Sonic Yogi
-
Content Count
1,093 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Sonic Yogi
-
-
For the uninitiated, I will let you in on the secret. See, the topic came up here because it is a recent topic on the new Website associated with Tripurari Maharaja.
AncientMariner is a member there and he has thus brought the topic here because it seems that the theme of Environmentalism has become somewhat of a preaching angle there with the camp of T Swami.
The Website is http://www.harmonist.us .
I found out about it because Babhru prabhu submitted an article to chakra announcing the new website.
Personally, I think that we don't really need to particularly cater to environmentalists in Hare Krishna preaching schemes, because environmentalism is already included in an authentic Vaishnava culture, of which the KC movement does not practice inasmuch as most all the devotees of the KC movement are just as habituated to the use of fossil fuels and environmental pollution as the rest of modern society.
Ideally, it would be nice if the Hare Krishna movement was about living simply, farming, protecting cows and fostering brahminical culture etc. etc., but in fact the leaders of ISKCON in their ambitions for personal position as career gurus and sannyasis have lead ISKCON into the same dependence on modern inventions as secular, mundane society is habituated to.
The Amish and the Mennonites are actually the best example of what the Hare Krishna movement should be promoting.
Unfortunately, under the excuse of "preaching" the Hare Krishna movement is in fact just as addicted and habituated to all these artificial modern ammenities as the rest of the world.
In his last days, Srila Prabhupada was putting more and more emphasis on the so-called "varanashrama" concept, which basically boils down to developing farm villages all around the world so that the KC movement could show a good example to the world of how human society should live and practice a spiritual culture.
However, the ambitious leaders of ISKCON were only concerned about their comfortable and cozy positions in ISKCON and didn't give a damn about teaching human society about agrarian based society and spiritual culture.
This is truly one of the biggest failures of ISKCON, which was a result of personal ambition getting in the way of ISKCON's great mission.
-
All the great acharyas in the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya follow the Pancaratrika system of worship.
In this age, it is most recommended.
In the Pancaratrika system, deity worship is integral.
Without deity worship, the neophyte cannot make proper advancement in worship of the Holy Name.
All the great Goswamis established temples and deity worship, because they understand that deity worship is essential in the Pancaratrika system.
In fact, they teach that deity worship is essential for the neophytes, which therefore includes most every aspiring Vaishnava.
Deity worship is essential for the neophyte.
It is not essential for the topmost Maha-Bhagavata, but then again we are not Maha-Bhagavata.
If a neophyte neglect to worship the form of the Lord and simply chants the Name, he cannot make tangible advancement.
The form of the Lord must be there in the mind at least when the chanting of the Name if being practiced.
One of the results of chanting the Holy Name is that the chanter starts to visualize the form of the Lord.
Neophytes cannot neglect deity worship.
-
Actually, a Hindu pantheist worshiping his demigod for whatever benediction is a much better person than some fanatic Muslim monotheist that wants to kill everyone that won't bow down before his ONE God.
These Muslim invaded India, destroyed the deities and temples and plundered everyone for themselves while claiming it was for Allah.
Some of the worst people in the world are religious people.
I am a theist, but this Islam religion really turns me off to religion.
The Christians are the other side of the Abrahamic coin of religious fanatics who want to impose their religion on the whole world.
A Hindu a pantheist is a much more congenial person that these Abrahamic religious fanatics who think they are the chosen people.
-
He is correct on most all the points, except that he fails to mention that there are many Hindus who DO worship ONE God.
They are called Vaishnavas and they make up a large section of the Hindus.
He is trying to present that all Hindus believe in many Gods, but that just betrays his ill-intentions because in fact many Hindus do believe in the ONE God.
So, his propaganda that all Hindus believe in many Gods is again his way to trying to prove supremacy of Islam over Hinduism.
When he was quoting Bhagavad-gita, he also forgot to mention that in the gita Lord Krishna makes the claim that in fact HE is that ONE supreme God above all the demigods.
So, he was more interested in trying to promote the superiority of Islam over Hinduism, but in order to do so he had to misrepresent Hinduism as being 100% polytheist.
-
He is correct on most all the points, except that he fails to mention that there are many Hindus who DO worship ONE God.
They are called Vaishnavas and they make up a large section of the Hindus.
He is trying to present that all Hindus believe in many Gods, but that just betrays his ill-intentions because in fact many Hindus do believe in the ONE God.
So, his propaganda that all Hindus believe in many Gods is again his way to trying to prove supremacy of Islam over Hinduism.
When he was quoting Bhagavad-gita, he also forgot to mention that in the gita Lord Krishna makes the claim that in fact HE is that ONE supreme God above all the demigods.
So, he was more interested in trying to promote the superiority of Islam over Hinduism, but in order to do so he had to misrepresent Hinduism as being 100% polytheist.
-
Do you know what "historical" means? It means that somewhere in the past, that event or person was real.So how is it that you can say that Jesus was a historical person when there is no evidence whatsoever that such person have existed?
The difference between Santa Claus and Jesus is that, Santa Claus do not damn each and every one who didn't believe in them and allowed his followers to wage war for others' disbelief.
Believing in a LIE IS DANGEROUS.
Exactly.
They believe that they are going to go to heaven just for believing in Jesus.
They blaspheme every other religion in the world and call Krishna the Devil etc. etc.
So, certainly, the Jesus idea is taking many people to Hell all the while they are thinking they are going to heaven.
Believing in Jesus is not going to erase all their karma and sins.
They are being cheated by Evangelical preachers who are feeding them a myth and guaranteeing them salvation.
Well, that is a very bad thing and somebody has to stand up against this myth and try to explain to the people the truth about the Jesus myth.
Believing in Jesus is not going to save anyone.
That they are being told that is very wrong and actually evil.
People think that "Oh they believe in God, how nice".
But, it is not just about believing in God.
They think some mythological character is going to come back to Earth and take them all to heaven.
Such a pathetic fraud must be exposed for the benefit of mankind.
-
You are under the mode of passion, Sonic Yogi. Your tune is angry. The melody is hard rock. This song reminds me of Led Zeppelin`s Stairway to Heaven. May I request that you play George Benson`s The Greatest Love of All, please.Nonsense.
Christianity is a pseudo-spirituality that is leading millions of people to Hell in the name of God.
There is no salvation in Jesus.
There is nothing in Jesus.
Jesus is a myth.
The myth has to be exposed so that people's mind can be unchained from this pathetic excuse for spirituality and opened for understanding the actual truth.
-
Yes I agree with you, Sonic Yogi, on some of these points. Let the Christbusters bust their butts on discrediting Jesus Christ not you. It`s not your calling to do such things. It has taken a lot of your energies in defending these Christbusters instead of channeling them on matters that would eventually benefit Lord Caitanya`s sankirtan movement. What your doing is not serving Krsna but a disservice. I`m telling you this at this point as a friend not an adversary.Wrong.
I am on a mission to save the world from their savior.
Christ is a myth and nobody gets any benefit for buying into this Christian propaganda.
These Christians are just becoming hogs and dogs in their next life.
These people need to be saved from this Jesus nonsense so that maybe they will be free to understand the transcendental nature of God.
Christianity does no good for anybody.
It is simply a parasite on the good and decent tendencies of so many nice human beings.
This Christian nonsense needs to be exposed so that the world is freed to accept the true dharma of the living entity which is to serve Krishna.
This is my calling.
My job is to expose this Christian hogwash and correct the mistaken notion that Christ was a real person and the savior of mankind.
Christ is a myth and nobody gets any benefit for buying into this Christian hogwash.
Srila Prabhupada was very diplomatic because he was an acarya coming from India.
I am an American and I am not going to placate these Christian bigots.
I am going to attack the bogus Christian myth and try to free some souls from the grip of such a pathetic excuse for religion.
If I can save one soul from the Jesus myth, I will consider all my work very much worth the effort.
-
Okay. You`re entitled to your own opinion. I respect that. Like you I did that, too, a long time ago when I told everyone that Jesus was an ET( from the book " Chariot of the Gods" written by Charles Von Daniken ). But later I felt sorry for myself for making that immature statement. Someday, you will come to realize this also.Melvin, you need to actually study the real facts about the history of Christianity instead of buying into the hogwash political religion that was adopted to try and salvage Rome from disintegration.
You don't know anything about the real history of Christianity.
All you know is the propaganda that Christian missionaries brought to the Phils. when Spain conquered the Phils.
You should really do some research before you accept the dogma and politics of religion that started in Rome about 2000 years ago.
Lord Parasurama was a shaktyavesha avatara, Buddha was a shaktyavesha avatar, Dhanvantari was a shaktyvesha avatar.
Being a shaktyavesha avatar does not make one a Vaishnava or worthy of being followed.
Some devotees claim that Srila Prabhupada said Hitler was a shaktyavesha avatar, but does that mean we follow Hitler because he represented a certain power of God to kill so many people?
Hitler was empowered by God.
Alexander the Great was empowered by God.
They were both "shaktyavesha" entities empowered by God.
Being empowered by God for a particular purpose does not make anyone worthy of being followed by the devotees of Lord Chaitanya.
-
Even Lord Caitanya admitted that Sankaracarya who taught Mayavadism was an incarnation of Lord Siva, and it is known that Lord Siva is one of the greatest devotees ( a mahajana) of the Bhagavata school. But did Lord Caitanya reject Sankaracarya? In the Padma Purana Lord Siva personally tells Bhagavatidevi: " My dear Devi, sometimes I teach Mayavadi philosophy for those who are engrossed in the mode of ignorance. But if a person in the mode of goodness happens to hear this Mayavadi philosophy, he falls down, for when teaching Mayavadi philosophy, I say that the living entity and the Supreme Lord are one and the same." I see this familiar refrain in the Teachings of Jesus. But did I reject Christ Jesus? Nope. It`s simply because I saw Lord Siva in Jesus.Jesus is a Jewish fable.
He was not a real person.
He is a myth created by persecuted Jews in Rome who got blamed for burning down half of Rome.
Maybe they did start the great fire of Rome?
Maybe they deserved to be persecuted.
I don't buy into anything Jewish - either Judaism or Jesus.
It is all a bunch of hooey as far as I am concerned.
-
Haribol Ksamabuddhi... I kind of suspected it was you...
You have grown and you think more and more for yourself.
Sincere pranams...
Considering that I officially left ISKCON in 1980 to go to SCSM, I would like to think that I have been thinking for myself for quite some time.
-
Sorry, I just re-read your post and somehow missed this part. There reason we may not know each other is that I was leaving Evanston for Toronto just as the 'battle' for leadership was in mid stream...but it is interesting that my memories of that time differ from your's. My memory is that Tripurari and Uttamasloka had an uneasy peace...over the number of BBT book salesmen being 'deployed' at the O'Hare, competing with the Evanston temple sankirtan devotees. But that could have come later, after you left.Sounds like two separate incidents.
When this cout-de-ta happened, Uttama-sloka prabhu was long gone.
I think this was 1979 or 80.
Previously, if some rift occurred between Tripurari Maharaja and Uttama-sloka das, that could have been for a number or reasons.
Around 1976 when the Ottawa temple closed and many of the devotees came to Chicago, Sivarama quickly ascended to CO-TP because Uttama-sloka prabhu was coming under fire for rumors of being loose with his wife or possibly having an affair with female devotee in the temple.
Instead of just ousting him, they made Sivarama the CO-president and allowed Uttama to leave on his own terms.
After Sivarama left to go managed the 1000 acre farm that Tamal had acquired in Oklahoma as the TP, Jayatirtha appointed Subha-vilasa as TP.
After Sivarama fell out with Tamal and went off to England I went back to Chicago while Subha-vilasa was still the TP, though from the very beginning of his appointment the big gun book distributors like T Swami and his pals were trying to figure out how to get Subha-vilasa out of the TP seat.
Shortly after I arrived back all the temple devotees were deciding to oust Subha-vilasa and T Swami was of course the biggest power-broker of the situation.
If T Swami had some problem with Uttama-sloka it would have been in 76 or 77 before Uttama-sloka left and Sivarama became the TP.
I do remember that Mrigendra prabhu was TP in Early 1978, because he made a deal with me that he would pay my way to India if I would stay back at the temple and help keep the temple going with a skeleton crew while everyone went to Gaurapurnima in 1978.
After everyone got back, then I went off to India.
I don't know for sure how long Mrigendra was TP but he was for some short time.
I came and went at Chicago about three times.
I went back and forth between there and the Tennessee farm and the Oklahoma farm about three times at least, maybe four.
So each time I went back to Chicago temple something different was going on there.
I don't have the best memory to speak of.
Jitendriya would be an encyclopedia of info if you could somehow contact him.
The guy has been around Chicago temple longer than anyone.
-
Sonic Yogi,What is your opinion on Prabhupada teaching western Hare Krishnas about a Christ-Loka, classifying Jesus as an avatar and some of your colleagues here strongly advocating the Jesus = Vaishnava identity?
Cheers
I already made all those points in my articles on Sampradaya Sun.
Maybe you should just read them so that I don't have to get into long winded dissertations here on the forum.
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/05-09/editorials4576.htm
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/05-09/editorials4565.htm
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/05-09/editorials4556.htm
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/05-09/editorials4535.htm
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/05-09/editorials4506.htm
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/05-09/editorials4495.htm
-
Sad never expected this from you.What a sick name.
Well, no Vaishnava can believe in Jesus without having to reject his own faith.
Because all we know of Jesus is what is in the gospels and there it says that Jesus is the only way to God and that deity worship is idol worship.
If I believed in Jesus, I would have to reject Krishna and Sri Caitanya according to what they claim Jesus taught.
So, in order to believe in Krishna I must reject Jesus as factual because the teachings of Jesus in the gospels claims that nobody gets to God but through Jesus.
I pass urine on such a concept.
-
-
Now you see, this is exactly what I have been saying all along about the Bible. Except that when I say it, the Hare Krishnas fly into a rage, whereas when one of their own says it, then there is no problem.The only real difference between my position and your position regarding the Bible is that your conclusion is not logical. Why? Because you are still rationalizing the acceptance of "half the hen!"
Let us break it down:
1) Christianity is the religion of the Bible
2) Bible represents (at least theoretically) the teachings of Jesus.
3) Through Bible, teachings of Jesus and understanding of Jesus' position as son of God, savior, etc is known.
4) Yet, Bible has been interpolated over the years (Sonic Yogi just admitted this above).
5) Since we know some parts of Bible have been subject to interpolation, it stands to reason that other parts of Bible could also have been interpolated/adulterated (logically follows from point #4).
6) Therefore we do now know what parts of Bible really represent what Jesus taught.
7) Therefore any doctrine (divinity of Jesus, exclusivity of Jesus, alleged teachings of Jesus) based on the Bible is similarly suspect.
So why go through all the trouble of accepting a religion based solely on a set of scriptures which you admit have been adulterated over the years? We can't trust the Bible, as you have just admitted. You can suspect that some parts of the BIble have been interpolated, but you cannot rule out the possibility that other parts have been interpolated. So why go gaga over Jesus? Everything you know about Jesus is *from* the Bible, which you just admitted is adulterated by people coming after Jesus!
Well, you don't seem to understand that "the Bible" consists of two sections - The Old and the New Testaments.
Jesus did not exist in the old Testament.
The Old Testament is based upon the Jewish Torah, even though the Jews do not not accept Jesus.
You seem to be missing my point.
I don't believe in Jesus.
That is why I created the website christbusters.com and that is why you will find several articles by me on the Sampradaya Sun denouncing the authenticity of Jesus.
Jesus is a myth.
The New Testament consists of a number of books written by men who thought they were under "Godspell" and writing gospels.
Being a prophet was a livelihood for many men in those ages.
It was a job to be a prophet and channel God by writing books.
Nobody even knows who wrote the gospels.
There is no author that anybody can for certain attach to the synoptic gospels or any gospel after that.
The authors of the Christian testament are anonymous.
Nobody know who wrote the gospels.
-
He was "greatly celebrated," and yet there is no record of him in the mAdhva mathas.Have you gone through all the records of the Madhva Mathas?
No, you haven't.
so, really you are just making an unqaulified conjecture based upon your own personal prejudice, because in fact you have never gone through all the records of the Madhva sampradaya.
Even at that, Madhavendra Puri was expected to have taken sannyasa from the Shankara sampradaya and of course there would be no record of that in the Madhva Mathas.
It is accepted that Madhavendra Puri took diksha in the Madhva line, but not sannyasa.
Therefore, that there are Matha records for every disciple initiated by every guru in the Madhva line is in itself not a verifiable claim.
You make some wild claims as if you have personally gone through all the records of all the Madhva Mathas to search out if Madhavendra Puri is there, when in fact he was a sannyasa from the Shankara sect who took diksha mantra in the Madhva line.
-
Even Madhvacarya did not make a claim that his writing is to be accepted as shastra or some divine revelation. His writing is merely a commentary to the shastra. That is the difference between Madhvas and the Gaudiyas, who claim to represent Madhva sampradaya.The Gaudiyas don't claim anything except that Mahaprabhu took diksha from Isvara Puri who was the disciple of Madhvendra Puri who himself came in the Tattvavadi line but himself was the sprout of the tree of Krishna-prema.
Śrī Mādhavendra Purī, also known as Śrī Mādhava Purī, belonged to the disciplic succession from Madhvācārya and was a greatly celebrated sannyāsī. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was the third disciplic descendant from Śrī Mādhavendra Purī. The process of worship in the disciplic succession of Madhvācārya was full of ritualistic ceremonies, with hardly a sign of love of Godhead. Śrī Mādhavendra Purī was the first person in that disciplic succession to exhibit the symptoms of love of Godhead and the first to write a poem beginning with the words ayi dīna-dayārdra nātha, "O supremely merciful Personality of Godhead." In that poem is the seed of Caitanya Mahāprabhu's cultivation of love of Godhead.
So, why is it that the critics don't assail Madhavendra Puri instead of Mahaprabhu?
In the Madhva sect as Mahaprabhu was initiated into in the line of Madhavendra Puri, the advance over the Tattvavadi siddhanta had already been initiated by Madhavendra Puri.
It was not Mahaprabhu who first took the Madhva sampradaya into new frontiers.
It was Madhavendra Puri.
-
None of them are considered authentic except perhaps by some small sections.Sruti is considered a closed canon in Kali-yuga - or more accurately, after the time of Vyasa. No self-realized Rishi of our times can add to it and no one has.
Cheers
Considered a closed canon by whom?
You have made a claim, now please tell us where Vyasadeva has closed the canon to future rishis.
Who has the authority to say that self-realized rishis cannot find and reveal any Vedic knowledge contained in the universe?
You say the canon is closed, but that is just your opinion and you have no authoritative reference to support that.
Bhaktivinoda manifested a number of revelations such as found in his Jaiva Dharma and Navadvip Dhama Mahatmya.
-
Nobody has referenced this Upanishad in the 2000 years of very extensive writing about Vedic literature, not even the Goswamis who spent years on research trying to substantiate Lord Caitanya as yuga-avatara. Also, the language it is written in suggests a modern source, and is similar to other writings of Srila Bhaktivinoda.There are several Upanisads associated with Atharva Veda that only became known centuries after the dating of the Atharva Veda.
The Caitanya Upanisad might have it's appearance by and through some Vaishnava rishi in the period just after the period of Mahaprabhu and the Goswamis, but according to the Saraswata tradition it was not Bhaktivinoda, who simply discovered the text after a search when he had been requested by some Vaishnavas in Bengal to comment on the text.
There is no law or rule that new Upanisads cannot be discovered by self-realized rishis. It might in fact be an Upanisad that was only known on higher planets until a Vaishnava rishi in the lineage of Mahaprabhu was given the verses through yogic trance while visiting another planet.
Bhaktivinoda was in fact an admitted space traveler.
He had that mystic perfection.
He very well could have brought the text back down from a higher realm.
That is the difference between a siddha mahatma like Bhaktivinoda and a sahajiya pretender like the mental midgets who think they are in a position to condescend upon Bhaktivinoda Thakur.
-
Now this is interesting.Sonic, you previously chided me for considering you to be a Gaudiya Vaishnava and taking anything you said about Gaudiya Vaishnavism seriously.
Now here you are, despite not being a Gaudiya Vaishnava, telling someone else that he is not a representative of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Logically, that requires that you know what Gaudiya Vaishnavism is.
Are you or are you not a Gaudiya Vaishnava?
Also, who is your Gaudiya Vaishnava guru from whom you took initiation?
Please, no verbose and evasive tirades against Hinduism or mayavada. Just answer these two very simple questions so that we can all understand where you are coming from.
I was formally initiated in ISKCON as a disciple of Srila Prabhupada during the Prabhupada era when he was still present amongst us.
However, Srila Prabhupada instructed that devotees should in fact not refer to themselves as devotees or disciples but simply as servants.
I do not consider myself fit to be called a devotee, disciple or servant, so I write and speak from the position of a student, not any sort of saintly person or disciple.
-
It seems that it was Bhaktivinoda Thakur himself who wrote that text for the sake of preaching.Well, that is your speculation, because in the Saraswata lineage of Bhaktivinoda it is said that Bhaktivinoda found the text in his search around Bengal for the text.
It has never been claimed by the Saraswatas that Bhaktivinoda wrote the book like a novel.
He discovered the text in some library or in the possession of some Brahmana.
Your conjecture that he wrote it is your own concoction with no basis in anything except your own mental speculation.
-
I find the following in bible(Nt) to support what jeffster said in post 14Matthew 15:24: "But he [Jesus] answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
The concept that Jesus is the only way comes from one verse in the book of John. The book of John was written after Mark, Matthew and Luke by an unknown author. There is no historical information about who wrote the Gospels apart from the name attached to them. Nobody has written anything saying "I knew Mark, and his real name was Ralph and he wrote the book of Mark".
The word gospel comes from the archaic version Godspell.
The gospels were supposed to be revelations that men who were under "God's spell" transmitted as mediums.
In other words, back in those ancient times it was considered that God spoke to man through prophets who were under "God's spell".
So, there were hundreds if not thousands of books written by many, many people who thought that what was coming into their minds on the subject of God or Jesus was a divine dispensation from God.
So, it is not even known who really wrote the book of John. The author was unknown to anyone who could write a historical account regarding his identity.
If, by some chance, the council of Nicea that had been convened by Emperor Constantine to standardize the books of The Bible, had not chosen the book of John, then today Christianity would in fact not be an exclusivist faith propounding that Christ is the only way to God.
However, in order for the Old Testament principle that the Jews were the chosen people of God to be carried over into the Christ conception, the writer of the book of John deemed it necessary to establish that Christ was in fact the only way to God being the Jewish messiah that he was supposed to be. It is generally accepted that the writer of the book of John was more "Jewish" than the author of the synoptic gospels.
Prior to the book of John, Christ had not been said to be the only way in the book of Mark, Matthew or Luke - the synoptic gospels that appear to possibly all be written by the same person.
The book of John most certainly shows that it was written by a different author who added the "Jesus is the only way" concept that had previously not been found in the original synoptic gospels.
-
Do some basic research on it, Sonic-ji... Sri Chaitanya Upanishad is just as 'authentic' as the Allah Upanishad. I do not know of anybody outside the Saraswata circle who believes it is genuine.In other words you are saying that you know better than Bhaktivinode Thakur and that he was commenting on a bogus text.
I certainly hope you don't consider yourself any sort of Saraswata Gaudiya.
If you do, then you are very foolish.
If you don't then you really have no diksha from any Chaitanyite sect and therefore should not be claiming to speak for any guru of any sect.
All you know is the blabber you picked up on Madhava's forum.
Madhava and Jagat are your gurus, even though Jagat is now a professed tantric sahajiya and Madhava has renounced Gaudiya Vaishnavism to dabble in Buddhism and pot smoking.
How would you really know what all the different Caitanyite sects believe.
All you really know is the third hand information you picked up at Madhava's forum.
You are not a disciple of any guru of any sect who thinks like that.
Whatever blabber you heard on Madhava's forum is gospel to you, but Bhaktivinode was a misguided fool according to your version.
Sb 11.08.10
in Spiritual Discussions
Posted · Report reply
I think the purport was well spoken by Hridayananda Maharaja, whom I presume contributed this purport.