Jump to content

Sonic Yogi

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sonic Yogi

  1. I am not superstitious about numbers. Ultimately, there is only ONE and One is the original number.One represents Krishna - the ONE supreme entity that all others entities exist within.

    What really matters is the relationship between the soul and the Supersoul.

    We are all simply at the mercy of the Supersoul Paramatma who ultimately exists within Krishna.

    Being honest and sincere with our Supersoul is much more beneficial than trying to get lucky with some superstitious number.


    Material numbers are ultimately an illusion.

    The only real numbers that matter are spiritual numbers that have spiritual significance.


    108 is ultimately the most significant number for Gaudiya Vaishnavas because there are 108 principle gopis of Krishna and therefore 108 principle Upanisads.


    Because the number 108 reminds us of the 108 principle gopis of Krishna, it is therefore a most auspicious number.

  2. This Abrahamic monotheism is, in my opinion, much less authentic and spiritual genuine that the polytheism of the Hindus.

    The Hindus see fire as the body of the fire god and they respect it.

    Hindus see air as the body of the wind god and so they respect it.

    Hindus see Earth as the body of Bhumi Devi, so they respect it.


    These Abrahamic religions don't have the proper respect for the elements or mother Earth, because they are "monotheistic" and only recognize their god as worth of worship.


    Abrahamic monotheism is farce monotheism, because you cannot serve God whilst being disrespectful to the gods, the elements, other faiths and mother Earth.


    Abrahamic religion is not monotheism, it is just monotonous.


    Food eaten is material whereas a food for thought is spiritual.;)


    That is why the pure devotees only eat Krishna prasada and do not eat "food".

    In ISKCON it was always taught that devotees don't eat "food", but devotees honor prasadam that is the remnants of offerings to the spiritual master and the Lord Krishna Caitanya.


    When a devotee honors prasadam that is the remnants of offerings to Guru and Gauranga, then that is actually a completely spiritual activity and should never be equated with when unoffered food is eaten for the pleasure of the senses.


    In bhakti-yoga, honoring prasadam simply increases one's love of Krishna and cannot be compared to the eating of ordinary food that devotees like to call "bhoga"(unoffered food).


    Anyone who has actually tasted or subsisted off of Krishna-prasadam knows the difference between honoring prasadam and eating unoffered food.


    Devotees of the level of Srila Prabhupada actually taste transcendental bliss in the act of honoring prasadam and experiencing the spiritual nature of foods that have first been offered to Krishna according to the guidelines layed down by Guru and Gauranga.



    Sonic Yogi ... Why didn't you take a shower to cool your body down before going to bed? It's more relaxing?


    I always take cold showers.

    Hot showers are not good at all.

    Some people think hot showers are important to open pores for washing, but I don't accept that idea.


    I take two cold showers a day.

    One in morning and one in evening.


    But, the water that comes out of the ground here is not real cold.

    I get my water from a well on my property.

    So, it is cool but not really cold.


    It is just right for me. People who take hot showers don't know how bad it is to heat up the blood like that.


    I love cold showers.

  5. Last night I had a very nice experience with simple meditation.

    Of course, chanting Hare Krishna is a most powerful spiritual sadhana, but last night I tried some simple meditation and was quite amazed at the results.


    I was having trouble sleeping last night. I was very wired from having worked out in the heat most of the day rebuilding the roof on my porch.

    I was just very uptight from the stress of working most of the day in extreme heat and humidity.


    So, finally, I tried to go to bed about midnight.

    I could not sleep. I lay there till about 1:30 A.M and still could not sleep.


    So, I sat up, did some pranayama and simple mediation.

    I did some other stretching techniques that I sometimes do to relieve the lower back pain that I am prone to get.


    Finally, after some nice pranayama, meditation and yoga stretching, I tried to get some sleep.


    I just felt so much better, less stressed and able to rest.


    After dosing off I had some very wonderful dreams where I got to meet my deceased father and my two older brothers (still living).


    In my dreams I seemed to have much more control than normal.

    I could summon my father and my brothers at will and have nice meetings with them.


    It was such a nice experience that I have never experienced before.

    I think it was due to the breathing exercises and the yoga stretching along with some simple meditation to still my mind.


    I am going to have to do this more often.


    Doing some pranayana, stretching and meditation for stilling the mind seemed to have very significant effects for me last night.


    In the Bhagavad-gita, Lord Krishna explains that pranayama is in fact one of the processes of spiritual cultivation.


    I highly recommed pranayama and meditation for people that might not be so inclined towards exlusive bhakti sadhana.


    It is a very substantial process.

    Try it for yourself and let me know how it works for you.


    1] The ONLY SON OF GOD?


    Go Learn Greek & arameic . . . and then 'cut & paste' commandeer & plagiarise what your 'Pick-of-the-Month' academic theologians think.



    Obviously, you don't even know that the gospels were not written in Aramaic.

    All the gospels were written in Greek and there is evidence that the writers of the gospels did not even know Hebrew or Aramaic.


    Everything we know about Jesus was came out of Rome.

    The Jews from Judea don't even accept Jesus.


    Long before the Jesus myth was manufactured there was the Hebrew religion called Judaism.


    Personally, I think Judaism is a superior religious systems to the sentimental Christian cult that was created as a rebellion against orthodox Judaism.


    Paul was never trained in the Rabbinical disciples and had an inferiority complex. He wasn't even from the Holy land of Judea. He was from Tarsus.

    So, he manufactured Christianity as a feel-good faith that made him feel better than the orthodox Jews.




    This Sonic is a rouqe so-called disciple of Srila Prabhupada. He is a snake and it is best to just avoid hearing from him.


    Because I don't believe in a popular myth, that makes me a snake?

    Well, I have studied the works of some of the best academic theologians in the world who at one time also believed in the Jesus myth until they looked deep enough into the subject to get past all the bogus propaganda.


    For me, I just find it quite amazing that so many devotees are willing to buy into a ridiculous myth that has absolutely no validation in any Vedic shastra.


    I think the Jesus myth is actually a toxic, harmful, bogus religious dogma that is harming the spiritual growth of the world at large.


    Some disciples of Srila Prabhupada told me that Prabhupada said that Christianity would become extinct in the future.

    After looking deeper into the subject I can now see why.


    Christianity has a very sordid history.

    Modern minds are gradually rejecting Christianity and embracing a new spirituality that does not bind them up in the chains of a bigoted dogma that proclaims that Jesus is the only son of God and the only way to salvation.



    Anyone that buys into such nonsense is a fool.


    Sparky, you scamp! You just can't keep your hands in your pockets, can you? :eek2:


    I am on a mission to save the western world from a fraud savior that is leading the whole world to hell.


    Watch the videos on the website or otherwise your opinion will be flushed down the appropriate porcelain throne.


    Unless and until you watch the videos on the website, you have no right to comment.


    There is a popular show on TV nowadays called "mythbusters".

    So, since Jesus is a myth, I figured "Christbusters" would be a good theme for my website.




    Can you prove christ doesnt exist more than that you can prove krishna exists.
    I have never said anything about proving Krishna existed.


    I am not out to prove that Krishna existed.

    Nowadays, the people who actually make the strongest arguments against a historical Jesus are academic theologians with the greatest knowledge and expertise on the subject.

    They are not blind faith evangelicals that buy into some propaganda being made by bigoted fanatics who claim Jesus is the only way to salvation.


    The bhavishya purana mentions christians as worshippers of vishnu but i dont think anyone will accept it as authentic.


    That is a false interpolation.

    Indologists have rejected the claims that the references in the Bhavisya Purana refer to Christians.


    That false propaganda was fabricated by Christian mlecchas who were out to convert Hindus to their idiotic religion.


    Hindu scholars reject such Christian lies.


    Youve just ignored the greatness of christ even after reading the bible.

    You dont get the point even if you dont accept why are you keeping such dirty feelings in your heart against christ.

    Christ was a myth.

    There were many great mythic gods 2000 years ago.

    Anyone who does a serious study of the history of Christianity will inevitably realize that Christ was a myth manufactured in Rome by people who didn't even know how to read or speak Hebrew.


    The Jews don't believe in Jesus.

    Are you saying that the people who were around before the so-called Jesus and after the so-called Jesus, don't know anything about the subject?


    To accept Jesus is to deny the Jews, so you are just favoring one sect over the other.

    I don't accept either the Jews or the Christians.

    I don't accept that either cult actually had any real concept of the true God.


    I favor the American Indians who worshiped natural wonders, Earth and Eagles more than the environmental exploiters that pass themselves off as Christians.


    Christians refer to Native Americans as heathens.

    I personally think the Native Americans were a lot more spiritual than the fake religionists that call themselves Christians.


    Maybe being part Cherokee has something to do with it.

    I think the American Indians were a lot greater people than the Christians who came and slaughtered them to take their land.

  12. I certainly don't consider Srila Prabhupada as any authority on what the Bible teaches.

    Unlike some people, I don't accept everything that Srila Prabhupada says as some absolute, infallible proclamation.


    I don't know why the followers of the Hebrew religions should be given any higher endorsement than any of the demigod worshipers of Ganesh, Indra, Brahma etc. etc.


    The Bible religion worshiped some malevolent conception of god that was certainly much less than any of the Vedic demigods that have been so much taken to task by the Vaishnava acharyas.


    Quoting Srila Prabhupada is not going to seal any absolute conclusion as far as I am concerned when it comes to the Bible and the Abrahamic religions, that in my opinion are much lower in theism than the worshipers of the Vedic demigods.


    I don't accept Srila Prabhupada's statements about Christianity or the Bible to be absolute or infallible.


    I have studied the Hebrew religions much more than he ever did, so I am not going to give up my own understanding just because "Prabhupada said".


    Only a foolish person would think all that is written in the old testament are the words of God (Yahweh). The Old Testament is mostly the words of the leaders of the Jews who imposed their own racial hatred and biases onto the people by claiming the ideas to have come from God.


    You do know that the Bible or even the Old Testament is a collection of different books written by different authors or a wide span of time and they disagree among themselves even.

    I do not accept the Bible as the word of God. I do accept the word of God can be found amongst the writings however.


    The Lord understands the intent of person offering the prayer or chant. For instance there is no comparison between a mayavadi chanting the "holy names" and a pure Vaisnava chanting the same names.


    But there is no hope of my persuading you since you reject the very same conclusion of Srila Prabhupada. Even Lord Caitanya accepted the Koran was speaking about the only God there is. The Koran speaks of the same God worshipped by Abraham as do the Hebrews.


    Such small sectarian mindness as you display in this regard is shamefull for someone claiming to be a representative of Srila Prabhupada. At least be honest on this point that you are taking a position diametrically opposed to him ksamabuddhi.


    It 's very kind of you to be willing to refer to religious bigots who blaspheme Krishna as devotees of God.


    However, I cannot accept that anyone who blasphemes Krishna and Srila Prabhupada is an authentic devotee of God.


    The meat-eating blasphemers who are posing as devotees of God are simple asuras who blaspheme the real God.


    Sorry, I don't accept anyone who blasphemes Krishna or the Vedic authority as devotees of god.


    They might think they are devotees of god, but actually they are simply servants of their senses and nothing else.


    It should be noted that the Bible when translated into English had the name Yahweh translated into Lord by the ignorance of the translators.


    And it is the books themselves that started this discussion not the present day practices of the mass of people that call themselves Christians.


    1 Praise the LORD. [a] Psalm 150


    Praise God in his sanctuary;

    praise him in his mighty heavens.

    2 Praise him for his acts of power;

    praise him for his surpassing greatness.

    3 Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet,

    praise him with the harp and lyre,

    4 praise him with tambourine and dancing,

    praise him with the strings and flute,

    5 praise him with the clash of cymbals,

    praise him with resounding cymbals.

    6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.

    Praise the LORD.


    This is called kirtan or bhajana, or congregational glorification of the Lord by those who speak English.



    However, anyone who has read the Old Testament knows for certain that the vengeful, wrathful god of the Hebrews as he was known in the Bible stories cannot in any way be Lord Vishnu or any form of Vishnu-tattva.


    The god of favoritism to the Hebrews, known as Jews, cannot in any way be the actual supreme Lord Vishnu or Krishna.

    We know from Vedic shastra that God does not play favorites based upon race, creed or color.


    The god of the Bible, who said that the Jews were his specially chosen people who had the right to exterminate many other tribes and kingdoms including all the women and children, cannot possibly be Krishna or Vishnu.


    Such a god could even possibly have been an asura or a powerful daitya.

    He most certainly was not Krishna or Vishnu or even Siva, Brahma or Indra.


    The god of the Bible was in fact a malevolent being who advocated the slaughter of innocent women and children for the purpose of making a homeland for his chosen Hebrew people.


    So, the Bible idea of praising god Yahweh and calling upon him was in fact more than likely some form of asura worship that has over the centuries been confused with God worship.


    Chanting the name of the asura that was considered God in the Bible will certainly benefit no one in the same manner that chanting the names of Vishnu or Krishna.


    Tattvavada is a Vedanta doctrine. It is not required for Vedanta based doctrines to agree with Puranas in toto. Puranas are valid only when they align with bigger authorities. If not, they are not authoritative.


    This is different from the Gaudiya position that the entire Bhagavatam is an authority and the highest authority. Obviously this conflicts with the approach of Vedanta schools like Advaita, Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita and therefore there is not much point in discussion when there is no common ground.




    Vyasadeva has commented that Srimad Bhagavatam was his own explanation and commentary on Vedanta Sutra.


    So, any conclusions derived from Vedanta-sutra that do not agree with Srimad Bhagavatam in fact challenge Vyasadev's own explanations and cannot therefore be accepted as the proper siddhanta.


    Godhead (Christianity)

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    In Christianity, the term Godhead is a form of the word "godhood", and denotes the divine character of the Christian God. The term the Godhead may also be used as a title for God, or the Trinity.


    Though somewhat archaic, the term survives in modern English because of its use in three places of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible. In that translation, the word was used to translate three different Greek words: Acts 17:29 (θεῖον theion, an adjective meaning "divinity, deity"[1]); Romans 1:20 (θειότης theiotēs, a noun meaning "divinity, divine nature"[2]); and Colossians 2:9 (θεότητος theotētos, a noun meaning "deity"[3]). In the later Neoplatonic mystical tradition (in Pseudo-Dionysius, for example), the term θεαρχία thearchia is used.[4]


    In Mormon theology, the term is used in place of Trinity to refer to God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. The substitution reflects the fact that though Mormonism is nontrinitarian, in that the three persons of the Trinity are not considered to have one substance, yet they are considered "one God" in the sense of their united purpose, will, and attributes. See Godhead (Latter Day Saints). This usage is rare within Trinitarian Christianity.


    In discussion religious works outside of the recognized vedic canon of India

    Sonic Yogi wrote:


    And I responded:


    I am still waiting for a response from Sonic Yogi.


    Show me the references and let's look at them.

    If the "Holy Name" you are referring to is some imagined Hebrew god whose name is not any name mentioned in any Vedic text, then I would have to say that such a call to calling on the name of the god would not qualify as a genuine reference to the yuga-dharma.


    In Hebrew religion, the name of God was only allowed to be spoken in the temple in Jerusalem by the priests.


    So, anyone who says that the Hebrew religion or any product of that religion promotes the chanting of the names of God is confused.


    In the Hebrew religion originally the "hallowed be thy name" concept never meant public chanting of the name.


    "Hallowed" does not mean "chanted".

    "Hallowed" means kept up as sacred, which in the Hebrew religion meant that it was not to be spoken or chanted, but kept secretive and the monopoly of the high priests in the temple of Jerusalem.


    Pauline Christianity certainly has never advocated the chanting of God's name as any part of the process of salvation.


    Paulinism is about accepting Christ as your personal savior and accepting in your heart that he died for your sins.


    Chanting the names of God is no part of Christianity, though many Hare Krishna devotees try to extrapolate such a concept from Paulinism.



    And the irony is striking, that you would presume to know what Madhva thinks on the subject even though you have never read his writings.



    My position is that Madhva cannot and should not disagree with what Srimad Bhagavatam says about Lord Siva.

    If Madhva disagrees with Srimad Bhagavatam on the position and status of Lord Siva, then I would have to say that Madhva is wrong.


    My position on Lord Siva is the position that he is ascribed in Srimad Bhagavatam, Brahma-Samhita etc.


    Anyone who challenges the status of Lord Siva, as he is ascribed in the books of the Gaudiya canon, will not get any acknowledgment from me, even he be Madhvacarya.


    Sonic, let us be honest.


    You and I both know that you have no intention of acknowledging that Madhva considers Shiva to be a jiva.


    If I quote the Sanskrit directly from his writings, you will not be able to understand that, and thus you will reject it.


    If I translate the Sanskrit, you won't accept it, because you do not know Sanskrit, and you will not depend on me to translate it for you, since you hate me for having the audacity to question your views. Thus, you will reject that as well.


    If I provide the translation of a scholar of Madhva, you will reject that also, since you hate people who can think, and in your eyes anyone who is thought of as a scholar is ipso facto not a devotee, and vice-versa.


    And if I provide the translation of a devotee, you will take issue with his inability to build thousands of temples all over the world as Prabhupada did, and on that basis argue that he knows less about Madhva than Prabhupada. Thus you will reject that also.


    So given that all of the above are true, when you ask for "evidence" regarding Madhva's views, what *specifically* will you accept to convince you of what it is he thinks on this subject? If you really are not interested in evidence, would it not be better for you forgo asking?


    In other words, you don't have any proper statement from Madhva to support your claims, so you just try to avoid the issue with a false argument.

    You should just admit you have no evidence for your claim and that you falsely represented the position of Madhva.


    Lord Siva gives birth to every jiva in the universe.

    To say that he is a jiva is simply ridiculous.


    Siva functions as a jiva in the destruction of the universe, but that does not make him a jiva.


    If a jiva attains to Siva-tattva, then he is not a jiva anymore.


    Sorry Sonic. I think you are still missing the idea of taking the essence. This means so much of the vedas should also be set aside and only the essence should be accepted.


    Further if some veda suggests we worship so & so demigod for elevation to heaven and a resulting good birth and so on and someone else's holy book from their land says to abandon the goal of heaven and the means to achieve it and just surrender to God, what are you going to do?


    Myself I will without hesitation recognize and acknowledge the higher truth of surrendering to God in devotion vs. striving for heaven. It has the same conclusion as the Bhagavad-gita.


    Not this "it's from India so it must be alright" sort of attitude.


    I care not for the canon or origin of any holy book, only the conclusion. And it's the conclusion that separates poly-theism from mayavad from Vaisnavism.





    Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 20.339


    ei mantre dvāpare kare kṛṣṇārcana


    'kṛṣṇa-nāma-sańkīrtana' — kali-yugera dharma




    ei mantre — by this mantra; dvāpare — in the Age of Dvāpara; kare — perform; kṛṣṇa-arcana — the worship of Lord Kṛṣṇa; kṛṣṇa-nāma-sańkīrtana — chanting of the holy name of Lord Kṛṣṇa; kali-yugera dharma — the occupational duty in the Age of Kali.




    "By this mantra, the people worship Lord Kṛṣṇa in Dvāpara-yuga. In Kali-yuga the occupational duty of the people is to chant congregationally the holy name of Kṛṣṇa.




    As stated in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (12.3.51):


    kaler doṣa-nidhe rājann asti hy eko mahān guṇaḥ


    kīrtanād eva kṛṣṇasya mukta-bandhaḥ paraḿ vrajet


    "My dear King, although Kali-yuga is full of faults, there is still one good quality about this age. It is that simply by chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra, one can become free from material bondage and be promoted to the transcendental kingdom." Thus in Kali-yuga one worships Lord Kṛṣṇa by chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare. To propagate this movement, Lord Kṛṣṇa personally appeared as Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu. That is described in the following verse.


    Except for chanting the Holy Name of Krishna, there is no other religious process in the age of Kali that will deliver the soul from samsara.


    If any religious book's essence does not teach that, then in fact that book is useless.

  21. I would also like to point out that the term sastra as referenced in the verse under discussion refers to Vedic scriptures compiled by the empowered incarnation Vyasadeva.

    Sastra does not include the Christian Bible or the Muslim Quran.


    Sastra is defined as "Śāstra is without the four principal defects that are visible in the conditioned soul: imperfect senses, the propensity for cheating, certainty of committing mistakes, and certainty of being illusioned".(Bhagavad-gita 16.24 purport).


    So, the Holy Bible and the Quran cannot qualify as shastra in the Vedic context by the definiton of sastra as given by the acaryas, inasmuch as they are flawed with the defects as described above.

  • Create New...