shvu

Can you explain 'doomed' here? What exactly do you think will happen to people who associate with them and/or read their 'poison'? btw I can just as easily say, Those of you who associate with gHari-whatever & party are doomed (*), whether conversing with them or just reading their poison. * Doomed - they will be taken for a ride and misled with false philosophies. Looking forward to a profound answer from you, Thanx.

How cute. I wonder if iskcon has a unique meaning for the term hindu? Perhaps only "dried-up" branches of Indian religion, fall under hinduism. Considering iskcon is based on Gaudiya teachings which are brand new [Prema, Rasa, Radha, devotional service, etc], I wonder how it can be called Sanathana Dharma, which is the name for the original Indian religion existant for 1000s of years? Unless, iskcon has redifined the meaning of Sanathana dharma too. Cheers

According to the Bible, Jesus was the only son of God, sent down by God to save man. God's only begotten son, who came down from heaven. Definitely much more than a "bonafide acarya". Cheers

Who then, follows "hinduism"? Considering hinduism = vaishnavism + shaivism + all the other isms, I fail to see how one can say Madhva's people are not hindus. Cheers

Maybe he meant Islam, which perhaps, is the ultimate truth. Cheers

The boy wonder. Cheers

Yeah, I have heard about it. He also mentions there are many crores of Ramayanas. Interestingly, Madhva is of the opinion, the authentic ramayana is moola ramayana, which is not extant today. The valmiki ramayana, is not authority to them. Cheers

And they have diverged a lot. For instance, the story of Rama is mentioned in 9 Puranas, and all the nine version have some differences among themselves. One author's comment was, "what is the fun in repeating things as they are? The fun is in coming up with a new version". For more info read, Retrieval of History from Puranic Myths Author: P L Bhargava Publisher: D K Print World Ltd. ISBN: 8124601003 Cheers

The Brahmas-sutras talk about the BG and the BG mentions the Brahma-sutras [bG 13.4, 13.5 for some]. This is reconciled by saying Badarayana = Veda vyasa. Since a person can know what he will write in future, or can edit his own work before it reaches it's final form, they must be the same person. The same with explaining Buddhism in the sutras. When a question is raised about how the sutras can talk about shUnyavAda, the answer, is even false doctrines are eternal and exist all the time, etc, etc. it is not convincing at all, but such points are not to be questioned. Cheers

To which, I had asked, 1. What happened to the Bhagavatam written for this yuga? 2. Where is this information documented or where did Madhva get this info from? The answer in my opinion is, Madhva starts out with the premise that both works are correct and speculates thus. The question of whether the Bhagavatam is authentic or not is never raised by him and so his speculation is of no help. As an example, one can say the Shaiva Puranas are the only texts to be studied; Shiva is the ultimate and everyone else worships him. If someone counters this saying, the vaishnava puranas state otherwise, one can say the VPs are true, but were written for a different yuga. In fact, this logic can be extended to anything. Wherever there is contradiction, say it was from a different yuga, but don't ask how I know. The most logical reason for contradiction in Shastra is, they were written by different people with different backgrounds. The practise is to attribute writings to some famous personality, so it is taken more seriously. Thus everything ended up with Vyasa's label, just like a number of advaita works attributed to Shankara are not by him or a number of statements in the NT atrributed to Jesus, were not by him, etc. But this does not go well with our Indian tradition of "Vyasa composed it all" and hence, the circus of trying to reconcile everything. Cheers [This message has been edited by shvu (edited 10-24-2001).]

What qualifies as "inappropriate" material, I wonder? Whatever it may be, the Ramayana is a big work and has all kinds of material. I have read the Mahabharata and there is no story of Krishna watching/playing with girls anytime as far as I can remember. However there exist other(later) works in which Krishna was made a more romantic figure. In some of them he does watch girls bathing, hides their clothes, etc. But what if he does? These stories were written to glorify the image of Krishna as a hero and bring out devotion in people. There is nothing wrong in that. However, this is used by other religions to paint a pathetic picture of hinduism. The barbaric Hindus with their sex rituals and idol/animal worship. So what should people do ? Convert to their religion of course, which is the epitome of logic and sensibility. That is where it all leads to. Cheers

Good point. Just for the record, history dates the Mahabharata at around 200 BC, while the Bhagavatam is dated at 700 AD. At least history rules out the possibility of a common author. Assuming these works were authored entirely by indivuduals, which itself is highly unlikely. Cheers

I am not suprised. It is not surprising because, I am familar with the "vedic" astronomy book with those interesting pieces on moon landing, gravitation, etc. What the gentleman meant by vedic turned out to be the Bhagavatam and not any of the 4 vedas. That was when I learnt the unique iskcon meaning of the term vedic. Cheers

What do you mean by that? The distance is a number in some units, just like the distance between the Pacific and the Atlantic. I am not clear, what you want to understand here. With due respect, a spiritual forum is the last place to seek info on moon landing. Even if you did get any answers here like "it was a hoax", "the US govt cheated the world", etc, I would suggest you take them with plenty of salt. None of these allegations hold water. Cheers

Audarya Lila, Not to start a fresh argument, but I do not find material life "rotten to the core". It depends on what we want in life because, I am fine with material life and so are plenty of other people. I gather you have a family, friends, posessions, a means of income, etc. Do you find all of this "rotten to the core"? Just curious to know the reasons behind your perspective. Thanx

If it is inconceiveable, it can never be conceived and so there is no such thing to be found. And further since it is "completely" forgotten, it is lost forever and so don't speculate about it. Focus yourself on conceiveable truths which have not been forgotten yet. Cheers

No issues, mahak. We all have our opinions and when they differ as they do sometimes, friction is inevitable. I think that is the way it is, and I am fine with that. Cheers

I think the "no of pieces" of bad language are of no importance. Out of curiosity, what according to you, was the maximum no of pieces, acceptable here? Do you happen to know any place where a certain number of pieces of foul language are tolerated. It has nothing to do with sprituality. It is about proper communication and it is important that one uses proper language, and I am sure, you are aware of this. For instance, you would not use such words while answering a test paper in your school. The same reasons for why you would not do such a thing, apply here and everywhere else. [...] Cheers

Most people here will not be interested in this piece. I found it interesing when I first read it, and this is just in case, someone here may find it of interest. This was spoken by UG, when someone asked him to narrate his life story. He was 21 years old, at that time. /////////////////////////////// Then somebody came along, and we were discussing all these things. He found me practically an atheist (but not a practicing atheist), skeptical of everything, heretical down to my boots. He said "There is one man here, somewhere in Madras at Tiruvannamalai, called Ramana Maharshi. Come on, let's go and see that man. Here is a living human embodiment of the Hindu tradition." I didn't want to see any holy man. If you have seen one, you have seen them all. I never shopped around, went around searching for people, sitting at the feet of the masters, learning something; because everybody tells you "Do more and more of the same thing, and you will get it." What I got were more and more experiences, and then those experiences demanded permanence -- and there is no such thing as permanence. So, "The holy men are all phonies -- they are telling me only what is there in the books. That I can read -- 'Do the same again and again' -- that I don't want. Experiences I don't want. They are trying to share an experience with me. I'm not interested in experience. As far as experience goes, for me there is no difference between the religious experience and the sex experience or any other experience; the religious experience is like any other experience. I am not interested in experiencing Brahman; I am not interested in experiencing reality; I am not interested in experiencing truth. They might help others; but they cannot help me. I'm not interested in doing more of the same; what I have done is enough. At school if you want to solve a mathematical problem, you repeat it again and again -- you solve the mathematical problem, and you discover that the answer is in the problem. So, what the hell are you doing, trying to solve the problem? It is easier to find the answer first instead of going through all this." So, reluctantly, hesitatingly, unwilling, I went to see Ramana Maharshi. That fellow dragged me. He said "Go there once. Something will happen to you." He talked about it and gave me a book, Search in Secret India by Paul Brunton, so I read the chapter relating to this man -- "All right, I don't mind, let me go and see." That man was sitting there. From his very presence I felt "What! This man -- how can he help me? This fellow who is reading comic strips, cutting vegetables, playing with this, that or the other -- how can this man help me? He can't help me." Anyway, I sat there. Nothing happened; I looked at him, and he looked at me. "In his presence you feel silent, your questions disappear, his look changes you" -- all that remained a story, fancy stuff to me. I sat there. There were a lot of questions inside, silly questions -- so, "The questions have not disappeared. I have been sitting here for two hours, and the questions are still there. All right, let me ask him some questions" -- because at that time I very much wanted moksha. This part of my background, moksha, I wanted. "You are supposed to be a liberated man" -- I didn't say that. "Can you give me what you have?" -- I asked him this question, but that man didn't answer, so after some lapse of time I repeated that question -- "I am asking 'Whatever you have, can you give it to me?'" He said, "I can give you, but can you take it?" Boy! For the first time this fellow says that he has something and that I can't take it. Nobody before had said "I can give you," but this man said "I can give you, but can you take it?" Then I said to myself "If there is any individual in this world who can take it, it is me, because I have done so much sadhana, seven years of sadhana. He can think that I can't take it, but I can take it. If I can't take it, who can take it?" -- that was my frame of mind at the time -- you know, (laughs) I was so confident of myself. I didn't stay with him, I didn't read any of his books, so I asked him a few more questions: "Can one be free sometimes and not free sometimes?" He said "Either you are free, or you are not free at all." There was another question which I don't remember. He answered in a very strange way: "There are no steps leading you to that." But I ignored all these things. These questions didn't matter to me -- the answers didn't interest me at all. But this question "Can you take it?" ... "How arrogant he is!" -- that was my feeling. "Why can't I take it, whatever it is? What is it that he has?" -- that was my question, a natural question. So, the question formulated itself: "What is that state that all those people -- Buddha, Jesus and the whole gang -- were in? Ramana is in that state -- supposed to be, I don't know -- but that chap is like me, a human being. How is he different from me? What others say or what he is saying is of no importance to me; anybody can do what he is doing. What is there? He can't be very much different from me. He was also born from parents. He has his own particular ideas about the whole business. Some people say something happened to him, but how is he different from me? What is there: What is that state?" -- that was my fundamental question, the basic question -- that went on and on and on. "I must find out what that state is. Nobody can give that state; I am on my own. I have to go on this uncharted sea without a compass, without a boat, with not even a raft to take me. I am going to find out for myself what the state is in which that man is." I wanted that very much, otherwise I wouldn't have given my life. ///////////////////////// Cheers

Why is lust negative? it is the "innate mechanism for the survival of the species". Lust is a natural, biological factor. It is not something that is learnt. It is religion which steps in and says, lust is bad, negative, it must be controlled, etc. Cheers [This message has been edited by shvu (edited 10-19-2001).]

If I am right, the OT predicted the savior would be born to a virgin. Hence the x'tians who had the task of writing the NT, made Jesus's birth a virgin birth. Also, if it was not a virgin birth, Jesus would have been the son of Joseph and not the son of God. Two good reasons. According to the story, Joseph was engaged to Mary, when he discovered she was pregnant. He was about to break off the engagment, when an angel told him about the truth of Mary's pregnancy, after which he married her. Cheers

Jijaji, The fact that it has not happened till date does not mean, it can never happen. Who knows? After all, a Mahajana has prophesied, apparently. All rascals like me will get knocked of in the war; people who were audacious enough to criticise the authenticity of the Thakurs, Goswamis, Maharajs and the Srilas. For the remaining folks [the non-skeptical type], one fine morning they will wake up to see the end of the war. Miraculously, all the Vedas, Bibles, Qurans, etc will be transformed/replaced by Srimad Bhagavatam [translated by a "pure devotee"], by the power of Yogamaya. Then the whole world will have one religion, KC and one holy book [the iskcon translation of the SB]. West Bengal will be to the new world, like Rome is to the present world. The ambition of taking over the planet will be fulfilled. Cheers

http://www.churchofindia.com/jesus_in_hindu_scriptures.htm Here is a web page with some quotes, which according to some people, point to Jesus! Some of the interesting (funny) ones are, ***** koumaro loko ajanishta' putrah nwarvhethan wai uttaravoth Translation - A son will be born to a virgin in this world, take ye hold that (son) is what is superior (than everyone) Atharnava Veda 13 - 3- 4 ' born in a cattle shed ' Rig Veda 355 -1 Asmaakam thu visishtaye Thaanni bodha dwijothama Bhagavat Gita 1:7 Translation - A perfect Brahmin is twice born. nobody can become a brahmin without being born a second time. Note: The meaning of the word Brahmin is ' brahma jnaanethi brahmana'- One who has attained the wisdom about God, who has found God. Hence nobody can find God unless he is born again a second time. The page ends with, and there is no other way of salvation. (Bible Reference - Romans 10:8-10) ***** I verified some of the translations and needless to say it is just a lot of hocus-pocus. But I wouldn't be surprised, if there are many out there, who will readily believe in such a list without verifiying/doubting a thing. People who believe in the virgin Mary, will believe in anything. - UG Cheers [This message has been edited by shvu (edited 10-18-2001).]

There are plenty of people who believe, their own religion will some day be the only religion in the world. The simple truth is, it makes absolutely no difference whether 10 people are sharing my faith or 10 million. How does the number matter? It will not affect my own progress in any way. Au contraire, when people get caught in such ideas, the effect can only be negative.

BDas, I was just rambling [100%]. The point was to show, condescending remarks can be made about anyone by anyone. They have no substance and they mean nothing [both ways]. Whatever I wrote about GV was exagerration. It was a spontaenous reaction to the "so-called sadhus" piece. I understand you are passionate about whatever religion you have chosen to follow and I am fine with it. Cheers