Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

shvu

Members
  • Content Count

    1,850
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by shvu

  1. Any change you make is part of your destiny too. So all the hard work, actions, results, etc., are also part of destiny - for the concept to have any meaning. Cheers
  2. Indeed! Most number of posts on the thread by - Bhaktajan Therefore, it follows Ashwatama compares Bhaktajan to a barking dog and hides behind the figleaf of "Prabhupada said so", which I believe is a Vaishnava aparadha for which you will roast in hell for years to come. You made one single post on the thread and incurred some bad aparadha. You might as well have exercised some extra control & stayed away from this thread. But it is too late now. Cheers
  3. As we can see in reality, this verse is flawed. There are people who worship other Gods without asking for material gains and there are people who worship Krishna asking for better grades or curing cancer. Obviously the latter category, though worshipping Krishna would qualify as "alpa medhas" per BG 7.23 and the former category would not.
  4. <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> Ah…the Hare Krishna propensity to use examples revolving around stool….I have seen quite a few of those. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> But actually no verse in any of the four Vedas translates to “Do not pass stool in gutters”. Then how does establishing a clean vedic tradition in India through American and/or European Hare Krishnas solve the problem? <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> The Vedic tradition – as you put it – was living in little huts without electricity and starving when there weren’t sufficient rains. Disease killed most people before they hit 30 years of age. There was no ESPN & there was no idol worship (and hence, no Krishna). You would not last 10 minutes in that world. Which American/European from the Hare Krishna camp wants to go back to this "clean vedic" world? Please step up, for all of us can see you to actually believe such a person exists. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Simply making up things without logic or repeating someone else's words without thinking them out results in stupid sounding posts which btw, is not uncommon here<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Cheers<o:p></o:p>
  5. I am sure you understand why I am not taking your word for it. Hinduism is a lot more than Vedic. This is the trouble with people who do not know the ABCs of what Hinduism is. Hinduism is inclusive of a vedic God Vishnu, a non-vedic God Krishna and a false God Radha. But this may be too much for you to grasp. We do not have to get rid of it as we are not bothered about the origin of the word. I can assure you that no Hindu lost any sleep over it. And therefore, the rest of your proselytizing is pointless. not to mention incorrect. If that is true, then he should have stayed in India and corrected them. Running away from the problem does not solve it. But we know that is not the real reason why he went to the US. Vivekananda (the meat-eating Mayavadin) opened the door for Indian spiritualism in the west – which meant more money and global fame. Prabhupada and a dozen other saffron clad ambitious Gurus took the opportunity and setup shop in America. That is all there is to it. If the US economy was as bad as Namibia then trust me- he would not have given a single though to move to the US....he would have considered UK or some other wealthy country - or simply stayed home. Wealth attracts, and you evidently are ignorant of this simple fact as you are of several other things as well. Cheers
  6. <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> 1. You say Hindus are ignorant, you know better and these ignorant Hindus accept you know better. <o:p></o:p> 2. You also say Raghu is a ignorant Hindu because he does not accept your “superior” knowledge. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> I and 2 contradict each other. So which one do you want to give up? Or perhaps you do not understand what I am saying here?<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> Hindu not being a sanskrit word is a problem, why? And Btw, most Hindus never even heard of Prabhupada. I myself - an ignorant Hindu - never heard of his name until just 8 years ago. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> He can say all he wants; does not necessarily make them true. Say anything to make a few bucks was the common policy of godmen who traveled west and Prabhupada was no exception. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> Funny, considering that Prabhupada and his disciples do not even know how many Vedas exist!<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> I would like to say I am touched by your humility and impressed by your deep knowledge of Hinduism compared to us dimbulbs…but I am just not able to do it for some strange reason. Hmm…why would that be? <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Cheers<o:p></o:p>
  7. And for the 100th time...<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p> No, it does not. That is just another Hare Krishna concoction based on no evidence other than “some Bengali Babu said so”. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> And we know how it turned out in the case of Prabhupada. It was a major failure as everyone knows. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> It is funny that in spite of such glaringly obvious evidence, you still persist with your nonsense. But then having seen your earlier posts, perhaps I am being unfair expecting anything better from you.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Cheers<o:p></o:p>
  8. Funny then, that the topic of Hindu definition was posted here by Hare Krishnas, especially theist who is particularly fond of shouting from roof tops that he is not a Hindu. That should be enough to dismiss the rest of your post as ignorant babble. Cheers
  9. We are discussing the four main legitimate sources for knowledge of Krishna's life. Any information not found here, but found somewhere else is not authentic, unless a strong case is provided for why this information is not found in mainstream sources. Sukha would faint on hearing her name was an excuse thrown above. This excuse to even merit some discussion should itself come from a legitimate source. Besides, Sukha figures only in the Bhagavatam. What about the Mahabharata, the Harvamsa (wholly dedicated to Krishna's life events) and the Vishnu Purana? Sukha is not the narrator here and there was no problem in mentioning her name. And yet, there is no mention at all. I never heard of the Garga Samhita and you would have a hard time convincing anyone on why this obscure and unknown text would contain some genuine information on Krishna's life which is missing in texts like the Mahabharata and Harivamsa. Just as an FYI, the Brahma Vaivarta Purana was composed during the 16th AD, just 400 years ago. How do we know this? Smriti writers from early as 900 AD have quoted the Brahmavaivarta and of 1800 such quotes, not even 100 quotes have made it into the newer version. But even assuming it is old and genuine, all the problems listed above override this reference. Don't take my word for it. All this information can be obtained through authorized sources - if you have the interest to know. Cheers
  10. There are at least 3 problems with the above excuse for not finding Radha in any legitimate source, 1. Is this excuse documented in a legitimate source? "Prabhupada said so" or "Sai Baba said so" does not cut it. And if it is not documented in a legitimate source, then I assume you will have no problems agreeing this excuse has no value. 2. The Mahabharata had nothing to do with Suka Goswami's recital. Why not mention her name there? 3. Vyasa was composing Puranas for the entire world - not just for the sake of his son. Makes a weak argument to say he left out a key character like Radha from the story of Krishna just because his son was the fainting type. Anyway point #1 above is sufficient to throw out this excuse. The fact remains Radha is not mentioned in 4 legitimate sources for the story of Krishna. In my opinion, it would be simpler and honest to admit it and move on, instead of tap dancing to avoid this simple fact and dreaming up ridiculous excuses. Cheers
  11. Obviosuly you have not had discussions with Hare krishnas then. They have a lowly opinion of anything that comes under Hinduism, but have soft sentiments for Christianity (as most of them are from the west with a Christian Background and that is where the money is too). So yeah...your Hindu beliefs which do not jell with hare Krishna beliefs will be crticized with sarcasm and if you retaliate, you become an aparadhi and you are pouring out poison. Reagrdless of the fact that Sai Baba is highly revered and worshipped by millions, our friend theist here has no problems calling him an "obvious fraud" and admits he posted a joke about him. That is not aparadha in his world. But if you call Bhakti Vinoda a fraud for manufacturing a Upanishad and claiming it was part of the Rig-veda, then you are an aparadhi. This is exactly the type of hypocritic double standards of hare Krishnas that I have been seeing on this forum from the first day I signed up. The "No one should criticize us; but we reserve a special right to be condescending about others" attitude. Bad for them that there are a couple of people like me here to bring them down to reality. A lot of them since have learnt to sta yaway from mocking other religions. One or two fanatics like theist are finding it hard to keep their noses out of other beliefs. Cheers
  12. The moderator made this explicitly clear sometime ago to theist - that it was a general forum and everyone was allowed to express their views. Does not make sense to have a general section if the moderator will censor posts which do not conform to his personal beliefs. But if theist were the moderator that is what he would have done - censor everyone except the Hare Krishnas so that he could criticize Mayavada, Hinduism, bring in his Christian/Vaishnava links and not fear retribution. But he is not the moderator. Again, one man's religious belief is another man's aparadha. It is impossible to cater to personal whims on a general forum. And like I said, the Hare Krishna section has been around for ages. Why not post there? Cheers
  13. AM, That is the point. If A is fine with criticizing B's belief as poison on a general spiritual forum, then is it not natural that B will consider A's belief as nonsense? Why get offended unless A thinks he has some special privilege over everone else when it comes to criticism? In which case, if there is any problem here, it has to be with A and not B. If it is important to A to periodically pick faults with others, then A should stay inside the Hare Krishna section. Cheers
  14. The main and legitimate sources for information on Krishna are, 1. Mahabarata 2. Hari Vamsa 3. Vishnu Purana 4. Bhagavat Purana None of these 4 sources acknowledge the existence of a person named Radha. That should answer your question. Cheers
  15. The Brahma Samhita is a Gauidya text and you really do not want to use it for discussions with non-Gaudiyas. Because it has no value outside that group. Which must be wrong for by your own logic, it is a Purana for those in the mode of ignorance! By your own logic, Vishnu is not supreme. The Vedas were scripted by Vyasadeva? Ok... He wrote a natural commentary on them? Then why did he not tell this to Shankara and Madhva when they met him? Why have them write more comentaries and further confuse the already confused public? It is a pity you did not appear on these forums sooner. Else, a lot of these discussions would have been settled a long time ago through your wisdom. Anyway, better late than never! Cheers
  16. There are already two sections (from a very long time) - the Hare Krishna section and the other being the ISKCON section. For some unknown reason, these whiners refuse to post there and choose to post on the more general spiritual section and try to monopolize it based on their own narrow set of beliefs. Theist has countless times posted on this general spiritual forum that Mayavada is poison. But when he was given a dose of his own medicine, he now wants to stay away from "Aparadhis". He can say what he wishes, but others cannot. He can frst start by keeping his nose out of Mayavada. That would be a first big step in advancing himself spiritually. Cheers
  17. One man's religious belief is another's Aparadha. In asking the moderator to keep aparadhis out, one is essentially asking to allow only people who share one's religious belief to post and to ban everyone else. Criticizing a doctrine is no different from criticizing the teacher. If criticizing HK Gurus like Bhakti Vinoda is aparadha, then the Hare Krishna criticism of other religious beliefs are aparadhas too. So let the HK who has not sinned thusly, cast the first stone. Cheers
  18. Just to be clear, Advaita does not say the world is a dream. It says the world and our role in it is ultimately unreal *like* in a dream. But until that becomes a realization, the world is real, our role in it is real and the pain of the starving boy is as real as it is to anyone else. So it is not the case that Advaitins are not moved by the plight of these sufferings just as it is not true that Advaitins think they are God, as one ignoramus (not you, of course) has been posting on this thread. Cheers
  19. I love that passage from the Mahabharata. It gives a rare glimpse into the logic - or lack thereof - in the Karma doctrine vs. a Controlling God. On a very superficial level, the concept of Karma appears to answer important questions on pain and pleasure. But on closer scrutiny, it fails to hold up any better than other religious positions which believe pain is a just a way of life and happens without reason. Do you have the exact reference of this passage in the MB? Thanks
  20. Guliaditya, I apologize for confusing you with someone else. DW, Thanks for clarifying. Cheers
  21. And what is the truth, according to you? Do you even know what the Veda is? It is not iskcon literature or what your theist friend makes up as he goes along. The intent of posting here is not to teach theist the facts of life. He has - over time - proven that he is incapable of admitting his mistakes and chooses to live in denial. We post here, least some rookie is misled by theist and co. Cheers
  22. I agree. It sounds stupid. But is that not what the soul is - esssentially? As any attributes you assign to your soul now are actually part of your earthly personality. Your likes/dislikes, memories, plans, etc. Wihout memory of the past, we are nothing. Since memory is an atrribute of the physical body, the nature of a soul would be impersonal. Cheers
  23. Actually Advaita has been the most appealing since the time of its inception. It quickly rose to prominence and has stayed on top since the last 1300 years. So it is not just the modern mind, even medieval minds found Advaita to be the most rational. A point I have raised on this forum in the past - how is it possible for a God to have a human form? We have our eyes and nose for server specific bodily functions. A transcendental God does not require sense organs and would look nothing like a human. Cheers
  24. Well - Boo hoo. Much as you may not like it, the "Holy Name" belongs as much to the Mayavadins as much as to anyone else. If it will not work for them, then it is not gonna work for the Hare Krishnas either. So there really is no difference. If you cannot get beyond such narrow issues, then it is highly doubtful that you will get anywhere close to the textbook definition of a devotee. Definitely not in the next dozen lifetimes. Cheers
  25. And here we go - again. Theist cannot go for more than a few weeks without finding fault with someone. Either the mayavadins or the scientists or the Hindus or as in this case Christians - people who do not know the teachings of Christ. So who knows the correct teachings of christ? The Hare Krishnas, of course. Just like they have a better idea of science than scientists. There has got be a name for this syndrome. If not, then we should coin one...the theist syndrome, perhaps. it is like having a demon inside which has to periodically rear its ugly head and appease itself by criticising others. Cheers
×
×
  • Create New...