shvu

Hi, Astrology has got absolutely nothing to do with spirituality. Hence the Indian Spiritual Gurus had nothing to say about it. Neither did Jesus. Cheers

Hi Bhakta Shakta, May I point out that when one is doing Nama Bhasha, one is still engaged in one's senses? Every activity that one does is sensual, whatever it be. You can know that you are doing something only thru one of your sense organs. Cheers

Hi Bhakta Shakta, May I point out that when one is doing Nama Bhasha, one is still engaged in one's senses? Every activity that one does is sensual, whatever it be. You can know that you are doing something only thru one of your sense organs. Cheers

Hi Ggohil, Of course, I cannot prove that statement. If that could be proved then all the religious guys would have gone out of business long ago. They are in existence today only because none of their claims can be subject to logic or proof. And just like how their statements cannot be proved, this statement cannot be too. It could be totally wrong [just like theirs could be]. But I must say that it appears to be impossible to have a vision of something that is not part of our memory. And I don't know of any case, where some devotee of x got a vision of y whom he never knew before. In every case, the person saw what he wanted to see or atleast was part of his memory. (Which supports the above statement) --- However, here is my question. If a person right from the beginning is never taught or showed any love or compassion, does this mean, the same person will never feel love or compassion. --- Yes, you didn't get what I was saying. Without memory constantly operating, there is no way of even knowing that we are existing. Without memory, one wouldn't be able to recognize anything he sees. That is what I meant. Do love and compassion exist only in people who have been taught about them? I don't know. It is a hypothetical situation. Unless we see how a person who has never been taught any virtues behaves, we cannot know. Cheers

Hi Ggohil, Of course, I cannot prove that statement. If that could be proved then all the religious guys would have gone out of business long ago. They are in existence today only because none of their claims can be subject to logic or proof. And just like how their statements cannot be proved, this statement cannot be too. It could be totally wrong [just like theirs could be]. But I must say that it appears to be impossible to have a vision of something that is not part of our memory. And I don't know of any case, where some devotee of x got a vision of y whom he never knew before. In every case, the person saw what he wanted to see or atleast was part of his memory. (Which supports the above statement) --- However, here is my question. If a person right from the beginning is never taught or showed any love or compassion, does this mean, the same person will never feel love or compassion. --- Yes, you didn't get what I was saying. Without memory constantly operating, there is no way of even knowing that we are existing. Without memory, one wouldn't be able to recognize anything he sees. That is what I meant. Do love and compassion exist only in people who have been taught about them? I don't know. It is a hypothetical situation. Unless we see how a person who has never been taught any virtues behaves, we cannot know. Cheers

Hi Animesh, There is only one conscious and memory. Without something called memory, there would be no such thing as consciousness or even a feeling of existence. Coma would be the word. Cheers

Hi Animesh, There is only one conscious and memory. Without something called memory, there would be no such thing as consciousness or even a feeling of existence. Coma would be the word. Cheers

Another example: When a dog chews on a dry bone, it's gums start bleeding. The dog thinks that the blood is from the bone and chews harder, while all the time it is tasting it's own blood. Cheers

Another example: When a dog chews on a dry bone, it's gums start bleeding. The dog thinks that the blood is from the bone and chews harder, while all the time it is tasting it's own blood. Cheers

Hi Bhakta Shakta, Well said. Whatever visions we have are our own creations. People like to think that they have found something unique and wonderful and get greatly excited. While all the time, it is their own mind playing tricks. A nice example is that the devotee will only see forms that he knows. A christian who has never seen a picture of Krishna or read a description of Krishna, can never have a vision of Krishna. Simply because it is not part of his memory. Cheers

Hi Bhakta Shakta, Well said. Whatever visions we have are our own creations. People like to think that they have found something unique and wonderful and get greatly excited. While all the time, it is their own mind playing tricks. A nice example is that the devotee will only see forms that he knows. A christian who has never seen a picture of Krishna or read a description of Krishna, can never have a vision of Krishna. Simply because it is not part of his memory. Cheers

The Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas. He actually rebelled against the Vedic system which at that time was extreme Brahminism, full of Rituals and it was the Upanishad era. Since he also never spoke about a God, Buddhism was branded as atheism by the theists. Due to Buddhism the Vedic religion of Yajnas and formless Brahman died out and the new Puranic style Hinduism was born where the primary focus was on Bhakti. Cheers

The Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas. He actually rebelled against the Vedic system which at that time was extreme Brahminism, full of Rituals and it was the Upanishad era. Since he also never spoke about a God, Buddhism was branded as atheism by the theists. Due to Buddhism the Vedic religion of Yajnas and formless Brahman died out and the new Puranic style Hinduism was born where the primary focus was on Bhakti. Cheers

The Buddha said that man was responsible for his own destiny. He maintained silence about the existence of a God. According to him, man was unhappy and had to work his way towards Niravana. That was all that a person had to do. When asked about how the world was created his answer was, "When your house is on fire, will you concentrate on putting out the fire or will you sit back and analyze about how the fire started?" He used to discourage all such questions, and never answered them. Cheers

The Buddha said that man was responsible for his own destiny. He maintained silence about the existence of a God. According to him, man was unhappy and had to work his way towards Niravana. That was all that a person had to do. When asked about how the world was created his answer was, "When your house is on fire, will you concentrate on putting out the fire or will you sit back and analyze about how the fire started?" He used to discourage all such questions, and never answered them. Cheers

Hi Animesh, The sanskrit word Arya [aarya] means Noble, respected, etc. It was basically used as a mark of respect when addressing or referring to a person. It was never used to mean a race. Enter max Muller... He introduced the word Aryan into the english dictionary in 1853. Later when the Europeans started using the term to mean a race and when he was questioned about this, he said anyone who used that term to mean a race was a great sinner. But by then it's usage had already wide-spread and is still used so in english. The result is that today we have a sanskrit word Arya and an english term Aryan, which mean different things. Cheers

Hi Animesh, That is right. Narayana is the name of the Supreme in the Vedas. According to the Puranas there was also a human Narayana who was an avatar of the Supreme Narayana. Perhaps Hari or Maha-Vishnu would be better names to avoid confusion. There were no avatars by those names as far as I know. Cheers

Hi Animesh, That is right. Narayana is the name of the Supreme in the Vedas. According to the Puranas there was also a human Narayana who was an avatar of the Supreme Narayana. Perhaps Hari or Maha-Vishnu would be better names to avoid confusion. There were no avatars by those names as far as I know. Cheers

Hi Animesh, That is true. Worshipping his idol is a much simpler way of showing respect than by following his teachings. That would be very painful. As for hinduism, you can try a search on what is hinduism. That should get you articles which give a brief introductory idea about Hinduism. Cheers

Hi Animesh, That is true. Worshipping his idol is a much simpler way of showing respect than by following his teachings. That would be very painful. As for hinduism, you can try a search on what is hinduism. That should get you articles which give a brief introductory idea about Hinduism. Cheers

Hi Animesh, Do you know that Buddhism and it's teachings evolved a lot after his death? Now we actually have different schools of Buddhism. A few hundred years after his death, peope actually started worshipping his idol! But the basic teaching fortunately remains the same. Cheers

Hi Animesh, Do you know that Buddhism and it's teachings evolved a lot after his death? Now we actually have different schools of Buddhism. A few hundred years after his death, peope actually started worshipping his idol! But the basic teaching fortunately remains the same. Cheers

Sorry Gauracandra, You are going off on a tangent. Like I said before, I don't think you even understood my first posting on the thread, let alone the rest. Maybe you just read a couple of lines and assume the rest of it. I don't know. I gather that you believe that I am pretending to be superior. To point out how x and y are different does not mean that I am trying to show that x is superior. But I guess that is the way you view things. In the past when I used the word fan, I was using it as a comfortable term as devotee sounded formal. But you interpreted that as sarcasm. Now I have no idea why you have a way of looking at things in a negative way. Some kind of insecurity or is it that the truth is bitter? Or perhaps you are a virgo. Whatever be the reason, you are welcome. Cheers

Hi Gauracandra, First of all, I think none of you even understood what I was trying to convey to Sumeet.Secondly,I never indicated anywhere that I am more open-minded than anyone else. Perhaps you may want to read my postings more carefully before arriving at such conclusions. If I were part of an organised belief, then like you, I would have been very restricted too. But since I am not, I am flexible enough to change my opinions, if something more logical comes up. That doesn't make me better than others in any way. It is simply because I am not bound by any tradition. An example: If Sumeet, even begins to doubt that Vyasa did not write the Bhagavatam, then he is immediately doubting Chaitanya and Madhvacharya. And a person can't be a disciple to a Guru, and doubt the Guru at the same time. They are mutually exclusive. A more clearer example. Show me proof that Krishna was a historical character and I will accept it as true. But show you proof that there was no Krishna, ever and you still cannot accept that without breaking away from your tradition and all the the Gurus. Hope you got it now. Cheers

Hi Dasha, btw - By the way kit - Keep in touch jam - Just a moment btw I had to find out what they meant the same way as you did now :-) Cheers