kaisersose

so do you undrestand and ive already told you how god of christians is vishnu.

They both beleive god is a person.

<SUP></SUP>

<SUP></SUP>

<SUP></SUP>

Followers of Shiva believe he is a person too. I say the God of the Bible is Shiva.

See the problem?

Cheers

Dont deny things just because you dont believe in them.

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

Cheers

thanks for your reply sir

if different gods are true for different different cultures then who is the Supreme Power . Because these gods(Jesus,Ram, etc) were born on earth but who is that power which has created the Earth.

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.

so it means they were there at that time and these countries and there people, rulers were present at that time. So why we dont get their recital (even little) in Mahabharta ? at that time if we had relation with with Gandhaar(now Kandhaar, afganistaan) then why didn't with Egyptian and Chinese.

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

hi all

a question regarding our hindu beliefs & rituals has been arising in my mind for last few years. we Hidus believe in Indra dev , surya dev , pawan dev etc. and these gods are reponsible for Rain , sunlight , air etc. so why these gods are not recognized all over the world? does anybody else is responsible for Rain in britain, rome, egypt, europe etc. and why these gods gave birth to their children only in India. like Arjun was the son of Indra, Karan was the son of Lord sun etc. do these god have some hosility with other countries?

I am giving one example:- Planet Mars, is recognized all over the world as 'Lord of war' Romans used to pray Mars before starting War. other culture also consider it as Lord of war, even we hindus worship Lord hanuman as a symbol of Mars , think that what color we offer to lord hanuman i.e red(sindoori) and that is the color of Mars. so indirectly we pray the planet mars.in the same way jupiter is considered all over the world as a teacher and same thing is there with other planets .

 

so I am in dilemma that if Planet signifies same thing and have recognition in all cultures than why god of natural power like Indra, pawan dev, etc do not have recognition all over the world?

 

I request all of you to kindly think over it and give the solution

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

so what was the objective of this thread ? i couldnt understand it !!

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

Actually one Brahmanda is One solar system or perhaps one galaxy.

The encyclopedia of authentic Hinduism has proper information regarding this.

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

Cheers

Hello all,

Regarding the Self, there are contradictory opinions on Mind and Intellect. Some say that "I am not the Mind or Intellect, Nor are they Mine" (AshtaVakra Gita), and some say "I am not the Mind or Intellect, but they are Mine" (Swami Sukhbodhananda who often quote Adi Shankara besides Bhagwat Gita) and thus I presume Adi Shankar and/or Bhagwat Gita says so. I agree to the first part of both but the second part confuses me.

Since we all agree Mind is powerful(otherwise why do u need to bring it under control) and important, I wanted to know which one of the above two is true. If someone can quote some Authentic Text(pls no round round discussion like Mind is just a collection of thoughts) and/or put forth a more logical explanation to the perspective the authors to the above texts are coming from then I would be further Enlightened.

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

This is an honest question, so I hope someone can answer in depth. People say chant mantras like shiva, hare krishna etc., but what's so special about these words? What's the difference between coca-cola and hare krishna? They're just sounds that dull your brain and make you go to sleep. I agree that these mantras come in handy for insomniacs. Otherwise, what's the point of it all? How could a name be so powerful? It's just a normal sound, similar to the sounds we hear every day. So why make a big deal out of it?

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

Why does an atheist bother to ask about something he believes does not exist? He should worry about himself being good or bad.

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

Why does an apple fall down, not up?

 

BTW, I do not believe in any forces or causes I cannot see with my eyes.

 

So explain to me why we have so many unfortunate apples on the ground. There is no rational explanation.

 

Therefore I conclude that the world is simply chaos, if it exists at all.

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

Ignorant people cannot be helped if they are not willing to accept the teaching of Lord Krishna in Bhagavad-gita.

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

This one I really like. Freedom from the material word or materialistic world.

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

What a load of nonsense. This man is so engrossed in the bodily conception.

 

Buddha wasn't a buddhist.

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

HARE KRISHNA !!

Thanks MAHAK & THEIST ,

 

I just thought how did Vidur come to know of the mahabharat..i just assumed that it was "written" by Vyas after the Pandavas left this

realm...so when he spoke to Maitreya muni, at that time the mahabharat

was not yet written.....but theist , as you say...this qustions is just mundane...but it would be nice to know...i do not need the exact dates

but like first was the ramayan than bharat than puraans...more or less

 

thanks again

 

yours

 

jaswant

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

Basically etc. includes anyone who doesn't believe the universe is run by a supreme being. Just my view of the universe. Who knows for sure what the hell is going on but I have had personal experiences that lead me to believe Krishna is real but you are entitled to your own personal view of things I don't begrudge you that.

As long as we are clear that this view is purely subjective, I have no problems at all.

Prabhupada always made fun of the material scientists because although they can play with the material energy and throw up a satellite into outerspace or something their power is insignificant to Krishna and they are great fools if they become puffed up by thier insignificant power.

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

Can't proove but even in the material world I think Krsna is pretty much playing with his devotees but the atheists, material scientists etc. are pretty much just playing with themselves.

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

The same rk hamsa who saw god in a desert bandit???:rolleyes:

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

Cheers

There is nothing religious in the Bible or the Quran.

They are just the writings of ignorant men with political issues who wanted to use God as a way to promote their ignorant political agendas.

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

Today Hinduism is alive just because of the Greatest Saiva saint Sri Adi Shankaracharya of the Whole of India would have been either Jain or Buddhist nation

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

Lots of ideas, but unfortunately they are all wrong.

Eating a hamburger is animal killing according to Vedic law.

Who kills the animal, who butchers it, who sells the meat, who cooks it and who eats it are all implicated in the sin of animal killing and that is in Vedic law.

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?

"though shalt not kill" does not apply only to humans.

That is another false interpretation that bogus "Christians" have been making for many years.

If you are disagreeing with the mainstream, you will have to prove it. Else, your position has no value as I explained earlier.

Animal flesh has never been mentioned in any Vedic text as being fit for offering to Vishnu.

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.

The Vedic rule is to eat only what has been offered to Vishnu.

Meat is not acceptable to Vishnu and this is not food in Vedic culture that goes back millions of years in Puranic history.

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

No. It is very simple.

Jesus said "though shalt not kill".

Animal killers cannot be accepted as followers of Jesus or as Christians.

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

There is no Kailasa mentioned in any Purana as existing within the Paravyoma.

Kailasa is a planet in this material universe.

It is not a transcendental planet.

 

So, your argument cannot stand as there is no eternal Kailasa mentioned in any Purana.

Kailasa will perish at the time of Pralaya and Shiva will merge back into Lord Vishnu and come back out at the time of the next creation.

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

Prabhupada said "Christianity is Vaishnavism".

He did not say that the people who claim to be Christians are Vaishnavas.

He said that "Christianity" is Vaishnavism and he is referring to the theology and not to the pseudo-Christians.

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