shvu

Hi Dasha, I forgot to ask you this, What do you mean by 'dry' philosophical? I would like to know what dry means here. Cheers

Hi Dasha, ---- Don't you feel in your heart something different when you read this kind of story than when you read a dry philosophical point trying to prouve that there is no possibility to develop love of God by any way you are trying? ---- I have heard several such stories before and would get greatly inspired when I was a kid. That was when I used to see only one side of the coin and think that all this stuff HAD to be true. But now things are different. Not that I became intelligent or anything, but now I see both sides of the coin. You would be surprised to know what a difference that makes. ---- If not, that mean that you are very stone-like hearted, and I sincerely have pity for you, because you are really missing something. ---- Thanks. --- He is constantly speaking to us, but we rarely listen to Him. --- Is he ? Unfortunately, I don't hear a thing. I have to first hear something to begin listening. No Sukriti, perhaps ? --- ... means that you recognise that love for God exist. --- Of course. But I don't think that it can be cultivated. Why ? Because all the people whom I believe to be great devotees did not go through a gradual process of cultivating love. (According to their biographies, at least) I don't go around telling people that their Love is false. I just maintain that Love has to happen naturally. ---- Now you have to find the best way to attain your goal. ---- Like I said above, I don't see a way out. ---- I hope that one day you may have this feeling, then you will stop this dry philosophical speculation on the love of God. ---- I am being Rational. Which is all one can do, when one does not feel that love. Of course, I can go around telling people that Love for God is great and to begin Sadhana and so on, but they would all be empty words. I would just be parroting the books and the Gurus. What I don't feel; I cannot talk about. Cheers

Hi Jndas, You are right. There is religious content in Smriti too. But I am still not clear about why Manu Smriti should be classified as a religious book. I would be interested to know what is religious about Manu Smriti. Cheers

Hi Jndas, That is a point. The impression given by the Gita is that a person goes on through the sequence of birth and death due to Karma. If the person wants to get out of this cycle, he/she should turn towards God. That will eventually burn all the Karma and liberate the person. So this way, we can explain God and Karma together. Cheers

Hi Bhakta Shakta, I guess I am on my way towards becoming a potato. Because when I tried to watch Matrix, I could not watch it for more than 25 mins. It turned me off. Then I watched the 'World is not enough' [007] and that cheered me up. I am more of the Gladiator and James Bond, kind of person. Cheers

Dear Jndas, Manu Samhita also known as Manu Smriti is not Sruti. And yes, it is not a religious book. It is about social living in detail. However there may be portions in the Vedas, whic htalk about how a person should live and what he should not indulge in. I may not be aware of that. Cheers

A good example on this forum is JayasriRadhey. She ALREADY has that love for God, and while she is doing her Kirtana, Bhajane, etc, she is simply expressing that love. That is what they all are, forms of expression. But if someone who does not have that love and tries Kirtana and does 16 rounds of chanting daily hoping that love will gradually happen [from 0 to Infinity], I can safely say that it will not happen. After 16 years of 16 rounds daily, the person will be exactly the same as before. And if they try more than 16 rounds, they wil get bored, because it a sensual activity. I don't know if anyone gets this, but it is simple and true, if you think about it. Cheers

Hi Dasha, ---- Memory, intelligence and ego are more subtle elements. ---- Yes, they are. But all three are related to the body. Brain damage can result in loss of memory, or intelligence as we know. And the brain dies alongwith the body. So how can memory possibly get carried on ? And without memory, the ego [feeling of existence] is not possible. Without memory, we cannot think and we would be like in a Coma. You, me and all the people we know don't remember any of our past lives. Several of the cases who claimed to remember, were proven to be fake or wrong. Which brings us back to the question of what is left to re-incarnate, anyway ? Cheers

In my opinion and from what we see, it does not work. It is pretty obvious. Mantra, Japa, Tapa, Kirtana, Sankirtana, Bhajane, Dhyana, etc will not develop love for God. They all are forms of expression of love (that is already there) towards God. I'll repeat, "for Love that is already present, ONLY". Love has to happen; it cannot be cultivated and intensified intentionally. And that happens only to one in a billion perhaps. And it happens instantly. Not gradually over a period of time. A study of all the great religious personalities will show that. And that is why our Hindu religion failed many times in the past and had to be revived periodically by Gurus, Avatars and Acharyas. Over time people realize that the suggested method does not work. Then a new Guru with a new method steps in and pumps it up again. But again with time, the enthusiasm wanes. Someone else comes along and the chakkar continues. It does not work because they are trying to give life to a dead thing. Trying methods to achieve something that cannot be achieved. Anyone who reads the history of our religion can observe this for themselves. There is no 'How' here. It has to happen on it's own. But people can't sit simply; they have to be engaged in some activity. So people pray and wait in the hope that something is going to happen because of their prayers. They live in hope and die with their hopes. Cheers

Hi Curious, --- what do u say about Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc. R u denying that they exsisted... --- Moses is a mythical character. For an egyptian prince, there is no record of him in egyptian history. And it turns out that his parting the Red-sea story was borrowed fron even earlier tradition. I can come up with details if you are interested. And personally I don't believe that anyone can part the Red-sea. Jesus is a historical character. ----- ...or helped society in any way ? ----- There is no denying that Moses's Ten commandments and Jesus's teachings have been very benefic to a social and peaceful life I don't see anyone denying that. Christianity today is the world's biggest religion. ---- U said that all other relgions r man made. ---- All religions are man-made, including the Vedic religion. That part is clear. The Vedas [the earliest hindu books], were written by the settlers along the Saraswati river in North India over a period of time. ---- How was the geeta revealed? ---- The Gita is part of the Mahabharata. I presume you know what the Mahabharata is. It says that Krishna who was an incarnation, revealed that to Arjuna. ---- Has it ever been changed since then? ---- Good question. That is a matter of controversy. Some scholars believe that the Gita was not originally written in the form that we know today. They say that the war with Arjuna's confusion was chosen as a proper situation to bring out the Gita as part of a story, to make it interesting. It is a fact that, there are verses which contradict one another in the Gita. Some clever scholars can give them hidden meanings and explain them away. But it may also be possible that they were written by 2 different authors. But it is all speculation. There is no known change made to the Gita. But you should note that Hinduism is not based on the Gita, as some people think. It is based on the Vedas. The Gita is only a condensed form of some parts of the Vedas, and it came later. Cheers

When a person dies, the sense organs die along with the body. Which means, even if there is a soul that is still living on, it can neither see , hear or feel anything (Unlike in the movie Ghost). And memory being part of the physical structure, is gone with the body too. So what is left to re-incarnate or to feel remorseful? Even if something is still living on, there will be no memory there to say "Oh, I made a mistake, by not believing the Gurus !" I bet no one here remembers that they lived before, let alone remembering what they did, or whom they worshipped and how intensely. That is how it is going to be in the next life too, if there is one. So there is no question of feeling remorse; or finding out the truth after death. Cheers

Hi Curious, ------- Adultery, fornification, homosexuality, drugs and alcohol. ------- All these are social and cultural issues. Strictly speaking, they have nothing to do with religion, which is a whole different thing. Some of the semitic religions mixed up both, so that people would avoid these vices out of fear of a God who would punish them. That is the reason why we see them mentioned as evils in some religions. That way the Hindu religious books are clear about their scope. They deal only with religion. To answer your question, all the above issues are condemned as bad by the Hindu society. Dating was unheard of in India until perhaps this century. Even now there are several people who will frown on dating. Originally Hindu families were conservative and used to marry their girls off early. But now gradually things are changing with Western Influence. People are getting to be more open and broad-minded. Cheers

Hi Curious, According to Hinduism, everyone can be traced back to one of the Rishis [sages] created by Brahma. Since they all followed Sanantana Dharma, it goes by default that all people belong to Sanatana Dharma. When that is the case, how can there be missionary activities in Sanatana Dharma? But all the later religions had to establisd hthemselves by converting people, as people were already following some other religion. Hence they all have missionary activites and converting routines. Note that a a person is called a Hindu by birth rather than by what he practises. For example, I don't worship any God. But I am still a hindu because I was born in a Hindu family. Hopefully now you understand the concept. Cheers

Another tought... Perhaps there are other secret characters hidden in Krishna's stroy whom Vyasa did not talk about because he was not worthy enough. 500 years from now, someone will suddenly uncover this character and from then on a whole new cult will be born. And history would have repeated itself. Who knows ? Cheers

Hi Animesh and Sushil, I read the article too. All the GV literature is just 500 years old. Brand new when compared to the older books. A lot of the content is brand new too, and is not to be found in any of the older books. Now naturally the scholars from other Vaishnava Systems would have challenged them asking "What is this all about ?" The GV scholars came up with the idea of 'Vyasa may not have known...'. They admit in one place that Vyasa had Divya Dristi and could see the past, present and future. That is how he wrote History from the time of creation, and could also write the Bhavisya Purana [future]. When it comes to Radha, they will switch modes, and say "Vyasa may not have known..." or "People then, were not worthy of uttering her name" and so on. Vyasa recorded Krishna's life. He was not worthy of uttering Radha's name [apparently] and so he did not mention her anywhere. So there was no Radha for 4000 years. And then, someone [somehow] comes to know about Radha and was also worthy of uttering her name. And you know the rest. And since then everyone is worthy of uttering her name. It is flattering to know that we are worthy of something that the great Vyasa and Suka were not worthy of. Note that the article also says that the other scholars refused to accept this reasoning, which is natural. But people following the GV System do not have a choice. They HAVE TO accept all this as true, irrespective of whether they think it is true or false. Because that is their background. Anyway even their reasoning, admits that there was no Radha is the old books. And they have amde an attempt to explain that in some way. Cheers

Hi Dasha, The issue in question is the dating of the person Krishna who was born and who died. We cannot talk about proving the Supreme source (Krishna as you call it), because it is impossible. Regarding devotion, the issue of dates is totally unnecessary. Doesn't matter if the person Krishna, lived 5000 years ago, or 10000 years ago or is fiction. Since the devotee thinks of Krishna as the unborn, Supreme power and not as the person who lived and died, it is irrelevant. What is my position ? Some people have the misconception that Krishna is a historical character, the Bhagavatam is spotless, Radha was always there in the holy books, etc. I point out that, it is not true. Period. I agree with you that, 1. Knowing a lot, does not mean anything. 2. Simplicity (like a child) is a good thing. Cheers

Hi Animesh, --- "Jiski rachna itni sundar, wo kitna sundar hoga!". (If the creation is so beautiful, how beautiful, the creator himself must be!) --- MF Hussain has come up with some beautiful paintings. But he is not good-looking himself Same with a lot of other guys as well. So perhaps we cannot use this as universal logic. What do you say ? Cheers

There are 1000s of people dying out of starvation in India on a regular basis. And many more who are living in utter poverty. (Note that the dead are redeemed from this pain, but the living are the troubled ones). Compared to that, this figure of 15000-20000 is nothing. We are so thick-skinned that it does not bother us. We have learnt to live with that. We would rather have nice cars, eat rich food and make merry. If that does nothing to our indifferent attitudes, why is the earth-quake incident bothering us ? The answer is that, we know that starvation is not likely to happen to us or our people, but an earthquake can still kill us, no matter where we are, or how rich. It is this fear that makes us feel 'sorry' and 'sad'.

Dear Animesh, you are exactly right. Rajesh, If Krishna gets mad at me for rationalizing about him, then he is not much of a God, is he ? He is behaving just like any ordinary human being [according to your Aparadha logic]. It is actually Krishna's fault, for not leaving proper proof behind. And if he is mad as you say, at my Aparadha or Blasphemy, and if he has plans to toss me into hell where I will be burnt in hot oil, boiling water, etc, then there is nothing I can do about it. Or I may be reborn as a monkey as someone else said here. I would rather take a sensible and rational approach, than take a fancy, sugar-coated, fictional one. Just the one reason that it has been passed on for ages from one generation to another, does not mean that it has to be true. There was a time, when people believed that the Sun went aroud the earth [until 300 years back]. When Galileo came out with the reasoning that the earth went around the sun, the church got mad at him, and wanted to execute him. Finally it was decided that he would live under house-arrest until his death and that is how it was. So just because the belief is old, or the fact that many people believe in something does not mean that it has to be true. Cheers

Rajesh, Adam, Moses, Rama and Krishna are mythical characters (ateast, as of Jan 2001). Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad and all the later people are historical characters. Now I am sure you know what the difference between historical and mythical is, so I will save myself some typing here. Cheers

Hi Sushil, Radharani is not mentioned in the Bhagavatam. Why ?? 1. You say Suta (or Suka ?) was not worthy of uttering her name. 2. Or else, the character was not in existence at that time, and so was not mentioned. Unfortunately, it is not just the Bhagvatam which is silent about Radha, but all the other earlier books which deal with the Life-story of Krishna. It would mean that after 1000 ad, people suddenly became worthy of uttering Radha's name freely left and right, while Suka Muni who was born a Jivan-Mukta was not worthy enough to do it. With all thse points we can safely rule out 1 as an option. Coming to your point, who is worthy of uttering her name ? I don't consider myself worthy of uttering any name, but I have been doing it for long and so far no disaster has struck me. Or is it supposed to happen after I am dead and gone ? Supposing the Islam people say that Suka did not mention Muhammad or Allah in the Bhagavatam because he was not worthy of uttering his name, will you buy that ? btw Suka, Suta etc were not GVs. So you may not want to refer to them as Goswami. Cheers

Hi Bhakta Shakta, I have watched so many movies that I wonder how low I will be born in my next life ? I wonder what will happen to people like Client eastwood and Amitabh Bachchan who have not only watched several movies, but acted in them too ? Oh boy ! Cheers

Hi Vince, -------- Fools disregard me as one clad in Human Form... - The Gita I think you worship the picture of krishna and all his romantic activities. Are you willing to call yourself a fool like the Gita says ? ---------- That is a terrific question ! But you know what? I think everyone will conveniently side-step this question. Because they have no answer to that. If anyone does come up with an answer that should be interesting. Cheers

Well Vince, That was a touchy topic to bring up on this forum. You sent quite a few people's Blood Pressure soaring. Bhakta Shakta - Many of his (Chaitanya)theosophical concepts were unknown before he descended. I am glad that people are aware that these concepts were not in existence prior to Chaitanya. Nice to know that at least some peope have their facts straight. Bhakta Shakta - ... What's wrong with that? Nothing. Like I said before, it is a good thing and I will even go as far as saying that it is a wonderful thing. Rajesh - Krishna is beyond all your imaginations... Yeah, Rajesh. You will spend hours imagining Krishna wearing a peacock feather and romancing with the Gopikas and call it transcendental. But if you hear anyone speak rationally about Krishna, then you will immediately switch to the 'beyond all imagination' and 'dirty minds' mode. A matter of convenience. Hypocrisy would be a simple and apt word here. Sushil - Suta Goswami & others, himself didn't uttered the name of RadhaRani, why ?? you know because he said he is not qualified to utter her name, This is a brand new one, that I never heard before. Apparently Suta was qualified enough to utter the name of Krishna, but not that of Radha. I would be interested to know, who said this and in which book... if you don't mind ?? Dear Viji, Krishna according to the books, did play around with his cowherd friends (Boys) as well. They used to be lost in his charms and wouldn't know how the day passed on. But that was not highlighted at all. Only the Gopikas (Girls) activites were highlighted and blown to dizzying proportions. Why ? I leave you to think that out for yourself. Cheers

To add. It is not a swindle. Prabhupada is being faithful to his System. This concept came about 1000+ years back to attract more attention towards Krishna. So it was done with a good intention. The more heroic the God, the more the attraction. So there is nothing wrong with it. If anything, it has managed to capture the hearts of millions of people. Which is a good thing. The only problem is that it is all fiction. But like vinc says above, Who cares ? Let alone the romance and Radha, I personally don't know if Krishna himself was real or not ! Cheers