jinglebells

I know you're posting these with good intentions, but please stop. It could hurt sensitive people, especially the Sudan photos. We don't have to advertise other people's sorrow to feel compassion in our hearts.

I meant to say it's not easy for educated people to believe in a blue-skinned peron playing the flute. As to 'somebody' is conscious, the advaitin will argue that 'somebody' is just an illusion. As proof, he'll ask you to search for this 'somebody' either within or without. In doing so, you will realize that what you call "I" is never restricted to a certain individual, and therefore this consciousness must be impersonal. Hence the conclusion of advaita: Brahman Satya, Jagat Mithya. All this isn't my view, because I am vaishnava. I am just giving a good idea of what advaita is about, and why it appeals to the modern mind. And it's no coincidence that vaishnavism in the west always attracts hippies/dropouts more than it does intellectuals. Isn't that odd?

I admire your enthusiasm in following vaishnavism, but it's not polite to speak ill of such a sacred tradition. Advaitins are great Krishna Bhaktas.

Bija, you seem to be experienced in this sort of thing. Can you tell me more on your experiences of the Brahman Consciousness? It will help me understand better.

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.

You make it sound as if the impersonal view is a horrible thing? There are many who believe that belief in personal god is childish, it's for small minds that can't realize nirguna Brahman. Not that I believe this (I am Vaishnava), but it's better not to take sides on account of these differences.

Obama seems to be quite liberal, he isn't a religious bigot opposing abortion, science, and pretty much everything else under the sun.

That's easy. Very few Iskconites in Australia as compared to USA.

'Faith in God' seems to be sufficient to classify Jesus/Mohammed as Vaishnava. So why not Moses? Maybe, it's because of the number?

Most advaitins worship Krishna, so I don't see anything wrong with listening to an advaitin. Advaitins are staunch Krishna Bhaktas.

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?

Out of curiosity, why do Vaishnava acharyas never mention Moses as a pure or empowered vaishnava? He has all the qualities of a vaishnava-doesn't he?-such as faith in God (Krishna), austerity (after all, he gave the ten commandments), and so forth. So why is it he's always left out of the pure vaishnava category, whereas Jesus and Mohammed always find a place therein?