primate

I would certainly think about krishna ALONE; I.E. WHEN death is unavoidable .

Then I guess drowning is the better option..

... With regards to pain of humans , i would personally prefer a bullet to the brain rather then agonizing and thrashing for air while drowning, even though it is for a few minutes;)

I don't know.. I'm not sure whether the last thing you would think about is Krishna, or pulling the trigger..

Hold your breath for 2 minutes and experience the pain.If you didn't pass out increase the time

Actually, this pain is caused by our breathing reflex, trying to force us to start breathing again. Fish don’t have lungs, and consequently no breathing reflex. They have gills that can take up oxygen from the water that flows through. When taken out of the water, fish die a painless death from lack of oxygen, much like when you would breath in and out into a small plastic back for 10 minutes. Furthermore, drowning would be a relatively painless death for a human, because in the end you will simply be forced to breath water in and out, and you will die from lack of oxygen..

The total length of the human intestinal tract ranges from 7.5 to 8.5 meters. So, with an average height of 1.6 meter, the human intestinal tract is on average 8.0 / 1.6 = 5.0 times the body length, which is a ratio closer to carnivores (3 times the body length) than herbivores (10 times the body length).

Basically this means that we are not able to digest tough vegetation like (uncooked) grass or leaves, but are better suited to digest fruits. Moreover, the fact that humans and Resus monkeys are the only two species of mammal on Earth that cannot synthesize their own vitamin C, strongly indicates that fruits and vegetables must have been a major part of the diet of our ancestors, thus allowing for this capability to disappear.

Nevertheless, we have sharp front teeth, suggesting that raw meat was at least part of our ancestral diet. Chimpanzees, our closest relatives, regularly hunt down and kill other primates for consumption. And they also eat insects as a protein rich food source.

In conclusion, we are omnivores, built to survive on a variety of foods including meat. This contributes to our overall adaptability as a species, and relates to the opportunistic way of life of our ancestors as hunter gatherers. However, we are not depending on meat to survive, and as modern humans we can choose not to eat meat, which seems to be simply a matter of culture and civilization..

In Theist's video it is stated that, because raising animals for food takes so much land, water and other resources, the Earth is able to sustain only about 2 billion people on a meat and dairy based diet. Vegetarian foot products on the other hand, require only a fraction of the land and far fewer resources than required to produce animal products with equal total nutritious value. Thus, the fewer animal products we consume, the more people we can feed. Furthermore, the enormous amount of faeces produced by farm animals worldwide, pollutes farmland and surface water and is currently responsible for 40% more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than produced by all cars, trucks and airplanes in the world together..!

Globally, total fertility is expected to fall from 2.56 children per woman in 2005-2010 to

2.02 in 2045-2050 according to the medium variant. However, in the more developed

regions, total fertility is projected to increase from 1.64 children per woman currently to

1.80 in 2045-2050. A major reduction of fertility is projected for the group of least

developed countries (from 4.39 to 2.41 children per woman) and the fertility of the rest of

the developing world is expected to drop from 2.46 children per woman currently to 1.93

in 2045-2050, thus nearly converging to the fertility levels by then typical of the

developed world.

 

The median age, that is, the age that divides the population in two halves of equal size, is

an indicator of population ageing. Globally, the median age is projected to increase from

29 to 38 years between 2009 and 2050. Europe has today the oldest population, with a

median age of nearly 40 years, which is expected to reach 47 years in 2050.

 

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2008/pressrelease.pdf

 

According to this latest Revision of the United Nations World Population Prospects, by 2050 the average global fertility is expected to drop below the rate of 2.1 child per woman, which is necessary to replace the world population. So, it is expected that the world population will actually begin to decrease after 2050. In terms of sustainability, population ageing will be a much bigger problem in the near future than population growth. Worldwide, there will not be enough young people to work, produce and pay for food, pensions and medical facilities for the old in a rapidly aging population.

Thus, with the world GDP decreasing as a result of ageing, future sustainability of the world population may not be so much an environmental issue, as an economical and moral or ethical issue. In this respect, the current state of the world economy doesn’t help. And as far as ethics are concerned, I’m afraid humanity doesn’t have a good reputation. Nevertheless, it seems that this problem must be solved through worldwide political, economical and social reforms. Otherwise, for millions of people, especially in less developed countries, nature will solve it the hard way..

Actually, there is nothing "supernatural" in Creation.

 

Read about Zero Point Energy - and you will find the Cosmic Energy which makes up everything in the Universe. From the massive stars to the thinnest grains of sand.

Of course, enough cosmic energy must exist to explain everything we observe in our material dynamic universe. And the concept of zero-point energy (just like the theory of the existence of dark matter) may explain the large scale gravitational behavior of galaxies, thus accounting for the positive cosmological constant in Einstein’s field equations of general relativity. The amount of missing energy (or mass) that is necessary to keep our universe together is huge. However, the zero-point energy of the vacuum is conveniently infinite.

In terms of a physical model, I personally think that all this energy is present in the momentum (speed times mass) of one infinitesimal quantum point or atom or cosmic singularity or God, which contains total consciousness as well as all energy in the form of infinite speed. The eternal 'chaotic oscillation' of this conscious point, is what we call 'absolute reality'. Our partial individual consciousness or our material reality, may then be a function of a particular higher harmonic frequency, present in this conscious oscillation. Consequently, we may be conscious only every now and then. Hence, we consciously perceive just a small discontinuous fraction of continuous absolute reality. From mathematical chaos theory, we know that such discontinuous phase-projections expose the infinite fractal order or structure or form, present within any formal (non-conscious) singular continuous chaotic system. In a 'conscious chaos' model of reality, all duality and change that we perceive in our world, would then be a discontinuous (quantum) projection of continuous absolute reality.

Now, this would neatly explain the missing energy in our universe. From scientific observations, we can deduce that an (invisible) large scale attracting force (gravity) must exist. But we are only consciously aware of a fraction of the total energy (the total chaotic attractor) of absolute reality which underlies all observable phenomena.

Moreover, such a model would also be compatible with the concept of Maya. In the model, Maya is the higher harmonic frequency or sound (OM), which is present in the conscious cosmic oscillation and of which our individual projection of reality is a function. Thus, Maya is the basis of all gross material creation and all perceived duality and all perceived change and time in this world.

Finally, note that in such a model Maya creates our entire material world, by 'hiding' all but a mere fraction of total absolute reality from our perception or consciousness. That seems to be a perfect explanation of the religious notion of ignorance!

I believe that quantum mechanical experiments can provide the evidence necessary to validate such a scenario. Then the only remaining question would be: Where does conscious chaos (or God) come from? In reality, God’s origin is necessarily meta-physical or unknowable or 'supernatural'. Nevertheless, we might be able to clearly understand (in terms of mathematical chaos theory) the (unpredictable) mechanics of His creative energy or Maya. And consequently, we might be able to understand what we are ourselves..

"the same kind of choice"?!!

 

According to Hindu dogma one should expect to receive reactions which are commensurate to actions.

Being tormented in a lake of fire for eternity for the 'sin' of unbelief doesn't sound commensurate to me.

And it is this dogma which is the primary distinguishing characteristic of the message

of Jesus. The rest is just rehashed Buddhist philosophy. From this I must conclude that the mindless

praise of Jesus as a teacher is simply based upon his popularity - there is no intellectual substance to it.

Officially there are only seven deadly sins in Christianity: "Lust", "Gluttony", "Greed", "Sloth", "Wrath", "Envy", and "Pride" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins). "Unbelief" isn’t one of them, although even "murder" isn’t on the list.. And all sins can be forgiven through holy sacraments of the church such as confession. I agree, however, that belief in Jesus Christ is an absolute requirement for that.

Today most Christians don’t believe in Hell as portrayed in the Bible, I guess because it doesn’t comply with the concept of God as a father. After all, eternal damnation and torturing your own children, doesn’t sound very fatherly. And in revelation 14:10, God Himself appears to commit the deadly sin of "Wrath":

That person will also drink of the wine of God’s anger that has been mixed undiluted in the cup of his wrath, and he will be tortured with fire and sulfur in front of the holy angels and in front of the Lamb."

 

So the bible seems to be inconsistent and use double standards when it comes to the definition of (deadly) sins and moral values. Personally I suspect that the extreme emphasis on sin and Hell and eternal damnation is rooted in the medieval Roman Catholic practice of giving absolution to sinners in change of money. I also think that through the ages the Bible has become more of a political manifest to control the masses, than an authentic religious document. Perhaps it’s time for God to explain it all to us once more..

Anyway, the question was whether or not Jesus Christ ever cursed anyone. At least I’m sure this is not written anywhere in the Bible..

Unbelief is one of those sins equivalent to murder, whoremongering etc.

That doesn't sound nice.Does it?.

Well, I don’t think 'unbelief' is a deadly sin in Christianity. Moreover, you may have the same kind of choice in mainstream Hinduism: Either surrender to God, or reincarnate..

he is claiming that judgment is up to him and so it is his prerogative to damn people to hell (or not).

he does so for those that don't believe in him. i consider damning someone to hell a curse.

can you think of something worse?

 

re:

 

For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son

John 5:22

 

I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins:

for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

John 8:24

So, He said: If you don’t believe in Me you will die in your sins (which might be a rather miserable death, in case you have any sins). But if you believe in Me, you will die a relatively normal death, regardless of any sins you might have.. Nice..

Sant, Christ apparently tried to protect or warn humanity. He did not curse anyone..

Mr. Tenali. About 3000 years back, a Greek Philosopher answered a question "Why do Gods do ungodly things?". This was with reference to the Gods in the Greek epics. But you will get your answer there.

 

Do go to the library and read the answer. It is not available on the net. I do not even remember the name of the Philosopher.

 

Greek Philosophy answers many questions which are raised about Hinduism.

It might have been Socrates or Plato.. Just tell me, what was the answer?

Yajur Veda 40-15 to 17 mentions that the face of truth is covered with a golden disc of matter. Maya creates this golden disc and hides the God who is resplendent Protector and His name is O.M. "OM Khamma Brahma" In Rig-Veda it is described as "OM Tat Sat"- that supreme reality is OM. In the Vedas OM is the cosmic Word and described as Shabad Brahma. This was the First Word spoken by God and It created tremendous cosmic energy, which resulted into the formation of subtle primordial matter of purity, activity and passivity and these combined and thus the subtle Prakrti was formed. The primordial matter in the form of sattavic, rajasic and tamasic gunas when joined in certain proportion, created gross matter and the universe with five mahatbhuta - main elements i.e. air, water, fire, earth and ether was formed. This world with primordial subtle atoms of three gunas of purity, activity and passivity thus originated from the cosmic Word. Shabad Brahma OM. IT not only created enormous cosmic energy but also created veil of Maya during the formation of the gross universe.

 

The Vedas refer to this mystical power (Shakti) of the divine Nature as Maya, which forces us to do all these unusual and divergent activities. It is due to the effect of Maya that many of us when we start seeking God, obstacles come from our senses and also from the material phenomenal world around us. Maya is a supernatural power, mysterious will and wondrous skill. Vedas refer to it as Shakti Energy (extremely powerful cosmic energy of God). Rig Veda 6-47-18 and 6-45-16 refer to it as creative Art of God (Maya- Bhi). While in holy Koran the world is described as real, yet it is not absolutely real as it says in chapter 57-20 that life in this world is but an illusion of comfort. Holy Koran also refers to this empirical world as ocean of matter having alluring and deceiving appearance. Thus the world as mithya (appearance), or Maya (illusion) or relative or absolute reality is the oldest metaphysical riddle whose roots lie in our sense perception.

 

http://www.sabhlokcity.com/metaphysics/chapter6.html

 

So, it seems you forgot to mention Maya (the supernatural delusory cosmic energy of God, or the creative Art of God), which is the basis of all gross material creation and all perceived duality and all perceived change..

As I understand it, Maya 'produces' the illusion we call material reality. This illusion may, for example, be compared to the illusion of hearing voices in the sound of running water, whereby different persons may hear different voices in the same (original) sound. Not unlike hearing voices in the sound of running water, Maya might actively 'filter' our conscious experience of reality, thus 'constructing' or 'projecting' our material world. In this sense, Maya is our material reality.

It appears to be possible to become consciously aware of Maya. In the above analogy, the voices might disappear and a person will hear only the sound of running water. The sound still contains the separate voices, but they are no longer perceived as such. Somehow, they merged into the overall noise of the running water. Likewise, in the state of consciousness called Samadhi, which can result from intense concentration or focussing of consciousness on the oneness that underlies all duality, our individual material reality disappears and somehow merges into overall oneness.

The knowledge gained from such an experience, generally enlightens a person. He still may not understand Maya or reality on the material level, but now he knows that material reality and absolute reality (or God), though seemingly different or distinct, are ultimately and actually one..

I forgive you. Tell me, how can Advaita, Achintya bhed-abheda, Dvaita all exist parallely? Is it perhaps because Achintya Bheda Abheda is true?

...

 

I never said there is no difference [between Advaita and Dvaita]. I said "I cannot see any contradiction".

...

 

Of course, there's no contradiction between the concept of oneness (Advaita) and the idea of inconceivable, simultaneous oneness and difference (Achintya Bheda Abheda). But I'm sure, there is a contradiction between unqualified Advaita (monism) and Dvaita (dualism)..

It is very interesting to note how mayadevi has her claws on even the most educated people. What use is education if it does not help us to understand the very basic point that our desire for name and fame must be demolished? We acquire so much knowledge, memorize so many verses and preach high philosophy. What use is all that if all its doing is making us feel greater. Are we not just feeding our false ego? Is it not making us more trapped in this bodily designation? Does such fire of desire help us to come to the conclusion that we are not this body but the spirit within? Or is it the biggest block for such realization? What use is all this knowledge if its becoming such a block in our path to liberation. "Divya jnana hrde prakasito" not by merely memorizing and repeating like a parrot...this is how maya gets us..we must think about it sometimes. We may be committing lots of offenses on the strength of Gods teachings..this is misuse of the basic knowledge that the Lord has kindly given us to get perhaps half a step closer to DIVYA JNANA. It is easy to point fingers...we must look within.

I don’t think that the possession of knowledge necessarily makes a person 'feel greater'. Where did you get that idea? The more one knows or understands, the more one realizes how little one knows or understands. At least, I think that’s true in the case of scientific knowledge. I’m not sure about religious - or scriptural knowledge though. A difference with science might be, that religious knowledge on its own is 'blind' (as Einstein apparently stated). Religious knowledge might be unverifiable in itself, thereby providing ample opportunity for unchecked speculation and false ego. Perhaps, religious knowledge should be unified with verifiable scientific knowledge..

No, the Shankarites have no upper from anything in the Bhagavad-gita.

The statement of Krishna says "he attains to my nature" it doesn't say he attains to become me.

To attain to the nature of Krishna means to become a transcendental, spiritual person with full spiritual sense function as Krishna has.

It does not mean that somehow Krishna is saying that "you will become another Krishna like me" or whatever it is you are saying that the Shankarites believe about the verse in Gita.

 

Krishna says abandon all religions and surrender "unto me".

The ME is clearly as person since nirvishesha brahman is devoid of personality.

 

I guess the Advaitins are all excited about the proposition of becoming God, but it all sounds like so much foolishness to western people who were all raised to believe that God is a person and not just some spiritual substance without form, name or qualities.

 

This "become God" philosophy is unique to India and the Shankarite sects.

 

Outside of India this proposal that "you can become God" just sounds like so much ridiculous nonsense.

 

Advaitism is a Hindu cult that has practically no existence outside of India.

 

In the western countries, this "you can become God" religion is a Hindu cult with little to no potential for becoming a world religion as has Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

 

"You can become God!"

Really, that is such an absurd concept that it's hard to understand how so many Hindu people have bought into such a ridiculous religion.

 

In the western world, people just laugh at Advaitism.

Advaitism "you can become God" has got to be the most ridiculous cult on the planet.

IMO, Advaita doesn’t mean that you and me can become God. That would be absurd. The basis of Advaita is that there exists only one God (just as in Christianity). So no one but God is God. Then, of course, it is impossible for both you and me to be God simultaneously. We must both be eternally different from God. The difficult part to understand (even for Advaitins) is not so much this difference, but the simultaneous oneness or Brahman or God. It seems to be inconceivable..

Look, how much more simple can I make it then I already have?

 

If Hinduism equals Krishna consciousness then what do you say to those Hindus who don't accept Krishna as the Supreme personality of Godhead?

 

Krishna consciousness is the natural consciousness of the soul in liberation. Do you think every hindu is liberated?

 

Nor are all the Hare Krishna's really fully Krishna conscious. It is a rare condition to find such a rare soul in the world.

 

Krishna consciousness is not a belief system that you just identify with or are born into or enter into by the performance of certain religious rites and rituals.

 

If this isn't clear enough then I apologize.

No offence taken. Although I realize that God must exist, my general religious outlook is still agnostic. I prefer oneness over duality, because in terms of formal logic, oneness seems to be a much better - and a more elegant proposition.

A question: Gaudiya Vaishnavism (acintya-bheda-abheda) views individuality and ego as ignorance or illusion. Isn’t that ultimately Advaitic?

In some countries, Yes. That is true. Countries like Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq (all which had incidents where Democractic election have been bypass by revolution or Election itself had put a dictator into the seat of power).

Do you think democracy will ultimately work?

Seriously, a leader say, in India, could solicit his people`s intelligence, cash, support, and everything they got to create this kalki avatar virus designed to disable any flying nuclear war head and re-direct itself back to where it came from. They are at this moment doing simulation tests for this kalki avatar computer virus to work perfectly. Why shouldn`t they? Pakistan is racing to make a similar one. China is also doing that right now. Iran maybe smells a rat. If you don`t believe me, then why is it North Korea is racing against time to launch a rocket equipped with a nuclear war head? Why, It`s to pre-empt the kalki avatar computer virus from being a perfect boomerang weapon. But if you hear a BOOM! Kablaam!! in India, in the USA, in U.K., before North Korea could launch hers, then the kalki avatar (911) has resurrected!

Of course, you are wrong..

It may exist there, whatever that is. If it did I know I would never find it there.

 

 

Edit:

Theist, I hope I'm not on your ignore list.

 

Of course not primate.

 

Then tell me what did you mean by your statement: "Hinduism is not Krishna consciousness. Just ask any Advaitin."? I guess you simply made a mistake. That's no problem.

.com reported that Ahmednijab is winning in Iran. Ahmednijab is a modern-day Adolf Hitler - calling for destruction of Israel and ALL UNBELIEVERS and he is insane enough to make it happen. Yet, Islamic fools (both educated and uneducated barbarians) swinging toward him because he uses Islam as a sheild for his stupidity.

 

IS THIS AN EXAMPLE OF DWAPURA AGE? Where the leaders who the (ignorant) people elected are nothing more than raving lunatics, promising doomsday?

I guess that’s how democracy is supposed to function. The crazier the people, the crazier the elected leaders..

 

Hinduism can be defined as 'Vedic religion' or Vedanta. If the scriptures of your personal religion are considered Vedic, then you are a Hindu. Thus, everyone can be a Hindu.

 

The most fundamental controversy in different Hindu philosophies, is the Advaita-Dvaita dichotomy. Logically, Advaita and Dvaita are mutually exclusive philosophies. Either everything is Brahman, or everything is not Brahman. Both philosophies can not conceivably be simultaneously true. Hence, the concept of 'inconceivable truth' was introduced by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. According to 'acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva', everything is inconceivably Brahman and not Brahman, simultaneously.

 

Why is this inconceivable? Because it doesn’t comply with any known form of reasoning or logic. In itself, this is not a reason to reject any proposal of simultaneous oneness and difference. Indeed, by some unknown (inconceivable) logic, it just might be correct. In any contemporary science, however, it would be considered 100% pure speculation.

 

Nevertheless, I believe acintya-bheda-abheda is true. Why? Because it’s a scientific (known) fact that 'causality' doesn’t exist at the most fundamental (quantum) level of reality. This ultimately implies that our (contemporary) scientific logic is at least incomplete and possibly even invalid. God might be simultaneously believable and unknowable..

 

 

Edit:

Theist, I hope I'm not on your ignore list.

 

By the way, I think that the particular logic necessary to accept simultaneous oneness and difference as a 'conceivable' reality, may already exist in 'mathematical chaos theory'..

Hinduism can be defined as 'Vedic religion' or Vedanta. If the scriptures of your personal religion are considered Vedic, then you are a Hindu. Thus, everyone can be a Hindu.

The most fundamental controversy in different Hindu philosophies, is the Advaita-Dvaita dichotomy. Logically, Advaita and Dvaita are mutually exclusive philosophies. Either everything is Brahman, or everything is not Brahman. Both philosophies can not conceivably be simultaneously true. Hence, the concept of 'inconceivable truth' was introduced by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. According to 'acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva', everything is inconceivably Brahman and not Brahman, simultaneously.

Why is this inconceivable? Because it doesn’t comply with any known form of reasoning or logic. In itself, this is not a reason to reject any proposal of simultaneous oneness and difference. Indeed, by some unknown (inconceivable) logic, it just might be correct. In any contemporary science, however, it would be considered 100% pure speculation.

Nevertheless, I believe acintya-bheda-abheda is true. Why? Because it’s a scientific (known) fact that 'causality' doesn’t exist at the most fundamental (quantum) level of reality. This ultimately implies that our (contemporary) scientific logic is at least incomplete and possibly even invalid. God might be simultaneously believable and unknowable..

Edit:

Theist, I hope I'm not on your ignore list.