Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

RadheyRadhey108

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    545

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by RadheyRadhey108

  3. Posted · Report reply

     

    However, the Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya considers all devas, including goddesses like Saraswati, Durga, Parvati and Kali as unworshippable. Even if you claim that Durga is an avatar of Lakshmi, fact remains that this is just a post. After the death of Brahma, the jiva who is Durga will no longer be so, and another Jiva who may have done some penance will earn the post of Durga.

     

    A Jiva is eligible for worship, ONLY if he has done great devotional service to the Lord. Like Sri Hanuman, for instance. But neither Brahma, or Siva, or Durga have actually done anything like that, so we just respect them and avoid worshipping them, even as devotees of Vishnu.

     

    In Gita, Lord says:

     

    "O son of Kunti! At the end of the Cosmic Cycle, all enter into My nature, and at the beginning of another cycle, by My free will, and potency, I create them again."

     

    This includes all Devas, like Brahma, Siva, Indra, Saraswati, Durga, etc. They are also Jivas, like us and by virtue of their karmas, have reached that position. They are posts, and jivas keep changing at that post.

     

    Lakshmi is also a Jivatma, but She is in Sri Vaikuntha, with Narayana. Hence, Her powers are eternal (She is unaffected by pralaya), and She is also endowed with the compassion of the Lord. There is no point in going to Durga and asking her for prosperity, when Lakshmi is fully capable of granting it Herself.

     

    No issues. I know other Vaishnava sampdarayas (particularly Gaudiya Vaishnavism) hold Shiva to be a bhakta of the Lord, and worthy of worship, but like I said before...its a theological difference.

    I never knew that Sri Vaishnavas believed that way. Quite an interesting difference between Gaudiya- and Sri Vaishnavas. Thanks for teaching me your Sampradaya's views on this issue :)

  5. Posted · Report reply

     

    Yes shvu has been on this forum for a long time. Clearly somebody who has an interest in Indology but no position philisophically. Only posts to tell others how wrong they are with no mention of what he thinks is right.

    How true. Hmmm... I wonder why he does that if he has any religious beliefs of his own?

    LOL, I just realized that even if he does believe in God, he dislikes you so much that he's still 'a'theist or even 'anti'theist. :D

  6. Posted · Report reply

     

    The Hare Krishna Cultural Journal suggests that democracy is bad for spiritual life and reinforces a materialistic consciousness. Any suggestions?

     

     

     

    Democracy Bad for Krishna Consciousness

    Democracy Bad for Krishna Consciousness

     

    Submitted by krishna-kirti on Wed, 04/02/2008 - 15:51.

     

    Francis Fukuyama, one of today's foremost political scientists, suggests that democracy as a political system reinforces a materialistic consciousness:

     

    Democratic societies, dedicated to the opposite proposition, tend to promote a belief in the equality of all lifestyles and values. They do not tell their citizens how they should live, or what will make them happy, virtuous, or great. Instead, they cultivate the virtue of toleration, which becomes the
    chief
    virtue in democratic societies. And if men are unable to affirm that any particular way of life is superior to another, then they will fall back on the affirmation of life itself, that is, they body, its needs, and fears. While not all souls may be equally virtuous or talented, all bodies can suffer; hence democratic societies will tend to be compassionate and raise to the first order of concern the question of preventing the body from suffering. It is not an accident that people in democratic societies are preoccupied with material gain and live in an economic world devoted to the satisfaction of the myriad small needs of the body.

     

    The End of History and the Last Man
    , 1992 (New York: Perennial Edition, 2002) 305.

     

     

    This is why as a society, we should not only resist the tendency for democratization, but we should actively oppose it in theory and in practice. We should not be indifferent to it.

    Oh yes, a monarchy controlled by people who might be opposed to Krishna Consciousness and make a law against it would be so much better than a society where the people are given a say as to what they want to do with their lives.

    That said, I'm more of a communist idealist myself. I think people should have to share what they get. Unfortunately, people are very greedy and the leaders who try to enforce it are often times hypocritical and power-hungry. :( Not to mention so many of them are anti-religion.

  7. Posted · Report reply

     

    Radhe

     

    Ganesh Prasad you explanation is good.

     

    That's is why in another thread I said that Vaishnavism or maybe Vedic based philosophy is not compatible with Christianity.

     

    There are teachings in Chriatianity that are diametrically opposed to Vaishnavism

    Incompatible with modern Christianity and the Old Testament, but not incompatible with Jesus:

     

    Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” He said to Him, “Which ones?” Jesus said, “ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’'

    --Matthew 19:16-19

  10. Posted · Report reply

     

    The verse posted by you does not refer to Krishna. It refers only to Vishnu. It can be argued that Vishnu and Krishna are same - so it does not matter. But, in that case, we should say Vishnu/Krishna/Rama or any form of Vishnu. That will be more accurate.

    I think he put 'Vishnu/Krishna' b/c there are many Gaudiya Vaishnavas on here who think of Krishna as being the Highest Form of Divinity (I would be one of those), even higher than Vishnu (I would disagree with that, since Vishnu is a form of Krishna, and I believe that Krishna is nondifferent from His forms).

  12. Posted · Report reply

     

    Theist equates Lakshmi with Durga, which is blasphemous.

     

    "Durga rupa nirantara, sukha sampati data. Jo koi tumako dhyavata, riddhi siddhi dhana paata."

    "In the form of Durga, You (Lakshmi) grant both happiness and prosperity, and he who centers his attention on You becomes the recipient of all prosperity and fulfillment."

    --Lakshmi Aarti :)

  15. Posted · Report reply

    I think that Shiva is a partial expansion of Krishna and Kali is a partial expansion of Radharani. So, since They are part of Their Lordships forms, I don't think They are bound by matter in the slightest (I would say to the contrary, They control matter. Kali being an incarnation of Maya Devi).

    Kali and Shiva worship Radha-Krishna, and They, in turn, worship Them. (Not to mention that Kali is Lord Krishna's sister.:))

    Jai Sri Sri Radha-Krishna!

    Jai Kalika!

    Om Namah Shivaya!

  16. Posted · Report reply

     

    Well, every Swaminarayan temple I've seen has had murtis of Lord Krishna, Radha, Nara-Narayan etc. in them as well as Swaminarayan's murti (it should also be noted that they believe Swaminarayan is God, not just a guru). Where was this temple you visited?

    Oh. I don't see anything wrong with a temple that has a murti of their gurudeva in it along with God's forms and friends. I don't really like the idea of the temple that GODSEED described, though (but since they consider him to be God, then I guess there's nothing really wrong with them having a temple dedicated to their Ishta-Deva... I didn't know they considered him as such).

  20. Posted · Report reply

     

    As previously quoted on another thead,

    Srila Narayana Maharaja:

    The same is true of Srimati Radharani and Her expansions. They are one "but by rasa-vicara (the consideration of transcendental mellows, humors or relationships) they are different." This is how the lilas or pastimes of the Lord unfold.

    So Lakshmi Devi (although She is a form of Radharani) is still a seperate entity from Her, and hence didn't look at Krishna the same was as Radharani and was excluded from the Rasa Dance for doing so? That's what I got out of the quote. I'm sorry for my ignorance Beggar Prabhu, but I could still use some clarification (unless what I said was correct, which I highly doubt since almost all of my speculations are wrong).

  24. Posted · Report reply

     

    The Goddess of Fortune,” Shri Chaitanya concluded, “wanted to enjoy Krishna’s association and at the same time retain Her spiritual body in the form of Lakshmi. This form is certainly magnificent from the spiritual point of view, with all of the opulence and power of godly majesty. However, She did not follow in the footsteps of the gopis in Her worship of Krishna. Consequently, all of the opulence and power in the world could not gain Her entrance into Krishna’s most esoteric pastime.”

    I'm not attacking Lord Chaitanya or anything like that (just to make it clear), but I've really never understood what He meant by this. Isn't Lakshmi Devi a form of Radharani... so wasn't She there anyway, since there's really no difference between Her and Radharani, or Krishna and Narayan (Her beloved spouse)? I also don't understand why He said 'She did not follow in the footsteps of the gopis in Her worship of Krishna.' Lord Narayan (who is Sri Krishna) is Her lover, and She worships Him as such, so I just can't understand how She wasn't worshipping in the mood of the Gopis. Help? :confused:

×
×
  • Create New...