Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

shambu

Members
  • Content Count

    141
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by shambu

  1. Furthermore Lord Jesus (who is accepted as a Shaktyavesavatara or divinely empowered incarnation throughout our Sampradaya) said: "Blessed are the peace-makers, for they shall be called God's children." So don't make unnecessary quarrel here.... Did you actually read the Bible? I am asking this because you accuse "the Christians" of "wrong siddhanta." Siddhanta means conclusion. Jesus emphasized that the highest principle, the highest commandment, is to Love God. In this there is no difference with Gaudiya-siddhanta, or Gauranga-vada. Only the means by which to achieve this end may be different, and somewhat less clearly defined in Christian lore. Also the eternal difference between the living entity and the Supreme Lord is recognized by Lord Jesus, where He says: "Not my will but Yours will be done." So where is the "wrong siddhanta"? Actually among all world-religions no religion gets so close to Gaudiya-Vaisnavism in a sense as Christianity. Mayavada and sunyavada are there in abundance in the so-called "New Age"-movement, so maybe you'd better point your arrows in that direction if you want to argue and fight. Actually it's true that the original Hebrews were not monotheistic, as you say. This is proven by the use of the word "Elohim" for God in the Torah. They were also worshipping images (later referred to as "idols") and stones, and mountains. Also they performed animal-sacrifices. We find exactly the same phenomena in the Vedas, that also accept a plurality of Gods, sometimes accepting Indra as supreme, sometimes Visnu, sometimes Shiva, and sometimes Brahman. So where is the difference, in essence? Pure monotheism wasn't introduced amongst the Israelians until Moses, who had the Golden Calf destroyed (a Vedic symbol). By the way, many of the first-day Christians were vegetarians, and also believed in reincarnation. This has unfortunately all been wiped out by the Church-authorities, who indeed tried to obscure and destroy the pure teachings of Christ for the sake of money and power...
  2. I would like to object to the term "meat eating sastra." Sastra don't eat meat.
  3. "The races come from adaptation to environment. As folks settled after the many catyclysms, their skin tone reflected their environment." This is pure Darwinism. "Race" means more than just the tone of the skin. And it has never been witnessed that a black dynasty gradually turned white or vice versa without intermingling, just by living in a certain environment. But I won't elaborate (or speculate) on that. Actually better to forget the whole concept of race, since it's material. But the differences between races are there, undeniable—both on the gross and subtle levels. Just to tease you further, I would like to confront you with the statement from Bhagavatam that there are 400.000 species of human beings. Some are civilized and others are uncivilized, according to Prabhupada. How many of these species are (or were) to be found on this planet, what exactly differentiates them to make them into distinct species, and where are all these species to be found? Are Devas also humans, for instance (I think not - manavas are different from devatas, isn't it) and how come there are so many of them? Maybe someone can give me a list of various human species. I am interested. As a junior member I am entitled to ask stupid questions.
  4. gHari says: That is why when all is said and done in the Gita, Krsna advises: "Just surrender unto Me. I will get you a cool haircut". [bG 18.66] Actually Krsna says: "I will deliver you from all sinful reactions, do not fear." He doesn't mention haircut. Personally I would suggest an other Gita-verse that is maybe a little more appropiate to Guest's problematic dilemma, including haircuts (and the rest), namely Bg. 9.22: "But those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating on My transcendental form—to them I carry what they lack, and I preserve what they have." Krsna preserves "cool haircuts" also. If He likes. But He can also give one the face of a donkey, for no apparent reason. He is "the Transcendental Autocrat." He is only bound by the love of His pure and unalloyed devotee. If by worshipping and surrendering to Lord Krsna one would be guaranteed to get "cool" haircut, "cool" wife and kids, and a supercool house with an even cooler swimmingpool, I think many more would have surrendered to Krsna by now. Unfortunately this is not the case. It would be all too easy. Why His name is Keshava? Because He has the coolest haircut. Why His name is Govinda, Acyuta, Padma Lochana etc? Because He is the Most Attractive Guy imaginable, who will never fall down. Moreover His name is Gopinatha, because He has the most attractive girlfriends imaginable who are completely devoted to Him in all respects. Basically we are just cooking with envy, until we reverse the whole situation and engage in loving devotional service to Him. No more "bad-hair-days"......
  5. When family members appear in your dream it doesn't necessarily mean this must be a ghost wanting to hurt you. Firstly they could be actually the spirits of your aunt and uncle trying to tell you something. Then you should just say "hello" and try to hear what they have to say. Secondly familymembers as well as other familiar personalities represent certain aspects of YOURSELF. Also in this case you should be a little sensitive and try to understand what they respresent and what their apparition means in the context of your present circumstances. They appear out of your own subconscsiousness and have nothing to do with ghosts, spirits or anything harmful. probably. I don't know why devotees are always so upset about ghosts.
  6. shambu

    Rudra

    Good Question! Just Give Me Some Time To Think This Over! Call Back Later! Bye Bye! Of course we were not cheated! We were never cheated! I only meant this in a rhetorical sense since Guest is suggesting this with his remark. You don't get my cynisism. Unfortunately.
  7. shambu

    Rudra

    It is not so strange that devotees in ISKCON think so, since it is written on the book. Under his picture it says plainly: His Divine Grace Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Thakur (1874-1937) Founder of the Gaudiya Math and author of this Brahma-samhita translation and commentary. So we were cheated again? Too bad! By the way: do Gaudiya Math versions of the same book mention the name of Dr. Sanyal?
  8. I also don't see any reason for controversy. It's pretty clear that Bhaktivinoda's prophecy HAS been fulfilled by HDG AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad. He established temples and chanting all over the world, also in Canada. Only in the introduction to this book I find someone saying it was Prabhupad Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur who fulfilled this prophecy. So maybe this is the opinion of some elderly staunch members of Gaudiya Math, who heard this fifty years ago before our Prabhupad came to the West. But why print it in a book published around 2000 AD? That's the question.
  9. Thank you for all your superb quotations & comments, prabhus! All has been very useful indeed! Dandabats.
  10. "Srila Prabhupada said it was significant that the book was written the year of his birth." Didn't Prabhupada take it as a sign of even greater significance that Thakura Bhaktivinode sent one of the first copies of the book to America, the land he chose as his original preaching-field? I mean, many more books about Krsna or Mahaprabhu may have been written in Prabhupada's birth year, but none of them was specifically sent to America. I think it was for that reason that Srila Prabhupada took it as a special token and as a prediction of the Mission he was to unfold later (to preach Mahaprabhu's message in the Western countries, starting with America). As far as speculation is concerned, I think there just may be some difference of opinion or particular viewpoint. It is certainly not a fact that all devotees in Gaudiya Math think that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is meant by the Thakura's prediction. "Gaudiya Math" is not a coherent entity (anymore) and consists of different Missions with differences of opinion on certain issues. And within these organizations individual persons may also cherish their individual opinions to some extent. That's about all I want to say about this...otherwise I may get "personal" and drift away into "politics."
  11. shambu

    Rudra

    Sri Brahma-samhita, TEXT 16 "The function of SHAMBHU in relation to jivas is that this universe enshrining the mundane egotistic principle has originated from SHAMBHU." PURPORT: The basic principle is the Supreme Lord Himself who is the embodiment of the principle of existence of all entities devoid of seperating egotisms. In this mundane world the appearence of individual entities as seperated egotistic symbols, is the limited perverted reflection of the unalloyed spiritual (cit) potency; and, as representing the primal masculine divine generative function SHAMBHU, it is united to the accomodating principle, viz., the mundane female organ which is the perverted reflection of the spiritual (cit) potency, Ramaadevi. At this function SHAMBHU is nothing but the mere material causal principle embodying the extension in the shape of ingredient as matter. (you follow?) Again when in course of the progressive evolution of mundane creation each universe is manifested, then in the principle of SHAMBHU, BORN OF THE SPACE BETWEEN THE TWO EYEBROWS OF VISNU, there appears the manifestation of the personality of RUDRA; yet under all circumstances SHAMBHU fully enshrines the MUNDANE EGOTISTIC PRINCIPLE. The innumerable jivas as spiritual particles emanating from the oversoul in the form of pencils of rays of effulgence, have no relation with the mundane world when they come to know themselves to be the eternal servants of the Supreme Lord. They are then incorporated into the realm of Vaikuntha. But when they desire to lord it over Maya, forgetting their real identity, the egotistic principle SHAMBHU entering into their identities makes them identify as seperate enjoyers of mundane entities. Hence SHAMBHU is the primary principle of the egotistic mundane universe and of perverted egotism in jivas that identifies itself with their limited material bodies. Sri Brahma-samhita, TEXT 45 "Just as milk is transformed into curd by the action of acids, but yet the effect curd is neither same as, nor different from, its cause -milk- so I adore the primeval LORD GOVINDA of whom the state of SHAMBHU is a transformation for the performance of the work of destruction." PURPORT: (The real nature of SHAMBHU, the presiding Deity of Maheshadhama, is described.) SHAMBHU is not a second Godhead other than KRSNA. Those who entertain such discriminating sentiment, commit a great offense against the Supreme Lord. The supremacy of SHAMBHU is subservient to that of GOVINDA; hence they are not really different from each other. The non-distinction is established by the fact that as milk treated with acid turns into curd, so Godhead becomes a subservient when He Himself attains a distinct personality by the addition of a particular element of adulteration. THIS PERSONALITY HAS NO INDEPENDENT INITIATIVE. The said adulterating principle is constituted of a combination of the stupefying quality of the deluding energy, the quality of nonplenitude of the marginal potency and a slight degree of the ecstatic-cum-cognitive principle of the plenary spiritual potency. (still following?) This specifically adulterated reflection of the principle of the subjective portion of the Divinity is SADAASHIVA, in the form of the effulgent masculine-symbol-god SHAMBHU from whom RUDRADEVA is manifested. In the work of mundane creation as the material cause, in the work of preservation by the destruction of sundry asuras and in the work of destruction to conduct the whole operation, GOVINDA manifests Himself as guna-avatara in the form of SHAMBHU who is the seperated portion of GOVINDA imbued with the principle of His subjective plenary portion. The personality of the destructive principle in the form of time has been identified with that of SHAMBHU by scriptural evidences that have been adduced in the commentary. The purport of the Bhagavata-shlokas, viz., VAISNAVAANAAM YATHAA SHAMBHU, etc., is that SHAMBHU, in pursuance of the will of GOVINDA, works in union with his consort DURGADEVI by his own time energy. He teaches pious duties (dharma) as stepping-stones to the attainment of spiritual service in the various tantra-shaastras, etc., suitable for jivas in different grades of the conditional existence. In obedience to the will of GOVINDA, SHAMBHU maintains and fosters the religion of pure devotion by preaching the cult of illusionism (Mayavada) and the speculative aagama-shaastras. The fifty attributes of individual souls are manifest in a far vaster measure in SHAMBHU and five additional attributes not attainable by jivas are also partly found in him. So SHAMBHU cannot be called a jiva. He is the lord of jiva but yet partakes of the nature of a seperated portion of GOVINDA. Translation and Purports by: His Divine Grace Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami Thakura. By the way, I am not SHAMBHU, I am only Shambu! (stupid I left the 'h' out!)
  12. The Book you are referring to —Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu - His Life and Precepts— has recently been reprinted and published by Acyutananda Krishna dasa (Alan Hackney), 11, Tichborne Court, 2a, Tichborne Street, Leicester, LE2 8IS, England. Tel: (0533) 554619. I have no idea if the Book is still available, or if the data given above are still correct. Also you might be surprised that the "special empowered individual" the Thakura mentions as the one to "very soon broadcast the movement of pure devotion all over the world" is identified in the introduction to the booklet (by Bhakti Vedanta Baman Maharaja of Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti) as being Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura instead of his most famous disciple who actually did the job....(of course thru' the empowerment of his Gurudeva and the entire sampradaya) Opinions are always divided, it seems... Also I couldn't find the quote in the pages of the original booklet - it was only mentioned in the Introduction, so maybe its actual source may be another of the Thakura's books. That the Thakura was an actual visionary is also proven by another written statement from him (also "source unknown," found it in the Prabhupada Lilamrita): "Oh, for that day when the fortunate English, French, German and American people will take up banners, mrdangas and karatalas and raise kirtana through their streets and towns. When will that day come?" Maybe it was his desire that made this thing happen...
  13. I missed something in the replies to the original article of this thread, being the words of Bhakti Charu Swami, namely that whatever he said is 100% true from the philosophical and bhakti-siddhantic point of view. Only seen in the context of the present reality and recent history of the ISKCON-society it all sounds rather naive and simplistic. To blindly follow a bunch of blind leaders will inevitably make one end up in somekind of a ditch. Even if they are only half-blind, the risk of being misled is there. But the principle of not criticizing others, what to speak of authorities, is one of the backbones of spiritual life. The tendency to criticize and to be suspicious of others acts like a strong poison on the mind of any aspiring devotee, especially for mere beginners. That's just a fact. It's weakening and gives rise to a lack of humility and the tendency to speculate independently. As soon as ISKCON is transformed into a full-fledged "democratic" society, it will have become part of the general battlefield of Kali Yuga, where everyone, no matter how crazy or deluded, will want to express his own opinion just to contribute to the general confusion. The recent appeal of "Gay Vaisnavas" for recognition (and the degree to which this appeal was taken seriously and got attention) is just another sign of this degradation. Why would Prabhupada consistently have referred to democracy as "demon-crazy" if he would have had even the slightest appreciation for it? Spiritual life is a descending process in all respects, which means accepting higher authority. But this acceptance can never be forced and must arise naturally - in other words, the so-called leaders and spiritual masters must demand this respect by BEING authorities and pure bhaktas, not by just claiming or pretending to be so. I think here lies the crux of the problem. Another problem, however, may be that devotees grow up in a society where being harshly critical and sceptical has creeped in as being part of their culture, their society-trait so to speak. When this happens, this may hardly be reversable and will serve as an incurable ever-increasing disease that will weaken the society up to the point of its final demolition. This is the actual anti-pole of that society of fanatics where no criticism is heard, except for in the minds of its members, or wherein the followers' minds have become so numb and dumb by constant brainwash and blind adoration that the mind has lost it's power to discriminate properly. That society will also perish. The concept of ISKCON (not the GBC per se) being Prabhupada's (or even Krsna's) body seems like a proper concept to me. I can remember this concept kept me going when I just started....
  14. Maybe this is hardly a spiritual subject matter, but I am making some inquiry about what Prabhupada (ACBSP) said about this. I mean "centralization" as far as management in regards to temple communities is concerned (as opposed to independent management of seperate communities). Does any of the kind devotees have some quotes about this from HDG?
  15. Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." [Marc 10. 42-45] To suppose that Jesus "suffered" on the cross because of his own sins, seems like a blasphemous statement to me, as long as you would regard Jesus as a devotee. And taken the fact that only a devotee can truly recognize another devotee, the "devotee" who said this would be no devotee at all. I think you must have misunderstood. Did he refer to the "world-karma" or something?
  16. I-Agree-Va with whatever you have said. And I nod my Horsehead down............
  17. shambu

    Rudra

    Rudra means Anger. Although generally peaceful, Lord Shiva becomes very angry sometimes, and he destroys the Universe!
  18. Krsna is the best cheater there is. In Bg. 10.36 Krsna says: dyutam chalayatam asmi "I am also the gambling of cheats." In the purport to this verse Srila Prabhupada comments: "As the Supreme, Krsna can be more deceitful than any mere man. If Krsna chooses to deceive a person, no one can surpass Him in His deceit." So why can't Narayana (Krsna) cheat somebody by assuming the form of a poor man (daridra-narayana)? Smoking bidi, ganja or anything? On the other hand, how can we be so sure that an outwardly "pucca" brahmana or devotee will actually spend his money in Krsna's service?
  19. Found this quote for you. It's from from the book Sri Prabhandavali, A Collection of Devotional Essays by Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja. In the Srimad-Bhagavatam (11.17.27), Sri Krsna says: acaryam mam vijaniyan navamanyeta karhicit na martya-buddhyasuyeta sarva-deva-mayo guruh "One should know the guru as the asraya-vigraha and non-different from Me. One should never disrespect him or attribute faults to him by perceiving him with material vision, for he is the embodiment of all the demigods." There are numerous demigods and goddesses, and amongst them Brahma, Visnu, and Mahesa are primary. The guru is the embodiment of Brahma, the embodiment of Visnu, and also the embodiment of Mahesa. He is compared to Brahma because just as Brahma creates this world, the guru creates bhakti by sowing the seed of devotion in our hearts. Visnu is the maintainer, and Gurudeva is he who maintains our bhakti. As long as we haven't attained the stage of prema he continues to strengthen our devotion. As conditioned souls, we cannot even imagine how much endeavor he makes for even one disciple. And as Mahesa is the destroyer, the guru destroys all of our anarthas and aparadhas. This is why the guru is said to be the embodiment of all the demigods. Pretty clear, huh?
  20. Demigods represent different qualities of Sri Hari. All demigods taken together represent the opulence of Sri Hari. It's also said that Guru is directly Hari Himself. Hari is all the demigods combined. Not that Hari or the Guru are on the level of the demigods. All right?
  21. I found a few references in the Srimad Bhagavatam pertaining to your question. Here they are: SB 2.7.11: The Lord appeared as the Hayagriva incarnation in a sacrifice performed by me [brahma]. He is the personified sacrifices, and the hue of His body is golden. He is the personified Vedas as well, and the Supersoul of all demigods. When He breathed, all the sweet sounds of the Vedic hymns came out of His nostrils. SB 6.8.17: May Sanat-kumara protect me from lusty desires. As I begin some auspicious activity, may Lord Hayagriva protect me from being an offender by neglecting to offer respectful obeisances to the Supreme Lord. May Devarsi Narada protect me from committing offenses in worshiping the Deity, and may Lord Kurma, the tortoise, protect me from falling to the unlimited hellish planets. SB 6.9.40: O Lord, O personified three worlds, father of the three worlds! O strength of the three worlds, in the form of the Vamana incarnation! O three-eyed form of Nrsimhadeva! O most beautiful person within the three worlds! Everything and everyone, including human beings and even the Daitya demons and the Danavas, is but an expansion of Your energy. O supremely powerful one, You have always appeared in Your forms as the various incarnations to punish the demons as soon as they become very powerful. You appear as Lord Vamanadeva, Lord Rama and Lord Krsna. You appear sometimes as an animal like Lord Boar, sometimes a mixed incarnation like Lord Nrsimhadeva and Lord Hayagriva, and sometimes an aquatic like Lord Fish and Lord Tortoise. Assuming such various forms, You have always punished the demons and Danavas. We therefore pray that Your Lordship appear today as another incarnation, if You so desire, to kill the great demon Vrtrasura. There is also a demon called Hayagriva. He stole the Vedas and was killed by Sri Hari. This is mentioned in the 8th Canto of Srimad Bhagavatam [24.8-9]
  22. Gauracandra, why in the first place did you use the term "Aryan Mummies"? You could have said just as well "European Mummies" or "Celtic Mummies." Now the result is that you stirred up this whole confusing debate around "Aryans" having invaded India or not, where the word Aryan simply denotes a certain racial/cultural/ethnic identity, as opposed to the original intrinsic Vedic meaning of the word, namely Noble (=spiritually advanced & progressive). My opinion is that Aryans in the true meaning of the word are to be found amongst all peoples and races of the world, basically (and I think you would agree). Were the Nazist Germans who popularized the word Aryan to simply mean fair-skinned, blond-haired and blue-eyed actually Aryans themselves? Rather they displayed characteristics of an outspoken Asuric nature - so what value does their definition of Aryan actually have? It's simply a childish and erroneous, material designation. So why "Aryan Mummies"? What signs of nobility does a mummy display? I saw the documentary about these desert mummies on TV - very interesting. These Chinese scientists were visibly embarrased with these findings on their supposedly Mongoloid soil. They were unmistakably Celts - their looks, textiles, horseriding gear etcetera. Quite amazing they got that far into Central Asia. But I would say these findings form no proof whatsoever for an Indian Aryan invasion theory.
  23. I am not making big fuss over anything. This guest was curious about my reasoning behind my suspicion regarding his actual identity. So I revealed to him what made me think so. I admit that whether or not he is actually of European descent is irrelevant to the topic. So let's quit it, then. Let it be. He may be a Martian, as far as I am concerned. Next subject.
  24. Guest-ji - indeed you SAID you were of European decent. I made a mistake stating that you said you were European. Sorry for being suspicious of your integrity. Still I find it hard to believe you are actually an American of European decent. The main reason is your usage of language. For instance you write: "Seeing as the statement made by Srila Prabhupada does not favor European people, it would seem likely that a person of European decent would not want to bring this statement to anyone’s attention." Sounds strange from the linguistical point of view (suggesting that you are not a native English speaker). It is not correct English, as far as I can judge. "Seeing as the statement..." doesn't make any sense. So this makes me think you are a non-English speaking person. And especially the use of the word Malecha instead of Mleccha practically convinced me that you must be Indian. Must be! Only an Indian - who is already acquainted with this word from tender childhood - would ever write the word phonetically like that. Most Westerners know this word (and other Sanskrit words) from Prabhupada's books (where it is spelled m-l-e-c-c-h-a) and would never accidentally render it as "malecha." Indians have their own peculiar way to render Sanskrit and Hindi words into Latin writing. Sometimes I read "bakthi" or "shakthi" from the pens of Indian writers (bhakti, shakti). Recently I came across the word "Vihishnu" instead of Visnu. I don't know if it's right or wrong, but it definitely sounds strange (and foreign) to me. Furthermore it is a fact that according to the (tradional) Vedic perspective every people outside of Bharata is considered to be Mleccha and Yavana - not only Europeans. <font color="red"> </font color>
  25. I suddenly have a strong suspicion that the person who started this thread is not European at all - as he is claiming to be. I think he must be an Indian who started this discussion with the aim of instigating a prickly debate around ethnic identity, just to stir up some unpleasant emotions. He pretty much succeeded in that, even though the discussion was sidetracked to a more important issue later on (the necessity to be able to give proper reference whenever we are claiming to quote some authority). We should give credit to him for that. Why do I think this man is not a European? Simple enough. Because he is saying "Malecha" instead of "Mleccha." Prabhupada never said "Malecha" nor did he write it in that way in any of his books, including in the "Science of Self Realization." So he must be Indian. Do you agree? Still I must admit that I fall short in his challenge to present concrete reference as to what I said. But I am sure I either heard or read it - only that won't satisfy you. As conditioned living beings we all have the propensity to cheat, that much may be clear... Please point out the weakness in my arguments.
×
×
  • Create New...