yasodanandana

if possible look for a devotee... but be sure that devotee or not devotee, is a man that you love deeply.. do not do anything mechanical: " he's a devotee, nothing else matters" ... no

"Fall soul it is spiritual question, it is not matrial sheme. Sourse falling soul it is root material life. Then if person not take moksa he not understand this question." ..... yes, but anadi gave good (even if for us theoretical) answers... do not oppose also because he's from Narayana Maharaja!!!! prabhupada and iskcon too are clearly for tatasta theory, the souls who , in al little minority, fall in this world are from a condition where like at the limit of the seashore, the dry sand(maya) and the water(vaikunta) are somewhat present simultaneously and tatasta is spiritual.... when prabhupada says that everyone comes from spiritual world and there's a "coming back" business, not a "going" one.. he says in this way to be concise, but he is right and coherent with the tatasta shakti concept in my opinion.. (collaborate please, you are vaishnavas!!!!) /images/graemlins/smile.gif

in this world and in kali yuga the mind is definitely out of control.. so there's not big offences if we do not express them speaking with others o putting in practice.. if we are not liberated we are 24 hours on 24 creating huge quantities of bad karma for us and disturbance for others.. the only hope to quit this "software" is to chant hare krishna

"Soul do choise? Some choise material world, not choise spiritual world? Hmm...spiritual world not attractiv? " •••you are right.. maybe this is a thing that we will understand when we will be there... the other theory (we come from goloka vrindavan) leaves the same "intellectual hole": "how can we leave goloka vrindavan for the material world?" so "i live in goloka and i choose to go in material world" or "i see both material world and goloka and i choose the first" .. both these tattvas leave us in the same amazement am i wrong?

"What are the qualifications of a diksa guru?" i'd want to add that a diksa and a siksa guru must have the same qualifications... they must have the direct darshan of krsna to give it to the disciple.. if one's teaching to us and he's not completely pure, he falls' more in the cathegory of friends, brothers, elder brothers, not "tecnically" masters

i'd avoid to speak with cathegories "iskcon members", "vadanta samhiti members"... there's a big danger to make offences, because if we are right criticizing 999 members of an organization, we go to hell for the perhaps only one who is a very nice devotee. So better to stop speaking of organizations... let us speak of single people.. /images/graemlins/smile.gif someone is discriminated because he has a certain guru (this happens in every camp.. and religion.. if we do not put the focus on god, who is ONE, we start to see the differences... a good job of maya) sometimes who has a certain guru does not bear : "you are not a follower of prabhupada because you are not initiated by an iskcon guru" because it is (IMHO) absurd sometimes who is discriminated (in every camp) goes beyond the natural and saint right to defend his position, and starts to fight for his own sense gratification.. and sometimes he's happy when he sees difficulties in the disciples of the "OTHER" gurus sometimes there's people who live a "ritvikized" mood of iskcon (and it makes me very, very sorry): "prabhupada is my real and only possible master, this is achieved simply "belonging" to iskcon.... i can take PERHAPS the initiation by some sannyasi who is coming in the temple, but i do not require so much from him, i do not care if he's pure.. he's more like a common human, not like prabhupada (who is the only pure devotee)!!" sometimes....of course (i am sure that there's pure devotees/masters in iskcon) a guru has to be like the one in the guruvastakam, one who sees krsna and collaborates with gopis to serve Him and Radharani, nothing more, nothing less... who believes that the guru is a common man (or woman) he will never advance.. because if guru is authentic he's doing aparadha, if the guru is bogus he(the disciple) is cheating another poor soul cheated by maya

"The soul makes a choice casually? Who has looked that casually in an spiritual world and who has looked that casually in a material world?" no, anadi has'nt mentioned casuality

jaya... jayA... jaYA... jAYA... JAYA... J A Y A . . . J A Y A . . . pRabHupADa !!!

"Yas, you are a very humble person with a broad outlook." •••i am not so good and humble, maybe i had more luck to find a way to relationate with you, but... thanks " Where in Italy are you from?" •••florence "I agree that all paths may not be same but I strongly believe that the final destination is same" •••ultimately yes... but as i said, there's paths going straight to the goal and paths who stop somewhere in between waiting for choosing another path.. or there's medicine more and less effective. with no or much side effects. Religion is like the everyday reality, it is a science and an experience, not only a faith.. so the earth is a sphere, you can reach florence going on any direction.. but in practical terms, choosing a straght one or the opposite is not exactly the same "I find it really strange to think that a person who worships only a particular God will reach a better place than another who worships another God" ••••ehem.. god is not particular.. i have already explained that god's form is not human, it is divine.. and divine means limitless and infinite. And God is One, allah, buddah, krsna, javeh are the same person from different point of views. The things that make religions different is the quality and intimity of "rasa" (relationship) with god So, if, as religion practitioneers and seekers, we consider the god consciousness the most desiderable thing.. we like to know the more intimate aspects of him... and the "krsna's" aspect it the more intimate and full of details. This is actually a broadening of vision, inside krsna there's all the aspects.. impersonal, energetic, authority, fear for god but also love and friendship... and one, knowing krsna, gets a more deep understanding of his prevoius religious positions and preferences.. so i am sorry that for centuries the concept of "one god" was used to make war against others who believe in "another god".. but we cannot change the reality because there's some fanatics who use god for their gratification "Was it in our hands to decide if we would be brought up under Hindu, Muslim, Christian upbringing? " •••yes, it is in our hands.. i was born as christian.. i am now more christian because krsna consciousness have given to me a more broad vision and a sistematic approach to spirituality, without labels, parties, factions, sects. I never understanded jesus as i understand him now.. "It is us human beings who commit that error of thinking one is better than the another" •••the problem are not the difference of opinion.. the problem is how to deal with them.. i am from the west, i cannot teach to you the tolerance for other's opinion that india is famous for!!! and tolerance means tolerance, not flattening everything to annihilate the differences " it is how much you believe and trust that makes the difference." •••this is against the logic... if i want to go in india i have to be convinced to go, but also i have to take the right plane... the accuracy to find a good school, a good master, a good path is an important component of the sincerity. If one chooses randomly, he's not sincere, he's simply not serious "Hope to hear from you too." ••••i am here, reading and discussing these spiritual subjects in my free hours... stay with us and share your realizations!!! (i hope you will consider also the scriptural and doctrinal evidences given by other partecipants... religion is a science, not only a belief:))

"When krishna says only those who worship him will achieve salvation, it is the supreme being (yes the formless impersonal which you get so worked up about) and not Krishna the human manifestation" _krsna is not human and he has not a human manifestation.. we have a form resembling vaguely the ones of the spiritual world, not the opposite.. the problem of who is the one speaking in the gita... i do not understand why if we read "President Bush said", "the song of Stevie Wonder", we understand George bush and Stevie Wonder.. If we read "Bhagavan uvacha" and "Bhagavad Gita(the song of bhagavan)" we understand : "the impersonal formless nirguna" and so on... stevie means stevie george means george krsna means krsna "when I stated that all u guys spend most of yr time running others down. " _maybe there's fanatics or ineducate persons (even if it is not my responsability), but you have also to consider that a personalist, one who believes that god is impersonal, but also a complete individual ... one who loves krishna or who is developing love for krishna, cannot take easily your dogmatic assertion that krsna is , practically speaking, another product of maya you are not speaking of little details, i cannot stay silent if one tells me that brahman is the only reality and the person krsna is illusion

" So are you suggesting that one path is better than the another?" ––yes, as in the averyday life, you cannot take the airplane for paris to go to new york, but another thing is the follower... i can be in a path that i think it is better than your path, but obviously you can be much more advanced than me beeing more peaceful, tolerant, loving and so on... so spiritual progress is personal not collective "That tantamounts to favoritism which in turn leads to fanaticism; the root cause of all the suffering in the world today" --yes, but if you examine carefully, the first thing taken away by fanatics (so called "integralists") is discussion, opinion difference and variety of paths and theories... so the danger is not the difference, but the imposition of an artificial equality..... so i have a different theory, but i think that the variety is so beautiful and i respect you as my brother. A very nice brother because you're stimulating me to put in doubt my beliefs and to see them fron another point of view and to check if they are good or not, and how much i have realized or if i am only a fanatic (=blind faith).. so there's nothing bad in difference in itself "Your post instead suggests that you are concentrating hard on the circle and moving away from the triangle" __no, the main thing that i wanted to explain was that religion or spirituality is a faith and a science together.. we can believe, but we have also to use the observation and rationality to see how it is the real thing "So are you not agreeing to what I said earlier that there is no difference in having an impersonal or personal god. It is not the object that matters; it is the subject that is in question" _god is personal and impersonal, like you... i can know you personally or from your "energy".. your house, the furniture, your city, your biblioteque, your CDs, your videotapes.. so these positions are both good.. both realizations are real no one can say that god is impersonal and the personal is maya, or that he's only personal and the impersonal is maya.. He has to be a person, because his creatures are persons.. and an omnipervadent energy, because god has to be the ALL, the EVERYTHING. Brahman and Bhagavan are transcendental, not that one is material and another spiritual. But, in my opinion, love is possible for a person, not for an energy... realizing brahman i can be conscious of the reality, amazed, peaceful, fearless, but where's the other subject to be loved if i give more attention to the ONENESS? if i am ONE without others, how can i love? so ok for the oneness but the oneness of two lovers, who have an ever increasing pleasure from discovering ethernally new things, new nuances, new features about the loved. But it can be realized.. speaking for myself i can hardly realize that everything is spirit (brahman) and the matter is illusory.. i am not fearless of pain and death, so i am speaking with a logic that satisfies me so much, but logically, not that i see krsna and radha. And we come back to the "path" business.. i can accept a "more advanced" path, but i have humbly to admit that someone out of my path can be more personally advanced than me.. "You said, "there's no need to be all equal to behave as brothers."" –––no there's no need, i am speaking with you from some days and i am sure that if we were phisically close we would meet together, talk, take prasadam together, be friends.... if the discussion had never started, i had not the fortune to know you, even with the filter of a computer keyboard and a monitor. So difference can be the mother of love and brotherhood. A perfect Muslim goes to Allah (or god as perceived in the quran), a perfect christian goes to jesus etc. some goals are eternal, some others need to make another step to reach eternity.. I cannot ask all my life for jesus and have buddha at the end, god is supremely loyal and respectiful when he distributes prizes, he gives us exactly what we were asking for "You seem to be a nice person with an open outlook for life" ––yes, you are very kind, my main handicap is that my english is very bad.. my only practice is when i go once in a year in vrindaban.. but to say "wich hour darshan?", "please.. one rasagulla!!", "riksawalla.. how much for banke bihari temple?" is not exactly english practice. So i have a very limitad vocabulary and style and, knowing not so much subtleties in the language, i appear more harsh and hard than i really am "You seem to be a nice person with an open outlook for life. I appreciate that but I would be much more comfortable in believing that all roads finally lead to one destination. Some may take time; some may not, but it all ends in the same place" –– so this is a very good answer.. same place, different time.. my position is only that even the personal aspect of god is real and transcendental, not that it is the only aspect. I am only suggesting you to see it under a new light, not to say that brahman is maya haribol... i hope our little "web brotherhood" will continue and increase..... !!

"Saying that Krishna alone can help us attain salvation is discriminating against the other religions who will never agree to this." ––––no, you are discriminating saying that god can be only in your way... only impersonal and not personal.. and it is also an imposition to say that all the paths are the same tolerance and brotherhood is not in creating an artificial equality, it is to believe that discussion and dialogue are the best way to relationate.... if ypu say that everything is the same, you are not respecting the ones who have carefully choosen a path.. there's no need to be all equal to behave as brothers

"it is only the human who can have the massive arrogance to believe that if there is a God it- he has to be in the same mould as a human" –––no, you are simply not reading my answers and not seriously considering the personalist's position.. we do not believe that god is human or has human form, we believe that there's SATCITANANDA forms and personalities.. there's material forms and spiritual forms or material mould and spiritual mould if you like and god is not restricted to be only impersonal, he wants also to be personal... a restriction is ONLY IMPERSONAL, and this comes from because we see that human forms are limited yes human forms are limited.. but god is not human, he has not a human form, he has a divine form.. why are we so limited to think that form can be only human and limited?... do we thing that god cannot have an unlimited form and personality? nooo, he has!!

"On one hand you ask me to keep an open mind and believe that there is a 'divine', 'transcendental' personalities but you refuse to believe that impersonal does not mean 'featureless" –––it is ok... if you want to explain please do it... but my point is that all 3 tattvas are real: personal (bhagavan), localized(paramatma), impersonal(brahman).... maybe "impersonal", "diffused", "all pervading" can be called qualities... not a big problem.. but please go on explaining "the Absolute Truth in different forms from gross to subtle. I agree it is a very difficult concept to understand" ___no, it is not difficult to understand, why? it is quite easy to see that an energy is moving universe, planets, the nature, the life and so on.. it is only "illogic" that the absolute has only this aspect "I am more happy in seeing everything around me as 'divine' rather than believing in just one God and praying to Him. " –––and surely you are a good person and a spiritualist... but what if you want to geometry school and you say "i am more happy to study triangles, i do not like circles.."?........ i am not here to preach, but seeing that you are animated by the will to research and study, i hope only that you want to consider, not a change of beliefs, but only adding some "news" hari bol.. chant the name of the lord

"I would also have to believe that a 'personal god' is capable of all the human qualities like envy, anger, lust etc. So is it possible to worship such a entity? " –––oh, here we are, let us open the mind... personality does not means "human personality"... there's necessarily a "divine personality", "trascendental personality".... so, if we have envy, anger, lust etc. in the material world, we necessarily must have these behaviours in the "spiritual" world (who is necessarily the source of everything) in this way krsna shows anger like nrsmhadeva or he behaves as a stealer as makhan chora... but all these thing are satcitananda.. they produce ultimately consciousness, bliss and eternity.. when these features come, perverted, in the human world, they take a negative value... but if we think about, in this world everything has a negative or not completely positive value.. love, peace, happiness, friendship, brotherhood.. so everything perfect in the spiritual realm, is corrupted when it comes in the "human" version. slightly difficult to understand, speaking of openness it requires a more open approach than to say "personality means lust, anger, greediness, hate etc., so there's not absolute personality"... so let us be more open "if you can believe that since an 'impersonal god' is equivalent to atheism then others can also say that a personal god can commit all the errors that a human can" ––––it is a legitimate question and doubt... impersonalism takes out features from god, and god cannot be featureless.. wich kind of god is if he misses something?... then.. god is not subjected to make errors, all the things we call errors in the material world, in the spiritual world are not errors or defects as we have already said.. to learn these things rquires open mind, well translated and commented scriptures, and an authentic spiritual master not envious of god, not wanting to annihilate Him taking out His personality peace..peace..peace..HARIBOL!!

" Radharani is nothing but another form of Rukmini." –––the opposite!! :-)

"But according to me all the chanting of the Lord's name may not do any good if your mind is on your meeting with your girl in the evening" –––why not? when he meet his girl he has chanted hare krishna, he's more spiritually inclined and transmits some realizations to her (who eventually starts to care for her spirituality!!!)... hare krishna (or any prayer or mantra) is not subjected by material or opportunity considerations.. one can chant in every time, place and circumstance, helped by your nice suggestions on concentration or not

"How does one become Krishna Conscious? " __to become Krsna Conscious we need to call Krsna, because his consciousness is given by Him.. so, on regular basis chant Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare... another most important step is to associate with vaishnavas, the one who have made the chanting the center of their life.... associating with vaishnavas will lead you to recognise and accept a pure, true, krsna conscious spiritual master to receive instructions perfectly suited to you to go back to krsna " In what scripture is this discussed, because I would like to read the text which explains this process in detail" ___bhagavad gita as it is translated and commented by bhaktivedanta swami prabhupada is the basis "How does one control the senses, and keep the mind from wandering, and to get the mind to be steady and just think about Krishna all the time?" ––––there's not to make separate efforts, chant hare krishna and associate with vaishnavas, if we follow with patience (another meaning of "tapasya") steadiness and realizations will come. We have to be humble, we have to be helped by krsna, guru and vaishnavas... we have a lot of cleaning to do before krsna comes steadily in our mind

16 rounds= more than 1 hour and half 32 rounds = more than 3 hours 64 = from 6 to 8 hours 128 = 15 hours 192 = maybe 22 hours it is very natural that they think that Ancient Mariner does not exist!!! /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

"I would not be exaggerating if I were to tell you that on numerous occasions I have seen many posters here mocking at the views of Advaita Vedanta. Many have even went on to the extent of saying it is athestic in nature" >>>>> in a sense i also think that impersonalism is very close to atheism.. to say that one has not personality, is very close to say that he does not exist. But i see a positive impersonalism: i do not know nothing of religion, i see that in this world "variety" and "personality" are the source of wars and conflicts, automatically i think that if there's perfection, this perfection has to be not various, without quality, without personality. And that, from a material point of view is right. But, when the masters, krsna, the avatars, come saying that beyond the (obvious) negation of the material world, there's a perfect, trascendental world, complete world, full of spiritual variety and personality.. it is worth to listen and learn "In India, there is rivalry between the Shaivites and the Vaishanavities. Do you think that this was the chosen path by the Gods themselves?" >>>>>>to peacefully discuss about the absolute is a very positive thing, when there's fanaticism the first symptom is that the discussions and opinions end "As times changed, people began to concentrate more on to religion than 'spiritualism' and they began bickering among themselves about who was following the right path" >>>>>>as i have said, the bad thing is when the discussion ends... and, if i care, if i think for example that the person i love e the most, krsna, is insulted when one says that he is not real, it is not a fanatical thing to answer decisely with philosophy and logic. It is a very important subject, it is for the life not a hobby.. if you say that a food, a movie, a dress, a song that i like is not good, it is not a very important subject, i do not even start to discuss... but krsna is important "I am amazed and disturbed at the same time when I see this conflict" >>>>>>>there's good discussions, and traditionally advaitins are the masters in logic, eloquency, discussion and shastra quoting.... actually, in the story, vaishnava are called sentimentals and ignorants... impersonalism or advaitism as avoiding discussions and putting everything on feelings and "love" is a new age (american) thing, not traditional. more Sai Baba than ShakaraAcharya!! "I find it much more easier to believe that God as in Brahman is everywhere..." >>>>>> and you're right, my suggestion is to add not to change or negate what you are now feeling........ god is impersonal.. and personal, like you and me "To me, everything is divine...pure...Sat-Chit-Ananda." >>>>>>> to me also.... but divine, pure, sat(eternal), cit(conscious), ananda(blissful) are qualities.. and the qualities say that there's a personality, the impersonal has not definitions and no qualities "I don't need to worry about my previous life or my future. I believe in living in the present and enjoying this gift called 'life.'" >>>>>>>> but if you make plans in your practical life, travels, job, holidays, money etc. you can make plans also in more higher things.. and to gain consciousness is not a negation of happiness.. as we know, happines (ananda) comes together with cit(consciousness).... so be more happy and be aware of the spiritual reality "May all beings be happy. May all beings be peaceful." >>>>>>>many thanks, until we are absorbed in discussing about spiritual reality, happiness and peace are granted... the problem is when there's only silence, and IGNORANCE

http://gauranga1.tripod.com/articles/names_of_srimati_radhika.htm Sri Krsna calls Radharani also "Purnima"... he teases her saying that her face is fat like the full moon

God... krsna is the "enjoyerside" of godhead, radha is the "servant" aspect. The supreme absolute for us is radha-krsna, not only krsna. Devotees serve Radharani not directly, but through the spiritual master: <font color="blue"> nikunja-yuno rati-keli-siddhyai ya yalibhir yuktir apeksaniya tatrati-daksyad ati-vallabhasya vande guroh sri-caranaravindam The spiritual master is very dear, because he is expert in assisting the gopis, who at different times make different tasteful arrangements for the perfection of Radha and Krsna's conjugal loving affairs within the groves of Vrndavana. I offer my most humble obeisances unto the lotus feet of such a spiritual master. </font color> so we serve gurudeva, he serves the gopis, who serve radha and krsna

the relationship between radha and govinda is not like an human romance.. we have to face many problems with our anarthas..... /images/graemlins/blush.gif

ok.. thanks

"These jivas are called nitya siddha jivas. And they have no idea of the acit world" ––so i was right, there's eternally liberated jivas "Srila BV Svami Prabhupada is not in the category of nitya siddha or sadhna siddha jivas" ––so who is srila prabhupada... he's krishna? The eternal parents of kRSNa are not jiva, they have never been in TataStha –––this is ok from the beginning.. but who are they? they're krsna? Gurudeva says that we cannot really understand these things. –––not really, we do not live these tattvas, but we can say a little in theory:) please explain with your own words, read guru maharaja and explain