shvu

Dinosaurs vanished from the earth 65 million years ago. Humans have been around only from the last ~200,000 years. The environment (oxygen levels, flora, fauna, etc) on the planet during the time of the dinosaurs was very different from what it is now. Cheers

This can be said for every avatar including those in the 10 like Vamana, Rama Krishna and the Buddha. If the concept of the dashavatara existed before the time of the Buddha and people knew he was an avatar, then there would be no Buddhism today. Cheers

The official position of People's republic of China (PRC) since its formation in 1949 is atheism. Although, traditionally china did have some form of religion being practised through it's history, chinese maintain most people in their country are atheists and have been so since the time of confucius (~500 BC). Cheers

Shankara's position is very clear -- Varna is based on birth, period. If someone has been spreading the idea that Shankara was a social reformer who disregarded the varna system, then that person is incorrect. Shankara was not a social reformer and such ideas of abolishing the system were not in vogue during his time. Like I said before, such ideas originated during the British rule for by then the caste system had taken on political overtones. If anyone disagrees with this, please produce evidence of Shankara attempting to abolish the varna system. The opening verses in his celebrated Upadesha Sahasri make his position clear - the Guru should first enquire about the lineage of a prospective student as in the Chandogya Upanishad. That is the first criteria. This along with his BSB on Sutra 1.3.38 closes the case. Cheers

I was in Shanghai back in March and was able to access this site without problems. Wikipedia was a blocked site in Shanghai, but I think they could get to that site too through a firewall. Cheers

That is an unfortunate situation. Since you cannot do much here, hope for the best, but also be prepared for the worst-case possibility of getting shipped back to your home country. You should evaluate the possibility of re-entering the US legitimately. That should be possible in your case as you were a minor when you entered the US and lived there as an illegal immigrant. You cannot be blamed because your parents broke the law. Find a good immigrant lawyer (good lawyers cost big $$$) and examine your options. Things may not be so bleak after all. Good luck!

I am curious. Does anyone know of some examples inside the Brahma madhva Gaudiya samradaya where a non-Brahmana was converted into a Brahmana with a sacred thread and everything? If yes, what was the conversion procedure and what is the source of this procedure? What was the gotra of this new convert? I have seen an article on a Gaudiya website about how the Vaishnava is better than the Brahmana which leads me to believe, such a conversion procedure does not exist even inside the BMG tradition, but maybe I am wrong. Note that Varna and Ashrama are different things. Varna is by birth and Ashrama is not. Cheers

Because Supreme is a relative term; that is, it makes sense only in relation to a reference point. There should be at least one non-sumpreme entity. If everything is Supreme, then there is no reference point from where you can measure Suremacy and therefore the meaning is lost. In any event, to say everyone is God is an incorrect statement by itself. I am not aware of any religion that would make such a meaningless statement, although people who are ignorant of Advaita tend to draw such incorrect conclusions. Cheers

Hard to say. Every person's success or failure is circumstantial. If Clint Eastwood & Amitabh Bachchan lived 200 years ago when there was no cinema, they would have been unknown people. Or if Gandhi lived now, he would have nothing to accomplish as India does not need a Gandhi now, although the need was strong during his time. One way to get some idea would be to track the size of the Hare Krishna COmmunity. If someone is manintaing statistics on the annual rate at which the community is growing, also taking attrition into account, then one can probably make a fair guess. Temple attendance by itself is not a factor. There are people who are willing to call themselves Hare krishnas or followers of Prabhupada, but are not enthusiastic about visiting iskcon temples. Majority of the temple goers are Hindus who like to visit temples of Indian Gods - especially in the US, as once Hindus step out of India, their patriotism and interest in religion seems to increase two-fold. They develop an impulsive need to eat Indian food and visit temples on a regular basis - which they would not care to do do while in India. Cheers

Your choice of spiritual belief is entirely a personal thing. It is a 1:1 relationship between you & your Guru. The relationship continues as long as both parties are satisfied with one another. No one can tell yo what to do here. You chose the Guru, now it is upto you to decide whether you wish to continue or drop off. But why bring in your son & your family into the matter? Your son may have different aspirations in life and may not be interested in your beliefs at all. Why is your Guru having a say in your son's activities?It is very unfair - to say the least -- to curb the freedom of someone and coerce them into a lifestyle which they are accepting more by authority than personal choice. If you impose restrictions on your son's lifestyle based on such opinions, then it is fully your fault.

I like that. In fact Baladeva VidyaBhushana's commentary contains only one line. He tells readers that no one, including himself can understand the Sutras, so please refer to the Bhagavatam instead. Vyasa also knew that his sutras could not be understood by anyone and so he wrote the Bhagavatam. But instead of rescinding the sutras which no one could understand, he allowed them to be propogated (for fun, most likely). This is akin to a scenario where Microsoft would sell MS windows 2.x (from the 80s) and Vista, side by side. No reason, except to have some fun & confuse the general public. It is also interesting to note that Vyasa - the man with divine vision - who predicted the arrival of Queen Victoria and the East India company, could not see the uselessness of the Sutras which he must have spent considerable time authoring. Cheers

Since the masses of the people are inconstant, full of unruly desires, passionate, and reckless of consequences, they must be filled with fears to keep them in order. The ancients did well, therefore, to invent gods, and the belief in punishment after death - Polybius the historian (200 BC)

About ID... "I think what arouses the ire of scientists (about intelligent design) is ... the notion that it belongs in the same universe as scientific analysis," Kennedy said in a telephone interview. "It's a hypothesis that's not testable, and one of the important recognition factors for science and scientific ideas is the notion of testability, that you can go out and do an experiment and learn from it and change your idea," said Kennedy. "That's just not possible with a notion that's as much a belief in spirituality as intelligent design is." Cheers

Try the Advaita Vedanta home page maintained by Vidyasankar Sundareshan (do a google). You should be able to get all the info you want on the Yoga Vashista or any other Advaita text. If you are looking for iskcon/Gaudiya vaishnavism texts/information, then this is a good place. Cheers

You lack knowledge of basics, as I see. Find some definitions to help you out. Don't take my word on it and get these meanings verified by other sources. Mimamsa - Common term to denote Purva Mimamsa - the system founded by Jaimini through his Mimamsa Sutras. They focus on what they call the Karma Khanda of the Vedas (the portions dealing with rituals). This system is also known as Karma Mimamsa. Vedanta - Common term to denote the school that came up from Badarayana thru his Brahma Sutras, aka Vedanta Sutras. It is based on the Upanishads, the Brahma-sutras and the Bhagavad Gita. Traditionally, Vedanta is also known as Uttara Mimamsa. The above defintions should set your misconceptions right. More precisely, the facts are, 1. Vedanta is post Bhagavad Gita. 2. "Jaimini's Mimamsa" is just as correct as saying Shankara's Advaita. 3. Karma Khanda is the section of Vedas that deal with rituals. It is not an alternate name of the Mimamsa school. Cheers

It will not happen again as people now know what the capillary effect is. Scientists and Labs are are not necessary to demonstrate this simple phenomena. You can try it right at home and check this for yourself. Let us leave the scientists to devote their time to more useful activities. The good lord -- if he wishes to perform random miracles for no reason -- has to think of a new way to impress the Janta. Until of course, it is subject to tests and proven to be within the realm of science...after which he will have to start all over again. One would think the Lord is smart enough to come up with a miracle that can be clearly demonstrated as above science like for example, a 100 lbs idol of the Ganesha floating in mid-air for 24 hrs (and perhaps wave his trunk or flap his ears once every 10 minutes for added effect) in an easily accessible area for everyone to see and test to their satisfaction, thereby putting a final end to all speculation. But history says miracles happen either at places where they cannot be tested or else, they turn out to be explained by science which means they are not miracles at all. Since nothing like the 1995 milk miracle has happened for the last 10 years, either he is not in a mood for random miracles or else he is at a loss to find a new one. Which one do you think it is? Cheers

Don't get confused. Jaimini's mimamsa, also known as karma mimamsa uses karma in the sense of sacrifice. Their focus is on rituals (Yajnas) which produce good results. Jaimini does not accept a supreme being or creator as he holds that the world is eternal. In that sense, mimamsa is considered non-theistic when compared with vedanta. There is no concept of liberation either. Karma as used in vedanta deeply draws from the Bhagavad gita, where Karma translates to action. This Karma is closely tied to reincarnation as the effects are believed to get carried over to the next life. This is in line with the concept of Karma as believed in Buddhism. Note that none of these concepts are actually found in the Vedas (unless one uses plenty of imagination & interpretation). Also, the veda does not split itself into Karma Khanda & Jnana Khanda. These differences were introduced much later than the Vedas themselves and they are in fact, post-Buddhist. For instance, Madhva rejects this kind of categorization and states no such differences exist between the various sections of the Vedas and they are uniform in purport. Cheers

Dreamy, The controlling God who is capable of influencing the lives of humans is a theistic concept as found in the Vedas. Eventually, several heretical, non-theistic concepts arose and gained popularity in India, including Karma, reincarnation, etc. Saankhya, Jainism and Buddhism are the most popular among these, although there were many many such schools at that time. At some point of time, the concept of Karma (which is athesitic) and the concept of the controller God (Theistic) were both merged to form what is known today as Hinduism. In other words, Karma and reincarnation are *not* found in the Vedas and are known only through the Mahabharata and the Puranas. When you see things this way, the dichotomy of Karma vs. controller God no longer exists. Cheers

Of any two conflicting positions, that which leaves the most number of questions unanswered shall be rejected. Position One Life developed from simple primates into complex systems over time as explained by evolution and also substantiated with plenty of evidence. Of course, one may complain that a continuous stream of evidence is lacking, which is more than likely as nature does not preserve evidence over billions of years perfectly. Science does its best by examining whatever evidence is at hand. The gaps will be filled as more evidence is uncovered. It is an ongoing process. Evolution of simple forms into complex forms is a clear indication of the innate intelligence of nature. Position Two An invisible "intelligent" creator waved his wand and set forth the various life forms including the centipedes, snakes, leeches, the reptiles, and in general the whole predator system (for no conceivable reason) and let us face it -- life forms which can do with a lot of improvement or in other words, life forms that come with flawed designs. It is not known who created this creator, it is not known what the motive is behind creating the various life forms, it is not known why this alleged creator is hidden from sight leaving no evidence of his existence, it is not known why this creator created imperfect designs. Which of these two positions is more plausible? A group of people finding no answers to the existence of life on the planet assumed there must be an intelligent, hidden cause behind this and assigned creatorship to this hidden entity. With no evidence of any kind, they now expect to push this as science into schools. Once this is done they will move onto step two, which is to discredit evolution and ban it as a false theory. Step three would be to name this intelligent creator as the god of the bible and anyone who says otherwise, including Hare Krishna! ( Yeah...belief in false gods is just as worse as no belief in god) will be charged with blasphemy & burned at the stake or stoned to death in public. And before anyone realizes it, we would have gone back to times 1000 years ago. Cheers

Partly true. UG is very old (almost 90) and still alive as far as I know and he does sit on his you-know-what like everyone else. But I have no idea if he is bitter or not and I do not know if he is concerned or not about the things he comments about. And more importantly, I do not care to know as his feeling are of no importance to me or to anyone else. Like I said before, other than the need to question and have one's feet firmly on the ground at all times, I have not found anything of use or interest in his dialogues. He is not a hero or a super natural person to be placed on a pedestal and worshipped like it usually happens with godmen who wear garlands & expect respect. He is just another guy who had a couple of interesting points to make, period. This will be hard to comprehend for people who are into cults centered around Gurus, where the Guru is the next best thing since sliced bread. Sure. Having read all the 3 parts of Commentaries on Living, Freedom from the Known and a number of other works of JK and also having read a good bit of UG's talks, I can confidently say he is *not* imitating JK. JK like any other Guru has his solution to the problems of mankind. He advocated passive awareness, built schools, foundations and what not. UG has no solution to offer which makes them poles apart. If you still have doubts, I will gladly clear them for you. This inability to understand the position of a critic is similar to the problem many theists have with understanding the position of the atheist. You have to start from first principles and work your way upwards all the time being careful not to get lost in your personal prejudices, which can be particularly hard for anyone. UG is not the first dude to reject basic ideas of religion/spirituality nor will he be the last and he will be forgotten very quickly as this kind of rock hard, no-fluff reality is not what the general public want. It is people like Paul who painted a nice, Technicolor picture of redemption and eternal heaven who will be remembered for ages. Others like Ajita Keshakambalin, Polybius, Seneca, UG and a horde of others who held/hold material views will never win any popular awards. Some extracts which may or may not clarify his position a little better. If you listen to me year after year, you are only clarifying your thoughts. It's useless. I am not here to offer you any new methods, new techniques, or suggest any gimmicks to attain your goal. If other systems, techniques, and gimmicks have failed to help you reach your goal, and if you are looking or shopping around for some newer, better methods here, I am afraid I cannot be of any help to you. If you feel that someone else can help you, good luck to you. But I am compelled, through the lessons of my own experience, to add the rider, "You will get nowhere, you will see." Anything I do to help you would be adding to your misery--that's all. You add one more misery to those you already have by listening to me. Q: If all you say is true, we are in a bad way indeed. We are not in a position to accept or reject what you are saying. Why, then, do you go on talking to us? What meaning can it have? U.G.: This dialogue with you has no meaning at all. You may very well ask why the hell I am talking. I emphatically assure you that, in my case, it is not at all in the nature of self-fulfillment. My motive for talking is quite different from what you think it is. It is not that I am eager to help you understand, or that I feel that I must help you. Not at all. My motive is direct and temporary: you arrive seeking understanding, while I am only interested in making it crystal clear that there is nothing to understand. I have only a few things to say and I go on repeating them again and again and again. There are no questions for me, other than the practical questions for everyday functioning in this world. You, however, have many, many questions. What do you want to get? There is always somebody to help you get what you want, for a price. You have foolishly divided life into higher and lower goals, into material and spiritual paths. In either case great struggle, pain, and effort is involved. I say, on the other hand, that there are no spiritual goals at all; they are simply the extension of material goals into what you imagine to be a higher, loftier plane. You mistakenly believe that by pursuing the spiritual goal you will somehow miraculously make your material goals simple and manageable. Such pursuits are in actuality not possible. You may think that only inferior persons pursue material goals, that material achievements are boring. But in fact the so-called spiritual goals you have put before yourself are exactly the same...If you don't come here, you will go elsewhere in search of answers. Cheers

I remember this... This was from a time when there was a caustic e-mail exchange offline between X, myself and some others. We were younger then with more time and energy for such activities. For those who do not know, X is one of the leading lights of the Gaudiya tradition who as I recall frowns upon the idea of devotees watching television. The gentleman is the “Amish” version of the GV tradition, one might say. I am not naming X, just to intrigue you folks. Following the e-mail exchange, X vented his frustration out by starting this topic as he considered me a "follower" of UG -- whatever that means. How nice it is to let off steam! Since that is what he was doing, I did not bother to post any responses on this thread at that time. But now since so many others jumped in, something should be said about UG. Sitting here discussing these things is meaningless, useless. That is why I am always saying to my listeners, get lost, please! What you want you can get elsewhere, but not here. Go to the temple, do puja, repeat mantras, put on ashes. Eventually some joker comes along and says, give me a week's wages and I will give you a better mantra to repeat. Then another fellow comes along and tells you not to do any of that, that it is useless, and that what he is saying is much more revolutionary. - UG People are more happy with someone who does their thinking for them and tells them what to do. People find it easy to follow a system where they are asked to wear a cetain type of Nama, chant a secret mantra a couple of dozen times daily and not eat dairy in exchange for a lavish afterlife. But if someone like UG comes along and tells people to stop relying on Gurus and think for themselves, they find it difficult to comprehend. It appears to be too much effort to think and ask some bold questions. It does not matter if UG talks or not, if he spend big bucks traveling around the world or not. All of these are inconsequential. Is he a perfect man? - Most certainly not, for the concept is bogus. There is no perfect man - period. He is just another ordinary dude like 6 billion others. I do not believe in the mystical experiences anyone (including UG) claims to have gone through, however fascinating and real they may sound. So what sets UG apart from the rest of the godmen who are a dime a dozen? UG has no product to sell; no promises like the others. He focuses on criticizing the religious system, pointing out its various defects. Other godmen do that too, but they invariably follow it up with the claim that their new teaching is perfect and above these defects. UG on the other hand, criticizes and stops there. There is no follow-up about his own new revolutionary teaching (he has none). Obviously, he cannot criticize without talking and for that he has to talk. Of course, if some smart, gifted people know of some way by which one can criticize without talking, I am sure UG would be interested to know how. I know I would be. That is in short, the USP of UG. Many people get disillusioned about their religious beliefs at some point and for them a critical approach is what is required, where they get to exercise some intelligence. UG has been & can be of benefit to at least some of these people. But if anyone is looking to replace their current beliefs with a new and exciting belief, then they will get nothing from the man. Other than picking up the importance of questioning and critical examination, there is nothing else of use in his talks (in my opinion). If this is understood, then it does not matter if UG smokes pot or eats Bengali sweets or turns cartwheels in Central Park. His personal lifestyle is of no importance to anyone other than himself. And since he has no product/teaching of his own, how can he have followers? I can hear some brains creaking… Cheers

Here is a part of the Quixotic Message, which is humor created around the ID theory a couple of years ago. The complete list can be found on the web with background for most points. Have fun! ------------- ID is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree. Greater and greater numbers of scientists are joining the ID movement, which is why we keep referring to the same three year after year (Dembski, Wells and Behe). We're not creationists, except for those of us who are, but the rest of us won't confirm that we're not. But if you call us creationists, we'll complain to no end. ID is a scientific theory for detecting purpose and teleology in nature. But don't ask us what that purpose is, because that's a religious question that's separate from ID. The Designer could be anything from God to a space alien. But the Raelians, who believe it was a space alien, are being illogical. Darwinism can't explain the evolution of life in every single detail, therefore it's wrong. But don't ask IDists to explain these things, because that's not the kind of theory ID is. Darwinists (Also read atheists) are responsible for both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism. Both racism and liberalism. Both feminism and sexism. Both animal research and the animal rights movement. And Commie-Nazism Philosophers cannot agree on exactly where the line between science and non-science lies. Therefore, anything can be considered science if we say so. If a living system looks well designed, it's evidence for ID. If it looks poorly designed, that's just because we have no way of knowing what constitutes good and bad design A good scientific theory like ID should be vague and ambiguous, and refuse to propose any specific details about mechanism or history. Some unspecified being "designed" something, somewhere, at some point in time, somehow, is a perfectly good explanation. The argument from design is not a theological argument, because we aren't necessarily talking about God. But any rebuttal of the design argument is theological, because it requires us to say "God wouldn't do it this way", and this is not legitimate It was very nice of our loving Designer to design an immune system to protect us from the deadly diseases He designed. The fundamental unity of living things means that there is only one Designer. The extraordinary variation among living things, including their tendency to kill each other, just means that our singular Designer is very creative and whimsical. ----- Cheers

Pleasing the Lord implies the Lord is not curently pleased for if the Lord is always pleased, then he cannot, doesn not have to be pleased. But being pleased and non-pleased are sentiments of humans and animals. The Lord being pari-poorna (complete) and perfect, is beyond such sentiments. How can he be pleased? Or better still, what can happen that may "unplease" him which will require pleasing by "topmost devotees" as you put it? Have you really thought this through? Cheers

People do not know if the master is genuine or not. There is no way of testing as Gurus cannot walk on water or fly like birds to prove their "divinity". They are regular humans like us who have to shave, bathe, eat, drink and breathe regularly to function normally. With these limitations, the validity of the Guru becomes a matter of faith and sentiment. X thinks his Guru is the best thing that ever happened to mankind and Y thinks the same about his own Guru. That is how it goes. It is purely a matter of personal preference and nothing more. Interesting, but not correct. if religion has one mandatory, basic requirement, that is the concept of a soul/spirit that will live after the body. Without this basic premise there is no heaven or hell or reincarnation or liberation, thus invalidating all religions. This is the same for the Buddhist with his concept of Nirvana. The "no soul" view is Materialism/Atheism, which has been around always, but has never become a mainstream view ( will never become one) as it is not appealing to the general public due to it's insipid, objective nature. The majority would be happier to go with a view of permanence (life after death) and a controller who can watch & protect over them in return for their offerings of coconuts or candles or hair (as in Tirupathi). The people around me do not think of an afterlife. They are religious and thus superstitious as they think God controls the activities of their lives and they do whatever they have been told to do in order to appease their Gods - so that they may lead a smooth life. Fear rules. A family I know traveled from Bangalore to Tirupathi a few months ago and on their way back they had a major accident where the woman lost her husband and her 8-year old son. Instead of getting religious and traveling to distant temples, they may have been still alive today if they had just stayed home watching TV. Was there a lesson learnt by other people from this incident? No. They see that Tirupathi Venkatesh is incapable of protecting the people who come to see him or magically increase their test scores and yet fear prevents them from taking that bold step and bidding goodbye to this whole affair of religion. Fear is the key for most people. Cheers

Can someone please clarify a few of my doubts? Veda says that God is one but sages call it by many names. Does that mean God can be called by any name other than Krishna? If so, why do Vaishnavas insist on Krishna? A: Obviously, if Vaishnavas or any group strictly adhere to the Vedas alone, they cannot "insist on Krishna" as you put it for Krishna is not mentioned anywhere in the Vedas. They rely on a number of other sources outside the vedas as well to draw their conclusions. 2) From the above, does it follow that Krishna, Siva, ganesha and durga are all one? A: A number of things can follow from the above based on interpretation as the vedas are ambigous (even contradictory at times) and can be read in different ways. 3) Where in the veda does it clearly say that Krishna is Supreme? I don't want puranic references. A: Krishna is not mentioned in the Vedas. For references to Krishna, one has to turn to Pancharatras, Itihasa and Purana. 4) Isn't it commonly held that Vishnu appeared as rama, krishna etc? So why do people say krishna appeared as rama, narasimha and so on, as if krishna and visnu are synonymous? If they are, then why can't we say that Rama appeared as narasimha, krishna et al? A: The mainstrean view which is held by most Vaishnavas is that Krishna and Rama are avatars of Vishnu. However, there are some Vaishnavas who do not consider Krishna as an avatar. They draw their conclusions from a different set of literature. Put simply, I am confused by all this. I tried to search the net, but couldn't find any. Can someone please tell me which is true-Krishna is Supreme and other devatas are expansions, or Krishna and other devatas are all part of the Ineffable Supreme? Also tell me why. A: I can tell you this - the net is not the source for finding such information. Anyone can write anything on a discussion form or post all types of nonsense as articles. Go back to the source where you first learnt about Krishna and Vaishnavism and question yourself why you do not believe these sources fully. And then start again... Cheers