sumedh

Hare Krishna and dandavats "I was taught that the trinity (Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh) do have different roles but are equal. Please clarify especially as I do not understand why Lord Shiva is being stated as being a demigod!" Where did you get this teaching from -- partial truth is most dangerous. The trinity are similiar *only* when we consider them as guna-avataars (i.e. saatvic, rajasic and tamasic) of Krishna, but if you consider the svarup (or true nature) of them then Kshirodakshayi-Vishnu is an expansion of Krishna, Shiva is between jiva-tattva and vishnu-tattva and Brahma is mostly jiva. Regarding the nature of Lord Shiva the following is stated in Brahma-Samhita "I adore the Primaeval Lord Govinda, Who transforms Himself as Sambhu for performing the work of destruction, just as milk is transformed into curd which is neither the same as, nor different from, milk". Lord Shiva is compared to yogurt which is milk transformed, but yogurt cannot transform to milk. Lord Brahma and Lord Shiva are demi-gods meaning they are subserviant to the Supreme Lord but the concept of some that all dieties (e.g. Durga, Ganesh ...) are on the same level i.e. that of Supreme Lord, is only an imagination and finds no support in Vedic texts.

Hare Krishna and dandavats In addition to the categorization of puraanas as sattvic/rajasic/tamasic in Padma puraana and that the conclusions of sattvic puraanas should be considered correct, it also mentions four sampradayas as authentic all of which are vaishnava. There was a nice post sometime back, which showed the contradiction in the tamasic puraanas as to who killed Lord Nrsimha, which showed that their conclusions should not be accepted as authority (especially when sattvic puraanas state a contrary position) but are meant for persons with predominantly tamasic nature. Above all we have the authority of Lord Chaitanya and other Spiritual Masters starting from Him which assert this. May i suggest you to read Srila Prabhupada's books and then make up your mind. The greatest difference in the authorized sampradayas and others is that if you read other writings they may be full of nice flowery language but without references to authority; the vaishnava acharyas always substantiate any philosophical point with reference to Vedic and other authorized texts.

Hare Krishna please accept my humble obeisances That previous post was mine, so may i reply to your points... This point is well understood. But the question is who draws these conclusions from the teachings of Jesus Christ? Elsewhere, i have read that some think that Christ is the revealed name of God, and Jesus is son and Jesus Christ is the name just as a son uses his father's name. So some Christians hold this view also. Similiar to this there are different sampradayas which interpret the Vedic texts differently which includes Vaishnavas, Shaivas to impersonal interpretation of Shakaracharya. But since Padma puraana mentions four sampradayas as authentic (all of which are vaishnava) we accept their teachings as authentic. Also the fact that only the vaishnava sampradayas accept all the Vedic texts as authentic, as opposed to others who reject those which are not conducive to their interpretation. So the question is how do you take the understanding you presented to be authentic as opposed to others. Yes, this is at odds with the teachings of Vaishnavism. All that exists comes from the Supreme Lord (from the eternal spiritual platform) and so is spiritual and eternal, the difference of spiritual and material is only technical as the other poster mentioned. So even the material energy is eternal, just that it is transformed (or withdrawn) at the time of total annihilation. Of course, the material bodies are created and the situation of a spirit soul encased in it is an unnatural temporary position only. But the point is that what you quote may actually mean creation as being part of God and not with respect to material Time which has a different (absolute, eternal) nature in the spiritual realm. If you wish we can have a meaningful discussion on this particular point -- how is everything eternal. In my opinion, it is very difficult to reconcile any other interpretation with the overall understanding of (even Christian concept) God. The Vedic concept of avataar is quite different from the Christian idea of reincarnation as you can see from the other post. What to speak of the Supreme Lord, even the associates of Lord and other liberated souls are not under material nature and their bodies are not material nor is their any difference between their body and soul. So the normal conditioned souls cannot perceive the spiritual nature of God even when He appears as an avataar rather just see a "illusory shadow" because their senses are covered. As you can see vaishnavas view Jesus Christ with utmost respect, but when some claim that Jesus is the only saviour etc., then they do mock such an idea. Also the concept that God changes in some way when He manifests on material plane, is not seen well by vaishnavas because this implies that God comes under the spell of His inferior energy and becomes illusioned to some extent -- such an interpretation is considered "Mayavadi". Finally, vaishnavas consider the concept of eternal hell of most Christians as completely wrong.

Hare Krishna That depiction is perfectly correct. The color of Krishna has been compared to that of dark cloud, so many a times He is shown as blue. The associates of Krishna, Sri Radharani and Lord Balarama are all fair skinned. There are always some subjective elements, but that doesn't matter. So actually you have never seen the paintings in India, those of Mewar, other Rajasthani schools etc. Sometimes Krishna is shown blue which is the transcendental color of His Narayana form, and sometimes He is shown as black colored. The associates are always shown fair skinned.

Hare Krishna Its nice to know that you have the power to judge what constitutes a good reply and a bad reply; its a news to know that you can be "menaced due to admininstrative Iraq-style embargo". Seriously, re-read your previous posts, have a little of basic courteousness and if you are not here just to abuse then you are welcome to ask questions. Also using a better name than nasty would help.

Hare Krishna From what i have read, it is not an argument but a description. Srila Jiva Goswami has given these conclusions after having studied the Vedic scriptures, and all the qualities he has given are from Vedic texts but maybe not in one place. From the sea of Vedic knowledge he has extracted the cream and presented in the form of sat-sandharbha and other books, so i guess we will have to do a lot of research to actually find scriptural evidences for all that he has given to us. As regards the other question, there are a large number of references in Srimad Bhagavat puraana, Padma puraana, Brahma Samhita and of course Bhagavad Gita.

Hare Krishna Mr nasty, there is a proper method to ask questions. From the look of it, what you can ask that in your words "hurt your believes and make the myths shake", will mostly be ignored. Many of the people who have taken to Krishna Consciousness, have done so after studying a huge number of philosophies and putting genuine questions. Only after they have been convinced of the beauty, completeness and of the results of following it have they taken up Krishna Consciousness; and many here have much more knowledge than you can think. So if you want to ask questions go ahead, but yes administrative action will come into play if you ask questions in the manner you have been posting. take care

Hare Krishna please accept my dandavat pranam It does not sound crazy at all, rather is truly beautiful devotional quality which i can only dream of ... Though appearing as a plant, Tulasi is spiritual is nature and she is offered respect just as a pure devotee. Plucking leaves for offering to Krishna would not hurt rather would please her; plucking leaves for any other purpose is considered inappropriate and an offense because she manifests in this world to be offered to Vishnu. Some guidelines can be found here http://www.harekrsna.com/practice/sadhana/morning/tulasi-arati/offering.htm If the leaves that have dropped are enough then they will do else some can be plucked. Other details of her care etc. are provided here http://www.harekrsna.com/practice/sadhana/morning/tulasi-arati/care.htm Since plants are in a quite lower level of consciousness than humans/animals their discomfort when leaf/fruit/seed is picked is very small in comparison. However, this consideration does not apply to Tulasi because she is not material.

"It is possible that Vrindavana is a projection of Goloka." The spiritual Goloka Vrindavana and the one on earth are said to be the same (with some technical difference, given in purports of Brahma Samhita) but we do not have the eyes to see. In these cases then the problem seems to be our perception and the intuition that results from it; simplest examples being what we feel time is and the 3D space should be so and so. The point that i was trying to make was that the whole material creation can occupy only an insignificant portion of the spiritual sky and still have a quarter of energy.

Hare Krishna My understanding is that the nature of space-time is completely different in the spiritual world. Time is not three pronged (past,present,future) and there is only the eternal present -- quite beyond our imagination of eternal as beginless past and endless future (no past,no future). I suppose, even the infinite is quite different from the mathematical infinite we understand as of now. The point is well made that both material and spiritual energies are infinite as only that seems to reconcile the statements. However, elsewhere it has also been told that the entire spiritual Goloka/Vaikuntha fits into the forty square mile of vrindavana -- infinite apparently fitting into finite. Similarly, an entire day of Brahma fit into the single night of rasa lila. As you said, all inconceivable.

Hare Krishna The surface of sphere has no boundary, but that is meaningful only in a higher dimension as you point out later. When we only are considering 4 dimensional things then this is not possible (e.g. can there be a boundary-less finite 2 dimensional structure situated on a finite/infinite 2D structure). But then dimension is a property of space, so i do not understand this statement. "Expansion without space is possible if we say that the expansion is happening in some higher dimension. I am just saying that it is possible." If we are considering more dimensions, then it makes perfect sense. But higher dimensions means (much, much more) space other than in universe. So the question shifts from "what is outside the universe?" to "what is there in the space other than that in the universe?"

"The universe is not closed. If you say it is closed, it means that it has a boundary. This, in turn, means that there should be something outside this boundary (otherwise how can there be boundary)?" So then define a boundary. In my understanding if there is a sudden change of even state of matter then it is a boundary. In this case there is space-time and then that "ends" at some point, a complete change. For example if there is water at one point and not at other, then will not the point where it is "ending" be its boundary. The second part of the question is precisely the point of matter here. The analogy of dough and raisins is not correct because by imagining an infinite dough you completely dodged the question -- of course, in an infinite universe model the question of expansion doesn't arise, it loses its meaning.

The doppler relativistic shifting is not a proof. It is just one of the possible explanations which suited the astronomers. It is also very doubtful if special relativity can be applied in this way, without reference to general relativity which is normally used in all other cosmological phenomenon. Needless to say there are alternative explanations e.g. red-shifting due to gravitation, momentum loss etc. For instance see: http://cecelia.physics.indiana.edu/life/redshift.html http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4317/redaw.html http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1992Ap%26SS.190..149F&db_key=AST But you missed the main point, probably the wording was not right. The question is: where is the single observation of expansion which does not require space to expand into?

Hare Krishna "The universe is not expanding into anything. It is just expanding. Again, considering only 4D (space+time) material universe." This is what is most problematic. The only experience is that to expand there needs to be some space into which to expand into. Consider say a closed bottle, so that air inside has no space to expand then how can it expand. The concept is that universe is "closed" completely from all sides (even more than that since there is no space-time outside) then how can it expand. Okay, our intuition may defeat us here and say it is indeed possible. But where is the proof? This is only speculation. Science is said to be systematic generalization of observation. Then where is a single observation of such a phenomenon. Certainly physicists can speculate but to pass off pure speculation (which does not have any experimental verification and which one cannot even imagine) as science is cheating.

Hare Krishna "The universe was non-existent and was CAUSED by the instability of non-existence." If reasonable people cannot see the foolishness of this statement what can be done. So if "genuine physicists" sincerely believe this, then let it be so, no arguments. Actually, for such people Krishna has kindly given Buddhism. Let me put some points in this regard: Firstly, physicists do not have a definition of existence so the talk about existence and non-existence does not make sense. Radioactive phenomenon is completely unrelated. There is, however, the phenomenon of pairs of particles apparently coming of "nothing" -- but it only shows that what we take to be as nothing concrete (vacuum) is actually very much "something". "Should we say the radioactive decay of U-235 is caused by God?" How can one compare radioactive decay with something coming out of nothing? Actually the radioactive decay of U-235 is undoubtedly caused by God, as is all observable and non-observable phenomenon. When we say nothing, it implies something cannot come out of it by definition. If these physicists have a new definition of nothing, then let them present it. "But, hey wait, hold everything, even if this flawed argument is true, that 1st cause + agreggative attributes implies a self-cause, then it's still not God. God would have to have known it wanted to be caused and cause itself, now wouldn't it. Such Bs." shows he doesn't have a clue. He asks "Is he a physicist?"; one can correspondingly ask "Do you know a drop of the nature of God, or even the philosophy?"

Hare Krishna "so the Vaishnavas is the name of hare Krishna’s?" Followers of Krishna Consciousness movement are Vaishnavas, in particular the Brahma-Madhava-Gaudiya-Vaishnava sampradaya. "Does the hare Krishna movement forsake the religious beliefs of Hinduism?" What are the beliefs of Hinduism? I think you are somewhat confused. Unlike most followers of other sampradayas, the four Vaishnava sampradayas accept all the Vedic texts as authentic. So in a way they are the only ones who accept all the "beliefs of Hinduism". "then what is Hinduism?" Actually it was a name given by muslim invaders to the people on the other side of river Sindhu who were followers of Vedic religion. Firstly, what are you trying to mean by religion? If you mean a faith/sentiment then that is not what the Vedic texts mean. Religion means the codes of law given by God so that a human can cross the materially conditioned life. According to Srimad Bhagvatam, that religion is first-class which teaches one how to love God without any motive. So the Vedic texts are talking about "Sanatana Dharma" meaning the eternal duty of every living being (or more precisely the eternal nature). Consequently Srila Prabhupada (and predecessor acharyas) accept both Jesus Christ and Muhammad as Spiritual Masters who preached according to time and circumstance. "isn't Vaishnavas the main religion in India? and if Hinduism isn't a religion then what religion are books talking about when they say Hinduism" Currently, yes vaishnavism is most widespread in India in the sense that people accept Lord Vishnu as the Supreme Lord, but only a very small percentage are actually following any of the authorized Vaishnava Sampradayas. Whichever books are talking of Hinduism they should be meaning Vedic religion, but actually they only mean "group of people who claim to be Hindus" and have nothing to do with the fact that most people actually do not follow the conclusions of the Vedic texts as told by the acharyas. Same is the case with all religions nowadays.

Hare Krishna No one manufactures a mantra by picking "best" names; they come from spiritual world. Rama is not just avataar's name. People were chanting Rama before the advent of Rama-avataar on earth (though, of course , lila-avataars are also eternal and that Krishna and Rama are the same). Rama means embodiment of infinite trancendental bliss. Rama is also used for Radhika-Ramana. Srila Prabhupada says that it also means Lord Balarama.

Hare Krishna Please also read Srimad Bhagavatam 10.33.26 - 10.33.37 starting here and especially this where King Parikshit raises similiar question and Srila Sukadeva gives the reply.

Hare Krishna "yet she was into an affair with lord krishna even though it was transcendental" first we need to define an affair. As you yourself write it was transcendental, so it doesn't come anywhere near any definition of affair. "coz she was already commited to a Man??" in what way? Is loving God illegimate if one is married. Or does she think that Krishna is man (normal definition is the presence of material male genitals)? Transcendental means that it is obviously above our bodily conceptions while our judgements are based solely on bodily features. In this regard Srila Prabhupada has said often that one should read the first nine Cantos and then go on to the 10th Canto because the pastimes of Krishna with gopis are meant for advanced devotees only. how can a person not even in school understand things of phd level? The problem is that people trivialize things and bring down God to our level with our tiny amount of understanding. Krishna has not enacted the eternal transcendental pastimes for persons with such understanding, but for the pleasure of devotees alone who can relish them to fullest.

Hare Krishna Nothing of the sort; nowadays anyone can go to a temple. There are very few temples which are allowed only for particular class e.g. for males only or for females only.

Hare Krishna please accept my humble obeisances i wont be able to answer those questions, other devotees may help out here. Regarding Spiritual Master i do have a personal opinion, email sumwale@fastmail.fm "Also, despite my best efforts my mind still wanders at times and I have to keep refocusing on hearing the chant.." This happens with almost all devotees for quite sometime, so nothing to worry. "Perhaps I should chant less rounds, more attentively, but I don't think I could bear going back to doing less rounds now though." There will be some problems in chanting for sometime which will gradually smoothen out, so better not to reduce the rounds

Hare Krishna and dandavats Nama -- the Holy Name aparadha -- offense There are ten offenses which can be found here: http://www.iskcon.com/basics/tenoffences.html and some advise on chanting -- http://www.iskcon.com/basics/japa.html Initially we are on the first stage (i.e. chanting with offenses), then move on to second (i.e. chanting without offences) and finally on the third (i.e. chanting in love of God). The most dangerous impediment to spiritual progress is the first offense vaishnava aparadha, has been called the "mad elephant" offense which can destroy our devotion like a mad elephant would destroy a garden. Lord Chaitanya says that a vaishnava is anyone who chants the Holy Name of God, and so we must not criticize other devotees or make judgements on them -- only a pure devotee can know the stage of another devotee so better to remain neutral. I found the following nice article on this: http://www.bvml.org/SBBTM/vatghodp.html A vaishnava calendar which gives the ekadashi days and other major days is here

Hare Krishna please accept my humble obeisances "A silly question perhaps, but how should one surrender to Krishna ?" Not at all silly because this is the whole deal!! A fully surrendered soul is a perfect devotee -- uttam adhikaari. As Srila Prabhupada says in "Teachings of Lord Chaitanya", the teachings of Lord Krishna and Lord Chaitanya are same -- those of Lord Chaitanya are practical demonstrations of Lord Krishna's teachings. So all the teachings of Lord Krishna and Lord Chaitanya which are coming to us through Srila Rupa Goswami and others to Srila Prabhupada are for this -- how to surrender to Krishna. Since we have been subject to material conditioning from time immemorial for billions of billions of lives, it is not easy. The regulative principles, chanting 16 rounds, associating with devotees, offering tulasi, worshipping, avoiding nama-aparaadha etc. are all for this. The nine processes of devotional service are applied in this manner to revive our original Krishna Consciousness. Full surrender means to forgo of everything that we (implicitly of explicitly) lay claim on including body, mind, intellect, ego which is possible by dovetailing all our activities with Krishna. "In my ignorance I do not know what proper prayers to say at the moment. I will try and study the Nectar of Devotion" The maha-mantra is the proper prayer, it is fully "self contained" so to speak and is the most glorious benediction. Actually i was speaking of "Nectar of Instruction" which contains the priciples of devotion in a nutshell (Nectar of Devotion is also an excellent read).

Hare Krishna "we too have the concept of eternal punishment, we people of the material world are called "nitya baddha" or eternally conditionated" No it is not punishment, it is our own desire to be independent of God; and since there is no rasa without God the conditioned souls suffer in the material worlds. Becoming subject to hellish conditions is somewhat different and is a result of our actions. For the original poster: From the perspective of one who is situated in the spiritual realm the whole material existence will seem like a hell, so then the hell being talked is only relatively higher in degree. Don't we see and hear of the utmost miserable conditions of other beings like a hell on earth, so what is this position that there can be no hell. The devil concept cannot be found in Vedic texts other than the general category of devilish beings envious of God (basically almost all of the beings i guess, since that is the reason beings became conditioned in the first place!!). The other possiblity is, of course, the mind itself -- more specifically the rajas guna (mode of passion).

Hare Krishna My suggestion is that first try and understand from Srila Prabhupada's books as to why he again and again said that love whose basis is not God is only lust. Just try and think for yourself as to whether or not it is lust. Then decide for yourself what you consider as more important: devotion to God or your fleeting feeling of love. The basic instruction for such was the same by Srila Prabhupada: chant, read books, associate with devotees etc. my suggestion is to wait for a few months and if it is still there then you can think about entering into a relationship of marraige. But if the girl is not a devotee it is better to avoid.