kaisersose

Followers of Shiva believe he is a person too. I say the God of the Bible is Shiva. See the problem? Cheers

If it is not non-belief, then what do you think should be the critiera for denying or rejecting a text? Cheers

No one can answer that question. It is obvious that the stories handed down to us are man made and are therefore of no value. You will have to be careful not get drawn into fiction when you have questions - hard as it may be. It is not necessary to find references to foreign civilizations in the Mahabharata. It has already been established that the Indus valley civilization, which predates the Mahabharata was trading with the mesopotaminan civilization. Herodotus (500 BC) knew India. Anyway, the Mahbharata does talk about "Chinas" along with Kiratas who were mostly of mongoloid races and it is possible that some of them may have been from the Himalayan Indo-China border regions. China and India have been trading and interacting for thousands of years and that should not come as a surprise. Greeks (Yavanas) are also mentioned in the Mahabharata. Ashoka (3rd century BC) knew the Egyptian ruler of his time by name (the correct name). Cheers

The solution is simple. These Gods and stories were created by authors who lived in India. Just like Middle eastern Gods had stories revolving around the middle eastern locale and culture, Native American Gods containing native American themes, Chinese Gods set in Chinese backgrounds. Gods created by Indian authors lived in the Indian region, looked Indian, wore silk, chewed paan, ate curds rice and were mostly vegetarian as is the culture of the region. You can only work with what you have. Obviously we will not find stories of worshipping an Indian God with strawberries or salmon, as these are not native to the country and our authors from those times never knew of strawberries. They created modes of worship using tropical items like coconuts, betel leaves, bananas...things they knew about. What was the rest of the world doing during the Mahabharata? The Mahabharata was developed over a long period - 1500 BC - 500 AD and is set in North India. Egyptians had built the Great Pyramid around 3000 BC and the Phoenicians had already developed the science of seafare, much before that. Cheers

Dire consequences await those who do not convert to the OP's of thinking. It is the age-old scare tactic of accusing anyone who disagrees with your views as an Aparadhi. Cheers

It is boring to see the Hare Krishnas doggedly continuing science-bashing, believing they are doing some kind of service to Prabhupada by keeping that nonsense alive. For the hundredth time, if it were not for science, you guys would have never heard of Prabhupada or Krishna. You would still be eating Sunday suppers at your local church and guess what would be on the menu? Be thankful for science, as 1) It made it possible for your Guru to print Books 2) Travel half way across the world 3) Help the HK organization go global through jet-setting Sanyasis 4) Made it possible for you to use Computers which is why you are posting here 5) It has also made it possible to increase lifespans or a number posting here may not be alive today. 6) Jndas would still be in America and there would be no forum to post! And now, here is a little exercise for you all. Why don't you put away your books, "learning", your deepset conditioning and try some independent thought for a change? You are adults after all, and should be perfectly capable of thinking for yourselves instead of parroting Indian Gurus on non-spiritual matters such as science. It will help reduce mental atrophy, widen your perspectives and broaden your horizons. Cheers

What encyclopedia is that? I sure hope it is not the Bhagavatam or the Navadwipa Dham Mahatmya. Cheers

Clearly, you are admitting there are two different sources saying two different things. But what is the enlightenment you hope to get by picking one of these two? I do not see any value-add in picking one over the other. Cheers

There is nothing magical about a name. The value of a name is just what we consciously choose to attach to it. The name Krishna means nothing to the majority of the world's population. But it is a big deal for some others. The name Sai Baba commands high value among his followers, but outside the set of his followers, a Guru's name has no value. We create the aura, we attach the value. It is always our own creation. Cheers

We do not know the full story - specifically who started the discussion. The OP may have started and the atheist may simply have responded back with these questions. It is my own experience that theists are more inclined to start the topic by challenging atheists, than the other way around. There is no shortage of proselytizing religious groups in this world where adherents are told to "spread the message" and convert the entire world to their way of thinking. Cheers

Very Good. To add, one can accept that the world is random and chaotic and yet be a theist. There is no connection between theism & worldly events, unless we create one ourselves or accept such a connection proposed by someone else. As I have said before, such self-created connections are distractions and take the focus away from the real thing. Cheers

Just FYI, The OP's questions are not addressed in the Gita...not unless you are the type who is willing to twist, meander and distort until one read just about anything in the Gita. On a different note, if you are interested in debating atheists, you should be capable of discussion at multiple levels. It does not make any sense to address generic/basic/common sense questions by resorting to a couple of religious books from one part of the world and demanding faith in these books as a prerequisite. I don't know if you get what I am saying, but I have to try anyway. Cheers

You can answer truthfully with a "don't know" to all these questions and yet be a theist. There is no law requiring theists to know answers to all questions related to God. Better to be honest and admit having no clue instead of quoting nonsense from old books or simply repeating what someone else said. Cheers

A more meaningful question is, why should one seek Moksha? Without addressing this fundamental question, all other questions on the topic are irrelevant. On observation, Moksha has no perceivable benefit, which makes it a useless exercise with wasted efforts. it is useless because, 1) It provides absolutely no benefit as long as the individual is alive. It does not get the aspirant more money, better health or any tangible improvement. All the alleged benefits are supposed to vest after death. But a dead person is already free from the material world! 2) Future lives: The future life is a completely different person. That person has no relation to you in anyway. Better to live life today, doing what you like to do, rather than plan for some obscure state after death, a state which has more than a 50% chance of being bogus. Cheers

And what is the point you are trying to make? Jesus was a not a Christian, Mohamed was not a Muslim and Chaitanya was not a Gaudiya Vaishnava. Cheers

All these texts have evolved over a long period of time, borowing from various sources & losing older material. The Mahabharata itself says it originally was just 8000 verses, and then progressively increased to its present size. It is hard, if not impossible to fix authors, start and end dates for such texts. Cheers

As long as we are clear that this view is purely subjective, I have no problems at all. My curiosity is piqued - again. Do you actually know any "material scientist" who is puffed up with his "insignificant" power? I do not know anyone. Scientists are in most cases employees of Labs and Universities drawing middle class salaries and working in teams. It is most certainly not an environment where any one can get puffed up - no more than say an architect feeling a sense of pride in designing a highrise or a philantrophist feeling gratified that his charity is responsible for saving lives of starving kids, who would have most certainly died otherwise or a surgeon whose work saved a life. A very conducive environment for vanity is for political leaders, surgeons, judges, serial killers, etc., who have a certain control over life & death. I fail to see the scientist who may be trying to find a cure for Aids or a better quality fuel or to increase processing power of a chip to be added to this category and curiously enough as in this instance - singled out and criticized as "puffed up". This is why I ask if you know of any puffed up scientists? Cheers <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p>

Just out of curiosity, who does "etc" include? I ask because the majority of the world's population are neither Krishna devotees nor atheists nor material scientists*. * No idea what material scientist means. Cheers

Is there a problem with that? if yes, please explain for the benefit of everyone here. Cheers

In other words, you are saying "thou shall not kill" has nothing to do with religion. Anyway, this is all subjective. One can just as easily say Prabhupada got bored with his marriage, had this secret desire to become famous and and used religion as the means to gain posterity. Smilar criticisms can and are made on other Gurus like Osho, Sai, etc. Cheers

Why is Shankara a "Shaiva" saint? He was an Advaitin and beyond sectarian labels of Shaiva & Vaishnava. Advaita != Shaivism. Hinduism was never in any danger of extinction at any point of time. Due to Asokha's notable patronage, Buddhism became a prominent religion in India and during 0 AD - 500 AD, brilliant Brahmanas like Nagarjuna crossed over to Buddhism as it was very fashionable at that time. Kumarila Bhatta, the Purva-Mimamsa Brahmana debated Buddhists (ex-Brahmanas) and converted a number of them back to Purva Mimamsa. Buddhists mostly lived in monasteries in North India. Islamc invaders took a lot of pleasure in destroying these monasteries. Destruction in the hands of invaders, lack of patronage by able kings, all came together to eliminate Buddhism in India. Shankara either played no role or a very minimal role. His main focus was to convert Purva-Mimamsa Brahmanas to Advaita. Jainas were never large in numbers nor was there any notable exodus by Brahmanas into Jainism. Forced Islam conversion stories are mostly untrue and Christian attempts to convert failed miserably. Cheers

In your last post, you said karma is accrued by the killer and almost no karma is associated with the eater. And where is this vedic law on meat-eating, anyway? If you are disagreeing with the mainstream, you will have to prove it. Else, your position has no value as I explained earlier. Dude?? The whole concept of Vedic religion was founded on animal sacrifice. There are grand stories of how the system eventually died down to be replaced by Bhakti and how Shankara, Madhva etc., were still opposing and replacing sacrificial animals with flour animals as late as the 13th century AD. Again, you have to learn more which means looking beyond your little iskcon world. Prove that meat is not acceptable to Vishnu. The cow either goes to heaven or evolves into a better life, which would make Vishnu happy. Cultural aspects of the Indian sub continent do not constitute proof. Cheers

That does not wash at all - 1) Most meat eaters on the planet never killed a single animal in their lives. Eating a Whopper is not the same as slaughtering a cow. And Jesus did not say "Thou shall not eat meat". He associated with fishermen, ate lamb, etc. 2) When Jesus said "thou shall not kill" he talked about killing humans. That is how the billion+ Christians of the world have interpreted it. Now if a small group of modern Bengali Vaishnavas choose to interpret the Bible differently, who cares? Their interpretation is worth exactly nothing and is an obvious farce. 3) The Mahbharata has the story of a butcher who was enlightened - to illustrate this very important point. In short, your meat-eating theory has no scriptural support. It's origin lies in the minds of some Brahmanas from 2000 years ago. Cheers

Why should it be mentioned in the Puranas? Where is this requirement coming from? And obviously you cannot use Vaishnava scriptures to prove anything about Shaivism. Also explain how a foreign religion which has no Purana reference is acceptable while a local religion is not. Cheers

As I have said in the past, this is an old, cunning trick of separating the founder from the actual teaching & system. This separation allows wannabe Gurus to criticize the system and yet pay lip homage to celebrity Gurus. Shankara was Shiva, but Mayavada is poison, Mayavadins are evil. Jesus was wonderful, but his followers are not. No matter what trickery you adopt, criticizing Mayavadins is the same as criticizing Shankara as he is the biggest Mayavadin of all. Same with crticizing Christians, and everyone else. Cheers