Jump to content

Dark Warrior

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dark Warrior

  1. Raghu, good points you make. But not all Hare Krishnas are bad. Many of them are very sattvik individuals, despite some quirky beliefs. I tend to ignore their eccentricities, in those cases. In any event, Srila Prabhupada is certainly 'bonafide', as ISKCON folk would put it.
  2. Nope. What makes you think Lakshmi is His only wife? The Lord is hailed as 'Parama Purusha' and 'Purushottama' for one reason. He is the only male in existence. Technically, we are all females, and since He protects us, we become His wives. Nammalvar says, 'He is not male, He is not female, He is not eunuch'. However, even though Nammalvar makes this point, the Lord is still referred to as 'He'. It is a spiritual masculinity. While Lakshmi is our mother, we enjoy a different relationship with the Lord, although He is her husband. He can be anything you want. On a personal note, I do not however, enjoy 'Madhurya Rasa'. I prefer the type of relationship Arjuna had with the Lord - a friendship sort of thing.
  3. I thought Hindu is actually a vedic term for a faith that has ahimsa as its central tenet. The term, I believe, finds mention in some ancient text. If I find the exact reference, I will post it here. If that is the case, it would be logical to call Buddhists and Jains as Hindus as well. However, I don't mind being 'Hindu', its got a nice ring to it.
  4. What an intelligent retort. But what more can you expect from a baboon? Ah well.
  5. Haha...I doubt that a person like you, who can't even understand how to control his senses, can actually talk about Vishnu Bhakti. You are an insult to the likes of mahatmas like Prahlada and Dhruva who actually did it. Now, you have been crying a lot, so go and get a diaper change. EDIT: By the way, your 'life' consists of eating, sleeping and mating, which to me isn't really a 'life'. I have to go to the temple, so I take leave as well.
  6. Yep, I can certainly say you are starting to lose it.
  7. What a very striking post. It seems like with every post you make, your ability to write coherently sinks to a lower level. Judging by your posts, I can see that your idea of spirituality is rightly defined by Sri Veda Vyasa as 'Tamo Guna'. However, that is not for me to say. So, I suggest, you get back to your kundalini and stop bringing the Vedas down to your abysmal levels of mundane sexuality. It is a great sin to torture the Vedas like you have. The Mahabharata itself vouches for it.
  8. Are you kidding me? I chant Sri Vishnu Sahasranama daily, and I feel absolutely no 'sexual urges'. Of course, you will think this is an abnormal behaviour, but no. A true human being is one who is able to control the senses, and not act like a sex crazed gorilla. Good Lord, do you not even understand this? I will show you what true 'spirituality' is, according to the Vedic tradition: 1) Knowledge of Sriman Narayana, Para Brahman (And no other Deva). 2) Knowledge of the Self. 3) Knowledge of the means to the Goal (Bhakti, Jnana, etc.) 4) Knowledge of the obstacles to the Goal (Lust, desire, materialism, all these stupid 'yogas'). 5) Acharya bhakti. Therefore, true 'spirituality' is miles away from where you are now. Sadly, I had been arguing with you thinkng that you actually had enough sense to understand this simple fact, but the heck with it, you don't.
  9. Well, still appears as though you will keep typing like an incompetent clown. The idea of true spiritual practice to control your lust for a woman and develop a lust for the Lord. By repeatedly engaging in thinking about His beauty, reading His lilas, etc. you lose all attraction for the mundane world. Of course, all this is beyond you. After all, animals are obsessed with eating, sleeping, mating , etc. You are also obsessed with eating, sleeping, mating. So, I guess there is no need to tell you all this. However, its your life, so do with it whatever you want. Just don't say all this is in the Vedas. This is an insult to the great tradition of Vedanta, reducing it to a bunch of yogas on mundane lust.
  10. EDIT what, by the way? I missed that one. EDIT: Oh yeah, that one. Quite funny. Ashok apparently likes 'Yogas' that cater to lust and materialism, but on the other hand, Lord Krishna clearly says Lust is your greatest enemy, and that Bhakti Yoga is the most perfect path. So basically, its clear that Ashok lacks not only a working knowledge of Vedas, but also about what real 'spirituality' is about. Control of material desire is a rudimentary teaching of Vedanta. Tantra and other things encouraging sexual practices have been condemned as 'tamo guna', ie, in the mode of ignorance by all knowledgeable Vedantins.
  11. Now, according to Vedanta, the only valid Yogas are Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga, Saranagati Yoga. Other 'esoteric' Yogas do nothing to further spiritual practice. Ashtanga Yoga is part of the process of Bhakti Yoga, but Kundalini and others are quite irrelevant to Vedanta. Any experiences gained by it is completely useless and deluding. Hence, it is clear that Ashok baby does not understand the nuances of Vedic Tradition.
  12. Well, by saying that your beliefs are correct, you are putting yourself above the Veda, which simply posits a heirarchy of Devas, with Lord Vishnu as Supreme. Whereas, I have been, quite rationally, provided sufficient proof for my points from sastra. This is because I am a follower of Vedanta, and hence follow it completely to the core. Keep ranting.
  13. Care to explain exactly HOW my thoughts are against sastras? All you and Ashok have been doing, is to ramble about how I am wrong. Then, if you represent the Vedas, I suggest you get your brains working for once and provide me with Vedic Pramanas to show that your views are correct. And no, Tulasidas' Ramayana is not pramana. I have encountered it earlier. EDIT: In your avatar, you have a pic of Krishna worshipping Shiva. Ever read the Santi Parva where Krishna explains to Arjuna how His act of worshipping Shiva does not mean Shiva is Supreme? I figured as much.
  14. Haha...But then, that thread was certainly about me. That is why I posted there. You are just as bad as me, in that sense. You insist that I need to stop following the Vedas and simply say, 'All Gods are Equal'. Sorry, that itself, is your belief. Its not mine. I respect your belief, but don't claim that you follow the Vedantic tradition perfectly. Hindustani, I have nothing against you as a person. I am explaining the Vedantic position. Have you not yourself seen Ashok ramble on about materialism aimlessly? When you say 'You MUST respect all Gods', you are simply going against the most fundamental teachings of Vedanta. So, if you profess it to be a personal belief, then go ahead. Stop pushing it on me.
  15. I must say, these posts have certainly exposed you of your gross ignorance. Materialism is all you want? Go ahead, dude, but then, don't claim to know the Vedas. Its laughable, your posts.
  16. Then, I suggest you stop pushing your beliefs on everybody. Every thread has a topic, so stick to it.
  17. You nitwit, I never said that. I said, if YOU feel all gods are equal, go ahead. According to Vedanta, only Sriman Narayana can give moksha. But if some losers like you feel that other gods give moksha without validating it by Vedic Pramanas, go ahead. That's all I meant. The evidence points that you lack complete knowledge of our tradition and is simply another brain washed one. Haha...this clearly reveals your ignorance of sastra and of Brahma Jnana. No true seeker of Brahman ever considers Materialism as important. Only hari Bhakti is important and mundane materialism is shunned. No wonder you are unable to comprehend facts. You lack the knowledge of this very basic fact - that the Vedas discourage the pursuit of material interests. For the record, I am a professional scientist. A Microbiologist. However, I would give up whatever I have for Hari Bhakti, because that is the most important thing. You do not even know the basic knowledge of the Vedas and think materialism is something to achieve. Truly pathetic. Go look at the Shiva is a demigod thread again. Acharya Ramanuja and madhva have both demonstrated that Shiva is a Jivatma and I doubt ignoramuses like you can refute them. Ha Ha...how pathetic. You have clearly revealed your complete ignorance. Karma yoga is action without attachment. In order to cultivate knowledge of Brahman, the Vedas advise us to never get caught in the trap of materialism. To attract yourself to the Lord, you dis-attract yourself from everything else. In short, you eat, drink, do whatever you want without attachment. And yes, I have no sexual urges, trust me. By simply chanting the name of Hari, such desires fade away. Bhagavatam gives an interesting example of materialism. A man, is dangling from a pit. The pit is filled with snakes. A tiger on the other side, is waiting to pounce on him. Yet, he savors a drop of honey that falls down from a nearby tree and enjoys it, forgetting his predicament. Pathetic. You do not even know this basic fact, and yet you claim to know the Vedas. Judging from your posts, you do not even know the basic conduct of a knowledge seeker - to shun all materialistic desires, to be completely devoted to Hari and to stop exulting in your achievements. Therefore, your posts are irrelevant. I suggest you stop harping about things now. Any person who looks at your posts will size you up.
  18. Hmm...OK. Once again, you fail miserably to get the point. The goal of life is to further our understanding of God. Hence, by doing what the Vedas say, we understand more about God. I have demonstrated, by simple bhakti to Narayana alone, one can realise His lilas. This gives us a great realisation and a great form of bhakti. That is all this is about. What could be more important or practical in life, other than enjoying the pastimes of Sriman Narayana? Of course, if you think materialism is more important, go ahead. Wrong-o, my dear ignoramus. Narayana, Vishnu and Krishna are one and the same person. Shiva is a Jivatma, who was given this position by Narayana. Shiva has an atma just like us. Narayana is Paramatma, who dwells within the atma of everybody, including Shiva. There is only one god, and He has a beautiful form of 4 hands, dark hued color, with weapons and attractive garlands. He is Narayana. Other 'gods' are simply jivatmas. Worshipping them will not give you moksha, according to Vedas. The story of the blind men is irrelevant to Vedanta. And lastly, my post, which contained such a wonderful lila of the Lord, is construed by you as empty. You fail at understanding anything, you fail at realising what the Vedas convey...in short, you fail at being a Vedantin.
  19. However, such statements are not valid in a debate because your quote 'I hope to never go there' clearly shows that you have no regard for what these texts say, nor do you actually know how to interpret them. Furthermore, your idea that there are some people who have interpreted these texts in your views is also historically incorrect. There are only 2 Shaivites who have written Bhashyas on Vedanta Sutras, and these two have been defeated. The likes of Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, etc. are not regarded as Vedantins, but free thinkers who base their views loosely on Hinduism. In another thread, you also revealed your ignorance when you said 'Rama is Shiva's isht and Shiva is Rama's isht'. That is a fallacy, because Rama never worshipped Shiva. The original Valmiki Ramayana, shows that Rama worshipped Narayana and never worshipped Shiva. So, this reveals your ignorance of the real deal. In another example, you have a pic of Ganesha being cradled by Shiva in your avatar. This may come as a shock to you, but are you aware that Ganesha himself is an invented God? According to Shruti, the son of Shiva is Skanda only. Even in Gita, Skanda is mentioned. Ganesha being the son of Shiva is a fabrication that arose in the 16th century, based on some interpolations. What I am saying is historically true, and can be verified. Since you do not even know these basic puranic things, which is the basic knowledge of anyone who follows the Vedas, I can safely assume that you know nothing about Veda. Hence, if you say, 'I know a lot but I won't tell', it simply sounds childish and an immature attempt to hide your ignorance. The fact is, I have completely demonstrated how Gita and Vedanta explain the concept of one minded devotion to Narayana. All you have been saying is, 'I know more than you'. Eka Bhakti to Lord Narayana is clearly mentioned with many pramanas, in the Shiva thread. Once you have eka bhakti, it develops into an understanding of the Lord's pastimes more, and makes you enjoy. I will give you an example of my realisation (No ego here, just my acharya's blessings). Lord Krishna loved to help the gopis churn the butter. But in the Kurma Avatara, Vishnu told the devas that he needed no help to churn the Ocean of Milk. Now, what could be the reason for this? the Lord needs help to churn butter, but not the ocean. The reason is, the Gopis are Bhagavatas, devoted to the Lord ALONE. Hence, he loves to be close to them and touch them. However, the Devas are not always devoted to Him and sometimes have false ego. Devas like Brahma, Shiva, Indra, etc. sometimes forget that He is the Lord. Hence, He helps them as His duty, and asks them to stay away from churning the Ocean. This beautiful example of eka bhakti can be realised from sastras by only those who maintain single minded devotion to Hari alone. Credit for this realisation goes to Acharya Ramanuja, the greatest of Vaishnavas. I am left with a lot more, and I have revealed all of that.
  20. Hmm...quite a mash of thoughts here. As per Vedanta, Krishna is the avatara of Sriman Narayana, who is Brahman. The Vedas are apaurusheya, and the Gita is a paurusheya text, spoken by the Lord, in the hope that people will follow it and abide by its rules. There, the worship of anya-devata is clearly discouraged. The path to true knowledge is like walking a razor's edge, accoring to the Upanishads. Just because there is one god, it doesn't make every invented or existing being equal to God. The importance of Acharya Bhakti is emphasised on Vedanta because personal experiences are often, devised by the maya of the Lord, to delude karmic individuals. Your posting makes no sense. Trust me, my convictions are entirely supported by Vedanta. However, your beliefs are simply a product of your own assumptions. A theory that makes many assumptions is discarded, according to Occam's razor. I have only ONE assumption - ie, the Vedas speak the truth and following it properly is instructed. You assume that the Vedas are inferior to your own brain, assume that all gods are equal by default, assume that your position is logical without Shruti's support, etc. Hence, by Occam's Razor, you are wrong. Now, on one hand, you are unable to write coherently, keep ranting about 'personal experience' and 'all gods are same', are devoid of the basic knowledge of our great tradition and insist that the Vedas are to be discarded in place of your beliefs. And you call me ruffled? Well, could it be the inconsistency of your views with Vedanta, or that so far, none of your beliefs tally with Vedantic beliefs? I hazard a guess. Furthermore, that's 'Fathom' not 'Phatom'. Now, Pratyaksha shows that you cannot write a single post coherently. Do you then, know what an esoteric text like the Vedas say? I doubt it. Then, I suggest, you support your position with appropriate quotes from the Vedas to prove your point. If you are going to say that your brain is superior to the Vedas, then good luck. I have no intention to argue with anyone who doesn't profess to follow Vedanta.
  21. On the contrary, I am never affected by anyone who argues with me. All my points stand the test of logic. That's 'nerve'. And trust me, I am quite unruffled. It wuld take more than mindless ranting and raving about 'all gods are one' to ruffle me. Vedanta solely relies on the Prasthna Trayam, ie, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahma Sutras. One who accepts the validity of the texts and abides by its rules is a Vedantin. The main reason our acharyas wrote bhashyas for these texts is for us to read, understand and follow them. Simply blabbering about being a 'parrot' is quite contradictory to pratyaksha, which shows that Lord Krishna Himself delivered a book named Bhagavad Gita, to make us understand its essence. If you do not follow the Vedas, you are not part of the Vedic Culture. Simple as that. You write from your mind? That explains the gibberish in your posts then. Your mind, then, appears to be completely incapable of transmitting neurons at the correct times. I suggest you first understand what is meant by the term 'Vedic'. It means, one who follows the Vedas. And as seen in the Shiva thread, I have shown that Vaishnavas are Vedantins. If you reject the Vedas, go ahead and follow your own 'personal experience'.
  22. Simply put, Vaishnavism and Vedanta do not believe all gods are one, or all experiences are genuine, or that worship of any god may lead to moksha. Vaishnavism places emphasis on correct interpretation of Vedanta, which leads to the obvious conclusion that Sriman Narayana is the Supreme Lord, and that other devas are merely jivatmas. Now, my intention is definitely not to hurt your feelings, or to say that you won't get moksha, etc. My intention is to solely follow Vedanta. If you both have any arguments, I suggest that, instead of harping about how closed I am, read Sri Ramanuja's Sri Bhashya, where he gives 60 different points from the Vedas to drive home Hari Sarvottama. Or read Sri Madhva's vigorous proofs of Hari Sarvottama. If you find any faults in their philosophy, then you can open a thread and argue with Vaishnavas. Simply put, Vaishnavas do not accept the endearing philosophy of worshipping everything under the sun. I hope I have made myself perfectly clear to you two. You are free to your beliefs, but similarly, stop pushing your beliefs on Vedantins. Vishnu=Shiva=all gods is a position that has been rejected by even Sri Sankaracharya in his Bhashya. You lack the ability to write coherently, you lack the ability to understand a proper argument, you lack the ability to provide sufficient support of your argument.
  23. I suggest that both of you take your 'All Gods are One' theology to another thread, or stick to this thread's discussion, which is simply about monism or dualism in the Vedas. Much as I would like to argue, at the moment, I can only address one person's stupidity at a time.
  24. Of Course, I am copying and pasting the relevant slokas from the Vedas. Do you think I can invent Vedic Slokas by myself? However, the explanation I am giving for it is certainly in my own words, based on my reading of Sri Ramanuja's Vedanta Sangraha and Sri U.Ve. Narasimharangachari's work on Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita Vedanta. Whereas, all you have been doing is arguing about being 'secular' and how 'all gods are equal'. In any case, my argument isn't with you. Ravindran, first of all, needs to grasp the subject matter of the debate - 'Do the Vedas preach Monism or Dualism'? He claimed that the Vedas are monistic. I have proven that the Vedas are dualistic. Now, I accept the Vedas as the ultimate reality and hence, I can say Vishnu is supreme. However, if he does not accept the Vedas, he is free to accept whatever he thinks is the ultimate reality. The idiocy of all this is that, he thinks its my job to convince him that the Vedas are the ultimate authority. However, that's not my problem - I am merely telling him the subject matter of the Vedas. My goal was solely to prove that the Vedas do not preach monism. Instead, he has completely gone wayward.
  25. Here itself, the utter idiocy of this is revealed. You quote from some book to express your view. That means, I need to prove you are wrong by quoting from the SAME book. When you quote from the Veda, I need to quote from the Veda only. That is the rule of debate. If you do not want me to quote from books, then why did you quote those books in the first place? One can only have one common ground for debate. If you quote from a book, I quote from the same book. If you reject these books and use some other source, I too will use that other source, etc. If you quote an Upanishad, it means by default, you accept the scriptural validity of the Upanishad. Hence, if I use the same Upanishad to prove that you are wrong, then you have to either remain consistent with your position that the Upanishad is valid, or you can change your opinion and say that you no longer believe in the Vedas. I did not ask you where you got the Mahavakyas. I know that the Mahavakyas are in Vedas, and I have explained that they do not say Brahman is Jivatma. All I am saying is, if you are quoting from book 'x', it means I have to quote from the same book to refute you. If there is someone intelligent reading this thread, please explain it to this hopeless person. he seems to be completely clueless. EDIT: I didn't address this properly: If you have eyes, check the FIRST POST of this thread. I clearly explained every Mahavakya. Where did I neglect them? I explained how these Vakyas do not convey identity. Check my posts. Then, you say, I was unaware of their existence. Everyone knows those Vakyas are on Vedas. I said, 'Ravindran picked up those Vakyas from somewhere' meaning, 'Ravindran has no knowledge of Vedas and simply is quoting Vakyas without understanding their meaning'. Its basic english. When I said you picked it up from somewhere, I meant, you never read the Vedas and is simply quoting these Vakyas from hearsay. Ravindran, I have learnt the Vedas. Whereas, all you know is how to quibble without arguing. I apologise to the Moderators for my language, but seriously, its annoying to see someone with so little common sense.
  • Create New...