sambya

yes , you might call me neo-phyte ................as im way far to realization !! before that i think everyone is neophyte .......isnt it ? actually its true that there have been certain new developments within hinduism but such new developments and changes have been there all along !! so it should be said neo hindu Vlll phase or neo hindu lV phase . first radical change in hinduism would be with rise in buddhism -neo-hindusim first phase ( much like the ammendment acts in legal system that go on modifying and interpreting laws !! ) thats why i say - changes exist .....but not neo - hinduism !!

still no scriptures !!

of course it is ............... you raise the neo hindu topic in every post and refuse to talk about traditional hindus . ex- you can criticise a 'neo-hindu' in two circumstances : 1- if you are a non hindu 2- if you are a 'traditional hindu' . since you do not fall into any of the two catagories( you are not 'traditional hindu since you dont even follow a sampradaya and so called traditional hindus must allign themselves to a sampradya) your criticism becomes baseless and irrelevant !! without sampradaya and a guru you are a ordinary religious scholar or speculator !!! learn it from me in case you already didnt know it !!

now , i think you have understood what i originally meant . one example in recorded history !!! do you think that it is very practical to do away with rituals for ordinary aspirants ? true, buddha said that anyone can become a buddha but the question remains how many did become a buddha in 4000 years ?

no its not a devil sign or something like that !! in fact ancient hindus frequently used alcoholic beverages like soma and sura in celbrations and even in rituals ! it is definately a pleasure item ! but from a purely spiritual point of view pleasure items are the one that distracts and clouds the mind most ..........so for a spiritual aspirant such things are strictly forbidden , one who is not so inclined towards spirituality can definately carry on with his drinking !!

i respect your freedom of thought . but the scriptures always differentiate and place the transcendental knowledge at a higher place than this material knowledge . although in its perfectional stage there are no two knowledges . their are different aspects of the truth . but material knwoledge is more concerned with creation while spiritual knowledge is concerned with the creator ! nishkama karma ...good . correct ! ignorant science it is for sure ! but the second statement is not wholly true . it was not created to deny god but to provide more material comforts . but it actually ended up in denying god ............thats correct . what about the rest 99% ? should we believe it as true or not ......your answer is not quite definite !

just came back once more for replying to you ... well , as is now clear from raghu's thread that a 'traditional hindu' ( as opposed to neo-hindu ) must allign to a 'traditional' school of hindu thought and also must have a guru in proper discuplic succession . bragging about shastras without a disciplic succession is typicall to what you call neo-hinduism !! since you dont yet have a guru and go on lecturing others about hinduism you are also very 'neo-hindu' ! at least you do not fall into 'traditional hindu' ...........therefore all your criticisms against neo-hinduism are worthless and equally idiotic !!

no the broken idol itself was kept in the main throne ...............that is what i said !

look here ....................... when you want to prove your point to a assembly of opposite or non-similar faiths you must draw those references and cite those logics which are commonly acceptable by all the parties present . for example if i am a chaarvak and say that vedas are lie because it says so in my scriptures it doesnt make any sense , does it ? or if i am a tantrik and say to a vaishnava that kali is supreme because my tantric scriptures say so would'nt that be illogical ? you are doing just that while forgetting that chaitanya is not accepted as an avatar in almost all other vaishnava sampradayas , what to speak of other sects like shaktas or shaivas . so what mahaprabhu has said can be of relevence to only those who believe in mahaprabhu and cannot be universally applied as a logic !! so you should try to frame your justification so as to why srimad bhagavatam is a commentary to vedanta sutra from such logic as would be universally apllicable . if you cannot then no discussion can be carried forth due to obvious reasons .

bhagavat purana is not a commentary to vedanta sutra !! it is something that a GV practitioner is taught and wishes to believe .

really ? where did you find this fact ? can you show me ? and even if it has changed now it was not so even a century back .

yes ....christians and muslims are also brothers for sure !! and there should be absolutely no distinction made between two persons based on his faith . but it is just that personally im not yet so elevated to 'see' them as equals( theoritically i now them to be equals and accept that ) and would naturally have a greater liking towards members of my same faith . anyway i quit before the thread is closed . chandu , i must say(from observation) that you have an wonderfull knowledge of islam and other foreign faiths except that of your own !!

will you please mention who is your guru ? exactly...............how does my comments on iskcon bother you ? anyways .......im having a feeling that this thread might be closed down any moment now because it has turned into a fight and unproductive .

initially even i was confused as to how there could be two deities , since it is always mentioned that rani ordered the original idol to be kept ! then a year ago i read across a book that it got broken once again in 1920's and it was then that this new one was brought in !

be specific .......is judaism a barbaric mundane faith ?

well , ideally i would be happiest if iskcon would learn to love other faiths as equal and valid ways to god . but since their ideology(GV) prohibits them thinking that way they should try to remain shut on other faiths and be diplomatic . actually i had nothing to comment when some hate mongers came in and posted rubbishes about hinduism . after all isnt it a very common practise in islam and christianity ? but i grow sad when i see hindu brothers so intolerant ! chandu , can you converse without dragging in the same points - islam , muslim and neo hinduism ?! if you can then it would , for the first time show that you have a knowledge of things apart form them !!

ha .......we have another entrant to theist's brand new list of ' mundane religion ' --- judaisim !! to dasosmi -- see , this was the thing i was telling you about !!

yes of course ..........thats what i said .........didnt you understand the meaning of bhava artha ? i didnt claim he denied a scripture !! why should i bother to provide examples ?

yes ,i'll try to speak more about the positive sides in iskcon . but this entire thing wouldnt have arisen at all if iskcon be a little more diplomatic in showing minimal respect towards other faiths . hope it understands and rectifies .

other people's scriptures are not something that i follow or would wish to follow . however i sincerely believe that there is a lot of unnecessary things and adulterations in our scriptures which need to be strained out before accepting . thats why it is said accept the bhava-artha or the inner meaning . however i find the iskcon dogmatically sticks to quoting what they call vedic scriptures to fault find with someone else's philosophy or to assert their philosophical supremacy . but when it comes to other situations like winning over christian converts they happily explore other scriptures or even formulate some , which in my understanding is double standards !! this is the reason i said what i said in my last post ! well , im certainly not saying that his intention was bad . he definitely did it for welfare of those fallen souls . but if iskcon can be liberal enough to accept other scriptures as authentic why not the same with other hindu scriptures ?!!

no . the idol was mended by sri ramakrishna himself and continued to be worshipped till the the crack reappeared again in 1920's due to regular 'usage' . it was then the authorities decided that it was too dangerous to keep the original idol(because it had to be carried everyday to bed) and installed a new one . and this original idol they placed in the next room where it is still worshipped and can be seen by devotees .

if yeast is not permissable because it is a kind of fungi then even curd is to be rejected . it is cretaed due to bacterial action on milk . paneer should be most tamasic ! even hing should be highly tamasic being pungent and with strong odour ! as far as i can remeber it is indeed considered tamasic . as regards to the masoor dal thing i feel it was a bengali custom which entered in gaudiya vaishnivism quite obviously . although im not sure on it... please provide some scriptural quotation rather than purports and speeches to help remove all doubts ...

whats in a name ?!! nothing .........its the belief that matters .............krishna durga radha shiva all are different names !!

did he ?!! ho ho ho .....................fine now show me scriptural evidence . if you cannot then admit that iskcon often deviated from what you call "vedic ways" and does not stick to scriptures as steadfastly as it claims !!

even i have heard of this logic of masoor dal having lot of protiens . can i know which shastra mentions this ? also protiens are indispensible for human health and theres no way it interferes with ones sexual passion ! dont you think paneer is also rich with protiens ? and what about other items like carrots and raddish ?