Sonic Yogi

This is the logic of half the hen.

 

The Bible is the scripture that says that Jesus is a valid path to God. However, the same Bible also says that Jesus is the only valid path to God:

 

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. " (John 14:6)

 

Now the point here is obvious. If the Biblical statements preaching exclusivity are invalid, then why isn't the rest of the Bible by the very fact suspect?

 

This is just like kaisersose criticizing Rama for killing Vali from behind, but then ignoring the two chapters in the Ramayana afterwards in which Rama explained why He punished Vali in this way, and Vali accepting this punishment and praising Sri Rama.

 

You are just taking the parts that suit you and ignoring the parts that contradict you.

"The Bible"?

You talk as if the whole book was written all at once by one person.

The Old Testament derived from the Torah is hundreds or thousands of years older than the New Testament which contains a number of gospels written by different authors over hundreds of years.

If Jesus is the only way, then what value did "God" in the Old Testament have?

The New Testaments gospels were written in Greek by people who did not even know Hebrew as there is proof that they used the Greek translation of the Bible, The Septuagint, as their source of materials.

So, no, I don't accept the New Testament gospels on the same level as the writings of Vyasadeva.

Even on top of that, there were certain alterations of some of these New Testament gospels in the early centuries of Christianity.

In fact the Old Testament states that God spoke in different times and different places to various peoples.

The "Jesus is the only way" concept that was popularized by the apostle Paul in his gospel writings is certainly a very questionable claim.

Since we have no actual writings of Jesus and the book of Mark was the first Gospel that all other gospels were inspired by, we cannot just blindly accepts Paul's claim that Jesus said he was "the only way".

That statement in fact was written by Paul, who himself was not even a direct disciple of Christ as they were described in the book of Mark.

It is unfortunate that sometimes Gaudiyas to the philosophy of "end justifies the means", which leads some otherwise good devotees to fabricate evidence to support their religious claims.

 

Seeing the flurry of supposedly Puranic quotes here I am surprised that nobody from Iskcon is quoting "Caitanya Upanishad" which even most Gaudiyas consider to be a forgery.

What Gaudiyas consider it a forgery?

Maybe you should post relevant quotes before you go making wild claims with no support.

Most "Gaudiyas" do not consider it a forgery.

In fact Bhaktivinoda Thakur wrote a commentary on it.

The "Gaudiyas" that you claim consider it a forgery are themselves the one's under question because in fact it is not considered a forgery by the Saraswata Gaudiyas.

Maybe some of the sahajiya siddha-pranali sects consider it as a forgery, but more than likely it is they who are the frauds and not caitanyupanisad.

http://nitaaiveda.com/All_Scriptures_By_Acharyas/Upanishads/Sri_Caitanyopanisad.htm

Sounding much like an ISKCON guru, Kulapavana expects that everyone should just accept his statements even though he can provide no quotes or authoritative references to support many of his wild claims.

He coughs up stuff he heard on Madhava's forum as if it is gospel, even though even he has no evidence and much of it is not accepted or confired by the acaryas of the Krishna consciousness movement.

For those who might have missed it, I would like to recommend a very nice documentary by academic theologian Dr. Robert Beckford. Especially, in the first two parts of his series on YouTube he goes to Vrindavan, India and meets with the devotees and learns about Krishna in his quest to understand the truth about Jesus.

He does a very good job of presenting Krishna in a very good light - not bad for a Christian theologian.

The YouTube video in all it's parts have been organized into an easily navigable topic on http://christbusters.com/index.php/hiddenstory

The theme at christbusters.com is to bust the myth that somehow Jesus is the only way to God and to promote broader understanding.

Dr. Beckford, in his documentary does that most expertly while at the same time maintaining his religious affiliation as a Christian.

The documentary The Hidden Story of Jesus by Dr. Robert Beckford is well worth watch and sharing with others.

Watch it at: http://christbusters.com/index.php/hiddenstory

All that shows that Paul was a ROMAN who were interested in Jewish Tradition.

 

IF he was a Jew, then he could have known and followed the Ten Commandment. He could have also knew that breaking ANY ONE of this Commandments means that he CANNOT REACH GOD (of Israel) no matter how hard he prayed and repented.

 

The Ten Commandment IS THE CONVENT of God (of Israel) to the People of Israel. One must NEVER break this Convent if he wishes to return back to God (of Israel).

But, you seem to forget that the Jewish scriptures forecast the coming of a Messiah.

Paul was a rebel to orthodox Judaism.

He disliked it.

He wanted to modify Judaism and make it something universal and bring the gentiles into the Jewish religion by accepting the Jewish messiah.

Many people rebelled against orthodox Judaism.

That is what the Gnostics were about.

They complained that orthodox Judaism was deviant and that the Torah had been tampered with and changed to suit the priestly class of Jews.

So, Paul was no lone stranger to rebellion against orthodox Judaism.

The Gnostics were probably the real followers of the original Torah.

Orthodox Judaism is like a cheap imitation of true Judaism.

The Gnostics were very austere and renounced.

Orthodox Jews were very materialistic in the name of Judaism.

So, many people rebelled against orthodox Judaism and Jesus was the brain-child of Paul who wanted to more or less salvage Judaism from extinction and give it a new meaning in Christianity.

Fact was, Paul was never actually trained in the rabbinical disciplines and his understanding of Judaism was very shallow.

Originally, Judaism was about extreme asceticism as found in the Gnostic sects. That was lost as the Jewish priests became lazy householders.

Paul was an ascetic. He was against the laid-back orthodox Jewish fat cats.

In fact, Paul was ill. He had epilepsy and was prone to seizures.

Let me get this straight, you actually believe that Jews went and invented Jesus so they could reach the Romans? You don't know much about Judaism, do you?

 

In Judaism, Jews MUST follow the Ten Commandments which makes up the basic for their belief. One of the commandments stated that "You do not take another as God" and "You do not create image of God".

 

If you accuse Jews of inventing Jesus, then know this that they have broken this important convent and therefore, they cannot be called Jews anymore.

The apostle Paul who invented Christianity was a Jew.

He was not even born in Judaea. He was from Tarsus.

Paul was a Romanized descendant of Jews from Tarsus.

He was highly influenced by Roman culture.

He manufactured the Jesus myth because he thought it would save Rome from disintegration.

Please reread posting #29 and answer the questions regarding your understanding of Advaita. Your repeated attempts to evade the question when you yourself criticized someone else for his supposed misunderstanding of Advaita are really not doing you any credit.

You want me to teach you Advaita Vedanta.

Sorry, you must do your own homework on that.

I have done my study of Advaita Vedanta.

I am not going to distill and extract the essence for you to abuse.

If you want to learn Advaita Vedanta, then maybe you should become a disciple of a guru in the Advaita sampradaya?

I am not going to make it easy for you.

I have studied for 35 years.

I am not going to just give away cheaply what you must learn from your own dedication and study.

Phony Advaitins are not going to get any crash course on Advaita Vedanta from me.

Submit to a guru in the Advaita sampradaya if you want to know the siddhanta.

I am not going to feed you the Advaita siddhanta that you so desperately desire.

I know it, but I am not giving it away to phony Advaitins in the forum.

We don't have any evidences supporting the existence of Krishna, Rama and now there is a claim about Jesus existence. One thing that might support Jesus is no myth is that he is portrayed as an human unlike other Gods which may be different.

Human Jesus?

No, Jesus was God.

You didn't get the memo?

Jesus walked on water, parted the sea and healed the sick.

Jesus was not portrayed as any human.

He raised from the grave and ascended to heaven.

How is that anything human?

Jesus is God according to the apostle Paul.

If you don't know your Christian myth very well, then maybe you should not be posting on the topic?

Let me repeat the questions since you have not answered them:

 

Which Vaishnava acharya taught you about "Advaitism?"

 

Would you consider it fair if an Advaitin said he knew all about Vaishnavism because he heard about it from an Advaitin acharya?

 

For what it's worth, your ideas about "Advaitism" are incorrect on several counts. What you describe as "Advaitism" sounds more like the bheda abheda philosophy of Bhaskara and the Neo-Advaita propagated by Vivekananda and others of his ilk.

 

And yes, I base my views on Advaita on the writings of Sri Sankaracharya.

 

In addition, you mentioned that kaisersose never learned Advaita from the writings of Sri Sankaracharya. May I enquire as to what writings of Sri Sankaracharya you have read?

 

Answers to questions will be much appreciated. Assuming you have any.

Yeah, I know. Sivoham??

The Shaivites seek to "become Siva" (Sivoham) and thus become the enjoyers and dominators of Durga-devi.(You can have it, I don't have any design on dominating a temporary platform of existence known as prakriti).

Well, I am sorry to report that you cannot become Siva and the enjoyer of Maya-devi. Well, you can, but you personally will never accomplish that because such a goal is only accomplished by the greatest of ascetics and yogis of which you ARE NOT.

That is a Hindu myth than nowadays passes under the garb of "Advaitism", though it is a very pathetic excuse for Vedanta.

How is it that it is Jewish myth when it was Jews who was first to reject Jesus? For 2,000 years, Jews are called "Christ Killers" because Christians were taught that Jews killed their "god".

Because the Jews integrated with the Romans who were at that time much under the influence of classic Greek thought.

It is a Jewish myth, because these Hellenistic Jews were the ones who manufactured the Christ myth in an effort to bring Rome under the influence of Jewish theism.

The Roman Empire was desperate for a religious concept that would unite the kingdom. The Gospels were written by people who did not understand the Hebrew language as it is proven fact that they used the Septuagint as their source of Hebrew thought. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Torah. Whoever wrote the Gospels of the New Testament did not even know the original Hebrew language but depended on Greek translations of the books for their inspiration.

As such, we can conclude that the gospels of the New Testament were written by Hellenistic Jews who felt that some marriage of Judaism and Greek mythology would be an effective way to create a religion that Rome could use to keep the empire intact.

Obviously, the invention of Jesus was a very effective device, though in the long run the Jesus myth outlasted the Roman Empire by thousands of years.

Which Vaishnava acharya taught you about "Advaitism?"

 

Would you consider it fair if an Advaitin said he knew all about Vaishnavism because he heard about it from an Advaitin acharya?

 

For what it's worth, your ideas about "Advaitism" are incorrect on several counts. What you describe as "Advaitism" sounds more like the bheda abheda philosophy of Bhaskara and the Neo-Advaita propagated by Vivekananda and others of his ilk.

 

And yes, I base my views on Advaita on the writings of Sri Sankaracharya.

You need to understand that the Vaishnava acharyas have gone to war with Advaitism, but the only way they could prepare their disciples to defeat Advaitism is by teaching them the core concepts of Advaitism and then teaching then how to defeat that with Vedic authority.

Again, I am not going to teach the pseudo-Advaitins on this forum about Advaitism, but it is obvious that none of them are legitimate students of Vedanta, but are simply fringe Advaitins with miniscule understand of Advaita Vedanta.

India has produced millions of pseudo-Advaitins that don't have a clue about what is actual Advaitism.

It's not my job to teach you about the Advaita Siddhanta of Shankar.

For that, you will need to do your own homework.

I encourage Krishna-bhakti and the achintya-bheda-abheda tattva of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu who is the incarnation of Krishna that appeared in Bengal about 500 years ago as foretold in shastra.

Advaitism is for Hindu neophytes.

When a Hindu becomes advanced in yoga practice, he will naturally take up Vaishnavism as the fruit of Vedic siddhanta.

Advaitism nowadays is being advocated on the WEB by so many fringe Advaitins who don't really have any actual grasp of the teachings of Shankaracharya - the founder of Advaita Vedanta.

I asked for evidence supporting your description of Advaita and you responded with,

 

 

 

In other words, you have no scriptural evidence to backup your version of Advaita. That was exactly my point.

 

Cheers

I am not going to teach you Advaitism.

You obviously have not study Advaitism under any authentic guru in the lineage of Shankaracharya.

Trust me, I know more about Advaitism than you do and I learned it from the Vaishnava acharya.

Do you have a quote from an Advaita source to back this up? If not, then I am sure you have no problems if I tell you it is wrong.

 

Cheers

You are obviously clueless about Advaitism.

It's a sorry day for Advaitism when the servants of the Vaishnava have to explain to them what is Advaitism.

You might fancy yourself as a Shankarite or Vedantist, but you seem to have no information about the tattva-siddhanta of Advaitism.

Thanks for the replies. I'm wondering if it's another Sri Govinda who took sannyas because the Sri Govinda from Evanston, husband of Sri Leka, never seemed like the type of devotee who would ever do that.

 

Sonic Yogi, who was the tp when the temple was moved, and do you remember approx. how many devotees were in Evanston before the move. Do you know where some of those devotees from that time went? Some of them went to Hawaii (Prasad das, Damayanti dd) and do you know what happened to Ramaii, who was also a pujari from that time and I believe moved to the new address.

Yes, it is the same Sri Govinda who has taken sannyasa from Govinda Maharaja at SCSM.

Uttama Sloka prabhu was the TP in Chicago after Sri Govinda. He came down when they closed the Ottawa temple along with most all the other devotees from that temple.

That is when Sivarama prabhu (Swami) came down as well. At that time I think that Sivarama was the VP or the co-TP at Chicago.

Ramai? Sure, I managed to convince him to come to San Jose and join the efforts there under the leadership of Bhakti Sudhir Maharaja. As far as I know he is still the head pujari there at the Santa Cruz temple.

Aindra has been in India for longer than I can remember.

Chicago was a major airport book distribution center so a lot of the book distribution heavy weights were there; Vaisheshika, Bopadeva etc. etc. Some of the old Chicago temple devotees are around the New Raman Reti temple here in North Florida. One lady devotee I remember from then is a leading devotee around the temple. Her name escapes me at the moment.

I was there when Tripurari Swami pulled off a cout-de-ta and managed to overthrow Suhbha Vilasa, the nice Indian gentleman who had been appointed president under Jayatirtha Maharaja.

Since I was a mainstay of the temple staff, I got stuck in the middle as Subha Vilasa and Tripurari Maharaja were both convassing me to support them in this battle for leadership at ISKCON Chicago.

I had to side with Tripurari Maharaja at that time and the temple basically ousted Subha Vilasa prabhu, who was otherwise quite a nice Vaishnava gentleman and family man.

I left Chicago to go to India and when I came back I soon left Chicago to go work with Sivarama Maharaja on the Oklahoma farm started by Tamal.

I ended up back in Chicago after Sivarama Maharaja fell out with Tamal and went off to England where he has been every since.

I arrived at the Chicago temple around the very end of 1975, so I wasn't there when Prabhupada came. I was in L.A. around that time and saw Prabhupada there.

I doubt that I can help much with the info you are looking for. But, I was at the Chicago temple in Evanston and also at the temple when it was moved to Rogers Park in the old Masonic lodge. I was a pujari at the Rogers Park temple, but at the old Evanston temple I was doing other services because I wasn't brahman initiated.

I took second initiation in Chicago just a few weeks before Prabhupada passed.

IMO, Advaita doesn’t mean that you and me can become God. That would be absurd. The basis of Advaita is that there exists only one God (just as in Christianity). So no one but God is God. Then, of course, it is impossible for both you and me to be God simultaneously. We must both be eternally different from God. The difficult part to understand (even for Advaitins) is not so much this difference, but the simultaneous oneness or Brahman or God. It seems to be inconceivable..

Advaitism is about the idea that all bodily existence is miserable and there the goal is to become unembodied and to merge into the oneness of of the Brahman.

Since impersonal Brahman is "God" and the goal of Advaitism is to merge homogeneously into the Brahman, we have in effect a religion about how to become God.

you attain the status of vishnu.

No. That is just wrong.

There is nothing anywhere in shastra that says you attain to the status of Vishnu.

You can attain to the service of Vishnu in a similar form with similar qualities of Vishnu, but to attain to the status of Vishnu would mean that you cease to become servant and then become Vishnu.

There is no such belief in any Vaishnava sect that you become Vishnu.

That is a foolish Mayavada idea that you can become Vishnu.

No true Vaishnava ever aspires to become Vishnu or attain his status.

Jiva can never become Vishnu.

He can become servant of Vishnu and have a form like Narayana, but he can never become Vishnu.

Hey sonic yogi.Please tell me what does krishna mean when he says that you attain my spiritual nature.Dont the advait have an upper hand on that.And he also says that the nature of the soul is of self.

No, the Shankarites have no upper from anything in the Bhagavad-gita.

The statement of Krishna says "he attains to my nature" it doesn't say he attains to become me.

To attain to the nature of Krishna means to become a transcendental, spiritual person with full spiritual sense function as Krishna has.

It does not mean that somehow Krishna is saying that "you will become another Krishna like me" or whatever it is you are saying that the Shankarites believe about the verse in Gita.

Krishna says abandon all religions and surrender "unto me".

The ME is clearly as person since nirvishesha brahman is devoid of personality.

I guess the Advaitins are all excited about the proposition of becoming God, but it all sounds like so much foolishness to western people who were all raised to believe that God is a person and not just some spiritual substance without form, name or qualities.

This "become God" philosophy is unique to India and the Shankarite sects.

Outside of India this proposal that "you can become God" just sounds like so much ridiculous nonsense.

Advaitism is a Hindu cult that has practically no existence outside of India.

In the western countries, this "you can become God" religion is a Hindu cult with little to no potential for becoming a world religion as has Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

"You can become God!"

Really, that is such an absurd concept that it's hard to understand how so many Hindu people have bought into such a ridiculous religion.

In the western world, people just laugh at Advaitism.

Advaitism "you can become God" has got to be the most ridiculous cult on the planet.

There is a new documentary out called The God Who Wasn't There. It specifically challenges the historical authenticity of Jesus Christ. The producers have presented the views of some of the top academic theologians who have arrived at the conclusion that the story of Christ is a myth.

This comes along with a new book by R.G. Price entitled Jesus, a very Jewish Myth.

There is a website that deals specifically with the Christ myth theory.

http://www.christbusters.com

Is it possible that in fact the story of Jesus is a myth fabricated in Greek language by Hellenistic Jews looking for a marriage of the Jewish and the Greek traditions?

Well, in 2012 they say that TATA motors will be exporting their ultra cheap, $2500 cars to the United States. So if Kali is not finished by then, hopefully the cost of living in the West will at least decrease.

That is pretty good advice. Over the last 30 years, almost everyone who left everything to do sadhana in Radhakunda found it wasn't what they expected. Radhakunda is a place for highly advanced devotees to continue their spiritual sadhana. Those of us who still have likings and dislikings (probably all of us) should practice more in our own natural environments at first. Sadhana won't be easier by going to Radhakunda, it will in fact be harder unless our minds are conquered. Make a radhakunda around you instead.

That is so very well stated.

Very sincere and very sweet.

Thank-you for the very kind sharing of this excellent thought.

and we wonder why the great mystics and ascetics most always talked in parables and metaphor?

Maybe they just didn't want to spill the beans in front of the unbaptized.

Just abandon all these artificial social designations and become avadhuta.

There is no Vedic society in the modern world, so all these so-called varna and ashrama designations are artificial and false imitations of real Varnashrama.

Leave all these material designations to the materially attached and just follow the avadhuta path of neglecting all these artificial social orders.

You don't need any false varna or ashrama to get attached to.

Just cultivate love of Krishna and forget about all those material designations.

Fact is, Shaivites don't know what they believe.

Among different Shaiva school there is advaita, dvaita and bheda abheda.

Shaiva gurus mix and blend any and every siddhanta they need to for the sake of keeping up with the Vaishnava siddhanta that has exposed the miserable advaita siddhanta of Sunyavada Nirvishesa siddhi.

 

Attachment. Just see the the reaction of the Swamijis when the promised amount for the lecture is not delivered. Or when the lose their Omega watch.

I don't know what "swamijis" you are talking about, but that would in fact be an excess.

I know several Gaudiya swamis and none of them are that materialistic.

 

Are these individuals spiritual? NO. By no stretch of imagination can they be called spiritual.

Well, actually, with a little stretch of the imagination they can be.

Because, the spiritual teachers from India know that the western world does not have the same respect and admiration for old men wearing tattered rags and living in grass and dung huts, as in India.

So, when they come to teach in the western countries they prefer to show that one does not have to wear tattered rags, live in grass huts and beg for food to make spiritual advancement.

There were many Rajarsis in India who lived lives of spectacular opulence and wealth but who were the most advanced spiritual sages.

The notion that one must wear rags, beg and live in poverty to be a spiritual person is a false conception born from ignorance of the Vedic culture.

Even great kings of India who lived in fabulous wealth have been known and respected as great sages and yogis.

Wealth and comfort is only bad if it causes you to forget about the purpose and meaning of life.

There have been many great souls in the past who have attained spirituality while in the midst of material opulence.

But, that doesn't apply to me, because I am poor by western standards.