shvu

our we the same as destined to be by our stars at birth?Are our achievements and failures in life a result of our stars?This means that all are actions are preplanned..Then why do we talk about believing in our hard work and actions...Can we change the way we were supposed to be or just submit to our destiny??

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

Well written and very true.

Indeed!

I couldn't be bothered joining this debate. Prabhupada Bhativedanta sums it up, 'When the dogs bark, you don't bark with them'

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

antavat tu phalam tesam

tad bhavaty alpa-medhasam

devan deva-yajo yanti

mad-bhakta yanti mam api - BG 7.23

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.

Actually he tried to help India right up until he was 69 years of age. I see it in two ways, leaving India because the place was spiritually bankrupt, corrupt and filthy by getting help by coverting others abroard, passing on the batton and new responsibility of the true essence of the Vedas that India failed at maintain. The batton was passed to the Americans and Europeans

Then bringing his new coverts back to India to revive a spiritually bankrupt corrupt filithy place where people were still passing stool in the gutter and again begin to teach the Indians the proper Vedic 'clean' tradition.

Ah…the Hare Krishna propensity to use examples revolving around stool….I have seen quite a few of those.

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?

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.

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

Cheers

shvu, you have no idea what 'Hinduism ' is suppose to be.

I am sure you understand why I am not taking your word for it.

I was being sarcastic. 'Hinduism is meant to be Vedic and ragu represents the mundane nonsense demigod worship side of the Vedas followed by the less intelligent as the Gita tells us.

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.

Get rid of that Muslim-European word Hindu and worshiping the mundane demigods and bring back the proper word 'Vedic religion, Sanatam Dharm and worshipping first and formost, the cause of all causes, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Krsna and His expansions like Lord Ram' (according to Lila)

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.

Thats what Prabhupada came to the West to do because there were too many 'Hindus' in India who have forgot their true Vedic origins of worshiping Lord Krsna, the cause of ALL causes.

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

Raghu, your an ARROGENT fool, stop writting nonsense!! <?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f"><v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"></v:path><o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"></o:lock></v:shapetype><v:shape id=Picture_x0020_1 style="VISIBILITY: visible; WIDTH: 12pt; HEIGHT: 12pt; mso-wrap-style: square" type="#_x0000_t75" o:spid="_x0000_i1026" alt="http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif"><v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\ssomash1\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.gif" o:title="rolleyes"></v:imagedata></v:shape>Obviously you represent the 'ignorant side of Hindusm"

1. You say Hindus are ignorant, you know better and these ignorant Hindus accept you know better.

2. You also say Raghu is a ignorant Hindu because he does not accept your “superior” knowledge.

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?

Prabhupada saved the Vedic Culture from the mundane Hindus of a corrupt and over invaded India by Muslims and Europeans, who created the name 'Hindu in the first place, it is certainly NOT a Sanskrit word.

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.

He said the Vedic gift was passed onto the West because Indian Hindism was a fascade and failed.

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.

Now it was up to Prabhupada's dancing white Elephants to re-established Vedic culture back in India and teach the 'Hindus and the entire world' who they really are as Spiritual entities. And its working, even this web site is the creation of a student of Srila Prabhupada <v:shape id=Picture_x0020_2 style="VISIBILITY: visible; WIDTH: 18pt; HEIGHT: 17.25pt; mso-wrap-style: square" type="#_x0000_t75" o:spid="_x0000_i1025" alt="http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/images/smilies/deal.gif"><v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\ssomash1\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.gif" o:title="deal"></v:imagedata></v:shape>

Funny, considering that Prabhupada and his disciples do not even know how many Vedas exist!

So many 'HINDUS' today say to us that we devotees of Western origin know more about their religion than they do. And in all humility, we do.

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?

Cheers

And for the 100th time...

The solution lies in the proper understanding to the problem.

It's true that being a Brahmana is not something determined by birth, color, country of origin etc...

It depends on the nature of an individual.

No, it does not. That is just another Hare Krishna concoction based on no evidence other than “some Bengali Babu said so”.

It depends on many criterias, thorough testing and investigation should be made before initiating someone.

And we know how it turned out in the case of Prabhupada. It was a major failure as everyone knows.

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.

Cheers

Tomorrow's Saving Non-Hindus

 

Today's Subject:

 

Who cares about the source and use of the word hindu.

 

The only people who give a farthing for the source and use of the word hindu, are other Hindus.

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

Garga Samhita and Brahma Vaivarta Purana both talk about Radha in detail.

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

Srimati Radha's name is not mentioned in the Bhagavatam because if it was Suka-deva Goswami would have fainted and stop reciting.

Mind you, Sukadeva learnt by hearth the Bhagavatam from his father Vyasadeva.

So it was Vyasadeva that avoided use of the name because he knew that Sukadeva was an associate of Radha in a prior birth etc.

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

,I disagree,our Hindu religion is very vast but that does not mean that my belief is someone's problem in your term known as aparadha.

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

I can agree with that. Definetly on a general spiritual forum the mayavadis or whomever should be allowed to express their viewpoint and if the moderators want to censor people for aparadha or anything else that is their perogative and they created the forum so they can do what they want in that regard in my opinion but who knows for sure.

 

 

Cheers

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

Well in all fairness Prabhupada does pretty much teach that mayavada is poison if I am not mistaken. I don't get offended by mayavadis personally because once you see through their idea that everyone is God or God is not a person or that Krishna cannot incarnate in his transcendental form in the material world it becomes almost laughable from a Vedic perspective. The only real sad thing is most spiritualists in the modern world do seem to be mayavadis on some level so I do think they are misleading our civilization on some level so there is a danger from mayavadis in my opinion but who knows for sure.

 

 

Cheers

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

not to ruffle anyone feathers but i want to ask a questioni think that this post might ruffle some feathers but why is that the mojority of pics have krishna and radha as consorts when this is not so i think i learned some where that krishna's legal wife was rukmini can anyone explain. why is this so. again i dont mean to ruffle anyone feathers.

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

Ummm,,i'm not sure that this is the real deal....Bhrama samhita,a treatis written by lord bhrama says,"Isvara parama krsna,sacidanand vigraha,anadir aadir govinda,Sarva karana karanam."

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.

The skanda purana,being a scripture for those in the mode of ignorance,obviously gives elaborate description of the magnificent 10 forms of shakti BUT in the end,markandeya Rsi VERY CLEARLY STATES THAT ALL DEMIGODS ARE ENERGIES OF LORD VISHNU AND THAT HE IS THE SOLE PROPREITOR AND MASTER OF ALL THAT BE.

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.

Besides,the vedas were scripted by Srila Vyasadeva.That is common knowledge/.The vedanta is the essence of the entire veda.That too is common knwledge.BUT,Vyasadeva Himself wrote the natural commentary on the vedanta.Now,if any person who thinks that he is at a better position that Dwaipayana Vyasadeva,then he is the biggest fool.So,if we accept the vedanta,accepting it's natural commentary is imperative.What's that commentary? Srimad Bhagvatam.

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?

That,sir,answers all the ignorant questions which are generally posed by smarta,shaivites,shaktas,mayavadis and God knws what.

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

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

Moderator,

 

Feel free to delete this post if you find it inappropriate.

 

Anyone who has spent some time on this forum should know that Hare Krishnas like theist are the biggest aparadhis here. They have no regard or respect for other people's beliefs. They have consistently mocked Advaita, Shaivas, Sai Baba and anything else they disagree with.

 

Is this not some kind of conceited attitude to turn around and accuse others of Aparadha while pretending to be perfect? Hare Krishnas like theist are narcissists at heart. They are happy as long as they can say and do as they wish but start whining when they receive similar treatment from others.

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

Another problem with Vaishnavism is that many people find it impossible to accept a benevolent god, and also reconcile it with the evil that they see around them. No matter what we do, we can't make sense of these terrible things (just see the picture of the sudanese boy and vulture in the "tragedy" thread). But since advaita claims this world is a dream (and bizarre things happen in dreams), it sort of explains why such terrible, crazy things happen, without resorting to karma, past life, benevolent god, and all that.

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

Vishnu is benevolent, but still looks out for His interests.

 

Sri Vaishnavas, particularly the Alvars, regard Lord Narayana as an immature child. While He does love us all, His love of mischief is far greater. Furthermore, He does not care about the sufferings of people in samsara, because from His point of view, all these jivas are destined for Vaikuntha.

 

So, a bhakta of Narayana, will get moksha. In order to extinguish the bhakta's karmas, the Lord makes Him suffer pretty badly.

 

Furthermore, His lilas are all due to His desire to have fun.

 

Take the Mahabharata. An exercept from Sri Velukkudi Swami's discourse:

 

 

 

There you go. This incident proves that the Lord is really looking for fun. To some, killing 18 million people in 18 days for 'fun' may sound cruel, but to a Sri Vaishnava, Vishnu is just like a playful child. To Him, Samsara does not matter. Only Moksha matters.

 

Brahman knows everything that can be known, making Him omniscient. But there are things that have no limits, and cannot be knowable. His omniscience is not compromised when we say He doesn't know some things that are unknowable. For instance, there is no limit to His greatness. Hence, He cannot know something for which there is no limit.

 

 

That is why role of acharya is important.

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

Thanks Dark Warrior

Guliaditya,

I apologize for confusing you with someone else.

DW, Thanks for clarifying.

Cheers

Truth is very difficult to accept.

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

Self evident? Hardly. Not to me it isn't. An impersonal "I" is a contradiction in terms.

It is a Subject without subjectivity. And individual without individuality.

A philosophical freak.

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

Though a Vaishnava, I feel advaita appeals to the modern mind, because it doesn't depend much on fairy tales, superstition, faith etc.

 

The modern mind refuses to believe in a creator, so if Vaishnavas tell him God is a blue-skinned person (and yes, he's got a name!), they're not gonna take it seriously. OTOH, comparing the world to a dream appeals to the modern mind, so much so several movies have been made on this fascinating theme.

 

As to pramana, it's virutally impossible to convince people of the reality of, say varaha avatar that lifted the earth. But to prove that the "I" exists as undifferentiated consciousness (which is what advaita is about) is easy because it's self-evident.

 

For these and many other reasons, advaita seems to tower over vaishnava and other schools of thought, despite Prabhupada and others doing so much to spread vaishnava dharma and krishna bhakti. The modern mind just can't accept these things, when the pull of advaita is so strong.

 

This is my observation, and I feel it will remain this way for some time to come.

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

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

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