kaisersose

I know why. Bhaktajan et al., are Westerners mostly born and raised in Christian families. The same attitude has been carried over into their chosen belief system - the Hare Krishna cult. It is extremely important to them - to the extent of paranoia - that their belief system is superior to everything else. If it did not come with the "superior" tag, they would not have bothered to become Hare Krishnas at all. Add to this, the preaching mindset conditioned into them by the founder of ISKCON. They simply cannot accept the idea of different beliefs coexisting. From what I have heard several times, inside ISKCON, the value of a devotee is measured by the number of people he converts and/or the $$$ he is able to bring in. If that is true, this organization is no less materialistic than a law firm or any corporate sales division. This is why. Well said. I read somewhere recently that the best targets for conversion into cults are angry adolescents who are generally looking to rebel and position themselves differently from the mainstream. Otherwise, preachy systems do not generally have much luck with conversions in today's world where chances of being misled are lesser than what they were just 25 years ago. Cheers

Did Chaitanya say it is OK to worship Jesus as the supreme, but not Shiva as supreme? I highly doubt that. I doubt it because he was not trying to woo a western christian crowd and therefore had no need to put Jesus on a pedestal with no scriptural backup. Then you agree that this generic definition may well match to Shiva. As there was no specific mapping to any one Indian God, it could map to anyone. Not God? Shiva is the supreme from whom everyone else including Vishnu, Krishna, etc., emanate. If in doubt, please consult any Shaiva. Thank you. Like I said earlier, you will have no objection if we map this single God to Shiva in which case, the Jews, Christians and Muslims are actually Shaivas, only they are not aware of it. Cheers

If your friend will accept the Bhagavatam as an authority on Krishna, then the arrow-in-the-foot episode is nothing like what he describes. In the Bhagavatam it is clear that is how Krishna dies. I do not have an exact reference, but I clearly remember a version of Ramayana where Rama & Lakshmana eneded their lives on earth through jala-samadhi. Forget Rama and Krishna, deaths of personalities like Shankara and Madhva are not recorded. It appears to have been the trend to avoid writing about death of avatars. Shankara disappeared somewhere, Madhva disappeared from the middle of a crowd...this is what their biographies have to say. Cheers

Yeah...these atheists are a pain. Why cant they simply accept what they are told? Why do they use their brains instead, asking for evidence? I say, they should simply accept heaven, hell, Krishna and a flat earth without asking questions. Anyway, they are all going to hell for doubting. Hare Krishna

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p> Similar claims can and will be said by people of every faith in the world. The Jews have their own chosen land and they are the chosen people. And this chosen land is not India. Moreover, the old Brahmin texts only state that North Western India or Aryavarta is the chosen land – not the entire sub-continent. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p> Before anyone else? Mesopotamian civilizations are dated earlier than the IV civilization and far earlier than the Vedic civilizations of India. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Cheers<o:p></o:p>

Hmm...do you know any preacher, who went out to preach with the possiblity in his open mind that he may encounter a belief that may convert himself? I have not seen any. Preacher are sure of their own beliefs and are doubly sure there is nothing out there that can replace their current affiliation. In fact, that smugness, is the primary motivating factor. How does this align with your "intending to share ideas" and "collectively learn"? Christian preachers are sure people who do not change over to their view are hellbound. Hare Krishnas think and believe that they found the holy grail in iskcon and everyone else is a second class citizen for not changing over to their view. Since I have not found over-zealous preachers in other beliefs, I do not have a third example. In short, the whole concept of preaching is to convert the other to my own point of view. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason to preach at all. Cheers

Really? Is there anyway for us to know the 5000 year old man had less anger than today's man? And how does man + increased anger = monkey? Cheers

Now we are asking questions...finally. Instead of assuming we know everything there is to know about Advaita. That is progress. And while you are in the questioning frame of mind, here is a simple question. If Shankara changed his mind about Advaita on his deathbed, then why do we still have Advaita 1300 years later? Why is it that only Hare Krishnas know about this change of heart and not Advaitins or anyone else? Cheers

You will not find it, as there never was such a book by Shankara. You most likely heard it from iskcon sources or perhaps read it in an iskcon book. No, as that whole piece of a "change of heart on his deathbed" is trash cooked up by some Vaishnavas. And where did you read this? You do not know the first thing about Advaita. A change of heart on the deathbed implies Bhaja Govindam is not Advaita. Please explain where Bhaja Govindam contradicts Advaita, if you can. Without that you are simply quoting incorrect statements delivered by iskcon Gurus - a waste of time for everyone. Or you can always admit that your knowledge of Advaita is strictly second-hand based on hearsay from unreliable sources and be silent on the topic. The honest approach as I call it. Cheers

This is Advaita by Sankara. This is not to start an argument about who is better or who is correct. This is simply to clarify the Advaita position, which no one here appears to be clear about. Mukti is *not* an experience. It cannot be imagined, it cannot be visualized. Obviously then, it cannot be any of 1. Singing Bengali Bhajans among cows and grass. 2. Sitting around Vishnu in a group surrounded by an ocean of milk* 3. Dancing with Shiva in Kailasa 4. A western style heaven with pearly gates The Kena Upanishad (Sama Veda) is very explicit about it. That which cannot be apprehended by the mind, but by which, they say, the mind is apprehended — That alone know as Brahman and not that which people here worship - 1.6 That which cannot be perceived by the eye, but by which the eye is perceived — That alone know as Brahman and not that which people here worship - 1.7 Also read the Gita verses (2.72, 5.24-26). Note the repeated usage of the words Brahma-Nirvana in these verses. And of course, Gita 7.18 requires a special mention too in this context (Note that Prabhupada translates 7.18 incorrectly). The Gaudiya Vaishnavas take a confused approach here. Sometimes Mayavada is false and some other times, it is apparently correct as Mayavadis will atain what they like to call the impersonal Brahman. So is Mayavada true or false? GVs are too confused to know. In any case, the "multiple destination" claim is incorrect too as there can only be one truth (or none at all) leading to one destination as explicitly clarified in the Gita in the first few verses of chapter 12 and elsewhere. There is no scripture that I know, which allows multiple ultimate destinations as the GV's claim. * Used to be whole vitamin-D for a long time, but now with recent health fads, it can be imagined to be 2% or 1% or even skim. It is magical milk without an expiry date, something that would be of greater use on planet earth than in Vaikunta. Cheers

His post has so many mistakes thast it would take me an hour to point out the number of mistakes in each line. This is what happens when we get on a soap pedestal and pontificate on topics that we are not willing to devote time to understand. The only outcome is he ends up looking like a fool. Anyway, as long as it does not bother him... It is amusing to see Justin & co visualize what has been categorized as transcendental or in other words something that cannot be visualized or even imagined. Anything they imagine is not it. But again, it is highly unlikely they are gonna get ithis concept. Cheers

As I recall, the Valkimi Ramayana is written completely in classical sanskrit and is more homogenous indicating it was written in a short period of time. On the other hand, the Mahabharata has several "layers" with some portions written in pre-panian archaic sanskrit and the rest written in post-panian classical sanskrit. So the Mahabharata has a wider range of several generations of authorship. I also recall the text acknowledges multiple layers by stating the original number of verses and then the gradual increase to 80000 or so verses. Cheers

That is not correct. The Mahabharata does mention Rama and Hanuman. Chronologically, the Rama avatar happened before the Krishna avatar. Obviously, we cannot find Krishna in the Ramayana. From an academic perspective, the present Valmiki Ramayana is much newer (7th century AD) than the Mahabharata text. But the story of Rama is older. Madhvacharya rejected the present version of Ramayana as not authentic. Cheers

The original form claim is dubious. I do not know if other Vaishnava groups make that claim. Krishna like all humans, was an infant, a toddler, a kid, adolescent, young adult, etc. Which of these was the alleged "original form"? This is like the Christian claim that God created man in his own form. Which form might that be? Again the question of infant, toddler, young adult, middle aged adult, old adult arises. Besides, we have distinct races on earth where we look very different from one another. Which race resembles God? Has to be only one. One could say God looks like Jackie Chan or like Chris Tucker, but not both at the same time. And finally, all 6 billion people on the planet have distinct facial features. Which of them has been created in the image of God? I know that Tattvavada would disagree. Their position is none of the avatars had material bodies. Cheers

Not really. They gave alternate theories which never really came anywhere close to popularity as the original. Your statement makes it sound like Advaita has been refuted and taken care of, which is nowhere close to the truth. Not true again. Instead of making bald and incorrect claims on Advaita, please provide references. You are evidently very ignorant of the real picture. So far I have not seen you provide a *single* legitimate crticism of Advaita. You have simple been quoting "defeat" by esteemed Vaishnava Gurus. That means nothing and anyone who has basic knowledge of history should know it is blatantly false. Prabhupada used the R word very freely. which in my opinion, reflects badly on him. And Btw, I have said it before and will say it again. Prabhupada did not know the the first thing about Advaita & therefore, his opinions on the topic are completely worthless. Btw, I have been using the "D" word for deluded Hare Krishnas. The difference is, I know the basics of Hare Krishna philosophy and so I am on better ground. No one becomes God or merges with God. Yet another ignorant statement. Why dont you take some time off and read the the basics of Advaita before making incorrect postings? You are only embarassing yourself with your current display of ignorance. Or you could defend your assertions by quoting valid Advaita sources, but we both know you cannot do that as you never read any Advaita works ever. Of course, in true Hare Krishna fashion, that does not stop you from shooting off your mouth on the topic. I still find it amazing to see Hare Krishnas confidently make incorrect assertions on Advaita without bothering to read a single line of the doctrine. Cheers

Strictly speaking, you do not. But then, you do not have to label yourself as Smartha, just because your beliefs are simlar to Smartha beliefs. Labels by themselves have no value other than what we attach to them. Some people are very hung up with labels like Vaishnava, Shaiva, etc. But that is more out of petty thinking than anything else. You certainly do not want to jump on that bandwagon. If you do, next thing you know, you will be arguing in support of labeling Jesus as a Smartha! Cheers

Huh? Ok...whatever works for you. Cheers

Can we extend the same logic to humans? Humans have natural sexual desires. By your logic, it is blind then, to go against nature and repress oneself of sex because of a religious mandate. So this fact based approach of yours contradicts Prabhupada's concept of not having sex. Or fighting ones natural hunger during ekadasi because it is against your religious belief to eat on that day. If it applies to the cow, it should apply to the human too. In fact, this argument can be extended to almost every restriction that religion places on man. Every one of them go againt man's nature in promise of some post-life grandeur (which is not a fact that can be verified). Cheers

For this to be true, 1. All people on the planet should follow the same Shastra 2. All people should interpet Shanstra the exact same way. Since this is not true (for from it, actually), your statement is not correct. You mean, your creator. The Buddhist does not acknowledge the Gita as Shastra or Krishna as a God/Creator. How then is his religious belief an insult to your God? If it is so, then your religious beliefs are an insult to his religion. Cheers

paramam - supreme, ultimate, highest. gatim - goal, destination. The translation you posted says the same thing. Cheers

Your belief is your personal choice. I dont see what is aduacious about that. Completely incorrect. Liberation is unconditionally irreversible. Please check Gita 8.21. This is how it is is interpreted in all the major Vedanta doctrines. There is no "getting bored" and coming back. This conditional liberation concept is peculiar to Gaudiya Vaishnavism and directly contradicts 8.21. As per the Advaita interpretation, experiencing Rasa requires an experiencer (a frame of reference) which means duality still exists and therefore the person is not yet liberated. So one in Rasa is still under the influence of Maya. He who has been mentioned as the Unmanifested, the Immutable, they call Him the supreme Goal. That is the supreme abode of Mine, reaching which they do not return - Gita 8.21 Cheers

No one's upset, my friend. Calm down. OK, as long as you do not say Science supports Dvaita, I have no argument. You were saying something like that until recently though. But like I said, if you are not going to say it anymore.... You were the one who said it, dude and we have proof by looking at your previous posts. Refresh your memory. No Advaitin said a pig/skunk/human are the same and as I said earlier, you have no evidence to substantiate your claim (you would have presented it by now if you had any) which means your case just fell off the sidewalk. Sure, you are free to have any opinion you like. It doesn't change anything, however. Again missed the point totally. You are wrong and so is anyone who talks Advaita which is not found in Shankara's teachings. Could be you, me, Ravindran, Prabhupada, anyone. Really simple third grade logic, I would imagine? Or fourth grade, perhaps? Certainly not later than that. Cheers

You completely missed the point. That was an example. There is no point in bringing science into the picture and criticizing Advaita from a scientific standpoint. Science is not interested n religion and just as it rejects Adaita, it rejects Dvaita too. That was my point, which you evidently missed. I say this because, you appear to hold that science is supportive of Dualistic religion - which is certainly not true. I asked for evidence. Individual interpretations - or misinterpretations - of Advaita, mean nothing without substantiation. Theist, for example, just the other day said "Krishna is not an island - that is Mayavada nonsense". Which Mayavadin said Krishna is an island? That was theist's own personal concoction which is the point I am making. One also sees other "expert" descriptions of Advaita here from time to time, such as Advaitins aspire to be God, Advaita says “I am you and you are me” and such other junk. Needless to say, none of these ridiculous assertions have ever been backed up with evidence. The Pig/skunk/human claim falls into this category too, if no evidence can be presented to back it up. I have been an advaitin before and at no point did I think they were the same. That proves you wrong. And anyway as I said earlier, individual opinions from unsubstantiated sources proves nothing. Let us see any one of Shankara, Vachaspati, Vidyarana, Chtisukha, etc., say something on these lines and you have an argument. Else, you do not have one, which I assume you have no problems accepting. Partially Correct. I think I know more Tattvavada than most posters here. But any points I make on these doctrines can be substantiated. If they cannot be substantiated, then I have no problem admitting my criticism was wrong. I am not relying on misinformed third party sources, which is more than what I can say for people who have criticized Advaita here in the past. In almost all cases, their view of Advaita was grossly incorrect for they drew their information from incorrect sources. One gentleman quoted a whole bogus text, attributed it to Shankara and proved Shankara taught Gaudiya Vaishnavism! ANother thought anyone who disagreed with his point of view was a Mayavadin. Apparently, that is not a problem to them, as they keep repeating the same nonsense, ad nauseum. Cheers

Hey Buddy, I do not understand a thing - as is usually the case with your posts. I am sure I am not the only one either. But as long as you are clear about what you write, I am happy for you. Cheers

I do not know if you are new here or just an old member with a new name... A scientist will not accept you are not the body either, nor will he accept a Krishna or a Radha. So what is the point being made? Somehow, Advaita is not compliant with science, unlike other religious doctrines? Like I said before, from the perspective of a scientist, the guy who asserts he sees Krishna everywhere belongs to the loony bin too for lack of evidence. And FYI (in case you are not aware), the above piece on the pg/skunk/human is the Hare Krishna distortion of Advaita - something they persistently hold on to, in spite of havng never read a single line of the doctrine. Advaita does not say a pig, skunk and a human are one. Feel free to differ, if you can furnish evidence. Quoting Prabhupada or Bhakti Vinoda or someone else from that set, will prove nothing, for obvious reasons (they did not read a single line of Advaita either and were just as ignorant about the doctrine). Not very smart to make incorrect assertions of other doctrines without bothering to learn their basics. Cheers