sambyahere

really !!!!!!!!!!!! even after showering anandamayi maa with abusive words ? how did she 'encroach' on your life ?!!!!!!!!!

everyone knows that hinduism is a recent word . strictly speaking it is not a recent word but a later word. i tagged only hinduism because historically there is no indications as yet to show that it was followed by any cultures outside the subcontinent.say greeks , china , middleast etc. and by 'hinduism' i meant those numerous sects and religions that shared some common things like , belief in vedas , gods and goddeses, similar rituals , guruparampara etc. even the ancient yavanas (greeks) collectively meant these religions while coining the term 'hindu' funny thing with gaudiyas ( not meaning you of course) is that they accept history selectively whenever it suits to thier purpose. for example , they would readily accept this 'origin of hindu ' theory but deny that puranas were written in later hindu ages and continued till 18th century.

the book and the text i mean.

im sorry to say amalesh that i find no difference between your understanding and that of those orthodox iskconites. you seem to hold on those very concepts that they preach----that personal god is superior to impersonal god, mayavadis are on incomplete track,mixing with mayavadis would ruin your spiritual lives, everyone else are demigods(even devi and shiva) etc etc. i would like to know in which points do you differ with iskcon as you suggested in other threads.

thats impossible . how? think carefully.......... god as we all know is the supreme and infinite and no one can come equal to him(from a dualistic point of veiw of course). so , if someone would have actually understood him totally that would mean understanding him as infinite. remember 'infinite' here is a very broad word .it does not merely mean unending or ever expansive. and its also acepted that all individuals are imperfect by senses. so if a person claims to have understood god completely it would be equivalent of understanding that which is infinite. and its obvious only infinite can understand infinite completely. being 'finite' means being limited. how can finite grasp the infinite. it is absurd.and if only infinite garsps infinite then it would assertain advaita .for there can be no two infinite. so if you suggest that there are indeed some souls who can grasp him totally that would mean that those persons are infinite. that wouldnt conform to you dualistic philosophy. no one can know him completely.ask this out to your guru and see what answer you get. sambya

aha !! now i see it . so ur an iskconite too. sambya