harerama

Well, if your guru falls down, it means he wasn't a pure devotee, so you can take another one. Better is to take your time to choose. First pray to Krsna that he will send you a bona-fide guru.

 

I'd like to add that you can have very special interactions with your guru, like in dreams for example. There are a lot of people that will not be able to bring you back to God because they don't have the power to do it, still they are accepting to be worshipped as gurus. Be very careful in your choice and i wish you all the best.

I've read of accounts where people have seen Sathya Sai baba in their dreams and they took it to mean that he was their real guru. So they become disciples of his and then later feel betrayed by their trust in him.

So how would you know who is your authentic guru?

By the way, I'm not seeking a guru out right now, I'm just curious as to what would be the qualities devotees would look for and how they make such judgment calls.

Or how do you know which guru to trust or whether to trust any guru? And what if that trust is betrayed in some form later after you've become a disciple? For instance, what if he succumbs to lust, or you find out he's not as perfect as you thought he was?

What would you do then? How would you feel?

***Karna is said to be peerless because he was blessed with the Kavcha and Kundala at birth, which cannot be pierced by any weapon. Before the kurukshetra battle he was time and again defeated by Arjuna and to say that Arjuna was afraid of Karna is only a wrong and biased opinion. Nowhere in Mahabharata it is mentioned that Arjuna was afraid of Karna? Arjuna is the only one, amongst all the warriors, who have never retreated from the battle field. While Karna, once again not able to win against Arjuna in the battlefield got the Shakti Astra to slay him. The Brahmastra was never used by Arjuna on Karna.

***

 

Wronng again. Karna was said to be peerless AFTER he GAVE AWAY his kavach and Kundala, and proved his might.

 

He was never defeated by Arjuna except when using the sammohanastra (sleep inducing arrow) in Virada, which affected everyone else including Bheeshma, Drona etc.

 

Yes, it is said at least twice that Arjuna felt fear seeing Karna in full slaughtering form, in the full translation. Not just that, but Krishna himself feared that Karna might kill everyone among them at one point, but he knew that fate decided it was not to be. Such was his might. Krishna was afraid for Arjun yet another time, due to Karna's shakti weapon, for which he used Khadotkaj.

 

It is no opinion, yet alone biased or unbiased. To say otherwise would be what's your opinion.

 

Arjuna retreated, or to be technically correct, Krishna retreated the chariot from Karna more than once during the war. Get your facts straight instead of what you see in movies or serials.

 

Again you show your ignorance by stating blatant lies...Karna was always able to win against Arjuna, even with the multitude of fate's curses upon him...He got shakti astra to prevent Indra's name be shamed due to the shameless act he performed by begging off his armor and earrings. EVEN WITHOUT shakti, he was unbeatable, and it took treachery to kill him, just like how it was for Bheeshma and Drona.

 

And for your last point, wrong again. Brahmastra was used by both Arjun and Karna, they used it against each other, neutralizing both.

How can Krishna be fearful if he was God incarnate? I can't understand that. Especially if he knew and willed everything to happen the way it did in the Mahabharata?

Thats because Krsna told Arjuna to not shop there, give up the religious section, and understand the philosophy as he is speaking.

 

Its not discrimination, unless one thinks there is philosophy involved in the religious books.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

All religions are based on some type of philosophical outlook, so yes, they all have some philosophy involved.

However, Eastern religions are relegated to the New Age/philosophy sections, but that's not such a bad thing, in my opinion. What's so bad about being associated with the New Age tradition? Or philosophy? New Age is pretty much an echo of Eastern religions, somewhat watered down, but still a step towards bringing people a better understanding of Eastern conceptions of God, the universe and the self, which I think is a good thing.

And how can anyone be offended with Hinduism being in the philosophy section as it has the associative effect to newcomers as a more thought-provoking and well thought out religion or outlook on life.

Greetings, my name is Terrence. I apologize if this is an improper place to put this post, but I'm new around here and wasn't sure.

 

Essentially I am trying to figure out if what I believe is Hindu, if I am Hindu. I'll give you guys a little back ground here so, perhaps, you have a better understanding of my position and can help to answer my questions better. I appreciate any input on this topic as it is something I have been thinking a lot about for the past couple of years.

 

I live in the USA, Detroit to be precise. I'm a 23 year old caucasian male (although I see no significance in "race") and the father of a seven year old boy. I was raised Catholic and went to catholic school growing up but was expelled for "acting up", which essentially translates into "not buying it". Christianity never felt right to me, although it does have it's merits. As a teenager I explored many religions, largely pagan or non monotheistic. I was drawn to Taoism and Buddhism in particular but have always had a strong aversion to "organized religion" or "Sunday religions" which seem to be more about socialization than true spiritual growth and making progress as a being. Religion has always seemed to me to be about subjugating one's self, not enlightening one's self. Answers are all that matter, the questions are speed bumps instead of lessons to be learned, rungs on a latter. Over the years I have spent my life observing the world, people and our natures. Exploring science and philosophy. I have come to some conclusions. Eventually I stumbled across Hinduism, which for some reason I had never really considered, and it seems that the conclusions I have made independently are essentially Hindu as far as I can tell. So, I will now list some of my beliefs, and my question is are these Beliefs compatible with Hindu and to what degree?

 

-I believe in a god, but not in an Xian western sense. God as a force and being not in the same as men. God as the encompassment of all things, beings and forces.

 

-I believe we are all abstractions of god, manifestations that exist in our world which is, in essence, illusory. Almost as if this were a dream of god, us all characters within that dream. Of course, more significant than this, but with that relativistic sense of "reality".

 

-I believe in morality. Not for the sake of keeping the gears of society moving, but in the sense that we are all parts of the same whole. To do wrong to another is to have the hand cut the foot.

 

-I believe that the point of this existence is to live and experience. To bring those experiences back to "god". To learn and transcend our limitations, to become one with that "god" again and make it "more" for our inclusion as enlightened beings.

 

-I believe in "Karma" as a metaphysical law, a sense of equilibrium that exists in the universe; balance. To act wrongly is to unbalance ourselves and the universe and harm it and ourselves. Perhaps a manifestation of the theory of Homeostasis in Physics?

 

-I believe that even though we are abstractions of "god" we still retain individuality. This is akin to the facets of a gem or viewing an object from different angles, a sense of duality. I believe this "truer self" exists on a "level" between us and god, some might consider it a soul, but I think of it as more of an ego free quintessential self, a divine self.

 

 

There are a few things that seem to be central to Hinduism that I'm not sure on, like Reincarnation and Caste; but I do not actively disbelieve in them. I'm just not sure, but would like to hear any reasoning for their existence. I'm open minded about these things.

 

These are, by and large, the core tenants of my belief. Are they Hindu? If so, is there any good literature for someone interested in learning more? Something simple and easy to explain? If these aren't Hindu, are you aware of any faith perspective or lifestyle that shares similar beliefs? I feel as if I am stagnating with too few people who understand my perspective or have similar views and can help me expand them. I've never had a purpose for "religion" since really, it's just a matter of living your beliefs. But I'd like to have people to discuss my thoughts with. I've considered visiting a temple not too far from my house, but I'm not sure how they would receive an Ethnic caucasian (I don't know if race plays any part in Hindu, but hope it doesn't) who knows little. I'm also curious as to what the major sects or subdivisions of Hinduism and what the differences are.

 

Another question I had is whether or not Smoking is taboo in Hindu, drug use or promiscuity? I'd like to know the stance on these things as they seem to be core to Western Religion and a good place to gage how the morals approach lifestyle.

 

I thank you for your time and consideration,

 

-Terrence.

Well, I'd say your beliefs are similar to Mahayana Buddhism, or vishishtadvaita Hinduism (qualified non-dualism).

I'm Hindu and I don't consider caste as anything but a social construct that Hindus live in, but isn't Hindu by definition. It's just a social construct, integrated into religious scriptures, but if you eliminate caste, the religion doesn't change as far as I'm concerned. Many Hindu yogis also do not believe in the caste system but identify themselves as Hindu.

In some places where you go, race will matter unfortunately. Race or caste, in certain temples you will be regarded as a curiosity or an uninvited guest. In India especially there are temples where NRI's, or Americans are not allowed. Of course there are also temples that are open to all of the Hindu faith, so you just have to look around for a temple that would suit you.

I believe Vaishnav Hinduism discourages smoking, drug use, and promiscuity. The true goal in most Hindu sects is to transcend the sensual pleasures and seek contact with God by transcending the ego. So most sects will discourage drug use, smoking and promiscuity. However, I think certain sects do use drugs for mystical experiences and sex as well (Tantric Hinduism possibly, and Kashmir Shaivism).

You must be lost.

The same way you can know what any book is really saying - learn the language in which it was written, and then read the book.

 

Have you ever read any books and read an analysis of it in class? You'll find that there are a multitude of ways to truly interpret what the author is saying. the same with movies. The author or director tells a story, or portrays his ideas, but what those ideas mean to you, what you get out of those ideas is inherently a subjective outcome.

 

In any case, do you know Sanskrit? How easy is it to learn? How time-consuming is it? How do you know there is only one possible interpretation for any scripture? And if there's only one possible interpretation, why are there so many different interpretations and different beliefs being espoused by the people who translate these scriptures? How sure are you that the words used in Sanskrit have correlative meanings in whatever language you want to read it in, e.g. English? Even English translations of the Bhagavad-Gita are somewhat troubling as the translations of certain passages describing Truth or spiritual reality seem somewhat mundane or wrong in scientific context. For instance describing Water, Fire, Earth, Mind, Ego, Intelligence or whatever as the eightfold elements that come from Krsna is not scientifically correct. Water is not an element as we understand elements to be. Fire is not an element either, nor is ego, or intelligence. I think I understand what Krsna means by these as "elements" but this is just an example of a passage that could be interpreted with some confusion.

 

 

 

 

 

I guess people in previous ages had these as standard, as we only use less than 5% of our brains.

Actually 10%, and I actually read that whole expression is not true. We use all of our brain, supposedly.

"Sorry guys I really don't know a whole lot about the way Hindus worship. I'm a Hare Krishna so I accept Krishna(Visnu) as the one true God, not as in a trinity with Brahma and Siva. I understand how the trinity works, create-protect-destroy. But what I don't understand is if you consider all three demigods what do you call the one God? and are there Hindus who consider Visnu to be that one God? "

Well Hindus worship different gods. Some worship Shakti, Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesha, etc. There are a lot of sects in Hinduism that seek to define their God as the Supreme God and all other gods as expansions of that One God.

Hindus believe in Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva. Some believe they're equally powerful, I guess. While others believe Vishnu is Supreme or Shiva is Supreme and the other demigods are really expansions of that god.

Hindus generally do believe in one Supreme God or Reality, which they call Brahman. However, they are not in agreement WHICH God is Supreme, and thus they have a ton of sects emphasising one god or another as the Supreme and other gods as expansions of that God.

For example, Vaishnavas believe Krishna or Vishnu is the Supreme. Shaivites believe Shiva is the supreme.

Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva?

I heard Jesus did, Guru Nanak did.

But from what I understand, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva are only aspects of ONE god, that one god that Jesus and Guru Nanak emphasise.

or at least it's only a THEORY, so please stop stating it as fact.

The Mahabharata wasn't some petty squabble. It was about a war that would change the face of the earth. It would usher in a new age, Kali Yuga. This doesn't happen with a mere tribal war.

Kings from all different nations gathered to be on the side of the Pandavas or Kauravas.

The technology isn't mere extrapolation, because they DO describe atomic weapons, and there is evidence of something having produced intense heat and radiation at sites like Mohenjo-daro.

Maybe you are too blinded by Indologists who do not see time as a circular concept. That is their flaw when they gather evidence, unfortunately. Time does not move in a linear fashion. It may appear it does within a certain time period, but extend beyond it, it curves this way and that way, to form a cycle.

I've read at a few sites that the Taj Mahal really wasn't a mausoleum in the first place, but a Vedic Shiva temple and a palace, which was owned by a Hindu named Jai Singh.

What are people's thoughts on this? Is there merit to this claim? If so, why doesn't the Indian government acknowledge this?