sambya

ho ho ! true not just that , they have distorted the facts and have made maa sit on a tiger instead !!

see bhaktajan ...... how easy you have made it for others to understand what a iskcon pest means ?!! thanks !!

this is so true !! even i have noticed that ! i was reading through your posts and wondering if only all iskcon disciples were like you !! you have got the correct understanding and perspective and have learned to pick up the best from all . i dont know how to praise you.............and falling short of words !! why dont you post more often ? we would love to discuss matters with you . you know , there is hardly a isckonite left here with whom you can have a respectful discussion . and with their persistent abuses and mud slinging , others also develop a reciprocal hatred and indulge in making direct insults to them ( including myself , i must admit) . but all this is just resulting out of such pests within the iskcon world . without them iskcon might as well be one of the best existing spritual orders of the world !!

thats true ... but i have noticed that shaivism and shaktism is far more tolerent than vaishnavsim . although i must admit that my experiance would be limited due to my age . even in this forum you hardly find any shaiva or shakta hating a vaishnava.... yes but he was not sectarian ........he rather hated sectarianism. and many statements that he makes are just statement of truths of that time . here he was just mentoning the facts . but what he blamed was not the philosophy behind the dvaita . what he was pointing out was the ill effects that dvaita philosophy often seem to generate among the common low-adhikari masses . an advitist is taught since the begining that all gods are forms of same brahman . this teaching reduced the chances of hating other gods . but a dvaitist is taught that his or her chosen diety is the highest . such teachings stand the grater chance of promoting hatred . but at the same time , i would like to point out that even advaitins did have strong biases !! but modern advaitins are generally not so bad .

i was wondering why this sectarianism primarily shows up in vaishnvas ? previously most sects were sectarian including shaktas or shaivas . but over years most of them have become more or less tolerant of other sects and often show a serious attempt to reconcile themselves with the opposing veiw . but for the most vaishnavas this seems not to be the case !!

beutifull . this is precisely what i have been trying to convey to vaishnvas here . im speechless with joy to see an administrator realise this simple truth and advising people accordingly , inspite of his being a vaishnva himself . dandavats to you jahnava ............. you are truly a vaishnav !!

and usually there is hardly anyone to response to his posts . except of course , when some new individual comes in the forum who has no knowledge about the 'creature' he is dealing with !!! i see them and sigh - poor chap !!

yes , kaisersose's answer sums it up .

im not speaking of which caste can be allowed into krishna consciousness . i know that even a chandala with suddha prema is dwijottama . but for a chandala to receieve 'krishna consciousness' he has to be adhikari first . this goes for every caste including brahmins . plants gan be grown in different variety of soils . but if there is no water in it , the entire thing turns useless . im speaking of this moisture or adhikar . and you are wrongfully uderstanding it to be the 'types of soil' !!! hope things are clear to you now !!!!!

nice story !! so true.......

theist , im sorry to say , but you are a prime example of what happens when you give krishna conciousness to non adikaris .

but what did this mean ? does it mean that jayadeva shouldnt have wrote about them so explicitely ?

now that you have gathered up enough courage and admitted the facts and the truth , you automatically earn my respect !! thanks .......................

theist , i wanted to know where is it suggested that buddha was a shaktavesa avatar . i want the precise scriptures and some sound logic also . im sure you would be able to provide some , being a harekrishna (they dont move a inch without 'authentic' scriptural qotations) . by what logic ( or wildest possible imagination ) can buddha and bhaktivinoda thakura(because he was a shaktavesa too) be compared ? but i think i already know the answers........either you will shout and argue blindly till everyone gets a headache with an accute lack of logic or leave the thread backdoor !! however , it will be better and more respectable for you if you simply say that you dont have the answer( none of us here know everything ) and admit that prabhupada sometimes did speak without corroboration from 'authentic' scriptures !!!!

did i want the classification or qualities of avatara ?

thats a common knowledge that all of us here in this forum have . i had to shout , understand and memorise "asatoma sadgamaya........... " as the school prayer from the age of 3 . i asked you to elaborate on what is 'light' or 'knowledge' by your understanding ? in other words.... what are the conditions for reaching that stage and what are its symptoms . in one word , give us a small summary ......

what he says and what he does not is none of our concern here !! i want scriptural basis and sound logic for that statement . jayadeva was one the first persons who summarized the ten incarnation of vishnu and he happily included buddha in the list . and these ten avatars are foremost avatars of lord vishnu , more important than chaitanya or swaminarayan etc ...... . if buddha can become a shaktavesa avatar by the same logic i can labell ram or nrisimha as shaktavesa avatar . we all know that ( is there any reason to disbelieve that a low IQ child would be satisfied with a hansel and gretel story ) . but im not .........!!!

i didnt say that it is against spirituality . i merely said that the topic is not something sufficiently spiritual !! please elaborate what "light" means to you for others to understand in a few words .

buddha a shaktyavesa avatar ?????!! that means buddha is on the same level with bhaktivinoda thakur ??

sylvester , dont you think that it is ridiculous and idiotic to start such an non-spritual thread with non spiritual posts in a forum designated for spiritual discussions ? you being the most intelligent amongst others here in this forum(as your mannerism and behaviour seem to proclaim) , was it not natural for you to stop creating such a meaningless thread ? or am i to suppose that you are not capable of basic human intelligence , being the feline sylvester who hunts for mysteries with a tweeting canary ?

by what authority do you claim this ? give us examples from anywhere you please .......... even prabhupada would do !!! also , if it is neither completely right nor completely wrong , which parts of it are right and which parts of it are wrong ?

actually no one can practise detachment , i guess when a soul reaches sufficient purity levels through numerous births and sadhana , his attachment for god gradually increases . and when this attachment for god reaches a high level , there arises spontaneous detachment towards anything not related to god.

yes , thats a option too . infact it is brahmacharya that is needed . a perfect brahmachari is indeed a king amongst men . struggling for brahmacharya is the toughest struggle in this world and one who has succeeded has already conquered the world !! a perfect brahmachari might not be a sannyasi but a sannyasi has to be perfect brahmachari true

one more thing , im not suggesting here that marraige is a absolutely hindrance to spirituality , but it is definitely an extra impediment to that . and secondly people should not be advised or dragged into sannyasa . a true adhikari would automatically cringe in the mere mention of marriage from an early age . only such individuals are fit to get into sannyasa .

actually they are !! whatever you are saying is true ......very true !! but theres one little hitch ..........the moment you are in a relation you cannot help but fall in attachment unless you are a ucchaadhikari with the capability to renounce like buddha yes marriage in a necessity for the simple fact that the creation has to continue and in a moral and acceptable way . thats why you find the god does not give sufficent vairagya to people lest they all run and trun sannyasis things are not so easy friend !!! no matter how hard you try you are bound to fall into the trap of attachment . janaka and others entered into samsara after attaining to self realization . one can be perfectly unattached to samsara only after he has reached that stage . before that attachment and maya may engulf you any moment . moreover they were associates of lord himself and specifically sent into this world to show the ideal way to live in a family . what comparision can be drawn between those high souls and ordinary individuals of modern world ?!! and , you cannot live with maya and spirituality hand in hand . its not possible to balance on two boats for long ! if you think that im going to do a little of samsara and a little of bhakti parrallely you cannot progress to higher stages . if you are throwing a little peice of stone and want it to hit the top of a coconut tree you have to keep you aim at the sky . then chances are that the stone might actually touch the treetop . but if you aim at the tree top at throw it , chances are high that it will hit the trunk !! aims and ambition of a spritual practitioner should be high . just think that if high sadhus can have a fall down from their goals inspite of having strong determinination , how difficult it would be for someone with such weak determination . we have to be cautious at every step of our existence not to let in maya . there can be not treaty with illusion whatsoever !!! if you live in a house build of ink , no matter how hard you try you are bound to get stained !!! if the ssnnaysis , even sfter leaving everything for god , labour for entire life to reah a ordinary level of spirituality , what might be the condition of one who marries ? thats a bad bad moral ...........confused moral i would say !! (for a person who considers spirituality as the primary goal in life . and one who doesnt is not spiritual yet) lastly in the matter of reaching god through living in samsara , im not saying its impossible , but its so so difficult !!!! im unmarried now and i can go on a difficlut trek or mountain climbing any moment without thinking back !! but the moment im married i have to think twice , because i have my wife and children dependent on me !! bondage came in automatically !! but if one is sufficiently vigilant and sincere , and if he recieves the grace , one might come out as a real devotee even from samsara . he(lord) makes the mute speak and the lame cross the mountains ......................!!