jinglebells

I agree with this and even think this has spilled over into a blame America type mentality as well. Not to say America isn't guilty of injustices and greed etc.

What surprises me specifically is the 'blame the jew' mentality, because this has been going on forever. Of all the races in the world, why the jews? And almost all people in the world accuse jews of practically everything that's wrong with this world, this is even more surprising. The germans did, British, russians, recently the muslims, and many others.

Doesn't this strike you as odd at all, the jews being made scapegoats by many, many nations/races/religions throughout the world? It's almost as if 'blame the jew' mentality is some kind of disease that's spreading (or, rather, has spread) all over the world.

It is yet another war that the Israeli lobby is dragging US into, as if the stupid war in Iraq was not enough. And the morons who do not see it should go and serve in the military. Go and die for them fools... The oil will shoot up to 400 dollars per barrel or more when that happens. And the price of food will follow. That will do wonders to the world economy and transfer ABSOLUTELY enormous and unprecedented amounts of wealth to the oil speculators who (surprise surprise!) primarily represent the 'chosen people'. Now you know who wags the dog by the tail.

I agree with your other points about certain people using war as an excuse to make money, while innocent people die for them.

But the idea about jews controlling the show sounds like a conspiracy theory. It's so hard to believe a tiny nation/population could control larger nations, superpowers.

For a long, long time, this has been going on all over the world, I mean, the tendency to blame jews for everything. When will the world wake up to the fact all humans are driven by greed, lust etc., and these things cannot be restricted to certain races?

Abortion can be refuted by it's cruelty and the harm it causes to both mother and child physically. There are secular reasons for the banning of abortion.

However, homosexuals aren't harming anyone by loving who they love in the privacy of their own lives. There is NO secular reason for the banning of marriage between consenting, adult homosexuals.

If you're pro-freedom, then you ought to be pro-abortion. Otherwise, I'll be forced to call you a nazi.

California makes same-sex marriage legal, God responds with 1500+ wildfires!

And one wonders why the world hates religious people.

I spent my teenage life in Dubai. Many times, I was beaten up by gangs of muslims for not being a muslim.

 

UAE is the most liberal state in the middle east. But even there, you could be inviting lots of trouble from Pakistanis and muslim Somalians if you go about wearing a tilak or so. I learned how to duck, dive, dodge and hide, though.

 

The arabs are very peaceful people. Its the muslims from other countries who are seriously out of order.

Are you sure? Most of the violence comes from arab nations...

oh, sure they are outright saints! they are the ones who invented butchering other people in the name of their religion, just read the Torah. Moses and his henchmen murdered tens of thousands men, women and children just because they switched back to 'pagan' idol worship. And that was just the beginning.

 

as to the present... you mean they are not controlling the foreign policy of USA? the last war precipitated by their lobby (Iraq war) caused over half a million of innocent people to lose their lives, and now they are working very hard on starting the war with Iran... you can't blame it on just simple nationalism, as their claim to the land of Israel is purely religious. The American Christian fundamentalists are supporting wars for Israel on purely religious grounds, and they have enormous influence on US foreign policy as well.

All I am saying is we have to choose the lesser of the two evils, we can't expect everyone to be perfect. This is the material world, after all.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that Jews are as bad as the Muslims who're given to suicide bombing, mutilation, stoning, talibanization etc. on a daily basis? Come on, Kula, I know you're intelligent.

I am not defending the Jews, but when we compare the standard Islamic activities (as mentioned above) with Jews/Christians, the latter seem far better, or at least people we can live with.

That's all I am suggesting, we can live in an area populated by Jews/Christians without any fear, is it possible to live in a Muslim-dominated area without the constant fear of terrorism, suicide bombing, stoning, and the rest? Your honest response is appreciated.

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu taught that one must be more tolerant than a tree. So this is a very good chance for you to practice tolerance. Avoidance is not the solution, putting people on ignore is not the solution. You must face these things with firm faith in Krishna and guru.

All glories to the Hare Christians!

And no, I do not wish to stirr up any religious wars. The Christians, Jews, and Muslims do enough Devil's...er.. God's work in this world without us Vaishnavas getting involved

Jews are too small (in number) to do real damage, and besides, they don't have a history of violence like jihad, inquisitions, crusades, as do the other two.

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.

Yes I AM God(ism) and Buddhism are popular because they don't challenge anyone to become humble before the Supreme Being by claiming everyone is the same supreme being or their are no beings either supreme or subordinate.

 

Many people like these ideas. But not the vaisnavas.

Maybe, it's got to do with the way both parties present their arguments. I've listened to advaitins, and never once have they attacked other schools. They just speak on advaita, and that's that.

And I've also listened to vaishnavas, and more often than not, their 'lectures' revolve around attacking others, calling them names. Their lectures usually have little to do with vaishnavism, Krishna etc.

Perhaps, this is why people are moving away from vaishnavism, due to the bad behavior of most vaishnavas, especially their foul language which sometimes becomes intolerable to hear.

I'm calling your bluff.

 

Where in the Vedas is it said that "the son is non-different from the father?"

 

Where in the Vedas is there any statement that can even remotely be translated like that?

 

The iskcon christian propaganda has gone from fabricating bald assertions based on half truths to outright lies. Have these people no shame?

When iskconites say veda, it shouldn't be taken literally. It simply refers to iskcon literature, and to an extent, gaudiya literature (except places where criticism of christianity is intense).

If we really feel compassion, we must go to these countries, and help the starving people. Not doing much good posting pictures, and offending sensitive people.

I don't think hatred against one of the greatest thinkers is necessary. It's always the religious people who attack scientists, all the while utilizing the comforts that science gives. Why is that?

 

This is bogus idea. Life without technology is safer, saner, more Enjoyable, more spiritual, less complicated, less lusty etc.

 

Ironic that you're able to communicate this message ONLY with the help of technology!

I forgot to mention another thing as to why advaita is popular amongst the modern, sophisticated class. It's tolerant and liberal. We've had vaishnavas calling non-vaishnavas as demons, fools etc. Even Prabhupada used to call people as rascals.

But most of the time, advaitins come across as extremely gentle people, hardly ever attacking other schools. We've heard of the label 'vaishnava fanatics,' but has anyone ever heard of 'advaita fanatic?' Impossible.

So I believe this is also a reason for advaita's popularity, the exemplary behavior of most advaitins, which is sadly missing in our vaishnava community, where people toss around words like demons, rascals, as if there's no tomorrow.

However they think Krishna's body has a material form. This pains my heart. I was speaking from my own point of view, if I offended anyone please forgive me.

What's wrong if they think Krishna has a material body, why does it upset you so much? Is he any 'less' on account of that? There are some, who think he doesn't even exist.

Liver disease jingle bells. I might live long...but life is for getting ready to go back home...isnt it. That is what Prabhupada presses home. The Hare Krsna movement is awesome. Most of my mates enjoy coming around and hearing kirtan on the pc...and see the deities. They are western christian fellas (old hippies).

Sorry to hear all this. I hope you'll be fine. Best wishes!

I have an illness which is degenerative yes. One of my best firends pasted away at the age of fifty (two months ago) from the disease. I am twelve years younger than him.

 

This radically changed my attachment to the body....over the last five or six years....as I journey on way way as a householder. I love life cbrahma...and do not fear death...becuase my faith is deep.

 

I am very eccentric in life cbrahma....my good friends are too lol. I adore spirituality. Say no more.

What's this disease called, if you don't mind my asking?

SP didn't need popularity, to steal Sankara's thunder. He was just noting that Sankara wasn't a true impersonalist.

Sankara was not an impersonalist, because SP says so. Jesus was a Vaishnava, because SP says so. Man never went to the moon, because SP says so.

Do you see what I am getting at here? Try to think for yourself, cbrahma, you claim to be an educated man. I am seriously beginning to doubt it.

I thought you were calling it a night.

Why do you feel impelled to fight with everyone, cbrahma? Why this fanaticism? Maybe, this is why people hate religion, they just can't tolerate the fanaticism of most religious people.

According to Prabhupada, and yes I will quote him since he is the most reliable source, Sankaracarya is a 'covered' personalist since he accepts that Krsna is bhagavan.

If you can't fight them, join them, eh? SP was smart enough to co-opt Sankara, thanks to the latter's immense popularity.

On the one hand it seems, unless we go to a temple, have Deity worship in our home, (our somebody's home) there is no advancement. On the other hand Prabhupada was eminently practical as can be understood by the above quote.

I cannot and will not have Deities in my home - it is impractical (and therefore artificial) with my life style.

But thank you for outlining the black and white requirements which clearly exclude me and countless others from participating in the bhakti marga.

Cbrahma, I think you're frustrated. Maybe, christianity will be the right religion for you? It's simple and easy to practice, and comes with guarantee;), perhaps you must give it a shot.

You cannot be a Perfect Bhakta without being backed by Jyana.

 

Mira Bai is the last stage of perfection.

I personally believe Moses was highest stage of perfection. Oscar-winning movies have been made of him, he's so popular and the perfect blend of bhakti, jnana, and karma yogas.

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 think you're rushing to conclusions. Consider this. If you have a headache, the "I" identifies itself with the head. If disturbed, the "I" identifies with thoughts, and so on. If there's no identification at all, there is no personal "I." Yet, there is consciousness.

In short, there's consciousness without an "I." Because there's no "I," we can't call it personal. We have to call it impersonal.

And because this consciousness isn't restricted by attributes and forms such as body, mind etc., we call it nameless/formless/attributeless.

You already know. Where you been sarcastic by asking me:rolleyes:. Or did you want to feel my day to day perception. (no answer necessary).

I only know this theoritically, having spoken to advaitins. I just wanted to know about your experience, hence the q. But it seems like you're offended, so sorry, I won't bother you anymore.

I don't think people have properly understood what they're trying to refute. Let me give another instance.

Consider the bhagavat gita verse 2.13. You exist as a baby, then as a youth, then as an old person, and so on. The forms of existence (such as youth, old age) may vary and can be subsequently negated, but the fact of existence remains a constant.

Which is why we're forced to conclude that existence must be formless, or we should make the blunder of negating existence itself along with youth, old age etc.

Hence, the advaitins argue that existence with names/forms are illusory, and formless existence is the one truth.