closer to end this quest. It was just the kind of thing that I was looking for here, ' trying make sense and clearing my doubts by partaking a mutual discussion with knowledgeable members of this forum'..

@ bold.. thank you for that mam..I agree with the statement if only if applied to the modern society and not Sri Rama.. what each one of us needs to understand and accept is that we r liable to accuse someone else of something if and only if we make it sure that we ourselves r perfect on that front .. however, applying that statement to Sri Rama would b wrong since he had absolutely no reason to cast a doubt on his wife's character.. he was very well aware of her chastity.. he did it only to calm down the gossips, which was wrong..

Quote

983175

Posted: 9 years ago

This content was originally posted by-sherlock

If Ramayan records Sitaji's abandonement by Shri Rama, it also records the unimaginable love of Shri Raam for Sitaji. Why we never spare a sympathetic thought to His mental torment then, His years and years of torturous loneliness without His beloved Sita?? Maa janaki completed her part in the divine play and was gone, Shri Raam remained here as a King for 11,000 years, all alone all those years. All because at one point of time, he decided (maybe a wrong decision) that for Him as a king the right thing to do is to send the Queen of Ayodhya away. (Someone said, Raam never abandoned His beloved Sita, King of Ayodhya sent Queen of Ayodhya away, and OK, for you, it's a wrong decision, but then the King suffered enormously for that).

So I'll take the lesson, that through this incident, Lord tells us through His ACTIONS what he told us in Bhagvad Gita through His words, "extremely difficult to decipher Dharma." And even the most knowledgeable in the concepts of dharma, and who more knowledgeable that Shri Raam, might go wrong at some point or the other. That's a good lesson for us mortals living in a complex world, to draw, don't you think. Also, once you carry out a wrong act, and unfavouable result is guaranteed sooner or later. This lesson too I draw from this incident. Again, a very good lesson for all us, I' m sure you agree.

"PURE PEARLS OF WISDOM!!" is what I would like to call the above quoted words, left absolutely no scope for any of my doubts whatsoever regarding Sri Rama's actions.

N this is exactly y I kept on insisting that any accusations ( or rather insinuations) of me being Taamsic, lacking spirituality, lacking humility n what not was totally worth it!!! As long as streams of pure wisdom and knowledge keeps flowing in , such accusations do not matter at all !!

Quote

1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10