kaisersose

Have you? I ask this because I recall you once said Kalki was predicted in the Gita! To me, that means you have neither read about avatars nor the Gita. But that was sometime ago, and it is always possible that you did read about avatars since then. Anyway, how are Vishnu avatars teaching evolution? In very simple terms, the avatars are symbolic of the Supreme position of Vishnu and his role in sustaining Dharma in the Universe. I do not recall anything about evolution. What is the evolution from Vamana to Parashurama to Rama to Krishna to Buddha to Kalki? In evolution terms, they are all homo sapiens or modern man. If you look at the four earlier avatars, evolution does not say the tortoise evolved from large fish or that boars evolved from tortoises and a species like Narasimha (which evolved from boars) has not been discovered yet. Back to the original question. How then, do the Vishnu avatars teach evolution? Cheers

Sant, You are completely missing the point Raghu is trying to make. You are relatively new to this forum and in all probability have no idea about the offensive posts made by some of you esteemed Western Hare Krishna colleagues here in the past - the same colleagues you are trying to protect by abusing Raghu. In short, you are missing the context and are not able to understand his position. Perhaps if you took some time off to read some of the older threads, that may help you gain the right perspective. You may still disagree, but you will at least stop believing some of us have some kind of hatred against the Hare Krishna system. Veda does not just mean rituals. it is a lot more than that, and when you simply say veda, it is taken to cover the entire corpus. You cannot assume Veda = rituals and abuse others for not making the same mistake. Cheers

It just shows you have not read these sources nor have you thought this issue through. If Chaitanya was so clearly mentioned in these many sources, why is he not in the main list of avatars? Why didn't any Guru foretell his coming? Why was the compiler of this list compelled to not mention verse numbers for any of these sources? There are similar quotes from the Rig-veda on the web predicting the arrival of Mohamed? Do you also accept these predictions without questions, just as you accepted these quotes on Chaitanya without evre doubting them? If not, why? This topic has been discussed in detail on these forums a long time ago - If you can see those old posts. Cheers

Spreading is not the same as convincing with force. There is a world of difference between the two. You can always present your version of the story and then leave it that that. The bible thumper types are usually not content with just presenting their religion. They go the extra mile, which involves threats of hell, derogatory views on other religions, etc., even if the other person has no interest in listening to these tirades. Their megalomaniac mentality does not let them rest until they have converted everyone to their way of thinking. Cheers

I already have - several times. That is my point. They are ex-Christians because they cannot have one foot in Christianity and one in Gaudiya Vaishanvism. The exclusive nature of Christianity does not permit this. And that is why they are not Christians anymore, though they have soft sentiments towards the religion as can be seen by their Jesus = Vaishnava arguments. No Christian will endorse a belief outside his church as valid. Catholics do not consider other variants of Christianity as religion. In fact, some Catholics consider non-catholic Christians as atheists. What to speak of non-Christian beliefs? Cheers

Advaitins do not believe they are God or will become God. if you disagree, please show some clear evidence. "Prabhupada said so" is not evidence. It is tiresome to see Hare Krishnas repeating the same nonsense over and over again, escaping when asked for evidence and then returning again to post the same bunk all over again. No. Yogananda is a neo age Guru, with a new age liberal philosophy suited for the "modern mind". He is not an authority on Advaita. No. Ramakrishna is a neo age Guru, with a new age liberal philosophy suited for the "modern mind". He is not an authority on Advaita. Again a NO, for the same reasons as above. That is an upanishad statement. That applies to all Vedanta traditions and is not specific to Advaita. Which Advaitin Guru said this? Please post your source. Cheers

I asked for evidence supporting your description of Advaita and you responded with, In other words, you have no scriptural evidence to backup your version of Advaita. That was exactly my point. Cheers

Do you have a quote from an Advaita source to back this up? If not, then I am sure you have no problems if I tell you it is wrong. Cheers

Tell it to any Advaitin and he will laugh more. He will laugh at your ignorance of what Advaita is. Btw, Christians and Muslims have little or no time for your Hare Krishna brand of worshipping Krishna idols either. It is an offense and you guys are hell bound. As far as they are concerned, there is no difference between the Hare Krishna & the Advaitin. Why dont you stick to topics you are familiar with, instead of constantly puting your foot in your mouth? Or read Advaita from a proper source and then criticize the doctrine. Cheers

Though Krishna, Rama and Jesus are candidates for fictional characters and a lot of ink has been spent on the topic, I find it curious that no such controversies surround the Buddha - though he lived 600 years before Jesus. Are Rama and Krishna any less credible than the Buddha? At least, in the case of Jesus, there are some compelling arguments that his name is absent in the list of people who were executed during that time, etc. No such evidence exists to question the existence of Rama, Krishna and Buddha. Cheers

It is interesting to note that Mr Menon describes Vishnu Purana as mythology. That would not be a problem, if he is willing to take the same position with the Bible. But I do not see it. To him, Bibilical events and chracters are real, but Puranic events and characters are myths. Do we really want to waste time on the writings of such bigots? Anyway, to answer the original question, the Bhavishya Purana contains a lot of spurious content and its predictions are all bogus. There are also some Islam sites which claim the coming of Mohamed, in nothing less than the Rig-veda! They are all bogus too. Cheers

Has nothing to do with the problem of some Vaishnavas constantly jumping into Shaiva threads and telling them they are Tamasic, demi-God worshippers, etc. This out-spoken evangelism is nothing more than an annoyance here. In your decade or so presence on these forums, how many people have you inspired/converted over to your way of thinking? Zero. On the other hand, at least a handful of people lost interest in your system, after exposure to your constant disagreements and zealotry. And yet, you guys fail to see the damage you are doing. That is a stretch. Ony a few western converted Hare Krishnas have a problem with Hinduism. The rest are mostly fine with it. It is not about agreeing with Hinduism or Shaivism, but letting the other guy sing his song and not bombard him with your sectarian spiel. That is what a general spiritual discussion forum is all about. Cheers

jiva - Shaiva Puranas parkriti- Shaiva Puranas karma- Shaiva Puranas isvara- Shaiva Puranas kala (time)- Shaiva Puranas the differences between the yogic schools of thought- Shaiva Puranas basic sitting silent meditation- Shaiva Puranas dharma- Shaiva Puranas moksha- Shaiva Puranas sat-sanga- Shaiva Puranas good vs passionate vs bad - Shaiva Puranas sfoods/actions/austerities/fearlessness/equanimity/faith/ - Shaiva Puranas sacrifice/charity/renunciation/knowledge/performers/(doers of actions)/understanding/determination/happiness?- Shaiva Puranas You asked where and I told you where. Obviously, no one is going to bother to quote details for they run into thousands of verses. But the good news is, you can always pony up the dough, buy a copy of the Vayu Purana and read it for yourself. Now if you did that and still did not find answers to your questions, then contact me again. And perhaps you can explain to everyone why you need this information - assuming you really need it. Cheers

That is funny. Shiva Purana is a tamasic Purana, so the truth about Shiva cannot be found in the Shiva Purana, but in Vishnu Purana! This is like the British saying Indians are primitive pagans, so to understand real Indian religion, read books on Indian religion written by British authors. Setting this tamasic nonsense aside, all scholars (Indian too) agree that the Shiva Purana is a upa-purana. The Shaiva Maha Purana is actually the Vayu Purana. If we accept this, then whatever version presented in the Vayu is the authentic version. It is ridiculous to look for authentic stories of Shiva in Vaishnava sources - just as silly as looking for Vishnu stories in Shaiva Puranas. Cheers

There is Advaita and then there is "HK Advaita", which of course, has nothing in common with Advaita. Actually there are at least 3 different versions of "HK Advaita", all different from each other and also different from the Advaita doctrine. They are, 1) Advaitins think they are God 2) Advaitins merge in an impersonal Brahman 3) Advaita is bogus - that is, Advaitins are neither God nor will they merge in Brahman.* I wonder which of these three versions was reconciled by Chaitanya in his new doctrine? * This is a paradox because when they say Advaita is bogus, they mean Advaita as they know it is bogus, which is actually true! Cheers

Theist and everyone of his peers here have proven that they have not read a single word of the Advaita doctrine. Of course, to their way of thinking, that is not a reason to stop pontificating on the topic. You will find that anything he says about Advaita will be incorrect and cannot be corroborated by any work on Advaita. Cheers

Mohamed acknowledged both Judaism and Christianity in his Quran. That would mean, Islam reconciles the two religions. Madhva accepts some common factors in Advaita and Sri-Vaishnavism as true (unauthored vedas, prashtana trayi, etc). That would mean, Tattvavada reconciles Advaita and Vishishtadvaita. Since reconciliation appears to be favored by the HKs, it is time for someone to come along and reconcile the Hare Krishna philosophy with the Sai Babas and the Oshos. By the above logic, they should have no objections to this. Cheers

I am either attached or detached. Partial detachment does not make sense and I would simply categorize it as attachment. If I am in love with my family, then I am attached. The love of a parent is generally not contingent upon reciprocation. You love your child and worry about his welfare even when he has no time for you. Detachment is defined by Webster as "indifference to worldly concerns" and for it to make sense, it should include indifference to the pain/joys of one's family. This is why I said earlier that detachment cannot meaningfully apply to a family man. One can always be detached to social status, lifestyle, and such other things. But that is partial detachment and is also likely to adversely impact family life. In summary, both renunciation and detachment make sense only to the Sanyasi. And once again, sanyasa is not for everyone. Cheers

You cannot accept all Jagadgurus at the same time, as they have conflicting views. Pick one and avoid confusion. You are saying Chaitanya claimed reconciliation between Advaita and Dvaita. Do you have evidence? If yes, then he accepted Advaita and Dvaita as true at the same time. If yes, why did Prabhupada write a piece titled "Mayavada is false" and how Shiva came as Shankara to fool people? You have to take a stance and be consistent. Cheers

Samadhi as you described is purely an Advaita concept. Nothing to do with Dvaita. It is not clear why this concept of reconciliation is finding supporters among Hare Krishnas. Confusion as usual? On one hand you criticize Advaita as false and then now you claim you are reconciling it with Dvaita. Why do you want to reconcile a false philosophy? Prabhupada wrote an artice titled "Mayavada is a false philosophy" and now here are some of his followers going against his own words. In any event, oneness and difference at the same time is a ludicrous concept. It is like saying 2 + 2 = 4 and 2 + 2 != 4, both at the same time. Such an approach takes no positive step towards reconciliation. Bheda-abheda is not new with Gaudiyas. It existed during the time of Shankara, was criticized and never found a strong foothold - most likely due its illogical approach. Ditto with Gaudiya Vaishnavism which tried the same angle. It was almost dead until it was revived in the last couple of centuries in an environment where logic clearly appears to have taken a backseat with Bhakti Vinoda writing absurd stories about Chaitanya traveling back in time and appearing in the dreams of Madhva and Ramanuja. This is perfectly acceptable to Hare Krishnas, but they are highly suspicious about a trivial ash producing miracle by Sai Baba! This is what I mean by confusion and lack of uniformity. Cheers

No detachment can be called for either. An an example, a Grhasta having a little child cannot be aloof when the child is in pain, imagining himself to be detached. If such detachment exists in someone, that would be very unnatural. In general, as an individual with a family, any form of detachment would be unnatural. Nishkamya Karma and Sharanagati are almost the same, in my opinion. They do not require detachment or renunciation. In very simple terms, they are about accepting/understanding the role of something higher in every aspect of one's life. Sharanagati is a prerequisite for Nishkamya Karma. Though it appears simple, it is a lot more complex than it sounds. This is the way I see it. Obviously, if you disagree, I would like to hear more. Nishkamya Karma is a non-trivial concept that has not been adequately explained by most Gita commentators including Shankara. The only commentary I found sensible on this topic is by Madhva/Raghavendra. Cheers

If you do not know basics, then you should go do your homework first. Discussion forums are not really well suited to learn fundamentals. Cheers

It is not obvious to me. Based on his (theist) posts on this topic now and in the past, here is his positon as I understand it. 1) Hindu is a mundane concept. 2) Shaiva is a worshipper of Shiva (sectarian), Shakta is a worshipper of Shakti (sectarian) but Vaishnava is *not* a worshipper of Vishnu (not sectarian). 3) Vaishnavism is the only true religion. 4) Per this new definition of Vaishnavism, Christians and Muslims are also Vaishnavas. However, India based systems like Shaiva, etc., are demi-god worshippers and not Vaishnavas. Only foreign religions qualify. 5) Hindus should not call themselves Hindus as it is all one big mess. 6) The only recourse appears to be they should all become Hare Krishnas and call themselves Vaishnavas. Everything else is mundane. 7) Mayavada is poison. Cheers

In my opinion, things would exactly the same in all Yugas. They just did not have an opportunity to behave as we do, as there were no internet discussion forums back then. But rest assured, I am sure they did manage to find ways and means to disagree with their neighbors and create further action on these disagreements. The Homo sapiens brain and behavior has not changed since 200000 years. Cheers

What about the good Karma accrued by meat eaters for they hasten the process of the animal taking a better birth in its next life? If it were not for them, the animal would languish on planet earth for a long time. The butcher in the Mahabharata is actually shown as an intelligent guy by the author (unless it was a British conspiracy). The Guru in the above post acknowledges that we plant killers/eaters are sinning too, though in "lesser amounts", but we have to commit these sins as we need to survive. Isn't there somethng fundamentally wrong here? If the only way to survive is to sin, then the model is flawed somewhere. The whole meat-eating concept exists because the creator God created the concept of the food chain containing animal life. There is no avoiding this fact. And then, it becomes meaningless to say the same God will curse you for that. If he really really did not want meat-eating on the planet, then his creation would have only contained Herbivore species. Being vegetarian is cool, but I dislike vegetarians sporting a holier-than-thou attitude and criticizing meat-eaters, McDonalds, etc. Really no different from Hare Krishnas criticizing Shaivas, Mayavadins, Kundalini Yoga, etc. It comes across as extremely shallow. Cheers