Haridasdasdas

Wow, I'm going to leave a better person to answer your questions, but you have an absolutely fantastic way of looking at spirituality. Seriously, whatever you do will probably be a success. Hare Krishna

Hinduism can be Krishna Consciousness though. Whether that it guadiya or not. Do you deny that?

It says it in the first canto of the Bhagavatam, but it doesn't say shaktavesa, The Bhagavatam makes Buddha sound more like a full avatar, according to the Bhagavatam, he's Visnu Tattva, so that's a long way from shaktavesa, right? I don't know, but I don't see that he's shaktavesa either. But Parasurama is sometimes called Shaktavesa as well and hes one of the Visnu Tattva. Confusing.

Perhaps you should consider the word 'acintya', which basically nullifies most debate on the matter.

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says he is God. I don't care how you interpret that, whether it is literal, whether he is this part of god, this avatar, what is God outside of him, but it is quite plain and simple. What does aham mean? 10.8 aham sarvasya prabhavo mattah sarvam pravartate iti mattva bhajante mam buddha bhava samanvitah Krishna is not referring to someone else, regardless of how you interpret His identity. 4.1 Sri Bhagavan Uvaca imam vivasvate yogam proktavan aham avyayam vivasvan manave praha manur iksvakave bravit How can you say it is someone else's Gita? It was not written by Krishna, it was spoken by Krishna, nobody is claiming that he wrote it down. Yes, the OP is inflamatory, please read his origional post. I wasn't calling you inflammatory, but Ronin's comments that Iskcon devotees are liars or something is just ridiculous.

Caitanya says not to hear from the advaitins, so what kind of Gaudiya would he be if he were an expert in Advaita? If he knew it all, you would no doubt criticise him for not following his path properly. So what's the value of your judgement?

If I thought there was a problem in Caitanya's theology I would not follow it. I have already asked you to stop saying 'cheers', are you an alcoholic as well as a flesh eater?

This thread pretty much sums up everything that is wrong in people's attitude to religion. What is this rubbish that this man cannot do some Ganesh ritual because his wife is Catholic? If the people saying this cannot provide scriptural basis for their wild and outlandish claims, then forget it. If Ganesh hated non-Hindus, would He be worth worshipping? All these differences are man made. Aligning yourself with a particular group means very little.

A lotus is a flower, a mushroom is a fungus, which is commercially grown in the dark. Nobody has ever said that mushrooms were bad for the gross physical body. You think things are simply good or bad. It's not that simple. Fluoride, for example, is toxic, hence it is regulated in childrens toothpaste since it can poison them. It is, however, very good for teeth.

Why not? Are you just going to state how you feel or are you going to use the forum? 'does not' means nothing, please explain.

How depressing. Jainism just sounds like one big bring-down. I like potatoes, dammit.

Casper isn't real perhaps? Ghosts operate on a subtle plain(sp?), and not a gross material plain. I guess that would be the answer. What is this 'cheers'? Are you drinking?

Haha, I love it. That has to be one of the poorest posts on this board. Seriously, why eat meat? He can't answer that.

I hope the administrators will delete this ridiculous and inflammatory thread. Krishna says 'Aham sarvasya prabhavo' 'I am the source of all the worlds.' More or less. So why did he say 'aham' if he was not referring to himself? Clearly the OP is not very intelligent, and may not have read Bhagavad Gita.

I apologise for my assumptions and I apologise for using 'obvious' twice in a sentence.

In Caitanya's time, the chancellor of Gauda(?) was a Hindu. Everyone else was a Muslim. It was a Muslim government, but they would not trust a Muslim to look after the money. You can find this in Antya Lila volume 1, I forget where exactly though.

This is a very long thread of people who as far as I can see all agree with each other to the answer to the initial question.

Obviously he means that Hinduism is not confined to Gaudiya Vaisnavism. That was obvious.

The crack addicts who roam the streets of the various cities of the world often have no chance to become a yogi/devotee/etc, so by your logic we should kill them. Local law enforcement may take a different view of this. You have a choice. Either you can eat slain animals or you can eat other foods and still live a healthy life. Lions etc do not have this choice. Humans do, provided they have sufficient agricultural capabilities. Krishna has also allowed us to become paedophiles, mass murderes etc. How can he give us hands that can kill and condemn us for using them? This logic is flawed. Plants have life and the taking of life results in karma, this Guru, whoever he is, is presumably taking this statement from the vedas. You probably beleive it is worse to kill a person than it is to kill an animal. The law would agree with that, wherever you live. The same principle applies to the difference between killing a plant and an animal. Simple. This is not a complex issue. To suggest that people stop eating animals when there is no shortage of plant based foods is not shallow. Of course, to claim to be 'better than another' because you do so is silly, and as you said, shallow. Even a pigeon is a vegetarian, they don't think highly of themselves for it. This is not complicated, it is really simple. Even a child can understand this, and they often do, which is why so many meat eating parents lie to their children.

Mushrooms are tamasic, not rajasic. That is because they are a fungus grown in the dark. If I grow a fungus in the dark what guna would you suppose it to be in?

Please ask him what his basis for saying that is.

Thank you. I wouldnt say unethical or immoral, but simply impractical, and if it were practised widely it could threaten society, with jealous men being killed because of the shortage of wives.

Yes, but I wouldn't say that is always true, just true here and now.

Maybe you should stop eating meat and chasing women anyway? These are both poison. Why do you need some benefit from Krishna before you leave the animals alone? Why do you think Krishna is just there to satisfy your lust? This is materialism not religion.

Does anyone actually think this is a worthwhile discussion? If such a discussion constantly goes around in circles, does it not suggest that it is supposed to do so? I don't know, but I think so.