JustRish

Well I was thinking about adopting a little budgie but I am having a change of heart because someone brought it to my attention that it is wrong. He said it is taking away their right to freedom by putting them in a cage. Now, if only I had thought about that before. If I adopted one, wouldn't it mean I am supporting a cause to take away their freedom? So is it considered immoral to adopt one in your view? I have a friend who is a Krishna devotee but has a budgie. Is this considered okay? I am just curious on your views. Thanks

JustRish,

 

Lord Buddha is an incarnation of Krishna, who appeared because during those times, the animal sacrifice was being performed just to satisfy the senses and not for the higher goal of giving the animal a human form of life. Therefore it is stated in Dashavatara-Stotra of Jayadeva Gosvami about Lord Buddha as:

I'm not really that sure he is an incarnation of Krishna. But if you believe that then no problem. In Jainism, our 23rd Tirthankara (Neminath or Parshva) was the cousin of Krishna. Not sure if you accept that in Hinduism.

Seeing Krishna as the intelligent being behind the universal phenomena is a bone fide God conscious realization but it is just the beginning, just a spark. But it happens to be what I am working on because the beginning is the right place to start however we can know that beyond that there is infinetly more.

Aaaah *rips her hair out* - very complicated stuff. I can imagine that may be, just may be, the universe, the planet in itself has intelligence but very hard to imagine someone made that intelligence. I'm reading the Gita. I have it right here. But I guess its a gradual process. I'm not going to rush over this.

Yes it is tough to grasp. In fact it is positively mindblowing and we are really way too small to take it in. I am also speaking of universal intelligence.

 

The complexity of a simple cell is beyond our grasp what to speak of the intelligence it takes for the entire cosmos to work harmoniously. Leaving aside the question of God or not for a moment let us decide on this point of intelligent design.

 

So much intelligence went into forming this computer and the internet. It would be ludicrous to say that it just appeared from nothing one day. There is intelligent design everywhere in human society. Even the formation of a simple pencil takes intelligence. So considering this how could we deny the intelligence that went into making the tree that the pencil was taken from?

 

When we recognize the intelligence in the tree then we must expand it it. How could there be a tree without the sun water and soil? So there must be intelligence in them also and how they are all working harmoniously to produce the tree.

 

In this way by seeing the interconnectedness of all living systems on earth and throughout the cosmos we can come to sense and appreciate the One Supreme Intelligence behind all material manifestation.

 

I believe this is an advanced level of pantheism. That is to accept an intelligent nature as God.

 

What do you think?

Sorry to bring this up again, but I have been reading this link and perhaps this is very close to what you're saying. I think it's really interesting. You might like it too: Click here.

what is so difficult about creation... creation is at various levels...

 

like history has written proof (written by the victorious),

before that is mythology where belief is the sole criterion...

before that is the origin of the human species

before that the evolution which ended up creating the human species...

and before that is the birth of life

and before that the birth of the planet earth..

and before that the creation of the solar system

and before that the creation of the galaxy

and before that the creation of the big bang which ended up creating all the galazies and matter and energy which exists here and now

 

and before that a nothingness where there existed one single entity... without time and space... just a disembodied intelligence... this is often referred to as parabrahma... that which is beyond/not "para" BRAHMA

 

Parabrahma is the entirely neutral entity and can exist in a timeless void for eternity...

In this parabrahma there is a occasional stirring of desire "of shakti" and when this desire to manifest takes rooot in the parabrahma with its will the disembodied intellect sends forth a creation and when the stirrings of desire end the parabrahma wraps up his imagination and sits still for another eternity till there is another stirring of desire... and another creation is set forth...

 

At least this is the theory i was told and something i can relate to...

This is a good way of looking it at, I'm sure. But I have absolutely no knowledge of science whatsoever. I have no idea how the big bang took place or even what there is outside this planet lol. May be when I can do these things, what you said will make more sense... .

It's very difficult for a theist to imagine life without a God isn't it? In the same way, perhaps its hard to imagine a life where there is a God for an atheist agnostic person like me. One can grasp the idea of god, the other can't.

I don't know if I'll ever understand. I came here to understand how a theist mind works since most people I associate with are not very religious at all. I live in England. My grandmother believes in God, but she doesn't discuss religion with me that much. Every time I try to discuss these things with her, she says not to digg to deep into religion or I might forget those around me. I thought she wanted me to believe in God

It's not a song. If you listen to it with your headphones you actually feel like you're sitting at a Babershop and the man is cutting your hair. Its very clever but won't work without your headphones.

Okay, I am going to be reading through all your posts one by one. Would have helped if you kept it short and simple but its all good lol.Looks like I've missed a big fight or something.

Welcome to the MATRIX

LOL... .

Yeah it's very weird. It needn't be scary though. In fact quite the opposite. It means whatever horror we may be experiencing will surely pass. It is like a child having a nightmare of a monster trying to eat them and is crying out in terror. The parents rush in and awaken the child telling her "Don't worry it was only a bad dream." The monster was not real. The child was never really in danger.

 

This is how it is for us the soul. The soul can never be burned by fire, or cut into pieces, cannot drown etc. as Krishna tells us in the Gita. We are in fact immortal and invulnerable right now. The sad thing is because we are under the spell of this dream condition, illusion or maya we think we are vulnerable and thus experience fear etc.

 

Is there nothing more ironic and sad then for an eternal being to live under the fear of death? This is our present lamentable position.

 

Self realization actually means to awaken to our real natural conditon as parts of the Supreme Lord. Just as the parents awaken the child by sound telling her to "wake up" the Lord awakens us the sleeping, dreaming souls, by the sound vibration of His holy names which actually descend from the spiritual platform and awaken the sleeping souls.

 

Hare Krsna

 

That was Sarvah with an a.

 

Here is a link to one. http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/hare-krishna-discussions/443500-we-simply-dreaming-condition-explains-srila-prabhupada.html

The man himself has arrived with the links

I cannot explain how this thought makes me feel in words. It's just odd but the feeling is good. There is a sense of me being protected. I must admit.

Perhaps I have every control over my dreams but don't know it? Perhaps those characters in my dreams are like me.. weird. Schizophrenia patients claim to see people we cannot see. I guess those people are really visible to them, and it's strange we cannot see them. May be the person they can see is really there, and the problem is actually us because its us who cannot see. All this thinking can make one go crazy.

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 4.29.83

 

Srila Prabhupada - "This material creation is the spirit soul's dream. Actually all existence in the material world is a dream of Mahā-Viṣṇu, as the Brahma-saḿhitā describes:

 

 

 

yaḥ kāraṇārṇava-jalebhajatismayoga-

nidrāmananta-jagad-aṇḍa-saroma-kūpaḥ

[Bs. 5.47]

 

This material world is created by the dreaming of Mahā-Viṣṇu. The real, factual platform is the spiritual world, but when the spirit soul wants to imitate the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he is put into this dreamland of material creation.

 

After being in contact with the material modes of nature, the living entity develops the subtle and gross bodies. When the living entity is fortunate enough to associate with Śrī Nārada Mahāmuni or his servants, he is liberated from this dreamland of material creation and the bodily conception of life".

Thank you so much for this, much appreciated. Found it hard to track you down using the search form. Anyway, thank you, thank you thank you

If the word theist lacks a universal definition, atheism which is defined as absence of theism also lacks a universal definition.

Cheers

True I would be considered a theist if I do believe in God. Just because the definition is different does not make me atheist does it?

The landscape of Indic traditions is vast, and eventually you are sure to find the cause that you're meant to serve, whether that is Jainism, Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism or Tantra Yoga. Some people even do some kind of blending of these philosophies, and it works well for them.

I like to think of myself as a Buddhist-Jainist-Pantheist so I do alot of blending myself. I also think of myself as a Hindu in a way because much of our inspiriation is taken from Hinduism. Actually we've all influenced each other greatly. In fact, when I lose something or have exams I think of Jalaram Bapa. Don't know how I do that but always manage to think of him and chant his name lol. I know he was probably not a God but a saint.

But you are right. Spirituality cannot be forced. But there is no harm in understanding and then may be if I can understand I can accept . I might not and I might. As Buddha said (read the bold bit):

Which creation story is that? There are any number of creation stores - all different from one another. The moment you accept one, you are automatically rejecting the rest which means in the eyes of people who believe those rejected stories, you are a non-believer.

 

As you can see, it is purely relative.

 

Cheers

Just the creation part is what I find hard to understand not the whole creation story. Our guru never taught creation part. He just said this planet always existed and always will with some 'scientific explanation'. Now with modern day science we know this is not possible right? So I have to dig deeper than that.

World War III .....

 

Is it possible anytime in the future?????

Should we be prepared?????

Will Nostradamus' predictions come true?????

Look at the state the world is in and you'll realise we are probably living in its onset. And yes, brace yourself and be prepared because we're almost heading for complete disaster by the looks of it . And I am scared religion is probably whats going to be the reason for it.

My understanding of Srimad Bhagavatam is that basically the jivas are only real in that they have a relationship to the Lord. That is what makes us real. As far as the material world basically everyone embodied in material existence and conditioned by material nature are living like ghosts.

Interesting. You mean like a bhatakti atman (which is like me, kind of)? With a bit more understanding may be this may change

It is both in a sense but ultimately Vishnu's dream. Within Vishnu's dream there are said to be countless Brahma's one for each universe which are innummerable but they all have their place in Vishnu's mind.

 

Sarvah Gattah has made many nice posts explaining the creation phenomena as dream. Run a search his name and the word dream and much will come up.

I think it is amazing. It's made me question: Am I real? is everyone real:eek:? Isn't that weird? That is a scary thought.

But I cannot find any trace of Survah Gattah? Perhaps this is a mispelling?

Tat cause i not put anyting duffer

Soon enough .me domains will be releasing too. Keep your eyes out for those if you want or do they have to be purely .mobi?

You might want to grab google.me, etc...

THANKS FOR READING MY RANT, THIS IS ALSO MY LAST POST PROBABLY HERE AND PROBABLY MY LAST SEARCH FOR GOD EVER WITH ANY RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION AROUND THE WORLD. IN THE FUTURE, I WILL PROBABLY BE CHANGING MY PROFESSIONAL INTERESTS TO SERVE AN ATHEISTIC HUMANITARIAN ORGANIZATION LIKE PEACE CORPS OR RED CROSS IN THE FUTURE.

 

PEACE!

Oh My Goodness Me... Someone is having a more bad day than me . Here, have a cookie.

Is it really? Or Vishu's dream?

Please explain this to me. I read a post about this somewhere (but it was too brief) and I want to know more.

This said, I am myself a strong, deep believer in a God (personal-cum-impersonal) who pulls the karmic strings and in that, I am widely at variance with what was taught by the Buddha. However, I'm not prevented by this from acknowledging and appreciating the greatness and validity of much of Buddhism, and I'd much rather see people take to the wonderful road that it is than spend their lives hopelessly entangled in mundane affairs.

 

Om tat sat

For me, Mahavir and Buddha are enlightened beings and I have a lot to learn from them. I do pray to them. The Tirthankaras are the Jain Gods in a sense. When I pray, or should I say solute, I solute our five spiritual masters who are: the Arihantas, Siddhâs, Âchâryas, Upadhyâyas, and normal monks. Anyone who achieves enlightenment is God. I only struggle to understand the creation part. I don't know if this makes me atheist, agnostic or theist just because my concept and understanding of God is different. So I solute them with this prayer but they have no way to communicate with us on earth now that they have become enlightened.

Our Mantra:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navakar_Mantra

[url="

You have to go to the temple and ask how because over here in London is probably different from how to become a member in India. So if you contact someone who is head of the place they'll let you know. Good luck!

I do not know anything about judaism. But what you said is completely wrong. Islam is the first and the true religion that came on earth. Prophet Muhammad is the last and final messenger and Quran is the last book. Allah says in Quran that we have sent messengers for every nation. And those messenger only taught Islam.

You don't know about Judaism? Jesus, your messenger, also preached reincarnation. Check out the link to see the reason why it was banned from the Bible:

http://www.askrealjesus.com/K_JESUS_ANSWERS/D_BY_JESUS/Teachreincarn.html

But if you think I am wrong, or that Jesus is wrong, I can't really do anything about it.

I am not sure if you knew this, but Judaism the religion which gave birth to Islam and Christianity actually borrowed the concept of heaven and hell and judgement day from the Zoroastrians. Jews initially believed in reincarnation too. Isn't that surprising Mazhar?

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Resurrection_And_Judgement/id/9759

Also check out this link about Judaism and reincarnation:

http://www.atmajyoti.org/sw_xtian_believe_reinc.asp

This has nothing to do with your "idol worship" question, but just wanted to say that everything is not as it seems on the outside. Just because it does not make sense to you does not mean it doesn't make sense to someone else. With that you can just agree to disagree and go your seperate ways, especially if you don't want to understand.

But then again, I can now see why someone might find it offensive. May be you're right too.

No, He is trying to mean this...

 

Though each was partly in the right

And all were in the wrong

Why I asked is why did he use six men of Indostan? He could have simply said six blind men.

Was he saying we are blind, thinking that we are right but are wrong?

The story was an Indian fable so he had to give credit to the Indians for writing it. Depends how you view it I guess.

This is the way I understand it. I'm not saying you are wrong either. Everyone interprets this story differently. In Hinduism, for example, truth is relative because they also don't say Christians are wrong, Muslims are wrong, Jews are wrong do they? There are different ways to get to God.

When he said:

"Though each was partly in the right

And all were in the wrong"

What I think he meant was this:

Every person who touched the elephant were partly right. One felt the trunk, the other felt the tail, etc. So they were right in stating what they felt.

But each person didn't feel the whole elephant so they don't know what the elephant feels like as a whole. That is why they have different opinions. So they were all partly right, but all of them were wrong because they only felt part of the elephant. They didn't have the absolute picture.

So truth is relative. Everyone's truth is different. They were wrong to fight over who is right and who is wrong. Even though they were all partly right, they were wrong too because they didn't feel the whole elephant.

No, He is trying to mean this...

 

Though each was partly in the right

And all were in the wrong

Why I asked is why did he use six men of Indostan? He could have simply said six blind men.

Was he saying we are blind, thinking that we are right but are wrong?

This is the way I understand it. I'm not saying you are wrong either.

When he said:

"Though each was partly in the right

And all were in the wrong"

What I think he meant was this:

Every person who touched the elephant were partly right. One felt the trunk, the other felt the tail, etc. So they were right in stating what they felt.

But each person didn't feel the whole elephant so they don't know what the elephant feels like as a whole. That is why they have different opinions. So they were all partly right, but all of them were wrong because they only felt part of the elephant. They didn't have the absolute picture.

So truth is relative. Everyone's truth is different. They were wrong to fight over who is right and who is wrong. Even though they were all partly right, they were wrong too because they didn't feel the whole elephant.

I have read this poem before but I still do not understand what the Englishman is trying to imply.

That all human truth is relative. And it is an Indian fable. It was not originally written by an Englishmen. I think it was either a Jain story, a Hindu story, a Buddhist story or a Sufi story. It's origins is unknown.

Yes, God is nature, nature is God. That's Pantheism. I'm a Pantheist too.