sin_patas

an honest question: how can it be said that the human soul is eternal and unchangeable when at every moment it is accumulating karma, and is bound by it?

i simply ask as to whether it is the opinion of this forum that the Prophet Mohammed was in fact a bona fide God-realized master. he chanted the Qu'ran while in a deep trance-like state - but was this true God-realization? did he share his God-realization with disciples, or did he just preach? my concern is whether Mohammed can accurately be described as a true guru or self-realized master. [This message has been edited by sin_patas (edited 10-10-2001).]

thank you for responding. i have not returned in a few days and am happy to see more dialogue than before. i have both my feet, yes. thank you for asking. it is just a name i made up, i guess.

maybe it is a semantic issue, more than anything- but i can't help think that the act of believing implies some sort of ego-driven expectation for some fruitive result.

my question is this: isn't belief (in and of itself), a form of attachment to material existence? i will formulate an example: if i chant the maha-mantra, then there is an implicit assumption that i believe Lord Caitanya is Krsna himself, and therefore i follow his advice. now, the question about Lord Caitanya's divinity is not what i aim to prove/disprove. my concern is actual act of belief itself. is not the act of believing a form of material attachment in and of itself? if i believe something to be true, then it is my own ego that is believing, hoping for something to be true. even if i believe the identity of God to be one or another, or i believe that one scripture is more accurate than another, is it not still belief (and therefore, attachment)? is not all material attachment what we should strive to get away from?

forgive me for reviving an old thread, but if Vedic civilization DID cover the earth in the past, there WOULD NOT be evidence of human bones, would there? that is to say, if Vedic civilization was in control then everyone who died back then would have been cremated? sincerely not trolling.

forgive me for reviving an old thread, but if Vedic civilization DID cover the earth in the past, there WOULD NOT be evidence of human bones, would there? that is to say, if Vedic civilization was in control then everyone who died back then would have been cremated? sincerely not trolling.