Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Deathless

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    107

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Deathless

  1. Posted · Report reply

     

    Agree, Although this is how I humbly saw the history I lived through --

     

    Historically, if we look at this history of the 1960s that many of us lived through as teenagers, we understand the Beatles years was the beginning of a great cultural and religious shift.

    This was enhanced by the hippie movement of so called peace and love, made more popular by the fame of the Beatles and the communications revolution of TV, Radio and Print media.

    This also includes the famous 'peace' saying of Hare Krishna that came from both Prabhupada and Ginsberg in 1966.

    Also, 'Xmas' to Lennon was NEVER about Jesus, it was about his peace and free love trip that he got off Ginsberg, Leary and Kesey.

     

    Also, 'Hare Krishna' to Lennon was NEVER about Krsna originally at the beginning of 1967, it was just another word for 'peace'. The 'saying' of Hare Krsna was just another way to say 'peace man' Turn on, tune in, drop out" and was part of a counterculture phrase originally coined by Timothy Leary and Alan Ginsburg in the 1960s.

    Later on however, it's real meaning was explained by Prabhupada when he lived at Lennon’s Mansion that frankly, Lennon did originally like due to his search for truth but unfortuately, his wife Yoko detested.

    She never liked the devotees, that's an historical fact and frankly John never got into the real understanding of Hare Krishna either. Only George Harrison did that

    Like many historical events, the interest is various; many could not care about this. Does this really matter?

    Not really, this was started simply because I listened to an old version of happy xmas and could hear not just Hare Rama, but Hare Krishna CLEARLY as well, then hear the modern version where its now simply not there.

    Yes, and by the time of his death he was an atheist. So, I still don't see why he would care. Based on his later statements, I would assume that he would consider himself chanting Hare Krishna to be an embarrassment and would have no problem having it removed from all of his old recordings.

  2. Posted · Report reply

     

    If you're an atheist this might be right from your honoured point of view.

    Why would I have to be an atheist to consider that we shouldn't be panicking about something that I'm sure John would care very little about? I just don't see why you guys see this as such an enormous tragedy.

     

     

    Since John included Hare Krsna in a couple of his songs he surely wasn't an atheist.
    I'm pretty sure he was.

     

    http://www.counterpunch.org/lennon12082005.html

    1971 interview by Tariq Ali and Robin Blackburn:

     

    Tariq Ali: Your latest record and your recent public statements, especially the interviews in Rolling Stone magazine, suggest that your views are becoming increasingly radical and political. When did this start to happen?

    John Lennon: ... In my case I've never not been political, though religion tended to overshadow it in my acid days; that would be around '65 or '66. And that religion was directly the result of all that superstar shit--religion was an outlet for my repression. I thought, 'Well, there's something else to life, isn't there? This isn't it, surely?'

    Later in the interview:

    ... At one time I was so much involved in the religious bullshit that I used to go around calling myself a Christian Communist, but as Janov says, religion is legalised madness. It was therapy that stripped away all that and made me feel my own pain.

    ... Well, his thing is to feel the pain that's accumulated inside you ever since your childhood. I had to do it to really kill off all the religious myths. In the therapy you really feel every painful moment of your life--it's excruciating, you are forced to realise that your pain, the kind that makes you wake up afraid with your heart pounding, is really yours and not the result of somebody up in the sky. It's the result of your parents and your environment.

    As I realised this it all started to fall into place. This therapy forced me to have done with all the God shit. All of us growing up have come to terms with too much pain. Although we repress it, it's still there. The worst pain is that of not being wanted, of realising your parents do not need you in the way you need them.

    ... Most people channel their pain into God or masturbation or some dream of making it.

    ... It's a bit of a drag to say so, but I don't think you can understand this unless you've gone through it--though I try to put some of it over on the album. But for me at any rate it was all part of dissolving the God trip or father-figure trip. Facing up to reality instead of always looking for some kind of heaven."

     

     

     

    For him it is therefore rather a tragedy how they garbled, mangled his songs.

    http://www.recmusicbeatles.com/publicbbs/jl_yo.playboy/lennon3.html

    Playboy Interview, 1980

     

    "The first line [of I Am the Walrus] was written on one acid trip one weekend. The second line was written on the next acid trip the next weekend, and it was filled in after I met Yoko. Part of it was putting down Hare Krishna. All these people were going on about Hare Krishna, Allen Ginsberg in particular. The reference to "Element'ry penguin" is the elementary, naive attitude of going around chanting, "Hare Krishna," or putting all your faith in any one idol. I was writing obscurely, a la Dylan, in those days."

    He disliked religion and all religious activity, including the chanting of Krishna's name. He probably only included Hare Krishna in his later songs to mock ISKCON and it's followers.

  4. Posted · Report reply

    "God is a Concept by which

    we measure our pain

    I'll say it again

    God is a Concept by which

    we measure our pain

    I don't believe in magic

    I don't believe in I-ching

    I don't believe in Bible

    I don't believe in Tarot

    I don't believe in Hitler

    I don't believe in Jesus

    I don't believe in Kennedy

    I don't believe in Buddha

    I don't believe in Mantra

    I don't believe in Gita

    I don't believe in Yoga

    I don't believe in Kings

    I don't believe in Elvis

    I don't believe in Zimmerman

    I don't believe in Beatles

    I just believe in me...and that reality

    The dream is over

    What can I say?

    the Dream is Over

    Yesterday

    I was the Dreamweaver

    But now I'm reborn

    I was the Walrus

    But now I'm John

    and so dear friends

    you'll just have to carry on

    The Dream is over."

    I hardly think John Lennon is rolling around in his grave right now because someone got rid of 'Hare Krishna' in a few of his songs. I don't see why it's that big a deal to you guys.

  5. Posted · Report reply

     

    Bija,

     

    nice post explaining gita and some hindu thoughts.I happen to notice you

     

    have mentioned anandamayiMa(Referring to sambya). She appears to be a remarkable saintly lady.

     

    I went through her brief bio at http://www.om-guru.com/html/saints/anandamayi.html..

    Which reads among other things.

     

    "Anandamayi would shed profuse tears, laugh for hours, and talk at tremendous speed in a Sanskrit-like language. Other unusual actions included rolling in the dust and dancing for long periods whirling like a leaf in the wind. She would also fast for long periods and at other times consume enough food for eight or nine people..

    Sounds like involuntary emotional expression disorder (IEED).

     

    Mirabai also expressed herself in these ways. As did the gopis in Vraja.

     

     

    The bio also reads

     

    "she once passed a Muslim tomb. She immediately began to recite portions of the Quran, and to perform the Namaj ritual (Muslim prayers)..

    Well,bhismashelper was asking info on sanatan dharma is'nt he??

    She recognized other religions as paths to the same God and tried to express that through her life. However, she was still Hindu and worshipped Krishna by chanting "Hari" constantly.

  7. Posted · Report reply

     

    Originally Posted by deathless:

    making it a more scientific philosophy ???

    Energy and the fact that it can be neither created nor destroyed is proven by science. Advaita revolves around this concept.

     

    just the worship of a specific deity ???

    Science hasn't proven that deity exists, which makes the worship of deities an unscientific matter. It is a spiritual matter, not a scientific one. That doesn't make it a bad thing. It's just more spiritual than scientific, in my opinion.

     

    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    The science of yoga is scientific. Do you agree?

    It's spiritual. I wouldn't necessarily consider all paths of yoga scientific.

  8. Posted · Report reply

     

    1) Regarding Yama & Yami

     

    SB 6.6.40:

    Samjna, the wife of Vivasvan, the sun-god, gave birth to the Manu named Shraddhadeva, and the same fortunate wife also gave birth to the twins Yamaräja and the River Yamuna. Then Yami (Yamunia), while wandering on the earth in the form of a mare, gave birth to the Ashvini-kumaras.

     

    How did she get pregnant?

  10. Posted · Report reply

     

    I never feel god vishnu or other gods have notable bhakthas or devotees which are more number than Lord Shiva and The better cause for become vihnu or other god bhakthas.

    Vishnu has Alavars, Mira Bai, and countless other devotees. Vaishnavas now make up about 70 or so percent of the Hindu population.

     

    Lord Shiva has Nayanars, Akka Mahadevi, and other devotees as well. Currently, Shaivism has about 30 percent of the Hindu population.

     

    I really don't think that the number of devotees should matter. If numbers really matter so much to you, then you should become a Christian, since they have the largest number of followers in the world.

     

     

    Could you please let me know for what the reason you are praying respective god.
    I pray to the five main devas (Shiva, Vishnu, Kartik, Surya, Ganesh) and Devi. I suppose I pray for them to grant me knowledge and inspiration to understand God better throughout my life.

     

     

    Rama(arya king not indian king) killed Ravana(indian king).So you are making pray to Rama.Now you can pray to Mughal and Britishers also for killing our own indian kings.
    Are you seriously applying the Aryan Invasion --> THEORY <-- to the lilas of the devas and devis? And how do you know what race Ram was and what race Ravan was? Ram is said to have had dark skin. So, going by the theory that Aryas were fair and Dravidians were not, then that would make Ram a Dravidian.

     

    And, Mr. Shiva Bhakt, you should probably read the Shiva Purana. Ram is honored as a devotee of Shiva and Vishnu is said to be equal to Lord Shiva.

     

    Krishna,think once krishna as inpendent of god vishnu,

    Krishna is devotee of Lord Shiva and tried to kill all aryan kings and given freedom for all local indians.So you can recognise him.

    I can recognize him? Well, thanks, I guess. But, just so you know, I'll recognize whoever the hell I want. I don't need your approval or recognition.

  14. Posted · Report reply

     

    hi please read my question again , I want some who has read all the puranas / vedas to answer my question - if yes / no - with a proof - if no I need explanation why not - if Narayana and hari - 2 males can give birth to ayyapan - y cant bro ans sis marry ????????????????
    It was Mohini Murti, an incarnation of Vishnu as a woman, and Lord Shiva that gave birth to Ayappa. So, technically, it wasn't two men.

     

    And, no one said a brother and sister can't marry. You asked if there are any gods that married who were also brother and sister. I can't think of any other than Yama and Yami, who were the children of the sun god, Surya (the son of Aditi and Kashyapa, who married Saranya, the daughter of Tvastar).

     

    Vishnu has no parents. He married Lakshmi, daughter of the ocean of milk.

     

    Shiva has no parents. He married Parvati, daughter of Himalaya.

     

    Brahma came from Vishnu's navel. He married Gayatri, a sage's daughter.

     

    Ganesha is the son of Uma-Mahadeva, and he married Buddhi and Siddhi, who were the daugthers of Prajapati

     

    Kumara, another son of Uma-Mahadeva, never married.

     

    What more do you want?

  16. Posted · Report reply

     

    Hearing vaisnava apardha`is far more terrible then death, Deathless.

     

    Perhaps read the entire narrative of Sati quitting her body in the fourth canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam and see Prabhupada's comment in proper context then form your opinion.

    What does Sati Devi dying for her husband have to do with Vaishyas and Shudras needing to kill themselves upon hearing an offense against one of Vishnu's worshipers? I get that you believe Shiva is a Vaishnava, and Sati Devi killed herself upon hearing him insulted, but I don't think Shiva or Vishnu want Vaishyas and Shudras to kill themselves when they happen to be in the vicinity of someone insulting a Vaishnava's choice of wardrobe or a goofy haircut. :rolleyes:

  18. Posted · Report reply

     

    after scrutininzing my previous two posts i thought that the following qoute of mine might have offended you :

     

     

    clafication of this doubt would require an explanation. if you travel back in time and check out some orthodox advaitic sadhus of that era you would instantly find their faults. all of them are advaita practitioners,none of them has attained nirvikalpa and are subject to pain diesese hunger and such other dualistic concepts.they still are within the hold of ego and pride resulting from superiority complex(this arises from the belief that they are following a superior path).

     

    and yet they literally missed no chance to derogate people who worship idols,believe in avatar,sing bhajans to god etc.

     

    in other words every sadhana on dualistic platform was looked down severely. in this context remember that i am not speaking of saivaites or shaktas who also believe in advaita , but of pure monistic sadhus who believed only in meditation.

     

    in recent history one of the foremost relizors of advaita and one of the few persons to come back after nirvikalpa was ramakrishna paramahamsa.

     

    but even he condemmed such people who lived and existed on a dualistic platform and at the same time was so adept at rejecting dualistic sadhana. one can only say 'aham brahmasmi' only if he has realized it . a person performing all kinds of material activities and proudly proclaiming 'aham barahmasmi' is sheer hypocrisy.he has no authority to shout such and derogate other dieties.

     

    thankfully in modern era a new advaita has sprung up thats gradually replacing the more orthodox version.some call it neo advaita.this is in fact one of the broadest harmonising religious concepts of mankind which treats avatar ,dieties,bhajans and all such concepts with equal importance.this advaita is much more closer to advaita of shaivas and shaktas who believed in advaita and yet had their mythology and ishtadev.

     

    when i criticised advaitists it was reffered to such orthodox people as mentioned above and not against the philosophy itself.and its not just my criticism but an echo of advaita realized ramakrishna.in fact all through the rest of my post i spoke on advaita's behalf. i have to doubt your understanding of the english language or the education that i have recieved.

     

    i hope i have provided a clear picture.

     

    waiting for your reply.

    I feel so bad that you felt as if you'd made a mistake when I had! I'm so sorry sambya for upsetting you and making you go to all that trouble due to my idiotic mistake!

  20. Posted · Report reply

     

    Yes it is I that attacked advaita. I disagree with them on almost everything including the definition of person. Without the 'I' consciousness has no meaning. Consciousness indeed is integral to the 'I'.

     

    I won't get into another advaita vs. dvaita discussion. One can take their pick and take their chances.

     

    I must say sambya I don't think you answered the original question. You may have, sorry if I missed it.

    You disagree with the Advaita position. Okay, fine. Whatever. That doesn't mean you have to attack it every chance you can fit it in.

  21. Posted · Report reply

     

    where did you see any attack on any belief in my post that you quoted above ?!!! do you mean to say i attacked advaita ? sorry , you are mistaken read my post again .

     

    i have protested in my second post and not the one you quoted.and the protest was not against achintya bhedabhed but the narrow mindedness of most gaudiya vaishnavas.

     

    and the reason why i did so would be evident if you read through theist's post.then perhaps you would ask the same question to theist !!!!!!!!

     

    did you even read through all the posts ,in the first place ???!!!!!!!!!!!!! ???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    So sorry Sambya, I meant it at theist. Sorry for the mistake.

  22. Posted · Report reply

     

    this is indeed a beautiful question.theist has given its answer from a dualistic point of view.i shall attempt to answer from a monistic point ,from whatever knowledge i have in this subject.

     

    the very moment when you say the "infinite conciousness creates the individuality" you you are situated on a dualistic platform(one that percieves creator and the created as eternally seperate).

     

    so when you are speaking from a dualistic veiwpoint there is no place for realisation of nondifference.

     

    from a monistic point of view there is no creation at all.the only thing or phenomenon or existence is the brahman. it is our state of mind that makes us think that we exist in a material world.this state of mind is caused by maya.an example would illustrate the point:

     

    when we step over a rope lying on the floor in a dark room we mistake it for a snake.but moments later we realise that it was a mere rope.but for those few moments when we got scared it was a complete snake in all its attributes.so the snake existed for those few fraction of seconds although there was no snake in reality at all.

     

    similarly we are in a constant state of mistaking brahman as creation or cosmos.only difference is that this mistake is not so temporary as one in the example.

     

    maya is the initial cause of this percieved individuality and ego is its sustainer.thats why in advaitic sadhana one begins with overcoming ego first and then eventually maya.

     

    so when you are presuming the duality of creator and the created no one would expect you to strive for non different realisations. this would arise only if you assume non duality right since the begining. that is why true advaitists(monist) should refrain from claiming that everythings brahman untill they have realised that themselves.so long we are on the dualistic platform and performing dualistic activities like eating sleeping etc we have to respect personal god.

     

    now the question arises since when are we conditioned as such ? this is very hard to answer. how this process of illusion started is impossible to explain,just as dualists cannot say since when were they ousted from goloka or kingdom of god to take birth in the material world.

     

    but i believe that inability to provide an explanation is not a flaw to the religion itself.for god is infinite and beyond thought and speech.it is impossible to know him and his ways completely.and hence every religion gets a partial glimpse of the real phenomenon.so no religion can calim to be perfect.if any faith does claim as such it should be understood that they are least knowledgeble about god.

    Why did this have to turn into an attack on Advaita? Can't you just state the way you feel and believe without having to attack others' beliefs?

  25. Posted · Report reply

     

    Well, you have the right to be sceptical, I don't blasme you for that, but what made my belief in Nostradamus words more strong is the fact that in the City Hostel where I worked as a bartender, once there were some muslims playing pool and came to my bar.I mentioned Nostradamus in the conversation and one muslim said that Nostradamus was a fraud and a con man.

    Then I just knew that Nostradamus was so right, he predicts the end of islam and muslims seem to have a problem with their destiny.

    So they cheat over it, that's normal.

    Maybe they just think he's a fraud. I've met plenty of non-Muslims who think he was a fraud. I don't think it's because they're "cheating" because they 'know' that everything he says is "absolute truth" and inspired by God Himself. I think it's because they honestly feel and believe that he was fraudulent.

     

     

    Concerning the mention of the Ganges, I am not sure if the Ganges was known to the West in that time, especially in Avignon, where Nostradamus resided.

    India and the Ganges were both well known by the 16th century. Dante even mentions the Ganges in his Divine Comedy, written in the 13th century in Italy.

     

    "E l’onde in Gange da nona rïarse,

    Sì stava il sole; onde ’l giorno sen giva,

    Come l’angel di Dio lieto ci apparse."

     

    "And Ganges’ waves are scorched by noonday heat,

    So here the sun stood, for the day was fading

    As God’s enraptured angel appeared to us."

     

    --Purgatorio XXVII 4-6

     

    Now, if you want to believe that Nostradamus is real because of his mention of the Ganges, fine by me, but you must also then believe that Dante was real based on the same evidence. Which means that nearly everyone on this forum is going to hell for not being Roman Catholic, including you.

     

    In the quatrain it is stated : Gang, Ind. not Gang, Jordan.....

    Yes, everyone knew that the Ganga was in India. It was common knowledge among the European Burgeoise, even in the 13th century.

×
×
  • Create New...