melvin

Well we will have to agree to disagree Melvin.

When there`s an agreement it means it`s a closed deal. That both have reached a consensus and approval on a subject discussed either lengthily or briefly. That`s why there are threads losing steam earlier because all who participated in the exchange agreed with no more questions asked from the thread starter. However, there are threads that go the distance because the participants find interest in the subject being presented.

When a thread appears animated members and guests are driven to visit and share their own or group views in order to agree or disagree. If the majority agrees or disagrees then there`s no point in continuing the discussion. The thread is closed UNLESS THERE`S A VALID DISSENTING OIPINON to keep it open. Why is the game of Golf only have 18 holes? It`s to make sure that players won`t find other holes to sink their balls into.

 

 

Yes, ours is a humble position. The Absolute Truth can reveal Himself to us or not. It behooves us to approach Him in a humble state of mind.

Wrong, Theist. The Absolute Truth also reveals Himself when He`s approached by one with a combative mood in the case of Nrsimha Vs Hiranyakasipu as Death persona. Patience is more correct when approaching Him in a humble state of mind if we want God to reveal His real Self to us in Lord Caitanya Vs Sarvabhauma Battacharya as The Guru.

When you say: "mental models are not perfect", you have got a point. There is indeed no way to prove that any theory about physical reality is absolutely true. However, a mental model can be extremely accurate, such as: when I put my hand in fire, it will be quite painful. Most people will take that as absolutely true knowledge.

 

My View: Not from people with Hansen`s disease(leprosy).

 

Most scientific models are much more complex than that. Yet, the currently most advanced mathematical models of physical reality (i.e., general relativity and quantum mechanics) have proven to be amazingly accurate in both their explanatory power and predictive power; even to the extend that many believe that reality is actually non-different from these models. Thus, when you say: "the result or knowledge taken from these models are conclusions shotful of holes", you are very wrong.

 

My View: Accurate from man`s material point of view not God`s.

 

Now, I explained that the model of reality that I have in mind is both strikingly compatible with the knowledge in the Vedas, as well as with contemporary scientific models. Thus, when you say: "they easily sink to the bottom when confronted with the reality stated in the Vedas", you are again very wrong, and you are actually saying that you don’t understand or care about science, and/or you didn’t read or understand my previous posts, and/or you have some unreasonable adverse attitude towards science and the scientific method, which I would think is quite a remarkable state of mind for a physician..

 

 

My View: There are diseases, Primate, physicians can`t cure using the

most sophisticated medical tools known to mankind but can

be done simply by a sincere prayer to God.

 

 

 

HOw is sambya a new hindu?

The new Hindu is akin to a born-again Christian. That is if there`s such a word as a born-again Hindu.

No. Philosophy or logic always precedes knowledge. We see a phenomenon; we don't understand it; we think about it and make a mental model of it; we test this model in reality; and we decide whether or not our logical model is valid. Only then, we have knowledge..

Mental models aren`t perfect. To test these models in reality is surreal since what we know to be reality is an illusion. So, how`d we know these logical models arrived at are valid when the mental models to begin are speculative? The result or knowledge taken from these models are conclusions shotful of holes. They easily sink to the bottom when confronted with the reality stated in the Vedas.

You actually can't say that. You can say, "when logic ends knowledge ends". But to say, "when logic ends knowledge of God begins", you must first come up with a definition of knowledge that is different from the usual scientific definition, i.e., we know something when a formal (logical) theory exists about it, which is in any way consistent with known empirical reality as well as with any (as yet) unknown empirical facts about it..

I`m just redefining what Theist has already said. That knowledge of God can never be discerned by mental or mathematical theories or even transcendental logic. It`s only when logic or thinking stops that we begin to know God. He reveals Himself to us only if we believe what He says in the Vedic scriptures. Quantum physicists don`t accept the Truth found in Srimad Bhagavatam or Bhagavad-gita. They`d rather use mathematical formulas and computerized models in knowing the Truth. Such endeavor is a waste of time and money. They`d rather spend billions of dollars in sending satellite probes to outer space than using these resources to feed billions of hungry souls. Why the US government continue to fund these scientific programs to me defies logic.

Sambya is also a brahmin.So tomorrow will you call him neo brahmin.

Ofcourse then you are not so called traditional hindu since your not respecting a brahmin.

Sant, I don`t know the difference from a Hindu and a Neo-Hindu. What I know is that the word neo-phyte means beginner or someone who`ve just began learning an art or vocation. Certainly, Sambya is no beginner on Hinduism. But if Neo means New, same as we label modern Nazis as Neo-Nazis, then Sambya`s views as I see them fittingly describes him to be a Neo-Hindu or Modern Hindu. And Chandu whose views are the very opposite of Sambya`s are traditionally Old-Hindu.

Mental is also consider material, subtle matter, but still matter. God can never be understood by the jivas even by transcendental logic. He is not static and is ever increasing. Krishna blows His own mind when He thinks about how great He is.

Where logic ends, knowledge of God begins.

You know it is 2009 now and these books were written a long ago. Just like we dress differently from people of those times, wear our hair differently, eat differently and live a completely different lifestyle, it is also natural to not want to replicate the role of women from a bygone era.

 

A better question would be, what are the qualities one can look for in a spouse, in our times? "Serving the husband" is not relevant to our times, when women can and do have their own careers, match upto men in all areas and are no longer playing second fiddle. The master-slave model has given way to a peer model. Some people (bigots?) may argue in favor of the older model, but we would obviously be better off analyzing the current model than wasting time brooding over an obsolete model.

 

Cheers

In this modern times, women wants to act like men and men acting like women( a reversal of roles). If a survey were done, perhaps there are more women wearing pants than men in every part of the globe. The title of this thread should have been: The Qualities of a Good Husband not Wife.

Boy meets girl. They fell in love. Both wants to get married. They bear fruits, children. They are fed and educated until they become responsible citizens. The children leave home. Now, husband and wife are back to where they were before. This is typical of a married life. If the wife didn`t possess good qualities of being a mother, the children are left behind to fend for themselves dependent on the father who decided to work abroad. While the wife is with her lover, the husband probably is living in one roof with another wife.

What really is a good wife? She serves unconditionally her husband and the children under her care. She does everyting to please them but firm and brave to discipline anyone in the family least they go astray. She`s not extravagant but thrifty. She`s a good cook. She knows how to budget the family`s expenditures. She`s the homely type and does not often go out with friends to enjoy the illusory things in life.

If there`s a wife and mother who fits the above criteria, she`s no other than Mother Yasoda. I wonder how Krsna and Nanda Maharaj behaved later in life if Putana became Krsna`s step mother and Nanda Maharaj`s second wife.

Ideally, a good wife, should acquire 25 or less qualities Srimati Radharani possessed to control her husband. But if she has no will to obtain them, a good wife must learn to tolerate her husband`s indiscretion. Even if she knows her husband`s playing with fire.

SO waht do you think.Why did dashrath not go to vishnu loka when he remembered raam and took his name and died.

I don`t know, Sant. Why dasrath did not go to Visnu-loka when he remembered Raam. Maybe there`s an unfinished business dasrath had to deal with when he took Raam`s name and died.

Hey i never wrote this.ITs from ramayana

Home - Vaalmeeki Raamaayan

Of course, you never wrote that. To para phrase my previous statement: " It`s a nice piece of work, Sant, you pasted on this thread.":)

Nice work, Sant:)

.

 

Do we know the inner life of Haridas Thakur? Is he naughty? We are meant to follow their examples and teachings. Chant the Holy names constantly and sacrifice yourself to fulfill the will of God.

If God is good then why did Bilvamangla Thakur label Krsna a naughty boy?

Remember it was Cintamani who caused Bilvamangala`s conversion to accept bhakti-yoga instead of becoming one with the Supreme. That during his life, Bilvamangala contacted a naughty boy. That we know for a fact it was Krsna whom he was referring to. Did Krsna and Cintamani exchange roles when Bilvamangala Thakur visited Cintamani? That it was Krsna whom Bilvamangala met instead of Cintamani inside the prostitute`s house?

This was a thread started on the nature of the Holy Names. Please let's get back on track. We can have a different thread on religious intolerance.

Opps, I`m sorry. I`ve missed the boat.

Bilvamangala Thakur life`s had a semblance to Ajamila considering that both fell from their respective positions due to their association with prostitutes.The former was irresistably attracted to one whose name was Cintamani. Bilvamangala even braved crossing the river`s raging waters just to get to her house on the opposite side. Instead of reaping sin for his irreverent attitude, Bilvamangala Thakur was suprisingly convinced by Cintamani a pure-devotee of Krsna to take up bhakti-yoga.

If Ajamila`s downfall came from a woman of ill-refute, Cintamani a prostitute was instrumental in Bilvamangala Thakur`s conversion, who later in life, lamented;" I was situated a monist in order to become one with the Supreme, but somehow or other I contacted a naughty boy and became His eternal servitor."

I don`t know, Theist, if Christ or Allah is naughty.

Mathematical equations or models in describing the Absolute Truth is still material to me, Primate. Only a transcendental mathematical equation or model can describe in full the Absolute Truth. Thus the saying, " It takes a thief to know one(a thief ).":)

Yes. Christ or Yahweh or Allah under the principle of namabhasa. The it comes up what you might mean by hell. heaven and hell as the only two options and then for eternity as taught by the Christians is such a ridiculous idea. I hope you are now not going in that direction.

If I remember correctly Ajamila did not go directly back to Godhead.

I don`t know what`s the principle of namabhasa, Theist. What I know was Ajamila used to be a brahmana. But got attracted to a prostitute. Later became sinful having sex with different ones. Ajamila may have completely forgotten God. And perhaps it was his luck to have named his youngest son Narayana. When it was Ajamila`s time to be taken, grotesque-looking messengers of Yamaraja came with ropes eagerly wanting to take this sinful man to hell. Fearful upon seeing them, Ajamila, called out Narayana, his son whom he was so fond with. At that instant, the messengers of Visnu arrived and forbade the messengers of Yamaraja to take Ajamila away to hell. To resolve to whom should Ajamila`s soul go, they took him to Yamaraja, the King of Hell, himself. Yamaraja`s messengers wanted an explanation as to why Ajamila, a very sinful man, shouldn`t not languish in hell according to Visnu`s messengers. When the latter cited why, Yamaraja, immmediately broke down and cried after the name Narayana was mentioned. For how could he forget his Lord, that wonderful flute player of Vrndavan who is Narayana himself. After describing Narayana to his messengers they with finality were ordered not to approach and take a sinful man like Ajamila again or else. Just like in a dream, Ajamila got back his life after waking up from the deep slumber of maya`s illusory energy.

Who says Ajamila didn`t go home back to Godhead, Theist? If Lord Caitanya didn`t advocate chanting the Hare Krsna maha-mantra then there`s no sense further of doing so if one can just easily erase his sins by chanting the names Christ or Allah. Krsna`s names ( Narayana, Govinda, etc.) are above all the other names not found in the Vedic scriptures.

.

 

Being a Catholic or Muslim or Hindu or Jew won't save you. Only being a lover of God will save you.

 

" A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet."

Only a lover of God can be saved? If Ajamila named his son Christ instead of Narayana would that have saved him from going to hell?

Yes, Theist. It`s best to stop this exchange of views when one can`t get a clearer picture presented by the other. Then we move on to another topic. There are so many important topics we haven`t yet touched and scratching the bottom is perhaps the least of our concerns. The easiest part I guess in a conversation is talking.The hardest part is when to stop and start listening.

BUT NO WHERE IN CHRISTS TEACHINGS IS IT TAUGHT THAT OFFERING SOMETHING TO GOD REALLY MEANS YOU ARE OFFERING IT TO YOURSELF.

 

Christ is not the mayavadi. it is you who are misunderstanding the teaching

Did I say that, Theist? What I said is that if I offer a leaf, flower, grain or water to God and I accepted it means the offering is not for myself but to the Superself within me. This is only applicable when you`re in the desert or island and there`s no nobody around but you. Where will you offer your food and drink to when you`re alone and don`t have God`s icon or deity with you? It`s mayavadism when I offer God meat and I accept it ( if it`s the only way to survive in the desert ). Or when I offer God fish and I accept it even if there are lots of coconut trees on the island.

In the New Testament of the Bible, there`s no verse describing in full what Christ looks like. Unlike in Srimad Bhagavatam where there is a verse describing Krsna sporting a long black wavy or curly hair, eyes in the shape of a lotus petal, smiling lips with bluish black skin. In short, followers of Christ who chants his name don`t have a clear picture whether his hair is long, black or curly; whether his skin is black or white; whether his eyes are big or small. The general consensus however is that Christ has the features of a Jew. But how do we know? Mary and Joseph wasn`t the biological parents of Christ. So, that rules out Christ resembling a Jew. Maybe Christ was created in Krsna`s image.

If Christ is an English word, Kristo a Greek word, and Krsna a Sanskrit word. Then chanting the names Krsna Jai instead of Christ Jesus does make sense to me if I were a Christian born in India or Kristo Jesu if I were a Christian born in Greece.

What`s the difference between Krsna and Christ? Are they both the same? Would I achieve liberation or self-realization if I chant, " Oh Lord Oh Lord Christ my Lord Alleluja Oh Lord Oh Lord Christ my Lord Alleluja Oh Lord Oh Lord Christ my Lord Alleluja "

Any view from you would be most welcome.

Melvin this is crazy talk.. When you are offering something to Krishna you are offering it to Krishna. You are the offerer and Krishna is the receipient of the offering. Krishna is a person, one with and separate from your self.

 

Bhaktivinode said that in one and difference the difference is more prominent. See it like 49% and 51%. Krishna says "in one sense I am everything, yet I am independent.

 

We are servant Krishna and He is served Krishna.

 

If you ae offering something and thinking that ultimately you are offering it to yourself then you are a mayavadi.

Don`t you remember, Theist, my religion is Catholicism? That Christianity is mayavadism? Bhakti yoga is Vaishnavism when we put Krsna at the center of our hearts. But when we place Christ as the center of our worship then that`s mayavadism. But when we think that Krsna and Christ are simultaneously one and different then that is acintya-bheda-abheda if we believe Krsna is bigger than Christ.