全 10 件のコメント

[–]Boundless_SamadhiGaudiya Vaishnava 2ポイント3ポイント  (9子コメント)

Is this Deepak Chopra's reddit account. You write about many juxtapositions and contradictions, it's quite verbose. I don't know what you are trying to say.

[–]28mumbaiविद्यार्थी 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

It does feel like it...

A pseudo spiritual, New-Agey creative writing pet project.

First submission on his childhood experience was interesting, but I don't think this type of writing belongs on this sub.

[–]Ashish_Marathe[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

But, it's not.

It certainly does belong here. Shaktism is what defines Hinduism. I am a chitpavan brahmin. I am sharing my spiritual experiences related to my shakti sadhana. I am describing the intensely powerful facet of Hinduism. Thus, contributing my bit.

[–]simple_soulRandom chance and science 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Being a chitpawan has nothing to do with what you accomplished. Can you leave the labels out please? Are you seriously asking who Deepak is or was that sarcasm. Could not say for sure.

[–]Ashish_Marathe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, certainly. I mentioned that to answer whether my posts belong here.

No, I really didn't know. Now I know who Deepak Chopra is.

[–]Ashish_Marathe[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

No, I am not Deepak Chopra. Who's he?

In a nutshell, I am describing your username "Boundless Samadhi".

[–]Boundless_SamadhiGaudiya Vaishnava -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

If it is truly boundless, how can it be described?

[–]Omman[🍰] -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Analogies, metaphors and imperfect descriptions are about as close as one can get. I think the reason people are having trouble with these experiences is exactly because of the problem you are raising, these experiences exist outside of what the average person has experienced and so they can't relate to it. So their response is to hold on to their own beliefs rather than to accept that someone can have these kind of experiences.

Spirituality is full of paradoxes. If a man who was married and had children (let alone a prince) abandoned them and went to the forest he would be said to have abandoned his duty but Buddha did just that. Krishna in the Gita says God has form and doesn't have form. You would think that after Krishna says in the Gita that he comes down when people don't follow dharma and that he will will come to uphold dharma and then you see his actions in the Mahabharata it's quite a shock. He tricks Drona (and Yudisthira to some extent) to let himself be killed. He get Arjuna to kill his brother while his back is turned which is against the rules of war. If Duryodhana did such a thing we would hold it as proof of how immoral he was. How about when Krishna made the illusion that the sun had set so that Arjuna could kill Jayadratha? Shouldn't Krishna be a model of dharma?

[–]simple_soulRandom chance and science -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Are you seriously feeling sorry for Jayadrata and Karna? Are you forgetting how they played crucial roles in the immoral killing of Krishna's nephew and Arjuna's son Abimanyu?

Anyhow morality and ethics of Mahabharata war is a different topic. It is said Kuliyug or the age of darkness started soon after the onset of Mahabharata war

[–]Omman[🍰] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

No I'm not feeling sorry for them I'm saying that Krishna should follow dharma and kill them honorably. When Ram is fighting Ravana, Ravana gets knocked unconscious and Ram tells Ravana's charioteer to go and come back later instead of killing him right then. While not everything Ram does seems so honorable, Krishna definitely falls into the mold of trickster and essentially behaves the same as Duryodhana. I think that is paradoxical.

I don't think you really understand what I'm saying, I'm not talking about behavior of men. I'm questioning the behavior of Krishna, shouldn't he be an example, a role model of how we should all behave? He is willing to shoot people in the back. Even Ram displays behavior that seems paradoxical. I don't think you can dismiss Krishna's paradoxical behavior as being a different subject. It seems like you know most of the behavior in the Mahabharata is paradoxical but don't want to admit that this is also spiritual.

In the Gita Krishna tells Arjuna to follow every path, action, knowledge, Bhakti, raj yoga, etc. so which one is it? Isn't it a paradox to say he should follow all paths?