sumedh

Hare Krishna No, no they are equal; they are the same personality. The only difference is how much is "visible" in the mundane sense. There is no question of superior and inferior; this only arises when we talk from the rasa point of view and so we must be careful in this regard.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam We think like this because of the influence of material Time which is forked into past,present and future. In the spiritual realm there is only the Eternal Time (only present), and all that is written as happenning in the spiritual realm is eternally accomplished. So there was no time when candles were lit, even this question does not make sense in the context of Absolute. Naturally, with the current mind we cannot even imagine the nature of Eternal Time and therefore it has been said that we can really understand these things only when the mind has been completely purified (vishuddha-sattva) and we must be careful to not apply our material understanding to the spiritual realm.

Hare Krishna I think it is important to clarify a couple of things on which the whole current christian dogmatism is based. If Jesus has really said that, then unfortunately the entire christians have been unable to understand this simple point. The interpretation of Christians is self-contradictory; Jesus first distinguishes himself from his Father (Me and My Father) so there is a difference, and then says "we are One" so they are same also. If you say that only the latter part is true, then do you mean to say that Jesus was a fool to create a distinction. He would have said "I am the One who is the Father". Can you not make out the difference between the two statements.The meaning of this statement is very hard to understand for Christians; try to understand it using the example of fire and sparks. Jivas (souls) are like sparks who are one with the fire, but still different due to infinitesemal nature. Jesus (as the spark) is the son of Father (as the fire) who are One (as the spark is part of fire) -- okay. If Jesus has said this (and not interpolated by his followers), then this complex point is beyond the understanding of the christians. The way to God is through His representative as "Guru", and Guru is One and not many even though they appear in different bodies at different places according to time and circumstances. Suffice to say first try to understand the first part and not get into the intricacies of guru-tattva. Never speak such without scriptural references. You have no idea what means by a "demon". Give the quote from Bible. A vaishnava is not a crook who will accept statements without direct scriptural references. All of your other statements are only material calculations. Have you seen God; are you a pure devotee; do you know the meaning of pure devotee. Can you describe God (the Father)? If you cannot then you worship a mental concoction and not God. But one will progress from that point to the transcendental platform, if you have humility and not commit spiritual offences by blaspheming God (Krsna or Allah) and most importantly not blaspheming His devotees. God will easily forgive blasphemy at Him but blasphemy against the devotees may mean to be debarred from true spiritual life eternally.

Hare Krishna Instead of trying to understand vanamaliji's mood you seem to be more interested in finding flaws. Should i act like yourself? No one calls himself/herself realized or liberated; that is the basic vaishnava mood of humility. (now find errors in this) Gaudiya vaishnavism has enough "flexibility" that all the different moods are there; sometimes Radha-Krishna is worshipped; sometimes bala-gopala; sometimes krishna alone or with Rukmini etc.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam All glories to Srila Prabhupada and vaishnavas! All glories to Guru and Gauranga! I have absolutely no qualification to make any meaning of this. However, i will try to give the possibilities to my knowledge. Such a wonderful dream. The first thing that comes to mind is that the lotus petals are a blessing from Srila Prabhupada as your Sri Guru or maybe it indicates that he will help you to a Spiritual Master (if you do not have one already). The other thing is that lotus petals (or tulsi leaves) are placed at the lotus feet of Sri Krishna, so maybe blessings to attain the lotus feet of Krishna. Sri Radha-Krishna are often depicted standing on lotus; Goloka is shaped like lotus etc. Another thing, maybe you were expecting reprimand from Srila Prabhupada but he gave blessings instead!! (reprimand from pure devotees is in fact a blessing) I will only say that such dreams constitute a legitimate contact with pure devotees and should not be treated as just another dream.

Hare Krishna May i add one thing. That we must chant aloud is not hard-and-fast in all circumstances; we must do our best but if there are some problems then adjustments to our best judgement can be made -- main thing is sincerity.

Hare Krishna Jahnava Nitai Das prabhuji gives the vaishnava view here: http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/showflat/cat/hinduism1/74164/0/collapsed/5/o/1

Hare Krishna and dandavats The vaishnava philosophy is to serve the Lord and not yourself. So loud sankartin is considered the best so that all the living entities who hear the Holy Name also derive the benefit. The advaitin (and some others) view is that when you are able to concentrate on only mental chanting then your concentration has improved and so you are elevated. Vaishnava view is that one employ whatever we have in the service of the Lord so concentration is not the aim, though it may help in Krsna Consciousness. Moreover, humility is the cornerstone and so a pure devotee will never show that he/she is elevated by not following the principles laid down for all.

Hare Krishna And in the context of spiritual aspirations, this is also not any factor.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam I do not have any quotes from Srila Prabhupada at hand -- will search them if you really need that. Yes, it has been said that chanting aloud is better because in that process the tongue, the ears and the mind are all engaged in devotional service (actually in higher realizations all the 9 processes of devotional service are satisfied in it) while in mental chanting only the mind is. For very advanced devotees the two would not matter, but still as a matter of setting example and due to humility even they would not chant mentally. Maybe you can chant very softly, or halt for a few seconds when the throat gets dry. The main thing is that we must have complete focus on chanting, so if it not possible for you to chant aloud then in between you may chant mentally and try to keep focus on that.

Hare Krishna I am not going to waste my time trying to answer the questions you raised or the statements you said. It is not difficult to show that even the theology that Christians have developed is self-contradictory in many respects but no use talking to one who will not listen, who has his eyes/ears closed and who has eaten up his own reason. Sorry, no intention to hurt you only to say that if Krishna devotees are going to eternal hell then so be it; no need to give you unwarranted advice. You lack the qualification to engage in any sane dialog, what to speak of transcendental knowledge. "The humble and meek shall inherit the kingdom the God" says who. So direct your efforts to developing humility and sincerity. And one unwarranted advice from my side: pray to Lord daily for at least 2 hours daily like "O, Lord Jesus Christ please help me get rid of my impurities so i can love and serve you perfectly". Do not engage in any kind of preaching till you do this for at least 6 months. How should a prayer be done? "In the most humble state of mind thinking oneself to be lower than a straw in the street and more tolerant than a tree". If you have any objection to this proposal then spell it out. Thanks for listening and do not unnecessarily be offended. Sometimes harsh words from even "devils" can do ultimate good. What (Srila Prabhupada and) i ask you to do is only become better christians, thats all.

Hare Krishna and dandavats Sorry if i gave that impression; i was not meaning that for yourself rather a separate point. I understand your point and agree with it in the sense that these things have little importance. Actually i was trying to say the same thing. That is why i do not agree with the guest's interpretation of comparing "INvitro-fertilization" with what Vyasadeva did.

Hare Krishna I must point this out. I find it strange as to why are you so eager to search impersonalism in others' conceptions. How is there remotely any chance of the devotees of Krishna to be impersonalists. Even if it be agreed that there is some misconception, why do you apply your strange reductionist logic to show impersonalism in worship/attachment of Krishna. Kindly realise that impersonalism is principally as regards the ultimate goal that one has in the mind, and not due to any imperfect understanding of God (which everyone's is, in some way or the other, who is not a pure devotee).

Hare Krishna Since you brought this up: the perplexing thing is that Islam talks of God as a person to whom the prayers/worship are directed, but the muslims claim is of a formless/impersonal God. Probably you can clear this apparent contradiction. This is not the point; when Hindus show reverence to the empowered representatives of God then in their tiny understanding the muslims construe it as polytheism while they themselves revere angels. So if Islam is monotheist then so is hinduism, and if one argues hinduism to be polytheist then islam can be argued to be so too. Does it take much to understand that worshipping a demigod is different from worshipping the Supreme Lord. Probably you do not understand that paying respects to a policeman is different from paying respects to the President of country and that former does not mean the latter (in a higher sense when we do pay respects to a policeman as being a servitor of president it is indeed paying respect to the president, but such an understanding is far far beyond). The main problem is the hyper-attachment of muslims in trying to find how others are polytheists or worshipping idols (e.g. cross for christians and Deities for hindus) without trying to understand the basic theology of others (and their own) first.

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam Nice point theist prabhu. On the other hand it will not be prudent to take stories like these which do not fit in our current understanding as non-literal. I say this because i have been actually witness to some of the minor mystic opulences, with sufficient grounds to rule out any case of fraud, through the medium of my mother's guru. So i believe that such things would not be a big deal for someone like Vyasadeva. The amazing thing is that despite this i was attracted to teachings of Srila Prabhupada.

Hare Krishna Yes, but then a philosophy should clearly specify what can be understood by logic and what cannot be, else it is incomplete. Suppose one gives conclusions which can be shown to be self-contradictory or contrary to simple observation then they should be rejected. This is quite a valid point. Should we not accept an understanding which harmoniously resolves the contradictions by making the meanings self-evident? Vaishnava philosophies accept a deductive process of understanding by accepting all the statements of the scriptures and not an inductive one.

Hare Krishna Very nicely put; thanks vijayji. As far as i know this "all paths are one" is a new age drama only while philosophical debates were common (in india at least) till quite recently. Nowadays some people imagine such debates as foolish.

Hare Krishna Welcome to the forum, if you intend to be somewhat rational and not to say words that you yourself do not understand. No need to cut-paste same post for three persons, everyone can read all posts. Also no need to post same things in different threads, thanks. If you want to discuss then a better thing would be to first try and understand by posting sincere questions (please no all capitals also; makes difficult to read). You see the fact is that vaishnava philosophy is the most complex one and takes a long time to understand even intellectually; the devotees here are not fools, okay. Of course, the first qualification is humility which you will need in plenty for any discussion.

Hare Krishna I think this account should rather be understood as mystic opulence of Srila Vedavyasa or through subtle energies and not as being similiar to current scientific methodologies. That is how Srila Prabhupada has explained brahmaastra and other weapons.

Hare Krishna and dandavats Please do not use such material calculations in the spiritual realm. In the gaudiya tattva Krishna is *never* (by never i mean never, even as brahmajyoti) without sakti. The two are inseparable in all circumstances. The nirguna Brahm without sakti is just an imagination of advaitins. In gaudiya siddhanta nirguna means without material gunas and the transcendental gunas (or sakti) are inherant part of Krishna; i think this has been made repeatedly clear. So when we say Krishna it includes everything (sakti/lilas whatever) and when we say "Radha-Krishna" we also specifically denote the rasa aspect of sakti. Anyway, please use a new thread if this particular thing has to be discussed. The original question has already been answered by vanamaliji.

Hare Krishna I think Kamleshji already said it: the whole Bhagavad Gita from which they claim to preach is the proof. Actually, the onus is on yourself to prove that everyone is God when you support such interpretations of Vedic texts; naturally i can see that i am supreme in no respect and if you claim to be so then you need to show much much more than some ambiguous statements whose meaning cannot be known by academic translations. For the Absolute, there cannot be two routes which are odds at one another. There may be paths which seem superficially to be different, but when two paths are speaking of contradictory destinations only one of them (or neither) can be possibly true. You said Jnana as in Neti-Neti; in the context of Bhakti this is partial (i.e. misrepresentation of) jnana or in other words ajnana because in the realm of Absolute jnana cannot but be complete. Bhakti includes jnana, as the other guest said, but when you say neti-neti it contradicts bhakti (and indeed itself but that is a topic for a separate thread maybe). You think that bhakti is some emotional state, so you have no idea of the actual philosophy. You seem to have been offended by the term "rascal", but Srila Prabhupada has used it to describe everyone in this material realm because they turned away from God. Hence, of course, claiming oneself to be God is pinnacle of that "rascaldom".

Hare Krishna I am not sure what to make of your reply; first you say that Lord is "radha-krsna" and *not* "krsna" making some differentiation in the two and then say that Krsna is not different from His lilas; Krsna includes all that what you list so what's the difference of opinion. Anyway, if this has to be discussed then please use another thread or continuation of older related threads (will be more convenient if you sign your posts)

Hare Krishna It is important to clarify this. You said: No different desires from cit-sakti, rather Sri Radha has no independent desires rather serves Krishna in accordance to His desires. Srila Bhaktivinoda says in Jaiva-Dharma: So this quote is regarding the one sakti -- cit-sakti and maya-sakti, of Krishna.

Hare Krishna Is "krsna" any different from "radha-krsna"? If you mean from the rasa point of view, then of course it is fine but not from tattva point of view. This needs more clarification. There has been considerable debate on this issue recently here: http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/...You can see both points of view; suffice to say what you mean is not the consensus and clearly gaudiya tattva is not as simple as "Radha is vishnu-tattva" etc.

Hare Krishna One important point which was probably lost in this discussion is regards the nature of acintya-bheda-abheda in the Absolute realm. When i gave quotes (and statements) like cit-sakti is an attribute of para-tattva, shiva prabhuji concluded that the meaning is that para-tattva=cit-sakti+something i.e. cit-sakti is in someway lesser, which is wrong. Such material calculations do not apply in the spiritual realm where everything is Absolute. In fact, the normal example of fire-sparks for explaining Krishna-Jiva relationship is also only a material approximation. The latter is a better approximation because bheda aspect is stronger in jivas. The only calculation that applies in the spiritual realm is acintya-bheda-abheda.