Haridasdasdas

My point is that it's not about labels. It's like some muslim parents who will be more angry if their children become Christians than if they take up drinking and womanising etc. Why? Because they aren't into being spiritual, they're into tribalism. I think my point was obvious.

What a load of nonsense. This man is so engrossed in the bodily conception. Buddha wasn't a buddhist.

Yes, Caitanya never argued that the Jivatma wasn't Brahman, he just said Krishna was ParaBrahman. Krishna is the ocean and the Jivas are like rain drops.

Okay God, that's enough.

My apologies. There is however, only one MahaPrabhu, who exhibited his universal form on several occaisions, and that is Lord Caitanya MahaPrabhu. Your Guruji's movement does not match what Caitanya had 600 years ago nor does it match what he has now. I wonder what 600 years more will do.

Someone told me he sleeps with his disciples wives on the first night of the marriage, and gives them back as prasadam. I also heard he has a wife and kids but still wears saffron, and I heard that he has no parampara. Is this true or just the usual nonsense that goes around?

Now that's awesome, in the proper sense of the word. It makes me happy to hear stuff like that.

If a thirsty person doesn't open their mouth, even when they are immersed in water, they will never drink. You are asking, 'Does the water have the power to quench thirst?'

You know the food is distributed afterwards right? Why don't you go spread your marxist rubbish with the other pinkos instead of coming to a religious forum?

Some might say these problems were caused by factories.

So if you're into him then why do you have Caitanya as your display picture?

Exactly. What they don't do, however, is keep slaughterhouses. Ksatriyas hunt, that's their training. How can you defend a country if you cannot hunt? What is the use of your vegetarian society if it is so peaceful that it can be easily taken over by yavanas?

I imagine that the reason Prabhupada says demi-god is a simple way of explaining Vaisnav theology to western students, many of whom have not had any contact with the vedic literatures before, and so are easily confused. Essentially, it's just an english word. Interestingly he never says demi-goddess, can anyone explain that one?

some = those who want to be cheated

You're so certain of this and that, but you make so many assumptions. In divine lila, things aren't what they look like. That's why it's called lila. Maybe one day you can appreciate that, that you are not the knower.

Well there's the truth of it. Logic says the bigger you make it, the more Indians will come, and the more Laxshmi they will bring. Anyone in London can attest that the Swaminarayan temple in Neasden attracts people because it is huge and magnificent. That's why so many Indian people have taken the Swaminarayan religion, and that seems to be Iskcon's aim here. How many of these people will be interested in going on harinam, etc? The point is that Iskcon needs 16/4 devotees, whether they be Indian or Western or anything else. Chicken eaters and dope smokers don't do much good at all.

Okay. I'm not even sure I understand your point. Were you saying origionally that because plants are living organisms, its as bad eating them as it is say a pig or chicken etc? That's what I thought you were saying, but I'm confused now.

Who?

What do you mean by a vision?

So if I eat a cabbage, it screams? You've never killed an animal you coward.

I find it very hard to beleive someone would quit eating meat before living in a forest. This seems somewhat illogical, especially for an expert archer. I don't trust that if it says that, that's a ridiculous idea, that He would stop eating meat to go into the forest. Why would He do that? Let's bear in mind there's a lot of different Ramayanas out there, so judging something like this cannot be done by quoting sastra. It's logically plausible that Rama did not eat meat in the palace and also not in the forest, out of compassion. It's also possible that He hunted when He lived in the palace and continued when He lived in the forest, out of dharma, since He needed to be skilled at warfare. It's also possible that He didn't hunt when He was in the palace, and started hunting when He was in the forest. To say that he was hunting in the palace and stopped when he lived in the forest defies logic and explanation.

Ksatriya Dharma means he was allowed to hunt the deer etc in the forest, especially given that the other food available would not have been fitting to a ksatriya life, yes, that's why he carried a bow. As sant says, Lord Rama did not have the disgusting greed for meat, he just did as he was supposed to. To think that eating an animal killed in a slaughterhouse is the same as what lord Rama did is absolute lunacy.

Maybe not, but if he beleives that, he can imagine himself superior to those silly hindus/yogis/devotees. A trap of the false ego.

I was making a joke. there's a lot of people who think that some BS discussion on the internet is the same as a genuine enquiry, tapasya, sadhana etc. It's comparable to the difference between fast food and 'fine dining' perhaps.

That seems a reasonable point Gita Dharma.