sant

It's funny, this sequence of events.

 

1) Hare Krishna claims that you can learn Vedas from the Hare Krishnas.

2) Someone points out the fact that Hare Krishnas do not study the Vedas, which essentially invalidates point #1

3) Another Hare Krishna arrives and posts a lot of irrelevant banter which basically says that "Veda" means something other than the standard definition of the term "Veda."

 

Conclusion: By "Vedas" the Hare Krishnas mean Bhagavad-gita and Bhagavata Purana, and specifically their own commentaries on the same. In fact, when they say "Four Books are Enough," they aren't referring to Rig, Yajur, Sama, and Atharva Veda, but rather to the four principal commentaries of their acharya.

 

 

 

Its funny how accurate also they are.

Your site is full of people who are denying that jesus did not exist as gospel were written after him.OR because he did those miracles.Well do you know even our scriptures were written after krishna left the earth.MAny people will not beleive about the miracles and mysticism happening at that time also.

Your site doesnt prove jesus is a myth.

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

 

JESUS IS NOT A (I WONT SAY IT).

A personal question werent u aborn in a catholic family earlier.

Actually, it is you who are "limiting" God by putting Him in form of Sri Krishna.

 

I'm not saying Sri Krishna is not (the Avatar of) God, I merely saying, don't think that Sri Krishna's form is the only form. This is the same attitude Christians has about their Jesus (that he is the only way) and this is why Christianity IS DYING. You want to kill Hindusm with your close-minded approach?

 

To me, Sri krishna is not the only form. I also see Sri Rama in the same way as I see Sri Krishna. The same way I see Narashima, and the Kurma Avatar and all other Avatars of Maha Vishnu. There is no difference to me on which form He comes.

 

SHri krishna is the original and most beautiful form of god.

He is the source of incarnations.Stop your christian example.IT doesnt come here.Im not saying that sri krishna is the only form of god..Please dont come with your short sighted views and come after some reading.

NO ones killing hinduism here.Nobody is denying god is formless.

That reminds me of a guy who worte a book criticising mother teressa.Anyway goodnight ill look into it tomorrow.

Can you prove christ doesnt exist more than that you can prove krishna exists.

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

Do you know that the whole dating process in history is based on christ's birth and death.

There are no remains of krishna just like christ (or are there?).And do you know there are more christians than hindus.Now how about that.

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

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".

 

 

 

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.

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.

 

COntd.

Words such as christ busters and i pass urine only show you down.You being such a high devotee why keep such cheap and Tamo guni thoughts.

WHy dont you ask yourself why you do it and accept that you are dong it only due to your enmity towards christians.Just becuse you reject someones philosophy doesnt mean you start talking ill about great beings.

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

 

 

Eating meat doesnt make you evil.Even brahmans ate meat.

in the sun’s core produce heat and ultimately photons (and other types of radiation), which are emitted by the sun and travel away from the sun at the speed of light. When these photons reach Earth (after 8.3 minutes), we see this as the sun and its sunlight. However, what we actually see are just these photons, from which we conclude that there must exist a sun in the sky.

 

You mean there is no sun?

God is formless and shapeless - He is either Man or Woman nor Beast. He is without beginning and an End. All this is His essence as stated by the Gita. So how is it that God could be Sri Krishna who came to be by being born as a human and meet His physical end as a Human?

Krishna never says that he is fromless.God is formless as well as with form.Both.Why cant be god with form ,youre are again limiting him by your views.

do not exist simultaneously in time. Although the Sun and its sunshine (or a star and its starlight) appear to exist simultaneously, they are always separated in time.

 

If the Hare Krishna free thinkers are not satisfied misrepresenting Gaudiya Vaishnavism, may I please request that they leave off of misrepresenting other Vaishnavas?

 

Whatever it is im not a hare krishna so dont spoil there name for my error.

Yes, but that's not relevant for the discussion. We are looking here for simultaneously (non-causally) correlated events..

 

You just said that sun and sunlight dont exist simultaneously.

But wherever there is sun there is sunlight.

The point is, that there is an action-reaction-like relation between a light source and the light it emits. In your example of a mach, first the sulphur and phosphor in the tip of the match must ignite, and only after that the match starts to emit light. So the match is the cause of the light.

Yes but my point was that the flame is cause of light.Wherever the sun is it will emit light simultaneously.

thanks. im sorry

What difference does it make? He was ready to kill his own son. What sort of God demands that you kill your own son?

 

I don't really know what your point is, other than perhaps this desperate need you have to disagree with me at all times over everything, even when such disagreements find you endorsing ludicrous ideas just to argue.

 

No dear Raghu, i meant that it was an act done out of devotion to the lord.God was just testing abraham and his devotion. There was also no sacrifice done because god beforehand stopped abraham from sacrificing his son.

The Purushamedha did not involve actual slaughter of humans. Chandu already quoted an explanation describing the symbolic nature of it as a reenactment of the sacrifice of the original Purusha as described in the Rig Veda.

 

 

Does it mean there was no human sacrificed

Elementary science refresher,

 

Light requires time to travel. The distance between the sun and the earth is long enough for light to take a significant time to reach earth. 8.3 minutes, actually.

 

Your matchstick/room example is a bad one.

 

Cheers

 

Wait dr kaiserose.IT doesnt mean taht the light is not there when the sun is there.It only takes time to reach us but it doent mean that the sun exists without emitting light.

Didn't you know that when you look at the stars, you are actually looking at the stars as they existed millions of (light)years in the past. Some of the stars we can still see today, may not even exist anymore..

 

Take an example.Go to a room and light a matchstick.You can see even when the flame has just lighted from the time it it is small and till it becomes big(all which hapens fast) it emits light.So you can think about the sun.

Although the Sun and its sunshine (or a star and its starlight) appear to exist simultaneously, they are always separated in time.

 

IS this just a theory or can you provide some source from where you said it.

And i thought the sunshine was emitted by lord surya.

In fact, among scholarly circles, the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham does present ethical problems to Jews who have to grapple with the idea that their God comes across as whimsical and cruel. They cannot simply dismiss such descriptions as irrelevant because no amount of time will change the fact that this is described in their scripture, which is their authority. Similarly, for traditional Hindus, Vedas are the authority, and they cannot simply ignore whatever seems undesireable because that would be tantamount to rejecting the authority of the Vedas. Again, Neo-Hindus only give lip service to the authority of the Vedas, so such a point is probably lost on them.

 

Would you be ready to sacrifice yourself raghu for purushamedha?If no then you stop deciding who does lip service and who doesnt.

What abraham did was out of devotion and not as a ritual.

You cant call it the same.

Indeed, the Sun and its rays are not a good example, because the Sun’s nuclear reactions are clearly the cause of its rays. They don’t exist simultaneously.

 

So it means that sun causes sunshine since nuclear reactions are of the sun and not the sunshine.And how can yoy say that the sunshine is not there when the sun is there.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. Please do remember that when reading anything related to Hindusm.

 

Thank you.

 

ITs quite good sephiroth.